Search results

AbstractQualitative research has long critiqued a simplistic association between youth parenting and poor outcomes. Despite this, the UK youth parenting policy continues to view young parents through a narrow deficit lens, focused on assumed risk rather than structural inequalities. The paper brings together the direct accounts of young parents' experiences, with ethnographic observation of practice, to argue that discrimination is the critical issue associated with being a young parent. This is then set within a wider critique of the policy framework which, it is argued, perpetuates and normalises negative ideas about young parents prevalent in political, societal and cultural processes. An integrative theoretical approach is used to highlight how a deficit lens at a policy level upholds, rather than undermines, young parents' intersectional experiences of discrimination and has ethical implications for practitioners working with them. The paper calls for a reorientation of policy which addresses and disrupts discrimination.

Qualitative research has long critiqued a simplistic association between youth parenting and poor outcomes. Despite this, the UK youth parenting policy continues to view young parents through a narrow deficit lens, focused on assumed risk rather than structural inequalities. The paper brings together the direct accounts of young parents' experiences, with ethnographic observation of practice, to argue that discrimination is the critical issue associated with being a young parent. This is then set within a wider critique of the policy framework which, it is argued, perpetuates and normalises negative ideas about young parents prevalent in political, societal and cultural processes. An integrative theoretical approach is used to highlight how a deficit lens at a policy level upholds, rather than undermines, young parents' intersectional experiences of discrimination and has ethical implications for practitioners working with them. The paper calls for a reorientation of policy which addresses and disrupts discrimination.

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.

AbstractThis article explores the synergies between relationship‐based practice and contextual safeguarding when working with young people experiencing extra‐familial risk and harm (EFRH). The article draws on data from interviews, observations, policy reviews and case files from two sites in England who are testing contextual safeguarding approaches to EFRH, including a children and families social work department and a voluntary and community sector organisation. The findings evidence how relationship‐based practice in contextual safeguarding facilitates practitioners' understanding of places and their peers. The discussion draws on the theory of social defences to evidence that despite willingness and commitment to relationship‐based practice, without systemic and cultural organisational support to respond to EFRH, efforts to do so may undermine and cause harm to practitioners engaging in this work.

In 2018, England's safeguarding guidelines were amended to explicitly recognise a need for child protection responses to extra-familial harms. This article explores the feasibility of these amendments, using quantitative and qualitative analysis of case-file data, as well as reflective workshops, from five children's social care services in England and Wales, in the context of wider policy and practice frameworks that guide the delivery of child protection systems and responses to harm beyond families. Green shoots of contextual social work practice were evident in the data set. However, variance within and across participating services raises questions about whether contextual social work responses to extra-familial harm are sustainable in child protection systems dominated by a focus on parental responsibility. Opportunities to use contextual responses to extra-familial harm as a gateway to reform individualised child protection practices more broadly are also discussed.

Available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-BD licence. Based on the findings of the Innovate Project, a four year pan-UK study to identify the processes of innovation in care, this book asks: how can services be re-envisioned and transformed through innovation? The authors provide an overview of the project findings and offer insights into the core conditions necessary for socially just and practice-congruent social care innovation that responds to the distinctive, contemporary safeguarding concerns facing young people.. Essential reading for anyone engaged in social care practice and innovation, as well as those undertaking continuing professional development, this book will aid the reader in developing a conceptual understanding of their experiences and support them in designing more informed responses to the challenges they face.