WIXLIB

PROTECTING CHILDREN AT A DISTANCESummary1 – INTRODUCTIONThis report presents key findings from a study designed in response to widespread concernsabout the operation of child safeguarding and protection arrangements consequent upon theCOVID-19 lockdown and social distancing measures. In light of the challenges to intra- andinteragency communication and the impact on joint working of actions taken by individualagencies, the study focused on safeguarding and protection practice, practitioner workingand the multiagency response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Stage 1 comprised interviews with67 safeguarding lead professionals in London: findings from these informed the constructionand response options for the second stage survey. Stage 2 comprised a national survey of thesame professional groups. Data was collected between 1st February and 8th March 2021 , atwhich time England was experiencing its third lockdown. The survey focused on the evolvingconcerns and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lessons learnt from earlier lockdowns,in order to share emerging good practice and make recommendations on strengthening and‘future proofing’ the safeguarding system in England. 417 responses from safeguarding leadsfrom Health (155), Law (71), Education (56), Children’s Social Care (52), SafeguardingPartnerships (34), Police (30) and Mental Health (19) were analysed. Some caution needs tobe exercised in relation to the survey findings because of the balance of respondents bothbetween and within groups and small numbers in parts of the survey where not allrespondents were eligible to answer. This is taken into consideration in the report of the mainfindings from the survey stage summarised here.Ethical approval for the study was granted by the King’s College London Research EthicsCommittee [LRS-19/20-19420]. Stage 1 was deemed a service evaluation by participating NHSorganisations. The Health Research Agency (HRA) confirmed that NHS ethical approval wasnot needed for stage 2 on 13th January 2021. The study is funded by the King’s Together: Multi& Interdisciplinary Research Scheme and the Economic & Social Research Council ImpactAcceleration Accounts Social Science Impact Fund.The summary report from stage 1 is available -stage-1-findings.pdf2 – MULTI-AGENCY WORKING2-1 Interagency collaborationBecause the pandemic impacted at a time when many Safeguarding Partnerships wererelatively new, we were interested in understanding how the new structures were affectedand how Safeguarding Partnerships had managed their role under the pandemic. We tookadvantage of the opportunity to ask about how the shift from Local Safeguarding Children’s7

PROTECTING CHILDREN AT A DISTANCEBoards (LSCBs) to Safeguarding Partnerships was perceived to have affected arrangementsunder the conditions imposed by the pandemic.2.1 70% of respondents involved in the work of their local Safeguarding Partnership(n 293) agreed/agreed strongly that the shift to tripartite leadership had beenachieved/maintained during the pandemic in their local area. Although some stronglyworded qualitative comments suggest that the shift has not been a comfortable one insome areas, only 7.5% disagreed/disagreed strongly.2.2 Nearly half of respondents (49%, n 279) were neutral as to whether the replacement ofLSCBs with Safeguarding Partnerships improved inter-agency collaboration in their localarea, seemingly in line with commentary around whether a new body was the rightresponse to questions raised about the operation of LSCBs. But the remainingrespondents were more than three times as likely to agree than disagree: 12%disagreed/strongly disagreed; and 39% agreed/strongly agreed. Police, Children’s SocialCare and Safeguarding Partnerships respondents were most likely to state that theyagreed/strongly agreed.2.3 56% of respondents (n 269) considered that the strength of working relationshipsamongst Safeguarding Partners and relevant agencies improved as a result of theadaptations introduced as a result of the pandemic (described in interviews as primarilymore frequent regular meetings; proactive communication and sharing of data andinformation; a sense of a shared predicament; and less bureaucratic obstruction).a. Education respondents were most likely to disagree (39%).b. 67% (n 116) of respondents reported increased scrutiny of data and trends atSafeguarding Partnership level, with only four of the 72 respondents whocommented on retention opposing retention.2.4 Broader joint/collaborative working between individual agencies seems to have held upwell overall, with agencies more likely to report improvement than deterioration intheir joint working with other specific agencies, although with a more positive picturestrategically than operationally, as we might expect.a. Most agencies were most likely to report improvements rather than deterioration injoint working with Education, suggesting other professionals have found schools tohave responded well to the challenges of the pandemic.b. Consistently however, schools are less positive than other agencies about jointworking with other agencies in their local area and many appear to feelexcluded from information and not consulted adequately.c. There was a particular mismatch between Education (schools) and Children’s SocialCare in that Children’s Social Care tended to report that joint working with schoolswas more likely to have improved than deteriorated over the pandemic, but schoolswere much more likely to report deterioration of joint working with Children’s SocialCare than improvement.2.5 There was strong support for some form of representation of some relevant agencies(schools, CAMHS, health providers and housing) on the Executive Boards of Safeguarding8

PROTECTING CHILDREN AT A DISTANCE2.62.72.82.9Partnerships (notwithstanding the statutory accountability), likely reflecting concernsexpressed in interviews around potential loss of the wider partnership with the shift toSafeguarding Partnerships and as to whether operational input was strong enough.a. There was even stronger support for greater involvement of those agencies in thewider work of Safeguarding Partnerships – over 90% in all cases.b. The responses suggest considerable strength of feeling about the importance ofschools’ engagement in local arrangements in particular, with 94% of 304respondents agreeing that Education providers should be represented on theexecutive board and 98% supporting greater involvement in the wider work ofSafeguarding Partnerships by Education providers.c. We thought that the strength of feeling that we gleaned from the interviews as tothe absence of the representation of health providers might be a problem particularto London where the health estate is particularly fragmented, but the survey resultssuggest it is a nationwide issue. The question arises as to what the implications mightbe of the transition to Integrated Care Systems under the Health and Social CareWhite Paper Integrating Care.Although over half of respondents (n 253) reported single agency reassessments of risk(RAG rating), just under 20% reported a single shared assessment coordinated by theSafeguarding Partnership and the remainder reported some inter-agency collaboration.a. Generally, the exercise was regarded as effective, and a joint agency approachappears to be perceived as more effective than single agency (close tosignificance: (asymptomatic significance (2-sided) .055).b. Qualitative comments highlight concerns around children not known to services.Significant proportions of respondents reported a range of adaptations described by ourinterview participants to support information sharing:a. 33% (n 111) stated that the remit of the MASH or equivalent was widened toencompass consideration of more groups of children.b. 70% (n 135) reported increased sharing of data and trends within local authorityareas and increased scrutiny on data and trends at Safeguarding Partnership level.c. 47% (n 101) described increased sharing of data/trends between local authorityareas.d. Those who introduced such changes were asked if they would retain them, and over80% of the (smaller number) responding stated that they would.There was strong support (98%, no agency under 94%) for introduction of a system toenable all agencies to share pre-agreed information relating to safeguarding children (n 280).We asked how well the voice of the child could continue to be heard at strategic andindividual level during the adaptations introduced during the pandemic. Morerespondents considered that the voice of the child was less readily heard than felt thatit was more readily heard, but this was less pronounced at strategic level (47% lessreadily and 20% more readily) than individual level (59% less readily and 16% morereadily). At individual level, Children’s Social Care respondents were most optimistic bysome way (30% less readily heard and 35% more readily heard). At strategic level,9

PROTECTING CHILDREN AT A DISTANCEEducation was least optimistic by a pronounced margin (68% less readily heardcompared with 3% more readily heard).1. Ongoing evaluation as to the effectiveness of Safeguarding Partnerships incoordinating local areas’ safeguarding children services and providing strategicleadership. In particular, consideration as to how best to ensure that all relevantagencies, including schools, health providers, and mental health providers, are fullyengaged in the work of Safeguarding Partnerships in the light of the critical role playedby schools during periods of lockdown and the forthcoming Integrated Care legislation.2. Arrangements for multi-agency collaboration and cooperation for the protection ofchildren become of heightened importance during periods of lockdown: robustsafeguarding contingency plans should be prepared in advance of any future crises withfull input from Safeguarding Partnerships, including in relation to redeployment of anystaff with safeguarding responsibilities.3. Consideration to building on some of the initiatives for joint risk assessments andenhanced scrutiny and/or sharing of data and trends to enhance risk management inthe future. In particular, thought should be given to extension of the NHS ChildProtection-Information Sharing Programme to a wider range of agencies.4. Attention to processes and mechanisms through which hearing the voices of allchildren can be adequately assured in any future incidents in which universal servicesare closed, with attention to particular/special needs of children and families andbarriers such as digital poverty.2-2 Role of schools2.10 87% of respondents (n 295) felt that attendance should be mandatory for all primaryschool vulnerable children in families with low clinical risk (health 92%).2.11 85% of respondents (n 285) felt that attendance should be mandatory for all secondaryschool vulnerable children in families with low clinical risk (health 91%).2.12 The most effective strategies to increase school attendance were thought to be:a. encouragement from the Designated Safeguarding Lead or school staff known tothe family (used by 97%, 83% thought effective to some extent/significantly).b. using parental concerns about behaviour or schoolwork (use 91%, effective 68%).c. encouragement from the family’s social worker (use 87%, effective 64%).2.13 78% (n 255) thought that the number of Elective Home Education students was risingsignificantly (42%) or slightly (36%) as a result of the pandemic.2.14 80% (n 111) thought schools have taken on more responsibility for safeguarding as aresult of the pandemic; over half who agreed felt that this enhanced role should beretained but to do so would require additional investment.a. Schools were most likely to consider that it is not an appropriate role for schools oronly appropriate in circumstances where most children are not attending school.10

PROTECTING CHILDREN AT A DISTANCE2.15 A wide range of strategies were employed to keep in touch with and support childrenand families where vulnerable children were not in school, including regular contact intermtime and (to a lesser extent) holidays; food parcels; IT provision; in-person/doorstep visits; supply of books and games; follow-up of non-responsive families byChildren’s Social Care; and follow-up of non-responsive families by police liaison.a. as suggested by interviewees, these appear to have been effective in improvingrelationships with families in many instances and these improvements havegenerally been sustained to date.b. Police liaison was regarded as controversial by some interviewees but was usedby 57% of survey respondents (n 72) and the same proportion intended to use againin future if required.2.16 Varied and sometimes uncoordinated support for children’s mental health anddisclosure in/through schools was described. Learning from the pandemic may beof longer-term use as schools take on greater responsibility for work to supportchildren’s mental health.Recommendations:5. Concerted intervention by both education and safeguarding pro

PROTECTING CHILDREN AT A DISTANCE A multi-agency investigation of child safeguarding and protection responses consequent upon COVID-19 lock-down/social distancing measures Dr Jenny Driscoll Dr Aisha Hutchinson Dr Ann Lorek Katrina Kiss