From Bambi To Boundaries: What Objects Reveal About Mind, Body, And Meaning, with Richard Rollinson

Objects that teach therapeutic care

Objects can be trivial, or they can be portals. In therapeutic care, they often become the latter: anchors that hold a story, a lesson, and a person. Across this conversation with much-loved veteran leader Richard Rollinson, we track how a toy fawn, a battered picture book, a chocolate egg, a skull, a crystal ball, and even a baseball field opened new ways to think about children’s minds, their lived bodies, and the spaces we create around them. The thread is simple but deep: meaning is not handed down by theory alone; it is made in the living day, noticed in small details, and held long enough to think. The value for practitioners is clear—objects invite curiosity, challenge certainty, and offer a shared language that can reach where instruction cannot.

Consider Bambi. In a cinema full of tears, a small group of traumatised children ask why others are crying. Their confusion exposes a gap many adults miss: when experiences have been chaotic, the link between event, body, and feeling may be dulled, scrambled, or defended against. A similar lesson sits in Rosie’s Walk, a wordless classic read night after night. Skip counting the apples and a 14?month?old protests—not with words, but with an elbow. Continuity matters, not as fussiness but as scaffolding for sense-making. Here, modern neuroscience helps: Damasio’s critique of Descartes reminds us mind and body are not separate realms. In care, that unity becomes practical: we observe posture, breath, pacing, gaze, tone; we look for shifts over time; we match routines that touch both soma and psyche.

Then there’s “cream egged.” A child hears “cremated” and turns it into Cadbury’s “cream egged,” folding death into the nearest sense-making shape. The point is not to correct, but to respect developmental logic while offering manageable doses of the world. Children personalise experience; they reach for images that fit the mind they have. This nudges us away from lectures and toward guided noticing: ask what they think an object means, let their story lead, and only then add gentle edges. The crystal ball adds a further caution—don’t predict outcomes for children. Resilience can surprise. What we can assess is the reliability of the environment: is there a plan B, predictable care, and room for growth when services wobble?

Boundaries matter, but so does play. A family photo at Yankee Stadium becomes a working metaphor: the field of play sits inside clear lines; there’s foul territory, umpires, shared rules, and a warning track before the wall. Good care is like that—boundaries, not barriers; containment, not incarceration. Gates open; people move in and out safely. Winnicott’s triad of work, love, and play becomes design criteria for homes, classrooms, and programs. We must build shared purpose and allow exhilaration without reckless harm. Early indicators of progress? Presence, ordinary participation, communication beyond meltdown or retreat, and being able to “live to learn” in a classroom without being pressed to master algebra before trust exists.

How to use objects with children? Select with care. Offer an invitation, not a test. Lay out a few items, ask what draws them, and wonder aloud together. Keep the doses small. Ensure the room itself is safe, predictable, and held by adults who can think. When a child says “I don’t know,” try pretend-thinking: “Let’s imagine you did know—what might it be?” Often that opens the ballpark. Over time, children take ownership of insights; they are not handed truths but discover them in a space designed for noticing. The real takeaway is a stance: collect moments, treat everything as potential material, hold meaning lightly, and return to the same row not because we failed, but because some coins are unearthed only on the second pass.

Listen here:

Watch here:

(Please note that due to a recording error this is a collection of images and audio from the podcast interview, as opposed to a usual video.

Transcript:

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start Podcast.

And when I’m talking about the object, I’m talking about the person for me that comes out of it. Now, some of them are a compilation, but many of them are of individuals. And the significance is the gift the individual gave me. It’s not about the individual, it’s about the gift they gave me that helps me to think about, has helped me to think about. Gosh, what could that mean? It’s important in itself, but it also highlights Descartes’ error. You wouldn’t think it, would you? A child’s book that has no words, and it upends René Descartes. Children’s life experiences are personal sized and personalized. We prepare them for death. And you know, again, I’m I’m I’m still I still got my L plates on in this in this town. And I I said, what? He said, well, look, when you think about it, what’s the best preparation for death? I said, I don’t really know. He said, living a good life, having a full life that you can really experience and engage with. I I felt quite encouraged that our work isn’t just to control and contain and maintain children, you know, within, you know, not putting a foot wrong, it really is to help them experience and develop their own capacity to have a good life, whatever that is. What I’m trying to offer is a different way of working that involves thinking and thinking about feelings.

Hello and welcome to the Secure Star Podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and rejoining me for this episode is the much-loved former director of the Mulberry Bush Charity. Before I introduce my guest, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I come to you from. The Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains. And acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Richard Rawlinson. Richard was, until the 31st of December 2019, the director of the Planned Environment Therapy Trust and remains an independent consultant in the fields of therapeutic childcare, education, and mental health across the voluntary, statutory, and private sectors. Richard has a long association with residential therapeutic communities, having worked at the Mulberry Bush for well over 20 years, and where from 1991 until 2001, he worked as its director. He was also director children and young people at the Pepper Harrow Foundation from 2001 to 2005. Amongst his activities in this field, Richard worked for many years with the Department of Social Welfare in Portugal to support the development of specialist therapeutic residential communities across the country. Richard continues to work in a consultant role with several organizations in Portugal and in Ireland. Unbeknownst to us, the video failed while we were recording this episode, leaving only audio. Thankfully, that was intact. If you take something positive from this interview, or from the podcast more generally, please like and subscribe. And share in your networks. This really makes a difference to the caliber of content I can continue to bring.

Well, welcome back, Richard, uh to the Secure Start podcast. Really looking forward to this one because um you got you’ve actually got something a little bit different and a little bit uh special for us this time.

Right. Well, I I I think what it is is I I guess to begin, I’ve always been curious about everything and anything, including about objects. And I’m talking about from very early in my life, but even more so when I was at university back in the States, I had a course. I I think I told you before, I studied Latin and Greek for many years, and there were associated programs, and there was a book called The Mute Stones Speak, and it was about Etruscan remains, pre-Roman remains, and I was quite gripped by how much the author, whose name I can’t remember over 45, 50 years, uh, was able to extract from just looking at these objects. And I always remembered it. And at my time at the Mowbray Bush, I, as you could imagine, I spent many years giving talks, lectures, writing articles, and for many times I enjoyed it. But sometime 30 or so years ago, I thought to myself, actually, probably about 85 to 90 percent of the people I’m talking to are on site already. There’s probably another five or so percent of people who might be able to think, oh, I’ll look into this. He said something interesting. And there was, you know, one, two, three percent of people where frankly I could stand on my head and whistle Dixie and they’d pay no heed to me. So I thought, well, what could I do? What would help me and what would help them do it? And I thought, okay, I’ve been collecting these objects, maybe I’ll just, and I’ve been keeping them for myself, these are objects all through my working career that were either given to me by children or reminded me powerfully of a child or a group of children I worked with. I thought, well, I can share it with them. Now I hastened to add, you may have heard about a worldwide excellence program called The History of the World in 100 Objects.

No, I haven’t heard of that actually.

Oh, it’s very interesting. I hastened to add, I was doing presentations five years before he put this together. So I taught him something well. And uh but I I had this growing collection, and it developed, and stop me if I’m going on too much about it. But when I first came to England, I realized there was a train from York to London, and it took about two and a half hours in those days. It’s about an hour and forty minutes now, but the great thing about it was they had a bar in the train with table to sit on. I thought, oh, I’m gonna go to do that. And I went down, and uh while I was wandering around to see the Garbo Film Festival, I I came across this play. It was called Brief Lives, and it was based on the stories by someone called John Aubrey, who wrote in the early 17th century about people, and he gave very brief life communications. I thought, well, that’s interesting. And this guy called Roy Dutrice was performing. And I went to the play, sat high up in the gods, and he came on looking very, very old and elderly, and the whole of the stage was covered with objects. And he’d pick up an object and he’d talk about it in relation to the brief life he’s writing about. I thought, this is amazing. It was so good. I stayed in London overnight, and I went and saw the play again. And what really, really struck me this time was he didn’t just talk about the same objects. He picked up different ones and spoke about it. So that was in 1970, the end of 1970. Good year then. In 2008, I was in Richmond in England, and I saw brief live was on with Roy DeTres. I thought he’d been dead for years. And I went to see him, and he was genuinely elderly, he didn’t have to use makeup anymore. And he did the same thing. And all that time he had been a one of my models about well, this is what you can do. You have this object, and you can you can talk about it. So, you know, I did that, and then Potter came along. Do you know what Potter I’m talking about? Harry. You’d think so, no. Dennis Potter. Dennis Potter. Hang on. This this is Dennis Potter. He is one of the best British playwrights. He died some years ago. He wrote wonderful TV plays, highly regarded, and he had things, and he was interviewed. Uh I now this is very interesting. He was interviewed by Melvin Bragg in 1994, two months before he died of cancer.

Well, Melvin Bragg is a name I do know.

Indeed, yes. And he just Melvin Bragg just finished doing his program that he did for about 30 years on BBC Radio. But he was interviewed by Melvin, and I remember it clearly, except I elided something because I also saw an interview with Dennis Potter in 1987 by Alan Yentub. And somehow in my mind, which I think is I elided them together. And I think the thing is, and this is an anticipation of my stories, there might be something about the stories that perhaps go over the same ground. And that’s exactly what Alan Yentub said to Dennis Potter. He said, You know, Dennis, you’re a highly regarded, but some people say you really just hoe the same row. And so my first object, it’s not a hoe, because my grandchildren took the hoe from their toy things. So I have this. And what he did, and this is how I lied to it, because when he spoke to Melvin Bragg, he had he was sipping um morphine because he was within two months of dying. Goodness. Smoking a cigarette, as he always did. But what what he said was, well, you see, the thing is they’re probably right. I am hoeing the same row. But the thing about it is, and he did the hoeing with his hands, and he said, the thing about it is I always feel I never get it quite right. So I go back to it, and I think there might be a precious coin there that I haven’t unearthed. So in this process, I always thought about Dennis Potter, extraordinary guy. He’s uh I have hugely annotated. This book of mine, of his is massively annotated by my notes. It’s falling apart because it was from 1994. And uh it’s just something about the way people look at the world, the work, their focus, their discipline, and themselves. And it brings out so much. So that that was it. And one last thing. By by way of prelude. Another object. Can you recognize?

R2D2?

R2D2. And when did you first see him?

Oh, I think it was at the drive-ins in probably 1977 or thereabouts.

Yeah, it was yeah, it was around 75, 76, 77. And what is, amongst many things, what is highly significant about that first film?

Oh goodness. You’re taking you’re taking I don’t know how much my analytical brain has developed by the age of seven

years.

It’s the first time a holograph was ever used in a film. Oh, okay. And there was R2, and he had he had been sent over to get some help from Obi-Wan Kenobi, and he was there, and out from him came a holograph of Princess Leah Organa saying, Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you’re only hope. And it was broken and damaged. Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, your only hope. And I thought, a hologram, and it was of a person. And I think for me, the significant thing about my objects is they’re like R2. And every single object contains a person. And when I’m talking about the object, I’m talking about the person for me that comes out of it. Now, some of them are a compilation, but many of them are of individuals. And the significance is the gift the individual gave me. It’s not about the individual, it’s about the gift they gave me that helps me to think about, has helped me to think about, gosh, what could that mean? And notice things that previously I might not have noticed in the ordinary hassle and unfolding of a day and holding on to things and seeing, you know, the work, the life, the living day. It’s the material that we can use. And some things are actual material, but they are also material. So this is why I constantly collected these objects, not obsessively, they sort of came to me. As I say, some given, some I thought, oh, this reminds me. And and I I think it’s it helped me develop a way of thinking that at least tried to focus on what might this mean. It could be insignificant and ignored in passing, but what might it mean? And in this context of what I’m saying to you and what I’m presenting, I’m not here to persuade anybody. I’m not here to tell people, this is what I learned and this is what you have to know. No, it it has nothing to do with that at all. It’s just saying, let’s notice what’s actually going on in the moment, in the living day, in the context of things, not discard it as irrelevant, because even if it isn’t central to the work, it’s something about the living day shared, the work that we try to do, and there can be some meaning in it we might miss. And we neither overlay it or or dismiss it. So that that’s really what brought me along to this point.

There’s so many thoughts going off for me, Richard. Sorry, I might have I might have spoken over you briefly for a moment there, but uh I I think about um how the objects anchor you to perhaps anchor you to a story or an experience. I I’m thinking about the objects as metaphors. Yeah. I’m also thinking about what was the response of the crowd that you were you were delivering uh workshops to or or or speaking to uh when rather than give them the traditional um workshop seminar, you uh you you started talking about objects.

Well, uh very well received, and I’ve also done it with children and young people. And to be perfectly honest, they will often get it sooner than adults. Not always, but often. The only other thing is, like my grandchildren, they want the objects. So I sometimes have to negotiate after a presentation with young people, children especially, to say, you know, all right, this is it. If you give it back to me, I’ll make sure you get an object just like it for yourself. Because they want the object. And uh I was looking today for a couple of things, and there’s a few things missing from my collection because of my grandchildren. So the helicopter, I think I know where it is. But to be perfectly fair, I’ve nicked a few things from them. So don’t tell anybody, but my granddaughter’s uh queen’s it’s not a crown, it’s a bit smaller than that. I still have it, and I broke it. It’s in two pieces now, so please don’t tell her. And so the you know, this thing, I have a care bear there that belongs to uh I think it’s my daughter from many years ago. And uh but I’m putting it to good use. I’m taking good care of it as well, and we’ll get to the care bearer, I’m sure, sometime. But it it really is a a positive response. And I spoke to in Portugal to the Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, and I spoke about a few other things, but talked about the objects, and at the end of it, several of them came up to me and said, This is the first ever lecture we have received from anybody that doesn’t make reference to theory and you know, uh articles and things, but it was really interesting. So, you know, so far it’s been well received. And uh because I think it’s just it captures people where they think, oh, I’ve been there. Yeah, oh yeah, I can think of something, and uh just encourages them to notice even more what they’re already noticing, or might not be noticing so much. I’ve never had anybody say that’s a lot of rubbish. They may have been thinking it, but hey, you know.

As I’m understanding it, it’s a it’s kind of an aid or a way of getting people to think more deeply.

Yes. And that’s our that’s our challenge. Yeah, to think and notice things. So shall I go into the first object they’re gonna talk about? I’d I’d love you to. So yeah, go ahead. All right. I’m just gonna turn around and pick up. This is the object. I

I also have a picture because uh I’ve only just reclaimed this from one of the younger grandchildren. And uh tell me what you see.

Uh well, I see a fawn. It could be Bambi.

You got it in one. So a long time ago, although perhaps not in a galaxy too far away, we didn’t have online films, we didn’t have DVDs, we didn’t even have VHF VHS tapes, and on an annual cycle, the Disney films came out. And every half term in Britain, a Disney film would come out, and as you can imagine, the cinemas were jam-packed, two daytime programs a day over the whole time. Absolutely crowded, and this is nineteen it was probably early nineteen seventy one. No, hang on. Went to the mulberry bush. So it was early nineteen seventy five. And we always at at holiday times we always had some of the newer children stay back with us at the Mulberry Bush to really get f more fully engaged in the work without the pressure of the the old hands, so to speak, of the children. And we went to see the Disney film. And on this occasion, it was Bambi. So here you can imagine a flea pit cinema in the small town of Whitney, absolutely jam-packed with children and young people, and then myself and Leslie and Marion, the grown-ups, with six Mulriebus children back for the half term. The film starts, it goes on and on and on, and it gets to, as you can imagine, the part in the program where Bambi’s mother is shot. And the whole cinema, bar a certain few, is in tears. Absolutely devastating. Absolutely devastating. And then one of the children, I’ll call her Jay, turns to me and says, Richard, Richard, why are the children crying? And I’m like, you see, Jay, Bambi’s mother’s just been shot. She says, Oh, oh. I said, but don’t worry. Bambi will be looked after. He’ll be safe. He’ll be looked after by his dad. He says, okay, and she turns over to the other children. She says, Hey, Charlie, Major, okay. The children are crying because Bambi’s mother’s been killed, but Richard says not to worry because he’ll be looked after. The whole rest of the cinema is complete wreck. And these six Mowbray Bush children are wondering what’s going on. This disconnection between psyche and soma, between life experiences and things, and more puzzled, not about what’s going on in the film, but the children that were crying. What’s that about? And it taught me a very, very powerful, powerful lesson about I I was gonna call it the disconnection. It’s not a it’s about a confused connection between life and what’s going on and what they can experience and how they can do it. And I always kept that in mind and was always mindful about how things you and I can take for granted as, oh, that’s a feeling thing, and this is how they connect it. It isn’t always that way with children who have suffered themselves from very, very severe experiences of hurt and pain and abuse and distress, and how they deal with it by a disconnect or the lack of a greater connection at the time between that, having feelings, showing emotions, noticing that, being able to talk and think about them. There’s work to be done in the work that we do to a different degree, but it was very powerfully brought to me by that uh going to the Disney program, Bambi, and you’d go in a very different cycle. You could not get a Disney film in those days, in the 70s, early 80s, except by going to the cinema and watching it. So it was a huge event. And uh so that that was about the fawn and Bambi. And and and then we go. So uh again, perhaps nothing hugely profound comes out of this, but I’ve never forgotten it. I’ve never forgotten it.

While you’re while you’re locating the next one, a recent guest on the podcast was Peter Blake, and he was talking about the mind of children and uh how um and I reflected in that conversation that that he was saying about how difficult it can be to for to get people to consider that children have a mind. And I reflected that yes, they they probably see children, adults typically see children as um needs, behaviors and emotions, but maybe not consider considering their mind as well. And I think that that’s a beautiful illustration for the fact that children have minds and and their minds are different based on uh life experience and we need to take in consideration not just their needs, emotions and behaviors, but also their minds.

Right. And and maybe I’ll jump to it now, because I have a book. I’ll tell you. It’s it’s a book. It’s it’s called Ro Rosie’s Walk. Rosie’s Walk. It’s not even the original. Our original Rosie’s Walk that I read to my daughter two thousand times is so fragile now. We got we got another one for the others and the grandchildren, and now this is fragile as well. But it’s important in itself, but it also highlights Descartes’ error. You wouldn’t think it, would you? A child’s book that has no words, and it upends Rede Descartes. Um, Antonio Damasio, who you may have read and heard of, he he he wrote a book called Descartes’ Error, and the thing about it is books

never lend people books, they never return them. And I lent this one. I mean, my shelf is full of books people lent me, and I’ve never returned, but I don’t have Descartes’ error, but I do have the Malazius book, The Feeling of What Happens, and it’s fascinating. But let me tell you this. So, my daughter, who is now 46, she started off as a baby, and for many years we would read a book to her, and as is often the case, it’s the same book, night after night after night. And there and this this is about Rosie’s walk, and it’s about a walk a hen takes out of her house, uh in a little you know, hen house, and around, and there is a fox that tries to get her, and they’re constantly up-ended, and there are a few words in it, but of course, as most parents do, we elaborate the story and we point out the things and say things like, Oh, look, there’s a bird on the top of that tree. Watch out, Rosie! Oh, look, isn’t that oh, what’s gonna happen there? Oh, look at the frog, he’s jumping. You do all that, and you do it one day and two days, and a century and three quarters later, it feels like, you’re there, and it’s been a very long day for Richard. And I go up and I’m reading Jesser’s story, and I try to be quick. I try to be quick, and I don’t count the apples on the apple tree, and I carry on to the next page, and suddenly I have this little creature giving me the elbow, still still drinking her milk bottle, so I guess she was about 14 months old, because she was breastfed, but and I knew the message was I had to go back, I had to go back and count the apples, because there’s something about the continuity of making sense about it. And I thought about that and I thought about it, and of course, we’ve read lots of books to children we’ve looked after, not from our own family, and it’s the same important thing about keeping going, getting it, getting it right in the way that they can experience it. So there is some kind of continuity that adds meaning to it. So, you know, I did all that with Rosie’s Walk and you know, survived to tell the tale, and in my own way, really enjoyed it and didn’t mind being told you didn’t count the apples. But I thought about that and I read Descartes’ error afterwards, and it touches on, I say this because you you mentioned the mind, because what Damasio points out is Descartes’ error is he separated psyche and soma, mind and body, made them quite separate things. And the point my daughter at the age of 14 months was telling me, and that Antonio Damasio is telling us, is that is an error. There is a connection between mind and body, between what’s going on here, what’s going on there. There’s something that makes sense, and it has to be both mind and body and continuity. I I know the analogy isn’t exactly right, but I I think you get what I mean. How important it is to keep a connection between these things, and how important it is in our work to keep a connection between mind and body and the care, the actual care of a child and young person, and what else is going on. And uh I could talk more, but I think just at this stage, it it’s something about being reminded powerfully about the connection of the wholeness and wholesomeness that you were talking about earlier, the mind of a child. It might not be available to do, you know, uh quadratic equations, but there’s a mind there. There’s a mind there. And we have to connect that to it. So that’s it.

That connection is often represented in how the children present. And and I pay a lot of attention and and in my psychotherapeutic work, the first quarter of my notes is really what I observe about the child’s presentation.

Yes.

And that’s that’s that connection that you’re talking about with between what’s going on inside and what is manifestly representative of that in the their their actual physical presentation. And what I hope for is a change in that presentation over time.

Well, in indeed, as and when they need it. And you know, I get I guess what I learned was that I can be helped by a 14-month-old child to remember that connection. So it it’s an interaction, but certainly once we learn these things and the young people can remind us about it, it’s it’s extremely helpful, and the you know the material is there. L let me get you another one. Okay. Oh, here it is. This is a very, very ancient. I don’t know if you have them in Australia. This is a Cadbury cream egg.

I think we do, or at least we do. Okay.

Right. I they they are omnipresent nowadays, as it wi with with everything, but in the past they would be available from about uh Valentine’s Day till Easter. It was a cream egg. And uh so 1980. We’re coming back from the Christmas holiday in maybe it was 81. The Christmas holiday in 1980, yeah, yeah. And I’m sitting with Lulu and Joanna in between me on on the Mulberry Bush bus. And we’re traveling along and they’re chattering away, and then Joanna says, These aren’t the real names, I hasten to add. She says, Oh, oh, yeah. That beetle dydy was killed, wasn’t he? And I said, Yeah, John Lennon, yeah, it was sad. John Lennon got shot. It was early December 1980. I think I said, Yeah, it was really, really sad. So Joanna’s about two years older than uh, what did I call her? Lulu?

Lulu.

And uh Lulu sits there and she and she looks up to me and she says, Have they eaten him yet? And they do this, and then the children start talking about it, because I said, What? What what? What do you mean, have they eaten it yet? Well, a human being is meat, and people eat meat. Have they eaten him yet? And I remembered they had been talking some of them have been talking about becoming vegetarian in the previous turn. And I thought, you know, here’s my opportunity to be Joe Therapy. I sort of put my arm over Lulu and I said, Well, look, Lulu,

actually, there’s a difference. You know, it it’s not quite the same way because when a person dies, and I start describing, I didn’t I didn’t even get into um okay, I’m in the senior moment here. I’m talking about digging a hole and burying the person. And as I’m telling her this, I think, well, this is pretty weird too, when you think about it. And and Muella, who’s sitting in the seat over me, comes up, and in those days the children had a sign going, uh and she said, Oh, Richard, you got the choke. I said, What, Moo? She said, John Lennon wasn’t buried, he was cream egged. Not cremated. And I and you know, I’ve never looked at a Cadbury’s cream egg without thinking of that. But it shows you the a child’s eye view of the world and the well, they’re not even parapraxies, they’re things about hearing things and thinking, well, okay, I don’t know what cremated is, but I know what a cream egg is. And so for them, John Lennon became a cream egg.

Wow.

And uh I I I didn’t take it upon myself to dissuade her. All I have always remembered is it’s children’s life experiences are personal-sized and personalized. They they they they come at a time when they make the best sense they can about something that doesn’t make sense. And you know, here am I, I’ve made it to 77 sunset strip at my age, and still, you know, I can’t give you an explanation about death. You know, uh, I’ve got people on my list, I hope but I’m hanging around for a few more years. But there is this thing about how do you make sense of something like that? And I thought Moo had as good an idea as anybody else when she was seven years old. So I didn’t try to dissuade her. I said, Well, there you go. I hasten to add, I’ve never eaten a cream egg since then, just in case. But I always this this egg is God, I don’t know what’s inside it. It’s many, many years old now.

I was wondering about that, and uh it reminds me a little bit of Edward DeBono’s book, Children, is it called Children Tell Stories? No, Children Solve Problems, and and my recollection it’s a very long time since I I had any interaction with that book, but he had children draw solutions, I think, and then describe the solution to the problem and um and they’re remarkable. Again, representing children beyond needs, needs and wants, eh, uh behaviors and emotions, but that that there’s a mind in there and and the the ways in which that mind works are remarkable.

Yes. And and and they are, as you said, they’re working to make sense, they’re using their mind. And the last thing Moo needed for me was to say, I don’t talk nonsense. It’s not creamag, it wasn’t cream egg. That’s ridiculous. We’re saying, gosh, I hadn’t thought about that. And you know, there might be different ways, but okay. Um because there was no need. She was seven. And when she was eleven, she’d probably put that aside and think about something else. And uh but it it it’s just noticing how the children say it, so we’re um we’re mindful of what they might embody in objects themselves when they’re trying to make sense of a world that, you know, even for the well-developed, that can sometimes not make sense. And for these children who have experienced a hell of a lot of strange things, frankly, most of what they could think has it’s perfectly justifiable that they might think something like that. It’s wonderful, they can think about anything. So that was that was that was quite quite something. Um the other thing, a lesson. This is my new iteration of a crystal ball. Sadly, the original crystal ball didn’t last from uh actually it was it wasn’t my grandchildren, it was from another child who picked it up and it was delicate and dropped. But a crystal ball. And in the first year and a half, I was at the Mulberry Bush. There was there there was a pair there were siblings there, and they both left at the same time. I’m still in touch with one of them, again, 52 or three years later. And uh and so we’ve talked about this story, and and and it was when they left, the child I was still in touch with, I was very, very concerned about her. Because from my l limited experience, I thought she would struggle massively to manage. I was very, very new still.

Couldn’t have been earlier than 19, you know, uh no later than 1976, probably, when she left. I was very concerned. I thought, you know, how can we let these this child go and how how can we do it? But I was up to see, well, there’s a certain time when we have to help them move on. Okay, but I’m worried. And I was worried for her because I thought she would struggle while her sister might make it. Years later, I realized that actually, for whatever reasons, she’s doing fine and still is, and her sister struggles still. And it was a very powerful reminder to me. Don’t make predictions about the future of children. Yes, if there’s absolute risks in the provision they’re going to, you can say this is concerned. But the this this kind of tendency I had in my novice state to think, oh my god, she ain’t gonna make it. No, that’s all about me. It it there was an experience that was had, and it was a good enough experience to make use of alongside, you know, what not for the first time and not for the last, I’ll talk about Winnicott’s notion of the urge of the human organism to health. And it made a difference. So I have never I it was a really early lesson and I’ve always followed it. I never make predictions about the outcome for children and young people in and of themselves. There are times when I say, that’s your plan for this child. You want to do it? I hope you have a plan B. Because I’m not worried about the child. I’m worried about how this so-called service is going to be sustained. So um I have to take very good care of this because I don’t want to have to get another one. It cost me two pounds. No, oh. I s I I suddenly thought. A skull. A skull. Yeah. Did I talk about the skull in the time I spoke with you last?

I don’t recall so.

Okay. Stop me if I have, or he lied, the skull. Again, in the first year and a half I was at the Mowbray Bush, there was this uh Christian brother who was the head of a school for adolescents who are troubled and at times troublesome. And he used to visit the Mowbray Bush regularly. He was, I can’t remember his name, but he was very he was he was a really interesting guy. And you know, again, in my naivete, I said to him, I said, So so what do you and your team do with the young people you work with? And this was around the breakfast table, you know, we’re sitting there, and he said, He didn’t have this. He said, We prepare them for death. And you know, again, I’m I’m I’m still I still got my L plates on in this in this town. And I I said, what he said, well look, when you think about it, what’s the best preparation for death? So I don’t really know. He said, living a good life, having a full life that you can really experience and engage with. And I thought, oh, it’s a very interesting way. And he said, and I said, What do you talk to them about it? They said, Well, we don’t we don’t push it, but we do say, hey look guys, we got a life and we can get on with it. And there’s so much that could happen to us that’s good. There’s other things that could happen that aren’t so good. So let’s live a good life as long as we’re here. And of course, philosophically, we know there are many people who talk about living the good life while we’ve got it. And again, um where is it? My book, Dennis Potter, talks about it too. He he’s very profound about a number of things, saying, you know, a good life. We’ve got one life, you know, don’t know what’s going to happen afterwards, but we got it. So let’s let’s see what we can do with what with what we’ve got now and notice what we’re doing. And and again, it’s it’s I I felt quite encouraged that our work isn’t just to control and contain and maintain children, you know, within, you know, not putting a foot wrong. It really is to help them experience and develop their own capacity to have a good life, whatever that is. And a good life can sometimes be challenging, but it also means enjoyable and interesting and and delightful at times. And so a good life always has to contain not just boundaries, but space. Space we can ha inhabit in that way. And so that’s you know, a good way to prepare with death for death. Um, hopefully for many, it will be a lot longer in the coming. But whatever we’ve got, it’s I certainly have found it valuable to remember that, you know, we got we got one shot at this. Let’s let’s see what we do. So that’s the skull. This is not my original, it’s a really tiny one that I had, but this was my son’s, and when he left home he didn’t take it, so I’ve commandeered it. So that’s one of the things I’ve taken by way of objects. Um I I look, I don’t I can go on, as you can imagine, but if if you have any thoughts, observations, questions, challenges, jump in anytime.

You’ve talked about, yeah, you so you you’ve talked about uh getting to a point, and I’d I’d rather think I’ve got to a similar point of uh in the speaking part of your career, the public speaking part, where you just where you just thought, well, you know, uh I I’m almost getting bored or with doing it this way. Uh it what what are some of the other ways that I can do it? And and you went down this path with telling stories and perhaps in reflecting on your own uh observation of of um I can’t rem recall his name from earlier in this conversation, but the the the live performances you’d see in that yeah. And um I I wondered what the reaction of the adult audience uh was to that. You s you mentioned a little bit about the college of psychiatrists, but I I wonder what adults how they react and what they seem to take from these stories around with the with the object as being kind of like the anchor point.

It varies, as you can imagine. And I think in some groups and

groupings I’ve presented to there is if there’s a resistance, it’s because perhaps for the first time in their life they’ve had somebody present something that’s not telling. And actually, particularly in Portugal and Ireland, sessions with adults in this kind of work we’re doing, the the training they get is a telling. And it actually borders on telling off. And they are not used to somebody coming in and saying, you know, look, here’s some stories, and when they and I say any questions, and they’ve got none, I say, Well, look, what do you think? Am I talking rubbish? They’re not used to it, they have never been asked for their views, they’ve been told. So it varies. Other people say, Oh, gosh, that’s really interesting. I never really thought about it. But in a way, as much as I love to be liked, I I you know, I’m not doing it to get that. What I what I’m trying to offer is a different way of working that involves thinking and thinking about feelings and making those connections. And sometimes it takes time. That’s why I say some of the children’s in the groups I’ve done it to, they get it straight away. You know, they’re there, oh yeah, yeah, no, that that that’s right. Yeah, that that’s right. Yeah. I had uh can’t I’m trying to think of a I told them about a story when I was very little. When I was about I I don’t think I was even three. And, you know, Saturday night television. I lived in a big apartment in New York City, and you know, my parents would be in the other room listening to the you know the variety shows on a thing. And I heard them start talking about Arthur Godfrey, who was the guy who hosted it, had fired Julius La Rosa, who was the main singer. Yeah, here am I, at best three years old, and I’m still awake listening. What they burned him to death? I I I thought television wasn’t real. I they burned him? Oh, God, you know. And when I was telling that story, the children guy said, Oh a child said, Oh, I know. Yeah, I had the same thing. Because um my parents were talking, they lived near Birmingham, and he said, My parents were talking, and they said so-and-so got the sack. And the only thing he knew about the sack was some people who had litter of puppies or cats, some people would put it in a sack and throw it in the canal and drown them. And he thought that this person had been put in a sack and thrown in the canal to be drowned. And and it’s you’re at that age. I didn’t go into my parents and he didn’t go into his and say, What wait, wait a minute, hold on here. What’s this? They burned them to death? I thought this was television, and he didn’t go to his parents and say, Well, why did they throw him in the canal? Why did they put him in the sack? So you’re you’re left carrying that thing. Anyway, it’s one moment. It wasn’t a daily diet of that kind of stuff, but I’ve always remembered it, you know. 74 years later, I still remember that story. Didn’t traumatize me in the end, but I thought, this is a very weird world that I live in, and it’ll take time to make sense of it, and I’m still working on that one.

So it’s interesting the way you talk about almost like a novel approach. And I’ve talked about this quite a lot in this podcast with various guests about thinking about the work, you know, actu actually thinking about what you’re doing, not just um going through the motions as such, you know, just being very much pr procedure bound. And um and I and I think that’s our that that’s our challenge. I I think the first challenge is for people to have the time and space to think about the work that they do, and the second is the capacity. Um I always say, and I’ve always found, well, I have always found, and in recent years I’ve said, is that some of the most difficult questions that I can ask an a group of adults uh to answer are ones where they have to think or at least think a bit differently to the standard mantra as such. So for for example, when I ask adults, how would we know that our this service is making a difference in the life of the child? How do we know how would we know what would we see if um if this intervention was working? And I I’ve observed that to be one of the most difficult questions for for adult practitioners in this field to be able to answer. But children get it, you said.

No, they do, yeah, they’ll they’ll they’ll tell you. But but also, I mean, you know, look, Jerry, very briefly, and I’ve written papers about this, there’s no doubt you have, but one of the things is when you have a child, a population who have suffers things strongly, who have had little to no continuity in their life, the only thing predictable was the unpredictability of adults, and communication and engagement wasn’t there. Some of the earliest measures of how we’re doing is the extent to which the child and young people are able to share in a in a common experience of being together and living an ordinary day, communicate in ways other than in impulsive behaviors or complete withdrawal, and for many of them, which is not attend school. Being there. Now I don’t mean again, they’re not there in quadratic occasions necessarily, though some can. Some can. I can’t, but they they can. It’s a sense of being in a place and they’ve been helped to learn to live with themselves enough so that they don’t just live with other people, but they can live to learn. Yeah. And you know, those those are you know early indicators and measures, they’re not the only ones, but you know, continuity and a degree of predictability and an opportunity to play. And actually that’s a good segue into my next object, if I may.

Yep.

But unless you want to say something, because I can wait. I mean, I’ve been talking all the time.

No, no, no, no, you go ahead.

Right here. Right. This this is a precious family photograph taken in Yankee Stadium on a particular lovely summer day when my children were young, so we’re looking at probably the early 1990s. And it’s the New York Yankees against the Boston Red Sox. It would be like Liverpool, Everton, Man United, Man City. And in the third inning, the Yankees are already winning 2-0. And uh my wife took the photo, and we’ve had we all yeah each member of the family has a photo of this, and we have t-shirts about it. Now, it’s not just a sports game, because I also have oh, it’s not gone. Honestly, these grandchildren. It’s gone. All right, I’m gonna have to talk about it with this because I had an enlarged copy made and it was gonna so I’m gonna talk about it while while this is up. All right, there it is. Oh, okay. And and I think what you see is a stadium surrounding what is called the field of play.

The field of play. And inside the lines that you can see going out from here outside, that’s that’s the field of play, the fair territory. And the other side is the out-of-bounds area. Or in the game, foul territory, but you know, there you go. You can still you can still move in it, and you’ll notice you see the blue wall at the back, all the way up, I don’t know, over here.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah. That that’s i if if anybody plays the ball or hits the ball into that area, it’s a home run or a ground rule double. But the thing is, the players in the field can go after that ball, but if they go after it with reckless abandon, they might run into the wall. So there’s a line of dirt there called the warning track to warn them that you are running out of space in the field of play. And if you keep going, you’re gonna bang into it, and it won’t be a good experience for you. So, and I’m sorry I don’t have the big picture, but look, the the thing is, it’s it’s it’s a it’s a baseball stadium and a sport, but actually it’s it also communicates our world of work, boundaries, and space. And of course, Winnicott was always very clear. The capacity to play is an essential element in the healthy human being. You know, when they asked Freud in the early 1920s, you know, what do you think you’re doing with this psychoanalyst, psychoanalysis and things, he said, look, if oh no, they said to him, what makes the healthy man? I mean, this was 1921. And he said, the healthy man is one who can work and love. And quite some years later, Winnicott said, Yes, work and love and play. And so I think that the environment we have to provide has to allow for a large field of play, and it’s real, and it’s active, and there are boundaries, not barriers. Because at those boundaries that I was talking about, at the end of the game, there are gates that open up, and it lets people walk onto the field of play and walk out. So they’re not barriers, they’re there as boundaries to remind people this is the field of play, and there’s a lot of space. Don’t go running into that wall or through it because you’re out. You’re out of it. And there’s something about a common purpose as well. The team in the field absolutely requires the team at bat to be playing as well. There’s no game if you don’t. And there are referees or umpires, as they call it, without which it can’t happen either. And there are adults who, in their own way, referee the world of engagement and disengagement, and without them there’d be nothing. So there’s something about that picture for me that’s so important for our family, that also reminds me of our world of work, where we have to create an environment where there’s task and purpose, and it can be play and playful, and people can enjoy it. And you’re in there for the moment, and there’s a way out, a proper way out. You don’t have to crash into the wall, you don’t have to scale the fence, you can get it. And it’s for a time, and you’re not there always. So it’s just one of these things that we can think. So, how do we create a field of play? And I don’t mean reckless abandon, though there might be a little bit of it. When you see the Mulberry Bush children cycle around the site, you think there’s a bit of reckless abandon there. But it it is something about creating conditions where we can be playful in so many ways, including being together. And also work together well. Work together well. And well, I don’t want to make too big a deal about it, but I think there’s there are things in the worlds that we in in our world that we inhabit that can remind us about not just the joy and the enjoyment of recreation, it’s about living, changing, growing, and the space that can do it. And in the absence of boundaries, what would you know about what to do? So if as long as the boundaries can define space and you can leave when you’re ready to, it’s it’s fine. When there’s barriers, it’s it’s a difference between containment and incarceration. Yeah. In incarceration, you crush the sense of containment. The containment can be the holding experience. The incarceration is something that prevents you. It’s the restriction without and the constriction without any sense of. Finding oneself and finding a way with and through to somewhere else.

You’ve spoken, Richard, about y uh telling these stories to children, and I guess I just I wonder, like our listeners or watchers might do as well, what are the circumstances in which you think it would be um beneficial to tell these stories about objects to children?

Well, first of all, I’d select the objects, and some I I wouldn’t use, as you can imagine. And I I think the ones I’d select were the ones that can, you know, evoke a bit of interest in class. Um I would also be guided by the adults, the grown-ups working with them. Uh uh, you know, there’s a time for everything. And I think in the right circumstances, one can tell stories and a whole range of stories that they would be able to digest. Again, it’s that principle that Winnicott talked about presenting the world in manageable doses.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I wouldn’t go in there guns ablazing, so to speak, and piling all these things out and say, Look, man, I’ve been around for all these years and I go all these things, and everything tells me a story, and sit down and listen to it. I I put them out sometimes, and the children I invite, well, children and grown-ups, I give one or two introductory things, and I say, Well, here they are. Is there anything that interests you? And I, you know, I’ve got plenty of others, and you know, they’ll they’ll pick something out and I’ll say, Oh, can’t quite remember what do you think that might be about, about people? And you know, and I and actually I can’t quite remember in the moment what the object meant to me. And uh, and this was a few years ago, not just now. I got more. But and they’ll start saying, oh, well, maybe it’s about this. They said, gosh, that’s and which is what I’m wanting them to do. Think about it. I said, well, that’s really interesting. I’d never thought about that before. That’s a great idea. So it’s about engagement rather than just telling them. Because real storytelling, as you all know, isn’t just about telling people. It’s about engaging with them and inviting them into and you mentioned the story.

Uh you sorry, we’re just getting a little a couple of little transmission transmission glitches um that time. So I apologise if it felt like I was talking over you, but I I it’s interesting what you’re talking about in terms of thinking, and you mentioned containment a little bit earlier, and I I and I Beyond, of course, saw the two things as going together, or that that thinking was the outcome of containment. So and I was thinking in relation to children, that um the capacity to think um and including thinking about these objects and tell a story about these objects themselves is enhanced by them being in a safe, contained environment.

Yeah. Absolutely. I I think they need to feel some degree of safety and security, some degree of belonging, being a part of something and some others rather than a part from. And then I think communication. You know, you bring a group of children, young people, or adults who’ve had little to no experience of participating in real communication. Yeah, it’s like giving somebody, you know, uh a motorcycle who hasn’t learned to use a tricycle yet. So, you know, you you you have to present that world in manageable doses. And uh and in conversations, I don’t know again if I said this the other time we spoke, but you know, sometimes with children, I’d be talking about them and I’d be saying, Well, look, come on, what do you think is really going on? What’s what’s really troubling you? You know, it it’s not the door that you’re kicking that’s the problem. You know, the the door isn’t your problem, what’s going on? And a number of them would say, Well, I don’t know. I don’t know. And I and I say, Well, okay, but you know, but let’s think about it. And some will. And others say, Oh, I just don’t know. And I would sometimes say to them, okay, let’s play a game. What? What I said, let’s pretend that you do know. And if you were pretending you did know, what would you say? And yeah, they you know, they give you like, what the hell’s the matter with you? I said, No, it’s it’s just a game, it’s pretend. You don’t have to do it. You say, well, try. And you know, more often than not, the child says something that actually, even if it doesn’t touch fully directly on what’s bothering them, they bring you into the field of play, the ballpark. They say, you know, there’s this. So, okay, so you’re really you’re you’re you’re upset with Steve because he’s not repairing your bicycle. Yeah, right. I say, okay, well, okay, you know. You do know Steve is downstairs with seven other children. And did he tell you to go away, he’s never going to repair your bicycle? No. So, okay. It’s just inviting them into some way of trying to think about it. And sometimes, let’s pretend, you know, other times they’ve been told to F off. But, you know, it’s a work in progress, really. So it it it’s just finding ways with the belief that given the effort, and it takes time, we know it takes time, with the belief that if you respectfully recognize the capacity of someone of whatever age to at least say something that can be real and genuine about them and what’s troubling them, it will come. We might have to model it, we might have to do it many times, but eventually I’m saying eventually, for most children, young people, eventually something comes and it’s theirs, it’s not ours. We didn’t give it to them, we provided an opportunity, a space for them to actually connect with something they felt before, and it may have been too unspeakable in the previous circumstances they had, but here, as I was saying, everything’s material.

It is speakable and thinkable if it’s in service to trying to understand.

It’s a wonderful spot, I guess. There’s no good spot to bring this conversation to a close, Richard. I think I and and anyone who’s listening to this um conversation would be keen to sit here for another couple of hours and hear about other objects. But um I’m mindful that um we’re getting very close to the day and your bedtime. So I think thank you for coming back on again, Richard. It was thank you. Thank you. It was wonderful. Yeah.

Oh, great. Okay, well, another time perhaps, but now thanks very much for that. And go well through your day, and I’ll get a couple of hours sleep for you, okay?

Awesome, that would be I need a couple of hours more, thank you.

Okay. All the very best to you and your viewers. Thank you.

Richard’s Bio:

Richard has a long association with Residential Therapeutic Communities, having worked at the Mulberry Bush School for well over 20 years and where, from 1991 to 2001, he was its Director. He was also Director, Children and Young People, at the Peper Harow Foundation, from 2001 to 2005.

Richard qualified as a Social Worker with an MSc from Oxford University in 1983, following the then Part 1 training in Child Psychotherapy at the Tavistock Centre. In 2005 he completed the Ashridge MA and training in Organisational Consulting. He has been Chairman of the Charterhouse Group of Therapeutic Communities and for many years the Chairman of the Care Leavers’ Foundation. In 2014 he became Chair of Trustees at the Mulberry Bush School, only recently stepping down from that position, while remaining a Trustee with a special brief for the links and development of the contacts with and participation of former pupils. He has published numerous articles and continues to lecture widely across the UK and Europe.

Related Content:

If you enjoyed this podcast, you will also like Richard’s first appearance on the podcast.

You can listen here:

Watch here:

John Whitwell:

Listen here:

Watch here:

John Turberville:

Listen here:

Watch here:

Links:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheSecureStartPodcast. Podcast Blog Site: https://thesecurestartpodcast.com/

Disclaimer:

Disclaimer: Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce. Finally, all references to case examples are anonymised to the extent that the actual case could not be identified, or are fictional but based on real-life examples for illustrative purposes, or have client consent to talk about in an educative context.

From Chaos To Calm: Routines, Relationships, And Real Change In Residential Care, Tom Ellison

From Chaos To Calm: Routines, Relationships, And Real Change In Residential Care

Quality residential care for children who have experienced trauma starts long before any therapy session. It lives in the culture of the home, the clarity of purpose, and the daily rhythm that makes life predictable enough for healing to begin. Experienced organisations describe how knowledge seeps into the “wallpaper” over time: shared language, trusted rituals, and the confidence to pause and think. Reflective spaces matter because staff carry complex feelings that need sorting, not suppressing. Without room to think, practice drifts into firefighting. With it, teams align on a simple aim: help each child feel seen, safe, and understood, then build connection on top of that safety.

Understanding isn’t a soft extra; it is the work. One story shows why. A boy became volatile every evening around bath time. Staff felt scared and resentful until a life story worker shared a missing piece: as a younger child, he was punished with cold baths and held underwater. That single fact transformed how the team felt and acted. They softened bath time, stayed close, and let empathy guide tone and timing. More than tactics, it was the emotional shift that eased the storms. When we know a child’s story, our stance changes from “stop this” to “I get why this is hard,” and behaviour often follows. Curiosity beats control because it treats the child as a mind with a history, not a set of problems to manage.

Routines and rituals are the unsung heroes. They create a steady beat that steadies bodies and minds. Meals at known times, a Sunday ritual everyone can name, bedtime that doesn’t slide around, and roles that are clear reduce guesswork and anxiety. Predictability is not dull for traumatised children; it is relief. The running of the home should be “boringly” consistent so relationships can carry the colour. When homes rush to add models, labels, and jargon, staff drown in concepts and children still don’t know what happens next. Start with the basics: reliable routines, agreed boundaries, and a shared understanding of the primary task. Add reflective practice to tune those basics to each child.

Admission itself is a major intervention. Moving from one world to another is unforgettable, and how a home claims a child sets the tone for belonging. Sending a key worker to meet, bridge, and “claim” the young person helps answer the first-night question: who will keep me alive here? Belonging grows faster when one adult becomes the gateway to the wider team, rituals signal “you are ours,” and the environment feels warm and homely. This foundation lets therapy take root. As clinicians remind us, therapeutic impact depends on dose and context; a technique without the right environment often does nothing. A well-held daily life is already therapeutic, and it makes formal help far more effective.

Staff hold a parental role, but an enriched one. Ordinary parenting isn’t enough when early adversity has shaped development. Children may function well in calm moments, then buckle when routines touch old fears. Authority therefore must be consistent, compassionate, and shared across the team. Boundaries like phone use or curfews are hard to hold if staff disagree or legal orders sow confusion. Still, good parenting means sometimes saying no and always explaining why with care. The aim is not compliance for its own sake; it is safety, dignity, and the experience of being held in mind. Over time, kids test, watch, and learn: do you keep me safe when I lose it? Do you stay when I push you away?

Ask alumni what mattered and you hear the same themes: love, belonging, and small, joyful moments. A weekly quiz show, a silly in-joke, a hot chocolate after a hard evening. These memories are not incidental; they are the texture of healing. For new workers, this is good news. You don’t need perfect theory to matter. Bring steady presence, protect routines, get curious about one child’s story, and use your authority like a good parent would: firm, fair, and warm. Keep building that reservoir of knowledge, together. The child won’t forget how you made their world predictable and how you made them feel understood. That is what transforms futures.

You can listen to the podcast episode here:

You can watch the podcast episode here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Tom: 0:04

Organisations that have been engaged in this work for a while tend to be pretty good at it. I’ve been involved in a number of startups over the last few years. And there are things that you can do that help. Regardless of what the therapeutic or the theoretical framework you use is, it’s good to have a therapeutic or theoretical framework. It’s good to have terms of reference that everybody can agree upon. The thing that works really well is a basic framework of this is how we work and some clarity about what are we here to do. And in above all, a space to think and reflect. The idea that we pause in the work regularly and we think about what’s going on for the children and what’s going on for us and what’s going on in the space between. What might staff starting this work need to know, and what might foster care need to know? The thing that I would say is the thing that you’re striving for is understanding. If you’re an RCW, you residential care worker and you started in the work last week, a good place to start is what would give me a better understanding of one of these children. The act of admission is a massive intervention. If you know the stories of the children, it will affect how you are with them. But actually, I think there’s a huge value in structure and boundaries and routines and rituals and the care plan and the the running of the home should be quite boring. Because the children, because it should be so predictable. You know, if you want to establish a children’s home that that and you want it to be beyond the ordinary, there needs to be a lot of focus on okay, what are our rituals and routines and uh how do we deliver those consistently? And how do we get to understand our children better? And by definition of therapeutic is it’s the conscious use of relationships to deliver transformation. But I think sometimes you need to be reminded, and your custodians of childhood. So you part of your job is to give these children a childhood that they will remember fondly. If the thing that has led you to being where you are is a failure of parenting, the solution should be some kind of parenting. What everything we do has the potential to be something that that child makes use of later. As an adult, I think children have a sense of people trying, even when they’re getting it wrong.

Colby: 2:45

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and rejoining me this episode is highly regarded social care consultant in the UK, Tom Ellison. Now, before we begin our conversation, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. So as I said, I’ve got Tom Ellison uh rejoining me for this episode. And uh Tom previously was on the podcast for episode 27. So um if you want to hear more me uh read out his bio. Um we’re streamlining streamlining it a bit this time, but uh his bio is there, it will be in the notes for this show. Um, and it was episode 27. Welcome, Tom. Welcome back. Thank you. Thank you. It’s good to be back. Yeah, no, it’s good to have you back because I do I did feel at the end of the last podcast interview that we we kind of only got the conversation half done in a way.

Tom: 4:14

Yeah, well, I think um there was there was a big focus on leadership, and and I know you wanted to come back and talk about uh the work with children and and what what effective residential childcare might look like. Um so happy to be back.

Colby: 4:33

Well, that’s probably an excellent spot to start uh in terms of um I’m interested to hear your views, and I’m sure our listeners and watchers will will be too about what effective, what quality um residential care looks like, and is there any distinction between quality and effective? I’m not really sure, but happy to hear your views.

Tom: 4:55

Yeah, I think um there’s a big invitation to jump into talking about attachment and trauma and therapeutic frameworks, etc. But I think the there’s there’s a few things that you just can’t help noticing when you’ve been around the work for a while. So one is um organizations that have been engaged in this work for a while tend to be pretty good at it. So so you know, I saw your interview with uh John Turberville and Kevin Gallagher, who each come from you know their organizations have been around a while, certainly decades. And the there is something about organizations doing this work accumulate knowledge over time. And that you know, one of the phrases I’ve used is it kind of gets into the wallpaper. So it’s not so much about, yeah, there are individuals you could point to and say, okay, that person’s been around a while, that’s a wise head. We could go and ask them an opinion on an issue. Um, but there is something to be said for um the culture that develops over time, and that’s you know, that that’s partly shaped by the theoretical framework, the consultants, the the people leading those organizations. It’s also shaped by the children. So there’s a organizations respond to what the children, the challenges that the children bring through the door, and and you know, uh uh a good organization or a good uh children’s home is responsive to the children, not just in terms of uh what the children tell you they need or they want, but what the children show you they need and they want. And so, you know, one one of the again, you know, if I’m visiting a service, a children’s home or an establishment, I’ll quite often ask the manager how long have you been here? And and and you can draw conclusions from that. You you you know that that there are there are few substitutes for experience and and time travel. That said, there are things I’ve been involved in um a number of startups over the last few years, and there are things that you can do that help, you know, and so um regardless of what the therapeutic or the theoretical framework you use is, it’s good to have a therapeutic or theoretical framework, it’s good to have terms of reference that everybody can agree upon, and you know, there’s various. If you sort of wander around and do a tour of the UK, there are various, and there are various kind of levels as well. There’s there’s uh so, for example, in the last few years, there’s um a training called pace training, which is you know, um it it it’s kind of a training in how to be around children, involving things like being curious and being empathetic, and things that are just a good idea if you’re gonna be around children who’ve experienced trauma. But I I would treat that as that’s almost universal now, it’s almost a standard training for anybody working in residential, but then there are layers beyond that, and and quite often one of the phrases I use is there’s levels to this game. There are there are, and and certainly uh in my career, I it it’s almost like layers of understanding as you travel. It becomes deeper and deeper and deeper. And the the the danger is that you hear about that there’s so many theoretical frameworks and models that you can choose from that you end up overloading the staff because a senior a senior manager comes across pace training or social pedagogy or pillars of parenting or secure base, and they think, oh, well, I’ll bring that one in, and then they’ll bring another one in, and then they’ll bring another one in. And then before long, the staff at the call face are a little bit overwhelmed, and they’re mixing up their metaphors, and a lot of jargon’s getting deployed. And you’ll know from the last podcast, I’m not particularly a fan of jargon. That that, but I think the thing that works really well is um a basic framework of this is how we work and some clarity about what we are here to do, and you know, above all, a space to think and reflect. So whether that’s um individually with staff in supervision or whether that’s in moreover, whether that’s in a a group setting, and and that gets called different things depending on the organization, might be reflective practice in one, it might be called dynamics in another. But the the idea that we pause in the work regularly and we think about what’s going on for the children and what’s going on for us and what’s going on in the space between. And so um when I when I’ve been helping, as I have been recently, organizations to establish new services, they’re the kind of uh the reference points that I go to. The first one being what what’s it for? What what what what does what is what is this service, children’s home? What is it for? What’s it to do? What’s the problem that it solves? And then build out from there. But universally, if you were, you know, in terms of working with looked after children, universally, there’s some level of trauma and attachment there. It might be variable in how it manifests, but but it’s there. And so therefore, I would always kind of build in the idea of well, there needs to be reflective spaces, and there needs to be somewhere where the staff can reflect on and think about the experiences of the children. And again, you going back to you know the organizations that you would say, oh, they’re pretty good at this stuff. That’s where they’ve iteratively done that over decades. The thing that’s allowed that culture to develop so that they’ve got good at doing the work is that there is an iterative process of things happening between the staff and the children, and then the staff having a space where they can think about it and process it and develop a greater understanding of what’s going on for the children.

Colby: 11:35

I talk about this a bit in my own work, that um one of the things that you you if you work for a long time and if an organization has it has existed for a long time, um, serving a community, then you have the opportunity to reflect back on not just immediate or short-term impacts of the work that you do, but longer-term impacts uh of the work that you do as well. So you build up a bank of knowledge really about what what works and doesn’t work and what lot long-term outcomes, medium to long-term outcomes look like for um for the for the for the people that we’re serving um just based on on being around for a long time and trying different things and seeing how those things work or don’t work. And I know, for example, um you you mentioned the mulberry bush, that they have um with Richard Rawlinson and and others, they have become quite proactive in terms of reconnecting with alumni of of the mulberry bush, um adults now, parents, you know, husbands and wives, um who came through that system and and are still they’re still getting this, they’re getting longer-term feedback about the experience of young people as they’ve gone through the mulberry bush, which um which can only really um add to that important practice wisdom that develops over time.

Tom: 13:19

Yeah, I think that you someone said to me if I look at um residential care in the UK as a whole, there are fewer, I’m gonna say controversial things now, but there are fewer specialist providers than there used to be. So that so it if I think 15-20 years ago, there were a number of providers, usually operated by their founder, who were um doing innovative and creative things, some that you might agree with, some that you might find a bit more controversial, but they were all trying to pioneer um working with children who’ve experienced trauma and who are in the looked-after children’s system. Um I think increasingly there are I think something’s happened over the last 15 years where there are fewer of those organizations than there used to be. Um, I think that it creates a space because it creates an opportunity for other people to jump in who’ve got ideas. But I think that someone um said to me a couple of years ago, we’ve forgotten how to do this work. And he’s not talking about individual establishments, he’s talking about as a sector, the the knowledge, um, the reservoir of knowledge in the sector is less than it used to be. And I I kind of agree with that, that um the thinking that gets deployed in some organizations is not as great as it should be. And so where organizations are, um, as I know some of some of the organizations you’ve been in contact with are um gathering and preserving knowledge about this work, that becomes important. Because it’s because where do where do you where do you go to learn to be good at this work? Because an awful lot of um practice has been distilled into short courses, and we’ll deliver a short course and you can go off and do therapeutic work with children without an understanding of actually it’s an ongoing process, you never actually get there. You never you in you know when you got in touch and said, Well, let’s do another one where we talk about the children, I always feel a bit um I’m much more nervous talking about the practice with the children than I would be about talking about leadership because I feel like with the children, you never actually get there. You you’re you’re just constantly trying to you’re constantly trying to get closer to something that’s helpful. And um so what one of the things that you know in terms of experience, one of the things that I went through is as I got more knowledgeable in this work over decades, I felt guilt that I wasn’t good enough in the beginning. So you so you look back to the children that I worked with in the first, I don’t know, three, four, five, six years in residential practice. And the more sophisticated me can look back and go, Yeah, that wasn’t that wasn’t good enough, that wasn’t, that wasn’t great, or you weren’t connecting, you weren’t being still enough, you weren’t um you weren’t understanding what that child was trying to communicate to you. And so that experience for me is the idea of well, you never actually get there. There is no you don’t arrive, you don’t get to I am now um you know maximum proficiency at working with you know children who’ve had negative experiences of uh early childhood. You you don’t get there, you try and you try and get closer to it.

Colby: 17:14

There’s a couple of things that you said in there and in your earlier response that um I’d pick up on um and love to talk more about. I love the idea of reservoir building a reservoir of knowledge, a reservoir of knowledge. I think that that’s uh gets to what I was you were saying and what I was taking from what you were saying in my my previous reflection. Um I agree that I think what comes from experience is the understanding that there are enduring sensitiv, I call them enduring sensitivities. There are um enduring sensitivities that the children carry from their experiences growing up and uh including their adverse experiences that they take with them through life. And um that makes sense because we all we we all consider that we are in some way shaped as a person by the experiences that we had growing up as well as our contemporary experiences. Um and I think I think it’s really important to know to have a really good target in a sense or a realistic a realistic goal for the work that you’re doing. Otherwise otherwise you you can become you can feel inadequate, you can become despondent, you can feel um like you just you just haven’t done enough for the children. And without without hogging the floor too much, I see this a lot with in foster care, where where foster carers are um brought into the system both with with the ideas that they come with and with ideas that um that exist within child protection and out-of-home care systems, that you know, kinda all the children need is a you know is a loving home, uh a bedroom and a loving home and and all will be put right. And I don’t that’s just not the case. It is manifestly not the case, and and it is um uh highly problematic in my view to you know for these advertising campaigns to exist and these recruitment campaigns saying that you know you will if you have a spare room and a lot of love to give, you will experience this extra this fulfillment of being able to turn around the life of a young person. Now you may well do that. You you and and um often enough lives do get turned around. Um but you don’t you don’t erase what’s happening, what’s happened in the past, sorry. There’s there’s there is always an enduring sensitivity. So I think we just need to be really uh mindful of what is possible um lest we become overwhelmed, uh despondent. And I think that that is the case right through um the the social care sector. And you you hinted a little bit at at primary tasks, and we did spend a lot of time talking about primary tasks last time, but I think it it’s really important to start somewhere and and starting with having an understanding of what you’re actually here for, what is your role, what is the role of the organization, what is my role in this organisation, where do I sit? I think is a a really good place to start. But it do it does make me think when you look back, and I have done the same, and you think, oh, I wish I knew back then what I know now, and and of course it’s not possible to know, and then it is part of the reason I set up this podcast was to kind of speak to people with tremendous experience and have uh a reservoir of knowledge. I’m gonna I I might pinch that, uh, a reservoir of knowledge that people who are embarking or are early in their career journey can dip into and and um for their learning and understanding of the work. But I’m wondering if there is there are particular there’s particular advice that you would give um relatively inexperienced workers in the social care sector about how to approach the work.

Tom: 21:47

Yeah. Just before I do that, I want to respond to the the the because I it occurred to me even as I was saying it that oh, that’s what you’re doing. You’re the the reservoir of knowledge thing. You’re capturing it on video and on audio. And making it accessible. So, you know, and um in terms of the last podcast, all kinds of people have fed back to me that they listen to that. Not necessarily people in our line of work, even, but I think you in creating conversations about the work with people who you know have uh have some experience to share, I think is uh incredibly valuable. In terms of I don’t know, and I was interested in your point about foster carers as well, and saying, well, you know, do you have a spare bedroom and do you have some love to give? Maybe you could help a child. And it’s not a bad beginning. You know, it’s not a bad beginning. I think where that goes wrong a little bit is there is a little lack of uh understanding of the primary task and the challenges that these children are likely to bring. Because there’s a there’s a sort of fostering crisis in the UK, in that the pool of foster carers is getting smaller over time, and there’s there’s many reasons for that. And uh the government at the moment is putting a lot of resource into advertising campaigns for foster carers. I’m not sure whether that’s going to lead to uh a sustained increase in the number of foster carers because I think there is a problem about how foster care is described and what it is, what what what is it that we are asking these people to do? Because yes, um we’re asking them to provide a home and we’re asking them to provide love, but we’re also there’s there also needs to be an understanding. Well, first of all, needs to be an understanding of what these children might bring through the door with them, and an understanding of well, what do they actually need? Because you know, and if I link that, if I link into uh what does staff starting in the work, what might staff starting in this work need to know, and what might foster care need to know. The the thing that I would say is the thing that you’re striving for is understanding, so that the the it the um not just children, human beings, um rarely have instances of being fully understood by another human being, yeah. It’s it when it happens, it’s usually fleeting. There are people in your life that you’ll think, oh well, that person gets me. And so there’s some understanding there, but those moments of deep understanding and connection are rare, and I think that that uh in in therapy, in relation-based relationship-based therapies, one of the things you’re aiming for is that not just that the therapist understands the client, but that the client has an experience of being understood. So that’s that that that two-way thing, and it’s a connection. So I think for and I I think I talked in the last podcast about the idea of I do come across people who think the job is to make children behave. And I think that’s um you know, and in and in circumstances where a child is in a foster placement or a residential placement and they do well and their behavior improves, that’s a good thing. That’s not that’s not that’s not bad, but uh I don’t think that’s what the work is. I think the work is about um allowing children to have an experience of being understood by an adult and that a relationship grows. Because obviously, well, I say obviously, it’s it um uh it it follows that if you have a repeated experience of being with somebody who you feel understands you, you will develop a relationship with them. A relationship will blossom from that. That is um helpful. So, so in terms of if you’re an RCW, residential care worker, and you started in the work last week, a good place to start is well, what would give me um a better understanding of one of these children? It’s easier to start with one, you’re not gonna if you’re working with you know a number of children, it it’s easier to pick one, and maybe you’ll be directed to one by the management, but it’s easier to just pick one and say, Okay, I’m going to go on a little mission to develop a greater understanding of that child there. And that can be done. Um certainly in my early career, there wasn’t a lot of emphasis on it. I think I’ve worked in environments where an understanding of the child’s history was significant enough that there were dedicated professionals in the organization that went out and found it. And because one of I don’t know how it is in Australia, but one of the issues, anybody who’s worked in residential for a short while in the UK will tell you is that the the paperwork is never accurate. And that that’s not the local authorities’ fault, it’s just that you know, gathering information on a lifetime of experience is not an easy thing to condense into a short biography in a social work report. So um, so one of the things that I would invite that new RCW to do is to turn themselves into a detective and try and find out that child’s story. And yeah, you know, a good place to start would be the the paperwork that the child arrives with, but I wouldn’t uh I wouldn’t restrict it to that. I would get curious about who are the people that this child has uh been around, whether whether they’ve been carers or teachers or uh social workers or you know, who can I who can I speak to who knows this child and try and gather a deeper understanding of this child and their history? Because that will play out in the relationship with the child, the the your deeper understanding. I’ll give you an example. A thing that happened. So um some years ago, I was um managing teams of children’s souls, and we had a uh an office that the teams came to fortnightly for team meetings and to do some reflection. And one of the managers asked me um to come into the meeting because the team were in open rebellion. So I went into the meeting and was confronted by some really angry um residential care workers. Um, and and they directed that anger at me as I came in through there was there was a real kind of um I was bombarded with indignation. And the reason they were angry is one of the children they were working with was pretty much on a daily basis being very violent and hurting people. And once we got through the the anger and the frustration and and the conversation shifted to me, me being curious and saying, Well, you know, tell me what’s happening, tell me, tell me the story. And they were describing uh a boy who was about he was about 12, something like that at the time. And what they were describing was actually, you know, in the morning he was lovely, he went to school. Uh, the feedback from school was the teachers said he was delightful, very quiet. Uh, he’d get home in the evening, he was he was fine until around dinner time, so five 5:30 in the evening, and then he became more agitated, aroused, and that played out. He would be quite manic and giggling and grinning. And I remember someone saying he looks like the devil. They said when he he’s got this devilish look on his face, and he’d start to push things off the dinner table and run around the house, and this escalated through the evening until you know nine, ten o’clock at night, windows are being broken and people are being hurt, and it would go on till the early hours of the morning. And just by asking questions, we gradually got a picture of a child who’s in the day’s baseline was relatively steady and low, and then there was this sort of gradual escalation in the evening till around eight, nine in the evening. And then usually the what what they were describing was um he wanted to come out of it, but he didn’t know how. So he thought he wanted he wanted to kind of get back to normal, but he didn’t know how, and it took a few hours to get him back back to normal. And there was he had a dedicated life story worker, and there was a life story worker in the room, and the life story worker noticed that the peak of the acting out was 8, 8:30 at night when in that home, it was all boys. In that home, the boys were having baths and showers. Coming in from evening activities, they’d been doing sport or something like that, and they were having baths and showers, then they’d have supper and you know, a window to bedtime. And she she kind of jumped on this and homed in on it a little bit and said, Oh, that’s significant. And no one in the room really understood why it was significant. Okay, why is that significant? And she said, Well, when he was when he was five, he lived with a foster carer, and whenever he wet the bed, the foster carer ran a cold bath and held him underwater. And there was a there was there was a I get emotional when I tell this story, but there was a hush, and somebody started to cry. And then the meeting ended because um the it had taken that long to get to that conversation that the school runs people had to go off and do school runs, so the meeting came to an end. And normally when when we were dealing with something like that, we’d start planning. We’d say, okay, so what could we do differently? How could we plan? But there was no time for it. And and I didn’t hear any more about this. And I went to the meet, the next meeting two weeks later. I thought, right, I’m gonna go in and see what’s going on. And I went to the meeting and everything was fine. No one’s no one was discussing this boy, they were discussing other things, they were discussing the rotor and the paperwork and who’s not filling in the paperwork properly and the things that get talked about in those meetings. And um I was really curious. I said, Well, what’s going on with with this boy? And they said, Oh, it’s fine. It’s fine. And and then and I said, Well, what’s going on around bath times and stuff? And they described, well, oh, they said, Oh, he’s having baths. And they described, like, they’ve done some things. They they they um they decided that they were going to put a member of staff outside the bathroom on a chair so there was someone close, and they bought in some bath toys and bubble bath, and they made bath time softer, nurturing, you know, but I don’t think it’s what they did that made the difference. Yeah, I mean it made some difference, but but I think the big shift was they understood. Their understanding, yeah, they understood, and that wasn’t in his the paperwork that came, because he’d had a pretty you know awful uh set of experiences throughout childhood. That detail wasn’t there, and so we only knew that detail because the social worker, uh the life story worker who was a social worker, had gone out and done the digging and done the uncovered these stories, and so that team didn’t need to they didn’t need a deep understanding of any therapeutic model, they didn’t need to understand neurology or have studied you know the effects of trauma on the development of the brain, they just needed to hear that story, and once they heard that story, it made sense. It’s powerful, yeah, and and then and then everything just everything just fell into place, and so that was a real um uh powerful lesson in if you know the stories of the children, it will affect how you are with them, how you relate to them, it how how you respond to um agitation as bath and shower time approaches, you know, in his case. But the but there’s there’s probably a version of that for every child, and uh and understanding the story really thoroughly informs in a way that allows understanding to take place. Because without that understanding, certainly the the anger that I walked into, they they would they thought he was just gratuitously hurting people, you know, and as much as they were a really empathetic team, you you know, you um if you’re day after day after day dealing with a child who’s trying to hurt you, it does, you know, that that resentment can, you know, feelings of resentment can get into you, you know. So so I think that one, um do your best to understand the children you’re working with.

Colby: 35:26

Yeah. And while just if I can jump in there, uh while you were telling that story, I was thinking he’s you know, he’s been hurt. That’s when he’s been hurt. And and um I didn’t go to what had happened maybe in a foster placement, but I was thinking about um, you know, maybe he in his history, his there had been an adult that returned to the home at around you know after work hour, uh after normal work hours, and that something um uh adverse had was happening to him at that time. Yeah. And I think that’s that what you’re talking about is um it go it’s it’s about working beyond the need and the behaviour to understanding that the child that children are not just needs and behaviors, they have a mind. And I talk about this in in my podcast interview with Peter Blake, um, which I which is already released, but how I think he was saying that people don’t always see that children have a mind, a thinking mind, or an experiencing mind, and that um and that these experiences they go somewhere, and we and it’s important to be curious about well, where do they go? How are they stored and how do they present uh later on? And he Peter and I were talking about, you know, this goes right back to the very early days of a child’s life. Um if we agree, if we understand that they have a mind, that they’re not just needs and behaviours, then we have to have this an understanding that well, where where does all the these experiences and their their processing of these experiences go? How is it held? And how does it then manifest in the way they approach life and relationships thereafter?

Tom: 37:31

I think um because I I I I feel like when I came into this work, I was uh blundering around in the dark. And some um one of the other things in turn in terms of you useful things is that when I came into this work, people talked about structure and routines and boundaries all the time. Anyone you met in residential and consistency, words like consistency, but consistency, structure, routines, boundaries, and that that’s less fashionable to talk about now. It’s much more fashionable to talk about trauma-informed practice, but actually, I think there’s a huge value in structure and boundaries and routines and rituals, and like you know, people didn’t really talk about rituals, but you know, you know, I I remember um working in a children’s home that had a very distinct ritual around Sunday mornings, and it was lovely, and I enjoyed it. You know, I I enjoyed joining in. Okay, we’ve we’ve got this ritual, they’ve got the pattern of the week, but Sundays are a bit different. This is the ritual on a Sunday, and those the rhythm of the day today is extraordinarily helpful, and I again I think that it can be underestimated. People reach for they want to talk about trauma-informed work or aces or um you know, therapeutic uh jargon work to embellish their work, to say, okay, my work’s sophisticated. Whereas actually I’d say, well, look, really understanding the children helps, um, a clear structure with routines and boundaries and consistency. Um, though one of the things that I often said to people working with children who are new to the home is actually to some extent, the um the care plan and the the running of the home should be quite boring because the children you because it should be so predictable, because the children are bringing such a high state of anxiety that that’s what they need. Absolutely. They’re they’re accustomed to um mealtime shifting, bedtime shifting, uh who’s looking after me shifting. Am I going to bed at this time? Am I going to bed at that time? What time am I going to school? Am I going to school? So they’re used to that uh lack of consistency. So that one of the biggest gifts we can give is okay, here’s some consistency and predictability. Now you know what will happen. You know, and that that that that daily ritual and routine is enormously helpful. And but people don’t talk about that anymore. They’ll they’ll they’ll talk about you know the need to be empathetic and curious, and those things are useful, but uh, but I think the basics tend to get um overlooked a little bit. And and if you’re working in a really sophisticated service, that’s fine because it’s just part of the culture and the ritual routines will look after themselves. If you’re establishing, you know, you if you want to establish a children’s home that that and you want it to be beyond the ordinary, there needs to be a lot of focus on, okay, where are our rituals and routines and uh how do we deliver those consistently? And how do we get to understand our children better? Before you start layering on, okay, well, let’s let’s bring in a specialist consultant to do um you know to explore the unconscious processes that might be going on between the staff and the children. That stuff’s important, but actually, without the um without setting the stage by saying, well, actually, you know, we’ve got consistency, we’ve got routines, we’ve got boundaries, the roles are clearly understood between, you know, we we know what the manager does, what the deputy manager does, what the senior workers or team leaders do, what the RCWs do. We’re really clear about that stuff, and we’ve got this routine that we that in a way we try to grind out. It will never go like that because the children will bring in, um they will disrupt that routine, and and and that’s where the work lies, actually. Then then disrupting the routine is an opportunity for some work to take place, but uh, but I think um it’s interesting. You know, I’ve been involved in the establishment of some new services in the last year, and and it’s interesting where I found my mind going. And yes, you know, we did introduce um reflective spaces and consultancy, but actually there was quite a bit of focus on what are the rituals, what are the routines, what what you know, what what are we putting in the environment, how are we using the environment um to create something that is warm and nurturing and homely.

Colby: 42:33

And some would say that’s what pace is. I mean, pace is about the a therapeutic establishing a therapeutic environment or milieu. Um I’m with you. I I I just think that you have to start with consistency of routines, of rituals, um, of care. And everything that you set out to do, you should be able to set out to do it consistently. And if you can’t do it consistently, or there can’t be consistency managed between staff members, then you need to pair it back a bit or find something that they can do. I think I think consistency comes second to connection. It certainly in the work that I do, what I’ve taught in terms of importance. So connection absolutely the over the length and breadth of the service that we’re providing is is the most important thing. But I think consistency runs a close second, and part of that is while I was listening to you, I was thinking about you know, we’re the children come from chaos or or or bad things have happened unpredictable, unpredictably. And part of and and talking about that um the the case example that you gave a little bit earlier, it was important to develop a ritual and routine, I think, for that young person to have um to know what. What was going on, and to have an alternative experience of that. But I don’t think the care that what we’re doing in this aspect of the work is that sophisticated as you say. It’s it’s relatively boring. And if people don’t know it uh in this way, I I would have them, and when I talk, I have them think about well, how do we raise little babies? Yeah, because that’s I think that that’s often enough where things started to go wrong for the for the children that we come across, that they didn’t have those experiences of predictability, of uh routines around nurturance and care that a child who grows up in a in a comparatively stable, loving, responsive home had. And so, you know, there’s a there’s a I think there’s a lot of similarity between how we set out to manage our home for for the children we’re talking about, whether that be a children’s home or a um or a foster home, a kinship home. A lot of a lot of what we’re seeing comes from deficiencies and how they were cared for in the past. And if you think about, well, how do we how do we set a new pattern, how do we reset? Well, that we go back and we redo some of that in a more age-appropriate way, perhaps in some respects, but we we reinstitute or we institute the kind of consistency that you see when you’re raising infants. While you’re pausing there, the other thing I was I I wanted to pick up on something else you just said, which was um get to know the children. And I think that there’s my mind goes to a number in a number of directions, I guess, on that. But one so there’s two. Actually, it’s one. People will sometimes say, well, we don’t get enough information in this sector. A common a common um complaint is that is from um people who are in a care role with the children and young people is that they haven’t got all the information. It hasn’t been shared with them. So it’s very difficult for them to know you know the the details of the history. Now, you know, while you’re telling that story, my head would, because I’ve worked in the sector for 30 years, my head immediately goes to something bad has happened at that time. And I didn’t necessarily need to know that it was in that foster care placement. My mind went to an adult comes home and something bad happens at that time. Um I didn’t need to know the the intricacies of that um or the finer points of that history to know that we’ve got to change the child’s experience of this time. And and and as you say, we’ve got to acknowledge that that um this is lightly because um he has had some adverse experiences around this time. So as you say, it just changes the way in which people approach the the relationship.

Tom: 47:24

I think it’s more than that. I think it it because it it changes the way people feel. So it’s not just it so, yes, of course, knowing that information might change the care plan, you know, might change the way you approach those tasks. But I think the great of it is it changes the way you feel as a worker. So so the the resentment and anger that was being experienced based on the child’s behavior evaporated as soon as people understood, oh, that’s what’s going on. And like I say, one person cried, but the the thing there was a real shift in the emotion in the room, yeah. And and so, you know, the I can understand how someone being hurt by a child would develop feelings of resentment, and that evaporated once the staff understood why why that was happening, and that then changed the way they so it wasn’t, I don’t think it was about I don’t think what happened after that meeting is they got together at another time and had and had a real powwow about how they were going to handle bath times. I think just the way they their emotional response to his um agitation was enough. I think it I think that was enough, and yeah, that you know, and then maybe over the two weeks they developed a uh they they shifted the ritual around bath time to make it more tolerable then. But I think the big thing that happened was the a shift in how they felt. Um absolutely, you know, and and that you that’s the sort of thing, you know, you’ve that’s the sort of thing that makes reflective spaces necessary, so that stuff can be processed and you can get in touch with okay, I feel like this right now. Uh, I feel you know, resentful and annoyed with this 12-year-old. That you can find your way to um what what happened to the infant that led to this 12-year-old that’s smashing the house to pieces. Going back to the the the thing you said about um going back to very early childhood, and and one of I had a conversation in the last week with someone about when children are admitted to children’s homes. And I kind of um it’s going out of fashion now, but there was a there was a fashion of um if you were coming at it from a children’s rights perspective, well, when a child joins a children’s home, they should um spend time with each of the staff, we’ll see who they get along with, and they can choose their own key worker. Yeah, and that was that was pretty widespread, I don’t know, 15 years ago or something like that. And I always felt that missed a big opportunity, and and the big opportunity is that the act of admission is a massive intervention. So, so that’s like the the biggest thing a children’s home can do for a child is admit them because you’re taking them from one situation and you’re bringing them into another well, you take you take them from one world and you’re bringing them into another world, and when um and I use this metaphor, when a woman is pregnant with a child, everybody talks to her about what’s gonna happen when the baby gets it. You know, someone might help create a nursery and they might have a baby shower, and um they will there’ll be lots of conversation about motherhood, what motherhood’s gonna be like, and uh you know, ideas like you know, you are you’re gonna have the baby in your bedroom, are you gonna when you’re gonna move in the nursery? All these kind of conversations go on and set up the minds. What that does is it prepares everybody for the idea of there’s going to be a child and there’s going to be a mother. And I think a version of that can happen even for a teenager when a teenager moves into a children’s home. That with the the the home can do that preparatory work, the conversations about who’s going to be the key worker, how we’re going to welcome the child into the home, how we’re going to bridge them in. What um because I I think what works really well is when there is an individual who bridges the child into the home and becomes their gateway to the relationships in the home. And uh a process called cleaning, where you literally go out and claim the child. You’re you’re coming with me, I’m going to look after you. And I think it works particularly well if that person is the key worker. So the key worker goes out into the world, meets the child, brings them into this new world, and then becomes their um kind of parent. It’s not quite a parent, but it’s it’s not far off, you know. They become their kind of parent and the link to the other relationships. Because where you don’t do that, and I I I I I did some work with the team where they didn’t agree with that, and they thought, no, no, no, no, we we let the child come in and and choose. And I said, Well, what do you think on the first night in the home when the door closes, what do you think the child’s thinking about? And they’d say, Oh, well, they’re scared and they’re anxious. And I said, You know, I think they’re probably trying to remember everybody’s names because they’ve been introduced to half a dozen people or a dozen people, and they’re trying to work out who of this lot is actually gonna keep me alive, and and potentially who’s who’s the threatening one. And so that you know, in the world of because I think what we’re doing in this conversation is we’re making building blocks and we’re saying, okay, well, structure and boundary and routines in the children. Well, primary task, what are we here for? Are we clear about it? Have we got a structure? How do we set the scene? What are the structure and routines? And you all that stuff gets worked out before you’ve done it recently. All that stuff gets worked out before you ever admit a child. There’s lots of conversations. There should be lots of conversations about what our structure, boundaries, and routines are, and then moving up a level that okay, how do children come into the home? Well, it should be a process of being claimed, it they should feel like somebody uh went into their world and claimed them and brought them into this new world where you know the promise is you’re gonna be surrounded by a bunch of thoughtful adults who are going to nurture and care for you.

Colby: 54:28

Yeah, it wouldn’t it just sorry, just quickly, it just puts me in mind of one of the key themes that comes out of research with with alumni of children’s residential care is that feeling of belonging somewhere and to someone. And um uh Jenna, who’s Jenna B, whose last name I I’m um struggling with at the moment, but um yeah, Jenna, she talked about um the the research that she did with her in her PhD thesis, highlighted exactly what you’re talking about, is that the the carelivers who’d been through residential care really appreciated the fact that they belonged somewhere, the the experience of belonging somewhere and to someone.

Tom: 55:16

Well, all all of these things contribute to belonging because I think belonging is one of the things that you would want to achieve. So uh so so the and and they’re they’re all things that accelerate relationship. Because I mean, I quite often, you know, in uh a residential placement might not last that long. Um I might not long, you know, two years is not long in a lifetime, and so these are things that accelerate the the development of relationships. So um, if a team, if you’re starting from scratch and you really thought about what you were there for in your primary task, and you spent some time thinking about structures and routines, and you developed a philosophy about, well, we really want to understand our children, and we’re gonna have key workers, and the key workers are going to have particular relationships with the children that would be more parental than the other relationships in the home. And the key workers are gonna go out into the world and claim these children and bring them in, and then we’re gonna use our structure and routines and our rituals and our understanding of the child. All of these things contribute to a sense of belonging, you know. Eventually, we’ll um, you know, six months on, maybe a bit longer, but the child has a sense of okay, I know where I am here, I know the structure and routines and rituals, I know the people, I know that they know me, I know that they can tolerate the things that I do and say, and all of that stuff, it’s not it’s not um it’s not a straight line formula, but the but all of that stuff contributes to a greater sense of belonging. And um and then and then it also creates the space where you can do some work that that that you that could be broadly described as therapeutic. Because I think that stuff’s just good practice. I don’t I I wouldn’t say, oh, that’s you know, that that I think it’s good practice, but it it creates the space and the relationships and the safety to do some therapeutic work and to um you consciously use relationships to give rise to transformation, which is that that my definition of therapeutic is it’s the conscious use of relationships to deliver transformation.

Colby: 57:50

I I hear I I hear what you’re saying, and I hear what you mean and I acknowledge that it is good practice, you know, to set up these these very fundamental building blocks. But I do wonder whether identifying with them as good practice diminishes their importance a little bit. And uh the my reason for saying that is that there can be an inordinate focus on the therapeutic intervention as the change agent. But the therapeutic intervention, and Patrick Tomlinson and I talk about this, and we talked about it as recently as um only a few days ago. You can’t a therapeutic intervention won’t is unlikely to be successful if it’s done, if the we haven’t taken care of the environment first, that we haven’t created an environment around the young people for in which this therapeutic um intervention can um make a difference. So the reality is a th a therapeutic intervention may have no impact at all if the environment is not set up appropriately to um facilitate that. But the environment will always be therapeutic if if done according or if if established according to the principles that we’ve been talking about. So yeah, it’s good practice. I but I wonder about whether the just good practice diminishes the importance of it. I think it’s vital.

Tom: 59:32

I think you might be right. I’ve struggled um over, I don’t know, the last decade with the therapeutic as applied to uh children’s homes. Not not because I think it’s been misused a lot, and I think it turned into a marketing term. And um the you know, I have in my own mind a notion of what the threshold is for a therapeutic service. And I was repeatedly being introduced to services that were described as therapeutic, and I just didn’t think they were. It didn’t mean they were terrible, I don’t think they were bad. I just I just don’t think I think as I said earlier, there’s levels to this game. Yeah, and some a colleague of mine challenged me recently about this and said, well, you know, um if we’re creating therapeutic services, we should call them therapeutic services. And and I think she had a point because I think it is my own hack up, because I got I got quite uh resistant to using the word therapeutic because not because you know, for someone who’s kind of spent his career at that part of children’s residential care, um, I think it was because I felt it was being misused. And so I kind of stepped away from it a bit. But you you’re right to notice actually, what I’m describing is how do you set the stage such that you know relationship-based transformation can take place, and that it that that claiming process, I would say there’s so much about a placement can be set up in the way the admission takes place. You can you can you you can um cover a lot of ground in the admission process, and I think people underestimate what it means for the child to move from one world on Tuesday to another world on Wednesday. And and you you know, I I I’m uh loosely in touch with some people who were kids, they’re not kids now. They were children when I worked with them, they’re in the 40s now. Um, but they they can each tell me in absolute clarity about the day they moved into the uh it was a it was a service that I was working in. But they they can tell me with clarity about, you know, 30 odd years later, 35 years later, they can tell me with absolute clarity about what happened that day, because it’s a very significant intervention. And and and like I say, I think I think the there is a lot a lot of work that can be done in that uh admission process that sets the tone for uh a greater chance of a successful uh experience in in a children’s home or in a therapeutic service.

Colby: 1:02:31

Um I think you if I can jump in there, I just think that um it it is it is good practice to be reflective about our use of the term therapeutic and even our application of principles of therapeutic practice. Um I’m mindful Simon Benjamin was on the podcast uh some in the first within the first 10. I can’t remember, I think it might have been podcast number eight. Simon’s a social care consultant here in Australia, but he um he’s worked for a number of organisations. He was the CEO of the Lighthouse Foundation, um, and he worked at the Mulberry Bush School as well. And Simon talks about therapeutic from understanding where that that term comes from, and uh he talks about it coming from the medical profession or or medical science, and that therapy the the idea of what is therapeutic is not just um you can’t you have a set of principles or practices that you you just apply. Yeah. In in in medicine, therapeutic is the dose at which what you apply makes a difference. So where that then the crossover with that is that is that in our work there is probably a lot, if not most, services are applying therapeutic principles, therapeutic ideas, and therapeutic techniques. But are they getting the dose right? That’s that’s the lesson of what what Simon’s saying is that from medicine is that it’s only therapeutic in the right dose. And children, different children require different doses. Yeah, for that, for that therapeutic um effect. So that all that by way of it is a bit, um it’s not as simple as just setting, you know, implementing a set of principles, a send of uh a set of ideas and a set of practices. They have to be in the right dose. And that’s that’s part of the nuance of this work, it’s part of the complexity of it and the complexity of our children. I think it’s aided by by what you’re you were saying earlier about getting to know individual children.

Tom: 1:05:05

Well, I think I think and knowing what you’re there for, and knowing what you’re there for so so you you know that that you know you you’re getting to know the children in service of developing a greater understanding that is in service of those children experiencing connection and belonging, yeah. You know, I think one of the other things that that um I I as a younger man, I was very intense and very, you know, kind of looked at the work as kind of wanted to be good at the work. Um, but you have to remind yourself sometimes and your custodians of childhoods, you know. So so in as much as there’s work that needs to be done, and there is work that needs to be done, and there’s lots of um you know, the depending on the nature of the survey. There’s there can quite often be external pressures on what work are you doing, you know, the regular meetings to ask what work are you doing and what progress is being made, and can you show me your outcomes? But I think sometimes you need to be reminded, and your custodians of childhood. So you part of your job is to give these children a childhood that that they will remember fondly, you know. And so, you know, um such an important role finding opportunities to have fun and enjoyment along the way are quite important, you know. And um, and I think so, you know, for some people in the work that comes quite natural to them, they’ll they’ll just go and have fun with the kids, and for others, you need a reminder, actually, you know, this child is um not a project. Then yeah, it’s it’s all well and good that you’re being an amateur psychologist trying to help this child recover from their trauma, but sometimes they need a day off to just go and have some fun.

Colby: 1:06:56

Yeah, more than one day, I would say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. You know, you said I’m coming back to something that you said earlier, which is um fundamentally I would I would refer to it in the these terms, that the the experience of being heard and understood and acknowledged in your experience, and of being understood not just in the words, but in the actions and in the outward presentation and expressed emotion of an adult, of another person, I think is is probably our most powerful intervention. Um, I don’t know of a more powerful one. I often say there are things that you can’t change for young people. Like, you know, it’s the law that they have to go to school as much as the hate it, as much as we are unhappy with how the school are managing them. Um, but but you can still empathize deeply with you can still acknowledge with deep understanding the child’s experience with the fact that they have to go to school and they don’t like it. Yeah. Like something sometimes the only thing we can do is acknowledge the child’s experience with deep understanding. And I I think that that’s our most powerful intervention. And why I think it’s the most powerful intervention, which you’ve hinted at, well you’ve mentioned uh as we’ve been going along, it has to do with the child’s experience. That the child’s experience of being heard and acknowledged, validated in their experience is that my experience is real. I I am a person of worth. I am this person cares about me, this person understands me, I can trust this person, I can trust this space around me a little bit more and more over time. What a relief. What a relief that I’m now somewhere with someone or some people who get me.

Tom: 1:09:22

On the journey, because I was thinking back to okay, building up in layers from what are we here for, what’s our structure and routines, how do we bring children into this, what what’s the nature of the relationships we’re aiming to have? Because it the the the thing I think understanding is very important, but I also think that the nature of the relationships it might not be quite the same in a therapeutic community at times, but it but I’ll I’ll I’ll restrict myself to children’s homes. But in in children’s homes, the nature of the relationship is a parental relationship, and and I and again, I think there are um, particularly if you’re working with teenagers, teenagers will invite you not to be their parent. They will, they will, you know, um friends to be some kind of friend or you know, something else. And I think again, in the world of well, what what actually what actually works is to assume the position of a parent. And and you know, there’s a number of reasons for that. I think one of one of the reasons I would put forward is the idea of, well, if children are in care, it’s because in some way, shape, or form they’ve experienced a failure of parenting. And therefore, if the thing that has led you to being where you are is a failure of parenting, the solution should be some kind of parenting. Now it’s not you know, to your point about foster care and have you got a spare bedroom and love to give. The inference there is that all these kids need is a regular is is a is a parent figure. But actually, over time you find that well, no, they need a bit more than that. That that it and I and the the they need something beyond ordinary parenting. So um, you know, and sometimes it’s called therapeutic parenting, or but but ordinary parenting won’t work for these kids because ordinary parenting doesn’t factor in um the effects of trauma and the effects of neglect on development. So um, if not ordinary parenting, then something like extraordinary parenting. So so something that is parental but that goes beyond regular parenting, where there’s um, you know, the thing that would now be called trauma-informed, but an understanding of actually these um experiences in early childhood affect the development of the child’s brain to the extent there are things that they can and can’t do, and that might change at different times. So we go back to the example I gave earlier of the 12-year-old, he could function like a regular 12-year-old most of the time, but then when he was stressed by the routines in the home, um he could not cope with that, and that led to aggressive acting out and people getting hurt. And so understanding that’s partially about the way his brain’s developed, that’s partially about his ability to um or inability to problem solve and articulate himself, and um that the I don’t want to get too neurological, but the that there are different brain states that you know that the uh there are different brain states that are exaggerated by adverse early childhood experiences. And so that’s the additional knowledge you would need to be an extraordinary parent, but you’re still a parent, and so that the parent bit should still crop up in there, and then that starts getting complicated because uh parents hold authority, you know, and parents uh you know, going back to the beginning where we said, okay, you’re gonna need structure, routine, and boundary. Well, the boundary bit can be a bit complicated with our children because uh they push against boundaries and test boundaries, and the testing about whether you’re a safe adult or not, some of the time.

Colby: 1:13:59

And you look after me.

Tom: 1:14:01

Yeah, yeah. And so, and and how will you respond? You know, how if I do this, you know, um you can almost see sometimes I I can remember you know when I work directly with children, you you you’d almost see them like the test thresholds. Well, what are you gonna do if I stand here? What you’re gonna do, what if I pick this up and drop it? What are you gonna do? And then then looking, okay, what are you gonna do now? What you’re gonna do now, what you’re gonna do now. But the the I think the complicated bit for residential workers is you hold authority, but as a residential worker, it’s hard to work out how much authority do you hold and how can you express that authority safely in the interests of the child? Yeah, and that that’s you know, about if if if um if one member of staff says no to something, will the member of the other members of staff hold that same line? Will the management hold that line? Will other stakeholders from outside the system step in and say that’s not a reasonable line to hold? You know, whether it’s things like uh in the modern world, things like mobile phones, really good example. So um what are the thresholds around mobile phones? What age can you have a mobile phone? If you’ve got a mobile phone, should you have it all the time? Should you be able to take your mobile phone to bed with you? Should you, you know, do there’s you know, and to be fair, that’s something that you know regular parents battle with. But in in a children’s home, it gets really complicated because you go, okay, that’s a boundary, it’s got a threshold, and people may differ on what they think that threshold is, and that can be sorted out with a meeting and a discussion, and you can agree a threshold, but then people will vary on their ability to hold that threshold, and that’s where it starts to get really complicated, and um I think that’s uh people are not fond about talking about that stuff. It’s much easier to talk about curiosity and empathy and playfulness and uh things like that. It’s much harder to talk about sometimes we need to say no to the children because that’s what good parents do, and and that’s where it starts getting complicated, and that’s been particularly complicated in the UK um over the last since well, certainly since 2014. Um, so in 2014 there was a a case, there was a court case in I’m sitting in Cheshire, it was in Cheshire, Cheshire West, and it was about um it was actually about about an adult, it wasn’t about a child, but it was an adult in a caring situation. And were the question that the court was addressing was are these adults, carers, depriving uh this person of their liberty by saying you can’t go out whenever you want to, and by supervising them. And I think there was a two to one supervision ratio or something like that. But the this person was heavily supervised and there were restrictions on where they could come and go. And the court found that that was a breach of um Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. And the fallout of that, and that gradually, it wasn’t an overnight thing, but that’s gradually found its way into children’s services, and there’s been various cases over the last, you know, since 2014, like 10 years. And so increasingly, what you’ll see, particularly in referral paperwork, is referrals of children who and it will say they have a doll. And a doll is a deprivation of liberty order issued by a court, and that’s where the court decides what the boundary is. And so the court will decide. You you it can be about things like it can be about things like mobile phones, it can be things about supervision, it can be about um whether they, you know, what to do if this uh child attempts to abscond. And uh that’s a well-intentioned um the court made a well-intentioned decision, and whenever deprivation of liberty orders are produced, they’re well-intentioned because their intention is to protect the rights of a of a in our case, a child in care. The problem with it is it makes it it’s caused a lot of muddles around who has authority. So if you and when local authorities are in doubt about what a threshold should be, they’ll apply for a doll. If they’re not sure, they’ll apply. And so since 2014, there’s been a gradual increase year on year in the number of dolls, and it’s kind of crept down for younger and younger children. So there are there are dolls you know uh being issued for children under 12. And so the the difficulty with that is is it creates it essentially says that a judge and a court decide the boundaries or some of the boundaries um that are issued in a children’s home. And I think that makes it really complicated for the staff. I think one of one of the other things, an unintended consequence of that um ruling, is it’s made residential child care much more expensive. Because where there is a deprivation of liberty order, it’s a court order, and the local authority has to be assured that whoever’s providing that care will adhere to the order because it’s a court order. So you can’t say, well, you know, we tried, but it didn’t work out. And so what that’s led to is higher and higher levels of supervision of children and an increase in the number of solo placements, and solo placements just by the nature tend to be more expensive. So it’s put a real strain on local authorities and it’s kind of shaping to I don’t want to overstate it, but to some extent, it’s shaping the market. Uh um that, and it’s certainly shaping um the confidence with which residential staff can take up that parental role and and and and issue a parental boundary um about whether a child, what what should happen if a child walks out of the door, for example? And you and you might have different responses. You’d you know, you could look at okay, what what do we do if this child runs away? You know, and there’s lots of different things you could do if you could go with them, for example. You know, but there’s an even an argument that, well, if you’re going with them and you’re constantly supervising that in of itself, even if you’re not preventing them from leaving or bringing them back, the fact that you are going with them is in itself a deprivation of liberty. So you you end up with, I think it’s created, um, like I say, I think it’s well intentioned and it’s there to protect children’s rights, but there are unintended consequences. The unintended consequence is the authority of the staff who are in the day-to-day parental role is undermined. Diminished. And there is confusion in the system about what you can do and what can’t you do. And a notion that’s relatively new of, well, we’ll need a court to decide that. Which, which again, you know, certainly when I was working directly with the children, uh, yeah, there were children on there were care orders and there was different different kinds of care orders. But it you certainly in um, if I thought a child was gonna run out of the building and put themselves at risk, I didn’t give too much thought to what are the legal consequences of me saying I’m not gonna let you do that.

Colby: 1:22:29

Yeah. Sounds like the subject of another podcast, Tom.

Tom: 1:22:36

Yeah, and I’m not I’m I’m not an expert on this stuff, you know. This is the the I it’s we’ll make it one. Yeah, it’s I’m I’m sure there’ll be people listening to the podcast that say, Oh, he’s not quite right about that. Uh um, but it but it’s certainly you know, and I’m making a connection between local authorities requesting it, almost seems universal that when when there’s a doll, they they they they will immediately interpret that in this child needs a two-to-one solo, which I don’t think needs to be the case. You know, I I’ve been responsible for you know, not in the non-too distant past for you know, a six-bedded service that had more than one child in it who was on a doll, and it was fine. We we we we just worked through it, but I think what it’s doing is it it over time it these things nudge practices, and practices get nudged towards um if if it if there’s a deprivation of liberty, it’s probably going to be a two-to-one solo placement that we’re looking for, and that you know that that trend, um that trend has increased. There’s and there’s certainly a place for two-to-one solo placements, but I would regard them as an intervention in order to allow something else to happen later rather than an end in themselves.

Colby: 1:23:59

Well, like I said, it it we could probably talk a lot more about using the parental role, I guess, and understanding the important aspects of the parental role that um is it’s it’s important to operationalise in children’s homes and therapeutic communities. You were using um the word enhanced, I think. I I use enriched, um and I think it’s the richness of it that you can adjust from child to child with the the dose that I was talking about a little bit earlier. Um, but before I let you go, because you need to go, because you’ve got a busy day tomorrow, early start. Um I I just wondered what you thinking about the children, what what do you think we would like for the children to say as graduates, as alumni, as as adults, say about the experience that they had in a children’s home, in a children’s residential care home?

Tom: 1:25:09

I think you’d want them to say they felt loved and cared for. You know, I think that love’s another difficult word um in residential. Um there’s a resurgence in the UK of of people using um the word love within practice. But you know, going back to that, a sense of belonging, you know, that the the that they feel or felt that they belonged, they didn’t feel that they were guests or or placements, they didn’t feel like a placement, they felt like no, this is a place where I belong and where I’m connected, and um, I think I’ve I’ve I’ve I’ve heard different in someone wrote to me a few years ago, wrote me a really long letter about um someone I worked with really early on in my career, and I I thought he he he’d had really positive experience, he had nothing bad to say about it at all. Now, whereas my reflection on it was, well, it was in the old days where actually staff ratios were really low. And um, you know, I think the I it was one of those situations where I was looking back and thinking we could have been way more sophisticated there. Yeah, he’d written to me saying, you know, he thought this was transformational and it set him up for life, and like really um got a lot from being there and the relationships, and he was, you know, and he was and and he was sharing memories. He was um, yeah, there was a there was a uh a game show on TV that we used to watch together, and it turned into a but we’d have like a little competition between us about answering the questions in the game show, and that was one of the memories I’d kind of forgotten about that, but he he talked at length about this experience of watching this game show and how fun it was, and we kept it like we had an informal scoring system, and um so it’s that you know, I’m I’m uh reminiscing on his reminiscence and smiling, and I think you know, you’d want that. You you’d want, yeah, I felt belonging, you know, and I’ve had other children talk about you reflecting on when they were difficult to look after and appreciating that the staff stuck with them through the difficulty. Um so I think it’s different for different children, but but his recollection was it made me smile because he was reminding me of things that were not that significant to me. I would, I would, I we did that thing, I don’t know, for however long. That quiz show ran for we had this little game on a Wednesday night where we’d all sit and watch this quiz show together and keep score and joke about who’d answered the most questions and so on. And it didn’t mean a lot to me at the time. I didn’t see it as particularly significant. But then, you know, 25 years later, he writes to me, and that’s his one of the bits that he presents and says, Look, this was this was really good fun, and I’ve thought about it a lot.

Colby: 1:28:25

I think there’s a message in that, uh, Tom, that um for for people who are just starting out in their in their practice in children’s homes, in being a a um a care worker for our children and young people, is that not to underestimate. Yes, years bring experience and knowledge and sophistication, but don’t underestimate the little things that you can bring to the life of a young person. Um notwithstanding that you’re you’re uh you’re an early career practitioner in this space.

Tom: 1:29:04

Yeah, I agree. I think um one of the things you know, we could have a long conversation about when placements break down. But you know, I I worked in a situation, I’m going back a long time now, where I a placement didn’t last long at all. It lasted like days, and then broke down that that home, uh, the location, and various things about the actual setup didn’t work. And the and I was I was a manager at the time, and I remember the staff being feeling like they’d failed. And the the thing that I kind of reminded them of is you you you you can’t judge that, you can’t judge that now, because what everything we do has the potential to be something that that child makes use of later, as an adult, that that that they might think back to a moment in time, like like the you know, like the quiz game, but um I’m I’m thinking about in more where it’s rockier, where it’s where it’s much more um much less fun. That there is always you you can’t judge what that child will think is relevant in five or ten years’ time when they look back, and and I think there’s a value to um our kids have a really good way of making us confused and lost, and and quite often what we’re doing is we’re struggling to find a way through, and I think that that struggle in of itself is worth something, you know. I think children have a sense of people trying even when they’re getting it wrong, yeah.

Colby: 1:30:57

Thank you, Tom. That was uh again a really thought-provoking and enjoyable conversation, and uh um I better let you wind up your day because as I mentioned a little bit earlier, I know that you’ve got a busy one tomorrow, so thanks again. And uh we might have to do round three at some stage.

Tom:

My pleasure, thank you.

Tom’s Bio:

Tom is an accomplished Consultant and leadership trainer with over 30 years in children’s residential care, specialising in innovative leadership and mental health support for young people. Through Elevate Professional Development, launched in 2025, he delivers UK-wide workshops to strengthen care leadership. With 20 years of boardroom experience, Tom has consistently driven strategic leadership and service transformation. Holding a BPS-approved Psychology degree, a Master’s in Psychoanalytic Observational Studies, and postgraduate qualifications in Management and Strategic Management, he blends academic and practical expertise. Currently, he serves as Non-Executive Chair at AMMA Childcare Ltd, Non-Executive Director at Cedars Childcare Ltd and Empathy CIC, and advises the leadership teams of a number of organisations in the third and independent
sectors.

Related Podcasts:

You may also be interested in Tom’s first episode on The Secure Start Podcast.

You can listen here:

You can watch here:

Support the podcast:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheSecureStartPodcast

Disclaimer:

Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce.

What if Child Safeguarding Began with Love? A Podcast Interview with Carla Keyte

What if Child Safeguarding Began with Love?

What if the most powerful safeguarding tool isn’t another form, but a steady adult who shows up with love? That’s the heart of my conversation with Carla Keyte, founder of Lighthouse and a leading voice in UK residential care, as we unpack how safe, stable, loving homes are built—and measured—through relationships, not fear. We explore how love-led practice, not fear-based compliance, creates safe, stable, loving homes in residential care.

Children heal through steady, attuned relationships with adults who notice, co-regulate, and remain present. The challenge is aligning governance and inspection with that reality so felt safety is measured and protected, not crowded out by paperwork.

Carla traces how sector language has shifted from placements and behaviour management to family time and relational practice. Yet many systems still judge homes by incident counts and prescriptive rules instead of the child’s lived experience. Felt safety shows up as play, curiosity, and connection, not just fewer reports. A truly safe home is one where children feel seen and cared for, and where adults feel psychologically safe to do the work well. That means leaders commit to cultures that contain stress, enable reflective practice, and invite learning over blame. Compliance remains essential, but it must be the foundation we stand on, not the ceiling we reach for. When ratings and enforcement become the whole story, they can create fear that drives out the very conditions children need to recover.

A key idea is reframing inspection as a safeguarding partnership. Rather than branding a home inadequate, regulators and providers could ask two questions: is this a safe, stable, loving home for this child, and if not, what support is required to get there? This approach mirrors strong child protection practice—bringing multi-agency expertise around the child and the adults, and designing a therapeutic intervention rather than only grading deficits. Carla describes the Lighthouse model as a triangle: safeguard the child; stabilise adults with supervision, training, and reflective space; and strengthen the home’s culture and compliance. When all three are aligned, outcomes improve without diluting standards.

Professional boundaries often get misread as emotional distance, but neuroscience tells a different story. Children with trauma histories need consistent, regulated adults who can co-regulate and hold limits with warmth. Scotland’s Promise explicitly names love as part of care, correcting a drift that left staff afraid to comfort a crying child at 3am. Policies designed to protect children must not block the human connection that does protect them—daily observation, knowing the child, noticing mood shifts, and showing up with steadiness. Paperwork informs a network; relationships change a life. Fear-based systems can’t produce safety; only love can reduce fear and rebuild trust.

A love-led framework also builds social capital. Investing in high-quality residential care pays forward to future partners, children, and communities. The work is nuanced and resource-intensive, but the cost of children growing up feeling unloved is far higher. Extending relational support beyond 18 reflects how human development actually unfolds; care does not end at a birthday. Strong leadership is vital here. Leaders set the tone for psychological safety, create environments where staff can bring both heart and skill, and ensure compliance serves the mission, not the other way around. With clarity of purpose and relational metrics, the sector can protect love in practice—and the evidence shows that’s what transforms lives.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch the podcast here:

About Carla:

Carla is the Founder and Director of Lighthouse, bringing extensive expertise in quality, compliance, and safeguarding across the residential childcare sector in the UK. With a background spanning Registered Manager, Head of Care, and Head of Quality & Compliance for an organisation operating over 30 homes rated Good and Outstanding, Carla has deep, practical insight into operational leadership, regulatory compliance, and governance. Carla has a proven track record of resolving complex compliance issues and supporting organisations through challenging regulatory actions. Her specialism lies in developing and embedding Quality and Governance frameworks that drive sustainable improvement and ensure the highest standards of care. Passionate about love-led practice and the power of meaningful relationships, Carla champions approaches that create safe, nurturing, and stable environments where children and young people can truly thrive. Carla founded Lighthouse to provide expert guidance and tailored support to providers navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. The name Lighthouse reflects Carla’s vision: to act as a guiding beacon for organisations, illuminating the path through complexity toward excellence in care, safeguarding, and relational practice.

Related Podcasts:

If you really like This podcast interview, you may also like:

Patricia Sheridan

Listen here:

Watch here:

Links:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/TheSecureStartPodcast

Podcast Blog Site: https://thesecurestartpodcast.com/

Secure Start Site: https://securestart.com.au/

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Carla: 0:05

I write a lot about my belief that love saves lives. Every child deserves a safe, stable, loving home and that our residential services need support to be able to do that. Children heal through relationships and yet the compliance is the kind of ground on which we stand upon, but not necessarily in the way in which healing can be measured. When we talk to engage with care, experienced young people, what they tell us is important to them are those relationships, are those adults that showed up consistently, calmly, attuned again and again, those adults that took the time to notice and spend time and build strong relationships. That’s really where safety is built and felt. As much as children need safe, stable, loving environments in order to thrive, actually so to adults. And if we think about homes and organisations as kind of organic structures, we need to be considering how not only do we provide safe, stable, loving homes, but how do we create safe, stable, loving organisations? How do we create an inspection framework because it is necessary and helpful that breeds love instead of fear? And we know that in order to create safe environments for children, adults need to feel psychologically safe and contained, and therefore the organisation needs to be the container. What we say is compliant is the foundation that we stand on, not the feeling that we reach for. The fact is that we have legislated ourselves and we’ve safeguarded ourselves against actually being able to love children. And the truth is that when we are so afraid to love children, the outcome is that children grow up feeling unloved. But the real safeguarding is the relationship that that child has with that adult every day who looks after them, who has an understanding of their needs, has an awareness in their changes, in their mood, in their behaviour. And what that looks like, that looks like love and that looks like care, and fear cannot drive out fear. Only love can do that, really.

Colby: 2:55

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me this episode is an inspirational voice in the UK residential care sector. Before we begin our conversation, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Carla Keyte. Carla is the founder and director of Lighthouse, bringing extensive expertise in quality, compliance, and safeguarding across the residential childcare sector in the UK. With a background spanning, registered manager, head of care, and head of quality and compliance for an organization operating over 30 homes rated good and outstanding, Carla has deep practical insight into operational leadership, regulatory compliance, and governance. Carla has a proven track record of resolving complex compliance issues and supporting organizations through challenging regulatory actions. Her specialism lies in developing and embedding quality and governance frameworks that drive sustainable improvements and ensure the highest standards of care. Passionate about love-led practice and the power of meaningful relationships, Carla champions approaches that create safe, nurturing, and stable environments where children and young people can truly thrive. Her expertise in implementing integrated therapeutic models enables her to support organizations to meet children’s emotional, social, and developmental needs with compassion, structure, and intentionality. Carla founded Lighthouse to provide expert guidance and tailored support to providers navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. Her mission is to empower teams to deliver values-based, child-centred practice that goes beyond compliance, creating homes that are safe, stable, and loving. The name Lighthouse reflects Carla’s vision to act as a guiding beacon for organizations illuminating the path through complexity towards excellence in care, safeguarding, and relational practice. Welcome, Carla.

Carla: 5:53

Well, Colby, what uh uh an intro there. Thank you, and thank you for having me.

Colby: 5:59

Yes, well, you’re welcome. It is a good one. And what what isn’t in there, and I often ask people if there’s anything that they’d like to add. Um, but many people are just a little bit um uh overwhelmed by hearing hearing their life’s work read back to them. Um but I I kind of discovered you, although I did I discovered you for my must for myself, not in a talent uh talent identification uh way, but through through your writing, and you just you write beautifully um on uh social media platform. They’re not sponsoring me yet, so I won’t mention LinkedIn. Oh there you go, I did. They shed Yeah, so you you write beautifully on there about um the provision of care in residential residential children’s homes. And um yeah, and so that that’s how I I first I guess came across your work and uh and here you are on the podcast.

Carla: 7:05

Lovely, thank you, thank you, no, really, Colby. And I think for me is somebody once said the uh pen is mightier than the sword, and I do. I write a lot of poems and expression and emotion, and I write a lot about my belief that love saves lives, and that comes from my own personal experiences, but my experience of working in the residential sector and seeing how you know the relationships that we form with children, with adults supporting them and the network are able to really uh change children’s lives and help to heal their trauma. And I think it’s a very difficult time within the residential sector. We talk a lot about policy, procedure, practice, regulation, offset, all of these things are important, and no doubt we’re going to discuss them today, Colby. But you know, that forefront for me and summarising everything that we are keen to talk about is empowering safe, stable, loving homes for children. We believe genuinely with our whole heart that every child deserves a safe, stable, loving home, and that our residential services need support to be able to do that. And love uh takes a village to raise children, right?

Colby: 8:31

Yeah, absolutely. So um let’s just start with with that. What do you see as being the role and purpose of of children’s residential homes? And um have you noticed anything that’s shifted over the last over the period of time that you’ve been working in the sector?

Carla: 8:51

Mm-hmm. No, I have, and I I think it’s interesting because the core purpose of a children’s home is actually beautifully very simple. And it is to provide a safe, stable, loving home for children that cannot live within their own families. I think what has shifted over the last ten years is our understanding of what that really means. And so our children’s homes regulations 2015 are, you know, still very valid when you look through the lens of what children need, but our understanding over time, you know, 10 years ago we talked about placements and behaviour management and risk reduction and contact, and now we talk about home and family time and adults who love and and care for children, and so we, you know, in the sector have really developed an understanding that children heal through relationships, and yet the compliance is the kind of ground on which we stand upon, but not necessarily in the way in which healing can be measured. You know, we now know that kind of trauma lives in the body and that safety is a psychological experience that we develop through relationship, not necessarily just through kind of policy and procedure and tick box and uh healing is developed through emotionally attuned adults who are able to regulate with children and support them to make sense of their trauma. So I don’t think that the purpose has changed. I think potentially that our clarity has, our knowledge has, our understanding of neuroscience and biology and how trauma shapes and contaminates experiences for the children that we look after.

Colby: 10:55

Yeah, so the I guess the the as you say, the language and the the degree of focus on that that primary task or that purpose of children’s homes has become clearer and more more defined. And do you think that there’s been a change in the experience of the young people who reside in um residential homes uh associated with that?

Carla: 11:21

Yeah, absolutely. And when we talk to and engage with care-experienced young people, what they tell us is important to them are those relationships, are those adults that showed up consistently, calmly, attuned again and again, those adults that took the time to notice and spend time and build strong relationships. That’s really where safety is is built and felt actually in relationship.

Colby: 11:53

It’s interesting. I’ve had um a number of guests talk about um alumni uh as such of of children’s residential homes, going back quite a number of or spread through the podcast episodes and um uh interestingly, what they report is that children who have been in um residential homes generally and even uh the through specific ones that um I’ve had people associated with them uh on the podcast, is that is that they give they give generally give positive feedback about their experience, sometimes incredibly positive feedback about their experience in residential um child homes, that probably flies in the face a little bit of what policy makers think is in the best interest of children.

Carla: 12:50

I think we can’t be naive, you know, Kobe. The the facts still show that a lot of children, a number of high number of children who are up in residential care or looked after are more likely to end up in prison than they are in university, and that is a sad fact. But I don’t think it can take away from the impact of relationships, and what we hear consistently time and time and time again, is one person who uh shows up unconditionally with uh positive regard for a child who builds relationships can help to heal that trauma and change the direction of a person’s or a child’s adult’s life, actually, not just children. It’s true for us as human beings in terms of our understanding and knowledge in relation to trauma informed practice. Residential care often can be perceived as an institution or a last choice, or or especially a lot in the media of um money grabbing, or or we’ve got a lot of concerns around profiteering, and you know, I can’t take away again even from those concerns, Colby, but what I see when I work across the sector is resilience and passion and people who care and turn up every day to work with some of society’s most traumatised children, and what I also see is that the power of love and relationships can really shape and help children heal from traumatised experiences in their early years.

Colby: 14:34

So when you visit a home, what what do you see that um really I guess um encourages you or or or reassures you that this is a safe and stable, loving home for for the children and young people who live there?

Carla: 14:56

It’s primarily going to be about children’s voice, isn’t it? We talk a lot about beyond compliance. So, for example, if we consider what is good when we look at the offset framework, how do we measure good currently? The SCIF, the common inspection framework really sets out what that looks like for residential children’s game, but how do we measure what is felt? How do we understand if children feel loved and safe and cared for? Because often the measurement isn’t how many incidents we’ve had, but how we are supporting children through those feelings, through those experiences to uh manage and learn and grow from and through their trauma. So what does good look like? What does it feel like? It feels safe, it feels emotionally safe, it feels like children who feel safe in their bodies enough to play and experience and grow and engage in the community. It feels like children who are able to build relationships with adults and adults who are creating environments that feel and reflect on, where children genuinely seen, felt, heard, loved, and cared for, and where adults are supported with the psychological safety and security to be able to do that in a in a professional and containing way for children.

Colby: 16:32

And I wonder whether um the the the standards, the safeguarding standards um that exist in relation to or the regulatory standards that exist in relation to uh assessing children’s homes. And we see a lot on uh LinkedIn a lot about inspection outcomes. Um I guess I’m just wondering about what relationship you see between those inspection outcomes that that come through those through the regulation system and process and the children’s experience of the home. And is there a relationship between what what the um how how homes are rated by Ofstead and the children’s experience in those homes?

Carla: 17:27

Yeah. And you know, the the truth is a lot of homes are a great number, most number of homes are are rated Ofstead good, and and you would I would consider that are delivering safe, stable, loving homes for children. Um the lens again in which we look at that trauma-informed approach, the relational uh measurement of care, I think is the aspect that needs to catch up. So um often in the other end of the inspection cycle requires improvement, inadequate compliance. That’s not really particularly trauma-informed language. It’s not the way in which we speak to each other or or we talk when we’re coaching and we’re developing and we’re supporting homes on that journey of understanding. Because as much as children need safe, stable, loving environments in order to thrive, actually, so do adults. Um, and if we think about homes and organizations as kind of um organic structures, uh, we need to be considering how not only do we provide safe, stable, loving homes, but how do we create safe, stable, loving organizations? How do we create an inspection framework because it is necessary and helpful, that uh breeds love instead of fear, because I think a lot of the time the sense of judgment and negative language and narrative that we’ve created creates this sense of fear, and we know that in order to create safe environments for children, adults need to feel psychologically safe and contained, and therefore the organization needs to be the container for that.

Colby: 19:28

Yeah, it’s you make a very good point. We would never in trauma-informed work, we would never assess someone, a child, as being inadequate. No, as not meeting up to our standards. Yeah.

Carla: 19:44

And I I’ve thought a lot about this. I think safe, stable, loving homes at Lighthouse is the lens in which we look at everything, whether that’s a call for training or compliance support. Over the last five years, we’ve supported a number of organizations. Organisations that have been inadequate in compliance, primarily around Regulation 12 and safeguarding and Regulation 13 leadership. And what we see is this sense of kind of blame and finger pointing and failure. And I think that it sits alongside sometimes often this narrative around residential care that you know it’s profiteering. But when we think about children in the family home or foster care, and we have safeguarding concerns, what we do is we enact child protection procedures, we enact safeguarding structures, we enact working together, multi-agency support and development for children and families and homes. But uh within the current inspection framework, we’ve become um a much more enforcement-aimed perspective. And some of that is is absolutely necessary. But I believe that in order to have a much more um relational inspection process, we should be asking ourselves, is this a safe, stable, loving home for children? Or is this a home that requires support to be a safe, stable, loving home for children? And I actually genuinely believe that Offset should be a safeguarding partner. And where homes are facing a challenge, then we should enact similar processes to child protection procedures where we have a team of specialists, the inspectors, the local authorities, leadership team, residential specialists, uh, those with trauma-informed and therapeutic experience to help that home provide safe, stable loving homes for children, or to consider what needs to be done in order to develop that further. And you know, in some points that might be that children need different intervention and support, but overarchingly, when we have a clear common goal, when we take away that blame language and we reframe it as safeguarding partnership, we keep children much more at the focus and adults who are supporting them who turn up every day with a huge level of love and care and resilience, uh, to be able to uh provide children with safety, stability, and love in a regulated way.

Colby: 22:54

Yeah, they’re they’re all very interesting points, and in and it in some ways it taps into one of the purposes I had, or one of the intentions I had in starting the podcast, um, which was to change the language about around children’s residential childcare more generally. But I think also I have had long-standing concerns about the impact of how external bodies, whether they be a regulator, whether they be the media, the uh judiciary or or uh even the local child protection, statutory child protection authority, I’ve been concerned about the language that they is used about the workforce that they’re offering commentary, assessment, decision, you know, judgment about. And in residential care, um I when I see a children’s minister, for example, advertise on social media something along the lines of um we, you know, our government has uh established this new service family-based for bad family-based care of children and young people that will save save X number of children from residential care.

Carla: 24:18

Yeah.

Colby: 24:18

And and when I see that, it makes my blood boil because I just think whatever your views are about residential care, residential child care, um there are kids that are in it. And it’s not it’s it and it is quite a heterogeneous group. There are there are always examples of of not so good um residential child care homes. Yeah. Just as and and and there are also examples of outstanding uh um home experiences for children. And I guess now I’m getting on my my my soapbox a little bit, but I I think that if you’ve got if you’re the if you’re you’ve got the power to change, then because you do, and you’ve got concerns about our residential childcare sector, then then do something about it. Um and I but as just to finish my other point, which was I I’m always very concerned about the experience of the staff when when they are aware of those direct messages that residential care is something to be avoided at all costs, that it is is the option of last resort. And I think the the cost at all costs, that cost has that double meaning because I think you know it is perhaps more expensive in some ways than than other forms of care. Um but so what? You know, raising children is expensive. And I think that that whole language around it is the option of last resort really cheats cheats children, cheats homes and children out of being resourced to the level that that adequately, more than adequately meets their needs.

Carla: 26:06

Yeah. And and our sector has become driven by that fear-based language and experience. So adult supporting children feel that. We need a huge amount of resources to be able to support children who’ve experienced significant trauma, relational rupture, uh, exploitation at the hands of society. These are children who have been harmed and hurt, not what we often consider to be naughty children, or and you know, beyond that, our children’s homes have often been considered historically as kind of last resorts and institutions and places where you know we’re lacking love and support. And I think that’s a key thing for me in all of those roles, in all of those aspects, in all of the policies, procedures, practice, in every offset report I’ve read in every policy we’ve built, every role. The thing that stands fundamentally at the core of it, Colby, that I have always been is a love-led practitioner.unknown: 27:38

Yeah.

Carla: 27:39

I believe genuinely that love saves lives and children heal, and we can heal trauma and relational rupture and attachment uh disorder through building strong, safe relationships with children. And in order to do that, we need to have a frameworks that support us to boldly love children.

Colby: 28:02

So, what I’m taking from what you’re saying is that um the very things that um that support a felt sense of psychological safety, a felt sense of mattering, a felt sense of belonging, yeah. All of the a felt sense of connection to others needs to be built into any assessment framework when one is from a from a regulatory point of view, um turning one’s mind to the safety and well-being of children.

Carla: 28:42

Yeah, absolutely. What does a safe, stable, loving home for this child look like? Because you know, we talk about regulation, but actually the truth is called, we’ve got a number of children, foster homes, supported accommodation, we’ve got challenges with homes getting regulated, we’ve got children, more children now than we’ve ever had in unregulated care. So the question or the key question for me is you know, is this child experiencing a safe, stable, loving home? And if not, what do we need to do about it? Because, you know, this kind of finger pointing and blame culture of the residential sector, the demonizing is not the truth. There are aspects of it that need to be controlled. But the truth is when I travel across the sector in the 20 years I’ve worked in this um arena, but more so in the last five years where I’ve been supporting homes to embed safe, stable, loving homes model and to really consider what does that mean on a day-to-day? What I see is resilience and love and care, and people who are passionate and who are genuinely able to make a difference to children’s lives and even the national agenda, you know, things that are being said at a national level this week. I’m not going to involve myself in that debate so much, but they they build on this rhetoric that the residential sector is broken and that we’re you know not doing and that we’re costing, and but the cost of of not loving children is that children grow up feeling not loved, and the impact of that is so much wider than you know whether residential care should be the first choice for children or not.

Colby: 30:44

From my perspective, it’s about building social capital, it’s building good social capital by investing in good res good quality, high-quality residential care, which already exists out there, and looking at those providers that provide excellent high-quality care and how what we can understand about the way they work and the way they practice and how that can be um supported across the across the sector. Um yeah, I it is I always say when you when you improve the life of an individual child, you also improve the life of their life partner or life partners, their children and their grandchildren. That’s that’s the social cat the accumulating social capital effect of actually intervening um therapeutically with our children. And another thing that you said that I thought was really important and is we need and I guess it was it was uh it was a post that you put on in on LinkedIn about understanding that um that I has got uh drew my attention to your work, but is that what you just said just now about individualized care plans and assessing assessing homes perhaps, supporting homes. An assessment can be therapeutic. I mean, if you’re doing therapy, you’re always assessing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So have a baseline. That’s right. An assessment is in a therapeutic sense is is about where are we at and where do we want to get to. Yeah. Where an assessment in other contexts can be about deficit. What are the deficits and how do we ri remediate those deficits? So if we if we want a system that is more is therapeutic, and we want that because um people perform better in the role where they have a regulatory system that is therapeutic. And that assess that system perhaps needs to uh assess the capacity of the home to meet the individual love and safety and belonging and mattering needs of the children. And I guess a point that has been brought up, and not to steal the the floor too much, is what do you do with the most unhappy, the most traumatized, the most complex young people? If we have a if we have a system that has rigid standards as such that don’t move with the individualized needs of children, then you’ll you’ll create a a certain category of children that become perhaps I’m tr I’m struggling to think of a better word, but a a liability or a threat to the standing of the home. So we never want a regulatory system that excludes certain children from care.

Carla: 34:04

Yeah, and and I think we have seen that a lot within the regulated sector. It’s why we’ve got such a high number of children in unregulated or unregistered, we’ve got a number of delays in the registration process for um offset registered homes. But I think what it comes back to me for each time, Bobby, is the same key question. What does a safe, stable, loving home look like for this child? And what do we need to do in order to achieve it? So often, you know, we get calls from uh across the sector in the last five years, homes that have been inadequate, compliant, children that are moving to and from unregulated care and needing those levels of support. And the first question that we ask, we use the lighthouse lens and we say that actually, in reality, safety, safeguarding, the foundation of everything we do is built on a foundation of safeguarding. In our model, we say on the left hand side we have a triangle and it’s quality and compliance or really equates to stable. And then we look at strategic intervention. What does that look like? What do we need to put in place? And often that’s where our love leg practice comes in place. So safe, stable loving homes for children. And if we think about Johnny, we say, what do we need to do to safeguard Johnny? What quality and compliance are we working within? What policy procedure is Johnny in a regulated, unregulated home? What do we need to put in place to support that? What strategic intervention, what support or intervention, trauma-informed therapeutic practice, love, leg care, keyword sessions, referral support for multi-agency services through effective assessment does little Johnny need? But we don’t stop there. We have to then say, what about the adults? What do we need to do to safeguard out the adults that are looking after Johnny? How do we help them to do that in the most stabilising way in terms of quality and compliance? What interventions do we need to put in place for them through supervision and training, reflective practice that help us create a sense of psychological safety for adults? But again, Colby, we can’t stop there. We have to say the home and then wider. What we’ve been saying is, you know, okay, as an organization, what do you need to do to ensure safe, stable, loving homes for children? And we’ve been embedding this model in children’s homes across the sector and children’s homes that have been under scrutiny through inspection that who are now long-standing, good and outstanding homes, not because they’ve learned to take the inspection box and framework, but they’ve really considered their culture, their purpose. What does it mean to provide a safe, stable, individualized home for children and to help adults to feel safe enough to love and care for those children on a daily basis?

Colby: 37:32

There’s clearly a role for leadership in that aspect of this conversation. But before I I moved there, while I was listening to you speak, it occurred to me that some people know that I have a history of nearly 15 years working in the regulatory sector, the health practitioner regulation scheme here in Australia, uh, in the psychology part of it. And sometimes in regulation the standards can either be you know broad principles, you know, appro that we we aspire to, or they c they can be quite prescriptive about the things that um we want to see. And I think I think with the latter if you if you look at the children that um that are cared for within um within residential child uh homes or children’s homes, then a a a fairly prescriptive model or or set of standards for regulation, I think, um will certainly lack nuance. It’s a very new very nuanced area, potentially. But also I I think about what the level, you know, what what is the what is the level at which we pitch it? Do we live a is it pitch at the level of the the bare minimum? This is this is the the ba the this is the um the let the standard of care we expect everyone to be in. And I don’t want to draw this similarity the the the relationship with Winnicott’s idea of the good enough parent, because I think his idea of the good enough parent is is is but this this i is a really good one in in some expressions, in certain, you know, for example in in assessing assessing on an individualized basis, if you apply it on an individualized basis, but if you have standards that try to I’m trying to come up with language that isn’t, and so I’m gonna say it, lowest common denominator in a sense.

Carla: 39:53

Yeah. I think for me, what we say is compliance. Is the foundation that we stand on, not the ceiling that we reach for. And so it’s beyond compliance. We do need a set of regulations, we do need standards, we still need a set of guidance, the way in which we look at that, and you know, how it’s framed, I think, needs to be more relational and really considering what does that look like for individual children? Is this a service that’s providing a safe, stable, loving home for children? Or in the same way as families, do they need support to be able to do so? And I think that frames that much more in terms of our kind of trauma informed support language assessment. You can’t have a one-size fits all necessarily, but what you can have is a commitment, a promise. And actually, we can see that you know, if we look at Scotland, Scotland have uh the national promise. And I think the thing that I could say to you, Colby, in my whole career that I am most proud of is that I am currently the lead for the Love and Care Network in partnership with our colleagues over at Children’s Homes Quality, and we are working to build a village to really communicate the power of loving relationships in children’s homes, to create the framework and the training and the modules so that we can stand loud and proud and say, actually, our children alert, the evidence basis here for it, the neuroscience supports it, the practice, the research in practice, attachment theory, whether we look at all of the layers of our evidence of care over the last 15 years since the children’s homes regulations were embedded, show us that children can thrive and do thrive in homes where they feel safe, supported, loved, and cared for, and we need to be able to provide the framework that supports individual homes for individual children at a time in which they need it.

Colby: 42:32

Yeah, the the the the promise is uh uh somewhat paradigm shifting, I think, in the sense that, and I think we’ve kind of moved a little bit around this topic, but um the idea of loving the children in in your care has been polluted in a sense by concerns around what what do professional boundaries look like.

Carla: 43:01

Yeah, absolutely.

Colby: 43:03

And if you so so that’s a really good example of where a safeguarding standard actually contributes to a poorer outcome for children and other people. It’s that that the law of unintended consequences in a s in a sense, you know, no good deed goes unpunished. We keep a professional distance, we keep bat we maintain boundaries, and then what what what what are the consequences of doing that for for our children in terms of their experience of whether they matter, whether they’re loved. What the promise Scotland really um um restores for us is our ability to to actually say that the ch the children need love and that’s and that’s part of our role. That that is it that’s not a boundary transgression that that’s not even an uh it’s not even um poor practice. It’s a it’s a fundamental human need. Yeah. And if we can’t provide that, then what what are we doing? What are we here for?

Carla: 44:22

Yeah, yeah. And you know, the the neuroscience supports this. And the um fact is that we have legislated ourselves and we have safeguarded ourselves against actually being able to love children. And the truth is that when we are so afraid to love children, the outcome is that children grow up feeling unloved, funnily enough. Um it’s interesting, isn’t it? Because a lot of these policies, this is the line I think between safeguarding and love. And I’ve what I’ve come to the conclusion of in all my research and thinking, Colby, is that the most purest form of safeguarding is love. Children need to feel safe, they need to feel regulated, they need adults that are going to hold boundaries, hold them in mind, and be able to, you know, hold some of those experiences that they have been through. When we safeguard against that, when we historically, when we think about compliance and safeguarding practice, we think about have you filled out the safeguarding form, have you informed offset, have you done a Reg 40? We think about safeguarding compliance, policy, procedure, practice. But the truth is none of those things actually keep the child any safer. They inform people of the safeguarding need, they put a network around, and of course, those things are very important. But the real safeguarding is the relationship that that child has with that adult every day who looks after them, who has an understanding of their needs, has a awareness in their changes, in their mood, in their behavior. And what that looks like, that looks like love and that looks like care, and fear cannot drive out fear. Only love can do that, really.

Colby: 46:30

Yeah, well, I think that’s a very well-made point. And my mind where my mind is going, you know, on the basis of what you’re you’re saying, is if we assess for performance, if that that’s that’s what that’s a bit like those two different types of assessment that that I was referring to earlier. The as one is the assessment of performance and capacity and and ability to do to perform us in a certain task or role. The other is about um assessing particular a person’s circumstances or an organization’s circumstances and turning our minds to where how what are we what do we implement, how do we support, what what what is the intervention to the intervention. And that the therapeutic intervention. And that’s a that’s a different type of safeguarding. One from one and and I I see this this is really relevant across safeguarding because of children, because people are talking about this in terms of what child protection system how child protection systems should function. That you know, so a lot of the time the way they function is that a parent a family is in deep trouble, and they assess them to be in deep trouble, and the children are un uh are unsafe, and they remove those those children. Yeah. But it but the dialogue part of the problem with that is is then we also know that governments and their and their art agencies struggle to provide the the the care that children need. That yeah, and they will always struggle, I would say. There’s nothing that they they cannot replace the birth-family connection by and large. So they’ll always struggle with that. And what what’s coming into the more and more I’m seeing it um in terms of what people are saying about our our uh child protection systems more broadly is that the intervention should be more a therapeutic one. Yes, we assess, we assess the si the layer of the land as we find it, and rather than making a judgment at that point in in relation to a line, what we say is what what are the therapeutic interventions here? Yes. They get the get this family, they get this foster care placement that you know where there’s been a care concern, they get this children’s home to a place. And and this is the the important thing is if that is if if that’s a philosophy that underpins our regulatory or our child protection system, then um it naturally follows that we’re looking for strengths to build on. We’re un we’re we’re understanding the circum what the circumstances here, not from a point of view of of judgment, of judgment and decision making, but from a point of view of how do we address those circumstances therapeutically. Yeah.

Carla: 49:55

And and I think in in a lot of ways that’s the same foundation and model that we and Lens that we’ve built at at Lighthouse. And now I remember a very old boss of mine, she said to me, Um, Carlish, said you, you you’re fantastic at safeguarding children. I was a residential manager. When the kids are in your care, they’re really safe. I’m working with high-risk young ladies, uh, young ladies at high risk of exploitation. And uh she said, it’s like you’re running around the country with a cage and catch these kids, and when they’re in your cage, they’re safe. But what happens when you lift up the cage? And then you start to consider okay, a lot of people work really hard to safeguard children. We’ve got Johnny, he’s safe. We’ve done the quality and compliance, we’ve told Offstead, we’re sold to the social worker, we’ve told the people, we followed the procedure. But what are we going to do? What’s the intervention? What’s the strategic intervention that little Johnny needs? Is that you know stronger keyworking, attuned adults? Is it, you know, referral pathway, mental health support, you know, is it that he needs uh education, different care planning aspects? But then not only what intervention does little Johnny need, what intervention do the adults need to be able to provide a safe, stable, loving home to be emotionally and psychologically contained and safe to do so. So the two things can’t be separate. We used to teach our adults, and and and there is a contrary to it in our safeguarding policies, in our professional boundaries, leave yourself at the door. Don’t be behind a closed door with a child, don’t hug a child, God forbid you tell them that you love them or that you care for them or you might buy them a small gift when you go on holiday. And all of these safeguarding policies and procedures, Gobby, they they were built to safeguard our children from predators through the last 15 years, where we’ve seen, you know, serious and significant um child protection cases in our media across our country, across the world, across our sector. Failure upon failure is if you would have it to believe that way. But we’ve created all of these policies that do safeguard children, but inadvertently they safeguard them from being loved and supported because 15-year-old boys aren’t sitting in the living room in front of numerous adults talking about their feelings and crying in their trauma, and they’re crying at three o’clock in the morning in their bedroom with an adult who’s taken the time to build a relationship, and the door probably is going to be closed, and you probably are going to be sat on the bedroom floor crying and feeling and experiencing. And once upon a time, we were told, you know, don’t bring the emotion, it’s not effective safeguarding. But children need adults that show up for them, that care for them, that love them, that hold them in mind, that build trust and build a sense of safety, not just in tick boxes, not just on paper. The paper that you, the poem that you read, I think, you know, we don’t require improvement, we require understanding, understanding that children have experienced trauma, understanding that adults holding that is messy, understanding that leaders need an incredible amount of resilience, and yet often we, you know, we fail to understand the trauma, the need for love, the investment that that takes to show up every day. It’s one of the most difficult jobs that I have ever done, and I am have never been so proud to stand here today in that capacity as my lead for loving care. I’ve been an effective safeguarding uh practitioner, I’ve driven changes in quality and compliance and offstead inspection. The regulatory framework is important, but at the heart of it all, if we don’t keep the love, if we don’t reclaim it, if we don’t say it out loud, if we is there in our regulatory framework and coming all the way back round, you know, Colby, we talked about the promise in Scotland. I believe that we should go one step further. And I call on, you know, the UK government to invest in every child having a safe, stable, loving home, whether those children are in foster care, whether those children are unaccompanied asylum seekers, children living in residential homes or supported accommodation. And I urge our government to go one step further and say care doesn’t stop at 16 or 18. Children, you know, we talk about transitions and independence, but actually the reality is children, adults, human beings need sustaining loving relationships. And one person who loves you unconditionally can build resilience, can shape your future, and can help to help children overcome the trauma that they have experienced so that they can go on to live, you know, really fulfilling uh lives and and to break that aspect of, as we talked about earlier, intergenerational trauma. It’s a big thing there, Colby.

Colby: 55:48

Yeah, yeah. So, Carla, it’s it has been a real uh pleasure, joy to have you on the podcast and discuss these matters with you. Is there any final thoughts that you would like to uh leave our listeners or watchers with?

Carla: 56:08

Yeah, I think that’s it. There’s one real message from this conversation. I hope it’s this, Colby, because children don’t heal in systems, they heal in safe, stable, loving homes, um, held by adults and leadership that feel safe enough to stay open and steady enough to kind of stay present through these experiences, you know, through the difficult times and to stand with them. So I think you know, we don’t need harsher systems, we actually need a more understanding one. We don’t require improvement, we require understanding because when we build homes where love is protected, we have clear evidence that love saves lives.

Colby: 56:54

Yeah. Wonderful, thank you. Thank you very much, Kamala, and uh yeah, thank you for coming on the pod.

Carla: 57:03

Lovely, thank you, Colby.

Disclaimer: Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce.

Relearning Trust Through Relationships – A Podcast Interview with John Turberville

Join John Turberville as we unpack residential childcare reform, trauma-informed leadership, the role of culture, and what truly supports children to heal and flourish in out-of-home care. Insightful, honest, and deeply relevant for carers, educators and leaders.

Relearning Trust Through Relationships

Residential care is often framed as the last stop, the place you turn to when everything else has failed. This conversation challenges that reflex. John Turberville, CEO of the Mulberry Bush, lays out a humane, evidence-informed case for residential care as a placement of choice for children whose lives have been marked by trauma, rupture and repeated breakdowns. He traces his path from business into therapeutic childcare and explains how mentors, reflective practice and a clear psychodynamic approach shaped a charity that now stretches from its residential school to outreach, consulting and training. The anchor is simple but demanding: relationships first, because repair happens in safe, predictable, attuned relationships that children can actually feel.

A powerful thread is the role of family. Rather than treating the child in isolation, Mulberry Bush commits to working with birth, adoptive and foster families through therapy, peer groups and even residential family weekends. The aim is honest: build capacity, reduce shame, and create real pathways for step-down into stable home life when safe and possible. John describes the reality of term-time and 52?week care, the complexities of holidays, and the constant balance between modelling good care and avoiding competition with families. Alumni stories cut through rhetoric; adults return decades later saying the warmth, structure and belonging they felt taught them the “boundaries of life” and helped them become parents who can love well.

Why group care? Because the difficulties show up in groups—families, classrooms, communities—and that is where the work belongs. For some children, especially those who find family placements overwhelming or triggering, small, therapeutic residential homes provide the containment and relational density needed to rebuild trust. The episode unpacks how solo placements can stabilise acute crises, yet reintegration into group living matters for social learning. We hear of a seven-year-old with over 50 foster breakdowns; expecting another family try would likely entrench shame. In such cases, high-quality residential care across childhood is not failure—it’s a fit.

The conversation also faces the policy and practice headwinds. Staff need emotional resilience, reflective spaces, strong training, and permission to innovate. One-size-fits-all programmes do not work for children who do not fit the mould. Yet regulation can provoke fear that stifles creativity, pushing staff toward screens and paperwork instead of children. John advocates a healthier balance: clear standards for safety, coupled with trust in skilled teams to adapt, experiment and respond to complex need. If we get it right for the most vulnerable, we get it right for everyone.

Finally, the theme that ties it all together is belonging. Whether through a 38?week or 52?week home, a peer group, or a family network, Mulberry Bush builds a felt sense of safety and community. Alumni say the site looks different now, but it feels the same: people who listen deeply, boundaries held with care, and a culture of reflective practice. That aura—accessible, understanding, responsive, attuned—helps children relearn the world as somewhere they can trust, and themselves as people who matter. For systems chasing placement stability and better outcomes, the lesson is clear: invest in relationships, embed family work, back your staff, and make space for creativity to breathe.

You can listen to the full episode here:

You can watch here:

About John:

John is the Chief Executive Officer of The Mulberry Bush, a national charity dedicated to transforming the lives of people affected by trauma in their childhood. He leads the development & delivery of an integrated range of specialist therapeutic and educational services, with a focus on expanding the charity’s range and reach and ensuring the highest standards across all services — guided by its three core values: Collaborative Working, a Psychodynamic Approach, and a Reflective Culture.

John joined The Mulberry Bush in 1994 after a successful career in business in central London, bringing over three decades of experience in therapeutic practice, with an MA in Therapeutic Childcare and a certificate in Family Therapy. Formerly the School Director and Chief Operating Officer, he became CEO to further develop the charity’s ability to link teaching, research, and practice, aiming to deliver the highest quality services and excellent outcomes.

John is Chair of the Community of Communities Advisory Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, supporting quality assurance and accreditation for Therapeutic Communities & Therapeutic Child Care settings in the UK and internationally, and is a Therapeutic Communities (TC) specialist, auditing TC prisons.

John is also Trustee of the National Association of Special Schools (NASS) and Governor of a village primary school, reflecting his commitment to both specialist & mainstream leadership.

Related Podcasts:

If you really liked John’s podcast interview, I anticipate you will also like the following:

Richard Rollinson:

Listen here:

Watch here:

John Whitwell:

Listen here:

Watch here:

Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Star podcast.

John: 0:05

And I’ve been sort of powerfully reminded by various children that no matter the level of difficulty when they were living at home, and sometimes it’s absolutely right that they don’t live at home, but no matter the level of difficulty, there’s still family and there’s still that very important bond that is there. But there is something about modelling the sorts of relationships that can be achieved and those experiences that can be had so that even if it’s not possible to have those at home, the children can develop a sense of what might be possible. That you have to have children on the experience that he had with the staff team at the moment. And from my family therapy experience, I also think there’s something about the intensity of the sort of family dynamic, which can be very challenging. And so expecting all to be able to sort of work through in the intensity of that sort of familial dynamic family relationship, I think is short-sighted really. I do think the children who get close to large tend to be those who are surrounded by the highest levels of anxiety and levels of anxiety at risk. And what we know of these children is that sort of they don’t fit the ball, if you like. A one-size-fits-all program doesn’t work. We need creativity, we need innovation, we need to trust our staff, we need to ensure that they’re trained and properly supported, and then we need to really trust and encourage this to creativity and innovation. We’ve had lots of girls with a lot of many placement breakdowns. So when I was a health manager, we had a girl placed up in two to seven. And actually had over 50 foster placement breakdowns before the aged to seven. And fundamentally, I think it was unrealistic to expect to give something that looked like that another girl. She firmly believed it was her fault, it didn’t, it was unlovable, nobody could really look after her. So I think for her it probably made absolute sense that she continued in residential care. Whereas for other children, you know, the opportunity to support them, to develop an understanding of what’s going on within the family, to work with the family and reintegrate them, I think is also really important, a great opportunity there. Residential care as a placement of choice, I think is really important. Fundamentally, the things that the children today are generally to do with the importance of relationships and the sort of love and care that they experience.

Colby: 3:50

Before we begin the podcast, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is John Turberville. John is the Chief Executive Officer of the Mulberry Bush, a national charity dedicated to transforming the lives of people affected by trauma in their childhood. He leads the development and delivery of an integrated range of specialist therapeutic and educational services with a focus on expanding the charity’s range and reach and ensuring the highest standards across all services, guided by its three core values a collaborative working, a psychodynamic approach, and a reflective culture. John joined the Moby Bush in 1994 after a successful career in business in central London, bringing over three decades of experience in therapeutic practice with an MA in therapeutic childcare and a certificate in family therapy. Formerly the school director and chief operating officer, he became the CEO to further develop the charity’s ability to link teaching, research, and practice, aiming to deliver the highest quality services and excellent outcomes. John is chair of the Community of Communities Advisory Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, supporting quality assurance and accreditation for therapeutic communities and therapeutic childcare settings in the UK and internationally. And is a therapeutic community specialist auditing therapeutic communities prisons. John is also trustee of the National Association of Special Schools and Governor of a Village Primary School, reflecting his commitment to both specialist and mainstream leadership. Welcome, John.

John: 6:24

Thank you. Lovely introduction.

Colby: 6:28

Yeah, well, um, and as I uh generally admit at this point in time, it’ll come it’ll come through lovely and smoothly with the wonders of me being able to go back and edit my little uh uh uh missteps as I was as I was going through the through your bio.

John: 6:47

Yeah, no problem at all. No problem at all.

Colby: 6:50

Now it’s a significant um it’s a significant work history you have, and you’re you’re leading up a um you know a very well-known and dare I say, even somewhat famous organization uh there in the Mulberry Bush. I’m wondering if we might begin by um further to that bio, if you’re just telling us a little bit about your journey to to becoming the CEO of such a highly esteemed organization.

John: 7:25

Yeah, yeah, sure. Thank you. Thanks thanks for reminding me of of of the sort of esteem in which it’s held. I suppose whenever people say that, I always makes me feel slightly sort of intimidated, and I often think of the word of my sort of current role of being sort of stewarding it for a period of time or um, I don’t know, custodian or something like that. But um, yeah, in terms of my journey to CEO, I mean it’s I mean, some of it’s sort of covered in the bio, I suppose, but it’s sort of interesting for me. I think my interest in this sort of field of work really started. Um, it was actually triggered by a documentary I saw once on TV in my teens, which was to do with working with um teenage young offenders and doing sort of outdoor education in in the great outdoors, which was a great passion of mine in my sort of teenage years. Um, and I think from quite an early age, I was quite a sort of fragile child, if you like, and and my parents sort of discouraged me from going straight into this sort of work. They didn’t really think probably that I would be resilient enough, which which I often reflect on. Um, and I ended up going into charter surveying actually in in the West End in London, and I worked for a big sort of professional firm for for five or six years. But in that time, I I worked with a charity in the east end of London called the Stepney Children’s Fund, with who who looked after and worked with similar children who are those placed at the Mulberry Bush, really. And there was a guy who led it called Bob Lavallian, who was just one of these most incredible, sort of inspirational leaders, um, really led from the heart. And um so I was involved in running um camps and weekends um for mostly boys but some girls from East End schools from really, really quite challenging, uh deprived backgrounds. And again, that sort of spiked my passion to do more in this sort of field. And then um I was actually made redundant up in London and ended up thinking, okay, this is a time to make a change in my career, to do really where you know, to follow my passion, I suppose, and my my interest. And I I looked around the country, I visited various sort of schools and settings, and actually ended up at the Mulberry Bush just to come and have a look. I was linked up with Richard Rollinson at the time, who’s who was at that time the the principal of the school. Um, and when I visited, I suppose something just clicked for me. It just felt it felt right. There was something about the place and the sense of community that I intuitively sort of understood. Um, and so I started there as a volunteer uh and then really sort of worked my way through the care side of the organisation. Um, so I became a therapeutic childcare practitioner, then I ran one of the houses for a period of time, probably I don’t know, about six six or seven years. One of the things looking back often, I’m terrible with the dates, so um I often forget the dates, but sort of six or seven years. Um and in that time, that was when I did the MA and Therapeutic Childcare at Reading, which was an amazing course run by um Adrian Ward and Lynn McMahon, and had a reflective group, and it was just inspiring, really. Um so yeah, really enjoyed that course, learnt a huge amount, and realized that sort of my intuitive approach to the work, you know, there were there was a sort of theoretical underpinning and background that it was important to learn. Um after that, I yeah, I I sort of carried on progressing through my role. So I became the head of residential therapy, which was a role at the time, um, down at the school, and was actually I was the first head of residential therapy who wasn’t residential on the site. So prior to me, it was a residential post, and that it felt like we were sort of moving with the times um to move move beyond that, and then became the school director for about 10 years, a post which I really enjoyed. But at that time, the we were really sort of challenged to grow the work of the charity. So at that time it it was the school, and the school working with the children and the families of the children placed at the school, and so the challenge really was to grow the work of the charity, and we developed some other services, um, which I’ll go on maybe to talk about. But um in doing so, we sort of reorganized the leadership structure and set up this post of sort of COO and COO, sorry, chief operating officer and a chief executive officer. And so I became the COO at that time. Um and we really started to develop our sort of range of outreach services, um, working particularly with schools initially and then with social care organizations. And then about three years ago, John Diamond retired, who was the current CEO, and I applied for that that role. Um, and that seemed to make sense in terms of sort of my personal progression through the charity, through the organization. And I still felt and still feel hugely ambitious for the charity. Um, and so the last three years as CEO have really been about sort of developing that role in the work um of the charity more broadly.

Colby: 12:50

You mentioned a couple of people in that, and thank you. Thank you for the the breadth of that that um um that response. You mentioned Richard Rollinson, who I’ve already had uh on the the podcast. Uh was back in the teens, uh might have been about podcast 14, I think, off top of my head. And Adrian Ward, who’s also been ref I haven’t had him on the podcast, but he’s been referenced um by by other people as um having run or delivered a a very um highly thought of um training in therapeutic um therapeutic childcare. Um Richard Rollinson’s a great one for stories. Uh I wonder whether I might spring uh spring on you a uh whether you whether you have a a good little Richard Rollinson story, uh or at least um the impact that he has had on you, your development um uh as a professional and also as a professional within the Mulberry Bush organization.

John: 14:05

Yeah. So my right smile is I’ve got sort of quite a few amusing stories. Maybe I’ll tell you one of those as well.

Colby: 14:11

But in Sunny De Thomas, remember.

John: 14:16

Thank you for reminding me of that. Yeah. Um I I I think I mean Richard was really has been key to my my own sort of progress and development, and that partly was because when I started at the Mulberry Bush, actually it it it was undergoing quite um a radical change, moving from dormitories upstairs and classrooms downstairs, so really everybody living on top of one another, so to speak, um, and building residential houses, and so moving uh as it was termed at the time, move to small group living. Um and because of that sort of program and my experience in surveying up in London, um, and and I suppose I’d like to think maybe something uh about my approach to the work. Richard was really encouraging of me and got me involved quite early on at quite a high level in the organization. I often look back and think that must have felt quite complicated to some, but it really was, it sort of did inspire me. And it I often think of it when I think about newer people coming in and the sort of strengths, knowledge, and the qualities that they bring, and trying to encourage those and sort of capitalise on those. So Rich was absolutely key to me feeling really authorized to have a voice and have a say in the charity, so that felt really, really important. And I think over that period of time there was something about the way that Richard managed that period of change, which was um sort of determined, focused, clear, um, but in some ways gentle as well. And I think that um that feels important at the Mulberry Bush. That I suppose I always have in mind when we’re managing periods of change that you know there are a group of um very sort of vulnerable children placed in that setting, and so we need to manage everything quite really quite carefully. Um, so I think over time, um, what Richard has really the the one phrase that comes to mind actually that I that I raised often in interviews when I’ve had interviews about career progression within the charity has been about think the importance of thinking spaces. Um and I think although Richard um will acknowledge that um he never uses uh uses sort of one word when a hundred would do, um that that uh that actually providing spaces to sort of think and reflect about things is really really important. So I’ve always seen that sort of that’s that’s one of the key um key things for me to remember in all my roles is to provide spaces to think. Um my right smile when you were asking the question was that when I was a Richard’s a singer, I don’t know whether he sang for you on the podcast. Um from listen from thinking back. I don’t think he probably did, but um, and yeah, he loves a story. And when I was the house manager of um I was house manager of Sunset House for a number of years, um Rich Offin used to come in um and he used to always have a song to sing. And one of the songs he used to sing was um it was it was it was called Love Potion Number Nine, which is a very old song, um, and it just used to wind all the kids up, and we used to have to sort of usher him back up back out of the door to just to try and calm the place down again. Um, but yeah, no, an amazing guy, lovely guy. Um, and I still regularly meet with him. He’s on our board of trustees still at the moment, so he still very much is um an important sort of voice for me in terms of the the sort of therapeutic community model and um uh something important about the sort of heritage and legacy that that we carry with us as we continue to develop the the Mulberry Bush.

Colby: 18:03

Yeah, yeah, he he was I I absolutely loved interviewing him and hope to do it do so again soon. Um yeah, a couple of things that he said that have never really um stuck in my mind was um uh was about at the Mulberry Bush children live learn to live with uh with others and with themselves as well. And then the other one was uh and this one came up actually really I was doing some work recently and and it um it reminded me of of what Richard uh said during the podcast, which was about and I’m hoping I’m not gonna butcher it, but it was I can always edit it, of course. Um but it was um if children if children are not on your mind they’ll behave in a way that may uh that puts them in your mind and if they’re neither then they’ll be out of their mind.

John: 19:10

Yeah.

Colby: 19:11

But uh yeah, that really captures so much.

John: 19:17

I think Rich often is able, although he likes lots of words, he he often finds these sort of phrases which do capture something very important. Um and I think one of the things that’s been important to me over the last three years, these three years of CEO, one, and it and it’s again it’s a rich Rollinson phrase, has about been about um the importance of the the equal importance of the the business of treatment and the treatment of the business. Um and and certainly it’s been a key focus for me in the past. I think as a charity, it’s been very focused on on the business of treatment, which of course is you know why it exists and it’s all important, but fundamentally, if you if you don’t get the treatment of the business right, then you’ve got nothing. And so there’s something about that balance over the last three years, which I’ve been trying to ensure as we grow remains a little more equal, um, that we focus on the importance uh of the treatment of the business and make sure the business is solid and sound so that we can deliver high-quality treatment. So, Rich, yeah, he’s he’s great with words. Indeed, he is.

Colby: 20:29

And um while we’re sticking with the the topic of the business, um the Mulberry Bush School, uh, for those who know a little bit of its history, started off um uh as I recall, um back in the 1940s with um Mrs. Mrs. Docker Drysdale and her husband, and she ran something of a nursery school at that at that time. And um and then it’s it’s kind of developed from there. It’s it’s it’s um what is it must be getting on towards 80 odd years that it’s been operating in one form or another. And um and it it it’s more than just a school now. And uh yeah, I’m interested to hear and and how you would um yeah, uh your summary of of um the work that the Mulberry Bush School does in each of its areas of endeavour.

John: 21:31

Yeah, no, sure. Yeah, absolutely. In 1948 was when um when it was founded, um down on the site that’s it’s still on, down in in Stanlake, um, by by Barbadr Drysdale and her husband Stephen. And and in many ways, it’s the work of the school that that remains the source for all we do. So the sort of model of practice developed in the school, the way in which it was thought about and is thought about remains of of key importance to the growth of the charity. Um and really what the the the school still very much runs um many ways as it did, uh, although we’ve sort of adapted and changed over time, modernized, um, and we always look to embrace new thoughts, new ideas, theories, and practice to try and ensure that we remain at the sort of cutting edge of of what’s going on and practices evidence-based. Um, but really it’s been about trying to adapt those that sort of learning, that knowledge, or those sort of golden threads, if you like, um, for different settings. Um, and so back in uh sort of 2011-2012, we we recognized that we needed to try and do more. And actually, the trustees were also sort of challenging us by saying, um, uh if you’re good at what what you do, then you should be reaching more children. You should be trying to do more. Um, and at that time there was a reduction in the behaviour support service for schools in Oxfordshire, and um, so we recruited one of the lead practitioners um for that support service, um, and we set up this thing, it was a sort of working title which stuck at the beginning, which was it was just called Mbox, which just stood for Melbourne Bush, Oxfordshire. Um, and what was interesting was that the the what schools were used to was having a sort of an expert come in and work with an individual so-called sort of problem child. Um, and right from the beginning we decided that’s not what we were going to do. But what we would do is we would go in and we would observe that child in the sort of setting, and then we’d meet with the staff team, and the work would really be about sort of skilling the workforce, so about supporting the workforce in schools to work more effectively with with the the children with the level of challenge. Um and over time that sort of model has grown. So that that still is a sort of key focus. Um, certainly um schools locally across Oxfordshire, we have um quite a team working there, but also um nationally and a little bit internationally. But um so that started off with schools, and at a similarish sort of time, and as I said earlier, I’m not very good with dates, but a similar sort of time we we recognised that the the training we were offering to our own staff, it was the time when government were asking um um staff to complete a level three qualification, and we just felt it was not training our staff to work with the sort of level of complexity um of the children placed at the Mulberry Bush. And so we we accredited a course with the University of the West of England, it’s a level five qualification um in therapeutic at work with children and young people, and we’ve been running that ever since. So I forget the number of the number of the recent cohort, but it’s something like 19th or 20th cohort. Um, so that’s a two-year qualification, and we we um require all of our staff to pass that level five qualification, so that’s a sort of contractual obligation. Um and that has uh led to us also accepting external students onto that course. Um, so that focused us as well as working on schools but working in sort of social care, and we’ve also had um practitioners from fostering organizations placed on that course. And then over the years, that led to the writing of a level four qualification that we’ve been delivering in in one of the local authorities down in the south of the country for the last three or four years now. So that’s ongoing. Um, and then more recently, that was then adapted for youth cust uh a youth custody setting in this country. So it was the first therapeutic secure setting for the country. Um, so we’ve been delivering there. And then more recently, so that’s our sort of outreach. So Mbox morphed into sort of what we called outreach, it became a national teaching school for a period of time when that was a um that was uh something that the govern uh government introduced. Um that became our outreach team, and we have about 11 or 12 staff working in our outreach team at the moment. And then back in 2018, we set up Mulbury Bush Consulting. So we recruited somebody who has been actually the programme manager up at the Royal College of Psychiatrists of the network that I chair, the community communities. Um, and so she has come on board to develop uh organizational consultancy for the Marlbury Bush. Um so our services have really developed over time, and then at a similar time, we took on another site over in Toddington that was uh an archive and study centre called Mulbury Bush Third Space. So the real sort of journey, I suppose, has been developing uh the range and reach of of the charity across schools, social care, um youth custody and prisons and probation. And really the next phase is looking to how we extend those things and um add new uh specialist therapeutic services. So we remain ambitious. It feels like we’re doing an a lot more than we were, but there is a huge amount of need out there, and ultimately we’re a charity um you know here to deliver social purpose and therefore are always looking to meet need. Um yeah.

Colby: 27:30

Yeah. And it’s uh it’s a residential school, um as it at its at its heart. And uh I think in our pre-meet, we we mentioned briefly that I’d uh also had on the podcast Simon Benjamin, who who had worked at the Modern Bush School, and you you um you were yeah undoubtedly there at that time. And I I recall him uh also talking about his role, which was to s um provide outreach to the families while the young people were resident in the school. Um which um coming from you know my jurisdiction that’s I mean we don’t have here in South Australia, we don’t have therapeutic communities like that, where there is one in Victoria, a neighbouring state that I am aware of. Um yeah, but um tell us a little bit of the thinking behind that about having a that outreach to birth family.

John: 28:31

Yeah, sure. So the the work I mean working with families just is uh such central importance really to the work going on down at the school. And and I suppose from when I started, there was a there was there was a connection obviously with families in the school, um, which was important. But in terms of sort of direct work, there was little going on. And what we started to think about at that time was that that so these children were being placed at the Mulderbush um school from all over all over the country, mostly from England, although we have children from from sometimes from Wales and sometimes from Ireland. Um and it felt as if there was a sort of disproportionate burden of responsibility being placed on the shoulders of the the children who were placed to deal with often uh patterns over sometimes over generations of issues from their families. So that just I suppose in my mind felt really unfair, it felt really unfair. And there is a reality that when children are placed, you know, they they carry their family with them, if you like. Um, and if we are to try and support children back into family, it felt clear that that the family also need to engage in some way and find a way of working to perhaps make some changes or to understand some of the challenges a little differently so that they can live together. at home. So the work of the the work with families, it’s now called the therapies and networks team. So for a time we had a a therapy team and a family team if you like. But the work with the families are is of key importance and it’s and it’s not only with birth families but also foster families and adoptive families. So the school has um quite a number of uh adoptive family sort of breakdowns um so children placed from from adoptive breakdowns and actually one of the the most uh well received sort of interventions if you like I’m not sure I like that word particularly but one of one of the things that the team does is to provide sort of peer support groups very often our experience has been that the families feel um quite ashamed I suppose by the situations that they’re in quite isolated um often overly assessed uh sort of assessed to death a bit um and so being alongside their peers and those that have been felt themselves to be in similar situations can feel very very supportive and helpful but over time that that team that the the therapist networks team have uh you know they’re constantly looking at different ways of supporting families so sometimes it might be a sort of couples therapy or it it may be um as one of the one of the groups that the child that the family get involved in we’ve also had residential family weekends where we bring a number of families in um to live alongside one eat one another in the school for a period of time and we work with the parents and the siblings and the children. And there have been a couple of examples where um at the sort of family’s request we’ve put a team into the family home when the child goes home and work with them in their home setting to try and sort of shift something at home. So so I suppose I hope what that sort of gives an image of is is the the the um the the encouragement to innovate I suppose and come up with different ideas and think about well what what could really help there. And I suppose the ambition behind all of this is is about really trying to enact a step down provision so really trying to support children back in to a stable home base.

Colby: 32:19

Yeah and um I think you know we what it what it says to me is that it it is it’s it’s not the case of the children being sent off to the Mulberry Bush school and and residential homes uh in order to be treated and and return to their family be they foster family, adoptive family or or birth family. But rather it recognizes that um treating the child in isolation is not um going to necessarily be the the most effective way of um achieving that outcome as you said of of um successfully reintegrating them back into that uh family environment from which they came. Yeah and um it is a school and schools have semesters and terms and and um where do the where do the children go on term breaks on semester breaks.

John: 33:25

Sure. Yeah so it is a school it’s interesting isn’t it that yeah it is a school you’re absolutely right but often when I’m showing visitors around I often feel like the name slightly misrepresents what it is because it is a school so it has an education area which certainly over here would be what most people would think of as a school so it has classrooms and and and so on. But we all it also has uh residential houses where the children you know live evenings and weekends and and for some of them during the school holidays and then it has the therapist networks team which have a group of therapists um and a um and family network practitioners working with the families um but in terms of the the where the children go so that there are sort of two sides to the service so uh traditionally um the Muller bush was a 38-week provision so a term time only provision children went um home where whatever home is during um the school holidays and then um in between those sort of school holidays every third or fourth weekend there was um a family weekend which felt like an important opportunity for the children to go and reconnect with home but also uh an important opportunity for work between the the school staff and the family um back in 2018 we we moved from being just 38 week to also having a 52 week service so it has always been the case that there were a number of children who were referred who weren’t able to be placed because they didn’t have a family to return to or well I maybe they didn’t have a family to return to or they weren’t allowed to return to their family. There are a whole sort of host of individual circumstances there. And so back in 2018 we set up our first 52 week house and in fact last year um we opened our second 52 week house. So we now have three 38 week houses which look after up to six children each and then two 52 week houses similarly which look up look after up to to six children. So um so the children so that introduces a different complexity I suppose to to the way that the setting runs um the 38 week children have they will return maybe to a foster family to their adoptive family or some to their birth family on those weekends home or school holidays. And for the 52 week children um some of them do have families that um that visit them or that they visit and and again going back to the sort of step down model for for for those children in the 52 week service our ambition still would be to um support them back into into family if that is possible. And that may be through our 38 week service or it may be back into family. But there’s certainly there’s a whole area of work going on trying to support that sort of step down model.

Colby: 36:28

It’s interesting it it was something that is entirely foreign to me so I never even thought to ask so um I’ve been aware of the Cotswold community for you know a number of years I talk regularly to Patrick Tomlinson who’s something of a silent partner in uh in this podcast. The notion of children going home from a however you think of it it’s a therapy it’s a residential uh care service going home to uh a family based setting is just completely foreign to me in in my jurisdiction here in Australia. So I when I when I interviewed John Whitwell on the on the podcast early on um he referred to the the the boys at the Cotswold community going home um to to their families um during um well week some weekends and and also term breaks holl school holidays and um and that there were as you say there’s some complexities around that. Suffice to say I never really thought of the question until I’d spoken to John Whitwell but I’m inspired by the idea that that children can go back to a place where relationships have been ruptured ruptured or where there’s been uh concerns about um the the level of care that they uh are experiencing um that that that that could happen with a view to um amongst other things support as you say that that set step down to to a success to I guess a safe and successful um replacement or return to that family environment.

John: 38:23

Yeah I mean I I suppose I think I’m absolutely not saying that it’s right or proper in all circumstances or all cases but but one of the things that I think we often forget and I’ve been sort of powerfully reminded by various children um that no matter the level of difficulty um when they were living at home and sometimes it’s absolutely right that they don’t live at home um but no matter the level of difficulty there’s there’s still family and um and there’s still that very important bond that is there. And so for many of many of the ex-pupils who come back um have have found ways to you know if if they haven’t in their sort of younger lives reconnected with family or or or been back with family they have found ways to connect and and for many of them they’re continuing their sort of journey to try and understand what happened and and why what happened happened. And I think that’s really important. I I always remember a um um a child I key worked talking to me who who um for me it was an important part of my learning really and because of what happened to this this young person um I really sort of vilified the parents and um I remember this this young person saying to me one time after um a few years um we were sitting playing a game I think playing a game of connect four or something um and they just said um why why does nobody ever ask me whether I love my dad um and I can remember I can remember my heart sort of sinking really and thinking you know you know we’ve missed something really important here. You know no matter all of these awful things that have happened um actually there’s still a love there. And this this young person wanted to talk about the good times they’d had together and I don’t know dog walks and going to the park and um in equal measure you know and so I think it it it’s really important that we remember the the importance of of family no matter the the those sort of earlier very difficult circumstances.

Colby: 40:54

Absolutely and I I this is a real passion project of mine I would say that all therapeutic endeavor is um enhanced by uh and successful outcomes are um made more likely in circumstances where the children where where we’ve been able to achieve some level of relational repair at least and in connection with birth family. If you think about it if the pri if the children remain uh if their relationships with their primary attachment figures remained remain fragmented, damaged disordered however you want to talk about it, then um how why would they ever you know put themselves out there again i to to subsequent carers and and we we operate under a misapprehension I think in child protection jurisdictions in at least in the Western world that I’m aware of that that all you know these these terrible things have happened in in the family of origin. But the the main therapeutic endeavor needs to be to create a new family or provide a new family for them where we can provide we can develop a new template for them. And and I just think that that’s misguided. It’s not particularly understanding of the task that foster parents and other other adults who come in um to the frame to work with these children are faced with the the the mere fact that um these children find it really hard to trust again when trust has been lost or broken and the like so yeah so you can you maybe you’re starting to imagine a little bit my enthusiasm when I heard things like you know they go home you know like they get hopefully they go home for Christmas you know like these important types of um um periods and events I I think it’s really important and and uh I I suppose just hearing you you you say those things made me think about some of the things the ex-pupils say when they come back but uh which which I can say a bit about but also it made me think about this I think one of the real challenges in working in residential provision is um where the and where there is a family is uh this sort of competitive um element which can come in and sort of who are the better family really or you you can get you can get into sort of competing or providing something that’s that’s um that within an organization like the Mulderish queue can afford and home can’t afford so you so you so you actually sort of work against that sort of reintegration um but there is something about modeling the sorts of relationships that can be achieved and and those experiences that can be had so that even if it’s not possible to have those at home the children can develop a sense of what what might be possible.

John: 44:16

And it makes me think of um an ex-pupil so so one of the fantastic things about um our ex-pupils we we have an ex-pupil’s uh network and an ex-pupils advisory group and each year we have an ex-pupils open day um and increasing they’re becoming more and more involved and one of our ex-pupils um well over this last year we’ve had three different ex-pupils who’ve joined us on this sort of stage at events presenting and one of the ex-pupils who was actually in in my house um back in sunset back in the day um was presenting um alongside our outreach team to a group of a hundred um educators um school leaders uh teachers and so on and what she wanted to say about her experience of the Mulberry bush so she’s now in her 30s she has two children she’s married and what she wanted to say was for for her so she was at the school when she was um between about eight and eleven something like that eight um the age of eight and eleven she wanted to to to be very clear that the relationships that she experienced at the Mulberry bush she believes are the only reason um that she is today able to be a mother and she very much models the the sorts of care and can love care and concern um that she has for her children um on the experiences she had with uh the staff team um at the Marbury bush and of course those sorts of things are enormously powerful um you know that and so what you’re saying is absolutely right really that there is something of central importance of of modelling that you know what might be possible for the children um while they’re placed at the mulberry bush modeling those sorts of experiences trying to be conscious and aware of not competing with family um but trying to to nurture sort of meaningful relationships and and at the guts of I suppose all of the work that we do it it is all about sort of relational practice you know the the the the central importance of meaningful sort of interdependent type relationships and the the opportunity to to build those with with people who are deeply mistrustful um for right you know often rightly so it’s interesting that one of the one of the sort of we’ve we’ve got some sort of short videos that were um were taken of ex-pupils on the ex-pupils open day and one of the the children and that’s on YouTube so I’ll I will use his name so Chris um he talks about the impact of the Mulderish on him um it’s a really reflective piece which is really fascinating and I think there’s something of the qualities of the the environment that comes through often in in how how the um ex-pupils present themselves but he talks about it being a safe environment um and the importance of it being safe um and he talked about how uh sort of dysfunctional his home life was um and what he reflects on are the the yeah his deep mistrust in all those around him and he and he and he says within the video that it took him a couple of years to realize um that the stop at the Mulberry bush weren’t just trying to make things worse. And he started to he he’s he talks about it changing his view of people um of children of adults and of the world around him and so there’s something of that sort of process of change. So yeah he often springs to mind but I think it’s a common feature of the children they are um deeply mistrustful because they do feel that they have um been let down I suppose um in the past um in their formative years and so building trust and trusting relationships is is hard I think it is really hard in some instances um the the parents um have had extremely challenging lives themselves and in many ways were mulberry bush children themselves and there’s something about the sort of the the cycles over generations that the families have had to contend with um really difficult challenging sort of stuff and and wanting some help to try and sort of interrupt that sort of cycle um and establish change. I think for others I struggle to think of a circumstance where they don’t want the best or they aren’t trying to give of their best I suppose and um and very often um whatever has been done to try and help hasn’t helped and people are feeling let down by um the the authorities by the professionals and so the they come to us often with a mistrust I think of are we just another bunch of people who are who are going to sort of judge them let them down. And so it really is important to to to try and help them feel a valued part of the team you know you know that they ultimately will almost always know the children better than anybody else. And so it’s very important that we we talk to them we listen to them and I suppose the one of the the a parent comes to mind actually as I’m as I’m saying that to you who who I worked with who was feeling very challenged by something that we were talking about in the school in relation to to the home life was quite upset about it and I end up going out to visit to try and sort of mediate a little bit between the work that the the school were doing at the time this was some years ago and the family and the and the child. And I remember talking to to the this um mother um and saying look we might not be right either you know you may be right we might be wrong but there’s something about holding onto this sort of notion well could this be true you know just just the sense of there’s a possibility that that this different way of thinking about it might be true. And I think holding um holding a space for that thought can allow different things to emerge and different ideas to to to move forward. So um I suppose I think that’s often the situation is is trying to to to get alongside parents to build um trust um that we’re not here to judge we are here to try and help the notion of you know could this be true? Is there a different way of thinking about this feels yeah just feels really important. And you know as a parent myself parenting is difficult. It’s not always easy and well it’s rarely easy really I would say probably I think parenting is difficult.

Colby: 51:13

Yeah I think what you talk about there in terms of people’s feedback the particularly the young people who have um been through the Mauberry bush and their feedback and I think is really powerful and in some ways um hopefully challenges the the narrative that residential care settings are really the option of last resort for um for children and young people who can’t safely be cared for at home wherever home may be or that you know that um relationships have broken down to the point where they can’t be at home for a period of time.

John: 51:57

And I’m um I’m wondering what your thoughts are given your your experience but also the the feedback of young people who have been through the Mulberry Bush program around this idea of of residential homes being being you know across the gamut of care options the the one of last resort what we often think about when we think about the children placed at the school and I think it is it’s very similar for many of the the people that we work with in schools and social care settings, prisons from promotion and um and youth custody is um generally those children young people are struggling to function in a group so and so whether that’s a school group or a family group um and so part of the importance for me of residential care places like the Mulberry Bush is is if that’s where the problems are then that’s where the work is so the work is in groups and and ultimately in in the wider world um we all have to function in groups you know in in out in the community and so I think that’s really really important and I suppose from my family therapy experience I also think there’s something about the the intensity of the sort of family dynamic which can be very challenging and um so putting so expecting all to be able to sort of work through in the intensity of that sort of family familial dynamic family relationship um I think is is short-sighted really and so for me that the role of um of residential care is is sort of cuts cuts through that really so you’re in a group setting where there’s a number of staff you you it sort of dissipates slightly the intensity of that family dynamic but you you have an opportunity to recreate it in in pockets or or to work at it rather than it just being ever present in the daily life of the house. Certainly in the UK there is a there’s been a real move to to much smaller numbers of children placements and even solo placements and fundamentally I mean I think there are a small number of children who at times of crisis probably need that um you know solo placement to sort of stabilize but I do firmly believe that that a reintegration back into some sort of group setting feels really really important you know ultimately I it is where the work is and um and so I absolutely believe it’s got a central role to play in supporting um certainly those children who’ve really had a rough experience in family or really cannot struggle with that family dynamic. And maybe you know I think it has a role a play to play for them throughout their childhoods. You know I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong at all with good quality residential provision for some children throughout their childhood and certainly we’ve had lots of children placed at the mulberry bush for whom there have been too many placement breakdowns. So when I was um a house manager we had a a girl placed with us when she was seven um and she’d had over 50 foster placement breakdowns before the age of seven um and fundamentally I I think it was unrealistic to expect her to to give something that looked like that another go. I just don’t see why you know it will have been so entrenched that she was um you know she firmly believed it was her fault that these things you know she was unloved unlovable nobody could really look after her um so I think for her it probably made absolute sense that she continued in residential care whereas for other children you know the opportunity to support them to to develop an understanding of what’s going on uh within the family to work with family and reintegrate them um I think is is also really important there’s a great opportunity there so I think um residential care as a placement of choice I think is really important um really important I suppose the other thing that comes to mind in this country there’s a big there’s often a big thing about um the residential care should be within a certain sort of geographical radius of family um I understand the argument um but my experience in the mulberry bush has been it depends how the family are looking to engage and an example I often give is at one time we had a family who um a child placed of a family who whose family was about um six or seven miles away from from here um and then we also had a child placed whose family was about 250 miles away from here and at that time the family who was very local then they might as well have been on the other side of the world um in terms of their engagement and their willingness to sort of work with us the family that were 250 miles away if there was an issue and we wanted them to come down or I wanted them to they would they were there within moments. And so it is about the sort of emotional engagement and connection with the work rather than geographical distance also. So I think yeah I I I think we misunderstand that often in this country.

Colby: 57:30

But yeah certainly the role of residential provision I think is is of central importance as a part of um the picture I couldn’t agree more if I could summarize a couple of the really key points that you made one which one of which is that when children have been hurt in and these are my words now but but um when children have been hurt in relationships with with adults from on whom they depend um yes they it would be um in their interests at some point for for them to have a different experience of uh of um care from an adult to to that which they’ve had and if they can have that different experience with the their their parent if they if indeed it’s a parent if they we can change the dynamic of that relationship then that I think is an even better outcome as well though they may not be able to safely go back and live with their parents. The reality is that there is there is a significant not insignificant group of our children who find going into a family placement really confronting triggering in fact they’re not ready to go into a family environment and so residential care as an early placement option as a as a place to as Richard says you know help them to uh live with each other and with themselves in a way and you went and you also talked about you know providing examples of um again I’m gonna use my words a bit but examples of what a safe and nurturing child to adult adult to child relationship feels like without that being um kind of in the child’s face you know 24 hours a day seven days a week that so there there there’s that um which I I think is uh incredibly important. So I do think of residential care uh as something you know something that should be tried earlier rat rather than later. If you if you really understand the children that we’re talking about and the experiences that they’ve had. And I think part of and while you’re on the topic you’re on the topic or on the run of of trying to understand the children together better, then I think our authorities need to turn their mind to what what is it, what harm is being done with this blind allegiance to the idea that that a family-based placement is always and in all circumstances the superior option such that you have these children who just go through placement breakdown after placement breakdown after placement breakdown. And the harm that is done to children in those circumstances is incredible. And you know I’m I’m in my day job I’m a clinician. I’ve worked in this space for 30 years and you know and it’s horrifying to hear of people who have had young people who’ve had more than 50. I have a young person that I see who’s more than 50 but they’re towards the end of their care journey not seven years of age. So which children do you think really benefit from a residential care placement like what is uh offered at the Mulberry bush but also more generally um other therapeutic communities in the UK?

John: 1:01:20

Yeah yeah so so I think um certainly the children that come to the mulberry bush tend to be those that um create the sort of highest levels of of anxiety and risk in their local authorities. So I do think we’re at we’re at a point at the moment really and and it does relate to cost there’s no escaping the fact that it’s it’s a high you know it’s a high cost option for local authorities. But that yeah the children who are placed are those that create the sort of high le highest levels of anxiety and risk um to those around them and very often it’s those for whom all other options have failed. And I think that’s one of the real challenges in this country is um it it feels wrong that everything else has has to have failed before you get placed. But I understand the sort of cost-based reality of that. So the children who come to the Mulberry bush yeah sort of highly complex lives that have surrounded them and they are children who as I sort of said earlier had have struggled to function in a group setting either in in education or in social care. But it’s interesting that I’ve been involved in a couple of groups more recently looking with the Department for Education but also up at the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory who’ve done some research on on children who find themselves on deprivation of liberty orders. So those are children for whom it’s felt residential care can’t look after them, but we have a full youth secure estate. And part of the research was around looking at the care principles for these children and do they have different needs from those within residential care. And in the most recent group that I was talking really what we were talking about was we don’t necessarily believe that they do but it is something about the capacity of those around them to manage the sort of risk and anxiety that’s that that’s created by the complex lives in which they live and and so it is more to do with the need for adult staff sorry staff support and staff training rather than different care needs. And fundamentally also then the regulator has a role there. And when you were asking the question I was thinking about a a child we had recently so so I I do think the children who get placed at Arborish tend to be those who who are surrounded by the highest levels of anxiety of levels of anxiety and risk.

Colby: 1:04:05

I wouldn’t want listeners to feel that or or or think sorry that the children who you are serving there at the Mulberry bush are different to um in a in the sense of being lower risk lower concern you know especially in consideration of some of the things I’ve mentioned like going home for the holidays you know being going home at Christmas that sort of thing I think it’s I think it speaks volumes that you these are children about whom there is significant concern significant worry and yet you pro you can continue to provide this service yeah in in in the pursuit of their recovery it’s remarkable but sorry I I broke into you where you were talk you’re talking really about you started to talk about staff attributes and and the role of the regulator as well yeah so so I mean I I think in terms of staff capac staff’s sort of emotional resilience and capacity to work with um risk and anxiety is is really vital um and also for those sorts of children at those highest levels of of um who present the who are surrounded by the most complex lives if you like and present um the highest levels of sort of risk and anxiety this there’s it’s really important that staff maintain a a capacity to to feel able to sort of to innovate to to to do things differently you know it’s so often for the children who are placed um many people have tried the same things over and over again and wondered why nothing has changed.

John: 1:05:48

And so that I think there is a role for the regulator in terms of supporting innovation in the sector you know the the I mean it it’s it’s interesting that sort of the whole issue of sort of standards um regulation and standards you know standards do lead to standardization and and what we know of these children is a sort of um they don’t fit the mold if you like a one size fits all um program doesn’t uh doesn’t work um and certainly one of the groups that I was talking at up in London I was referring to a child who was placed with us um who was with us for a couple of years um very challenging young person um and um at one of the inspection experiences the there was real focus on this individual and what was going on around them the work that we were doing the sort of the ways in which we were trying to innovate um and it was quite there was a high level of scrutiny really and it felt very uncomfortable um and um I won’t go into all of the details of that but it was it was a really difficult time um the child then left um when they were due to leave at the end of their placement um about four or five months later and in the following nine months this this young person um had um nine placement breakdowns and ended up in a secure unit um and I was saying at the group up in London there’s a key example here of of somebody who we need providers to be really sort of creative and innovative um in finding ways of connecting and looking after containing um developing meaningful relationships with with with the the sort of young person that’s so deeply mistrustful and and um and challenging you know and and I think we’re getting that wrong you know I I do think things are starting to get better um there’s a sort of change in the narrative around it at the moment and and just the fact that we’re having these conversations in these sort of high level groups um gives me some hope and faith that things are sort of moving forward and changing. But we do yeah we need creativity we need innovation we need to trust our staff um we need to ensure that they’re trained and properly supportive and then we need to sort of really trust um that they the and encourage this sort of yeah creativity and innovation.

Colby: 1:08:16

Yeah and I I people who know me and know my career well know that um in until the middle of last year and for the previous 14 and a half years I was very involved in the health practitioner regulation scheme here in Australia and um in with a particular focus on the psychology um side of things and rose up to chair and deputy chair roles for for for for Australia in in the regulation of the psychology profession. When I talk what we what we know is that people practitioners in in many if not most or or indeed if not all endeavors find regulation and indeed regulators anxiety evoking. And I when I talk to people in the UK and they talk about Ofsted they they’re and these are providers you know at the level of the the the you know the managing director or the CEO they’re they’re truly um terrified of of an off an offstead inspection and in particular one that that finds that their their uh standards are low. And um and I the problem we have and I think this is perhaps a little bit related to your concern as well is that if we have that our children children in this space do require us to be flexible and innovative and and reactive responsive yeah and um anxiety is the enemy of exploration. Anxiety is the enemy of innovation. So it’s almost like a case of no good deed goes unpunished. You know we need regulation regul regulation is about keeping the the the the public safe in this case you know keeping vulnerable children’s safe um but at what at the if it’s at the expense of innovation if it’s a if it’s at the expense expense of justified and justifiable justifiable risk taking trying something new then then unf yeah unfortunately um it’s it’s one of those unintended consequences but a consequence nonetheless that actually can have a negative outcome for the services that we’re trying to deliver.

John: 1:10:51

Yeah. Yeah no I think that’s right. I mean the the the phrase that comes to mind is that I think the sector for quite a long time felt like the uh I remember seeing at a conference there’s the phrase that the flogging will continue until morale improves sort of and I think and I think that you know there is a sort of there has been a sense of that and um I suppose two things sprung to mind. I think you’re absolutely right I think anxiety and the sort of fear uh of inspection is deeply unhelpful and um and one of the things that um our research has has sort of shown um that that’s taken place at the charity has been about the the the sense of shame for children the sort of children and families that come into our services or or that we work with in the schools and all these other settings there is a sort of um endemic sort of sense of shame for them in the situations in which they find themselves. And I do wonder what um there’s something about the sort of the way in which sort of regulation and inspection um is has been managed which is about sort of shame the shaming and the sort of role of sort of shame in the sector or shaming into improving and I and I’m not convinced that that’s helpful. And certainly within the staff team we would be conscious all the time of of not getting caught up in in um shaming um shaming staff members shaming families shaming children um we we really need to find a way forward from that and I suppose the other thing that I I think needs tackling um somehow is the whole notion that that if it’s written down then children are safer. And one of the real worries and and the challenges we have is that the increasing amounts of sort of bureaucracy that surround um meeting the demands of regulation and inspection draws staff away from children and um to sit in front of laptops. And that’s difficult because you know I I absolutely agree and accept there’s a really important role for regulation. You know we need to know that children are safe and I absolutely accept the importance of that and the role that the regulator has for the government ultimately in in establishing safety of children. But somehow we do need to um we we need to allow creativity and the and the phrase I think it was at a similar conference to that other comment but there was a phrase that came up that somebody said which I I do wonder whether it’s true which is that you can regulate to to get inadequate services to good um but to allow to to enable um outstanding practice you have to set creativity free. And I and I like that sort of notion that somehow yeah we need to know people are safe we need to train people properly and then we need to to really yes allow creative practitioners to engage with children and and to find um yeah to to set that creativity free and I and I think that’s I think that is true. Yeah we have a there was a saying that was used here but in indeed including by our um national chair of the psychology board of Australia uh that lot about talking about light touch regulation regulation needs to be there but it it can’t be getting in the way of of the work that we do I I was just gonna say I do think that the the the most recent narrative from the current um HTMCR Martin Oliver around if we get it right for the most vulnerable we get it right for everybody then you know I I do think that’s true. I think it’s a helpful helpful narrative.

Colby: 1:14:44

Yeah um there’s so much I can talk to you about John and uh um your day is only beginning mine’s mine’s closer to the end um couple of things that I wondered we you’ve talked a little bit about what the children um say about their experience of the mulberry bush I’m wondering if there’s just any any other message you would like to share around that around what your your your alumni group or or uh other um returning um adults who’ve who’ve had experience of the mulberry bush are saying and um uh you’ve also talked about what you know the the the message that you would like to put out there to the world that the mulberry bush would like to put out there and I I’m just wondering if we’ve kind of bring it to a close around either one or other or both of those those two things what the children say and and the voice that that you want the mulberry bush to be projecting to the world yeah that’s a big question um I suppose it it makes me think about um I think fundamentally the the things that the the children say um it are generally to do with the importance of relationships and the sort of love and care that they experienced and um it makes me think that the so we we had a few years ago um a lady called Sally Finch um came back to visit ex-pupil from 1948 to 1951 so right at the beginning now lives in in Christchurch New Zealand um and one of the things that she said and and a number of others have said the same thing when they’ve they’ve come back to visit the school has said this place is just completely different but it’s exactly the same and so there’s something about that even though she didn’t recognize almost anything of the buildings on the site that what resonated for her was the sort of experience of how people related to her the sort of warmth that sort of sense of community um the importance of relationships the love care and concern that that she she witnessed and and I think that’s what the the the ex-pupils would often refer to um even if their experience was tough at the time and one of them you know the there’s again there’s a video um on YouTube uh uh of the ex-pupils open day when one of the ex-pupils it’s her first visit back and she talks about it having been tough but it teaching her the sort of boundaries of life is the is the phrase that she uses um and and says that it helped her a lot so there is something about the you know on the is interesting on the on the foundation degree there’s a phrase that we’ve often talked about which is the phrase sort of growing up is tough at the mulberry bush and that’s whether you’re a child whether you’re a member of staff whether you’re the CEO there’s still a sort of you’re still learning you’re still there’s a sort of growing up process which which is difficult. And I suppose our the message for the world if you like I I I the single most important thing I think is um the importance of relationships and all of the work that we do is really about um that sort of relational practice and the importance and the the the therapeutic with a small t if you like importance of um relationships getting alongside one another understanding um really listening not just hearing sort of really really listening listening and hearing what people are saying to us um and um yes developing relationships with with people in that sense of community and I think what emerges from that um and is so clear um within the ex-pupils comments is um that sense of belonging that that they then experience and um having ex-pupils come back and visit there is still that sort of sense of belonging to that wider mulberbush community and I and I think that’s something that that can be can be developed um in other organizations in other communities in other settings um in other countries um so yes that’s you know developing that sense of belonging is of central importance really um and I and I think I suppose what emerges from that is a confidence um which I one of the things I love to read when I read this sort of ex-pupil’s comments that’s that that sense of confidence which I think leads to that you know a sense of agency in the world so um the the the young people now adults um have a sense of confidence in their own agency in um making decisions about the world in which they then inhabit yeah yeah I have a I have a little acronym that I use um it’s part it’s just because I’m a little bit mischievous um I was I was lying in bed one Saturday morning and I was because I love acronyms and I was thinking of um um what would be a good acronym for the the milieu of a place you know that that felt quality of a place which I think you know you’re referencing and and it as it turns out there’s there’s a really obvious one which is aura so the milieu is also the aura of the place the aura is the felt quality of a place or a person you know it’s aura and uh aura stands for for me in my writing um being accessible understanding responsive and attuned so uh I love to talk about auras maybe that can be what happens in the different uh conversation between us but uh just because it’s a it’s a little bit mischievous uh a psychologist of my stature talking about auras but uh anyway it’s been it’s been a fantastic conversation John I you know I feel like we probably could have uh gone on for another hour or so um but thank you very much for agreeing to be part of the podcast.

John: 1:21:22

Pleasure well thank you very much lovely lovely talk with you.

Healing from Trauma – A podcast interview with Dr Hayley Lugassy

From Trauma to Hope

I really enjoyed recording this podcast with Dr Hayley Lugassy. Here are some thoughts related to our discussion.

Recovery after trauma is not a straight line; it is a careful blend of honest reflection, steady support, and practical boundaries that make change feel safe. This conversation traces a lived journey from adolescence marked by adversity and isolation in Spain to returning to England with a two?year?old, re?entering education, and building a career in educational psychology. The constant thread is hope, often fragile, protected by small acts of belief from a school psychologist, an English teacher, a steadfast brother, and a partner who set firm, loving limits. These relationships did what systems often fail to do: they held space for pain while nudging forward, proving that healing accelerates when compassion and accountability travel together.

For schools and services, the lesson is clear: trauma?informed practice is not permissiveness. It means understanding the nervous system and the ways distress shows up in behaviour, then responding with steadiness and skill. Emotion coaching offers a workable model—connect first, name and validate feelings, teach skills, and only then set a clear boundary or apply a natural consequence. This approach keeps safety, dignity, and learning intact. It also demands adults regulate themselves. When adults lose calm, consequences slide into punishments, trust ruptures, and children learn that needs invite rejection. When adults hold their ground with warmth, children learn that needs invite guidance, and the boundary becomes part of the bond.

Another overlooked truth: some of the most distressed children are the least disruptive. School refusers, isolated teens, and the “quiet good kids” can be carrying acute anxiety, shame, or family trauma without drawing attention. A trauma?aware lens widens the radar beyond detentions and behaviour charts to patterns of withdrawal, somatic complaints, perfectionism, and sudden dips in engagement. Systems should prioritise proactive outreach, flexible re?entry plans, and gentle curiosity. Equally vital is care for the carers. Teachers, foster carers, and safeguarding staff cannot co?regulate children when their own needs are ignored. Supervision, reflective practice, and workload realism are not perks; they are safety equipment for relational work.

Personal recovery also needs body care. Masking pain through overeating, sleep loss, or isolation is common after trauma, yet the body keeps the score. Reclaiming basic rhythms—movement, nutrition, rest—gives the nervous system a predictable floor. Pairing this with therapy helps name enduring sensitivities without shame. For many, abandonment anxiety lingers; sirens, late texts, or silent phones can spike panic. The goal is not to erase these triggers but to build a plan: notice early signs, slow breathing, reality?check the story, and ask for reassurance without apology. Over time, these micro?repairs create a life where fear no longer runs the day.

Parents often ask how to lead when they feel broken. Start small. Say sorry. Repair is a superpower that teaches children humility and trust. Acknowledge what went wrong, state what will change, and follow through. Boundaries are not walls; they are promises about safety. When a home or classroom pairs structure with respect, children internalise both agency and limits. That mix, seen in authoritative parenting, is the antidote to cycles of exclusion. When schools keep kids connected during mistakes, students learn that belonging is not conditional. When services engage parents with kindness and firm expectations, families attempt change rather than armour up. This is how communities turn adversity into growth—one regulated adult, one clear boundary, one repaired rupture at a time.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch the podcast here:

Hayley’s Bio:

Dr. Hayley Lugassy is a Senior Educational Psychologist with Keys Group and the founder of Lugassy Learning Solutions, where she focuses on inspirational speaking and sharing her lived experience to support schools and families. Drawing on her professional expertise and her journey of becoming a mum at 15, Hayley is passionate about bringing compassion, boundaries, and trauma-informed practice into education and parenting. Her work opens up honest conversations about healing, hope, and creating environments where children can thrive.

Related Podcasts:

If you really liked Hayley’s podcast interview about healing from trauma and, especially, the role of teachers and education, I anticipate you will also like the following:

Dr Lisa Cherry’s podcast interview about breaking intergenerational cycles of trauma:

Benjamin Perks’ podcast interview about preventing child maltreatment and the role played by a single teacher in Ben’s own transformation:

And Megan Corcoran’s podcast interview about building trauma informed schools:


Transcript of Hayley’s podcast interview:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Hayley: 0:04

So I started writing an awful lot about my experiences as a way to process what I’d been through. That was the second member of staff from school, I guess, that had really noticed something in me. And it was her support that got me through that year. It was essentially a combination of several people noticing me, supporting me, believing in me. I had a lot of protective factors as a young child. I had quite a lot of strengths that I was able to draw from from those younger years. But I was able to kind of hold on to some of that. And I think that’s what helped me to realise that actually this situation that I’m in, this should not be happening. This is not okay. I deserve better. I can do better. I think that you can go on to live a very meaningful and content life where you know the trauma isn’t overtaking your day-to-day. But it’s always there, it’s always something in the background somewhere, and it is very much a case of managing it, supporting authorities and professionals to open up conversations with parents and carers where they can start to feel safe enough to recognise some of their challenges as parents and to take that accountability with that compassion and that kindness. What we tend to see is that the adults really struggle to keep their calm. And that’s where the boundaries actually probably aren’t boundaries, they become punishments. And one of my biggest um messages is to parents you know, say sorry, we all mess up sometime. Let’s have more informal conversations. Yes, absolutely. Say sorry to your children, recognise the mistakes that you made, acknowledge them, take accountability and grow. And that’s what I’ve done, and it’s you know it’s working okay.

Colby: 1:45

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and joining me this episode is a very special guest with an inspirational story to tell. Before I introduce my guests, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Dr. Haley Lugassy. Haley is a senior educational psychologist with Keys Group and the founder of Lugassi Learning Solutions, where she focuses on inspirational speaking and sharing her lived experience to support schools and families. Drawing on her professional expertise and her journey of becoming a mum at 15, Haley is passionate about bringing compassion, boundaries, and trauma-informed practice into education and parenting. Her work opens up honest conversations about healing, hope, and creating environments where children can thrive. Welcome, Haley.

Hayley: 3:11

Thank you so much. Thank you for having me.

Colby: 3:14

And just so you know, um, I talk to children all day long, so it’s a it’s a pleasure to talk to uh adults. And um one of the things I do, which will I’ll edit out, is that um when I’m speaking to particularly young children, I don’t say the, I say the. I’m sorry, as I as uh it’ll be edited out, but as I the at the tall end of your bio there, I said five, and then but of course, and then went back and recorded it properly. So uh so as to look like the adult that I am.

Hayley: 3:51

I love that that’s very authentic of you though.

Colby: 3:54

Not not that the well, it’s a bit uh uh non what’s the opposite of authentic to be.

Hayley: 4:01

To take it out, but but using it the first time you said it was very authentic.

Colby: 4:06

Oh well, thank you. I I do leave a lot of my faux pas in when I’m recording, but um yeah, maybe actually there’s nothing there’s nothing wrong, I I think, with uh maintaining a bit of of the uh of our inner child.

Hayley: 4:24

I agree, I agree, I think that’s really important to connect with our inner childs, yeah.

Colby: 4:28

Yeah, I do that all day long. Have a blast with with with the kids that I see. Yeah. So Haley, thanks for coming on. I’ve been aware of you for a little while now through the story, the parts of your story that you’ve shared uh online. Um but I really wanted to focus this conversation on really on recovery and thriving as much as um possible, notwithstanding that you do have a story to tell, as I alluded to. But I I thought we could probably just start with if you could just tell me a little or tell tell me, tell us uh a little bit about your story, who what you do, um and how you came to be doing what you’re doing these days as an educational psychologist.

Hayley: 5:18

Great. Um, how long do we have? This could be a long story. I will summarise the best to the best of my ability. Um, so I think the introduction was great. That really captured um essentially what what I do. So I am in uh an England-based educational psychologist. Um I work for a company called Keys Group four days a week as a senior educational psychologist, working with independent special schools for children that have social, emotional, and mental health needs. Uh, that’s where my passion lies, is in supporting children and young people that have experienced or been subjected to traumatic experiences, um, as well as supporting the adults in those children’s lives. I think that’s where my passion probably lies, is supporting the systems around children and young people to help them thrive. So I do that four days a week. And then outside of that, as you’ve already mentioned, I’m the founder of Ugasi Learning Solutions, which is my own company where I offer workshops, inspirational talks, and trainings to educational settings and beyond if they would want me, um, on anything related to trauma-informed practice and supporting individuals that have suffered. Um, so that’s I guess a snapshot of the work that I do on it on a day-to-day basis. I guess the most interesting part is what’s led me to do the work that I do. And I love hearing about people’s stories about how how did you become an educational psychologist? Um, I don’t know in Australia, but here we’re quite a small profession. Um it’s it’s less than, I’d say probably three, three to four thousand um people. And for me, I was actually drawn to this profession from living in Spain um as a child, where um, so I am English. Um, I lived in England until I was 10 years old. And then my mother had the idea of moving to Spain. I was asked, you know, Hayley, how’d you feel about moving to Spain? And I said, Oh, of course, beach, swimming pool sounds amazing, you know. Um, of course, yeah, who wouldn’t want to? Uh so my mum and I packed up and moved over to Spain when I was 10 years old. Um, and whilst living in Spain, that’s unfortunately when life became particularly challenging. And it was when I was 14 years old, I’d experienced um something quite traumatic on the Halloween, the night of Halloween, um just before my 14th birthday. Got had involvement from a school psychologist to support me with that. And as I was leaving the room following my last session with her, she kind of said to me, Hayley, I was like, Oh, you know, when you’re a teenager and you look back and go, oh, what do you want? Let me go. And she just said to me, One day you would make an excellent psychologist.

Colby: 8:02

Really?

Hayley: 8:03

And at the time, yeah, yeah. And at the time she saw, why do you think she said that? I do know what if I wish I could find her, I wish I could go and ask that question. What did you see in me? What was it? Were you just being nice? Um, what she did share with me was that she felt that I had very good um kind of listening skills and that I was very reflective. She didn’t use that word with me, but kind of remembering some of the conversations we had, um, the way that I was able to think about things and kind of try and put two and two together, make links with things and really try to connect with my inner thoughts and feelings, uh, was something that I potentially found a little bit easier than than other young people, perhaps. And she essentially said to me that with what I had been through, as well as being a foreigner living in Spain, I’d experienced bullying, there’d been lots of other challenges of moving abroad, you know, learning a new language, not having any family. So it wasn’t just the traumatic event, I think it was a combination of a big move, a big transition. So she felt that my lived experience would be helpful in the future and to support children and young people. So that’s she’s one of my biggest inspirations. But as I’ve already mentioned, at the time, I just looked back and thought, who are you? What are you going on about? You know, shut up. Um, but actually those words stayed with me. And it was around four years later that I decided that I actually did want to take that seriously, and that supporting children and young people was my biggest passion in life, and that I wanted to do what she had done for me. Uh, and that’s that’s where it all started. So hopefully that gives some insight into where little little Haley in in Spain got inspiration to you know to become a psychologist.

Colby: 9:49

It’s interesting, it came from uh another psychologist um as well. And uh yeah, I do have quite a lot of the young people I see want to be psychologists when they’re older. Um and and some have got very close actually, um, and really just could have gone on to be become registered uh or finished their their training and become registered, but they would they’ve gone down a um another path but uh related but not the same. But yeah, that that’s a wonderful story. Um of such a of belief in your yeah, just noticing something in you that yeah being the word that came to me was introspective when she was um when you were talking about that. Oh yeah, yeah. But you you you you mentioned that um there was uh um a an unfortunate or traumatic incident that happened and gee, not you know, almost we’re almost on the anniversary of that or just after. Um I I am aware, and I guess people who know who know of you are aware that that yeah that you had um some significantly bad experiences um after that point. But I guess uh what I was um wondering is what what helped you kind of get to that point you know to realize this aspiration. I think you said only four years later you’d made the decision and then um and then the rest is history, so to speak. So how how did you go from a very dark place from what I know of your history to um to be um starting to be a psychologist?

Hayley: 11:40

I’m really glad you’ve mentioned this because actually I I said it in a way, you know, oh four years later, and that’s why I did it. But actually, four four years is a really long time. And when you are 14 years old, you know, from the age of 14 to 18, that’s a that’s a big chunk of my adolescence. Um, so four years on the grand scheme of things isn’t that long, but actually it was a really, really big chunk of my life. So for those four years, um, you know, and until I got to the point of feeling ready to engage um in education again, those four years were extremely dark um to the point where I didn’t think that I would survive, I didn’t think that I would continue to be living that that’s how dark it it became. Um so to go from that to then actually saying, hey, I can do this, I’m I’m going to do this, um, that that was a significant change. And it was, it was a but it was a small, small step journey, I guess, with very baby steps. So, in terms of how I got to that point, um when I was 17 years old, I eventually was able to flee Spain because during those years I was uh essentially stuck and trapped in a very difficult relationship, and all of my family were living back in England. So at the age of 17, I somehow found the strength and way of returning home. Um for me, England was always my home, even though Spain was like a second home as well. And when I came home, I had a little boy um who was two years old at the time. And he was always my biggest inspiration. He was the reason that I continued to live. Um, I truly believe without him I I would not be here today. And when I returned to England, I had absolutely nothing. Um I I turned, you know, I remember getting off the airplane, I had you know my little boy in one arm and one little suitcase in the other. I had to leave everything else in Spain, including some very important paperwork, um, because there was a high risk as I as I was leaving. So I had nothing. So I had no money, uh, an awful lot of trauma, no qualifications because I’d left school at the age of 14. Um, but one thing that I did have was hope. I was really hopeful that that was going to be the right decision. Me returning to England was going to be the right decision. It was absolutely heartbreaking, and there was no day as hard as the day that I left Spain, got on the plane, and came to England. That quite literally tore my heart apart, tore, tore my heart out. Um, but I did have hope that we would have a better future, and I think I really needed to hold on to that hope. So then gradually, whilst you know we became safe and physically, um, we were both safe, we could start to rebuild our lives together, me and my little boy at that time. And that’s when I decided to re-engage in education. Um so I approached kind of the local uh council to explore what options I had as a 17-year-old single mum uh with no money and no qualifications. And thanks to the support that we do have available in England, you know, I was I was entitled to benefits, which I was extremely grateful for at the time. Uh, I was also entitled to receive free education, and as part of that, they funded a nursery for my son so that I could go back to school. I could go back to education whilst he was well looked after. So I just want to say out loud, I’m very, very grateful for the support that was here in England that wasn’t available to me in Spain. And um from there I returned to education that I did an IT course as the first thing that was available to me, just a level two. Uh then I went to college to do my GCSEs, um, the kind of compulsory um, you know, secondary education here. Um, I didn’t do massively well. I didn’t know I didn’t fail, but I I think I got a D in Mass and then I achieved kind of between A’s and C’s in in the other four subjects. Um and it was actually during that year that I discovered a passion for writing. Um so I started writing an awful lot about my experiences as a way to process what I’d been through. And my English teacher offered to have a look at some of my writing. Um, this was was I was 17 to 18 at college. And when she read um my writing, she was really inspired and she actually asked to have a one-to-one with me where she really encouraged me to keep writing, to keep sharing my story, and she really believed in me. So that was the second member of staff from school, I guess, that had really noticed something in me. And it was her support that got me through that year because even though I was safe emotionally, you know, physically safe emotionally, I was still really, really um stuck, I would say, um, highly traumatized from my time in Spain. But yeah, so little, little, little bit of support from the teacher was wonderful. I got through that year, and then during that year, I I actually then met my now husband, who is um I’d say one of my biggest inspiration, my my second inspiration after my son and my anchor. Um, my husband, I describe him as saving me, uh saving me and my son, seeing something in us that nobody else saw. And it was actually him who I eventually told that I’d really like to be a psychologist one day. I said it in passing, uh, not believing that it would happen. Um, and then around a year after that, but that we’d kind of got married, things had progressed very quickly. And he just said to me, he said, Haley, you need to do this. You you need to study psychology. Um, I wasn’t at the time, I just did my GCSE, still very, you know, I didn’t really have a great job, wasn’t really earning much money. And he truly believed that I should study psychology. So it was at that point that he said, let’s find a way of this to happen. We discovered the open university, which is where you can study remotely or online, um, at a cheaper cost than what a kind of traditional university would be here in England, and they didn’t require TCSEs or A levels, and to this day I don’t I don’t have A levels, which are typically required for university. Uh, so he decided that he would actually fund my first year. So we he paid um for my first year on a monthly basis so that I could start studying. Uh, and then from there I picked up student loans, and then the rest is history in terms of just continue to study. Um so yeah, it was it was a long journey, and even that is a snapshot of what it was like, but it was essentially a combination of several people noticing me, supporting me, believing in me, and really push pushing me to follow that dream because I was one saying, no, I’m never gonna do that, I’m not clever enough. Who would want me? Uh, but there were these two, three people that really felt that I could do well. And if I hadn’t have listened to them, I don’t think I’d be here today.

Colby: 18:27

Yeah. I that’s a it’s a marvellous story. And I you were you started doing the summary that I was hoping to do. So I noticed, yes, that there were those, there were those those three key people, and there may well have been others as well. And um you described your um husband as as in in terms akin to being like a secure base, and um I’m very interested in secondary attachments and and uh what we and earn security uh after um uh my my other passion, which is attachment in children. But yeah, so you had those those key people. Um you you also like some of it came from within you as well. Like you’re clearly you’re clearly very capable and you had and um you’re able to return to education and complete um the university training in psychology. And um and what was the third one I was going to say? So I’m having a senior moment now. Um and education in i in and of itself is is such a um uh an important way uh to change your life in in in actual fact. And you know, I it’s it’s sad that a lot of the children and young people I see who could can’t be safely cared for at home or couldn’t be at some point and are placed in out-of-home care. Education just becomes another it can often enough become another re-traumatizing experience for them, uh particularly um because their behaviour is poorly understood and they often get excluded from education when um and and that only really compounds their their their challenges, whereas what they it would be much better off if they um if we could keep them in education. I say I say to the young people, because the young people often don’t can’t see the point of education. I say to it, say to them, schools like vegetables. You don’t have to like it, but it’s still good for you.

Hayley: 20:36

I love that. I’ve not heard that before. I might take that.

Colby: 20:40

Everybody is I was gonna get uh stickers made up to put on uh put on uh car bumpers, but um uh I can’t turn off my entrepreneurial brain for um I blame my dad. But um you also talked in there about hope. Um it that hope that you had, and I was just wondering where we that hope came from.

Hayley: 21:03

That’s people have asked me this question before, and I I I genuinely I don’t know. I don’t know where that hope came from. I I think I think it was hope that that was the only thing left. Um there was nothing else, and it was it was either feel hopeful um and believe that something better is coming, or stay here and die. Um, so there was some there was some sort of fire in my belly that’s um that ignited, and that’s where that hope came from. I do often reflect on this in terms of how how did I get to that point? You know, I I wish that I could go back and be a fly on the wall as I was experiencing those things because I wish that I could share whatever I did with the world so that we could kind of replicate some of those skills that I demonstrated at such a young age. Uh unfortunately I can’t do that, but something I think for me that potentially was helpful is that I had a lot of protective factors as a young child. Um, a lot of my challenges came from the move to Spain. It wasn’t that the only challenge, but the most significant trauma was that adolescence. Whereas when I was younger, living in England, I had you know family around me. Um, I always did very well at school. And I think for me, you know, I was I was extremely academic at school, you know, I loved going to school. I was a perfectionist, got, you know, got top grades, had big dreams and ambitions from a very young age to go on to be what I called a boss lady. That was my ambition before I moved to Spain, before I wanted to become a psychologist, I wanted to be a boss lady, you know, one of those strong, independent, powerful women that walked into these fancy offices with pencil skirts and high heels. That that was my dream. And I guess that even though I was struggling emotionally and I was extremely traumatized, I did know deep inside me that I was capable of studying. Uh and that I didn’t find studying particularly difficult. Although I’d been out of education, you know, from the age of 14, I had no qualifications. I could read, I could write, I could do that with ease. Um I could understand things, I always had good communication skills. So I had quite a lot of strengths that I was able to draw from from those younger years. And that I suppose kind of enabled me to feel hopeful about my ability to re-engage with education and pursue my dreams. Um, other people might not agree with that, but that’s that’s how I make the link between those early protective factors and the kind of hope that I then identified later on.

Colby: 23:30

Absolutely. I I I think I agree with you that I think that’s probably was was very influential. Um that you had already developed a sense of your own worth and competency and adequacy, deservedness. Um, you’d already developed a uh an understanding that people could be relied upon and trusted. Of course, you fell into adverse circumstances, and in those circumstances, those those core beliefs were really challenged, and and others were probably at play, undoubtedly at play. But then you had, and there may have been other instances, but you had the experience with the psychologist of um, you know, someone just someone reminding you to believe in yourself. And um I I just think that no I don’t think anyone’s circumstances uh are so bad that they can’t be um repaired in some way, and nor are is it is anyone’s circumstances so good that they can’t, you know, really be knocked about a bit. And and um and that that’s life is all about where we live predominantly, under the influence of uh positive and hopeful beliefs about ourselves and other people in our world, or quite negative ones. And that really does depend quite a lot on your early experiences as you described, um, and and contemporary circumstances, and and it’s a bit of a continuum you can or or spectrum, you can move backwards and forwards a little bit. Yeah, yeah. I agree, and I think you’ve just go ahead. We’re both we’re both chatters, I think.

Hayley: 25:20

I think we are. I’m I’m containing myself and definitely holding back. Um, but I guess you’ve just touched on you know something on there again around how yes, I think I had those early belief systems about myself and I recognized my worth. And yes, those were absolutely changed for you know good three years of my adolescence, uh, but I was able to kind of hold on to some of that. And I think that’s what helped me to realize that actually this situation that I’m in, this should not be happening. This is not okay. I deserve better, I can do better. Yeah, and I think just something really important for me to say is that I’ve got two older brothers. Uh, one of them at the time, so they’re both much older than me, one of them is eight years older. And whilst I was living in that extremely difficult situation in that abusive relationship for three years, my partner at the time did let me speak with my brother. Um, for some reason, you know, very little contact that I was allowed with the outside world, but speaking with my brother was okay, potentially because he feared him. And my brother called me from New York, where he lived at the time, every single day and reminded me that I am the most amazing person in the world. He always believed in me, he always thought that I’d go on to be a really successful, inspiring person. And that was from when I was born. Um, he just adored me from the second I came out, apparently. So, even during that really difficult time where all of my beliefs around the world were being challenged, I did have this one consistent person, even then, telling me, no, don’t listen to that guy. You know, you are you are a star. Um, and I’m again extremely grateful to to have him, you know, at that time because I do feel that I was able to balance out some of that negativity, which was that would be really impactful.

Colby: 27:08

Yeah, you I mean, I was thinking about it when you said it earlier, but there’s that there’s the that era of endeavour that goes under the the heading of the one good adult. And um and um I was thinking to myself, who was the one good adult, you know, through that time? Because the psychologist involvement was was episode was was just contained, I think. Contained to a certain um episode. Um so it turns out it was your brother. Oh, yeah you had that you had he the his ongoing involvement with you, uh someone who understood you, believed in you, and yeah, in in in however form he could be was there for you in those in those times.

Hayley: 27:57

Yeah, I think without him, I I think it would have been so much more challenging because I was out of education, there were no teachers looking over me at that point. So the school psychologist involvement had been before I’d started this relationship that was related to a different um incident that happened. So by the time I was in that relationship, I was living with this man. Um I fell pregnant, I had my son, uh, it it was just us. It was the most isolating experience I I can describe. You know, there’s no more isolation possible. Um, and the only small bit of contact with the world I was allowed was was that contact with my brother and the occasional, you know, you’re allowed out if you’ve been a good girl. Um so yes, he was that that constant adult, and I hasn’t reminded I haven’t remembered that. So thank you. You’ve just brought back some positive memories for me.

Colby: 28:45

Well, maybe if he listens to this podcast, he can expect a pretty good Christmas present this year.

Hayley: 28:51

Oh gosh, too much pressure.

Colby: 28:55

I’m not suggesting you should. I’m not trying to tell you how you should organize your Christmas presents. Yeah. Do you um was there anything but any particular challenges that that you would be um you think would be important to um acknowledge that you that you think you you you’re almost a bit proud of yourself, or maybe you are very proud of yourself that you were able to kind of um find a way to overcome those challenges.

Hayley: 29:27

There are so many challenges, Colby. There’s so many challenges. Um you’re referring to challenges in terms of the impact of the trauma and how we’ve been able to overcome those. Yeah, okay. Um I’m extremely proud of everything that I’ve achieved, and I don’t mean that in a oh look at me, I have a big ego way. I mean that in a I did that. I’m standing today, regardless of title, that you know, that isn’t actually important to me. The fact that I’m here and smiling, I have friends, I’m you know, day to day I experience a lot of joy and happiness. Uh, as well as all the other emotions, but generally I have a really nice life, uh, and I’m extremely proud of that. I think, in terms of the most significant challenges following the traumatic experiences, for me, it was that there were two main challenges for me. Um, one of them was around relationship building with others. I had lost all trust in people, even though I knew deep down that people were good and um I was able to interact with people. And I think part of the problem was that I masked very well. Um I was very, almost like I am today, very talkative and very smiley. But relationship building on a deeper level was extremely challenging because I couldn’t trust people. I’d been hurt not only by my partner, but so many other people within where you know the place where we lived in Spain was extremely disadvantaged. So I was surrounded by people who were all suffering and we all hurt each other. Um, so then when you then move to a new area to start a new life, you you don’t want to trust anyone. So for me, making friends was extremely difficult. Um, I didn’t know how to associate with people, I felt misunderstood, I felt different, like there was something wrong. I was truly believed at the time that something was wrong with me, and I was on a desperate mission to find out what that wrong thing was. Um, so friendships weren’t important, it was important to find out what was wrong with me so I could find the fix. I never found it really. Um, so that that was one thing that I had to really work on, and it’s been a very gradual process. And you know, we’re talking, I I left Spain when I was 18, so we’re talking 13 years now, and I would say that only the last three to four years I feel like I’ve been able to form meaningful relationships with others for on a friendship point, you know, put from a friendship perspective. Um, and it’s now such a beautiful thing. I missed out for a very long time on what it meant to have a best friend, for example. Um, so yeah, that’s one thing I’m extremely proud of. And then the other thing that I um really found difficult was health. I think the health consequences of trauma, something that maybe we I feel we don’t talk about as much. Um, but as I said earlier, I masked quite well, you know, I appeared to be okay on the outside. The way that I dealt with my trauma was overeating, I didn’t exercise, I isolated myself. So physically I was not healthy, I was not okay. I wasn’t looking after myself, I was punishing myself and my body for things that other people had done to me. And it was around six or seven years ago that I had a bit of a light bulb moment. I think it was just after my youngest son was born, where I realized that I had been punishing myself and that I was I was still miserable. Um so one of the biggest things I’m proud of is realizing that and realizing that I was um not processing the trauma and that I was essentially trying to bury everything through overeating, uh, then starving myself, not exercising, looking in my looking at the mirror and crying and saying horrible things about my body, all of that stuff. Um and so I gradually started working on that, and I’m very pleased to say that that is no longer an issue for me now. So now I live a relatively healthy, you know, healthy life. I eat healthily, uh, occasionally over indoors, who doesn’t? Um, but I try to exercise, I prioritize sleep, all the simple things, I think. Um and that has had a massive impact on my life. So I’m super proud of that as well.

Colby: 33:51

Yeah, yeah, that’s terrific. And but I mean, we’re all shaped by our childhood experiences, people uh say, but I guess I’m not sure how much people delve into that. Um I guess we when when childhood is is uh problematic, challenging, there’s a lot of adversity, then there’s a lot more uh uh delving into that that occurs. You did mention that there are some in your in your previous response, you did mention that there are some things that probably haven’t been fully gotten over. Um and and I guess, of course, so from my perspective as a clinician working in this area for the last 30 years, I I would say that 100% getting over trauma, such that trauma never existed, is is a pipe dream. That doesn’t happen. Um the best we can expect is that it doesn’t continue to uh impact your life negatively on a daily basis. But there and and I talk about enduring sensitivities. So I wondered about what what enduring sensitivities um what are things that are uh that are sensitive to you and how you how you manage those those things.

Hayley: 35:07

Such a great question. I get asked an awful lot whether I think that people can fully heal from trauma. Uh, and I have a very similar view to you. I think that you can go on to live a very meaningful and content life where you know that the trauma isn’t overtaking your day-to-day, um, but it’s always there, it’s always bubbling in the background somewhere, and it is very much a case of managing it. Um for me, there are definitely certain things that bring bring it up very quickly and very easily. Um, I’m quite open around how I experience heightened anxiety quite frequently, and that’s probably one of my biggest challenges still to this day. I have worked an awful lot around you know, on managing anxiety over the years because it was debilitating at one point in my life, especially in those early years after leaving Spain. Uh, one thing for me in particular is abandonment. Yeah. Um, and that very much stems from even before Spain, um, being abandoned by my father as a as a little girl, moving to Spain, having lots of challenges there with my mum, then that relationship I was in, and also me taking my son away from Spain and almost you know removing a key person from him. So for me, anything that could trigger a sense of abandonment is a big issue. And that can be something as simple, Colby, as my husband going out in the car and me not hearing from him for a little while. So I don’t know that he’s arrived safely somewhere. And previously, you know, a couple of years ago, um, he would, for example, drive to the motor, uh not to the motorway, drive down the motorway to get to the cinema. Should be a 20-minute drive. If he hadn’t messaged me within the 20 minutes exactly, and I would be sat there with my phone with a timer on, I would be having a full-on panic attack, struggling to breathe at the bottom of the stairs in my house, uh, ready to call the police because the ambulance, because I generally thought that he’d died and abandoned me. And that was not a nice place to be. I’m no longer at that stage, thankfully. I’ve worked a lot, been to therapy, really, really tried to get over that. Um, but it definitely still comes up. There are definitely moments where I have this really horrendous fear that I’m going to be abandoned again. And that’s where that little inner Haley is still hurting a lot. Um, I manage that thanks to therapy and thanks to exploring that. I’m very aware of when those feelings come up. Um, so for example, today with swimming lessons, my husband took the little one swimming. I noticed that the feeling came up thinking, oh, they should be back by now. And the challenge that I have is that I live very near a hospital and ambulances go past my house very, very frequently. So for me, any sort of ambulance, you know, the sirens of the ambulance, that automatically makes me go to the extreme of they’re dead, they’ve had an accident, I’ve been abandoned, I can’t survive without them. And it’s very easy for me to fall into panic attacks that will then last for several hours and completely knock me out for the evening. Um, and that can still happen today. Thankfully, during the day, I think during my working day, I’m generally quite contained. It’s you know, I do very well, I’ve not really had any issues. It does tend to be once I take my professional hat off, um, that’s where that’s where the trauma can resurface a little bit more.

Colby: 38:30

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Yes. I’ve I’ve I’m I’m a uh how would you temperamentally not as intemperamental, but by temperament, I am a very shy person. And no one believes it, except for my wife. She she’s the only only person that believes that. Certainly no one that I’ve ever worked with believes it because I’m so war high warmth, high energy, and and and very sociable. But when you’re in role, when you’re in certain roles, you you almost you develop an identity within that that role. Now, some people, yeah, and and that and that identity can be protective as well, you know, like it’d be terrible if I was a child psychologist and uh and was just painfully shy. That would kids wouldn’t want to come and see the painfully shy psychologist, I’m sure.

Hayley: 39:23

Um well, maybe maybe one or two, but overall you need a bit of a personality, don’t you to wear a children?

Colby: 39:28

I think you do. And uh yeah, they never believe I get angry either. They just think, you know, I’m this big big because I am very large, this big um um uh friendly bear type character.

Hayley: 39:43

That’s so sweet though. Yes, but I get I get the same people can’t imagine me being cross or angry um because I’m you know, just go about this. This is you know, this is me, this is what you get. But yes, absolutely, come five, six o’clock, that’s when I take my professional hat off, relax, and that’s where some of those things can very easily resurface.

Colby: 40:04

Yeah, it’s interesting. Uh do you ever feel like if you, you know, if you knew the real me, if you knew what was really going on?

Hayley: 40:15

What would people think?

Colby: 40:17

Yeah, well, as you can watch with me. If you’re but if it’s it’s that if you knew the real me, it’s kind of like some people would say that um they’re pretending to be someone they’re not most of the time. I would say there’s a kid in me who wanted to make friends and and and and have fun with with uh, you know, it’s like it’s part of me. In the same way we’ve talked about things have been part of you, notwithstanding how life has panned out.

Hayley: 40:52

I think we’re all actors, you know. I I think that we all put on different masks throughout the day, and and that’s just the way it is. I’m a bit you know, very passionate about being authentic. Um, and I do I don’t believe that I’m not authentic at work at all. I I think that I absolutely am the person that I’m meant to be at work and the psychologist that I’m meant to be, and I don’t feel like I have to pretend to be that person. Um, it’s not when I, you know, when I talk about masking, for example, I don’t feel like I’m holding the anxiety together to get through my day. It’s more that professionally I have a different skill set and I’m interacting with different people, that you know, that my trauma and that isn’t it’s not relevant within that context. Whereas, of course, when you then get back into your personal life, I take all of that, put it to one side. I’m no longer the psychologist, I’m the wife, I’m the mum, I’m Haley, I have all these other interests and hobbies outside of psychology. Um, so I think that I’m authentic in most places to you know, to a certain extent, there’s always going to be some things that we’ve kind of hide a little bit. But yeah, I believe we’re all we’re all just actors walking around putting on different masks depending on the situation we’re in. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing necessarily. I quite enjoy the different experiences I get from doing that.

Colby: 42:03

Yeah, I I I’m not taking issue with it, but the the I would say we’re channelers. We’re all channel, you know, like in different circumstances we channel a different part of ourselves, but it is still us.

Hayley: 42:15

Yes.

Colby: 42:15

And I you know, some of my older older teenagers who’ve been been through a lot um struggle to struggle to to to realize that that that it’s all still part of the same person. It’s not you know, not necessarily other personas or other or autars, but um um yeah, I think we just I don’t I don’t think Colby at work is not Colby. It’s just Colby at work channels, you know, another part of Colby. And I think it sounds like you do too. And authenticity. Authenticity is a bit of a buzzword, I think, that uh at the moment, but um, but I notwithstanding that, I do think that, you know, as time goes on, people highlight different aspects of relating that are important, and I do think that uh uh authenticity is one of them. Yeah, now you you on that day a week that you’re not um working for the keys group, you focus on on talking to well, I mean you talk to people as part of your role at the Keys Group as well, uh, about um the the needs of of um children at school. Um you talk to parents, you talk to to teachers. I’m not sure if you you you had the opportunity to speak to child safeguarding authorities, maybe in your public speaking you do. What what what are some of the key messages that you want them to hear about children who are experiencing adversity and what should they be doing about it?

Hayley: 43:56

So I think one of the key things for me is helping the adults that work in the systems around children to really recognise that children are communicating through their behaviours that there is an unmet need. Um, they are crying out for help and support and understanding. So I’m very passionate about uh trauma-informed practice. And I know that that over here is a bit of a buzzword or a buzz concept as well, and I think that it can be a little bit blurry in terms of people’s understanding of what that means. Um, essentially the way that I view it is can we please understand the impact of trauma on individuals’ sense of self, their behaviour, their sense of the world, have that understanding as adults and respond with uh compassion, but also make sure that we do have those boundaries in place. And I think one of the challenges that I’m often seeing here at least is that people are misunderstanding trauma-informed practice for permissive permissiveness. Um, so essentially not wanting to put any consequences or any boundaries or um restrictions in place because they fear that that could uh re-traumatize the child or that could be the wrong, wrong thing to do. And as part of my own journey and to get to the point where I am, one of the things that my husband was extremely good at as a former police officer in Colombia, he was very good at being quite firm with me. Uh he was very understanding and very kind, but he absolutely put his foot down quite often and said, enough is enough. Um, you can’t sit around like this for your whole life, Haley. And I absolutely feel that that was crucial for me to continue developing because if not, I would have just probably laid on the sofa all day every day and not progressed. Uh so for me that’s important to try to translate into the work that I do is let’s be compassionate and kind, but we also do need to put our food down and we need to help uh children and parents and adults that support them to take accountability for some of the things that they’re maybe not doing, that’s you know, things that maybe do need changing or things that aren’t um appropriate, for example. So that’s one of my key messages is kind of trauma-informed practice with boundaries and accountability is really important for me. And then in line with that, um, I’m very passionate about trauma-affected parenting, really refer to it as. It’s when we’ve got families that are parenting themselves through their own trauma. And I feel like we often focus so much on the downside, the problems, what the parents aren’t doing well. Let’s put all the blame on the parents, and then sometimes it will result in the children not being able to live with their parents anymore, and families get separated, and it’s extremely traumatic all round. And there’s quite a lot of negative narratives still around the parents and care, you know, the parents and carers. And something that I’m very passionate about is supporting authorities and professionals to open up conversations with parents and carers where they can start to feel safe enough to recognise some of their challenges as parents and to take that accountability with that compassion and that kindness. And again, that’s a journey that I’ve had to be on myself, um, where I’ve had to learn some of the mistakes that I made and I’ve had to learn to repair those as a parent. So I guess, yeah, the messages that I share are very much from lived experience, things that I’ve experienced either as a as a parent or as a professional. Uh generally they’re quite well received, um, but I do get some pushback, especially around the consequences, boundaries. I think people don’t like the word boundaries, and accountability can be a little bit triggering for people as well.

Colby: 47:40

Yeah, yeah. I think you get it, it’s a bit of a mixed bag on on that particular issue that um I can I can remember standing in front of a group of uh brand new foster carers and talking about therapeutic parenting and talking also about you know responding to the unmet need or responding to the child’s experience. I think it’s broader than that. I I think it’s broader than that, I just say it’s responding to the child’s experience. Um and and people saying to me, but won’t that we just won’t that just spoil the child? And I I you know, and I was and I I would be thinking these are the least spoilt children that are coming, you know, that that you can you can probably uh uh think of. I had um I had a s I had a similar experience only uh yesterday um where where someone described a ch a young person as well they have to they have to get used at the with at the eye with the idea that they can’t have uh everything. And and I and I had and I put it to them, well, this is someone who by experience the reality of their life is that they’ve had so little. So you know and they’ve replaced it with a lot of stuff, so they’ve got to move into a house and there’s not enough room for all their stuff. But this idea it was lucky, that was the word. He has to he has to realise he how lucky he was to have his current placement where he could keep and I said if you know his circumstances, you would think, and I certainly think he’s probably the most unlucky young person I’ve ever met. And uh yeah, so the other thing that that came through in what you were saying across this conversation is the power of relationships to heal. And I yeah, and I and I so I think you know, we were with schools, I think we were having this quick little chat before we started the podcast, but but you know, oftentimes schools uh can be a a place of of felt rejection for our young people and uh because the boundaries are are exclusion. Um what what are you what are your thoughts around that balance between accountability uh for behaviour and boundaries around behaviour whilst also maintaining connection?

Hayley: 50:19

Oh so an error and very passionate about, and something that we talk an awful lot around with my work here at Keyes Group is what is that balance? What does that look like? How can we support children to learn and to not do things that put themselves at harm or others at harm, uh, whilst also not being punitive like a lot of our mainstream schools are here in England? Um, I’m not sure, Colby, if you’re familiar with an approach um called emotion coaching, um, which we use here in England quite a lot. So it’s something I’m very passionate about, which is very much about you know validating, you know, connect connecting with the child, validating their emotional experiences, focusing on the underlying emotions uh that underpin behaviours rather than focusing on the behaviour. And if we can do all of that groundwork, as I call it, that and connect with the child on that level, we can then put in the boundary or say, actually, no, that’s not okay. We don’t do that. Um, or we can put in a natural consequence, you know, for example. Um, but we’re doing that with somebody that they the child feels safe with, and therefore that boundary, that accountability shouldn’t feel traumatic or too triggering. It should be a moment for the child to learn where they feel like, oh, actually, okay, yes, maybe I made a bit of a mistake, but it’s safe and it’s okay for me to learn from this. And oh, I feel I feel okay about that. And that’s where that relationship’s really, really crucial. And a lot of the work that we do is around helping the adult to actually regulate themselves in those moments. Because what we tend to see is that the adults really struggle to keep their calm, and that’s where the boundaries actually probably aren’t boundaries, they become punishments. Um, and that’s where it becomes extremely challenging for the child, and that’s where relationships are ruptured, and then it’s a constant cycle of rupture repair, rupture repair. Whereas if we do that groundwork, I think it’s much easier to put the boundary in place and then repair if you need to, but hopefully you won’t need to as much.

Colby: 52:20

Yeah, yeah. I remember being um at a conference many years ago now, a lot of uh 17 odd years ago, 18 years ago. Anyway, at that time, there were people from education there and education leadership, and they were talking about how you can’t you can’t be like the the senior leader for well-being and the deputy principal at the same time. So so in our education system, the deputy principal is kind of the main disciplinary in the school. Um, the principal is the public face of the school, um, but the deputy principal is kind of like the the strength behind the throne, so to speak, and who manages, and then we have uh well-being leaders who are there for student well-being. Anyway, it was just an interesting perspective that in school they couldn’t see that how uh at least the people who are there that were talking, couldn’t see how you can be you can you can be both boundaried and sensitive and responsive. Yeah. And and interestingly, isn’t that what an authoritative parent is like? They understand.

Hayley: 53:33

This is it, I think yeah. Yeah, yeah, this is it. And this is when you know, when we deliver our emotion coaching training, we get to a slide where we have the different parenting styles on there. And most people have seen that before because I think you know, years ago, before I qualified, there was a lot of discussion about different parenting types. Um, it’s no, it’s no different to that. But I think for some reason we’ve shifted into, as I said, we either here in England I’m seeing either extremely punitive approaches, uh, very much the kind of children should be seen and not heard, you follow my instructions, you do as you’re told. If you don’t look, you’ll centered attention. And then we’ve got the complete opposite, which is, oh, I can’t put any boundaries in place at all. Um, I don’t, you know, I don’t want to cause the child any any more trauma. I’m like, we can absolutely just take, take, take the both, let’s merge them together. I mean, absolutely can, you know, do such a wonderful job. I think part of the challenge is that we’ve got an awful lot of adults that are struggling themselves, and it’s quite easy to to flip, isn’t it, to either become more punitive or to just be more lenient because it can be easier in the not the long term, but in the moment, let it let it go.

Colby: 54:43

Yeah, and that’s one of the one of the themes that’s come through quite a number of times on this podcast that you you need to but the first step in trauma-informed practice is to look after the adults who you uh who you are expecting to provide um reparative relationships and rela and reparative care. Yeah, because if they they can’t do it, if they’re they’re preoccupied with their own feelings, uh, their own experiences, they’re gonna struggle. Everyone will everyone will struggle to focus on someone else’s experience when they don’t feel heard and understood and acknowledged around their own.

Hayley: 55:19

Yeah, that’s a big part of my role um is to support the adults and it has such a such a positive impact when there’s the time to do it.

Colby: 55:26

So yeah, uh and that’s that’s uh again something I don’t see much of here, but yeah, that comes through is that um adults do respond very well to acknowledgement of their experience of the work. Yeah. Yeah. Do you is there anything that you particularly say to parents, teachers, safeguarding authorities to keep an eye out for to you know, kind of like red flags, I guess, that a child is potentially really going through a tough time.

Hayley: 56:00

So I’m extremely passionate about keeping an eye out for the children that are making the less noise. Um, I think that we have children that present in very different ways. And my concern is that we have an awful lot of children that are not um communicating their needs through their behaviours, uh, kind of external behaviours. They’re not walking around shouting or screaming or punching or swearing. Um, so one of my biggest passions is helping the adults to recognise some of those more subtle signs that actually somebody is really struggling. Um, and again, that comes from lived experience as well as my professional training. I’m very passionate about children that don’t attend school for emotional reasons, children that are at home in their bedrooms not causing any harm in public, uh, and they’re the ones that quite often get forgotten about, and that I find very distressing. Um so, yes, it’s very much about broadening people’s understanding of what a child in pain might look like because I think we might have a bit of a skewed view of you know the children that are shouting the loudest, but actually sometimes the children speaking the least are the ones that I feel most concerned about. Um so that’s one of my main messages to uh professionals and parents.

Colby: 57:20

Yeah. Did anyone follow you up in Spain when you stopped going to school? That you recall?

Hayley: 57:28

No, unfortunately not. You know, we’re talking, gosh, how many years ago? 15, 16 years ago. Uh Spain, I think from what people have said, it’s kind of 30 years behind England in terms of their processes and so on. Um I don’t remember, we didn’t have a social worker. Um I was almost, they were strongly encouraging me to have an abortion when I felt when I fell pregnant at the age of 14. There was a clinical psychologist that sent me home with a a doll uh to look after for the weekend to convince me that having a baby was challenging. Um didn’t work, obviously, because a doll was cute and I loved pushing it around in a pushchair. Um and after I, so the day of the abortion when I didn’t actually go in, that was the last of the medical involvement that I’d had, and then I didn’t go to school after that, and there was no knock at the door, there was no telephone call. Um, and I then moved at that point, I was still living with my mum, and then I moved in with this um this man, quite a long way away from where I had been with my mum, and I don’t think that anybody knew where I was. I I believe that I was missing from the system. Yeah, I think that was one of the biggest challenges is that I was completely missing. Um nobody knew where I was, what I was doing, and I was just hence I was so trapped. Yeah.

Colby: 58:55

I don’t want to finish on that note, Hailey. I I want to ask you what what what does the future hold for you and your family, do you think? And and I know one of the things in our communications that you’ve mentioned is your is the book that you’re writing.

Hayley: 59:13

The book. Yes, so I have lots of ambitions and lots of hope for the future. I’m a very hopeful person. Uh some key things that I would very much like to achieve on a professional level is to continue developing my expertise in supporting children that experience trauma. I’m still very early career, so I’ve only been qualified for three years. So I still have an awful lot to learn.

Colby: 59:38

And um I can recommend a book.

Hayley: 59:42

Please do. Is it the one I can see on the screen? Yeah, I thought you’d say that. I’m yeah, I’ll be able to. Can I have a signed copy, please?

Colby: 59:50

I need that. I didn’t need to do another edition. I need it needs to be updated. But anyway, go on. Go on.

Hayley: 59:55

If you want if you want a co author, um so yes, so I want to very much continue developing. My expertise in this area. I would very much like to write a book or several. I’ve always been passionate about writing ever since I was a little girl. That was alongside being a boss, a boss lady, I wanted to be a writer. That was that was my dream to be a writer and be a boss lady. I don’t think I’ll ever be the boss lady that I envisioned as a child, but I do believe that I can try to find that inner writer. So I’m very open on LinkedIn and within my talks around being a young parent and the impact that that has had and the journey that I’ve had to go through with my son, who is now almost 17, to repair some of the significant trauma that he experienced as well when he was very little. So part of that is writing a book proposed to title Sorry Son, which is essentially a book dedicated to him, where I reflect on my life and how I got to the point of becoming a young parent and how I didn’t know what I didn’t know, and then how I decided that I wanted to learn and do better. And obviously to get to this point where I think I am a good enough parent, um, but essentially apologizing for some of the mistakes that I made. A lot of people, when I tell them this, they go, Oh, that sounds really depressing. Whereas actually it’s meant to be really hopeful. And one of my biggest um messages is to parents, you know, say sorry, we all mess up sometimes. Let’s have more informal conversations. Yes, absolutely say sorry to your children, recognise the mistakes that you made, acknowledge them, and take accountability and grow. And that’s what I’ve done. And it’s you know, it’s working okay. It’s I’m not saying everything’s perfect because it isn’t. So that’s that’s one bit, you know, pizza. That’s a project that I’m currently working on. Um, it’s just taking my time to write it because it is obviously very emotive and it’s it’s meant to be for my son with then the wider impact for parents and professionals, and that’s kind of secondary impact.

Colby: 1:01:59

What does he think of that? Does he know?

Hayley: 1:02:03

He does know, yes, and I do talk about my son quite a lot, and he he knows that I do, and he’s he I have his permission. Um, hence I start. I I actually waited um until I started using LinkedIn and talking more publicly about my experience because I was very mindful of him because he’s part of our you know, our story. This is our story, it’s not mine, it’s ours. Um, I feel very privileged to have a son that is as passionate as I am about helping people. And he often says to me, Mum, I love that you want to help people not go through some of the stuff we’ve been through. And if our story can do that, then yes, let’s do it. And he has asked me if he could do some public speaking with me, um, you know, together to share our story in the future. I still feel that he’s a little bit young. I want him to, you know, become an adult and kind of find himself more before I um potentially invite him to do that because I don’t want him to look back and regret doing it. Uh so yeah, very, very wonderful son, and I’m very excited to see what his future is. Um and then outside of that, so I want to write a book, I want to continue developing my practice. I’d also very much like to lecture. Um, I’m very passionate about teaching, I love sharing knowledge, I love talking, as it’s probably quite obvious from this. And when you put me in front of a group of people to talk, that’s when I feel potentially the most authentic. Um, I could just, oh, it it brings me so much joy, and I I take a lot of joy from helping other people work towards their goals. Um it it I struggle to explain how it makes me feel. And the idea of working with adults, especially um young adults, and supporting them achieve their goals, work towards their um careers, that that fills me with a lot of joy. So that’s something I’d like to work towards as well. Um, and it kind of links I’m a clinical supervisor at work, and that’s one of my favourite parts of the job is is supporting my supervisees to you know make progress and to reflect on the work that they’re doing. So I keep my eye out definitely for educational psychology lecturing positions or guest lecturing positions. Uh nothing’s come up yet that would work for me, but here’s hoping.

Colby: 1:04:17

Maybe, maybe, maybe the right person will listen to this podcast or um who knows?

Hayley: 1:04:23

That would be wonderful.

Colby: 1:04:25

Heidi, it’s been fantastic to have you on. Um it’s been, I think, a really uplifting conversation. Um, notwithstanding um yeah, that there uh were chat significant challenges challenges acknowledged. Um but thank you, yeah, thank you for um allowing me to this opportunity to have a chat with you for the for the podcast.

Hayley: 1:04:51

Well, it’s been a pleasure. Thank you so much, and I really hope that uh for those listening, they can take that take that hope and the inspiration that things can get better. That’s a lot of hard work, but things absolutely can get better. So thank you for having me uh for sharing my story. I really appreciate it.

Preventing child abuse and neglect – A podcast interview with Professor Julie Taylor

What If Child Protection Started Before Harm Happened: How Eliminating Poverty Could Cut Child Abuse And Why Systems Must Change

Child maltreatment leaves deep marks on individuals and communities, yet much of our response still happens after harm occurs. This conversation reframes the issue as a public health challenge and asks what it would mean to move upstream. Rather than relying on a forensic mindset that activates only when abuse is detected, a population approach looks at the social, economic, and policy conditions that elevate risk or build protection. Drawing on a socioecological model, Professor Julie Taylor and I examine how child safety is shaped at multiple levels: individual histories, family dynamics, neighbourhood networks, institutions like schools and health services, and the broader political environment that sets rules, resources, and norms. When we widen the lens, prevention stops being a slogan and starts becoming a strategy.

A central theme is salutogenesis, Aaron Antonovsky’s question: what creates health? Too often, resilience is framed as a personal trait, which can slip into blaming those who struggle. Salutogenesis shifts attention to the supports that make resilience possible: stable adults, consistent routines, inclusive schools, accessible health care, and communities that offer belonging. In child protection, this means designing services that put protective factors within reach and sustain them over time. A caring teacher who checks in daily, a mentor who shows up each week, or a local program that provides safe play, meals, and guidance can redirect life trajectories. The point is not to deny harm but to balance risk-focused assessments with strengths that help children and families recover and thrive.

We also tackle the evidence problem. Practice fields are crowded with branded programs and assessments, many promising quick wins. Real change, however, tends to come from long-term, relationship-based support that is resource intensive and difficult to evaluate in six-month windows. Parenting programs can help, but they work best inside a supportive milieu where trust is built and families can return for guidance without stigma. The strongest signals in research point to consistency over years, not weeks, and to interventions that connect parts of the system: home visiting tied to primary care, early years support linked to childcare access, and education working closely with social care. To prove impact, we need better data linkage across agencies and the patience to follow outcomes over the long term.

Policy levers matter. While no single fix can “vaccinate” against maltreatment, reducing child poverty would likely cut incidence at scale. Poverty does not cause abuse, but it amplifies stressors like housing insecurity, food scarcity, and unsafe environments, making good parenting harder. Measures such as adequate income support, paid parental leave, affordable childcare, and stable housing reduce daily chaos and create conditions where supportive services can stick. At the same time, the workforce needs investment: manageable caseloads, reflective supervision, and training that prevents burnout. When frontline teams are overwhelmed, even good policies falter. Systems change means funding the people and organisations that carry relationships over time.

Finally, we circle back to hope grounded in realism. Rates of maltreatment have not collapsed, but recording has improved and promising approaches are emerging. Communities that create belonging, services that stay the course, and policies that soften economic shocks can build social capital across generations. Each child supported today is a node of future safety for peers, partners, and their own children. The upstream work is demanding and slow, yet it is the path that turns rescue into prevention and crisis response into community health.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch the podcast here:

About Julie:

Professor Julie Taylor is Head of the School of Nursing and Midwifery at the University of Birmingham, UK. Julie is a nurse scientist specialising in child maltreatment and has extensive research experience with vulnerable populations using a wide range of qualitative and participative methods. Her research programme is concentrated at the interface between health and social care and is largely underpinned by the discourse of cumulative harm and the exponential effects of living with multiple adversities. In particular her work has concentrated on child neglect. Professor Taylor has given evidence at a number of inquiries and parliamentary groups and has served frequently on both funding and editorial boards. She has authored ten books and over 150 academic articles on child abuse and neglect.

Related Podcasts:

On the topic of preventing child maltreatment, I cannot recommend Benjamin Perks’ podcast interview highly enough. Click on the links below to watch or listen.


Transcript of podcast interview with Julie:

Colby: 0:00

Hello, and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Julie: 0:05

And taking an upstream approach to that is so, well, how do we stop people from falling into abuse in the first place and trying to protect them from that has not been entirely our approach. It isn’t just one person or one um profession or one discipline that can change things. It needs the whole effort and we need governments behind us. I would say that the one thing that we could do that would really, really, really have a massive influence on child protection is to we know that what you have to do is work with families long term. We could be more thoughtful about making sure that individuals who are struggling or who’ve had those real adversities early on, that we put into place things that really can bolster that resilience.

Colby: 1:04

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start Podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and joining me for this episode is an international authority about child maltreatment as a public health concern. Before we begin the podcast, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, water, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Professor Julie Taylor. Professor Julie Taylor is head of the School of Nursing and Midwifery at the University of Birmingham, UK. Julie is a nurse scientist specializing in child maltreatment and has extensive research experience with vulnerable populations using a wide range of qualitative and participative methods. Her research program is concentrated at the interface between health and social care and is largely underpinned by the discourse of cumulative harm and the exponential effects of living with multiple adversities. In particular, her work has concentrated on child neglect. Professor Taylor has given evidence at a number of inquiries and parliamentary groups and has served frequently on both funding and editorial boards. She has authored 10 books and over 150 academic articles on child abuse and neglect. Welcome, Julie.

Julie: 3:01

Thank you, Colby. Nice to be here.

Colby: 3:04

And as um explained before we started, uh before I did the intro to the podcast, with the wonders of this technology, all the little um uh blips in my own uh opening there can be edited out and I can come across as being um verbally fluent and uh yeah and able to read still even at my age. So uh I thought I always ask um at the beginning, Julie, um tell us a little bit more about yourself, the work you do, and and how you came to this area of work.

Julie: 3:44

Hmm. Thanks, Colby. Um I was trying to think about this because I can tell a very um coherent story about that, but as you know, stories are never really as coherent as they they sound, and a lot of it is serendipity, being in the right place at the right time, taking opportunities as they come along, and things are not as smooth and as planned as they can sound in retrospect. So I am a nurse, um, I’m really proud to be a nurse, it’s a really fundamental um part of what I do, but also of my identity. But um 20, 30 years ago, nurses were not seen as people who really had an awful lot to do with child protection. Um, in fact, even anybody in health was not really seen as that was something that you were involved with. And I remember being at um an evening function many years ago, and the medical director of the local um NHS, the health service trust, said said to me, What what what are you doing in child abuse and neglect? It’s got nothing to do with medicine or health. And I it was really interesting that people thought that. And I think perceptions have really changed from that now. Um so unless you were a psychologist or perhaps a paediatrician and health visitors to a certain extent, it wasn’t seen as your domain. And I wasn’t any of those things. So um I had worked on numerous different wards. I worked on a neurosurgical unit where we got a lot of children who had been um probably pushed or hit against walls or whatever, and and parents often gave very incoherent or inconsistent stories about how these injuries had happened, and that really got me wondering about the whole child protection business. And then there was an opportunity to do a PhD um up in Scotland in a place that I didn’t really know where it was geographically, and that that really changed my life. So I went up there and the PhD I did, although I was based in nursing, was my PhD was in the social work department. So my PhD is in social work, and it was specifically on child protection. Um, and that really was the start of my research career, and I haven’t looked back from there. Um, so I’ve worked in lots of different places, and not all of them have been in nursing. I’ve worked in education, I’ve worked in social work, I worked for three years for uh a children’s charity organization, um, and I’m back now in a school of medicine and leading up the nursing and midwifery department. Uh, but my fundamental post is a research post, and I’m professor of child protection here at the University of Birmingham, which is in the middle of the UK.

Colby: 7:12

I love that word serendipity, and uh a previous podcast guest, um wonderful Peter Wilson, he 86-year-old um uh child and adolescent psychotherapist, um said that life is like a series of serendipities, uh, which is somewhat of a um a magical way of of uh talking about, and as you say, you know, how life just seems to pan out in in a certain way, as it needs to for us, rather than in a you know, in necessarily in a very planned um manner.

Julie: 7:51

Oh yeah, indeed. I like that, a series of serendipities. Yeah, although sometimes it feels like a series of accidents, but you know hindsight’s always good. You can make sense of things.

Colby: 8:07

Yeah, yeah. And it is the case. I think when you’re um when you’re in the work, your your your focus is um is is kind of very narrow. And uh when you when you when you step back from it, and particularly people have said on the podcast when they hear their their um their bio being re read to them, they it is quite a common reaction to go to bit go, oh, you know, that’s I’ve done all that, or how did that all happen, you know, in in the lead up to this this time? Yeah, yeah.

Julie: 8:45

Indeed, yeah.

Colby: 8:46

Yeah, and you have had a qu a very varied um career um by the sounds of it. Do you are there any particular um theoretical orientations or or um practitioners, theorists in the area of child protection that have been of particular um or ongoing influence uh to you and your work?

Julie: 9:15

Um yes, I guess there are, um Colby. I think one of the things that I’ve always been really keen to do is to take models or theories that have been used in a completely different context and see if we can learn anything in in child protection from applying those models within within child protection. So um and we’ve we’ve done a lot of work on that, written about that a lot, and some have worked quite well and some have failed dramatically. Um, but there’s always there’s always learning in those. I think the the model that um probably is fairly common and most people would use is the um socioecological model. So John von Brenner’s um five-stage socio-ecological model, a SEMP. Um and and I we’ve used that in lots and lots of different ways. Um, I think I think it’s it still holds really well within within this work. So, you know, um taking things from both the what are the things that we can do individually that we can or can’t change, probably we can’t change a lot of them, and then within a parental sphere, then the broader society, and then the whole political milieu that we that that we work with and and and so on. So working outwards from in and looking at the different factors of influence within that, because these things don’t happen at an individual level. Um the other theorist that I’ve really used and I really um even from my PhD work is um Aaron Antonovsky’s Solutagenesis. And it’s interesting. Well, we’ve just come full circle with that one. So um Antonovsky was a um someone who who looked at theories of you know the theory of pathogenesis. So pathogenesis is what goes wrong. You know, we get ill because something’s gone wrong, there’s some bug or something that’s gone wrong. Whereas solutogenesis is the opposite of that, is saying, well, what keeps us healthy? So why do we stay well? And uh people often see that as resilience, but resilience is often an individual thing. So you you didn’t do well after you were abused as a child, and somebody else did quite well. So so you’re a bit of a failure and they’re a success because they had individual things that they were more resilient, and it makes it individual. Whereas Solutogenesis is saying, well, what are the things that are around us that help somebody be resilient or um or or do well? So these things are not unusual. Um we know really we know really well within child maltreatment that um things that really help are uh having supportive adults, they may not be your parents, but other people who are really supportive in your life can really help you. Having um consistency and somebody that you can look up to. We we know all of those things, and it’s not down to an individual child to be able to thrive. It’s it’s it’s a it’s a whole load of societal things around it. So the whole concept of solutogenesis for me has been really, really important. And I wrote a paper about it many, many years ago, um, and applying that within child protection. We just got a grant very recently where we’re looking at that again and saying young people who’ve had adverse experiences can very often end up with long-term mental health consequences, for example. Um, but what happens, what are the things in between that have been protective for them, that have helped them stay well and not get ill? So trying to unpack that. So it’s really nice for me to see that come full circle. So I suppose to your original question, and I hadn’t thought about it till you asked me really, was salutegenesis and um a socio-ecological model are probably being the most helpful. Um and of course, there’s lots of other theories, and you’ve got up on your screen here about promoting resilience. So there you go, you can add solutogenesis to that. But attachment and strong attachments and secure attachments are obviously something that we we think about and take very seriously within this field.

Colby: 14:20

There’s a lot of really interesting things that you say in there, and and it’s interesting that you came to attachment at the beginning because uh sorry, at the end there, because um John Bowlby, the original progenitor of of attachment or attachment theory, an architect of attachment theory, was also known to um take knowledge from other areas of endeavour and apply it uh and try to apply it in um in the context of what he was observing about um in relation to children and young people, uh including those who had been experienced considerable separation from their birth parents. Um so that and I the other I have also been a little bit kind of rascally in that way. I I think of it as being rascally, it probably isn’t. I’m probably just uh part of that that um ongoing tradition, but um it it is something that is of great interest to me how we apply um other areas of scientific endeavour in uh in into child protection, out of home care, social care. Yeah. And in particular for me, one of the things that that I’ve done is um is uh articulate a way of thinking about uh learning theory, uh Skinner’s learning theory in uh uh in attachment. And in fact, the uh there’s a little story at the beginning of of uh each of my attachment books about mice. There was a it was a story of three mice and then it was a story of four mice, an attachment story. Uh there’s been two editions of the book. Now those mice are you know line up with the rats and Skinner’s operant conditioning experiments, his learning experiments. And interestingly, uh my uh argument is that the the rats who receive inconsistent responsiveness to their needs are very alike our children who who um can’t be safely cared for at home. So that you know, in that way um I’ve I’ve um practised similarly, I guess, to to what you’re talking about and and what um and what was uh um important to Balby back in in the beginning with attachment uh theory. Yeah, yeah. The other thing that you that you you were talking about is uh is and is of uh interest to me is uh um is about strengths. I mean uh basically I could the solution uh let me see if I can say it properly at this time of the day after a long day, but solution solution I can’t say it. What is it? Solution Genesis. Solutogenesis, yes. So that that’s um in child protection we we we spend a lot of time we do spend a lot of time on what’s wrong or what’s going wrong. And I think that that given the nature of the work that that impacts us. And it it it over time it impacts our capacity to um to deliver services uh in this space. Um it’s it’s not uh if this a focus on what’s wrong all the time. Particularly, for example, if you you’re doing it in relation to the children, what’s happened to them, what’s wrong with them, you know, what what have been those impacts? The children internalise that stuff. So what we so I always argue that we need to have a and and I use uh um I take the the symbolic interactionist kind of philosophical view, which is um around uh or the looking glass self, this idea that that uh people see themselves as they experience others to see them, and children that is particularly so adults try to influence how other people see them. Um but children are very vulnerable to it. So I think that we need to balance our work with an appropriate level of acknowledgement of the harm that is done and the impacts of the harm that is done, but also on um more taking a more strength-based view. And if I’m understanding you correctly, I’m hoping that that that I’m not talking out of school to be talking about salutagenesis in that way.

Julie: 19:00

No, no, that that uh that accords very well.

Colby: 19:03

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s terrific. Now it’s not that they’re not the only um uh ways of thinking about the work um that you are known for and and um for which I approached you. Um I’m also aware that you’re very interested, as I read a bit in the bio, you’re very interested in seeing um child maltreatment as a public health uh concern. Can you tell us a little bit more about that, what you mean by that, and perhaps any any um research or uh or other endeavour that has occupied you in relation to that?

Julie: 19:46

Yeah, I think um I think having a public health approach or a mindset towards violence, towards abuse and so on now is is not particularly uncommon. I think many child protection systems are are based on a public health model as opposed to a more forensic model that we we used to use. Um so it it’s not it’s not that that unusual now, but it’s been a gradual shift, I think, that that we we tend to see see things. So this fits in very much with what I’ve already talked about in terms of socio-ecological models, all the different influences that that that come to us. But if if we look at things like um in in public health, the the one model that people, the one analogy that people use a lot is that here’s and you’ll have heard this, but here’s this river flowing down, and we’re stood at the edge of the river, and we can’t work out why all these people are floating past in the river, and we keep children in particular, we and we keep hoiking them out, and some of them um are already dead, some of them we’re we’re busy giving them resuscitation on the sign, bringing an ambulance, sending them off to hospital or whatever, and and we’re so busy concentrating on pulling people out of this river that we don’t walk upstream to see, well, why are they falling in the river in the first place? So, are they being thrown in? Are they being pushed in? Are they jumping in? Is it an accident that they’ve just fallen in or whatever? And and can can we do something further up the river, upstream, to stop them falling in in the first place? So um lots of our child protection endeavors have very much been about here’s abuse has already happened, how do we actually try and um prevent secondary trauma or prevent the trauma of that getting worse? How do we help people recover? And of course, those things are really, really important, but a lot of our effort has been at that, and taking an upstream approach to that is say, well, how do we stop people falling into abuse in the first place and trying to protect them from that has not been entirely our approach? It has been over recent years, but it’s quite hard to do because um within a child protection world, as we know, that um there are lots of reasons why, and we don’t always know what those reasons are, still we don’t know enough about that. But why do you why do children get abused or neglected? Um, why do some parents not don’t have the parenting skills to deal with children or to uh to to be good parents and so on? So, and what do we do about that? And how early do we start with that and and so forth? And and anyway, even when we do all of those things upstream, there are still people who fall into the river. So we still need downstream efforts to bring them out and help them recover. So I for me it’s been really exciting, I think, to see a lot of our efforts move further upstream, um, but that we can’t solve it on our own. So, you know, I go back to another really big health concern was um that made all the difference was the intro the introduction of seat belts in cars. So you were in a car accident quite a few years ago, you would before before seat belts, you’d pretty much be either dead or really severely injured. And introducing seatbelts just cut all of that injury and the trauma of being in a car accident down tremendously. But it wasn’t just to do with the technologies in in cars that introduced those seatbelts, it was also to do with um making safer speed restrictions, it was to do with making better roads, it was to do with improving engineering in cars, it was also to do with um getting a whole uh appeal going so that people understood that it was important to wear a seatbelt. Um, you had to get it to be law, and I think most countries now have a law about that and so on. So it wasn’t a single effort by some small campaigner who could see people were dying in car accidents. It it took a whole industry from politics right down to individuals encouraging their families to wear them. And I I suppose that’s where I come from within child maltreatment is that it isn’t just one person or one um profession or one discipline that can change things. It needs the whole effort, and we need governments behind us um to be able to change those things.

Colby: 25:09

What what do you what does that look like? Like what do you think needs to happen that would or what sort of interventions would you think reduce the incidence of child maltreatment and and what what evidence exists that’s in in support of that?

Julie: 25:30

Okay, it’s um it’s a good question. I think the the state of our evidence is particular is is a bit poor. So um probably not so much in Australia, but here in the UK, we have a fantastic thing of thinking, oh, what’s the next tiny new intervention that’s going to work? Um we’ll pluck it off a tree and we’ll often borrow it from the Americans, um, and we’ll change it around a bit, and um, we’ll say this is our new intervention. We’re gonna throw great effort at it. So um loads, loads, family nurse partnership, sure start, all sorts of different models will throw everything at that. And then we find it difficult to get the evidence, or we have some evidence that it works, but then the next shiny new thing comes along. So parenting programs are uh are a really good example of this. There are hundreds of different kinds of parenting programs and or assessments or whatever we’ll do, and if it could be graded care profile, and we’ll use that, or we’ll use signs of safety, or we’ll use triple P or blah blah blah blah. There’s there’s hundreds of them.

Colby: 26:50

I’ve written some.

Julie: 26:52

Yeah, well, well, exactly.

Colby: 26:54

Could I even I was riding one?

Julie: 26:56

Were you? Well, there you go. Yeah, and and they the principles of them are good, and we know those principles work, but they’re costly mostly, and they’re resource intensive, and they don’t work all the time. They work with some families, but not all families, and they’re quite hard work, and and people often want quick wins, and so oh, we’ll use this one. Oh, no, no, we’ll just now use move on to this one. So we’ve um very recently we had um uh small funding to evaluate a particular model of safeguarding in in a in a local area, and they’d thrown everything at it. It was, you know, this was going to change the world. And six months down the line, they found it hadn’t really changed much, or in their heads it had changed a lot. Everybody really liked it, but there was no data to support that, or we couldn’t get the data, couldn’t link the data that showed that. So that’s too difficult. So they’ve now dropped all the funding for this fantastic shiny one and gone on to another one now, and we’re going to do that one. So I just got to watch the space because I’m gonna give it a year, 18 months, and there’ll be something else. So I’m trying to come back to your question here is that what would make the difference? I think that we have a lot of evidence about the kinds of things that work or show promise. But what we don’t have is a package that definitely shows this works and really makes a difference enough for us to have enough evidence about it and move on. And that’s where I come back to this whole um public health approach is that yeah, w we know probably that three or four children a week die because of maltreatment. And an awful lot more than that are uh really affected in the long term because of being m maltreated. And if it was those numbers of children who were dying of or affected by polio or meningitis or anything else like that, there’d be an absolute outcry and we would really throw a whack of resources at it and and and do something about it. And unfortunately, with maltreatment, there’s never going to be a point where we can give a vaccination about it or or stop it like that. We’re never going to find that magic bullet that that cure all um for it. And that and that is a problem because that’s what people seek and that’s what people want, or it’s just solve this. So um if there was one thing that we could if there was one magic bullet and it Isn’t the only magic bullet, I would say that the one thing that we could do that would really, really, really have a massive influence on child protection is to um eliminate poverty. All right, so uh I’m not saying that uh poverty causes uh child maltreatment, but there’s a very strong association and we know that it can exacerbate difficulties and stresses for people and so on. And if we were to deal or if governments were to deal properly with poverty, that’s the one thing that I think we would see an exponential decrease in in child protection cases. Um but that isn’t going to happen.

Colby: 30:51

Yeah. It’s one of those things that I you d there have been time across my career over the past 30 years that you could almost not say that, because that would somehow imply that um child protection was uh sorry, child maltreatment was an issue amongst the poor. And and that wasn’t and it’s not uh socially or political politically correct to say that. But but certainly poverty makes life hard. And uh when you put people under hardship, then the cracks the cracks can open up, the cracks can occur in the way in which they approach life roles and relationships.

Julie: 31:36

You’re absolutely you’re absolutely right. You know, poverty hits everybody hard, and we’re seeing an awful lot of that now with um increased rises of that. You know, most parents, almost all parents, love their children and want to do the best by them. Absolutely they do. Um but like you say, uh poverty causes those cracks, and very often that falls on um the poor more than than does so than it does those who are more socioeconomically well off. So it is easy to be a good parent, or is the easier to be a good parent if you’re not worrying about uh where your children play, who they’re playing with, who’s coming in and out of the house, whether you can put food on the table, whether you’re gonna have to do something else to get food, whether life’s just been so difficult for you that and you have other challenges with your mental health or with substance misuse, or um you’re trying to deal with domestic violence in the home. Uh and on top of that, you don’t have enough money. It becomes really difficult. Yeah. And it’s not to say that uh at all that maltreatment is something that’s the domain of the poor, not at all. But there’s a very close association, and it’s there’s irrefutable evidence about that now, I think.

Colby: 33:17

I recently I had um Ben Perks on the podcast, and um I think he has an appointment at the University of Birmingham too, and he he’s the head of policy and advocacy and child protection and child development at um UNICEF. And he’s written a book on about you know how we go about um eliminating child maltreatment from a public health uh well, how we go about eliminating child maltreatment, and he uses very much that a public health model. And I think I think poverty is is one is a big aspect as you as you talk about just making life a little bit easier, less harsh for for parents, uh supporting parents and um supporting parents um in his book he does talk about things like um you know paid uh paid parental leave. The only problem with with that is that the poor often don’t have um, you know, in in it certainly in my jurisdiction, the poor don’t always have um those opportunities because they’re they’re not always in work. Um I don’t I think which is not to say that I think it’s it’s a bad thing. I think paid parental leave is something that the um that governments can easily do to relieve hardship for um working parents. I also think uh Ben also talks about he does actually talk about parenting programs, and you’re right, there’s a plethora of them. Um but the but we we do have parents who um and I think in my jurisdiction I recall that um that the point was made that that um a lot of our children in care at any one time are the children of children who are in care. And there’s and there’s the there are certain families where intergenerational transmission of of maltreatment is is a significant issue. And um there are there are ways in t we can I guess deliver family support uh including um training on how to um yeah on simple basics around parenting that they they that the parents themselves may not have really uh had exposure to um during their own uh growing up years. Um yeah, access to access to child minding, uh to child care. Yeah, there are I I think there are things that that would help. Um but we yeah, uh we and we need to do them to develop the oh the it is a perennial problem, I think, that what we we know what we think should happen, but it’s been such an such an underresourced and perhaps in some ways under-researched uh area, particularly around things like what we’re talking about, that we’re trying to make an argument for additional funding in circumstances where we just don’t have the data to back us up, I think. And you know, the another thing I would say about, and this is something that I’ve actually been thinking about a lot today, is that whatever if you did, for example, if you’re doing um a parenting intervention, that you’re doing parent training, parent training in and of itself will not work unless it’s in a a supportive milieu, you know, like it could it’s rolled out in a certain milieu where people are engaged with an with with an an entity that um that supports them, that develops, you know, that has a working relationship with them, and um allow allows them to um to be able to feel safe and supported and think think about the role, think about what’s being imparted to them. I think yeah, child uh um kind of like placement preservation services, uh child and family services, those things do get funded. Um But yeah, there’s there’s more that we there’s always more that we can do. Yeah, I I mean I think you you talk about that ecological model and going out and out and out, and so you in those circumstances you have to think about well, who are the people who are supporting the families and how are they supported so that they can be the best versions of themselves as as supports for the families or as or in training the families. And um, and what about their managers, you know, like who’s supporting them? So it just I think I think any endeavor has to occur, we have to be very mindful of the milieu in which we’re doing it. It can’t just be, as you say, a shiny new thing off the shelf, roll it out, and expect miracles to happen. There’s a whole system and layers of systems that that influence whether that would make a difference or not.

Julie: 38:52

Of course there are. There are key ingredients that we know we have to do. So um, in in neglect, particularly, we know that what you have to do is work with families long term, consistently, with you know, that a consistent support over a very long time. We know that most of our interventions, we can afford them their six-week intervention or an intensive 12-week intervention, and then that’s it. And we don’t have that sustained relationship with people over years and years that we need. That’s not what that’s not what’s funded. But we actually know that that’s what works and what’s needed.

Colby: 39:37

Yeah, it keeps me in mind because intergenerational transmission that of trauma and and you know, children coming into care whose parents themselves were in care is a is a real problem. And um that that I’ve been turning my mind to along with some other colleagues. But even on the podcast, we’ve talked about um aftercare services and uh you know when children well when young people leave care, and um there’s there’s some really good examples, including here in Australia, the Lighthouse Foundation would be one in uh Victoria, but also in India, for example, Udayan care, um, where there is lifelong connection to to the organization, lifelong um um sense of belonging, support, access to support through through those those organizations and and the way in which they deliver services. That you would imagine it’s it’s in those contexts that a set of principles that you want to impart or a or a way of approaching the parental role are m are more likely to stick, particularly in circumstances where the very things you want the the parents to be delivering, the kind of parenting home environment you would like them to create are the same as what they’re experiencing from that organization that is supporting them. Yeah. So it’s that yeah, it’s that I’m not sure if that that I think that lines that i is perhaps aligned with Bronfenbrenner’s model, but but I’m not restating that, but um how that would look in society uh more generally. I think I think I wonder whether we we need to be more caring and compassionate about uh the circumstances in which uh uh child protection uh matters or child maltreatment can occur. Um need to be more compassionate so that so that because I think it’s an intensely shameful experience for parents when especially when they when when they’re identified as having. And I think if we if there is greater acknowledgement that parenting is hard and that we didn’t always get the best possible, we we didn’t all have wonderful experiences of growing up and exposed to the best possible uh parental models. And in those circumstances where we did where people didn’t have good experiences growing up and they didn’t have that exposure to the best possible parental models, then rather than judging them and making them feel really bad for being inadequate, we need, you know, as a society, we need to uplift them, raise them up, lift them up. And I wonder about the relationship as well of the of um salutogenesis, where that fits in in all of that. Acknowledging that people have notwithstanding the the hardship, they have found a way to get by in many respects, not uh notwithstanding the ongoing struggles.

Julie: 43:19

Yeah, but it’s the circumstances that we put around them to bolster that because what you’ve just done is put it back to they have found a way to get through that, and and a lot of it isn’t that individual way because other people don’t manage that, but they have had we could be more thoughtful about making sure that individuals who are struggling or who’ve had those real adversities early on, that we put into place things that really can bolster their that resilience. So, you know, building their self-confidence, building their self-esteem, putting in consistent others who can be role models to them, even it’s not going to be their parents or or whatever. We we know that the things that are needed, um, and and we need to put those those in, you know. A very good teacher who just looks out for a kid can make the hugest difference. You know, we hear adults talking about that. Um, the person or the what really made a difference to me was that teacher was auntie so-and-so, it was the bloke down the road who just used to say hi and so on.

Colby: 44:40

Um it’s a fascinating area. Um and um I mean I just wonder what what what we need to what would you say if you if you found yourself uh before now I’m trying to connect with him and I see lots of posts about him uh in in the UK, the minister that’s responsible for out-of-home care. Josh. Anyway, I I won’t I won’t continue to struggle in case he listens to this podcast or one of his staff. McAllister, yeah, you’re in front of Josh. Sorry, Josh, in case you’re gonna listen or one of your staff does, but if you’re in front of uh Josh McAllister, um what would you what would you say to him about how we can improve circumstances for families and um make some headway in addressing this child maltreatment issue.

Julie: 45:44

Well, I think um Josh and his team have been quite fundamental in in trying to say well what what works what works best. Um and I don’t think there’s anything that you could tell him that they they didn’t know. It’s just being consistent in that approach and changing the system because the problem is the system. I think you know, most individual social workers or health visitors or midwives or teachers or police or whoever’s working within the system really want to do well by those families, to do well by those children, really care, care passionately, take it really personally, go out of their way to make things better. And we you hear those stories probably not enough because we hear the ones where things have gone wrong more than we hear where things have gone right, but that we haven’t had a system change that supports um a consistency in in helping people bring together those those resources. So we hear of um social workers with huge caseloads, it’s just not possible to deal with that. Or bringing in agency staff all the time, people having or then going off sick because their workloads are too high and and and so on. So where is our investment in it? And um the system needs to change for that.

Colby: 47:25

I agree. I I think that um one of the one of the one of the factors that um gets in the way of um um facilitating effective family support, um, as I as I mentioned earlier, is that is is the the role of the organizations, including statutory organizations and statutory child protection organizations and individuals that um that work in this space. So we we can implement universal home visiting and universal um parental access to parenting training and you know universal access to cheap child care and universal access to um parental pay parental leave. But governments can do all of that. And I think you know the the arg there is arguments that that would make some difference, but it’s the people on the ground who are rolling out some of those things, you know, especially in you listed a number of those, um, those voc areas of work or or vocation. If they’re sorry, I’m waving my hands around now and I’m hitting things, uh, getting getting excited. If we don’t ensure that they are uh you know they have the time and the space and the capacity to really think about what they’re doing, to have the time and space and capacity to be that person that that um that that people can look back on and say, you know, that that person really got me. Yeah. We don’t we want, I don’t think it’s too far-fetched to say that that people and the the practitioners in this space who are under extreme pressure, um, who are on the verge of burnout, if not already burnt out, who are experiencing moral fatigue and more um they’re they’re not that those systems that that have though you know too many of those people in it are not going to be able to um impact the um the the the issue of child maltreatment. And we need so it’s a it is the case that um I think some people make this argument that we need investment in the, as you say, in the organizations. That they need to be better resourced, better supported, the staff in those organizations need to be better supported. Um otherwise it’s a bit like uh you know some of our endeavors at least would be just tokenistic, and there’s not the societal, there’s not the organizational um milieu to support uh positive change.

Julie: 50:33

Yeah.

Colby: 50:38

Well, I don’t I I see a lot of Josh Josh McAllister on uh online uh because I get a lot of I get a lot of stuff from the UK. So it seems like there’s a bit of hope um amongst uh at least some of the people that I who’s who’s um who I’m connected with on online uh about what might be able to be achieved in the UK. Um and and maybe yeah, how do you feel? How hopeful do you feel about the future uh in terms of child maltreatment and and our capacity to do something meaningful about reducing it?

Julie: 51:19

Um I’m possibly less optimistic than you are, and less less positive than you are. I think that we go through periodic reviews of this, there’s an inquiry for this, there’s the report on this, there’s the oh let’s you know, um the review of uh Eileen Monroe’s review of child protection 10, 15 years ago and so on. We go through these cycles, um, but does anything really change? I don’t know that it does. Have our rates of maltreatment changed? Well, you know, I think there are probably some um reasons to be optimistic. They haven’t gone up hugely as far as we know, but we have got better systems of recording them now. So I don’t know if that’s artifact. Um but they haven’t got hugely better.

Colby: 52:22

Yeah.

Julie: 52:24

We’ll see.

Colby: 52:27

What what what keeps you kind of in this space? Uh you know, continuing your endeavours in this space.

Julie: 52:40

Um well I think it’s important, isn’t it? Um, I think it it is really important. Our children are always going to be our future, and if we can get them the best start, um then that’s going to make a whole difference to our whole um humanity. So uh do you know you it may only make a difference to one child, but each child may make a difference to ten others and so on. So and you can see, you can see that some people do well. So let’s try and harness that and help others also do well.

Colby: 53:25

Yeah, I think that’s a great message. Um building we can build social capital. Every child that whose circumstances we improve not only benefits that child, but benefits their life partner, their own children and grandchildren. So we build social capital in that way. Um so yeah, even it is the case, as you say, that even if it’s only one child, um hopefully it’s more than that. But you know, it’s worth it’s worth the effort. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And absolutely. And hopefully what we see in time, I think everyone everyone who works, I guess, in in public health and mental health and social welfare would anticipate that if we can build this social capital, if we can change the lives of of uh children who are experiencing hardship and improve their their circumstances, that the spend, the commitment, the energy that is put in there will pay dividends down the line in terms of you know public public um health or public public issues like mental health, addictions, uh, crime, um, and you know, and uh family violence and so on. We just need the we just need the research, that you know the longitudinal research that is able to show when we do these things system-wide, when we make these these bold changes, we get we achieve these um much hoped for outcomes. We can and we can demonstrate that.

Julie: 55:20

Yeah, we do. Um and and we are getting we are there are people who are working in that space who are beginning to be able to show that cause and effect kind of thing between doing this will lead to this long-term outcome, and it was the intervention that made a difference. Um, but when we’re not terribly good yet at linking all of our different data um to be able to definitively show those things. So there is a kind of watch this space, but we are making progress, I think, and there’s reason to be hopeful.

Colby: 56:03

Yeah, yeah, that’s well, that’s good to know. Yeah, from a from a clinical psychologist who who’s you know, I’ve been in it up to up to my uh eyeballs for the last 30 years working. Uh I happily say to people, I’ve never been promoted, yeah. I’ve never never advanced in my career in the sense I’ve always just stayed at the coal face, so to speak, of um delivering um therapeutic care and therapeutic services, particularly psychotherapy services to children young people. So it’s nice this podcast is a nice place to kind of put my head up uh from the grindstone and and talk to people um in a more in a more um in a more general way and a and a more s system-wide way about work. So thank you very much for making the time, Julie, to come on. And uh and I wish you well in all your in your work, your work going forwards.

Julie: 57:11

And to you too, probably.

Colby: 57:14

Thank you.

Building Trauma Informed Leadership – A podcast interview with Tom Ellison

Why Clear Primary Tasks And Brave Authority Transform Children’s Homes

Clear leadership in children’s residential care starts with one deceptively simple question: what are we here for? Defining the primary task sounds easy, yet many leaders default to jargon or vague mission lines that can’t guide daily choices. When the work is complex and emotional, simplicity is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. A crisp, jargon-free description of the primary task anchors decisions, training, and supervision. It shifts a home from reacting to crises toward intentional, therapeutic care. This clarity also helps new staff, who need a map more than a manifesto. When people can repeat the task in a sentence, they can align their actions to it, whether they are mopping a floor, writing a risk plan, or de-escalating a distressed young person.

Alignment is the second pillar. Without a leader who actively aligns the team to the primary task, people drift. External forces like regulation and internal pressures like fear of not being liked pull focus away from children’s needs. Alignment is not a poster on the wall; it is a constant practice of naming the task, linking daily work back to it, and correcting drift. Good leaders repeat the “why,” set clear expectations, and draw straight lines between roles and outcomes. They accept the risk of being unpopular when decisions must favour safety, development, and enduring transformation over short-term comfort. Alignment turns a group of individuals into a team with shared direction.

Supervision is where alignment is maintained and understanding is grown. Two core functions guide useful supervision: alignment and understanding. Alignment asks whether work still points to the primary task. Understanding explores what pushes people off course, from regulatory anxiety to unconscious responses evoked by traumatised children. Staff need help to sort what belongs to them from what they have absorbed in the work. Leaders who can name projection, transference, and countertransference in plain language remove shame and increase capacity to think, not just feel. When anxiety flows up the hierarchy and containment flows down, teams feel held and can hold children better.

Risk management deserves plain talk too. In step-down and high-risk settings, the first task is safety. That is not opposed to therapy; it is the ground therapy stands on. Clarity about who is responsible for whom, minute by minute, prevents gaps that harm. Culture matters more than documents. A risk plan no one uses is just more paper. When staff understand the risks, the authority they hold, and how to handover responsibility cleanly, young people are safer, and the team is calmer. Framing the work in the language of safety, not only risk, also fits the therapeutic aim: to help children enjoy and succeed in the world, with relationships used consciously to support enduring change.

Practical training sticks when it moves from concepts to action. Many workers already know what “good” looks like. The real question is what gets in the way. Imposter syndrome, fear of authority, and regulatory preoccupation often block people from doing what they know. Effective leadership development surfaces these barriers and sets small, concrete next steps. Ask four questions often: what is the primary task, what does it look like when we deliver it, what gets in the way, and what is the plan? Answer them in simple words, review them in supervision, and tie them to daily practice. Balance doing with thinking. That balance is the heart of authentic leadership, and it is how homes move beyond buzzwords to real, lasting change for young people.

You can listen here:

You can watch here:

About Tom:

Tom is an accomplished Consultant and leadership trainer with over 30 years in children’s residential care, specialising in innovative leadership and mental health support for young people. Through Elevate Professional Development, launched in 2025, he delivers UK-wide workshops to strengthen care leadership. With 20 years of boardroom experience, Tom has consistently driven strategic leadership and service transformation. Holding a BPS-approved Psychology degree, a Master’s in Psychoanalytic Observational Studies, and postgraduate qualifications in Management and Strategic Management, he blends academic and practical expertise. Currently, he serves as Non-Executive Chair at AMMA Childcare Ltd, Non-Executive Director at Cedars Childcare Ltd and Empathy CIC, and advises the leadership teams of a number of organisations in the third and independent
sectors.

Related Podcasts:

If you liked this podcast interview with Tom, I anticipate that you will also like:

Simon Benjamin’s podcast interview about the importance of leadership alignment in trauma informed organisations:

You will also like hearing from Lynne Peyton on why the culture of an organisation flows downhill:


Transcript of the podcast interview with Tom:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Tom: 0:05

If I describe to you something you already know in a way you’ve not heard before, the rest of the programme is to explore why you’re not doing it. Dealing with imposter syndrome, for example, is that can be a barrier to people fully taking up their role and taking up authority. The job of leaders is to help people. In this 90 minutes, I want to give anybody that attends something that they can walk away and use. The more jargon you can deploy, the smarter you look. Whereas I try and go the other way and say, Well, let’s try and express this really simply. What does a good outcome look like after a residential experience? Well, you would want those children in adulthood to be able to enjoy being in the world and to succeed in whatever form they choose to succeed. Is once we’ve got clear about primary task, what are we here to do? The thing that naturally follows from that is alignment. Without a leader who’s clear about the primary task and who is actively aligning people to the primary task, people will end up aligned all over the place. An essential quality of leadership is to align the team to that primary task. That you could have a feeling that you don’t have a valency for, it’s not yours. You picked it up from one of the children. If you don’t understand that, if you’re not helped to understand that, you might think it’s you. Then in an effective organization, the way I describe it is anxiety feeds up through the system. And what should be coming back down is containment, is containment. Processing the anxiety, metabolizing the anxiety and thinking with people.

Colby: 1:42

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and joining me for this episode is a highly experienced social care consultant and leadership trainer. Before I introduce my guest, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Tom Ellison. Tom is an accomplished consultant and leadership trainer with over 30 years experience in children’s residential care, specializing in innovative leadership and mental health support for young people. Through Elevate Professional Development, launched in 2025, he delivers UK-wide workshops to strengthen care leadership. With 20 years of boardroom experience, Tom has consistently driven strategic leadership and service transformation. Holding a BPS-approved psychology degree, a master’s in psychoanalytic observational studies, and postgraduate qualifications in management and strategic management, he blends academic and practical expertise. Currently he serves as non-executive chair at AAA Childcare Limited, non-executive director at Cedars Childcare Limited and Empathy CIC, and advises the leadership teams of a number of organizations in the third and independent sectors. Welcome, Tom.

Tom: 3:46

Thank you. I’m quite humbled by that introduction, so thank you.

Colby: 3:51

Well, it’s all you. Yeah. People um often comment about uh having it’s a weird thing having your your professional life, I guess, um reported on in in that way. And uh a couple of people said, Oh, I’d like to meet that person, you know. It is yeah, he sounds impressive. Yeah, and for other people it’s just very awkward um to to sit and and hear that. But yeah, you know, um, but it is a it is an impressive career, and I I should say uh at the outset, um, I approached you after seeing um a post on LinkedIn about uh psychoanalytic leadership, uh no psychoanalytic supervision workshops that you were delivering. Um, and I thought, oh, that’s that’s right up my alley to have on uh here on the uh Secure Start podcast. So um I yeah, I approached you and here you are.

Tom: 4:55

I’ll try and be suitably smart and impressive.

Colby: 4:59

I’m sure it’ll just come naturally. Um before we we we really get into it, I just thought it’d be interesting to hear a little bit more about you, how you came to be um working in in this area, and um yeah, what you do, what you what what you were you do in an average week or an average month uh as part of your work.

Tom: 5:27

Okay. If I if I start at the beginning, I start sort of it’s easier to lead in than go backwards. So um I was interested in psychology as a teenager. Before the internet, there was a bookshop uh in my hometown where there was a psychology shelf, and I’d go there and peruse the books and eventually buy the books. And um, so I was interested in psychology from 13, 14. Um I ended up going to university and doing a degree in psychology, traveled a little bit, and then when I got back, was kind of determined I want to use this degree to do, I want to work in that field. So um I did a little bit of work in the youth service and then saw a role as a residential, I think it was called residential social work back then. That’s a protected title now, so you can’t call it that in the UK, usually called residential care workers. But I um I applied for that job not really knowing what it was I was implying for. It sounded interesting, and found myself working in a psychiatric, a child adolescent psychiatric unit within a residential school. I think I was 22, 23, something like that. Yeah, so there was not much age difference between me and the oldest young people in that service. I think there’s like three or four years between us, something like that. So I did that for I think I was there three years, and then uh being an ambitious soul, I wanted to progress and move forward. So I took up a role in a charity called the Together Trust on Greater Manchester and worked there on an offer 10 years. And then while I was there, um I started a master’s program with the Tavistock. As a result of that, I kind of branched into working for an organization called SACS, which you might have heard of. Um, and SACs were delivering treatments, treatment programs, residential treatment programs, specifically for younger children who’d experienced sexual abuse and who in the main were demonstrating sexualized behavior themselves. So I was there for five years as a deputy director, and then I went to Britt Mellencare as a director. Um, that was more forensic, that was more awful lot of children who were some of them were a risk themselves, some of them were a risk to the community. So uh a lot of risk management involved in that role. So I did that role, and then I went to be the director of a therapeutic community. So I was uh director of community at Thornby Hall for roughly two years, and then uh went to an organization called Young Foundations, which was um not in a good state when I arrived. And um myself and the leadership team there developed Young Foundations to be a um the UK’s largest provider of tier four step-down services. So for people watching in other countries, tier four step-down meaning uh children who’ve been in patients. So children who’ve been in patients in hospital, usually on locked wards, we would offer pathways back into the community. But again, a lot of risk management, a lot of clinical support, psychiatry, clinical psychology, psychotherapy, sometimes things like OT and speech therapy as well. Um, so I was in the leadership team of that organization for eight and a half years. I left there late 22. I was going to go, I was I was talking to an organization about joining them as a chief executive. And halfway through that process, I kind of realized I wasn’t feeling it. And thinking I’ve just come away from eight and a half year stint uh in the boardroom, and I’m not sure I want to jump in to another one. And uh during that transition, I’ve been approached about some consultancy. So um I just followed that up and I ended up consulting to a local authority two days a week for initially. I think I was meant to be there for 12 weeks, and it went on for 18 months, and that was helping develop their residential services, which were pretty good to be fair. The governance, the governance needed work, but actually the work going on at the coalface was was was very good, actually. Um, and from there that built out into a consultancy. Um, and then this year um I’ve started to deliver leadership programs and leadership. Because what I found what I was doing in the main, particularly the non-executive work, is I am coaching and advising leaders. So I’m coach and advising the board, or I’m coaching and advising the senior management team. And so and I’ve always been interested in that space. I I ran development programs internally. Back when I was at SACS, I was involved in the development of uh uh a degree program in therapeutic childcare. So I’ve always had a leaning towards people development and um and so the the the leadership stuff that I’m delivering now combines that background in operational leadership with some of the stuff that are picked up at the TAVIS stock and working in organizations that had a psychodynamic, if not psychoanalytic, leaning. So now that so the the supervision training that you saw, uh I delivered, I delivered one of those last week. And the the the early part of the day is about leadership in a way you might expect to see on a an MBA program or a leadership training. So there’s there’s some basic building blocks that need to be in place, but then as we move into the afternoon, there’s an awful lot of stuff that I think you would recognize as a psychologist and a therapist about um um projection and containment, transference and counter-transference splitting, the things like that that do crop up in the work. Yeah, that are thing if you’re an operational manager, it helps to see it, it helps to understand it. Um, I’m very um careful in setting boundaries about what are the limits to doing that kind of work. That the that so noticing you know transference effect in a key worker relationship is probably useful and helps you think about what’s going on and what the needs of the child might be and what support the staff might need, but it’s not therapy. And and so and so drawing those boundaries uh when you when you’re going into that area is I think is quite an important part of the work. So I think that’s the journey. So now I have a portfolio career now, so I do uh the leadership stuff through Elevate. I um I’m a non-exec director for three different organizations, and I and I consult. So um which is you know it’s always advisory. So you know I think I’ve been I’ve been invited to step into operational spaces before now, but I’m quite um I’m quite boundaried about that. And my my job’s to advise and help. It’s not it’s not to actually come and do the work.

Colby: 12:32

It’s interesting, isn’t it? It it does it it’s not dissimilar in some ways to how my own my own career is uh is kind of unfolding. I am still doing a lot of um psychotherapy work with children and young people who are recovering from multiple adversities. Um, but certainly uh that more consultant role to organisations and and supporting and as well as um uh supervision, consultant supervisor type roles has become more and more uh an aspect of my role and uh of my work, sorry. And I’ve you know, and I for example, I’ve I’m doing less and less training these days and moving more into the development of individuals and teams in a consultant and supervisory way, as opposed to delivering standalone training.

Tom: 13:31

I th I think I’m merging the two.

Colby: 13:33

So yeah, it sounds like it.

Tom: 13:35

Yeah, so so certainly the leadership program that starts in November. So I’ve developed a 12-month program, and a third of that program is coaching. So, so it the the the the training bit to introduce principles and concepts and ideas, and throughout that program, and and actually pretty much everything I do, I I emphasis the need to have some self-awareness or develop increased self-awareness through the program. And so I think I’m doing the same thing every time. I’m introducing some concepts and ideas that might be helpful in the leadership task, and then I’m exploring okay, what are the barriers to you engaging in this? Because the way I describe it is quite often in the training element, I’m telling people things they already know. Now I might be telling them in a way they’ve not heard it before, or describing it in a way they’ve not, or framing it in a way they’ve not heard it before, but I’m telling people things they already know. So the the purpose of the program then is okay, if I if I describe to you something you already know in a way you’ve not heard before, the rest of the program is to explore why you’re not doing it. And so which is usually it’s it’s internal stuff. You know, we we started um you know, you after your introduction, my reaction was the voice at the back of my head telling me that’s too impressive, that can’t possibly be it. And so and and dealing with imposter syndrome, for example, is that can be a barrier to people fully taking up their role and taking up authority. And I think for me, the biggest issue that I repeatedly run into in leadership situations is uh um people being hesitant to take up the authority that goes with their role. You have to take the risk. Yeah, I think the the way I frame it is you have to take the risk of not being liked. To to take up leadership fully, you’re risking uh rejection, you’re risking losing connection, you’re risking, you know, if you if you put the needs of the organization first, you are risking quite a bit. And I think that’s where people hesitate. So they’ll they’ll get into a leadership role, they’ll be doing the things they’re supposed to be doing, that we’re going to the meetings they’re supposed to be doing, that we’re sitting in supervision, for example, which you’re not we’re going to talk about. So you’re you’re acting out the things that you’re supposed to act out in that job, but maybe what you’re not doing is taking up authority, which is which is embodying the responsibility, accountability, and authority that sits with the rule.

Colby: 16:18

And that would be an interesting thing to explore um as to why why they just hearkening back to a it was almost like remember the old movie uh Harry Maguire when he when he was it Harry Maguire? No, that’s that’s the Manchester guy. Um what was it? It was a Tom Cruise movie. Um with the Jerry Maguire. Jerry Maguire, there you go. Some people might edit that bit out because I’m gonna leave it in because of course Harry Maguire plays for Manchester United. You’re not far from Manchester, he scored the head of winner, much maligned former captain of the club. Anyway, so I’ve had him on my mind a little bit today because one of the sons is a massive Manchester United fan. Um remember in Jerry Maguire, he bit the his the the love interest is in a gathering with some um with some women and and uh and he he turns up and starts you know uh making all sorts of statements about um you know his his affections towards her, and she says, You had me, what did she say? You had me at the door or something similar like that. I had exactly the same uh reaction in my own mind then when you when you said about people um uh telling people what they already know, which I think is a really good start in any training endeavor or any supervision endeavor, but then moving on to talking about why they’re not doing it, which is you know akin to saying what’s what is getting in the way of you um being able to actually practice those things that you already know. Um you mentioned also a number of concepts a little bit earlier that um I guess most listeners or many listeners to this podcast would recognise as being concepts or constructs that are related to psychoanalytic thinking and psychodynamic thinking. I’m just wondering uh about other influences on your peer, uh on your sorry, on your career uh progression. Are there uh people important people or or important theoretical frameworks?

Tom: 18:40

Uh in terms of theoretical frameworks, I’ve cycled through all sorts of things. So so I did the psychoanalytic thing quite deeply in in the noughties. That that you know, I did I did a master’s in psychoanalytic observational studies and went into analysis myself, and I went down the avenue of training to be a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and then realized I’d probably be a really terrible one. And turned and and by that point my my day job had developed into you know, I was I was I was in roles with director in the title. And so I thought, well, actually, I enjoy being a manager, I enjoyed being a director, I enjoyed um helping people in that way because I think that’s what leaders do. I think leaders help people, and and I usually add a caveat to the end of that, and help comes in many forms, so so helping people sounds uh lovely, it sounds really pleasant that you know I go to work every day and I help people, but sometimes help involves a difficult conversation or or even a difficult process, and so um I kind of arrived at at the well, I I think the job of leaders is to help people, and um but on that journey I I’ve been influenced by all sorts of things. So um yeah, I’ve studied uh management and management studies at quite an academic level, uh, which is quite dry. Um but I’ve also picked up a lot by just doing the work. I think early in my career, um, when I was a practitioner, when I worked with the children, the it seemed like attachment theory was a new idea. So I remember I’d been in the work for five or six years. I’d I’d been working directly with children in residential settings in their homes for five or six years, and and then there was suddenly I was put on the list to go on an attachment training, which I got very excited about. I thought, oh, this is great, this is this is exactly what I want to be doing. And I went on a day of attachment training, and I learned about avoidant and ambivalent attachment styles and disorganized attachments, and I learned about John Bowlby and Mary Main and the strange situation test. And I did this, it was a very full day, and I really enjoyed it. And when I went back to work in the home the next day, somebody said to me, So what are you gonna do different? And I didn’t have an answer. I really I kind of thought, okay, I’ve I’ve I’ve picked up some jargon, I’ve picked up some frames and ways of looking at things, but I didn’t really understand what I do with this, how do I apply this? You know, and so when I’m developed training, even if I’m doing, I do some 90-minute webinars that I tend to give away. But even on those, I’m very mindful, I remember that experience, and I’m very mindful of in this 90 minutes, I want to give anybody that attends something that they can walk away and use in their in the management and leadership tasks, something that okay, I can use that. So I I try to go very quickly from conceptual theoretical stuff to an invitation of okay, how might you use this? And uh I think pretty much every training that I do ends with tell me how you’re gonna use what you’ve used today. And I go around the room and get people to tell me how they’re gonna use it because it is it is that um application of the training rather than uh you know people can go on a training and be thoroughly entertained, and it makes no difference whatsoever in their career. And and it and training managers tend to measure training in that way, they’ll hand out a feedback form and you know you put smiley faces on and say how many, you know, whether you get a smiley face or a sad face dictates how good or not the training was. And I’ve always struggled with that a bit because I think surely the training, the the the value of the training, how good the training is, is does it actually change what people do in the workplace? And is that is that change enduring? Are they are they working in a different way 12 months later? Or is it just something they pick up, deploy a little bit of jargon in the workplace to show that they’ve been on the course and then go back to doing how they did things all along?

Colby: 22:59

I think I well, there’s there’s a lot in that. I think um the way I used to put it is that um training often um was focused on what people needed to know, uh, but didn’t really offer much in terms of what people needed to do. And there’s still plenty of training, I think, that is like that, that is very much knowledge oriented, right, and uh lacks um the uh it lacks um the provision or the delivery of um of a way of um turning your mind to how you’re going to implement this knowledge that you’ve been gained, you’ve gained. And I think the other thing that um you just said there right at the end is about in 12 months’ time people may they may have made a change but go back to how they’ve always practiced, or they may never have even made a um a change at all. They just had new concepts and and new ways of perhaps thinking about the work, which in itself is not a bad thing. Um, but there’s a there’s a statistical phenomenon, phenomenon, phenomenon. It’s getting late in the day here. I’ve been talking to young people all day. Um, there’s a statistical phenomenon called regression to the mean. And regression to the mean really um is is a phenomenon that that relates to in any change endeavor, you probably already know this, so this is just for the for our listeners um who haven’t heard it, but in any change phenomenon or change process, people uh will find it hard to sustain the change over time, and they’ll and they’ll often end up back where they started again over time. It’s really difficult to change habitual uh behaviors, including, for example, the way we relate to other people. And um, so that’s regression to the mean. People some people don’t change those who do, some people can mobilize effort to change their approach, but they’ll um but a good proportion of those will end up go reverting back to just performing in the role uh how they always have. And that that has brings me back to something that you said earlier about starting with where people know. Because it’s my view that if you start with where people with what people already know and already do, you you you cut out this phenomenon, or you have your best chance of um cutting out this phenomenon, and rather just focus on those aspects of the way in which people perform in the role that are um therapeutic, that are helpful, that are um able to be sustained over time. And um the the further importance of that, notwithstanding that it’s easier for people to keep doing the things, perhaps emphasizing certain things over other things, but keep doing the things they already know and do, um, is that it’s not as jarring for the young people because our young people uh can you know are very sensitive to inconsistencies and uh and they you know it does they don’t always react or respond well to them those inconsistencies.Tom: 26:27

I think you’ve said a lot now, so I’m trying to pick up the the things you’ve said, but the the the the thing about uh regression to the mean uh might mean that someone engages in a training, they change their behavior for a bit, and then after 12 months they’ve gone back to where they were before.

Colby: 26:45

That’s right.

Tom: 26:46

The the thing that I try to the way I try to address that is if you can change the way somebody sees their job, their role, and what their role is for, I think it’s less likely there would be that regression. It might happen from time to time, but it’s easier to snap them out of it, if it particularly if the supervisor can see it. So, for example, um on most of the trainings I do now, I’ll introduce primary tasks at the beginning of the training, which an idea from beyond. So from that kind of psychoanalytic, psychodynamic movement. But the the fundamental question, well, what are we here for? What what what what is the task that we’re here to do? And I I never cease to be surprised that in certainly in the UK, if you ask a the registered manager of a children’s home, and they might work within an organization that that uh builds itself as psycho uh as therapeutic. We’re therapeutic, we worked with therapeutic model. And if you ask a manager of a home, okay, what’s the purpose of your home? What are you here for? I’m always taken aback by how vague the answers are. There’ll be a bit of jargon thrown in there, it’ll be a bit vague. Words like nurture get deployed and therapeutic and so on. Without, and if you drill in to start drilling into those words, well, what do you mean by nurturing? And what do you mean by therapeutic, they run out of rope pretty quickly. And that’s not their fault. That that I think that’s I think one of the things in uh professional culture is we use jargon to distance people, we use jargon to try and you know um embellish our own understanding. So the more the more jargon you can deploy, the smarter you look. Whereas that I try and go the other way and say, well, let’s try and express this really simply. Because somebody who if you deploy a lot of jargon, how do you help somebody who who started in the work last week? And so um we spend on pretty much every training I do, the first hour and a half is what’s the primary task associated with your role? So if you’re a home manager, that a home represents quite a discrete kind of system. Uh yeah, you it links to a wider organization usually, but it’s quite a discrete system. So you say, okay, what does this discrete system do? What’s what’s the purpose of it? What does it do? I think if you distill that into a sentence or two sentences that are clear and free of jargon, it’s enormously helpful because I don’t think that leader can if they if they really commit to the task of okay, let’s let’s develop a primary, let’s develop an expression of the primary task, a couple of sentences. It’s very difficult for them to go back to where they were before because they see their work differently now, and there’s clarity about it. And and one of the things when I’m asking people to do that, I say, look, it’s unlikely you’re going to do this at the first time of asking. So you sit down. What does okay? So you’re the manager of a children’s film, and it sits in an organization and on the website it says it’s therapeutic. And maybe there’s some clinicians in and out of the service. Okay, write down in a sentence or two sentence what. What’s the primary task of that system? Um, I’ve never known anyone who just do it. I I they’ll they’ll write it, they’ll edit it, I’ll challenge it a bit, they’ll go back. And I and I quite often say, look, you’re gonna you probably if we did a training on a Friday, if you come back to that primary task on Monday and read it again, it won’t be right. It’ll need to be distilled, it’ll need to be worked on until you’ve got absolute clarity of what are we here to do. And I think that that the that avoids the regression to the mean thing. That if you if you’ve got actually, I’m really clear about what I’m here to do and and how I do it. So I use a phrase, um, it’s quite often people make the claim, well, we’re here to do therapeutic work with children. And the place that we get to is something along the lines of, okay, so you consciously use relationships in order to affect enduring transformation in children. Okay, there’s some big words there, but they’re not jargon. So you can’t it’s the conscious use of relationships because if you children, you know, a teacher in a classroom probably wouldn’t make that claim. They’re there something to do with uh knowledge and development and teaching. And a teacher can have a relationship with a child that is actually beneficial and helps the child to grow and develop as a human being, but the teacher isn’t consciously using that relationship. And so if you’re delivering therapeutic care residentially, the I try and boil it down and say, okay, what is it that you’re doing? Okay, it’s a conscious use of relationships. So you’re conscious, you’re thinking about the relationships. You’re uh and in order to um deliver, or words of that words of a similar word, uh, enduring transformation in children. Because again, the the enduring transformation bit, and I had a debate about this last week, is I’ve come there are people in residential childcare who believe their job is to make the children behave. So that’s so the job is to make the child. So so here’s a child behaving badly, you know, they they live in a home for 12, 18 months, and then they’re not behaving badly anymore. Now that is a good outcome. I wouldn’t I wouldn’t dispute it, that’s a really good outcome. But it’s probably because there’s some other transformation that’s gone on underneath that means the behavior’s not necessary anymore.

Colby: 32:27

Yeah.

Tom: 32:28

And so it it certainly in residential work with children, really thinking about what is it that what what is it that makes a difference? What do we do? What are we aiming for? And what do we use out is the conscious use of relationships. And the trans and it’s transformation because it is literally on a neurological level. You’re looking to change synapses and pathways in the brain, in order that I think I’ve got a slogan somewhere that it’s about um that they can enjoy and succeed in the world. Because okay, what does a good outcome look like after a residential experience? Well, you would want those children in adulthood to be able to enjoy being in the world and to succeed in whatever form they choose to succeed.

Colby: 33:16

That’s also an imp a difficult question for people to answer. Um, while you’ve been talking, I’ve been just thinking, yes, yes, yes. I love starting out with what are we here for? With the primary task. What do we do? Because I think what happens in social care and and various aspects of child protection endeavor is that the work is so confronting or you know hectic in in some way or or potentially even overwhelming, is that people stop thinking and just and do. And that and once you can get them, as you said, once you can get them to start thinking about the work that they do, that then that stops them from just doing it in a almost in a procedural way, which is where you get that problem of them going back to or or continuing to do what they’ve always done. So I love that idea. I think you’ve mentioned three things. Is is that that firstly getting people to think about what is the primary task or what is what is the core task of our organization. What do we know, and what what is getting in the way of us that delivering upon that. I think there, if I’ve heard you right, there are three really core aspects of of um training that you deliver in in these in this sector.

Tom: 34:48

I think I think the other thing to acknowledge is there are forces that will push you off task. So so in the UK, um you don’t have to talk to anybody involved in residential childcare for very long before the conversation turns to Ofsted and regulation.

Colby: 35:04

Yeah.

Tom: 35:05

And I and regulation is important, and managers in particular, registered managers in particular, and responsible individuals, which are statutory titles in the UK, um, they would be very ill-advised not to pay a lot of attention to regulation. However, that’s not why we came here. So, so in terms of and I think that has taken over a little bit. So I you you’ll see it on you know on LinkedIn, managers will put their Ostead rating now in their title, you know, outstanding or you know, good rated manager with Osted. And I’ve sat in interviews with managers where they clearly felt what I was looking for was somebody who can deliver very good Ofsted outcomes. Because the rate uh outstanding good requires improvement or inadequate. So that they’re rated. And the the ratings have consequences, you know, they have they have consequences for the organization, and sometimes they have consequences for the children, and so that is a very real, very powerful force acting on the question of what did we come here to do? And then there are other forces as well. I think that’s the one at the moment that I feel um eclipses occasionally the best interests of the children because the the managers become so preoccupied about their Ostead rating that they will become concerned that that a child that they might be caring for who’s struggling and um acting out or running away or you know uh pre presenting behavioral challenges, they’ll become concerned that that might impact their Ofsted rating.

Colby: 36:53

Yes.

Tom: 36:54

Now, actually, that’s not what we came here to do. We didn’t come here to achieve outstanding Ofstead ratings, we came here to um help children in a transformative process using relationships, and and sometimes there is there is and I know if there’s any Ostead inspectors listening, and I had a debate with one recently, they would say uh there’s no inconsistency. And I think I think you can have a situation where there’s no inconsistency, but I think that force is so uh dominant, it’s shaping the thinking of people in residential childcare in the UK.

Colby: 37:31

Yeah.

Tom: 37:32

Occasionally it eclipses the consideration of what does this child need from us?

Colby: 37:38

It’s one of those unintended consequences of um of regulation. Regulation is important for ensuring public safety. There’s and uh you you may not know this, but until the middle of last year, I’d spent 14 and a half years in various roles, right through to chair and deputy chair positions in our own national health practitioner regulation scheme in the psychology part of it here in Australia. So I I’m a believer in in regulation, but it needs to be light touch and it needs to ensure that um we don’t end up um scaring our you know our our service providers into becoming risk-averse and preoccupied with with um with regulation. And and you know, I think there’s uh including guests that we’ve had on this podcast, and well a number of guests on this that I’ve had on the podcast would agree with the notion that that probably the most important role of um a responsible individual or a leader in an organization in in order to achieve the therapeutic task would be to turn their mind to staff well-being, the people who are actually delivering services on the floor. And that um and that yeah, the I my concern would be who is facilitating that outcome where the staff are in the best possible place to be delivering therapeutic care if the responsible individual managers are so concerned about um regulation.

Tom: 39:24

Yeah, I think don’t get me wrong, regulation is a power for good. And so, in and if you look at the UK in the 1970s, the chances of being abused as a resident in a children’s home were incredibly high. It was it was almost a one-to-one relationship. If you’re in residential care, you’re gonna be subject to some kind of abuse, and I don’t think that’s the case anymore. I think I think I think when abuse happens in children’s homes, it’s unusual and it’s almost uh headline grabbing when it happens.

Colby: 39:54

Certainly is.

Tom: 39:55

And one of the things that’s contributed to that journey, that improvement without a doubt, is regulation. I think I’m I’m quite a big fan of the notion of authentic leadership. And a principle of authentic leadership is balance. So so the a leader leading, I don’t and I don’t think it’s the regulator’s fault that that um providers have become preoccupied with um regulatory outcomes. I I I think they’re looking for something to measure how good or not they are, and the regulator gives them a convenient shorthand for whether they’re good or not.

Colby: 40:31

Well, the work is tough, isn’t it? So you don’t get that many pats on the back necessarily. This actually that’s interesting, just quickly as a segue, in terms of what people find are easy and difficult to describe about the work. And you were mentioning that um that people in your in your experience um find it very difficult to describe the primary task just off the bat, if they’re asked. What are we what are we here for? You’d think that that was the easiest thing to say. Um I was go thinking of asking you what do they find easy to describe. I I’ll just let you know from my experience when I when I’m working therapeutically um with parent clients or or with um when I when I’m engaged, sorry, with parent clients or with with teachers of children that I see or with the uh caseworker from the statutory child protection organization, I’ll often say to them uh what how will you know that the service I’m delivering has made a difference? So what what are the positive things? What are the growth things that you you are looking to see? And and they again they just can’t they they really struggle to answer that question. Whereas they’ll they’ll easily tell you what all the problems are. They’ll very, very easily tell you the problem. And I think that has a bit to do, well, I know from a psychology point of view, it has a bit to do with how our thinking and problem solving, uh, how much our thinking is devoted to problem solving versus um acknowledging or paying attention to the good stuff.

Tom: 42:22

There was a there was an event in the UK last month, uh it was a very good event actually, but there was a there was an event about um it was for commissioners, so those who are commissioning and paying for children’s residential services and focusing on well, what do we mean by therapeutic? So if we’re commissioning something and it’s therapeutic, what is it that we’re commissioning exactly? And I got into a conversation with the commissioner there about tier four step down, which children coming from um sectioned under the Mental Health Act and being discharged into the community. And the uh the commissioner was saying, well, we want we want to know that the children are getting sessional therapies. And I said, Well, maybe I think you know, having run you know an organization that that does tier four step down, my primary concern was always risk management. It was the the top of the list is are the risks being managed? Because the the the children, you know, they found themselves sectioned under the mental health app, usually for the risks they pose to themselves. You know, and uh and they’re making a transition from something where the boundaries were very solid, as in locked doors uh and occasionally pharmaceutical boundaries, um, into uh an environment which by its definition is going to be a bit looser. And so the conversation there was I think the top, you know, if you’re making a list of what what do we want from a provider of tier four step-down services, I think that the the the number one isn’t therap, you know, sessional therapies with a clinician, although it might be on your list, but the number one needs to be robust risk management. And and that again, it was that was a version of the conversation of what are we here for, or or in that case, okay, you’re here to commission what is it that you’re commissioning, and how do you work out what it is that you need? And um I think that going back to basic principles um in whatever you’re doing is incredibly helpful. And the way you frame what are we here to do is really does dictate the outcomes. So if you’ve got a clear, I think if you’re a sessional therapist and you’re, you know, you’ve you you’ve got a therapy room and a child is coming in for therapy, in a way it’s hard to lose sight of what you’re there for. It’s kind of suggested by the space and the the time limit and the rest of it. If you’re a residential worker in a children’s home and you’re driving kids to and from appointments, you’re filling in paperwork, you’re mopping the floor, you’re preparing a meal, you’re cleaning the toilet, you’re going on a training course, all the things connected with that, I think it’s much easier because there’s so much variety in the task. It’s much easier to lose sight of well, what am I here for? You know, but how how do you align um and align align is another word I’m fond of using, but how do you align mopping the floor and cleaning the toilet with um transformational change through relationships? You know, it’s it’s easier to lose sight of it.

Colby: 45:44

Yes, uh, yes, that I think that’s that’s really quite interesting. And um I was also uh while you were talking about um risk management, I was I was just I was one wondering if you would um briefly you know kind of describe what you mean by risk management as a as a really fundamental aspect of the of the role.

Tom: 46:11

I think um, you know, if you think about services that look after children who present a risk to themselves, the risk management hits on a number of layers. So so you you you would want staff who are clearly orientated to risk management. And I know that sounds silly, but it’s not just the manager task. So I think again, in children’s homes, one of the things that happens is a manager will write a risk assessment, the staff will peruse the risk assessment, particularly if it’s full of jargon, it won’t go in. And then they’ll go about their business having forgotten about the risk assessment. So a lot of risk management stuff is cultural. It is about people understanding that they’re responsible for this child, understanding what the risks are around this child, understanding the sort of things this child might do and acting accordingly. And and the notion understanding uh the authority that sits with your role is important. So it’s so you don’t get to say, well, it was it was someone else’s. I thought someone else was watching that child, for example. So in in terms of risk management, there’s a link to governance, but but um who is doing what and when, who is responsible for what and for what period, and when is it handed from one person to the next? And that I know that sounds really simple, but where things go wrong, it’s usually where that that chain breaks down. So who was responsible for uh a young person who perhaps presented risks in one moment to the next? And in children’s homes, that stuff is complicated because you’ve got lots of moving parts and you’ve got things that might happen that pull you out of shape, like the telephone ringing or the doorbell ringing or another child drawing resources away. And so um it is very um, it sounds very basic, but it’s about who is doing what, where, and when, and who’s responsible for what, and and is the clarity about that on the ground? So if I come into a home and I am responsible for, and there’s I don’t know, three or four, five or six children there, and I’m responsible for the safety of one of those children because they’re being funded for one-to-one care by the local authority for reasons of risk. I need to understand that and it needs to be clear, and I need to make sure that if I need to step away from that child, I’ve clearly communicated with one of my colleagues and they’re going to step into the space. And so it’s it’s very um it’s very operational and it’s not that connected with um some of the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic or even or inverted commas therapeutic stuff that that we might might also discuss that that child needs. But fundamentally, that child needs to be safe, and and to create the safety, everybody needs to be clear who’s looking after that child and who’s responsible for their safety moment to moment.

Colby: 49:11

So I’m getting excited now because I was gonna say, well, I’m just a simple person as well. And I uh well, maybe not as well, but I’m a simple man with a simple message. And when you were talking about risk, the the little the mischievous part of me was thinking, are we talking what are we talking about with risk management? Are we talking about how we you know manage actual physical risks or or procedural risks? And I think there’s there’s some of that in it, but are we not also talking about safety and psychological safety, physical safety? And I think yeah, I think the way we talk about these things is um really important because I think a conversation that that uses the safety language over the risk language probably aligns better with the um the primary task that you that you’re referring to earlier. And um yeah, it uh the therapeutic task as such is to is to keep children safe, to do what we we as adults who are responsible for their care and management, uh what we what is expected of us uh to keep this young person safe, which is you know you can take it right back. It’s it’s it’s it’s parenting 101, isn’t it? Really? You you have a child, you you have a child as a couple, and um uh and when that child is in your care, the f you gotta one of the first things you gotta do is ensure that they’re safe at all times, both uh emotionally, psychologically, and physically safe, and and that their their other um primary dependency needs are being met. But um yeah, I I think the language, as I said, I love alignment as well. I think alignment is is a key construct in this area and and not well um used or thought about. I mean, I think it in in our work in social care and child protection, I’d love to see a lot more thinking about the work happening and and and to the extent that there’s a lot more thinking about it, I’d like to think a lot that there’s a lot more alignment.

Tom: 51:31

Um I think I think on alignment like after a visited. If I’m doing and it is pretty much true of every leadership training, do whether it’s supervision or whether you know a full leadership program, is once we’ve got clear about primary tasks, what are we here to do? The thing that naturally follows from that is alignment. Because if you think, okay, I’m working with leaders, so if a leader through some work we’re doing together, they reframe their primary task. And and again, it’s I’m not introducing them to new ideas, I’m just introducing them to a new way of framing it and thinking about it. It’s not, they’re not going to conclude, oh, I didn’t know that’s what I was here for. It would just be a okay, I’ve got more clarity of how I describe what I’m here for. And if you can describe it, you can you can repeat it. And so the the role of the leader is to then go and repeat that to the team. This is what I think we’re here for, and there might be a debate about that. Usually there’s not, but there might be a debate about that, and then over time, the job of the leader is to align the individual members of their team to that to that task. And I’ve I’ve got some graphs that are you uh graphs, diagrams, I’ve got some diagrams that are used in the training that that illustrate this very simply and very clearly. The idea of without a leader who’s clear about the primary task and he and who is actively aligning people to the primary task, people will end up aligned all over the place. There’ll be they’ll be the everybody will be facing in a different direction, slightly. Um, there might be some commonality, they’re looking in roughly the right direction, but they’re not looking at the same thing. And you know, I think that the an essential principle of leadership, as as distinguished from management, management’s slightly different, but as as an essential quality of leadership is to align the team to that primary task because that then becomes quite powerful. We all know what we’re here for, and we’re all coming into the workplace every day and moving toward that. You you end up leveraging off the power of the group.Colby: 53:41

Yeah. What what importance do you place on leaders um having regular supervision themselves and uh and and and training about uh some of these things that you’re talking about? What what importance do you put on that? How do you think about the importance of that?

Tom: 54:05

Well, as somebody who delivers this kind of training, I’d say it’s very important. Yes, of course, that’s the obvious in in terms of supervision. If you think about the frame they’re offered, so the frame is and we’ll we’ll take the manager of a children’s home, but it could be a school, it could be a residential school, it could be a fostering service. Um so you’ve you’ve got a manager who’s developed some clarity about their primary task, and their job is to align people to that primary task and move forward towards achieving uh those outcomes. For example, transformative change brought on by conscious use of relationships. So that’s that’s what we’re moving towards, and everybody’s aligned to that. Over time, what will happen is people, including the leader, will become misaligned. Other forces will like the regulator or like a crisis or you know, a lack of staffing, or um, or the children, you know, the the stuff that the children bring can pull you out of shape. And um so the manager’s own supervision should be helping them reflect on where they are, take stock of where they are, work out am I still advancing towards that primary task, or have I drifted off because I’ve been pulled out of shape by the things that just happen when you’re in these complicated roles. Um so I I would say that if somebody, if if you have a moment in time, it never happens. But let if you imagine a moment in time where you’ve got a team that’s arranged in a hierarchy, and the person at the top is perfectly aligned, and everybody underneath it is perfectly aligned. The supervision is the thing where you fine-tune, okay, that one’s slightly out of whack, so let’s bring that one in, and that one’s or that person there is struggling with something, maybe something coming from the children, maybe something coming from outside of the system from home or or wherever. Um the role of the manager’s supervisor is to help reflect and take stock and work out where they are. Um, and within that, I mean, the there’s lots, you know, there’s lots of different supervision models. There’s an awful lot. There’s, you know, seven-eyed model, there’s a four by four by four model. Um the in the old days in the children’s homes regulations in the UK, you got in England rather, in uh slightly different in Scotland and Wales. But in England, you you used to get eight points. It would guide you and say, right, supervision should take place monthly and they should cover these eight points. So it’s very prescriptive, it’s less prescriptive now, but it was very prescriptive at the time. But if I try and make things simple, so so you say, okay, well, supervision is about alignment, that bit of have we drifted away from the thing we came here to do? And if we have, can we can we correct? And the second part is understanding, and so so and so you’ve got alignment, are we moving toward the thing? And the understanding bit, understanding is a broad term, but is it’s it includes self-awareness, it includes understanding what are the things that are push pulling us out of shape or pushing us out of shape, it includes understanding what’s going on for the children, which which is uh, you know, I think I think um the trauma informed gets bandied around a lot in the UK at the moment as a way of understanding children that have had adverse experiences in their early childhood.

Colby: 57:37

Not just the UK, yeah.

Tom: 57:39

Okay, so but if you if you think whether you call it trauma informed or attachment informed, or you know, understanding that um it, I I think working with children who experienced trauma and neglect is not intuitive. It’s it’s so the intuitive thing is, and I was in a conversation with well, well, this works with my children, so why doesn’t it work with these children? That’s the intuitive thing. That the someone comes through the door and says, Well, um, he’s been that child over there’s been beastly and called me all sorts of terrible names, he should go to bed early, you know, which might work. Um, I wouldn’t use that at home with my son, but but but I I kind of get the thinking. I kind of get okay, um cause and effect. Okay, so we’re gonna use cause and effect thinking to try and shape the behavior of these children. It doesn’t work with children who’ve had really um unpleasant and neglectful and abusive experiences growing up in their early early life because the the bits of the brain that deal with cause and effect don’t work terribly well. And you know, they’re learning. Yeah, and you know, there’s I’ve got a slide in one of the trainings I do that’s that’s um it’s brain scans of the remaining orphanage kids, and I’m literally showing they’ve not got the hardware, so it’s it’s not even a question of the running different software, they don’t have the hardware that the gray matter is not there to do this cause and effect thinking. So, and I take that as an example of okay, understanding the effects of trauma, it’s not intuitive, you can’t just intuit it. Some people, some people, to be fair, uh are closer to it than others in just by their you know natural inclinations. But um you have to develop understanding to do this job. You you can’t you can’t just intuit your way through it, and so the second part of supervision is about understanding. So it might be understanding okay, what’s the neurology of a traumatized child like and why is it unhelpful to use sanctions and rewards, and ineffective actually, but but actually actively unhelpful. Uh, and what can you do instead? And but then the other part of the understanding thing is understanding yourself and understanding. Well, what what is working with these children provoking in you? Um, why is that? And actually, um to well, I I I because uh there’s a real issue in the UK with turnover in this sector. So so people come into the work and they leave the work. Now I think there’s various reasons for that. One one reason might be that organizations might the people at the ground floor and the people at the top of the organization are not well aligned, but I think a big reason that goes unacknowledged is working with these children can provoke feelings that are very uncomfortable. And without supervision that helps you sort out what is your stuff that was in you when you came through the door, and what are you picking up from the children? What’s or HR, what’s going into you? Um without being able to sort those things out, and I’m I’m trying in a very simplistic way, I’m avoiding jargon to talk about um personal and diagnostic counter transference. But the the I tend not to use those terms in the workplace, but um, I’m doing it for you because I know you’d get it. Yeah, it’s just the two of us, yeah. So the that um diagnostic country the the idea that that somebody else that you could have a feeling that you don’t have a valency for, it’s not yours, you’ve picked it up from one of the children. If you don’t understand that, if you’re not helped to understand that, you might think it’s you, you know, and and that could be it could be feelings of depression or anxiety, it could be feelings linked with abuse. And I think if you’re not helped to process that stuff and it’s strong enough, you probably you probably start to feel like you might be a bad person or a depressed person, or oh, this isn’t for me, and run away from it.

Colby: 1:02:05

It’s it’s that um oh vicarious traumatization in a sense, isn’t it? It’s well it not in probably in more than a sense, but um it’s what what we absorb, I guess, from the work, and um individuals and organizations absorb a lot. And we and we have individuals and organizations who work in this area who them who become very much like the clientele that they’re serving, um, probably in part because of a lack of space and time to reflect on what’s actually going on here, to think, you know, to think about the work. And I think there’s three things you’ve you’ve kind of mentioned which align very much, there’s that word, they align very much with um my most recent past guest, uh Adriana Diaz, talking about a program in Portugal, but uh supervision on that project aligns with what you’re talking about. At the very least, it’s about what’s going on for us, it’s about what’s going on for the children, and it and it’s what’s going on in the organization. That’s how I understand um what you’ve talked about, how aligned we are with the primary task, what’s going on for with the kids that we’re seeing, and what’s going on with us as well. And we need at least those three aspects of supervision. Um well that they are very important uh to um facilitate an outcome where we where we work closely to and with that that primary task that we have.

Tom: 1:03:49

I think like I say, I I I try and keep everything really simple. So it’s the the alignment thing is are you approaching the primary task? And the understanding thing is, well, what are the many forces that might be acting on you that prevent you from aligning with the primary task? That and that could be unconscious processes, it could be um, you know, stuff coming from the children. It could, it could be, you know, it could be, you know, for a manager the regulatory environment, it could be the organization and things that are going on in the organization that might not be, there might not be a straight line relationship with the children. There usually is, you can usually find uh if you if you’re working with children who are whose presentation is dysfunctional, that dysfunction will get into the organization and it mirrors up and down. And um in an effective organization, organizations organize themselves in hierarchies, and in an effective organization, the way I describe it is anxiety feeds up through the system, and what should be coming back down is is a is containment, is processing the anxiety, metabolizing the anxiety and thinking with people, because the the you know the the understanding bet is being able to think about what’s going on rather than just experiencing.Colby: 1:05:06

Is it too simple to say that um what is really required in this work, but whether it’s um delivering a quality residential care service or or a foster care service, um or or performing the role of a statutory social worker or statutory child protection worker, probably one of the foundational things or the things that are of most important in this work is to have the time to stop and think about the work and and what’s happening for you um and what’s happening in terms of what you’re delivering to um to your client group.

Tom: 1:05:49

I think it’s about being balanced as a professional. So you I I was someone once described me and said, Oh, you’re you’re a doer, not a thinker. Because in my early career, I kind of got ahead by getting lots done very quickly, and uh that hit home because I can’t there was something very real about that that comment at that time, and the inference was I wasn’t being particularly reflective, and I certainly wasn’t looking at myself. And um, so you you we get rewarded in career, in profession, for being doers, getting stuff done, and you know, the likes of us would speak up for spaces to reflect, spaces to think, spaces to understand. But you have to have a balance. So, my you know, critique of organizations that are very psychologically informed and perhaps work in a psychodynamic way is they will think and analyze ad nausea and not get things done. And things need to get done. So that it is that balance. And I wouldn’t say like for most organizations doing the work that I’m involved in in the UK, I’d say there’s probably more doing than thinking. But I have come across the opposite scenario where there’s an organization that’s very, very good at thinking, very analytical, very um smart, introspective, and so on. But they struggle to get things done, they struggle to turn that processing and thinking into activity that makes the world a better place. And so it it is, you know, I go back to that, you know, the qualities of an authentic leader. Um one of which is um so the the qualities of the authentic leader are self-awareness, balance, transparency, and morality. And the transparency and morality thing together are about I think that that’s there’s a big lot of talk in leadership circles about being vulnerable, you know, allowing yourself to be vulnerable. I think there’s a link between trans if you if you play in the space between transparency and morality, you probably get to vulnerability, but the balance bit’s important. The the balance bit is um we need to be able to think and we need to be able to do, and you can’t sacrifice one for the other.

Colby: 1:08:25

So I’d I’ve what I’m gathering from this conversation that we’ve had today is that you it if and again, I’m a simple man. Uh I like I like to simplify things a lot too. And people, what what Einstein, perhaps the cleverest man of the 20th century, some would say, uh, maybe the cleverest man ever said, if you if you can’t describe it simply, you don’t know well know it well enough.Tom: 1:08:52

Yeah.

Colby: 1:08:52

That’s uh apparently an Einstein quote. But what I what I what I’ve heard you say, if I can bring up four key things, which is which are what are we here for? What is our primary task? Yeah. Um what’s getting in the way of us let me put it a different way is what is what is the primary task? Um what what does it look like to be delivering on the primary task? What’s getting in the w way of us doing it, and and what what is the the the next steps forward to making sure that we are delivering on the primary task? Would it be too simple? And I I have a feeling I there’s an important point that you’ve made that I’ve one that I’ve missed out in that um little list.

Tom: 1:10:01

I think the but so yeah, I I I am frequently, particularly when I’m working with new people, it’s what are the two questions that I always package up at the beginning is what are we here for and what do you want? Because hopefully they align, but they might not. Um, but you know, so what are we here for? Which is about your role and your role within the organization, but what do you want is more personal, it’s about you as a human being and what your you know dreams and aspirations might be. I think when I okay, so what are you here for and what do you want? Hopefully those two align. If they don’t, then we can do some work to help them to align. It when when there is clarity about the primary task and that leader is going off to align other people, the thing that we’re thinking about when I say what’s getting in the way, what’s getting in the way might be practical, it might be resources, it might be capital, it might be all sorts of things. But quite often it’s something unconscious or or or if not unconscious, unacknowledged. So uh as I said earlier, I think I think a frequent difficulty that, in particular, new leaders have is they’re reluctant to use their authority because they’re worried that other people will regard them badly. Who do you think you are? Um, why you I I can remember the first time I gave direction to somebody, and I was about 22 or 23, I found myself by default leader on a unit, and it was a unit, um, with some children who presented risks. And I I just worked out by elimination, oh, I must be in charge today. And the the the fellow, I can remember his name, but the fellow that I gave direction to was in his 50s, and I fully expected him to either laugh at me or dismiss me, or who do you think you are? Um and I I said, could you and it was about risk management. I was asking him, could he go and supervise a corridor where I knew there was always trouble down there? So send someone down there. Um and he just very politely said, Yep, and went and did it. And and I but I was waiting for something to come back, something negative, some rejection. And I think that that all right, I was lucky enough to be very young when that happened. But I think at whatever point in your career you find yourself in a position where you’re delegating or you’re asking people to do things, you you’re and you’re asking from a place of authority, you’re not asking as a favor. Um, I think a lot of people hit a barrier there. And and there are people running around with director in the title who’ve not overcome that barrier. That um, and then in the in the you know, if you if you follow leadership thinkers uh on the internet, um, there’s a big thing, authentic leadership is that there’s a big movement around authentic leadership, but there’s a lot of stuff about vulnerability and empathy, the empathetic leader, which I think’s all good, but it has to be balanced with, and you have authority and you have responsibility, and in particular, if you’re looking after children where there’s risk, you absolutely have to exercise their authority. You can’t not, you can’t choose not to because it feels a bit uncomfortable. And so um that what are the obstacles, they can be external or internal, and and it can be about what what what’s what’s going on on the inside, and um of uh somebody when I when I was in my early days as a director, somebody used to provoke me with the phrase of who are you being at work, which was a provocation to me because I was struggling with that, how to uh inhabit my role and still be me. You know, inhabit my role without looking like I’m pretending to be somebody that I’m not, and I was struggling with that. I think he could see it, and so he he would regularly deploy the phrase who are you being at work today, which was which was a big I didn’t like it, I didn’t like it, but it was the right challenge. It was uncomfortable, but it was the right challenge. It was it was you know that that was I don’t know 20 years ago. I’ve held on to it. Um so that the the I think very simply, and it is what are we here to do? How do we align people to that, and how do we address the things that get in the way of that alignment?

Colby: 1:14:38

And what’s the plan? It’s been a fascinating conversation, Tom. We we haven’t quite got through all the areas that I had hoped to speak to you about. So I um maybe make it maybe I can persuade you to come on again another time. I as you know, I had a bit of a senior moment there as happens. The thing that I I was try struggling to remember when I was trying to summarize our conversation under four points was the primary task, what do people already know? That was the bit. What do you already know? Um now I’m gonna have another senior moment um about the about the next two. But um, what’s getting in the way of what we already know, and then and then what’s the plan? How are we going to put realize this, how we’re going to operationalize it? Because as one of your mo your latter points has been is it’s you have to be thinking about the work. It’s really important to think and reflect about the work, but it’s you’ve got to also get stuff done. Yeah, you’ve got to be productive, you can’t spend all your time uh being in introspective um about although I I I often sort of think you know, reflecting on my own practice experience, I’m always thinking about what’s going on. I’m always both introspective and doing something, or reflective and doing something.

Tom: 1:16:10

I think I think that’s the place we aim for. So late career, I think I like to think I could say the same that I’m able to do and I’m able to think. Early career, that’s not the case. Early career, I was a manic doer. Yeah, who who probably left lots of collateral damage around him and and wasn’t particularly thoughtful about how I was doing what I was doing, why I was doing what I was doing, and what were the forces acting on me. I think that stuff certainly because I started residential work in my early 20s, and throughout my 20s, there wasn’t much regard for that. I was busy and I was rewarded for my busyness, but I think it was it was mid-career that I was challenged to actually actually meaningfully reflect and develop understanding and develop understanding of how am I being and how are the people around me being and what’s what’s passing in the space between us.

Colby: 1:17:13

Yeah, yeah. Well, once again, it’s just been I think a fascinating conversation and uh um so fascinating, in fact, that uh that I I slowed the process down a bit too much. So hopefully we um we may have an opportunity to speak again um a little bit more about um uh residential care, which is an aspect of care that you have um a career lifetime looking in and around, and uh love to hear more about your your um your thoughts around that too. But uh for the sake of uh allowing us both to get up with the rest of it at the end, uh mine is very short from here. Uh but yours is still mostly ahead of you. Um thanks again, and uh hope to speak to you again another time.

Tom: 1:18:09

Thank you, it was my pleasure.

Building Healthy Birth Family Connection – A podcast interview with Adriana Dias

How a Reflective, Respectful Approach Helped Families Choose Healthier Relationships

Child protection is often described with neat outcomes and rigid timelines, but the lived work rarely fits those lines. This episode explores a project in Portugal, Revira Volta, that set out to build healthier relationships between girls in residential care and their birth families by widening choice, deepening respect, and anchoring practice in reflection. The team challenged the linear idea of “turnaround” and leaned into non?linear change: shifting direction, trying new strategies, and making room for different destinations. By forming an external, dedicated team separate from daily residential routines, they protected role clarity and created space for a systemic approach. Families were treated as holders of meaningful knowledge shaped by their own contexts, not as blank slates. That stance changed the relationship in the room and opened possibilities that standard interventions often shut down.

The project was built on three intertwined layers of reflection. First, case reflection: building systemic hypotheses about each family’s history, strengths, and vulnerabilities, and selecting tailored strategies rather than defaulting to one-size-fits-all solutions. Second, project reflection: using supervision and expert input to adjust phases, session numbers, and methods as the work unfolded, allowing the design to evolve with evidence rather than forcing families into a preset program. Third, self-reflection: examining personal values, biases, and resonances as practitioners to avoid enmeshment, hold boundaries, and model the relational health they hoped families would internalise. This triad of reflection served as the engine of ethical, responsive practice, keeping the team thoughtful under pressure and aligned with a core aim—supporting healthier connections.

A striking insight was the shift from “reunification at all costs” to “healthier relationships as the true north.” For some families, full reunification remained right; for others, partial reunification—weekends at home, shared caregiving, stepped transitions—proved safer and more sustainable. The power lay in helping parents think clearly about their situation, tolerate hard feelings, and choose for themselves. Containment was crucial here: a trustworthy relationship where overwhelming fears and grief could be expressed, processed, and returned in digestible form. With containment, families felt seen rather than judged, which fostered self-worth and reduced defensiveness. From that steadier base, parents could weigh their daughters’ needs against their own constraints and opt for contact patterns that preserved connection without overwhelming daily stress.

Time emerged as the hardest challenge. Children’s developmental windows are short; adults often need longer to shift entrenched patterns or stabilise life conditions. This mismatch forces systems into blunt decisions. Ribeira Volta navigated the tension by being honest about limits while preserving dignity—naming children’s urgency, acknowledging parents’ pace, and crafting plans that balanced both. Reflective supervision proved vital: it prevented burnout, widened perspective, and protected therapeutic stance. Supervisors didn’t hand out answers; they created thinking space. The team mirrored that with families: not dictating, but partnering, validating, and co?creating next steps. That parallel process matters. When practitioners admit “we don’t know yet,” families are invited into genuine problem-solving, which is both respectful and effective.

Integration set this project apart. Rather than operating as a distant service, the external team worked closely with the residential staff while maintaining distinct roles, ensuring consistent messages and coordinated care. That alignment made practical differences—smoother contact, clearer expectations, and less role conflict. Funding as a pilot encouraged learning, and the team finished with sharper hypotheses about what to change next time: start with “healthy relationships” as the explicit outcome, keep structural guidelines but allow flexible pathways, and invest more in practitioner self-awareness from day one. These lessons speak to systems far beyond Portugal. When we treat families as partners, protect reflective space, and expand the definition of success, we don’t just improve metrics; we help people reclaim choice, dignity, and pathways that fit. That is the kind of non-linear change that endures.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch here:

About Adriana:

Adriana graduated in Psychology from the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Porto in 2006. She later completed a Master’s degree in Special Education – with a Specialization in Early Intervention, from the Institute of Education of the University of Minho, in 2011.
 
Adriana is a Full member of the Portuguese Psychologists Association, is specialist in Clinical and Health Psychology, and has advanced specializations in Psychotherapy and Psychology of Justice.

Adriana also holds a Postgraduate degree in Child Protection from the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra, and is currently undertaking a PhD.

Adriana recently led the Revira Volta project that sought to build healthy relationships between young people in the care of Livramento, and their birth families. 

Related Podcasts:

If you liked this podcast, then Sally Rhodes’ podcast is another ‘must listen’!


Transcript of Adriana’s Interview:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Star Podcast.

Adriana: 0:04

And Rivira Volta um have a more complex meaning. It means that you choose some pathways, some circumstances, and that aren’t um fitting quite well, that aren’t um uh going well, and you do something. Um sometimes you improvise, like the Portuguese love to do, and you um you achieve a different outcome. And most of the times these families, these parents didn’t have the fair conditions to develop, to um um to to develop their competences, to develop their um their dreams, and uh we thought that they deserved um have that fair condition to flourish. We saw ourselves, the team, the the professionals, we saw ourselves as facilitators of church. Um as facilitators of uh of dreaming. We are uh sharing and we are listening to them, listening about uh their knowledge, because they have knowledge, lots of knowledge. It’s a different kind of knowledge. It’s uh knowledge learned in different countries, but they have knowledge. Sometimes they choose um not to be all the time with their girls because they understand that they have uh conditions to learn. The self-conscience, uh the self-monitorization, the self-conscience, the self-knowledge about ourselves uh that can help us to choose what we want was one of the most beautiful uh goals that we achieved. When we are um when we have um we have this power of choose uh and we choose our pathway uh and we um have this how to cheat, um then we are um pacified with our choices and with what have happened in our lives. But when we uh feel that the the context um robbed us uh degrees of freedom, we are not good. And this was very important for us, um and we cannot uh uh forget that our residences can have um can limitate us if we don’t have um self-conscious or can be um very important uh um tools to work with the families because we know uh um who we are. I think that’s very important in enough in future projects of this nature.

Colby: 2:55

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start Podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and joining me this episode is a fellow clinical psychologist in Portugal who led a project on an aspect of child protection work that is close to me and close to my heart and my head. Before I introduce my guests, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Adriana Diaz. Adriana graduated in psychology from the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Porto in 2006. She later completed a master’s degree in special education with a specialization in early intervention from the Institute of Education at the University of Minho in 2011. Adriana is a full member of the Portuguese Psychologists Association, is specialist in clinical and health psychology, and has advanced specializations in psychotherapy and psychology of justice. Adriana also holds a postgraduate degree in child protection from the Faculty of Law of the University of, and I’m struggling with this, Coimbra. That’s a I know I’ll get Adriana to correct me on that in a moment. Adriana is also currently undertaking a PhD. Adriana recently led the Rivera Volta project that sought to build healthy relationships between young people in the care of Livermento and their birth families. Welcome, Adriana.

Adriana: 5:13

Hi, Colby. I want to thank you.

Colby: 5:17

Oh thank you for coming on. Now, there were two, there were the names of two universities there that I probably should have checked beforehand how they were pronounced. Uh and I didn’t. So one was is it Min? How would you Minho or how would you pronounce that university?

Adriana: 5:37

Minho, Minho, Minho. Yes, Minho.

Colby: 5:40

That’s one person Portugal. Minhos. Yes, I’ve got one from one. The other one I I I’m pretty sure that I failed at. What was the the the one where you did the um the other qualification in the faculty of law? What what’s that university called?

Adriana: 5:59

Coimbra. It’s the uh major yeah, the the third major um city in Portugal and the one of the most ancient um universities in Europe, Coimbra.

Colby: 6:13

And I I think of myself as a an amateur historian. I love history. How I’m embarrassed that I got that name. I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that, and I got that name wrong in the pronunciation. Um never mind, never mind. Now I also said Rivera Volta. Did I get that correct? Yes, yes, so Rivera Volta, yes.

Adriana: 6:47

I can’t do um that the the the R there.

Colby: 6:52

Roll the R. Yeah, yeah. We took I think we call it rolling the R, and I can’t do it. I I and that noise that you just made, uh, my mother and my sisters can do it, but I can’t do it. With your tongue that roll with the R the vibrating tongue. I can’t do that. No, but anyway, Rivera Volta is as good as I can do now.

Adriana: 7:16

Yes, the Portuguese have the Portuguese the Portuguese have some sounds that are a little bit difficult because they are very specific.

Colby: 7:27

Yeah, that noise, that noise, you can’t do that. Yeah, yeah. So Rivera Volta was the name of the program that um that I was mentioning, um, that I’m really keen to speak to you about. In in English, what does Revere Volta mean? How does it translate?

Adriana: 7:51

Um the translation, um the bad uh translation I I found uh was turnaround. But um this is very this isn’t very accurate because I think turnaround means that you go and you come back and have a more complex meaning. Uh it means that you choose uh some pathways, some circumstances and um that aren’t um um fitting quite well, that aren’t um uh going well, and you do something. Um sometimes you improvise, like the Portuguese love to do, and you um you achieve a different outcome. Um you have you you do um you um move these uh the pieces of the the circumstances and you can have a different outcome. Um uh we hope a better outcome. So is that you mix all the things, you do different things, you uh experience uh different uh strategies, and uh then you have you have maybe you have a different outcome. Um turnaround, it’s a more linear um process. You go and you come back.

Colby: 9:08

Um so Javira Valtis is that well work with birth families, um, work in this space, child protection is never linear, it’s it’s always um uh follows follows a non-linear course. Yeah. And and if I understand you correctly, what you’re saying is it it’s not turnaround and come back to where you started, it’s changing direction, more like changing direction, taking a different path.

Adriana: 9:41

Yeah, yeah. And maybe you have we will have a different outcome. Um in this context of the project, um, we thought that families deserve uh fair conditions because the system isn’t always fair, and life isn’t all isn’t always fair. Um, and most of the times these families, these parents, didn’t have the fair conditions to develop, to um um to to develop their consciousness, to develop their um their dreams. And uh we thought that they deserve um uh have that fair conditions to flourish, to give them their their girls, because uh livramento um is a residential care home that have only girls. Um they they deserve uh that right conditions, right in comments, um to flourish.

Colby: 10:41

So the project was very much around supporting birth family, birth parents to be a better the best version of themselves that they could be. Yeah. So that and and and my other my other understanding of the project was that part of helping them to be a bit a better version of themselves as parents was about re positively reconnecting or facilitating healthy relationships um with their girls young people, yeah. They’re girls that reside in Livermento. Yeah, yeah.

Adriana: 11:24

We are sorry.

Colby: 11:26

You go ahead.

Adriana: 11:27

We always uh we thought about uh sorry, we um we thought uh most of um of the times uh give them um more degrees of freedom to choose. And that’s very important because we are not educators uh in this project. Of course, we share with them knowledge, scientific knowledge, because that’s important. Um, but we were um we saw ourselves, the team, the the professionals, we saw ourselves as facilitators of change, um, as facilitators of um of dreaming. Um, because dreaming is um achieving uh a more um degree more degrees of freedom to choose. And most of the time these families, these parents didn’t have lots of degrees of freedom to choose in their lives.

Colby: 12:25

Yeah, so you are as I understand it, you were opening up choices and new pathways for them to follow. How were you doing that? How were you how was the project uh uh being delivered? How were you were you um giving those those additional or those extra choices to birth family?

Adriana: 12:50

Um first of all, um we thought that we have to have uh an external uh team. Um Livramento, the resident residential care home, and uh have uh a team that uh work directly with the girls. Um in they are they were they are uh their educators, uh they um they um organize their daily routines, um the they are they go to school. So this team uh work as the educators of the girls, but this internal team um cannot um work with their families without having a conflict of roles. Um because if they do the both roles, they have to um change all the time the hat of the role. I I I um use this metaphor. I have a hat is a role, I take off the hat, I take on um another another hat and is another role. Because when we work with the families, uh we have to have um uh a systemic approach. Uh all the elements uh have to be considered. Um we can focus on one or another element uh for some time, but we have to have the the whole vision. Um and we need a team, an external team, that worked specifically with this approach, this systemic approach. Um we included the girls, of course, because they are part of the family, even if they in that moment they were uh they aren’t with uh living with the families, but we have to focus on the wall, the whole system. So um we um thought that we need an external team. So we created this team, the team of Rivira Volta that worked uh with the families. We work with 10 families because this was um uh pilot project, um, and that 10 families were chosen uh with the the the internal team. Um um that uh because the that families, uh that girls, um the life project of that girls uh was um the reunification. We thought that the better project, the better life project for that girls was the reunification, because there are um lots of girls that are in the in Livramento, um that uh the the project isn’t the reunification because um the system, the the team uh doesn’t uh understand that um the family um can be um secure for that girls, uh can be um minimal conditions of uh security to to that girls be in the family. So we uh worked directly with the internal team, but we were we we had uh different roles, and that was important because families um had to have um a therapeutic um uh relationship with us uh uh with um confidence um trust, sorry, uh with um um a collaboration uh approach. Um they work with us and we work with them. We are not teaching anything, we are uh sharing and we are listening to them, listen about um their knowledge because they have knowledge, lots of knowledge. It’s a different kind of knowledge, it’s uh knowledge learned in different contexts, but they have knowledge. So um this help us to work um with them uh at with this uh approach, with this collaboration approach. Uh and that was a very important point of this project. The other point, uh, very important point was reflection. We have um to have to be all the time reflecting about the um the the way we are conducting the project because uh of course we didn’t uh invent anything. This project wasn’t new uh in their um approaches, um, in their basis, because we had lots of information of the previous projects, but this one we wanted that um was adapted specifically to this context, and that was new because we had to think about the kind of families we had, we had the kind of context that families uh were, and we have to um think about uh the possibilities, but uh all the time we had to adjust what we were doing so we uh reflect lots with the internal team, uh we reflect um uh within the team uh of Vina Volta, we reflect with our supervisors. We have um um a supervisor, uh Patrick, um and um we have some experts of Portugal that uh helped us to reflect. And the reflection was um a base point of this project.

Colby: 18:29

It uh the way you describe it, Maria. Sorry, I can edit that bit out.

Adriana: 18:37

I am I am Maria, I am Maria. Adriana Maria is my name, so you are you are good.

Colby: 18:45

I it I know it’s I’ve just got I I got that stuck in my head at some point, and I’m not sure how, but yeah, I’m pleased to hear that it is, you know, one of one of your names. Um anyway, what what I was gonna say is that listening to you, it it sounds like there were there were those two key elements. It was it was very much a reflective project and a reflective process that was happening, and I can imagine one in which um you didn’t see birth parents as um how would I put it you didn’t you didn’t see them as non-experts in their own life. If I yeah, you rather you saw them, you met them where they were where they are, yeah, and you collaborated with them to open up possibility new possibilities for them in their life. And it strikes me that it was it’s it’s a very respectful approach to the birth parents. Um child protection systems um often struggle to help birth parents feel restricted through respected through um the process and a child’s journey through care. So it was a very as I’m listening to it, it was very respectful, it was very collaborative. Um you were attempting to change the course of the family’s trajectory as yeah. Um and part of that was um about fostering healthy connections with with their with their girls, with their girls in Livermento. Yeah, and you you mentioned that there was a a reflective process, perhaps with with reflective supervision with Patrick Tomlinson as well as um within the Tomlinson. Yes. Perhaps um tell me what you think was the importance of it being a reflective project and there being that reflective supervision that occurred.

Adriana: 21:18

Uh this reflection uh as some um points, uh some main points. Um in one uh one hand we had the reflection about the cases. We had to think about the specific cases, um, the ten families that we were working. Um and we thought about their um characteristics, um uh we construct um systemic uh hypotheses about what was happening, about uh uh their pathways, the previous pathways, and the the strengths and the fragilities. We uh thought about this, and we use um uh an instrument that was uh that it was created by um um a Portuguese um teacher and and and um um Madalena Larcan um that is um in Portuguese is Imias, um that helped us to have a um a world vision about the the conditions of the family. Um and um this kind of reflection helped us to uh work directly with the families uh and use the right strategies, the right uh strategies, what we thought was the right strategies, um, improve dynamics, uh etc. And there was another kind of reflection that helps us to think about the project, the the phases of the project, the number of the sessions, the um the main strategies that we can we could use in the um in uh each phase of the project. Um and this was um uh a kind of reflection that we have with uh with Patrick, but also with the other experts, um, the design of the project. Uh that’s what what I I mean. Uh and uh a third um group, I can uh of uh of sessions of reflection was about ourselves because we thought that the team um uh had to reflect about um about um we we have to to reflect about ourselves as professionals and as persons. Um we have to uh reflect about our values, our uh vision of what is a family, because uh our um our core um visions of what is life. Um and we we did um um um some um exercises um of reflection about ourselves that help us to um to um to improve our competences, personal competences, social competences, and uh therapeutical competences that um we believe uh help a profession to work better with the families. Um Patrick uh said once that the the way we behave with each other as a team will model the way uh the families will behave with the um within them themselves and within us because they are always like like a child uh a child um when we have a child is always observing the parents, um the families are always observing us as a team, as a person. So we have to improve ourselves as a profession, professionals to uh do a better job with them, um, but also to model um the uh some things that we believe that will help to construct um healthier relationships. If we model that healthier uh relationships with the family, the family maybe will um um can um build that healthier relationships within the elements. I don’t know if I explain myself well, but very well. These are three um parts of reflection.

Colby: 25:48

So I’ll I’ll tell you what I what I took from that, which was that there is there’s the reflection on the family and their circumstances and their needs. There’s the reflection on the project. So it starts off uh as a project with I’m I’m guessing with with a certain with certain understandings and certain processes, but they’re always subject to review and and and following a different path. And that fits nicely in the definition of Rivera Volto, as you talked about, you know, that there’s it’s a cry it’s not set in stone, it it’s not just the families we’re wanting to um go to help to go in, have choices about uh other directions that they can go in. The project itself can develop and grow. And and and again, it this there’s this link, as you say, between you you put it about how we uh as how we interact with a team model something for the families about how you how you interact. But I also but but you were it was like you were all on the same voyage of discovery, you were all learning, developing changing path, perhaps. And and the third element of of the reflection was in in reflective supervision and thinking about your own experience of the work and your own values, your own thinking about family, what is a family, parenting, and you were being more consciously aware of biases, I guess, or or the and blind spots, but but you were more self-aware, um, more able to think about your own experience of the work. You’re to to approach the work in a very conscious, deliberate thinking way. Which I can see again is something that we you you you weren’t necessarily telling the parents how they had to be, what they had to do. You were what you were modeling uh is a different approach to life, and you were modeling that individually, collectively, and relationally with the families.

Adriana: 28:48

The the the idea of giving them more choices to choose, but uh in the end, uh the ones who choose are them, not us. They did they don’t do what we say it’s right because we don’t know what is right, um we know what is um what the the science tells us that is wrong, and we share with them the consequences, but uh in the end they um they choose what is right for them, and sometimes and and happened this uh in this project, sometimes they choose um not to be all the time with their girls because they understand that they haven’t uh conditions to that. That and that happened uh in some of the families. Um in the end of projects, uh maybe the the in the at the beginning the the idea was the reunification, the the whole reunification. In the end, uh some of the families understand uh understood that um um the old reunification wasn’t the the the better outcome. we have a partial reunifications. The girls go to the family at the weekends and they stay at Livermento um in the the the rest of the days or they go to the family um some days or uh half of the week and they stay at livramento uh um for some days and this was um a better outcome because uh the the intensity of the the the relationship um make our uh that relationship healthier because they don’t didn’t struggle with uh so many challenges daily challenges and um this conscience that would the the um the parents um um gained uh was uh one of the for me was one of the more um beautiful uh goals that we achieved because um the change the the the the the changes are important uh but the self-conscience uh the self-monetrization the self-conscience the self-knowledge about ourselves uh that can help us to choose what we want um was one of the most beautiful uh goals that we achieved um this um when we we thought uh in this project we thought about uh some uh main principles we wanted to to um to apply one of them uh was auto chip the auto chip is very important for us because uh when we are um when we have um we have this power of choose uh and we choose our pathway uh and we um have this how to chip um then we are um pacified with our choices and with what have happened with in in our lives but when we uh um feel that uh the the context um um um robbed us uh degrees of freedom we are not good and it this was very important for us yeah yeah there was one word that you said that i i i didn’t quite get but what i’m understanding you’re saying is that it was and this is in when child protection authorities become involved with families it’s a it’s an incredibly disempowering experience for them and though families may already be struggling the child protection the child the intervention the intervention to keep children safe often enough maybe almost universally further disempowers the family because it’s a state intervention we we we we are going to take the children into our care for a period of time because we believe that you can’t do that and that’s an incredibly disempowering uh and and parents don’t give a good account of themselves in those circumstances they’re not they’re not they’re not they often struggle to relate to child protection authorities uh in a skillful thinking way yeah they they’re more reactive and defensive because they’re hurt yeah and what one of the concepts that we talk about on this podcast fairly regularly of late is is the concept of containment and containment being the the relationship that um that we develop with people whereby and it’s a bit like a supervisory it’s a bit like lots of relationships it’s like the parent-child relationship it’s like a a a mentor or supervisory relationship but one of the core um component or aspects of um containment is this idea that when you’re interacting with someone they can share with you their most overwhelming experiences fears sadnesses and that you can then feed it back to them in a way that is more manageable for them yeah you can help them so in that doing so you can help you help families make sense of process and make sense of the experience that they’ve had now why all this is important is because of something else that you said which was um that one of the outcomes of the project was that what that you that was you loved the most was that parents were able to think about what was the best part.

Colby: 35:17

Yeah so a containing relationship is a relationship that helps people to be able to manage difficult overwhelming situations and and and be able to then think about what is the most appropriate path.

Adriana: 35:38

Yeah so that I mean that’s as you say it’s beautiful that that families were able to think about what was best for them for their girls and for themselves and and be able to make decisions along those lines a very a very good outcome yeah Adriana I was wondering um you said that there you you referenced that there’d been previous projects but why why did this why do you think this project needed to be done as a you know at when it was done and how it was done because um this projects was uh we did this project within the residential care home um there are other services in Portugal um that work with reunification but um uh they are um based in CAFAP um the centers of family support that uh do different kinds of of of work they work with the families um when the children are within the families they work with the families that the parents are divorced and they have to um manage the the the the con the connections and the contacts within the the the two progenitors um and they work within the reunification um but they are more uh general uh they work quite well but they are more general and we wanted a project a team that worked specifically uh within the the residential care home uh a work uh a team that works specifically with this within this context uh a team that work um very closely uh within the the the another the the other team that that um work with the girls um and uh we thought that uh this kind of project could be uh uh different from the um the other services that are um being doing in portugal because um they um serve a more um um more uh communication that is more um um close uh that’s can that can we can uh work the two teams can work uh directly daily uh and uh the the the attention we give to the families to the girls to these dynamics could be more um more specific yeah it it sounds like it was an integrated project integrated between where the families were at where the girls and where the girls were at right as opposed to uh yeah you know the girls live here and the families live here and there’s a service over here um there was much more integration between the three yeah yeah yeah but do you recall any particularly significant challenges that you you faced in um in delivering on this project and its aims yes um some of the challenges was uh i i I tell you uh um a while um was the we have to reflect about the the um the path of the the the project we have to um do some corrections to the number of sessions dynamics the strategies that was uh some of the challenge but another challenge that i didn’t uh talk about um yet was the what i i i don’t know if i can explain myself but what we um called the time of the family uh and the time of the children um these two times uh weren’t always the same uh the same compass um because we know the time of the of a child is very short they just have a window of a window of opportunity to to develop some kind of competencies um and we have to rush um our our intervention with the children because they don’t have time that kind of time uh they have lots of time in life but they don’t have that kind of time of to develop some um some some competences and um and the time of the family uh the time of the um the adults is a different kind of time and sometimes um we know that the fair conditions for an adult to develop is here two years because they have to have time to think to reflect to talk about to uh experience experience some different kinds of uh um of uh circumstances of uh um of um um situation situations uh to change but the time that the that girls their children have isn’t one year two years three years and this this compass uh between the two times was a challenge for us because sometimes we had to take difficult um decisions um with the parents and the um with the the internal team because the two times don’t don’t don’t match um and the the parents deserve this fair time but the girls didn’t have that time um and this this is a very for me as a professional this is one of the greatest um challenges of interventions because sometimes this um make me I don’t know if I can use this word but we are persons that this make me sad because I I I I realize that sometimes we cannot achieve all goals we cannot achieve all outcomes we have to choose between what is the better outcome for a children um and what is a better outcome for an adult and for the whole family that have this time too I didn’t know if I I explained myself but this is one for me one of the greatest challenges of the project.

Colby: 42:28

Yeah I won’t repeat what you said but um it did come through very clearly what you were what you were basically saying was that um the children the girls and their families were out of sync out of synchrony in I guess we would just say out of sync in terms of where they’re at in their development yeah and um and sometimes to I guess uh for the parents to get to that place where they are the best versions of themselves as parents is is is going to take time longer than the length of I guess a project like Rivera Volta.

Adriana: 43:13

Yeah and I I was wondering while you were talking about it Adriana um about the role the role of supervision the role of the reflective supervision in terms of um coming to understand that and and whether there are other particular um insights important insights that were gained as a result of or uh as a product of that reflective supervision process um the the role of supervision um I guess it uh has uh two main goals and we we get in love a lot with supervision because our supervisors uh have um a different experience and a larger experience of course so they can give us different inputs um about the design of the of the project about the um the um the conditions and um the hypothesis of the uh of of cases uh and that was very important for us because sometimes we are not uh um we are not uh um seeing something uh that they they they they give us a different input and we can we could uh change our vision of what was happening uh within the family but um the supervision uh especially the supervision with patrick because it was um more um personal uh the the our uh the the the the other team that helped us uh help us more with the the reflection of cases or um and the with the the design of the project but patrick helped us to reflect um in a more personal way and it was very important for us to give us this self-conscious of our resonances uh of what was happening with us as persons and as professionals that were uh that were uh facilitating or that were not facilitating the work that we were doing with the families and that was important very important for us as a team um for me as a as a profession but for us as a team we were three uh three psychologists if i i didn’t say that um but uh was very important for us because we could um understand sometimes that some resonances about our visions about life about our visions of our preferred visions of about families about life about parents um our expectations about what we wanted to uh to achieve because sometimes we we work so hard with the families that we sometimes I think we we we become uh in in certain way part of the family uh and that take us take us off the therapeutic um our in some way take us the therapeutic um um capacity and uh and the the supervision help us to to be with the family but um um without losing this therapeutic capacity i you understand what i mean yeah it it it’s about i mean i would say it’s about being able to think about the circumstances of the family in a i guess i we would say a metacognitive way but it’s really um it’s it’s about being one step removed may maintaining a position one step removed and observing the goings on of the family but also observing what’s hap where our own interactions with the family our own and and where we where we sit in this dynamic with the family so I think that yeah the role of supervision there as as I understood it was that it helped you maintain perspective about the family to help maintain perspective about your your own part of that dynamic with the family that working dynamic yeah and um I mean we I think one a theme of this podcast Adriana is about supervision and the the absolute importance of it that it it’s that it’s so critical to work in complex um endeavors like this um where that that it where it’s quite confronting for us and it also can really tug on the the the emotional heartstrings we would say like it it yeah it’s so so yeah supervision I think is vital and in particular as you describe it it the fact that it in it doesn’t necessarily have to give you all the answers it it it just needs to help you be able to think yeah and in the same way like we do with the families.

Colby: 49:14

That’s exactly what I was going to say we don’t have to tell the families exactly how to live their life or they should be living their life or or what all the answers are. In fact uh another theme of this podcast has been I don’t know or another another element of the discussions has been this idea that we don’t have to know everything. We don’t have to know all the answers when we admit that we don’t know then we create a space where you can have a meaningful conversation and work things out with people. And that’s when you’re doing that with your colleagues and with your clients that’s such a respectful way of of conducting that interaction and I could and if you did nothing else treating your those pet those families with respect yeah would change their life course to some degree just treating them with respect treating them as partners in an endeavor in a journey treating them as people of worth my own apart from my my big interest in attachment uh Adriana my other a big interest at the moment is or has been uh for a long time is in self-worth and and I think all therapeutic endeavour that improves self-worth will bear some pretty good outcomes for people because the alternative to self-worth is worthlessness and people make really poor decisions about their life when they feel worthless.

Adriana: 51:18

You talked about over the um the course of the project um your own thoughts changed the project changed um but in our pre-meet when we when we met beforehand you you talked about how your own thinking changed over the course of this project um I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about that what changed in your thinking mostly um I think that when we started the project we thought that we were working with the families to the reunification to the wall reunification um and um we um uh designed a project with the um a certain number of phases that uh was um was uh implemented or will be implemented with that uh uh order uh and then at the end the the the the outcome was the reunification i guess it’s um when i think about that uh in risk in um looking um back i i think that uh we have a a kind of i uh idealistic view about uh uh about this and can i can i just jump in and say that’s a very can I just jump in and say that’s a very much a psychologist way of doing things yeah very strands and all of and you were three psychologists yes yes yes yeah yeah yeah I I agree with you um and and it was um yes a beautiful and idealistic view about the the the things but when we were um um implementing the project we started to think that reunification can be a more um a less strict uh concept um because we we started to think about healthy relationships more than reunification yes reunification is important and maybe it will be an outcome in some um situations but the most important uh most important thing that we could work with the families was working uh within the the healthier relationship relationships between them and then we thought and we reflect lots about what is a healthy relationship we did um lots of exercise um um in the context of supervision and uh then with the uh with the families uh thinking about what is a healthy relationship what that means what mean these concept what uh includes a healthy relationship and at the end uh um for us the better outcomes was when the the the families gain this um self-conscious again um uh of what is a healthy relationship and um within their specific family uh what is a healthy um how can we operationalize a healthy relationship sometimes a healthy relationship a wealthier relationship in that family was uh the girl um go uh to the family again and live uh with them and uh we have a total real uh reunification sometimes the outcome the better outcome for a healthy relationship was the girl stay at livramento start study um for more years uh and go at the weekends to the family and that was uh a um a good outcome for a better for a healthier relationship so that changed that idealistic view of the the the phases the orders um the number of the sessions uh the a clean project very uh very um very tidy project i i guess um that that change in our head um and the um the the concept of healthy relationship uh become more important i think that was the great um change in my mind in our mind yeah wonderful wonderful outcomes um of course um from from my perspective um if you know that the a a really terrific outcome as you you’ve talked about it is um these best connections the best possible connections at the at the time um that were possible that that certainly also though um that um that capacity to think and reflect on what what was a good outcome for for them as a family yeah I think that that’s that’s remarkable because um in my own experience um the way in which parents feel like they are treated in child protection matters then they become they can the that treatment that disempowerment can make them really struggle to be able to think about what’s in the best interest of their children yeah they become much more inward focused so yeah so the you know being able to achieve that outcome is is remarkable and well done do you think there’ll be further projects like this um either with livramento or or um um in Portugal more generally we want to uh replicate the project um maybe first uh to Libramento um so we can uh uh have more um uh more specific data um because uh like I said it was a a pilot project and we was um we thought a lot about uh how we can uh implement the project and at the end we feel that we we need to start again to do some things differently um to um um to see if uh how what we thought previously uh will have different uh um outcomes um but we don’t know yet if um it will be possible yeah you had my understanding is you had funding you had some uh external funding for the project as well is that right yeah yeah yeah it was like um bp like aisha yeah it was uh an external fund an external yeah like it’s a bank oh it’s a bank yeah yeah yeah so it’s like um almost I’m thinking philanthropic but it’s not not that’s not the right word um but it it’s it’s like social funding I guess a bank yeah yeah a bank uh yeah okay so that have a bank that have a project of social funding yes it’s like that yeah yeah so if you did a project again you would you would you you would take on all of this learning from this pilot project and you would you would um start in a different place I guess um yeah yeah but do you do you I I’m interested to know whether you it would there would be a different outcome to the one that you achieve that you would be looking for maybe we start um because when we realize this kind of uh of uh things i i said to you uh we are at the middle of the project maybe if we start from the beginning we have uh more time to do things like we thought um of course the guidelines of the phases of a project the number of the sessions the stretches the dynamics these are always uh uh this is um all uh important things we have to have that we have to have limits we have to have guidelines because we cannot live and this is this is true for everything in life we cannot live without limits and without guidelines but um if we start with this vision that the the better outcome is the healthier relationship not the to respond to the expectations of a system that wanted to uh on off um answer that oh oh we have uh reunification or we don’t have a reunification uh this black and white response um maybe we can have more time to um do things with families differently and maybe we can go for um go further um in the outcomes uh in the the results um and another thing i think is very important in the in in future projects is the um this reflect reflection about ourselves as a professionals as professionals because i think this uh was um a very important point of this project um of course um we know from the for our formation uh based formation that uh we have to have um professional skills uh therapeutical skills but we forgot lots of the a lot of times um of uh develop our personal skills uh as persons and when we are in uh with the families uh with persons we are the professionals of course but we are the persons too um and we cannot uh forget that our resonances uh can um have um can limitate us if it we don’t have um the a self-conscious or can be um very important uh um tools to work with the families because we know uh um who we are i think that’s very important in enough in future projects of this nature

Colby:

yeah well i i really hope that there are future projects of this nature i hope you get an opportunity to um put into practice some of these key learnings um that you you that you made from this pilot project but i i guess i i think that the the outcomes that you achieved are are really good outcomes anyway so that you the any subsequent projects the outcomes are gonna be that you’re going to look for are going to be very similar these best most healthy relationships between the children and their families i would add um growing um empowerment in the birth plan in amongst the birth families growing their sense of their own worth growing their sense of their own uh importance in the lives of their girls or their children um I would add um achieving an outcome where parents are able to truly reflect on what is in the best interest of their children which is really quite different to the circumstances in which um child protection authorities place children away from parents so I think there’s some all of those things are such worthy outcomes for a project like this um I I wouldn’t change the outcomes with the subsequent project you might change the process but I think the I think the outcomes are great and um thank you very much for coming on and um um english is not your your your first language obviously so um very brave of you to come on and um communicate with uh uh with uh an English uh podcast in this or English speaking podcast in this way as we mentioned earlier my Portuguese is nothing like your your command of English I know two things in Portuguese so thank you again.

Adriana

it was it was my pleasure Colby very thankful for for the invite

Building Trauma Informed Schools – A podcast interview with Megan Corcoran

How supporting adults creates the safety children need to learn, belong, and heal

Belonging sits at the heart of healing, and this conversation explores how schools can become places where children recover, learn, and feel seen—without asking teachers to be therapists. The core idea is simple: when adults in education and youth services feel supported, regulated, and connected, they create the conditions that allow young people to build trust and thrive. Megan Corcoran draws on nearly two decades in alternative education and leadership to show why adult wellbeing is not a luxury but a necessity, especially in environments where secondary traumatic stress is common. When leaders normalise vulnerability and model practical strategies—naming stress, regulating, seeking peer support—they reduce stigma and make it safe for teams to speak up early. That honesty strengthens consistency, and consistency builds belonging, which in turn creates the relational safety necessary for learning to stick.

The path forward blends trauma-informed principles with the realities of busy classrooms. Rather than overcomplicating practice, we begin with Tier 1, universally applied supports that help everyone: morning check-ins that tune the room, predictable routines that lower cognitive load, regulation strategies available to the whole group, and a tone of unconditional positive regard. These are not therapeutic sessions; they are ordinary, repeatable habits that send a clear message—adults are safe, fair, and present. Children may arrive each morning carrying the unknown burdens of their lives; we cannot control that. But we can control the experiences they receive before the bell goes home, day after day. Name them, greet them, notice cues early, and respond before escalation. Over time, those micro-moments add up, reorganising expectations about adults and planting seeds of security.

Leadership sets the weather. In high-stress settings, the old culture of “be tough and get on with it” isolates staff and amplifies churn. Megan describes creating communities of practice for leaders—spaces to debrief, compare notes, and build accountability. That network effect matters. When leaders show they are impacted by crises and share what regulation looks like in real time, they legitimise healthy coping and weaken perfectionism. Supervision, where available, becomes a protective factor, slowing reactivity and reinforcing ethical practice. These supports reduce professional dangerousness by addressing vicarious trauma before it distorts judgment. Policymakers often want numbers first, but retention and relational continuity are the data that matter most for children who cannot afford another goodbye.

At the coalface, a simple compass helps adults act before behaviours spiral: AURA—Accessible, Understanding, Responsive, Attuned. Be accessible by noticing who is wobbling and stepping in early. Be understanding by naming the young person’s felt experience with warmth and clarity. Be responsive by offering practical help proactively, not only when pushed. Be attuned by matching affect enough to convey empathy, then regulating toward calm so the child can co-regulate with you. None of this is exotic; it mirrors how we care for infants, and it scales when done consistently by a whole staff. Consistency is the antidote to chaos. Children who have learned to mistrust adults do not need dramatic new programs as much as they need the same steady signals, delivered by many people, across many days.

When schools hold learning and wellbeing together, the results ripple. Regulated nervous systems learn better; connected students tolerate challenge longer; excluded students re-enter community with dignity when belonging is prioritised over banishment. The wider social cost of burnout—teachers who are also parents, carers, neighbours—demands attention. A school that invests in adult wellbeing invests in public health, crime prevention, and future workforce capacity. The work is incremental and deeply human: build staff safety, strengthen leadership containment, align on simple Tier 1 practices, and let AURA guide daily interactions. Do this long enough and the culture changes. Classrooms become places where young people learn to live with themselves and with others. Healing hides in the ordinary, and belonging lights the way.

You can listen to the podcast here:

You can watch here:

About Megan:

Megan Corcoran is the founder of Wagtail Institute, where she works alongside schools, youth services, and complex settings to strengthen wellbeing and build trauma-informed communities. With nearly twenty years’ experience teaching and leading in alternative education, Megan brings both professional expertise and lived understanding to her work.

Her vision is simple but powerful: that every child has a safe and magical childhood, supported by adults who believe in their future. At Wagtail Institute, Megan partners with those adults—educators, carers, and practitioners—helping them to feel supported, heal, and thrive, so they can continue doing this important work.

https://wagtailinstitute.com/

Related Podcasts:

If you want to hear more about trauma informed practice in schools, you might also like:

Learning to Live with Yourself and Others: Insights from Therapeutic Residential Care – A podcast interview with Richard Rollinson:


Transcript of the podcast interview with Megan:

Colby: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Megan: 0:04

Belonging could be the key to healing childhood trauma. This is challenging work. There are some risks to it. So let’s have some open conversations about it. And I think a real crucial part is the leaders actually just modelling. Hey, this was hard. Here’s what I’m doing about it as well. So it’s like, you know, I felt this, but I actually have some strategies in my toolkit as well. I think there’s no lonelier position sometimes than being a leader. Yeah, and that peer support becomes incredibly important when we find ourselves in a position like that. Was when an old colleague reached out to me who was also leading, but in a different setting, who reached out to me and just said, can we start grabbing coffee together and unpacking what’s going on? Um, and it was just such an incredibly helpful space talking about education in a way that supports that notion of I’m a teacher and I’m here to support human beings and they’re going to come in with their complexity. So I just think anyone who’s working with young people has the opportunity to provide therapeutic moments without being a therapist. The curriculum’s not the centre, the young people are the centre of the work that we’re doing. And lots of trauma-informed practice lines up really well with some of our tier one setup for our classroom. We don’t know what experiences these young people have had over the weekend or that morning before they come into our classroom. But we know what experiences we can give them before they leave for the day.

Colby: 1:23

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start Podcast. I’m Colby Pierce, and joining me for this episode is a fellow podcaster and trauma-informed well-being consultant. Before I introduce my guests, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional lands of the Aboriginal people that my guest and I come from. For me, it’s the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains. For my guest, it is the Warajari and Bunerong people of the Kurlum Nation. And I’d just like to acknowledge the continuing connection the living Aboriginal people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Megan Corcoran. Megan is the founder of Wagtail Institute, and she works alongside schools, youth services, and complex settings to strengthen well-being and build trauma-informed communities. With nearly 20 years’ experience teaching and leading in alternative education, Megan brings both professional expertise and lived understanding of her work. Her vision is simple but powerful. That every child has a safe and magical childhood, supported by adults who believe in their future. At Wagtail Institute, Megan partners with those adults, educators, carers, and practitioners, helping them to feel supported, heal, and thrive so that they continue doing this important work. Welcome, Megan.

Megan: 3:13

Thank you so much, Colby, and thank you for such a lovely introduction as well.

Colby: 3:18

You’re welcome. Um, I’m really pleased to have you on. And um I’m wondering if we could just begin if you just can uh tell us a little bit about yourself, how you um at the Wagtail Institute, perhaps your podcast as well, because we’re fellow podcasters, and uh and how you gain how you came to start all that, found all that.

Megan: 3:40

Yeah, thank you so much. Yeah, so as you mentioned, I spent quite a lot of my career working in schools. Um, so yeah, I was a good old graduate teacher quite a while ago, um, working at the Berry Street School here um in Melbourne in the southeastern suburbs. And back then when I started, um the Berry Street School was actually set up just for young people in out-of-home care. Um, so you had to actually be in out-of-home care to be a student at the school. So that was quite a complex start to teaching, that’s for sure. Um but I thought I had one of the best jobs in the world. I absolutely loved working in education and loved teaching these young people. Um, so I worked at a couple of different alternative settings as a teacher across the Melbourne area and then eventually uh moved my way into school leadership, which was never on my radar. It was never something I was thinking deeply about. Um, but it came from a bit of a values place, I guess, where um, you know, I was really passionate about supporting the young people and I loved my time in the classroom, but it was a bit of a chance, I guess, just to have a bit of a further impact and support other teachers to do the same and have those wins with the young people. Um, and so I went back to Berry Street actually to start my leadership um journey there. So I kind of came full circle and came back to the same campus and went into leadership at a pretty pivotal point for the campus too. There was a lot going on, a lot of change. They’d had a pretty rough year the previous year, so we were sort of re-establishing some safety in the campus. Um, yeah, and then I worked, yeah, worked there for a little while, and then I was an assistant principal and then worked at a really large alternative setting in leadership as well. So we had like the next school I was at, we had like 360 students enrolled, um, and all of them experiencing some sort of disadvantage and quite a few of them in out-of-home care. And um, yeah, so I got really passionate, I guess, about supporting the practitioners and the professionals in these spaces. Um, I was leading through the COVID era and really saw just how much we really needed to wrap around the adults who were supporting these young people. Um, so I got really passionate about it and I studied my masters in um in well-being science and positive psychology as well. And in that I actually explored um belonging. So I was looking at belonging being, I guess, a pivotal thing for young people that experience trauma. So I sort of was exploring the fact that belonging could be the key to healing childhood trauma. And then I got really curious because I’m like, the only way we can do that and establish places where young people belong is by having adults who are consistent in those spaces. Like we feel a sense of belonging when we know the people in that space. Um, and I was looking at all the turnover happening and all the people that were really struggling to stay in schools and youth settings and out-of-home care spaces. Um, so Wagtail really was dreamed up in that way, I guess, at looking at well, what can we do to support these adults? There’s kind of a bit of a two-pronged approach with what we do at Wagtail Institute. Um, one is enhanced trauma-informed practice so that they actually know what to do with the young people. Um, but the second is enhancing well-being for the adults as well. So we need to know how to look after ourselves, how to look after each other, and to make sure our services and systems are actually helping the adults in that space as well, so that they feel like they can stay and they can do this work with the young people. Um, so that’s really how it all began. And I’m a few years into it now and working alongside lots of amazing settings and organizations and loving every step of the way. Um, and the Wagtails podcast came came pretty early on in the journey as well. So I think I just realized that some of the best learning I ever have as a professional is when I get to sit down with people and pick their brains and just dive into really good conversations. And I thought, well, what a great way to actually share that learning with a wider platform. So just doing what you’re doing, really, Colby, is inviting people that I’d love to have a chat to, and then just having that opportunity and that privilege to share that with a wider audience and learn together through the questions we get to ask on these podcasts.

Colby: 7:47

And that that’s uh you bring up a great point, I think, is that it’s it is actually a great way for us to learn. Well, at least, yeah, I think that’s what you’re suggesting, and I feel that way too. It’s such our people that we interview are often such great resources, not only to our listeners, but but also also to ourselves. And uh yeah, it’s like like doing it’s like the best professional development you ever do in a in a way. Um, although some people may actually call it that. Um, and I I think I think your journey is an interesting one uh in the sense that what you’ve you’ve recognised is the need, if we’re going to deliver trauma-informed practice well to children and young people, we the adults need to be um supported uh as well as the children. And in actual fact, we go so far as to say that um what we want the adults to be doing with the children, we want them to experience themselves so that it kind of um transmits through them, yeah.

Megan: 9:00

Yeah, makes it so much more real too. It’s I feel like with trauma-informed practice, we sort of um as a field, it started off very much as an applied practice to other people. So it was sort of like we’ve got some traumatized young people in front of us, we need to apply this work to them. Um, but we are like developing as a field now to really understand it more as a way of being and a lens to see the world through and a way of showing up and just making sure we’re also preventing harm with anyone we’re interacting with, not just the traumatized young people.

Colby: 9:30

Yeah, yeah. And and I think you’ve also alluded to the fact that it is it it is difficult. Well, it can be difficult and confronting work. It’s not good for the children and young people that for people to come and go uh in the high volume. So I’m just wondering, what are your thoughts about the kind of the scope um of well-being challenges, uh vicarious trauma for the adults that that work in this space and what do we do about that?

Megan: 10:04

Yeah, great question. I feel like it’s an area where we’re just starting to scratch the surface. Um, like if I rewind back to when I started in the field, um, there wasn’t a lot of permission to share how we were tracking. Like we obviously cared about each other’s well-being, we’re really supportive. But if you were to put up your hand and say, I’m really struggling here, there might have been a sense that like she’s maybe not going to make it. She maybe shouldn’t be here. Like back then, that’s sort of how we approached it. And so even for me as a graduate teacher, I was sort of learning how to just suppress some of that challenge and um believe that I’d get like the language wasn’t this, but really I was learning to desensitize my reactions to what was going on around me. Um, but it comes up at some point, you know, and it’s something to be aware of. So I feel like we’re really just starting to scratch the surface, and there’s starting to be, you know, a lot more research happening around secondary traumatic stress, um, you know, and looking at what’s actually happening, what does that look like, what does that feel like? And there is starting to be some really good research around what we can actually do about it as well. So I feel like just stage one really is having permission to name that and be okay that it is actually a risk factor in our field. And if we’re more comfortable in naming it and talking about it and sharing that challenge, um, we’re actually starting at that awareness level, which is where we need to begin. Like if we go into it blindly and just think, you know, you’ve got to be pretty tough to do this work, well, we’re not really helping the young people to have those consistent adults because we need to acknowledge this is challenging work. There are some risks to it. So let’s have some open conversations about it. Let’s be aware of how it may impact us. Let’s track some of those emotions and those sensations that we might get throughout the workday when we are confronted with some of the challenges. Um, and like that’s just really step one is just I know it’s I know it exists and I’m aware of it. Um but there’s so much more we can be doing as well around just peer support, like making sure we’ve got really good wraparound with each other at work. Um, yeah, and just like sort of implementing the trauma-informed principles at the adult level as well. So making sure we’re actually working in trauma-informed ways. So far, if there’s any leaders listening, it’s like, well, what do we do for the young people when we know they’re stressed and we know they’re impacted by trauma? We can translate that absolutely up to the adult level and work in ways where we acknowledge there is stress. We acknowledge that there may be some behaviors from the colleagues that we’re supporting that might be in fight or flight mode, but it just looks a little bit different at the adult level as well. Just making sure we’re putting in supports where people feel really safe, where we’ve got really trusting relationships, um, you know, all of those like really good practices, and that we are actually like working on regulation as well. So just knowing I am stressed, going to do something to regulate, then I’m gonna go back in and support the young people again. Very long-winded answer there.

Colby: 12:52

Well, no, uh no, I think it it’s a good answer. And it I found myself thinking as you were talking about what you’re what the reaction might be when you go into a complex environment like a school or or um you know residential uh care provider for for children. Um you go in and say, Don’t worry, don’t worry about what’s hap what happened to the kids. Tell me what’s happening for you in the first instance. I I don’t know if you if they’re the words that you use, but I I wonder about the re some of the reactions that you may uh get to the adults, I guess expecting to be told what to do with the kids and perhaps not so much expecting to have to talk about their own experience of the work.

Megan: 13:44

Yeah, absolutely. And a key part of that, I think, is um the leaders modeling that as well, because we don’t want to be the new person who comes in and has to be vulnerable in front of our peers straight away, but we need to see it’s actually part of the culture and part of the fabric of the way of working in this space as well. Um, and so the permission sort of comes when we see others doing that too. And I think a real crucial part is the leaders actually just modeling, hey, this was hard. Here’s what I’m doing about it as well. So it’s like, you know, I felt this, but I actually have some strategies in my toolkit as well. And that is something I’m saying from I think neglecting to do that when I was in leadership as well. I’ll never forget a day where I had um, you know, there was a bit of a some sort of crisis and we had a debrief. And afterwards, one of the teachers came to me and she said, How are you okay with everything that happens here? Like you never look like you’re impacted by it. And I was thinking, well, I’m doing a huge disservice to the team if I’m not actually expressing how I feel and modeling what I’m doing about it as well. Um, because they don’t need a robotic leader. Um, like, you know, well, I had great strategies in my toolkit, and they don’t need a leader breaking down every day something happens, but they need to hear that there is permission to talk about it and that we all feel the impact in some way. Um, no matter how experienced we are, you know, we’re we’re supporting young people who it’s their life and something big may happen. And it actually upsets us when we see a young person in crisis, and it’s okay to be upset by it, but it’s also really good to have some strategies to nurture ourselves and to look after ourselves after moments like that.

Colby: 15:12

How can it not be upsetting? I I think it was something that uh dawned on me very early in my career that um the way to desensitization in a sense, if it if it if it stops bothering you, then you need to stop doing the work, really. Um but I think you but so if you kind of practice with heart, you need you need to be able to not lock all those experiences away, but have uh opportunities to discuss them, to be held in mind by a leader at who walks the walk and talks the talk. I think I got that right. Yeah, but you you you need uh you need we talk we’ve talked in previous podcasts on on the Secure Start Podcast about the role of leaders in containment. And maybe we’ll talk a bit more about containment in a bit, but um you uh you’ve really I think hit the nail on the head in relation to leadership, the the the important role that leadership play. And um again that that’s a theme that’s come through um uh many times, and it includes um the importance of leaders having their own person or uh to to go and talk to about um they about their own experience of the work. Yeah. I wonder if that is that kind of something that you get yours get involved in as well in terms of just being that sounding board and that person who holds space for leaders.

Megan: 16:47

Yeah, it’s a really interesting area. I think there’s no lonelier position sometimes than being a leader.

Colby: 16:53

Yes.

Megan: 16:53

Yeah, and that peer support becomes incredibly important when we find ourselves in a position like that. Um, and something I found really helpful, um, which, you know, a couple of years into my leadership journey was when an old colleague reached out to me who was also leading, but in a different setting, who reached out to me and just said, can we start grabbing coffee together and unpacking what’s going on? Um and it was just such an incredibly helpful space because it was like, here’s that peer support that we all need where we have similar experiences, we can validate each other, um, and we don’t feel so alone in the journey. And then from that, we actually developed a community of practice. So we now host, and it’s now five, six years into that community of practice, um, where it’s a space for leaders to just come together four times a year, meet each other, learn from each other, hold space, you know, connect, share details, stay in touch if they want to as well. Um, so this work becomes incredibly important, I think, is just that idea that we need to just have someone to validate and listen to us. Um, and if we’re feeling isolated or we’re feeling like we’re in a space where, you know, maybe we don’t have that peer-level support, supervision is incredibly helpful. Like if we can get good supervision set up, cannot stress enough how important that is.

Colby: 18:09

Yeah, one of my one of my past guests, Lynn Payton, she’s a leadership consultant in Northern Ireland, she she made the comment that leaders leaders can’t debrief, probably butchering it a little bit, but the the general point she was making is that is that because of their role in an organization, the leader can’t uh have this mentoring relationship or this debriefing relationship with someone who is junior to them in the organisation, you know, because ultimately that you that person’s gonna be um self-censoring what they see and observe and acknowledge in the leader. Um, and so yeah, I’m really uh interested to hear about this community that of leaders that um that you set up and I and again um very much consistent um with with with what’s been talked about more in the I guess the social care and child protection organizations specifically uh on this podcast.

Megan: 19:17

Well, yeah, the the um the community of practice we have is um for leaders in alternative education. Um so it’s for any leader who middle leader, you know, executive leader, working in a school with young people impacted by trauma. Um so that’s the key um, I guess, thing that they have in common. And yeah, over the years it’s it’s growing, it it takes different shape. It originally was going to be all in person um around Melbourne, so it was kind of an invitation for anyone in Melbourne. Um then, you know, good old COVID teaches you to do things in different ways. So we ended up in those lockdown years doing it online, and that meant people from regional Victoria started joining, we had people from Tasmania join. We had someone move to the Northern Territory during that time and stay in it. So now we do a hybrid thing where we go, all right, there’s need for in-person, and we still host those, and it that the whole community is welcome, but obviously it’s hard. Um, but we will do three online a year just to make sure that that that can still be available to everyone.

Colby: 20:18

Yeah, that’s fantastic. And that’s that’s one of the the great things that has emerged out of those COVID years is that we were we we we had to trust in technology and and the worth of still being able to connect over this. Yeah, yeah. When you talk about it, it reminds me in in the residential child care space, therapeutic residential child care space in the UK, they have a uh an entity called the Community of Communities. Now the the community of communities uh these are therapeutic communities, um and they do a um they do a lot of things uh about which I’m not uh an expert. Um I’ve just had some conversations. But but one of the one of the good things, I guess, that arises out of that is not just the opportunity to um support each other, but also there’s a there’s a there’s almost like an accountability um aspect of that experience that everyone keeps everyone else kind of on the on the right track, so to speak, in in those circumstances. Um because that they are vulnerable children and young people that we’re talking about, and uh the old concept of professional dangerousness arises where where people are you know experiencing their own vicarious trauma and then they can it can has a possibility of leading people into pref professional dangerousness. Um so I think a a community of communities as with the community of leaders that you’re talking about is actually a really ethical uh space. Um, yeah.

Megan: 22:09

And it’s an important point you raise as well, because if you think about it, the cultures of these workplaces for so long have been about that idea that it is hard work, but you need to just be tough and come and do it. And what we’re kind of talking about here is breaking that mold. And that takes time and that takes a bit of courage as well to put up our hand and say, hey, I’m actually finding this really challenging, or I’ve had a I’ve had a reaction to what happened yesterday. Um, whereas, you know, in the past it’s been a bit of a like, you know, something happened, like, you know, you’re tough, you can handle it, come back in the next day, we’re all okay. And we’re just trying to shake it off and pretend we’re all okay. But as you said, it’s that level of accountability and just keeping an eye on each other and making sure we are okay and that there is permission to go, you know what, it’s okay to have support, it’s okay to raise a challenge, um, and you don’t need to like we can break down that culture together of that tough come in and be tough and just you know shake it off in this industry.

Colby: 23:02

You’ve got to be pretty tough in this area. Um, the other the benefit, one of the benefits that we that it would be good if there’s not already to have really good stats that demonstrate this, um, because policymakers just love numbers. Um But I would imagine that uh staff retention um would be a a really uh um achievable outcome when you when you start from a place of supporting staff. It sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? Really? You’ve got vulnerable children, children in need, and the first thing you do is you is your is your work with the staff.

Megan: 23:45

I know it sounds like it’s counterintuitive, but it’s oh not this is the thing. Like, how can we show up and do this work as well as we can if we’re not coming from a place of strength and feeling well and having good processes in place? Um, but this is the hard thing of my work, Colby, I think a lot of the time is I feel like I’m trying to sell it to people and be like, you know, this is why you need this. Um and it feels a little bit crazy sometimes where you know I’ll meet with people and they’ll go, we don’t actually have funding for that. We need to put the funding into the kids. I’m thinking, well, if you’re having a revolving door of staff walking out, you know, that funding is just, yeah, you’re being yeah, you’re spending it on recruiting and hiring and you know, starting from scratch over and over.

Colby: 24:26

So yeah, it it probably and and you perhaps I guess do it, it it needs there to be some clear definable outcomes that you’re looking for with with um intervening at the staff level first or even at the leadership level first. I’ve got I’ve got a I’ve got a theory about this. Well, I it’s I mean all of my theories are based on experience, including the experience of others, myself, and things that I’ve read. So I wonder if anything is truly my theory. But one of the things that I’m aware of from the literature, um relevant literature uh on thinking is that we are um we’re problem solvers. We’re really good at identifying problems and and then trying to we’re very good at identifying the problems, but we’re you know, and then trying to come up with a solution. Now the solution may not always be um successful, but but we do we do notice problems. We’ve adapted in that way. Um and we’re not so good at noticing the things that go well correspondingly. We focus a lot on problems and fixing problems, and we don’t focus so in any kind of endeavor where you’re trying to achieve an outcome, people need to know what that outcome looks like, or else they won’t see it. You know, I’ll just see I’ll just see the problems that persist.

Megan: 25:59

Um, so I think it’s I think to add to add to that as well, if you look at the nature of this work when we support trauma-impacted young people, um, it’s a little bit crisis-driven, if we’re honest, you know, and so we become very reactive. And so we look for a problem, we solve that problem in the moment, and then our like it’s almost like we’re addicted to that fight or flight adrenaline as an industry where it’s like problem, problem, problem, you know, reacting, solving, and we’re not so good, if we’re honest, at slowing down and looking at strategic work and looking at the long-term impact of some, you know, some implementation of different things. Like, I know we are definitely in a better place than we used to be, and there’s lots of good work happening in this space. Um, but we can get a little bit addicted to the reactivity, and our decision making is sometimes pretty quick. Um, yeah, and I’ve seen that from a lot of leaders in this space as well, where you know, they’ll be like, all right, we need to implement this change and we’re doing it tomorrow. And it’s like, how about we slow down and look at you know what outcome we’re trying to do and how we’re going to measure that?

Colby: 27:03

Yeah, and ultimately trauma traumatised organizations uh are not good at um responding therapeutically to traumatised children. Yeah. But yeah, I can see what you mean about it’s it’s almost like it’s a sales, a sales job to to, I mean, leadership, leadership is the I guess in schools is the target, primary target. Um because leaders, yeah, set the tone of the of the school, as you say. Um have you worked out what works with the cell job that you’re prepared to share?

Megan: 27:39

To be honest, I’m not I’m definitely not a sales um motivated person when it comes to business, but I think ultimately um it’s just like just being out in the field and just talking to the people and sharing and having case studies, and like that’s that’s my approach, really, is like if I can share things that are helpful to people, whether it’s an article, a blog, a podcast, uh a little idea that’s worked in a school, um, that’s my approach. So it’s not very sales for sales focused. Um, but you know, if someone finds something helpful, then they’re more likely to think about well, how can we do this on a bigger scale?

Colby: 28:13

Absolutely. Yeah, and I think yeah, being a resource to school leadership um is a great place to start. Yeah.

Megan: 28:20

Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 28:21

Which is a nice we can I can segue a little bit away from that into what what do you think is the role of schools in helping children recover from early adversity, family trauma?

Megan: 28:35

It’s such a good question. And I find that this is a really interesting part of the work. Um, and I’m gonna start by saying I feel like a lot of empathy for teachers at the moment. Um, there’s so much different discourse around what a school does and what the role of a teacher is. And I think we haven’t started from the right place around what it what is the work, you know. When we look at being a teacher and coming into a classroom and supporting a group of young people and often a very large group of young people at one given time, we’re we’re supporting human beings, and those human beings are coming in with all of their complexities. Um, and I think initially what we should have been doing is actually thinking about talking about education in a way that supports that notion of I’m a teacher and I’m here to support human beings and they’re gonna come in with their complexity. Um, so yes, teachers want to teach their curriculum and they they absolutely want to execute those amazing lesson plans, and that’s what they’ve signed up for. Um, but I just think we’re doing a disservice in talking about education as solely that when we look at the complexity of human beings that come into classrooms. So I want to say that teachers do not have to be therapists, and it’s not about adding therapy training to a teacher’s workload. Absolutely not. Um, but I think it’s just about learning ways that we can work in a trauma informed way while we deliver that education. And I just wish that that was part of um. You know, pre-service teacher degrees and training is just a bit more knowledge around trauma-informed practice. Um, and then that way we would come in understanding why children might be behaving in particular ways in our classroom. So for some young people, school might be the safest place. It might be the place where they come in and they actually feel seen and heard and they feel loved by the teachers at the school. And so teachers can be doing life-changing work without even being 100% aware of that notion as well. So I just think anyone who’s working with young people has the opportunity to provide therapeutic moments without being a therapist. And so I just think if we all can put that hat on and just remember, young people are at the center of the work that we’re doing. The curriculum’s not the center, the young people are the center of the work that we’re doing. Um, yeah, and I just feel for teachers, I just really wish, you know, we spoke about it in ways where they understand that complexity before they sign up.

Colby: 30:56

It’s it’s kind of like in my in my uh field, the psychology of individual differences. So it’s that tension between um this is what we know about everyone, and this is what we know. So, you know, we could apply these general theorems or you know, uh this general knowledge to everyone. Um, but perhaps perhaps the the best of those statements is that everyone’s an individual. We need to tailor and adapt and and yeah, I mean it’s it’s what I think what you’re what you’re getting at, um, or what I’m hearing you’re getting at is that um early on it’s important to not only think about what you want to deliver, but just to think about the role. Think about the the role that you put you’re playing uh in the in the lives of the of the children and think about their experiences and how best to um adapt for each child. And uh I feel sorry for teachers too, because I could just imagine if I came in as a psychologist into a school and said, Well, you’ve got to adapt for each individual child, they would say we have 30 children in our classroom and half of them are experiencing this and other yeah, and so you know, and um that’s the thing as well.

Megan: 32:23

Like I feel like we don’t have to get overly complex about it. Like when we look at some trauma-informed practices, we can actually look at what’s called in education, like multi-tiered systems of support. And when we at tier one, that’s universally what we want to do for the entire class. So like we don’t have to make adjustments in tier one. Tier one’s what we provide for everyone. And lots of trauma-informed practice lines up really well with some of our tier one setup for our classroom. So things like having a circle time in the morning and having a chance to actually engage with everyone and see how they’re feeling, do a pulse check, regulation strategies for the entire class, just using unconditional positive regard in how we, you know, respond to behaviors that are coming up, clear expectations, predictable routines, like lots of these things will actually just support all of the young people in our class without overcomplicating it and going 50% of my students need this and 50% need that. Like if we can just get some of those basics right, we’re gonna see some change happen in classrooms as well.

Colby: 33:22

How did what’s the response you get to that?

Megan: 33:25

Well, to be honest, this is actually where I think I do get a lot of positive response from teachers because they are incredibly overwhelmed when they think about I need to do trauma-informed practice and curriculum and this and that. Whereas when I get a chance to actually map it with them and go, let’s map these tier one things that you can do for your entire class, like it’s almost like a sigh of relief of going, oh my gosh, I’m actually so relieved to hear there’s some things I can do just in my daily practice without getting too individualized and overwhelmed.

Colby: 33:54

Do you think it matters who delivers that message? Um, so I’ll give you two examples. You delivering that message, or me as a clinical psychologist with 30 years experience working with these children, developing that uh delivering that message. Do you think it makes a difference?

Megan: 34:13

It can for sure. I think because I’ve walked the classroom experience that sometimes it lands because of that. Um, but I I’m just imagining the power of us delivering that message together, Colby. That would that would be so impactful.

Colby: 34:28

I dare say, um, I always say when I’m when I’m working at school, and just just just to let you know that I’ve written a program for schools. I have I have rolled it out here. It is rolled out, it’s not rolled out widely here. In fact, um when I applied as part of this SA government’s um, they had a scheme to deliver trauma-informed uh practice across schools. Um I’m I’m I’m happy to put my hand up and say that I I didn’t win the tender. I wasn’t a successful tenderer um for that, which um I think there’s a bit of a story in relation to that. But net nevertheless, I have still worked with schools um a lot over the past 30 years, um, less so these days because of that initiative. But but I have a program that is rolled out in schools in Ireland.

Megan: 35:23

Amazing!

Colby: 35:24

Yeah, it’s like but you know, an artist is never known in their hometown.

Megan: 35:30

I find it’s quite funny. Australia’s funny like this, actually. Like I I agree, like there’s sometimes where I’ve seen some um some colleagues who’ve been really successful in the UK, yeah, um, but they’re Australian-based, and then they, you know, there’s certain networks they try and get on in Australia, and it’s like nut, but the UK said yes. And I think, yeah, there’s just different processes and approaches, I think, to to yeah, how we go about it in Australia. We’re very very red tape over here.

Colby: 35:56

I yeah, and also though, I think I just think that whatever’s exotic, you you know, we’re drawn to what’s exotic. So I I I can’t I I feel conflicted when I hear that someone is coming from overseas and they’re rolling out something in my local jurisdiction that I could do, I’m conflicted because I’d like to be doing it in my own local jurisdiction. One, but I also know if I went to their jurisdiction, they would probably find me more attractive in a sense, in an exotic, you know, from overseas sense than than that person that’s come to my jurisdiction. And certainly I find that in Ireland and the UK, and especially in Ireland, um, you know, some of the most validating work I’ve done has been the overseas work because yeah, I think there’s that that bit that goes through it. Anyway, I think I think we digress. What I was going to say is also like I think it’s really important to just ignore. I think part of what’s helpful for someone like me to engage uh teaching staff in a school is to first acknowledge the limitations of my experience. So I’ll I’ll often say, look, I I’m not a teacher, I didn’t train as a teacher, I have never, it’s not true that I’ve never ever taught a class in a school, because I have. I’ve been invited into my my son’s school to in their psychology, year 11 psychology, but for a little bit. But basically, I’ve never taught I’ve never taught in a school, I’ve never worked in a school. That’s also not quite true. But anyway, my point is I’ve I’m not, I haven’t lived and breathed what you have.

Megan: 37:42

Yeah, but you you bring up extra knowledge as well, though, that like that’s the thing. So we can learn from so many different people from so many different angles as well. Um, and I’m sure there’ll be teachers sitting in your training that will like that light bulb moments will be taken. And as long as like part of the message or just one practice is taken, then you’ve made a big difference as well.

Colby: 38:01

Yeah, so well, thank you for saying that. What I what I do say is that I know the children very well.

Megan: 38:07

Yeah, absolutely.

Colby: 38:08

Because I’ve been working with them therapeutically for 30 years, yeah. That’s my primary work, and um yeah, and but I still, you know, it’s still I guess we all would get the people that we meaningfully engage, and then there’s the ones that um yeah, that it it would be harder to achieve that.

Megan: 38:28

Yeah. Well, I’m curious, Colby. What’s your main message to teachers? If you can like I’m I’m now firing questions back to you, but I’m just curious what’s this is my podcast. But what’s your main message if you can sum it up like briefly to teachers, you know?

Colby: 38:43

I thank you, because um I love to talk on my own podcast. Um it’s interesting. I what you said about um you’re always you’re already doing things that will help, it really resonates with me, and really I’m a I often say I’m a simple man with a simple message. My I think that um change changing your approach. So if I’m talking to foster parents or kinship carers or or residential childcare workers or social workers, you know, any of those audiences that I might speak to, teachers, it’s very hard for them to change their habitual approaches to the work. And in fact, their habitual approaches to relationship and relational connection and how we how people approach their roles. And in action, there’s a there’s a statistical phenomenon called regression to the mean, and I sometimes talk about it in this term, which is which basically means that people you can get some people to mobilize a bit of extra effort to change a behavior. The most likely outcome, though, in any behaviour change process is that people will end up back to where they started slowly, they’ll make a change and then they’ll slowly tail back to where they started. And so the message of that for me has always been well, you’ve got to work with where people start. What do they already know and do that helps? So my message uh can be summed up in the acron several acronyms, but the one that people seem to like the most at the moment is aura, where I’m not talking about aura in a well, it is a metaphysical sense, but not the new age sense. That an aura is is def is defined as the felt quality, uh, the person’s experience, one person’s experience of another person or a place, how it how it feels to them. And it it’s also really I I actually came, sorry, now I’m on the I feel like I’m on the Wagtail podcast, but um I came up with this. I was laying in bed one morning and I was just thinking about the concepts that I routinely think about in this space, and and and it dawned on me that you could put them under this aura acronym. Accessible, understanding, responsive, and attuned. Um paying attention to children, teachers do that. Yeah. They know and part of being accessible is noticing or anticipating that a child may be having difficulty and getting in before the child does anything to um to secure attention or get out of what they’re doing. Uh, understanding means just you know acknowledging the child’s experience in our words, in our actions, and in our expressed emotions, our actions, responsiveness, it can be um uh turning our mind to what a child needs from us at this time and just and and offering it proactively. With children and young people who are recovering from a tough start to life, proactive is much better than reactive if because because they feel often feel like they have to control and regulate adults. Your cut through that is that you do things proactively so that they have a different experience. So it’s not you only did that because I did something to make you make it so, rather, it’s um oh, you noticed that I needed that from you. And the last one uh the A in aura is attuned, which is about empathic acknowledgement, really. Just you know, not don’t try and um present an entirely different uh affective presentation to that of the child. The reality is we all have instinctive empathy, well, just about all of us do. Um and so when if a child’s upset, we’re likely to be upset. If a child is happy, we’re like to be we’re likely to be happy. We don’t have to suppress our emotions. What we do though is we we show a bit and then we regulate back to a karma space, and children will follow that. So the that that is a very and these are all very natural parts of of um relationship building and caregiving, being accessible, being understanding and not uh responding and being attuned. We all do it. We do it we do it when the kids are younger, especially we do it for babies. Yeah, and then as babies grow up, they go we say use your words, yeah, and we start to we we we start to be less proactive and more reactive, and it’s part of just socializing our children in the ways of the world. But traumatized children, hate using that term, but children have experienced trauma in the home, their uh their their uh development is start often start way back. Or they’ve got this kind of Frankenstein development in a sense where there’s all these holes in it. You know, they they’ve never that for example, they’ve never had um consistently enough, often enough, the experience of being in the mind of an adult. You know, that they’ve never had um the experience that adults come when needed, that you can tolerate being separated from them because you know that they exist and that they will come when needed. There’s all sorts of ways in which early family trauma and neglect is part of that, impact development, and so they end up with this kind of weird hybrid level development that I think just start at the beginning basics, which is I think consistent with what you’re saying. Start at the basics, yeah, and progress and see how you go from there. And I I think you get along, you go a long way, easier for the staff, and the kids are less reactive to it because it’s all it children who go all children have experienced some level of care, they haven’t been raised by dogs or whatever. Well, you know, that maybe um dogs make I don’t dogs don’t make good parents for children, they make good parents for dogs, but and good companions, but not necessarily parents. Yeah, that’s right. So I I mean, if you start at the basics, they’re not unfamiliar to children.

Megan: 45:28

Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 45:30

If they’re unfamiliar, if someone tell comes in and says you’ve got to do this suite of really, you know, newfangled, sophisticated things, one teachers or f teachers, foster parents, kinship care, anyone will find it hard to implement and sustain over time. And the problem with it not sustaining over time is inconsistency. Inconsistency just rolls the kids up.

Megan: 45:54

Yeah.

Colby: 45:54

So if you start doing something, then you give it up, they’ll they they don’t know what to expect of you. The other thing is that the kids don’t like change, they’re reactive to it. So the teachers go, that this idiot Colby Pierce, he told me to do this, and then we, you know, and then we had to evacuate the classroom as you know when chairs started flying and whatever, it’s just too much. It’s too much. So dose is important. Okay. So maybe we should release this podcast under both Wagtail and Secure Start.

Megan: 46:32

Brilliant answer though. And I like a lot of what you were sharing, like I often say to teachers is um we don’t know what experiences these young people have had over the weekend or that morning before they come into our classroom. But we know what experiences we can give them before they leave for the day. And if we do that every single day, so if we’re just having a couple of positive interactions, we’re saying their name, we’re greeting them in the morning, where you know, we’re pretty consistent in the way we’re supporting them when they’re having a challenge. We’re actually helping to send those messages to them that adults can be safe. Because here’s an adult doing it five days a week, week after week. And over the course of a year, you’ve actually sent some pretty strong messages to that young person that’s going to change their perspective and their experience of adults.

Colby: 47:16

And I think, yes, uh, look, there’s there’s so much going through my mind, and I don’t want to go off onto a long, uh, a long answer, but um I recently had um Ben Perks on the podcast. Now he’s the global head of policy and advocacy and child protection at UNICEF. And he he’s written uh his book is fantastic. It’s just a cracking read. I love it. And but one of the things he he grew up in children, he was relinquished by his parent or parents and grew up in children’s homes in pretty kind of the it sound without going into a lot of detail, it sounds like you know, some of the worst experiences of being in children’s homes that young people can have. And he’s got a you know, he’s got a a massive global role now in UNICEF. Yeah, he’s he’s had a spectacular career from kind of like children’s home, young offender, delinquent kind of uh thing to to here. And anyway, the the the punchline in this story is it started with a teacher. And and and I I think it star it it does start with one adult who just stops and um thinks thinks about this child, holds space for them, keeps them in mind, responds to them proactively. And now and if you can get a whole school focused on this is how we’re going to be with any child we interact with in the school, simple basic things, acknowledging, empathic acknowledgement of their experience, uh responding to their needs proactively before they have to ask. That that that has great power and and you need it because often parental in child protection out of home care, too often um the relationship with birth family is is fra which is fractured is not repaired.

Megan: 49:24

Yeah.

Colby: 49:25

So you need lots of good relational experience for young people to compensate.

Megan: 49:33

Yeah, I heard someone refer to it actually as needing a like a patchwork quilt where we’re all adding a patch to the quilt. And that that’s what a young person who’s had a fractured home life and has lost that sense of the birth family. It’s a patchwork quilt approach where they need multiple people adding to it.

Colby: 49:51

Yeah, yeah. You’ve said a little bit about what you recommend. I’ve I’ve said a lot, too much. Some people will say, we come on and listen to this podcast, Colby, to listen to your guests, not to you. Uh, I know so I can already anticipate one particular person who uh uh regularly I regularly speak to about this podcast, who’s gonna say, Colby, won’t you just, you know, not but you did ask the question.

Megan: 50:17

I did ask the question.

Colby: 50:19

Yeah. Do you is there I wonder if there’s anything else that you think it would be important to say in the as part of this conversation about how we make schools places of healing as well as learning?

Megan: 50:33

Yeah, it’s such an interesting one. I feel like the education system likes to do a bit of a pendulum kind of swing where we focus on one thing and then something else. Um, and I feel like about 10-15 years ago, we’re getting really good at going well-being’s really important, and now we’re pendulum swimming back the other way and going, let’s do rote learning again, and science of learning is the main focus. And it’s like they both coexist, they both have to be there. Um, so I think just giving teachers a chance to hold both, and the priorities don’t have to keep swinging from one to the other. But the most important thing I think I will say is we need to change the discourse around teacher well-being to start, and here we go again about it. But ultimately, it’s hard work, like teachers are, you know, it’s a challenging job. And here we are talking about trauma-impacted young people coming into their classrooms as well. And so I think we actually need to be proactive around thinking about teacher well-being. And there was some research that came out, I think it was in May, from um Adam Fraser and a couple of other people at Deacon around secondary traumatic stress being really high in educators. Um, and so, you know, like we need to acknowledge that and say this is real, this is part of what teachers are facing. So let’s plan for that. Let’s not just assume that that’s not going to happen to the teachers in our school. The stats are showing it’s happening to the teachers in your school. Um, so let’s like acknowledge that that’s a real thing and plan for that. And let’s actually look at how the industry could have more effective debriefing, more effective, you know, peer support circles, like we’ve spoken about. Um, you know, supervision would be a dream for educators. And but I don’t want to plant seeds that can’t be watered or grown in any way. But I know principals, some principals have access to that, and some alternative schools have been implementing supervision. So just making sure we’re actually putting supports in place and then we’re training teachers effectively to actually navigate trauma-informed practice in their classrooms, they’re going to feel a lot better for it. So I think that that’s the starting point, really.

Colby: 52:33

Yeah, it’s hard, it’s hard to get across that uh kind of like a primary prevention method uh message, isn’t it? Where, you know, so one thing, you know, there’s a number of things that came up in in what you were saying, but one thing is that if if let’s say if you want to focus on learning outcomes, you need to acknowledge that children learn best when their central nervous system is regulated and they learn best from people that they feel connect relational connection to. Correct. And so some children some children resist relational connection, and uh so we need to find ways to connect with them. And and I also so that’s you know, with learning outcomes, I also want just wonder about the the cost to society of teacher burnout. And even if not teacher burnout, see again I come back to Ben Perks and his book, and he t he tells lots of stories about parents and and children, some of which are factual and others are um uh fictional, but but making a point. But you one of the kind of things that gives you chills when you think about it is you’ve got a teacher who’s burnt out at work but is a parent themselves. Like that’s it, there’s social costs in all of these things, and they don’t necessarily uh fall nice and neatly into all the buckets that that that you know that the government has, and this is the education bucket, and but if you if you burn out teachers or you know, or burn out child protection workers notwithstanding the their their best uh endeavors, you you create a scenario where they’re not at their best in all walks of their life.

Megan: 54:29

Yeah, yeah. And this is what we ignore sometimes too, is just like how trauma is actually we’re very interconnected. And like the way our systems and our society is structured and set up is actually, you know, perpetrating trauma into our society as well. And we have parents who are quite isolated while they’re trying to parent because our structure of society is all this independence and you know, managing the full-time job and then managing the household at the end of the day. And you know, people are actually, yeah, quite isolated a lot of the time too.

Colby: 55:05

Yeah. Only we can change the world.

Megan: 55:10

I know, but we can bit by bit, we can change, you know, maybe just the experience for one child at a time, and that’s changing their world at least.

Colby: 55:18

Well, this is um well, a point that I would make further to that is that if you can change that child’s world, you can you you have uh there’s a strong possibility that you’ll change the the the life and experiences of a life partner, of their children, and of their grandchildren. So that it by intervening there’s that there’s a social capital. I had an earlier guest who was very interested in social capital, uh, Graham Carrige, um, another good podcast to listen to. But he, yeah, the what came out for me out of that conversation was just that that ongo, you know, that ongoing benefit to society. And then on the flip side is that if you don’t if we don’t do anything about this. I was only thinking about it this morning, actually, that with child protection systems is that each child who comes in to child and and and grows up in in child protection system in a child protection system and out of home care system. How many child and and if nothing therapeutic, if they’re if their life course is not um changed and you we’ve got that intra intra intergenerational transmission, that it’s a big problem. Then child protection will never shrink as a problem because they’ll have uh multiple children, likely they’ve all gonna have similar histories, and it and it just it’s like a snowball, it just gets bigger and bigger. And I do, I personally do think that school it’s been very difficult for me over the years at times to to get the message across, but school is is after the home environment is is is the place where children get the biggest dose of relational connection, not just with teachers but with other kids as well. The the original notion of the takes a village included the children in it. We’ve kind of uh truncated a bit to say a village of adults, but it was a village in the true sense with with children as well, and that’s got implications, I think, for you talked about belonging earlier. Um, it’s got implications in terms of how we manage children’s behaviour, you know, what are the consequences and how do we foster belonging in a system that excludes children for misbehaviour?

Megan: 57:53

Yep, absolutely. That’s exactly why I dived into that area in my masters, really. Wanted to prove a bit of a point that, yeah, just that sense of belonging can be a life changer. And it’s the same when we look at out-of-home care as well, when young people are moved from home to home, house to house, when we have what would call placement breakdown. I hate the word placement as well. Um, but just the impact of that, if we’ve got children moving from home to home and then school to school or excluded from school altogether, well, the impacts are actually, yeah, really, really awful.

Colby: 58:24

Some would say they’re the worst, they’re among the worst things we can do to children. Placement or, you know, homesetting breakdowns, family, yeah, over and over and over. Yeah. And and you could equally, not equally, but you could similarly apply that to school.

Megan: 58:42

Yeah.

Colby: 58:42

I remember um um my father my father was expelled from school. Um many, you know, back he’s not alive anymore, but many, many um decades ago, in the atten, for the the teacher threw a chalk duster at him and he threw it back at the teacher and he was expelled. So this is back in the 1950s, late 1950s. Yeah, and that that never left him. That that was like an attachment injury. He he yeah, he ne he was he was always highly sensitive about that.

Megan: 59:20

Mm-hmm. Yeah, and what an awful experience too, and it just really highlights that dangerous power dynamic that was very strong in the 50s, but can still play out today, where the teacher had the power and was okay it was okay for them to throw something at the at the child, um, but then the child does something that we don’t like, and it’s you know, that power imbalance is huge.

Colby: 59:40

Yeah, yeah. Um Richard Rollinson, he he ran uh and has continued to be a significant figure in the mulberry bush, the uh therapeutic community in the in the UK.

Megan: 59:54

Yep.

Colby: 59:54

Um, he says he talks about how the schools help children. helps children to live with themselves and to live with others.

Megan: 1:00:06

I like that line.

Colby: 1:00:07

And yeah, I like it too. And he um and he talks about the power of we. We don’t this is not something that we do here. You know what we do is this. This is how we treat other people. We we where whereas so there’s that always that sense of in our language of community.

Megan: 1:00:31

Yeah. Yeah. And what’s okay for young people is okay for adults and what’s you know what I mean? Like it’s we have these like sort of unfair expectations sometimes of young people that we think the adults are immune to and it’s like no in a re in a true community we just have values and we operate by those values. And that’s everyone.

Colby: 1:00:51

And although it’s a very powerful way to intervene what we want is people to be we we want people to be motivated to can to um follow the the the norms of the of the group rather than to be fearful of of um exclusion from the group. That’s always there. That’s always a bit of a but you want the predominant thing to be you know I want to I want to stay part of this group. I want to be motivated I’m motivated to be part of this group. Yeah. Yeah. Any final things that you’d like to points you’d like to make about um this discussion or the or the work that you do?

Megan: 1:01:38

Yeah really good question. I think um I mean we’ve covered so much today but just if there is anyone listening that is doing this work it’s I think we’ve planted a few good seeds that like it is such important and beautiful work um and that you are you know making a difference in young people’s lives. So just make sure that you do have those um support systems in place and just thinking about you know the way that we’re showing up and how we’re looked after in the work as well and just so we can sustain ourselves to do it long term would be the main thing I think. Yeah great terrific well thank you Megan for being on the secure start slash wagon thank you so much Colby honestly it’s such a privilege to be invited and honestly yeah sorry for firing questions back you as I said I like to learn from people as well so I was picking your brain I think that I think the most uh uh telling thing was that that you only asked one after my response yeah there were no more well thanks again thank you might speak to another time sounds good

Building Trauma-Responsive Care – A podcast interview with Richard Cross

What if “care for the carers” is the real key to healing children? Richard Cross unpacks attachment, containment, and why residential care isn’t always a last resort.

Why caring for carers is the first step to healing children

The conversation with Richard Cross traces a clear through-line from first principles of attachment to the practical, daily realities of caring for children who have lived through repeated adversity. The central idea is disarmingly simple: care for the carers as deliberately as you intend to care for the children. When organisations build genuine containment for staff—through reflective supervision, stable leadership, and shared language—adults think more clearly, tolerate uncertainty longer, and respond more humanely. This is not abstract. It shows up in fewer reactive decisions, more patient attunement, and a culture where difficult feelings are metabolised rather than acted out. Richard’s pathway is parallel by design: a staff pathway that mirrors what we want adults to offer children—holding, reflection, and growth—so that therapeutic care becomes a living experience rather than a manualised aspiration.

This lens also reframes how we choose care environments. There’s a prevalent belief that family is always best, and that residential care is an option of last resort. Richard challenges this. For some children—especially those phobic of family life due to traumatic family histories—early, high-quality residential care is the right first option. It offers increased containment, predictable routines, consistent relational responses, and an integrated team that can share the emotional load without burning out a single carer. Used early and well, residential care is not a cul-de-sac. It can be a structured bridge that shortens the overall care journey, stabilises education, restores trust, and improves placement matching into foster care when the child is ready. The cost argument fades when we look beyond a single year and count the human and financial toll of repeated breakdowns.

Translating theory into practice depends on leadership. Trauma-informed care is not a leaflet or a one-off training day; it is a culture choice repeated under stress. Richard starts with directors and senior managers, setting an honest expectation of a long journey. Leaders must protect time for reflection, model transparent communication, and respond to crises without abandoning the principles that keep the system humane. Shared language is the glue—terms like containment, emotional holding, thinking-not-acting, and amber flag meetings give teams a way to notice patterns, signal risk, and convene quickly to think together. Staff need spaces to explore triggers, write safety plans for themselves, and acknowledge that not knowing is often the wisest starting point. Tolerating uncertainty creates room for curiosity about what a child’s behaviour is communicating, rather than rushing into control strategies that escalate distress.

Integration across services magnifies healing. When residential homes, foster services, schools, and clinical teams all use the same concepts and responses, children experience adults as consistent and coordinated. Anxiety drops when staff don’t contradict each other, and when ideas flow freely across settings. Practical structures make this real: cross-service supervision, shared formulations, and “amber flag” meetings anyone can call when pressure rises. These routines stop fragmentation before it sets in and keep the system relational. The message to commissioners is equally clear: bring psychologists into placement planning, invest earlier rather than later, and track outcomes credibly so trust grows. Evidence from practice shows that the right residential intervention can reduce total time in high-intensity care, improve education continuity, and increase the success of subsequent family placements.

Mentorship underpins all of it. Richard’s story threads through good governors, supervisors, and collaborators—people who stood at his shoulder while he learned to hold complexity without panic. That’s the same stance we need for staff stepping into tough roles, and for children learning that adults can be steady, honest, and kind. The north star remains attachment: safety, proximity, and reliable responses that let minds turn back on. When organisations embody that for staff, staff can embody it for children. That is how cultures change, how placement breakdowns slow, and how healing becomes less about slogans and more about daily practice that holds firm when it matters most.

Listen here:

Watch here:


About Richard:

Richard is a UK Registered Psychotherapist and Child Psychotherapist.

His career for over 30 years has focused on working with relational approaches in areas associated with attachment, trauma and dissociation.

Richard’s early career was focused on developing relationally based treatments within correctional environments to reduce recidivism, as well as managing democratic prison-based Therapeutic Communities for high-risk adult life-sentenced offenders (HMP Dovegate, England).

Richard collaborated with Sandra Bloom to introduce the Sanctuary Model to the UK in 2004.

Since then, Richard has developed an interest in trauma-responsive models and continued his focus on Therapeutic Communities, exploring how to bring these aspects to life in organisational cultures. One example is a multi-component approach called ATIC (Attachment and Trauma-Informed Care), which is now harnessed across multiple residential child care homes. 

Richard is actively involved in research and innovation, and he also provides consultancy services to organisations, and training to qualified mental health professionals. 

Richard is Director of Clinical Services at Five Rivers Child Care & Midhurst Children’s Therapeutic Services, where he leads teams of psychologists and psychotherapists. He is also a Fellow and Faculty member of the International Society for Trauma and Dissociation, and serves as a trustee of the Bowlby Centre in London and The Consortium of Therapeutic Communities (TCTC).


Related Podcasts:

If you liked the conversation with Richard, you may also like:

My Interview with Patricia Sheridan of Moore House:

You may also like my conversation with Dr Kevin Gallagher:


Transcript:

Colby: 0:00

Welcome to the Secure Start Podcast.

Richard: 0:03

There’s something about having a really good mentor, having a good individual who can create the space for you to think, grow, and develop and wrestle with some of these tensions and unknown elements that can often come around in the world. It’d be great if you could put an old head on your own shoulders, but the reality is that that can never be the case. So we need to go through this. Through this process of learning. It’s that experience that we have someone there that’s going to stand by us through that process of learning, through that process of growth. It’s so reassuring, and we don’t want to care for the staff equally as much as we do the children. We often see the graduates of within the home having other children in mind. I speak to leadership and management, but what’s that going to mean in terms of the leadership style in the organisation and the culture that’s going to permit staff to be able to move to a place where we can truly use the structures and attachment to twelve and form. And we start to think, to learn, to grow, to develop. But if people think twelve and four care to be responsive is easy. It’s not. To be able to deliver this and to be able to do it, so it’s created as a living experience for the staff and a direct experience for the children. It takes a lot of courage and bravery because people need to go and think about hearings and would not really think of it. Foster care can be highly effective for those children who have anaphobic about family living. You know, the great thing at the moment is that five of us is changed caring for over a thousand children, and then the much of it those children are in foster care. Very happy, really good outcomes, you know, great foster parents, you know, doing great work. But there is a group of children and young people that are still the BO them to identify when residential the residential environment is the environment that’s best for them.

Colby: 2:25

Welcome to the Secure Start Podcast. I’m Colby Pearce, and joining me for this episode is a leader in therapeutic and social care in the UK who has a particular focus these days on supporting those whose therapeutic task is to support children in need. Before I introduce my guest, I’d just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I’d also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Richard Cross. Richard is a UK registered psychotherapist and child psychotherapist. His career for over 30 years has focused on working with relational approaches in areas associated with attachment, trauma, and dissociation. Richard’s early career was focused on developing relationally based treatments within correctional environments to reduce recidivism, as well as managing democratic prison-based therapeutic communities for high-risk adult life sentenced offenders. Richard collaborated with Sandra Bloom to introduce the Sanctuary Model in the UK in 2004. Since then, Richard has developed an interest in trauma-responsive models and continued his focus on therapeutic communities, exploring how to bring these aspects to life in organisational cultures. One example is a multi-component approach called Attic, Attachment and Trauma Informed Care, which is now harnessed across multiple residential childcare homes. Richard is actively involved in research and innovation, and he also provides consultancy services to organisations and training to qualified mental health professionals. Richard is Director of Clinical Services at Five Rivers Childcare and Midhurst Children’s Therapeutic Services, where he leads teams of psychologists and psychotherapists. He is also a fellow and faculty member of the International Society for Trauma and Dissociation and serves as a trustee of the Balby Centre in London and the Consortium of Therapeutic Communities. Welcome, Richard.

Richard: 5:18

Thank you. Thank you so much, Colby, for that very warm welcome. And it’s really good to be here.

Colby: 5:24

Yeah, and look, it’s lovely to have you and thank goodness for the technology. Otherwise, uh be coming from a different uh well, I’m in the future for you, um, because I’m later in the same day. Um, and and also this technology uh allows me to sound very professional in the opening, even uh if you had to sit through a couple of uh blooper worthy moments there. Now, Richard, is there anything um that you’d like to add to that um that short bio I just uh gave of you?

Richard: 6:01

No, naturally, that’s that was that was very kind for you to share about a little bit about my developmental work history there. Uh but naturally it can’t cover off uh everybody that’s been really supportive of the thinking and innovation that I’ve had the privilege to do because often it takes organizations and systems a leap of faith to consider doing something something new or innovative.

Colby: 6:32

So yeah. Yeah, well, I I want to I do want to um talk to you as we go through about um about individuals, organizations that that that have um uh been influential, I guess, in in uh your career to this point. But I guess I’m wondering in the first instance, maybe if you can tell us a little bit about how you got into this um this space, this space. Uh you might even uh have some other words to describe the space you occupy uh in your work.

Richard: 7:11

Yeah, it’s fascinating when we end up at a destination. We often think about how did we get here, and I think for many people that getting gets involved in thinking about how to supporting children and young people, often there’s a real benefit to think about port supports being our motivators uh to engage in the task, and I’ll sometimes even help the care staff and the people that I support to really think about joining the dots around us. Uh personally uh yeah, you know, I had uh I think one of the driving forces was thinking about the key significant peoples in my early development that supported me through what wasn’t uh uh a particularly easy time coming into the world and uh starting starting off in life, and those experiences really stuck with me. So when I uh left the military in uh 1991, I left the services uh the Navy. I thought, what is it I’m gonna do? And for some unconscious reason, I I ended up working in young offenders. That was my first sort of task. That started off as a prison officer. Uh but very quickly within I think it was six months, I had this really supportive governor, uh, somebody called Dan Gunn, who uh MBE who uh supported me to go on my journey to become first qualified in psychology, but then start up my route to become a psychotherapist over the over the preceding 12 years and get some, you know, and then I got involved in the programs and the like. But yeah, so yeah, there’s there’s uh I often reflect on how I ended up, but there was something that was driving me to think about understanding the needs of children and young people. Uh even back then, it was thinking, thinking be sort of beyond what the label was back then, back in the 91 when I first joined the young offenders. It was all about the young person who committed a certain offense, which which is important. But quite early on, I was thinking, what is it that we need to do to think about what happened to this young person? What was the drivers, what was the antecedents for them to end up in their journey to end up in the young offenders? So yeah, that was that’s a little bit about my early embryonic sort of foray into the work.

Colby: 10:10

Aye, aye. And um uh was is there through your um uh your career since then, you’ve you you hinted at before that there’s been individuals and organizations, I guess, that have been willing to give give things a go or give give your ideas and innovations a go. I’m really excited to have you on because um I said the magic word when I in your bio, uh, which was bulby. And uh I think I think early on in each podcast, I I tend to ask people um about what theoretical orientations um uh influence their work. And I’ve been waiting for someone who who to uh who obviously um has drawn on attachment theory um probably similarly, uh if not uh more than I have done in my own career.

Richard: 11:08

Yeah, John John Bowlby and the subsequent pioneers. Uh because often thinking has its origins, and hopefully then there’s there’s others that can come after and pick up the bat and uh and carry on these these areas of development and thinking, and just as John Bowby’s uh theory is and uh and all uh and also pioneers about the social mind as well. Uh Colin Trif Island, for instance, uh there’s there’s been so many pioneers who who who create idea. Uh so John Balby was a very significant influence in my early war. That’s in part that was why I chose to go and they support places like the Balby Centre in London, but also thinking about how that relational aspect about how it can be applied not only to the practitioners themselves, thinking about their relational aspects in the work and the therapeutic task, but also thinking about the tasks with the child or the young person. Yeah, it’s very important, and I think the whole notion that John Bowlby brought, and I can remember watching his very last interview that was filmed, he uh he often said he had a regret about not incorporating as much as he wanted around the whole notion of trauma. He did move the theory away from the fan this notion of fantasy into the reality, but he had this element uh in his last interview with Peter was saying that there’s so much we need to do in terms of hearing what the children are bringing to us and and understanding that context in the relation of adversity. Uh so yeah, John Bowlby is a very influential person, but so so has been the people that I’ve had the privilege to work with. Uh so I can remember back in uh 2003 I was presenting at a conference in Scotland, uh, and at that time it was presenting on attachment, it was called broken bonds. Uh and in the audience was somebody called Sandra Bloom. And I’m fascinated when we’re passed cross, just like we’ll pass across in today, Colby. Uh when I pass cross with like-minded people, it can often create an energy to think about how we can collaborate and work together. So that was a significant experience for me because I was speaking about things like essays, the importance of the therapeutic relationship within residential childcare. And some of these concepts back then, because that was before trauma informed ideas were in the UK in a big way, it seems to just have become massive like overnight. But in the audience was Sandra who had uh developed this model, and it was great to be able to collaborate with her uh and and and bring that to the UK, which was great.

Colby: 14:32

And that was the sanctuary model.

Richard: 14:34

That was a sanctuary model, and I suppose at that moment, 2004, that had been after I’d my path had crossed with with uh someone called Roland Woodward who uh developed a democratic prison-based TC called HMP Dovegate, and he gave me the opportunity of being the therapy manager for a 40 40-bed therapeutic community. And I wish I could bottle experiences sometime to to give people an experience because to be able to work and manage a team in a therapeutic community for a period of time uh and embody principles like containment and management of anxiety and start to understand how these ways of working can be really effective in turning people’s lives around. Uh it would be because sometimes I feel it’s really hard for people to understand how cultures need to be in a live and breathing way, unless they’ve experienced it. You know, I used to say have faith in the process, uh but that can be difficult if you you haven’t experienced what a process is. And uh I’m going to say thank you for like to roll in because he was there’s something about having a really good mentor, having a good individual who can uh create the space for you to think grow and develop and wrestle with some of these uh these tensions and unknown elements that can often come around in the work. Uh yeah, there’s so many people I could actually say thank you to, you know. There’s I’m sure everybody is that what’s in this field, you know. We’ve like we’ve often had somebody, I’m gonna say something about Bulby here. Uh we’ve often had somebody that’s been at our shoulder that can help and support us in our work, particularly in the early, you know, the early foundational stages of our growth into either being clinicians or therapeutic residential practitioners. We’ve often had somebody at our shoulder that’s that’s embodied that confidence to then go through the professional maturation process, as I call it, to get to a point we can feel more comfortable in the task.

Colby: 17:03

I’ve I’ve I’ve kind of referred to it when previous guests have brought it up as the importance of had people who have confidence in us until we have confidence in ourselves.

Richard: 17:16

That’s that’s such a nice way of putting that, you know, that whole notion that uh and I think this is what children and young people need, you know, this this intentionality that we believe in someone, it’s it’s uh it’s often the unspoken though. It’s like it’s that experience that we have someone there that is going to stand by us through that process of learning, through that process of growth. Uh it’s so reassuring, and and it can automatically reduce anxiety because often that is that’s the critical element that I feel that I’m day-to-day. It’s like it’s my day-to-day task almost of being the being the processor of anxiety from like for staff, creating spaces where they can sit and gain their confidence and tolerate uncertainty and uh yeah, develop that understanding. That’s a nice, very nice way to put it, Colby.

Colby: 18:17

Yeah, well, thank you. I I I had these moments every now and then, but um I I’d forgotten about it until you were talking just then. But um uh you I mean, you’re obvious you were also talking about containment when you were talking about holding on to and and processing other people’s anxiety. So I I sense that containment theory and perhaps the work of Beyond has also uh been of some um well thank you.

Richard: 18:46

Yeah, I’ve I was I was so lucky I had a supervisor for a long time called Bob Hinchelwood. Uh he’s a professor and he’s a psychoanalyst, and uh often that transfer of knowledge and wisdom. I used to have like my first supervisor used to say uh it’d be great if you could put an old head on young shoulders, but the reality is that that can never be the case. So we need to go through this through this process of learning. So yeah, Wilfred Beyond, he was uh when I got involved in therapeutic community work, I used to prolifically read the texts about the origins of TCs, you know, Northfield experiments, you know, thinking about how Beyond, Tom Main, uh Maxwell Jones. I I really like his ideas of the social, the social environment as well. Uh there’s all these active ingredients and knowledge that people have people have identified and brought that we can think about bringing to life, and there’s often interconnections as we know, so so Beyond’s work on containment is really connected as well to Donald Winnicott and that notion of emotional holding, as Winnicott called it. And Winnicott naturally worked with Barber Docker Drysdale. So sometimes when we look, you know how we’re talking about people’s past crossing. Often, often there is the crossing and history of uh how knowledge is then translated from one to another. So, yeah, containment, emotional holding, thinking about how we can use the day-to-day environment effectively for the therapeutic task and all that’s been the foundation of my work, yeah, for many years.

Colby: 20:43

And what one of the things that I often say about Balby is that he was not insular or siloed in it, you know, in the way that so many can be. Um you know, in his time and and and more recently, he was drawing on work from other areas of endeavour and integrating it into attachment theory. So attachment theory is an integration in a way of multiple areas of endeavour. Um and I just go off like I’m sorry. No, no, you say, you go ahead.

Richard: 21:20

No, it’s interesting because if you ever, you know, if I don’t know if you’ve ever been to the Taverstock clinic where Bowby was based, uh in London, it’s a you know, it’s it’s still a center of psychoanalytical thinking. But but even back when Bowlby arrived, and often often a new theory when it emerges, it’s there’s often a there’s often a rejection, there’s often a pushback. And I find this is a fascinating dynamic, particularly in work around children, because often children we can be very clear about their histories and why they’re having to get the supports they’re needing, but often just like theories are often struggle with. I think in general, this notion about attachment theory, thinking about how we handle that. There can be a bit of a bit of a wrestle for professional organizations and systems to you know to truly embrace it, to truly understand it and how to translate it in actual direct practice. Uh there’s there’s there’s often a real challenge about walking the talk, as I call it, in the field. And this is natural and normal in terms of human beings, it can be hard to do what we say we’d like to do. Uh so that’s why systems really need to develop approaches that they can tolerate almost the checking out. Are we sticking to where we want to be? Are we you know we’re staying in staying in this position of therapeutic mindedness and relational-based practice, particularly when the stress comes on the system.

Colby: 23:02

Yes.

Richard: 23:12

And sometimes Bowby, I think, had a really difficult time of it. He didn’t think you know, the very you know, the very early stages. Now it’s like one of the widest embraced uh frameworks that’s in the world. But back in the early thing, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 23:33

There’s a there’s a lot in there. One of the things that you mentioned it was about it can be difficult to walk the walk sometimes. Yeah, I think I think theories are good if they have good explanatory power and and and they’re easily understood, digested, and and I think you know, for me, from when I first got involved in child protection work, attachment theory and 30 years ago, attachment theory gave me the best way of um helping me with with um understanding the work that I was doing. Just going back to um I liked your your your idea of having a mentor that you know someone that just is there at your shoulder, guiding you in a way, and and I talked about them having having someone that has confidence in you until you have confidence in yourself. And you mentioned too that that that’s essentially something that we we do for the children that we work with. Um and um and I you know I’ve talked about this with previous guests, but I we talk about you know, we want I think a really important aspect of the work is to ensure that the adults have it have this have an experience of being held in mind, an experience of of being looked out for and looked after in a way that we want them to in turn transmit to the child or or to be to be doing with the children it themselves.

Richard: 25:13

Yeah, and that’s that’s that’s that’s part of the model and the thinking that I’ve actually embodied within attachment and trauma-informed care. Because I thought about how to distill quite complex ideas into uh a model which can be easily embraced and understood. And what I created was two parallel pathways, uh one for the staff and one for the children and young people. And basically the parallel pathway is saying we are going to care for the staff equally as much as we do the children because they are the therapeutic agents of change, and it’s like what does what does an adult adult practitioner need in terms of that mentoring, that support, that guidance, supervision? So, yeah, I work through these parallel models, which fascinatingly it then starts to give the practitioners or the carers or the staff the knowledge and the experience to more directly to be able to do this with the children and young people, because not everybody arrives at the therapeutic task having the knowledge, experience, attunement, and the abilities to do the work with the children. So we we really put as much nourishment as we possibly can into the care staff because so my role really and my my clinical services teams are to care for the carers, to do that that you’re describing very eloquently, Kobe, about giving that that that sense of uh togetherness, uh and it’s fascinating because we even see this happening between the children and young people. We we often see group like the graduates of uh within the home having having other children in mind, starting you know, helping and supporting them. So it’s I see the system as everybody, I see the system as the staff, the children, young people, and also the relationships with the two children themselves, and about how they can start to support and think about each other and help each other.

Colby: 27:37

Yeah, you you’re I think the point to make is that if you want to create a healing system, you need to be supporting your staff very well in a in a way that is analogous or closely aligned with, I should say, with with what how you want the staff to um care for the children. And I think you know, when I think about who comes to the work, um and previous guests referred to the the kind of wounded healer, or you know, you all you’ll often you’ll often get people who come to the work who um haven’t had the the best of upbringings themselves. Yeah, and so they don’t they’re not necessarily they they probably come with an idea of what they don’t want to repeat, they don’t want the children to repeat. And it repeat they want to relieve suffering, they don’t want other children to to experience and go through what they’ve gone through. What they maybe um benefit from is is is a form of um reparenting in terms of setting that re resetting the parenting model for them, yeah. And a containing mentor, supervisor, I guess is it it’s an important part of that relationship.

Richard: 29:05

Yeah, and that supervisor relationship needs to needs to create the environment, the you know, the weather system almost about how that uh professional development can take place. Uh because there is there is a process that often goes through for new staff coming into the field, and I used to find this uh even within the prison-based T sort of TC environment, that the first stage is people arrive believing they’re going to be this omni-important saviour for the children and do this sort of change over like married days, you know. They’re gonna be able in some way make uh significant changes quickly, but then often it’s the repeated relational attunement. Attachment over quite a period of time, and that takes sometimes the need to be really resilient and to be aware of our own biologies and responses, and really understand ourselves and our triggers. And that supervisory relationship can hopefully create an environment where staff can have their own uh well-being and safety plans, so they really start to understand themselves, understand their own responses when the therapeutic task gets difficult. Have a space that they can go and talk about how they feel emotionally before this anything gets acted on. So that uh I really like Tom Main’s notion of thinking non-action, being able to create an ability where practitioners can think but not act. Uh naturally, that’s what we want to support the children with as well, to get to a place where they can think and then you know, through this thinking stuff and not have to act through behaviors. But staff need to learn that, staff need to be able to be in the presence of a child and create a space between them and the child that they can do this thinking and understanding so they can do the attachment work, like we know they can, you know, they know what how they can be in their best of selves uh and respond to children.

Colby: 31:29

Yeah, and and of course, containment the idea behind containment theory and what Beyond wrote about that was essentially um we support another person and in doing in doing so we facilitate their capacity to think.

Richard: 31:45

Yeah.

Colby: 31:46

And I think and I think staff staff who are thought of are better equipped to think of others. If you yeah, when you encourage reflection on your own motivations, the reason why you do things, the reason why you you reacted in that way, your blind spots, when when you’re encouraged and supported to do that, then I guess in turn you don’t just jump to the immediate conclusion that children are bad because they’re doing behavior that is not um agreeable, and uh and they should and they need to be disciplined in some way. You there’s a there’s a cart and a horse thing going on here, and I I myself have been across my career guilty of putting the cart before the horse. If the whole if the cart is teaching this is teaching the adults, this is how you um you need to be relate therapeutically or care therapeutically for the children. If that’s your first step, your first move, then I’ve been as guilty of it as probably you know great many people have. But as I’ve gotten older, and you talked about putting an old head on young shoulders. I am hoping the podcast by interviewing very experienced people does help uh new practitioners in the area a bit, accelerate the growth, so to speak. But yeah, you know, the first step needs in in therapeutic endeavor, it’s become much more clear to me over time, needs to be to um needs to be our endeavours to support the staff and contain the staff and facilitate their own reflective capacity.

Richard: 33:33

Yeah. Yeah, there’s there’s someone that sadly passed away recently called Philip, Philip Bromberg, who’s a psychoanalyst, and he’s written written prolifically about working with complex trauma and dissociation. And yeah, his notion is about always being aware to hold us hold a space between you and the other. That like beyond beyond stuff was about being able to create this metabolic, this this said sort of digestion of another’s person’s uh transference or affect or whatever notion we want to consider. But without creating a space to think, hopefully, all structures out there trying to do the therapeutic task, uh hopefully they have a place where it can be protected to do to do that work, as a group, but also individually in supervision. Uh because without that, people can start to get a bit lost in the task.

Colby: 34:40

Well, I think yeah, my view is that they become procedural and and heartless in the sense that there’s you know, the heart is lost from the work because it’s just a cognitive, it’s not even a cognitive exercise, it’s it’s a reflexive approach, you know. Um, there’s not not that thinking. I I am very concerned about child protection systems, like statutory child protection systems, where workers from you know supervisors down to the to to workers um at the coal face are just you know so much under the pump that they don’t have that opportunity to stop and think about the work that they’re doing.

Richard: 35:24

It becomes a paradoxical situation around the whole things around the social care system, is that everybody like I come from the position that everybody are good entities wanting to do the good task, but often the systems be can can become unconsciously uh distracted due to the some of this parallel shift in us, but some of the anxieties, some of the trauma-related challenges, and actually these systems are working with extreme distress, extreme challenges that can often create reactivity in the systems, but like uncannily that we know what can help and sometimes it’s around holding the boundary around the systems and the processes that we know that work because they’re often the things that go out the window of us, sadly. Uh so it’s like trying to know that people are good people, but be able to find ways that we can raise it in the consciousness about what’s happening because people find it really easy to deal with the rational about uh objectives and well, we’re doing great, and but when things become irrational and they become really difficult, there’s a rule, there’s a real challenge for people to consider that, to think about it, and to really tap into what the reality might be going on, so then solutions can be identified. Thought you know, thought like this, thought through relational-based solutions for people, but also families and children.

Colby: 37:09

It’s it’s such an interesting area. I and I wonder about your experience of introducing um maybe new staff or or new organizations, your experience your experience of trying to introduce um this this thing that we’re talking about, where what we how we want the staff to interact with the children, we’ve we’ve got to offer that as an experience for the staff in their in supervision, in mentoring, in yeah, how how does how does that how does that go down, so to speak, when when you try that?

Richard: 37:52

Attachment and trauma-informed care. So it’s a model now that’s uh you know it’s been in five five rivers childcare for a long period of time, but it’s also going into all the organizations outside the five rivers now. And the first thing I’ve the first thing I say to organizations and the leadership, so start the leadership, even right up at the the point of the directors of the organization, because uh I’ll say this is a journey, it’s not uh I’m gonna arrive today and we’re gonna do this intervention and it’s gonna be in place tomorrow. I’m gonna hand out these leaflets, I’m gonna I’m gonna do a bit of training, and then all of a sudden, the whole organization is going to be trauma involved. Uh so I start off with a realistic base about the journey, about how that’s going to be, what it’s going to feel like. That’s a notion I’ve taken from my work uh as a psychotherapist with traumatised clients. So, like clients will come into me and they’re often like, What’s this going to be like, Richard? And I give a sense about what the journey is going to be like. And it’s like we’ll give a sense about what we need to achieve first. And so, in terms of trauma-informed practice, it’s safety, stabilization, all these notions. But it’s the same for organizations, we go back to we go back to the sort of foundational ways, and this is where the A in attachment and trauma-informed care comes in. I speak to leadership and management about what’s that going to mean in terms of the leadership style in the organization and the culture that’s going to permit staff to be able to move to a place where we can truly use the structures in attachment and trauma-informed care to allow staff to think, to learn, to grow, to develop. How are you as a leadership team going to respond when things might not go quite well within our service? How like how are we going to respond? Uh, how are we going to work together to embed uh these ways of working? Uh so right from the start, it’s all about collaboration, open, transparent communication, you know, it’s almost setting setting the tone, setting the culture. Uh but you know, if anybody thinks trauma-informed care is an easy option, but it can be if you do a bit of training and you get a leaflet and you think you’re trauma-informed. But if people think trauma-informed care and and being responsive is easy, it’s not to be able to deliver this and to be able to do it so it’s created as a living experience for the staff and a direct experience for the children takes a lot of courage and bravery because people need to go and think about areas they would not normally think about in terms of the work.

Colby: 40:58

Yeah, so um I think you’ve touched on the importance of senior management um and or setting setting expectations, managing expectations from the outset. And uh, you talked about you know going into an organization, speaking to those leaders. And while you’re speaking to me, it reminded me of of some previous conversations I’ve had on the podcast about about how we ensure that our that the very leadership of the of these organizations are um uh uh supported to have experiences of of of the model, basically. That you support you know have a have a containing supervisory relationship or relationship with the mentor. Yeah.

Richard: 41:46

Yeah. Can I just say a little bit about how I came to attachment and trauma and phone care? Just a little bit

.Colby: 41:54

Yeah, absolutely. Go ahead. I was working my way around, I was working my way back around to that, but you’re reading it.

Richard: 42:01

Well, because yeah, no, it just somebody came to mind there, and it was and it was the person called Pam Pam McConnell that created five five rivers childcare. So 36 years ago, uh actually on the 19th of September, Pam McConnell created the entity which is called Five Rivers Childcare. And it’s I’ve been there nearly 16 years, and I’ve I’ve stayed there because it’s a secure base for me. Because I believe places of work can also create this sense of security, places you can grow and develop. So I’ve been there for 16 years, but what Pam created, even away back 36 years ago, she noticed that those children who had sadly experienced sexual abuse, trauma, and neglect, the systems weren’t designed to meet their needs. So she was she was very creative and very innovative, and she she started to create residential environments, residential homes for children and young people to come and stay in. And since then, the organization’s significantly grown, we’ve gone into foster foster care, uh, education, we’ve got clinical services, but the key task is to support children at the heart, you know, at the heart of the organization, it’s doing good, thinking about how we can help children and turn their lives around. But PAM allowed the creative thinking about developing a model that could be easily accessible across multiple multiple geographical locations, about thinking about how we we we package up what can be quite complex psychoanalytical, therapeutic community ideas, adapting it into a model that can be translated and easily uh applied if the live and breathing system is on board, if that leadership manager team is in place. Um so yeah, Pam, you know, Pam McConnell just naturally came to mind because without her support and uh Five Rivers is a social enterprise, it’s you know, it’s it’s uh in the UK that means that paradoxically, people have difficulties thinking about sadly, care organizations need to charge because we need staff wages to pay and all that sort of stuff. But as a social enterprise, we reinvest, we reinvest in research, development, invest in our staff, and a bit of the investment that Pam gave was to allow me to invest in creating a model for the organization, which was great. So, yeah, yeah, I wanted to say my appreciation to Pam McConnell for that.

Colby: 44:59

Yeah, it is a remarkable organization because as you mentioned, it has residential care, it has foster care, it has education as a school, has clinical services. Yes, it has multiple schools, multiple services, and crisis intervention. Yeah, and and crisis support services as well.

Richard: 45:19

So, yeah, it’s got these multiple uh so in terms of children, in terms of their care journeys, they can come in at any part. Sadly, children, you know, it’d be a you know, the world would be a great place if children didn’t have to access our services. But the reality is children do, and sadly, in an increasing way across societies, there’s an increase. So, like in the UK at the moment, there’s about a 10% increase in the use of residential childcare. Yeah, uh often sadly, residential childcare isn’t seen as an early intervention, and that’s partly why I developed ATIC because it’s for under 12s initially. That was when I sort of developed the idea that children who are going through repeated placement breakdowns and disruptions in foster care given a given an idea to commissioners and uh uh people who are not sadly not often practitioners in the field. Look, if you see this pattern, there is something else, there’s something else that can be really helpful and harmless for good, and that’s residential childcare. So the notion that we have is we’ve got multiple ways that children can come in and uh have a home with us, uh, and that’s either in residential care or foster care, uh and also access education and the therapeutic services is the need. Yeah.

Colby: 46:51

Oh, yeah. Look, um you’ve drawn you’ve drawn on a number of themes from some fairly recent podcasts. But as I’ve as I’ve been doing these podcasts, one of the things that um has been more and more clear to me is that the this option of last resort is just I mean, that’s what there’s a look, there’s a bit of a story to it. I won’t go into it all, but that that was one that was almost what spurred me on to do the podcast, and in particular a stream of the spot podcast that looks at at residential childcare. I just think that there’s so many problems with this idea of residential care being an option of last resort. I think as I think you did you just touched on in there, there are times when it can be an option of first resort. There are it, and that and and I I’ve been writing and thinking about that and talking to people about that. Um you it it it does, it is something that a number of guests have talked about uh that can be utilized, and this has got to be good quality, good quality, therapeutic focused residential childcare. It can be it can arrest one of the most harmful aspects of out-of-home care, which is repeated placement breakdown. And the other thing is, and Bruce Henderson talked about, he’s my most recent past guest uh on the podcast. He’s he’s probably done the the largest review of the literature, including the uh empirical literature around uh social care, including residential childcare. And um he talked really clearly about um placement matching, and he was in he’s involved with the Black Mountain um care organization, he’s in America over there, and and similarly they have residential and foster um options, and um and it it it it’s allowed what I think you know it sounds like you’re able to do there at Five Res Rivers as well, is is to uh mobilize the care that the children need um where where they are in their journey, and sometimes that’s residential care, often enough that’s residential care.

Richard: 49:24

Yeah, this is very embryonic work in the UK. Um so embryonic uh attachment and trauma-informed care came out of 36 years, you know, the past period of time that we’ve been working, so we’ve harnessed all that knowledge, but that’s only been really since 2016. So I know that’s it might sound a long time, but in terms of changing systems and changing knowledge, uh we’re still on that journey to collaborate and work uh with commissioners with with local authorities because I I feel we’ve got a responsibility to explain really accurately about what can be supportive and helpful for children in terms of their needs. Often we need to translate that for the local authorities and commissioners in terms of the plans that we do. So we’ve got uh you know, when we get the privilege to have a referral for a child, a young person, we spend a lot of time about right, even at that initial phase about really understanding the child’s needs and taking the responsibility for being truly able to say that we are able to support this child, and this is what we would suggest would be helpful in terms of that part of their care journey. Often it comes down to trust, though, with with local authorities and commissioners around is this going to be something that’s gonna be helpful for the child? And and naturally, this is where research and evidence comes in. Being able to deliver really focused uh supports and how to explain outcomes and how to translate that as we go through the journey as well, is support the commissioners to understand that this is being effective, then it then it generates uh more more trust, trustworthy reactions again in the future. So it’s like, yeah, we’ll go back to Five Rivers and we’ll consider this approach again, like residential. It should can be the first option because of the experience. So there is a big responsibility on providers, isn’t that, to be able to make sure that we deliver what we say on the outside of the tin, you know? Yeah, uh, that we walk the talk, going back to that walk the talk bit again.

Colby: 51:57

And I’ve whilst you’ve been talking, I’ve I’ve been thinking about how five rivers with all of with all of those divisions, it’s probably not I mean divisions is the wrong word in if you because it it implies divide, but you’ve got those streams is a better word, and and and you are able, I think I’m hearing, to be to provide an aligned service so that staff might move between the streams, kids might move between the streams, but they have a consistent experience of care across those streams.

Richard: 52:34

And that’s where the model almost provides a tapestry for that. So one of the great things that Sandra Bloom told me when and I learned from what going back to the mentorship thing again, was language becomes the glue in terms of the model, in terms of how we speak about the work, uh how we see the task. And if that is shared consistently, if that language is shared across the different uh almost threads like the education, residential fostering. Children experience this as well. Children experience staffs using the same language, the experienced staff having the same response if situations are occurring. You see the adults sitting down and thinking together, you know. Uh yeah, it creates that uh that harness in the tap. Well, often people call it integration. Uh so one of the things that we do seek to make sure we don’t experience is this fragmentation in the system. In actual fact, people do become that sort of separate siloed uh thinking and the breakdown and communication. So part of the model was as well about the shared language is also making sure we keep these strands interconnected and almost be really aware if they start to drift apart, which can be natural and normal and anxiety. I’m not saying that there’s there’s anything abnormal about that that tension that that can happen, but we are really aware so we can bring things back together.

Colby: 54:11

It’s like and how reassuring for children who leave chaos and uncertainty to come into a place where they uh where the adults interact with them similarly. Because I think I think a task, a therapeutic task or a primary task and a model, it doesn’t make everyone clones of each other, it just ensures that there are there are aspects of uh the way they go about things that are consistent across home and school. And I think that that even just in and of itself, as long as there’s that consistency, that alignment between home and school, and it’s safe and and nurturing, but as long as there’s that, that it that’s gonna have such a massive impact on heightened nervous systems, yeah.

Richard: 55:04

So that magnification is a you know, when I was developing attachment to trauma and informed care, I thought, how can I magnify these helpful relational experiences? Going back to attachment again. How can I magnify these experiences?

Colby: 55:19

Can I say it all comes back to attachment? Sorry, I didn’t want to talk over you, but I I just needed to chime in there. It all comes back to attachment. Sorry, yeah, go ahead.

Richard: 55:30

No, it’s it’s great, yeah, because naturally it’s great, you know. All like research shows like if we’ve got one person, you know, it can have like quite a significant impact on us. But imagine if we can magnify that having 12, 15 people. So like I was looking at okay, if I can create this this approach in the residential care environment and have it in the schools, and when children are prepared and ready to go to their home in foster care, and the carers are embodying this stuff as well. It’s you know how enriching, how nourishing is that for the children, but also it creates this really helpful relational way of working and way of managing stuff between the staff and the adults as well. They’ve got this sense of understanding about okay, when this stuff happens, we get together. Uh, we’ve got different approaches for crisis management. There’s one called an amber flag meeting, which is anybody can call it, it’s like when things start to become difficult, staff can raise the flag, call a space, everybody gets together. We’re all involved in thinking, all involved in supporting. Uh and it, you know, it takes away the anxiety and fear that it becomes an everybody approach rather than somebody feeling their left on their own with a situation. Again, going back to attachment theory, uh, you know, often yeah, we’ve got our own resources and we want to develop that and our staff increase their resiliency. But when it gets to a point they feel overwhelmed, they feel like people either grow or they go sadly in the work. You know, people either grow in the work or uh it feels it gets too much, they leave. So we have like we’re all about growing people, so create and make sure people know they’ve got an outlet if they feel they’ve got to the end of their solutions or the end of the resources. We create this space where they can come and talk through and uh get the helping support they need.

Colby: 57:42

And of course, um um the first of my guests to um talk something uh a little about this was John Whitwell and uh of Cotswold Community and ISP uh integrated services. I’m not sure I got that last bit right, but anyway, John John was talking about uh going to because he went to the it went from residential care to foster care, and uh on the first day the staff, you know, there was something was going on in Stafford came to him and said, What do we do? What do we do? And he says, I don’t know. But but let’s talk, what do you mean you don’t know? Um but let’s talk about it, and I think, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like there’s and that has come back a number of times. Um, in fact, Peter Wilson, who we were talking to about a little bit beforehand, uh uh wanted to name his forthcoming book or title his first coming book forthcoming book, I don’t know. The because the I think the the the the um the the power or the influence or the strength in that is that it invites collaboration. And one of the things that that I’ve noticed, just as a bit of an aside, when I when I do training with um carers, uh if we if a carer brings up an issue to do with um a child in their care and they just don’t and they don’t know where to go with that, the other carers are actually really good at offering solutions, yeah. Yes, but then those same carers feel stuck in coming up coming up with solutions about their own the the children in their in their care. So it’s it’s quite fascinating that if you take if you take almost like a metacognitive stance, yeah, you’re yeah, you’re one step removed from it. The the yeah, that’s such a resource to be around people who are one step removed from being in the in that particular challenge.

Richard: 59:54

I think it’s I think it’s one of the key areas that can impede for. Trauma informed practice in my mind is the inability to tolerate what I call the unknowing. And that’s a direct translation from my work with clients because we can be sitting thinking we’ve got the answer. But the sad bit is if we think we’ve got the answer, we’re missing the opportunity to find out what it is actually like or what the meaning is from the other person. And equally with staff, the temptation is to think about that we’ve got the answer and to do the quick solution. And uh thinking really like back in my early work 30 years ago, I used to be so keen about just getting a solution. Let’s just let’s just do something. Because I used to come to the thing about doing something was better than doing nothing, right? But in actual fact, being able to tolerate uncertainty that uncertainty, that unknown for a period of time creates opportunities that uh can make people feel the part people need to feel part of the solution because otherwise, what what we find out in the terms of the attachment uh people go into that ambivalent state, they feel that they’ve not got a voice, there’s no point in saying, they become silent, and those toxic things within care environments are unawanted because we need we need people to feel they’re part of, they’ve got a voice, they can be heard. Uh and it may be a difficult process this about working through this, but the outcome of it is as golden as I see it. It’s it is to me, it’s the work to be able to because equally the staff are going to have to do this for the children, they’re gonna have to try and understand what the children are communicating through their behavior, trying to make sense of it, uh, and coming to that from a certain lens as well, as we know it’s about uh trying to illuminate about what that communication is that the you know the child is doing between them and the staff.

Colby: 1:02:17

Yeah. While we’re while we’re talking, Richard, um a question without notice has been formulated in in my mind a little bit. Um but hopefully you don’t you don’t mind. Um the question is what it was starting out as what sort of child need needs residential care and it and and but it’s now it’s also kind of in my mind it’s it’s blending a bit with what what does residential care offer uh to children to children in need of care that that perhap of that is per hot perhaps superior that time of need for the child than than other forms of out-of-home care.

Richard: 1:03:11

I’d be interested in your thoughts about that well foster care in its is a in its own right can be highly effective. So in terms of my comments that I’m gonna say about is foster care can be highly effective for those children who are anaphobic about family living. Some of the responses I see children displaying, and it’s not about the family they go and stay in, but they carry inside themselves experiences about being in families that mean it’s going to be highly unlikely that they’re going to be able to stay and create security within that family. Uh it becomes unbearable for them. It’s uh and it becomes unbearable for the uh foster carers as well. And it’s the foster parents can sadly they can they can almost be placed in a situation where the material that they’re getting given to process and uh the behaviours and stuff gets to a point, and often foster carers can get to a point they they feel this task is task is too much for me. It’s too much. They get to yeah, too much. And sadly for children, then if they they start to expand, well, naturally they’ve had one, but their uh the original scene was in the family or origin, uh this is often replicated and reenacted within the foster replacements, and I’ll see the attempts to use foster care well into double figures sometimes. You know, children children will be in that repeated cycle. So if we can identify children as early on that that are gonna often I’ll I’ll see social workers and stuff understanding the children’s history through an attachment and trauma and form lens, understand about their experiences and knowing that that containment is going to be needed in terms of the children’s distress, it’s gonna need much more than foster care. Yeah, foster carers can’t typically manage situations where children act out excessively in terms of acting out against other people or uh the environment of the home, the foster foster parents’ home. So, quite early on, you can almost you can see what I call gateways. I’ve got this notion of gateways to particularly uh care options uh to help be able to identify through assessment, and this is where the psychological lens can come in within care organizations commissioning. I don’t know how it is in Australia. I don’t know if you know, I worked in New Zealand for a little period of time myself, but yeah. And I’m like I’m always fascinated about where care the care system is sort of held within the UK, it is social care. There is a greater involvement with health. To me, there needs to be even more. The more that we can help commissioning teams understand the psychological and emotional aspects of the child’s needs, then that can more effectively inform what part of the care journey does that child need. Does the child need residential care and all that that it offers, increased containment, and less risky staff burnout, foster carers, fostering families, massive risk of that? Uh we can provide this more integrated educational magnification of these principles that often child needs. And that often cuts down the time. Some of my some of my research at the moment has shown that if you do this early enough, it can be an early intervention that over the care journey period actually reduces not only the the child’s need for in terms of staying in these higher higher recruiting environments, so the child can go to foster care, uh but it also cuts down the time. Uh because naturally I saw the other end like working in that prison-based therapeutic community for adult male life offenders uh who had committed it was sad to see how many of those uh human beings had been in the care system. So this notion of early intervention and about stopping patterns and doing the you know, doing the work as early as possible, not as late as possible. To me, it’s a cost saver. To me, it’s uh to me it’s a no-brainer. It’s like just it’s just uh uh but it’s a challenge I know for systems to think past a year. You know, most uh business plans only cover one year, most governments I think only covers the their term in office. Some of this stuff is moving the systems to longer term thinking, longer term perspectives. Uh but I but I truly believe the more people that have these these ideas, the more we can send the messages out in the box to social care and social work and the political system. About let’s turn this thinking, you know, the mindset from short termism, like to sort of longer term.

Colby: 1:09:02

And and I mean, I think part of the whole option of last resort is for residential care is is it’s the most expensive form of care. So we don’t want we don’t want to be uh what we don’t want to be uh focusing initially on on the most expensive form of out-of-home care.

Richard: 1:09:24

Is it not?

Colby: 1:09:26

We’d rather we try foster care. And and and there is a a deeply held belief in society that the that family is the best place to raise children. But it’s not it’s not for those children, as you said, who are phobic of family, who have a phobia. And I’ve written, I first wrote about this um in a published paper 13 odd years ago. That um, and and so to me, residential care provides a psychologically so people think, oh, you know, with all the scandals and and so on, this is you’re mad for saying this. But in actual fact, residential care provides a psychologically safe, relationally safe care environment that is better for certain young child certain children and young people than than putting them into a into a family-based environment. And we we need all those options. We in my state here, they they embarked on a bit of a uh um uh an endeavor to to get rid of residential care because it was seen as being because it was of low quality, seen as being of low quality, option of last resort, expensive, all of these things. But but in a what I’m hearing you say is in a um in a functional, adaptive, um, effective uh social care system that that meets that is able to tailor care to the needs of the children and use fitness and match it placement matching um to its best ability, then residential care has an equal place alongside uh family-based uh care options. And I really like what you said that you think that it that it can enhance the young person’s preparedness to go into or ability to go into a family-based placement such that that’s uh more successful for them.

Richard: 1:11:39

Yeah, uh the evidence illustrates that uh so early on in the delivery of the attachment trauma-informed care model, it was children and young people who had largely been through that repeated placement disruption and ending and leaving one one relationship and going to another relationship, and often being out of education that would come into the service, and naturally we we we were we were still able to attain the trajectory that we wanted, the aspirational trajectory for the children in terms of them being able to go into foster care and becoming more secure. Uh but while even the children used to say to me about the trust thing, about almost their mindset was that they were gonna even have to leave that home, you know. It’s like the you know, the attachment systems have become so uh hyper-vigilant that they believed that nobody could care for them, nobody could uh tolerate what they were going to give us. And it’s like, wow, I’m not like I used to say, I’m not surprised that you’re giving me this stuff to have to handle for you. You know, this is what I used, you know, in terms of my understanding with the children, is that uh it’s quite understandable if they’re exposed to situations that are repeated and chronic and things don’t work. Uh yeah, it is still possible, but it’s much better for the for the child and the whole system to be able to identify those children, it’s not all children. No, uh you know, the great thing at the moment is that Five Rivers has changed caring for over a thousand children, and uh the majority of those children are in foster care, very happy, really good outcomes, you know, great foster parents, you know, doing great work, but there is a group of children and young people that I feel that we owe them to identify when residential uh the residential environment is as the environment that’s best for them. Yeah, yeah.

Colby: 1:13:59

I think that’s a wonderful spot to finish up, uh Richard, because um time is time is marching on. I’ve put I’ve kept you for over an hour. Um it’s been fantastic to chat with you and um and talk more about attachment uh on the podcast. Everything comes back to the catch. Um I’m being a bit time-cheapy. I’m kind of sort of being time cheap about that. Yeah, it’s been thank you for taking the time and uh invariably I I say it before I’d like to have you back on again at some stage because there’s so much more that we could talk about. So thank you.

Richard: 1:14:42

Thank you so much, Colby, for the time today. I’ve really enjoyed speaking to you.

Colby: 1:14:47

As have I. Thank you.