TY - JOUR
AU - Moriarty, Jo
AB - Abstract Signs of Safety (SoS) is a comprehensive assessment framework (AF) used in some form in most English children’s service departments as well as in many other countries. The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (AF) was introduced nearly twenty years ago to address identified failures to adopt a holistic approach to assessments of families where there were concerns that children were in need of protection or support. The AF is not only a statutory requirement in England but it has influenced the development of approaches to assessment globally. An evaluation of SoS in pilot local authorities in England provided opportunities to examine the extent to which the two frameworks were being used together. Findings from interviews, case record analysis and a survey indicate that while recording processes were aligned with the AF, it was not central to many of the assessments conducted and it proved difficult to detect its influence on their content. It appears timely to examine the extent to which the AF is used across England, to assess its relevance to current practice and the extent to which frameworks such as SoS have supplemented or replaced it. assessment framework, case records, child protection, Signs of Safety Background The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment and Home Office, 2000) is a long-standing tenet of social work practice in children’s services in England. It is a systematic way of analysing, understanding and recording the experiences of children and young people within both their families and their wider communities with the aim of developing ‘a conceptual map which can be used to understand what is happening to all children in whatever circumstances they may be growing up’ (Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment and Home Office, 2000, p. 26). Graphically, it is represented as an equilateral triangle in which the three sides represent the child’s developmental needs, parenting capacity and family and environmental factors. The subsequent development of integrated children’s recording systems (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010) was based on the collection and organisation of data that would contribute to a comprehensive assessment based on the assessment framework (AF). The AF was implemented under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (see Gray, 2001) and local authorities must use it unless they can justify why not. It is referenced in the latest version of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ (HM Government, 2018), the statutory guidance on inter-agency working, which serves to demonstrate its ongoing importance. AF has been adopted in other jurisdictions (Léveillé and Chamberland, 2010), while a recent literature review of such AFs more generally (Vis et al.,2019) found they prompted the gathering of more information, a sharper focus on the child’s needs and increased the child’s involvement in the assessment. This article examines the use of the AF in practice in England through the lens of an evaluation of Signs of Safety (SoS). Internationally, SoS is a widely used strengths-based approach to child protection casework developed in Australia by Dr Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards. Termed as a ‘comprehensive assessment framework’ by its developers (Turnell and Murphy, 2014), it is also described as a tool (Barlow et al., 2012). In England, it has been promoted by MTM (a consultancy including the developers Murphy, Turnell, subsequently joined by Professor Eileen Munro). In 2019, it was being used partially or in full in over two-thirds of children’s service departments in England (Baginsky et al., 2020). Turnell and Murphy (2014) identify the three principles underpinning SoS as being to: establish constructive working relationships; encourage critical thinking and maintain appreciative inquiry; and stay grounded in day to day work—from early help—to child protection. This translates into what they define as a framework consisting of four domains: three columns—what we are worried about (past harm, future danger and complicating factors)? What is working well (existing strengths and existing safety)? What needs to happen (safety goals and next steps for future safety)? a scaling question which allows professionals and the family to assess the child’s safety on a score from 0 to 10, where 10 represents no concerns about the child. An SoS assessment should be done in conjunction with the family to identify past harm, danger, complicating factors, strengths and safety factors, and what needs to happen to keep child safe. Together this is described as ‘mapping’. SoS is used alongside other assessment tools in USA, Canada and Australia (Baginsky et al., 2019). An opportunity to study the relationship between SoS and the AF in England came through the evaluation of the implementation of MTM’s SoS in ten local authorities (Baginsky et al., 2017) and the findings from this nested study are reported in this article. Assessment of children’s needs in England The Children Act 1989 followed several high-profile child deaths (see Fox Harding, 1997) and the Cleveland Inquiry (Butler-Sloss,1988) into the removal of children from their families after suspected child sexual abuse. This legislation clarified the grounds for intervention where children faced ‘serious harm’ and the powers of local authorities and courts to protect the welfare of children. It also placed a duty on local authorities ‘to investigate … if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm’ (Section 47) and introduced a duty to provide ‘services for children in need, their families and others’ (Section 17). Following the Children Act 1989’s implementation, the government noted concerns about unallocated cases in some authorities, as well as slow progress in determining the extent of ‘children in need’ and establishing and identifying services to meet their needs (Department for Health, 1993). The Department of Health (1995) confirmed that Section 47 inquiries were dominating practice at the expense of a broader focus on need. A high proportion of cases involved families who were finding it hard to manage, for example, because of financial and housing difficulties. It noted that many of those who went through the inquiry stage but did not cross the threshold of placing a child ‘at risk of significant harm’—the criterion for a case in English law to be classified as a child protection case—received no service. In response, the ‘Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families’ (AF) (Department of Health, Cox et al., 2000) was developed. This was designed to cover all assessments conducted under the Children Act 1989, whether these were related to need (Section 17) or the possibility of significant harm (Section 47). Assessments were to focus on children’s developmental needs and parental capacity to respond to those needs and take account of the family’s environment (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Open in new tabDownload slide The AF. The government considered the AF a major step in the progress of evidence-based practice (Department of Health, 2000, p. 1). Information was to be collected through interviews with parents, children and wider family members and observations of the child and family, using practice tools designed or selected to support the AF (Department of Health, Cox et al., 2000), as well as information from other professionals. This ecological approach sought to provide practitioners with the means to conduct a broad-based assessment. It was designed to shift assessments from a focus on risk to one where decisions were made on the basis of a belief that a ‘combination of evidence-based practice grounded in knowledge with finely balanced professional judgement is the foundation for effective practice with children and their families’ (Department of Health, 2000, Paragraph. 1.59). Implementation of the AF faced several challenges. While Stevenson (1998) argued that the more in-depth an assessment, the more extensive the practitioner’s knowledge base needed to be, Reder and Duncan (2004) found many were inexperienced and lacked confidence to work with families with complex needs. Cleaver et al. (2003) similarly observed that, although social workers claimed the AF improved the quality of assessments, they felt ill-prepared to analyse the data they had collected. While training in using the AF was available, it did not match the complexity of what was expected. This mismatch continued to be identified over the coming years (Crisp et al., 2007; Horwath, 2011). This is, perhaps, not surprising. According to McAvoy (2014) ‘the psy disciplines are those fields of knowledge associated with mind, mental life, and behaviour, most typically psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, but extending more broadly to a wide range of applied areas’ (p.1527). As Devine (2015) pointed out, the AF was based on ‘a form of diagnostic questionnaire derived from the “psy” disciplines, intended to enable a psychiatrist to give a diagnosis’ (p. 77), not a social worker operating in a system increasingly dominated by child protection orientations (Parton, 2014, p. 159). Turney et al. (2012) further maintained that the AF required experience, as well as knowledge of research and theory, two aspects on which social workers rarely draw (Macdonald and Williamson, 2002; Preston-Shoot, 2003;Ward et al., 2010). The holistic nature of the AF contrasted with the environment into which it was introduced where threshold criteria had determined access to services and where a timescale tied to performance requirements determined its pace. These were absorbed into the criteria applied to the inspections of local authority children’s services and were facilitated by the Integrated Children’s System (Parton, 2014), an electronic system designed to bring together information on children from different sources. This shifted the emphasis to the collection of a mass of information rather than on the holistic approach intended by the AF developers. While processes around assessments were becoming more complex, social workers’ caseloads continued to increase, becoming even higher in the aftermath of the death of Peter Connelly in 2007. This 17-month boy had died at the hands of his mother and her partner who had been known to children’s social care. The inquiry into his death determined all the agencies involved with the family had been at fault. In its aftermath, the numbers of initial and core assessments rose rapidly, as they then were, accompanied by a similar, but smaller, increase in child protection plans (Macleod et al., 2010). The thresholds applied by other agencies in relation to these referrals were much lower than those used by social care and, as a result, many referrals did not even receive an initial assessment despite the time taken to process them (Broadhurst et al., 2010). Categorising and recording different social work activities, such as case recording and other administration, are complicated (Baginsky et al., 2017, 2010; White et al., 2010; Holmes and McDermid, 2013). A time diary exercise with social workers across twenty-seven local authorities (Baginsky et al., 2010) found that social workers spent 25 per cent of their time on direct contact and 22 per cent on direct case related recording. However, elsewhere social workers estimated that they spent 60–80 per cent of their time ‘at the computer screen’ (White, 2008). The negative media coverage of social work that followed the death of Peter Connolly and the subsequent court case and inquiry contributed to declining morale across the profession which aggravated existing recruitment and retention difficulties (Baginsky et al., 2010). Where possible, local authorities appointed more social workers to meet the demand, but these workers were often newly qualified and without sufficient experience to turn the information collected into effective plans (Baginsky et al., 2010). Hence, it was unsurprising that Brandon et al. (2008) concluded that: ‘Too often, the Assessment Framework appears to be used in a flat, non-dynamic way. This leads to the accumulation of facts but little appreciation of how to formulate the facts in the manner of a clear explanation (rather than a dense description)’. (p. 63) A raft of measures to combat these difficulties emerged from the Social Work Task Force (2009), set up by the then Labour government, and from Munro’s review (2011) of the child protection system introduced by the successor Coalition Government. But many years after Peter Connolly’s death the consequences endure. In some authorities, high caseloads remain (Department for Education, 2019a) and the recruitment and retention of experienced social workers are difficult (The Guardian, 2019). Although the proportion of local authority children’ social care departments judged inadequate dropped from 19 to 15 per cent between October 2017 and March 2018, and the proportion judged good or outstanding increased from 36 to 38 per cent, a substantial proportion continue to require improvement or intervention (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills [Ofsted], 2018). Even in authorities judged to be good, the challenges posed by social worker turnover and high caseloads remain. Partly in response to these challenges, the English Children’s Social Care English Innovation Programme (EIP) was launched by the Department for Education (DfE) to test innovative ways of supporting vulnerable children and young people. Throughout this period, the AF continued as a template for assessments and thus the evaluation of MTM’s SoS provided an opportunity to explore how the AF was being used in contemporary practice. Methodology MTM’s SoS project received funding from the EIP between 2014 and 2016 (Stage 1) and again 2017–2019 (Stage 2). Its independent evaluation concludes in Spring 2020. At Stage 1, there were ten pilot local authority sites and research with the sites’ staff and parents took place at two time points, T1 and T2, approximately six months apart. Some pilots had up to four years’ experience of using SoS while others had none. Full details of the methodology, analysis, interview guides and instruments used alongside the evaluation’s wider findings are reported in Baginsky et al. (2017). At Stage 2, one of the ten sites dropped out and was replaced by another local authority. Half-way through Stage 2, another authority withdrew following an Ofsted judgement of ‘inadequate’. The evaluation of both stages adopted a mixed-methods approach. Ethical permissions were received for the evaluations (from King's College London Ethics Committee) and local authority research governance requirements were met. The authorities and staff are not identified in this article. This analysis draws on: transcripts of interviews with fifty strategic leaders responsible for children’s social care across the ten pilots that were conducted at the beginning and end of the Stage 1 evaluation and data extracted from examination of families’ electronic case records held by the local authority. The interviews covered a wide range of matters relating to the introduction and development of SoS, but the specific items extracted for this analysis relate to views expressed on the: fit between SoS and the AF and challenges in recruiting and retaining social workers and the implications for consistency of practice. The interview data were analysed for thematic content based on the Framework approach (Ritchieet al., 2014). Transcripts were coded, then themes and sub-themes identified. Case files were accessed for 262 families (of the 270 interviewed) who had given their consent (Baginsky et al., 2017). For ten, it was not possible to locate the records or access was restricted; thus 252 files were available for analysis. Most assessments had been completed before an initial child protection conference (230/91 per cent) where the outcome was for a child(ren) to be made the subject of a child protection plan. This analysis focuses on these 230 assessments. In the first instance, the case files were examined for basic evidence of SoS practice—mention of the three columns and scaling question. At this stage, the SoS elements were not graded for quality; if there was content that matched the definition of that element of SoS its presence was noted. A method to grade the overall quality of evidence in the assessments on a four-point scale was then developed by the lead researcher with senior practitioners in four local authorities, two of which were using SoS—but were not case study sites—and two that were not using SoS. Permission was successfully sought from ten families in each of these areas (n = 40) for a researcher to access their case records to pilot the scale. The ratings on the scale were: failure to take account of all relevant information from past and present; no links with future planning; no mention of external evidence/research; limited evidence of information collected from past and present represented in assessment and future planning; little or no evidence of reflection or external evidence/research; reasonable evidence of information collected from past and present and reflection represented in analysis; limited reference to evidence/research; and good evidence that information collected from past and present and reflection represented in analysis; well-referenced links to external evidence/research. One experienced practitioner was identified by the four authorities and these four practitioners volunteered to sample several case records and independently assess them using the above scale. Their assessments were then compared with the researcher’s scores to consider inter-rater agreement, with Kappa values ranging from 0.89 to 0.92, indicating a high level of agreement. Each of the SoS elements—what we are worried about, what is working well, what needs to happen—were then mapped against the three top-level domains as set out in the AF described above—a child’s development needs, family and environmental factors, and parenting capacity. Six months into the Stage 2 of the evaluation, in 2018, a short survey on the use of the AF was sent to strategic leaders (senior project officers responsible for SoS implementation) in the nine pilot local authorities that were part of the Stage 1, including the one leaving the initiative (Box 1). For consistency the pilot site that had recently joined the project was not included. A total of nine surveys was thus completed and analysed. Box 1. Survey on use of the AF: main contents. Please indicate whether you were using/are using the AF, if so how, and your opinion on aspects of it? Please tick all that apply The AF was used to guide and record all assessments during the time of EIP1 The AF is used to guide and record all assessments during EIP2 The AF was used during EIP 1 but is not now used in this authority The AF is an excellent assessment tool The AF fits well with SoS The AF conflicts with SoS Social workers this authority have the skills and confidence to use the AF The AF is too complex Social workers cannot be expected to have all the skills required to use the AF Please add any comments that you wish to make. Findings The place of the AF in current practice The fifty strategic leaders who were interviewed across the ten pilot local authorities in Stage 1 acknowledged that while the AF was still policy, practice attachment to it had weakened over the years. Although their authorities’ recording systems were aligned with the AF, it was not central to practice. Only one local authority had mapped the SoS columns against the three domains of the AF. Others were questioning its continued relevance and expressingsome uncertainty about its current status: We seem to have ditched the Assessment Framework completely and gone for Signs of Safety. Nothing has been said but it is never referenced (Practitioner, Pilot 5). It has not been central to the Signs of Safety training or even acknowledged so it has come to be seen as something apart, even if it isn’t (SoS Practice Lead, Pilot 3). In addition to this apparent disconnect between SoS training and the AF, other reasons were suggested for AF’s reduced significance, usually in terms of the AF’s complexity and the skills and time required to apply it thoroughly, implying that neither was readily available. Across the pilots, participants hinted or admitted that their authorities had adopted SoS to cope with the challenges of high levels of staff turnover and lack of experienced social workers. They hoped SoS would foster greater consistency in assessment quality: One of the problems we face is that few social workers could apply all the dimensions of the (assessment) triangle effectively. On top of that we can keep going only because we have loads of agency (temporary) staff. You can introduce them to SoS quickly and get some consistency – whether consistency equates with quality is debatable (Senior Practitioner, Pilot 7). Some perceived a conflict between SoS ‘mapping’ and an assessment guided by the AF. The former was seen to focus on identifying risks and strengths by bringing together professional knowledge and information provided by the family and their network, while the latter was defined as ‘holistic’ and ‘systemic’ but not focussed on the identification of risks and what needed to happen. The survey completed by the nine strategic leads at Stage 2 attempted to gain a picture of the extent to which respondents believed the AF remained relevant. At Stage 1, AF was said to guide and record all assessments in six of the nine pilots; this fell to five at Stage 2. There seemed no relationship between AF adherence and the length of time pilots had been using SoS. All five retaining the AF considered it an excellent tool but thought it needed updating and simplifying: In my view the Assessment Framework is still helpful to ensure an assessment is holistic but it could do with updating to bring in social media and the huge influence this has on children’s and parents’ lives, as well as other prompts on issues such as CSE (Child Sexual Exploitation) (Principal Child and Family Social Worker, Pilot 5). It is 20 years since it was introduced. The world has moved on and this needs to be reflected in the Assessment Framework. If it can’t be, I think it has had its day (SoS Project Manager, Pilot 4). These same five respondents considered the AF fitted well with SoS as it supported a deeper understanding of what was happening to children and families that could then be applied to mapping against strengths and concerns. In one site, the assessment template had been modified to enable social workers to choose which aspects of the child’s life to emphasise: I believe it fits well with SoS as it encourages practitioners to be curious in a holistic way – the needs of the child and the abilities of their parents cannot be assessed in isolation from their environment or community (SoS lead, Pilot 7). Those who did not think it fitted with SoS or those who even perceived a conflict between the two, mentioned that the AF did not provide key relationship-building tools. Of more significance to them was the continuing absence of explicit references to the AF during SoS training or in the materials provided. There were mixed views over whether social workers possessed the skills to use the AF; four thought they did, five thought many did not. While the strength of the AF was said to lie in its holistic nature which required social workers to be able to manage complexity, as well as gain an understanding of each of the relevant elements, a minority (4) reported they could expect this of all social workers. For the most part, experienced social workers who had used AF over the years were thought more likely, but not inevitably, to be able to apply these to an assessment based on SoS, with or without prompting. There was a general view that most newly qualified social workers and those with less confidence and/or experience lacked the depth of understanding to combine the two. Recording in SoS practice The first step in examining the case records was to identify evidence of SoS approaches in terms of the three SoS headings (what professionals are worried about, what’s working well and what needs to happen) as well as of scaling. Findings are reported in Box 2. Box 2. Evidence of SoS practice recorded in case notes. What professionals were worried about: In 197 of the 230 case notes (86 per cent) danger statements were present. What was working well: In 193 of the 230 case notes (84 per cent), there was evidence that social workers had identified strengths in families. What needs to happen: A statement on ‘what needs to happen’ was noted in 204 (89 per cent) of 230 case notes (89 per cent) examined. Scaling question: Judgements about how safe the child was from the perspective of the agencies working with the family were evident in 152 (66 per cent) of all the case notes examined. Unsurprisingly, there was greater evidence of SoS mapping against the four elements as more social workers accessed SoS training. While the overall proportion was 60 per cent (n = 138) across the 230 case records examined, it rose to 80 per cent in four of the six authorities that had been using SoS for at least two years. Nonetheless, in 40 per cent (n = 92) of case recordings evidence of SoS was either ‘limited’, inadequate or completely absent. Just over half of these were in authorities that had recently adopted SoS so, at least in part, it seemed to reflect a transition from one system to another. However, there were still many cases with limited or no SoS mapping recorded, even in authorities with more experience of its use. Overall quality of assessments In addition to investigating how SoS was recorded, assessments were categorised under the four headings: failure to refer to taking account of all relevant information from past and present; no links with future planning; no mention of evidence base/research (n = 12/5 per cent); information collected from past and present represented in assessment and future planning; but little or no evidence of reflection, or of evidence base/research (n = 83/36 per cent); information collected from past and present and reflection represented in analysis; limited reference to an evidence base or research (n = 103/45 per cent) (‘adequate’) and good evidence of information collected from past and present and reflection represented in analysis; well-referenced links to external evidence/research (n = 32/14 per cent) (‘good’). Of the 230 case files examined, 59 per cent were judged as ‘good’ or ‘adequate’ with 41 per cent presenting limited or no evidence and analysis on which to base their recommendations. In addition, although the data reported on the template above merges ‘information collected from past and present’ these two factors were considered separately. Of the 230 cases, 222 had prior contact with children’s services and among 192 there had been a previous investigation, identified through an examination of chronologies (see Baginsky et al., 2017); these refer to total number of families interviewed, not only where records were examined. In just under a third (29 per cent) of these 192 cases was any reference made to events and possible impact on the present or lessons that could be learned. In most cases what was happening presently was seen in isolation. While past events may have shaped the social worker’s response the reasoning was not explicit. Bringing together evidence of SoS and the AF In 198 case files, three SoS elements were present, that is—what we are worried about, what is working well and what needs to happen. For the purpose of this analysis scaling is omitted. The recording systems in place were designed to capture information collected through the AF, but this did not mean that information was there. In each of the thirty-two assessments which were identified as ‘good’ the social workers’ records contained their reflections on the issues identified in the mapping and their analysis was based on the information presented—thus there was transparency between the information gathered during the assessment and the conclusions drawn. They had summarised the child’s position at the centre of the assessment and set out their needs. Drawing on the families’ strengths and difficulties, they had then assessed parental capacity to meet these needs, taking account of any other relevant factors—family or environmental. In doing so they had referenced observed behaviours and conversations. The analysis incorporated experience, knowledge, theory and sometimes research to assess the impact on the child and their development. There was evidence that alternatives had been considered and the process, conclusions and recommendations were set out clearly. In most assessments some domains were better represented but others covered less frequently. Given the breadth of the AF, it was expected that not all domains would be explored in each case. However, there were examples where it could reasonably have been expected. So, for example, with ‘parental capacity’ and a link with the SoS element ‘What we are worried about’, where parents were mis-using substances there was no record in many cases of an assessment having been conducted into any impact on their capacity to look after their children. Statements describing behaviours were evident, such as ‘father is said to lose his temper easily’ or ‘mother has alienated herself from her family’, but often without exploring why professionals were worried and the potential impact on the child. This contrasted with the use of evidence of the impact of Family and Environmental Factors which was covered far more frequently. Even though social workers usually seemed to find it difficult to contribute to an improvement in some of these areas, for example, in relation to re-housing or employment, the effect and impact were more frequently considered in assessments. In many cases, the ‘what is working well’ column contained statements such as ‘mother clearly loves her children’ or ‘father visits the home twice a week’ without linking them to the reason for the assessment or clarifying how this strengthened the family, rendering them almost meaningless. Indeed, the presence of such statements often appeared insignificant when measured against the identified risks in the ‘what we are worried about’ column. Similarly, in the ‘what needs to happen’ statements on the family’s needs were frequently identified without reference to services to meet these needs or how, over time, they were being monitored for effectiveness. An assessment of need did not invariably mean it would be met with an appropriate response or service. In one authority, parents had been asked to find an appropriate service, most usually an alcohol or mental health service, and report back on their success at the next core group meeting (the interagency meeting for supporting and monitoring the outcomes of a child protection plan). Limitations and strengths of the study This analysis was conducted as part of one of the largest evaluations of SoS worldwide. The strengths of the study include the ability to take into account contextual information by nesting this consideration of the AF within the wider evaluation of the implementation of SoS. Neither the Stage 1 nor the Stage 2 SoS evaluations were specifically designed to explore the links between SoS and AF assessments. Had they been, it is possible that the template for recording case records might have differed. The records were examined and graded by only one researcher, although experienced practitioners had also graded samples in each pilot and there was a high level of consistency across these. Set against these limitations is the high number of cases examined (n = 230). Discussion Examination of these data, as reported above, led to the conclusion that in most of the case records examined it was hard to identify use of the AF in the assessments based on the SoS framework. Sometimes it could be traced back to parts of narratives or there were hints that the AF may have informed the SoS mapping. Even though many of the recording systems were designed to capture information collected through the AF, this did not guarantee that information was present. Nor did the presence of SoS mapping and the organisation of information under the three columns, ensure that the assessment was fit for purpose. If making information fit the headings becomes the goal, then it seems that relevant and significant information can get lost. This indicates that professional judgement may become side-lined by a drive to compartmentalise knowledge that brings it into conflict with the idea of a holistic assessment. However, as noted, half of those leading SoS implementation locally thought it fitted well with the AF and that, in combination, assessments would improve. On the evidence of the data collection conducted at Stage 1, this hope did not yet appear realised. One reason for this may be the frequency with which two matters were repeatedly flagged during the examination of the case files: first, the paucity of analysis of the information collected and, secondly, the omission of an empirical basis for decisions and plans. Saltiel (2016) observed that ‘the nature of social work practice favours quick heuristic, or intuitive, forms of decision-making rather than more deliberative, analytical processes’ (p. 3). He concluded ‘an overreliance on them can lead to problems such as a failure to use wider theories and research with robust standards for evaluation’. The developers of SoS may have hoped that the structured approach of an SoS assessment would counter this and provide the information on which an analysis could be based. But, in practice, the data presented here suggest that the lives of children and their parents had been deconstructed into lists. Establishing the origin of the risk and what needed to happen seemed to be the goal but without a structured response to assessing the needs of the family or analysing and addressing the risk. Overall, the information presented in the SoS columns was not accompanied by explanation of why an event or behaviour was a concern or why a strength would contribute to keeping a child safe. We also identified an apparent failure to examine the impact of parental behaviours and actions about which social workers (and other professionals) were worried in respect of the child(ren). In SoS, a social worker needs to balance the risks or concerns about the child’s safety and wellbeing (‘what we are worried about’) and the factors in place to keep a child safe (‘what needs to happen’). Unless the strengths of the family and its network can facilitate and support what needs to happen, the child may not be safe. The analysis of the case records clearly showed that in too many cases parental engagement and participation in the assessment appeared to assume greater importance than other factors. These findings reflect those of Holland (2000) and Williamson (2003) who both concluded parental involvement in assessments could lead to misplaced optimism in parents’ capacity to protect their child, such as that identified by Reder and Duncan (1999). In turn, such ‘over confidence and unwarranted feelings of certainty (that) can lead to errors of reasoning and analysis’ (Helm, 2010, p. 77). In reviewing models of analysing harm, Barlow et al. (2012) commented on the limited number of assessment domains covered by SoS and speculated that its value lay in ‘helping practitioners to create visual displays in order to facilitate the process of “making sense” of the data, and sharing these data with families’ (p. 9). This was not how SoS was interpreted in the study sites where it was the basis of their practice models; but neither was it being implemented as a comprehensive assessment tool, even were that the intention. We judged there were some good and a few outstanding assessments, but these constituted a minority. For social work managers and child safeguarding stakeholders, research to enable comparative examination of assessments in areas using SoS and those using a different approach might throw light on whether the deficits in the assessments identified in our study were affected by the structured SoS framework or if they were the result of other factors such as caseloads, timescales, restricted resources or limited knowledge about effective assessment practice. It would also inform evidence on potential gaps in the knowledge and skills that child and family practitioners are expected to possess (Department for Education, 2018) and plans for a National Assessment and Accreditation System (Department for Education, 2019b). This study contributes to the knowledge base of strengths-based assessment models in social work practice, as well as to the debate over whether or not SoS is a comprehensive AF or a tool to bring consistency and perhaps simplification to a complex area of practice. This raises the possibility that many authorities have adopted SoS as a way of dealing with this complexity. Such findings may be relevant internationally given how the models such as the AF have been adopted in other jurisdictions (see Vis et al., 2019). Conclusions This exploration of how the AF and SoS fit together raises questions requiring furtherinvestigation. The extent to which the AF is used or the depth of its use in assessments conducted in children’s services is unclear, despite its statutory provenance and the role it plays in ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ (HM Government, 2018). There appears to be a case for a national study to explore this further. This could examine when and where the AF is being used, especially as part of the Knowledge and Skills Statement for Child and Family Practitioners (Department for Education, 2018) which sets out what a child and family social worker should be able to do. While this Statement outlines the tools, mindset and social awareness that would support this, it does not mention the AF specifically, thus the findings reported here suggest the value for implementers of considering the fit of SoS and other initiatives in the wider practice context of AF usage. Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the contribution of the many professionals who contributed to the work and the families who gave their permission for their case records to be examined. This study was funded by the DfE through the EIP for Children’s Social Care, but the views expressed are those of the authors alone. Funding This research drew on data collected during the evaluation of MTM SoS pilots which was part of the Children’s Social Care Innovation Porgramme funded by the Department for Education. Conflict of interest statement None declared. References Baginsky M. , Moriarty J., Manthorpe J., Stevens M., MacInnes T., Nagendran T. ( 2010 ) Social Workers’ Workload Survey. Messages from the Frontline. Findings from the 2009 Survey and Interviews with Senior Managers [pdf 2,389 KB], London , Department for Children, Schools and Families; Department of Health . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Baginsky M. , Moriarty J., Manthorpe J., Beecham J., Hickman B. ( 2017 ) Evaluation of Signs of Safe in 10 Pilots , London , Department for Education . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Baginsky M. , Moriarty J., Manthorpe J. ( 2019 ) ‘ Signs of safety: Lessons learnt from evaluations ’, Journal of Children’s Services , 14 ( 2 ), pp. 107 – 23 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Baginsky M. , Ixer G., Manthorpe J. ( 2020 ) ‘ Practice frameworks in children’s services in England: An attempt to steer social work back on course?’ Practice, https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2019.1709634. Barlow J. , Fisher J. D., Jones D. ( 2012 ) Systematic Review of Models of Analysing Significant Harm, London, Department for Education. Brandon M. , Belderson B., Warren C., Howe D., Gardiner R., Dodsworth J., Black J. ( 2008 ) Analysing Child Deaths and Serious Injury through Abuse and Neglect: What Can We Learn? Biennial Analysis of Serious Case Reviews 2003–2005, London, Department for Children, Schools and Families. Broadhurst K. , Wastell D., White S., Hall C., Peckover S., Thompson K., Pithouse A., Davey D. ( 2010 ) ‘ Performing ‘Initial Assessment’: Identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children’s services ’, British Journal of Social Work , 40 ( 2 ), pp. 352 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Butler-Sloss E. ( 1988 ) Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987, Cm 412, London, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Cleaver H. , Walker S., with Meadows P. ( 2003 ) Assessing Children’s Needs and Circumstances: The Impact of the Assessment Framework, London, Jessica Kingsley. Crisp B. R. , Anderson M. R., Orme J., Lister P. G. ( 2007 ) ‘ Assessment frameworks: A critical reflection ’, British Journal of Social Work , 37 ( 6 ), pp. 1059 – 77 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Department for Children, Schools and Families ( 2010 ) ‘About the integrated children’s system’, available online at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202075032/ http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguardingandsocialcare/integratedchildrenssystem/abouttheintegratedchildrenssystem/about/ (accessed January 7, 2020). Department for Education ( 2018 ) Post-Qualifying Standard: Knowledge and Skills Statement for Child and Family Practitioners, London, Department for Education. Department for Education ( 2019 a) Experimental Statistics: Children and Family Social Work Workforce in England, Year Ending 30 September 2018, London, Department for Education. Department for Education ( 2019 b) NAAS: National Assessment and Accreditation System, London, Department for Education. Department of Health ( 1993 ) Children Act Report (1992), London, HMSO. Department of Health( 1995 ) Child Protection: Messages from Research, London, Department of Health. Department of Health Cox A. , Bentovim A. ( 2000 ) The Family Assessment Pack of Questionnaires and Scale, London, TSO, available online at:https://www.childandfamilytraining.org.uk/sites/9/pg/25/The-Family-Pack-of-Questionnaires-and-Scales.pdf (accessed December 27, 2019). Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment and the Home Office ( 2000 ) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families, London, The Stationery Office. Department of Health( 2000 ) Assessing Children in Need and their Families, London, The Stationery Office. Devine L. ( 2015 ) ‘ Considering social work assessment of families ’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law , 37 ( 1 ), pp. 70 – 83 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Fox Harding L. ( 1997 ) Perspectives in Child Care Policy , London , Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Gray J. ( 2001 ) ‘ The framework for the assessment of children in need and their families ’, Child and Adolescent Mental Health , 6 ( 1 ), pp. 4 – 10 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Helm D. ( 2010 ) Making Sense of Child and Family Assessments. How to Interpret Children’s Needs , London , Jessica Kingsley Publishers . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC HM Government( 2018 ) Working Together to Safeguard Children A Guide to Inter-agency Working to Safeguard and Promote the Welfare of Children, London, Department for Education. Holmes L. , McDermid S. ( 2013 ) ‘ How social workers spend their time in frontline children’s social care in England ’, Journal of Children’s Services , 8 ( 2 ), pp. 123 – 33 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Horwath J. ( 2011 ) ‘ See the practitioner, see the child: The framework for the assessment of children in need and their families ten years on ’, British Journal of Social Work , 41 ( 6 ), pp. 1070 – 87 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Katz I. ( 1997 ) Current Issues in Comprehensive Assessment, London, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Léveillé S. , Chamberland C. ( 2010 ) ‘ Toward a general model for child welfare and protection services: A meta-evaluation of international experiences regarding the adoption of the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families ’, Children and Youth Services Review , 32 ( 7 ), pp. 929 – 44 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat MacDonald G. , Williamson E. ( 2002 ) Against the Odds: An Evaluation of Children and Family Support Services , London , National Children’s Bureau . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC MacLeod S. , Hart R., Jeffes J., Wilkin A. ( 2010 ) The Impact of the Baby Peter Case on Applications for Care Orders (LGA Research Report), Slough, England, National Foundation for Educational Research. McAvoy J. ( 2014 ) ‘Psy disciplines’, in Teo T. (ed), Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology , New York, NY , Springer . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Munro E. ( 2011 ) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report A Child-centred System, London, Department for Education Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) ( 2018 ) The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills (2017) /18, London, Ofsted. Parton N. ( 2014 ) The Politics of Child Protection: Contemporary Developments and Future Directions . Basingstoke, England , Palgrave Macmillan . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Preston-Shoot M. ( 2003 ) ‘ A matter of record ’, Practice , 15 ( 3 ), pp. 31 – 50 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Reder P. , Duncan S. ( 1999 ) Lost Innocents: A Follow up Study of Fatal Child Abuse , London , Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Reder P. , Duncan S. ( 2004 ) ‘From colwell to climbié: Inquiring into fatal child abuse’, in Stanley N., Manthorpe J. (eds), The Age of Inquiries , London , Brunner/Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Ritchie J. , Lewis J., McNaughton Nicholls C., Ormston R. ( 2014 ) Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researcher , London , Sage . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Saltiel D. ( 2016 ) ‘ Observing front line decision making in child protection ’, British Journal of Social Work , 46 ( 7 ), pp. 2104 – 19 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Social Work Task Force( 2009 ) Building a Safe, Confident Future. The Final Report of the Social Work Task Force, London, Department for Children, Schools and Families. Stevenson O. ( 1998 ) ‘ It was more difficult than we thought: A reflection on 50 years of child welfare practice ’, Child Family Social Work , 3 ( 3 ), pp. 153 – 61 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Turnell A. , Murphy T. ( 2014 ) The Signs of Safety® Child Protection Approach and Framework: Comprehensive Briefing Paper, Perth, Australia, Resolutions Consultancy. Turney D. , Platt D., Selwyn J., Farmer E. ( 2012 ) Improving Child and Family Assessments: Turning Research into Practice, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Vis S. A. , Lauritzen C., Fossum S. ( 2019 ) ‘ Systematic approaches to assessment in child protection investigations: A literature review ’, International Social Work , 002087281982833, available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872819828333 Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ward H. , Brown R., Westlake D., Munro E. ( 2010 ) Infants Suffering, or Likely to Suffer, Significant Harm: A Prospective Longitudinal Study, London, Department for Education. White S. ( 2008 ) ‘Drop the deadline’, The Guardian, 19 November 2008, available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/19/child-protection-computers-ics(accessed January 7, 2020). White, S., Wastell, D., Broadhurst, K. and Hall, C. ( 2010 ). When policy o’erleaps itself: The ‘tragic tale’ of the Integrated Children’s System. Critical Social Policy, 30 ( 3 ), pp. 405 – 29 . © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers.
TI - The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families and Signs of Safety: Competing or Complementary Frameworks?
JF - The British Journal of Social Work
DO - 10.1093/bjsw/bcaa058
DA - 2021-11-15
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/the-framework-for-the-assessment-of-children-in-need-and-their-E2atff0bBh
SP - 2571
EP - 2589
VL - 51
IS - 7
DP - DeepDyve
ER -