1. Definition
The Behavior control type refers to the requirements, expectations, and cultural norms that define how adults within the organization act in relation to children, vulnerable adults, colleagues, and the wider community.
This includes:
- Required behaviors (non-negotiable, rule-based: e.g., reporting abuse, never being alone in a closed space with a child).
- Expected behaviors (role-modeled, aligned with culture: e.g., intervening when others cross boundaries, maintaining professional distance).
- Hoped-for behaviors (aspirational, culture-building: e.g., proactively creating inclusive, supportive environments where safety is visible and felt).
2. Purpose of Behavior Controls
The primary purpose is to:
- Translate safeguarding values into observable, repeatable actions.
- Establish clarity: everyone knows what they must, should, and could do.
- Prevent abuse by removing ambiguity, closing grooming opportunities, and setting protective norms.
- Support accountability: breaches are visible, logged, and responded to.
- Build trust: children, vulnerable adults, and families see a living culture of safety.
Each behavior outcome reflects organizational decision-making:
- Required behaviors = compliance with law, policy, and ethics.
- Expected behaviors = cultural alignment with safeguarding principles.
- Hoped-for behaviors = aspirational reinforcement of trust and inclusion.
3. What Makes Behaviors Fit-for-Purpose?
A. Strategic Fit (Alignment with Swans)
- Behaviors actively protect organizational purpose (safe relationships, trust).
- Demonstrate values visibly, not just aspirationally.
- Align with system goals to safeguard while enabling mission delivery.
B. Operational Fit (Seven Operational Criteria)
| Criterion | Applied to Behaviors |
|---|---|
| Operational Safety & Security | Required behaviors close physical and digital risks (e.g., visibility in supervision, approved communication). |
| Behavioral Alignment | Early and continuous clarity: what must/mustn’t, should/shouldn’t, could. |
| Supervision & Oversight | Behavior reinforced by managers, monitored, and tracked for breaches. |
| Information & Communication | Behaviors codified, visible in induction, training, and daily messaging. |
| Resources & Capacity | People supported with tools and supervision to act safely. |
| Alignment with Objectives | Behaviors reinforce mission and safety goals simultaneously. |
| Cultural & Contextual Fit | Behaviors inclusive, culturally adapted, and context-sensitive. |
C. Lived Experience Fit (Seven Universal Criteria)
| Criterion | Applied to Behaviors |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Everyone knows which behaviors are required, expected, and hoped-for. |
| Ownership | Staff accept behaviors as their personal responsibility. |
| Confidence | Staff feel equipped and supported to act, including reporting. |
| Fit | Behaviors are practical and realistic in context. |
| Alignment | Behaviors reinforce the same norms taught in training and intake. |
| Consistency | Applied uniformly across roles and situations. |
| Adaptiveness | Behaviors updated as risks, culture, and learning evolve. |
4. Cross-Team Responsibilities: Embedding SAM in Behaviors
Behavior expectations are not just written in a handbook — they must be embedded by every team:
| Stage / Responsibility | Teams Typically Involved | SAM Risk Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Policy definition | HR, Safeguarding, Legal | Codify required behaviors; align with law and regulatory standards |
| Training & induction | HR, Supervisors | Communicate required/expected/hoped-for behaviors clearly |
| Daily supervision | Program Leads, Managers | Reinforce and model behaviors in practice; address drift |
| Breach logging | Supervisors, Safeguarding | Ensure all breaches (requirements, expectations, aspirational “would-like-to-see”) are logged |
| Cultural reinforcement | Leadership, Comms | Celebrate positive behaviors, not just punish breaches |
| Review & learning | All Teams | Use breaches and successes to refine behavior norms |
5. Common Strengths and Gaps
Strengths
- Codes of conduct and policies often exist.
- Required behaviors (e.g., mandatory reporting) are written down.
Gaps
- Distinction between must, should, could is rarely made explicit.
- Expected and hoped-for behaviors are often unwritten cultural assumptions.
- Breaches of expectations (not requirements) often go undocumented.
- Staff may lack confidence to challenge others or report boundary violations.
6. Signals of a Strong Behavior Control Set
- All staff can articulate the difference between required, expected, and hoped-for behaviors.
- Behavior breaches are logged consistently — at all levels.
- Leaders model and reinforce expected and hoped-for behaviors daily.
- Children and vulnerable adults see and feel safe boundaries in action.
7. Opportunities for Improvement
- Make the must/should/could framework visible in policy and training.
- Capture breaches of expectations and aspirational gaps as learning, not just compliance failures.
- Normalize feedback and recognition for positive behaviors.
- Build behavioral reinforcement into supervision and performance reviews.
- Use team sessions (like the facilitation exercise on timelines/steps) to periodically refresh and realign behavior expectations.
8. How Behaviors Are Tracked in Jigsaw
- Behaviors are defined in categories: Required, Expected, Hoped-For.
- Each behavior is linked to:
- What it is meant to prevent/manage
- Who is responsible
- What must/must not, should/should not, could happen
- Breach responses are recorded for all categories.
- Positive behaviors are also logged to reinforce culture.
Bottom line: Behaviors are the living expression of safeguarding. When organizations clearly define what is required, expected, and hoped-for, and all teams reinforce them, they transform from policies on paper to protective habits embedded in culture.