Two terms, one idea
Extra-familial harm is the term used in statutory guidance. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 describes it as abuse and exploitation that children experience “outside the home”. It can happen “in a range of contexts, including school and other educational settings, peer groups, or within community/public spaces, and/or online” (paragraph 216). The glossary notes that there is no legal definition of the term.
Contextual safeguarding is an approach for responding to that harm. It was developed by Professor Carlene Firmin and is now led by the Global Centre for Contextual Safeguarding at Durham University. The idea is simple. If a child is being harmed at a park, on a bus route or in a group chat, working with the child and their parents alone won’t make that place safe. The response has to reach the context too.
Neither KCSIE 2026 nor Working Together 2026 makes “contextual safeguarding” a duty by name. KCSIE does link to the Contextual Safeguarding resources (paragraph 66).
What Working Together 2026 says
Chapter 3 has a section called “Supporting children suffering or likely to suffer harm outside the home” (paragraphs 216 to 223). The main points for schools are:
- Forms of harm. These include criminal exploitation (county lines and financial exploitation), serious violence, modern slavery, online harm, sexual exploitation, teenage relationship abuse and extremism. Children of all ages can be affected (paragraph 216).
- Who is more at risk. Children with SEND, children missing from home, care or education, looked-after children and those who have already been abused or neglected may be at greater risk. Some perpetrators target children because they are vulnerable (paragraph 218).
- A safeguarding response for every child, including those causing harm to others. Paragraph 219 warns that some children are wrongly seen as older than they are. This happens more often to Black children, and it can mean their needs are missed.
- Siblings. Where older children are exploited, younger brothers and sisters may be targeted too (paragraph 220).
- Groups. Where several children may be harmed in the same context, practitioners should consider each child and also work with the group (paragraph 221).
- Places and people causing harm. Practitioners should understand the context, find patterns of harm, and work with partners such as the police and community safety partnerships to disrupt those causing harm (paragraph 222).
The glossary gives examples of extra-familial contexts: “parks, housing estates, shopping centres, takeaway restaurants, or transport hubs”, as well as social media and gaming platforms.
What KCSIE 2026 says
- Children can be at risk of harm “inside and outside of the school/college, inside and outside of home, and online” (paragraph 19).
- Paragraph 21 asks all staff, “but especially the designated safeguarding lead (and deputies)”, to consider whether children are at risk of abuse or exploitation outside their families. It lists sexual abuse, teenage relationship abuse, criminal exploitation, serious youth violence, county lines and radicalisation.
- Staff should be alert to when children may be at highest risk around the school day, such as straight after school (paragraph 33).
- Paragraph 66 says social care assessments should consider harm outside the home, so schools should give “as much information as possible” when they refer.
- When responding to harmful sexual behaviour, the DSL should consider “wider contextual concerns”, including links to child sexual or criminal exploitation (paragraph 571).
- The serious violence section in Annex A says violence often peaks just before or after school, on journeys, and in particular places. Schools should “try to understand where these places are” and work with partners to make them safer.
Ofsted’s inspection toolkit asks whether schools protect pupils from harm “within or outside the home or online”, and whether they work with partners to do it.
What schools can do
Find out where pupils feel unsafe
KCSIE’s Annex A says listening to children and consulting staff can show when and where pupils feel unsafe. In practice, schools do this with:
- pupil surveys or focus groups that ask about routes, places and times, not only people
- a simple map of the local area, marked with places pupils and staff mention
- conversations with staff on duty at the gate, at bus stops and at lunchtime
Repeat the exercise each year, as places change.
Record where and when
When staff log a concern, ask them to note where and when it happened, as well as what. One concern about a bus stop is a single worry. Five from different pupils is a pattern. The DSL team should review concerns across pupils, by place, time and friendship group, as well as child by child.
Share what you see with partners
Patterns about places are often useful to others. Depending on local arrangements, the DSL can share them with:
- children’s social care, inside a referral, so the assessment can consider the context (KCSIE paragraph 66)
- the police, the local community safety partnership or neighbourhood policing team
- local exploitation or extra-familial harm panels, where the area has one
- youth services, transport providers and businesses near the school
Follow your local safeguarding partners’ procedures and the school’s information sharing policy. Share what is needed, not everything.
Work with the group, not only the child
If several pupils are linked to the same harm, plan around the group as well as each child (Working Together paragraph 221). Think about siblings too. Avoid responses that only move the harm elsewhere, such as excluding a pupil without a plan for where they will go.
Check your practice
KCSIE lists the Contextual Safeguarding programme’s Beyond Referrals self-assessment toolkit for schools, and the Youth Endowment Fund’s education guidance on preventing violence. Both can help leaders and governors test the school’s approach.