Abstract
This article examines if a ‘structural competency’ approach can help with understanding and addressing deficiencies in identifying potential exploitation victims among marginalised communities. Through a case study of multi-agency work within a unitary English local authority area, it explores how safeguarding and anti-modern slavery systems recognise exploitation cases among Roma communities. The concept of ‘structural competency’ illustrates how culture and structure can jointly create stigmatisation and inequities in safeguarding. We argue that ‘structural competency’ highlights structural inequities and institutional discrimination in anti-exploitation and safeguarding practices, in contrast to the commonly adopted approach of ‘cultural competence,’ which can exacerbate the othering and risk of exploitation for marginalised communities.
Introduction
The UK's policy approach to identifying and responding to ‘modern slavery’ has evolved considerably since the Modern Slavery Act was passed in 2015. Initially the legislation was presented as ‘world-leading,’ with elements of the law emulated in Australia, Canada and Norway (May, 2016). However, the Act was also criticised for its criminal-justice framing, which failed to recognise intersectional factors influencing exploitation such as poverty, flows of capital and labour, and racial-, ethnic-, gender- and disability-based inequality (Craig, 2018; Hodkinson et al., 2021; Samota and Ariyo, 2022). More recently, measures including the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and Nationality and Borders Act 2022 have limited access to protections and support for undocumented migrants who identify as having experienced forms of ‘modern slavery’ (Balch, 2023). Yet, even before these measures, evidence was building that marginalised (often migrant) communities were not equally able to access protections offered by the law (Gardner et al., 2022; Murphy and Lazzarino, 2022; O’Connell Davidson, 2015).
Despite recognition by the UK government of the importance of multi-agency responses in statutory guidance (Home Office, 2020), resources for local agencies to identify and support individuals affected by exploitation have been limited (Gardner, 2018; Rolle, 2022). The 2015 Modern Slavery Act placed a statutory duty on local authorities and police in England and Wales, among other public and non-public authorities, to act as ‘first responders’ in identifying potential cases of modern slavery and referring victims into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). The NRM is a framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive the appropriate support. This was in addition to local authorities’ existing duty to safeguard child abuse victims under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, and Adults at Risk under section 42 of the Care Act 2014. Additionally, statutory services for more than a decade have experienced increasing financial constraint as a result of continued downward pressure on public sector spending, causing many local authorities to raise thresholds for social care intervention and cut support services (Forrester-Jones et al., 2021).
In 2017, Craig and Clay (2017) and Kidd and Manthorpe (2017) highlighted the lack of existing data on the interaction between safeguarding and modern slavery, raising concerns that instances of exploitation were under-identified within existing safeguarding practice. Previous research also identified racism and ethnic and cultural stereotypes as key barriers to the effective safeguarding of and the identification of modern slavery affecting ethnically and racially minoritised communities (Barn, 2007; Chand, 2000; Phillips, 2007).
In this article we explore the utility of a ‘structural competence’ framework to illuminate the challenges multi-agency systems face in identifying and responding to exploitation. We draw particularly on Metzl and Hansen's articulation of core competencies for recognising how culture and structure can be ‘co-implicated’ in creating stigmatisation and inequality (Metzl and Hansen, 2014: 6). The article utilises a case study of an English local authority and its partner organisations to analyse how their institutional safeguarding structures, systems and practices function to identify and respond to cases of exploitation among the Roma communities in the local area. We utilise the term ‘modern slavery’ in the article mainly in relation to policy and practice emerging from the UK's 2015 Modern Slavery Act, acknowledging that the term is contested but also prevalent in legislation and policy implementation. However, we also draw attention to wider forms of abuse and exploitation that do not fit neatly under this legislation. The focus on Roma is particularly significant as Roma communities have been disproportionately impacted by trafficking and exploitation rooted in histories of discrimination and oppression (European Roma Rights Centre and People in Need, 2011).
We apply the structural competence framework to examine the ways in which exploitation is characterised and understood by practitioners active in the community. Shortfalls in existing practice are recognised, alongside the ways in which structural barriers are neglected in the processes adopted by public services and NGOs. In the discussion and conclusion section, we then articulate how a structural competence lens could assist in reviewing and addressing systemic problems to improve the capacity of multi-agency safeguarding systems to identify and respond to exploitation.
Culture, ‘race’, ethnicity and safeguarding systems
There is a small but growing literature on the links between culture, ‘race’, ethnicity and safeguarding interventions in the UK. The literature on this topic highlighted deficiencies in the level of support and welfare outcomes experienced by families from black and ethnic minority groups (Welbourne, 2002). Studies showed that racial and cultural stereotypes held by some professionals about different minoritised groups lead to discriminatory practice and failure to identify and respond to abuse, either by encouraging a perspective which pathologises perceived ‘deficits’ or practices in communities or, conversely, by adopting a culturally relativist perspective that does not challenge abuse (Barn, 2007). Similar trends exist in the US (Williams-Butler, 2023). Value judgements of ethnic minority communities’ traditions and norms, some scholars argued, often stem from ethnocentric assumptions about the universality of Western values (Bernard and Gupta, 2006). Bernard and Harris’s (2019) analysis of serious case reviews (SCRs) involving black children, who were subjected to different forms of abuse in the UK, found a lack of examination of the impact of racism, children's ethnic identities or the multiple inequalities that shape theirs and their families’ lived experiences. A pathologising approach, which views practices or values of ethnic minority families as deficient, can distort practitioners’ assessments of their behaviours and attitudes of ethnic minority families, thereby leading to disproportionate and punitive intervention. For example, a cultural deficit attitude against black families was linked to their disproportionate representation in the UK child protection system and particularly under the categories of family dysfunction, abuse, neglect, or parenting problems (Chand, 2000; Phillips, 2007). This skewed attention to specific types of family problems based on cultural stereotypes can leave other forms of abuse undetected (Phillips, 2007).
On the other hand, a culturally relativist approach – the view that perceptions of harm or abuse are culturally determined – could lead to lack of intervention from practitioners who might think that a certain abusive behaviour is simply a cultural difference. This would apply to harmful practices such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and forced marriage (Webb et al., 2002). A demonstration of harmful culturally relativist practice was revealed in the inquiry into the death of child Victoria Climbie who was subject to extreme physical abuse and torture by her aunt and the latter's boyfriend in the UK. The inquiry revealed that Victoria's social worker mistook her fear of her guardians for a culture of respect and obedience among Afro-Caribbean families (Laming Report, 2003). Medical practitioners also failed to report bruises on her body thinking that it is normal for children who grew up in Africa to have body marks. Relatedly, fear of being labelled ‘racist’ was also identified as one of the barriers for appropriate intervention by safeguarding institutions (Henderson et al., 2017; Phillips, 2007; Rodger et al., 2020). In summary, both cultural pathology and cultural relativism lead to racialised and flawed institutional responses to abuse experienced by minoritised communities.
Pathologies and cultural relativism also affect the provision of social and safeguarding services to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) groups in Europe (Allen, 2016; Kelleher et al., 2023; Vidra et al., 2018). Due to the conflation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller categories in the secondary sources consulted, we have used this term, despite recognising differences between and within these ethnic groups. Allen (2015) and Daly (2016) discussed the prejudiced attitudes held by professionals towards GRT communities, including practices which called for the “eradication of Gypsy existence and culture” in children's care services (Allen, 2015). Cemlyn et al. (2009) also reported themes in the literature about “breaking” the Irish Travellers culture and noted how strong “nomadism” may be perceived by professionals as a threat. Cultural relativism is also evident in assumptions that the GRT group will “look after their own,” removing the need for professional intervention.
Cultural relativism, however, is differentiated from ‘colour blindness’, which is ignoring differences between communities and denying different needs (Webb et al., 2002: 405). It is argued that a culturally competent practice in social services should consider the distinct forms of inequalities and challenges faced by ethnic minority groups. However, Bernard and Gupta (2006: 488) contended that resorting to ‘culture’ as a sole determinant of behaviour cannot explain why some members of a cultural group will practice certain behaviours, whilst others will not. They cautioned that culture should be “regarded as dynamic and mediated by other variables, such as class, religion and gender, particularly with changing identities in a globalizing world” (Bernard and Gupta, 2006: 485).
Barriers to identifying and responding to trafficking and exploitation affecting minoritised groups
In England and Wales, the role of collaboration between partners in identifying and responding to cases of exploitation through local-level anti-slavery partnerships is recognised in statutory guidance issued under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act, but partnership responses remain ad-hoc with few having dedicated funding or staff support (Rolle, 2022). Local level multi-agency responses have evolved with uneven results across the UK (Gardner et al., 2017, 2021; Rolle, 2022). Connections between local anti-slavery partnerships and adults or children safeguarding boards are frequently unclear or absent (Gardner et al., 2021).
Existing evidence identifies several factors that impair service providers’ response to potential exploitation. Barriers to identifying victims of exploitation include stereotypical or simplistic understandings among professionals that do not consider the complex set of factors and circumstances that increase risk of exploitation (e.g., socioeconomic disadvantage, harmful social norms, racism, histories of abuse, etc.) (Shepherd and Wilkinson, 2021). This is linked to lack of training among front line staff on applying definitions of slavery and trafficking in practice, including knowing what questions to ask to identify potential victims, and making appropriate referrals (Jago and Pearce, 2008; Pearce, 2011; Ross et al., 2015). Other prominent challenges that hinder professional responses to potential exploitation include a lack of proactive local investigation of perpetrators and the difficulty in gathering and corroborating information (Rigby, 2011). Sometimes practitioners may avoid taking responsibility by referring cases to different agencies, driven by fear of audit and inspection or being responsible for inadequate interventions due to lack of resources (Pearce, 2011).
Service providers and ethnic minorities’ ability to report and respond to trafficking and exploitation may be weakened by several additional specific factors. Mutual distrust, fear and misunderstandings are commonly raised barriers, including in relation to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities. Allen (2016: n.p.) highlighted the “reciprocated fear between professionals and the community of GRT”. Mutual misunderstanding can emerge when service providers misread GRT communities’ fear of any interventions as a desire to hide something from public authorities (Allen, 2016; Cemlyn, 2000). The GRT's fears often stem from trans-generational experiences of state discrimination (Brunnberg and Visser-Schuurman, 2015). Moreover, communication between practitioners and community groups whose first language is not English is further hampered by inadequate interpreting services, which Chand (2000) argued contributes to discrimination. For new migrants to the UK, the lack of trust is sometimes the result of unfamiliarity with the way social services work compared to their origin countries (Henderson et al., 2017). Researchers also found that the general social context of perceived racism and discrimination is a barrier for ethnically minoritised groups in England and Wales against engaging with mainstream social services and reporting abuse, out of concern for reinforcing negative stereotypes (Needham and Carr, 2015; Rodger et al., 2020).
Frameworks for public service equity: From ‘cultural competence’ to ‘structural competency’
In the past twenty years, several models have been developed to address inequity in service delivery for minority groups across the health, social and education services. Among the most widely recognised of these models is cultural competence, which focuses on developing service providers’ knowledge of different cultures, awareness of personal cultural biases, and empathetic communication skills (Balcazar et al., 2009). It also involves creating a supportive organisational environment that is flexible and adaptive to diverse cultural values and behaviours, through training, mentoring, inclusive staffing and accountability systems.
The cultural competence model presents a series of complexities and has gained prominence in social work and healthcare around the world. However, it has been criticised for being a ‘murky concept’ that can have a multitude of meanings while conflating culture with ethnicity, ‘race’, religion and nationality (Harrison and Turner, 2011). Some researchers argued that cultural competence obscures intra-group diversity and tends to treat culture as static or fixed rather than dynamic and emerges from evolving human interaction (Carpenter-Song et al., 2007, Lau and Rodgers, 2021). The notion of competence as implying a kind of professional mastery or a finite body of knowledge also risks marginalising the diverse perspectives and experiences of service users (Kirmayer, 2012).
Fundamentally, the model has been challenged on the grounds that it does not address systemic and institutionalised racism and discrimination. Some researchers blamed it for perpetuating ethnocentrism and that by viewing culture neutrally it obscures how racism and colonialism are implicit in processes of ‘othering’ non-white groups (Berger and Miller, 2021; Pon, 2009). Such difficulties often emanated from communication problems or behavioural stereotypes about groups from certain cultural backgrounds. Pon (2009) argued that what caseworkers attribute to culture is often arbitrary and a simplification of factors affecting their client's lives. A disproportionate focus on culture is also seen as detracting from structural barriers underpinning health and social inequalities (Ahmed, 1994).
Other models have been introduced to refine ‘cultural competence’, including ‘cultural humility’ and ‘cultural sensitivity’ which emphasise a commitment by professionals to continuous learning and self-critique and situating service users as experts in their lives (Kirmayer, 2012; Tervalon and Murray-García, 1998). However, both concepts are still viewed as largely ethnocentric and foregrounding culture in explaining health disparities (Berger and Miller, 2021).
Recently, the framework of ‘structural competency’ has emerged to redress some of the problems in earlier conceptualisations and application of ‘cultural competence’. Structural competency, first introduced by Metzl and Hansen (2014) to guide the training of medical students, calls on practitioners to consider the complex network of political, social, economic, environmental and other structural factors that affect the way they design and deliver their services as well as their patients’ behaviours and outcomes (Metzl and Hansen, 2014). Structural competency does not deny the power of cultural values, but it rearticulates them in structural terms by emphasising how “cultural barriers arise when structural forces manifest themselves in patterns of interpersonal communication and institutional practices” (Metzl and Hansen, 2014: 9).
Metzl and Hansen (2014) illustrated five core structural competencies that medical students and practitioners should consider:
Underpinned by a bi-directional theorisation of structures and individuals, structural competency asserts that as practitioners build this structural knowledge they should and can develop interventions to address and change those structures (Booth, 2019).
Recent empirical research has demonstrated that while moving beyond the cultural lens enables social workers to develop better understanding of and responses to social disadvantage, they remain constrained by institutional limitations (Harrison and Turner, 2011; Käkelä, 2020). This raises questions about the extent to which a structural competency approach can enable a real change in factors at the root of disadvantage and inequality. We address this in our discussion towards the end of the article.
Drawing on the foregoing literature, we adapt Metzl and Hansen's (2014) dimensions of structural competency and apply it to our case study of inter-agency safeguarding practice to examine how the concept might assist with re-framing existing systemic problems and conceiving alternative approaches to multi-agency practice.
Methodology
This paper builds on research that was commissioned by a unitary English local authority with the aim of evaluating the multi-agency systems and processes in place for identification of and response to exploitation affecting a local Roma community.
The Roma community formed a very small portion (about 0.3%, compared to 0.12% in England) of the total population of the local authority and was concentrated in three of the most deprived neighbourhoods. They were isolated from the wider community and often experienced intimidation and discrimination from other groups. Roma children had the second highest rates – after Irish Travellers - of primary and secondary school absences and exclusions compared to those from other ethnic groups. This is consistent with national rates of school absence and exclusion among this group.
Overall, the local area was ethnically diverse with a relatively large percentage of people who identified as Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh (about 45%). The rest of the local population comprised about 35% White, 8% Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean, or African, 4% Mixed, and 6% from other ethnic groups.
We conducted semi-structured online interviews with 25 professionals and practitioners from a range of services provided by the local authority and its statutory and non-statutory partners, including adult and children's safeguarding, community development, social services, housing, welfare support, the police, schools and voluntary organisations. They were asked about the systems and procedures they adopt for reporting and investigating potential exploitation, information sharing and interactions with the Roma community. We also undertook a documentary review to understand multi-agency processes and strategy relating to identifying and reporting exploitation.
Data from the interviews were transcribed and coded using NVivo 12 (a qualitative data analysis software package). We adapted Metzl and Hansen's (2014) five ‘core’ competencies as an organising framework for the inductive themes identified within our data analysis.
The study received ethical approval from the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Nottingham.
One of the limitations of our study is that we were not able to include members of the Roma community in the research, as it was outside the scope and funding of the project. The absence of voices of the community means that the findings do not provide a complete picture of the Roma's experiences of engaging with services. Rather, conclusions should be interpreted as reflecting the agencies’ internal context. This study, therefore, lays the groundwork for understanding the perspective of service providers, with the view that future work will build upon it to encompass communities’ voices in relation to their interaction with local service providers.
Another limitation is that the data is taken from a single case study. However, building on Yin's principle that case studies can be generalised to theory via the substantiation or modification of theoretically informed propositions (Yin, 1994) we use the evidence of our case to review the significance of Metzl and Hansen's competences in relation to safeguarding, in the hope that these may be useful and applicable to a wider set of contexts.
Findings
Our findings adapt Metzl and Hansen's five core competencies by altering some of the terminology to suit the context of our case study of safeguarding and anti-exploitation systems. Our adapted competencies are as follows: ‘re-articulating the ‘cultural’ in structural terms’; ‘recognising structural forces shaping interactions with the community; ‘developing language and training for structural competency’; ‘observing and imagining structural interventions’; and ‘developing structural humility’.
Re-articulating the ‘cultural’ in structural terms
We start with this competence due to the prominence of ‘culture’ as a main theme that emerged from our findings, showing how articulating structural factors in cultural terms exacerbate disadvantage and, in our case study, lead to potential exploitation being overlooked.
Culture was frequently seen by practitioners as the root of social problems affecting the local Roma community, rather than exploring structural explanations such as the enduring influence of patriarchal systems, or intergenerational social inequality leading to poor life chances. Participants recognised social disadvantages affecting Roma but tended to responsibilise individuals or the wider community collectively for those issues, pinpointing cultural pathologies as the root cause of problems.
For instance, children's high school absences, poor educational performance, and disruptive behaviours were viewed by some participants as ‘learned behaviour’ and a product of ‘a certain lifestyle’ and ‘parenting behaviours’. This is demonstrated by the following quote: …culturally they'll have fixed ideas about whether children need to be in school, or actually, you know, they don't always need to be in school. I think the parents’ understanding of the value of education and being in school on a regular basis is a real challenge for schools. (safeguarding worker)
We also found cultural relativism in participants’ perceptions of the Roma community, where evidence of exploitation was normalised and therefore not responded to appropriately. Early marriage – illegal under UK law – and engagement of young people in criminal activities were described as a ‘cultural thing’ and thought of as widely accepted among the Roma community members. These preconceptions meant that when cases of potential child marriage or criminal exploitation occurred, they were ‘normalised’ within the context of that community. One participant believed that the police's responses and level of concern would be significantly different for ‘white British’ children. Another participant said: I think there is a level of racism and, you know, I think there's this NFR which is my acronym for ‘Normal for Roma’, which is, you know, how sometimes things that wouldn't be acceptable for other communities are allowed to happen because we just go ‘Normal for Roma. (youth worker)
Similarly, signs of adult financial exploitation (via benefit fraud), children spotted begging in the street and even disclosures of potential abuse by some young people were not always followed up or given due attention. Similarly, children with unclear familial relationships – which can be a warning sign of child trafficking (NSPCC, n.d.) - were not investigated, due to the perception that Roma families often live in multi-generational households, making it difficult to establish kinship relationships.
Therefore, although some structural disadvantages were acknowledged, the response was predominantly mediated through cultural pathologies and relativism.
Recognising structural forces shaping interactions with the community
Structural competence in a multi-agency safeguarding context implies understanding how structural factors impact on interactions and engagement with people who may be at risk of exploitation.
In our case study, viewing exploitation through the lens of culture, as shown in the previous section, hindered agencies’ ability to identify the structural factors shaping their interactions with the members of the Roma community. Rather than examining systemic issues that may be contributing to this problem, Roma's ‘isolationist’ culture was seen as the main issue. Participants cited the tendency of Roma people to ‘isolate themselves’, ‘keep it in-house’, and ‘keep themselves to themselves’ as what hindered them from receiving the support they needed from statutory services, as the following quote shows. On the one hand, that sense of community is great. But on the other hand, it's, depending on how it's managed, it can be quite isolating, and, you know, removing yourself from what's going on in society sort of thing which, you know, which prevents you from accessing certain services or accessing certain support and stuff. (community services provider)
In addition, our analysis identified systems-based factors that hampered adequate multi-agency responses to exploitation among the Roma community. Referral processes and safeguarding systems were ill-equipped to engage with marginalised communities and gather necessary evidence to investigate exploitation. Respondents identified difficulty engaging the Roma community as one of the main barriers to gathering evidence to identify potential exploitation, which pointed to a lack of alternative systems and processes to underpin referral and further investigation. For example, one interviewee commented that lack of disclosures from Roma children was one of the reasons agencies had not considered investigating potential exploitation and trafficking. So none of those boys who were being moved around to go shoplifting and none of these girls who were getting married at 14 were coming out and saying “this has happened to me” or “this is my experience”. There was no vocal victim, and I think agencies then found it really hard to work out how to crack in to doing that and because it didn't sit specifically with them to deal with, everyone thought somebody else would do it, even though I think we all knew that nobody else was doing it. (exploitation officer)
As information was based on rumour, participants explained that details were frequently insufficient to make good quality referrals that would help agencies to assess risk. Sometimes, this absence of information became a barrier for reporting potential exploitation. The busy schedules and limited resources available to front line staff and services such as schools, community development teams, and health professionals further limited their ability to collect information before submitting a referral.
Lower-impact social care interventions tended to require cooperation from affected individuals or their families, but it was unclear what adjustment was in place for families that were less likely to access services due to previous experience of discrimination, transience, or other social and structural barriers.
Even where evidence was gathered, there was an absence of a clear pathway for collating, investigating and responding to concerns about potential exploitation, especially for cases that did not meet thresholds for social care or police intervention. It was not always clear which agency or team is responsible for following up possible leads or, in some cases, even reporting exploitation. For example, one respondent said that they attended many meetings where the issue of Roma girls leaving school early at 14 to get married was mentioned but not followed-up or investigated. When asked about the reason for that, they said: I think it's been, I don't wanna say it's unconscious bias, really. I think it's seen as, it's not seen as really sitting with anybody in particular. So, you know, is that a schools’ problem? Is it a children services problem? Is it an exploitation problem? I don't know and I don't think there is really that understanding. (exploitation officer)
There was also some comment from our participants that information sharing was inhibited with attendance of meetings by services varying, obstructing smooth information sharing processes or early intervention. An operations manager found that: The barrier is the two-way communication. So, for example, once we've shared certain intelligence, we never know what happens to it. We don't know what the outcome is, and I think if we are the exploitation service we need to have that trusting relationship with our police that we understand where [the information] has gone. Or what are you doing? (child safeguarding professional)
Ultimately, the lack of a clear referral pathway or dedicated single point of contact and effective multi-agency information exchange created a cyclical problem, whereby ‘breadcrumbs’ of evidence were not collated and, consequently, when referrals involving individuals were made, those referrals were less likely to meet statutory thresholds, or merit further investigation. This problem was particularly acute for potential cases of exploitation within the Roma community, as issues of transience and the wider disconnection between the community and local service provision meant that information was often incomplete or absent, so cases only gained attention when they emerged as crises.
Some interviewees were conscious of the structural tensions inhibiting their capacity to operate. Participants spoke of overstretched services which limited time available to provide attention to individual cases and build relationships with Roma communities. This was a common theme across the different agencies working in partnership, including social work, education and the police. High workloads were also perceived to contribute to some agencies’ limited engagement with both partnership meetings and trainings.
Developing language and training for structural competence
In our case study, training and practice provided some limited tools for developing structural competency. Despite short (often one or two-hour) courses on modern slavery being pro-actively offered and widely available, including a specific course targeted at multi-agency teams via the local safeguarding partnership, our respondents recognised that factors such as staff turnover meant that there was a constant requirement to monitor and update training. In addition, modern slavery training often remained at a generic and basic level, did not provide an understanding of structural drivers of the risk of being exploited and was not always interactive. There were also gaps in monitoring training take-up. Consequently, many of the professionals we interviewed felt they did not have the necessary skills or knowledge to effectively identify and respond to signs of exploitation exhibited by Roma community members. One participant identified the value of more in-depth practices of team reflection, which had potential to provide more tailored consideration of specific local context and tensions in policy and practice.
Observing and imagining structural (and institutional) interventions
In Metzl and Hansen's terms, structural intervention is about recognising that structures ‘reflect specific financial, legislative, or indeed cultural decisions made at particular points in time’ and ‘are subject to various forms of intervention’ (2014: 10). One way to approach this in our case study might have been to imagine alternative types of intervention for structural problems identified, such as access to education or employment. There were also a range of areas where improving institutional processes for referrals and gathering evidence and challenging cultural pathologisation and relativism had potential to re-frame or overcome problems attributed to cultural isolation.
We found that interventions implemented by the agencies we interviewed generally did not include structural institutional and systemic changes. While there was evidence of good practice, this was often limited to a single agency or a time-limited project. For example, one agency found that adopting a more flexible and tailored service provision improved engagement with the Roma communities. Recruiting Roma support workers also enabled practical support to help address material needs and navigate welfare systems including school applications and social security benefits. Although hiring staff from the community was helpful in building trust in services and removing language barriers, in isolation from other structural interventions it did not address root causes of disadvantage and risk of exploitation among the community. Paradoxically, it seemed to remove the perceived urgency or need to address gaps at the wider multi-agency-based level.
Developing structural humility
Structural humility has to do with professionals recognising the limitations of their structural competency, being open to diverse perspectives and remaining attentive to the nuanced needs of different service users (Metzl and Hansen, 2014). There was an acceptance amongst our interviewees that there were no simple or easy answers to fixing systems and processes. However, while the local authority had led a community development and engagement programme aimed at building community relations in the local area, some interviewees felt that Roma had not been fully consulted on what services would be useful to them: ‘I don’t think we’ve ever asked really properly what else they need,’ said a risk and exploitation officer. There had also been limitations in agencies’ abilities to meet community requests when they were made. For example, while the Roma community asked the council for their own meeting space, some interviewees were cautious about developing distinctive interventions which appeared to privilege the Roma community above other ethnic groups residing in the area. Additionally, the community engagement programme was based on time-limited funding, which meant that the workers with the deepest community knowledge eventually had to leave their jobs.
Discussion and conclusion
Evaluating our case study through the lens of ‘structural competency’ suggests a range of principles for effective safeguarding of marginalised communities in relation to potential cases of exploitation, as well as alternative approaches to intervention. Although the focus of the case study is a Roma community, these principles could also apply to other communities facing multiple forms of disadvantage.
Firstly, it is important to recognise how historical experience, racism and discrimination may impact on structural inequalities in a way that increases risks of exploitation for specific groups. Frameworks of ‘social determinants’ of exploitation may be useful as a tool for reviewing the factors that are most salient, and suggesting areas that could be considered for attention or redress (e.g., Gardner et al., 2021). Ideally, this process would also be informed by expertise and experience located within the affected communities.
Second, the authors recognise that UK public services (and particularly those in England) have been subject to an unprecedented and prolonged period of public spending cuts since 2010 which have placed considerable pressure on frontline staff in both statutory and voluntary services and removed resources previously dedicated to inter-agency working. The impact of financial pressure includes unsustainable workloads, a lack of time to access training and development, increased thresholds for intervention, and rapid staff turnover, all of which inhibit effective multi-agency safeguarding and effective relational working with diverse communities. It is essential to acknowledge this context, whilst also recognising that additional funding alone will not be sufficient to improve interaction with communities that are currently not being served effectively and equitably within the system. There are many actions that could be taken which do not depend on additional resources, but on reimagining interventions.
For example, agencies could question where and how problems that are being attributed to culture might be more usefully viewed through a structural lens. Particular care should be taken to ensure that specific communities are not collectively responsibilised for long-term structural problems, such as poor access to education, the enduring influence of patriarchy or a lack of stable employment. In contrast, viewing these issues through a structural lens provides new focal points for strategies towards improvement, which could draw in additional or alternative partner resources, for example in seeking opportunities for empowerment of women and girls, or promotion of employment and skills programmes.
Similarly, conceptions that a particular community ‘chooses’ a lack of engagement and ‘self-isolation’ should be reframed as ‘in what ways can services adapt their existing systems to ensure that they are appropriate and accessible for the most marginalised groups?’ It is particularly important to ensure that lack of engagement (or disengagement) by individuals who may be subject to exploitation is not utilised as a reason to cease multi-agency engagement: indeed, this might be seen as a flag for further outreach.
In order to develop language and training for structural competence, the reflective, team-based case-studies suggested by one of our participants seem to offer a cost-effective and flexible means of engaging with complex intersections between structure and culture, and tailoring practice to local communities. There would be further value in promoting such practice on an inter-agency basis, in order to develop the ‘shared language’ that our participants noted as absent, as well as consistency in systems and data recording.
In addition, it is important to ensure that discussions of cases are not informed by stereotypes and hearsay, but rather based on the best available data. Cultural relativism should be recognised and questioned within practice to ensure that cases are treated consistently regardless of ethnicity or social group. Part of this may involve developing better institutional and inter-agency practices for gathering data and intelligence on potential cases of exploitation. Establishing clear referral pathways and designating a ‘single point of contact’ are important to assist in gathering intelligence and aligning ownership for inter-agency action. In relation to potential cases of exploitation, it is also crucial that information is gathered even when cases do not meet existing thresholds for intervention, as disclosure is rare.
Over the longer term, acknowledging the consistent involvement of service users and their communities in trustworthy relationships, and in practicing structural humility, remains essential for identifying and addressing instances of exploitation. Sustaining such two-way dialogue requires long-term commitment to working closely with communities which may be challenging to achieve due to long-established prejudices on both sides, and current financial constraint. Nonetheless, this approach provides the most promising route to co-production of more effective safeguarding responses and to overcoming the issues associated with ‘isolation’ of currently marginalised groups.
In conclusion, the framework of structural competency provides a valuable lens to reframe and reimagine multi-agency responses to exploitation, moving the locus away from pathologised communities and onto wider factors that can underpin longer-term resilience. Ultimately it is also a re-affirmation that effective multi-agency working requires adequate time and investment, and that if addressing exploitation is genuinely a national priority, further funding should be provided at the local level.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the important contribution of Jane Paling to the research underpinning this paper. Jane acted in a private capacity as a practice consultant to the original project, and we are particularly grateful for her assistance in identification of potential indicators of exploitation and discussion of options in safeguarding responses. We are also grateful for the reviewers’ thoughtful engagement with the paper.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.