This report by King’s College London presents key findings from the first stage of a study designed in response to widespread concerns about the operation of child safeguarding and protection arrangements consequent upon the Covid-19 lockdown and social distancing measures. In light of the challenges to intra-and interagency communication and the impact on joint working of actions taken by individual agencies, the study focuses on safeguarding and protection practice, practitioner working and the multiagency response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The study investigates challenges to multi-agency child protection/safeguarding practice posed by the covid-19 lockdown and social distancing measures, and it identifies emerging and innovative good practice solutions.
The study offered detailed findings on the impact of covid-19 on the safeguarding continuum, multi-agency working and professional practice. It identified a number of overarching trends and issues related to safeguarding and protection arising from the response to the covid-19 pandemic. These were as follows:
While members of all disciplines engaged in child safeguarding exhibited extraordinary commitment, resilience, and creativity, lockdown imposition exposed some inadequacies in contingency plans and poor resilience. This was even though no agencies reported significant reductions in overall staff capacity
Participants highlighted an urgent need for the government to recognise the long-term, multifaceted harm to children that is the pandemic's likely legacy. This harm is likely to arise from a number of areas including reduced educational attainment and employment opportunities to increased mental ill-health and delayed disclosure of maltreatment
The pandemic has both exposed and exacerbated inequalities, particularly digital poverty and gendered inequalities.
Key Findings:
- School closures: All participants raised significant concerns related to the closure of schools during the first lockdown and the challenges of ensuring eligible children continued to attend school. Most of the boroughs with which we had contact described having undertaken much work to increase the numbers attending, mostly with only modest success. Where children deemed to be vulnerable remained at home, ‘keeping in touch’ strategies were implemented, such as regular, generally weekly, calls to families, amounting to a ‘huge increase’ in contacts with known vulnerable children.
- Early help/prevention and support work: Most early help services shifted to online provision, with some concerns that signposting to services and resources left the initiative with parents to contact practitioners, which meant that parents were not benefitting from proactive offers of support from practitioners which helps to ensure higher levels of take up. Participants pointed to rising levels of early help needs consequent upon the exacerbation of poverty and familial stress because of the pandemic, which conflicted with the tendency to prioritise statutory services and pre-existing cuts to early help budgets. Boroughs took a range of different approaches in relation to children’s centres. A range of innovations were introduced to support families that might be struggling with caring for their children and to maintain engagement.
- Disclosure and referrals: Considerable thought had been given to creating opportunities for children to disclose maltreatment and/or share concerns arising from their experiences, both through keeping in touch and in preparation for return to school. A number of participants stressed that mental health impacts might not be seen straight away and might present in many different ways that could be missed. An important point to note is that interviewees from most boroughs said that referrals that were received over the summer were more likely to be particularly high risk and/or complex and more likely therefore to lead to assessment, child protection investigation and social care intervention. Concern was raised that full assessment was not possible from a doorstep visit.
- Assessment and follow-up: For many professionals face-to-face visits and meetings were temporally suspended and most services moved online, even statutory child protection visits and assessments. Most practitioners across all sectors reported that it was harder to make things happen for children during the pandemic, noting, for example, difficulties in getting hold of the right people to make or confirm arrangements, accessing appropriate services and the complexity involved in ensuring that arrangements were safe. There were indications that the lack of services available to at risk children and young people impacted risk planning and risk management strategies, with a lot less opportunity for surveillance and monitoring.
- Child protection planning and case conferences: Case conferences and practice relating to child protection plans differed by borough. There was generally a hybrid approach to conferences, meetings and hearings, and parents were included face-to-face if judged necessary or beneficial. Children were likely to remain on a plan for longer than would normally be expected, because of difficulties in undertaking assessment and monitoring and less confidence in the outcome of assessments where all contact was remote. At the time of the interviews many participants were not yet completely clear on what was the best way forward, and how children and families had really experienced online/hybrid case conferences.
- Looked after children and care leavers: A surprising area of considerable success for some local authorities was a reduction in placement moves. However, a pre-existing shortage of placements was significantly exacerbated. One area sourced extra residential care in anticipation of an increased need for places, which was useful in supporting placement stability. Children in care had to cope with many issues. Contact was of particular concern for separated babies. Greater engagement with many young people was reported by social workers as many (but not all) were more comfortable communicating remotely.
- Unseen children: Our study revealed unanimous concern about children and parents no longer being seen routinely by universal health services, schools and other services, from maternity care through to the transition into adulthood. There was concern about economic deprivation and increased inequalities in the population that would impact on children’s lives and safety. It was anticipated (and evidenced by some) that ‘new’ children have become vulnerable through this pandemic. Participants highlighted the challenges in, and a corresponding lack of effective initiatives for, identifying children at risk not already known to professionals, often describing this as their biggest and most concerning challenge. At least one area educated ‘lockdown’ volunteers to pick up families under stress, and some advertised access routes to advice about housing, poverty, unemployment and wellbeing.
- Domestic abuse: A London-wide initiative to combat domestic abuse was led by the Metropolitan Police. Agencies reported ensuring that all colleagues were briefed on risk factors and signposting to services such as temporary refuges, independent domestic violence advocacy and interventions by adult mental health teams. Advice was provided on remote interviewing to elicit disclosure. Some adult mental health services identified the highest risk violence victims and perpetrators on their caseload and put additional psychological support in place for both.
- Mental Health: Increasingly complex presentations of adults with mental health difficulties in child protection cases were noted by several participants. Child and adolescent mental health concerns related to the increased complexity of some safeguarding referrals. Community, online and helpline provision was established where not previously evident.
- Children with disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions: Pressure increased on the families of some children with disabilities where institutions closed, leading to concerns about carers’ mental health. Some play areas and outdoor spaces were offered for booking by families with special needs children and other support included virtual coffee mornings. This relied on the availability of ‘Covid-safe’ spaces and significant encouragement or reassurance by professionals to access these spaces. There was concern about increased waiting times for assessments and support.