Understanding the social worker–family relationship through self‐determination theory: A realist synthesis of Signs of Safety

Abstract

Signs of Safety (SofS) is a popular framework for child protection social work practice, used in more than 200 jurisdictions worldwide. Although workers tend to find SofS tools easy to use, skilled application of the approach is challenging, and research has found that SofS is often not implemented as intended. This study aimed to deepen and inform the explanation (initial theory) of what key SofS tools and processes are expected to achieve in the family–worker interaction and why. A realist synthesis was used, involving a realist review of literature and focus groups with 22 international SofS experts. Using self‐determination theory, we detail how SofS can be conceptualized as aiming to support families to experience ‘autonomous’ rather than ‘controlled’ motivation by supporting basic human needs for ‘autonomy’ (feeling a sense of volition), ‘competence’ (feeling effective) and ‘relatedness’ (feeling cared for). This explanation can be used for training and evaluation purposes to better explain and test how SofS expects to engage families in the child protection process. More broadly, we suggest that self‐determination theory may contribute a mechanistic explanation of effective social work practice more generally and that this hypothesis should be empirically investigated.

Parent Engagement and the Child Welfare System: Through a Self-Determination Theory Lens

“…Engagement is foundational for parents involved in child welfare; therefore, understanding how to constructively generate engagement is equally foundational for casework. Indeed, there is evidence that specific programs and practice approaches, such as family group decision-making (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021), motivational interviewing (Shah et al, 2019), strengths-based practice (Toros & Falch-Eriksen, 2021), and Signs of Safety (Caffrey & Browne, 2022), have been successful in improving parent engagement in the child welfare context. Knowing that engagement is malleable and context-dependent, we suggest that general casework practice should strive to create motivationally supportive contexts that promote engagement.…”

“…In the child welfare context, interpersonal interactions with a caseworker can facilitate and sustain a parent’s engagement (e.g., La Placa & Corlyon, 2014). Although there is very little research applying SDT to the child welfare context, a realist synthesis of Signs of Safety, a framework for child protection practice, concluded that support for families’ three basic needs was a mechanism for promoting their autonomous motivation (Caffrey & Browne, 2022). The notion of needs fulfillment as a pathway to engagement is also consistent with research suggesting that parents involved in the child welfare system view their own engagement as contingent upon their self-confidence, trust in the system, the relevance of service plans to their needs, and contextual barriers (e.g., availability of services, lack of social support) (Smith, 2008).…”

Health and social care practitioners' experiences of exercising professional curiosity in child protection practice: An integrative review

“…However, noticing when things begin to go wrong is vital if we are to protect children and intervene at the earliest opportunity to improve outcomes (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2020a, 2020b). In social work practice, a strong link has been acknowledged between being curious and theorising about families, and how in particular, this can strengthen families to ‘feel invested in’ and valued (Caffrey & Brown, 2022:518). Yet the responsibility to do so rests with the whole system, at every level and with every individual.…”

Social workers’ perceptions of assessing the parental capacity of parents with intellectual disabilities in child protection investigations

“…The tool is based on a participatory approach and involves using different planning protocols and risk assessment tools in collaboration between social workers and families to map in worries, risks and strengths surrounding the families' ability to cope (Turnell and Murphy, 2014). With Signs of Safety conclusions based on risk assessments and safety plans developed in collaboration with the families are based on the notion that parents are experts regarding their own situation (Baginsky et al, 2021;Caffrey and Browne, 2022;Edwards et al, 1999).…”