Safeguarding - Behind closed doors

It is estimated that half a million children under five live in a household with domestic abuse, parental mental health problems, or parental drug or alcohol abuse.

The Covid-19 pandemic has compounded these risks and intensified the challenges for all practitioners responsible for keeping children safe from abuse and harm.

Action for Children’s Spring nurseries reported an increased number of referrals to children’s social care during the first and second lockdowns, with neglect the most common reason cited.

Meanwhile, a record number of adults called the NSPCC helpline with concerns about children between April 2020 and March 2021, surging by nearly a quarter, with 47 per cent of calls leading to a referral to an external agency such as the police or children’s services.

In the evidence review Protecting young children at risk of abuse and neglect, the Nuffield Foundation found that incidents of serious harm to children under five where abuse or neglect were known or suspected increased during the early months of the pandemic, while many other children at risk might have been missed due to disruption in the usual pathways for referring children to services.

Incidents involving death or serious harm increased between April and September 2020 by 31 per cent for children under one, and by 50 per cent for children aged one to five, compared with the same period in 2019. The average rate of increase for children across all age groups was 27 per cent.

IDENTIFYING STRESSORS

Jordan Rehill, co-author of the review, says while the number of recorded incidents involving death or serious harm was relatively small overall (150 in total), the trend says a lot about the social and economic issues highlighted by the pandemic.

‘Even though these are small groups, I think it really is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of showing what the wider issues are,’ he says. ‘It really gives us an indication of why there has been such an uptick during the pandemic.’

The first cause of the increases, according to Mr Rehill, is family stressors. He says, ‘We have heard from different stakeholders in the system that during lockdown periods there has been a real lack of contact with extended family members, which can be a key protective factor for most families.

‘Findings from the recent Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel report suggest family dynamics changed in many of those circumstances. For example, there might have been a new partner joining the household to avoid contact restrictions, and this has highlighted tensions and pressures as a result of these disrupted routines and, in some cases, overcrowding.’

Financial pressures can also exacerbate potentially strained family situations. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that the households hardest hit financially by the pandemic were those who already earned the least, alongside working parents and people under 30.

‘DOUBLE HIT’ FOR SERVICES

More broadly, it is difficult to say exactly how the pandemic might have affected rates of abuse and harm of young children, with no specific data collated. While family court data shows the proportion of domestic violence remedy orders increased by 25 per cent during the pandemic, and Department for Education data shows that despite an early dip in referrals to services, rates went back up once schools returned, there is no survey of national abuse and neglect prevalence in the UK.

Mr Rehill explains, ‘All the early evidence suggests an increase in abuse, harm and conditions of adversity facing families during the pandemic, but in terms of cold, hard data, it’s quite difficult to tell. We have information on referrals to children’s social care, but in terms of robust figures on abuse and neglect during the pandemic, the data is quite limited.’

The pandemic has seen changes to the way services can respond to problems. With 50 per cent of health visitors redeployed to other parts of the system during the first national lockdown, only one in ten parents saw a health visitor face-to-face.

Mr Rehill adds, ‘Services have faced a double hit. Not only do we have more families needing support, but we have fewer staff available.’

IMPACT ON EARLY YEARS

Corinna Laing, deputy head of Action for Children’s Spring nurseries, says these strains on services have a knock-on effect on early years practitioners.

‘We urgently need to ensure that parents get improved access to the help they need from health visitors and family support workers,’ she explains. ‘Parents are finding they have to turn to nurseries for this type of support, and while we can signpost and offer help to a degree, nursery practitioners are not trained to deal with some of the issues brought to the setting by parents.’

Even prior to the pandemic, a considerable number of young children at risk due to their family circumstances were missed by services. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel 2020 found that in 2018-19, 46 per cent of children who died or were seriously harmed were not known to the child welfare system.

With average attendance currently hovering around 80 per cent of the norm, a spokesperson for the Early Years Alliance suspects the pandemic will raise the likelihood that cases of concern will be inadvertently missed by early years practitioners.

‘While a lot of work is being done throughout the sector to reach out to families who are not currently attending for whatever reason, there are also many families who might have otherwise registered their children for an early years setting this year who are yet to do so. Opportunities for home visits are reduced and settings have often been left compensating for other health and social care services that have been redeployed.

‘Similarly, for nurseries who may have been worried about a child on the “cusp” of needing additional support, the restrictions they have had to put in place to socially distance from parents mean they are less able to pick up on signs and symptoms that might help them to decide who needs that support.’

Remote contact with some families only increases the challenge, the spokesperson adds.

‘You can only see what they choose to show you; you do not know if there is anyone else in the room or the house. For example, a partner who perpetrates domestic abuse may be just out of the shot, overseeing or controlling the interaction or the responses given.’

IMPROVING OUTCOMES

Good safeguarding and support for the most vulnerable children are particularly vital in the early years.

Research by Sandra Mathers of the University of Oxford found that because looked-after children are already behind in their language, psycho-social and neuro-psychological functioning before the age of five, there is a ‘strong case’ for early intervention to ensure children reach their full potential.

With educational outcomes for looked-after children in 2019 lagging behind those of their non-looked-after peers by between 25 and 30 per cent at Key Stage 2, Mr Rehill agrees that early years settings could be vital to reversing this trend.

‘Good early years education could help close that gap,’ he says. ‘We know from Sandra Mathers that early years settings can be a really valuable source of stability and reliability for looked-after children and their families, especially those facing frequent care and placement moves, and a source of support for carers themselves.’

However, addressing this remains problematic. While local authority data shows there is lower take-up of early years places for children at risk, looked-after children and children with SEND, there is no national data on what provision they access, whether they are accessing their hours, how many access their hours, or what their development is in the EYFS.

POSITIVE CHANGES

Despite the generally gloomy picture, Mr Rehill notes that some practice was positively affected by the pandemic, with significant innovation from practitioners in the face of widespread disruption.

‘Research by colleagues at the University of Birmingham has shown the pandemic allowed for more humane, relational practice with children and families,’ he says. ‘A number of social workers mentioned that getting help to families was actually easier and quicker during lockdown because they got rid of their usual bureaucratic processes and were able to do things like apply for food bank vouchers quite quickly.

‘They found there was a lot of outdoor practice, with garden or doorstep visits from social workers, which meant that because of conversations being overheard, a lot of the work rested on observation and seeing and feeling what relationships were like between young children and their family members. That is a crucial development that I hope doesn’t get lost.

‘Home visits are often quite tense, and opening up these new environments could provide new opportunities for reflection, discussion and seeing how families and children interact when they are not just in their own living rooms.’

LOOKING AHEAD

Ms Laing warns that any funding review to help the early years sector safeguard its most vulnerable children must be forward-looking and anticipate the damaging legacy of three national lockdowns.

‘Large numbers of children will require extra support in the months and years to come,’ she says. ‘Central Government needs to make sure local areas have the capacity and resources to provide the necessary training and development for the workforce.’

In the meantime, Melanie Pilcher, Early Years Alliance quality and standards manager, advises practitioners to stay vigilant.

‘If you are concerned, you must act. Even if you think statutory services may be involved, you and the service both still have a duty of care. Despite the additional pressures everyone is facing, your professional knowledge about what is usual for a child and family and what capacity they have to cope with the ongoing challenges will help you to make the right decisions.’

CASE STUDY: Action for Children

Corinna Laing, deputy head of Action for Children’s Spring nurseries, says, ‘Our nurseries made an increased number of referrals to children’s social care during the first and second lockdowns, with neglect as the most common reason. Some families found they were struggling to meet their children’s basic needs under the restrictions, exacerbated by unemployment, poverty and not being able to access other sources of professional help and normal social support networks. We also found that some families who lost important support networks turned to other coping mechanisms such as alcohol or drugs.

‘Families under child protection had to continue to attend our sessions in person, while children on Education, Health And Care plans, those identified as vulnerable or whose parents were key workers were still able to attend our services, but initially most parents wanted to keep them at home.

‘With many children not attending settings, it was very difficult to support them from afar, so all staff had to put in extra effort to keep communications lines open and maintain close relationships.

‘The first lockdown was a steep learning curve for all of us. We had to adapt our approach to communicating with families quickly, so we ensured staff phoned at least once a week and practitioners offered virtual activity sessions, storytelling and home learning activities via our online app. Parents told us this support was invaluable to them at a time when they felt isolated and lonely.

‘As lockdown went on, many of our services began to see parents more frequently as they delivered emergency food parcels and had a much-needed socially distanced chat.

‘We added some key roles to our workforce to help us support families and staff experiencing challenging times. All our managers are trained in mental health first-aid and each setting has a physical activity nutrition co-ordinator to support and advise parents on exercise, nutrition and healthy lifestyles.

‘With lockdowns lifted, it is naturally now much easier to revert to standard practices for meeting and supporting at-risk children. However, we have found that merging new methods of communication and working practices with existing ones allows us to offer greater flexibility and improved access.’

Tips for practitioners working to safeguard children

• Think about how you can use technology to add value to your practice. Remember, however, this should not replace the statutory responsibilities you may have.
• Be proactive with children and families, speak with parents about your hypotheses about risk in a respectful way and include them in your planning to address this risk, where possible.
• Where domestic abuse and violence are a risk, try to assess the current situation and make sure they know what support is available.
• Advocate for social connection and interaction where safe and possible for families. Encourage them to think about how they can continue to interact with others safely.
• Empower and enable families to safeguard children by sharing advice and information that they can use.
• Consider how you, families and children may be able to continue to access the local supports and safeguards around them; for example, through schools, CAMHS and local outreach services.

Tips courtesy of the Social Care Institute for Excellence, https://bit.ly/2RGT8wl

FURTHER INFORMATION

• Nuffield Foundation: Protecting young children at risk of abuse and neglect, https://bit.ly/35d4oDL
• Office for National Statistics: Coronavirus and the Impact on UK households and businesses: 2020, https://bit.ly/3wb0mrD
• Oxford University: ‘Early Education as an Intervention for Children Looked After’, https://bit.ly/3zhFcd9
• University of Birmingham: Child protection and social distancing, https://bit.ly/3glsTE5