| 15 minute read | DSLs and Safeguarding Teams |
In the summer of 2017, three teenage boys in Croydon died in the space of four weeks. A 16 year old looked-after child died as a result of his injuries when the moped he was riding with two others crashed, a 15 year old on a child protection plan died from multiple stab wounds in a gang related incident and a 17 year old died after ingesting a highly toxic drug. All 3 children had been known to Children’s Social Care by the age of 2. It was agreed that a thematic review would be undertaken into a group of vulnerable adolescents who either have had poor outcomes or were of considerable concern. The review identified 60 children in all and aimed to establish whether there were any patterns in the children’s experiences that could inform practice going forward.
Below is our summary of the findings of the review and the key themes. It is important to note that whilst the cohort of children considered in this review were all vulnerable adolescents, the findings are applicable to all organisations working with children and young people, regardless of age.
The full review and executive summary as produced by Croydon LSCB can be found here.
Acknowledged limitations
Before continuing it is important to note that the cohort was created through subjective identification by either Children’s Social Care, the Youth Offending Team, the Police or the MASE (multi-agency sexual exploitation) panel. No other agencies contributed. There was also no control group that the outcomes of those selected were measured against, with generic outcomes for Croydon children being used as the benchmark. This means that whilst useful for information and learning there are limitations to how far the data can be used.
Findings
All the children were known to Children’s Social Care.
Over a quarter were known by age 1, half by age 5 and nearly three quarters were known by age 11.
The review found that whilst the children were often known early on, the focus of involvement was often on the immediate issue and did not appreciate the child’s history or the impact of underlying trauma or adverse childhood experiences.
Poor school experiences.
Whilst schools attempted to address aggressive and disruptive behaviour, the review reports that 19 of the cohort received fixed term exclusions in primary school (with the majority of these being for physical assault). Of these 17 went on to receive fixed term exclusions from secondary school. All 19 who were excluded from primary school went on to receive a criminal conviction, with 14 being placed in either a secure unit or young offenders institute at some point in their childhood.
For many of the children there were poor transitions to secondary school – the review identifies that for children who are struggling in primary school the challenges faced when moving to a secondary school become even more difficult to overcome. Just over half the cohort received fixed term exclusions whilst in secondary school or were subject to managed moves or placement in pupil referral units.
The findings of the review are in line with research in identifying that children with additional needs, children who live in poverty along and boys in general are more likely to be excluded then their peers. Where children spoke to reviewers about the impact of exclusions and moves the review notes:
It was as if their dreams of a better future were lost, and a door seemed to be closed to any chance of exiting the gang lifestyle and criminal behaviour. (p.42)
The review also noted that for the children whose attendance data was available (25 out of the 60 in the cohort), almost three quarters (72%) were classified as being persistent absentees.
Parental issues had a significant impact on the availability of a nurturing home environment.
The graph below demonstrates the numerous issues that impacted on the availability of the parents to the children in the cohort:
The review found that “children in the cohort who were spoken to appeared resigned to their situation, the issues of domestic abuse, bereavement and related trauma were never addressed and as indicated in research, the impact of these traumas became entrenched."
Poverty also appeared to have had an impact. A disproportionately high number of children in the cohort were in receipt of free school meals, whilst housing information showed that over 80% of families were known to Housing Services, and at least 28% of families were known to have been provided with temporary accommodation at some point in the child’s life. Of the cohort, 7 families had been evicted from a council property.
The multi-agency response was variable.
Whilst a number of referrals were made, children in the cohort were often found not to meet thresholds, with the perception that things needed to deteriorate further before they could access services (the review notes early intervention was rarely provided). When they were provided with services, the response was reactive, responding to the current crisis as opposed to looking at the whole picture. The review found that these responses were ineffective because they were crisis management led.
The report also suggests that services struggled to determine whether to treat the children as victims or perpetrators. This is demonstrated by this table from the report:
Data relating to child protection plans also demonstrates the changing influences – the report found that child protection plans made when children were younger primarily related to safeguarding concerns at home. As they got older the reason for the plans shifted to be linked to risk taking behaviour outside the home.
Three quarters of the children in the cohort became looked after by the local authority at some point in their childhood, but only 6 of the 45 had one placement, suggesting that the remaining 39 experienced multiple placement moves.
A significant majority of the children had missing episodes.
Over three quarters of the children in the cohort were reported missing at some point in their lives. Of note is that this included all of the girls in the cohort (of which there were 23). The youngest was aged 7 when they went missing, and those who went missing did so on average 16 times. Missing episodes were shown to impact on agencies abilities to work effectively, whilst the children involved appeared to be “beyond parental control and more and more influenced by their peers.”
Reviewers found that, in line with research, for many children in the cohort there were significant periods of time where they would be out of the family home and their whereabouts not known, however they would not be reported as missing.
What does this tell us about vulnerable adolescents?
There are four main themes that come from the findings of the review.
The impact of adverse childhood experiences.
We know that as they grow up young children are absorbing everything that takes place in the world around them, with this shaping their lives going forward. Adverse experiences, such as things that cause direct harm (e.g. physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect) along with things that affect the child’s environment (e.g. parental issues, domestic abuse), have been shown to have a negative impact on all areas of health and development in children. The findings of this review support this, but also note that it is likely that as agencies we are only aware of a small proportion of adverse experiences children may go through.
The review also suggests that where some parents did not engage with services, the reasons for this were not routinely explored but it is hypothesised that this may be linked to parents own adverse childhood experiences and their experiences of being involved with statutory agencies as a child. Parents reported feeling labelled as a ‘bad parent’ and having to constantly fight to be heard.
Children struggling to manage behaviour.
The review found that a significant percentage of the cohort had problems managing their behaviour in school. For these children, it is suggested that adverse childhood experiences and unresolved trauma have potentially damaged the developing brain and can mean that survivors can be more likely to respond to situations where they feel out of control, without choice or unsafe in ways that may appear to observers to be extreme reactions – this arguably resorting to base instinct around fight or flight.
Of note is that when children and their parents were spoken to as part of the review, it was their perception that the changes in behaviour were linked to the child being bullied and the school not doing anything about this. The end result was a perception that the child was forced to take matters into their own hands and fight back.
In looking at the responses to the poor behaviour, the review found that many episodes of poor behaviour were met with sanctions without considering wider issues that may be present.
Lack of early intervention.
The findings of this review support the need to provide early intervention. The report cites a review of literature undertaken by the Early Intervention Foundation which identifies:
strongly predictive risk factors seen in children as young as seven, namely: ‘troublesome’ behaviour, offending, substance use, aggression, running away, truancy, having disrupted family, and having friends who are frequently in trouble. (p.31)
Given the current economic climate and cuts being made to early intervention services across the country, this leaves increasing responsibilities on schools and other organisations to identify ways to manage this behaviour.
The need for a contextual safeguarding approach with vulnerable adolescents.
Where the relationships between children and their parents have been undermined due to parental issues, children are then likely to look for other role models amongst their peers and in their community. As the review identifies, positive role models are important for all children for them to receive encouragement and support as well as developing a sense of identity and belonging. A lack of suitable role models has the effect of placing children at risk of being drawn into gangs and / or criminal exploitation.
The review found that many of the children reported not feeling safe in their local area, and that joining a gang was seen as the only way they could be safe, have a purpose and be part of a family. All children reported seeing violence as part of being a gang member and carrying weapons to protect themselves.
What does this mean for our practice?
Whilst the review is centred on a cohort of vulnerable adolescents, the findings cover work with children of all ages. At Safeguarding Network we do not believe that any of the four findings above should come as a shock to Designated Safeguarding Leads or safeguarding teams. For us, this review serves to provide clear 'real world' evidence of the impact that things that we are already talking about have on the children that we work with. Recognising these issues, such as adverse childhood experiences, or understanding the importance of looking beyond the behaviour, is not however just something that lies with safeguarding teams, and it is important that this is fed into the regular update sessions that you provide your staff.
What can we do...
Sound safeguarding and early help practice is key
- Notice the problem - ensure your staff are trained to recognise abuse, neglect and vulnerability and can overcome the barriers to raising a concern.
- Provide early help when there is a need. Consider what the school can provide and link to services available locally.
- Refer young people at risk or where the early help is having no impact. Follow the escalation process if the help young people are entitled to is not forthcoming (see our article on shrinking services, increasing needs).
Safeguarding and child protection is everyone's responsibility, however to understand this responsibility we need to understand where the causes of problems may lie and how these can be addressed - Safeguarding Network can help through providing training materials to update your staff in team meetings as well as a growing resource base of articles that develop knowledge and understanding. If you are not yet a member, find out more here, or visit our sample page at safeguarding.network/domestic.
