Strengthening the Notion of the ‘Village’ in Signs of Safety – A Luhmannian Perspective

Signs of Safety’s child protection approach has recently been criticized for lacking in theory when it comes to the part of the framework that deal with the involvement of social networks. The article explores if it is possible to respond to this critique with the help of Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory. Luhmann’s systems theory was shown to be aligned with core components in Signs of Safety hence offering a possible theoretical underpinning to the parts of the framework that deal with social networks. Furthermore, by allowing us to reflect about how the simplicity of Signs of Safety synthesizes considerable complexities, the result may also be of use to counteract current tendency to falsely confuse the frameworks ambition to simplify the bureaucracy surrounding assessments with a quest to simplify social work thinking.


Introduction
Signs of Safety is a solution and strength-based approach in child protection that has been widely adopted across the world (Turnell and Edwards 2018). However, recent systematic reviews of the approach have identified its lack of theory in relation to how social workers ought to engage with wider social networks (e.g. wider family) as a significant gap in the framework (SBU 2022; Sheehan et al. 2018). As a senior lecturer in social work at S € odert € orn University that is currently doing a practice (on a 5% basis) at a social service in Stockholm (Sk € arholmen), Sweden, this comes as a surprise. In this article it will be argued that Niklas Luhmann's (1995Luhmann's ( , 2012Luhmann's ( , 2013Luhmann's ( , 2018 systems theory might be a pragmatic way of filling this newfound theoretical gap, primarily because it manages to keep a core fidelity to the approach. The aim of Signs of Safety is to reduce the need of children to enter care in a manner that is safe for the child. In relation to the framework's core social network componentthat is, the notion that it 'takes a village to raise a child'at least four guiding principles through which this is assumed to be reached can be analysed in the light of Luhmann: (1) establishing a partnership-based relationship with the child and the parents as opposed to a paternalistic one (i.e. the social worker does not have the answers to the family's problem); (2) a skillful use of authority (e.g. mapping on what is working well in order to involve the safety network around the immediate family always involves some level of coercion); (3) negotiating the how, that is, a plan must be co-created with, and owned by, the family and an informed safety network and (4) writing down the agreement (i.e. the plan). (Turnell and Edwards 2018).
Luhmann's theory belong to the newest wave of systems theory; and although its application within social work is only emerging it is believed to have the potential to take the tradition of system theory within the profession further (Payne and Reith-Hall 2019;Hudson 2019;Rodger 2022). In fact, connecting systemic models of thinking to the family safety model, with its significant focus on the entire family system, has been put forward as possibly a fruitful entrance for re-evaluating the role of systems theory in understanding and handling family violence (Murray 2006).

A Short Background to Niklas Luhmann's Social Systems Theory
Luhmann's systemic theory belongs to the so called complex or second-generation systems theory that unlike the first-generation/general systems theory's assumption of universal rules, laws or processes that govern systems in a wide range of domains and scales; focus on nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory, selforganization and autopoietic theory (Hudson 2019(Hudson , 2010. Luhmann, in particular, as the sociologist he was , developed what has come to be described as the sociological dimension of Maturana and Varelas (Maturana and Varela 1987) concept of autopoietic systems, that is, self-organizing and self-regulated systems (of which most life forms are examples) with the capacity to alter their internal instruction to adapt to new conditions and selfproduce and self-replicate. Like Maturana (Maturana 2020), who mainly applied autopoiesis theory to organisms, human psychology and pedagogy, Luhmann argued that the essential components of a society is communications, which as self-referential processes define, maintain, self-produce and replicate themselves, much as living organisms do. (Hudson 2019) In Luhmann (1995) social systems are autopoietic systems that, in essence, can be understood as communication processes. An individual communication is made up of an act of announcement, the announced information, and the understanding by those who perceive the behaviour of the other as an informing announcement (Blom and Van Dijk 1999). Understanding the behaviour of the other as an announcement carrying information is a prerequisite for a communication. However, and in line with constructivism, as a meaning-based systemthat is, as a system that reduces the complexity of its environment by discerning between 'meaningful' and 'not meaningful'social systems are non-deterministic. The order they reveal is always 'contingent', that is, neither necessary nor impossible (Blom and Van Dijk 1999). In short, we 'wouldn't even consider a "communication process" as an instance of meaningful social interaction if we had the idea that sender A and receiver B at each moment dispose of only one possible message and interpretation/interaction' (Blom and Van Dijk 1999, 201-2).

Methods
There are many different methods for analysing a program's conceptualizations (Weaver and Mitcham 2008;Hasson and von Thiele Schwarz 2017;Steckler and Linnan 2002). This article follow the pragmatic view that critically selecting the text do be analysed in a way that is suitable with respect to an explicitly stated purpose, analytical question and theoretical point of departure, is a fruitful way of exploring for new conceptual insights (Weaver and Mitcham 2008;Morse 2000). Furthermore, focusing on key aspects of a programusually referred to as key ingredients (Gearing et al. 2011)rather than on the program in general, is a common and pragmatic way of going about when it comes to dealing with intervention programs in practice (Hasson and von Thiele Schwarz 2017).
In this article four guiding principles of the core social network component in Signs of Safetythat is, (1) establishing a partnership-based relationship, (2) a skilful use of authority, (3) negotiating the how and (4) writing down the agreementwere examined with the help of Luhmann's (1995Luhmann's ( , 2012Luhmann's ( , 2013Luhmann's ( , 2018 theory of social systems. The purpose was to explore the extent to which this part of Signs of Safety can be conceptually underpinned with Luhmann's systems theory. The content of Signs of Safety was extracted from the founders comprehensive documentation (Turnell and Edwards 2018) as well as from the recommendations made by the city of Stockholm Sweden to all of its social services as to how to implement the framework (Stockholms stad 2014).

Autonomy and Structural Coupling -The Family in a Functionally Differentiated Society
According to Luhmann (2013), in a context of functional differentiation, society no longer imposes a common difference schema on subsystems. Systems can no longer be specifically normativized nor legitimized for society as a whole (Luhmann 2013). For the rest, society can be considered only as an environment of a functional system, the system of family included (Baraldi, Corsi, and Esposito 2021), and not as a specific superordinate domain (Luhmann 2013). Hence, families, as subsystem that fulfills the function of including a member in communication as a whole person (Baraldi, Corsi, and Esposito 2021), are autonomous (or autopoietic (Luhmann 2012)); that is, meaning-constituting systems that generate communication through communication by their own network of communications (i.e. produce/reproduce its own elements/structures/boundaries) and that cannot exist outside of such a network. (Baraldi, Corsi, and Esposito 2021) With there no longer being any possibility of intervening in structural developments from without (Luhmann 2013), the systems, now internally determined by their own operations and structures, relate to each other simply by being in each other's environment. Each system can be a source of irritation for the other, which in its turn must be processed (Baraldi, Corsi, and Esposito 2021). However, in this new form of structural coupling, irritations are ultimately a state of the system. It stimulates the continuation of the system's autopoietic operations, but which, as mere irritation, initially leaves it open whether structures have to be changed for this purpose; that is, whether learning processes are to be initiated through further irritations or not (Luhmann 2013).
In short, Signs of Safety's requirement of a partnership-based approach in the system-system (social worker-family member) relationship, that is, a relationship that in cooperation with each other aspire to achieve specific and mutually understood goals, is consistent with what is feasible to aspire to for a constructive professional relationship in a functionally differentiated society as understood by Luhmann (Blom and Van Dijk 1999).

Irritations and Safeguard of the Continuation of Autopoiesis -A Power Perspective
As mentioned, systems are autonomous and hence, have, every possibility to behave aberrantly (Luhmann 2012). Why then would a family even consider coupling a supportive social network to their problems with the social services? After all, as a social system the family need to keep its boundary separating it from the environment. Signs of Safety put a large part of its emphasis here on the possibilities that comes with a skilful use of authority; for example, being very clear and explicative about bottom line requirements and how these can be met to satisfy the agency (Turnell and Edwards 2018).
In Luhmann (2012), power depends on the possibility of imposing negative sanctions, particularly physical coercion. However, in the actual use of these sanctions power will fail because one will not achieve what one really wants to achieve with them. This is also why the practice of power, according to Luhmann (2012), 'requires constant reflection on the nonuse of the means of power, a continuous balancing act between showing strength and avoiding the imposition of sanctions' (p. 232).
If this is applied to the relation between a social worker (system) and family members (system) a skilful use of power may also within a Luhmannian framework be considered to have the potential (irritation is always self-irritation) of irritating the family-system toward adopting alternative ways of handling their inner dynamic, including coupling other social systems to the relation. Primarily because the aim of Signs of Safety to solve the family's problem through cooperation with the family and wider social networks rests on the power that comes with the possibility that the social services have of placing a child in care.
In fact, from a Luhmannian perspective it could be argued that Signs of Safety's link between mapping for supportive social networks with the family members and they actually reaching out to them, relies on the expectation (hence maybe the image of a friendly village) that the family as a system will be able to see that the loss of freedom in terms of letting, for example, the wider family provide the safety for a child is not comparable to the transfer of the care to the social services. In the first case, the degree of restriction in terms the system's capacity to safeguard the continuation of autopoiesis (that is, preventing the system from ceasing to operate) (Luhmann 2013)which in the case of the family system goes primarily through the code of love (Baraldi, Corsi, and Esposito 2021)can to some extent be related to having to leave the provision of education to the school as opposed to socialization. In the latter case, the degree of restriction will be proportional to all the functions (selections and decisions) taken over by the social services, which is ultimately the logic of coercion (Luhmann 2018) Organizations and Synchronization -Stimulating Communicative Success across Systems In Luhmann organizations are formed to satisfy the need for synchronization; that is, as a reaction to the artificiality of differentiating the societal system in terms of functions and notas can be inferred from aboveto take over the organization of the functional system (e.g. the family) (Luhmann 2013). Structural coupling represents an important possibility to coordinate different processes of communication and to influence the conditions (e.g. strengthening) of the operations of other systems. The trick in creating successful contractual autopoiesis across systems has, in interpretations of Luhmann in the planning literature (Van Assche and Verschraegen 2008), been suggested to be found in unlocking a hidden agenda toward compatibility. This view can also be found in Signs of Safety. In fact, once the family has waived confidentiality and opened up for reaching out to, for example, the wider family, hence, starting the process of coupling, Signs of Safety clearly states that the 'trick here is for the professional to break the habit of trying to solve issues themselves and instead explain their concerns openly and see what the parents and the network can suggest and do' (p. 46). In other words, and in line with the fruitful possibilities that are theorized to come with the function of synchronization that Luhmann ascribes to organizations (Luhmann 2013), Signs of Safety assumes that a co-created safety plan is possible given the right type of leadership when working with different networks (e.g. network meetings). Social workers need to provide a vision of the sort of detailed safety plan that will satisfy the statutory authoritiesthat is, implement the functional primacy of the social services (cf., Luhmann 2013); but at the same time understand that the plan ultimately must be owned by the family and the informed safety network, that is, desist from any attempts to overtake the organization of the systems while keeping loyal to the role of constructive coordinator (cf., Luhmann 2013)

Decisions and Programs -Formalizing the Conditions for Complexity
Indirect steering can also be understood with Luhmann's concept of programming (Van Assche and Verschraegen 2008). Social services, as organizations, can through decisions, communicate directly with systems in their environment. Programs can in their turn be seen as expectations that hold for more than one decision and for which a decision as to whether to apply the program or not are compelled (which is also why the relation between decision and programs can be circular) (Luhmann 2013). It is ultimately by introducing these complexes of conditions of correctness (i.e. programs) that systems oriented toward them can increase and structure their complexity and control its own processes, as it provides a 'foreign' criterion against which they can relate to. It will, for instance, be able to determine that attributing the positive value of the system code is only correct under particular conditions, which is also why programs are thought to mitigate the rigidity of the system (Baraldi, Corsi, and Esposito 2021) In the light of Luhmann Signs of Safety' use of a safety plan, understood as complexes of conditions of expected behaviour that include multiple roles that is, as programsconstitute an important tool for indirect steering in the work with the family and the social network. A safety plan involves formulating a safety planning trajectory, including critical steps and timeline together with the family and support network (Turnell and Essex 2006;Turnell and Edwards 2018). It is an iterative learning process (cf., circular) for all parties where key parametersthat is, a 'foreign' criterionfor monitoring progress are jointly made explicit. Parents and support network may not agree with the social workers concerns about harm and danger but need to agree on the plan, that is, and also in line with Luhmann, the key lies not in system recognizing every operation but in them carrying them out (Luhmann 2013).

Discussion
Although solution and strength-based approaches have become a popular assessment and intervention model for social workers across the worldwith its focus on solutions, the nature of human resilience, creativity and growth they seem to be unable to get rid of the stigma of being too simplistic (Kim 2008;Milner, Myers, and O'Byrne 2020). The fact that scholars have established that the origin of the solution and strength-based approach is largely atheoretical, in the sense that it grew out of a tradition of detailed observations of and experiments with practice rather than any specific theory (Parton and O'Byrne 2000), have not managed to alter this. Part of the explanation might be that the evidence base for solution and strength-based approaches is relatively limited (Baginsky, Moriarty, and Manthorpe 2019;Milner, Myers, and O'Byrne 2020). Be that as it may, to be associated with the risks linked with a simplistic application of positive psychologyfor example, preoccupation with surface rather than depth (Milner, Myers, and O'Byrne 2020)is not a minor issue, at least not at a time when the legitimacy of applying solution and strength-based approaches to complex social problems, such as child protection and family violence, is under intense scrutiny (SBU 2022).
The result of this article challenges this stereotype, at least as far as the solution and strength-based framework of Signs of Safety is concerned. With the help of Niklas Luhmann's systems theory it was shown that Signs of Safety in terms of four basic guiding principles of the core social network component, that is, (1) establishing a partnership-based relationship, (2) a skilful use of authority, (3) negotiating the how and (4) writing down the agreement, respectivelysynthesize considerable theoretical complexities. Furthermore, while the alignment between these basic guiding principles and Luhmann's systems theory does not alter in any way the implementation of Signs of Safety it does allow Signs of Safety to articulate its guiding principles through Luhmann's theory.
This is not to say that Signs of Safety needs a theoretical underpinning. However, the fact is that the depth and complexity that is found behind the guiding principles of Signs of Safety, developed and matured through more than 25 years of practice, seems to be out of reach for current evaluators of the framework as well as for many (probably inexperienced) practitioners (SBU 2022;Sheehan et al. 2018). If you to this add that there is still little to no evidence that Signs of Safety actually works (SBU 2022;Sheehan et al. 2018); then being able to offerthrough Luhmann's systemic theoryan alternative way of appreciating the depth and complexity of the parts of the framework that deals with the relationship with families and their social networks, would seem to be important. This include making use of Luhmann's understanding of what is practicable to aspire to in communications with families (guiding principle nr 1), his view on the meaning of the use/nonuse of the means of power (guiding principle nr 2) and his take on how organisationssuch as, social servicesmay indirectly steer the communication between systems through coordination (guiding principle nr 3) and formalisation of a program (guiding principle nr 4).
Theories or ideas in general play an important role in social work. They help us understand the practice that derive from our discipline and profession, construct how we may think about society and approach the situations we deal with, make sense of the circumstances and predicaments we encounter in practice and learn things about ourselves and the world around us (i.e. the heuristic character of theories) (Payne and Reith-Hall 2019, 11). It is ultimately by continuously reflecting about the depth of an approach that in this case is 'simple in its focus but sophisticated in its application' (Gibson 2014, 77), that the so called paradox of simplicity within the Sign of Safety framework might be overcome, that is, the tendency to falsely confuse seeking to simplify the bureaucracy surrounding assessments with a quest to simplify social work thinking (White, Bell, and Revell 2022).

Limitations
Two main methodological considerations should be born in mind when interpreting the result of this article. First, given that the implementation of intervention programs tends to vary with the local context where they are implemented the analysis in this article may in part be limited by how the social services in Stockholm in Sweden have adopted and implemented the framework of Signs of Safety. As opposed to Australia, for example,where Signs of Safety originally was developedthe child care services in Sweden are dominantly based on principles of parental support rather than on principles of child protection ( € Ostberg, Wiklund, and Backlund 2018). Having said that, the content of the four guiding principles and core social network component of Signs of Safety analysed in this article can all be found in the framework's main documentation (Turnell and Edwards 2018).
Second, the article has not been able to do Luhmann's vast and comprehensive work complete justice. However, the aspects taken up here, such as, communication between systems, power, synchronization/coordination and programming are themes that have also been picked up as fundamental in other disciplines treating the possibilities of steering in a functionally differentiated society (Van Assche and Verschraegen 2008). Furthermore, systems theories have historically, within social work, predominantly been used on a metaphoric (i.e. metaphors as an aid to abstract thought) or conceptual level (Hudson 2019).

Conclusion
Signs of Safety draws much of its legitimacy from being an approach that grew out of detailed observations of and experiments with practice rather than any specific theory. However, for the parts relating to understanding the relation between the social worker and the involvement of wider social networks in the work with the immediate family and the child's safety, this has been deemed as insufficient. Although it is understandable that the need for theoretical explanations increases with the complexity of the approach, especially as the evidence for it actually working is still missing, this article suggests that there, at least from a Luhmannian systems perspective, is no reason to question the approach's theoretical validity.