Use of Social Media Sites by Social Care and Safeguarding Staff

1. Introduction

Developments in online facilities such as social media sites are fast-changing. This can impact on many aspects of daily life, including in a social care and safeguarding environment. It is important that professionals keep up to date with and harness useful technology, whilst ensuring that this is done in a safe and appropriate manner.

Social media can be a useful tool. It can be used by professionals to develop skills and knowledge, and to network with others nationally and internationally. It offers new ways of working. For example:

• Checking the social media accounts of missing children/young people, where they are public, as part of efforts to trace them;
• Tracing/serving birth parents during court proceedings;
• As part of assessments, to ascertain the veracity of information provided by parents and others.

Court cases and case reviews have advocated the use of social media checks during assessments and court proceedings. However, this is a developing area and caution must be exercised.

2. Issues

The increasing use of social media sites brings with it additional considerations. These include:

• Confidentiality and consent of service users;
• The need to process personal data in accordance with data protection principles;
• Professionals' own right to privacy and private life;
• The need for caution and corroboration – social media accounts can be infiltrated/faked. Service-users may have more than one online persona;
• Appropriate arrangements need to be made for setting up dedicated social media accounts. It is not appropriate to use professionals' personal accounts or 'fake' accounts. Employers may wish to set up corporate private profiles with access limited to a small number of staff;
• Depending on the circumstances, the viewing of service-users' social media accounts may constitute overt or covert surveillance requiring appropriate authorisation.

2.1 Data Protection

Information gleaned from searches of social media sites will constitute 'personal data' which must be processed in accordance with data processing principles. It must be:

• Processed in a way that is lawful and fair;
• For specified, explicit and legitimate purposes;
• Adequate, relevant and not excessive;
• Accurate and kept up to date;
• Kept for no longer than is necessary;
• Processed in a secure manner.

2.2 Consent

It is good practice, where enquiries are likely to include searches of social media sites, to make service-users generally aware of this fact by including this in the information which is given to them at the commencement of the process, for example at the commencement of the Assessment.

In specific cases, social media searches, as with other forms of information-gathering for Assessment purposes, should generally take place with the consent of the subject, unless there are valid reasons to the contrary. There may be an 'overriding public interest' in obtaining and sharing information without explicit consent. This will depend on the circumstances of each case. For more information, see: Confidentiality Policy.

2.3 Covert/Overt Surveillance and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

Viewing a service-user's social media content without their specific consent is not necessarily, of itself, unlawful.

However, consideration must be given, in all cases, as to whether viewing the sites constitutes 'directed surveillance' under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ('RIPA') and so requires authorisation under that Act. This is a complex area.

Whilst the following general principles apply, each case must be treated on its own facts, and legal advice MUST be sought as necessary:

• If the consent of the service-user is obtained, then no further authorisation would be required;
• If consent is not obtained but no privacy settings are in operation to prevent viewing, then the material available on the sites can be regarded as 'open source', and so a single viewing would not constitute 'directed surveillance' under RIPA and no authorisation would be required under that Act;
• However, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner (now superseded by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner) made clear his view that repeat viewing of sites by staff may constitute 'directed surveillance' and if done covertly (i.e. without the knowledge of that person) then this would be 'covert surveillance'. This would require authorisation under the Act in the form of a warrant from a magistrate.* It is for the employer to ensure that any covert surveillance is properly authorised, recorded and, most importantly, legally justifiable.

*(The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 amended the regulation of investigatory powers legislation to reduce the circumstances in which a surveillance authorisation under RIPA can be granted by a local authority, rather than by a court. A local authority can now only grant an authorisation under RIPA for the use of directed surveillance for the investigation of criminal offences which attract a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months or more or relate to the underage sale of alcohol or tobacco. Surveillance as part of any other investigations, e.g. child welfare/protection, can only be authorised by a court).

What constitutes 'repeat viewing' is not set out and will depend on the facts of each case.

See also the Covert Surveillance and Property Interference Code of Practice.

3. Use of Social Media by Staff in a Personal Capacity

Social media can be a useful learning and networking tool. However, caution must be exercised. It is important to act in a way that does not compromise either the confidentiality of service-users or the safety and security of the staff and their families.

Social media can blur the boundaries between the personal and the professional, which staff should be wary of when communicating with service users.

Professionals should be mindful of the implications for their own right to privacy and private life. Staff need to be vigilant to keep their own identity safe and that of friends and families. They need to consider the implications and risks of putting personal information on social media sites such as work, contact details and photographs of work colleagues and family members, and should not do so if they think their privacy and safety will be compromised. They may want to ask family and friends to bear this in mind when posting information, as for example inappropriate pictures could open them up to criticism or pictures of their family online could create difficulties.

It should not be assumed that privacy settings will prevent information reaching a wider audience than that intended.

Inappropriate social media postings from personal accounts have led to Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) proceedings against professionals.

Health and Care Professions Council Guidance on Social Media sets out these Top Tips for professionals using social media in a personal capacity, to avoid breaching their professional responsibilities:

• Think before you post. Assume that what you post could be shared and read by anyone;
• Think about who can see what you share and manage your privacy settings accordingly. Remember that privacy settings cannot guarantee that something you post will not be publicly visible;
• Maintain appropriate professional boundaries if you communicate with colleagues, service users or carers. It is not appropriate to 'accept' service users and their carers as online 'friends' in a personal network, as it creates a personal relationship outside of the workplace;
• Do not post information which could identify a service user unless you have their permission;
• Do not post inappropriate or offensive material. Use your professional judgement in deciding whether to post or share something;
• If you are employed, follow your employer's social media policy;
• When in doubt, get advice;
• IF YOU THINK SOMETHING COULD BE INAPPROPRIATE OR OFFENSIVE, DO NOT POST IT.

4. Use of Social Media by Staff in a Professional Capacity

4.1 Information-gathering during Assessments

Searches of the social media activity of service-users and their associates can offer a useful means of information-gathering as part of the Assessment process.

For example, it can be used to check some aspects of a service user's and/or their family's/associate's account of current or recent events which might affect the safety of a child or children, such as:

• Possible presence within the family environment of a Person Posing a Risk to Children;
• Presence of known risky behaviour, such as drug and alcohol abuse;
• Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that information given by a family as part of the assessment is misleading or untrue e.g. the claimed separation of a couple where domestic abuse is known to be a significant risk factor.

This approach has been advocated recently in court cases and a serious case review.

In the 2017 Serious Case Review in relation to Child G, the following learning was identified (para 1.3):

'When conducting assessments and reassessments of vulnerable families, practitioners may find that including internet and social media checks would enhance and triangulate information given by parents'.

The rationale stated to underpin this learning is that:

'Checks on the internet and social media can provide publicly available information about lifestyle and relationships to inform assessments'.

The review report also noted that:

'…Such checks, including on social media, in other cases could, for example, contradict denials of contact with dangerous ex-partners'.

The Review included a Recommendation that the safeguarding boards involved:

'Consider how best to enable practitioners to access and use relevant internet and public facing social media content to enhance their assessments. This should include policy and practice guidance'.

Cafcass Social Media Policy counsels that ‘practitioners should be aware of the complexities around authenticating online information. Screenshots and printouts can be manipulated by editing the information, and practitioners should also question the trail of how and where the information was found’.

4.2 Service of Court Documents

The Honourable Mr Justice Holman, in the case of Re: T (A Child) [2017] EWFC 19 said he wanted the judgment to highlight that social media may be a useful tool for tracing parents who are being served with notice of adoption.

'So I do wish to highlight by this short judgment that, in the modern era, Facebook may well be a route to somebody such as a birth parent whose whereabouts are unknown and who requires to be served with notice of adoption proceedings. I do not for one moment suggest that Facebook should be the first method used, but it does seem to be a useful tool in the armoury which can certainly be resorted to long before a conclusion is reached that it is impossible to locate the whereabouts of a birth parent. Of course, not everyone is on Facebook but, in this particular case, a relatively socially disadvantaged young mother …. has been found very rapidly by that means'. (paragraph 21)

Courts and local authorities may have local protocols regarding the use of social media for service of court documentation. Legal advice must be sought as appropriate.

Cafcass Social Media Policy states that ‘Cafcass will only make contact with parties or other relevant individuals by social media when this is court ordered’.

N.B. whilst the above case law highlights the use of Facebook, the principle should be applied to all forms of social media.

Further Information

Health and Care Professions Council Guidance on Social Media

Doctors' Use of Social Media (General Medical Council)

Serious Case Review: Child G

Cafcass Social Media Policy

Re: T (A Child) [2017] EWFC 19

Covert Surveillance and Property Interference Code of Practice