Signs of Safety: lessons learnt from evaluations

Abstract

Purpose Signs of Safety (SoS) is a strengths-based approach to child protection casework that has been widely adopted in countries across the world. The purpose of this paper is to report on a study that aimed to synthesise the many evaluations of SoS that have been conducted to assess their strengths and limitations. The intention is to identify the aspects which should be explored further and those that remain unexamined to inform future evaluations. Design/methodology/approach The study collated and then examined many of the evaluations that are in the public domain as well as some of those that were conducted within agencies and have not been made publicly available. Findings At the present time (early 2019), the evidence base for SoS is limited. Independent, robust research needs to be undertaken over time to build on the studies that have been conducted. New research must be designed to fill gaps and be capable of producing the evidence required and it must address its own limitations. Originality/value This study is the most comprehensive contemporary review of the evaluations of SoS that have been conducted to the best of the authors’ knowledge.

Working with Signs of Safety: Parents' perception of change

“…The present authors (Baginsky, Moriarty, & Manthorpe, in press) also reviewed existing evaluations using a different methodology and have similarly concluded that the evidence base for SoS in general is not strong. We found that many of the examples of SoS that have been evaluated have specific characteristics such as a distinct demographic profile, flawed or poorly constructed contrast groups or a focus on a specific aspect, such as safety plans, conducted in isolation from the essentially holistic SoS approach.…”

Effectiveness of child protection practice models: a systematic review

“…When the aim is to measure child-and family-level outcomes, multiple data sources and informants should be included, such as data gathered directly from children and youth (Sweeting, 2001). It should also be noted that effective study designs require sufficient time and funding (Baginsky, Moriarty, & Manthorpe, 2019). Specifically, funding one large-scale high-quality evaluation might create more robust knowledge in terms of service improvement compared to several smaller initiatives.…”

“…During the past two decades, child protection practice models (also known as practice frameworks) that are embedded in a particular theory and practice approach, have become increasingly popular in multiple countries, e.g., the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom and other European countries (e.g., Baginsky, Moriarty, & Manthorpe, 2019;Gillingham, 2018;Laird, Morris, Archard, & Clawson, 2018). Barbee, Christensen, Antle, Wandersman, and Cahn (2011) define a practice model as follows:…”

“…(p. 623) The overall aim of these models is to improve the quality of child protection services and outcomes for children and families, by adopting a clear theoretical and practical approach to social work practice (Gillingham, 2018). Existing reviews of child protection practice models include three reviews of Signs of Safety (Baginsky, Moriarty, & Manthorpe, 2019;Bunn, 2013;Sheehan et al, 2018) and an overview of the Solution-Based Casework model (Gillingham, 2018). Despite the growing body of research, there are no existing systematic reviews that focus explicitly on assessing the effectiveness of all practice models in improving outcomes for children involved in child protection services.…”

Measuring parenting capacity for disabled children using a child protection assessment

“…There are several social work assessment frameworks that have garnered international influence. The strengths-based and safety-organised practice approach known as Signs of Safety is rapidly gathering momentum as a leading international tactic to child protection casework (Baginsky et al, 2019;Turnell & Murphy, 2017). Owing to this expediency, over 17 countries and 200 agencies have casework predicated on the approach (Turnell & Murphy, 2014, p. 6).…”