Search results

This paper aims to argue that contextual safeguarding complements existing theoretical models and approaches. Its successful integration with dominant thinking and practice in safeguarding potentially offers new insights to improve system-wide practice.

A theory synthesis design was used to purposively identify, summarise and compare selected safeguarding theoretical models and approaches to establish both convergence and divergence.

The arguments provided in this paper suggest that synthesising theory offers a confluence of perspectives that promise to develop a more eclectic and holistic approach to safeguarding practice. The paper demonstrates how contextual safeguarding can be integrated with existing theoretical models and approaches.

This is a conceptual paper and therefore is not based on empirical data.

This paper's conceptual insights include that integrating contextual safeguarding with existing theoretical models and approaches can broaden the knowledge base to whole system-wide safeguarding practice in the UK. The paper also confirms that the methodology used is feasible, although more work is required to test its efficacy on a larger scale. The conceptual paper argues for synthesis of contextual safeguarding and commonly used child safeguarding theoretical models and approaches to deal with both intra and extra familial forms of risk of harm to children effectively.

The neglect and abuse of children is a topical issue; hence, this paper has social implications regarding understanding of how the issue child abuse and neglect in the UK and globally should be dealt with.

There is a dearth of studies that have gone beyond binary comparisons of contextual safeguarding and other theoretical models and approaches, which leaves a significant knowledge gap that has prompted the purpose of this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the similarities and differences between the legal frameworks for safeguarding children and adults. It presents the case for developing a Transitional Safeguarding approach to create an integrated paradigm for safeguarding young people that better meets their developmental needs and better reflects the nature of harms young people face.

This paper draws on the key principles of the Children Act 1989 and the Care Act 2014 and discusses their similarities and differences. It then introduces two approaches to safeguarding: Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP); and transitional safeguarding; that can inform safeguarding work with young people. Other legal frameworks that influence safeguarding practices, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Human Rights Act 1998, are also discussed.

Safeguarding practice still operates within a child/adult binary; neither safeguarding system adequately meets the needs of young people. Transitional Safeguarding advocates an approach to working with young people that is relational, developmental and contextual. MSP focuses on the wishes of the person at risk from abuse or neglect and their desired outcomes. This is also central to a Transitional Safeguarding approach, which is participative, evidence informed and promotes equalities, diversity and inclusion.

Building a case for developing MSP for young people means that local partnerships could create the type of service that best meets local needs, whilst ensuring their services are participative and responsive to the specific safeguarding needs of individual young people.

This paper promotes applying the principles of MSP to safeguarding practice with young people. It argues that the differences between the children and adult legislative frameworks are not so great that they would inhibit this approach to safeguarding young people.

This article uses a model describing different levels of collaboration to chart the development of area child protection committees (ACPCs) and their successors, local safeguarding children boards (LSCBs). It argues that concerns about these partnerships lacking ‘teeth’ have resulted in a broadening of remit and increased regulation and statutory guidance. Using criteria from the literature for effective multidisciplinary strategic partnerships, consideration is given to specific issues that members of LSCBs encounter that limit their powers and influence. The final section of the article questions whether national regulation and guidance is sufficient to give LSCBs ‘teeth’ and ensure effective local collaborative activity. The author concludes that the strength and influence of the LSCB is as dependent on the quality of leadership provided by the members of the LSCB as it is on regulation and guidance.

All school staff need to have a critical self-understanding of how their perceptions of children, childhood and risk inform their practice when they are engaging with children and reflecting on factors linked to safeguarding. This chapter begins by discussing and briefly revisiting the duties and obligations that all staff have in relation to safeguarding children in educational settings. It then goes onto discuss the concept of teachers as ‘significant non parental adults’ (Rishel, Sales, & Koeske, 2005) and explores some of the finer details of why teachers and teaching staff are key players in relation to identifying risks, preventing harms whilst dealing with safeguarding concerns. We conclude this chapter by illustrating and arguing that teachers are key players identifying the needs of children and also have the potential to influence positive behaviour change in them. We also set a context for the remainder of this section: understanding the nature of concerns and risk by outlining the contribution each of the remaining individual chapters has to bring to this collection.

The purpose of this paper is to consider possible implications of recent policy initiatives in schools and local government for child safeguarding practice in education settings in the state sector in England.

Recent policy changes to promote devolution of decision-making to school and local government level are analysed in the light of the literature on multi-agency working for the protection of children.

The paper highlights the complexity of the current context in which local arrangements for the safeguarding of children are operating. This includes efforts at integration of funding and structures, coupled with rapid changes in policy in both education and children’s social care and greater decision-making powers at local level. Together this makes it difficult to evaluate the current strengths of safeguarding arrangements between schools and other local agencies to help ensure that arrangements for the safeguarding of children in “independent” state schools are robust and effective.

Researchers and policy-makers need to consider the efficacy of safeguarding arrangements under new local government and integrated structures in England.

There is relatively little research addressing inter-organisational information exchange in relation to education professionals involved in safeguarding. This paper sets out some directions for inquiry, including specific priorities that may be useful to the research and practice communities in the context of integration.

The paper provides a summary of key policies and strategies that inform child protection in state school settings in England.

Race, religion and culture have been issues in a number of high profile public enquires, but there is little advice to black and minority ethnic (BME) communities about ways to help safeguard children. In Walsall, the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) worked with Muslim organisations to raise awareness on safeguarding local children. The Madressah Project focused on places where large numbers of Muslim children went each day for religious education.The aims of the Madressah project were:• to provide information and guidance to parents, carers and Mosques/Madressahs on ensuring the safety of their children• to advise Madressahs on their legal obligations• to provide advice on safe recruitment• to provide child protection training to the Mosques/Madressahs.The project resulted in an action plan and Good Practice Guide. The Guide attracted wide interest from inspectorates and other local authorities resulting in Walsall providing advice and guidance to others looking to improve practice and provide safe environments for children irrespective of race, ethnicity or culture.

Child criminal exploitation (CCE) emerges from the complex interplay between potential targets, motivated perpetrators and conducive environments. Drawing on contextual safeguarding and rational choice theory. The purpose of this paper is to explain the relational dynamics that lead to CCE in terms of complex systems.

This paper reviews the existing criminological and public health perspectives on CCE and compare against current assessment protocols used to identify child victims of exploitation.

Findings demonstrate a conceptual and empirical flaw in existing practice. This flaw can be understood in terms of a failure to include both environmental conditions and the perpetrator’s motivation when trying to prevent CCE.

To correct this, this paper develops an original systemic model called circles of analysis. This model builds on contextual safeguarding to overcome this identified flaw by also including perpetrator motivation to develop a Systemic Investigation, Protection and Prosecution Strategy.

It is worth considering as to whether our model can be scaled up to look at trafficking of children and adults for modern slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour in different contexts and jurisdictions. Alongside this, is there capacity to build perpetrator behaviours into the contextual safeguarding model?

The potential for further development and alignment with the principles of contextual safeguarding is tantalising, and it is hoped that the contribution to this important special edition will open up new avenues for collaboration with both academics and practitioners who are concerned with protecting children and combatting CCE.

This strategy is uniquely designed to improve how police and social workers identify and investigate CCE and safeguard potential victims and survivors.

Purpose – UK laws surrounding the duty to prevent individuals being drawn into terrorism often focus on the need to safeguard the populace from exploitation by terrorist or extremist groups. It is within this context that countering violent extremism (CVE) work often takes place. This chapter explores how this legal duty shapes CVE projects in the UK, drawing on practitioner’s perspectives.

Methods – Writing from the perspective of practitioners from ConnectFutures, an organization that has been operating since 2013 in the UK and internationally, who advocate for a contextual safeguarding approach to provide a more holistic attitude to the prevention of violent extremism and exploitation.

Findings – Exploring the intersections between multiple forms of criminal exploitation, as well as engaging in the spaces and places young people experience harm, allows practitioners working in the CVE space to contribute to the protection of individuals from terrorist and extremist radicalization.

Originality/Value – Applying the new developed contextual safeguarding framework to CVE projects provides a contemporary and alternative ways to conduct CVE work. The chapter provides overviews of three CVE projects running with young people today in the UK, exploring how the new frameworks are adopted within these programs, all designed to address the complex causes of violent extremism.

This study aims to explore how local authority child and family practitioners understood and implement the contextual safeguarding approach focusing, in particular, on what practitioners felt supported and hindered implementation.

This qualitative study drew upon semi-structured interviews and focus groups to explore the perspectives of 18 frontline workers, team managers and senior managers in a London authority. The transcribed accounts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Participants reported that the strain on services because of sustained budget cuts was overwhelming, even without the additional challenge of implementing this new approach. Further challenges in relation to implementation included parental-capacity focused legislation and conflicting perspectives between stakeholders. This study recommends that proper funding must be committed to safeguarding partnerships if contextual safeguarding is to be successfully implemented. Additionally, child protection practitioners should aim to develop a collaborative and child-welfare focused network of community agencies and organisations if young people are to be safeguarded in their communities.

As the sample required specialist knowledge to participate in this study, this study cannot claim that the findings are generalisable to all social workers.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first external evaluation of the implementation of the contextual safeguarding approach in a local authority independent of the contextual safeguarding team at the University of Bedfordshire since the evaluation of Hackney.