The Use of Mapping in Child Welfare Investigations: A Strength-based Hybrid Intervention

Abstract

To enhance strengths-based service, a large urban child welfare agency in Ontario, Canada implemented part of the Signs of Safety (SOS) model in 2010. SOS was created to engage families involved with the child welfare system, and is rooted in the beliefs of collaboration, strengths-based practice, and safety. The hybrid of the full SOS model focused on the mapping conference, where cases that have been previously opened four or more times to child welfare are brought forward and discussed in a methodological fashion. Repeat referrals to child welfare agencies have dramatically increased over recent years and extant literature lacks a solid understanding of cases that have been opened on multiple occasions. Thus, the goals of mapping conferences were to reduce the total number and increase the understanding of re-opened cases, while still ensuring child safety and improving clinical service. The mapping conference includes a prescribed clinical, strength-based approach and case mapping, which examines: danger/harm; strengths/safety factors; and goals and next steps. The mapping conference was evaluated using mixed methods. Primary results indicate that only 6% of the mapped cases re-opened after a 12-month period. Recommendations from front-line workers include: fully implementing SOS in the investigative process and greater agency support for strength-based practice; including families in the mapping process; and increasing workers' honesty and transparency when engaging with families.

The voices of parents in child protective services: A qualitative analysis of families’ struggles with COVID-19

“…Identifying strengths and building on them promote a sense of self-efficacy and facilitate working toward change and improvements in children’s well-being ( Ayón, Aisenberg, & Erera, 2010 ; Toros & Falch-Eriksen, 2021 ; Van Hook, 2019 ). Furthermore, solution-focused techniques, such as exploring exceptions, coping, scaling, and the miracle question could be useful for families in terms of resilience, strengths and resources ( Cowger, 1994 ; Oliver, 2017 ), empowerment, motivation ( Kemp, Marcenko, Lyons, & Kruzich, 2014 ; Lwin, Versanov, Cheung, Goodman, & Andrews, 2014 ; Toros & LaSala, 2018 ), and effective coping strategies ( Toros, LaSala, & Medar, 2016 ). As solution-focused questions are found to improve communication between social workers and clients ( Bannink, 2007 ; de Jong & Berg, 2001 ; Oliver & Charles, 2015 ), they also have the potential to improve communication between family members.…”

Effectiveness of child protection practice models: a systematic review

“…The small number of studies meeting our inclusion criteria is likely related to our stringent inclusion criteria, which were targeted at identifying studies of practice models with child-and family-level outcome measures in public child protection services. Although there is a growing body of literature regarding practice models, the terms used to describe these vary significantly (e.g., "practice frameworks", "change programmes", and "intervention models" - Gillingham, 2018;Lwin, Versanov, Cheung, Goodman, & Andrews, 2014;Laird, Morris, Archard, & Clawson, 2018); and as such, while we developed a comprehensive set of search terms with the aim of increasing the sensitivity of the search, we may not have identified all existing models. Furthermore, the focus on studies written in English means that we may well have failed to identify evaluations of other practice models published in non-English language journals (e.g., Holmgård Sørensen, 2009;Vink, de Wolff, van Dommelen, Bartelink, & van der Veen 2017).…”

Signs of Safety: lessons learnt from evaluations

“…Lwin et al (2014) examined one aspect of SoS, namely mapping. The study was based in large child welfare agency in Ontario, Canada, where child welfare workers were able to request a mapping conference for any case.…”