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?
This case study reflects the implementation of Contextual Safeguarding and Exploitation (CS&E) conference pilot - an adaptation of child protection conferences for cases where a child has been identified as being at risk of significant extra-familial harm (EFH).
What was the response?
The process from referral to the CS&E conference, is outlined below.
1.Referral. Upon referral to the service’s front door, the adapted ‘contact form’ has a section to capture contextual information (e.g. associates, locations) and extra-familial risks (e.g. serious youth violence, child exploitation). If the child is not known to children’s services, then the contact form will be reviewed by the Single Point of Access Team. Where appropriate, the team may request further information through the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub or request consultation from the Adolescent Exploitation & Missing Manager/Contextual Safeguarding lead, based within the service.
2. Team allocation. Cases are allocated to teams w based on the identification of primary concern, the assessed level of risk and whether the source is intra- or extra-familial. The Adolescent Safeguarding team supports children aged 13 to 18 considered to be at medium to high risk of EFH. If the child is at risk also from intra-familial harm, supported is delivered via the Referral & Assessment team in the first instance (unless the child is already known and supported by a different team). Where the risk is identified as EFH, the appropriate team (after the Single Point of Access Team) will complete a Multi-Agency Vulnerability to Exploitation (MARVE) checklist; a safeguarding children police referral form (87a) and request a strategy meeting with Child Sexual Exploitation/Adolescent Risk Team (CSE/ART) police to discuss the concerns and
determine threshold for child protection and for the MARVE panel. Information collated will also be shared with the child and their family.
3.CS&E Conference - child protection equivalent for children at risk of EFH. The CS&E conference is called where only EFH is identified. The CS&E Conference is triggered through the expected CP process, with some changes to identification, tracking, and professional attendees at the conference. For instance, instead of the Child Abuse Investigation Police Team attending the conference, a CSE/ART police partners will attend. Children and their families are invited to attend, alongside appropriately connected persons. Additionally, the Conference Chair has received specialist training and support from the service’s CS Lead, to support in the adaptation of the plan to meet the specific needs and response to EFH.
4. CS responses for children. These are coordinated with recognition of EF contexts in direct work with children and families. Relationship-based practice underpins the work, typically both inside and outside the home environment, and establishing a trusting relationship to capture the voice of the child within safety plans. Children may be provided a specialist intervention service that focus on the specific type of EFH (e.g. child sexual exploitation, child criminal exploitation, serious youth violence, knife crime), alongside consideration of therapeutic intervention from practitioners based within the respective team
What were the challenges?
CP systems and structures need to evolve to ensure data on children and families reflects the revised processes. For instance, the difference between a CP plan and a CS&E plan needs to be articulated in strategic and practice guidance, as EFH or CP categorisations may be flagged as either/or in referral documentation. Moreover, CP documentation may default to categorisation according to primary need, such as neglect, as systems are not advanced enough to include needs arising from EFH. CS responses tend to focus on a sole young person, this is a barrier to supporting siblings that may be at risk of EFH.
What difference did this make?
Evolved processes and a shared understanding of CS&E within the service ensures the right team is present at the right time for any child at risk of, or experiencing, EFH. A network around the child experiencing EFH is in place. The CS training and guidance available helps practitioners manage such high levels of risks identified in EFH cases. This is further supported through collaboration and a sharing of expertise across the team and with multi-agency professionals.
The CS&E conference places the young person’s intra- and/or extra-familial needs to the centre of the child protection process and associated reviews of the plans put in place. There is evidence of consistent and trusting relationships being developed between social workers and children as direct work has been extended beyond the traditional child protection or social work arena. For example, social workers have increased their knowledge of the risks posed to children outside the home. This knowledge has helped increased dialogue with children on the harm they have experienced and how they may navigate contexts and peer groups to promote their safety. To further enable consistently in relationships, the specialist support the child receives may continue past their 18th birthday regardless of the type of plan or support they receive from children’s services. Additionally, social workers will engage in direct work outside the family home and within contexts the child feels comfortable to talk about their experiences and concerns. Direct work with families is tailored according to their needs. Social workers may engage in work to strengthen family dynamics and reduce the push factors associated with children spending considerable time outside the home in risky contexts.
What did we learn?
The adaptation of child protection conference processes has been valuable to targeting and responding to EFH. Child protection plans under the category of parental neglect could previously be the default action, considerably limiting the support for children and families impacted by EFH. The voice of the child and family has been brought firmly into the conference process, thus increasing dialogue with social care and multi-agency professionals and providing opportunities to share experiences and concerns to inform a coordinated plan. Incorporating Signs of Safety approach has proven useful within the CS&E conference, as the language around identifying areas of strength and concerns makes sense to children and eases dialogue around risks with professionals.