From behaviour-based to ecological: Multi-agency partnership responses to extra-familial harm

Abstract

Summary In the United Kingdom (UK), inquiries into the abuse of adolescents harmed in contexts beyond their families frequently document failures in multi-agency arrangements. Forms of extra-familial harm, such as criminal and sexual exploitation, often feature near-fatal violence and serious abuse. UK welfare policy has shifted towards place-based approaches to harm, leading to safeguarding partnerships forming between welfare agencies and neighbourhood crime reduction agencies. However, forming partnerships between those who have differing epistemological underpinnings raises challenges. This article explores these by drawing on a research project implementing contextual safeguarding theory and practice within five child welfare social care departments in England and Wales. Data is presented from 10 pilots (33 focus groups, 24 interviews, 59 meeting observations, 36 reviews of cases, review of 100 documents). Findings Multi-agency partnerships prioritise safeguarding practice that targets behaviour, over addressing the social conditions of abuse. Assumptions that partnerships will automatically align means that there is little space for negotiating a shared conceptual/ideological approach. Particularly in high-risk situations, welfare agencies defer to policing methods that target individuals rather than environments. Where ecological approaches are utilised, this is experienced as ‘against the grain’ and requiring support. Applications To advance contextual approaches to safeguarding young people, multi-agency partnerships must go beyond altering the behaviour of those who are harmed. Partnerships that engage in reflective discussion about their conceptual approach are more likely to build the awareness and trust required for ecological methods to succeed. Enhancing ecological social work leadership within partnerships responding to extra-familial harm is a key factor.

Relationship of trust and surveillance in the first national piloting of Contextual Safeguarding in England and Wales

“…Indeed, authors own (2023b) highlight the tension in initial pilots of Contextual Safeguarding between practices grounded in children's welfare (domain one) and those rooted in crime reduction. Lloyd and Owen's (2023) describe how responses to EFH are interchangeably guided by behaviourist and ecological (value two) conceptualisations of young people's experiences of harm. Initial findings from the ANON study indicate that changes to Working Together 2018 alone have not created the conditions for Contextual Safeguarding.…”