PRACTITIONER’S RESOURCE GUIDE

MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION

VOLUNTARY FAMILY SERVICE CENTRES

WELFARE
ORGANISATIONS

CHILD PROTECTION
SPECIALIST CENTRES

CHILD CARE
CENTRES
FAMILY SERVICE CENTRES
 CONTENTS

Message from Director of Social Welfare

Foreword by Director, Child Protective Service

CHAPTER 1 Family Preservation Practice Principles and Core Values ........................................ 1

CHAPTER 2 Profiles of Families Receiving SSF-P Intervention .................................................... 11

CHAPTER 3 Benefits of the SSF-P Programme – Qualitative Feedback from Families .............. 19

CHAPTER 4 The Three Phases of SSF-P Intervention .................................................................. 25

CHAPTER 5 Implementing the SSF-P Pilot Programme .............................................................. 32

CHAPTER 6 Theories and Practice Frameworks used in the SSF-P Programme ......................... 39

CHAPTER 7 Assessment Tools used in the SSF-P Programme .................................................... 43

CHAPTER 8 Safety Planning and Monitoring – 5.5 Steps Model ................................................ 51

CHAPTER 9 Managing Self During Critical Incidents and Recurrences ....................................... 55

CHAPTER 10 Capturing the Voices of Children and Young Persons ............................................. 59

CHAPTER 11 Supervision, Training and Coaching ......................................................................... 65

CHAPTER 12 Understanding and Tackling Vicarious Trauma, Secondary Traumatic .................... 72

Stress and Burnout

References ........................................................................................................................................... 79

Annex ................................................................................................................................................... 83
OUR SPECIAL THANKS
This guide was developed by the MSF Child Protective Service, SSF-P community agencies, MSF Clinical and
Forensic Psychology Service and consultants. MSF would like to thank the many organisations, practitioners,
professionals, colleagues from MSF Children in Care Service and friends who helped us make this possible.

FOR PARTNERING US IN CO-CREATING THIS GUIDE:

AMKFSC COMMUNITY SERVICES LTD
Ms Hilyah Saparin, Principal Social Worker
Ms Yeow Ming Zhen, Senior Social Worker
Mr K. Shantasaravanan, Assistant Senior Social Worker
Ms Lim Hui Wen, Assistant Senior Social Worker

KAMPONG KAPOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

Ms Jessica Chan, Lead Social Worker
Ms Chua Minrui, Assistant Senior Social Worker
Ms Gwendoline Ng, Assistant Senior Social Worker
Ms Tay Shu Wen, Social Worker

MONTFORT CARE
Ms Serene Tan, Director
Ms Mok Xue Ting, Senior Social Worker
Ms Divya Sunil Gulati, Case Worker
Ms Seema Patel, Social Worker
Mr Muhammad Syahmi Bin Yahya, Social Work Associate
Mr Nazri Bin Mohamed Yusof, Social Work Associate

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE (CPS)

Ms Yogeswari Munisamy, Senior Principal Social Worker
Ms Firdawati Binte Masri, Principal Social Worker
Ms Lin Siping, Manager
Ms Erlina Chia, Assistant Manager
Ms Ruth Ng, Assistant Manager
Mr Alan Huan, Senior Child Protection Officer

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, CLINICAL AND FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY SERVICE
(CFPS)
Mr Eric Hoo Chin Chieh, Principal Clinical Psychologist/Assistant Director
Mr Daniel Gan, Senior Research Psychologist
Ms Jane Chan, Senior Clinical Psychologist

FOR YOUR INSIGHTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS

SP CONSULTANCY
Ms Sonja Parker (Consultant)
Ms Catherine Santoro (Consultant)

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY (NCCD) CHILDREN’S RESEARCH CENTRE (CRC)
Dr Raelene Freitag (Manager of International and Special Projects)

Date of Publication: 31 January 2019

MESSAGE FROM
DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE
Safe and Strong Families-Preservation (SSF-P) aims to provide intensive in-home
services to support and keep families together, with the hope of preventing the
unnecessary removal of children from their families.

The best place for children and young persons to grow up is in their families. Yet
we also recognise that some families may not have the knowledge and resources
to provide a safe place for children and young persons to grow. Often, family
members have the best intentions but need a guiding hand to teach them
alternative, pro-social ways of parenting. The SSF-P programme helps to equip
families with the knowledge and capabilities to provide a safe, stable home
for children and young persons. The hands-on, home-based work provided by
social service professionals to individualise and provide culturally responsive
and relevant services for families is a defining mark of this programme, and
preliminary data has been heartening.

A key element of good casework is bringing in, or expanding, the family’s social
network. As social workers, we understand how crucial it is to look at the eco-
system of our clients. A supportive network is important to provide families
with an additional helping hand and ear in times of need. Positive support
networks positively impact families’ and children’s well-being and health. These
also reduce the risk of child abuse. SSF-P draws on family members and the
community to create a sustainable network to support the family at-risk.

Kudos to the SSF-P practitioners for documenting their learnings over the last
two years and sharing their practice wisdom so that fellow professionals can
benefit from it. This is the community of social service practitioners we want
to build.

Ang Bee Lian (Ms)

Director of Social Welfare
FOREWORD BY
DIRECTOR,
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE
Our local child protection landscape has evolved quite significantly
over the past 5 years. Today, we have a national framework for the
detection, reporting and management of child protection concerns
through better screening tools and evidence-based interventions.
We have also set up specialist services for child protection in the
community. These developments are in line with efforts to reach out
to families early so that children and young persons can be kept safe
while remaining with their families.

The more we know, the better we seek to do. And as we do, we want
to share what has been helpful. Working alongside our partners on
the SSF programme for example has been edifying as we witness
the science, art and heart of child protection work being weaved into
powerful stories of progress, hope, resilience and possibilities. Our
partners were keen to document the good practices to benefit others
who work with children and families.

Hence this resource guide. It was put together by the MSF Child
Protective Service’s SSF-P Team, Clinical and Forensic Psychology
Service as well as SSF-P community agencies and our Consultants,
Children’s Research Centre and SP Consultancy. It aims to make what
we learnt during the course of the SSF-P Pilot available to other
professionals who are working to preserve children and young persons
at home with their families.

I hope you find this resource helpful. May we continue to build a

community that is committed to helping the most vulnerable in our
society including children and families who need our support to get
back on track.

Carmelia Nathen (Ms)

Director
Child Protective Service
 CHAPTER 1
FAMILY PRESERVATION
PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
AND CORE VALUES

The aims of the Safe and Strong

Families-Preservation (SSF-P)
programme are to ensure children
and young persons’ safety,
strengthen vulnerable families and
preserve relationships amongst
family members so that the family
unit can stay together as it begins
the process of healing. In this
chapter, practitioners will learn
about the fundamental practice
principles and core values that
guide all professionals who work
towards preservation of children
and young persons in families.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will understand the 12 guiding practice principles that guide them in the intensive
family preservation work with families.
• Practitioners will be better able to comprehend and articulate the motivation and actions of the
practitioners as they carry out intensive family preservation service.
• Practitioners will have heightened awareness of ethical considerations that guide the
practitioners who work with families known to Child Protective Service (CPS).
• Supervisors will be able to guide practitioners on what to do or the position to take, especially
when family members or children and young persons are at risk of impending or future harm.
 12 GUIDING PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
FOR PRACTITIONERS
1 SAFETY OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS IS PARAMOUNT.
Children and young persons need a safe and nurturing environment for healthy growth and
development. The practitioner should keep children and young persons safe and reduce
the likelihood of them facing immediate or future harm in their care environment.

2 IT IS BEST FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS TO BE RAISED BY THEIR

NATURAL FAMILIES.
It is most ideal for children and young persons to stay with their families in a safe and stable
environment. The practitioner’s work centres largely around creating enduring safety for
children and young persons, so that they can remain with their natural families. However,
when families become unsafe, the practitioner must intervene so that children and young
persons can be cared for in a safe manner. One way to protect children and young persons
is to create a sustainable safety plan by working closely with other professionals who are
caring for the families (Parker, 2015).

3 CRISIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GROWTH AND CHANGE.

In times of crisis such as the involvement of CPS and possible out-of-home care placement
with foster carers or Voluntary Children Homes, families will face the need to change the
way they function. These situations present good opportunities for the practitioner and
other professionals to help families develop new and more effective skills to cope with their
stressors. Ultimately, the goal is to enhance safety for the children and young persons.

4 THE VOICES OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS SHOULD BE AT THE CENTRE

OF INTERVENTION.
Children and young persons are vulnerable and require protection and support. However,
their voices are sometimes not heard in the practices and interventions (La Valle, Payne &
Jelicic, 2012). The practitioner can address this issue by providing them with opportunities
to express their opinions. Studies have shown that getting children and young persons
involved can promote their safety at home and improve their overall well-being (Lansdown,
2011). Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989)
highlights that “Violence against children in families … will be tackled more effectively if
children themselves are enabled to tell their stories to those people with the authority to
take appropriate action.”1

1
Chapter 4 of the paper will further elaborate on the need for child-focussed practices.

2
5 A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH WITH FAMILIES SUPPORTS THEIR EFFORTS
TO CARE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS AND ENSURE THEIR
SAFETY.
Families are the best source of information about themselves and their lives. The
practitioner should work with families to improve safety for children and young persons.
Such collaborations highlight each family’s strengths, create a more positive experience,
as well as support sustainable change for the family. SSF-P intervention also aims to
empower families to be able to care for children and young persons on their own and
keep them safe. Working with families collaboratively helps them feel that they can play
an active role in ensuring children and young persons’ safety and experience success as
a family.

6 A RIGOROUS AND COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT IS THE BASIS OF A

RELEVANT AND EFFECTIVE CASE PLAN.
An effective case plan (see Annex A) can be developed with proper and thorough
assessment. The practitioner must assess the family’s past and present challenges, as well
as its current strengths and actions of protection (Parker, 2015). With such information
on hand, the practitioner can better guide family members towards creating goals with
sustainable outcomes. For example, he or she can use Structured Decision Making®
(SDM) assessment tools to assess critical decision-making points in children and young
persons’ lives and to facilitate the development of case plans and subsequent steps to
take.

7 A COMMUNITY OF SAFETY AND SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN, YOUNG

PERSONS AND FAMILIES MUST BE DEVELOPED, REGULARLY REVIEWED
AND ENHANCED.
A social support network is vital in safeguarding children and young persons’ well-being,
as members of the network will be their main pillars of support even after preservation
intervention is completed. The practitioner should help families identify a network
of people who know the children and young persons (e.g. family members, friends,
professionals who have regular contact with the children and young persons). These
individuals have to be assessed to be suitable persons to support the safety of the
children and young persons. To achieve this, the practitioner can use the circle of safety
and support tool (see Annex B) from the Partnering for Safety (PFS)2 framework. Do
note that each support network should be regularly reviewed and enhanced after initial
development.

8 TRAUMA-INFORMED INTERVENTION IS KEY TO SUPPORTING CHILDREN,

YOUNG PERSONS AND FAMILIES.
Children and young persons who come into the system would have been exposed
to traumatic events in their lives. The practitioner needs to be able to see their world
through the trauma lens, so that he or she can better support them through a process
of identification, intervention and healing. Some examples are implementing trauma
screening for early detection as well as helping children and young persons and families
relate their experiences to help the practitioner better understand concerns and
determine appropriate interventions. Strengthening attachments by helping parents
to be more attuned to the needs and feelings of children and young persons is also
important in supporting their healing.

2
Partnering for Safety (PFS) framework is developed by SP Consultancy.

3
 9 WORK WITH FAMILIES THROUGH HOME-BASED SERVICES OR WITHIN
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS’ NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS.
Working with families through home-based services is essential in ensuring sustainable
safety. It enables the practitioner to better assess stressors and support that each family has,
in its natural environment, as well as recommend solutions. It also makes the intervention
more accessible, promoting better participation of these families in the change process.

10 PRACTITIONERS ARE AGENTS OF CHANGE AND WILL ADVOCATE FOR CLIENTS
WHERE THERE ARE BARRIERS TO ACCESS SERVICES TO MEET FAMILIES’
NEEDS.
There will be instances where families are unable to receive the support and services they
need to ensure the children and young persons’ safety. The practitioner is responsible
for bridging such gaps by reducing barriers and enhancing access to needed services.
Practitioner can reduce these barriers by advocating for resources to be accessible in
meeting the needs of the families in order to provide safe care for children and young
persons.

11 PRACTICE SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE CULTURAL DIVERSITY OF THE
FAMILIES.
The practitioner is culturally sensitive and works with diversity. Every family has its own
culture and beliefs. Therefore, the practitioner needs to exercise cultural sensitivity
and respect when assessing family dynamics and providing intervention services. The
practitioner should seek to actively listen to the cultural considerations in each family and
provide interventions that are culturally sensitive to the family.

12 FAMILIES’ PROGRESS ON CASE PLAN GOALS SHOULD BE MONITORED
THROUGH PERIODIC AND TIMELY REVIEWS.
Tracking one’s progress is an important part of the goal-setting process. For families,
tracking can be done through periodic structured reviews. Such reviews involve families and
their formal and informal networks, and ensure timely delivery of services to achieve case
plan goals. The practitioner may sometimes encounter cases that involve high likelihood
of future harm and multiple stressors. In such cases, he or she should review the case plan
with a supervisor to ensure safe practice.

4
 It is best for children Crisis is an
Safety of children and young persons opportunity
and young persons to be raised by their for growth and
is paramount. natural families. change.

The voices of A collaborative A rigorous and

children and young approach with families comprehensive
persons should be supports their efforts assessment is the
at the centre of to care for children and basis of a relevant
intervention. young persons, and and effective
ensure their safety. case plan.

A community of
safety and support Work with families
Trauma-informed
for children, young through home-based
interventions is key
persons and families services or within
to supporting children,
must be developed, children and young
young persons
regularly reviewed persons’ natural
and families.
and enhanced. environments.

Practitioners are
Families’ progress
agents of change
Practice should be on case plan
and will advocate
sensitive to the goals should be
for clients where
cultural diversity monitored through
there are barriers to
of the families. periodic and timely
access services to
reviews.
meet families’ needs.

Figure 1. 12 Practice Principles that Guide the Practitioner

5
 ROLES OF THE PRACTITIONER
Each practitioner has multiple roles and responsibilities when helping families. Key roles include:

CASE MANAGER
The practitioner develops and plans interventions to protect vulnerable children and young
persons. A key intervention is safety planning and monitoring safety plans. As a case manager, the
practitioner helps families identify changes that need to be made, regularly tracks their progress
and ensures the children and young persons’ safety and well-being.

EDUCATOR
The practitioner helps families address the identified issues by providing psycho-education.
Examples include teaching parenting skills and providing knowledge on child development as well
as the impact of child abuse and family violence on children and young persons.

THERAPEUTIC SUPPORT PROVIDER

The practitioner provides counselling and emotional support to children and young persons,
parents and those related to the family. This role also entails assessing and referring individuals
under his or her care to trauma recovery services.

BROKER
The practitioner is responsible for ensuring that families are able to provide adequate care to
children and young persons. This role entails linking families or an individual family member up
with community resources such as childcare services, financial assistance programmes, housing
assistance and healthcare services and then following up to ensure that the families receive the
services. Knowledge of community resources, eligibility requirements, fees and the location of
services are vital.

ADVOCATE
The practitioner ensures that families are able to access the resources needed to facilitate the
safety and well-being of children and young persons. The role also involves engaging relevant
stakeholders to highlight the needs of the families or particular groups, and make suggestions to
address service gaps or systemic barriers.

RESEARCHER AND EVALUATOR

The practitioner collects information on the SSF-P programme and its delivery by collecting
quantitative and qualitative data. As a researcher and evaluator, the practitioner must be able to
think critically and analyse whether the intended outcomes are achieved.

6
STANCE OF THE PRACTITIONER
The practitioner should always:

show respect, genuineness and honesty when working with families, children and young
persons;

be curious and open in conversations with families – facilitate honest conversations around
critical issues;

see families as partners with unique strengths and work with them to achieve their goals;

maintain a mutually respectful stance when discussing families’ current practices and
issues;

affirm clients’ strengths, efforts and progress;

take a non-judgemental stance and be open to understanding different opinions and

situations;

be aware and in control of own mental thought processes and body language; and

maintain a sense of calm and rationality in the face of crisis.

7
 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER
The practitioner involved in intensive in-home preservation work may face many ethical dilemmas. He or she has
to observe the Singapore Association of Social Workers (SASW, 2017) and National Association of Social Workers’
(NASW, 2017) Code of Ethics. The key guidelines relevant to SSF-P are as follows:

Duty to protect: The practitioner is responsible for Self-determination: The practitioner is responsible
protecting the client from foreseeable harm. for helping clients make informed decisions.
The practitioner respects clients’ rights to make their own The practitioner affirms the clients’ right to make their
decisions. However, he or she has to make exceptions own decisions, provided that they are aware of and have
for clients who show signs of posing imminent or assessed alternative options (NASW, 2017). Practitioners
foreseeable danger to themselves and others. Courses should provide all relevant information that would
of action include issuing warnings to the clients, making allow clients to make informed decisions. For example,
safety contracts, lodging police reports and contacting participation in the SSF-P programme is voluntary and
mental health professionals. it is just one programme amongst the entire array of
services available to families known to CPS. Ensuring that
clients are aware of all other appropriate assessments
Parameters to confidentiality: The practitioner is and services available will enable them to better decide
responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of on which service to choose for their families.
client information.
The practitioner respects and protects clients’ privacy by
handling information responsibly. However, there may be Service competency: The practitioner is responsible
situations, including those involving serious, foreseeable, for serving within his or her competencies.
and imminent danger to the clients themselves and The practitioner is obliged to provide services within the
others, where this does not apply. As the practitioner boundaries of his or her education, training, consultation
manages cases with child protection issues, there would received, supervised experience or other relevant
be a need to share information with professionals professional experience. Embarking on interventions
working on the case to ensure safety of children and he or she may not be trained in may lead to potentially
young persons as well as vulnerable members of the unsafe practice and compromise the safety of clients. For
family through close communication. Information sharing instance, a practitioner who is not trained to administer
should be done with discretion and on a need-to-know a set of psychological tests should not be providing
basis. Additionally, Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure feedback on the individual client’s functioning.
Code (CPC) provides the legislation for mandatory
reporting to the police of certain offences such as sexual
abuse in Singapore. Access to resources: The practitioner is responsible
for linking families up with information, services
and resources they need.
The practitioner should strive to ensure families’ access
to needed information, services and resources to help
them improve their circumstances and better meet the
needs of the children and young persons.

8
Professionalism: The practitioner is responsible for potential harm to clients. The practitioner cannot provide
maintaining professional boundaries with clients at intervention in a case involving a person with whom he
all times. or she has had a prior personal relationship with. The
The practitioner undertakes intensive preservation work practitioner should also avoid conflicts of interests or
with families and their networks. Under no circumstances dual/multiple relationships with clients that may interfere
should the practitioner engage in close relationships with their professional judgement. Communication with
with clients, including sexual activities or contact, even if clients on digital platforms (e.g. social networking sites,
contact is consensual. The principle applies to individuals online messaging and text and video messaging) should
such as clients’ relatives, individuals close to clients and be done for professional purposes only, and with clients’
any other individuals that pose a risk of exploitation or consent (SASW, 2017).

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES SCREEN (EPS)

1.
Protection
of life

2. Equality
and inequality

3. Autonomy and freedom

4. Least harm

5. Quality of life

6. Privacy and confidentiality

7. Truthfulness and full disclosure

Figure 2: Ethical Principles Screen (EPS)

The practitioner can refer to the Ethical Rules Screen (Dolgoff et al.,2009) to guide his or her decision-making processes.
Priority should be given for items that are located at the top.

9
 CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 Always consider the safety of children and young persons. In situations where their safety cannot be sufficiently
guaranteed and attempts to resolve the safety concerns are unsuccessful, the practitioner must explore other
options such as alternative placement.

2 Partnering the families and their formal and informal support systems is critical. The practitioner needs to
ensure that all parties remain in close communication, share information relevant to the children and young
persons and families’ safety and highlight red flags promptly.

3 Children and young persons should be kept at the centre of the intervention and be given a voice on all
matters affecting their safety and welfare.

4 To ensure safe practice, the practitioner needs to be in control of his or her emotions, thoughts and feelings.

5 The practitioner can prevent practice risks by paying attention to possible blind spots he or she might have
while providing home-based services. These biases could be the practitioner’s own emotional response
towards the family’s actions or inaction in child abuse cases.

10
 CHAPTER 2
PROFILES OF FAMILIES
RECEIVING SSF-P
INTERVENTION

This chapter summarises the existing literature on Intensive Family

Preservation Service (IFPS). Practitioners will be introduced to the
overall evaluation framework for the SSF-P programme and get an
overview of the evaluation measures used. Practitioners will also get
a glimpse of the preliminary demographic and clinical profiles of the
families receiving SSF-P intervention.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will get a broad understanding of research and trends that have accelerated the
development of the SSF-P programme in Singapore.
• Practitioners will be equipped with information on the primary outcome indicators used in
the evaluation of the SSF-P programme and how questionnaire data is collected.
• Practitioners will gain insights into the profiles of families receiving SSF-P intervention.
• Practitioners will see preliminary findings from the ongoing evaluation.
 THE RESEARCH BEHIND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SSF-P PROGRAMME

IFPS aims to minimise out-of-home care placement3 for children and young persons. It is grounded
in the philosophy that children and young persons can remain safe at home, while their families
receive services designed to help improve family dynamics and enhance child safety (Kinney,
Haapala, Booth, & Leavitt, 1990). Practitioners delivering these services provide families with
clinical as well as concrete services and assist them in identifying and establishing external social
support networks within their communities (Ryan & Schuerman, 2004; Tully, 2008). To date, IFPS
has been implemented in developed countries with positive results. A US study (Kirk & Griffith,
2004) found that children who received IFPS had significantly lower rates of out-of-home care
placement (19%) compared to those who received other services (26%). These placement rates
were very similar to another study in the study in the UK (Berry, Propp, & Martens, 2007), which
reported a placement rate of 17% for IFPS recipients.

According to local research, family-related risk factors are linked to rates of maltreatment recurrence
and re-entry into the child protection system. A study which examined risk factors of re-entry for
1,750 CPS cases closed between 2002 and 2009 found family size and family financial well-being
to be interrelated with re-entry rates (Li, Chu, Ng & Leong, 2014). Another study of 580 cases
that entered Child Protective Service (CPS) between 2014 and 2015 found that caregiver-related
variables, specifically (i) having unrealistic expectations of their children, (ii) tendency of family
violence, (iii) justification of emotional abuse, and (iv) use of inappropriate disciplinary methods –
were significantly associated with recurrence of harm (Keong, 2017).

With these findings in mind, the SSF-P programme aims to harness best practices in IFPS to
address the aforementioned risk factors and restore healthy family dynamics. Ultimately, IFPS could
be instrumental in reducing rates of maltreatment recurrence and out-of-home care placement in
Singapore.

With the above findings in mind, international research on IFPS also found that effective
programmes tended to be time-limited, intensive, home-based, and ensured that practitioners
delivering services had low caseloads (Martens, 2009). Accordingly, the SSF-P programme practice
model was conceptualised based on this knowledge while contextualising practice framework to
fit local needs. It incorporates all of the above core components, drawing from the Homebuilders®
Model (Kinney, Madsen, Fleming, & Haapala, 1977) — one of the few IFPS models considered
to be well-supported by research evidence (California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child
Welfare, 2016).

3
Out-of-home care placement refers to children and young persons’ placement in alternative placement other than with their
natural families.

12
EVALUATION OF THE SSF-P PROGRAMME
IN SINGAPORE
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSF-P programme in the local child welfare and protection
setting commenced in 2016 and is ongoing. To be eligible for the service, a family must have a
“Safe with Plan” rating on the Structured Decision Making (SDM)© Safety Assessment Tool. Only
families with sexual abuse type are excluded from the SSF-P programme.

The evaluation aims to examine the programme’s degree of success in achieving its objectives,
which are described in Figure 1. Data on safety and permanency were based on case file
information, while data on well-being were primarily obtained via questionnaires filled in by the
primary caregiver of each family.

SAFETY PERMANENCY WELL-BEING

No recurrence of Children and young persons: • Improved social support

abuse or neglect • Improved parenting capacity
Short-term: Remained at home at case closure
of the children or • Reduced caregiver distress
young persons Long-term: Did not re-enter CPS 12 months after
within the family’s case closure
care

Figure 1. Main Outcomes of Interest

13
 HOW QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
WERE COLLECTED

Figure 2 summarises the three time-points at which questionnaire data were collected. Immediate treatment gains
can be identified by examining differences in scores at the end of the SSF-P programme (Time 2) compared to the
start of the SSF-P programme (Time 1). Thereafter, examining scores at Time 3 provides information on whether
any treatment gains that resulted from receiving SSF-P intervention were maintained for one year after completion
of the programme.

1 MONTH END OF THE SSF-P 12 MONTHS

FROM START PROGRAMME AFTER THE END
OF THE SSF-P (APPROX. OF THE SSF-P
PROGRAMME 6 MONTHS) PROGRAMME
(TIME 1) (TIME 2) (TIME 3)

Figure 2. Data Collection Time-points

EVALUATION MEASURES
ALABAMA PARENTING PARENTING STRESS INDEX SOCIAL PROVISIONS SCALE
QUESTIONNAIRE 4-SHORT FORM (SPS; CUTRONA & RUSSELL,
(APQ; FRICK, 1991) (PSI4-SF; ABIDIN, 2012) 1987)
The APQ is a 42-item questionnaire The PSI4-SF is a 36-item The SPS is a 24-item questionnaire
which assesses five dimensions of questionnaire which measures used to assess caregivers’ perceived
positive parenting practices that caregiver-related stress in relation to levels of social support. Social
have been linked with acting out the following three domains: support is measured in relation to
behaviours in children, namely: (i) parenting distress; the following six domains:
(i) parental involvement; (ii) difficult child; and (i) guidance;
(ii) positive parenting; (iii) parent-child dysfunctional (ii) reassurance of worth;
(iii) poor monitoring/supervision; interaction. (iii) social integration;
(iv) inconsistent discipline; and (iv) attachment;
(v) corporal punishment. It can be used to measure the stress (v) nurturance; and
of caregivers of children aged 12 (vi) reliable alliance.
It can be used to measure the years and below.
parenting styles of caregivers of
children and young persons aged six
to 18 years of age.

14
PROFILES OF FAMILIES
RECEIVING SSF-P INTERVENTION
This section details the demographic and clinical characteristics of families receiving SSF-P
intervention. The profiles shared are based on data from 91 families and 203 children referred
for the SSF-P programme from March 2016 to May 2018. Where relevant, comparisons with the
wider child protection population will be made. The aim of these comparisons are to examine
differences in the profiles of CPS clients referred for the SSF-P programme, relative to the wider
CPS client population. This information highlights areas of need that may be more prevalent in
SSF-P clients compared to the average CPS client, which may be important for practitioners to
note during intervention planning.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Family and Caregiver Characteristics

Figures 3 through 6 summarise demographic information of the families that received SSF-P
intervention. The average size of families referred for the SSF-P programme is 5.5, ranging from
three to eleven members (Figure 3). This is slightly larger than the average household size of the
wider child protection population (five members). Natural mothers were identified as the main
caregivers for the vast majority of children and young persons (see Figure 4). Other caregiver types
– such as fathers, grandmothers, uncles and aunts – made up only a small fraction of all primary
caregivers. Nuclear families were the most prevalent family structure – similar to the general child
protection population (Figure 5).

% of families
25

20

15

10

0
Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven
Figure 3. Size of Families Receiving SSF-P Intervention

3.5%
5.7%
10.7%

27.6%

89.3% 63.2%

Mother Others Nuclear Extended

Figure 4. Single-Parent Reconstituted

Types of Primary Caregivers
Figure 5.
Distribution of Different
Family Types
15
 Characteristics of Children and Young Persons
Children and young persons referred for the SSF-P programme were mostly below primary school
age (Figure 6). The average age of children at referral was 6.6 years, ranging from 0 to 16. On
aggregate, children and young persons referred for the SSF-P programme were younger, relative
to the CPS population, where the mean age at referral was 9.0 years. These differences were
expected, given that the maximum age of children for families receiving SSF-P intervention was
16, whereas the maximum age in the normative CPS sample mentioned was 21.

The gender distribution of children was approximately equal (50.7% Male, 49.3% Female). The
gender distribution of children and young persons placed on the SSF-P programme were generally
similar to that found in the general CPS population.

11.3%
20.7%
0 - 2 yrs
18.2% 3 - 6 yrs

7 - 9 yrs

10 - 13 yrs

15.8% 34.0% 14 - 16 yrs

Figure 6. Percentage of Children and

Young Persons in Each Age Category

16
CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Clinical characteristics of families, children and young persons referred for the SSF-P programme
are displayed in Figures 7 through 9. Practitioners have to address these issues during intervention
to increase enduring safety for the children and young persons.

Family Violence and Mental Health Issues

Histories of family violence and mental health issues were common in families placed on the SSF-P
programme. Around half of the families (51.6%) had a previous history of family violence. This was
very similar to rates of family violence for all CPS cases, where 54% of families had a history of
family violence (Keong, 2017).

A history of mental health conditions was present in about one in every four families placed on the
SSF-P programme (Figure 7). This was very similar to statistics pertaining to all CPS cases – 27% of
families had at least one member (parent or child) who had ever received a diagnosis for a mental
health condition by a qualified professional.

Present
27.5% Absent
72.5%
Figure 7. Prevalence of Mental Health Issues in Families Placed on SSF-P

Type(s) of Maltreatment Experienced by Children and Young Persons

Physical abuse was the most commonly reported form of primary maltreatment, affecting two
in three children and young persons (Figure 8) placed on the SSF-P programme. This is higher
compared to all CPS cases, where the reported prevalence of physical abuse is approximately
50% (Keong, 2017).

One in three children and young persons suffered from multiple types of maltreatment. Among
these, emotional abuse was the most prevalent form of secondary4 maltreatment – affecting one
in two of all children and young persons who reported more than one type of abuse (Figure 9).

Likelihood of future harm levels was based on caseworker ratings on the SDM® Likelihood of
Future Harm tool. The proportion of children and young persons at moderate likelihood of future
harm (54.7%) was relatively similar to those rated to be at high likelihood of future harm (45.3%).

2.0% 1.0%

7.4%
17.2%
17.2%

6.9%
73.9% 66.5%

7.9%

Physical Emotional Nil Physical Emotional

Neglect Others Neglect Others

Figure 8. Figure 9.
Primary Maltreatment Type Experienced Secondary Maltreatment Type Experienced
by Children and Young Persons Placed by Children and Young Persons Placed
the SSF-P Programme the SSF-P Programme

4
Many children and young persons known to CPS have suffered from more than one form of maltreatment. For such children and
young persons, the difference between primary and secondary maltreatment is that the former is the type of maltreatment that
played a greater role in contributing to the client’s referral.

17
 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FINDINGS
AS OF MAY 2018

As of end May 2018, 203 children and young persons have been placed on the SSF-P programme.
21 children and young persons eventually had to be placed in out-of-home care. These preliminary
out-of-home care placement rates are lower compared with those reported in the international
literature discussed at the beginning of the chapter. Preliminary pre- and post-programme scores
on the three psychometric measures also suggested promising outcomes – specifically in primary
caregivers reporting improved levels of social support, increased parenting capacity, and lower
levels of dysfunctional interactions with children and young persons. The preliminary findings have
thus been encouraging and affirm the approach taken to keep children and young persons safe,
in close partnership with families and the community.

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 Research shows that IFPS can be effective in preventing out-of-home placement, and in improving the
well-being of children and young persons and families.

2 The SSF-P programme practice model is based on the characteristics of well-established IFPS models.

3 Interim data from an ongoing evaluation supports the SSF-P programme’s effectiveness in keeping
children and young persons safe within their families, and in improving the well-being of caregivers.

18
 CHAPTER 3
BENEFITS OF THE
SSF-P PROGRAMME –
QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK
FROM FAMILIES
The SSF-P programme aims to enhance safety for children and young
persons through intensive home-based interventions. In this chapter,
practitioners will learn the intended outcomes and benefits of the SSF-P
programme through qualitative feedback gained from clients who have
completed the SSF-P programme in the past two years.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will understand the intended benefits of the SSF-P programme.
• Practitioners will see how families have benefited from the SSF-P programme.
 FEEDBACK FROM CHILDREN AND
YOUNG PERSONS AND FAMILIES
WHO HAVE COMPLETED THE SSF-P PROGRAMME
MSF Child Protective Service (CPS) conducted a preliminary qualitative study on the SSF-P
programme focusing on clients’ perceptions about the programme (Ministry of Social and Family
Development, 2018). Children and young persons and their families were asked a series of open-
ended questions one month upon the completion of the SSF-P programme. The study revealed
the following benefits of the SSF-P programme:

1. SAFETY PLANNING WITH FAMILIES

Central to the work of the SSF-P programme, the theme explores how safe children and
young persons, their parents and caregivers felt, and how safety was ensured in the
household, either with the caregiver’s improved knowledge of safety, or steps taken by the
SSF-P practitioners to ensure safety for the children and young persons.

The safety planning process empowers parents and caregivers, and reassures the SSF-P
practitioner that the children and young persons will be safe under their parents’ and
caregivers’ care in the long run. Regular review of the safety plan is conducted to ensure
the plan is working well. An essential and powerful aspect to safety planning is the creation
of “safety people”, a strong social network of friends and family. This network allows the
voices of children and young persons to be heard and reassures the possibly traumatised and
vulnerable children and young persons that they are not alone (Turnell, 2012).

Participants in the study were asked the following question on Safety Planning:
• How was the safety planning process for you and your family?

FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS:

FEEDBACK FROMrecognised
All participants PARTICIPANTS:
safety as an aspect that has improved. Additionally,
All participants mentioned some form of help that they received from varying agencies with
participants were also clear about the intention of the SSF-P programme, which was
the help of the SSF-P practitioners, ranging from fast track of different services to exposure of
to protect children and young persons. Safety plans were also raised explicitly by
new services. While a majority of these services were housing, medical or financial assistance,
some
a of the
few also participants,
cited counsellingwhich assertsfrom
and support the FSCs
awareness
as helpofthat
safety
theyplans by participants,
received as having an
and highlights
impact on them. the importance of these plans, and how they have been followed
through by the participants.

“We disagreed on some “Our priority is to ensure our child’s safety. The
of the safety plans at first programme helps us do just that.”
because we felt they were Father, 38
too troublesome, but we see
the benefits now. The safety
planning process involves my
family, including my mother- “Yes, to build a safe family. I think priority is in
in-law, who is the safe person safety planning, where we talk about the kid’s
for my children. Hence, the safety. Yes, that is the main goal.”
support we have now is Father, 38
very good. For example, my
mother-in-law often calls us
to ask how we are. The safe “The social worker helped me to understand
person also often checks in the safety plan that was set with my parents. It
on us to see if anything is helps me know who I can seek help if my father
wrong.” is angry and if my father hits me again.”
Mother, 23 Child, 12

20
2. INVOLVEMENT OF SUPPORT NETWORK
Another important component of the SSF-P programme is the involvement of various social
networks with the family. Support networks provide clients with the additional helping hand
and monitoring in times of need, with children and young persons’ safety as central to
their purpose. These support networks include family members or relatives, who provide
emotional support, and professional help from community agencies, hospitals or schools.

Research has shown that positive support networks directly impact well-being and health
outcomes positively (Kroenke, et al., 2006). Social support will result in stronger positive
effects on adjustment and physical well-being when a stressor becomes more intense or
persistent (Heaney & Israel, 2008). The protective factors for child protection cases are:
i) supportive relationships with family members and ii) competence in normative roles.
These factors may heighten positive affect and decrease risk of child abuse (Wills, Vacarro &
McNamara, 1992).

Participants in the study were asked the following questions about their support
networks:
• How has your support network helped you in the past six months, and what
difference has it made?
• What were the changes in the relationship between you and your support network?

FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS:

Participants shared that they appreciated the network that was set up, not only with
relatives, but also with Family Service Centres (FSCs) and agencies that provided
them with easier access to needed support in the future. Most participants also
shared greater understanding on the importance of a support network for the safety
of children and young persons.

“It actually brought us closer together. I wasn’t “It’s good. Sometimes,

really close to my cousins in the past. So, when Chinese like us may not
they stepped in to help, we started to spend be too open to ask for
more time together every week and we naturally help, but this programme
bonded. My parents stay quite far away from me, ensures that our friends
but my mum has been asking me about how my and family will definitely
family is doing.” be there for us.”
Mother, 27 Mother, 43

21
 3. SYSTEM INTERVENTION AND IMPACT
Systems intervention and the systems advocacy work that practitioners embark on in helping
families gain access to resources such as housing, transportation, food and childcare, is
another key component of SSF-P intervention. Negotiating the various systems is important
in ensuring that families are able to access the resources they need in order to improve
on their ability to ensure safety and well-being of children and young persons. Research
have noted the significant contribution of concrete services to placement prevention rates
(Chaffin, Bonner, & Hill, 2001). Programmes that can help meet the basic needs of families
ameliorate compounded stressors (Nelson et al, 2009).

Participants in the study were asked the following questions on system intervention:
• What were some services that you needed but could not get or did not know
about before the SSF-P programme?
• What were some services that your SSF-P practitioner linked up with? What
difference did it make for you and your family? What changes did you see?

FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS:

All participants mentioned some form of help that they received from varying
agencies with the help of the SSF-P practitioners, ranging from fast track of different
services to exposure of new services. While a majority of these services were housing,
medical or financial assistance, a few also cited counselling and support from FSCs as
help that they received as having an impact on them.

“I wasn’t aware of the “If my SSF-P “Previously, I did think of

Social Service Office practitioner did not going to the Family Service
(SSO). My partial inform me of the Centres and my friends
blindness makes it hospital services did mention their services.
difficult for me to find available, my However, I didn’t know how
a job, so finances are husband and I would to access them and where
a huge issue for me. have not known that to look for them. The SSF-P
The SSF-P practitioner the hospital could practitioner helped to link
linked me up with SSO help me so much me up with them and also
for financial support.” to get my illness facilitated a session for me to
Mother, 45 treated.” tell them about my issues.”
Mother, 37 Mother, 32

22
4. FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Research has found that reinforcing good behaviours and reward systems produce better
results than harsh discipline and punishments (Farzin, 2015). Such positive systems encourage
children and young persons to develop good habits, instead of simply finding ways to
avoid punishments. They also improve the relationship and bonding between parents
and children and young persons. Children and young persons naturally seek the praise
and acknowledgement of their caregivers. Hence, caregivers will find it easier to cultivate
positive behaviours in children and young persons when they pick up appropriate parenting
techniques (Farzin, 2015).

Participants in the study were asked the following questions on the impact of the
SSF-P programme:
• What change did you notice in your child/spouse/family/yourself? What do you
think led to these changes?
• How has the dynamics between you and your family members changed as a
result of the services you received these six months?

FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS:

Majority of participants reported an improved relationship with children and young
persons, citing how their children would respond differently to them as compared
to in the past, citing a change in their own behaviour and reactions as reasons why
the children and young persons are behaving differently in a more affectionate way.
Some participants also discussed about their relationships with their partners and the
improvement in their partner’s involvement with children and young persons.

“My bond with my family is now stronger. My

“I think my children also
children were previously very attached to our
grew a lot and we are all
helper because I did not know how to interact
in a better place now – a
with my children well. The SSF-P practitioner
much happier place in
educated me on children’s development and
terms of understanding
needs and supported me in sessions to bond with
and even being able to be
my children. Now they come to me and play with
more open in sharing.”
me often, which makes me very happy.”
Mother, 37 Mother, 45

“In the past, my eldest child

“My husband will discuss the pros and cons
would call me a bad mummy.
of what the children are doing, for example
These days, he says that I have
going to Sunday school. I used to be the
changed for the better, and
only one making decisions, but now, he will
that I do not hit him and his
participate in discussions.”
siblings anymore.”
Mother, 40
Mother, 32

“My husband has become more “There’s more bonding. We spend more
involved in matters concerning the time together talking and sometimes
children.” playing games!”
Mother, 37 Child, 11

My father has more time to spend with me and can earn some money. I can also
remind him to take his medicine. Also, my father knows how to take care of me.”
Child, 7

23
 CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 The practitioner’s competency in delivering the programme, the families’ receptiveness to help
and services and the collaboration with the different systems also determine how much benefits
the clients can reap from the programme.

2 It is important for the practitioner to explain the programme to families very early into the
intervention.

3 It is also vital to obtain periodic feedback from children and young persons and families so that the
practitioner can review if prevailing needs are met.

24
CHAPTER 4
THE THREE PHASES OF
SSF-P INTERVENTION

The SSF-P practice framework was first developed by the MSF SSF team
in 2016. The team referenced international preservation models (such as
the Homebuilders©, Family First of Michigan) prior to coming up with the
SSF-P practice framework. Consideration was given to the local social
service landscape to contextualise a suitable preservation model for
Singapore. This six-month, intensive home-based programme comprises
three phases: Safety Phase, Behavioural Change Phase and Maintenance
Phase. In this chapter, practitioners will learn about what takes place
during these phases.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will have a firm grasp on the three phases of SSF-P intervention.
• Practitioners will be aware of the tools and interventions used in the various
phase of the SSF-P practice framework.
 THE THREE PHASES OF SSF-P INTERVENTION
SSF-P PHASES
6 months

Safety Phase
Behavioural
Change Phase Maintenance
Phase

Figure 1. Three Phases of SSF-P Intervention

SAFETY PHASE
The safety phase is the first phase of the SSF-P phase. During this phase, the practitioner is introduced to the
family he or she will be supporting over the next six months. This is done at the network transfer meeting,
which is arranged by a Child Protection Officer (CPO). The objective of the meeting is to transfer information
from the CPO to the practitioner. The meeting will be attended by the family, members of their informal
social support networks as well as professionals working with the family, such as schools and family service
centres. Below is a table of key tasks that were consolidated by practitioners working with children and young
persons and families at this phase.

IMPORTANT TASKS DURING THE SAFETY PHASE:

Structuring the Engagement with the Family Skills Building Towards Ensuring Safety
on Safety Matters Educate and equip children and young
• Assess the need to apply for a Personal persons and families with the following:
Protection Order (PPO) if there is family • Psychoeducation on violence, mental health
violence and safe parenting practices
• Set expectations of the SSF-P programme • Parent crafting to meet safety needs of infants
schedule with the family • Emotional literacy
• Prepare the family and its support network for • Information on the impact of trauma
future critical incidents • Regulation skills for children and young
• Brief members of the support network on persons and adults
what they are required to do during critical • The Safety Scale (for children and young
incidents to support children and young persons to share how safe they feel)
persons • De-escalation plans to be shared with formal
• Use storyboards for children and young and informal networks so that they can assist
persons to help understand CPS’ concerns in embedding of skills

Systems Engagement Regular Reviews

• Hold case conference with all professionals • Case plan reviews with supervisors
working with the family to set clarity of roles • Safety plan reviews with children and young
and outline case plans persons, family and their support network
• Navigate systems to ensure that parents • Happens when the case moves from one
and caregivers are able to provide the phase to the next
7 Care Needs of children and young persons
adequately

26
 Engagement:
Engagement is the first step, and one of the most important factors that drive successful completion
of the abovementioned tasks. It is about creating meaningful conversations with families, establishing
trust, and uncovering their safety-related worries. Setting up a collaborative environment will help
the practitioner achieve positive outcomes for the families.

Information Sharing:
Availability and clarity of information is another key factor for positive intervention. The practitioner
should always ensure that the guidelines of the SSF-P programme have been explained to the
families and encourage them to seek clarifications. This could be done effectively through providing
infographics and a clear timeline.

Collaboration:
Throughout the SSF-P programme, collaboration with other professionals is key. The other
professionals include those who have been working with the families prior to preservation
intervention such as the children and young persons’ schools, Family Service Centre (FSC) and
hospitals. Collaboration is extremely important, given that children and young persons and families
have multiple needs that the practitioner would not be able to fully address during the limited time
period of the intervention. For example, the practitioner will have to refer the children and young
persons and families to other agencies for issues and interventions beyond his or her competency,
such as psychiatric interventions.

Trauma-informed Intervention interventions tailored for each family.

The practitioner’s role in this phase is to provide Social interventions that take place in the home may
trauma-specific or trauma-focussed interventions to include:
directly address the impact of trauma on children • supporting modifications to child-proof homes;
and young persons. • ensuring acceptable standards of hygiene;
• observing parents’ and caregivers’ application
According to Van der Kolk (2005), traumatic of new parenting skills; and providing feedback
experiences are most often interpersonal in nature on areas of improvement onsite.
and occur within the children and young persons’
caregiving systems. Therefore, for children and High-intensity Intervention
young persons who experience persistent trauma, Intensity refers to the frequency of the practitioner’s
where adults are either the source of trauma or intervention with the client. Provision of high-
who have a limited capacity to support them, the intensity intervention to families where children
likelihood of the trauma having a lasting impact and young persons are at an imminent danger of
on the children and young persons’ social and removal is crucial.
emotional well-being and development is greater.
The important principle is that individual can heal Interventions that take place include closely
from exposure to traumatic events with effective monitoring the families’ adherence to safety plans
intervention. and implementing strategies to keep children and
young persons safe at home.
Home-based Intervention
Home-based intervention provides the practitioner
with a clearer understanding of family dynamics
and stressors that families face in their natural
environment. The practitioner is then better able to
make more accurate and realistic assessments and

27
 Developing the Case Plan (See Annex A):
One of the key tools used in this stage is the case using assessment frameworks such as SDM®’s Family
plan. It is important to establish clear goals with Strengths and Needs Assessment, Bio-Psycho-
the families in order to provide clarity around Social-Spiritual Assessment and guided by theories
the time-limited service. The case plan, derived and practice frameworks. The case plan must be
from assessment shared with the families and the periodically reviewed to assess what has been
professionals working with them, establishes the achieved, interventions that are working well, and
goals of the time-limited intervention service. The next steps to ensure continued progress towards
case plan should be completed between four to six long-term safety.
weeks after the network meeting.
Goals set should be specific, measurable, actionable,
Identifying shared goals between a client and realistic and timely. The following factors should be
practitioner is critical in establishing a collaborative considered in the goal-setting process:
working relationship and achieving positive • Working with the family’s definitions of the
outcomes. Case planning includes reviewing the problems (rather than the practitioner’s definition)
immediate safety plan during the first meeting while ensuring that the professional concerns
with each family. Additional planning with families related to safety and welfare of the children and
is required to discuss the future longer-term safety young persons are addressed
plan. This requires the practitioner to communicate • Setting goals that are mutually agreed upon and
to the families about the immediate worries for may be generated primarily by the family
the children and young persons, and work with
• Focusing on improving family members’ skills
families and their networks to develop actionable
safety plans for the children and young persons to • Providing family members with choices on how
remain at home. The safety plan is a detailed action they want to work on their goals whenever
plan that includes all the goal statements, the non- possible
negotiables and solutions to the “what if” questions. • Getting assurance from family members that they
Besides reviewing the immediate safety plans, the will engage in mutually identified tasks
essential needs are identified for families to work • Regularly spending time with the family discussing
on. Goals of intervention and needs are assessed goals and progress

28
BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE PHASE
The Behavioural Change Phase comes after the safety of the children and young persons have been
established and upon case review with the supervisor. By this phase, the factors contributing to the
compromised safety of children and young persons would have been reduced. The main objective of this
phase is to ensure safety can be further maintained through enhancing the skills and knowledge of the parents
as well as deepening the relationship between the parents and children and young persons. Increasing the
levels of empathy parents have towards children and young persons will sustain safety and well-being for
the children and young persons.

IMPORTANT INTERVENTIONS DURING THE BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE PHASE:

Areas of Intervention
• Anchoring/embedding adaptive problem-solving methods
• Facilitating dyadic work to increase empathy between parents and children and young persons
• Coaching parents on an actual challenging situation observed during a home visit
• Progressively increasing contact between children, young persons and parent (in cases where the
parent(s) had been asked to move out temporarily to ensure children and young persons’ safety)
• Ensuring the safety network can be mobilised by the family when required
• Strengthening/enhancing safety network’s well-being so that they are able to undertake their roles
adequately
• Strengthening parental partnership
• Instilling a system of regular respite care for parents/caregivers

Tools Used
• Protective Behaviours (PB)
• 5 Love Languages
• SDM® Family Strengths and Needs Assessment (FSNA) tool
• Triple P Parenting Programme
• Sign Post Triple P
• Three Houses
• Circles of Safety and Support tool (see Annex B)

Systems Engagement
• Working with other professionals and community resources and ensuring good inter-agency
collaboration for the case
• Submitting referral for services to work toward change in some domains of intervention that require
longer-term work

Regular Reviews
• Case plan reviews with supervisors
• Safety plan reviews with family, children and young persons, as well as their support network

One of the key tools used within the Behavioural Phase is the Protective Behaviours (PB) programme. It
was first developed by a social worker named Peg Flandreau West in the 1970s as a child abuse prevention
programme. It is a personal safety programme that aims to promote resilience in children and young persons
and adults, by using empowerment strategies, clear communication and awareness of ‘safe’ behaviours. PB
strives to reduce violence in the community and ensure children and young persons are safe. Some topics
covered in PB include the safety continuum, safe-unsafe secrets, appropriate boundaries, safety network and
assertiveness.

29
 MAINTENANCE PHASE
The Maintenance Phase typically occurs during the last four to eight weeks of the SSF-P programme. At this
point, the practitioner will prepare for case transfer to a community agency to sustain safety for the families
based on SDM® Likelihood of Future Harm Reassessment tool for the case. It is important to ensure a smooth
transition from the current practitioner to the identified agency for transfer. Ideally, the identified agency
should begin to attend some of the sessions with the practitioner, so that the families and safety network
members can get acquainted with the identified agencies they will be working with next. It is also a good
entry point for the professionals taking over the case.

IMPORTANT INTERVENTIONS DURING THE MAINTENANCE PHASE:

Systems Engagement
• Engage identified agency for transfer of key information via relevant documents and documentation
(that would detail past child protection concerns, safety plans, progress made, case plans and etc.).
Information related to safety and strengths of the family should be shared to promote the enduring
safety of children and young persons
• Conduct joint visits with the identified agency for transfer
• Re-engage support network in preparation for SSF-P case closure

Final Checklist
• Conduct unannounced visits to check on safety with the family
• Test run to assess if family and safety network are able to apply skills and action required, by
discussing possible critical incidences that might occur during this phase
• Hold closure sessions with children and young persons and families

Documents to Share
• Collaborative Assessment and Planning (CAP) Framework (see Annex C)
• Case Plans
• Timeline of events (critical events, recurrences, significant events)
• Long-Term Safety Plan
• Contact list of professionals and family members
• Structured Decision Making® (SDM) Assessment Outcomes
• Child Sighting, Interaction and Assessment Plan
• Children and Young Persons’ 7 Care Needs (see Annex D)

30
 A formal case transfer meeting would be held amongst the family members, informal
and formal networks and the agency that will take over as lead case manager. The
purpose of this meeting is to ensure that the participants are aware of the relevant
concerns, goals and outstanding tasks to follow up on, as well as safety plans to ensure
enduring safety. The plans are documented in the Long-Term Safety Plan (see Annex
E) which documents what the family, as well as informal and formal systems, have
agreed are the protective steps to be taken to ensure no further harm is inflicted on
the children and young persons.

The practitioner can take this opportunity to recap the process and progress made by
the family, children and young persons, and formal and informal networks during the
period of intervention, celebrating the success and milestones achieved.

LONG-TERM SAFETY PLAN (PFS TOOL)

One of the key documents to be worked on and shared is the Long-Term Safety Plan (see
Annex E). The safety plan, to be presented to the children and young persons and
families, as well as their safety networks, contain information on:
• safety-related worries;
• goals;
• non-negotiables;
• actions of safety and protection that are already happening;
• future actions of safety and protection;
• how to check if the safety plan is working; and
• actions to take when there are concerns regarding
safety for children and young persons.

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 The SSF-P programme with the three key phases has been useful in facilitating case movement and
progression. Periodic case reviews that include the Principal Social Worker and Supervisor prior to
the movement of the case from one phase to the other in a timely manner are crucial.

2 The case review allows for discussion, identification and documentation of areas that need to be
worked on for the case to move to the next phase.

3 Although engagement is key for the practitioner in ensuring movement in the case plan, it is
important that the practitioner is clear about the child protection worries and safety concerns, so
that he or she can address them.

4 The reduction in the intensity of intervention in terms of hours spent face-to-face with families as
they move on to the next phase enables families to feel a sense of success as they put in effort to
work on key areas.

31
CHAPTER 5
IMPLEMENTING
THE SSF-P PILOT
PROGRAMME
The SSF-P programme was jointly implemented
by three divisions under Rehabilitation and
Protection Group in MSF – Children in Care
Service (CIC), Child Protective Service (CPS) and
Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service (CFPS).
The three divisions formed a workgroup to steer
the development and implementation of the pilot.
The workgroup used implementation science
to ensure the successful implementation of the
SSF-P Pilot. Implementation science refers to
the study of methods and strategies to promote
the integration of research findings into routine
practice.

As the SSF-P programme is in its pilot phase,

it is important to closely monitor the
implementation of best practices to ensure
best outcomes and maintain the fidelity of the
pilot model. Implementation science provides
a framework that helps account for key factors
that contribute to effective delivery of the pilot
model. In this chapter, practitioners will learn how
implementation drivers, the key components in
the implementation science triangle, support
and enable a programme’s success.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will be able to identify the
key drivers used as part of implementation
science to oversee the SSF-P programme.
• Practitioners will understand how each
key driver was used to support successful
implementation of the SSF-P programme.
TYPES OF IMPLEMENTATION DRIVERS
Implementation Drivers
Fidelity

Systems
Coaching
Intervention

Or
rs
ive

ga
Facilitative

Dr

nis
Training Administration

at
cy

ion
en Integrated &
et

Dr
Compensatory Decision
mp

ive
Selection Support
Co

rs
Data System

Leadership Drivers

Technical Adaptive
Figure 1. Implementation Science Drivers
Source: NIRN (2015)

The three categories of implementation drivers are Competency Drivers, Organisation Drivers
and Leadership Drivers.

Competency Driver
A mechanism to develop, improve and sustain one’s ability to implement an
intervention to benefit children and young persons, families and communities.

Organisation Driver
A mechanism to create and support systems that can create a hospitable
organisational environment for effective social support services.

Leadership Driver
A mechanism that focuses on providing the right leadership strategies for different
types of leadership challenges.

33
 Competency Driver

As the practitioner is the one who drives and delivers the main intervention, his or her competency
is of utmost importance. Selection and recruitment of practitioners was seen as one of the most
important factor in the pilot implementation. Upon coming on board, practitioners will undergo
training to develop and strengthen their competencies.

Selection
The selection criteria was discussed explicitly within the MSF implementation team. The team also
crafted a performance-based assessment form to evaluate practitioners’ skills and performance.
The workgroup identified the following key appointments:

• Principal Social Workers (PSWs): Leaders who oversee the practice and development of
the various SSF-P teams. Each PSW will lead an SSF-P community team and oversee the
implementation of the programme and intervention for families.
• Social Policy Officers: Officers within MSF who oversee the policies and funding of the SSF-P
programme.
• Researchers: Officers who oversee the research and evaluation process.
• Coaches: Practitioners who are familiar with the practice model and able to coach new
practitioners on the model to ensure fidelity.
• Practitioners: Social workers and practitioners who are ready to deliver the programme to the
families.

Training needs and pathways

The team identified the training needs of practitioners and their supervisors through the core
competencies set out for practitioners at each level. Research was also done to look at models
of effective intensive preservation services implemented overseas and map similarities in the
training pathways.

These needs were then categorised into core and advanced training for practitioners. Core
training comprised compulsory sessions the practitioner is required to attend before taking on
any cases. Advanced training was designed to enable the practitioner to sharpen his or her skills
while furthering his or her practice.

In the pilot programme, core training took place over 15.5 days and its various training
components are as follows:

Practices for Family Structured Decision

Preservation and
Reunification Making® (SDM) Tools

Trauma-
Management of Core informed Practice
Family Violence: in Working with
Introduction to Training
Child Abuse and of SSF-P Children and
Child Protection Young Persons
and Families

Case
Management in Partnering for
Working with
Vulnerable Children Safety Framework
and Young Persons (PFS) in Working
and Families: with Children and
Social and Systems Young Persons and
Interventions Families

Figure 2. Core Training of SSF-P

34
Advanced training was also planned to further meet the training needs of a practitioner to meet
the demands of the cases. Training topics include:
• Mental health training
• Introduction to identifying non-accidental injuries
• Protective Behaviours (PB)
• Supervision training for supervisors
• Preventing dangerous practice
• Training related to parenting practices (e.g. parent crafting)
• Advanced family violence training (e.g. working with persons who commit abuse)
• Understanding the dynamics and interventions required in cases involving sexual abuse

Coaching
While most skills required of successful practitioners can be assessed during selection and
introduced in training, some are acquired on the job with the help of a coach (NIRN, 2015).
Coaching in the SSF-P programme was provided through various mediums such as Partnering for
Safety (PFS) model coaching from SP Consultancy, SSF-P model coaching, consultations with the
MSF SSF team for management of challenging cases, critical incidents and recurrence of harm
as well as six sessions of on-site coaching by the MSF SSF team. To support the coaching of the
SSF-P practice model, the MSF SSF team scheduled six monthly coaching sessions and provided
these sessions on-site at the different SSF-P agencies. The coaching model received positive
feedback from SSF-P practitioners and improved the pilot programme’s outcomes.

35
 Leadership Drivers

Leaders played a pivotal role in overseeing the SSF-P programme pilot’s daily operations and
implementation. Two aspects of leadership drivers critical in the implementation of the pilot
were technical and adaptive leadership.

Technical leadership
Technical leadership was important in starting and maintaining the programme. Technical leaders
possess the expert knowledge required by the pilot programme, especially at the beginning. They
are recognised for their in-depth knowledge and experience in areas such as child protection,
interventions with vulnerable families, children and young persons, as well as family violence and
trauma.

Adaptive leadership
Adaptive leadership was critical in the pilot programme as there were no definite solutions to the
challenges faced. Leaders who possess an adaptive leadership style drove the team’s progress
by innovating solutions and practices, enabling the pilot programme to grow and evolve. These
leaders also contributed inputs to help improve the working model. The SSF-P programme pilot
was recognised as having adaptive leadership at the PSW as well as workgroup level. The leaders
drove the pilot’s progress by innovating solution and practices, enabling the programme to grow
and evolve.

“The essence of adaptive leadership is to promote adaptability

that allows organisations to flourish and take along its best
history to help with future successes” (NIRN, 2015).

36
 Organisational Drivers

Type of
Definition How it is applied in SSF
Intervention

Decision A system that identifies, The practitioner uses SDM® assessment tools during
Support Data collects and analyses reviews of a case in the SSF-P programme. This ensures
System information to help staff the monitoring of children and young persons’ safety at
members make good home as well as the assessment of case plan progress
decisions within the made by the family.
organisation.

Facilitative Refers to the use of An Electronic Customer Relationship Management

Administration a decision-support (ECRM) data management system tracks SSF-P’s cases
data system, clear and supports the MSF SSF team in analysing cases based
communication and on safety levels, as well as each practitioner’s caseload.
feedback loops
to monitor how
the programme is
functioning and to make
improvements.

Systems This refers to work done Several engagements with various systems and
Intervention by a practitioner to stakeholders took place during the period of the SSF-P
coordinate and advocate programme to ensure that services were accessible for
for assistance with children and young persons and their families. Here are
various help systems. some examples:

Systems interventions Family Service Centres (FSCs)

are strategies for leaders There were several rounds of engagement with FSC’s
and staff within an leaders and SSF-P practitioners to share on the SSF-P
organisation to work programme and the roles they undertake jointly in case
with external systems to management.
ensure the availability of
financial, organisational Housing Development Board (HDB) Rental Housing
and human resources Department
required to support A strong network was established between HDB’s Rental
the work of the Housing Department and MSF SSF team to enhance
practitioners. safety and welfare for children and young persons and
their families by ensuring housing stability.

Social Service Offices (SSOs) and Regional Service

Teams
SSOs and SSF-P programme set up a “green lane” to
expedite financial support for families known to have
child protection concerns, especially for those facing
major financial stress.

Courts
Where the MSF SSF team had cases known to the court
system, SSF-P practitioners took the opportunity to also
share the pilot with Court officials.

Medical System
Sharing of the SSF-P programme was done with all
Medical Social Workers (MSW) department heads at
the beginning of the pilot so they could support cases
highlighted and ensure strong collaboration.

Education System (Schools/Childcare)

Most children and young persons are in the school
system. Hence, part of SSF-P intervention was to
engage school leaders, counsellors and teachers to
support children and young persons in their learning and
integration despite their adversities.

Other Systems
SSF-P teams also brokered services with grassroots
leaders, religious organisations and private donors to
support children and young persons and the families in
their long-term safety.

37
 CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 Setting up regular implementation meetings and using implementation science drivers are essential
in keeping track of a new programme. These enable the implementation team to review the
fidelity of the programme and make changes immediately if the programme is not implemented
as desired.

2 Changes should be expected when implementing a pilot programme to meet the intended
outcomes. This requires the practitioner to possess adaptive skills such as problem-solving and
interpersonal relational skills.

3 It is important to consult with professionals who are well-versed in implementation science. For
example, the MSF SSF team consulted consultants experienced in implementation of similar
programme in the initial stages of the pilot to ensure the pilot’s development was closely guided
by the implementation science NIRN model. The consultation also allowed the MSF SSF team to
troubleshoot emerging challenges.

4 It is essential for teams to review the progress of the implementation of the pilot programme at
key time points, for example, at the one-year mark. A team retreat is also important for the team
to reflect, analyse and review the process of implementation using the implementation science
templates and plan for the next lap.

38
CHAPTER 6
THEORIES AND
PRACTICE FRAMEWORKS
USED IN THE SSF-P
PROGRAMME
Theoretical understanding and knowledge about practice frameworks
guide practitioners as they work with families and provide important
intervention perspectives (Healy, 2005). Therefore, it is important to
have a strong theoretical basis for sound assessment and SSF-P practice.
In this chapter, practitioners will learn about key theories that can help
them organise their thoughts, formulate case assessments and select
suitable intervention plans to keep children and young persons safe with
their caregivers and improve their well-being.

USED IN THE SSF-P PROGRAMME

• Practitioners will understand the main theories and practice framework
guiding SSF-P practice.
• Practitioners will be able to apply the main theories to SSF-P practice.
 KEY THEORIES RELEVANT TO THE SSF-P PROGRAMME
Theory Definition How it is Applied in Practice

Family Systems Theory This theory suggests that the • The practitioner uses genograms (a graphical
family is an emotional unit. representation of a family’s relationship) to help families
Therefore, each individual understand the vertical stressors passed on through
should be viewed as part of generations. These stressors include themes of abuse,
a family unit, instead of in neglect, criminality and poverty.
isolation with other family
members (Bowen, 1974). • The practitioner uses tools such as the Circle of
Safety and Support Tool (see Annex B) to guide families
in creating healthy and safe networks for the children
and young persons. This is done by discussing healthy
boundaries and roles set by the families with other
external systems such as schools and family service
centres.

• The practitioner seeks to analyse how horizontal

stressors such as marriage, going to school, having a
child interact with vertical stressors to influence the
amount of stress faced by the family.

Child Development Theories Erikson’s Theory on The practitioner can use such theories to understand
such as: Development of Self the physical, cognitive, emotional and social growth of
This theory charts the children and young persons. Doing so can help him or
• Erikson’s Theory on various stages of personality her recognise normative patterns of children and young
Development of Self development throughout persons’ development and be alert to potential concerns.
one’s lifespan. Upon detection of issues, the practitioner should refer
• Piaget’s Cognitive the children or young persons to the appropriate services
Development Theory Piaget’s Cognitive for intervention especially if it is assessed that the
Development Theory developmental issues are due to abuse and neglect.
• Kohlberg’s Development This theory describes the
of Moral Understanding nature and development of
human intelligence.

Kohlberg’s Development of
Moral Understanding
An expansion of Piaget’s work,
this theory explains the moral
development of children and
young persons.

Attachment Theory According to this theory, Children and young persons referred to CPS have been
children and young through traumatic events such as abuse and neglect. There
persons thrive under a safe may also be situations where children and young persons
and predictable primary and their primary caregivers encounter barriers in building
attachment figure, and those positive relationships. This is where the practitioner
who do not find a stable can step in to strengthen the emotional attachment
and positive attachment between children and young persons and their caregivers
with a carer are at significant to heighten safety and reduce the likelihood of future
disadvantage (Bowlby, 1969). maltreatment.

The theory also emphasises

the importance of improving
positive and predictable
parent-child interaction at
home. This helps children
and young persons feel safe
and reduces the likelihood of
future maltreatment.

40
Theory Definition How it is Applied in Practice

Trauma Theory According to this theory, Childhood trauma and adverse experiences such as abuse
an individual’s maladaptive and neglect have negative and long-term impact on
response (the inability children and young persons and their brain development
to adjust to his or her (Felitti et al, 1998). Children and young persons who are
environment) is not due to the referred to CPS may have increased risk of developing
event itself – but rather, how maladaptive response as they have been exposed to
his or her mind and body react multiple or repeated events of abuse, neglect or domestic
to traumatic experiences (Van violence.
De Kolk et al., 1996).
The practitioner can utilise a trauma-informed care and
practice approach in the work with children and young
persons and families. He or she also receives training to
assess symptoms of trauma and be aware of how traumatic
experiences may affect children and young persons. To
help children and young persons better adapt to their
environment, the practitioner can work with parents and
support networks to enhance predictability and safety at
home.

Grief and Loss Theory According to this theory, the For family preservation, the practitioner needs to consider
five stages of grief and loss that children and young persons may respond to their
are denial, anger, bargaining, grief in different ways.
depression and acceptance
(Kubler-Ross, 1969). The practitioner has to be sensitive to the children and
young persons’ understanding of traumatic events and use
tools such as the “Immediate Story” to explain to children
and young persons about what is happening to them and
what they can expect.

Knowing the grief and loss framework also enables the

practitioner to understand how individual members of the
family may respond to different stages of each traumatic
event.

Crisis Theory The Crisis Theory is grounded The practitioner will work with families to reduce the
in the concept of homeostasis, impact of an immediate crisis. He or she will also work
where all organisms strive on helping them stabilise their parenting practices and
to maintain stability with the caregiving environments.
outside environment (Caplan,
1964). The SSF-P programme is therefore time-limited, taking
reference to the crisis theory, as a crisis is a temporary
state of disorganisation that is triggered by a precipitating
event. The SSF-P programme aims to intervene so that
the families can reach a better state of functioning and
homeostasis.

41
 PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
Knowing these perspectives can help the practitioner better understand social welfare problems
so that he or she can better guide the intervention process.

Ecological Perspective
The influence of an ecological systems perspective, as described by Bronfenbrenner (1979) on
intensive family preservation service, is seen in the focus on building community resources and
helping families access resources in the community. This perspective highlights the importance
of understanding and influencing how each family interacts within itself and its environment. It
acknowledges that the community plays a part in the likelihood of future harm on the children
and young persons as well as act as a potential protective factor to improve the well-being
of each family member. It also supports the continuous placement of the children and young
persons in their families.

Strengths Perspective
The strengths perspective, as described by Saleebey (2009), influences the SSF-P programme in
its practice approach of appreciating the strengths in families and working with the families on
preferred plans to address the child protection worries. The strengths perspective also guides
the stance adopted by practitioners and the importance placed on the relationship between
practitioners and families, marked by honest and direct communication to effectively address
critical yet challenging issues.

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 It is important to have an understanding of the theories guiding family preservation work and apply
them consciously. The knowledge of multiple theories also provides more angles of assessment and
creates more avenues for intervention (Working with Vulnerable Families Practitioner’s Resource
Guide, 2015).

2 It is essential for the practitioner to constantly read up on new research developments on the latest
theoretical orientation relevant to understand the impact of abuse and neglect on children and
young persons and families.

3 Intervention strategies chosen by the practitioner should be guided by

theories and practice frameworks.

4 It is essential for the practitioner to read up on various special issues that

families might face, such as disability, schizophrenia, etc.

42
 CHAPTER 7
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
USED IN THE SSF-P
PROGRAMME

Assessments, when backed by theoretical constructs and

assessment tools, help practitioners and policymakers
arrive at key decisions more objectively. Such tools enable
practitioners to make more informed decisions at critical
points in each case. In this chapter, practitioners will gain
insights into the tools that can help in the documentation
of the needs and strengths of children and young persons
and families, and their roles in helping all parties achieve
intervention goals.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will understand the three main assessment tools/approaches used that guide
all intervention processes for cases identified for the SSF-P programme. The tools are:
∞ Partnering for Safety (PFS) framework;
∞ Structured Decision Making® (SDM) assessment tools; and
∞ 7 Care Needs of children and young persons.
• Practitioners will see the psychological assessment process undertaken by Clinical Forensic
Psychology Service (CFPS) and/or other agencies.
 THE PARTNERING FOR
SAFETY (PFS) APPROACH
The Partnering for Safety (PFS) approach is a collaborative, strengths-based, family- and safety-
centred practice approach. It is designed to help all key stakeholders5 in the SSF-P intervention
process assess and enhance children and young persons’ safety and well-being at every point of
the process.

This assessment and planning approach is built on the unwavering commitment to uncover each
family’s strengths, knowledge and wisdom. It centres on a Collaborative Assessment and Planning
(CAP) (see Annex C) framework developed in partnership with children and young persons,
families and their networks. This highly collaborative approach supports families, members of
their networks as well as professionals in working together to develop detailed plans to ensure the
children and young persons’ enduring safety and well-being.

The PFS approach also aligns and integrates with the Structured Decision Making® (SDM) system
developed by the Children’s Research Centre (CRC). While the PFS approach can stand alone as
a relationship- and strength-based practice approach, it is taken to another level when integrated
with the use of the SDM® system. The integration of the PFS approach and the SDM® system
ensures that our decision-making and practice with families are collaborative, rigorous, transparent
and evidence-informed.

The following questions can help guide the practitioner in making critical decisions during
intensive family preservation work:
• Are the children and young persons safe in the home whilst we work with the family?
• How serious are the safety concerns and what is the intensity of intervention required?
• What needs to change in the family to keep the children and young persons safe?
• Is it now safe to close the case and/or refer the family to another agency for less intensive
services?

PRINCIPLES OF THE PFS APPROACH

• All of our work is organised around creating enduring safety, permanency and well-being
for children and young persons.
The focus of every interaction and intervention in PFS is on the creation of enduring safety,
permanency and wellbeing for children and young persons in the places they live, learn and play.
This is achieved through partnering the families and networks who know the children and young
persons best and working together to create meaningful and sustainable family safety plans.

• Child protection is everyone’s business!

Research suggests that the development of good working relationships between families and
practitioners and between practitioners and other helping professionals may be the single
biggest predictors of positive outcomes in child protection. The PFS approach has at its core a
belief that partnering families, their networks and other professionals is essential, including the
perpetrator of the harm. PFS is grounded in a spirit of respect, empathy, curiosity and a belief
that change is possible, and this approach aspires to relate with people in ways that preserve
their dignity and inspire a sense of hope and possibility for the future.

• It takes a village to raise a child or young person.

Enhancing and developing the presence of a community of safety and support is a critical part
of the work. PFS involves explicitly identifying a network of people who know the children and
young persons (family members, friends, and professionals who regularly see the children and
young persons), ensuring they are fully aware of the concerns, and working with them to create
plans to increase children and young persons’ safety, permanency and well-being over time.
Key stakeholders include the children or young persons, parents, the extended family, the child protection practitioners,
5

supervisor and manager, social service professionals, educators, medical professionals and other professionals who are able to
contribute to the children and young persons’ safety.

44
• Starting with a rigorous and balanced assessment.
A balanced and comprehensive assessment includes a full and detailed exploration of past
maltreatment and current challenges in the family’s life, as well as a detailed search for the acts
of protection and strengths within the family. PFS operates from the assumption that even when
families are facing serious challenges, there will still be times, however small, when the problem
is overcome in some way. Paying attention to these acts of protection does not minimise the
maltreatment, but creates a platform for change and a foundation for working together to
enhance safety going forward.

• Children and young persons and families’ voices are always at the centre of the work.
PFS recognises that families are experts on their own lives and that practitioners’ interventions
will be more likely to lead to meaningful and lasting change if the voices of children and
young persons, parents and their networks are at the heart of our assessment and safety
planning processes. While the issues we are striving to address are serious and potentially life-
threatening, focusing on problems in the absence of a vision for the future can leave families
feeling overwhelmed and without hope or energy to make changes in their lives. PFS organises
the work with families around a vision of future safety (goal statements) that is developed
collaboratively with the parents, children and young persons and other significant people in the
children and young persons’ lives in order to address the identified dangers.

• Assessment and planning involves equally high parenting standards, expectations and
partnership with fathers.
PFS explicitly works with parents and holds equally high parenting standards and expectations
for both fathers and mothers. Partnering with fathers is seen as critical to the ongoing wellbeing
of children and young persons and families in which they thrive.

• Practising from a spirit of inquiry.

Harlene Anderson and Harry Goolisian originally coined the phrase “not knowing” as a
purposeful stance in working with others. It was meant as a call to be humble, to recognise
that everyone has unique skills, knowledge, wisdom and an ability to contribute to solutions.
In particular, it is also a call to recognise the knowledge, traditions and skills present within all
cultural traditions and to ensure that those are seen and made a deliberate and important part
of the work.

• An organisational atmosphere based on critical thinking, reflection, appreciation and

ongoing learning.
Operationalising these values and principles requires that organisations put them into action
in every aspect of the work. Decision-making, supervision, management and policy formation
should be built on a foundation of critical thinking, deep reflection about the work, appreciation
for those who do it and a commitment to ongoing learning for all involved.

TYPES OF PFS TOOLS/PROCESSES

Here are some of the PFS tools/processes that are being used in the SSF-P programme:
• CAP Framework
• Detailed Safety Planning Resources
• Safety House
• The Family Roadmap
• Circles of Safety and Support
• Three Houses
• The Immediate Story
• The Safe Contact Tool

Please visit the PFS6 website to download copies of the abovementioned resources. Further
information regarding the use of these tools in SSF-P practice is also documented in Chapter 10
of this Practitioner’s Resource Guide.

6
Partnering for Safety (PFS) Website: https://www.partneringforsafety.com/resource-booklets.html

45
 SDM® ASSESSMENT TOOLS
These tools assist the practitioner in meeting his or her goals to promote the ongoing safety
and well-being of children and young persons. SDM® assessment tools make up an evidence-
and research-informed system that identifies the key points of a child protection case and uses
structured assessments to improve the consistency and validity of each decision.

RESOLVING DILEMMAS
Decision-making in child protection is extremely difficult. Accurately identifying families that
are facing imminent removal and need more intensive intervention is notoriously inconsistent
and inaccurate without the right tools. The practitioner can use the following decision-making
frameworks and tools in his or her decision-making process.

TWO TYPES OF THINKING

System 1 System 2
• Automatic • Effortful
• Quick to see pattern • Visble
• Effortless • Allows for consistency, complex comparsions
• Errors in thinking are not easily noticeable • Slow

Figure 1: System 1 and System 2 Thinking

Kahneman (2011) wrote about two modes of thought. System 1, or intuitive thinking, enables
the human nervous system to make quick, effortless and automatic decisions. In fast-paced child
protection investigation work, System 1 thinking serves the practitioner well in making hundreds
of minute decisions quickly. However, this method of thinking is prone to errors. Furthermore,
even when errors are made, System 1 thinking may not detect them.

On the other hand, System 2 thinking involves a slower thinking process. Highly analytical and
ideal for more complex situations, this process requires more time and deliberation.

SDM® assessment tools allow practitioners to combine these two types of thinking to access the
benefits of both. Kahneman (2011) found that especially in risk classification, final decisions should
be left to formulas, especially in low-validity environments.

THE SDM® SYSTEM

THE SDM® SYSTEM PROVIDES DECISION SUPPORT TO IMPROVE
THE CONSISTENCY, ACCURACY AND EQUITY OF KEY DECISIONS.

46
How System 1 and System 2 Thinking is used in SDM® Tools
Practitioners should use decision support tools at key decision points. It is important to pause at
key junctures in casework and consciously apply System 1 and System 2 thinking. Each SDM® tool
is designed to support a specific decision point.

Should this Should this Can the Should What goals Can the Can this case
incident be referral be children intervention should be children be closed?
reported? screened and young continue to addressed in and young
in for persons be provided, the case plan persons
investigation safely remain and at what to increase return home
by statutory in the home? intensity? safety and if previously
services? well-being of removed?
the children
and young
persons?

Figure 2. Key Decision-Making Points of SDM®

All information

1. Focus on the most important and Information learned

relevant information for each specific
decision. Too much information
Information
complicates decisions unnecessarily. needed for
decision
at hand

2. First, break down complex decisions

into smaller elements. Then, piece those
elements together to come to a decision.

Professional Engagement

3. Balance System 1 and System 2

thinking, and incorporate the
family’s voice and choice.
Family
Structure Research

47
 SDM® ASSESSMENT TOOLS USED IN THE SSF-P PROGRAMME

SDM® Assessment Tool What it Does When it is Used in the SSF-P Programme

Safety Assessment Tool Identifies which families The tool is commonly used when a case is
are in imminent danger referred to the SSF-P programme, following
of children and young the completion of CPS’ social investigation.
persons being removed This tool will help determine if the family is
suitable for preservation services. Cases that
are deemed to be unsafe requires out-of-
home care and should not be referred for
preservation.

It is also used in situations when the children

or young persons experience recurrence of
harm or critical incidents related to safety. It
helps the practitioner objectively synthesise
the information related to the incident and
decide if further safety planning is necessary,
or if the children and young persons should
be removed and placed in alternative care.

Likelihood of Future Identifies the likelihood The tool helps determine the allocation of
Harm (LFH) Tool of future harm and the cases based on intensity of intervention
corresponding intensity needed, as SSF-P teams are categorised
of intervention needed according to levels of intensity (moderate or
to support an immediate high) interventions.
safety plan and longer-
term changes for
sustainable safety for
the children and young
persons

Family, Strengths and Identifies areas of The tool is used within the first month of
Needs Assessment needs that should be SSF-P intervention to inform which domains
(FSNA) Tool addressed in a case plan of intervention to prioritise to address
to increase safety and safety issues within the time frame of the
reduce the likelihood of programme.
future harm

Likelihood of Future Identifies the likelihood This tool is used during case reviews to
Harm Reassessment of future harm after establish if risks of harm for children and
(LFH-R) Tool intervention has been young persons have been lowered in the
given to the family, course of intervention.
families whose cases
can be closed, or those
who may require further
intervention but at a
lower intensity

48
THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS’ 7 CARE NEEDS
Children and young persons have multiple needs. CPS has prioritised 7 Care Needs for children
and young persons and utilised this tool to categorise these needs systematically. The practitioner
can establish specific details in each area of need, as well as the progress made in meeting them.
This tool helps the practitioner map a care plan for each child and young person.

The Children and Young Persons’ 7 Care Needs Tool (See Annex D for a template):
1. Physical needs
2. Educational needs
3. Emotional needs
4. Social needs
5. Spiritual needs
6. Identity needs
7. Self-care skills

Under this framework, the practitioner identifies:

1. needs that have already been met and by whom;
2. needs that are unmet; and
3. recommended services to meet unfulfilled needs.

The template can be used to engage parents and stakeholders such as schools, child care and
student care services on measures to take to enhance children and young persons’ safety and
welfare. It can also serve as case review documentation of how well the care environment is
meeting the needs of children and young persons.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BY CFPS

CFPS is a department within the Rehabilitation and Protection Group (RPG) in the Ministry of Social
and Family Development (MSF). CFPS provides comprehensive psychological services to children
and young persons and families referred by stakeholders in RPG such as CPS and Probation and
Community Rehabilitation Service (PCRS).

A team of psychologists from CFPS has provided psychological consultation and assessment
(i.e. clinical assessment and risk assessment) for the SSF-P programme since the pilot’s inception
in 2016. A clinical assessment, which is a psychological assessment for the purpose of diagnosing
a possible mental health issue such as post-traumatic stress disorder, might be required in cases
where the individual is exhibiting emotional and behavioural difficulties as a result of traumatic
experiences such as domestic violence, physical abuse and sexual abuse. A clinical assessment
might also help to shed light on factors that might be driving the individual’s presenting problems
so that interventions can be targeted to address his or her difficulties.

A risk assessment might be necessary if the children and young persons or caregivers have engaged
in significant and sustained violent behaviour and/or sexual offending behaviour at home and/or
in the community. For clients presenting violent behaviour or sexual offending behaviour at home
and/or in the community, a risk assessment would help the practitioner understand the future risk
of harm that the client poses to the family and/or the community and the risk factors that need to
be addressed to support family preservation.

49
 CFPS has provided psychological assessment for SSF-P clients with the following presenting
problems:
• Persistent and distressing memories of the traumatic event
• Significant changes in arousal and reactivity following the traumatic event
(e.g. being easily irritable or angry)
• Chronic low mood which significantly impedes daily functioning
• Recurrent self-harming behaviour
• History of suicidal attempts and recent or current suicidal ideation and/or attempts
• Recent and recurrent violent behaviour at home and/or in the community that poses a
threat to the safety of the family and/or other victims

In addition to psychological assessment, CFPS also provides Functional Family Therapy

(FFT) to SSF-P families. FFT is an evidence-based programme for children and young
persons who present challenging behavioural problems such as anger outbursts, defiance
and truancy. As a family-based intervention, FFT seeks to build a relational focus of the
children and young persons’ presenting problems so to increase the family’s motivation to
work on skills building to address risk factors that perpetuate behavioural problems.

Aside from CFPS, psychological assessment is also offered at

• Institute of Mental Health (IMH);
• Other restructured hospitals such as Changi General Hospital (CGH), Khoo Teck Puat
Hospital (KTPH), National University Hospital (NUH), Singapore General Hospital (SGH)
and Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH); and
• James Cook University Singapore Psychology Clinic (JCU Singapore Psychology Clinic)
and the Clinical and Health Psychology Centre (CHPC) for issues such as suspected
learning disorders.

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 The practitioner should familiarise himself or herself with the theoretical constructs of each tool. This
will enable him or her to better exercise creativity when engaging clients in gathering information
needed for assessment.

2 There are formal and in-depth training made available by CPS for the use of some of these tools (e.g.
SDM® assessment tools and PFS approach). Such training helps to deepen understanding as well as
facilitate safe and effective use of the tools.

3 The practitioner should seek supervision and consultation in the process of using the tools to ensure
accountability and sound and safe practice.

4 The tools listed in this chapter are not exhaustive. The practitioner should continually explore other
assessment tools to facilitate the decision-making and intervention required in child protection work.
For instance, the bio-psycho-social-spiritual (BPSS) and suicide assessment can also be used to assess
safety and well-being.

50
 CHAPTER 8
SAFETY PLANNING
AND MONITORING –
5.5 STEPS MODEL
Safety planning and monitoring is a critical intervention that occurs
throughout the six months of the SSF-P intervention with families. Safety
planning is a process where practitioners engage with children and young
persons who have been harmed, together with their families’ and network
to create a plan that ensures their safety when they return to the same
environment. Highly personalised and practical, a safety plan aims to reduce
the risk of vulnerable family members from being harmed again. In this
chapter, practitioners will learn about how they can use the Safety Planning
5.5 Step Model, which was developed through the consolidation of SSF-P
practices in safety planning, to help prevent further episodes of harm
on children and young persons, pre-empt possible triggers and provide
solutions to address concerns.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will understand the importance of safety planning in intensive family
preservation work.
• Practitioners will be able to apply the safety planning steps for child protection cases.
 THE 5.5 STEPS OF SAFETY PLANNING
STEP 0.5:
PRE-PLANNING • Gather information on the incident of harm and understand
the possible triggers and impact on the children and young
persons.

• Assess if there are other family members besides the children

and young persons, who require a safety plan.

• Gather information from other professionals who have already

been working with the family.

• Discuss with supervisor on some of the non-negotiables that

should be set with the family as well as support that may be
needed when running the safety planning session.

STEP 1:
LAY IT ALL OUT • Invite all family members and professionals involved for a
meeting.

• State the professional concerns about the incident of harm on

the children and young persons clearly and simply to everyone.

• Use this chance to educate all professionals on the use of

violence and its impact on children and young persons and
families.

• During the session with family, set ground rules to ensure

physical and emotional safety for all attendees, especially for
the person who was harmed.

• Check in on the safety of the vulnerable person(s) after the

meeting.

• Use the children and young persons’ voices to emphasise the

impact of the abuse and neglect on them.

52
STEP 2:
CREATE A • Assess the quality and availability of the network when creating
SUSTAINABLE a safety plan.

SUPPORT • In the safety plan, emphasise to the safety network on the

NETWORK importance of listening to the worries of children and young

WITH THE
persons, be available and responsive to their needs, and to
support them during the critical period.
FAMILY • Explain to members of the safety network about their specific
roles in the safety plan.

STEP 3:
RESOURCING, • Take note of the emotional regulation of all members at the
RELAPSE AND meeting, especially the person who caused harm.
RECOVERY • Take stock of the person’s internal and external resources.
Internal resources refers to psychological strengths while
external resources refers to people or things in the external
environment that may support a person’s emotional regulation.

• Put in place a relapse and recovery plan for parents or

caregivers with mental health, addiction and violence issues.
This would ensure early identification of their symptoms and
prevent worsening of their conditions.

STEP 4:
CREATE • Ensure that safety plans contain specific, concrete and
SAFETY PLANS measurable steps for individuals to take to prevent further harm
WITH FAMILY on the children and young persons.

• Help the family plan out situations that could possibly happen
so that family members can plan for unforseen circumstances,
such as “what if one of the network is unwell and unable to
check in on the children and young persons”.

• Be upfront with the consequences set up in the safety plan.

• Test the safety plan with the family and the safety network to
assess its feasibility.

53
 STEP 5:
MONITORING • Safety plans require timely reviews and monitoring. State the
AND TIMELY next review date clearly for the family to ensure timely tracking
REVIEWS of progress.

• Constantly check in with the children and young persons and

families during sessions to assess families’ compliance to the
safety plan.

• When there is a breach in safety plans, it is important to address

it with all family members and the informal networks and
professsionals involved.

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 Safety planning is a dynamic process that requires the practitioner to be quick-thinking, observant of
family dynamics and able to think of practical solutions that best suit each family.

2 Families may find the intervention process difficult and restrictive at times. However, the practitioner
has to maintain assertiveness in setting non-negotiable practices.

3 The safety planning process is one that requires the contributions of both professionals and families.
The practitioner should ensure that the safety steps are behaviourally achievable so that everyone in
the network is able to follow them. He or she should also implement regular testing and monitoring,
as they play a part in keeping plans realistic.

4 The practitioner may struggle with a control versus change function in intervention during safety
planning and monitoring. However, he or she needs to keep in mind that safety planning should be
done before any intervention and healing can take place.

5 Reviewing the immediate and intermediate safety plans and implementing longer-term safety plans is
important as it helps everyone involved in the children and young persons’ lives to follow through.

6 Getting the family members, safety network and children and young persons involved in documenting
the safety plan in a manner that makes sense to them in the longer term is helpful in helping them take
ownership of the plan.

54
 CHAPTER 9
MANAGING SELF DURING
CRITICAL INCIDENTS AND
RECURRENCES

The SSF-P programme involves dealing with recurrences of harm

or critical incidents that compromise the safety of children and
young persons and their families. During these episodes, significant
attention and energy is dedicated to managing the crisis to ensure
that safety is restored. Analysis of critical incidents and recurrences
help the practitioner assess if continuing preservation is in the
best interest of the children and young persons. In this chapter,
practitioners will learn how they can manage themselves effectively
when such situations arise.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will grasp the definition of critical incidents and recurrences.
• Practitioners will be more ready to manage self during critical incidents and recurrences.
 CRITICAL INCIDENTS AND RECURRENCES
PRINCIPLES OF THE PFS APPROACH

Critical Incident:
An episode that will likely affect the safety of the children and young persons and families (based
on past harm and complicating factors), but harm has not happened yet.

Examples:
• A breakdown of placement with no harm inflicted
• A heated argument between parents, with the mother threatening to commit suicide
when she is the main caregiver of the children and young persons

Recurrence:
An episode where harm has occurred and the safety of the children and young persons have been
affected.

Examples:
• A heated argument that escalated into the children and young persons being injured
• A situation where the children and young persons’ needs have been repeatedly
neglected
• A child or young person suffering physical injury as a result of a parent’s use of harsh
physical punishment methods during intervention

OVERCOMING SELF-DOUBT
Some thoughts that may cross the practitioner’s mind when critical incidents or recurrences
happen include:
• “Oh no, have I done my case properly?”
• “It is probably my fault for not following up on the case more often than I had.”
• “If I had done X, Y and Z before this, this would not have happened.”
• “If only agency A had communicated this to me, I would have done more for this family.”

Before the practitioner allows himself or herself to drown in these negative feelings of guilt, shame
and self-blame, he or she needs to pause, recalibrate and manage some of the feelings. As such,
the practitioners have developed the “ABCDEFG” model of managing critical incidents and
recurrences professionally.

56
 THE ABCDEFG MODEL

B D F
Be Calm Deserve Find Time

A C E G
Acknowledge Curiosity Empathy Go for some
ME time

Figure 1. ABCDEFG of Managing Critical Incidents and Recurrences

ACKNOWLEDGE
The practitioner has to acknowledge that the critical incident or recurrence has taken place, and
assess the harm inflicted on the children and young persons. At this stage, the practitioner needs
to be conscious of the “Rule of Optimism”, where individuals tend to generate the most positive
explanation for the incident, which may sometimes result in adverse outcomes for the children and
young persons. One example is if there are no bruises observed on a child or young person even
though there were reports that he or she was hit. From one point of view, it could look like it was
part of how a parent decides to discipline the child or young person. However, there is potential
for professional dangerousness to take place if the practitioner, based on his or her assumptions,
does not act further for the children and young persons who are at risk of significant harm as a
consequence of their assumptions, attributes or behaviours (Wallis, 2016) especially if there were
previous concerns of harsh punishment on the children and young persons that resulted in harm.

BE CALM
As much as possible, the practitioner should be calm even in the face of trying issues. Feeling
negative is human nature. However, the practitioner has to be aware and in control of such feelings.
The safety and welfare of the children and young persons often require immediate attention,
and the practitioner is required to stay calm and objective despite the urgency and intensity of
the situation. Keeping calm will help the practitioner manage the crisis better. The practitioner’s
composure will also reassure clients that he or she is in control of the situation.

Calmness can be achieved through actions such as having a sip of water, moving one’s fingers, and
stretching of arms or neck muscles. Such steps help to ensure that one is completely present in the
situation and is able to focus. Being physically, emotionally and mentally present in the moment
can aid in calming oneself down. The practitioner should articulate his or her level of calmness to
the supervisor or team members and should not hesitate to ask supervisors or team members for
help when needed.

57
 CURIOSITY EMPATHY AND FIND TIME
The practitioner should be curious when investigating Having empathy for self and finding time to conduct
the facts of the incident. By staying curious, the or receive proper debrief or supervision gives the
practitioner is giving the family members opportunities practitioner a safe space to talk about the negative
to explain their situation and points of view, without feelings. It also provides the team with a platform to
jumping to conclusions. Probing can help to uncover discuss about the case objectively, to review the case
mistakes committed by family members that the and suggest steps that could be taken to minimise
practitioner can help to resolve. Helping to increase critical incidents and recurrences from happening again.
families’ awareness of their own weaknesses or trigger Empathy, also known as self-compassion, can be difficult
points is also instrumental in helping families strengthen for practitioners when confronted with crises repeatedly.
the safety plan on their own. There can be self-blame and self-doubt in such situations.
However, having compassion for self is no different from
Another benefit of staying curious is the opportunity to having compassion for clients. Being kind, understanding
work together with families to enhance the safety plan, and forgiving towards oneself can help the practitioner
well-armed with knowledge of each family’s strengths recover from the crisis sooner as he or she continues to
and weaknesses. make a difference to more children and young persons
and families.
Additionally, the practitioner needs to be curious about
the cultural context of each family. However, he or she
needs to be wary about landing into a situation of “cultural
relativism” where he or she becomes influenced or too
GO FOR SOME ME TIME
After following through with the necessary next steps
flexible with cultural differences in relation to the harm to ensure safety for the case, the practitioner should
that has taken place. Such instances could immobilise remember to go for some ME time. By taking good care
the practitioner, especially when working with families of of oneself, the practitioner is actually allowing clients to
different cultures. have a practitioner who is in a better emotional state to
continue serving them.

DESERVE
The practitioner should know that he or she deserves
the team’s support. While the practitioner may want to
do everything possible independently, he or she needs
support from the team. For example, the practitioner
may need his or her team members’ help to follow up on
tasks such as interviewing the family members, bringing
the children and young persons to seek medical help,
attending to the police or responding to the queries of
the medical team. Having such support would also make
the practitioner feel less alone.

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 It is useful to seek help and support from the supervisor when critical incidents and recurrences occur.

2 Having on-site support from a peer or supervisor is helpful for the practitioner’s safety and also provides
a platform to discuss the feasibility of next steps and actions.

3 The practitioner should not hesitate to call the police if the critical incident or recurrence endangers
the client and/or the practitioner and the situation cannot be de-escalated.

58
 CHAPTER 10
CAPTURING
THE VOICES
OF CHILDREN
AND YOUNG
PERSONS

In the SSF-P programme, making children and young

persons’ voices heard should be at the heart of what
practitioners do. When reaching out to children and
young persons, it is important for practitioners to
remember not to impose adult ways of thinking on them.
Children and young persons often want their views to
be taken seriously and also be part of the intervention
process. As a practitioner, one key skill to exercise when
engaging children and young persons is active listening –
to listen to them with heart and all of his or her senses. In
this chapter, practitioners will learn how best to capture
and understand the voices of children and young persons.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will understand the importance of capturing the voices of children and young persons.
• Practitioners will reflect on critical points when capturing the voices of children and young persons.
• Practitioners will learn about tools used to facilitate work with children and young persons.
 AREAS TO CONSIDER ON
CHILD DEVELOPMENT
Understanding the Children and Young Persons’ Cognitive and Language Abilities
The practitioner can reach out to children and young persons through age-appropriate intervention
by understanding their cognitive abilities and development – that is, their psychological processes
in acquiring and understanding knowledge. Such abilities can depend on each child and young
person’s age, level of intelligence and maturity. It is also important to keep in mind that each
child and young person’s thinking is usually influenced by his or her social, physical and cultural
environments, as well as personal relationships, expectations and motivations.

Getting in Touch with Children and Young Persons’ Emotions

The practitioner should recognise that emotions and experiences are interconnected with
other aspects of development. Having a good grasp of child developmental theories can help
the practitioner determine if the children or young persons are displaying appropriate levels of
emotional functioning. As the children and young persons have been through harm and abuse,
some conversations about trauma may trigger memories of their past experiences. As such, it is
crucial for the practitioner to be sensitive in using the right tools to help regulate emotions.

The use of visuals is one example. Visuals are widely used during interventions involving children
and young persons. Visuals appeal to young children, or children and young persons with special
needs and/or learning difficulties. They also help to present information in simple ways, helping
children and young persons understand complicated concepts like safety processes.

Creating Safety for Children and Young Persons to Share

The practitioner needs to help children and young persons define safety in their own words, so
that they have the ability to inform adults on their safety. Creating that experience of safety in
session will be important for children and young persons. Examples include:
• Holding difficult conversation in venues that children and young persons feel comfortable in
• Watching out for non-verbal cues of children and young persons that show that they are
uncomfortable or scared
• Letting children and young persons know key information that will help ease their anxiety
• Allowing children and young persons hold an object of comfort (e.g. a soft toy) when talking
about difficult things
• Being honest with children and young persons about who else needs to know their stories

60
Capturing Voices of Children and Young Persons
The practitioner’s facilitation skills are as important as the tools used or activities conducted to
engage the children and young persons. The stance that the practitioner takes on to help build
rapport and trust with the children and young persons should include:
• being non-judgemental;
• being mindful of children and young persons’ anxiety about letting their parents or other adults
know their stories;
• being honest and open with the children and young persons about what they know and do not
know;
• taking note of the somatic responses that children and young persons have; and
• taking stock of personal values in working with children and young persons.

Providing opportunities to enable children and young persons to express views on all matters
affecting them is essential. Research has shown that involving children and young persons in safety
planning and interventions to remain at home helps promote their safety at home and improved
overall well-being (Lansdown, 2011). Safety is a concept which children and young persons,
especially those below the age of seven, sometimes find difficult to grasp. The practitioner then
has to seek other ways to establish each child or young person’s definition of safety.

Sharing of Children and Young Persons’ Voices to Adults

The practitioner can use storytelling to engage and capture the voices of children and young
persons. Stories that are created with the children and young persons’ own words can be presented
to their parents and further expanded with other family members’ views.

The practitioner often assists in sharing children and young persons’ stories to their parents and
facilitate positive exchanges between parent-child to foster healthy communication patterns. It is
critical to focus on building the parent-child attunement so that the new interaction pattern within
the family can be strengthened and in the long run, function without reliance on the practitioner.

Attentive listening
Mutual contributions

TELLER STORY LISTENER

Interview
Storyboard

Positive exchanges and interactions

Figure 1. Active Listening

61
 SOME TOOLS USED IN
SSF-P TO FACILITATE ACTIVITIES
Facilitating the Activities
Practitioners need to be familiar with the objectives and usage of the tools
or activities. While the tools have a guided set of questions to help in the
facilitation, the practitioner should also practice flexibility and follow the
children and young persons’ lead and pace the activities.

To help children and young persons feel safe in sharing, the practitioner can ask them for their views directly and
respectfully. Above all, the practitioner should place priority on creating positive interactions and a culture of inclusion,
instead of solely seeking agreement or approval from their parents.

Description of Suitable Age Things to Note When Using

Name of Tool How it is Used
Tool Group(s) the Tool

Immediate Stories A shared story Storytelling and All age groups • The immediate story should
that practitioners, discussion with be shared with the people in the
parents and people children and children and young persons’
in the safety young persons safety network, so that the
network can use during periods of adults can attend to the children
with the children transition such as and young persons’ questions
and young persons. when one parent and worries in a consistent
needs to move out manner.
Provides a temporarily, or when
simple and clear there is change in • To help minimise further trauma
explanation to placement for the on children and young persons,
children and young children and young the story should also contain
persons of what has persons. information on contact of and
happened or what access to carers in case a need
is likely to happen arises in future.
next.

Words & Pictures A story, co-created It can be used All age groups • Use age-appropriate words and
with children and during safety pictures to help children and
young persons planning to help young persons understand.
and families, and children and young
practitioners about persons, parents, • Involve parents and family
what has happened and people in their members in crafting the
in the family and safety network messages that they want
what are the understand the children and young persons
family’s efforts in worries and the next to know.
responding to the steps for the family.
events. • Some separate preparatory
work with the children
and young persons may be
required.

Feeling Cards Cards with a variety Children and young All age groups The type of feelings that is
of feelings in persons can choose introduced needs to be age
pictorial form, which from an array of appropriate and also adjusted to
provides a safe and pictures displaying meet each child or young person’s
fun way to speak different feelings developmental age.
about feelings. to represent their
current feelings.

The cards can also

be used to increase
children and young
persons’ emotional
literacy and
encourage them to
talk about different
feelings.

62
 Description of Suitable Age Things to Note When Using
Name of Tool How it is Used
Tool Group(s) the Tool

Three Houses A simple graphic It enables children Three to • Offer children and young persons
of three houses – and young persons 16 years old the choice of which house they
house of worries, to participate in would like to begin with.
house of good the planning and
things, and house decision-making • Let children and young persons
of hopes and in a safe way, choose from drawing, writing or
dreams – to elicit and for parents talking about their worries, the
children and young and caregivers to good things, and their hopes and
persons’ thoughts see and hear the dreams.
about the strengths children and young
and vulnerabilities persons’ inner • As the children and young persons
of their families in thoughts. narrate their thoughts, the
a non-threatening practitioner can write down their
manner. exact words to capture their
thoughts.

• The practitioner can also use

various themes that the children
and young persons like, for
example, cars and robots to
illustrate their thoughts.

Safety House A visual tool to Children and young Four to • Discuss with children and young
involve children and persons can choose 16 years old persons on how they want the
young persons in to draw, write or “safety house” to be shared with
safety planning. speak about their parents and other family members
“safety house”, so that children and young persons
where they can feel assured of what is happening
come up with next.
“rules” on how
they want everyone • Keep to children and young
to behave in the persons’ pace whenever possible.
“safety house”, what
they want people in
the “safety house”
to be doing, and
people who can visit
their “safety house”
and people whom
the “safety house” is
out of bounds to.

Safety Scaling A Likert scale of a It is used to explain All age groups The scale can be as creative and as
range typically zero the anchors (e.g. relevant as possible, such as using
to 10 to capture the zero represents steps to a house to represent the
intensity of feelings very unsafe and 10 scale.
of safety. represents very safe)
and ask about the
current rating. This
can be followed
up in a variety of
ways to understand
what contributed to
current safety and
what can increase
the feeling of safety.

63
 Description of Suitable Age Things to Note When Using the
Name of Tool How it is Used
Tool Group(s) Tool

Symbols A different medium Use it as means of All age groups • Activities should be self-directed
for less expressive conversation with by children and young persons.
children and young children and young The practitioner should not
persons to share persons to explore move or direct children and
their feelings and issues, communicate young persons to choose any
ideas. and process symbol.
feelings.
• Varied symbols and objects for
children and young persons to
choose from.

Visuals Representation Use pictures to All age groups The visuals need to be age- and
of concepts in a illustrate concepts, culturally-appropriate for children
pictorial form to aid such as using a and young persons.
in understanding thermometer
(e.g. charts and to speak about
pictures). rising anger, or
children and young
persons’ five love
languages (physical
touch, quality time,
meaningful gifts,
acts of service
and words of
affirmation).

Using Different Mediums

Items such as symbols, Lego bricks, finger puppets, clay and journals are helpful in encouraging children and young
persons to express themselves in different ways. Children and young persons are often more comfortable expressing
their thoughts and feelings through play or activities. Showing video clips of movies such as “Inside Out” or “Finding
Nemo” has also proved to be useful in teaching children and young persons who are more visual about emotions and
values.

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 The practitioner should spend time preparing the materials so that the session is meaningful for the
children and young persons while achieving intervention outcomes.

2 Finding suitable media ensures intentional intervention.

3 When working with children and young persons, the practitioner can prepare some handouts of the
key messages for use during the session.

4 Please note that some fun activities may seem harmless, but may trigger some children and young
persons who may associate the activities with past traumatic events. Therefore, the practitioner should
stop the activity if children and young persons display clear signs of being triggered.

5 Paying attention to children and young persons’ voices is definitely important. However, it is also vital
to highlight the context to which the practitioner brings their voices out. For example, the practitioner
needs to be mindful of adversarial contexts (e.g. using a child or young person’s voice to ‘substantiate’
why his or her mother’s behaviours may be unsafe) as it might put the child or young person in a
difficult position.

64
 CHAPTER 11
SUPERVISION, COACHING
AND TRAINING

Supervision, coaching and training are

essential in helping practitioners be
effective and impactful in their practice.
Besides strengthening their professional
competencies, such methods also
enhance their personal development,
so that they can serve their clients in
their best forms. In this chapter,
practitioners will learn how these
methods are used in SSF-P practice.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will understand how supervision is carried out in the SSF-P programme.
• Practitioners and their supervisors will better comprehend supervision, coaching
and training, their relationship, and their relevance in building up the practitioners’
competencies and development.
 SUPERVISION IN SSF-P
Supervision is crucial in enhancing the practitioner’s competence and confidence, as well as
providing accountability and support for practitioners as they undertake intensive home-based
interventions with clients known to Child Protective Service (CPS). Supervision is one of the key
avenues for the practitioner to be provided with protected time and space to develop his or
her skills in casework and stretch their internal capacity. This is crucial given that the practitioner
works with vulnerable families and themes such as resistance, complex issues and strong emotions
are common challenges faced daily by practitioners. More importantly, supervision can help to
further ensure that clients’ best interests are protected and good outcomes are achieved within
the course of the time-limited SSF-P programme.

Supervision in SSF-P covers the key functions suggested by Kadushin (1992). The key functions
of supervision are educative, supportive and administrative – aimed at guiding the practitioner
towards effective case management and intervention. Supervisors will focus on both the clients
and supervisees’ strengths. A strengths-based approach with solution-focussed questions to
facilitate the practitioner’s reflection and learning is vital to ensure safety as well as to acknowledge
the family’s strengths and practitioner’s efforts and work with the family. This strengths-based
approach will also allow practice to take place. Supervision will also utilise a solution-focussed
and humanistic approach to generate solutions. Supervisors are also able to notice and respond
to issues on the spot.

Supervisors should also consider their supervisees’ personal traits. For instance, the practitioner’s
gender, culture, present life-stage and religious belief may also impact the intervention process.

It is crucial to note that supervision is separate from case consultations and managerial supervision.
Supervision should take place even if the practitioner has had case consultation with his or her
supervisor for the week.

66
Modality and Format of Supervision to Facilitate Clinical and Professional Development
Minimum requirements under SSF-P funding and practice standards:

Type of Supervision Frequency Duration

Individual Supervision Once a month Approximately 1.5 hours

Group Supervision Once a month Approximately 1.5 hours

Supervision should take place with the Principal Social Worker or Lead Social Worker in the
agency. It is the responsibility of the supervisors and supervisees to reschedule individual and
group supervisions within the month, should the original supervision date fail to take place due to
unforeseen circumstances. Efforts to develop the practitioner should ideally start with identifying
areas of growth. This responsibility lies with both the supervisee and supervisor. The supervisor
can utilise the pre-supervision form (see Annex F) during the first supervision session and review it
every six months. The supervision relationship is then used as a means to support and facilitate that
learning process. We would like to recommend the following to track the progress of supervision
and development of the practitioner.

Session Purpose Who is responsible Documentation

1st session To identify areas for development Supervisor and Pre-supervision

and growth Supervisee form
(see Annex F)
Every 3 months To review supervision contract and
usefulness of supervision

Every 6 months To review the way supervision

is conducted and discuss
training needs of supervisee
and supervisor (in relation to
supervision issues and growth)

Individual Supervision
Individual supervision can take place through discussion on a case, video or audio review of sessions
as well as live supervision. Using live supervision as on-site observation is crucial in contributing to
the practitioner’s development and the embedding of skills set in practice, to build competencies.
Given that the practitioner is the lead case manager, it is important to strengthen the competency of
all practitioners to ensure effective intervention and progress in multi-stressed families.

It is important to remember to take a reflexive stance in individual supervision. Therefore,

during individual supervision, all involved parties should be:
• identifying success and opportunities of practitioners;
• reviewing case plans as they are key documents used in supervision for monitoring case
progress and development;
• working through challenges faced in the case;
• suggesting feasible solutions for any barriers encountered by clients (both social and
systems);
• providing support to practitioners as needed (e.g. through skills training, research,
knowledge and role play);
• discovering patterns across cases and plan actions accordingly; and
• discussing the practitioner’s internal reflection on a specific case or episode that has
impacted the self and how it affected intervention or assessment.

67
 Group Supervision
The monthly group supervision session will adopt a reflexive practice format among the team
to facilitate case presentations, topical discussion on practice and professional issues. Group
supervision will be a platform for the team members to provide suggestions and review effective
interventions for the type of clients served by the SSF-P programme. Group supervision is also a
platform for cross-learning and sharing of collective experiences amongst team members. It was
also found to be useful when team members were given a schedule to present cases and to take
ownership of their learning. The supervisor can also use this as a platform to address themes that
are common or interventions essential for the SSF-P practice.

During group supervision, the following should take place:

• Case presenters to prepare an audio or taped session for discussion. They should also
prepare necessary information such as case background, genogram and ecomap.
• Team members to inform supervisor and find another colleague to swap their presentation
of the case, should they need to reschedule their presentation slot.
• All parties to be prepared for discussion on topics, if it is pre-arranged, with case studies
or resources for sharing.
• All parties to participate in a group debrief of the session, for reflection as a team and to
facilitate self-development and learning.

On top of the monthly group supervision within each SSF-P agency, group supervision is also
conducted in an inter-agency format through Practice Circle with SSF-P agencies to facilitate cross-
learning with the goal of improving practice.

In the first year of the pilot, the Practice Circle took place every month for one and a half hours.
During the Practice Circle, each SSF-P agency was rotated to present a selected case, issues for
the group to assist with as well as discussion on next steps. In the second year of the pilot, the
Practice Circle moved to a more topical format such as Dealing with Denial, Management of
Critical Incidents and Recurrences and Managing Family Violence Cases.

Supervision of Supervision (SOS)

This is important to enhance the skills of the supervisors. In addition to training provided for
supervisors, this additional feature helps provide supervisors with specific skills-based support.
SOS involves watching videos of the supervision sessions prepared by the supervisor, as well as
on-site presence during live supervisions between supervisors and supervisees.

The SOS process is as follows:

1. The SOS provider explains the supervision process to the supervisor and supervisee.
2. The supervisor tells the SOS provider about area(s) he or she would like to receive
feedback on, and a challenge area or skills development area that needs attention.
3. The SOS provider observes the process.
4. The supervisor and/or supervisee will then reflect on areas done well and areas that
might need fine-tuning.

68
Practice Guardian Meeting for Principal Social Worker - Supervision of Supervision
In the SSF pilot, Supervision of Supervision was also conducted in a group format. The respective
leads and Principal Social Workers from MSF team and SSF-P agencies came together every two
months and took turns to share their supervision tapes. Every session was facilitated by a neutral
facilitator who went through the SOS process listed above. In addition, the different leads and
Principal Social Workers would also reflect on whether they had gone through similar issues when
supervising their teams, solutions they had implemented, as well as what they would do differently
to improve their supervision practice after coming for the Supervision of Supervision session.

Supervision of Practitioners - Management of Critical Incidents and Recurrences

Supervision is particularly important during the management of critical incidents and recurrences.
There is a need for the supervisor and agency to step in to support, given the need to manage risk
and danger factor at that point in time. During critical incidents and recurrences, the supervisor
should come in to co-manage the case or provide the practitioner with co-worker support. There
is a need to know and acknowledge that cases belong to the agency and not the individual
worker. Thus, the agency is responsible for the cases being attended to and risks being managed.
The supervisor and supervisee should check in with each other on a daily basis until the case has
ceased to be critical.

Supervision during the management of critical incident and recurrence is above and beyond case
consultations. The focus of case consultations is on the immediate next steps for safety and risk
management (see Annex G for a copy of SSF-P case consultation form).

After the resolution of the crisis stage of the case, it is important for the supervisor to debrief the
critical incident or recurrence soonest possible to glean the learnings from the crisis managed.
Besides reviewing the management of crisis, the debrief process is also crucial to facilitate the
thinking of next steps to influence change on care plans and intervention. The intensity and pace
of such work can be emotionally and mentally draining for the practitioner, who has to manage
other cases. Supervision during crises provides a space for reassessment of the case as well as a
space to take care of the practitioner’s well-being.

Coaching in SSF-P
Coaching is intended to embed skills that the practitioner
learns from training and supervision. Through coaching,
skills that are taught both during training and supervision
can be further embedded in the practitioner as he or she
continues to refine his or her acquired skills.

69
 Platforms for Coaching in SSF-P
The SSF-P team had intentionally set up platforms such as onsite coaching to SSF-P community
agencies as well as PFS Coaching Groups to create space and culture for peer learning and
support to happen.

• Onsite Coaching to SSF-P Community Agencies

Each SSF-P community agency was provided six sessions of onsite coaching by MSF teams for
2.5 hours each with the purpose of ensuring fidelity in implementation as well as addressing
practice issues that the SSF-P community agency may have when implementing the practice
framework of SSF. The coaching sessions were paced and took place every month for six months
to allow SSF-P community agencies the chance to work with their cases and discuss successes
as well as challenges when working with the cases using the practice framework. The MSF
team came up with six topics to guide the running of each onsite coaching session. Some of
the topics include interventions necessary in safety planning phase, assessment required prior
to step down of cases from one phase to another, coming up with robust case plans to ensure
case movement within the time-limited period of intervention, management of critical incidents
and recurrences, and engagement of children and young persons and family’s network. During
the onsite coaching sessions, MSF team also shared good practices as well as strategies that
other SSF-P community agencies had used when faced with similar challenges. The onsite
coaching also provided an opportunity for the MSF team to check in on the health of the SSF-P
community agency as each session start with a check-in of how the team was doing since the
last session.

• PFS Coaching Groups

These are held once every two months for practitioners to embed the skills that they learnt during
the training provided by SP Consultancy when using tools such as Collaborative Assessment
and Planning (CAP) Framework, Safety House, Immediate Safety Plan etc. The coaching group
provides a platform for practitioners to discuss the challenges they face in using the different
tools in the management of SSF-P cases with danger and complicating factors.

70
 TRAINING IN SSF-P
The practitioner would need to have at least two years of practice experience and knowledge.
The SSF-P team has identified seven competencies vital for the practitioner to be trained in before
carrying out the interventions (see Annex H). These seven competencies are part of the 15.5 days
of basic training in SSF-P prior to the practitioners taking on their cases.

Practitioner

Competency &
Capacity Building

Training Practice
Group and Knowledge
and Circle with
Individual Upgrading
Coaching the SSF-P
Supervision Platforms
Sessions Agencies

Figure 1.
Different Mediums to Build and Sustain the Competency and Capacity of Practitioners

CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 Regular supervision is crucial for the practitioner to be able to undertake SSF-P work effectively.

2 Supervisors need to be supervised through SOS to support them in

providing support to the practitioner.

71
 CHAPTER 12
UNDERSTANDING AND
TACKLING VICARIOUS TRAUMA,
SECONDARY TRAUMATIC
STRESS AND BURNOUT

As practitioners are intensively involved in the lives of their clients, they may
sometimes experience emotional residue from their clients’ traumatic experiences.
Facing risky situations can create ongoing anxiety and emotional responses,
especially if no strong safety plan is in place. Practitioners may find themselves
experiencing the symptoms of stress-related conditions such as vicarious trauma,
secondary traumatic stress and burnout. This chapter will help practitioners better
understand measures they can take to prevent or manage such situations.

KEY OUTCOMES
• Practitioners will be aware of the symptoms of vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic
stress and burnout.
• Organisations and practitioners will better comprehend possible sources of burnout or
vicarious trauma and their effects on clients, the organisation and supervisees.
• Practitioners will be educated on the possible responses when exposed to trauma.
• Practitioners will learn to better manage stress, enhance their coping abilities and prevent
or mitigate the symptoms of burnout, vicarious trauma and secondary traumatic stress.
THREE TYPES OF TRAUMA
COMMONLY FACED BY PRACTITIONERS
Vicarious Trauma
Vicarious trauma, also known as compassion fatigue, refers to cognitive changes practitioners go
through because of the trauma-related work they do. As they are intensively exposed to the pain,
fear and trauma endured by their clients, they are sometimes affected by the emotional residue
from their interactions. This form of trauma disrupts the practitioner’s identity, memory system and
belief system.

Secondary Traumatic Stress

Secondary traumatic stress can be a result of listening to a variety of facts and feelings related to
violence, neglect, anger, loss, depression, abandonment and sexual violence. Symptoms include
intrusive thoughts and memories, avoidance of certain people, places, or things that trigger
memories of the traumatic or critical incident, hypervigilance (feeling jumpy), sleep problems,
irritability and anger.

Burnout
Burnout is a state of extreme exhaustion brought on by prolonged and excessive stress. Some
signs include emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment (tendency to view work-
related performance negatively), detachment, negativity and cynicism about work.

73
 IDENTIFYING THE PRACTITIONER’S SOURCES OF VICARIOUS
TRAUMA, BURNOUT AND STRESSORS
Factors that can lead to vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress and burnout
include:

• Intense Workload Demand

a. Excessive workloads and a high degree of personal accountability
b. Being too emotionally involved in a client’s life and not maintaining clear
boundaries can result in vicarious trauma

• Lack of Control
a. Little ability to control the flow of work or availability of resources

• Insufficient Support in the Workplace

a. No time for supervision as the practitioner is too busy with his or her cases
b. Supervisors not tuned in to the impact of traumatic events on the practitioner

• Stressful Relationships
a. Personal matters such as strained relationship with own parents, siblings or
spouse may affect practitioner’s focus on work
b. Clients who are hostile or stressed

• Lack of Role Clarity

a. Lack of shared understanding of one’s responsibilities as a practitioner

• Poor Self-Care or Coping Resources

a. Lack of time to rest or engage in activities that the practitioner enjoys
b. Lack of social support or skills to manage stress

74
TRAUMA EXPOSURE RESPONSE IN PRACTITIONERS
This section outlines some of the possible responses that practitioners might present. There is a
need to work with professionals to mitigate these possible responses to avoid negative impact
themselves, their peers and work settings and most importantly, their clients.

Feeling Helpless
and Hopeless

Grandiosity: An Inflated
A Sense That One
Sense of Importance
Can Never Do Enough
Related to One’s Work

Addictions Hypervigilance

Inability to
Diminished Creativity
Empathise/Numbing
TRAUMA
EXPOSURE
RESPONSE
Anger and Inability to Embrace
Cynicism Complexity

Fear

Minimising
Guilt

Chronic
Sense of Persecution Exhaustion
Physical
Inability Ailments
Dissociative to Listen
Moments
Deliberate
Avoidance

Figure 1. A Trauma Exposure Response

Source: Lipsky, L. V., & Burk, C. (2009)

STRESS VS. BURNOUT

Stress Burnout

Characterised by over-engagement Characterised by disengagement

Emotions are overactive Emotions are blunted

Produces urgency and hyperactivity Produces helplessness and hopelessness

Loss of energy Loss of motivation

Primary damage is physical Primary damage is emotional

75
 PREVENTION STRATEGIES
Five key prevention strategies have been outlined to help practitioners (see Figure 2). These
strategies not only help practitioners overcome the psychological challenges of the work they
do, but also enable them to thrive and continue to work with the children and young persons and
families and witness the transformation of their behaviours and lives.

Track personal
barometer,
apply brakes

Ensure
reflective Have clear
supervision boundaries
space
Strategies
for
Prevention

Employ energy Employ

management self-care
strategies strategies

Figure 2. Strategies for Prevention

Track Personal Barometer and Pull the Brakes

The practitioner needs to be aware of his or her individual baseline of emotions and somatic
responses when under stress. This is especially important when facing stressful situations such as
unexpected escalation of clients, high level of dysregulation by children and young persons (to
point of wanting to harm self or others) and attending to serious family violence situations.

It helps the practitioner understand the level to which he or she is impacted and enables him or
her to work on reducing the levels of emotions and behavioural responses. “Pulling the brakes”
is a term used by Rothschild (2016) to talk about the practitioner managing one’s arousal with
brakes and the need for “precision regulation” of the practitioner’s autonomic nervous system.
This action requires the practitioner to actively adjust the level of emotional involvement and think
clearly.

76
Set Clear Boundaries

Boundaries Boundaries
with clients with colleagues

Boundaries
Boundaries with
with intrusive
stakeholders
self-thoughts

Figure 3. Setting Boundaries

Rituals help with drawing boundaries. They are routines, actions or activities
that can help the practitioner separate work from personal life.

Employ Self-Care Strategies

Energy management is divided into four keys areas: (i) physical, (ii) emotional, (iii) mental and
(iv) spiritual (Schwartz and Mccarthy, 2007). The goal is to achieve optimal experience or to what
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi refers to as “Flow”. This allows for fresh, renewed energy and creativity
when one’s energy wells in the body, emotions, mind and spirit are refreshed. Intentionally ensuring
that each of these four areas is attended to helps the practitioner avoid being burnt out.

Reflective Supervision
Supervision, as touched on in Chapter 11, is critical for competency building and enhancing
confidence in the practitioner so that outcomes of intervention are achieved. It also gives the
practitioner a protected space that enables him or her to process his or her emotions amidst the
stressful events he or she is facing, and reflect if any signs of vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic
stress or burnout are present. Supervision provides a platform for the practitioner to talk about
the needed “emotional distancing” and boundary-setting that helps him or her manage his or her
personal well-being (Dyregrov, 2010). Reflective supervision can also help practitioners remember
why they chose their professions and motivate them to continue undertaking the work they do.

77
 CRITICAL POINTS
FOR THE PRACTITIONER TO NOTE
1 Health is larger than trauma. This is an important stance that the practitioner and supervisor need to
adopt to address trauma. This mindset will help the practitioner make the best use of resources and
also focus on healing and prevention.

Health

Trauma

Figure 4. Relationship between Health and Trauma

Psychoeducation about vicarious trauma, burnout and secondary traumatic stress is essential to help
the practitioner identify tell-tale signs as early as possible. Earlier detection leads to earlier intervention,
minimising rapid downward spiral.

2 It is important for the practitioner to know how to prevent and overcome stress. The practitioner
should chat with his or her supervisor if symptoms surface.

3 The practitioner should keep in mind that his or her ability to cope at work could be affected by any
possible crisis in his or her personal life.

4 The practitioner can use self-report assessments to help assess his or her stress levels. (See Annex I for
self-assessment tests.)

5 Participating in self-care groups in the workplace will give the practitioner the needed social support.
Peers can also raise any issues they may notice.

6 The practitioner should be mindful of his or her own threshold when it comes to caseload. One should
talk to a supervisor if he or she feels overworked.

7 The practitioner can consider adopting a flexi-work schedule (e.g. take time off in the morning if there
was a late session with clients the previous night).

8 Establishing a buddy system enables practitioners to look out for each other. Practitioners have to be
wary of early warning signs for both parties as early detection is always best.

9 Taking the time to map strategies of care makes it easier for the practitioner to manage work and life.

10
Supervision and personal self-care are important in helping the practitioner manage the intensity of
work in the long term.

11
Having sufficient rest, a balanced diet, regular exercise and carrying out stress reduction activities are
also essential for the practitioner.

78
REFERENCES

79
 Abidin, R. R. (2012). Parenting stress index (4th ed.). Lutz, FL: PAR.

Berry, M., Propp, J., & Martens, P. (2007). The use of intensive family preservation services with adoptive families. Child
& Family Social Work, 12(1), 43 – 53.

Bowen, M. (1974). Toward the Differentiation of Self in One’s Family of Origin, Family Therapy in Clinical Practice,
Lanham, MD: Rowman&Littlefield, 529-547.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: (1) New York: Basic Books
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. (2016). Homebuilders ®. Retrieved from http://www.
cebc4cw.org/program/homebuilders/detailed.

Chapman, G. D. (2010). The 5 love languages: the secret to love that lasts. Chicago: Northfield Pub.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances in
personal relationships, 1(1), 37-67.

Dolgoff, R., Loewenberg,F.M. and Harrington, D. (2009). “Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice’, 8th edn, Belmon,
CA: Brooks/Cole.

Dyregrov, A. (2010). Supporting traumatized children and teenagers: A guide to providing understanding and help.
London: Jessica Kinsley Publishers.

Farzin, N. (2015). The Benefits of Positive Parenting. Retrieved from https://www.myoogie.com/2015/02/13/benefits-

positive-parenting/.

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., and Marks, J. S. (1998).
Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the
adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 14(4), 245-258.

Frick, P. J. (1991). The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Unpublished rating scale, University of Alabama.

Healy, K (2005). Social Work Theories in Context: Creating Frameworks for practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heaney, C. A., & Israel, B. A. (2008). Social networks and social support. Health behaviour and health education:
Theory, research, and practice, 4, 189-210.

Innovativeresources.org. (2010). The Bears – St Luke’s Innovative Resources. [online] Available at:
https://innovativeresources.org/resources/card-sets/bears-cards/ [Accessed 18 Sep. 2018].

80
Kadushin. A (1992). Supervision and Social Work. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Keong, M. (2017). Child Maltreatment in Singapore: an analysis of familial factors. (Honours), National University of
Singapore.

Kinney, J. M., Madsen, B., Fleming, T., & Haapala, D. A. (1977). Homebuilders: Keeping families together. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(4), 667–673.

Kirk, R. S., & Griffith, D. P. (2004). Intensive family preservation services: demonstrating placement prevention using
event history analysis. Social Work Research, 28(1), 5 - 15.

Kroenke, C. H., Kubzansky, L. D., Schernhammer, E. S., Holmes, M. D., & Kawachi, I. (2006). Social network, social
support, and survival after breast cancer diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1105-1111.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: The Macmillan Company.

La Valle. I, Payne. L and Jelicic. H, (2012) The voice of the child in the Child Protection System: NCB, Research Centre.

Lipsky, L. V., & Burk, C. (2009). Trauma Stewardship: An Everyday Guide to Caring for Self While Caring for Others.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Li, D., Chu, C. M., Ng, W. C., & Leong, W. (2014). Predictors of Re-entry into the Child Protection System in Singapore:
A Cumulative Ecological-Transactional Risk Model. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38(11), 1801-1812.

Martens, P. (2009). IFPS Toolkit. Buhl, ID: National Family Preservation Network.

Ministry of Children and Family Development., (2004). Best Practice Approaches – Child Protection and Violence
Against Women. Victoria, BC. Retrieved 22 October 2010 from www.gov.bc.ca/mcf

Ministry of Social and Family Development (2015). Working with Vulnerable Families. Practitioners’ Resource Guide.
Strengthening Family Together Pilot.

Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore (2015). Families and households in Singapore, 2000-2014.
Retrieved September 1st, 2018, from https://www.msf.gov.sg/research-and-data/Research-and-Statistics/Pages/
Families-and-Households-in-Singapore-2000-2014.aspx

Ministry of Social and Family Development (2018). Preliminary Qualitative Analysis of MSF SSF-P Pilot Programme.

81
 National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2017), Code of Ethics. http://www.
socialworkers.org?about/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics.

National Implementation Research Network, NIRN (2015). Implementation Drivers:

Assessing Best Practices. Retrieved 26 July 2018 from www.nirn.fpg.unc.edu/

Parker, S (2015). Collaborative Assessment and Planning Framework. SP Consultancy.

Rothschild, B. (2017). The body remembers (2) Revolutionizing trauma treatment. New
York: Norton.

Ryan, J., & Schuerman, J. (2004). Matching family problems with specific family preservation
services: A study of service effectiveness. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(4), 347–
372.

Saleebey, D. (2009). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Schwartz, T., & McCarthy, C. (2007). Manage Your Energy, Not Your Time. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/10/manage-your-energy-not-your-time

Singapore Association of Social Workers (3rd Revision) (2017). Code of Professional Ethics.

Training materials developed by Li Jen and Yogeswari Munisamy for training RPG managers
in ‘Understanding and tacking Vicarious Trauma, Secondary Traumatic Stress and Burnout’.

Tully, L. (2008). Literature review: Family preservation services. Ashfield, Australia: Centre
for Parenting & Research. Retrieved from http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_
assets/main/documents/research_family preservation_review.pdf

Turnell, A. (2012). Effective Safety Planning in Child Protection Casework. Retrieved from
https://www.psychotherapy.net/video/social-work-safety-planning-children

United Nations (1989). The Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). www.unicef.
org/crc

Van der Kolk, B.A., Pelcovitz, D., Roth, S., Mandel, F., McFarlane, A., & Herman, J.L. (1996).
Dissociation, somatization, and affect dysregulation: The complexity of adaptation to
trauma. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(7), 83–93.

Van der Kolk, B.A. (2009). ‘Developmental Trauma Disorder: Towards a rational diagnosis
for children with complex trauma histories’, accessible at: http://www.hogg.utexas.edu/
uploads/documents/dev_trauma_disorder.pdf

Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1992). The role of life events, family support, and
competence in adolescent substance use: A test of vulnerability and protective factors.
American journal of community psychology, 20(3), 349-374.

82
ANNEX

83
 ANNEX A: CPS CASE PLAN TEMPLATE
(I) CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CYPS):

Name Current safety/risk outcome Placement Current permanency direction

Safety assessment • Remain home

(Safe/Safe with plan/Unsafe) • Return home
• Other permanency plan
Likelihood of Future Harm (eg: adoption, LT foster care
assessment /independent living)
(Low/Medium/High) :________________

Safety assessment • Remain home

(Safe/Safe with plan/Unsafe) • Return home
• Other permanency plan
Likelihood of Future Harm (eg: adoption, LT foster care
assessment /independent living)
(Low/Medium/High) :________________

(II) PARENTS/CAREGIVERS:

Name Relationship to CYP

(III) NETWORK (INFORMAL AND FORMAL):

Name Relationship to CYP/Organisation

(IV) CASE PLANS

List all the needs identified for both parent/carer and CYP
Prioritized Action Timeline
needs (What will Action by (When does Review
Goal/
Worries (Begin with we do to (Who will do this action achievement
Objective
highest achieve the it?) have to be of goal
needs) goal?) completed)

(V) FOR CYPS AT HOME

Yes (please attach)

Immediate safety plan
No

Long term safety and support plan Yes (please attach)

No

84
(VI) FOR CYPS IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
Yes (please attach)
(a) Contact Plan with parents/caregivers
No (State Reasons why:____________)

(b) Medical Plan

Any well-child checks,

Condition Instructions for
Primary physician/ immunizations, dental visits
CYP (include responding to
contact planned during case plan
allergies) illness/ injury
period/ who is responsible?

(c) Emotional/Behavioural Health Plan

Additional
things to note in
Emotional/ managing CYP that
Intervention Service provided by/
CYP behavioural would be helpful
provided Contact
issue in behavioural
modification/
supporting CYP

(d) Educational Plan

Additional
School/ School staff
CYP Transportation Learning need academic
Standard involved
support

(e) Cultural Plan

(Parent/caregiver and CYP will work with care providers and network to provide information so that CYP’s
cultural identity can be supported while in out-of-home care environment i.e. race, ethnicity, religion,
routines, preferred activities, food preferences).
CYP Dietary restrictions Religious affiliations Contact with cultural/religious community

(f) Transition into independent care (14+):

Yes (please attach)

Transition plan
No

85
 ANNEX B: CIRCLES OF SAFETY AND SUPPORT TOOL
NOTE

THE INNER CIRCLE:

Who are the people in the children and young persons/family’s life who already know about what has happened that
led to CPS’ involvement?

THE MIDDLE CIRCLE:

Who are the people in the children and young persons/family’s life who know a little bit about what has happened?

THE OUTER CIRCLE:

Who are the people in the children and young persons/family’s life who don’t know anything about what has happened?

Name of CYPS/Family

86
ANNEX C: COLLABORATIVE ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING (CAP) FRAMEWORK
WHAT ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT? WHAT IS GOING WELL?

HARM (past and current), indicating impact on ACTIONS OF PROTECTION & BELONGING
child(ren)/young person(s) •
•

POLICE INVESTIGATION MEDICAL INFORMATION

Classification: Classification:
________________________ ________________________
IO and Division: MO and Hospital:
________________________ ________________________

COMPLICATING FACTORS STRENGTHS & RESOURCES

• •

SAFETY SCALE (filled by CPOs, family members, children, professionals, etc.)

On a scale of 0-10, where 10 means the child(ren)/young person(s) are safe enough for CPS to close the case and 0 means there is
not enough safety for the child(ren)/young person(s) to live at home at the moment

0 10

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN?

WORRY STATEMENTS GOAL STATEMENTS

Safety Plan (to include the non-negotiable in this plan):

NEXT STEPS (Based on Goal Statements) BY WHOM BY WHEN

87
 ANNEX D: THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS’ 7 CARE NEEDS TOOL

CPS CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS’ 7 CARE NEEDS

(References: Meemeduma, 2010; www.teescpp.org.uk/assessment-framework)

Name: ____________________________________
Age: ______________________________________
Date: _____________________________________

NEEDS MET NEEDS UNMET NEEDS

(Services currently in place) (Recommended services)

PHYSICAL

EMOTIONAL

88
 NEEDS MET NEEDS UNMET NEEDS
(Services currently in place) (Recommended services)

EDUCATIONAL

IDENTITY

SOCIAL

SPIRITUAL

SELF-CARE SKILLS

89
 ANNEX E: LONG-TERM SAFETY PLAN
Family Details (Name(s)/Age(s)): __________________________________________________________________________

Reference Number: ____________________________ Practitioner’s Name: _____________________________________

Date: _________________________________________ Date of Next Review: ___________________________________

Worry Statement: Goal Statement:

Goal Statement Non-negotiables “What-if” questions for this goal statement

GOAL STATEMENTS

Goal statements:

Non-negotiable: What-if questions:

1. Safety and Protection already happening 2. Future Safety and Protection:

A. Presenting the safety plan to the children and B. Making changes to the safety plan over time
young persons

Agreement to implement Long-term Safety Plan

(By signing here, I agree to this safety plan).

Parent Signature(s) ______________________________________________

Practitioner’s Signature(s) ______________________________________________

Safety Network Signatures ______________________________________________

90
ANNEX F: PRE-SUPERVISION FORM
DISCUSSION WITH INDIVIDUAL PRACTITIONER AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS

Name of practitioner: __________________________________________________

Date of session: _______________________________________________________

1) How long have you been practising social work?

2) What is your perception of your current role?

3) What do you like about what you do?

4) What do you not like about what you do?

WORK PRACTICE

5) How would you rate your satisfaction with your current level of practice?

6) What is your ideal level of satisfaction you would like to achieve in your practice?

7) What needs to happen for you to reach this level?

SUPERVISION PRACTICE

8) How would you rate your supervision practice at present?

9) What is your ideal level of supervision you would like to achieve?

10) What needs to happen for you to reach this level?

11) What is your expectation of this supervision?

12) At this point of your career, what do you find most challenging?

13) What goals would you like to achieve for yourself in the course of this programme?

14) Could you share a positive experience you have had in case work?

15) What makes your social work practice fun?

16) Any other thoughts/comments?

91
 ANNEX G: CASE CONSULTATION FORM
Case Reference No.:

Name of Child/Young Person/Family:

Name of Practitioner:

Name of Supervisor(s):

Date of Discussion:

Purpose of Consultation (case direction with the family, next steps with the family):

Details of Consultation: (Use CAP Framework)

Outcome of consultation and the next steps.

WHEN
WHAT IS NEEDED TO FOLLOW-UP WHO
(DATE FOR COMPLETION)

92
ANNEX H: SSF-P PRACTITIONER COMPETENCY CHECKLIST

COMPONENT 1: FUNDAMENTALS OF SSF PRESERVATION PRACTICE

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

ADOPTING SAFE AND STRONG SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

FAMILIES-PRESERVATION (SSF-P)
PRACTICE IN ALIGNMENT 1. Articulate key principles of the SSF-P
WITH SERVICE DELIVERY AND programme.
PRACTICE MODEL
2. Perform the various roles of a practitioner
competently such that families will be able to
keep children and young persons safe.

3. Carry out interventions with stances that are

spelt out in SSF-P practice model.

4. Demonstrate understanding of the SSF-P

service delivery model when sharing the
desired outcome and practice model of
SSF-P with families and professionals.

COMPONENT 2: FUNDAMENTALS OF CHILD PROTECTION AND WELFARE PRACTICE

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

APPLYING CHILD ABUSE AND SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICE
PRINCIPLES IN PRESERVATION 1. Apply SSF-P guiding principles, the UN
WORK Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), legislation and inter-agency
protocols in the Management of Child
Abuse in Singapore and in making decisions
in the best interests of the children and
young persons.

2. Identify the physical, behavioural and

emotional indicators of neglect, physical,
sexual, emotional and psychological abuse
and provide the relevant interventions to
address the impact of abuse on children and
young persons.

3. Identify and address the interpersonal, family,

environmental and social factors that may
contribute to physical abuse, neglect, sexual,
emotional and psychological abuse.

4. Identify and explore strategies to support

children and young persons in coping with
feelings of anxiety, guilt, helplessness related
to abuse and out-of-home care placement.

5. Articulate the dilemmas in child protection

and welfare practice and how a practitioner’s
belief, values and attitudes can shape their
relationship with children and young persons
and families.

93
 COMPONENT 3: CASE WORK PRACTICE

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

ASSESSING FAMILY PROFILE SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

AND NEEDS AND PROVIDE THE
APPROPRIATE INTERVENTION 1. Conduct holistic assessments of needs
and strengths of the family and their
support network using a BPSS (Biological,
Psychological, Social, Spiritual) framework
to ensure safety for children and young
persons and families.

2. Develop and monitor case plans and safety

plans with children and young persons and
families.

3. Implement social and systems interventions

stated in the case plans in a timely manner.

4. Review and evaluate intervention plans in

addressing case plan goals.

5. Assess parents and caregivers’ motivation

in working on identified case plans and
safety plans.

6. Respond to crisis and/or recurrences in a

timely and appropriate way.

7. Apply the relevant Social Work theories to

guide assessment and intervention to
effectively target danger and risk factors.

8. Demonstrate knowledge of policies,

legislation and code of ethics and ability to
utilise this knowledge to guide service
provision and decision making with regards
to the safety of the children and young
persons.

9. Write clear and concise case recordings

and maintain proper documentation of
all recordings and contacts with the parents,
children and young persons, support
networks and professionals, including
decisions made.

10. Bring cases to review within the stipulated

timeline.

94
 COMPONENT 4: TRAUMA INFORMED PRACTICE

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PERSONS WITH TRAUMA 1. Apply the Trauma Informed approach in
his/her work with children and young
persons and families, and professionals.

2. Assess the impact of trauma on children and

young persons.

3. Apply strategies to guide and support

parents/caregivers in caring for children and
young persons who have experienced
trauma.

4. Have awareness of available resources in

the community to provide interventions for
children and young persons and families who
have experienced trauma.

5. Apply strategies to support children and

young persons who have experienced
trauma.

6. Demonstrate the ability to work with and

influence the various systems involved in the
care of the children and young persons and
families to be trauma informed.

COMPONENT 5:
CHILD CENTRIC APPROACHES IN WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

ADOPTING CHILD-CENTRED SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

APPROACHES WHEN
ADDRESSING SAFETY AND 1. Demonstrate ability to put children and
PRESERVATION PLANS young persons’ safety and interest at the
forefront of interventions.

2. Articulate knowledge about children and

young persons’ developmental theories and
milestones.

3. Demonstrate ability to involve children and

young persons in case planning and safety
planning by eliciting children and young
persons’ voices and wishes.

4. Employ age appropriate intervention with

children and young persons.

95
 COMPONENT 6: COLLABORATING WITH NETWORK AND ADVOCATING FOR FAMILIES

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

WORKING COLLABORATIVELY SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

AND EFFECTIVELY WITH
PARTNERS TO ENSURE 1. Identify and engage informal and formal
CHILDREN AND YOUNG social support needed by children and young
PERSONS’ SAFETY AND persons and families to ensure safety of the
WELLBEING WITH FAMILIES children and young persons.

2. Collaborate with various community partners

such as Social Service Office (SSOs), Child
Protection Specialist Centres (CPSCs), Family
Service Centres (FSCs), Schools, Child Care
Centres and Student Care Centres to support
the children and young persons and families’
needs.

3. Lead and facilitate network meetings in an

impactful manner to increase participation
and ownership of the intervention plans and
progress by network and partners.

4. Broker and advocate for necessary services

for children and young persons and families
to ensure that children and young persons
and families’ needs are met.

COMPONENT 7:
INTEGRATING PARTNERING FOR SAFETY (PFS) APPROACH IN FAMILY PRESERVATION WORK

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

WITH PARENTS, CHILDREN
AND YOUNG PERSONS AND 1. Apply the PFS principles in working with
THEIR SUPPORT NETWORKS TO children and young persons and families,
BUILD SAFER AND STRONGER and stakeholders.
FAMILIES
2. Conduct holistic and rigorous well balanced
assessment in the use of Collaborative
Assessment and Planning (CAP) framework
by articulating Harm, Complicating Factors,
Worries, Actions of Protection and
Belonging, Strengths and Goals.

3. Utilize tools (such as Immediate and Long

Term Safety Planning Tools, Three Houses,
Circle of Safety and Support, Safety House,
Safe Contact Tool) in their work with children
and young persons and families, and
partners.

4. Demonstrate ability to facilitate Family Group

Meetings/network meeting with children
and young persons and families, and
professionals.

96
 COMPONENT 8:
INTEGRATING STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING® (SDM) IN FAMILY PRESERVATION WORK

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

APPLYING STRUCTURED SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

DECISION MAKING® (SDM)
TOOLS TO GUIDE ASSESSMENT 1. Use SDM® Child Abuse Reporting Guide
AND INTERVENTION AT KEY (CARG) tool to determine if a report
MILESTONES OF SSF CASES should be made to Child Protection in the
management of child abuse allegations.

2. Use SDM® Safety Assessment tool to assess

danger factors and whether safety plans
put in place can address imminent danger
(to determine if cases are Safe, Safe with
Plan or Unsafe).

3. Use SDM® Family Strengths and Needs

Assessment (FSNA) tool as part of ongoing
case planning to identify and prioritise
strengths and needs so as to increase safety
and reduce risk for children and young
persons.

4. Administer SDM® Safety and FSNA tools

during reviews to assess current danger
factors and progress of families in being
able to keep children and young persons
safe without the need for statutory
intervention.

COMPONENT 9: MANAGEMENT OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS AND RECURRENCES

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

MANAGING CRISIS IN A TIMELY SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

MANNER THAT PROMOTES
SAFETY AND STABILITY IN 1. Respond to crisis situations in a timely and
CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS appropriate manner in accordance to level of
AND FAMILIES danger and risk assessed presented by a case.

2. Conduct preliminary investigations at point

of critical incident and/or recurrence to
gather information to formulate assessment
and next steps.

3. Apply the protocols/guidelines/SOP in

managing allegations of child abuse and
critical incidents.

4. Demonstrate de-escalation and recovery

skills in managing critical incidents and/or
recurrences.

5. Formulate and monitor safety plans with

families, their support networks and other
professionals to keep the children and young
persons safe.

97
 COMPONENT 10: DEVELOPING PROFESSIONAL SELF

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

DEVELOPING PROFESSIONALLY SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

BY PROACTIVELY SEEKING
OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOP 1. Demonstrate reflexivity in practice with
NEW CAPABILITIES, SKILLS AND children and young persons and families, and
KNOWLEDGE TO CONTINUALLY professionals.
ENHANCE OWN PRACTICE
2. Identify professional goals and areas of
development to enhance service delivery to
children and young persons and families.

3. Demonstrate ability to use supervision and

coaching to address any counter
transference, secondary traumatic stress,
and deepen clinical practice.

4. Demonstrate ability to utilize self-care

strategies.

COMPONENT 11: SSF-P EVALUATION

COMPETENCY DOMAIN COMPETENCY TASKS SCORE

UNDERSTANDING SSF-P SSF-P Practitioner should be able to:

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK,
LOGIC MODEL AND ABILITY TO 1. Articulate SSF-P evaluation framework
UTILISE EVALUATION TOOLS (both qualitative and quantitative) and
logic model.

2. Utilize evaluation tools with families in a

timely manner to understand effectiveness of
the pilot.

3. Demonstrate ability to conduct qualitative

interviews to understand clients’ experience
of the process.

SCORE PROFICIENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTION OF PROFICIENCY

Excellent SSF-P practitioner is able to undertake the task excellently with no

3
(Expert) guidance.

Good SSF-P practitioner is able to undertake the task competently with

2
(Advanced) minimal guidance from SSF-P supervisor.

Satisfactory SSF-P practitioner is able to undertake the task in a satisfactory manner

1
(Intermediate) with minimal guidance from SSF-P supervisor.

Below Satisfactory SSF-P practitioner is unable to undertake the task even with guidance
0
(Limited) from SSF-P supervisor.

Competency task not observed/unable to evaluate due to lack of

N Not Observed
opportunity for SSF-P practitioner to demonstrate.

98
ANNEX I: TOOLS USED FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT

NAME OF TOOL DESCRIPTION OF TOOL HOW IT IS USED WHO CAN USE IT?

a) Self-Care Assessment http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/rehb/ Tools a, b and c can be Social workers,

Worksheet uploaWellness_Assessment.pdf administered and findings psychologists and
can be discussed in counsellors doing
either individual or group family preservation
b) Compassion Fatigue http://www.ptsdsupport.net/ supervision work
Self-Test compassion_fatugue-selftest.html
Used at the beginning of
supervision or one of the
c) ProQOL5 http://proqol.org/ProQol_Test.html initial sessions to help the
practitioner identify their
resources
d) Resources worksheet A worksheet for professionals to
for the Practitioner list how they are resourced in 5 Can be revisited at points
(see Annex J) areas and also areas they need to when the practitioner is
resource themselves so they can feeling fatigued
recharge themselves
ANNEX J: RESOURCE CATEGORIES

RESOURCE PRESENT NOT PRESENT WHAT ARE THEY?

Practical

Physical

Psychological

Interpersonal

Spiritual

Developed by Yogeswari Munisamy from Babette Rothschild 2016 Somatic Trauma Therapy Training
512A Thomson Rd, #01-01, SLF Podium, MSF Building
Singapore 298137

www.msf.gov.sg