Search results

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.

This chapter reviews the conditions leading to the emergence of hybrid network structures involved in public service delivery, analyses opportunities for boundary-spanning by network members and frames these against different manifestations of leadership in such collaborative contexts. It addresses a gap in knowledge around leadership in hybrid networks, on the one hand, and around effectiveness of hybrid networks, on the other hand. Following an in-depth case-study of a hybrid network (local safeguarding children boards, LSCB) in England, UK, we advance a researchable proposition according to which, in turbulent times, the effectiveness of such networks is enhanced through one particular leadership type rather than others.

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.

A number of reports on child sexual exploitation (CSE) have pointed to the importance of community awareness raising as a preventative measure, a means of extending the reach of CSE services and widening the scope of social responsibility to protect children. However, little has been said about how to undertake such activities; how to do this well and the potential pitfalls to avoid. The purpose of this paper is to draw out critical questions about the notion of community and highlight what can be learnt from historical debates about multiculturalist practice. While the paper does not focus solely on ethnic minority communities, the authors do take stock of pertinent points from that literature in relation to issues of engagement, power and representation and applicable learning for awareness raising around CSE. In the second half of the paper, the authors consider the issue of awareness raising within communities. The authors draw on the limited literature on community awareness raising in CSE, contextualising this with reference to relevant learning from other pertinent bodies of work, to reflect on implications for practice.

This is a conceptual paper based on a review of various bodies of literature. The first half reviews the literature about community, community engagement, and multiculturalism as policy and practice. The second half draws evidence from the literature on forms of awareness raising on CSE and other sensitive social issues to discuss implications for practice arising from the authors’ reflections on the literature.

The review produces three key findings. First, the need to transfer historic insights into the limits of “community” and multiculturalism and apply these to the emergent field of CSE. Second, despite theoretical distinctions between “community” and “society”, evidence from the literature suggests that the term “community” is being applied more generally to refer to a wide range of events and practices. Third, the authors conclude with some points about what may work well for CSE professionals developing work in this field; that is, clear aims and objectives, nuanced approaches and targeted messages.

This is an under-researched area where there are currently no published evaluations of community awareness raising interventions for CSE. Effective evidence-based strategies for engaging communities are urgently needed for CSE prevention work to be extended in positive ways which protect those affected.

This paper is original in drawing insights from historical debates about multiculturalist practice to inform thinking on community awareness raising on CSE. It makes a valuable contribution by bringing together insights from a number of distinct bodies of literature in ways which can inform practice.

This paper draws on a recently completed professional doctorate thesis. The purpose of this paper is to explore how the research process mirrors the area being researched, and underscores the importance of the ability to tolerate ambiguity, in both the research process and in working to protect children.

The doctorate used a constructivist grounded theory approach, and drew on 22 in-depth interviews with social workers and a sample of 20 serious case reviews. Central to the research process were issues of reflexivity and positionality, which were both crucial to the area under exploration.

Central to the thesis on which this paper draws, and the professional doctorate is the notion of balance. Social workers and researchers have to negotiate both getting close to and achieving distance from, the subject of enquiry. Seeking and maintaining balance requires managing a number of dimensions, and the negotiation of ambiguity.

This paper explores the complexity of “working the hyphen” of insider-outsider research, and argues that, as in child protection practice, insider-outsider research requires the adoption of strategies to both get close to, and achieve distance from, the subject of enquiry.

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.

Ireland has suddenly become a hub of activity around children's services ‐ at central and local government levels, involving the primary statutory and voluntary agencies, and engaging some of the more disadvantaged communities. Following a critical report when it appeared before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child over a decade ago, the Irish Government set up the National Children's Office and developed a National Children's Strategy. Current developments in children's services designed to address ongoing weaknesses in provision are taking place against the backdrop of the increasing wealth of the state and families and considerable organisational change in local services. The relatively new Office of the Minister for Children (OMC) was established to consolidate these ideas and move them forwards.This article offers the perspective of Sylda Langford, Director‐General of the OMC. She outlines relevant aspects of the broader context in Ireland before describing the origins and work of the OMC, the accompanying opportunities and obstacles to progress. She also reflects on life as a civil servant in a cross‐cutting Government department, the possible forthcoming referendum in Ireland on the relative rights of parents and children and the challenges presented by collaboration with philanthropy. What follows is an edited transcript of Sylda Langford's comments.

This article examines the value of the concept of significant harm some 20 years after its introduction in the Children Act 1989. It introduces the concept of significant harm and then discusses the profile of children and families in care proceedings, the decision‐making process, the interpretation of significant harm in case law, ‘panic’ and its impact on patterns of referrals for case proceedings, and the issue of resources. An alternative model of the problem‐solving court is outlined. It is suggested that ‘significant harm’ has largely stood the test of time. However, the absence of a clear operational definition is both its strength and its weakness. It allows necessary professional discretion but is vulnerable to external pressures affecting its interpretation. A more confident workforce and sufficient resources are required, but the future role of the court and compulsory care is more contentious. The problem‐solving court model may offer a helpful way forward for the scrutiny of significant harm.

The government's vision for children's services in England and Wales, Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003), emerged from the debate following the report of the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié (Laming, 2003). The Children Act 2004 enshrined this vision in legislation, outlining the new statutory duties and clarifying accountabilities for children's services. The Directorate for Children, Young People and Families, located within the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), is the central government body charged with overseeing the implementation of the Every Child Matters reforms.Tom Jeffery is the Director‐General of the Directorate. In this interview, he argues that having a common set of outcomes is helping to make services less patchy and more coherent, and discusses the practical mechanisms being used to encourage local innovation within national guidelines and multiagency working centred around schools. He also reflects on the role of research in these developments and the efforts being made to improve training and career development for children's services practitioners. What follows is an edited transcript of Tom Jeffery's comments.

The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis and explore the degree to which SARs draw upon available research and learning from other completed reviews.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, mainly drawn from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains used previously. The four domains and the thematic analysis are rounded in the evidence-based model of good practice, reported in this journal previously. Multiple exclusion homelessness and alcohol misuse are prominent in this sample of reviews.

Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis and reinforce the evidence-base of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners working with such cases. Multiple exclusion homelessness emerges as a subset within this sample, demonstrating that SABs are engaging in reviews of people who die on the streets or in temporary accommodation.

The national database of reviews commissioned by SABs remains incomplete and does not contain many of the SARs reported in this evolving data set. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. NHS Digital annual data sets do not enable identification of reviews by types of abuse and neglect. It is possible, therefore, that this data set is also incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless builds on what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice.

Answering the question “why” remains a significant challenge for safeguarding adult reviews. The findings confirm the relevance of the evidence-base for effective practice but SARs are limited in their analysis of what enables and what obstructs the components of best practice. Greater explicit use of research and other published SARs might assist with answering the “why” question, drawing attention where appropriate to policies being pursued by the central government that undermine any initiative to end rough sleeping.

This paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence-base for practice. The evidence-base also supports practice with individuals who experience multiple exclusion homelessness. Policymakers and practitioners have an approach to follow in this complex, challenging and demanding area of practice.