draft from Rayya

[Rayya]

We, the members of the United Kingdom Association of Solution Focused Practice, were deeply saddened by news of the death of Baby P, as we are in all such cases. However, we feel we must respond to the insinuation in the recent Panorama Programme (title etc) that the use of a Solution Focused Approach was a contributory fact in the death of Baby P.

While we understand that a programme like Panorama is looking for the ‘angle’ which apparently uncovers information that is otherwise overlooked, the programme and subsequent web articles are in danger of producing an unfortunate link between the approach and this case which could damage the possibility of future positive developments in child protection. The worker in the Baby P case was a novice, currently in training and to an experienced practitioner it is obvious that she was not applying the approach correctly.

Haringey’s decision to drop the use of the solution focused approach is understandable in the light of an overall review of its services, but to suggest that the use of a solution focused approach is somehow responsible for the overlooking of signs of risk in this case is disingenuous and misleading. No trainer in solution focused approaches (which include solution focused brief therapy,’ Signs of Safety’ and solution focused counselling amongst others) will suggest that a practitioner from any professional discipline give up their core skills and responsibilities to their code of ethical practice in favour of solution focused working – indeed that is antithetical to the principle in solution focus, of building on what is already working. In this particular case, it appears that the worker in question did not retain the primary focus on the child’s welfare in accordance with their professional requirements. The fact that, as demonstrated in the programme, she was also not applying the approach correctly is secondary to this.

The ‘Signs of Safety’ approach was developed in Australia in (date?) by Andrew Turnell and Greg Edwards as a specific application of the solution focused approach to child protection risk assessment (or ‘safeguarding’ as it is now called in the UK). The main difference of this approach to conventional risk assessment is that in addition to signs of risk, the worker enquires about ‘signs of safety’. This allows the worker an additional insight into how a family perceives risk and has a variety of benefits. In some cases the worker may be able to discover positive resources which could be brought forward to help the child remain safe within the family. In other cases the inability of a family to produce convincing signs of safety, is a sign that the child is at risk. A Signs of Safety approach would have asked what was needed to ensure the safety of Baby P. Maintaining a status quo of child at home suffering suspicious injuries is not a satisfactory answer to that question. Someone was quoted as saying at the time, “the situation cannot continue” – but it did. That’s precisely the sort of poor practice that rigorous Signs of Safety would not allow.

The Signs of Safety approach is used successfully across the world and has a growing evidence-base. It is clear from viewing the BBC Panorama programme that a proper application of the solutions-focused Signs of Safety approach could only have benefited Baby P.

[Greg Vinnicombe]

Looks good Rayya and I'm sure the final version will contain much of this content.
Its Steve Edwards but I'm sure Greg would be a great middle name to have!

Thanks again.

[Rayya]

Greg Vinnicombe said:

Looks good Rayya and I'm sure the final version will contain much of this content.
Its Steve Edwards but I'm sure Greg would be a great middle name to have!

Thanks again.

lol who is Greg Edwards then?

[Paul Z Jackson]

Great stuff, Rayya. A suggested redraft of the first 3 paras, below:

We, the members of the United Kingdom Association of Solution Focused Practice, were deeply saddened by news of the death of Baby P. We'd like to respond to some misleading comments about Solution Focused Approaches that were made in the recent Panorama programme (title etc).

As one of the contributors to the programme, Andrew Turnell, made clear, any solution-focused practitioner should ensure that they stick to the core skills and code of ethical practice of their professional discipline. What was perhaps less clear was that the worker in the Baby P case was a novice, still in training and to an experienced practitioner it is obvious that if she was using a solution-focused approach, she was certainly not applying it correctly. In particular, it appears that the worker in question did not retain the primary focus on the child’s welfare in accordance with their professional requirements.

Solution Focused Approaches - including Signs of Safety - have a great deal to contribute to future positive developments in child protection, and if Haringey have decided to drop its use as part of an overall review of services, that is unfortunate and regrettable.

then continue with The 'Signs of Safety' approach...

[Chris Iveson]

There is confusion here. Sue Gilmore was not the child protection worker for baby Peter nor was the case allocated to her team. As part of her Diploma course she was required to submit recording of a whole session with a client. A parallel team to her own agreed for her to see Peter's mother for a one-off session. The client was aware of the reason's for the session.

(Incidentally, it would be unfair to describe our Diploma students as 'novices'. They have all reached our Certificate level of training on entry to the Diploma and many have already been established authors and trainers.)

[Chris Iveson]

Paul Z Jackson said:

Great stuff, Rayya. A suggested redraft of the first 3 paras, below:

We, the members of the United Kingdom Association of Solution Focused Practice, were deeply saddened by news of the death of Baby P. We'd like to respond to some misleading comments about Solution Focused Approaches that were made in the recent Panorama programme (title etc).

As one of the contributors to the programme, Andrew Turnell, made clear, any solution-focused practitioner should ensure that they stick to the core skills and code of ethical practice of their professional discipline. What was perhaps less clear was that the worker in the Baby P case was a novice, still in training and to an experienced practitioner it is obvious that if she was using a solution-focused approach, she was certainly not applying it correctly. In particular, it appears that the worker in question did not retain the primary focus on the child’s welfare in accordance with their professional requirements.

Solution Focused Approaches - including Signs of Safety - have a great deal to contribute to future positive developments in child protection, and if Haringey have decided to drop its use as part of an overall review of services, that is unfortunate and regrettable.

then continue with The 'Signs of Safety' approach...

[Chris Iveson]

Another comment: as far as I know we do not know what Peter's social worker did or didn't do so your comments about this, Paul are confusing. I don't think we should comment on her. The point is that Sue's one-off session was entirely seperate from the child protection work. If there had been the slightest chance to pick wholes in the actual session I think Panorama would have jumped at it. The issue is the passing on of information.

On a seperate angle I thought what the female professor said on the programme made good sense but it was only half the story so ended up as bad sense. She said in effect that by pursuing an enabling strategy workers run the risk of becoming too much on the side of parents. Of course they do, exactly as they go the opposite way if they pursue a purely 'policing' role. Child care law requires every attempt to be made to keep families together while at the same time putting children's welfare first. It is impossible for one person alone to keep this balance: that is what supervision is for. Supervision allows a less involved person to weigh up the different aspects, to ensure that the risk factors as well as the safety factors are clearly recognised. Child protection social workers are very vulnerable without this supervision.

[Paul Z Jackson]

Thanks for the clarification, Chris. I agree then not to comment on her. The issue is indeed one of passing on information - and vague hopes that things would have been better if the info in the video had been passed. All very tenuous.

First 3 paras re-revised:

We, the members of the United Kingdom Association of Solution Focused Practice, were deeply saddened by news of the death of Baby P. We'd like to respond to some misleading comments about Solution Focused Approaches that were made in the recent Panorama programme (title etc).

We expect any solution-focused practitioner to ensure that they stick to the core skills and code of ethical practice of their professional discipline. In child protection, that includes a primary focus on the child’s welfare.

Solution Focused Approaches - including Signs of Safety - have a great deal to contribute to future positive developments in child protection, and if Haringey have decided to drop its use as part of an overall review of services, that is unfortunate and regrettable.

then continue with The 'Signs of Safety' approach...

[Paul Hanton]

This is useful Rayya, thank you.

As Greg says, I am sure it will form the backbone of our response.

paul

[Guy Shennan]

I have been away from my computer since the Panorama programme on Monday evening and am only now catching up with list emails and this discussion. I appreciate your revised opening three paragraphs Paul Z, with the removal of some blaming comments. I am concerned about the following sentences which would still be left in the response -

"Maintaining a status quo of child at home suffering suspicious injuries is not a satisfactory answer to that question. Someone was quoted as saying at the time, “the situation cannot continue” – but it did. That’s precisely the sort of poor practice that rigorous Signs of Safety would not allow."

I agree with Terry, the social work manager, who has been posting on the list, when he says -

"I believe that the issue about SFBT was not specifically an issue focusing on the methodology but on the perceived incompetence of the social work professionals who saw it as appropriate. SFBT whether appropriate or inappropriate is merely a sideline in the persistent negative press agenda aimed at the social work profession."

I think that comments about "poor practice", which as far as I can make out are being based on what people are gleaning from biased, partial and ill-informed media reports, are both unfair and unnecessary.

We are rightly and necessarily speaking out against the scapegoating of solution focused approaches which has now been added into the mix. I think that it would reflect badly on the association to add its voice to the scapegoating of the social workers involved.

I'd like to add or suggest an alternative wording to this response which I could do after completing another day's training tomorrow.

Best
Guy

[Rayya]

Guy Shennan said:

I have been away from my computer since the Panorama programme on Monday evening and am only now catching up with list emails and this discussion. I appreciate your revised opening three paragraphs Paul Z, with the removal of some blaming comments. I am concerned about the following sentences which would still be left in the response -

"Maintaining a status quo of child at home suffering suspicious injuries is not a satisfactory answer to that question. Someone was quoted as saying at the time, “the situation cannot continue” – but it did. That’s precisely the sort of poor practice that rigorous Signs of Safety would not allow."

I agree with Terry, the social work manager, who has been posting on the list, when he says -

"I believe that the issue about SFBT was not specifically an issue focusing on the methodology but on the perceived incompetence of the social work professionals who saw it as appropriate. SFBT whether appropriate or inappropriate is merely a sideline in the persistent negative press agenda aimed at the social work profession."

I think that comments about "poor practice", which as far as I can make out are being based on what people are gleaning from biased, partial and ill-informed media reports, are both unfair and unnecessary.

We are rightly and necessarily speaking out against the scapegoating of solution focused approaches which has now been added into the mix. I think that it would reflect badly on the association to add its voice to the scapegoating of the social workers involved.

I'd like to add or suggest an alternative wording to this response which I could do after completing another day's training tomorrow.

Best
Guy

Guy I'm sure your contribution can only strengthen the eventual response. As I made clear I have no investment in what I wrote and posted it only as a starting point.

However, I do agree with Paul Z that we do have the opportunity here to state what SFA and SoS are and their value to child protection rather than be over-concerned with defending our position. I was mostly unhappy with the initial focus on accreditation and making a distinction between therapy and SFA which seemed unneccesary. However, I think we should leave it up to social workers to defend themselves and not see that as our primary aim. But I'm sure we can come up with a response that does also does not need to damage them.

Rayya

[Steve Freeman]

This is great Rayya,
Might or not) be worth noting that SofS is still a succesful and integral part of children & family work in many areas including Gateshead.
All the best,

Steve

[Guy Shennan]

Cheers Rayya.

I don't think that we should be defending the social workers either (at least not as an association or in this context, God knows they could do with all the support they could get more generally). I just don't think that we should be criticising them.

Guy