The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly affected all of society, including teams in organizational settings. Collaborative teamwork is particularly susceptible to pandemic disruptions, as coordination across individuals becomes challenging in socially distanced and virtual contexts. Unfortunately, COVID-19 research thus far has primarily studied individual health and performance. Analysis of 90 open-ended survey responses gives voice to students working in project teams during the pandemic and provides future research directions regarding the multilevel impacts of the pandemic on teamwork. Results reflect three themes: (1) challenges experienced; (2) changes to team communication, tasks, and roles; and (3) consequences to team progress and outcomes.

Thresholds into and between services emerged as a significant theme in the biennial analysis of cases of child death and serious injury through abuse and neglect ‘serious case reviews’ carried out in England for the (then) Department for Education and Skills between 2003–05. The preoccupation with thresholds was one of a number of interacting risk factors and many children's cases were on the boundary of services and levels of intervention. In most cases child protection did not come ‘labelled as such’ which reinforces the need for all practitioners, including those working with adults to be alert to the risks of significant harm. Policy makers should acknowledge that staff working in early intervention are working within the safeguarding continuum and not in a separate sphere of activity. The emotional impact of working with hostility from violent parents and working with resistance from older adolescents impeded engagement, judgement and safeguarding action. In the long term neglect cases that were reviewed, the threshold for formal child protection services was rarely met and some agencies and practitioners coped with feelings of helplessness by adopting the ‘start again syndrome’. Adequate resources are essential but not sufficient to redress the problems. Effective and accessible supervision is crucial to help staff to put into practice the critical thinking required to understand cases holistically, complete analytical assessments, and weigh up interacting risk and protective factors. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and lead professional (LP) working are part of a government strategy in England and Wales for earlier intervention and more integrated services for children and families. A national government evaluation studied the early piloting stage of implementation of CAF and LP working in 12 English trialling group areas. Initial findings suggest a number of interlocking factors, which seem to either help or hinder the process of implementation. Where there is enthusiasm for the work and a clear structure, which is understood and internalized by practitioners, CAF and LP are promoting better multi-agency working, helping agencies to come together much faster and enabling more rigorous follow-through of services. Hindrances include the lack of a local history of successful multi-agency working, which seemed in turn to breed professional mistrust and fuel anxiety. Anxiety is also generated by fears about change and lack of confidence in new skills. For many practitioners aspects of this work are new and the emotional impact of the work needs to be acknowledged in support and training. The task of local implementation would be easier if there were firmer national guidance about CAF and LP roles and processes, for example a single nationally approved CAF form.

Adults with Down syndrome appear to participate in lower levels of physical activity than adults without Down syndrome. Further research should validate these estimates.

The common assessment framework (CAF) and lead professional (LP) working are being introduced into all local authorities in the next 2 years as part of the Every Child Matters agenda. This article describes some elements of an evaluation of 12 pilot trials. It was found that schools and pastoral staff in particular played a major part in the trials. The majority of the research participants thought that this was a worthwhile initiative and examples were collected of successful implementation of the scheme. However, issues of missing skills, lack of time and limited practical support for staff in schools were highlighted. It is suggested that these issues may be magnified in the full‐scale implementation of CAF and LP work. Considerable effort by pastoral staff and education managers will be required if this ‘good idea’ is to deliver improved outcomes for children in need.