Download the PDF of this article
The death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié in 2000 changed the way social services were run in the UK. Her guardians, one of whom was her great-aunt, claimed she was possessed by evil spirits and inflicted multiple injuries on her over seven months. She eventually died of malnutrition and hypothermia.
A public inquiry concluded that the ‘suffering and death of Victoria was a gross failure of the system’. The system was then legislated under the Children Act 1989, and while the act centred on promoting children’s welfare, it lacked emphasis on the need for co-ordinated partnerships and clarity for individuals within organisations to fulfil their responsibilities.
Following this inquiry, the Children Act 2004 under section 11 placed a ‘duty on key persons and bodies to make arrangements to ensure that in discharging their functions, they have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children’. The role that we now refer to as the ‘designated safeguarding lead’ began to emerge and develop. Now, 15 years later, we have had time to consider the key features of the role and the expectations within the context of legal frameworks and Government guidance.
WHAT ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A DSL?
The underpinning principles of the role are the importance of safeguarding, actively taking responsibility and being held accountable for actions that seek to protect children. Those who know and understand the role are aware that when decisions are made about a child, their professional judgements may not tally with those of other agencies. From my own experience, this remains the most challenging and frustrating part of the job.
The Early Years Foundation Stage makes it clear that a ‘practitioner’ should take the lead responsibility for safeguarding and that this includes childminders. They should liaise between the setting and local statutory services and with the LSCB or similar, and provide ‘support, advice and guidance’ to other staff on an ongoing basis. Interesting that the Keeping children safe in education: Statutory guidance for schools and collegesgoes further to state seniority for the DSL and their responsibilities should be ‘explicit’.
What information does a DSL need?
Training
Without doubt, the most important tool a designated lead can use is a sound knowledge and understanding of child protection. Attending child protection training which helps them to identify the signs of abuse and neglect and respond appropriately is a clear requirement of the EYFS.
With a varied and wide extent of training available in the sector, it is important that leads are discerning and aware of how they equip themselves to achieve this requirement. If they use external support, how do they choose training providers and resources that help them in a credible and effective way?
Thresholds aren’t everything
It would be understandable for us to consider that those children deemed in need or on a protection plan are our most vulnerable. However, a recent Action for Children publication reporting on the extent of referral and re-referred children to social care might challenge our thinking on this.
The report, Revolving Door Part 2: Are we failing children at risk of abuse and neglect?, stated that ‘analysis of serious case reviews where children had some contact with children’s service social care found that 45 per cent involved children who were below the threshold for statutory services’. Those children in early years settings who are not supported by a social worker and possibly not known to social care are very much reliant on us as their main source of support. We may be the only means by which a child is able to access statutory interventions.
Seeing the bigger picture
A lack of information-sharing remains a common feature of many serious case reviews. As difficult as it may be, the designated lead needs to be aware of what is happening in the wider context of family life for children in their settings. Without this knowledge, how can they understand all the risks and make professional judgments that protect children?
Let us consider what we know about the current climate in children’s social care. We see a lack of resources, an inconsistent workforce and less early intervention investment resulting in later interventions. All of these components lead to difficulties when trying to engage with social care in order for them to respond to our concerns. There are two principles I believe that we need to bear in mind, which can make our voices heard and our engagement more meaningful.
1. We must think about how we use the language of referral
Are we making sure that the information we give is factual and evidence-based? Are our comments underweighted or ambiguous? Are we leading others with whom we work in the multi-agency context, including social care, to draw the right conclusions from what we are telling them? Is there a sense of urgency in our language that rationalises emotions that we also may feel as part of the process? The less descriptive and more analytical we are in our report writing, referrals and recording, the better.
2. Do we have a sound working knowledge of our local authority thresholds?
Thresholds are a tool to identify children’s level of need and to determine appropriate interventions. If we are to challenge social care’s response for ‘no further action’, we need to use the thresholds to underpin our judgements. When I speak with early years leaders it’s clear they are not always aware of their local authorities’ ‘escalation policy’. This procedure can be used if a practitioner believes their concerns are not being taken seriously or appropriately responded to by social care. It would be helpful to find out what your LSCB (or local multi-agency safeguarding partnership) has in place for you to apply escalation.
The Graded Care Profile is useful when working with under-fives and can be used to aid referral for children who are experiencing neglect. A number of local authorities provide training for settings to understand how to use this tool that measures the quality of care a child receives. This tool can aid referral and help identify the extent to which a child’s basic needs are being met or not.
Case study: Great Lever Nursery, Bolton
Great Lever Nursery, Bolton is situated in one of the most deprived wards in the North-West. Based within a Children’s Centre, the nursery supports local families and children, of which almost half access two-year-old funding and a further 15 per cent are identified as requiring early help or statutory services.
Themes such as domestic violence, substance misuse and neglect are common. Manager Kate Reid recognises that there is a higher number of children at risk of significant harm. As designated safeguarding lead in the nursery for over ten years, she believes that a number of things enable her team to work effectively with children in need of protection.
‘Having a wider understanding of different agencies and the support they can offer within the borough has proved invaluable in helping me to identify what support can be put in place when social care concludes the concerns do not meet threshold,’ she says.
She believes that being co-located in a Children’s Centre also helps to build relationships with other agencies and aids information-sharing. She says building positive relationships with families is key to supporting children’s welfare, while her role as DSL is supported by strong interactions between her and a child’s key person, particularly for those experiencing neglect. ‘Keeping all children at the centre of our work enables us to get the most positive results,’ she says.
- See the rest of this series on safeguarding here