Child protection in the community: a community development approach

Abstract

This article describes the development of a community work project which aims to address issues relating to the safety of children within their communities. The project's work is underpinned by an ecological theory of child abuse and embraces a community development approach. The approach aims to engage local communities in defining issues relevant to them and in identifying strategies for addressing these issues. The project has engaged in a mixture of direct service delivery, influencing and networking activities and 'community capacity building' activities. As the project has developed, the remit of its work has become increasingly defined by local people. Market research was undertaken to promote an understanding of the things that children and parents felt affected children's safety locally. A community conference was organized to promote awareness about the issues that were identified and to engage local policy-makers and professionals in discussing potential solutions with community members. A youth forum has been established to enable young people to influence local decision-making about issues that affect their safety and well-being within the community. The community development approach is seen as being effective in helping young people to influence their environment and in reducing vulnerability through promoting self-esteem.

The role of communities in safeguarding children and young people

“…Not only will this increase the levels of safety for the children who take part, but it also makes an important contribution to developing the sort of 'informed and thoughtful' communities highlighted as essential for the effective safeguarding of children by the Henley Project (Nelson and Baldwin, 2002). Discussions like this also help to break down any distrust between community members and child welfare professionals, which the Tilbury Project correctly identifi ed as a barrier to many children and families using formal services (Wright, 2004).…”

“…Like the Canklow Estate Project, it also recognised that public distrust of child protection professionals deterred many children and families from using formal services (Wright, 2004). The aims of the project were therefore to break down barriers between professionals and communities, promote community responsibility for the protection of children, ensure that communities were well informed about the risks to children and had strategies to protect them, and increase the safety and confi dence of children in their communities.…”

“…Whilst the welfare of children and the threats to which they might be exposed are typically amongst the most serious concerns of local communities, expression of these concerns is often restricted to the private sphere of the family, with little communication, either between neighbours or with professionals, and uncertainty about how best to act if people do have concerns. The work developed by the NSPCC in Tilbury provides an example of an approach that explicitly promotes the benefi ts of developing these channels of communication (Wright, 2004).…”

“…The Tilbury Project also highlights the way that attitudes that prevail within many communities toward child welfare professionals means that practitioners are often held at arm's length, being prevented from gaining information about many aspects of children's and parents' lives (Butler and Williamson, 1994;Jack, 1997;Wright, 2004). It also recognised that professional workers, using traditional casework methods and offering limited cover in the evenings and at weekends, can only deal with a restricted number of people at any one time.…”

The Cultural Adaptation of a Community‐Based Child Maltreatment Prevention Initiative

“…Ultimately this new norm would lead to improved family well‐being and child safety. The theoretical underpinnings for the model are found in research suggesting that engaging local residents (Wright, ), increasing social support for caregivers (Barbarin, ; Ceballo & McLoyd, ), and improving perceived neighborhood cohesion (Silk, Sessa, Morris, Steinberg, & Avenevoli, ) and neighborhood social capital (Korbin, Coulton, Chard, Platt‐Houston, & Su, ; Zolotor & Runyan, ) improves children's safety.…”