In 2017, the Contextual Safeguarding programme (CSP) began partnering with local authorities to begin testing the Contextual Safeguarding (CS) framework in practice. This project was the first systematic attempt at evaluating the extent of the programme’s reach and impact. The Reach and Impact (R&I) workstream aimed to evidence the value that the CSP adds in terms of influencing policy and practice in response to extra-familial harm (EFH). Below is one of the case studies from the Reach and Impact Project. This case study describes how Contextual Safeguarding has influenced local systems and practice to improve the lives of young people experiencing or at risk of extra-familial harm. Names and some details have been changed to preserve young people’s anonymity.
What was the issue?
A youth work practitioner within a specialist safeguarding hub led a project looking at patterns associated with extra-familial harm (EFH) in a locale. A peer group of 11–13-year-old males came to the attention of the hub via an early help team in children’s social care. Concerns with raised following reports that the peer group were found concealing offensive weapons in public spaces within a neighbouring local authority. There were related reports from young people that they were approached to conceal weapons and of organised fights between young people in recreation spaces. The early help social worker for each young person and their families was asked to carry out a peer mapping exercise and gather information to understand the group dynamics and activities. Further associations were identified and a larger peer group of 15 were considered at risk of extra-familial harm (EFH). Some of these young people received early intervention support via the hub and cases were closed. For others, their contextual risks and vulnerability to EFH remained significant. Incident reports were increasing, and concerns were raised around serious youth violence (SYV) and the risk of child criminal exploitation (CCE) due to identified drug-related activity. This stimulated further mapping work as part of the pilot.
What was the response?
The hub held a complex multi-agency strategy meeting as multiple young people were identified as at risk of EFH. The meeting collates information on contextual risks and incidents from partners, allowing hub practitioners to coordinate diversion plans. The identified incidents and activities linked to the peer group did not meet the threshold for police intervention and allocation of resources of the dedicated “gangs” team. The hub therefore coordinated a planned response, as follows:
- The hub team disseminated information evidencing identified concerns for the peer group to a council-led, multi-agency local development partnership group (LDPG).
- The hub provided information on the young people’s risk profiles and vulnerabilities.
- LDPG includes representatives from the police, youth service, housing department, benefits office, and other council services including refuge collections, licensing and transport. The hub requested information gathering to implement a coordinated response involving access to local council resource as a disruption and risk reduction approach.
- Additional mapping work was conducted tracking similar or related incidents and associations with the peer group and to gather further intelligence on presenting extra-familial risks for the young people.
- The hub requested partners utilise resources to also gather local information on incidents.
- Partnership work between the hub and police involved peer group mapping developed by the CS Programme around the identified young people considered at risk.
- Criminal justice responses were required for incidents of SYV that caused significant harm to individual young people and impacted upon community safety.
- Restorative justice approaches were planned for individual young people identified as perpetrators of violence to provide an educative pathway on the impact of SYV. Community mentors were also put in place for some young people.
What were the challenges?
When there is evidence of incidents of violence and threats to community safety, police partners take a public order and law enforcement perspective during multi-agency meeting. It is therefore challenging to persuade police partners to recognise young people as being potential victims of exploitation. There is a further barrier to this when there is intelligence that the hub team cannot readily access, so to support the information collated through mapping (for example, evidence of organised crime groups (OCGs) to link to CCE). To access substantive county-wide police resource the peer group needed to meet the threshold for what constitutes a “gang”, which included an identified hierarchical and financial structure. Therefore, the hub needed to draw on localised police resources.
What difference did this make?
The additional mapping work identified three main groups comprising of young people aged under 18 and adults across three different areas. The team were able to build a detailed visual representation of incidents, location hotspots, and typical times of incidents, and the related activities of peer associates and adults of concern. This allowed the team to track patterns of incidents within and between the areas and identify incidents causing harm to the young people. The mapping information on the identified adults linked them to incidents and the young people. This information was brought together with police intelligence. The adults of concern had known involvement in gang-related activity, violent disorder and identified OCGs. The mapping prompted further intelligence gathering by police to fill any gaps, for instance on identified adult associates, locations or movement between areas. The collation of this information provided robust intelligence on the OCGs and the risk of CCE posed to young people within the identified groups.
Presenting a holistic picture of the backgrounds and vulnerabilities of young people previously flagged as being involved in criminal activity, allows partners to see them as children that are exploited. The Hub also set up multi-agency complex groups meeting bringing together local partners, including community policing and exploitation teams and the youth service, to present mapping information. This allowed to identify the inter-relationships across the three areas. The team and area police conducted location assessments in each area, to assess the reasons why these locations were chosen and present information to council partners to reduce safety risks (e.g. more lighting and CCTV).
The mapping and information gathering by partners informed safeguarding responses for the group as a whole and individual young people. Police injunctions or orders were issued to disrupt activity of the adults of concern and reduce contact with young people. The hub linked with offender management and probation teams to check the status of the adults of concern to begin procedures restricting their activity. To plan individual safeguarding responses, the hub communicated with children’s social care, education safeguarding, health teams, police and the youth offending service. This identified lead professionals and allowed the team to explore young people’s case history and statuses to provide a holistic picture of their vulnerabilities and needs. Individual safeguarding plans were built identifying suitable pathways of support for young people (e.g. relational work and community mentorship, restorative justice programmes, referral to transitional safeguarding team for those approaching young adulthood).
What did we learn?
The mapping pilot supported the hub to better identity risks of EFH associated with groups and contexts. The pilot spanned five years providing learnings on how to navigate pathways and systems to bring together complex information for multi-agency meetings. It also highlighted the need for access additional county-wide resourcing where the activities of groups of young people do not meet these thresholds, so to identify adults of concerns or patterns of exploitation more rapidly. It is beneficial to bring statutory lead professionals and identified mentors to complex groups meetings to gain their buy into the safeguarding response and plans. The enhanced information gathering process and holistic visual presentation allows the team to develop a localised early help preventative pathway for groups of young people of concern.