Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: January 15, 2025

Purpose:

Content: 7.1 The Assistant Director of Community Youth Services introduced the report to the Committee which explained that the Sheffield Community Safeguarding Strategy (2025–2028) addresses growing risks to older children from external factors like technology, social media, and peer pressure and focuses on providing children with safe, supportive environments where they can thrive and belong. 7.2 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Education, Children and Families Policy Committee:- Approve the development of Community Safeguarding Strategy for years 2025 – 2028 with engagement with partners and children and their families. 7.3 Reasons for Decision 7.3.1 The Community Safeguarding Strategy (2025-2028) is recommended due to its comprehensive, proactive approach in addressing the evolving and external risks faced by children and young people in Sheffield. Traditional safeguarding methods focused on the family home are not enough when considering harm in communities, as young people are increasingly vulnerable to external threats such as exploitation, gang involvement, and online dangers. This strategy ensures a coordinated response across communities, services, and agencies to prevent harm, provide early intervention, and create safe spaces for young people to thrive. It empowers communities, strengthens partnerships, and addresses the broader, systemic issues contributing to vulnerability, making it a crucial step toward protecting and supporting Sheffield’s children. 7.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected 7.4.1 Alternative Option 1: Continued Focus on Family-Centred Safeguarding   Description of Option:   This option would maintain a focus primarily on safeguarding within the family unit, with continued emphasis on parental support and intervention within the home environment. It would focus on strengthening the capacity of parents and carers to protect children from harm, with a more traditional approach to safeguarding outside the home.   Explanation of Why Rejected:   This option was rejected due to the increasing evidence that risks to children and young people are often external to the home, particularly in relation to peer pressure, online exploitation, and involvement in criminal activities like gang violence. These risks are not easily addressed through family-centred approaches alone. With the growing complexity of safeguarding challenges, this option would not effectively tackle the broader issues young people face in their communities and social spaces. The lack of focus on community-based interventions and external risks would likely result in missed opportunities for early intervention and greater vulnerability for young people. 7.4.2 Alternative Option 2: Citywide Surveillance and Policing-Focused Approach   Description of Option: This option would involve a more aggressive approach focused on increasing surveillance and law enforcement presence in areas identified as high-risk for exploitation and criminal activity. The approach would centre around reactive measures, such as heightened policing, monitoring of public spaces, and increased enforcement of laws related to youth crime and exploitation.   Explanation of Why Rejected:   While this option might help deter criminal activity in the short term, it was rejected due to the potential for negative community relations and the limited long-term effectiveness of relying solely on enforcement. Focusing solely on surveillance and policing does not address the underlying causes of youth vulnerability, such as lack of safe spaces, support services, and engagement opportunities. It would also place undue pressure on law enforcement, without providing the community[1]based, preventative support that the Community Safeguarding Strategy (2025-2028) aims to achieve. Additionally, it would fail to build the resilience and self-empowerment needed in local communities to prevent exploitation and harm in the firstplace. 7.4.3 Alternative Option 3: Localised Interventions without a Citywide Framework   Description of Option:   This option would involve implementing safeguarding measures and youth support services on a localised basis, with each community or neighbourhood developing its own strategy without a cohesive citywide approach. It would focus on grassroots, community-led initiatives, leaving more responsibility in the hands of local communities.   Explanation of Why Rejected:   Although local community involvement is crucial, this option was rejected because it risks creating fragmented and inconsistent responses across the city. Without a coordinated citywide strategy, there could be significant gaps in service provision, misalignment of priorities, and missed opportunities for collaboration across partners. A decentralised approach would also make it difficult to monitor impact, share data, and ensure that resources are being used effectively across Sheffield. The Community Safeguarding Strategy aims to unite communities, services, and partners under a shared vision to address youth safeguarding in a holistic, systematic way, ensuring consistency and collaboration across the city. Each of these alternatives was considered, but the Community Safeguarding Strategy (2025-2028) was selected because it provides a comprehensive, coordinated, and proactive approach that addresses the broad spectrum of risks faced by young people in Sheffield. It emphasises prevention, early intervention, and collaboration between agencies, communities, and young people themselves to create lasting change and ensure their safety and well-being.