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?
North Lanarkshire (NL) is the fourth largest local authority area in Scotland, incorporating both rural communities and larger towns. A series of single and multi-agency reviews within NL identified a consistent mix of familial and extra-familial harm (EFH). Contextual Safeguarding (CS) aligned well to existing frameworks for practice, including Scotland’s National Assessment Framework, which adopts an ecological approach to assessing risks outside the home. CS provided an opportunity to further embed these frameworks by shifting both language about young people at risk or experiencing EFH and enhancing engagement with young people supported by safeguarding services.
What has been put in place?
At a strategic level, a steering group was introduced to initiate a system-wide response to how EFH is identified. This was supported by a review of current child protection processes and procedures to ensure system alignment with the CS approach, including how EFH is incorporated within any inter-agency referral discussions (IRD). This included reframing the language used throughout the service around young people and EFH to reflect CS values. A new implementation officer role has been introduced to manage system change and help embed CS fully across the service. The officer works closely with senior practitioners to embed CS within social work practice with adolescents.
Activity has been undertaken to support implementation of CS at both level 1 (a focus on work with individual children and families drawing on extra-familial contexts) and level 2 (a focus on development of practices, systems and structures for identifying, assessing and intervening with contexts and groups in which young people are at risk of EFH). Level 1 activities have introduced social workers to the CS framework, supporting them to assess risk contextually by drawing on tools from the CS network. This has included Introduction of a practitioners’ forum and Champions identified to guide CS practice. Level 2 activity includes work to secure strategic buy-in from senior management and partners. A proposal was made to replace the Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) operational group with an EFH panel. This is now in place and enables IRD to refer groups of young people for panel discussion and response or intervention.
Embedding CS is supported by a training plan to support practitioners understand EFH risks contextually. Moving forward, introductory CS training for multi-agency partners will be overseen by the NL Child Protection Committee.
What were the challenges?
Ensuring that actions and interventions to safeguard contexts is still in its early stages. Supporting partners as well staff in the social work service understand CS approaches is resource intensive but essential to ensure buy in, and achieve the desired culture shift, across the multi-agency safeguarding partnership.
What were the key mechanisms of change?
Strategic leadership via the steering group has focused on the systems and structures required to support improved practice responses to EFH. This includes engaging the wider partnership such as Barnardo’s to undertake “return home discussions” following missing episodes by young people.
CS provided a language and more ecological approach to responding to EFH. Social work practitioners have found it relatable and fitted well with their value base. It has also supported change in how the wider safeguarding partnership understand their role in creating safety for young people, including police responses to EFH.
The CS approach has enabled staff to practice more confidently with young people. This included residential care home staff where there had been pressure from other agencies to place young people experiencing EFH within secure accommodation. Involving young people in mapping risks and safety planning was central.