Interview - Jodie Reed, director at Isos Partnership

WHAT ARE THE PROJECT’S AIMS?

The project was first commissioned in July 2020 by the 1001 Days Movement secretariat and undertaken by Isos Partnership with funding from Cattanach. The aim was to investigate the impacts of the coronavirus crisis on babies in the first 1,001 days and their families, drawing lessons for the future.

The focus was the spring national lockdown in 2020 and the aftermath – March to September. Research consisted of an online survey which canvassed the views of 235 service leaders, including health visitors and perinatal and infant mental health and breastfeeding support, as well as in-depth interviews and workshops with four local authorities.

WHAT ARE THE KEY FINDINGS?

While the direct harms of Covid-19 on babies have been limited, the hidden harms of lockdown have been significant, depending on family circumstance; so, for example, a baby experiencing less responsive parenting is also more likely to have experienced a lack of social interaction and indirect health risks. Some babies, in particular those from less advantaged backgrounds, were at much greater risk than others.

Interestingly, there is emerging evidence around the potential benefits to babies of lockdown, such as more quality time with parents and reduced likelihood of stillbirth, although these were less likely to be experienced by the less advantaged.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAIL THE ‘HIDDEN HARMS’?

For new parents there has been a toxic mix of factors which have made them especially vulnerable, including their greater dependency on services and support from friends and grandparents, and their increased susceptibility to feelings of isolation and perinatal mental health issues.

The report argues that babies already at risk due to disadvantage could be considered to have been at double jeopardy during lockdown. While it is too early to call, and I am not a psychologist, my sense is that we could potentially be looking at long-lasting attachment issues across a significant proportion of the generation of lockdown babies. I think this is what professionals and service leaders were telling us in our survey when 73 per cent said ‘many’ of the babies they work with were impacted through parental anxiety/stress/depression affecting bonding/responsive care.

I’d like to see Andrea Leadsom’s Early Years Healthy Development Review seek to understand this better and put strategies in place to mitigate long-term consequences.

WERE THERE OTHER HARMS TO BABIES DIRECTLY?

More than 40 per cent reported that many of the families they worked with were impacted by sudden loss of income or food poverty and poorer outcomes due to loss of direct contact with health services. In terms of domestic conflict, child abuse or neglect, 80 per cent told us at least some of the babies they worked with had been affected, and 29 per cent said it was ‘many’, so I would say it seems likely Ofsted’s data on the disproportionate increase in serious incident notifications is a sign of a much wider problem.

WHY WAS SUPPORT NOT AVAILABLE?

Many services were heavily depleted during the spring lockdown. Half of the survey respondents said they were not able to continue supporting all the families they usually work with, and 18 per cent said their service ceased to provide support to all, or most, families. The majority of service leaders – 78 percent – did not feel that the national crisis response was good enough for babies.

The reasons for these ‘baby blind spots’ are complex but relate to long-term challenges and differences of emphasis on babies across areas, and the Government’s initial lack of recognition of how damaging it would be to have parents under such duress.

WHAT DID GOOD LOCAL SUPPORT FOR BABIES LOOK LIKE?

We were able to identify some good examples of what we refer to as ‘baby positive’ local responses, where local authorities provided good access to support via maintained and adapted services, rather than offering a bare minimum targeted offer. They also ensured that local future birth to twos’ needs were being met by continuing to review and plan ahead and ensure that staff felt supported. Most local authorities put in place at least some baby positive actions, but we found two where we felt they had achieved an overall baby positive response.

WHAT ACTIONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE FED INTO the EARLY YEARS HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW?

It sounds like the review will encourage the sector to harness some of the new-found benefits of providing support for parents of babies via remote platforms, which I welcome. Although I would emphasise the need to take an evidence-based approach and not see it as a panacea or easy vehicle for cost-cutting. In our research, we also witnessed the benefits of good live data-sharing across services in health and local authorities, especially in terms of tracking and supporting families who may be vulnerable but not considered ‘high risk’.

It’s clear that the cracks between health and local authority leaders need to be fixed. There are so many different frameworks in place, and it can be difficult to be a leader. It would be great to see the review clarify the connections between the programmes.

Also, as a non-statutory service, Children’s Centres have often not fared well when local authorities have been faced with budgetary pressures. I was pleased that Ms Leadsom expressed her shared concern over this point at the APPG meeting on 19 January, and I look forward to seeing what she might do to try to address this.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE?

There are tough challenges, but there has been a rebalance in policy since the spring 2020 lockdown. By the autumn lockdown we had childcare open, childcare support bubbles, health visitors no longer redeployed, and support groups for new parents allowed.

• Working for Babies: Lockdown lessons from local systems