Www.nccd-crc.org Children’s Research Center A nonprofit social research organization and division...
-
Upload
neil-riley -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Www.nccd-crc.org Children’s Research Center A nonprofit social research organization and division...
www.nccd-crc.org
Children’s Research CenterA nonprofit social research organization and
division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency
www.nccd-crc.org
Module Five:Introduction to Mapping
Integrated Safety-Organized Practice
Training
Integrated Safety-Organized Practice
Training
Steve Edwards
Andrew Turnell
…and we hope YOU will continue to buildon these ideas and approaches.
Sonja Parker
CRC StaffInsoo Kim BergSteve de Shazer
Our Thinking Draws Fromthe Legacy of Others
Our Thinking Draws Fromthe Legacy of Others
RobSawyer
SueLohrbach
CarverCounty
John VogelSophia Chin
Heather Meitner
NickiWeld
SusieEssex
Safety-Organized PracticeSafety-Organized Practice
Safety is:
Actions of protection taken by the caregiver that mitigate the danger demonstrated over time.
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.
AgreementsAgreements• “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 to avoid making assumptions or generalities.
• We agree to allow others to finish speaking before we speak and avoid interrupting and side conversations.
• We will all work together to hold to these agreements and authorize the trainer to hold us to them.
Module Subject
1 Interviewing for Safety and Danger
2 Three Questions to Organize Your Practice
3Small Voices, Big Impact: Keeping Children at the Center of the Work
4 Solution-focused Inquiry
5 Introduction to Mapping
6 Harm Statements, Danger Statements and Safety Goals
7 Mapping With Families
8 Safety Networks
9 Safety Planning
10 Landing Safety-Organized Practice in Everyday Work
11Organizational Environments: Reflection, Appreciation, and Ongoing Learning
12 Summary and Looking to the Future
Practice Depth
Let’s Review and Reflect!Let’s Review and Reflect!
• What have you tried from the module last month?
• What worked well? What were your challenges?
• How did you handle those challenges?
AgendaAgenda
• What Is Mapping?
• Components in Mapping: A Quick Review
• Three Column or Four Quadrant?
• Connections with the SDM System
• Practice!
What is Mapping?What is Mapping?
Mapping: Why, what, when, how!! Turnell & Edwards, 1999; Chin, S., Decter, P., Madsen, W., & Vogel, J. (2010). Enhancing Risk Assessment Through Organizational Learning: A Mid-Stream Report From Massachusetts. Protecting Children, 25(3): 7–20. Department of Child Protection (2011). The Signs of Safety Child Protection Practice Framework. Department of Child Protection, Perth. Retrieved from http:// http://www.signsofsafety.net/westernaustralia
Think about a time you made a decision about danger or safety for a child, and you thought it went really well.
Introductory ExerciseIntroductory Exercise
Now think about a time you or someone else from the agency made a decision about danger or safety for a child, and it did not go as well as you hoped.
Introductory ExerciseIntroductory Exercise
What helps make good decisions?
What helps make good decisions?
+
What Is Mapping?What Is Mapping?
It’s a Process To:It’s a Process To:
Move from “assessment on” to “assessment with”!
Mapping Assumption #1Mapping Assumption #1
Trauma-informed practice reminds us that most healing takes place in the contextof safe and trusting relationships.
Relationships are the most significant factor in promoting child safety, permanency, and well-being.Mapping can help us to critically think through a case AND to determine better ways to improve our partnerships with families to build safety for children.
The words we use matter. Building a series of shared commitments to action requires that we share some common language.
Mapping Assumption #2Mapping Assumption #2
Trauma-informed practice reminds us thatpeople can be triggered by the words we use.
Speaking and writing with behavioral
detail vs. using labels or jargon is STEP ONE in
fair and equitable practice
Organizing information about safety and danger to children is not easy – it can be hard to “admit we might be wrong.”
Mapping Assumption #3Mapping Assumption #3
Trauma-informed practice reminds us thatonce we take trauma into account, our assessmentmight change.
The more that information is effectively organized with all the key people involved, the more likely it is effective action will be taken and upheld.
Mapping Assumption #4Mapping Assumption #4
Trauma-informed practice reminds us that when people are empowered, they can begin to regain a sense of mastery over their trauma and their lives.
When Should We Map?When Should We Map?
Say!I like mapping!I do!! I like mapping, Sam-I-am!And I would map in a boat!And I would map with a goat...And I will map in the rain.And in the dark. And on a train.And in a car. And in a tree.Maps are so good so good you see!
So I will map in a box.And I will map with a fox.And I will map in a house.And I will map with a mouse.And I will map here and there.Say! I will map ANYWHERE!
Based on Dr. Seuss
Seriously, When Should We Map?
Seriously, When Should We Map?
Mapping session(with multiple
stakeholders at the office)
Case consult(“express map”)
Supervision(frames the
conversation)
With families and providers in the field
Guide conversations
Organize information
Develop goals
Monitor progress
How Many Maps?How Many Maps?• You might have one map that you keep adding to
over the life of the case.
• In other situations, you might have an internal map and a map you create with the family
• Or, you might have a series of different maps with a family that are addressing different topic areas, such as:
» The overall danger to safety map» A map that addresses placement issues» Et Cetera
COMPONENTS IN MAPPING: A Quick ReviewCOMPONENTS IN MAPPING: A Quick Review
Essential QuestionEssential Question
What are the
worries?
What’s working
well?
What happens
next?
Are the children safe?
SFQ’sImpactDetailPositio
nSortSDM
SFQ’sImpactDetailPositio
nSortSDM
SFQ’sImpactDetailPositio
nSortSDM
The First Two QuestionsThe First Two Questions
What are the worries?
What is working well?
Basic Terms: What Are We Worried About?
Basic Terms: What Are We Worried About?
Distinguishing Harm and Complicating Factors
Distinguishing Harm and Complicating Factors
HarmHarm
Complicating FactorsComplicating Factors
Basic Terms: What Is Working Well?
Basic Terms: What Is Working Well?
Protective CapacitiesProtective Capacities SafetySafety
Acts of protection taken by the caregiver that mitigate the danger, demonstrated over time.
Acts of protection taken by the caregiver that mitigate the danger, demonstrated over time.
Safety and StrengthsSafety and Strengths
• All families have some signs of safety.
• The best predictor of future protection is past protection.
• Without searching for examples of protection it will be difficult to know the extent of the signs of danger, or to determine how protection could be enhanced and measured in the present and future.
• With safety, the key is to consider the definition: Are these actions of protection demonstrated over time? Or are these good things, helpful things, but maybe not safety?
Distinguishing Safety and Strengths
Distinguishing Safety and Strengths
SafetySafety
StrengthsStrengths
Three-column or
Four-quadrant?
Three-column or
Four-quadrant?
Department of Child Protection. (2011). The Signs of Safety Child Protection Practice Framework. Department of Child Protection, Perth. Retrieved from http://www.signsofsafety.net/westernaustralia
Three-column MappingWhat Are We Worried About?
What’s Working Well?
What Needs to Happen Next?
Harm, Danger, and Complicating Factors:
Safety, protective capacities, andstrengths:
Creating and sharing a danger statement; enhancing a safety network, safety planning:
Chin, S., Decter, P., Madsen, W., & Vogel, J. (2010). Enhancing Risk Assessment Through Organizational Learning: A Mid-Stream Report From Massachusetts. Protecting Children, 25(3): 7–20. Based on Turnell, A. & Edwards S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton
WHAT ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT? WHAT IS WORKING WELL?
Harm and Danger: Safety:
Complicating Factors: Strengths/Protective Capacity:(Put a star by the PCs, or put them in another color to call them out)
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NEXT? Creating and sharing danger statements, enhancing the safety network, and safety planning
0Danger
10Safety
Suicide attempt by gasin the kitchen whilethe kids were home
Her father wasphysically abusive
and dangerous
Foster
CarePoverty
DV
DEPRESSI
ON
OFF
MEDS
Past Present Future
MappingMapping
“I took thegirls and putthem in thenext room.”
“My momgave
custody of me to my
aunt.”
“My mom and aunt
made sure I got an education.”
Approp.care ofgirls w/school,
MD, therapy
“I’m gettingup at 4am to
meet them andget them offto school.”
LEFT
HUSB
Past Present Future
MappingMapping
What are we worried about?
What’s working well?
What needs to happen next?
• Turning on gas with children at home.• Cheryl has not been
getting out of bed.• Cheryl lost her job
and can’t pay her bills.• Cheryl’s ex-husband
hit her in front of the girls last year.
• Putting children in other room
• MD and school say mom meets kids’ basic needs
• Left husband after he hit her
• Got education• Held job for long
time
• Danger statements• Expanding the
safety network• Safety planning
0Dange
r
10Safety
WHAT ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT?
WHAT’S WORKING WELL?
Harm and Danger:•Turning on gas w/children at home
Safety:
Complicating Factors:•Cheryl has not been getting out of bed.•Cheryl lost her job and can’t pay her bills.•Cheryl’s ex-husband hit her in front of the girls last year.
Strengths/Protective Capacity:
•Putting children in next room (protective capacity – needs “mitigate danger” and “demonstrate over time”)
•MD and school say mom meets kids’ basic needs•Left husband after he hit her•Got education•Held job for long time
What Needs to Happen Next?
0Danger
10Safety
For those of you who have been at trainings or mappings in the past:
• What have you tried?
• What are you learning about this?
» What works well?
» Where are the challenges and roadblocks?
» What have you done to try to respond to those challenges?
» What do you think is important for those who have not tried this yet, to understand?
Stories From the fieldStories From the field
Connections With The SDM®
System
Connections With The SDM®
System
SDM® System: RemindersSDM® System: Reminders
• Developed by the Children’s Research Center (CRC) in mid-1980s
• Now used in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Bermuda
• Refers to a suite of decision support tools and related case management decisions
• Objectives of the SDM system are to:
» Identify crucial decision points in child welfare casework
» Increase consistency in decision-making
» Increase accuracy of decision-making
» Target resources to families most at need (through different responses to the different scored levels of risk)
“Tools don’t make decisions, people make decisions.”
Distinguishing SDM® Assessments
Distinguishing SDM® Assessments
It’s Not An Interview GuideIt’s Not An Interview Guide
Item A9: Is the primary
caregiver domineering?
It’s Not A Crystal BallIt’s Not A Crystal Ball
Two modes of thinking…Two modes of thinking…
LEFTleft
rightRIGHT
RIGHTleft
LEFTright
Two modes of thinking…Two modes of thinking…
upperlower
LOWERupperUPPER
lowerlowerupper
Two Modes of ThinkingTwo Modes of Thinking
System 1Strengths:
• “Intuitive”
• Automatic
• Feels effortless
• Quickly recognizes patterns
• Attuned to norms
Weaknesses:
• Very open to bias
• Overconfident
• Invisible
• Impulsive
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Two Modes of ThinkingTwo Modes of Thinking
System 2Strengths:
• “Analytic”
• Visible and recordable
• Purposeful reflection
• Handles complex math and unusual problems
Weaknesses:
• Slow
• Takes physiological effort
• Limited ability to use alongside other activities
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
We Need the Best Of All Our ThinkingWe Need the Best Of All Our Thinking
Harm: Safety:
Complicating Factor:
Strengths:
We Need Both!We Need Both!
• Use in the field
• Family-centered
• Shared language for professionals, family members, anyone involved with the family
• Process for helping everyone involved organize their intuition, judgment and move to joint agreements
Formal Tools• Typically documented in
the office
• Consistency and reliability (definitions)
• Equity (the same questions for each family)
• Provides aggregate data
• Process for bringing the best of research to check our intuition
Map
How Do They Work Together?How Do They Work Together?
Safety Assessmen
t
RiskAssessment FSNA
Reunification Assessment
Safety-Organized Practice Principles
Solution-focused Interviewing, Mapping, Three Houses, Danger Statements, Goal Statements, Expanding Networks, Safety Planning
Is the child safe right
now?
How likely will this family
come back to our attention?
What may get in the way of future safety?
Can the child go home?
Strengths:
What is working well?
What are we worried about?
Complicating Factors:
Safety: Harm:
What needs to happen next?
How They Work Together:What is the scope of our interview?
How They Work Together:What is the scope of our interview?
Strengths:
What is working well?
What are we worried about?
Complicating Factors:
Safety: Harm:
What needs to happen next?
How They Work Together:What is our agreed-upon threshold?
How They Work Together:What is our agreed-upon threshold?
The Voice of SDM®The Voice of SDM®
Check your
handout!
Check your
handout!
Practice!Practice!
Kim32
?
Allegation of substance abuse. Kim passed out while shooting heroin and cooking dinner. Paul was home. CWS filed a petition and Paul goes to live with his aunt Donna and her wife Ann.
10
Donna39
Ann40
Paul
Kim and Paul: A Story From the Field
Kim and Paul: A Story From the Field
• Kim overdosed on heroin and became unconscious while cooking dinner. Ten-year-old Paul was home at the time and he was really scared when he couldn’t wake his mom. Her landlady heard the fire alarm and had to call the police and open the door.
• Kim has an extensive history of heroin use in the past and reports that she has been struggling with addiction “for more than 15 years.” This led to one CWS referral four years ago when Paul came to school multiple days smelling of urine and feces.
• Kim attributes this incident to a growing depression after losing her job as a saleswoman at a department store. She has been looking for work for more than 14 weeks without finding anything. Both Donna and Ann confirm this.
• Kim stopped attending NA over two years ago (“They get kind of preachy, and the meetings were not good times”).
• Kim has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, and ADD.
What Are We Worried About?What Are We Worried About?
Which SDM safety threats might apply?
• “I'm doing what I need to do and don’t know why my son has not been able to come back yet!”
• “I’m worried about my son growing up without his mom and want him back.”
• “I appreciate my sister’s help but Donna can be ‘a know it all,’ and it’s hard to work with her sometimes on Paul's care.”
What Is Kim Worried About?What Is Kim Worried About?
• Kim reports she has been clean and sober for four years before this incident—a report supported by her sister Donna—during which time Paul has come to school clean, on time and with his work done.
• In her past work with CWS, Kim worked with her worker and a home-based outreach team, went into drug treatment and ensured that Paul went to school and was appropriately clothed and bathed.
• Paul was able to go into a kinship foster placement with his aunt Donna and her wife Ann. He was able to stay in the same school system and it is reported by the aunt and school guidance counselor that he continues to ‘thrive’ despite these changes.
• Kim had made a plan with Donna in the past that if anything were to happen to her Paul should go to stay with her.
What Is Going Well?What Is Going Well?
• Kim has attended drug treatment in the past including detox (more than five times) and inpatient substance abuse treatment (two times before this incident). She completed an inpatient stay after this incident and now attends NA meetings. She has a relapse plan and is able to talk openly about it.
• Donna and Ann have been helping Kim financially and report they are willing and able to continue to do so.
• Kim is in individual treatment and has been regularly attending. She reports that she takes her Ritalin and Celexa regularly.
• Kim: “I want Paul back and will do whatever it takes to make that happen.”
• Paul: “I love my mom and want to be back with her.”
• Donna and Ann: “Kim is a great mom. She had been doing really well and we think she can be clean and sober again.”
• School: “We hadn’t seen any problems since Paul has been at this school.”
What Is Going Well?What Is Going Well?
• Kim overdosed on heroin and became unconscious while cooking dinner.
• Ten-year-old Paul was home at the time and he was really scared when he couldn’t wake his mom.
• Her landlady heard the fire alarm and had to call the police and open the door.
» Harm, danger, or complicating factor?
Making Sense of What We Learn
Making Sense of What We Learn
Kim has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder.
• Harm, danger, or complicating factor?
Making Sense of What We Learn
Making Sense of What We Learn
Kim reports she has been clean and sober for four years before this incident—a report supported by her sister Donna—during which time Paul has come to school clean, on time and with his work done
• Safety, protective capacity, or strength?
Making Sense of What We Learn
Making Sense of What We Learn
Kim is in individual treatment and has been regularly attending. She reports that she takes her Ritalin and Celexa regularly.
• Safety, protective capacity, or strength?
Making Sense of What We Learn
Making Sense of What We Learn
Working With Your Own CaseWorking With Your Own Case
What are you worried about? What is working well?
Working With Your Own CaseWorking With Your Own Case
What are you worried about? What is working well?
*Turnell, A. and Edwards S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton
• Helps us all “think our way through” complexity, ambiguity and contradiction in this work.
• Helps us develop a common language across multiple lines: families, providers, workers, supervisors, managers.
• Positions us toward “shared agreements” in next steps for enhancing safety for children.
• When connected with the SDM system, creates a process that brings both the best of our intuitive thinking and the best of our analytic thinking together.
Mapping SummaryMapping Summary
“Completing the Signs of Safety framework is, in the end, simply a process of creating a map of the circumstances surrounding a vulnerable child.
As with all maps, the Signs of Safety map needs always to be seen as a mechanism to arrive at a destination. That destination is rigorous, sustainable, everyday child safety in the actual home and places where the child lives.”
Andrew Turnell
Mapping SummaryMapping Summary
One Last Thing: Thinking AheadOne Last Thing: Thinking Ahead
In pairs:
• What is one thing you heard today that you value or makes sense to you?
• What are you already doing to put that into action in your work?
• What else would you like to do to “land it” even more in your work between now and next time?
Opportunities for PracticeOpportunities for Practice
ReferencesReferencesChin, S., Decter, P., Madsen, W., & Vogel, J. (2010). Enhancing Risk Assessment Through
Organizational Learning: A Mid-Stream Report From Massachusetts. Protecting Children, 25(3): 7–20.
Department of Child Protection. (2011). The Signs of Safety Child Protection Practice Framework. Department of Child Protection, Perth. Retrieved from http://www.signsofsafety.net/westernaustralia
Lohrbach, S. (2000). Child Protection Practice Framework – Consultation and Information Sharing. Unpublished manuscript.
Munro, E. (2006). Effective Child Protection. London: Sage.
Rycus, J. S., & Hughes, R. C. (2007). Issues in risk assessment in child protective services. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(1), 85–116.
Turnell, A. & Edwards S. (1999). Signs of Safety. New York: Norton.
Child Protection Messages from Research (1995). Studies in Child Protection HMSO: London. http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/creating-trauma-informed-systems
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Seuss, D., Green Eggs and Ham. Random House.