1. Integrated Safety-Organized Practice
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Integrated Safety-Organized Practice
Module One:
Interviewing for Safety and Danger
This session is designed to provide a broad overview of Safety-organized practice (Signs of Safety [SofS], Structured Decision Making® [SDM], and Trauma-informed Practice).
Children’s Research Center
A nonprofit social research organization and division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency

2. Agreements We will be meeting over the next 12 months
Last updated: August 10, 2012
We will be meeting over the next 12 months
How can we make these module trainings work best for you?
PURPOSE
To create shared expectations about how the group will operate, and to model ways to be clear about expectations in supervision and with families.
EXAMPLE
Try not to confuse this slide with the next slide.
Many of you may be working together in these trainings and in practice between the 12 sessions of trainings.
During this time, how do we want to work together? How do you want to be treated? How do you want to treat others?
Some places might call these “ground rules” but we prefer to call them “agreements”—what do we want to agree to in terms of how we behave at these trainings?
TRAINER NOTE: See if you can get some from the group. Sometimes people will offer very vague ideas (“we should respect each other”). If so you can ask for examples to deepen the discussion.

3. Agreements “Try on.” Everyone always has the right to pass.
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Agreements
“Try on.”
Everyone always has the right to pass.
Know that silence is a contribution.
We agree to share airtime and stick to time limits.
We agree to speak personally, for ourselves as individuals.
We agree to disagree and avoid making assumptions or generalities.
We agree to allow others to finish speaking before we speak and avoid interrupting and side conversations.
We will work together to hold to these agreements and authorize the trainer to hold us to them.
If folks are struggling to come up with ideas, you can offer these agreements that have worked at other trainings.
EXAMPLE
“Try on” is an agreement to give things a try. Most of us won’t buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. By asking you to “try on,” I am asking if you would, during the course of these trainings, be willing to give this a try; see how it fits.
TRAINER NOTE
It is good to go over the other agreements briefly, then ask the group:
“Are folks OK with proceeding with these agreements? Does anyone want to offer a tweak or change to any of these?”
A willingness to incorporate change can help signal to your group that this is truly a participatory and collaborative process.

4. Background for the Development of Safety-Organized Practice in
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Background for the Development of
Safety-Organized Practice in
San Diego County
PURPOSE
Participants will see the work they are about to do as a continuation and synthesis of efforts over the last few years. It is not replacing … it is building.
EXAMPLE
San Diego County began using the SDM® system nearly 10 years ago. Like many places, San Diego Health and Human Services Agency experienced the SDM system in mixed ways. While the value of having reliable and valid tools was and is important, it was too often experienced as “forms” to complete. The answer was not to give up on the SDM system. The answer was to find ways to incorporate the structured assessments with family engagement and solution-focused approaches to interviewing. In late 2010, San Diego County became one of the first places to bring together experts on the SDM system (CRC) and experts on an approach known as SofS with a challenge to partner with San Diego County to develop a single practice that incorporates the best of both. San Diego County is also committed to assuring that all work is trauma-informed.
Starting first with “early adopters,” CRC and the Family Centered Services Project (FCSP) began providing training to small groups of staff, then supervisors. With local coaching support from Karen Martin, these early adopters began to try aspects of SofS to support their existing SDM practice. What is, and will remain, unique about this project is that it did not begin with a finished product. While the SDM system, SofS, and trauma-informed practice are existing models, there was no roadmap for how they fit together. Rather than a memo and an implementation date, the project has always depended on the willingness of staff to “try on” some of the techniques and see how they fit. Each person who tries something provides feedback about what works and what could work better. It has been and will continue to be a discovery. It has been and will continue to be shaped by the shared participation of everyone.
As San Diego County continues this process, other important, evidence-based practices will be incorporated. The notion of “integrating” practices is about helping a worker understand, on a day-to-day basis, when and how each of these initiatives comes into play.

5. Our Thinking Draws From the Legacy of Others
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Our Thinking Draws From the Legacy of Others
Insoo Kim Berg
Steve de Shazer
Andrew Turnell
CRC Staff
Steve Edwards
Sonja Parker
Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer created the Solution-focused Therapy approach.
Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards created the Signs of Safety approach and wrote the book Signs of Safety.
Sonja Parker created the Safety House and has done a lot of work with Safety Networks and Safety Planning.
CRC staff bring the SDM system to the table.
Rob Sawyer and Sue Lohrbach brought Signs of Safety and the SDM system to Olmstead County, MN, Sue created harm and danger statements and they took mapping to a new level.
Susie Essex wrote Working with Denied Child Abuse with Andrew.
Nicki Weld created Three Houses.
Carver County, MN, staff have done a lot of work with Signs of Safety.
John Vogel, Sophia Chin and Heather Meitner have brought the SDM system and Signs of Safety to Massachusetts, and they created the four-quadrant map.
Rob
Sawyer
Sue
Lohrbach
Susie
Essex
Nicki
Weld
Carver
County
John Vogel
Sophia Chin
Heather Meitner
…and we hope YOU will continue to build
on these ideas and approaches.

6. Safety-Organized Practice
Last updated: August 10, 2012
The SDM System
SofS
San Diego County’s
Safety-Organized Practice
PURPOSE
See the two primary sources and role of trauma-informed practice.
EXAMPLE
The practice model we will be learning draws on the best of the SDM system, and the best of SofS and other solution-focused engagement practices.
Together, the integrated practice model is an improvement on either one alone.
Finally, all work will incorporate the lens of trauma-informed practice.
Trauma-informed Lens

7. Safety-Organized Practice
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Safety-Organized Practice
Safety is:
Actions of protection taken by the caregiver that mitigate the danger
demonstrated over time.
PURPOSE
To introduce the key organizing principle.
EXAMPLE
This definition of safety comes from SofS but helps hold the model together. Notice that safety is a verb. It is more than the absence of danger.
Safety-Organized Practice provides an approach to child protection work that:
Is focused on enhancing child safety;
Values working with families;
Values reliable and valid assessments;
Provides the field with practices and tools to concretely help their day-to-day work; and
Integrates rigorous, collaborative human judgment with research-built tools
DISCUSSION: If this was the CWS definition of safety and we shared it with families, providers, the courts…If this became “north” on the compass and what we looked for in our work… What, if anything, would change about CWS? What would change about your work?
Adapted from Boffa, J., & Podesta, H. (2004) Partnership and risk assessment in child protection practice, Protecting Children, 19(2): 36–48.
Turnell, Andrew & Susie Essex Working with Denied Child Abuse, Open University Press, 2006. 

8. Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety D E P R S I O N O F
M E D S
Suicide attempt by gas in the kitchen while the children were home
Her father:
physically abusive,
dangerous D V
Foster
care
Poverty
PURPOSE
The next series of slides demonstrates several aspects of what we will be learning, including the importance of a balanced assessment. This story is a compelling “hook” to invite interest in learning how to develop a complete assessment.
INTRO
Cheryl is a woman in her late 30s with two children (ages 4 and 6). She made a significant suicide attempt by turning on the gas in her oven while both children were home. All three of them passed out and it was only through a neighbor smelling the gas and breaking down the door that more serious injuries were averted. Children were placed together in foster care; mother went to a psychiatric facility and was released 10 days later; she is currently not suicidal and is expressing a lot of regret. You meet with her to do a standard assessment and this is what you learn:
Her father was abusive to her and her mother. He drank and smashed things around the home.
Things got so bad that Cheryl went into foster care herself.
As she got older, Cheryl engaged in relationships with men who were violent, including the father of the girls.
This finally led to Cheryl being diagnosed with depression.
More recently, she has gone off her medication.
Even more recently, Cheryl lost her job as a clerk at a store, leaving the family dangerously close to poverty and not having enough food to eat or money to keep the heat on.
Past
Present
Future

9. Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
????
Past
Present
Future
PURPOSE
To help participants experience how our conclusions can be very pessimistic when we have only surfaced negatives.
EXAMPLE
Normally when we hear a story like this we begin to “connect the dots” to make sense of the story. We construct a narrative of events so we can make sense of it and compare it with other experiences, stories, and training.
Given what we know, what would you say about Cheryl’s future?
Are we in a position to make even a good educated guess?
What do we know about danger? Probably a good deal.
What do we know about safety? Not really anything at all.
Does that get in our way of making a good guess about what Cheryl is likely able to do next to keep her kids safe in the future?
We need to become EQUALLY as rigorous at tracking the history of the parent’s “acts of protection” as we are at the history of the danger.
TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT CHERYL’S PAST. HOW MUCH TRAUMA IS PRESENT? HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THAT IMPACTS HER ABILITY TO PARENT?
What will Cheryl’s future likely look like?
What do we know about danger?
What do we know about safety?

10. Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
Suicide attempt by gas
in the kitchen while
the children were home
Past
Present
Future
PURPOSE
To illustrate that when we begin to ask for details, if we are listening, we may hear positives as well. We need to be equally rigorous in searching for the 'history of protection' as well as the “history of the harm.”
EXAMPLE
When Cheryl tells us about this moment, we can ask for lots of details.
The next slides continue to tell the rest of Cheryl’s story.
We learn that before turning on the gas, she took the girls to the next room and opened a window.
Was that a sufficient act of protection? No. Would it be enough to return her children and/or close the case? No.
But might it be important for Cheryl to know and remember? It may help her as she deals with her sadness, grief and guilt about this event.
Is it important for us as child welfare to know? As part of a longer story of her acts of protection, perhaps. We can use this to ask other questions like, “Were there times you were protected by your parents, or things you have done to keep the girls safe?”
And we might learn…
“I took the
girls and put
them in the
next room.”

11. Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
Past
Present
Future
“My mom
gave custody
of me
to my aunt.”
“My mom and aunt made
sure I got an
education.” L E F T HU S B.
Approp.
care of
girls w/
school,
MD,
therapy
“I took the
girls and put
them in the
next room.”
That the foster care arrangement was a familial one.
And that Cheryl’s mom always stayed in her life, and worked with her aunt—Cheryl’s foster parent—to make sure she got a high school diploma.
That Cheryl reached the point of leaving her husband and took out a restraining order when she saw how violent he could be with the girls watching, saying, “I won’t have my girls go through what I did.”
That there are many examples of appropriate care Cheryl has shown the girls. Pediatrician says she has been terrific, kids all up to date; school says kids come to school dressed appropriately, on time, with work done. Both are very surprised about what happened. And finally we learn…
That Cheryl knows the foster mother who is taking care of her kids (“we went to high school together”). Cheryl has been getting up at 4 a.m., walking more than two miles from her home to the foster mom’s home to get the girls up and off to school every morning since she got out of the psychiatric hospital.
Take a look at Cheryl’s strengths. How do you think relationships helped to minimize
the impact of her past trauma? How can we build on that?
“I’m getting
up at 4 a.m. to
meet them and
get them off
to school.”

12. Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Looking for Signs of Danger and Safety
What will Cheryl’s future likely look like?
What do we know about safety?
What do we know about danger?
Past
Present
Future
We could put these events together in a similar way.
PURPOSE
To help participants experience the change in our view of Cheryl’s future now that we have a balanced picture.
EXAMPLE
Do we know a little more about safety now?
We would say “yes, we do.” Is this important for our work?
????

13. “Naïve” Practice Past Present Future Last updated: August 10, 2012
PURPOSE
To make the point that we cannot lose sight of the danger.
EXAMPLE
If this was all we looked at, would it be enough?
If we did, we think it would be fair to call this “naïve practice.”

14. “Problem-Saturated” Practice
Last updated: August 10, 2012
“Problem-Saturated” Practice
Past
Present
Future
PURPOSE
Reinforcing the idea that looking only at problems is an incomplete assessment.
EXAMPLE
But if this was all we looked at, would it be enough?
Family therapist Michael White used to call this a “problem-saturated story,” a story that only takes into account the problem and the danger.
In its own way, this would be another kind of…

15. “Naïve” Practice Past Present Future Last updated: August 10, 2012

16. A Full Assessment Past Present Future Last updated: August 10, 2012
PURPOSE
To bring home the importance of a rigorous, balanced assessment.
EXAMPLE
We are talking about doing a full assessment, where the history of “safety” and “strengths” is searched for as rigorously as the history of “danger” and “harm.”
In the sessions over the next several months, we will focus on ways to do rigorous and thorough balanced assessments.
We will explore ways to engage with families in order to surface important behavioral detail about both worries and safety.
We will learn:
Very specific styles of questions that help families think about things in new ways.
How to use assessment tools and their definitions to shape the most important information to seek at different key decision points.
Ways to gather information from multiple perspectives.
How to use an assessment with a family to create rigorous plans that lead to safety.

17. Safety-Organized Practice
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Safety-Organized Practice
Safety is:
Actions of protection taken by the caregiver that directly mitigate the danger, demonstrated over time.
PURPOSE
To practice distinguishing safety from strengths.
EXAMPLE
Remember this definition of safety?
DISCUSSION
What acts of protection did Cheryl demonstrate that directly impacted her suicide attempt? (Put children in another room; opened a window.) Was this safety? (No.) Why not? (Was not demonstrated over time; was not sufficient to protect children.)
What acts of protection did Cheryl demonstrate in the past? (Left violent man; got on medication for depression). Is this safety? (No.) Why not? (Does not directly mitigate current danger.) NOTE: Leaving the violent husband in the past could be a past action of safety (addressed the danger) but we need more details about his actions and what she did to protect the children.
Does Cheryl have additional strengths? (Yes – children attended school and received medical care; others see her as a good mother, she is going to great lengths to stay involved with her children and get them to school while in foster care). Is this safety? (No.) Why not? (Does not directly mitigate danger.)
How do you think Cheryl is managing the effects of her past trauma?
What is the likelihood that her daughters are being affected by mom’s past trauma and are now experiencing trauma of their own?
Adapted from Boffa, J., & Podesta, H. (2004) Partnership and risk assessment in child protection practice, Protecting Children, 19(2): 36–48. Turnell, Andrew & Susie Essex Working with Denied Child Abuse, Open University Press, 2006. 

18. Basic Terms: What are the Worries?
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Basic Terms: What are the Worries?
Harm
Danger
Complicating Factors
Past actions by the caregiver that have hurt the children physically, developmentally, or emotionally
Detailed current or future worries of harm
Imminent threat of serious harm
Based on recent past or current threat of harm
Anything that further complicates the case
Often conditions that are worrisome, concerning, but not to level of harm
May include risk, needs
PURPOSE
To define the terms we will be using.
EXAMPLE
Here are three important terms that define the work we do.
We want to be sure that every time we use these terms while talking with families, co-workers and collaterals, this is what we are mean.

19. Basic Terms: What Is Working Well?
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Basic Terms: What Is Working Well?
Strengths
Acts of Protection
Safety
Skills of living, nurturing, or support that are important but do not directly address the harm/danger
Demonstrated actions that could mitigate the danger (Some SDM protective capacities could apply here)
Acts of protection, taken by the caregiver, that mitigate the danger, demonstrated over time
PURPOSE:
To clarify “What is working well?” terms.
EXAMPLE
You will learn a number of terms over the months that may be familiar words. However, we need to be clear and in agreement about how we will use these terms.
We talked about safety being “acts of protection taken by the caregiver that directly mitigate the danger, demonstrated over time.” Note that you can have acts of protection and still not have safety if those acts have not been demonstrated over time or do not go far enough. Acts of protection can also be used to minimize current and future trauma.
“Strengths” and “acts of protection” are great things to have, but until they are converted to acts of protection, that mitigate the danger, demonstrated over time, they are not the same as safety. A key task of child protection work is determining a family’s protective capacities and helping the family convert those into action.

20. Last updated: August 10, 2012
PRACTICE
Think of a family you work with that has a child in care or has a safety plan.
What is the DANGER/
safety threat?
PURPOSE
The next four slides constitute an exercise designed to provide a first opportunity to experience the difference between safety and strengths.
INSTRUCTIONS
Have people form groups of two or three. One person in each group will describe a family with whom he/she is working where there is a current danger, or there was a danger in the past. Note that we have not clearly defined danger yet. Ask the individuals to think about something that is a safety threat on the SDM assessment. Have him/her tell the group what the danger is. Just go this far with the exercise to start. Make sure every group has a family in mind and that the family has a danger present. Once you are sure that every group has a specific family and danger in mind, proceed to next slide.
TRAINER NOTE: As we have not introduced the concept of “Danger” yet you may want to continue to use the SDM “Safety Threat” language here—it will help land the exercise clearly.
POTENTIAL FOLLOW-UP QUESTION
Has this danger caused trauma for the child? Is this danger rooted in the parent’s trauma from his/her childhood?

21. Last updated: August 10, 2012
PRACTICE
Think of a family you work with that has a child in care or has a safety plan.
What is the DANGER OR SAFETY THREAT?
What is working well for this family?
INSTRUCTIONS
Now, the same worker should tell the group everything they can think of that is working well for the family.
Brainstorm first.
Allow about three to five minutes for this.
Instruct them to be rigorous and to come up with as many items for “working well” as possible.

22. Last updated: August 10, 2012
PRACTICE
Think of a family you work with that has a child in care or has a safety plan.
What is the DANGER or SAFETY THREAT?
What is working well?
DISTINGUISH
Are these
“acts of protection”
(SAFETY) or
good skills and qualities but
not actions that directly address the danger
(STRENGTHS)
INSTRUCTIONS
Now ask each group to look at the list of “what is working well” and decide whether the items are strength or safety.
TRAINER NOTE: Circulate among the groups to listen and verify that distinctions are being made. You may need to remind them of the definition of “safety” as you go. Don’t be too concerned if some seem to be struggling to get this – in many ways this is the heart of the paradigm shift and participants should be expected to struggle with it. It is OK to help a little, but try to do it through questions, some of which you may want to save for the large group (see below).
DEBRIEF AS LARGE GROUP AND REPORT OUT
Ask the group to share what they thought was safety and what they thought was strengths. As they come up with items, ask questions. Try to keep them focused on behaviors. Questions you could ask would be: “Would that service directly address the danger? What behavior do you hope the parents will change as a result of the service? Do we care more about the service or the safety?” You could ask similar questions about the idea of “acknowledging the problem” as well.
Try to clearly distinguish among these concepts. Try to surface that if we mistake a strength, a protective capacity, or even an isolated act of protection for safety, we could assume things are OK when they are not. Also, when we need to build safety, it won’t happen instantly—it’s important to notice the acts of protection, protective capacities, protective relationships, or strengths that could grow into safety.
It is expected that people will struggle with this some. For those for which this is new, it’s OK if they leave with more questions than answers. What you are trying to do is to start them thinking about their work differently.

23. Are SAFETY and SERVICES the same thing? PRACTICE
Last updated: August 10, 2012
PRACTICE
Are
SAFETY and SERVICES
the same thing?
PURPOSE
This is the final part of the exercise and is included to encourage participants to wrestle with the assumptions that have guided child welfare work for a long time, and to see how the safety definition challenges some of those assumptions.
INSTRUCTIONS
The previous exercise is likely to have surfaced this question, so here is an opportunity to make this dialogue with the group explicit. It’s a chance to let the group wrestle with this question, and trainers should see their job as facilitating that.
EXAMPLE
We seem to have some disagreement about the answer to this question. What do you think?
Given this definition of safety as “actions of protection,” are services the actions of protection we desire?
What do people think?
Have you ever had someone do everything on a case plan—all the services you asked them to do—and you didn’t feel any better whatsoever?
What does that tell us?
TRAINER NOTE
Again, OK if the group does not arrive at consensus on this yet. You are laying groundwork, and inviting them to think.

24. Three Questions that Organize THE INTERVIEW
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Three Questions that Organize THE INTERVIEW
What are we worried about?
What is working well?
What needs to happen next?
PURPOSE
To introduce the three questions (not in any detail—just to sum up the work that goes into an interview like the Cheryl example).
EXAMPLE
At its most basic, both SofS and the SDM assessments can be boiled down to these three questions.
With every interview, supervision session and decision we make in the life of a case, we should make sure we have addressed these three main questions.
This helps ensure we are doing a rigorous, balanced assessment.

25. Safety-Organized Practice:
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Safety-Organized Practice:
Values and Principles
PURPOSE
To introduce a discussion of underlying values of this integrated approach.
EXAMPLE
This next group of slides describes the values and principles of the approach.
TRAINER NOTE
Taking note of time, you can choose to go over these somewhat didactically or you could ask questions at each slide. It is OK not to reach agreement—just help them to start thinking about these values and principles.
This integrated framework is not a neutral framework.
It is based on some very specific values and beliefs.
As we go through them you might want to ask yourselves:
Which of these seem like things we already do well?
Which things do I strongly believe in?
Which might give me some pause or concerns?

26. Values and Principles: Working With Families
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Values and Principles: Working With Families
Every family deserves our respect.*
Cooperate with the person, not the abuse.*
Cooperation is possible even when coercion is
required.*
All families have acts of protection.*
Families deserve a process and assessments that are reliable, valid, and equitable.
Traumatic experiences affect families and should inform how we work with them to build safety.
EXAMPLE:
Occasionally, over the next several slides, ask if anything is contrary to current values/principles.
Point out that SofS and the SDM system are probably not a major departure, if any departure at all, from existing core values.
What we will find, however, are tools and techniques that can help operationalize these values.
TRAINER NOTE:
Most of these come from the SofS work of Andrew Turnell, and some are added to reflect the SDM component of the Integrated Practice Model.
While the SDM model may not articulate some of the items found in SofS, there is nothing contradictory between the two.
Values and principles related to trauma-focused work are incorporated.
*Turnell, A. and Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton

27. Values and Principles: Interviewing
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Values and Principles: Interviewing
Safety is the focus.*
Know at which key decision point you are.
Focus on information needed for that decision.
Search for detail and clarity, rather than using jargon.
Inquiry is an intervention. (Inquiry IS interviewing for safety as well as worries.)*
Be aware of how inquiry may trigger trauma symptoms.
*Turnell, A. and Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton

28. Values and Principles: Decisions
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Values and Principles: Decisions
Decision making is shared with the family whenever possible.
Decisions are informed by assessment recommendations.
Overrides are appropriate when needed, and reasons should be clearly articulated.
Sometimes the decisions will add to the child and family’s trauma.
We have a responsibility to reduce the trauma we cause as much as possible and help to heal what cannot be prevented.

29. Values and Principles: Planning
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Values and Principles: Planning
Learn what all members of the family want to see happen.*
Focus on imminent danger (immediate safety plan) and priority needs (ongoing safety plan).
Focus on creating small change.*
The goal is behavioral change, not plan compliance.
The means is action, not services.
Plan to respond to any identified trauma.
*Turnell, A. & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton

30. Values and Principles: Worker Disciplines
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Values and Principles: Worker Disciplines
Rigorous search for relevant details.*
Using words everyone can understand.
Describe in terms of behaviors, not judgments or jargon.*
Skillful use of authority.*
Responsive, not reactive, to trauma symptoms.
Depending on time in the training, you could ask the group:
Of all of these principles, which do you think are easiest to put into practice?
Which are we already putting into practice?
Which are harder?
*Turnell, A. & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton

31. *Turnell, A. and Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton
Last updated: August 10, 2012
These are some of the elements from SofS that relate to this module.
Consider printing them beforehand and posting around the room.
Some trainers like to put this slide up front to set the stage about which principles from Signs of Safety pertain to this module.
*Turnell, A. and Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton

32. A Word About What Is Coming
Last updated: August 10, 2012
A Word About What Is Coming
PURPOSE
To provide information about expectations for participation in the training, and what practice will look like when fully implemented.
EXAMPLE
Before we end today, we will go over what you can expect from these sessions in the months ahead.
We will also have an opportunity to think about what will stay the same and what will change as we begin to practice in a different way.

33. Before and After: What You Do
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Before and After: What You Do
Current Practice
Interview children
Interview parents
Interview collaterals
Make decisions about whether a child is safe in home
Build case plans
Monitor case plans
Make decisions about when to return a child home
Make decisions about when to close case
PURPOSE
To illustrate that Safety-Organized Practice is not adding to what is already being done.
Get agreement that those are the primary actions in current practice.
Reveal primary actions in fully operational, new approach. Point out that the main tasks are not changing.
Transition by asking: If it is not changing what we do, what exactly is changing?

34. Before and After: What You Do
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Before and After: What You Do
Current Practice
New Approach
Interview children
Interview parents
Interview collaterals
Make decisions about whether a child is safe in home
Build case plans
Monitor case plans
Make decisions about when to return a child home
Make decisions about when to close case
PURPOSE
To illustrate that Safety-Organized Practice is not adding to what is already being done.
Get agreement that those are the primary actions in current practice.
Advance to the next slide to reveal primary actions in fully operational, new approach. Point out that the main tasks are not changing.
Transition by asking: If it is not changing what we do, what exactly is changing?

35. The way the process is organized
Last updated: August 10, 2012
What Is Different?
The tools available
The way the process is organized
High emphasis on child, family, and community participation in all aspects of the work
Trauma lens
PURPOSE
To point out what will change.
EXAMPLE
The new approach provides a group of tools that help with what you do.
The new approach organizes the process in ways that may be different.
The new approach is going to focus on participation of the child, family and community.
The new approach will include awareness of the impact of trauma on children and parents.

36. Before and After: What You Document
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Before and After: What You Document
Current Practice
Case notes
Assessments
Plans
Court reports
PURPOSE
Illustrate that no additional forms or paperwork are required.
EXAMPLE
No one likes spending time on “paperwork,” but it is a vital part of child protection work.
The new approach does not change the document types that must be created.

37. Before and After: What You Document
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Before and After: What You Document
Current Practice
New Approach
Case notes
Assessments
Plans
Court reports
PURPOSE
Illustrate that no additional forms or paperwork are required.
EXAMPLE
No one likes spending time on “paperwork,” but it is a vital part of child protection work.
The new approach does not change the document types that must be created.

38. The way the process is organized
Last updated: August 10, 2012
What Is Different?
The tools available
The way the process is organized
High emphasis on child, family, and community participation in all aspects of the work
Trauma lens
PURPOSE To show how the Safety-Organized Practice approach can actually help with existing documentation.
EXAMPLE
What does change are the tools available.
Many of the tools help create clear, concise and focused documents that are easy to write, provide clear information for those who rely on the documents and offer opportunities to use the documents in relationship with the family.

39. Hoped-for Outcomes of the New Approach
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Hoped-for Outcomes of the New Approach
Increased engagement
Increased teamwork
Increased accuracy & child safety
Increased consistency
Increased satisfaction
PURPOSE To identify potential benefits of Safety-Organized Practice.
EXAMPLE
We will know if the new approach is successful if we begin to see these outcomes.
Ask if these outcomes are worth the effort.

40. Is the New Approach More Work?
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Is the New Approach More Work?
Learning phase
We will have a learning curve
BUT it is just a small bite at a time
PURPOSE To set reasonable expectations about any change process, and keep perspective about the pace and scope of this change.
EXAMPLE
The honest answer is that during the learning phase, there will be more work because you will be trying some things for the first time.
You will need time to learn the piece, think through using the piece the first time, talk about your experience with a coach, and continue to pay some attention to the process until it becomes integrated into your practice.
This is why you are only asked to take on new pieces in small bites.
You and a few others in your office will participate in a 30- to 90-minute session that will cover a new technique.
In that session, you’ll have a chance to practice.
Then, you’ll have a month to try that piece in the field, with support from your coach.
The next month, there will be another piece to learn.
Go at your own pace.

41. What Will Happen Next? Monthly module training PRACTICE!
Last updated: August 10, 2012
What Will Happen Next?
Three-hour trainings
Opportunity to practice in training
Monthly module training
Coaching
Reflection
What works?
What doesn’t?
PRACTICE!
Come back and talk as a group – what are we learning?
Next monthly module training
PURPOSE
Explain the process, emphasizing that the practice is most important, and will be supported by coaching. Provide specifics for this group about who will be coaching, how to access coaching.
EXAMPLE
We are all familiar with approaches to training where we sit in a classroom for a day (or two or three) and get a TON of information. Then we go back to our busy work and have a hard time remembering most of what we heard, and soon realize nothing has changed.
Instead, we will learn in small pieces, usually about three hours at a time. Then, you will have a month to try things you learned. It’s important to notice two things about this:
Coaching is available so you have someone to talk to before (sometimes during) and after you try a new skill.
Pause and reflect on what you try. This is how we grow professionally.

42. Opportunities for Practice
Last updated: August 10, 2012
EXAMPLE:
It is important that you commit to or look at attempting some of these suggestions for practice over the next “x” weeks
Your Early Adopters, supervisor and the coach are available for support during that time
Your Early Adopters, supervisor and the coach can also provide a more formal in-person follow up in “x” amount of time through attending a unit meeting or providing opportunities for lunch and learn, etc.
HANDOUT
Provide the “Things To Try” handout for session one.
Explain that at each session, a similar handout will be provided with ideas for simple things to try.
Participants can use this to keep track of what they have tried, and maybe even note what went well and what did not so they can learn from their experiences.
TRAINER NOTE
Some trainers like to move this slide to the front of the presentation so trainees can be thinking about which thing they will try during the next month.

43. Integrated Safety-Organized Practice Training Series
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Integrated Safety-Organized Practice Training Series
Interviewing for Safety and Danger
Three Questions to Organize Your Practice
Small Voices, Big Impact: Keeping Children at the Center of the Work
Solution-focused Inquiry
Introduction to Mapping
Harm Statements, Danger Statements and Safety Goals
Mapping With Families
Safety Networks
Safety Planning
Landing Safety-Organized Practice Model in Everyday Work
Organizational Environments: Reflection, Appreciation, and Ongoing Learning
Summary and Looking to the Future
PURPOSE
To show an overview of upcoming module topics.

44. Adopt at Your Own Pace Adopt At Your Own Pace
Last updated: August 10, 2012
Adopt At Your Own Pace
Adopt at Your Own Pace
PURPOSE
To relieve pressure of feeling that participants have to do everything at once, while still emphasizing that the goal is to adopt these practices.
EXAMPLE
While the goal is to get everyone following the Integrated Practice Model, this will be done gradually and you are welcome to try a little at a time.

45. Last updated: August 10, 2012

46. References Last updated: August 10, 2012
Boffa, J., & Armitage, E. (1999). The Victorian Risk Framework: Developing a Professional Judgment Approach To Risk Assessment In Child Protection Work, 7th Australian Conference on Child Abuse And Neglect, Perth, W.A. Children’s Research Center (2008). Structured Decision Making®: An Evidence-Based Approach to Human Services. Retrieve from Department of Child Protection. (2011). The Signs of Safety Child Protection Practice Framework. Department of Child Protection, Perth. Retrieved from Johnson, W. (2004). Effectiveness of California’s child welfare Structured Decision Making® model: A prospective study of the validity of the California family risk assessment. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Social Services. Retrieved form Lohrbach, S., & Sawyer, R. (2004). Creating a constructive practice: family and professional partnership in high-risk child protection case conferences, Protecting Children, 19(2): 26–35. Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton. White, M., & Epston, E. (1999). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: Norton.