Children’s Aid Society of Brant

1. Children’s Aid Society of Brant SIGNS OF SAFETY PRESENTATION Strength-Based, Safety-Organized Practice

2. What is the “Signs of Safety” Model? • A safety organized and strengths-based approach to providing child welfare services • The manager/facilitator utilizes an assessment and planning framework to “map” cases • The map is a picture depicting the child’s circumstances in his/her family • The map helps everyone from the “biggest” person (ex. a director) to the “smallest” person (the child) participating in the conference to have a common (and balanced) understanding of the child’s and family’s situation • The map facilitates effective case planning and decision-making • The worker becomes the “catalyst” for extended families, friends, community members supporting each other as they did traditionally

3. Principles of the Signs of Safety Model • Strength-based approach • Customized to each family’s needs • Maintains a focus on child’s safety • Respects the families beliefs, values and as the experts of their own lives • Recognizes that all families have signs of safety • Recognizes family’s cultural identity

4. SOS Worldwide • developed through the 1990’s in Western Australia by Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards in collaboration with over 150 West Australian child protection workers • Edwards and Turnell’s collaboration and Edwards’ use of brief therapy ideas in his own child protection practice between 1989 and 1993 were the beginnings of the Signs of Safety approach • Accepted world wide: utilized in New Zealand, Australia, USA, England, Japan, Scotland, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada

5. GOAL OF IMPLEMANTATION • To embed the Signs of Safety model including the principles and clinical consultation approach in all aspects of service provision

6. Why The Journey to Implement SOS? • Transformation Agenda and Differential Response • SOS framework is the vehicle to achieve the principles of Differential Response • Mission, Vision, Values of CAS of Brant • Clinical Supervision Model • Use of the framework in individual supervision • Increase the use of team clinical supervision • Anti-oppressive practice 6

7. The Signs of Safety Framework (“Board” or “map) 7

8. The SOS framework (board or map) • Is a means to an end - a mechanism to arrive at a destination • That destination is rigorous, sustainable, on-the-ground child safety • The purpose of using the Signs of Safety framework and practices is to generate child protection practice that is organised first and foremost around child safety

9. Signs of Safety Assessment and Planning Framework (“The Board”)

10. Signs of Safety Assessment and Planning Framework (“The Board”) What’s working well? What are we worried about? What needs to happen? Who can help? What will they do? When will they start & finish? How often will they do ? (SMART goals) Danger Statement

11. Relevance/Benefits of Using the Board Assists in critical analysis of child/family situation: • Separates complicating factors from risk of harm • Assists workers in asking strength based questions with families • Provides alternate direction/strategies in engaging children and families with the goal of increasing safety within the home • Provides clarity to the supervisor regarding case direction but also provides supervisor with information on learning needs of workers 11

12. SOS Tools for Children • Practical tools for having purposeful conversations with children • Involve children in child protection assessment & planning

13. Tools for Native children

14. Tools for Native children

15. How will the SOS framework be applied at CAS of Brant? • Through the use of the framework in individual and team supervision • Through the implementation of a new case conferencing continuum to support case planning and decision-making • All case planning and significant decision-making will occur with the involvement of children/youth, families, their relatives and other (community) supports • Internal case consultation will be made available to facilitate the use of agency “experts” to support knowledge and skill development and thus quality service 15

16. Positive Results in Olmsted County, Minnesota As a result of implementing Differential Response, Family Involvement Strategies and the Signs of Safety approach: • Fewer investigations • Less repeat child maltreatment • Less court ordered involvement • Less children in placement • Fewer days of foster care • More family involvement

17. Positive Results in Minnesota

18. Our Implementation Journey 2002 - first “taste” of SOS • agency purchased SOS book for all employees • Individual & team self-study – including directors • Summary of book completed and distributed • Principles began to “permeate” practice 2009 Training • Training for initial “core” group of 11 managers and directors on April 6 and 7, 2009 by Andrew Turnell • 2-day training for entire service management and directors group on April 14 and 15 by Peel CAS • 2-day training for all service front-line staff on April 22 and 30 by Peel CAS

19. Our Implementation Journey April – June 2009 – Ongoing learning • Bi-weekly meetings of Brant CAS managers/directors with Peel CAS practice leaders for ongoing learning • Presentations & discussion on “themes” in morning • Demonstration of a “board” in afternoon September – December 2009 - “practicum” • 5 Brant CAS managers + 1 director • Video self facilitating SOS “boards” • Bring video for discussion of process in small group of “interns” Outcome – Brant CAS has internal SOS “coaches”

20. Our Implementation Journey March – June 2010 – “practicum” • 6 Brant CAS SOS “practice leaders” coach 17 workers and managers • Replicate the process they experienced with Peel CAS SOS materials on the intranet • Purchased DVDs with workbooks for individual and team self-study • Mapping • Tools for children • Articles

21. What are we learning? • The training focuses on the following elements of the practice framework: • general overview of the practice principles of Signs of Safety • case "mapping" using the Signs of Safety assessment and planning form • use of the "three houses" and/or the fairy/wizards tools and processes to more actively involve children in child protection assessment • use of "solution-focused" questions - scaling questions, exception questions, miracle questions in day-to-day interactions with clients • development of a rigorous safety plan (vs. case planning that is a “menu of professional services")

22. Results of Practice Principles Questionnaire (April 2009) • Staff and managers rated their own professional philosophy on all SOS principles, significantly higher than agency practice reflecting these principles

23. What’s working well? (Jan. 2010) • SOS philosophy/use is spread out throughout the agency • Strength-based SOS language being used more frequently with families, in supervision and in the community • Much interest with many managers in using SOS framework • SOS provides opportunity for managers to come together for clinical discussions • Practice leaders who completed the “practicum” are feeling more confident • New practice leaders feel the intensive “practicum” has taken their skill to a new level • Anecdotally, good, positive results from boards – good, fast plans and clarity • Families are being involved regularly in the process • Families are providing positive feedback • Community collaterals feel BCAS is much more strength-based, safety-focused and transparent

24. What are we worried about? (Jan. 2010) • More boards being done in some areas than others (uneven buy-in and/or implementation) • Will “lack of time” be used as an excuse to avoid changing practice? • Staff see themselves primarily as case managers – need to make shift to more of a counseling role – will SOS facilitate workers doing more counseling with clients? • Completion of tools can be seen as the “outcome” or the “end” rather than the means – danger of separation of the tools from the philosophy, practice, plans, decisions • Not yet sufficiently involving children/youth in safety planning • How will we organize the availability of neutral facilitators? • Is SOS written consistently into policies/procedures, mission, vision? • How will we evaluate the impact/effectiveness of SOS?

25. How will the model be evaluated? KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS • SOS training evaluations • Initial questionnaire (self-evaluation) re level of “buy-in” to the SOS practice principles in April 2009 – at the training • Annual individual survey re use of SoS techniques in day-to-day practice • Annual team “board” re what’s working well, what are we worried about • Client satisfaction questionnaires re experience in case conferences AGENCY STATISTICS • Number of admissions to care • Number of children in care • Number of children in kinship service and kinship care homes • Length of time in care prior to achieving permanency (including return to family) • Number of new protection applications • Number of cases before the court • Number of re-openings where a child was found in need of protection • Number of self-referrals that were opened for child protection or non-protection services • Length of case opening (number of months from opening to closure) NOTE: The experience of other jurisdictions is that statistics don’t begin to indicate change until 2-3 years into the implementation process.