As we move into budget planning for 2019/20 many head teachers, governing bodies and business managers are struggling to balance the growing costs of seemingly increasing needs in the context of diminishing budgets. We look at the picture through a safeguarding lens, recognising the priority that needs to be placed on the most vulnerable children (while there is still a school to run!)

5 minute read

Heads, SBMs, DSLs and Safeguarding Teams

In a recent blog about the themes for the next Joint Targeted Area Inspections (JTAIs), Yvette Stanley (Ofsted’s National Director for Social Care), states: “Our mantra is that no agency can deliver an effective child protection response by itself.”  Child protection is a multi-agency responsibility and  no one agency should shoulder the entire burden of keeping children safe from harm. However, there seems to be a growing recognition from Ofsted that schools, colleges and early years settings are being expected to shoulder more of the burden of shrinking local authority services through this period of austerity.

The impact of reduced funding was acknowledged in the Ofsted 2018/19 FE annual report, where Sean Harford, Ofsted’s national director of education commented he thought the evidence was clear. The pressure on schools is increasing as local authorities are heading into a £3.9bn shortfall in 2019/20, £536m of which is around SEND. There have already been cuts of 60% to early help services such as SureStart and youth services, and there are projections for further significant cuts in the coming financial year.

Local authorities

The Children Act 1989 places duties on local authorities to care for (section 31) and protect children (section 47), but just a power where they require services to meet their needs (section 17). Alongside a 24% increase in the numbers of children with SEND, demand for child protection enquiries has risen and the number of children in care is also at a high. As a result, local authority spending on its duties of acute services is increasing – half of the children’s services budget is spent on the 73,000 children in care. Spending then focuses on child protection cases leaving little for so-called 'low-level child protection' (where local authorities do have a duty) or prevention.

The Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, with the Institute of Fiscal Studies acknowledges the increasing financial pressures, while holding firm to her values:

The economic and social costs are unsustainable. The cost to the state will ultimately be greater, but it is the lifetime cost to these children which we should be most troubled by. They only have one childhood, one chance to grow up. Already we see the costs of helping children later in life, or of allowing greater numbers to become marginalised – in the current pressures on family courts, special schools and the care system; in spiralling numbers of school exclusions and the consequent increase in younger and younger children linked to violent street gangs.

It’s widely acknowledged there needs to be a re-calibration towards preventative services, but these are the very services that are having to be cut.

Ofsted’s positioning

Amanda Spielman, when launching Ofsted’s annual report for 2017/18, recognised the increasing burden on schools, identifying that funding cuts in early help and preventative services have meant schools are now expected to “tackle an ever-growing list of societal issues”.  In the same speech she identified the inherent danger in expecting schools to become “a panacea for all society’s ills”, whilst recognising that good quality education is a bedrock of social justice and central to their local communities [emphasis added]:

Our education institutions don’t exist in isolation from the local areas they serve. They are and should be a central part of our communities. But being part of a community means being very clear what your responsibilities are and about what issues, however important, should only be tackled beyond the school, college or nursery gates. Through our inspections and research, we are seeing increasing evidence of a blurring of the lines of responsibility. Yes, schools have a responsibility in terms of identifying risk and making appropriate referrals, but to go beyond that can distract them from their core purpose. And at the same time, it puts too strong an expectation on non-specialists to tackle issues that should properly be dealt with by those with the knowledge and expertise to do so.

Systemic solutions to systemic problems

The message to schools around safeguarding is to be transparent in approach while ardent in your values. As more parents formally challenge local authorities over their SEND responsibilities, schools need a similar clarity and evidence base to their referrals to children’s social care, following their local safeguarding partnership procedures and holding agencies to account to protect children from significant harm.

We face a Hobson’s choice, but holding to transparency and values:

1. Set out clearly the financial position and evidence the impact of the changes, planning your school provision accordingly.
2. Be clear about and ensure you meet your safeguarding responsibilities – ensure your staff recognise abuse and neglect and act appropriately for their role. There should be secure recording of all steps and decisions taken.
3. Act early where there are signs of difficulty for children and for families that can be appropriately supported by your setting without the need to refer on.
4. Where you are concerned there may be abuse or neglect, follow your safeguarding policy and hold other agencies to account through the referral process. Be clear about the reason for your referral and your expectations of the local authority, linking to your local threshold tool.
5. If necessary, follow the safeguarding partnership escalation process in your area, advocating for your children and families. Record and track this as a school.
6. Mitigate the impact on children and young people by providing what you can. While we may recognise we are carrying someone else’s burden there is only one place for it to go if we don’t.
7. Capture the evidence of the shortfall in services systematically, work strategically across designated safeguarding lead forums to produce the local picture, and provide this evidence through your representatives to your local safeguarding partnership

There is no magic bullet with which to fight increasing demands, but an honesty and professionalism in the face of an increasingly fraught system will give you a sound rationale for the regulator. More importantly it will also ensure you have taken whatever action you can to keep children safe, while helping all children reach for their goals.