1. Transitional safeguarding: Values and ethics
Lisa Smith
Assistant Director
Research in Practice for Adults
Beginning by looking at safeguarding, judgement, ethics and values.
The looking at transitional safeguarding

3. Evidence-informed practice
By triangulating different sources of evidence we can create a relevant , rich & robust knowledge base
Better fit with social work values (and other public service values)

5. The case for change
Adolescents may have distinct safeguarding needs, the harms they face - and their routes to protection - are often 'contextual'
Harm and its effects do not abruptly end at 18; support may do
Transition to adulthood is a particularly challenging and vulnerable time for some people, we may need care and support without having Care & Support needs™
An effective transitional safeguarding response would focus on promoting resilience and meeting their changing developmental needs
There may be unrealised opportunities for adolescent safeguarding to learn from the best of adult safeguarding practice and policy, and vice versa
There are moral and economic drivers for a reimagined safeguarding system which is contextual, transitional and relational.
And I’m using transitional safeguarding as way to demonstrate what we bring in our judgements, our tribes our differing planets

6. If we designed from scratch…?
Contextual
Harms, risks and protective factors
Assessment, intervention
Place-based approach?
(Firmin, 2013; 2017)
Transitional
Developmental perspective
Fluidity over time
Requires alignment of systems?
(Holmes & Smale, 2018)
Relational
Person-centred
Relationships as vehicle and intervention
Capacity building
Participative

7. Money matters
Financial constraints facing local areas make it difficult to countenance any non-statutory activity
Investing in preventative and recovery-oriented work to promote people’s safety and wellbeing can play an important role in avoiding the costs of later intervention
Evidence from the UK and international contexts suggests that failing to help young people recover from harm and trauma can mean that problems persist and/or worsen in adulthood, creating higher costs for the public purse (Chowdry and Fitzsimons, 2016; Kezelman et al, 2015)
Adults facing multiple problems and adversities can find services are not able to meet their needs effectively, meaning this group of adults ‘end up living chaotic and expensive lives’ (see MEAM Network)

8. Child protection (‘rescuing babies from harm in the family’)
Mind the gap…
Child protection (‘rescuing babies from harm in the family’)
Making Safeguarding Personal (‘Person-led, risk-enablement, choice & control’)
It can be argued that safeguarding adolescents into adulthood is challenging as there is a gap (even a ‘no man’s land’).
Child protection services are designed, originally at least, to address the risk of harm within the family – and it works relatively well (from a global perspective) for young children. Children are seen as being in need of protection form adults, and their own sense of agency is not always in the foreground.
Those working in adult safeguarding will be acutely aware of the differences in policy and practice discourse – in adult safeguarding, the focus is very much on person-centred approaches designed to empower the individual and give them choice and control. Eg there is recognition that adults have ‘the right to make unwise decisions’ – something we would find very difficult to say should apply to children at risk of harm.
Whilst it is entirely understandable that these two systems have evolved differently and have different drivers, it could mean that safeguarding young people into adulthood is even more challenging

9. Six key principles for safeguarding adults (and adolescents?)
Empowerment: People being supported and encouraged to make their own decisions and informed consent.
Prevention: It is better to take action before harm occurs.
Proportionality: The least intrusive response appropriate to the risk presented.
Protection: Support and representation for those in greatest need.
Partnership: Local solutions through services working with their communities. Communities have a part to play in preventing, detecting and reporting neglect and abuse.
Accountability: Accountability and transparency in safeguarding practice (Department of Health, 2017)

10. An awkward fit Physical abuse Adult to YP violence Sexual abuse
Mutual adult – YP violence
Victim of gang-related or community violence
Physical violence from partners
Sexual abuse
CSE (gangs & groups)
Sexual abuse by peers
Sexual abuse (IPR)
Exposure to CSE
Duress to engage in sexual abuse
Online sexual abuse
Intrafamilial
CSA (other adults)
Emotional abuse
Verbal abuse from family
Verbal abuse between family & YP
Bullying
Exposure to CSE, drugs, gangs etc.
Living with parental DV
Abuse from partners
When trying to place the harms that YP face into the child protection categories, you see the awkward fit…
The system knows what to do when an infant is exposed to DV… but there is a mixed response to Intimate Partner Violence between YP (see Christine Barter’s excellent work on this – there is a RiP Briefing on the website)
Similarly, there is a clear expectation of what to do when a young child is sexually abused within their familial context… but we are much more challenged by the 14 yr old boy who sexually assaults a 16 yr old girl s part of his gang initiation, whilst his 15 yr old friend films it. The child with the camera phone may be seen as a bystander, an offender, or a victim of emotional abuse.
Neglect
Familial neglect
Neglect in custody
Overly restrictive parenting

11. Professional perception of adolescents (Rees et al, 2010)
Young people aged are often:
Less likely to be seen as at risk of long-term negative outcomes
Less likely to be referred to children services
They are often seen by professionals as:
More competent to deal with maltreatment
More resilient
More likely to be contributing to and exacerbating situations through own behaviour (and blamed)
More likely to be putting themselves at risk of harm
Although: Rochester Youth Development Study (US): Longitudinal study of community-based sample of YP aged suggests that persistent adolescent maltreatment has stronger and more consistent negative consequences during adolescence than maltreatment experienced in childhood only.
Ask – would you agree? Does this resonate? I encourage you to challenge yourself and think, ‘do you fall into this trap?’ (re Rees et al research)

12. Adolescent ‘choices’ and ‘risk-taking’ behaviours
Young people’s ‘risk-taking’ - underpinned by interacting biological, social, environmental and neurobiological changes (Calkins, 2010)
Risk can be positive (Coleman, 2014)
Ego-syntonic risks
Adapted to harms experienced in earlier childhood
Unmet needs - seek to meet via risky routes
Misinterpreted as rational informed adult ‘lifestyle choices’  Victims being denied appropriate support / permission to give up
Conversely, professionals can minimise adolescent choice and agency (assumptions re capacity)
Adolescent risk is complex. Not least because it may involve their “choice”s and behaviours - which at times relate to the influence of specific developmental processes
The pathways are complex, eg, the adolescent stage of development involves increased risk-taking, emotional highs and lows, and sensitivity to peer influence, all underpinned by interacting social and neurobiological changes. These factors can play into risks such as self-harm, gang-involvement, violence and exploitation.
Of equal importance are the ways in which young people may have adapted to harms experienced in earlier childhood in ways which can increase risk of harm in adolescence. For example, a child may have responded to a violent home environment by becoming hypervigilant to signs of danger, this may increase the risk of joining a gang in adolescence for its perceived protective benefits. A sound logic model! Should not be oversimplified as “chooses to associate with offending peers”
Additionally, an adverse earlier childhood can leave young people with unmet needs that they seek to meet via risky routes in adolescence. A YP with an IWM that they are unloved and unloveable might be particularly susceptible to certain grooming strategies (offering treats, compliments, purporting to love a YP)… this is not the same as “the YP chooses to remain in abusive relationships” OR “makes poor choices in relation to keeping herself safe”
This is all important because if adolescent choices and behaviours, driven by development and adaptations, at times play a part in risk, they cannot be ignored in attempts to protect and prevent. Harnessing, working with, and channeling adolescent choices and behaviours are essential to them keeping safe during this life stage, yet the traditional child protection system presents a challenge to this way of working.
One challenge is that this adolescent choice is sometimes misinterpreted as rational informed choice akin to those of adult decisions – the framing of these as ‘lifestyle choices’ can lead to victims of harm being denied appropriate support. Conversely, another challenge is that professionals can minimise adolescent choice and agency – missing the opportunity to work in partnership with young people. This difficult balancing act is typical of working with adolescents, and highlights the importance of a well-supported workforce.

13. Vulnerability
Conceptions of vulnerability are central to the way risk is classified
The totality of a YP’s vulnerability may not always recognisable from apparently isolated incidents (Bradford, 2004) eg missing incidents
Factors interact in complex ways, and vary over time and between individuals – eg going missing
Behaviour / ‘choices’ can eclipse all else
Simplistic checklists / ‘predictive’ assessment tools are problematic
So, professionals must have time to really know young people to exercise judgment
These messages were synthesised by RiP in an evidence scope commissioned by Greater Manchester LAs to support their DfE Innovation Fund project re CSE.
Slide and notes taken from CSE Innovation Project Practitioner Focus Group presentation (Wigan/Rochdale October 2015):
Bradford (2004) states that conceptions of vulnerability are central to the way in which risk is classified. However, the totality of a young person’s vulnerability may not always be immediately recognisable from isolated or apparently isolated incidents and therefore may not be managed appropriately. This is pertinent when considering the effectiveness of information-sharing between agencies.
Notions of vulnerability are particularly relevant to those who go missing from home or placement, both because being missing increases vulnerability and because running away can be a response to a young person feeling at risk at home / in their setting. The behaviour can become the focus rather than the cause, meaning that vulnerability is not addressed.
Furthermore, there is often a lack of understanding of adolescent development with risk underplayed, whilst conversely proportionate non-excessive risks are not always understood as being a part of normal adolescent development thereby pathologising healthy development. Thus, the real vulnerability and risks that high risk young people might face are not reflected in policy and practice with the following potential consequences:
Misunderstandings about the fundamental drivers and contexts of risk, with the result that resources are channelled to the wrong places (e.g. risk is assumed to be within the adult world rather than the peer group (Firmin, 2013);
Failure to recognise (and therefore address) the challenges involved in preventing and reducing adolescent risk (e.g. the frequent barriers to engaging young people in interventions).
Simplistic checklists can be unhelpful – many are not evidence-based, and there is a danger that practitioners use them in ways that can undermine rather than inform professional judgment. Recent work (2016) by Sarah Brown et al at Coventry University looking at CSE risk indicators concluded that there were very few factors that had any strong evidence to support them as being predictive of risk. Furthermore, some of these tools actually guide professional judgement in the wrong direction (eg CSE tools that list ‘signs’ like ‘makeup’ ‘unwanted pregnancy’ etc can perpetuate the assumption that boys are not victims)
Practitioners need to know the YP they serve

14. Additional ‘vulnerabilities’
Sexual exploitation – people with learning disabilities over-represented as victims (Franklin et al 2015)
Harmful sexual behaviour – young people with learning disabilities over-represented as victims and ‘perpetrator’ (Hackett 2014)
Over-representation in criminal justice system (House of Commons Justice Committee 2016)
Learning disability in young general population 2-4%
Prevalence of LD in custody 23-32%
Communication impairment YP in general population 5-7%
Communication impairment in custody 60-90%
Increased risk of being abused (Miller and Brown 2014)
The key findings are:
Young people with learning disabilities are vulnerable to CSE due to factors that include overprotection, social isolation and society refusing to view them as sexual beings SEE RIPFA SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS BRIEFING
Lack of awareness of the sexual exploitation of young people with learning disabilities among professionals also contributes to their vulnerability
There are gaps in national policy and a lack of implementation of current guidance
Young people with learning disabilities are often not specifically considered in local multi-agency arrangements for CSE, which has implications for whether those experiencing or at risk of CSE are identified or receive support
Young people with learning disabilities can face a number of challenges to disclosing CSE, including the negative responses of professionals
Children with learning disabilities (‘intellectual disabilities’) are often over- represented in those perpetrating Harmful Sexual Behaviour (HSB). eg “38 per cent of the sample of 700 young people with harmful sexual behaviours in Hackett et al’s (2013b) UK study were identified as intellectually disabled…… a review of inter- agency polices and protocols across the UK found that almost no local area policies referred to this group explicitly, let alone provided advice about their particular needs and vulnerabilities (Hackett et al, 2003). It is of concern that children and young people with intellectual disabilities may continue to be overlooked in policy terms and have their distinct needs unmet through the provision of generic interventions for young people with harmful sexual behaviours.” See p 54, Chapter 3, in attached Rip research review on HSB
CJ System
pdf f
Prevalence of Learning disabiity in young general population 2-4%
Prevalence of LD in custory 23-32%
Communication impairment YP in general population 5-7%
Communication impairement in custory 60-90%
Increased risk of being abused
disabled-children-abuse-summary.pdf
Evidence to be added.
Invite discussion about this- build on good work in Coventry around CSE

15. Rescue Vs Reform
The seesaw tips in the opposite direction at age 18 we rescue children and then at 18 we’re doing something entirely differet

16. The inequity of choice (slide credit Tony Saggers RiPfA webinar)
family
parenting
education
peer group
culture & media
alcohol & drugs
prosperity
street sleeper
transient
gang member
thief &
drug dealer
sex worker
addict & alcoholic
unemployed
Criminal Justice:
outcomes to drive change
Children
& Y P
health ‘risks’?
‘high priority’
missing?
Gangs: ‘exploitation’?
‘vulnerable’ to crime? A d u l t
Happy
18th
Birthday!
Better continuity
for YP to Adult transitions
This slide demonstrates that tip excellently
Understanding
mental health:
‘Chicken & Egg’
Break the cycle
VYP/VA
Realistic & sustainable
‘exit’ plans for gang crime

17. Victim blaming
So not only do we not always recognise victims, but we label and blame them.
Women who experience domestic abuse are invited to attend Pattern Changing programmes- presumably to ‘stop them’ making the same ‘mistake’ again the emphasis on them and not on the perp.
Responses and judgements that frame the child as ‘promiscuous’ and badly behaved (Jay, 2014; Coffey, 2014; Bedford, 2015)
Victims do not always have some sort of underpinning vulnerability; looking for evidence of the ‘vulnerability’ that ‘caused’ the sexual exploitation can lead to (or collude with) victim blaming (Eaton & Holmes, 2017)
Inadvertently compounding misconceptions through language. Describing victims as ‘risk taking’, for example, locates responsibility in the victim. The use of euphemisms and ambivalent language can allow risk to go unseen. eg describing perpetrators as ‘lads’ (Bedford, 2015) underplays threat; describing a 12-year-old girl as ‘sexually active’ or a 35-year-old male as a 14-year-old’s ‘boyfriend’ (Beckett, 2011b)
young people (particularly those aged 16 to 18) who were being sexually exploited ‘were invariably perceived to be consenting active agents making choices, albeit constrained, about their relationships’ (Pearce, 2014: 163)

18. When I say Risk, you Say…
WE can show others what we do here- colleagues from children to learn from this
Driven by activists and policy caught up
“You wrapped me up in cotton wool and chicken wire”.
Shift to enabling risk- what are the consequences of that for us as practitioners? Does our practice support it, what does, what enables us?
Traditional
Perspective
Normally concerns the likelihood of harm or other form of loss
Perceived as inherently wrong
Preoccupation to avoid risk
Aim is to eliminate risks for people
Enabling
Comparing and balancing likely benefits with likely harms
Protection planning based on understanding of risks and impact of potential risks on the person(s)
Considering person centred approaches to enable appropriate risk taking
Finlayson (2015) argues that we should stop talking about ‘risk’ and start talking about ‘worries’
He questions whose interests are served by a risk assessment model – the person’s or the professionals’?
Finlayson argues
Risk has become one of the dominant themes in modern social care
In recent years, we’ve recognised that this can be problematic and moved to thinking that taking risks can be positive – ‘risk enablement’
However – while risk enablement is positive, it can still be confusing and ambiguous – as ‘risk’ is still seen as something to be managed and avoided, but also promoted.
The job of social care workers = to support people to have a good life, and uphold their human rights. ‘Risk assessment’ gives us a duty to intervene.
But whose interests are served? ‘risk assessment’ implies objectivity and balance – but other authors have argued it’s far from neutral and is affected by our judgements and biases. It can be argued it acts to demonstrate professional competence and minimise liability – rather than to enhance the individual’s life.
So what instead? Finlayson recommends talking about worries – (bringing us back to outcomes, having a conversation) This drives relationships and discussion. A human worries approach will recognise people are worried and facilitate conversation – a different one to ‘how we manage risk’.
In conclusion – we should stop talking about risk and start talking about good lives and the natural worries that are part and parcel of them.

19. The contexts in which we operate in social care
Human behaviour
Personal values
Professional cultures
Social context
Legal framework
Social context includes poverty/austerity, as well as discourses of power and oppression
What else could be added?
And I’d say our professional cultures are different- we’ve just seen that in the previous slide

20. Life without risk would be life without living
Life without risk would be life without living. It is only through accepting a level of risk in our daily lives that we are able to do anything at all.
(Sorensen 2015)
As soon as people become involved in services we seem to want to stop them from making unwise decisions, despite that being part of life, but then it’s interesting
that in social care, ’risk’ generally means potential harm; where in most other areas of our lives, it is synonymous with excitement, challenge and danger.
Of course, we all have different attitudes to risk in our own lives – many of us don’t spend our weekends bungie jumping and gambling our weekly earnings, but we are all constantly making decisions about whether the potential benefits of doing something outweigh the potential risks. For example, we generally decide the benefits of going out to the shops outweigh the risks of getting run over or mugged. But the balance of these decisions can shift – if we have actually been mugged on the way to the shops; if in our later years, we are worried that a slip on the ice may jeopardise our ability to continue living in our own home; or if we are feeling anxious.
Alison Faulkner in her excellent piece for JRF (REF at end) points out that those who enter ‘serviceland’ or ‘careland’ and become social care service users, are generally not expected or allowed to do things that might risk their safety or end up with them getting hurt.

21. Alison’s piece is clearly demonstrated in Mark Neary’s excellent blog about the experience and language of serviceland, Mark Neary (the father of a 23 year old man with autism who was been placed in a care unit ’against all our wishes’) explained that ’one of the unit’s ideas was that he should have a ‘person-centred plan’. He had to create a wish list, and came up with six things: on next slide

22. Making decisions where risk is involved
Thinking about risk often involves an engagement with complex dilemmas and an acceptance that there may be no ideal solution.
(Faulkner, 2012)

23. Rethinking ‘choices’ and ‘risk-taking’ behaviours
I’ve put this in a second time deliberately just to remind us about how we describe risk
How do we describe people’s behaviour?
Young people’s ‘risk-taking’ - underpinned by interacting biological, social, environmental and neurobiological changes (Calkins, 2010)
Risk can be positive (Coleman, 2014)
Ego-syntonic risks
Adapted to harms experienced in earlier childhood
Unmet needs - seek to meet via risky routes
Misinterpreted as rational informed adult ‘lifestyle choices’  Victims being denied appropriate support / permission to give up
Conversely, professionals can minimise adolescent choice and agency

24. So when I think about risk I’m thinking about my own stuff not yours- need to be focused on the person and alert to our own biases
When I talk with others, I partly talk with the others, partly with myself
(Andersen, 1992)

25. What is risk enablement?
As an approach, risk enablement identifies a link between risk and enablement
Risk enablement recognises that taking carefully considered risks can enable individuals and help improve their wellbeing
Positive risk-taking is a way of working with risk that promotes enablement. It is important to remember that the ‘positive’ in positive risk-taking refers to the outcome not the risk
Is this familiar in your work? see what people say/nod etc.
Positive risk-taking is far more about the process of assessing risk and making balanced decisions – whilst risk enablement is a broader term that refers to the principle of working with risk to enable people – Co-production, strengths based work, multi-agency working and effective work with community assets could all come under the umbrella of ‘risk enablement’ at times.
Re ‘positive risk’: risk always refers to the likelihood of harm, but positive risk-taking balances that with the likelihood of achieving outcomes and in doing so seeks to build on strengths rather than a traditional ‘deficit-based’ approach – hence the positive! We will go into more detail on risk balancing later on in the workshop.

26. Risk enablement means working to enable individuals through carefully considered risk-taking. Positive risk taking is a collaborative process of balanced decision- making in relation to risk, in which the stakeholders weigh up potential risks and benefits and take a shared problem-solving approach to try and find a way of managing risks.
(McNamara & Morgan 2014)
Do we actually do this with children?
What is at play when we’re doing this?

27. Risk aversion to risk enablement
Risk of specific situation
Consider benefits too
Social, emotional also (hidden harm/ benefits)
Strengths, resources (outside services), what’s worked before
Person & supporters, range of professionals share responsibility for managing risks
’Risky/vulnerable’ people
Worst case scenario
Focus on physical (someone getting hurt)
Medical problems, limitations, what’s gone wrong before
A senior/ lead professional takes decision (and gets blamed if it goes wrong)
I have a hunch we’re still on the left with our work with children? Why is that?
Risk aversion to risk enablement then means shifting the conversation from ‘How can we manage your risks?’ to ‘What do you need to stay safe?’ Supporting people to develop their own strategies to do things safely and share responsibility for this. In our day to day lives risk has a part to play in many decisions that we make . However when people who use services take risks it can give rise to risk –averse responses.
Positive risk taking” means that we shift the focus of our “what ifs?” from solely thinking about worst case scenario to considering the potential benefits that might arise from a course of action. We are effectively considering the risks of being risk averse on other aspects of a person’s wellbeing. If an older person moves into a care home , they may be “safer” but they may prefer not to be safer and stay in their own home where they are familiar with , surrounded by their own possessions filled with memories, perhaps with pets and a garden they cherish. Their quality of life will be therefore a lot better at home which will impact on their wellbeing.
It is therefore important that risk assessment is not based on one individuals view, there must be shared responsibility between the person, their relatives and wherever a range of professionals and as a team should weigh up the benefits as well as the risks, and think about the social and emotional , as well as the physical as this broadens the context for the decision.

28. Risk Principles
Risk is dynamic. It is constantly changing in response to altered circumstances
Risk can never be eliminated, but it can be assessed and minimised
Assessment of risk will be enhanced through accessing several sources of information including service user and carer perspectives
Identifying risks carries a duty to do something about them (i.e. managing risk)
Taking risks can engage positive collaborations for beneficial outcomes
Defensible (not defensive) decisions are based on clear reasoning (Morgan 2013)
Evidence suggests there is a tendency for
practitioners to be more attuned to indications of risk than an individual’s strengths. Faulkner (2012) identified that in weighing up benefits and risks, practitioners are often quicker to highlight the risk to a person using a service than they are to highlight the benefit. There was also found to be concern amongst practitioners that promoting individual choice and control when making decisions about risk could imply greater responsibility being placed on people who use services, almost as an all-or-nothing approach.
NB – Refer to slide : A good starting point is to establish a set of principles by which to understand risk.

29. Risk enablement and safeguarding
Shared features of positive risk-taking and Making Safeguarding Personal:
The approach to risk is rights-based.
People using services are kept well-informed in an accessible way
The wishes of people using services are at the heart of decisions.
The strengths of the individual are identified.
Decisions are balanced; reasoning demonstrable.
Decisions are regularly reviewed.
Practitioners are reflective and legally literate
(RiPfA, 2016)
We have seen that protection from abuse and neglect is one of the aspects of wellbeing within the Care Act Safeguarding looks specifically at how we keep individuals safe from abuse (incl. self harm, which incls. neglect).
MSP (since 2013, now enshrined in Care Act) is based on many of the same principles and requires some of the same skills and processes as positive risk-taking. MSP aims to look more at building individuals’ skills and capabilities – to take a far more preventative and sustainable approach.
Quotes from the LGA evaluation of MSP
‘It also shifts the focus from risk to wellbeing.’
‘Ensuring Safeguarding professionals do not take a paternalistic or risk adverse approach.’
‘It is about listening to what the person wants to happen and working in partnership with themselves and their families to achieve the best outcomes.’
‘It enables positive risk taking whilst safeguarding individuals from potential abuse.’
In this evaluation, a fifth of respondents felt that MSP had improved practice in relation to managing risk/ taking a risk enablement approach.

30. Risk Enablement and Strength based practice
Be person-centred, empowering taking account of strengths
Consider key legislation e.g. the MCA, MCA Code of Practice and DOLS (Liberty Protection Safeguards)
Asserts people’s right to make decisions, even unwise ones, if they have the capacity to do so
Ensure people have the right to live their lives to the full as long as that does not stop others from doing the same
Consider the benefits of the proposed action and weigh these against any risks
Organisations should model a positive rather than a defensive approach
Decisions should be reasonable, proportionate, accountable and defensible, and rooted in evidence informed practice and partnership working
Assessing the risk to vulnerable people against their right to make choices about how to live their life is difficult, and in any given situation different people will have different views on striking the right balance. This means that agreement on the degree of risk in every situation may not be possible. However, professionals should have a common understanding of the principles they are working to, the legal structures in place, and the documentation that can help and that they need to complete.

31. Working with risk: Key Messages
Risk enablement needs a collaborative process of balanced decision-making in relation to the risk,
Decisions on risk should be reasonable, proportionate, accountable and defensible, and rooted in evidence informed practice and partnership working
Risk decisions judged by the quality of decision making not outcome
Social care needs a culture that learns from success as well as failure
Create a culture that trusts in natural human relationships and conversations
Risk taking for positive outcomes is a way of thinking that should chime with good social work and clinical practice
With the person- so relationship based.
Working with parents-
Need a bit of risk in our relationships.

32. Thinking about solutions…

33. Resilience and participation
Relationships are paramount (Coleman, 2014)
Self-efficacy, positive identity development, aspirations - commonly associated with resilience
CYP as ‘assets’ (Young Inspectors, Student Council) and as active agents
Children's rights to protection and participation are mutually dependent and indivisible
(UNCRC)
Relationships are THE vehicle by which we can promote resilience.
Much is made of ‘self-esteem’ but actually professionals are more likely to be able to influence self-efficacy (feeling like you are in charge and have some control over your life and solutions)
Ditto aspirations and identity – are we working in ways that promote positive identity devt? Or are we inadvertently propelling YP to be defined by their problems and behaviours?
This leads us to think about participation – more on that shortly.
A specific example of a positive, resilience-promoting relationship is mentoring of at-risk young people (DuBois et al., 2011). At its heart this involves a strong and meaningful personal connection between a young person and their (voluntary) mentor. The successes of mentoring depend on it following certain principles and are likely to lie in the scaffolding it provides for adolescent skill and positive identity development (Rhodes, 2005).
Authoritative parenting - This style involves warmth, the provision of boundaries and structure, and the promotion of age-appropriate autonomy.
There is ‘clear and consistent evidence’ that parenting style has a statistically significant association with a wide range of youth outcome variables.
An authoritative parenting style is characterised by a healthy bond and loving relationship between parent and young person, while the parent upholds high expectations and clear boundaries.
This style of parenting can be taught and is associated with ‘higher self-esteem and subjective well-being, and lower odds of smoking, getting involved in fights or having friends who use drugs... [It is also] associated with better GCSE results and higher odds of staying on in education beyond school-leaving age’ (Chan and Koo, 2010: 12).
Distinction to be made between behavioural and psychological control - the first involves setting boundaries which have a clear rationale, whilst the second type of control involves the use of emotional punishment – generating guilt, shame or anxiety. Studies show that the use of psychological control is more likely to lead to risky or problem behaviour (Holmes et al, 2013).
Parents and other adults = critical. The more parents and other family members remain engaged and supportive of the young person, them less the chance of dangerous risk-taking. (Coleman, 2014)
However, there are several ways in which the system makes these relationships more difficult to establish and sustain.
Structural that ignore the interconnected nature of adolescent risk
On a related note, it can be a struggle to engage young people if they sense that the support or intervention could destabilize fragile approaches they have developed to cope with their problems

34. Participation in practice (Warrington, 2016)
Involves work with people individually and collectively to:
Access information, resources and support
Exercise autonomy
& choice
Experience of a sense
of control
Influence & inform
change
Research and Policy
Communities
Services
Peers
Individual care
As with all participatory practice – it can mean work with children as individuals and or collectively as a ‘constituent group’ of service users or other young people affected by the issue
Given the lack of clarity around participation and potential for empty rhetoric there is a need to think carefully about the meaning, application and outcomes of children’s participation.
Needs to think carefully about if and where young people actually have influence on decision-making – answering this question is part of how we can assess children’s participation

35. Transitional Safeguarding
In safeguarding, binary notions of childhood and adulthood prevail. Learning from SARs shows how young adults can ‘slip through the net’ or face a ‘cliff-edge’
Many of the environmental and structural factors – including poverty and social isolation - that increase a child’s vulnerability persist into adulthood, resulting in unmet need
Investing in preventative work to promote people’s safety and wellbeing can play an important role in avoiding costs of later intervention
Resilience, self-efficacy, social connectedness – all key to wellbeing – prompts thinking about practice
Does not propose all young adults experiencing risk should be protected via statutory means, nor does it propose a paternalistic approach to safeguarding young adults
Innovation in this area may not depend on changes to legislation and/or statutory guidance
Opportunity knocks…?
Whilst children in care now receive statutory support until the age of 25, those adolescents who have experienced high levels of trauma and harm but are not in care do not automatically have the same entitlements. Transition planning has proved a challenging area of practice, ongoing issues around finding safe and suitable accommodation for care leavers have been documented, which can lead to increased risks of harm (Education Select Committee, 2014). Young people entering adulthood can fall out of contact with services or disengage with them for a range of reasons – often because services are not flexible or responsive to adolescents’ needs. Transition between children and adolescent mental health services (CAMHs) and adult mental health services (AMHs) has been found to be ‘poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly experienced’ for a significant number of adolescents (Department of Health, 2014).
Critically, as noted above, young adults can experience a ‘cliff-edge’ due to markedly different thresholds for access to services. For example adolescents entering adulthood often don’t meet adult mental health criteria (Future in Mind, 2015); and young people with moderate special educational needs who received support while at school, do not necessarily meet eligibility criteria for care and support from adults’ services (CQC, 2014). The criteria by which a person is deemed deserving of safeguarding support can therefore be very different for older adolescents and young adults, which is counter to the fluid lifespan approach being sought by health, or SEND services for example.
Emerging evidence indicates that more effectively meeting the needs of adolescents and young adults may help to avoid costly later interventions, including those within the criminal justice system, acute health services and specialist drug and alcohol treatment (Rees et al, 2017). The significant human and financial costs of ‘late intervention’ are well-documented, yet many local areas face barriers in their efforts to develop innovative approaches to enablecost-avoidance (Chowdry & Fitzsimons, 2016).

36. How can we think about our role?
The ultimate job of anyone working with people whose lives have been characterised by exclusion is to support them to have a good life. One that ensures their human rights and nourishes their ability to build relationships and skills at deciding their own ways of being safe.
(Finlayson 2015)

37. Resilient people need resilient practitioners…

38. Thank you www.rip.org.uk www.ripfa.org.uk
@researchIP @ripfa
Keep in touch!