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 vision for Contextual Safeguarding?
Hillingdon is a large borough in West London. In Hillingdon, the introduction of Contextual Safeguarding (CS) has largely been championed by an operational manager in the Youth Justice Service (YJS) and the safeguarding manager in the Safeguarding and Quality Assurance (QA). The operational manager wrote a briefing paper on the value of introducing CS, which was presented it to the Head of Service to endorse the approach and gain buy-in. The brief highlighted the need to respond to the safeguarding needs of a changing cohort of young people coming to the attention of the YJS that were experiencing significant extra-familial harm (EFH). CS is seen as a viable framework to develop responses targeting the risks and exploitation in the community young people face that can result in criminalisation. The managerial leads have a vision is for whole service adoption of CS and are developing a strategy for a coordinated whole service approach to responding to young people at risk of EFH. It is anticipated that the strategy will help garner further buy-in from senior leadership. It is envisaged that CS values and language will facilitate culture change within
services, so to refocus on the systems and contexts increasing young peoples’ vulnerability as opposed to individual behaviours or decision-making
What has been put in place?
CS is a priority area for the Hillingdon Safeguarding Children Partnership, as stipulated in the recent annual report. A Strategic High-Risk Panel, co-chaired by the Metropolitan Police and children’s social care has been established, alongside an Operational High-risk sub-panel. These panels employ a CS lens to understanding EFH to assess patterns in operational data to track thematic and emerging issues and coordinate responses across the Partnership.
Pan-London strategic documents have been published, including an Adolescent Safeguarding Practice Framework and London Child Exploitation Operating Protocol. Partnerships have governance and operational oversight in ensuring that multi-agency partners promote a consistent response to safeguarding children in London. Each document underlines that Partnerships should recognise the impact of EFH and promote CS practice among multi-agency partners within their areas. A Joint Strategic Safeguarding and Trafficking Subgroup is also in place, as Heathrow Airport is situated within the borough. This subgroup coordinates multi-agency safeguarding responses for children and adults at risk of trafficking and exploitation that are arriving in the borough.
A CS strategic working party is in place. The operational lead and safeguarding manager have revisited QA and assessment processes – as set out by the Youth Justice Board – to ensure reference is made to EFH in QA reports and assessments to adequately record and assess contextual risks and plan for coordinated responses to EFH. Furthermore, a 3-month review meeting with families has been replaced with monthly meetings to adequately record and respond to their concerns to support care planning.
What were the challenges?
Some of the terms applied to EFH and CS can be used interchangeably across children’s services and within policies and procedures of other agencies. This poses a barrier in ensuring the level of understanding is present and that the underlying principles of CS translates well in processes and practice responses. Moreover, the strategic working party requires the presence of a senior lead from Police partners to support a shift in mindset about young people. A further challenge is gaining the buy-in of senior leadership across the Council to secure financial resource. Service responses to EFH across the Borough are currently underdeveloped as structures and processes are not in place. Cases involving EFH are held in teams with the closest fit. For example, in children’s social care, the needs recorded for a young person may result in a child protection plan that is not adequately targeting the extra-familial risks that have increased a young person’s vulnerability and level of harm. Furthermore, parents and carers may have little to no awareness of the EFH young people experience as there are no existing processes for adequately assessing extra-familial risks within child protection assessments. Whether extra-familial issues are responded to in work with young people can be determined by the skills of the individual practitioner, as structures and processes are currently not formalised.
What were the key mechanisms of change?
There is a will to integrate the CS framework with existing practice models, strategies, and processes to deliver effective service responses to EFH. An aim is to ensure processes cohere, from the point of identification of EFH within assessments to the development of robust and responsive care and safety plans for young people. The service is formulating a 'one plan' that dovetails with work across children’s social care, so to avoid intra-service duplication in work with young people and incorporate the input of young people and parents and carers to develop plans. The inception of an adolescents’ team in children’s social care has potential for expansion of CS Level 1 work targeting contextual risks and developing responses to EFH through work with individual young people and families