from UKASFP mailing list

[Rayya]

Dear Paul



We very much appreciate your decision, on behalf of the Association, to respond to Monday’s Panorama programme.



We think it would be helpful for you to know some of the facts, particularly related to BRIEF’s involvement.



BRIEF have been providing training to the London Borough of Haringey since 1994 and in that time have run numerous introductory courses which have been consistently well received by participants and managers. The last series of two-day introductions was completed in 2007 with children’s services staff. These were supplemented by one-day introductions to the ‘signs of safety’ model of children’s safeguarding. The original course was very well received by participants, so much so that two additional courses were commissioned. These also received excellent feedback.



Two members of Haringey’s staff also undertook our Diploma course in 2006/07. One was Sue Gilmore who is mentioned in the programme. Sue (who as she discloses on the programme did not complete the diploma) presented a videotape as part of the course assessment. It was of a one-off session with a client from a team that Sue was not involved with and undertaken specifically for the Diploma course. Sue, as the programme makes clear, was not the child protection worker and did not see the child, The case was presented anonymously so we did not realise its significance.



Earlier this year we were contacted by Panorama and subsequently met with Alison Holt (the presenter) and her producer, Sylvia Jones. For reasons of confidentiality we declined to discuss either the details of our work with Haringey, a long-standing customer, or any individual attending any of our courses. Apart from this we did our best to be open about what we do and informative about solution focused practice and we even went so far as to offer Alison Holt the opportunity to attend one of our courses and thus to be able to judge for herself about the approach from a position of knowledge.. We were very clear that not only solution focused brief therapy but no therapy should ever be conducted in isolation from safeguarding concerns.



Unfortunately, the programme makes the same point that we were making but only in relation to solution focused brief therapy and the implication taken is that the danger of undertaking therapy without regard to protection is particular to solution focus. We, too, might have annoyed the Panorama team by our reticence: there was certainly no need or point to their sideswipe at the training we provided and they definitely had not done their homework about how it had been received.



We cannot ourselves see a way to limit the possible damage this programme has done to solution focused practice; any attempt to argue would probably be seen as defensive so we’ve decided just to grit our teeth!



Once again we would like to add our thanks for your work on this.



Good wishes



Chris, Evan, Harvey and Guy





BRIEF

7 - 8 Newbury Street

London EC1A 7HU

[phone] tel

[phone] fax

www.brieftherapy.org.uk

www.briefconsultancy.com

www.solutionsineducation.co.uk



20 YEARS OF BRIEF 1989 - 2009

[Rayya]

Dear all this is a letter I sent to the Guardian and Panorama. I would hope that many social workers would follow suit.

Paul.


I watched the Panorama programme with great sadness. Sadness for the loss of a child and sadness for my profession. As a social worker and family therapist well versed in Signs of Safety and Solution Focused Brief Therapy I was sorry not to see a more balanced picture of both models. The real story of this tragedy though which has barely been aired is the question of resources.

Laming’s response to Victoria Climbie’s death was a predictable drive to systematise information gathering and sharing. That system has increased the bureaucratic workload on social workers to such an extent that seeing clients directly accounts for around 10% of a social workers week. No doubt the response to Baby P will increase the organisation of information further. That drive though does nothing to resource services and workers to work preventively. Let me give you some examples from my ten years of practice.



An Assistant Director informing a centralised Duty Team that they could no longer accommodate children as the budget only stretched to x children in care. Need was deemed secondary to resources.

The systematic closure of social work teams designed to work preventively- leaving a situation where frontline workers have child protection plans without the access to resources to achieve those plans.

This has led to a siege mentality in social work exemplified by those social worker’s on Panorama afraid to speak out about the failings of the entire system.

Multi-agency working is very much still a theory in search of a practice. Given Baby p was subject to a child protection plan and thus the responsibility is shared across agencies wider questions of responsibility have yet to be asked. All social workers are aware that at the end of the day accountability lies with them.

Our multi-agency colleagues using baby P as a way of forcing social workers hand. Each frontline worker has a story of the last six months where another professional has quoted baby p as a means of upping the ante.


Unfortunately the mark of successful social work is becoming how much risk you can tolerate and most authorities are tolerating risk which- as it is resource driven- is unacceptably high. That this is system wide is evidenced by the failing of Ofsted inspectors prior to the death of baby P. We can all be wise after the event. Indeed most inspections are known about in advance and the paper trail is often ‘prettified’ at great cost to workers time and their ability to work on other matters. A pervasive ‘drop everything it’s the inspectors’ attitude persists which is only to be expected when a good inspection means a better budget.



Dr Turnell’s model is a useful antidote to the rules of optimism and pessimism. For this model to be utilised well it requires an exposure to the ideas and techniques of solution focused brief therapy. These ideas and techniques are particularly useful in gaining access to information about risk and safety that his hitherto been unspoken or unclear. The question then still remains:



What action is necessary to safeguard those children?



Haringey’s statement that:



“Haringey council told Panorama that solution focus brief therapy was not appropriate in this case and that the authority no longer uses it in child protection.”



Would be better framed as:



Haringey council are aware that there are clear and fundamental differences between therapy and child protection social work whilst accepting the influence of one on the other. Haringey council is clear that any therapy per se does not stand in for good social work practice.



Unfortunately if safe guarding decisions are secondary to resource decisions tolerated risk will only increase. It is an unpalatable fact that children will continue to die at the hands of those in positions of care and responsibility. The question is what type of system can we imagine offers the best chance of protecting our children? I firmly believe that one that draws on Signs of Safety and Solution Focused ideas offers a much better chance than the current system. The current system is in disarray- it requires a sea change of policy, thinking, funding and practice. This might give my incredibly hard working, dedicated, ethical social work colleagues a real chance of effecting and affecting change.

Paul Hackett

[Rayya]

Dear all, below is the agreed statement that will go onto our website for any external viewer to see by clicking a link:

We have had a fair few drafts of this over the day and believe it is as blanaced, accurate and non defensive as we can be, though we realise that not everyone will agree, we hope most will.

Best wishes,

Paul


Solution Focused Brief Therapy



A response to the Panorama programme aired by BBC1 on 4th of May 2009.



The recent Panorama programme into the tragic death of Baby P highlighted in a number of places that some social workers involved in the case, in particular one that had made a video of an interview with Baby P’s mother, had had some solution focused training.



We note that whilst Panorama highlighted there were statements that SFBT was not suitable in this case. We also note that SFBT was not being used. The difference between a qualified, accredited solution focused brief therapist and someone qualified and accredited in another profession who is using a solution focused approach cannot be overstated.



To ‘blame’ a model of therapy when, in fact that model of therapy is not being used in an appropriate or qualified way is a simplistic view of a complex set of events which were difficult to report fully in a 30 minute programme.



We note, and agree with Andrew Turnell’s comments that anyone involved with Safeguarding children (commonly known as child protection, or any other safety issue) and using solution focused approaches should place the safety of the client and any children by proxy at the forefront of their work. As a solution focused association we would advocate this. Solution focused approaches should focus on and highlight positive and measurable steps toward safety. In an instance such as this as the child’s safety is paramount.



We are clear that as an Association we are moving towards accrediting people to use the solution focused approach at different levels and anyone currently calling themselves a therapist should be accredited with an appropriate professional body such as BACP or UKCP. We do not believe that two days training equips anyone to call themselves a therapist, or that they could possibly be effectively applying a therapeutic approach. This will be reflected in our accreditation levels.



We cannot comment on any supervision received by individual social workers in this case in relation to their solution focused practice as they were not members of this association. We would however point out that any professional, be they a Social Worker, Nurse, Therapist or from any other profession should use supervision and line management to pick up any concerns regarding safety issues and adhere to their own professions guidelines on relating to practice and safeguarding issues.



Paul Hanton & Barry White,



Co Chairs of the:



United Kingdom Association for Solution Focused Practice (UKASFP)




www.solutionfocused.org.uk

www.ukasfp.co.uk

[Paul Z Jackson]

It is clear from viewing the BBC Panorama programme that a proper application of the solutions-focused Signs of Safety approach could only have benefitted Baby P.

The ‘serious failings’ of management, leadership and practice reported in the programme had nothing to do with SF or Signs of Safety. Indeed, as the comments of the NSPCC’s Wes Cuell emphasise, the systems of child protection currently in place in the UK have made little significant difference to the number of child tragedies over the years and are unlikely to do so in future. The OFSTED regime’s ratings do nothing to indicate where the next tragedy will strike.

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.

This is an opportunity to promote SF approaches, including Signs of Safety and the brilliant work of Andrew Turnell, the Brief Therapy Practice and others, to improve, re-inspire and re-energise the depressing (Ballsed-up?) state of child protection systems revealed by Panorama.

[Rayya]

It is clear from viewing the BBC Panorama programme that a proper application of the solutions-focused Signs of Safety approach could only have benefitted Baby P.



The ‘serious failings’ of management, leadership and practice reported in the programme had nothing to do with SF or Signs of Safety. Indeed, as the comments of the NSPCC’s Wes Cuell emphasise, the systems of child protection currently in place in the UK have made little significant difference to the number of child tragedies over the years and are unlikely to do so in future. The OFSTED regime’s ratings do nothing to indicate where the next tragedy will strike.



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.



I suggest the UKASFP takes this opportunity to promote SF approaches, including Signs of Safety and the brilliant work of Andrew Turnell, the Brief Therapy Practice and others, to improve, re-inspire and re-energise the depressing (Ballsed-up?) state of child protection systems revealed by Panorama.





Best regards



Paul Z Jackson



(former investigative journalist and former BBC radio producer – comedy)