Resource Library

Resources

Using this Manual

DSCP Procedures

https://trixcms.trixonline.co.uk/api/content/durhamcs

1.06.07 - Three Houses.docx

three houseschild: …………………………………………………..date:……………………………….house of worrieshouse of worrieshouse of good thingshouse of good thingshouse of dreamshouse of dreams

1.06.12 - Safety House Booklet.pdf

1.07.03 - Group Supervision Process Handouts - My 3 Houses.pdf

group supervision process: my three houses™signssafetyof®part of the signs of safety implementation documents – 2nd edition, march 2017
signs of safety group supervision process: my three houses™    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell2.signs of safety group supervision process:  my three houses™talking with childrenit is essential to hear the voices of children involved in child protection or social services. my three houses is a tool that creates a process that allows the voice of a child to be ex-pressed, heard and taken to the most important adults in the child’s life. the development of the three houses concept came from work done in new zealand in the early 2000s, initiated by nicki weld and maggie greening, with andrew turnell also actively involved.the my three houses tool helps us to build plans, together with parents, focusing on what children need by listening to what they say. as the name indicates, the three houses interview looks at three houses: the house of good things, the house of dreams, and the house of worries. in this way the worker can talk to children about all the good things in their lives, what they hope for, and any worries they have. the process will help workers take a child through a process of writing and/or drawing about how they feel and what they think about what is happening for them in their life. workers help the child to choose from a number of pre-drawn houses or to draw their own. additionally, the child is able to use the name given to the houses or choose their own names.it is important the worker listens to what the child says and doesn’t lead them. workers need to ensure they ask a series of open, non-leading questions about what the child would like to write and/or draw in each house. if the child cannot or does not want to write or draw, the worker can do this for them making sure to use the child’s exact words. ses-sions can take up to an hour, but are usually more like 30 minutes.we want parents to know and see exactly what their children say in the children’s own words and drawings. at the end of the three houses interview, it is important to ask the child who they think it is ok to see what they have written and drawn. this gives children a sense of control and confidence about what they have shared. there are times when a child will say something that worries us about their safety or will say something they are worried about telling their parents. in either instance, it will be important to inform the parents as quickly as possible and talk to the child about how to do that. occasionally, workers may believe that to talk to the parents about what their child has said will place the child at risk of harm. if this is the case, workers need to consult with their supervisor first. there may be times when you will choose to share what the child has said despite their worries about doing this. in such instances, ensure you always discuss with the child what will be said to whom, how, and when, while providing the child with as much choice  as possible. 
signs of safety group supervision process: my three houses™    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell3.this group supervision process is designed to support workers to prepare for a my three houses session with a child, drawing on the best thinking of the group. group supervision processthis signs of safety group supervision process is designed for groups of 4 to 10 people. it revolves around the caseworker who brings forward the case. (sometimes, of course, there is a number of people bringing forward the case). the facilitator leads the group process, assisted by an advisor. other group members are involved as observers/participants. the roles of each are described in the following diagram:the entire group, but in particular the facilitator and advisor, must focus on the process and not get caught up or over-organized about the content and detail of the case. this process is all about growing the capacity for the team to create together a fast process for working through, and getting direction in, a case. as with every meeting in child protec-tion, effective meetings are always led skilfully.group process1. introductions (2–3 minutes)if the group is new to the group supervision method, the facilitator should introduce the process, including a quick description of each person’s role: the facilitator is the only person who talks directly to the caseworker.  the advisor acts to assist the facilitator to lead the process. the observers/participants have the opportunity to learn by staying out of the content of cases and focusing on analysis and judgement processes, thereby assisting the worker to gain a better overview of the case and the direction he/she wants to take. observer/participantslisten carefullysupport group processwrite their ideas with best thinkingfacilitatorasks questionsleads processdraws on advisor for assistanceadvisorhelps the facilitator and does not talkcaseworkercaseworker(person wanting case reviewed)brings their best intelligence and thinkingo/po/po/po/po/pafc
signs of safety group supervision process: my three houses™    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell4.the facilitator has the professionals, the caseworker, and anyone directly involved in the case say who they are, what their role in the case is, and how long they have been involved in the case. the facilitator will probably need to prevent the professionals involved in the case from going into case content at this point. 2. genogram (3 minutes)the facilitator draws the family genogram to include the basic information of age along with the names of the immediate family parents, partners, children, extended family members, and relevant friends. this should include clarifying where children are living, if not with one or both parents. again, to keep the process focused, this is not the time to describe case information.3. background information (3–5 minutes)the facilitator gives the worker 3–5 minutes to give an overview of the case, usually by asking, ‘what makes this an open child protection case now?’ or ‘what has happened that has led you to want to talk with the child using the my three houses tool?’ allow the worker to talk without interrupting. the facilitator and observers should make notes of worker’s exact words and begin to analyse the information. while listening, the facilitator can make notes at the side of the whiteboard and should not be trying to ‘map’ the case by locating information into particular columns. the more experienced workers become in using the process, the more succinct they will be at providing the critical information that is needed to move through the process. 3. focus of my three houses (3 minutes)this is the most important part of the preparatory steps because it provides clear focus for the facilitator and group making efficient use of time. ask: ‘what do you need most from this session to help you use the my three houses tool and process with this child?’ the facilitator should dig in a little to get a clear, specific goal. if the worker says, ‘i want to know what to do next; this is too general,’ the facilitator should ask what specifically they feel they need help with in order to figure out what to focus on next.if the worker says, ‘i want to interview the child to see how they’re going’, the facilitator can point out that is a case goal for outside of this session. the facilitator then asks something like, ‘ok, so you want to find out how the child is going. what do you need from this con-sultation to help you prepare for that conversation?’4. preparing to use ‘my three houses’: large group exercisethinking through the logistics – who, what, where, when and how.
signs of safety group supervision process: my three houses™    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell5.4.1   in situations where the worker is needing help with several aspects of talking with the child, it might be helpful for the facilitator to ask the group to brainstorm the things that need to be thought through in preparation for using my three houses with the child; e.g. venue, consent, names of the houses, and write these up on a whiteboard/flipchart. 4.2  the facilitator then asks everyone to think through the best questions they can come up with that will assist the worker to start thinking through how he/she will prepare for the session; e.g. ‘where could you go through my three houses with the child that would be the most comfortable place for him/her?’  4.3  depending on the size of the group, participants could share their questions in groups of 2–3 before sharing responses with the larger group. copies of all suggested questions are given to the worker to take away. the facilitator shares the suggestions he/she has created.4.4  if not already identified as something to think about by the worker, the facilitator focuses the group on thinking about what alternative names for each house might be useful. ideally the worker will allow the child to decide what to call each house. however, if the child isn’t sure, the worker can offer a few suggestions from the list that his/her colleagues have created. 4.5  depending on the size of the group, participants could share their alternative names for the houses in groups of 2–3 before sharing responses with the larger group. copies of all suggestions are given to the worker to take away. the facilitator shares the suggestions he/she has created. 4.6  the facilitator asks everyone to think through the best questions they can think of to elicit information from the child for each house. the facilitator asks everyone to individually write down on a piece of paper (that can be handed to the worker) their best questions for each house. questions should be written out fully in the form they would actually be asked. 4.7  depending on the size of the group, participants could share their questions in groups of 2–3 before sharing responses with the larger group. copies of all suggested questions are given to the worker to take away. the facilitator shares the questions he/she has created. 5. preparing to use ‘my three houses’: individual exerciseif relevant (i.e. participants have children they are wanting to use the my three houses tool with) and time permits, the above process can be repeated with participants working on their own cases individually or in pairs. 
signs of safety group supervision process: my three houses™    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell6.6. review and next steps6.1. the facilitator now reviews the process so far by asking the worker: ‘what has been most useful for you about the process so far?’ then the facilitator asks: ‘on a scale of 0 to 10 – where 10 means i’ve got what i need from the consult already and 0 means i’m no better off or any clearer than when we started – where are you?’ if the group has stayed on track, the worker should be rating relatively high at this stage. the facilitator then asks the worker if this is this enough for now. if the answer is yes, end the work here. if no, ask, ‘what else do you need to focus on?’ and spend some time on that, usually by listening to the issue and getting questions created for that issue.a low rating from the worker probably indicates the group process has gone off track sig-nificantly from what the worker wanted, or that the worker actually now wants something else or perhaps is feeling swamped and anxious about the case. whatever the problem, the facilitator will need to back up and help the worker identify where the sticking point is and agree on a process to deal with that.7. review process for groupthe advisor leads a review with the whole group about what was useful, what they learned, and any issues they have. (the review should not be about the content of the case).how often do we use this group process in the agency or team?when presenting and teaching this group mapping process, these questions are often asked: ‘how often should we do this in our agency? do we do this in every case?’this group process is designed to: build a shared, structured, collective team and agency culture, and process for thinking through cases using the signs of safety approach; enable child protection professionals to explore each other’s cases, bringing their best thinking, including alternative perspectives, and to do this without getting caught in one or two people dominating or the group telling the practitioner whose case it is or what they must do; develop a shared practice of bringing a questioning approach to casework, rather than trying to arrive at answers.this group process cannot be undertaken in every case discussion. however, the process can be replicated in individual supervision and when practitioners are thinking through cases for themselves.building and sustaining this sort of questioning culture for thinking through cases as a team usually requires this process being undertaken at least once every two to four weeks. 
signs of safety group supervision process: my three houses™    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell7.the process presented here offers quite a tight structure, because helping professionals often tend to default to individual supervision, so group supervision is not a normal part of most agencies’ practice. where group supervision is normal, the group conversations can often be very free form and unstructured with little sense of shared purpose. if the majority of quality supervision is individual, this creates a very privatised practice culture within the agency, places excessive pressure on the team leaders or supervisors to be the fount of all wisdom for all practitioners, and limits the capacity to draw on the knowledge and experience of peers. many supervisors and practitioners shy away from group super-vision or, if they have to participate, they do so in a constrained way because of previous bad experiences. it is strongly suggested that supervisors and teams follow the process offered here closely, particularly as they build the habit of group supervision in their teams. this process is safe, well tested, refined, and avoids group dynamics where one or two  people dominate.the advisor role is central to the success of the group process. the advisor should be very active, checking in regularly with the facilitator about their sense of direction and effective-ness of what they are doing. likewise, the facilitator should quickly draw on the advisor if they are feeling stuck or unsure. 


1.0.00 How we Practice in Durham Fifth Edition.pdf

2.01.01 OPS Operating Procedures 25-26.pdf

1.07.07 - Group Supervision Process Handouts -Timeline & Trajectory.pdf

group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframesignssafetyof®part of the signs of safety implementation documents – 2nd edition, march 2017
signs of safety group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframe    version 1.0.1 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell2.group supervision process: creating a safety planning  trajectory timeframethinking about trajectorywhat is meant by trajectory? essentially the trajectory for the case is the pathway that needs to be taken to get to the end goal; e.g. reunification and/or case closure. trajectory work within the signs of safety approach refers to the process worked through with families and other key stakeholders, as outlined in the signs of safety, ‘roadmap: family-owned safety planning’ (located at the end of this document) and the training handout ‘creating a safety planning trajectory’ prepared by andrew turnell (additional handout). there are 10 steps in creating a safety planning trajectory:step 1: create clear, compassionate danger statements and safety goals.  step 2: create a safety scale matched to each of the danger statements and safety goal pairs. step 3: detailed questions to elicit meaningful existing strengths and safety. step 4: finding networks. step 5: working with children. step 6: words and pictures explanation.step 7: building the safety plan.   step 8: bottom lines. step 9: timeframe.step 10: monitoring.this group supervision process will focus on creating a timeframe (step 9). if the worker is needing to focus on the prior steps, it is recommended that the ‘signs of safety supervi-sion process: mapping’ is followed. group supervision processthis signs of safety group supervision process is designed for groups of 4 to 10 people. it revolves around the caseworker who brings forward the case. (sometimes, of course, there is a number of people bringing forward the case). the facilitator leads the group process, assisted by an advisor. other group members are involved as observers/participants. the roles of each are described in the diagram on the next page.the entire group, but in particular the facilitator and advisor, must focus on the process and not get caught up or over-organised about the content and detail of the case. this process is all about growing the capacity for the team to create together a fast process for working through, and getting direction in, a case. as with every meeting in child protec-tion, effective meetings are always led skilfully.
signs of safety group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframe    version 1.0.1 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell3.group process1. introductions (2 to 3 minutes)if the group is new to the group supervision method, the facilitator should introduce the process, including a quick description of each person’s role: the facilitator is the only person who talks directly to the caseworker.  the advisor acts to assist the facilitator to lead the process. the observers/participants have the opportunity to learn by staying out of the content of cases and focusing on analysis and judgement processes, thereby assisting the worker to gain a better overview of the case and the direction he/she wants to take. the facilitator has the professionals, the caseworker, and anyone directly involved in the case say who they are, what their role in the case is, and how long they have been involved in the case. the facilitator will probably need to prevent the professionals involved in the case from going into case content at this point. 2. genogram (3–5 minutes)the facilitator draws the family genogram to include the basic information of age along with the names of the immediate family parents, partners, children, extended family members, and relevant friends. this should include clarifying where children are living, if not with one or both parents. again, to keep the process focused, this is not the time to describe case information.observer/participantslisten carefullysupport group processwrite their ideas with best thinkingfacilitatorasks questionsleads processdraws on advisor for assistanceadvisorhelps the facilitator and does not talkcaseworkercaseworker(person wanting case reviewed)brings their best intelligence and thinkingo/po/po/po/po/pafc
signs of safety group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframe    version 1.0.1 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell4.3. background information (3–5 minutes)the facilitator gives the worker 3–5 minutes to give an overview of the case. the facilitator might ask something like: ‘what makes this an open case?’ or ‘where are things currently at?’ or maybe ‘what is happening with this family that has prompted you to bring this case forward?’ the worker should be allowed to talk without interruption. the facilitator and observers should make notes of the worker’s exact words and begin to analyse the infor-mation. while listening, the facilitator can make notes at the side of the whiteboard and should not be trying to ‘map’ the case by locating information into particular columns. the more experienced workers become at using the process, the more succinct they will be at providing the critical information that is needed to move through the process. 4. worker’s focus (3–5 minutes)this is the most important part of the preparatory steps because it provides clear focus for the facilitator and group. broadly, the focus of this session is on creating a trajectory timeline for the case the worker has brought forward. eliciting the background information will have established whether the focus is on reunification, preventing removal, or some other goal. in developing the trajectory timeline, elements such as the number and type of meetings will be considered, along with who needs to attend, what tasks need to be achieved, and what the contact arrangements will be for the child where they are in care. the facilitator now asks questions of the worker to find out what the worker feels they need most help with. the facilitator might ask something like: ‘what do you need most help with in devel-oping a trajectory timeline?’ the facilitator should dig in a little to get a clear, specific goal. 5. creating a trajectory: large group exercise5.1  the type of large group exercise undertaken will depend on where the worker is up to with the case and what they are wanting to get out of the session, as will have been established in step 4 of this group supervision process. assuming the worker is wanting to create a trajectory timeline, the facilitator asks everyone to take a piece of paper and draw the following headings and subheadings as per table 1 on the next page.5.2  individually and then in small groups (pairs or threes depending on the numbers of participants), work out what tasks/steps will be needed and how much time will be needed to work through these for each section. for instance, workers might decide that one or more children need to be interviewed using my three houses and estimate that this work could be done in weeks 3 through to 5 because there are four children to talk with. tasks for the initial work might include engagement and preparation with key decision makers and stakeholders before presenting the proposal to the family; building a network, starting a safety 
signs of safety group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframe    version 1.0.1 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell5.journal; developing an interim safety plan; and talking with the child using my three houses and creating a words and pictures explanation. tasks for the safety planning would typically include conversations to review and refine the safety plan in safety plan review meetings; talking again with the child using my three houses; network members supervising contact; discussions about triggers and red flags; and plans for the first overnight stays if the child is in care. the tasks for the final phase of the trajectory timeline will be focussed on monitoring the effectiveness of the safety plan until enough time has passed that the case can be closed. 5.3  the facilitator asks the group to identify how many weeks participants decided would be needed for the initial work in this case. ‘how many weeks for the safety planning to take place and how many weeks would you say is needed for monitoring through to case closure?’ one of the most effective ways to do this is to ask who wrote down that one week was needed for the initial work. then ask who wrote down two. then three, and so on, doing the same for each section. participants can indicate with a show of hands what they believe would be needed for this particular case. datestasks/stepsmeetingscontact changessection 1: initial workweek #:week #:week #:week #:week #:week #:section 2: safety planning week #: week #: week #: week #: week #: week #: section 3: monitoring until case closureweek #: week #: table 1: please note that the number of rows needed may vary.
signs of safety group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframe    version 1.0.1 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell6.5.4  the facilitator shows the trajectory timeline they have put together, noting that there is no right answer. the timelines that have been developed in this session are suggestions. it will be up to the caseworker to talk the ideas through with their line manager to see what the agency will accept and support. the proposed timeline then needs to be shared with other key decision makers and stakeholders to gain their agreement before presenting it to the family for their thoughts and ideas. there will be aspects of the timeline that are not negotiable. for example, the children cannot have overnight stays until after the delivery of the words and pictures explanation and unless there is an informed network in place. 6. creating a trajectory: individual exerciseif time permits the above process can be repeated with participants working on their own cases individually or in pairs. 7. review and next stepsthe facilitator now reviews the process so far by asking the worker: ‘what has been most useful for you about the process so far?’ then the facilitator asks: ‘on a scale of 0 to 10 – where 10 means i’ve got what i need from the consult already and 0 means i’m no better off or any clearer than when we started – where are you?’ if the group has stayed on track, the worker should be rating relatively high at this stage. the facilitator then asks the worker if this is this enough for now. if the answer is yes, end here. if no, ask, ‘what else do you need to focus on?’ and spend some time on that, usually by listening to the issue and getting questions created for that issue.a low rating from the worker probably indicates the group process has gone off track sig-nificantly from what the worker wanted, or that the worker actually now wants something else or perhaps is feeling swamped and anxious about the case. whatever the problem, the facilitator will need to back up and help the worker identify where the sticking point is and agree on a process to deal with that.8. review process for groupthe advisor leads a review with the whole group about what was useful, what they learned, and any issues they have. (the review should not be about the content of the case).how often do we use this group process in the agency or team?when presenting and teaching this group mapping process, these questions are often asked: ‘how often should we do this in our agency? do we do this in every case?’
signs of safety group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframe    version 1.0.1 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell7.this group process is designed to: build a shared, structured, collective team and agency culture, and process for thinking through cases using the signs of safety approach; enable child protection professionals to explore each other’s cases, bringing their best thinking, including alternative perspectives, and to do this without getting caught in one or two people dominating or the group telling the practitioner whose case it is or what they must do; develop a shared practice of bringing a questioning approach to casework, rather than trying to arrive at answers.this group process cannot be undertaken in every case discussion. however, the pro-cess can be replicated in individual supervision and also when practitioners are thinking through cases for themselves.building and sustaining this sort of questioning culture for thinking through cases as a team usually requires this process being undertaken at least once every two to four weeks. the process presented here offers quite a tight structure, because helping professionals often tend to default to individual supervision, so group supervision is not a normal part of most agencies’ practice. where group supervision is normal, the group conversations can often be very free form and unstructured with little sense of shared purpose. if the majority of quality supervision is individual, this creates a very privatised practice culture within the agency, places excessive pressure on the team leaders or supervisors to be the fount of all wisdom for all practitioners, and limits the capacity to draw on the knowledge and experience of peers. many supervisors and practitioners shy away from group supervi-sion or, if they have to participate, they do so in a constrained way because of previous bad experiences. it is strongly suggested that supervisors and teams follow the process offered here closely, particularly as they build the habit of group supervision in their teams. this process is safe, well tested, refined, and avoids group dynamics where one or two people dominate.the advisor role is central to the success of the group process. the advisor should be very active, checking in regularly with the facilitator about their sense of direction and effective-ness of what they are doing. likewise, the facilitator should quickly draw on the advisor if they are feeling stuck or unsure. 
signs of safety group supervision process: creating a safety planning trajectory timeframe    version 1.0.1 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington and pene turnell8.authorityhonouringvisionconversationcompassionroadmap: family-owned safety planningdanger statementswhat cps is worried will happen to the child if nothing changes (the problem that has to be solved)the practitioners journey with the family from the danger statements to safety goals through a structured process to create the finalsafety plan. this is the how of safety planning.safety goalswhat cps needs to see to know the child is safe and they can close the case (not services). 1. develop your danger statements and safety goals     simple language, understandable to family2. identify everything constructive in direct parenting3. develop cps bottom-line requirements 4. develop cps timeframe and trajectory for closure5. build vision of process for family6. build informed network with family7. create explanation for children (and everyone else)8. build safety plan with parents and networksuccessive process where family demonstrate over time they can make children safe, regular review – honouring success and utilising struggles.need to dig into critical issues – dynamics, triggers and stressful times that make abuse/neglect more likely. the family must either come up with or fully own all rules.9. monitoring by cps and network 10. involve child11. dealing with ‘denial’ issues12. create final child-centred safety plansigns of safety mappingthree houses, safety houseongoing processesfamily safety circleswords and pictures, mapping,three houses, safety housesigns of safety mapping,three houses, safety journalregular review meetingsfamily and network must be given the opportunity to fail so they can demonstrate success, usually through an increasing process of contact. cps must be mindful of the risk and manage this together with the family.safety house, safety objectpractice rehearsals of rules, safety journalsimilar-but-different role playchild-focused safety planwhathow(steps)tools(methods)


1.07.08 - Group Supervision Process Handouts - Appreciative Inquiry.pdf

group supervision process: appreciative inquirysignssafetyof®part of the signs of safety implementation documents – 2nd edition, march 2017
signs of safety group supervision process: appreciative inquiry    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington & pene turnell      2.signs of safety group supervision process: appreciative inquiry thinking about appreciative inquiry (ai)‘competency is quiet; it tends to be overlooked in the noise and clatter of problems.’ william madsen, 2007the engine room of any signs of safety implementation involves embedding a culture of appreciative inquiry around frontline practice across the organisation. this is a radical par-adigm shift from the usual anxiety-driven defensiveness and obsession with researching failure that bedevils the child protection field (turnell, a. & murphy, t., 2014, ‘the signs of safety child protection approach and framework: comprehensive briefing paper’, 3rd edition). we know that when we pay attention to problems we emphasise and amplify them. appreciative inquiry is about paying attention to what is working well, thereby em-phasising, amplifying and growing the positive or the strengths (hammond, sue annis, 2013, the thin book of appreciative inquiry, thin book publishing co., bend, or.). group supervision processthis signs of safety group supervision process is designed for groups of 4 to 10 people. it revolves around the caseworker who brings forward the case. (sometimes, of course, there is a number of people bringing forward the case). the facilitator leads the group process, assisted by an advisor. other group members are involved as observers/participants. the roles of each are described in the following diagram:observer/participantslisten carefullysupport group processwrite their ideas with best thinkingfacilitatorasks questionsleads processdraws on advisor for assistanceadvisorhelps the facilitator and does not talkcaseworkercaseworker(person wanting case reviewed)brings their best intelligence and thinkingo/po/po/po/po/pafc
signs of safety group supervision process: appreciative inquiry    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington & pene turnell   3.the entire group, but in particular the facilitator and advisor, must focus on the process and not get caught up or over-organized about the content and detail of the case. this process is all about growing the capacity for the team to create together a fast process for working through, and getting direction in, a case. as with every meeting in child protec-tion, effective meetings are always led skilfully.group process1. introductions (2–3 minutes)if the group is new to the group supervision method, the facilitator should introduce the process, including a quick description of each person’s role: the facilitator is the only person who talks directly to the caseworker.  the advisor acts to assist the facilitator to lead the process. the observers/participants have the opportunity to learn by staying out of the content of cases and focusing on analysis and judgement processes, thereby assisting the worker to gain a better overview of the case and the direction he/she wants to take. the facilitator has the professionals, the caseworker, and anyone directly involved in the case say who they are, what their role in the case is, and how long they have been involved in the case. the facilitator will probably need to prevent the professionals involved in the case from going into case content at this point. 2. genogram (3 minutes)the facilitator draws the family genogram to include the basic information of age along with the names of the immediate family parents, partners, children, extended family members, and relevant friends. this should include clarifying where children are living, if not with one or both parents. again, to keep the process focused, this is not the time to describe case information.3. background information (3–5 minutes)the facilitator gives the worker 3–5 minutes to provide an overview of the case, usually by asking, ‘what makes this an open child protection case now?’ the worker should be al-lowed to talk without interruption. the facilitator and observers should make notes of the worker’s exact words and begin to analyse the information. while listening, the facilitator can make notes at the side of the whiteboard and should not be trying to ‘map’ the case by locating information into particular columns. the more experienced workers become at using the process, the more succinct they will be at providing the critical information that is needed to move through the process. 4. defining the focus of the appreciative inquiry (3 minutes)this is the most important part of the preparatory steps because it provides clear focus for the facilitator and group. 
signs of safety group supervision process: appreciative inquiry    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington & pene turnell      4.in part, the focus of the ai is defined by the case the worker has chosen to use for the ses-sion. the facilitator’s role is to ask questions of the worker to further refine the focus, before leading into a line of questioning that explores the details of the work being described. this should be done by “using the ‘ears’ process for eliciting and amplifying descriptions of success. the ears acronym stands for elicit, amplify, reflect and start-over. the primary purpose of this process is to generate a rich, detailed and concrete description, a ‘thick de-scription’ (geertz, 1983) of the worker’s story of success” (turnell, a., chapter 4: building a culture of appreciative inquiry around child protection practice, page 5. to be published). one such question the facilitator might ask of the worker to refine the focus might go something like: ‘what practice have you felt good about when working with this family?’ another might be: ‘where do you feel you’ve made progress with this family?’ starting out with a general eliciting question may produce multiple examples. if so, the facilitator then asks the worker to choose which example they would like to focus on for the purposes of this appreciative conversation. for example:facilitator: ‘ok, so you have said you felt pretty good about the initial mapping you did with the family and that your session with the 6-year-old using my three houses went well. which of these pieces of practice would be most useful for us to focus on in this session?’worker: ‘well, it was my first time using my three houses and i’m not sure what i did that helped it work out so well. so i think that would be a good focus for today.’ the facilitator now has a focus for the appreciative inquiry – i.e. helping the worker to think their way into and through what they did to help the my three houses session work so well for the child they interviewed. 5. the appreciative inquiry: large group exercise5.1 before leading the appreciative inquiry, the facilitator asks everyone to write down their best eliciting question – i.e. the question they would want to use if they were facilitating the ai. the facilitator also develops an eliciting question. 5.2 depending on time, some or all of the group share their suggestions. together the facilitator and worker decide which would be the most helpful question to begin with. 5.3 using the ears framework, the facilitator leads the ai. group members observe the ai and write down the questions asked by the facilitator, identifying the eliciting, amplifying and reflection questions. 
signs of safety group supervision process: appreciative inquiry    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington & pene turnell   5.6. review and next steps6.1 the facilitator now reviews the process so far by asking the worker: ‘what has been most useful for you about the process so far?’ then the facilitator asks: ‘on a scale of 0 to 10 – where 10 means this ai has been really useful in helping you think more about the work you have done, you feel like you really learned something and it was well worth doing, and 0 means the ai didn’t really help you much at all – where are you?’ if the group has stayed on track, the worker should be rating relatively high at this stage. the facilitator then asks the worker if this is this enough for now. if the answer is yes, end this step here.6.2 if no, the facilitator should ask: ‘what else do they need to focus on?’ then the facili-tator should spend some time on that, usually by listening to the issue and getting ques-tions created for that issue.a low rating from the worker probably indicates the group process has gone off track sig-nificantly from what the worker wanted, or that the worker actually now wants something else or perhaps is feeling swamped and anxious about the case. whatever the problem, the facilitator will need to back up and help the worker identify where the sticking point is and agree on a process to deal with that.7. the appreciative inquiry: small group exerciseif time permits, the above process can be repeated with participants working in groups of three. each person takes a turn at facilitating an ai (for 7 mins), being the interviewee, and observing the ai, identifying the eliciting, amplifying and reflection questions asked. 8. review process for groupthe advisor leads a review with the whole group about what was useful, what they learned, and any issues they have. (the review should not be about the content of the case).how often do we use this group process in the agency or team?when presenting and teaching this group mapping process, these questions are often asked: ‘how often should we do this in our agency? do we do this in every case?’this group process is designed to: build a shared, structured, collective team and agency culture, and process for thinking through cases using the signs of safety approach; enable child protection professionals to explore each other’s cases, bringing their best thinking, including alternative perspectives, and to do this without getting caught in one or two people dominating or the group telling the practitioner whose case it is or what they must do; develop a shared practice of bringing a questioning approach to casework, rather than trying to arrive at answers.
signs of safety group supervision process: appreciative inquiry    version 1.0 copyright © 2017 resolutions consultancy – andrew turnell, katrina etherington & pene turnell      6.this group process cannot be undertaken in every case discussion. however, the process can be replicated in individual supervision and when practitioners are thinking through cases for themselves.building and sustaining this sort of questioning culture for thinking through cases as a team usually requires this process being undertaken at least once every two to four weeks. the process presented here offers quite a tight structure, because helping professionals often tend to default to individual supervision, so group supervision is not a normal part of most agencies’ practice. where group supervision is normal, the group conversations can often be very free form and unstructured with little sense of shared purpose. if the majority of quality supervision is individual, this creates a very privatised practice culture within the agency, places excessive pressure on the team leaders or supervisors to be the fount of all wisdom for all practitioners, and limits the capacity to draw on the knowledge and experience of peers. many supervisors and practitioners shy away from group supervi-sion or, if they have to participate, they do so in a constrained way because of previous bad experiences. it is strongly suggested that supervisors and teams follow the process offered here closely, particularly as they build the habit of group supervision in their teams. this process is safe, well tested, refined, and avoids group dynamics where one or two people dominate.the advisor role is central to the success of the group process. the advisor should be very active, checking in regularly with the facilitator about their sense of direction and effective-ness of what they are doing. likewise, the facilitator should quickly draw on the advisor if they are feeling stuck or unsure. 


16.05.03 - Full SWET.pdf

17.01.07 Domestic Abuse - Quick Reference Tool.docx

domestic abuse – quick reference checklistthe prevalence of domestic abuse mandates that practitioners must develop adequate knowledge and skills to respond to domestic abuse, regardless of practice setting, in order to respond appropriately and effectively record all enquiries and actions undertaken. this quick reference tool is a checklist to assist practitioners and managers** in assessment processes and analysis of the information collated. it is a simple guide as to ‘what should practitioners be doing’ when domestic abuse is highlighted within a referral. **this quick reference checklist can also be utilised within supervision, discussion and decision making and case file auditing. use all sources of information read and understand the referral including the dash risk assessment? consider the domestic abuse history (previous referrals/incidents with current and any other previous partners) , you may wish to consider using the harm worry matrix. make relevant initial enquiries-contact the referrer and the attending             police officer to understand and gain more information(any injuries to the victim or child/where was the child?/what was the presentation of the child)have any outreach services such as harbour has been offered              or accepted by the victim? has an operation encompass alert been sent to the child’s school? supporting children affected by domestic abuse - durham county councilare there any safeguards in place? has this been included in the safety planning? (dvpo, dvpn, legal orders or bail conditions?)has the victim or perpetrator completed any previous domestic abuse programmes or has there been previous safety plans in place? is the victim supportive of police prosecution in relation to the abuser? are there any risks to practitioners undertaking home visits? (victim or abuser)practitioners to ensure all necessary action takes place have you completed a dash risk assessment? please note this tool is found on the marac referral form. https://durham-scp.org.uk/professionals/multi-agency-safeguarding-arrangements/multi-agency-risk-assessment-conferenceis a referral to marac required?   marac@durham.police.uk.https://durham-scp.org.uk/professionals/multi-agency-safeguarding-arrangements/multi-agency-risk-assessment-conference    is a referral to specialist domestic abuse services required? https://www.durham.gov.uk/domesticabuse carry out and record assessment effectively have the children/young person been spoken to alone specifically in respect of domestic abuse? have we offered mind of my own as a tool for direct work with children? so that children can share their views and experiences even when we are not around. have age appropriate assessment tools been used to obtain the child’s views, wishes and feelings and to understand what daily life feels like for them?three houses toolassessment should include analysis of what the impact                  of the domestic abuse is on the child/children including relevant research. we should pay attention to the worries,strengths and safety. recognise importance of good record keeping be explicit about what domestic abuse safety planning including those actions by the family and professional network,in the assessment and plan. record if there has been a marac referral or risk  assessment and what this means for the child/young personimplement effective multi agency workinginclude information about the worries, strengths and safety from other agencies in respect of the adults and children in terms of domestic abuse. have you made all attempts to ensure that the abuser is considered and spoken to throughout the assessment and safety planning?  value , challenge supervision and the child being centralhas the practitioner received a case allocation note with specific tasksrelating to domestic abuse?are practitioners and managers having reflective discussions about the domestic abuse within supervision and discussion and decision making forms? (despite other presenting issues of concern)

2.07.14 Family Worker Request Template.docx

request for a family worker once you have identified that you require a family worker, please complete this form and send to the senior key worker for allocation. please ensure that the need for a family worker and the intended outcome is recorded within the work plan. child name party idparent name who is in the family name of key worker school or nursery (name and contact number)health visitor or school nurse (name and contact number) work requested (to include work identified, specifics of the work. intended length of work, how many sessions per week and who the work is intended for i.e. parents, mother, all children, specific children wishes & feelingsto work with the children to support gathering information in relation to their wishes and feelings for the assessment tools to as follows;three houseswizard/fairieseco maproad mapgenogramadolescent wellbeing toolscaling questionspurpose of the work requested (what do we want to achieve, how will this work impact on the outcomes for the children) to support the children’s voices within their assessment evidencing what they are worried about, what is working well and what they would like their next steps to be.outcomes – childs voice within assessmentreview (to be completed by skw at the end of family worker intervention) 