Hard to reach young people and ‘agency neglect’:

Safeguarding teenagers

Patrick AyreDepartment of Applied Social Studies

University of Bedfordshire

The complexity of the challenge

Young people 14-18 may be Victims, Perpetrators Parents Any combination of the above

but have the same right to be safeguarded as any other child.

The background

National summary of Serious Case Reviews: “The reviews showed that state care did not always support these young people fully and that they experienced ‘agency neglect’” Brandon and others (2008).

Two recent Norfolk Serious Case Reviews

The young people

Adolescence marks start of serious problems for many children:

– Onset of mental health issues– Family conflict– Drug use, offending– Sexual activity– Running away

The young people (Brandon and others)

History of rejection, loss and, usually, severe maltreatment

Long term intensive involvement from multiple agencies

Parents: history of abuse and current mental health and substance issues

Difficult to contain in school Typically self-harming and misusing

substances, often self-neglect

The young people (Brandon and others)

Numerous placement breakdowns Running away, going missing Risk of dangerous sexual activity

including exploitation Sometimes placed in specialist

settings, only to be withdrawn because of running away

The young people (My experience)

Long involvement, but not always intense Sometimes few placements, but all wrecked

by the young person Common factor that local services just did

not know what to do with them. ‘By the time of the incident, for many of the

young people, little or help was being offered because agencies appeared to have run out of helping strategies’ (Brandon and others, 2008).

The response

Reluctance to identify mental illness and suicidal intent (CAMHS)

Failure to respond in a sustained way to extreme distress manifested in risky behaviour (sex, drugs, suicide attempts)

Arguing between agencies about responsibility and thresholds

Reasons for running not addressed adequately

The response

Running away leads to discharge [More generally, does rejection of

services lead to total abandonment?] Age used as a reason for not imposing

services No proper assessment of competence;

allowed/forced to choose; [Dealing with incidents but failing to

recognise patterns]

The obstacles

Hard to get a purchase on the system Wrong children, wrong adults (Ayre, 2000)

Lack of off-the-shelf resources The limited resources are poorly

coordinated and integrated Government targets not child centred or

child driven Different agency agendas and mutual

misunderstanding; falling down the gap

The solutions?

That’s what we are hear to explore! Biehal (2005) recommends adolescent

support teams in the community [but is that enough?]

The complexity of the challenge requires flexible collaborative, individualised responses built around the young person

References

Ayre P. and Barrett D. (2000) Young people and prostitution: An end to the beginning?, Children and Society 14, 48-59

Biehal, N. (2005) Working with Adolescents: Supporting Families, Preventing Breakdown, London: BAAF.

Brandon, M, Belderson, P, Warren, C, Howe, D, Gardner, G, Dodsworth J and Black J (2008) Analysing child deaths and serious injury through abuse and neglect: what can we learn? London: Department for Children, Schools and Families