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?
Oliver (15) had been known to children’s social care for a good proportion of his life and moved in and out of care placements and his mother’s home. Since the age of 13, he had frequent missing episodes from home and care placements, often for a considerable period. Peer mapping exercises identified that Oliver has connections with various groups of young people known for “gang” related activities across the borough. Oliver had been stopped by the Police on numerous occasions relating to these connections and criminality, which resulted in youth justice intervention and court orders. Oliver disclosed neglect and emotional abuse from his mother and other family connections, including abuse around his mixed-race identity. These experiences acted as a ‘push factor’ for spending considerable time away from home or with other young people. Oliver had been excluded from school and he attended a Pupil Referral Unit, increasing his vulnerability further.
What was the response?
Concern for Oliver’s safety and vulnerability to criminal exploitation was frequently raised at multi-agency ‘high risk’ panels through multiple referrals or peer mapping exercises. Peer mapping occurred as part of the Youth Justice Service’s (YJS) prevention project. A coordinated response between the youth justice and children’s social care teams involved:
- Practitioners known to Oliver were allocated for direct work, which drew upon the principles of relationship-based practice.
- The practitioners worked closely with Oliver to co-develop a safety plan.
- At Oliver’s request, a trusted member of staff at his school was nominated as his lead professional.
- A referral was made to Forensic Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service (FCAMHS) for assessment of speech, language and communication needs assessment.
- A referral was also made to drug and alcohol services to secure a substance misuse worker.
- FCAMHS worked with Oliver around anger management and emotions.
- Partnership work was initiated with a service providing specialist support to young people at risk of or
experiencing criminal exploitation and associated harm. Oliver was allocated a key worker. - A family group conference was held by the social care team due to ongoing concerns with Oliver’s treatment at home and to help identify any other family connections.
- A residential therapeutic placement was found to increase safety and provide enhanced support, as relocation and entry into care became necessary.
What were the challenges?
Oliver disclosures of his home life highlighted the continued emotional abuse he was experiencing, which at times reduced Oliver’s readiness to connect with his practitioners. A change in key worker that Oliver had built a trusting relationship disrupted the work for a short time. Restrictions arising from the Covid-19 pandemic hindered the timeliness of the therapeutic intervention due to lack of face-to-face appointments.
What difference did this make?
The relationship-based and therapeutic work were central to this response and reduced Oliver’s risk of further
exploitation and harm. The completion of a speech, language and communication needs assessment helped the team develop or adapt their way of communicating. Relationship-based practise helped support Oliver to open-up about his vulnerabilities around his home life and the harm and exploitation he experienced among his peers. Oliver’s choice to nominate a lead professional at his school was respected and this formed the basis of much of his contact, which was monitored during multi-agency meetings. Oliver was able to build significant trusting relationships with practitioners and key workers and was consistently keeping to his appointments. Oliver’s voice informed the safety planning and practitioners sought his perspective on what safety means to him and how practitioners can help him feel and be safe. Rescue and Response provided emotional support and mentorship with others with shared experience and were available outside of the working hours of practitioners where there is a need to communicate with someone. Being receptive to the support a drug and alcohol service helped Oliver reduce usage reducing the risk of going missing and engaging in harmful activity with peers.
Oliver reported feeling safer in his environment and his physical and mental health improved. Oliver was safer in therapeutic placement as he was unreachable by “gang” affiliates who had previously targeted him at home and whilst in care. Moreover, the therapeutic placement provided opportunity for engagement with practitioners trained in trauma-informed practice and youth mental health. Oliver has also built trusting relationships with workers in the home, which led to disclosures about his experiences and his self-harming behaviours. Oliver has settled at a new school with additional support put in place with staff that understand his vulnerabilities and how he may present. There has been a significant reduction in Oliver’s missing episodes and peer activities leading to his criminalisation.
What did we learn?
It is essential to practice due care and diligence when assessing a case, to fully understand the young person’s chronology and vulnerability to extra-familial harm and not default to standard routes and responses. There is a need, therefore, to for creative and intuitive responses that establish a relationship with young people for direct work that is meaningful for them. It proved beneficial to coordinate the response across the youth justice and social care teams, alongside bringing in specialist partners, so to effectively identify Oliver’s needs and tailor the direct work accordingly. When commissioning youth service providers, it is important for the YJS or social care teams to be persistent in finding and negotiating high quality, tailored support that they can be confident will make a difference to a young person. However, each planned activity should be introduced when the young person is well-placed to benefit from it. In Oliver’s case, for example, work around building a positive identity will follow when his mental health and wellbeing has stabilised. There is wider need for services to invest in community outreach to help change perspectives on youth and build safe spaces and capacity for guardianship.