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?
Rami (age 15) was victim of an assault in the community by a group of young people and adults and sustained a serious injury. There was limited information on the group, but it was identified that Rami was known to the Youth Offending Service (YOS) for drug-related activity. A child protection (CP) plan was in place for Rami. The family’s difficult living conditions were an identified “push factor” for Rami spending considerable time in the community. Rami was vulnerable to child criminal exploitation (CCE) through known association with local groups of older young people and adults of concern, who were known for drug-related offences.
What was the response?
Rami was referred to a pilot exploitation project set up by YOS, in collaboration with a dedicated adolescent team within children’s social care (CSC). The project involves Contextual Safeguarding (CS) approaches including direct work with a young person, their family and within the community, to identify and target the extra-familial contexts posing a risk. Cases of individual or groups of young people where extra-familial harm (EFH) has been identified are discussed and reviewed at the Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) panel. There are location and cohort-based sub-groups focused on contextual concerns raised at MACE. The work of the sub-groups and project is informed by CS through use of context assessment triangles to explore EF contexts identified as a risk.
Rami was introduced to the project by his social worker for additional wraparound support following the incident, which involved:
- Allocation of a project outreach worker for direct work involving relationship-based practice.
- Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) practitioner within YOS, allocated to work with Rami regarding the trauma he experienced from the assault.
- Support to Rami’s family to find ways to make homelife more comfortable.
- Access to the project’s dedicated parents’ group that offers support for parents whose children have experienced child exploitation.
- Access to a dedicated parents’ group for parents from ethnic minority backgrounds.
- Liaison between the team and housing department to advocate for the family regarding their living circumstances.
- Allocation of a YOS substance misuse worker for educative work around the impact of illegal substances.
- Partnership work with Rami’s school to reengage him in education.
- Representation at a multi-agency contextual strategy meeting by Rami’s CSC practitioners to provide consultation and support for the project work.
What were the challenges?
There is a way to go in adapting the structures and processes of multi agencies in offering a coordinated response to EF risks for young people. For instance, police thresholds for childhood exploitation differ from that of the project teams. Policing teams may not recognise evidence of exploitation and therefore can default to traditional intelligence gathering and policing responses. Further, the team recognise disparity in multi-agency responses to child sexual exploitation (CSE) and CCE, whereby victims of CCE may be regarded as making choices to engage in criminality rather than seen as victims of exploitation.
What difference did this make?
Rami and his outreach worker developed a trusting relationship overcoming his hesitancy to talk about his
experiences. His outreach workers’ in-depth knowledge of the risks posed to young people in their communities, helped foster this relationship. The parents’ groups provided peer support to Rami’s mother, who could discuss her concerns with other parents in similar situations and provide advice. The team provided practical support to help the family improve their living conditions, helping Rami to feel more comfortable spending time at home. The team’s advocacy work with the housing department resulted in the family being place on the priority list for suitable accommodation. Rami’s CP status changed to a Children in Need plan, and he was no longer coming to the attention of the MACE panel or the police. There was a reduced risk of further reprisals and exploitation. Rami also begun to attend school regularly.
The pilot tested a new approach within YOS to safeguarding vulnerable young people in collaboration with CSC. The project brought multi-agency partners together to gain buy-in to the project, helping them to understand the breadth of contextual risks within areas and the interrelationships with vulnerability and child exploitation. The project team have built expertise in the CS approach, helping CSC teams to develop their practice and informing multi-agency partners as to contexts and cohorts of young people at risk. The project included training in the CS approach and associated tools, for CSC practitioners and multi-agency professionals in identifying and responding to EFH. Community policing have created additional safeguarding roles for trained staff. There are early signs that training is upskilling these professionals in recognising EFH and in building safety for young people across contexts. There is also evidence of a shared language developing around extra-familial risks and exploitation. CSC and partners now engage well in contextual strategy meetings, supporting the development of prevention and early help processes.
What did we learn?
The project highlighted the value of revising practice for CSC cases where EFH has been identified. The development of an EFH risk assessment tool allows practitioners to have conversations with families around these risks. The primary category of need for referral to CSC can conceal risks around EFH. Therefore, an effective way of assessing intra and extra-familial risk has value. It is important to ensure an appropriate match of lead professional to young person for direct work and look beyond who may have statutory responsibility on paper. Specialist youth workers familiar with relational-based practice and CS can work effectively in collaboration with CSC practitioners and multi-agency professionals to provide wraparound support for young people.