Using NVR to raise the presence of teachers and front-line support workers
“You don’t know what it’s like. You don’t realise how bad he gets!”
With tears in her eyes, Gina was describing the incident of the previous night to me. Gina was about 36 hours into her 96-hour shift at a semi-independent accommodation (SIA) where she works 1:1 (4 days on; 3 days off) supporting Oscar, a 16-year-old boy who left the family home after years of physical abuse, witnessing domestic violence and being heavily exploited by local drug dealers. Gina had caught Oscar smoking cannabis in his bedroom with a friend. She reminded him that he was not allowed to smoke in the placement, and said that the friend would have to leave anyway, as it was after 10pm. What followed was 2 and a half hours of increasing aggression and intimidation. Oscar started shouting in Gina’s face, reminding her that she’s not his mother; he threatened various forms of violence, including knocking her unconscious, stabbing and killing. When Gina retreated to her room, Oscar spent 45 minutes banging at the door and calling her cruel names. Even after he had tired of shouting, Oscar played House Music in the living room at full volume in order to keep Gina awake. By the time I arrived at the placement at 10am the next morning, Oscar was fast asleep in bed, and Gina was exhausted, frustrated and upset and thinking very seriously about handing her notice in.
What felt especially frustrating in this moment was that we had all had a very positive meeting with Oscar just two days before. Oscar met with me, the placement manager, his social worker and the placement duty worker to discuss how we were going to avoid these very incidents. Oscar was remorseful when talking about previous incidents of aggression and told us that he doesn’t want to push people away anymore, especially the people who are trying to help him. It was in this meeting that we all agreed that he would stop smoking in his room, that no one was allowed in his bedroom at any time and that all friends and visitors had to leave the placement at 10pm. In return, we would focus on getting him back into education and supporting him to fund his passions and achieve his life goals. All of us (including Oscar), left that meeting feeling upbeat, energised and hopeful that this was finally the turning point we had been waiting for.
Gina was not on shift at this point, so she was not a part of the meeting.
My current role involves supporting 16- to 17-year-olds living in these kinds of SIAs and facing similar challenges. Unfortunately, these sorts of conversations (such as the one I was having with Gina) are not uncommon.
In lots of ways, it reminds me of the time I spent as a secondary school Head of Year, supporting teachers with behaviour management. Although the relationships are very different, the dynamic is quite similar, and the frustrations of teachers and front-line support workers are often rooted in the same dilemma: feeling a lack of presence and authority when working with young people.
In both schools and placements, I have recognised three distinct types of people:
1. The Decision Makers: in a school, this would be your head teachers or your senior leadership team; in a placement setting, this might be the placement manager alongside the child’s social worker. These are the people who make the rules. They decide policy and set the expectations. They will decide what is appropriate in terms of uniform, homework and classroom behaviour (schools) or curfew, visitors and respect for property (placements). These are often the people with the greatest level of power in the dynamic. The decisions they make impact many aspects of a young person’s life, including their relationships, their presentation and their sense of independence and self*.
2. The Signees: these are the people who have to agree to the terms set out by the Decision Makers. Most directly, these will be the children and young people expected to follow the rules, but then also parents, friends and family members are required to agree that they will support the rules that have been put in place. This can often feel like the most passive and helpless of the roles; you are simply required to do as you’re told. However, many (especially those who have ended up in SIA placements or students who find emotional and behavioural regulation difficult), have discovered a certain power in the role of Signee. You could simply choose not to comply. You may decide that the consequence is better than the expectation and say ‘hang your rules’. Very often, there can be a compromise reached (e.g. ‘I’m not going to kick my friends out at 9pm, but I’ll say they can’t stay overnight if you let them stay till 11pm’; fidget toys are banned in the classroom, but Leo has a diagnosis of ADHD and will concentrate better if he can do something with his hands).
3. The Enforcers: these are the professionals who are required to enforce rules they neither decided nor agreed to. Enforcers often feel as though they have the least authority and are yet put in positions where they are expected to act as authority figures. As a teacher, maybe I couldn’t care less if your hair is untied or your shirt is untucked – however, it is my job to make sure that these rules are complied with. As a support worker in a placement, you may have given me a very good reason why your girlfriend should be allowed to stay the night on the sofa, but this isn’t the placement’s policy. What’s more, these are the figures who most directly and most regularly experience the fallout when there is a conflict between the Decision Maker and the Signee. Of course, it is right and appropriate for the Decision Maker to insist that Oscar (the Signee) is not allowed to smoke cannabis in his bedroom, but it will be Gina (the Enforcer) having to persistently have that fight with him at 2am when his anxiety is at its highest, and he is reliving past traumas.
When we consider NVR as an effective response to violence and aggression in the home, we work with parents as they develop their roles as both Decision Makers and Enforcers. In this instance, one role feeds directly into the other to create a robust sense of authority and presence. As a parent, I have decided on the expectation, and this makes it easier for me to enforce it. My child has responded in a certain way to my enforcement, and this will impact the decisions I make moving forward. The child can manage one consistent relationship with a carer who takes on these different but complementary roles. But how do I use these same NVR strategies as a teacher or a support worker in a placement, when I am there to enforce someone else’s rules? How can NVR help me to build relationships, increase my authority and build my presence?
Finding Connections
‘Connection Before Correction’ is an increasingly popular mantra used by parents and professionals seeking to use attachment and relationship as an effective form of resistance to destructive behaviour. Uri Weinblatt (speaking specifically in this instance about avoidance) phrases it as “Connecting Precedes Functioning”:
“The more severe the young person’s avoidance, the more important it is to foster and maintain contact with him. This should be the parents’ primary focus, while concrete goals, such as going to school, meeting friends or going out to work, should be considered as secondary” (Weinblatt, Contactivity, 2022)
This is equally (if not more) important for Enforcers who do not have the benefit of an existing relationship. It can also often be significantly more challenging when in a role which requires you to be so purpose-focused. Teachers have tight schedules within which to teach aspects of the curriculum; placement staff have a wide list of things they need to support children and young people with, from completing forms and applications, scheduling GP and dentist appointments, getting into education, fostering independent living skills, etc. (tasks which are often complicated by supporting children who are resistant to and/or overwhelmed by them).
Teachers especially might claim that they do not have the time to foster connections or relationships with their students when there is so much pressure on progress and achievement; while those who do prioritise such connections will often testify that it makes behaviour management more straightforward and makes their teaching far more effective. Marvin W. Berkowitz states that “you can’t teach through a rat”, referencing a student he once had who could not process any new information until he had spoken about the new pet rat he had at home:
“This rat is sitting right on Chris’ brain, just hovering there between you and Chris’ cortex, and Chris is rather unlikely to learn math or language skills or anything else until the rat stops blocking the path to his cortex.” (Berkowitz, Character Development Group, 2012)
Connecting with your students is often the difference between them being able to learn or not. If a pet rat is impossible to teach through, how much more so is a feeling of resentment or distrust or disconnection towards the person trying to teach you? Whenever a teacher was struggling to manage a child’s behaviour in the classroom, I would always advise them to look outside the classroom for the solution. Try sitting with them at lunch or finding them in the corridor and asking how their weekend was. Are they in a sports team? Go to watch them play. Are they into some silly YouTube video series? Why not watch a few episodes and try to talk to them about it?
For placement workers, this need for connection is even more pronounced. Children and Young People in SIAs and supported accommodation are often there as a result of profound trauma, abandonment and disconnection. Never are children in greater need of attachment and healthy relationships. Yet too often the focus will be on the curfew, the shopping, keeping your room tidy, learning to use the washing machine, completing application forms for colleges, sorting out rent/benefits and drawing up a budget. These are all vitally important areas for development, but are too overwhelming for a young person who feels overloaded and alone. As Weinblatt highlights, functioning is only possible after connection, and this has to be the primary goal before those more ‘concrete goals’.
This connection should come through both individual and organisational efforts. Effective training and supervision will encourage placement staff to find small yet profound moments of connection. Is the child watching a film? Watch it with them. Are they playing Fortnite? Play with them. Are you not very good at playing video games? Perfect. Let them be the expert. Let them teach you. When was the last time you made them a cup of tea? Do they support a football team? Why don’t you follow that team’s progress in the league, even if you’re not typically into football (or maybe especially if you’re not typically into football – consider the impact of adopting one of their interests)? Then you always have something to talk about.
As well as these individual efforts, placement managers should also be supporting and empowering their staff to be more relational in their work. What if keyworkers had a budget to do something relational with their young people at the start of every shift? This budget should not be made public to the young person so to become an entitlement, but rather something that is given to the placement staff to empower them to do something meaningful. Imagine if you could start your shift by offering to get a takeaway with your young person (or people) and sitting down and watching a film together. Maybe we could go out this evening and go bowling or play some pool?
As with all Reconciliation/Connection Gestures discussed in NVR, staff in both schools and placements should be prepared for rejection at the beginning. Expect that there is every chance that a young person who has grown up to be suspicious of figures of authority will likely resist many attempts at connection. Be ready for the eye-rolls and sarcastic comments. Placement staff should leave room for the likelihood that the tea will be left to go cold; that the takeaway will be taken into their room; that the invitations for conversations, games or activities could be met with aggression and rudeness. Remember that success does not just come from the moment itself but from the consistent offers of connection and the resilience in the face of rejection.
Bringing Yourself
The challenge of being an Enforcer is that you often feel like you are simply a conduit for the Decision Makers’ intentions. You teach their lessons and enforce their rules, and adopt their priorities. For Enforcers to raise their presence and increase their authority, it is crucial that they be allowed to bring a sense of themselves to the role.
I would encourage teachers that their first lesson should be their best one. Not necessarily the one that is the most fun for the students, but the one that is going to set the tone for the rest of the academic year – that one that always receives positive feedback from students and observers; the one where you get to focus on something you are really passionate about; the one that really inspires and energises the class. The curriculum can wait for one lesson, and certainly that admin-heavy lesson of handing out exercise books, expectation cards and talking about what we will be learning this year, etc. Dive straight into the good stuff, the stuff you feel most confident in, and let that establish the tone for the rest of the term.
For placement staff, bring your passions and interests and share them with the children and young people. I have been privileged to work with some brilliant and engaging keyworkers in supported accommodation who have worked creatively to share their loves and skills with young people. Musicians who have brought in guitars, keyboards, and percussion instruments and taught their young people to play together. Bakers and cooks who do group cooking sessions (“tonight is Mexican food night – I’ll teach you to make Nachos and Fajitas”). Artists who have brought in their work and shown their young people the tools and strategies they use.
Being able to bring yourself to the role allows you to take on a stronger position of presence, especially during moments when you are being met with aggressive or destructive behaviour. “You are not dealing with some robotic representative of a faceless Decision Maker – you are dealing with me.”
Taking the Lead in Meetings and Sit-Ins
This is perhaps the strategy which would require the biggest organisational shift as it feels counter to the way we typically manage challenging behaviour, especially when that behaviour becomes aggressive or destructive. When I worked in schools, I found the most popular behaviour management strategies among most teachers were the ones which involved them the least. ‘Go next door and sit at the back of another teacher’s classroom’; ‘report to the head of year’s office’; ‘go and see the head teacher’. We see similar attitudes in other contexts: ‘wait till your father gets home’; ‘you do that again, and I’ll tell your social worker’; ‘I’m reporting you to the placement manager and you’ll have to speak to them’. As behaviour escalates, we appeal to ‘higher’ figures of authority to take over and deal with it. Every position described above (the colleague, the manager, the other parent) are crucial figures in supporting and empowering the Enforcer. However, when we misuse these relationships, they can often serve to further weaken the relationship with the child and decrease the authority of the teacher and support worker. As a Head of Year, when I was called on to remove a disruptive student from the classroom, I might be able to de-escalate a volatile situation, take the student out, talk to them about what had happened, consider why emotional regulation was a challenge for them right now, discuss how they can better respond in similar situations and arrange for an apology to the teacher they had fallen out with. But while all of that investment in the child had improved my relationship with them, it had very little impact on their relationship with the teacher, and so we would inevitably find that there was limited improvement in the following lessons.
Similarly, the meeting with Oscar was crucial in responding to behaviour which was harming him and others around him. But many of those behaviours were being exhibited when he was with Gina, and Gina wasn’t part of the meeting. Oscar had demonstrated remorse and promised improvement, and yet his relationship with Gina remained largely unchanged**.
Even when we involve the Enforcers in these meetings, they often take on the role of passive observer, allowing supervisors and line managers to take the lead. If we accept that connection is crucial to correction and if the Enforcer is typically the most consistent presence during episodes of destructive behaviour, we can conclude that it is the Enforcers who should be taking the lead in correctional interventions.
This can be through small but meaningful differences that change the way we introduce and frame the meeting. Consider the difference between these two introductions to a meeting held between Hayden (student), Miss Clarke (Hayden’s classroom teacher) and Mr Baker (the head of year). Miss Clarke has asked for Mr Baker’s support in responding to an incident in which Hayden threw his book across the room and called Miss Clarke a bitch. The first introduction is one we might typically observe in a school setting:
MR BAKER:
“Hayden – I’ve called you in here to talk to you about how you treated Miss Clarke earlier and how you disrupted her lesson. You, me and Miss Clarke are going to sit and think about how we move forward from this.”
Consider the same meeting, but one in which Miss Clarke takes the lead:
MISS CLARKE:
“Hayden, we need to talk about what happened earlier. I have asked Mr Baker to come and support us while we think of how to move forward.”
In which scenario is Miss Clarke given the opportunity to increase her authority and raise her presence? By extension, which is more likely to lead to a more meaningful improvement in the relationship between Hayden and Miss Clarke?
When we consider children who are open to social care and living in SIAs or supported accommodation, there is a strong culture of meetings held to regularly review the support and wellbeing of the child or young person and to respond to significant incidents – incidents of aggression against support workers, for example. Oscar has had many of the meetings like the one we held for him before his incident with Gina. He has become comfortable with them, and he knows how to respond to get the best outcome from the social workers and/or managers who typically lead them. That is not to say that his responses are manipulative or disingenuous in the moment. He has simply naturally developed strategies for surviving each interaction as an isolated point in time. So he responds in the meeting in a way that will allow him to get the best possible outcome from that meeting – but he has learnt to segment his life in such a way so that the reality of the meeting does not connect to the reality of the time he is in his placement alone with Gina. We increased this segmentation by holding the meeting in a separate environment (the social care offices), at a different time (late morning when he is tired and calm as opposed to late afternoon/early evening when he is most energised and approaching a time – late at night – when his anxiety is most pronounced) and surrounded by professionals who were not present for his last incident of aggression and are unlikely to be present for the next (as indeed we weren’t when he had his next clash with Gina just two days later). How much more would we be supporting Oscar to connect the promises he makes in this meeting to his day-to-day life if we held the meeting in his home at a time when he is feeling more energised and if it was led by the person he most consistently deals with? What if Gina could chair the next meeting, demonstrating her authority and her presence when other professionals (including managers and social workers) are also in the room to support her?
And all of this is to increase Gina’s presence in a culture of meetings and negotiations. But if we can further train Gina in NVR and support her to carry out a sit-in, consider the impact this has on building her relationship with Oscar and empowering her to respond with greater authority and impact the next time Oscar is struggling with emotional regulation and/or placement policies.
All of this would have to be practised in an environment of careful planning and robust supervision. If Enforcers are to take on the role of chairing meetings and/or carrying out sit-ins, they need enough space with a skilled supervisor before and after who can support them to prepare for the meeting/sit-in and who can debrief with them afterwards.
Planning for Compromise
Similarly, effective and careful supervision should be prioritised in supporting Enforcers to plan for compromise. When in a position of authority, a parent and/or Decision Maker holds the right and the opportunity to use their judgment in critical moments, knowing when to hold their position, when to compromise and when they can simply let something go. Enforcers don’t often feel they possess that same power, and I have repeatedly observed situations unravel when Enforcers refuse to shift from positions they don’t even necessarily agree with, simply because they feel it is their job to do so. Whole lessons have broken down because a teacher insists that a shirt needs to be tucked in; a screaming argument has erupted in a placement over dirty dishes in the sink. Often, these incidents originate from a rule that has been passed down from the Decision Maker, and Enforcers are made to feel that they are not doing their jobs properly if the child or young person is not complying with these rules.
Of course, enforcing rules established by a separate Decision Maker is a double-edged sword and can often keep an Enforcer safe (or at least help them feel safer) when faced with difficult and potentially risky decisions. When an Enforcer has to tell a young perso
n that a certain friend (who is known to put the young person at risk) is not allowed in the placement, it can often be helpful for an Enforcer to say ‘look – it’s not my decision but I’m not allowed to let them in’. Knowing that the responsibility for a decision lies elsewhere, the frustration of a potentially aggressive young person can be diverted away from the Enforcer.
But if this justification is used for every disagreement or act of resistance against the rules and policies of the school or placement, it can end up undermining the Enforcer’s authority and decreasing the trust the child feels in their presence.
This is where the NVR Baskets strategy can be used as a powerful supervision tool. Supervisors take every rule and policy of the school or placement and support the Enforcer to divide them into the green, amber and red baskets. What are the expectations we can just let go for now if we suspect it is going to lead to conflict? Can we allow some doodling in their exercise books for one lesson if we know they’re having a bad day and they’re not disrupting anyone? Can we restrict our reminders to the fact that they need to wash their hair if we know it is stressing them out at the moment? What are the amber basket policies that we can compromise on? It is never going to be the policy to allow a young person to smoke cannabis on the premises, but could we tactically ignore them smoking in the garden if it prevents them from smoking in their rooms and, more importantly, with dealers and/or other drug users in the community? Most schools won’t allow swearing for good reason, but can I look the other way if strong language is being used to express a genuine frustration and is not being used against someone else? And finally, what are the red basket rules and decisions that we simply cannot compromise on as they pertain directly to the safety and well-being of the child and those around them?
These will not be simple or straightforward decisions (most rules and policies will be in place for good reason), but regular, nuanced discussions within a safe supervision setting can allow Enforcers to take a differentiated and trauma-informed approach, increasing their sense of authority in the moment, building their relationship and trust with the child and allowing them to really focus on those crucial red basket rules.
Conclusion
Throughout this article, I have referred to these crucial front-line workers as Enforcers. While I think it is important to name and highlight this role and this dynamic, my hope is also that we can make this term feel redundant. Skilled teachers and placement support workers are the lifeblood and driving force of a system which works to safeguard children and young people and support them to thrive. These are the professionals who are there in the darkest and most critical moments and often have to make the most crucial split-second decisions in protecting and upholding vulnerable children. NVR ideology and its strategies are so applicable in responding to aggression and destructive behaviours in both school and placement settings. In understanding the importance of these key workers and supporting them through specialised NVR training and regular, robust supervision focused on the nuanced application of these strategies, I believe that we can increase the authority of these workers, raise their presence and make them so much more than Enforcers.
Written by Glyn Harries
SHiFT Guide (Essex) & NVR Association (NVRA) Accredited Practitioner
Accreditation Module Participant, 2026
*For clarity, I am focusing on visible Decision Makers, but it is important to also acknowledge the invisible Decision Makers who exert considerable influence over the lives of children and young people. In education, this includes Ofsted, education boards and the National Curriculum. Children and young people in any form of care or placement will typically have a complex decision-making system consisting of a wide range of professionals and services who will make specific decisions about them as individuals as well as general decisions which will impact them significantly. This often includes service managers, placement teams and housing professionals, as well as wider context systems such as Local Authorities and Ofsted. Enforcers have the job of keeping these complex systems in mind as they enforce rules, often made by people the children have never met.
**The added unfortunate consequence is that Enforcers may then be made to feel a greater sense of blame for the aggressive or violent behaviours. Whether spoken or not, there may be a collective attitude that the child responded well in our meeting and to our intervention – so maybe there is a problem with your practice as a teacher or a support worker? Or maybe there is a problem with your specific relationship with the child? This further increases the disconnect between the Decision Makers and the Enforcers and does not explore the possibility that maybe the conflict is caused in part by the rules or the policy or the system itself.
