Bringing people together to share solution focused ideas
new draft from 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.
The recent Panorama Programme (date etc) on the Baby P case reported that training in the solution focused approach had been undertaken by some staff at Haringey council and that the use of the method was now being dropped until further review.
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.
Haringey’s decision to drop the use of the solution focused approach is understandable in the light of an overall review of all of its services. We hope that following the review, Haringey council will reconsider solution focused working as a useful and important contribution to the many ways social workers can support their work safeguarding children.
We would like to clarify the UKASFP’s views on the use of solution focused approaches in safeguarding work.
Solution focused approaches are characterised by a focus on a preferred future, an exploration of the strengths and resources already present in the current situation which could help to move towards the preferred future, and the identification of small signs of future success which can also be translated into ‘small step’ goals.
The solution focused approach was originally developed as a form of Brief Therapy, a talking therapy designed to be short-term, and is most widely recognised as ‘Solution Focused Brief Therapy’. Solution Focused Brief Therapy is undertaken in therapeutic environments, such as mental health services or by private therapists. The UKASFP is currently preparing an accreditation process and seeking the opportunity to be registered by the Health Professions Council along with many other therapies to meet the UK Government’s initiatives on the regulation of professions for the care and safety of the public.
Solution Focused approaches are also used to provide enhanced communication skills in an integrative way within existing professions such as mental health nursing, social work, occupational therapy, psychiatry, psychology and teaching. When used in this way, there is an expectation that the core skills and professional and ethical responsibilities of the practitioner will remain within the requirements of their primary profession and the policies of the services within which they work. No trainer in solution focused approaches 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.
The ‘Signs of Safety’ approach presented by Andrew Turnell in the Panorama programme was developed in Australia in (date?) by Andrew Turnell and Steve 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 serious risk.
We endorse the view of Andrew Turnell who says:
“The child protection field around the world tends to be overwhelmed by anxiety and failure and often falls into the trap of believing procedures and protocols will save the day. The Signs of Safety approach is grounded in actual, on-the-ground human practice that makes a difference for professionals and families and that creates meaningful safety for children in high-risk cases. This approach recreates a purposive, positive focus for child protection work that is both energising and affirming for practitioners who take on this difficult work.” (http://www.signsofsafety.net/)
We agree with (female professor’s name) who suggested that by pursuing an enabling strategy workers run the risk of becoming too much on the side of parents. We would also suggest that by pursuing a purely 'policing' role they risk going too far in the opposite direction. Child care law requires every attempt to be made to keep families together while at the same time putting children's welfare first. We would suggest that a balance needs to be maintained. The Signs of Safety approach to safeguarding is designed to keep the worker focused on this balance. Strong and effective supervision is also essential as it 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.
The recent Panorama Programme (date etc) on the Baby P case reported that training in the solution focused approach had been undertaken by some staff at Haringey council and that the use of the method was now being dropped until further review.
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.
Haringey’s decision to drop the use of the solution focused approach is understandable in the light of an overall review of all of its services. We hope that following the review, Haringey council will reconsider solution focused working as a useful and important contribution to the many ways social workers can support their work safeguarding children.
We would like to clarify the UKASFP’s views on the use of solution focused approaches in safeguarding work.
Solution focused approaches are characterised by a focus on a preferred future, an exploration of the strengths and resources already present in the current situation which could help to move towards the preferred future, and the identification of small signs of future success which can also be translated into ‘small step’ goals.
The solution focused approach was originally developed as a form of Brief Therapy, a talking therapy designed to be short-term, and is most widely recognised as ‘Solution Focused Brief Therapy’. Solution Focused Brief Therapy is undertaken in therapeutic environments, such as mental health services or by private therapists. The UKASFP is currently preparing an accreditation process and seeking the opportunity to be registered by the Health Professions Council along with many other therapies to meet the UK Government’s initiatives on the regulation of professions for the care and safety of the public.
Solution Focused approaches are also used to provide enhanced communication skills in an integrative way within existing professions such as mental health nursing, social work, occupational therapy, psychiatry, psychology and teaching. When used in this way, there is an expectation that the core skills and professional and ethical responsibilities of the practitioner will remain within the requirements of their primary profession and the policies of the services within which they work. No trainer in solution focused approaches 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.
The ‘Signs of Safety’ approach presented by Andrew Turnell in the Panorama programme was developed in Australia in (date?) by Andrew Turnell and Steve 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 serious risk.
We endorse the view of Andrew Turnell who says:
“The child protection field around the world tends to be overwhelmed by anxiety and failure and often falls into the trap of believing procedures and protocols will save the day. The Signs of Safety approach is grounded in actual, on-the-ground human practice that makes a difference for professionals and families and that creates meaningful safety for children in high-risk cases. This approach recreates a purposive, positive focus for child protection work that is both energising and affirming for practitioners who take on this difficult work.” (http://www.signsofsafety.net/)
We agree with (female professor’s name) who suggested that by pursuing an enabling strategy workers run the risk of becoming too much on the side of parents. We would also suggest that by pursuing a purely 'policing' role they risk going too far in the opposite direction. Child care law requires every attempt to be made to keep families together while at the same time putting children's welfare first. We would suggest that a balance needs to be maintained. The Signs of Safety approach to safeguarding is designed to keep the worker focused on this balance. Strong and effective supervision is also essential as it 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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark McKergow on
-
Hi Rayya,
Looking good as far as I can see. A couple of typos:
para 1, should end 'as we are by all such cases.' (was 'in such cases')
para 9, last sentence doesn't need a comma, so should be ...convincing signs of safety is a sign that the child is a serious risk.
Well done!
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Hanton on -
This is good Rayya.....I have no acsess to email until this evening so will check in with rest of committee then....thanks for your work on this,
Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Carl Plant on -
Well done Rayya and the many others who have been involved in this professional, collaborative and well orchestrated response!
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Iveson on -
Thanks for all this work Rayya!
Guy and I have been putting our heads together!
Our suggestion is to make a much briefer statement and have the bulk of yours - which is very well and cogently put - made into a link together with some other links that offer descriptions and especially research info. I don't think a long statement will be read! I also think Eileen's point about a message to commissioners - and to the Government. As far as the press are concerned I think this is a non-story now (they must have seen the thinness of the programme!)
I like Paul's ammended start that 'regrets' Haringey's response because it represents what we feel (just changed a couple of words)
So here's another draft!
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 practitioner who is using a solution focused approach 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.
Almost every local authority, education authority and NHS mental health service in the UK has staff trained in solution focused practice. After cognitive behavioural therapies it is the most widespread therapeutic approach within those professions tasked with helping to overcome problems and lead full lives within their communities. The evidence base for the effectiveness and economy of the approach is solid while the underlying philosophy fits exactly with those local and national policies in children’s services, education and health aimed at empowerment, enhancing families and strengthening communities.
We urge the London Borough of Haringey and those charged with reviewing safeguarding policy and practice both locally and nationally to examine the evidence in relation to solution focused practice, to seek reports from the many public sector bodies who are incorporating solution focused principles into their everyday working practices and take good care not to undermine the good practice of tens of thousands of hard-working committed professionals throughout the UK.
Chris and Guy
-
Permalink Reply by Rayya on -
Chris Iveson said:Thanks for all this work Rayya!
Guy and I have been putting our heads together!
Our suggestion is to make a much briefer statement and have the bulk of yours - which is very well and cogently put - made into a link together with some other links that offer descriptions and especially research info. I don't think a long statement will be read! I also think Eileen's point about a message to commissioners - and to the Government. As far as the press are concerned I think this is a non-story now (they must have seen the thinness of the programme!)
I like Paul's ammended start that 'regrets' Haringey's response because it represents what we feel (just changed a couple of words)
So here's another draft!
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 practitioner who is using a solution focused approach 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.
Almost every local authority, education authority and NHS mental health service in the UK has staff trained in solution focused practice. After cognitive behavioural therapies it is the most widespread therapeutic approach within those professions tasked with helping to overcome problems and lead full lives within their communities. The evidence base for the effectiveness and economy of the approach is solid while the underlying philosophy fits exactly with those local and national policies in children’s services, education and health aimed at empowerment, enhancing families and strengthening communities.
We urge the London Borough of Haringey and those charged with reviewing safeguarding policy and practice both locally and nationally to examine the evidence in relation to solution focused practice, to seek reports from the many public sector bodies who are incorporating solution focused principles into their everyday working practices and take good care not to undermine the good practice of tens of thousands of hard-working committed professionals throughout the UK.
Chris and Guy
I like the paragraph that points out how widespread the use is. I don't like 'regret' and I don't like the use of 'urge'. I think Haringey should be looking at *all* of its practices - seems totally reasonable and I suggest we 'invite' people to look at examining the evidence. And it's a response to the programme, not to Haringey's actions.
Personally I don't agree with a shortened one for the site - it's not that long and I think most people won't be bothered to click any further unless they have a particular interest in e.g. research
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Z Jackson on -
I very much like Chris and Guy's statement. Would agree with changing 'urge' to invite.
In Rayya's latest draft, the opening paras seem to describe things that were very shadowy in the Panorama as much too concrete - and makes more of a connection between SF approaches and the death of Baby P than the progremme actually did. (The programme only insinuated such connections.) So I'd suggest dropping or rewriting paras 2, 3 and 4 of this draft. The rest of it is splendid.
-
Permalink Reply by John Wheeler on -
Just joined this very important discussion after not being connected to the forum for a while. Well done all you who are working on a response. The criticism of Sf was all the more perverse when their own program reported that it was in the SF interview that the mother made reference to the boyfriend. I would have thought that this was good evidence of how useful the approach actually was, and certainly fits with my experience of what happens when workers use SF well.
John Wheeler
-
Permalink Reply by Eileen Murphy on -
I am very much in favour of the new statement from Guy & Chris and think Rayya has led us in the right direction. I think this latest statement hits the right note, shorter and to the point. I like "urge" and think its needed rather than "invite". I am especially concerned for the use of the approach at the moment following two phone calls I have had from people who are now nervous about implementing SF training. I think we need to be really firm on this and not be used as the "patsy" which can happen very easily if we are not careful and Haringey's intention to "drop SF" is an indication of that I think. Commissioners, especially after Baby P, quite rightly want to learn lessons from local authorities where it went wrong - we need to be very firm in ensuring that SF is not included in this lesson.
Eileen
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Avard on -
Hi, I'm just wondering whether we might not be jumping the gun in terms of posting a reply at all? If we keep our powder dry and let the press crack on with the great job they're currently doing bringing our politicos to book over expenses then we might be better served than trying to lift it over the expenses wall.
I understand the response that was made, which to me was to go on the defensive, and it's that that worries me. Has sf been attacked or vilified, and I mean seriously attacked or vilified; has practice in general been questioned; have they had a pop at the Association? If the answer is 'not really' do we need to provide a response just yet?
For myself, and only for myself, I was actually a little surprised at how quickly a defensive, retrenched stance was adopted at the whiff of criticism. We actually act much more robustly towards each other than ever the outside world appears to act towards us, and I think we need to hang-fire. Chris, and Guy's, draft appears hugely moderate, very respectful and seems to have adopted the right tone. I would query the use of 'urge' because I suspect 'urge' used towards us may well not be well received by us - its use feels combative . The use of 'We would 'hope that ...', seems to me to place the onus more squarely on the target. But I also guess this shouldn't become some kind of in-house semantic conflict either.
Incidentally, the Childrens' Commissioner, Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green was at the Brief Education Conference in May 2007 and seemed to be taken by the approach.
Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Rayya on
-
The longer time passes I agree with Paul Avard! We have enough material here to produce a response should anyone require one - but maybe we should simply ignore the programme for the poor attempt at finding an interesting angle that it was and forget it.
If anything it's made us much more aware of how important it is to produce research towards an evidence base (and I know that I and the other academics are more than willing to support anyone unsure of how to do this) and also it does put the recent discussion about insurance, indemnity etc into focus. As a trainer I often wonder how on earth my training could result in a claim - but now I see that it could - almost definitely unjustifiably, but I'm happy I could call on good legal advice and support in such an unlikely situation.
You might say that we are defensive but one of my colleagues scared me by coming in and saying 'have you seen the news, they are blaming SF for Baby P;s death' on Tuesday! Now I feel much calmer about responding to it and feel I have the right arguments available should I need them so that is a good result.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Avard on
-
Praise indeed, Rayya, thank you. I understand why people were concerned and I wouldn't want us to take our collective eyes off the ball; let's just bide our time.
Must crack on, family coming for lunch and Yorkshire puds to make.
Paul
About
© 2010 Created by Barry White.
Powered by 
.
