In December 2020, we shared a thematic analysis of rapid reviews reported to the Panel during the early COVID-19 pandemic (March to September 2020). The positive response to this, our first Practice Briefing, was welcomed and we were pleased to meet over 100 colleagues at our webinar on 28 January 2021 to discuss the findings. 

The Panel found the initial analysis very useful in understanding some of the impacts of the pandemic on safeguarding practice.  We therefore commissioned a further thematic analysis on cases from October 2020 to March 2021. Utilising our analytical framework for evaluating how COVID-19 has been affecting vulnerable children and families from the first phase of analysis, we audited a further 105 rapid reviews which cited COVID-19 as a factor against a control group of 41 rapid reviews.

As in the original analysis, the data from rapid reviews shows COVID-19 continues to have a high impact on cases of non-accidental injury including abusive head trauma and sudden unexpected death in infancy. Yet in this round of analysis, we found a higher incidence of cases of suicide and self-harm, particularly children who may have autism and/or ADHD.  The Panel is currently working with the National Child Mortality Database to explore the issue of suicides further. Also, we have seen more instances where children have suffered significant neglect, including examples where parents have cited shielding or self-isolation as a rationale for limiting the family’s visibility to professionals.
 
We noted that, when conducting rapid reviews, there is sometimes a need for greater reflection and critical thinking about the contribution of the pandemic to changing risk and need, and its impact on the daily life of children and families. In our sample, we found that many rapid reviews contained rather limited analysis of the impact of the pandemic, so whilst it was cited as a contributory factor, this was sometimes presented without supporting evidence.  Where there has been analysis, this tended to focus on impact of COVID-safe adaptations, such as virtual working rather than exploring more broadly how COVID-19 may have affected family life.
 
When thinking about the impact of this follow-up analysis for practice, it was apparent that many of the earlier findings still hold true and we would urge practitioners to read our original practice briefing.

 

• When considering whether to conduct an LCSPR, safeguarding partners need to be clear from the outset what the added value is to a good rapid review. Rapid reviews should always set out a very clear rationale for doing an LCSPR; they should be explicit about the key questions that the LCSPR would seek to answer.
• It is for safeguarding partners to determine whether an LCSPR is appropriate, taking into account that the overall purpose of a review is to identify improvements to practice and wider systems. Just because an incident meets the criteria in Working Together 2018 does not mean there is an automatic expectation to carry out an LCSPR.
• Partnerships should consider using their own capacity to author LCSPRs, as appropriate and provided the person has suitable skills to undertake reviews and is independent of the case (with no real or perceived conflict of interests).

• We know that sometimes safeguarding partnerships propose undertaking an ‘alternative learning review’, implying use of different methodologies which had hitherto generally been associated with SCRs. We support and encourage different approaches, but the finished review is still an LCSPR; it should therefore be labelled and published as such.
• The best LCSPRs start with the key questions they are seeking to answer, providing evidence and analysis of what the focus should be. This should be accompanied by a concise summary of the circumstances and background of the case in order to lend appropriate context to the reflection and learning of the LCSPR that will follow.
• An LCSPR should not necessarily be limited to review the specifics of one family and a specific incident but rather be used to also explore broader aspects of practice, to ascertain whether there are systemic practice weaknesses to be addressed. Where systemic weaknesses are identified, then improvement work should not wait until the conclusion of criminal matters.
• Too many LCSPRs are written in the style and approach of SCRs; they often have overly long chronologies, use ‘old style SCR’ methodologies and approaches that do not engage in sufficient depth with system problems, nor do they explore why issues and practice problems may have occurred and what therefore needs to change as a result.  This approach often leads to unacceptable delays in completion and publication.

Working Together 2018 (WT2018) requires safeguarding partners to publish a report at least once in every twelve-month period and send copies to the Panel and the What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care (WWCSC).
 
In our last newsletter, we shared a joint evaluation by WWCSC and the Panel, which found that 49 reports of the 68 reports published by January 2021 fully or partly evidenced WT 2018 requirements. The report is available on the WWCSC website, along with a blog by our Chair Annie Hudson, outlining what this analysis means for safeguarding partners. You can download the report here.

To help safeguarding partners meet the requirements set out in WT2018 for their next yearly reports, and to ensure that it is easier to share learning and experience between different local areas, we have suggested the following questions to think about when preparing reports. These are designed to be helpful prompts, developed with WWCSC, based on the reports we’ve seen to date.

The Department for Education (DfE) published their Serious Incident Notification (SIN) data on 22nd July.
The full report is available here and the headline statistics include:

• There were 536 serious incident notifications during the 2020-21 financial year - an increase of 19% on FY2019-20.
• There were 251 serious incident notifications during the second half of 2020-21 - an increase of 12% on the same period in 2019-20.
• 35% of incidents relate to children under the age of 1.
• The largest increases were seen amongst young children, although those 16 years and over increased by a fifth.

As a Panel, we welcome the publication of this data, and it aligns with the findings of our annual report. The publication of these as ‘experimental official statistics’ is helpful, demonstrating a commitment from Government to making sure that this information is shared across the safeguarding system in a timely and rigorous manner.

It is helpful to analyse the headline statistics, noting changes over time to help and so we can build a national picture of what is happening to children.  We must nonetheless exercise due caution when referring to increases in these type of incidents.  Firstly, these incidents provide an extremely narrow lens on the most serious incidents of abuse and neglect. Therefore, the numbers of cases are low and percentages may distort the overall picture. Secondly, an increase in reporting may not correspond to an increase incidents. Indeed, the important thing is that each incident is reported and that thorough reviews are conducted to extract the learning to prevent similar incidents from happening again.

In our last newsletter, we introduced this section to share published LCSPRs with the sector in a timely way. These LCSPRs have been published between 1^st May and 30^th June 2021.

London: Camden, Child E; Merton, Jason.
North East: Middlesbrough, Fred; Redcar and Cleveland, Daniel.
South East: Southampton, Liam.
South West: Wiltshire, Family N.
Yorkshire & the Humber: Wakefield, Jason; Bradford, Emily.

We will keep this method of sharing LCSPRs under review, and you can feedback on this via the form at the bottom of this newsletter.

The Panel has recently assigned its members to each of the nine English regions.

• North West – Karen Manners
• North East – Dale Simon
• Yorkshire and Humber – Annie Hudson
• West Midlands – Peter Sidebotham
• East Midlands – Peter Sidebotham
• East of England – Susan Tranter
• South West – Sarah Elliott
• South East – Dale Simon
• London – Mark Gurrey

 The aim of this is to facilitate stronger engagement with safeguarding partners. In the first instance, we are intending to hold regional roundtables as forums to discuss issues of mutual interest. Letters have been issued to safeguarding partners in each region to facilitate these.
 

Do you have any information you would like to cascade to safeguarding partnerships through future versions of this newsletter?

If you have informal news or examples of effective practice to share, which you think will help other areas improve their safeguarding practice, please contact us at amina.makele@education.gov.uk