• KCSiE
  • Resources
  • E-learning
  • About us
Log in

Safeguarding Network - confidence in safeguarding

Your safeguarding resource

Log in
  • KCSiE
  • Resources
  • E-learning
  • About
You are here: Home / Archives for updates

20200330 Fortnightly Briefing

28th March 2020 by andy

Filed Under: Fortnightly Update Tagged With: coronavirus, covid, covid-19, government, kcsie, keeping children safe, policy, statutory, updates

20191101 November DSL Actions

8th November 2019 by andy

Filed Under: DSL Monthly Actions Newsletter Tagged With: court, legal order, peer on peer, updates

Childhood obesity – a safeguarding issue?

18th September 2019 by andy

This is part of our safeguarding insights section.  Our aim is to provide you with a broader understanding of a specific topic through a researched and referenced article that contributes towards your professional development and ensures that you can support your staff accordingly.

15 minute read DSLs and Safeguarding Teams

Why do I need to know about childhood obesity? (in 60 seconds)

Obesity in children is on the increase with 20% of children starting primary school either overweight or obese and a third of children leaving primary school either overweight or obese. Whilst in a lot of cases there is a need for health professionals to take the lead, there are occasions when childhood obesity can become a safeguarding matter. This however leads to the question as to what are the indicators that would make it a safeguarding issue?

Obesity is an emotive issue and can lead to division amongst staff as to whether schools and the state have a role to play when a child is overweight or obese. As an area that has little research available, a natural position to take may be to say it is not an issue. This insight looks at a Serious Case Review where the child died because of medical issues related to their obesity, and a model that we can use to determine whether there is a need for safeguarding intervention.

Introduction

The implications of childhood obesity have been recognised for a number of years, with this leading to the government developing a plan for action.  Some of the actions within the plan will be familiar to all of us, for example the introduction of a sugar tax (or Soft Drinks Industry Levy) in April 2018, a general push to reduce the amount of sugar in foods and active advertising of the Change4life campaign.  For many public sector settings there has also been a push to make healthier options available, with schools being either mandated or expected to comply with certain standards.

The reason for this is clearly shown through statistics.  A House of Commons Library report (August 2019) identifies that:

  • 9.5% of reception age children (age 4-5) are obese, whilst a further 12.8% are overweight
  • 20.1% of 10-11 year olds (Year 6) are obese and a further 14.2% are overweight.

This translates to potentially two children in every reception class being obese with a further 3 being overweight, and 6 children in every Year 6 class being obese and a further 4 being overweight.  The government illustrate that this then translates into adulthood with “58% of women of childbearing age (16-44 years) being either overweight or obese in 2014” (Childhood obesity: applying All Our Health, 2019).  Therefore, whilst the statistics relate to primary school children, it is clear that this is an issue that affects children of all ages.

The House of Commons Library report (2019) identifies a clear link between deprivation and obesity, stating:

Children living in deprived areas are substantially more likely to be obese. Among reception (age 4-5) children, 6.4% of those in the least deprived areas are obese compared with 12.4% of those in the most deprived areas. In Year 6 (age 10-11), 13.3% of children in the least deprived areas are obese, compared with 26.7% in the most deprived areas. So in both age groups, children in the most deprived areas are approximately twice as likely to be obese. Rates of severely obese children are around three times higher in the most deprived areas.

Whilst there are those who suggest that one of the main instruments for measuring obesity, Body Mass Index, is flawed and not culturally reflective, there is still a significant issue that needs to be addressed (NHS, 2012).

The impact of obesity is widely known as well, with many of the issues being summarised in a Public Health England infographic.

Public Health England infographic setting out the impact of obesity on children and young people

Does a line need to be drawn, and if so where?

But does childhood obesity mean that there are safeguarding concerns?  As the infographic demonstrates, there are significant impacts on children and young people from being obese with long term consequences for physical and mental health as well as potential impacts on adult life (e.g. reduction in earning ability).

Obesity is not mentioned as a safeguarding issue in Keeping Children Safe in Education (2019), and the only explicit mention of food in any of the categories of abuse is in the definition of neglect where failure to provide adequate food is listed as an indicator (Working Together 2018, page 104).  A quick look at the first ten current threshold documents for safeguarding Boards that I could find on the internet revealed that only three mentioned obesity as a child protection matter and in all those that did this was quantified by the word “severe”.

This leads to the question as to whether staff in your setting even consider obesity a potential safeguarding issue, and if they did would they feel comfortable raising it?  On a personal level, would you know what constitutes severe obesity?

The associated quandaries even within the medical profession were highlighted by Viner et al. (2010).  They highlighted that a motion was put to the British Medical Association in 2007 suggesting the obesity in under 12’s should result in legal protection for the child (the motion was rejected).  They then highlight opposing evidence from UK research in 2010 which identified that four out of five obese children in the study had rare genetic condition that was linked to overeating.  Are parents to be seen as agents of change or as the cause of the child’s obesity?

Child F1

Child F1 was the second of four children.  Their mother had arrived in the UK as a refugee from Eastern Europe prior to F1’s birth.  The family became known to Housing Services in 2009 through being victims of domestic abuse and by 2010 the child’s father lived separately.  At three years old, F1 was considered to be morbidly obese (on the 99.6th centile).  Child F1 died from a heart condition aged 13 which medical reports stated was exacerbated by their morbid obesity.  An article in the Independent (Matthews-King, 25th May 2018) sets morbid obesity as being a condition that significantly increase health risks including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, strokes and cancer.

Manchester Safeguarding Children Board (MSCB) commissioned a Serious Case Review (SCR) which was published in 2018.  The SCR overview report identifies that there were numerous missed opportunities during the 10 years between F1 being identified as being morbidly obese and their death.  The report states:

At the heart of this SCR is evidence of professional uncertainty and hesitancy about addressing childhood obesity and considering it as a possible indicator of abuse and neglect. There were indications here of professional paralysis in the face of a serious issue which had the capacity to impact negatively on many aspects of a child’s development. […] The review highlights that childhood obesity impacts negatively in the short and long term and is a concern which requires serious thought, assessment, analysis and action and professionals need to be equipped to provide an appropriate response. (p.5)

The report identifies that although professionals including education and health, were aware that child F1 was morbidly obese, there was “never a clear plan of action”, with the issue “consistently treated as primarily a health concern” (para. 3.8, page 17).  The implication of this in F1’s case was that professionals were not clear with F1’s mother about what was expected.  The report also notes that:

There was evidence that this situation was a safeguarding concern which indicated a primary cause of neglect for the obesity. There was evidence of some professional anxiety more broadly about whether a safeguarding referral regarding childhood obesity would be taken seriously and accepted. The experience of the professionals was that it would not be. (p.18)

In the case of F1, the review found that the lack of professional knowledge, coupled with professional sensitivities to raising concerns with parents about their child’s weight, were compounded by F1’s mother being challenging towards professionals.  This had the implication that any work undertaken with the mother was focused on keeping the mother on side as opposed to addressing problems direct.  The report also indicates that cultural stereotyping may have been a feature, with some professionals seeing the obesity as potentially linked to the mother’s cultural norms.

A case of neglect?

As Viner et al. (2010) identify, obesity can be as the result of abuse and can be difficult to treat.  Their argument is that it is not necessarily the obesity that is the child protection issue, but how the parent is acting in relation to the obesity that is the determining factor.  If the parent is not acting to make changes to the child’s lifestyle to promote healthier options, then this can come within the definition of neglect.

Working Together (2018) defines neglect as:

The persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child’s health or development. (p.104)

Taking the example of F1, the review found evidence that the mother was persistently failing to meet F1’s basic needs and that this seriously impaired his health ultimately leading to his death.  This included:

  • Between the ages of 3 and 13, F1’s mother repeatedly missed appointments for F1 with medical professionals.
  • Mother was diagnosed with a heart condition and advised to lose weight. She reportedly lost a considerable amount, demonstrating an understanding of the dietary and lifestyle changes required to get to a healthier weight.
  • When challenged about poor school attendance, F1’s mother did not accept that any of the health issues that the were reporting were linked to F1’s weight and stated she provided a healthy diet for the children, with the problem being that F1 would overeat – this was in contradiction to what the school had seen on a daily basis (F1 was seen to be concerned about his weight).
  • When F1 attended a Change4life group at his secondary school it became clear that F1 was having over 2000 calories before lunch, with this including a takeaway as a second breakfast. F1 told staff that they did not want their mother to know that they were attending the group as they did not think that their mother would want them to.
  • When F1 was in hospital immediately prior to his death, his mother was continuing to refuse to accept dietary advice and bringing in take away food for F1 to eat.

With hindsight this can present as a very clear picture, however what happens when we are involved on a day to day basis?

Viner Framework

The 2010 article by Viner et al. is seen as setting out a framework in which professionals can operate, although as with any framework there is a proviso that it should not be over relied on as this could lead to an overly simply assessment (Nelson et al., 2018).

Visual representation of the Viner Framework

Adapted from Viner et al. (2010)

  • Childhood obesity alone is not a child protection concern – Obesity has many causes and its complexity means that attributing the cause to neglect by parents is not possible. However, we should consider that abuse and / or neglect may be a contributing factor.
  • Failure to reduce overweight alone is not a child protection concern – Medicine is not at a stage where every child will lose weight following management programmes. If there is engagement from all sides, then criticism is unrealistic.
  • Consistent failure to change lifestyle and engage with outside support indicates neglect, particularly in younger children – as with any medical condition, if the parents actively fail to engage with the process despite significant support, or are actively subverting the process then there should be consideration of whether the criteria for neglect is met.
  • Obesity may be part of wider concerns about neglect or emotional abuse – it is important that we look at the situation in the whole and ask, “what else am I seeing here?” Are there other concerns of which obesity is just one part?
  • Assessment should include systemic (family and environmental) factors – What is the capacity of the parent to understand and respond to the child’s needs. What do we know about the context the child is in?

Research with practitioners by Nelson et al. (2018) showed that the framework provides a starting point and does not necessarily answer questions about what level of obesity should be present to trigger concerns initially.

A psychosocial approach

As identified by the review in relation to F1, traditional obesity management has focused on dietary advice and exercise, however there is now a body of evidence that suggests that many other factors can influence childhood obesity.  The research by Nelson et al. (ibid.) echoes this, with the following being areas that practitioners themselves identified:

Number of speech bubbles looking at various other potential social causes of obesity

It is therefore important that we consider what external influences there are and how these may be impacting on the child and the parent’s physical and mental health and their ability to function daily.  Through consideration of this information, as well as the approach of the parent towards the child’s obesity, it is then possible to determine where the response should lie, be that through early help, a referral to Children’s Social Care on a child in need basis or as a child protection matter.

A psychosocial approach also allows us to consider cultural issues and whether there are cultural aspects which are influencing a family’s attitudes towards food and body size.  However, as with all cultural issues, their presence should not mean that we turn away from the needs of the child.

Summary

Whether obesity is a safeguarding issue or not is very contentious, however as we have seen there are times when it can be a safeguarding matter that needs appropriate referrals to be made.  In this insight we have provided the outlines of a framework and evidenced the need to consider the child as a whole.  Using this approach, we believe that the identification of whether obesity is an issue that needs following up becomes more manageable as it is translated into processes that we know and understand.  This is not to say that these are the only approaches, however it is important that regardless of the approach we take, obesity and any resultant issues are identified appropriately.  Obesity is not just a matter for health colleagues to follow-up and as with all concerns in relation to children, there is a need for all professionals to look at what they know and challenge where necessary.

What to do…

The following questions will help your school to determine when there is cause for concern, and what to do. Early intervention is important and will help build a picture over time if your concerns continue to grow.

  1. Is there a concern for a child’s weight? What do you know at present? How is it impacting on the child (movement, diet, social relationships, identity, self-esteem, self-care skills, financial)
  2. Have you talked to the child and the family? Do they share the concern? What do they see as the background – is there a wider family issue, or particular factors that contribute to over-eating such as attachment issues, family boundaries, or as a response to grief? What are the family doing to resolve the issue and would they like help? Who else is involved? Can you obtain consent to bring professionals together to work on the problem? Ensure there is a health assessment to identify any potential underlying health issues and record the actions taken and any concerns in an effective chronology and consider the need for a shared assessment in line with your local safeguarding children partnership approach.
  3. What is contributing to the problem? Consider the psychosocial questions above. Is this a problem in the wider community and part of the solution is a whole school approach? How might issues of income or social isolation impact on your plan?
  4. What additional advice and support is required? Have a clear plan to intervene with targets around weight and behaviour agreed with the child, family, health professionals and school. What would success look like? At what point would your concerns rise further?
  5. Drift is a particular danger in all cases of neglect. Have a clear and realistic timescale from the outset and regular monitoring meetings to evidence progress or otherwise. If the problem continues to grow, review the actions you have in place to try to make things more effective. If the child’s obesity is persistently not addressed, your actions are unsuccessful and the parents’ actions not reasonable so that it is likely to cause the child severe and persistent harm, then this is neglect and will require a referral to children’s social care. Your chronology and a multi-agency assessment of the likely harm and effectiveness of work undertaken to date will be crucial.

Members can contact Safeguarding Network for free initial advice around these issues.

Final thought

With one of the key pieces for this insight being the serious case review related to F1, it is important to note that there were two other key issues that the review identified as being present.

  • The voice of the child not being heard and understood – we saw earlier that there was an occasion when F1 said that he did not want his mother to know that he was on the Change4life programme as he did not think that she would approve. Throughout the time that professionals were involved with the family there is little information about what life was like for F1 and little support for his help seeking behaviour – i.e. his voice was not heard.
  • Agencies working in silos – Throughout the review there was evidence of a number of different agencies working with the family, but little information being shared, or concerns being escalated to others. The review found that had this been done at key points there may have been a different outcome.

There is of course a danger that we become hardened to these last two findings, as they seem to be a feature in every case review that is completed.  It is however a fact that they are a feature which demonstrates the need to continue to focus on these areas.  In relation to working with children where obesity is a concern, the importance of hearing the voice of the child and partnership working is crucial to ensure that concerns are identified and addressed early.

Filed Under: Safeguarding insights Tagged With: contextual, information sharing, listening to children, obesity, updates

20190601 June DSL Actions

3rd June 2019 by andy

Filed Under: DSL Monthly Actions Newsletter Tagged With: adolescents, camhs, mental health, Ofsted, training, updates

Croydon’s Vulnerable Adolescents Review

10th May 2019 by andy

15 minute read DSLs and Safeguarding Teams

In the summer of 2017, three teenage boys in Croydon died in the space of four weeks.  A 16 year old looked-after child died as a result of his injuries when the moped he was riding with two others crashed, a 15 year old on a child protection plan died from multiple stab wounds in a gang related incident and a 17 year old died after ingesting a highly toxic drug.  All 3 children had been known to Children’s Social Care by the age of 2.  It was agreed that a thematic review would be undertaken into a group of vulnerable adolescents who either have had poor outcomes or were of considerable concern.  The review identified 60 children in all and aimed to establish whether there were any patterns in the children’s experiences that could inform practice going forward.

Below is our summary of the findings of the review and the key themes.  It is important to note that whilst the cohort of children considered in this review were all vulnerable adolescents, the findings are applicable to all organisations working with children and young people, regardless of age.

The full review and executive summary as produced by Croydon LSCB can be found here.

Acknowledged limitations

Before continuing it is important to note that the cohort was created through subjective identification by either Children’s Social Care, the Youth Offending Team, the Police or the MASE (multi-agency sexual exploitation) panel.  No other agencies contributed.  There was also no control group that the outcomes of those selected were measured against, with generic outcomes for Croydon children being used as the benchmark.  This means that whilst useful for information and learning there are limitations to how far the data can be used.

Findings

All the children were known to Children’s Social Care.

Over a quarter were known by age 1, half by age 5 and nearly three quarters were known by age 11.

Graph from report showing the ages at which children were first known to Children's Social Care

The review found that whilst the children were often known early on, the focus of involvement was often on the immediate issue and did not appreciate the child’s history or the impact of underlying trauma or adverse childhood experiences.

Poor school experiences.

Whilst schools attempted to address aggressive and disruptive behaviour,  the review reports that 19 of the cohort received fixed term exclusions in primary school (with the majority of these being for physical assault).  Of these 17 went on to receive fixed term exclusions from secondary school.  All 19 who were excluded from primary school went on to receive a criminal conviction, with 14 being placed in either a secure unit or young offenders institute at some point in their childhood.

For many of the children there were poor transitions to secondary school – the review identifies that for children who are struggling in primary school the challenges faced when moving to a secondary school become even more difficult to overcome.  Just over half the cohort received fixed term exclusions whilst in secondary school or were subject to managed moves or placement in pupil referral units.

The findings of the review are in line with research in identifying that children with additional needs, children who live in poverty along and boys in general are more likely to be excluded then their peers.  Where children spoke to reviewers about the impact of exclusions and moves the review notes:

It was as if their dreams of a better future were lost, and a door seemed to be closed to any chance of exiting the gang lifestyle and criminal behaviour. (p.42)

The review also noted that for the children whose attendance data was available (25 out of the 60 in the cohort), almost three quarters (72%) were classified as being persistent absentees.

Parental issues had a significant impact on the availability of a nurturing home environment.

The graph below demonstrates the numerous issues that impacted on the availability of the parents to the children in the cohort:

Graph from report showing the spread of parental issues present amongst the cohort

The review found that “children in the cohort who were spoken to appeared resigned to their situation, the issues of domestic abuse, bereavement and related trauma were never addressed and as indicated in research, the impact of these traumas became entrenched.”

Poverty also appeared to have had an impact. A disproportionately high number of children in the cohort were in receipt of free school meals, whilst housing information showed that over 80% of families were known to Housing Services, and at least 28% of families were known to have been provided with temporary accommodation at some point in the child’s life.  Of the cohort, 7 families had been evicted from a council property.

The multi-agency response was variable.

Whilst a number of referrals were made, children in the cohort were often found not to meet thresholds, with the perception that things needed to deteriorate further before they could access services (the review notes early intervention was rarely provided).  When they were provided with services, the response was reactive, responding to the current crisis as opposed to looking at the whole picture.  The review found that these responses were ineffective because they were crisis management led.

The report also suggests that services struggled to determine whether to treat the children as victims or perpetrators.  This is demonstrated by this table from the report:

Table from the report illustrating how the issued faced by vulnerable adolescents can be separated into being victims and being perpetrators

Data relating to child protection plans also demonstrates the changing influences – the report found that child protection plans made when children were younger primarily related to safeguarding concerns at home.  As they got older the reason for the plans shifted to be linked to risk taking behaviour outside the home.

Three quarters of the children in the cohort became looked after by the local authority at some point in their childhood, but only 6 of the 45 had one placement, suggesting that the remaining 39 experienced multiple placement moves.

A significant majority of the children had missing episodes.

Over three quarters of the children in the cohort were reported missing at some point in their lives.  Of note is that this included all of the girls in the cohort (of which there were 23).  The youngest was aged 7 when they went missing, and those who went missing did so on average 16 times.  Missing episodes were shown to impact on agencies abilities to work effectively, whilst the children involved appeared to be “beyond parental control and more and more influenced by their peers.”

Reviewers found that, in line with research, for many children in the cohort there were significant periods of time where they would be out of the family home and their whereabouts not known, however they would not be reported as missing.

What does this tell us about vulnerable adolescents?

There are four main themes that come from the findings of the review.

The impact of adverse childhood experiences.

We know that as they grow up young children are absorbing everything that takes place in the world around them, with this shaping their lives going forward.  Adverse experiences, such as things that cause direct harm (e.g. physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect) along with things that affect the child’s environment (e.g. parental issues, domestic abuse), have been shown to have a negative impact on all areas of health and development in children.  The findings of this review support this, but also note that it is likely that as agencies we are only aware of a small proportion of adverse experiences children may go through.

The review also suggests that where some parents did not engage with services, the reasons for this were not routinely explored but it is hypothesised that this may be linked to parents own adverse childhood experiences and their experiences of being involved with statutory agencies as a child.  Parents reported feeling labelled as a ‘bad parent’ and having to constantly fight to be heard.

Children struggling to manage behaviour.

The review found that a significant percentage of the cohort had problems managing their behaviour in school.  For these children, it is suggested that adverse childhood experiences and unresolved trauma have potentially damaged the developing brain and can mean that survivors can be more likely to respond to situations where they feel out of control, without choice or unsafe in ways that may appear to observers to be extreme reactions – this arguably resorting to base instinct around fight or flight.

Of note is that when children and their parents were spoken to as part of the review, it was their perception that the changes in behaviour were linked to the child being bullied and the school not doing anything about this.  The end result was a perception that the child was forced to take matters into their own hands and fight back.

In looking at the responses to the poor behaviour, the review found that many episodes of poor behaviour were met with sanctions without considering wider issues that may be present.

Lack of early intervention.

The findings of this review support the need to provide early intervention.  The report cites a review of literature undertaken by the Early Intervention Foundation which identifies:

strongly predictive risk factors seen in children as young as seven, namely: ‘troublesome’ behaviour, offending, substance use, aggression, running away, truancy, having disrupted family, and having friends who are frequently in trouble. (p.31)

Given the current economic climate and cuts being made to early intervention services across the country, this leaves increasing responsibilities on schools and other organisations to identify ways to manage this behaviour.

The need for a contextual safeguarding approach with vulnerable adolescents.

Where the relationships between children and their parents have been undermined due to parental issues, children are then likely to look for other role models amongst their peers and in their community.  As the review identifies, positive role models are important for all children for them to receive encouragement and support as well as developing a sense of identity and belonging. A lack of suitable role models has the effect of placing children at risk of being drawn into gangs and / or criminal exploitation.

The review found that many of the children reported not feeling safe in their local area, and that joining a gang was seen as the only way they could be safe, have a purpose and be part of a family.  All children reported seeing violence as part of being a gang member and carrying weapons to protect themselves.

What does this mean for our practice?

Whilst the review is centred on a cohort of vulnerable adolescents, the findings cover work with children of all ages.  At Safeguarding Network we do not believe that any of the four findings above should come as a shock to Designated Safeguarding Leads or safeguarding teams.  For us, this review serves to provide clear ‘real world’ evidence of the impact that things that we are already talking about have on the children that we work with.    Recognising these issues, such as adverse childhood experiences, or understanding the importance of looking beyond the behaviour, is not however just something that lies with safeguarding teams, and it is important that this is fed into the regular update sessions that you provide your staff.

What Can we do…

Sound safeguarding and early help practice is key

  1. Notice the problem – ensure your staff are trained to recognise abuse, neglect and vulnerability and can overcome the barriers to raising a concern.
  2. Provide early help when there is a need. Consider what the school can provide and link to services available locally.
  3. Refer young people at risk or where the early help is having no impact. Follow the escalation process if the help young people are entitled to is not forthcoming (see our article on shrinking services, increasing needs).

Safeguarding and child protection is everyone’s responsibility, however to understand this responsibility we need to understand where the causes of problems may lie and how these can be addressed – Safeguarding Network can help through providing training materials to update your staff in team meetings as well as a growing resource base of articles that develop knowledge and understanding.  If you are not yet a member, find out more here, or visit our sample page at safeguarding.network/domestic.

Filed Under: Reference Tagged With: camhs, contextual, county lines, exploitation, information sharing, missing, parents, peer on peer, radicalisation, updates, violence

20190429 Fortnightly Briefing

30th April 2019 by andy

Filed Under: Fortnightly Update Tagged With: county lines, CSE, exploitation, government, guidance, statutory, training, updates

20190225 Fortnightly Briefing

1st March 2019 by andy

Filed Under: Fortnightly Update Tagged With: GDPR, listening to children, radicalisation, safer recruitment, updates

Shrinking services, increasing needs

1st January 2019 by john

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.

Filed Under: Safeguarding insights Tagged With: government, Ofsted, statutory, updates

Training grid

8th June 2018 by Safeguarding Network

Filed Under: Toolkit Tagged With: training, updates

Safeguarding Network
ABOUT US

© Safeguarding Network

CONTACT US

Chimmels, Dartington Hall, Totnes, TQ9 6EQ
01803 862336
contact@safeguarding.network
 

Copyright © 2021 · Safeguarding Genesis on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in