Incorporating 'Done' in Child Welfare Casework: A Framework for Completion and Accountability

Introduction

Introducing the Agile concept of 'done' into child welfare case management can significantly elevate the rigour, quality, and accountability of case closures. This approach ensures that safeguarding efforts for children and families are consistent, sophisticated, thoroughly tested, and sustainable. In Agile, 'done' signifies 'beginning with the end in mind,' where a shared understanding among team members defines what it means for a task, user story, or project increment to be complete. This end state is established through clear criteria that ensure consistency, accountability, and quality across all deliverables. Translating this concept into child welfare, particularly within the Safeguarding Together (SGT) framework, introduces a structured and robust approach for defining and assessing when a case is truly ready to be closed. Unlike traditional case closure, which may often rely on narrow or unrelated metrics, the SGT framework emphasizes long-term sustainability by actively involving families and networks, ensuring that safeguarding measures endure well beyond formal involvement.

The Safeguarding Together framework represents a paradigm shift in child protection. It promotes a collaborative, family-centred model where families and practitioners co-create effective and sustainable safeguarding plans. As with Agile's Definition of Done (DoD), this model incorporates clear criteria to indicate when specific safeguarding actions have reached completion (Turnell & Murphy, 2017).

This paper explores how integrating the concept of "done" into case management, particularly in case closure, can reinforce the rigour and consistency of child welfare practices, aligning them with the collaborative principles of SGT. Through structured completion criteria, ongoing feedback, and accountability, "done" provides a solid foundation for child welfare agencies to manage cases with long-term success and empower families (Senge, 1990).

Defining "Done" in Agile and Its Relevance to Child Welfare

The Agile concept of "done" offers a structured approach to task completion through the Definition of Done (DoD). Predefined criteria ensure that all requirements are fully met before work completion (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). These criteria include successful functionality implementation, thorough testing, comprehensive documentation, and adherence to all acceptance standards, thus promoting transparency, consistency, and alignment across team members (Humphrey, 1989).

When adapted to child welfare, this definition can establish a rigorous standard for case completion that extends beyond surface-level compliance (Munro, 2008). The DoD can include criteria indicating when safeguarding plans or case management actions are "done," for example, after completing all necessary risk assessments, clarifying safeguarding measures, establishing a solid support network, and collaboratively executing a comprehensive safeguarding plan. Safeguarding and well-being might be considered complete only when all identified tasks on the timeline have been successfully met, tested, and documented over time (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Risks must be thoroughly assessed, and the family and network should have tested, reviewed, and activated the plan, with contingency measures also documented. This rigour ensures the plan's viability, empowering families to sustain safeguarding efforts independently, which aligns with SGT’s principles of family-centred and collaborative planning (Heifetz et al., 2009).

The "Future State" of Safeguarding Done

Within the Safeguarding Together (SGT) framework, the concept of 'done' is reimagined to play a central role as child welfare organizations strive for a transformative future state. The 'Definition of Done' in safeguarding challenges traditional models of case closure, setting a collaborative, sophisticated, consistent, and sustainable standard. Drawing from Agile principles, this redefinition posits that a case is 'done' not when immediate risks are mitigated or based on intuitive judgments but when families and their extended networks accomplish all of the set-out tasks identified in the timeline and are equipped to sustain and enact all necessary plans for long-term, self-sufficient Safeguarding. Rather than marking a fixed endpoint, 'done' signifies that those caregivers and their network fully understand and actively demonstrate their ability and commitment to support the ongoing safeguarding plan.

Key aspects of this future state include:

Collaborative Safeguarding: Families are involved and actively work with practitioners to co-create and thoroughly understand the safeguarding plan. This process fosters transparency and trust by involving families directly in defining what "done" looks like, increasing the likelihood that they will remain committed to sustaining these measures (Lansdown, 2005). This approach underscores that the Definition of done should not be a top-down checklist but a collaboratively developed standard that all parties, including the family, agree upon and can follow.

Sustainability: The future state emphasizes that cases should only be closed when the family is genuinely prepared to safeguard independently, without ongoing professional oversight. The DoD for Safeguarding incorporates this commitment to long-term sustainability, ensuring the safeguarding plan becomes a community-supported, enduring framework. The goal is not merely to resolve immediate concerns but to enable the family to navigate future challenges with resilience and autonomy (Senge, 1990; Kotter, 2012).

Leadership and Organizational Culture Alignment: Leaders within child welfare organizations play a crucial role in defining and reinforcing the criteria for "done." This future state envisions an environment where leadership models empathy, emotional intelligence, and dedication to SGT’s family-centered values. Leaders actively promote these principles, ensuring that staff understand that achieving "done" is about shared accountability and long-term impact rather than simply completing a procedural task (Heifetz et al., 2009).

Transition from Analysis to Safeguarding Planning

The initial stages of the SGT process focus on comprehensive risk assessment and analysis, identifying key risks, outlining possible impacts, and evaluating response mechanisms to support SGT’s goals. This analysis phase extends beyond data collection, laying a foundation for robust safeguarding measures. During this phase, key risks such as resistance to change, organizational misalignment, and potential burnout are identified, with tailored mitigation strategies implemented to address specific staff concerns, foster leadership alignment, and support cultural shifts within the organization. This risk assessment provides the groundwork for a collaborative safeguarding plan, shifting the focus from problem identification to active engagement of families, practitioners, and networks in addressing these concerns.

This risk assessment provides the groundwork for a collaborative safeguarding plan, shifting the focus from problem identification to active engagement of families, practitioners, and networks in addressing these concerns. As part of this transition, SGT emphasizes a family-centred approach, where all parties involved participate in creating the safeguarding plan. This co-creation process ensures that families are not passive recipients of safeguarding measures but active participants, aligning with SGT’s mission of fostering family empowerment and sustainability (Kotter, 2012).

The Trajectory to Safeguarding Goals

Each stage in the SGT timeline represents a step towards clearly defined safeguarding goals, contributing to a trajectory that leads to the ultimate “Definition of Done.” These stages emphasize a collaborative, sustainable approach to safeguarding that moves beyond immediate risk mitigation, supporting long-term family and network empowerment.

1. Risk Assessment: This initial phase involves a balanced, rigorous, and collaborative assessment of risk factors, mitigating elements, and potential barriers. Practitioners apply a sophisticated analysis combined with professional judgment to determine what sustainable actions are necessary to secure safeguarding and well-being in the short, intermediate, and long term (Munro, 2008). This approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of the child and family’s unique context and promotes a proactive stance toward mitigating identified risks (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

   
   

2. Safeguarding Scale: A clear and straightforward safeguarding scale anchors the critical concerns by outlining core issues related to the child or family’s safety and well-being and specifying goals to secure their well-being. This scale prepares the team and family for collaborative planning and fosters transparency and trust by clearly defining focus areas. It is a consistent barometer throughout the organization’s involvement with the family, enabling all stakeholders to track progress and adjust as necessary (Turnell & Murphy, 2017).

   
   

3. Networks: This stage recognizes that safeguarding extends beyond immediate family members and emphasizes identifying and engaging supportive networks around the child. Community-based support is crucial, as it reinforces the idea that Safeguarding is a sustained, collective effort requiring long-term commitment from the family and the wider community (Lansdown, 2005). This network-building step aligns with SGT's focus on empowering families to develop independent community-safeguarding structures (Senge, 1990).

   
   

4. Words and Pictures: This step utilizes accessible language and visual aids to ensure that families and their networks can fully understand the safeguarding plan and their roles within it. By simplifying complex information, SGT enables families to participate actively, regardless of literacy levels or cognitive barriers (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). This approach promotes clarity and encourages a shared commitment to the safeguarding responsibilities outlined.

   
   

5. Safeguarding Planning: Families and practitioners work together to develop a comprehensive safeguarding plan. This collaborative plan addresses identified risks defines safeguarding measures, and assigns clear roles and responsibilities, establishing a guiding blueprint for family and network actions (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). This stage reinforces accountability through shared decision-making and empowers families by ensuring they are directly involved in planning for sustained safety and well-being (Munro, 2008).

   
   

6. Testing, Monitoring, and Refining: The SGT framework recognizes that Safeguarding is an evolving process. To address new challenges that may arise as the plan is implemented, iterative testing and refinement are incorporated. This phase involves ongoing monitoring, feedback gathering, and plan adjustments, ensuring the safeguarding measures remain practical, achievable, and responsive to the family's changing needs (Schein, 2010; Heifetz et al., 2009). This continuous improvement cycle fosters adaptability, a critical factor in sustainable Safeguarding.

   
   

7. Sustainability Planning: The sustainability planning phase focuses on embedding safeguarding practices within the family and network so that they can maintain these efforts independently. This stage includes preparing for long-term challenges and ensuring families have established contingency plans, resources, and support networks to navigate future difficulties. The goal is to foster resilience within the family and their network, reducing dependence on formal services (Kotter, 2012).

   
   

8. Safeguarding and Well-Being Words and Pictures: To ensure the child fully understands the safeguarding plan, the adult safeguarding measures are presented in a words-and-pictures format. This approach clarifies each adult’s responsibilities to the child, reinforcing the importance of long-term safety and well-being. By making these roles and actions transparent, children are more likely to feel secure and supported by their caregiving network (Lansdown, 2005; Turnell & Murphy, 2017).

   
   

9. Done: The final step includes a collaborative review with the family (including the network) and a separate reflective session with the supervisor. During this review, the family and practitioner analyze progress, challenges, and successes experienced throughout the safeguarding process. This ensures that all stakeholders understand their roles and are ready to independently uphold the Safeguarding and well-being plan (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). In the supervisory session, the safeguarding scale assesses that all critical tasks have been completed and that the family and network have demonstrated commitment to sustaining safeguarding, as evidenced during the testing and monitoring phase (Heifetz et al., 2009). This discussion allows the practitioner to articulate their efforts, decisions, and specific actions supporting the safeguarding plan, reinforcing a shared understanding of the impact and identifying areas for ongoing improvement. A robust sustainability plan is also established to ensure safeguarding measures remain effective post-closure. This structured reflection process consolidates learning, verifies sustainability, and upholds accountability within safeguarding practice (Schein, 2010; Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

Each stage collectively moves the safeguarding process toward the Definition of Done, establishing a comprehensive approach to current safeguarding needs and a solid foundation for long-term safety and resilience.

The Importance of Organizational, Leadership, and Cultural Alignment

Leadership commitment is fundamental to achieving the "Definition of Done" within the Safeguarding Together (SGT) framework, driving a shift in individual responsibilities and a profound organizational paradigm shift. Leaders set the tone by embedding values of transparency, empathy, and continuous learning throughout the organization, cultivating a culture where "done" signifies a holistic, sustainable safeguarding state rather than a mere administrative endpoint (Schein, 2010). This cultural shift requires leaders to promote a shared responsibility model, encourage staff to internalize and apply SGT principles and foster a collective approach that involves the organization, family, and community network as partners in safeguarding (Kotter, 2012).

A genuine paradigm shift occurs when leaders reimagine organizational roles, creating a space where safeguarding is viewed as a shared, enduring mission rather than a series of isolated tasks. Leaders contribute to this shift by fostering an environment that encourages staff to innovate, reflect, and seek constructive feedback, cultivating a culture of continuous improvement and professional growth (Heifetz et al., 2009). This open, reflective culture supports individual development and reinforces the long-term sustainability of safeguarding outcomes by enabling practitioners to adapt to evolving family needs and external conditions. By embracing this shift, leaders help the organization move from transactional case management to a more adaptive, responsive model that aligns with the collaborative, family-centred values central to the SGT framework (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

In this future, the organization becomes a learning system where leaders actively model the SGT values of empathy and transparency, ensuring alignment across all organizational levels (Senge, 1990). This leadership-driven paradigm shift is essential for embedding “done” as a meaningful, enduring outcome, achieved only when all stakeholders are confident that the family and network are prepared to maintain safety and well-being independently (Munro, 2008).

For SGT to be effectively implemented, the organizational culture must shift towards prioritizing internal capacity building, with a strong focus on training, reflective supervision, and coaching. Developing internal trainers within the SGT framework and establishing structured feedback mechanisms are fundamental to this shift. By consistently equipping staff to apply the "Definition of Done" criteria, organizations can ensure that safeguarding plans are developed and completed, emphasizing sustainable outcomes and empowering families to feel confident in upholding their roles independently after case closure (Hiatt, 2006). Capacity-building initiatives, including cultural alignment workshops and training programs, reinforce these values throughout the organization, fostering a unified approach to safeguarding (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017).

The journey from assessment to “done” relies heavily on organizational alignment, particularly among leadership. Leaders in child welfare organizations play a pivotal role in embedding SGT principles across all stages of safeguarding, setting a foundation for collaborative planning and family empowerment. Through their commitment to SGT, leaders help maintain alignment among team members, ensuring everyone understands that achieving “done” is a shared, organization-wide responsibility (Kotter, 2012). Alignment is further reinforced through ongoing feedback mechanisms, workshops, and transparent communication channels that address potential obstacles, such as staff resistance to change and burnout. This consistency is essential for maintaining momentum throughout the SGT process, ensuring that each phase of analysis, planning, monitoring, and sustainability contributes to the overarching goal of enduring safeguarding (Schein, 2010).

The evaluation of “done” within the SGT framework is a deliberate, evidence-based process guided by the supervisory relationship. This collaborative evaluation ensures that the safeguarding plan’s immediate needs and long-term objectives have met all identified safeguarding goals. Supervisors play a crucial role in this process, employing a “leading with questions” approach that encourages practitioners to engage with their work critically, reflect on progress, and substantiate their achievements with concrete evidence. This approach fosters accountability, professional growth, and a deepened commitment to family-centred practice (Heifetz et al., 2009).

Central to this evaluation is the safeguarding scale, which enables practitioners to self-assess the effectiveness of their safeguarding measures. Supervisors review the timeline and milestones to confirm that all key actions, such as network engagement, risk assessment, and sustainability planning, have been comprehensively addressed (Turnell & Murphy, 2017). Practitioners are asked to assign a score to their efforts on the safeguarding scale, which reflects their judgment of how well the safeguarding goals have been achieved. However, this is more than a numeric rating; practitioners must substantiate their scores with specific examples that illustrate behaviours and actions indicating sustained safety and well-being within the family and network. Examples may include regular communication among family members, adherence to agreed-upon routines, and active participation in contingency planning signals that the safeguarding plan has been internalized and is actively maintained (Lansdown, 2005).

By embedding these leadership and cultural alignment strategies, organizations can establish a robust framework that supports individual practitioner growth and sustains long-term safeguarding goals. Leaders who foster a collaborative, adaptive culture ensure that the “Definition of Done” becomes a lasting commitment to family empowerment and sustained well-being. The supervisor guides practitioners through this reflective process, encouraging them to critically analyze their actions, identify successes, and consider areas where further improvement is needed. Open-ended questions, such as “What makes you confident that the safeguarding goals are sustainable?” prompt practitioners to deeply examine the efficacy of their actions, reinforcing the importance of a family-centred approach (Heifetz et al., 2009). This dialogue fosters a collaborative assessment between practitioners and supervisors, ensuring that actions align with safeguarding goals and supporting accountability and continuity in practice (Schein, 2010).

Involving the family and their support network in this evaluative process further strengthens the authenticity and sustainability of the safeguarding plan. Families and network members are invited to rate the safeguarding process and justify their assessments, offering valuable perspectives that deepen understanding of the case’s progress and readiness for closure. Their feedback provides insight into which parts of the plan are practical, areas for improvement, and any lingering concerns. This feedback is essential, as it comes from those who will continue implementing the plan long after formal child welfare involvement concludes, ensuring that safeguarding efforts are sustainable (Munro, 2008; Turnell & Murphy, 2017).

When caregivers’ evaluations differ from practitioners’, this discrepancy presents an opportunity for constructive dialogue rather than conflict. For instance, if a caregiver rates the plan lower than the practitioner, the collaborative approach allows their concerns to be addressed openly, leading to necessary adjustments in the plan. This transparent and inclusive process builds trust, allowing families to feel like genuine partners in safeguarding and reinforcing their active role in sustaining outcomes (Kotter, 2012).

Ultimately, this inclusive final assessment embodies the SGT framework’s principles of shared accountability and collaborative decision-making. By approaching this phase as a shared conclusion rather than a one-sided decision, practitioners ensure that “done” is achieved through honest reflection and open dialogue with all parties committed to carrying the safeguarding plan forward. This approach bolsters the likelihood of long-term safety and empowers families and networks to take ownership of outcomes, strengthening their commitment to ongoing Safeguarding even after formal closure (Lansdown, 2005; Senge, 1990).

 

Conclusion

Integrating “done” within child welfare case management provides a rigorous, consistent, and structured approach to case closure that emphasizes sustainability, accountability, and collaboration. By adopting Agile-inspired criteria for case completion, agencies can ensure that cases are closed only when families and networks are fully equipped to maintain safeguarding measures independently (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). The principles of the Safeguarding Together (SGT) framework align seamlessly with this approach, allowing organizations to establish clear expectations for case completion and empower families to participate in and sustain their safeguarding plans actively.

A structured approach to defining and achieving "done" promotes organizational alignment, internal capacity building, and responsiveness to service user needs, fostering a more resilient and accountable child welfare system. As child welfare agencies strive to create lasting Safeguarding and well-being for families, integrating the concept of "done" offers a pathway toward rigorous, family-centred case management that goes beyond immediate solutions, ensuring that families remain safe and supported long after formal involvement has concluded (Schein, 2010; Kotter, 2012; Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

References

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Free Press.

Humphrey, W. S. (1989). Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Press.

Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community. Prosci.

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Lansdown, G. (2005). The Evolving Capacities of the Child. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Munro, E. (2008). Adequate Child Protection (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide: The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game. Scrum.org.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.

Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safeguarding: A Solution and Safeguarding Oriented Approach to Child Protection Casework. W.W. Norton.

Turnell, A., & Murphy, T. (2017). Signs of Safeguarding: Comprehensive Briefing Paper (3rd ed.). Resolutions Consultancy.