The Significance of Safety Planning in Child Welfare: A Comprehensive Collaborative Approach to Protecting Children

Safety planning in child welfare is far from just a box-checking task; it is a vital process that bridges the safety and well-being of children who are at risk (Burke, 2018). Creating a safety plan is a rigorous, thoughtful and collaborative process that values diverse opinions and safeguards the interests of children who are vulnerable to trauma and harm; it is about coordination and participation between child welfare workers, families and a network of support who are interested in the child's short-, intermediate- and long-term safety. By emphasizing transparency, shared responsibility, and ongoing monitoring, safety plans provide a structured framework for protecting children, offering immediate intervention and long-term sustainability.

This blog will explore the essential elements of safety planning in child welfare, drawing from real-world examples, case scenarios, and the integration of network processes. Furthermore, it will highlight how this approach is not just about imposing processes and creating a document but about fostering a collaborative environment that engages families and their communities in the ongoing protection of children.

Understanding Safety Planning: What It Is and Why It Matters

A safety plan details who (from the network and caregivers) will do what, when, and how to keep a child safe and well looked after, particularly when triggers and red flags of danger (threat) call for heightened attention to safety (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The effectuation of the safety plan ought to focus on the provision and articulation of clear roles and responsibilities of relevant caregivers when the risks (conditions such as domestic violence, substance abuse, or neglect) dictate it (Munro, 2011). Safety plans are dynamic and must be co-developed with the family and support network. This ensures that the plan is practical, reflects the family’s realities, and is implemented with the full cooperation of those closest to the child (Barlow et al., 2012; Turnell & Edwards, 1999). A successful safety plan is not just about promises but about specific actions and commitments that are continuously tested, refined, and adapted as the child’s needs change (Bunn, 2013).

The Case of Alice, Frank, and Kerry: A Practical Example of Safety Planning

In child welfare, safety planning becomes especially critical when a child is exposed to potential harm, and immediate intervention is necessary to protect their well-being. Consider a case where child protection services became involved following a life-threatening incident involving a six-month-old infant, Kerry. After receiving a 911 call from her mother, Alice, paramedics found Kerry unresponsive and struggling to breathe. Upon further examination at the hospital, Kerry was discovered to have multiple rib fractures and swollen head injuries that the medical team deemed "suspicious" and possibly inflicted. Both parents, Alice and Frank, were visibly distraught and adamant that they did not know how these injuries occurred. Despite their denials, the nature of Kerry’s injuries raised grave concerns about her safety, requiring immediate protective measures to prevent further harm.

A Child Protection Worker’s Responsibility

A child protection worker is responsible for ensuring the child’s immediate safety and facilitating a process that assesses the risks within the family environment (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The first step in this process is creating an Immediate Safety Plan, a critical short-term intervention when the child’s safety is jeopardized (Munro, 2011). This would involve swiftly removing her from any potentially harmful situation in Kerry's case. For instance, placing Kerry with a trusted relative, such as a grandmother, could provide a temporary safe environment. At the same time, the investigation unfolds (Barlow et al., 2012). The immediate safety plan is designed to be brief and highly responsive, addressing the pressing need for the child to be kept safe while allowing the parents and their network to engage in and inform the process continuously.  The initial plan would not only prioritize Kerry’s immediate safety but also lay the foundation for a deeper inquiry into the family dynamics and stressors that may have contributed to her injuries (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Since Alice and Frank claimed ignorance of their daughter's injuries, it would be essential to involve them in understanding the seriousness of the situation. Building trust and collaboration with the family is critical, as child protection workers must avoid a purely punitive approach (Bunn, 2013). This method encourages openness and accountability, ensuring both parents’ full cooperation in the investigation and their participation in identifying safe caregiving options for their child.

The Interim Safety Plan

An Interim Safety Plan would follow the immediate intervention. This plan would continue to ensure Kerry’s safety while allowing for more comprehensive assessments and planning ((Munro, 2011; Boffa & Randall, 2020)). It is a transitional phase between crisis response and a more sustainable, long-term solution. In Alice and Frank's case, the interim safety plan likely involves continued separation from unsupervised caregiving while Kerry remains in the care of a relative (Barlow et al., 2012). During this phase, child protection services would increase their presence through frequent check-ins, assessing the parents' emotional and psychological well-being (Bunn, 2013). This ongoing monitoring addresses the child's safety and the underlying family stressors contributing to the crisis.

Regular communication with the family and network members throughout this period is essential to assess the plan's functionality. Are the safety measures being followed? Are Alice and Frank compliant with the arrangements, or are there signs of resistance? This reflection allows for real-time adjustments to ensure the plan remains effective (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). If Alice or Frank is struggling emotionally with the separation, the child protection worker might explore additional support or therapeutic interventions (Barlow et al., 2012). For instance, Alice’s disclosure of postpartum depression would be integrated into the broader safety planning process.

The Long-Term Safety Plan

The Long-Term Safety Plan is the final and most comprehensive phase. This plan ensures that Kerry remains safe even after child protection services reduce their involvement or close the case. By the time the long-term plan is developed, a full risk assessment has been completed, and the family has engaged in extensive safety planning (Munro, 2011). In Kerry’s case, the plan would include ongoing family support and monitoring through an established safety network composed of individuals committed to her well-being. This network might include extended family members, such as the maternal grandmother, and close friends or community members (Bunn, 2013). A critical element of long-term safety planning is its participatory nature. Everyone involved must clearly understand their role and be willing to step in when necessary to protect the child (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

Child protection services would take a more observational role at this stage, while the family and their network would be responsible for sustaining the safety plan. The long-term safety plan must be continuously tested and refined to ensure sustainability (Bunn, 2013). For instance, the family might agree to a structured routine where specific individuals from the network regularly check in on Alice and Kerry, especially during high-stress times, such as feeding or bedtime, which Alice identified as particularly difficult.

Network-Focused Resilience

A network-focused approach strengthens the safety plan’s resilience. The plan becomes more robust by engaging diverse individuals, including those providing direct care and emotional support (Munro, 2011). These individuals serve as the eyes and ears for child protection, ensuring immediate and long-term safety. They also provide emotional and practical support to Alice and Frank, helping to alleviate some of the pressures contributing to the crisis. For instance, a trusted neighbour might assist with childcare when Alice feels overwhelmed, while a family member could step in during more critical situations (Barlow et al., 2012).

What Safety Is Not: Clarifying Misconceptions in Child Welfare Safety Planning

In developing a safety plan for a child assessed (following a rigorous and sophisticated balanced risk assessment) as being at risk of maltreatment, one should ask: what is safety and, just as important, what is it not? There are several myths about safety in the child welfare world that, if not addressed, could undermine the efficacy of a safety plan. Safety is not about sending caregivers to services, extracting promises from parents, pursuing guilty parties, separating children from their caregivers, or forcing an admission of guilt (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Safety is also not a punitive measure or an emotional reassurance; it is a dynamic, proactive process that requires family participation and a robust and supportive network (Boffa & Randall, 2020; Turnell & Edwards, 1999). In Kerry’s case, where suspicions of abuse arose after she was hospitalized with severe injuries, building a genuine, effective safety plan is paramount. Let us examine these misconceptions about safety and understand why a “No Network, No Safety” approach is critical for ensuring the long-term protection of children (Turnell, 2012).

1. Safety Is Not Sending Caregivers to Services

A common misconception in child welfare is that enrolling caregivers in services such as counselling, parenting classes, or therapy equates to creating safety. While services can assist caregivers, they are not a substitute for a safety plan. Services may help to address underlying issues such as substance abuse, mental health struggles, or relationship stressors, but they do not directly ensure the child’s safety (Heifetz, 1994; Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

In the case of Alice and Frank, it would be easy to assume that sending Alice to therapy to address her postpartum depression would be sufficient to resolve concerns about Kerry’s safety. However, while treatment may help Alice cope with her emotional struggles, it does not prevent the immediate and ongoing risks Kerry faces if Alice is left alone with her without oversight (Turnell, 2012). No matter how well-intentioned or helpful, services do not substitute for attainable demonstration of changed behaviour leading to safety and well-being. Safety requires real-time measures that specify who will be with Kerry, when, and how they will ensure her well-being in daily life (Boffa & Randall, 2020). Services may be part of a broader solution, but they are not the solution alone.

2. Safety Is Not a Promise or Commitment to "Not Do It Again"

A significant and dangerous misconception is that a caregiver’s promise to “never do it again” is enough to ensure the child’s safety. Verbal commitments do not guarantee behaviour change or meaningful protection (Turnell, 2012). When parents like Alice and Frank express sorrow over their child’s injury and promise never to hurt their child again, this is an understandable emotional response. Still, it cannot be relied upon to ensure Kerry’s safety. Safety planning emphasizes that actions speak louder than words. A promise must be accompanied by accountability and oversight (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). In Kerry’s case, even though Alice and Frank maintained their innocence and expressed confusion over the injuries, their emotional responses, while genuine, cannot replace the concrete, observable actions outlined in a safety plan. A safety plan must be actionable, measurable, and enforceable, and relying on hope or emotional promises is inadequate for ensuring Kerry's well-being (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

3. Safety Is Not an Admission of Guilt

A common and critical misunderstanding in safety planning is the belief that creating a safety plan implies the caregiver must admit guilt in harming the child. However, safety planning is not about assigning blame or obtaining an admission of guilt (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). It is about securing the child’s protection moving forward.  In Alice and Frank’s case, both parents were adamant that they did not know how Kerry’s injuries occurred. Even without an admission of guilt, a safety plan is still necessary. Safety planning focuses on preventing future harm, regardless of whether the caregiver admits responsibility for past actions. This approach enables caregivers to participate in safety planning without feeling that they are confessing guilt, as the process centers on prevention rather than punishment (Turnell, 2012).

4. Safety Is Not About Pursuing the "Guilty Party"

It is critical to emphasize that safety is not achieved by identifying or punishing the "guilty party" responsible for a child's injuries. This misconception can derail the process and distract from the real goal: ensuring the child's future safety (Boffa & Randall, 2020). Traditional child protection systems often focus on proving guilt or finding fault, but this approach does not create lasting safety for children. By focusing on blame rather than addressing the core issues, child welfare can inadvertently transfer the unresolved risks to future generations (Turnell, 2012).

5. Safety Is Not Separation from Caregivers

Another troubling misconception is that long-term safety is achieved when separating a child from their caregivers, which is synonymous with ensuring safety. However, separation alone does not equate to safety and can often negatively affect the child’s emotional well-being. Safety planning seeks to build protective measures within the child’s family and community (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The goal is to involve everyone in a rigorous, transparent pursuit of safety that acknowledges the complexity of family dynamics while ensuring the holistic well-being of children (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

 

6. No Network, No Safety: The Critical Role of Safety Networks

The statement "No Network, No Safety" is a foundational principle in child welfare. A safety plan is as strong as the climate of safety on which it is built (Turnell, 2012). Safety plans cannot exist if no extended family, friends, or professional allies are informed and committed to a child's long-term safety. A safety plan without a reliable and committed network is a document, not a living process. The involvement of extended family, close friends, or other trusted individuals ensures that Kerry is surrounded by people who can act if her safety is at risk (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

Alice and Frank were struggling with emotional and situational stress. Alice, in particular, had postpartum depression, and while Frank was working, Alice was often left alone with Kerry. This dynamic created a situation where Kerry was vulnerable to harm, intentional or due to neglect caused by Alice’s emotional state (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The child protection worker’s role here would be to ensure that a safety network is in place and that a group of people are committed to supporting Alice and Frank in ensuring Kerry’s safety (Turnell, 2012). For example, a strong safety network might include Kerry’s maternal grandmother, who could step in when Alice felt overwhelmed. A neighbour or family friend might also be involved, stopping by regularly to check on the family and ensure that Kerry is safe and well cared for (Boffa & Randall, 2020). This network provides accountability, oversight, and support, preventing isolation and reducing the risk of further harm (Turnell, 2012).

With a safety network, Alice and Frank could manage their stress and caregiving responsibilities, decreasing the chances of future incidents. The network’s role is not to judge the parents but to provide practical, real-time support and ensure that the safety plan’s rules are followed (Boffa & Randall, 2020). A comprehensive network also addresses potential triggers and stressors. In the case of Kerry, it became evident that certain times of the day, such as feeding or bedtime, were more stressful for Alice. A safety network could be organized around these high-stress times, ensuring that someone is present to assist Alice and ensure Kerry’s well-being (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

Moreover, a network offers continuity. Child protection services are temporary by design; they step in during a crisis but must eventually step back. A network, however, is part of the family’s natural support system and remains in place long after CPS closes the case (Turnell, 2012). This long-term commitment is what sustains safety over time. With a network, the safety plan can be effective, as there would be no one to ensure that the plan is upheld when child protection services are no longer involved (Turnell, 2012).

Essential Components of a Safety Plan

To be effective, a comprehensive safety plan must include several critical elements:

1.     Networks: One of the most critical aspects of a successful safety plan is the involvement of a robust safety network. This network comprises individuals naturally connected to the child, such as family members, friends, and neighbours. These people play an essential role in ensuring that the child is safe and cared for, especially in times of crisis (Turnell, 2012).

2.     Words and Pictures: Safety plans should be communicated in a child-friendly way whenever possible. This can include creating explanations using words and pictures that help children understand the safety measures being implemented. This approach empowers the child and ensures the safety plan is accessible to all family members (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

3.     Clear, Specified Actions: A safety plan must specify each person’s actions to protect the child. Actions must be clear and detailed because ambiguity around who is responsible for doing what is often a recipe for failure (Turnell, 2012). For Kerry, this might involve clear rules about who should do what, when, how, and how frequently they should do it.

4.     Testing and Monitoring: A safety plan should be dynamic. It requires frequent testing and monitoring (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Testing a safety plan could be done through periodic visits to the home by child protection workers running a series of fire drills and tracking progress in a safety journal.

5.     Long-Term Sustainability: A long-term safety plan can help preserve the child’s safety and well-being in her family beyond child protection services. This requires ongoing time and commitment from the safety network and the family (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

Preparing and Facilitating Network and Family Safety Planning Sessions

Child protection professionals must prepare for and facilitate safety planning sessions that set the conditions for collaboration between the family and the support network to help keep a child in her family long-term (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The Safety Planning Worksheet provides an essential scaffold for professionals as they structure and organize the safety planning process. It consists of seven steps that guide practitioners to facilitate a rigorous and sophisticated process that holds everyone accountable for safety (Turnell, 2012).

Step 1: Identifying the Critical Issue

At the outset of the preparation process, it is crucial to identify the primary issue that will be addressed in the session. Attempting to resolve multiple problems, such as drug use, violence, or mental health concerns, at once can overwhelm the family and hinder progress. The Safety Planning Worksheet is designed to help focus on one issue at a time (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). For example, in Alice and Frank’s case, the critical issue might be ensuring that Kerry is always cared for by a responsible adult when Alice feels emotionally overwhelmed.

Step 2: Creating a Scaling Question

A scaling question helps professionals frame the issue and assess where the family and their network stand regarding the critical concern. This question should be clear, direct, and related to the vital issue. In Kerry's case, a scaling question might be, "On a scale of 0 to 10, where ten means we are confident that Kerry is always safe even when times are at their hardest for her caregivers and 0 means we are worried that something harmful could happen at any moment, especially when times are hard for her caregivers, where would you place things today?" (Turnell, 2012).

Step 3: Exploring What is Working

One of the most effective ways to engage families is to explore what already works for them. Building on existing strengths helps foster engagement and motivation (Boffa & Randall, 2020). For example, suppose Alice and Frank have successfully managed specific caregiving duties or shown effective parenting behaviours. In that case, these strengths should be recognized and incorporated into the plan. Professionals can use questions such as, “When have you been able to provide safe care for Kerry, even in difficult situations?” (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

Step 4: Exploring Existing Safety

Existing safety refers to moments when the problem or danger was managed effectively, even slightly. These moments provide a foundation for building safety measures into the plan. For instance, if Alice had successfully reached out to her mother for help during a particularly stressful time, that instance could be used as a model (Turnell, 2012). The facilitator might ask, “When have you noticed things going well? What actions were taken that kept Kerry safe during those times?”

Step 5: Identifying Triggers and Stressors

In this step, professionals help the family explore the triggers and stressors that could lead to the problem reoccurring. A trigger is a person, item, or event that causes a caregiver's emotional or psychological reaction that might cause them to act in ways that cause risk to their children (Boffa & Randall, 2020). For Alice, triggers might include times of the day when she feels overwhelmed, such as feeding or bedtime. The family and network can better prepare for these stressors by identifying them. A helpful question might be, “What situations or times of the day seem to cause the most stress for you when caring for Kerry?” (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Stressors, such as Alice’s postpartum depression, also need to be considered as part of the safety planning process (Turnell, 2012).

Step 6: Identifying Red Flags

Red flags are defined as observable behaviours or signs that indicate the caregiver may act in ways that jeopardize the child’s safety and well-being (Turnell, 2012). In Alice's case, recognizing red flags, such as signs of frustration or isolation, is crucial for anticipating risks. The safety plan should include strategies for what to do when these red flags are observed. A question to explore this could be, “What behaviours or signs do you notice when you are feeling overwhelmed?” (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

Step 7: Clarifying Who Will Do What, When, and How

Finally, the Safety Planning Worksheet requires professionals to define specific roles and actions for the family and their support network. This step ensures accountability and clarity. In Kerry’s case, the worksheet might guide the facilitator in asking, “Who will step in to help when Alice feels overwhelmed? What actions will be taken, and how will we ensure Kerry’s safety during these times?” (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). This final step is essential in translating the information collected into a workable, actionable plan.

Critical Considerations for Facilitating Safety Plans

A comprehensive safety plan should cover specific rules and arrangements that ensure the child’s safety and well-being across various aspects of their daily life. Key elements include identifying people the child can contact if they have concerns, designating those who will assist caregivers during stressful times, and establishing boundaries that individual caregivers should avoid (Boffa & Randall, 2020). In cases where professionals, such as mental health practitioners, are involved, it is essential to clearly outline their role in maintaining the child’s safety. Actions should also describe who will step in when caregivers are not coping and how the family will handle particularly challenging events like anniversaries, alcohol or drug use, or financial stress (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

For children in foster care or residential settings, safety plans must manage risky behaviours, such as self-injury or aggression, by identifying triggers, signs of escalation, and the safety measures already in place (Turnell, 2012).

How to Facilitate Safety Planning Sessions

After thorough preparation, the next step is facilitating the safety planning sessions. A safety planning session necessitates bringing together the family and their support network to collaboratively develop a detailed, actionable plan based on the information gathered in the Safety Planning Worksheet (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The facilitator guides the conversation without imposing solutions, allowing the family to take ownership of the plan (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

A critical aspect of facilitating the safety plan is setting the right tone at the beginning of the session. The facilitator should begin by honouring the caregiver’s and network members’ commitment to the child’s safety (Turnell, 2012). In Kerry, recognizing Alice and Frank’s willingness to engage despite their emotional struggles helps build trust and a collaborative atmosphere. Emphasizing that the session is focused on the child’s safety, not blame, helps reduce defensiveness and fosters open communication (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

Several logistical and organizational factors must be considered when preparing for safety planning sessions to ensure the process runs smoothly. Each session should last 90 to 120 minutes, allowing enough time for meaningful discussion and collaboration. The location of the meeting is also essential. Depending on what is most comfortable and practical for the family, it could occur in the family home, a community space, or an office setting (Boffa & Randall, 2020). Facilitators should consider small details such as providing beverages or food and who will handle these arrangements. It is crucial to ensure that all participants are informed of the meeting date and time and that any caregiving needs are addressed to enable full participation (Turnell, 2012).

Additionally, facilitators should come prepared with printed copies of the trajectory and timeline, including the Danger Statement(s), Safety Goal(s), and Safety Scale(s), so that everyone has a clear vision of the process (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Bringing examples of finalized adult and child safety plans, including words and pictures, can help provide inspiration and clarity for the family and network (Boffa & Randall, 2020). The session should also have materials like flip charts, PowerPoint slides, whiteboards, and pens to facilitate the discussion. Keeping a list of contact information and printed calendars for scheduling follow-up sessions ensures that everyone stays organized and engaged. Lastly, preparation between sessions, including group supervision and updating the safety planning worksheet, is critical to ensuring that each subsequent session builds effectively on the previous work (Turnell, 2012).

To effectively engage participants and begin each safety planning session, it is essential to start with a review of the previous meeting. This includes revisiting the agreements and ensuring everyone is aligned on what has been accomplished. The facilitator should display the finalized rules of the safety plan (from previous sessions), allowing the network and caregivers to review their contributions and progress (Turnell, 2012). Reviewing the Safety Journal, a tool for tracking efforts between sessions can help identify what actions have been tried and tested and whether they were successful. Discussing what worked well and what did not provides an opportunity to refine and adjust the plan as needed (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

The facilitator should also "test the waters" for any potential disputes or tensions within the network that may have surfaced since the last session, assessing whether the partnership has weakened (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Addressing any concerns or conflicts early on is essential for restoring trust and strengthening the group’s cohesion. Additionally, the facilitator should review the network members' commitment, availability, and willingness to continue participating, ensuring they are still able and motivated to fulfill their roles in the safety plan (Boffa & Randall, 2020). This reflection helps maintain a unified and resilient safety network focused on the ongoing well-being of the child (Turnell, 2012).

Facilitating a safety planning session takes thoughtful preparation and should be developed in a non-directive but collaborative way. The facilitator asks questions about the family’s unique circumstances and how to handle specific situations. It is not about having the facilitator tell the family what to do; instead, it is about involving the family and network in an action plan to create a safety plan that is specific and attainable (Turnell, 2012). This will include who will do what, where, when, and how during challenging times. The facilitator’s role is to help establish an atmosphere where the family feels in control of a respectful and supportive plan (Boffa & Randall, 2020). In families such as Kerry’s, the facilitator could ask: "What has worked well for Kerry and the people she is close to in the past with her care, and how can we build on this moving forward?" (Turnell & Edwards 1999). This allows the family members to look back at previous successes and view the safety plan as a ‘living’ document that builds on existing strengths and is more practical and sustainable (Turnell, 2012).  By facilitating these questions, the worker ensures the plan is realistic, actionable, and based on the family’s dynamics rather than imposing external solutions (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

Example of a Rigorous and Sophisticated Facilitation in Kerry's Case

While facilitating the planning sessions, the facilitator should routinely consider acknowledging the family’s strengths to understand existing capacities and abilities and further build on them. For example, the facilitator might say, “Alice, I know you have successfully reached out to your mother for support when things were tough. That shows a great deal of strength. How can we build on that to ensure Kerry is safe moving forward?” (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Instead of imposing a plan, the facilitator guides the conversation to develop actionable steps collaboratively (Boffa & Randall, 2020). For instance, the practitioner might ask, "Alice, when Kerry is fussy in the mornings, what has helped you manage the situation in the past?" Alice could reply, "My mother helps a lot when she is around." The facilitator can encourage further reflection by asking, "That is great. How could we ensure your mother is available more regularly during those difficult times?" (Turnell, 2012).

The practitioner might then engage Alice’s mother by asking her about her previous involvement, such as, "What were you able to do last time Alice reached out for help? Are you still able to offer that support? What do you think would work best moving forward?" (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The facilitator would also use "what if" questions to ensure the safety plan is robust and adaptable. For example, they might ask, "Alice, what if your mom does not answer when you call? What if she is busy? What would you do if your mom is on vacation and unable to come over when you need her?" (Boffa & Randall, 2020). These questions encourage the family to consider potential obstacles and create a more thorough, reliable safety plan for different scenarios (Turnell, 2012).

In this exchange, the facilitator helps Alice and the network refine a plan that builds on existing support while remaining responsive to triggers and stressors (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). The focus is on allowing the family to shape the plan in a way that works for them rather than imposing a rigid solution. This approach ensures that the safety plan is realistic, owned by the family, and more likely to succeed (Boffa & Randall, 2020). Once the practitioner, caregivers, and network feel they have thoroughly explored a particular step, the practitioner documents it as a rule and adds it to the safety plan. However, this rule is subject to further testing and refinement (Turnell, 2012).

To gauge whether the network feels they have fully addressed a risk element, the practitioner might ask a scaling question: "On a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 meaning 'we have not fully thought through this rule, and there are still challenges that could arise,' and ten meaning 'this rule is as developed as it can be and we have covered all bases,' where do you think we are?" (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). This helps ensure the group is confident in the plan while identifying areas needing more work.

Throughout the process, the practitioner should remember the concept of being "firm and hugely kind," as Sussie Essex advocates. This means maintaining the child’s safety and well-being as the top priority. If a proposed rule does not fully ensure these outcomes, the practitioner should intervene with additional questions to guide the group toward a more robust solution (Turnell, 2012). This balance of empathy and rigour ensures that the plan is comprehensive and practical.

Scaling Progress and Refining the Plan

Once the worker and the network feel they have thoroughly addressed all issues and developed a comprehensive, well-thought-out safety plan (achieved throughout several sessions as outlined in the timeline), the facilitator uses scaling questions to continually assess the network’s confidence in the plan (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). For instance, after defining specific roles and responsibilities, the facilitator might ask, "On a scale from 0 to 10, how confident are we that this plan will keep Kerry safe?" (Boffa & Randall, 2020). If any participants express doubts or uncertainty, the facilitator can work with the group to adjust and refine the plan to ensure all concerns are fully addressed.

Leading a family and their safety network through the safety planning process is a comprehensive and ongoing journey that requires far more than a single session. It involves continuous engagement, reflection, and collaboration over multiple meetings, each addressing different aspects of the family’s situation (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). In Kerry’s case, for example, the process cannot simply be concluded with one meeting where Alice and Frank agree on specific safety measures. It is critical to explore "what if" scenarios, constantly asking, "What if Alice feels overwhelmed again? What if Frank’s work schedule changes, leaving Kerry with Alice for longer periods? What if a network member is unable to fulfill their role?" (Boffa & Randall, 2020). By posing these questions, the child protection worker ensures the plan is robust and flexible, accounting for unforeseen challenges and stresses (Turnell, 2012).

Monitoring and Testing the Plan

The facilitator must emphasize that the safety plan is dynamic and requires testing and monitoring. A safety plan should be revisited regularly to assess its effectiveness and make any necessary adjustments (Turnell, 2012). This is especially important for cases like Kerry’s, where the risks may evolve as the investigation continues or the family’s situation changes. The safety network must remain actively involved, and the plan should be tested in real-life situations to ensure that it functions as intended (Boffa & Randall, 2020).

A key challenge in safety planning is ensuring that the safety network remains committed over time. Facilitators should use tools like the Commitment Calendar to help network members visualize their availability and clarify their roles and responsibilities. These tools enhance accountability and provide a clear framework for when and how each network member will support the family and ensure the child’s safety. For instance, in Kerry’s case, the Commitment Calendar could outline when specific individuals, such as her grandmother or a family friend, will provide support, especially during high-stress periods like feeding or bedtime. The calendar ensures that everyone involved knows precisely when and where to be present and helps prevent gaps in the safety plan.

Network Dynamics and Addressing Commitment

Network dynamics can be complex, as participants may have differing views or levels of commitment. A skilled facilitator must be prepared to manage disputes and address any concerns that arise within the network. Some network members may reconsider their role after realizing what they have agreed to, recognizing that they may be unwilling or unable to participate. Facilitators can use scaling questions such as, “On a scale from 0 to 10, how confident are you that you can support this family and continue contributing to the safety plan?” This helps surface any concerns and allows for adjustments (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).  For example, in Kerry’s case, some network members might initially feel overwhelmed by the responsibility of ensuring her safety. By using tools like the Sorting Matrix, facilitators can help the family determine which network members are best suited for different roles, whether they will provide short-term or long-term support, and whether they are directly involved in caregiving or offer more peripheral support. 

It is also essential to revisit the No Network, No Safety principle. A safety plan with a reliable, engaged network is practical. Alice and Frank must have a network that understands their struggles and is committed to Kerry’s safety. Without this network, Alice might be left alone with Kerry during times of emotional distress, increasing the risk of harm. A safety plan's success hinges on the network members’ willingness, capacity, and confidence to take on necessary roles (Turnell, 2012).

Testing the Safety Plan

Child protection professionals can test and refine the safety plan through regular check-ins with the family and network. These sessions allow the facilitator to ask reflective questions such as, “What has been the most challenging aspect of the plan?” or “What changes do we need to make to ensure Kerry’s safety is fully protected?” Fire drills, a vital tool in testing, can ensure the plan is understood and actionable. These drills simulate potential scenarios, providing a dry run for the safety plan. By testing each person’s role, the facilitator can ensure the network is prepared to act when needed (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

For example, in Kerry’s case, a fire drill might simulate a stressful morning when Alice is overwhelmed and Kerry is fussy. Alice could follow the plan by recognizing her triggers and signalling for help. The facilitator would observe: Does Alice follow through? Is her mother available to assist as promised? Are backup strategies in place? (Boffa & Randall, 2020). This continuous cycle of testing, reflection, and adjustment ensures that the safety plan evolves with the family’s circumstances and remains functional in moments of crisis (Turnell, 2012).

Sustaining the Safety Plan After Child Protection Involvement

After creating, testing, refining, and finalizing a safety plan, the challenge becomes ensuring it remains effective long after child protection services close the case. This involves applying principles from research fields such as change management, strategic management, and behavioural sciences to help the family sustain the safety plan over time (Turnell, 2012).  The practitioner must help the safety network understand and navigate group dynamics to maintain long-term collaboration. Concepts such as role clarity, interdependence, and conflict resolution strategies are essential for helping the network remain cohesive and effective (Boffa & Randall, 2020). Regular check-ins and group cohesion activities can strengthen their commitment to the child’s well-being (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

Applying Change Management Principles

The safety plan should be underpinned by change management frameworks like the ADKAR model (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement) (Prosci, 2017).

• Awareness: The family and network must understand the risks and why the safety plan is necessary. For example, Alice and Frank need to be reminded of the potential harm to Kerry if safety measures are not followed (Turnell, 2012).

• Desire: Building a willingness to change requires ongoing engagement, especially in resistant individuals like Frank. Discussions could focus on how maintaining safety benefits the entire family and reduce stress (Prosci, 2017).

• Knowledge: Equip the family with the skills needed to maintain safety. For example, Alice could learn stress management techniques to prevent emotional overwhelm, especially during high-stress times like Kerry’s bedtime (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

• Ability: The family must demonstrate their ability to implement the plan in real-life situations. As previously described, fire drills test how well the family and network respond to stressful scenarios (Turnell, 2012).

• Reinforcement: Reinforcement is critical to ensuring the plan’s longevity. Praising successful actions, such as Alice calling her mother when overwhelmed, reinforces positive behaviour (Prosci, 2017). Regular check-ins from professionals help remind the family and network to stay committed to the plan.

Utilize Strategic Management for Long-Term Vision

Strategic management focuses on setting long-term goals and ensuring sustainable outcomes. In the context of Alice and Frank, it ensures that their safety plan remains relevant and adaptable as Kerry ages (Bryson, 2018; Mintzberg, 1994).

• Long-Term Goals: Beyond immediate safety, the family should set long-term goals for stability. For example, once Alice has managed her postpartum depression, the goal may shift toward improving overall family dynamics and ensuring Kerry continues to develop in a safe and nurturing environment (Mintzberg, 1994).

• Resource Allocation: Identifying long-term resources is essential. In Alice’s case, the maternal grandmother plays a significant role in Kerry’s safety. To ensure sustainability, the safety plan should identify additional community resources, such as a local support group for parents or nearby friends who can assist if the individuals committed to safety become unavailable (Porter, 1996).

• Sustainability: The family and safety network should revisit the plan periodically to ensure it still aligns with their circumstances. As Kerry grows older, safety measures may need to be adapted, such as creating boundaries around her contact with Frank if his involvement still needs to be fully reconciled (Bryson, 2018).

Implement Project Management Techniques

Project management frameworks can help embed client safety as an ongoing, iterative process, not a one-off creation (Kerzner, 2017; PMI, 2021). Key elements include setting milestones, tracking progress, and ongoing risk management.

• Milestones: Specific milestones should be built to help monitor progress or modify the plan. Setting realistic milestones and reviewing progress helps keep the safety plan alive, such as three-month, six-month, and 12-month reviews of its effectiveness (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021).

• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): Besides specific milestones, it is essential to build KPIs to monitor the plan's success. For instance, a KPI might be whether Kerry’s well-being improves based on regular monitoring and fewer incidents of emotional distress within the family (Kerzner, 2017).

• Risk Management: As with project management, risks should be managed as they impact the safety plan. If unexpected circumstances alter Alice’s emotional state, contingency plans should be in place if she cannot utilize the support network as agreed (PMI, 2021).

Use a Network-Based Approach from Social Work

The “No Network, No Safety” principle remains foundational. Sustaining the safety plan requires continued engagement from a strong and diverse safety network (Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Drawing from community organizing principles, the network should include both family and community members.

• Building Social Capital: The network should grow beyond child welfare’s involvement long after closing the case. In Alice and Frank's case, the plan could expand to involve a trusted neighbour who can check in on the family or even a local community group that provides emotional support (Putnam, 2000).

• Foster a Culture of Accountability

Drawing from organizational development research, it is essential to embed accountability mechanisms within the safety plan to ensure all parties remain committed to their roles long after child protection services step away (Heifetz, 1994).

• Clear Roles and Responsibilities: Every member of the safety network must have a defined role. Using a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RACI), the family and network can clarify who is responsible for specific tasks, such as who will check in on Alice during high-stress times (Kerzner, 2017).

• Regular Reviews and Audits: Set up periodic reviews, similar to performance reviews in organizations, where the safety plan is revisited and revised as necessary (Heifetz, 1994).

• Commitment Calendar: A Commitment Calendar can help track the involvement of the safety network. By scheduling specific times when each person will provide support, such as Alice’s mother checking in daily at bedtime, the family ensures no gaps in the plan’s execution (Turnell & Edwards, 1999).

  
  

Integrate Behavioral Science for Positive Reinforcement

Incorporating techniques from behavioural sciences can help sustain the family’s adherence to the safety plan through ongoing reinforcement and behaviour modification (Skinner, 1953).

• Positive Reinforcement: Encourage and reinforce positive behaviors. For example, when Alice successfully reaches out for help during moments of overwhelm, her support network should provide positive feedback, reinforcing the behaviour (Skinner, 1953).

By combining these strategies, we can ensure the long-term sustainability of the safety plan for families like Alice and Frank. Sustaining the safety plan goes beyond the immediate crisis; it requires a network-based, long-term approach that draws from multiple disciplines to ensure that families remain committed, supported, and engaged in maintaining safety long after child protection services step away.

Practitioner Sustainability Checklist

This is a checklist that practitioners can use during safety planning with families to monitor the ingredients of a stabilizing safety plan.

1. Network Engagement

• Is the network fully onboard and engaged in the process?

• Does everyone in the network know what they are saying yes to?

• Are network group roles and responsibilities defined and understood by all network members?

• Are all network members committed to long-term participation in the plan?

• Is the network broad and diverse enough to sustain over time (family, friends, community)?

2. Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities

• Are each family member’s and network participant’s responsibilities documented in the written safety plan?

• Is there a place for a check-in person, or is there a network safety boss?

• Are backup roles identified when primary individuals are unavailable (e.g., second caregiver when the primary one is unavailable)?

3. Milestones and Progress Tracking

• Are milestones in the plan specific, measured and outlined (e.g., first three months, six months, one year)?

• Have key performance indicators (KPIs) been identified to track the plan? (e.g., child chronic stress/trauma symptoms, involvement with family safety network)

• Are regular check-ins or audits identified in the plan?

4. Communication

• Does the family/safety network know how to reach each other?

• Is there clarity around who will contact whom during anxious, stressed or overwhelming periods?

• Is there reliability in identifying and informing all relevant parties if the situation changes?

5. Risk Management

• Can red flags, stressors and triggers be identified?

• Are there relevant rules associated with those triggers and red flags?

• Have we identified what will occur if the risk event materializes?

• Is there a plan in place if your primary caregivers or network members cannot be engaged?

6. Monitoring and Reinforcement

• Are regular check-ins and plan reviews scheduled? (e.g., quarterly or bi-annually)?

• Are methods identified to reinforce positive conduct and adherence to the plan? (e.g., ‘Great job’ feedback, acknowledgement, and celebration of success using the safety journal)

• What are the mechanisms to identify family/network signs of disengagement or plan fatigue?

7. Long-term Supports

• Can the family use ongoing mental health or family support resources? (e.g., therapist, support group)

• Are there community resources for families (parenting programmes, social services) identified in the event of additional need?

• What is the plan for de-escalating child protection services into community support?

Conclusion

Safety Planning as a Collaborative and Dynamic Process

Safety Planning in child welfare necessitates collaboration, compassion and continual reflection. A dynamic approach, viewing safety planning as a process, helps engage families and their networks in developing and implementing a viable safety plan to ensure the child’s short- and long-term safety. As Kerry’s case illustrates, while there is always an immediate imperative to develop an effective safety plan, it is equally important to craft one responsive to the family’s unique circumstances and sufficiently rigorous to protect the child from future harm. Thus, a safety plan must create a sustainable, long-term, generative environment for children, not just an acute risk-driven approach to preserve their safety. This requires a committed and adjacent network of people, clearly defined rules and actions, and ongoing monitoring and reflective practice. Indeed, an approach rooted in exploring lived experiences, drawing on child development research and a thorough understanding of a child’s experiences within their family systems is what can move the needle for the most vulnerable children and their families.

Reference list

Barlow, J., Fisher, J. D., & Jones, D. (2012). A systematic review of models of analyzing significant harm. Research in Practice.

Beck, A. T., & Dozois, D. J. (2011). Cognitive therapy: Current status and future directions. Annual Review of Medicine, 62, 397-409. 

Boffa, J., & Randall, K. (2020). Beyond services: Developing supportive networks in child protection. Journal of Child Welfare Practice, 8(3), 214-225.

Bunn, A. (2013). Signs of safety in child protection: An overview of the literature. Child & Family Social Work, 18(1), 26–34.

Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (5th ed.). Wiley.

Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press.

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Free Press.

Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report - A child-centred system. The Stationery Office.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (7th ed.). PMI.

Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78.

Prosci. (2017). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government, and our community. Prosci Learning.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. Free Press.

Turnell, A. (2012). Signs of safety: A solution and safety-oriented approach to child protection casework (2nd ed.). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of safety: A safety and solution-oriented approach to child protection casework. W.W. Norton.