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?
Four young women - aged 13-14 - were identified as frequently going missing together via the service’s daily risk management meeting. The police found the peer group in vulnerable situations within public spaces and the accommodation of young adults. There were associated reports of socially unacceptable behaviour and criminal activity to obtain alcohol. The young women had all experienced difficult home lives and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) identified. They were all receiving support via child protection or child in need plans and initially hesitant to work with practitioners. While there was no evidence of child exploitation, concerns were raised during a multi-agency strategy meeting about potential risks of extra-familial harm (EFH). Some of peers became subject to conditions set out by the police and court, meaning they could not have contact with each other.
What was the response?
Each of the peers were referred to a specialist exploitation team via an early help (EH) team in children’s social care. The exploitation team were piloting a Contextual Safeguarding (CS) approach to working with peer groups at risk of EFH. This involved a peer assessment tool to help coordinate a group-level response. While the team were allocated to work with the young women on an individual basis, it was decided to work collectively with the peers as part of the pilot.
The peer assessment pilot work involved the following:
- A multi-agency agency meeting agreed the planned peer group response.
- To begin the peer group work, the team liaised with police and court to gain a variation on the conditions that prevented their interaction.
- Early direct work was undertaken in pairs due to police and court conditions. This involved relationship building, identity work and discussing their interests and aspirations.
- A team practitioner planned and coordinated inclusive group activities and engaged with the young people individually to encourage their attendance. The weekly peer group meetings involved:
- Writing and drawing thoughts and ideas on flipcharts
- Cooking together and other informal activities, such as having meals
- Further work on identity to understand group norms and dynamics
- Safety mapping to explore their views on safety in particular locations, including discussions on what safety represents and being safe together, such as letting workers or parents know where they are
- Sessions on healthy relationships and boundaries, including talks from a sexual health organisation
- An ACEs worker from youth justice facilitated a group discussion on the nature of trauma and its impact
- Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAHMS) and a voluntary, community and social enterprise (VSCE) organisation specialising in substance misuse provided sessions on alcohol misuse and emotional wellbeing
- Follow-up appointments with workers were available on a one-to-one basis
- EH practitioners continued work with parents, while the team ensured communication with parents on how the work was progressing.
What were the challenges?
The proposal to work with the peer group collectively was initially met with some concerns from within the multi-agency partnership. It was a challenge to shift perceptions of the peers, who were seen as requiring significant resource in response to going missing. Some agencies favoured separating the young people and following standard child protection processes. As a result, it was time-intensive gaining multiagency buy-in and navigating police and court processes to approve the group work. There was also a logistical challenge in finding suitable youth spaces to hold the group sessions, due to Covid-19 restrictions being lifted creating a demand on already stretched resources.
What difference did this make?
The group-based peer assessment work surfaced the reasons why the young people were going missing together. The peers had similar backgrounds and shared experiences and found emotional support and a sense of safety together as a group. The team fostered their sense of togetherness positively through bespoke group work centred on safety planning and meeting their health and wellbeing needs. The group work occurred in an informal youth centre environment and was coordinated in a way to combine direct work with professionals with fun “break out” activities. The peers felt able to openly discuss their activities and locations they visited that could pose a risk. They were aware any concerns were raised in multi-agency meetings. The peers looked forward to the routine of weekly meetings and attended regularly. This work supported their willingness to re-engage with education. Missing episodes reduced significantly, and the peers would challenge each other when engaging in any other unsafe activity such as drinking alcohol.
The peers stated that social work practitioners focussed on their parents and did not listen to them, building up a sense of distrust in professionals. Therefore, the team agreed to a degree of confidentiality in what was discussed during group work and ensured social work practitioners communicated and worked directly with parents. A condition of this confidentiality was that the peers communicated their whereabouts to their parents. By bringing in a range of professionals for group work – rather than expecting them to attend individual appointments with support services such as CAMHS - the peers felt able to engage in emotionally difficult conversations on trauma and relationships. Relationships between professionals and parents also improved and they were more willing to share their children’s whereabouts.
What did we learn?
Individually, the young people did not meet the threshold for intervention from statutory services around
exploitation, despite the risks they were exposed to by frequently going missing. The peer assessment work was valuable in building a holistic understanding of both the individual identities and needs of the young people as well as group roles and dynamics. This highlights the importance of not defaulting to traditional social work practices of separating peers for individual intervention which does not respond to identified contextual risks. Therefore, a key learning is peer group contexts are a potential source of safety for vulnerable young people, which can be harnessed for safety planning and direct work