.png)
A pattern emerging across schools
Over recent years, one pattern has become increasingly clear through our involvement with schools.
When a child is hospitalised following an overdose or suicide attempt, the multi-agency safeguarding response you would expect does not always follow. There is often no strategy discussion/meeting, limited information sharing between professionals, and no coordinated plan in place.
Instead, the child is discharged, parents often notify the school, and the school is then left to manage the situation, typically working with the pupil and their parents to put a safety plan in place.
Why this is happening
To understand why this happens, it is important to look at the wider context in which children’s social care is operating. Thresholds for intervention - particularly at the point of MASH decision-making - have, in practice, become higher. This is not because the level of risk has reduced, but because of increasing demand, limited resources, and a continued emphasis on early help and diverting cases away from statutory intervention.
Within that environment, decisions about whether a child meets the threshold for significant harm are not always based solely on the level of risk presented. In reality, they are often influenced by whether the case is likely to progress to a section 47 child protection enquiry and, ultimately, a child protection conference. A further consideration is whether there is seen to be ongoing risk within the family home. From a system perspective, these are understandable pressures. However, they can pull practice away from what statutory guidance and safeguarding partnership threshold documents actually set out.
The framework itself is clear. Safeguarding operates on a continuum, from early help through to child in need and, at the highest level, cases where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. At that point, a strategy discussion should always take place. These discussions are not simply administrative gateways into section 47 enquiries. They exist to bring agencies together, to share information, and to build a fuller understanding of risk before deciding what should happen next.
In practice, however, strategy discussions can become closely tied to whether a case is likely to meet the threshold for a formal child protection enquiry. When that happens, opportunities for multi-agency thinking are lost. Decisions that should be made collectively are instead made in isolation, and agencies can find themselves working around the same child without a shared understanding of risk.
Where this leaves schools
When a child returns to school following a serious self-harm incident without a multi-agency process having taken place, schools are often left without access to the professional risk assessments that informed the hospital discharge. They may have very limited insight into the wider safeguarding picture and professional determination of mental health risk. Despite this, they are expected to support the child, manage risk during the school day, and respond if concerns escalate.
In response, schools do what they can. They put safety plans in place, maintain close contact with parents, and provide day-to-day support for the pupil. But they are doing so without the benefit of shared professional analysis or coordinated input from health, social care and other services. At the same time, access to CAMHS can be delayed for extended periods, leaving schools as the primary holders of risk during what can be a particularly volatile time.
This creates a difficult and, at times, uncomfortable position. If a serious incident were to occur, including a child death, the school’s actions are likely to come under scrutiny through a Child Safeguarding Practice Review. Where safety planning has taken place without the benefit of multi-agency assessment or clinical input, this can become a point of professional challenge - even where the school has acted in good faith and within the limits of the information available to them.
What schools can do
None of this suggests that schools should step beyond their professional role. But it does mean that Designated Safeguarding Leads need to feel confident in questioning decisions, seeking clarity, and, where necessary, using formal escalation routes within the safeguarding partnership. That might involve requesting written confirmation of threshold decisions, engaging with named nurses for safeguarding, or formally escalating concerns when they believe risk is not being appropriately addressed.
This is not always easy, particularly when working relationships are positive and professionals are under pressure. However, it is a necessary part of ensuring that safeguarding systems operate as intended.
What sits behind all of this is not a series of isolated decisions, but a broader systemic issue. Resource pressures, service thresholds, and policy direction all shape how safeguarding responses are delivered in practice. The shift towards early help is important and, in many cases, appropriate. But where serious harm has occurred, the absence of a multi-agency safeguarding response creates a gap - one that can leave schools managing risk that should have been shared.
Ultimately, strategy discussions and multi-agency meetings are not simply gateways to statutory intervention. They are opportunities to bring professional perspectives together, to test assumptions, and to build a shared understanding of a child’s situation. When they do not happen, that collective responsibility becomes fragmented.
And too often, schools are left holding risk that was never meant to sit with them alone.
About the Independent Safeguarding Service
The Independent Safeguarding Service supports schools through audits, consultancy and ongoing safeguarding membership, helping leaders navigate complex safeguarding systems and strengthen strategic oversight. For more information, visit www.isscic.org.
.png)
.png)
