Safety Planning in IFS: Replacing Suicide Behavioural Contracts with Internal Agreements
For many years, suicide prevention practices have leaned on no suicide contracts. These promises often come from a place of fear, for both the clinician and the client. A desperate attempt to keep someone connected to life, even when parts of them are aching to leave it.
In Internal Family Systems (IFS), we don’t work with ultimatums. We work with systems, and we do not demand. We respond with compassion, curiosity, and connection.
IFS offers a way to build safety not by forcing promises but by collaborating on internal agreements with the very parts that feel unsafe. It invites us to engage protectors, soothe exiles, and speak directly to suicidal parts. Not to silence them, but to truly understand what they need.
Why No-Suicide Contracts Often Backfire
Traditional contracts assume there’s one coherent "self" making a rational decision to stay alive. But in IFS, we know that many selves inhabit the system. One part may long for safety, while another is frantically planning escape. One may agree to a contract in session, while another shreds it on the train ride home.
No-suicide contracts can inadvertently trigger:
Shame-based managers who see suicidal thoughts as failures
Rebellious protectors who feel trapped and escalate in protest
Exiles who believe they are too broken to be worthy of safety
Firefighters who jump in with extreme coping strategies, feeling silenced or misunderstood
Autonomy is central to working with suicidal parts. We need to understand that clients are doing the best they can and are capable of change. When a contract is imposed, it can be perceived as invalidating. Particularly by parts of the system that value independence or have been punished for self-expression in the past.
What often emerges is not compliance but protest. This can be subtle, like disengagement from therapy, or overt, like impulsive suicidal gestures. These acts are not failures of willpower. They are messages, distress signals from parts that feel unseen, unheard, or misrepresented by the contract itself.
Instead of building safety, these contracts can lead to secrecy, splitting, or internal backlash. What’s needed isn’t control. It is collaboration.
An IFS Alternative: Internal Agreements for Safety
In IFS, we don't impose safety from the outside. We co-create it from the inside out.
This means asking the system:
“What parts are feeling unsafe right now?”
“What does ‘safety’ actually mean to this part? Is it silence, escape, connection, or control?”
“What do they need in this moment?”
“What does this part believe will happen if it doesn’t act on these urges?”
“What might help this part feel even 5% safer right now?”
“Can any other parts offer support, even temporarily?”
We don’t tell suicidal parts to go away. We get curious about them. We ask if they’d be open to trying something else. We invite Self the calm, connected, compassionate essence in all of us to be present and lead the conversation.
Building an IFS-Informed Safety Plan
A parts based safety plan is fluid, relational, and deeply respectful. Here’s how to begin:
1. Identify the Protective System
“Which parts show up when things feel unbearable?”
“What do they do to protect you?”
“What are they afraid would happen if they didn’t step in?”
Let these parts speak without shame. Validate their strategies, even if they look harmful from the outside. These parts aren’t malicious. They’re trying to protect the system, the only way they know how.
2. Ask Suicidal Parts What They Need
Instead of bypassing or shaming suicidal parts, ask:
“What are you trying to express?”
“What do they need you to understand?”
“If they didn’t have to carry this pain, what might they want instead?”
These questions signal respect. You’re not silencing the part; you are inviting it into relationship.
3. Make Internal Agreements
These are not contracts. They are collaborations within the system. You might say:
“Would the suicidal part be willing to give space while another part makes a call for support?”
“Can the manager part check in each morning and notice any red flags?”
“Is there a way for parts to agree on one thing to try before any action is taken?”
These internal agreements shift the goal from control to consent.
4. Deepen the Inquiry into "Feeling Unsafe"
This is where many safety plans fall short. “I feel unsafe” is often left undefined. But safety is a system wide experience, felt in the body, tracked in thoughts, and enacted in behaviour.
Invite the client to explore:
“When you say you feel unsafe. Does that show up as a thought, a feeling, a sensation, or an action?”
Encourage them to go slowly:
“Is it a tight chest or a racing mind?”
“Do your legs feel heavy?”
“Do you hear an inner voice saying, ‘I can’t do this anymore’?”
“Is there a numbness that creeps in before things escalate?”
“Do you notice a part withdrawing or zoning out before the urges come?”
These clues help the system respond early. With this awareness, clients can notice when a part is blending and intervene before it spirals.
5. Include Somatic Awareness and Embodied Cues
Somatic signals often appear before a crisis shouts. Integrate these into the safety plan:
“What does your body experience when you're beginning to feel unsafe?”
“Are there changes in breathing, posture, or muscle tension?”
“Does your body go into shutdown or hyperarousal?”
“Are there any sensory experiences that signal safety and comfort?”
Encourage sensory-based tools that target the body directly. Cold water, paced breathing, proprioceptive movement, or gentle self-touch. These interventions are not just coping skills, they are direct messages to protective parts that say, “I am here and I am listening now.”
6. Name Supportive Internal and External Resources
Instead of a generic list of emergency contacts, map which parts trust which resources.
“Which friend helps your lonely part feel seen?”
“Which music soothes your overwhelmed manager?”
“Which grounding tool works best when your firefighter is flooding the system?”
You might also ask:
“If this part could pick a person or place to turn to, who would they choose?”
“Is there a quote, image, or memory that brings even a small ray of peace?”
This makes the safety plan personal, integrated, and trauma responsive.
IFS invites us to reimagine what it means to stay safe, not by demanding silence from suicidal parts, but by inviting them into conversation. We move away from coercion and into connection. We replace shame with curiosity and behavioural control with collaborative care.
If you are a therapist navigating suicidal ideation in your clients, or if you are someone living with it yourself. Safety doesn’t have to feel like a trap. It can feel like being heard. It can begin with a question. It can begin now.
If you’d like support navigating internal conflict, suicidal parts, or creating a compassionate safety plan that honours every voice inside you. At Let’s Work On That, we offer Internal Family Systems therapy online or face to face in Melbourne, that welcomes your whole system exactly as it is. You can book a session or learn more about our approach.
Let’s take the next step together.
Disclaimer:
This article is not a substitute for professional support. If you or someone you know is in crisis, please call Lifeline on 13 11 14, dial 000, or attend your nearest emergency department. You are not alone, and help is available.
References
Bryan, C. J., & Rudd, M. D. (2018). Brief cognitive-behavioral therapy for suicide prevention. Guilford Press.
Fisher, J. (2017). Healing the fragmented selves of trauma survivors: Overcoming internal self-alienation. Routledge.
Herman, J. L. (2015). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence—from domestic abuse to political terror (Rev. ed.). Basic Books.
Jobes, D. A. (2016). Managing suicidal risk: A collaborative approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press.
Joiner, T. E., Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., & Rudd, M. D. (2009). The interpersonal theory of suicide: Guidance for working with suicidal clients. American Psychological Association.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2013). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness (Revised ed.). Bantam Books.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. M., Comtois, K. A., Murray, A. M., et al. (2006). Two-year randomized controlled trial and follow-up of dialectical behavior therapy vs. therapy by experts for suicidal behaviors and borderline personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(7), 757–766. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.7.757
Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy. Norton.
Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. Norton.
Rogers, J. R., & Lester, D. (2010). Understanding suicide: Why we don’t and how we might. Hogrefe Publishing.
Rudd, M. D., Mandrusiak, M., & Joiner, T. E. (2006). The case against no-suicide contracts: The commitment to treatment statement as a practice alternative. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20227
Schwartz, R. C. (2021). No bad parts: Healing trauma and restoring wholeness with the Internal Family Systems model.
Van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
Westra, H. A., & Eastwood, J. D. (2010). Culture and avoidance: The role of self-construal in avoidance-focused coping. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-008-9203-2
