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.

[Mark McKergow]

Hi everyone

Just back from a meeting of Gloucestershire Solutions, our local networking group. This topic was discussed, in the form of a reflecting team for which I acted as client. The team comprised mental health workers, drugs and alcohols workers, child counsellors, coaches and consultants. The reflections are below - they may be helpful in this.

* It seems correct that the UKASFP makes a response to the situation.
* This case helps us all to be aware that whatever context we work in, we must keep in mind the key factors of that context whatever they are. SF practice is not identical across all contexts.
* This is an opportunity to sat what SF practice is - and there may also be elements of the original programme that are best overlooked. Stick to what's constructive.
* People are professionals in their fields, and there are some important distinctions - eg child protection workers are not doing therapy per se.
* There is an opportunity to model the SF approach in the response - appreciating as much as possible etc
* The worker who did the interview video might be congratulated, in other circumstances, for engaging the mother in a constructive conversation. It seems perverse that it might now be seen as a bad thing that this conversation took place, when otherwise there would be no conversation and no-one would be any the wiser.
* The issue seems to be about information being passed on or connected rather than being created.
* It's important for the Association to go on record with a position, to be referred to in future. That way we can all know what the line is if/when this topic comes up in the staff room/training room/pub/whatever.
* The UKASFP website is the place for it, rather than letters to Editors etc. A copy might be sent to the BBC without any expectation of action.
* Stick to the facts as much as possible.

I hope this might be useful. I do think we need to get something out as soon as reasonably practicable.

Cheers
Mark

[Guy Shennan]

Thanks for this Mark.
A fantastic advert for the Reflecting Team process.
Guy

[Paul Z Jackson]

Thanks Guy, looking forward to your re-write.
I agree there's merit in knowing nothing and saying nothing about the particular case, and I certainly don't mind that element being revised or removed from a UKASFP statement.
Isn't it appealing, though, to suggest that good SF/SoS practice would (probably) have made a difference? How can we do so without joining the 'knock the social workers' brigade? There's a sense that something went wrong - and we might take a view it was lack of SF rather than application of SF (the Panorama insinuation) that was one of the factors.

[Paul Hanton]

As a committee and members we have now had 21 re writes or suggestions of changes/amendments.....how will we know we have something that is 'good enough'?

best wishes,

Paul

[Rayya]

Paul Hanton said:

As a committee and members we have now had 21 re writes or suggestions of changes/amendments.....how will we know we have something that is 'good enough'?

best wishes,


No idea!

I've just uploaded another draft which attempts to bring together everyone's views on here! It's a 'response', it's an attempt to promote SF (not everyone may agree with the SFA, SFBT SoS divide but it may be expedient for this situation) and it doesn't bash social workers or make specific reference to anyone, it also 'appreciates and it mentions accrediation etc. The only thing that's missing is something about research but we could simply put a link to Alasdair's list.

Paul