Working Together? Barriers to effective safeguarding following reports of child-on-child sexual assault.
Recent media reports on the rise of child-on-child sexual assaults will have come as no surprise to those working in education safeguarding. To the public, the figures appear shocking, but to professionals they are proof that what they are seeing in their settings is not an aberration, but rather part of a nationwide trend. Harm that was once considered primarily ‘adult perpetrated’ has shifted, with the most recent figures showing half of all reported sexual assaults involved a child as both alleged victim and perpetrator, up from a third historically.1 There has also been a reported 81% rise in reports of "rape, sexual assault and incidents of abuse” taking place on school property.2
The importance of schools in the multi-agency response to this harm cannot be overstated. Twenty percent of all referrals into social care are made by schools, second only to the police,3 and there is a demonstrable reduction in reports of child sexual assault and exploitation outside of term time.4 Schools are often the only provision with an existing relationship with the children and must uphold duties of care towards both parties simultaneously.
It was against this background that I undertook research examining the barriers schools face when responding to child-on-child sexual assault. Having worked in pastoral care and safeguarding for over a decade, I saw first-hand both the rise in reports and the difficulty of navigating these complexities. What follows is an overview of the findings which, although by no means exhaustive, provides a snapshot of the difficulties faced by schools.
Bound by Ambiguity
Part 5 of KCSiE has been criticised for its unclear and often contradictory advice. Examples of this include statements that reports of sexual assault should be passed to the police, yet within the same section stating that in some cases reports will not lead to police involvement.5 The guidance also states that schools “can” take disciplinary action while other investigations are ongoing yet cautions that it may be “unreasonable” for them to do so.6
Part 5 was particularly criticised by participants for being too focused on the procedural aspects of referrals and risk assessments rather than giving advice and guidance on elements that are more difficult to control, such as the guidance’s assumptions that allegations are proven when this is rarely the case.
Stretched Systems
The impact on schools of increased demand on multi-agency partners has been widely discussed. A recent TES survey identified “difficulty accessing external services” as the main barrier to effective safeguarding, citing limited local authority resources and higher intervention thresholds.7 This difficulty when combined with the rise in reports, lead to a situation where issues do not disappear but disaggregate, and the responsibility for managing the resultant issues rolls ‘downhill’. Schools, being at the bottom of the hill, are having to consider alternative means of intervention, but some settings simply lack the funding to be able to do so.
Stuck in the middle
Another highlighted issue of inter-agency working is schools’ position ‘in the middle’ of agencies, the children and families and the wider community. They are on the ‘front line’ on managing the fallout of reports and yet hold no power over the multi-agency process, which can lead to tension between the school and families frustrated by perceived inaction or delays in decisions which the school has no control over. Participants also reported that information was frequently not adequately shared and that they were not consulted about decisions that would directly impact them, for example bail conditions.
There is also an apparent lack of appreciation by multi-agency partners about the statutory guidance that schools are bound by. Despite ‘Working together to Safeguard Children’ being explicit as to the importance of the role of education generally and ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ (KCSiE) specifically, multiple participants had come across multi-agency partners at various levels who had never heard of the guidance and did not understand what it entailed.
Where next?
The difficulties schools are facing have been highlighted by multiple agencies and reports, with Ofsted reporting that collaboration between various agencies and the schools is “not happening consistently” and schools “are increasingly having to make difficult decisions that guidance does not equip them to make.”8 While it could be seen as positive that the difficulties are being acknowledged by Ofsted, schools are still being inspected by them against that guidance.
It has been suggested that the government guidance should be updated to make education a statutory safeguarding partner rather than the currently designated “relevant agency”9 and it appears that these calls are being heard, if not heeded. The upcoming ‘Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill’ reports findings markedly like those found in my study and proposes many reforms, including strengthening the role of education in safeguarding, but crucially stops short of making schools a fourth statutory partner.
Schools are the agency with which children have the most consistent contact and so for safeguarding to be truly effective schools must be at the centre of a multi-agency response. While the barriers to this have been documented by various agencies, there is less clarity on how these will be overcome. Until schools are empowered (and resourced) to be a part of the multi-agency response to harm, we risk failing a generation of vulnerable children and increasing their vulnerability in the process.
References:
(1) HACKETT, S., (2010). Children and Young People with Harmful Sexual Behaviours. P.140
VULNERABILITY KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE PROGRAMME, (2025) National Analysis of Police-Recorded Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Crimes Report 2023 | Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme Para.11
NATIONAL POLICE CHIEFS' COUNCIL, (2024). Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Analysis Launched Para.3
(2) SAVAGE, M., (2024). ‘Toxic’ online culture fuelling rise in sexual assaults on children by other children, police warn | Rape and sexual assault | The Guardian
(3) TES, (2025). Sfeguarding Report 2025 | Tes
(4) VULNERABILITY KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE PROGRAMME, (2025) National Analysis of Police-Recorded Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Crimes Report 2023 | Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme
(5) DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, (2024). Keeping Children Safe in Education. p.108 & p.115
(6) DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION, (2024). Keeping Children Safe in Education. P. 140
(7) TES, (2025). Safeguarding Report 2025 | Tes
(8) OFSTED, (2021). Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges - GOV.UK
(9) MACALISTER, J., (2022). The independent review of children’s social care: p.12
MACKAY, F., (1996). The Zero Tolerance Campaign: Setting the Agenda. p.263
Bio:
Alex Wilson is Head of Pastoral Care and Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bright Outcomes. With an MEd in Pastoral Care and Guidance in Education from the University of Aberdeen, Alex’s research focuses on child-on-child sexual harm and improving multi-agency responses in schools.
Anyone with questions, comments or wishing to read the research in full is encouraged to contact Alex via Linkedin.
Shopping cart
Action Required