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.