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?
Newport is a city within South East Wales. The South East Wales Safeguarding Children Board (SEWSCB) has the strategic role in ensuring the prevention of extra-familial harm (EFH) and exploitation of children and young people across the region. SEWSCB developed a joint three-year Strategic Plan with the Gwent-wide Adult Safeguarding Board. Contextual Safeguarding (CS) is identified as a joint strategic priority area in developing regional safeguarding responses to protect children and young adults at risk of exploitation. Across 2021-2023, the vision is to increase understanding of the CS approach across the region and identify and develop contextual responses to make communities safer for young people.
What has been put in place?
Newport is considered a pilot CS site for the region. CS is referenced within Newport children’s services exploitation strategy and is becoming embedded within practice. A referral pathway is in place so that a child protection team holds cases of adolescents identified as at risk of child exploitation. Young people that are identified at risk of exploitation are discussed at a multi-agency exploitation panel. The threshold for referral to the panel has been removed, which allows young people considered at low to high risk of exploitation to be supported either by statutory or community services. The CS team have introduced a dedicated child exploitation social worker and family social workers to provide specialist support to young people and their parents or carers. Direct work involves a “what matters?” conversation where the views of young people and their parents or carers are fed into the exploitation panel process.
The team also have an embedded education liaison worker to help support young people back into education. The team have developed the CS approach and are now developing links with community safety teams to guide responses in identified locations. The team raises awareness of CS via locality-based multi-agency community safety meetings. There are plans for representatives from local meetings to attend the monthly multi-agency child exploitation meeting (MACE). Such representation will enable information sharing to inform approaches on how to make specific localities safer for young people. A young person’s board has been established to identify contextual risks from their perspectives and inform responses to creating safe spaces in locations.
A location assessment of the railway station was undertaken following concerns that young people were being coerced into transporting illegal substances. Observations of the station were conducted at different times of the day and night by British transport police (BTP), social workers and youth justice workers to identify risks and safeguards. This surfaced lack of staffing, lack of information regarding county lines and poor understanding of associated safeguarding risks. To improve young people’s safety at the station, there has been a focus on harnessing local community guardianship through training and support to station staff, coffee shop workers and information provided to local taxi drivers. BTP are now represented on the MACE.
What were the challenges?
Newport’s CS work is being delivered using existing children’s service budgets as no additional resources are in place. There are barriers in accessing youth services in the localities to enable additional support for young people and there was a focus on individual harm rather than contextual and community harm that needed to change.
What were the key mechanisms of change?
CS has been implemented from the ‘bottom up’ and the next stage for the service is to gain the buy-in across the whole organisation and partnerships for full systems change. Removing thresholds for referral to the EFH panel reduced the barriers to receiving services for those young people who may be of risk of exploitation. The service aims to increase the participation of young people and their parents or carers in service development.