Ref 0.1 | The setting can demonstrate that the Equality Act 2010 is embedded in policy, procedures, and practice. |
---|---|
Red | Leadership and governance are unaware of the public sector equality duty |
Amber |
Only the governing body and some senior leaders know about the public sector equality duty. The public sector equality duty is only superficially included in the setting’s values and ethos. |
Green | All staff know about and practice the public sector equality duty All staff understand and apply this duty in their daily work |
Resources | |
Ref 0.2 | The setting has an awareness and application of anti-oppressive practice through development of a whole setting approach to embedding the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. |
Red | The setting has not raised awareness of human rights or the rights of the child either through the curriculum or school values. |
Amber |
The setting has measures in place to review its compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the setting’s community are aware of the rights of children and their families. Some members of the senior leadership team are aware and considers human rights on behalf of the school. For Early Years, this will be evidenced in their policies and enacted through the curriculum. |
Green | The setting has completed an audit tool such as UNICEF’s ‘Right Respecting’ accreditation (or equivalent) which embeds rights in policy, practice, and culture. There is a consensus and understanding by all members of staff around their duties to comply with the Human Rights Act 1989. There is evidence that awareness of human rights is embedded across the setting, including amongst staff, children, and their families. There is evidence that the setting reviews its practice at least on an annual basis where human rights may have been compromised (e.g. effectiveness of exclusions and suspensions, for Early Years, how this reflected in the curriculum). |
Resources |
• Accreditation - Rights Respecting Schools Award (unicef.org.uk) • HUMAN RIGHTS FRIENDLY SCHOOLS • TOOLKIT - Amnesty International • Becoming a human rights friendly school: A Guide for schools around the world |
Ref 0.3 | The setting has identified safe spaces for children who experience additional barriers to accessing support due to protected characteristics. |
Red | The setting has not identified safe spaces for children or staff with protected characteristics. |
Amber |
The setting has developed safe spaces for children who identify as lesbian, gay, bi, or trans (LGBTQ+) to share their concerns with members of staff in line with Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
Green | In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting has taken proactive steps to develop safe spaces for other prominent protected characteristics for children and staff in their community. Senior leadership creates spaces to listen to and promote the voices of marginalised individuals. Members of staff champion equality work and have undertaken additional training to consider developing inclusive spaces. |
Resources |
• Participation-guidance.pdf (bristolsafeguarding.org) |
Ref 1.1 |
Access to the appropriate policies is available through the setting’s website and the prospectus in accordance with government guidance ‘Statutory policies for schools and academy trusts’ For Early Years settings and Childminders - the setting's policies are shared with parents and carers and are available on request. |
---|---|
Red | The setting does not have a schedule of renewal and the most up to date policies are not available to the setting’s community. |
Amber |
The setting has appropriate policies and procedures in place and is accessible to members of the setting’s community. |
Green | The setting has a policy schedule in place. This is managed appropriately by senior leaders and the governing body or equivalent as appropriate. Policies and procedures are accessible to the setting’s community, are up to date and reflect up to date national/local guidance. In all relevant policies there is explicit reference to the safeguarding duty placed upon the setting to promote the safety and wellbeing of children. |
Resources | |
Ref 1.2 |
All staff (including supply staff, volunteers, peripatetic staff, and governors) who work directly with children and young people have read and understood Keeping Children Safe in Education (most recently updated version):
|
Red | Staff are expected to have read this independently and there are no records to indicate whether this has been completed. |
Amber |
Staff are to have read this independently and there are records to indicate that they have signed to say they have read and understood the document. |
Green |
Governing bodies or equivalent and their senior leadership ensure that mechanisms are put in place to assist staff to understand and discharge their roles. This can include:
|
Resources | |
Ref 1.3 | There is effective curation of the settings policy and procedures for; - Safeguarding and child protection - Management of behaviour - Management of attendance including process for children who go missing |
Red | The policy is out of date, has not been reviewed at least on an annual basis nor when there has been an update in guidance and/or legislation. There are limited records on staff and governors reading the policy |
Amber |
There is evidence that all staff (including supply staff, volunteers, peripatetic staff) within the setting revisit systems which support safeguarding at least on an annual basis and has been ratified by the governing body (or equivalent). The policy is up to date with new versions of statutory guidance (Keeping Children Safe in Education, Working Together to Safeguard Children, and for early years providers Early Years Foundation Standards). This includes adherence to statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education (Part 2, Safeguarding policies, and procedures). Opportunities have been provided for staff to contribute, feedback and shape safeguarding arrangements and the child protection policy. The setting’s response to child-on-child harm is set out clearly in this policy in line with Keeping Children Safe in Education (Part 2). |
Green |
There is evidence that the policy is updated at least annually and reflects changes and developments nationally and locally. The document reflects the setting’s own local processes and encompasses all that is set out in the AMBER. The policy is a live document which is accessible and regularly used by staff to reflect the setting's own practices. The setting has referenced easy read/child friendly versions of the following commonly occurring issues:
The safeguarding and child protection policy is adequately cross referenced with other relevant policies and procedures. |
Resources | |
Ref 1.4 | There is effective curation of the staff behaviour policy, sometimes called a code of conduct (which should include low-level concerns, allegations against staff and whistleblowing procedures). |
Red | The policy is out of date, has not been reviewed at least on an annual basis nor when there has been an update in guidance and/or legislation. There are limited records of staff and governors reading the policy. |
Amber |
There is evidence that all staff (including supply staff, volunteers, peripatetic staff) within the setting are aware of systems and processes around expectations around professional practice, how to keep themselves safe and how to raise a concern about another member of staff. The document is reviewed at least on an annual basis. The policy has been updated to reflect the setting’s response to low level concerns in line with the expectations of Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting’s policy is a live document which is implemented into practice and contributes towards a culture of safe working practice. There are mechanisms in place that allow the confidence to share concerns on a day-to-day basis and are effectively used. This includes:
|
Resources |
Ref 1.8 | All staff members have received appropriate safeguarding training, at least annually, plus regular safeguarding updates as required to provide them with the skills and knowledge to safeguard children effectively. |
---|---|
Red | Not all staff receive refresher training at least on an annual basis. |
Amber |
All staff (including supply staff, volunteers, peripatetic staff) receive annual safeguarding training once an academic year which repeats basic awareness content. Training includes how to keep children safe online for a connected world. |
Green | In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The training is up-to-date and addresses important local and national issues. Training and continuous professional development is effectively delivered throughout the academic year (to avoid frontloading) using a variety of different means which supports different learning styles. |
Resources | |
Ref 1.9 | Staff have received basic safeguarding training at induction. |
Red | All staff have not received basic safeguarding awareness training upon induction. |
Amber |
All staff have received training on their induction highlighting basic safeguarding awareness. This has included understanding the difference between safeguarding and child protection, identifying neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and how to keep children safe online for a connected world. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: There are robust records to indicate whether staff have completed training or require it after a practice concern. Basic awareness is only repeated as and when required. The setting can provide and gain access to basic awareness training for staff who may require repeat training. Annual refreshers are differentiated and build on knowledge to allow for colleagues to reflect on current and updated topics. The setting uses the Local Authority's annual refresher training package to ensure that topics are contextualised. |
Resources | |
Ref 1.10 |
The setting has effectively engaged with local training to ensure adherence to local procedures around a variety of safeguarding topics set out by the Local Safeguarding Partnership and statutory guidance. |
Red | The setting does not engage with local training and has limited awareness of procedures set out by the Local Safeguarding Partnership. There is limited knowledge around topical safeguarding issues as set out in Annex B of Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
Amber |
The setting’s Designated Safeguarding Lead has undertaken local training through the Local Safeguarding Partnership (and or through the Local Authority) around a range of specific safeguarding topics outlined in Annex B of Keeping Children Safe in Education. The Designated Safeguarding Lead provides advice and guidance in their setting if required. |
Green |
The setting has developed a sustainable knowledge base and ensured that specialist training is not isolated in one post or position (development of safeguarding champions as subject matter experts). Those who have attended training have the time and capacity to cascade knowledge to the school community, coordinating with safeguarding on the curriculum to contribute towards sustainable knowledge. Knowledge of topical issues are updated at least on a 3-yearly basis through Continuing Professional Development (CPD)/networks, reading and research. |
Resources | |
Ref 1.11 |
All staff have received awareness training in specialist topics which reflect statutory multi-agency guidance (Female Genital Mutilation, Forced Marriage, and Domestic Abuse). |
Red | The setting does not have anyone trained in all of these topics. |
Amber |
The setting has at least one member of staff who has attended additional training and CPD around all three topics. This member of staff has authority and capacity to effect change and to ensure compliance with statutory expectations set out in the documents. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting has developed a sustainable knowledge base (through use of subject matter leads/champions) and all staff have a basic awareness of these topics. Knowledge is updated at least on a 3-yearly basis through CPD/networks, reading and research. Those who have attended training have the time, authority, and capacity to cascade knowledge to the setting’s community, coordinating with safeguarding on the curriculum. |
Resources |
Information and resources |
Ref 1.12 |
All staff have received training on sexual violence, sexual harassment, and harmful sexual behaviour in line with duties and expectations within statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
Red | The setting has not provided additional training for all members of staff to be able to recognise and respond to incidents of child-on-child harm. |
Amber |
All members of staff have had training around sexual violence, sexual harassment, and harmful sexual behaviour and how this relates to the setting’s safeguarding and child protection policy and procedures for responding to child-on-child harm. There is evidence that staff are familiar with the statutory expectations in relation to responding to sexual violence and sexual harassment (Part 5 of Keeping Children Safe in Education). The Designated Safeguarding Lead is aware of the local services and the South West Survivor Pathway. For Early Years providers - staff are aware and have access to the NPSCC resources around PANTS. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting has a member of staff who has undertaken additional local CPD/training to understand local procedures and services in line with expectations from the Child Sexual Abuse pathway. The setting has ensured that those colleagues who have responsibility for safeguarding, special educational needs and disability and managing behaviour have:
Relevant members of staff are able to navigate the Child Sexual Abuse Response Pathway and are able to manage risk in line with Part 5 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
Resources |
Information and resources: |
Ref 1.13 |
All staff have undergone Prevent awareness training with regular annual updates to refresh knowledge. |
Red | The setting has not provided training opportunities for every member of staff to identify children at risk of extremist ideology and radicalisation. |
Amber |
The setting has provided training historically to all members of staff through a whole school programme (Or access to the Home Office E-learning). There is limited evidence that this has been refreshed at least on an annual basis. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting provides at least annual updates on Prevent to reflect local and national considerations. Topics are informed by the setting’s Prevent self-assessment to ensure relevancy and application to setting’s community and cohort of children. This is integrated within the wider development and effectiveness of the setting’s safeguarding culture. The setting attends locality-based meetings to inform intelligence and understanding of its community. |
Resources |
Ref 2a.1 |
There is appropriate governance and oversight of safeguarding in compliance with Keeping Children Safe in Education. For Early Years this includes the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework |
---|---|
Red |
There is no nominated governor (or equivalent) who can carry out the functions of Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. For Early Years this includes the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework |
Amber |
The whole of the governing body (or equivalent) recognises their responsibility towards safeguarding and therefore have undertaken appropriate safeguarding training for them to provide strategic challenge to test and assure themselves that policies and practice are effective. There is a nominated governor (or equivalent) responsible for safeguarding and child protection. The governor (or equivalent) meets regularly with the Designated Safeguarding Lead and minutes are recorded. |
Green | In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The nominated governor (or equivalent) has knowledge, time, and capacity to effectively ensure that the setting is compliant with Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. For Early Years this includes the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. The nominated governor (or equivalent) responsible for safeguarding and child protection regularly keeps up with local and national updates by engaging with Local Safeguarding Governors Network meetings or accesses regular updates virtually. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.2 |
The governing body/proprietors or equivalent have recruited an appropriate senior member of staff from the setting's leadership team to the role of Designated Safeguarding Lead. |
Red | The setting’s Designated Safeguarding Lead is not a member of the senior leadership team and is not line managed by someone with appropriate authority or who has had Designated Safeguarding Lead Training. Safeguarding arrangements have limited strategic oversight with a focus on operational work. The model of safeguarding is based on the historical ‘Child Protection Officer’ role and is limited to only responding to concerns as they arise. |
Amber |
The Designated Safeguarding Lead has appropriate authority to take lead responsibility for safeguarding and child protection and ensuring positive educational outcomes for children who have (who have had, or likely to require) a social worker. If the post holder, is not a member of the senior leadership team, they have support from other members of the senior leadership team who have appropriate status/authority to support safeguarding work. The member the senior leadership team in this instance has been trained to the same level as the Designated Safeguarding Lead. The Designated Safeguarding Lead has capacity to fulfil the role set out in Keeping Children Safe in Education (Annex C), but there may be other commitments (teaching, SEND, behaviour) which can limit their capacity. The Designated Safeguarding Lead works with the IT staff and understand the filtering and monitoring systems and processes in place. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The governing body regularly review the role and resourcing of the Designated Safeguarding Lead in line with changes made in Keeping Children Safe in Education (Annex C). Progressive changes are made to ensure adequate time, funding, training, resources, and support is provided for the Designated Safeguarding Lead to carry out their role effectively. There is evidence that Designated Safeguarding Leads are actively working with the headteacher/principal and other senior leaders to develop mechanisms that promote the safety and welfare of all children and specifically the educational outcomes of children who have, have had, or may require a social worker. The setting holds at least termly strategic safeguarding meetings, includes appropriate staff e.g. attendance, SENCO, Online safety lead, curriculum lead and mental health and wellbeing lead when appropriate and there is evidence of these meetings. |
Resources |
• Keeping Children Safe in Education (annex C) |
Ref 2a.3 | The Designated Safeguarding Lead (or a deputy) is available for the setting’s operating hours during term time (or managed out of hours/holiday activities). |
Red | The setting does not have contingency plans for consistent safeguarding cover by an appropriately trained colleague during the setting’s business hours. |
Amber |
The setting’s Designated Safeguarding Lead and deputies or other members of the setting’s safeguarding team are trained to the same level as the Designated Safeguarding Lead. The setting has a Designated Safeguarding Lead (or a deputy) that is always available during the setting's business hours for staff to discuss any safeguarding concerns (this includes setting-managed out of hours/out of term activities). This can include virtually via phone, Microsoft Teams, or other such platforms. The setting has reviewed contingency planning in respect of the impact of staffing cover. Where a trained Designated Safeguarding Lead (or deputy) is not on-site, in addition to the above, a senior leader should take responsibility for co-ordinating safeguarding on site. There is a process to ensure robust communication of cover arrangements are made to all staff. |
Green |
The setting has resourced and developed a safeguarding team to ensure that appropriate physical cover can be arranged if the Designated Safeguarding Lead is incapacitated or not available. Review of resourcing has accounted for appropriate cover for contingency planning for staffing cover - those other members of the senior leadership team can effectively assume responsibility for safeguarding by being trained to the same level as the Designated Safeguarding Lead. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.4 | The Designated Safeguarding Lead and any deputies have had formal training every two years to provide them with the knowledge and skills required to carry out the role. For Childminders this is every three years. |
Red | The setting’s Designated Safeguard Lead and/or deputies have not had appropriate levels of training to provide them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their role. Training has not been renewed in line with statutory guidance. |
Amber |
Training is at least to level 3 from the Local Safeguarding Partnership (Advanced Child Protection) to enable colleagues to engage with multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. Training is localised to engage with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s process and practices to comply with the Multi-agency working section within Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. Knowledge and skills are refreshed at least annually via e-bulletins, meeting other Designated Safeguarding Leads, or simply taking time to read and digest safeguarding developments. |
Green | In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The Designated Safeguarding Lead (and deputies) have attended enhanced single agency bespoke courses provided by the Safeguarding in Education Team which provides localised context (New Designated Safeguarding Lead, Designated Safeguarding Lead refresher, or any other single agency safeguarding courses). Formal training is refreshed at least every 2 years. Knowledge and skills are refreshed at least annually and with Designated Safeguarding Leads keeping abreast with local and national updates by making representation to all local authority Designated Safeguarding Lead Network meetings (or phase specific professional’s meetings such as the Early Years Networks or Child-minding support). Local updates are cascaded to other senior leaders or those with additional safeguarding responsibilities. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.5 | Governing bodies, the senior leadership team and especially the Designated Safeguarding Leads understand their roles within the local safeguarding arrangements. |
Red | There is limited knowledge of statutory guidance within governing bodies, the senior leadership team and especially the Designated Safeguarding Leads. The setting's leadership have not engaged with the Local Safeguarding Partnership on a strategic basis. |
Amber |
There is a reliance on the Designated Safeguarding Lead exclusively to keep up to date with reading the new versions of statutory guidance (Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together) and cascading knowledge to other members of the senior leadership team and governing body. The setting’s governing body, senior leadership team and Designated Safeguarding Lead have all read statutory guidance and understand their roles and legal responsibility to the local safeguarding arrangements. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting's leadership fully engages with city wide strategic safeguarding as a relevant agency under the Local Safeguarding partnership. The setting's leadership have read and ensure that the setting's localised strategies and priorities are congruent with the Local Safeguarding Partnership's priorities. The setting recognises themselves as a relevant agency and actively engages with the Local Safeguarding Partnership by engaging with local professional networks and keeping up to date with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s Education Reference Group. |
Resources |
|
Ref 2a.6 |
The setting’s contacts are up to date and accurate for multi-agency partners. |
Red | The setting has not shared their safeguarding contacts with the Local Authority Safeguarding in Education Team and statutory partners for effective multi-agency working. |
Amber |
The setting has updated the Local Authority Safeguarding in Education Team’s contacts survey in previous academic years but has not updated the contacts even if there have been changes of staff since completion of the survey. |
Green | The setting has completed the Local authority contacts survey at the beginning of the academic year and have kept the Safeguarding in Education Team up to date with any staff changes of those who have statutory or safeguarding responsibilities. The setting will update the team of any additional changes throughout the academic year. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.7 |
The setting is compliant with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s neglect strategy. |
Red |
The setting has no members of staff trained to use the NSPCC Graded Care Profile 2 Tool. |
Amber |
At least one member of the setting’s safeguarding team has completed the NSPCC Graded Care Profile 2 training and is licenced to use the neglect assessment tool in line with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s Neglect Strategy. |
Green | More than one member of staff from the setting’s safeguarding team has been trained to use the NSPCC Graded Care Profile 2 Tool to ensure continuity and succession. |
Resources | Graded Care Profile 2 Training |
Ref 2a.8 |
The setting has staff who can engage with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s model of practice – Signs of Safety |
Red | There is no one in the setting who has had training on the Signs of Safety methodology. |
Amber |
Members of the setting’s safeguarding team are familiar with using Signs of Safety through experience gained from multi-agency training. |
Green |
The setting’s safeguarding team have engaged in Localised training which has provided the basics in Signs of Safety either through the multi-agency Advanced Child Protection Training, The Safeguarding in Education Team’s New DSL Safeguarding Training, and/or sessions run through Families in Focus. |
Resource | |
Ref 2a.9 | The setting can manage, process, and record information effectively in line with legislation and guidance. |
Red | There is no dedicated member of staff who has oversight over information management in the setting. |
Amber |
There is a member of staff who has been allocated as a setting’s Data Protection officer that has had appropriate levels of training for them to carry out their role effectively. There is evidence that all staff have read and understood the setting's privacy notice and have undertaken UK GDPR/Data Protection training. There is evidence that the Data Protection Officer audits the setting’s information management and works with governance around how this is achieved. This is done at least on an annual basis. Designated Safeguarding Leads and any deputies are aware of and mindful of their duties under statutory Working Together to Safeguard Children, Keeping Children Safe in Education and non-statutory guidance Information sharing advice for safeguarding practitioners. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: There is evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Leads collaborates with the Data protection Officer to audit the storage and handling conditions of recording systems for special category data. Data Protection Impact Assessments are undertaken when accessing new processes of personal data is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. There is a process for systems learning when data management is compromised. Governance and senior leaders analyse data practice on an annual basis to assess compliance with legal duties. |
Resources |
|
Ref 2a.10 | The setting engages with expectations from the Local Safeguarding Partnership to engage with the Police Operation Encompass scheme. |
Red | The setting does not have anyone in the setting who has completed the Key Adults Training through Operation Encompass. |
Amber |
The setting has one colleague who has completed the training and is able to receive and process Safeguarding Notifications through Operation Encompass. This means that they are trained to Designated Safeguarding Lead level and have completed the Operation Encompass Key Adults Training. The setting takes a passive approach to receiving notifications and does not use them to provide early help or further assessment of need for children. For statutory school aged mainstream settings, at least one colleague has access to the Local Authority's Think Family Education App. There are mechanisms in place to check this on a daily basis for live alerts from the children who have been subject to police interventions. |
Green |
The setting has at least 2 members of staff at any one point to be able to receive and process Operation Encompass Safeguarding Notifications. This means that they are trained to Designated Safeguarding Lead level and have completed the Operation Encompass Key Adults Training. The setting has put up posters in physical and is available on the settling's website highlighting they are an Operation Encompass setting. There is evidence that action is taken on the day that the notification is received, and appropriate safety/support plans are created/reviewed for each child for whom the setting received a notification about. For statutory school aged mainstream settings, more than one staff member has access to the Local Authority's Think Family Education App. There are mechanisms in place to check this on a in the morning before the school day to ensure children subject to police interventions have appropriate levels of support. |
Resources |
Ref 2a.11 | The setting has established working relationships with other local agencies/settings which they utilise to promote the safety and welfare of children inside and outside of the education setting’s context. |
---|---|
Red | The setting has limited awareness of local services and partnerships provided by other agencies which can support and promote the safety and welfare of children. |
Amber |
The setting is aware of but does not utilise localised partnership working unless responding to an identified need for children. The setting works together with other education settings where siblings are attending more than one establishment to share information and concerns. |
Green |
The setting has established working relationships with local agencies and organisations to effectively prevent mental and physical impairment and protect children from harm. This can include, but is not limited to, the School Health Nurse and other community health professionals, Police, Safer Options, Primary Mental Health Specialist, Families in Focus, Bristol Drugs Project, Brook, and Children's Centres/Family Hubs. The setting works collaboratively with other local education settings proactively around supporting families and communities they share. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.12 |
The setting has staff that can effectively utilise the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s escalation policy to resolve professional disagreements. |
Red | Relevant staff in the setting are unaware of the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s escalation policy. There is no evidence of professional challenge or escalation for cases of concern. Concerns remain unchallenged. |
Amber |
Relevant staff in the setting are aware of the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s escalation policy however are not confident using it or locating it. Professional disagreements are not acted upon in a timely way due to lack of confidence. |
Green |
The Designated Safeguarding Lead, members of the setting’s safeguarding team, other senior leaders, and members of the governing body (or equivalent) have access to, have read and are confident in using the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s escalation policy. Relevant staff are aware of how to access advice and guidance if required. There is evidence and records of the escalation policy being used in cases when it has been required. |
Resources |
KBSP resolution of professional disagreements in work relating to the safety of children |
Ref 2a.13 |
The setting engages with the Local Authority 'Additional- Level 2' support to provide effective early help for children and their families as soon as problems emerge. |
Red | The setting is unaware of and does not make use of the advice and guidance from a qualified social worker to review vulnerable cases. The setting does not have a clearly defined early help offer and does not have mechanisms to provide advice, support, or guidance to further resources. |
Amber |
The setting is aware of but does not consistently engage with the Local Authority universal plus support offer of advice and guidance from a qualified social worker from Families in Focus to review vulnerable cases. For early years this can include seeking support and guidance from a children's centres or family hubs. Advice may only be sought on an ad hoc basis or as a reaction to acute/crisis presentation. The setting has explicit signposting to local early help services on their website. The setting has created a section on their website and newsletters to promote the free Solihull Approach 'understanding your child' resources to their parenting community. |
Green |
The setting consistently engages with the Local Authority’s Team Around the School (TAS), Multi-Agency Conference (MAC; for special schools) offer(s) and can seek advice through the Families in Focus teams to be able to provide effective early help intervention for vulnerable children. For early years this can include accessing support and guidance from a children's centres or family hubs. This is evidenced through case notes/minutes. The setting has referenced, curated, and cascaded a space on their website and newsletters highlighting free the free Solihull Approach 'understanding your child' resources to their parenting community. There is evidence that this is actively promoted to more vulnerable families as part of the setting's early help offer for that child. |
Resources |
Ref 2a.15 |
The setting has an online safety policy (or equivalent) which reflects the use of mobile and smart technology. |
---|---|
Red | The setting’s online safety policy has not been updated with changes in the most recent version of Keeping Children Safe in Education nor the setting’s response to remote education following the COVID-19 pandemic. The setting’s safeguarding and child protection policy does not reflect the setting’s online safety practice. |
Amber |
The setting has an online safety policy which is updated on an annual basis and has been reviewed in line with the Online Safety section of Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. The online safety policy has updates with the setting’s policy and procedures developed since the COVID 19 Pandemic. The setting’s online safety processes and procedures are cross referenced and aligned with the Safeguarding and Child Protection, RSHE and Behaviour policies. Filtering and monitoring processes are informed in line with Meeting digital and technology standards in schools and colleges - Filtering and monitoring standards for schools and colleges - Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) and the setting's Prevent Duty. |
Green |
In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: The online safety policy includes links and references to the setting’s approach to teaching online safety and Education for a Connected World Framework. The policy has key setting updates as well as consideration of how the setting’s practices have developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The setting’s safeguarding and child protection policy has been updated reflecting the 4 C’s as well as the setting's approach to filtering and monitoring as in the most recent version of statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education. There are mechanisms in place to consider mitigating risks for children at greater risk of harm (vulnerable children) and how they access the IT system/technology (being taught via remote learning). The setting has ensured that online safety is a running and interrelated theme for other policies and procedures (behaviour policy, RSHE/PSHE, acceptable use policy). Updates in policies and procedures have been communicated effectively with the setting’s community. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.16 |
The setting has appropriate resources to review and implement developments around online safety at least on an annual basis. |
Red | The setting has limited resources around managing online safety including fostering and monitoring. This includes not having a dedicated online safety policy. This is seen as an additional role for the Designated Safeguarding Lead who may lack the technical knowledge and skills/capacity to ensure mechanisms are effective. The setting does not formally review their approach to online safety on an annual basis. |
Amber |
The governing bodies have identified and assigned:
Senior leaders and governance have read and have a clear plan to exercise their duties under Meeting digital and technology standards in schools and colleges - Filtering and monitoring standards for schools and colleges - Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) The role of the Designated Safeguarding Lead and IT staff are clear in line with the above guidance. The governing body review the effectiveness of filtering and monitoring system on an annual basis. The setting’s practice includes risk assessment and action plan to develop online safety in line with the setting's Prevent Duty. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The governing body, leadership and relevant staff review the effectiveness of filtering and monitoring on a regular basis (more than annually). Systems have been reviewed since March 2023 in line with Meeting digital and technology standards in schools and colleges - Filtering and monitoring standards for schools and colleges - Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). There is evidence of systems being 'managed' rather than 'shut down' to ensure knowledge and understanding of internet usage and managing risk dynamically. There is evidence that systems are age and ability appropriate for the users and also responsive to national and local trends. There is evidence that all staff are aware of how and what should be reported for safeguarding and technical concerns. The setting has appropriate resource and capacity to ensure that online safety development is effectively integrated the management of child-on-child harm and integrated safeguarding culture (both in terms of training for staff and safeguarding on the curriculum include Keeping Safe in a Connected World). |
Resources |
Ref 2a.19 |
The setting has reviewed its safeguarding and child protection policy, procedures and practice as set out in statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education on the topic of child-on-child abuse. |
---|---|
Red | The setting has made passive changes to the safeguarding and child protection policy but has not yet reflected on the effectiveness of the processes and practices in line with Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education |
Amber |
The setting has reviewed their policies and practice in relation to the management of child-on-child abuse. The setting’s safeguarding and child protection and behaviour policies sets out what is required in Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education under the section child-on-child abuse. Policies have also been updated and reviewed in terms updates made in Part 5 of Keeping Children Safe in Education to ensure compliance with statutory expectations to prevent and respond to child-on-child sexual violence, harmful sexual behaviour, and sexual harassment. To prevent exclusions and prevent putting children at further risk of harm, there are clear systemic mechanism to ensure assessment of need and vulnerabilities by the Designated Safeguarding Lead or safeguarding trained colleagues are made before punitive sanctions are made. If necessary, proportionate action is taken to ensure safety of children. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting has undertaken additional work to review the effectiveness of its policy, procedures, and practice around how to manage incidents of child-on-child abuse/harm. This has included consultation with staff, children, and/or feedback from parents/carers. This can include (but is not limited to) the Anti-Bullying Alliance ‘All Together’ programme, and Contextual Safeguarding Network – School Assessment, Diana’s Anti-bullying Award. A culture is developed with relevant setting leaders participating in this work (Designated Safeguarding Lead, behaviour lead, SENCO, RSHE leads). Developments in policy and practice has been shared and communicated to the setting’s community (staff, children, and parents/carers). The setting has invested in developing a member of staff to champion best practice to tackle child-on-child harm. This means that they have undertaken additional training specifically to implement change in their setting. There is evidence that contextual safeguarding needs are assessed and interventions put in place around peer groups, education setting site and neighbourhoods/community. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.20 |
The setting has an easy read version of their child-on-child abuse/harm policy. |
Red | The setting does not have a standalone easy read child-on- child abuse/harm policy that is differentiated to the setting’s community. |
Amber |
There is a policy/procedure that has been developed without children involved. Procedures focus on incidents of bullying but not has not been adapted for use for wider issues of child- on-child harm. Whilst accessible, children have limited knowledge of how concerns will and can be addressed. For Early Years - work is done through the Personal, Social, Emotional Development curriculum and age appropriate and inclusive rules. |
Green |
An easy read version of the setting’s child-on-child abuse/harm has been co-constructed with children's voice and feedback. The effectiveness of setting’s policies, procedures and practice are reflected in this. This is published and accessible to the parent/carer community to support robust understanding within the setting’s community. Locations and format of information are considered for different stakeholders. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.21 |
The setting has systems in place to ensure that children can confidently report abuse knowing their concerns will be treated seriously. |
Red | The setting does not have systems in place. Or if they do have systems in place they are not well used by children. This may reflect in low numbers of child-on-child harm incidents recorded/reported. |
Amber |
The setting has systems in place for children to raise concerns, these are sporadically used. Systems allow for concerns to be shared about all forms of harm (including online). These systems are promoted, understood and accessible. Record keeping of concerns maybe under ‘behaviour’ rather than safeguarding. Data is used to identify when interventions maybe required. For Early Years - there is evidence that children and their parents/carers know who their safe adult/keyworker is should a concern arise. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting has evaluated its systems in place for children to raise concerns. These have been co-constructed from feedback from children and their families. There is data to reflect the number of incidents reported to demonstrate the effectiveness of systems used. These are well promoted, easily understood and easily accessible. Evidence of this is explicit. There are a variety of options to raise concerns anonymously (e.g., worry boxes, the use of the Whisper Button – South West Grid for Learning). Safe spaces and safe adults have been identified for children with protected characteristics who may experience additional barriers to reporting concerns (e.g., protected characteristics). Concerns feed into systems where behaviour and safeguarding are cross referenced rather than being dealt with in isolation. Through this there are opportunities to communicate and acknowledge concerns that have been shared. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.22 |
The setting takes action to safeguard all children affected by child-on-child harm when responding to an incident. |
Red | Interventions put in place are limited to those who are directly involved in an incident. Support is put in place for the child who has been hurt but may be limited for those who demonstrate harmful behaviour. There are limited records to indicate that all children involved have had their needs assessed or met before punitive sanctions are made. |
Amber |
The setting’s safeguarding and behaviour policies are implemented to support children who have been harmed and those who have demonstrated harmful behaviour. Safety plans are created for each child directly involved in an incident. This is done in partnership with the parent/carer and the child. These are reviewed after 3 months and or each new occurrence of behaviour. Where appropriate - restorative approaches are used to mend and heal relationships. This is recorded alongside outcomes on the child’s safeguarding file. There is evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Lead, Special Educational Needs and Disability Coordinator and Behaviour Lead work collaboratively using assessment tools to consider safety planning and risk management when implementing interventions for vulnerable children. There is evidence that support plans are put in place to meet potential unmet need before punitive sanctions are considered. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting’s approach to behaviour is trauma informed. There is recognition that the behaviour policy alone is not sufficient for managing incidents of child-on-child harm. The safeguarding team secures the safety of all children involved in an incident using contextual safeguarding (bystanders and those who have been affected vicariously such as siblings). Wider interventions are put in place in partnership with the senior leadership team, where contextual safeguarding take place with wider peer groups (targeted safeguarding on the curriculum) and setting site context (adjusting the environment), and setting's neighbourhood/community. If there are wider vulnerabilities, advice and guidance are sought from partner agencies such as Families in Focus, Safeguarding in Education, Childrens Centres and Family Hubs. |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.23 |
There is evidence that the setting takes a proportionate approach to managing child-on-child harm/abuse concerns. This involves early intervention to address concerning behaviour to assess whether support for Special Educational Needs or disabilities, seeking to identify mental health, or family problems. |
Red | The setting does not have mechanisms in place to identify and act early for emerging patterns of behaviour or concerns. Behaviour, Special Educational Needs, and Safeguarding are seen separately. Sanctions are often reactive and considered under the behaviour policy with little opportunity to cross reference safeguarding need. There are limited records to indicate that child has had their needs assessed or met before punitive sanctions are made. The setting does not collate or review data to behaviour sanctions and protected characteristics. There has been no whole school training around child-on-child harm and or adverse childhood experiences (ACES). |
Amber |
The setting has mechanisms in place for identifying vulnerable children. Their needs are considered on a regular basis. There is evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Lead, Special Educational Needs and Disability coordinator, and Behaviour Lead work collaboratively to cross reference data to review vulnerability. This is done at least on a Bristol termly basis (six times a year). Early help is provided and or referrals to other agencies are considered if a need has been identified. The setting use Operation Encompass to proactively identify concerns and ensure that early help is proactively provided. All staff have had training around child-on-child harm and Adverse Childhood Experience training and are able to understand the need for proportionate approaches to managing behaviour. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting can demonstrate a trauma informed approach to behaviour. There is evidence of culture in practice which accepts behaviour as a means of communication. Children who demonstrate problematic concerning behaviour have their needs assessed with proactive planning, there is evidence that support plans are put in place to meet potential unmet need before punitive sanctions are considered. There is evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Lead, Special Educational Needs and Disability coordinator, and Behaviour Lead work together and use assessment tools to consider safety planning and risk management when implementing interventions for vulnerable children with the child and their parents/carer. The setting collates and scrutinises data of behaviour sanctions against protected characteristics. This is used to review policy and practice to ensure a development of an inclusive learning environment. The setting can evidence a contextual safeguarding approach to each incident through auditing records. This includes putting in interventions to the space where harm occurred (peer group, education setting, neighbourhood). |
Resources |
Welcome to the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership website - ACES |
Ref 2a.24 |
The setting is culturally competent when addressing child-on-child abuse/harm particularly when children involved have protected characteristics or there is an element of prejudice related harm. |
Red | The setting has low or no recorded incidents of prejudice related incidents in the setting relating to child-on-child harm. There is a loose approach to incidents of prejudice related incidents are not consistently addressed. Either action is not consistently taken, or incidents are considered hate crimes where children are excluded, or unduly criminalised. Incidents are just reported to the police and have limited safety planning for the children. Incidents are exclusively dealt with under the setting's behaviour policy. Zero-tolerance approaches are interpreted as providing the harshest sanction possible. |
Amber |
The setting perceives and treats bullying and prejudice related incidents as safeguarding concerns. Staff react to incidents through their child-on-child harm procedures under the safeguarding/child protection policy in addition to their behaviour policy. The setting responds to prejudice related incidents with a zero-tolerance approach (that the setting responding to every incident). Record keeping encourages the capturing of or consideration of prejudice related incidents and a contextual approach is taken to educate against hate. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting has taken additional action to proactively promote practice which is culturally competent and able to identify and respond to child-on-child harm issues whilst explicitly considering intersecting protected characteristics. A zero-tolerance approach applies to the setting to act and respond to every incident. Responses to incidents are proportionate and are consistent with the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998. There is evidence that this is communicated across different stakeholders including staff, children, parents, carers, and governance or equivalent. The setting can evidence attempts to discipline children are not aimed to exclusively sanction, but to support and promote teachable moments. Sanctions have allowed for children to reflect about their behaviour and chances are made for restoration. This includes complying with your Public Sector Equality duty to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The setting collates and reviews data for behaviour sanctions and protected characteristics for acts of harm and those children involved. This data is used to shape competent practice, policy, and wider inclusive cultures (e.g., reduced level of isolation rooms). |
Resources | |
Ref 2a.25 |
The setting can take a proportionate response to incidents of sexual violence, harmful sexual behaviour, and sexual harassment. |
Red | The setting does not have a member of staff who has completed additional training to assess sexual violence, sexual harassment, and/or harmful sexual behaviour (such as the Brook Sexual Behaviours Traffic Light Tool) Assessment of need and decisions around actions taken are not recorded. Incidents are dealt with exclusively as a behaviour issue and dealt with under the behaviour policy. |
Amber |
The Designated Safeguarding Lead has knowledge of the tool and has recently (within the last 2 years) undertaken training to use the licensed version of the Brook Sexual Behaviours Traffic Light Tool. Use of the tool is evidenced to assess risk and safety planning for the children who display harmful sexualised behaviour. This involves the child and parents and carers of children directly involved. The setting knows how to seek specialist advice and guidance from the Local Safeguarding Partnership. This includes when to make referral to statutory agencies. The time, date, location of incident, assessment and need and decisions around actions are recorded on the child(ren)’s safeguarding file. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting has adequate numbers of staff who have completed the recent training offered by Brook to use the most up to date version of the Sexual Behaviours Traffic Light Tool. The Designated Safeguarding Lead and deputies work with other members of the senior leadership team to ensure a proportionate trauma informed approach is taken to assess needs (as well as manage risk) in compliance with Part 5 of statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education. The setting can evidence a contextual safeguarding approach to each incident through auditing records. This includes putting in interventions to the space where harm occurred (peer group, education setting, neighbourhood). There is a flexible approach evidenced to respond to concerns through the curriculum (assemblies, tutor time, RSHE lessons/PSED for Early Years). |
Resources |
|
Ref 2a.26 |
Staff can effectively respond to a child-on-child harm concern that have an online element (including consensual and non-consensual sharing of images). |
Red | The setting does not recognise its role in responding to incidents and considers this beyond its remit or jurisdiction. The setting passes on concerns on to other agencies to manage if the incident happened outside of the school context. |
Amber |
The setting’s safeguarding team recognise that online issues can impact on safeguarding or children and their relationships within the setting. Concerns are dealt with seriously and proactively to educate and safeguard children in line with the child-on-child policy. The setting work in partnership with external agencies to support management of concerns contextually outside of the setting context (as required). For example, the Professionals Online Safety Hotline (POSH) and ‘When to call the police' (NPCC) to respond to an incident of youth produced imagery. There is evidence that wider support for all children involved (even vicariously peer/year groups/wider family members) is considered rather than just the children directly involved. For Early Years, there is evidence that staff are vigilant to the safe use of technology for children and act immediately if they are concerned about bullying or children’s well-being. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: There is evidence that the setting takes concerns that occur online just as seriously as physical incidents - and will respond proportionately regardless of when and where an incident happened. Records are audited by the Designated Safeguarding Lead to ensure that staff are mindful and accepting a child’s experiences of their own cultures and will not shame a child when managing an incident. The Designated Safeguarding Lead and other relevant members of staff know about a range of safeguarding tools to support with responding to incidents (e.g: Report Remove to support a children to remove an image shared online). The setting’s policies and practice are developed and utilised to reflect national guidance UKCCIS sexting advice (for schools and colleges). This is in line with DfE guidance Searching, screening and confiscations. |
Resources |
Ref 2b.1 |
Individual safeguarding/child protection files are established once welfare concerns are recognised, and each file has a chronology at the front. |
---|---|
Red |
There is inconsistent practice around the use and development of safeguarding/child protection files. There has been no evidence of quality assurance of the files. Files are securely stored, and only accessible to the Designated Safeguarding Lead. |
Amber |
There is consistent practice around the use of and development of safeguarding/child protection files which are audited at least on an annual basis. These are managed within expectations from Annex C of Keeping Children Safe in Education. Files are stored securely and only accessible to members of the safeguarding team. There is a risk aversion to sharing information with staff adequately to safeguarding staff on a 'need to know basis'. |
Green |
There is evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Lead regularly audits relevant records (safeguarding, behaviour, and attendance) for quality of recording and actions taken. Learning is shared with staff. Audits include reviewing:
|
Resources |
|
Ref 2b.2 |
The setting maintains a vulnerable children list. |
Red | The setting does not have a vulnerable children list of children who may require additional support and monitoring. There may be multiple lists in a setting which do not correlate with each other. Children with multiple needs maybe spoken about multiple times in different forums with minimal internal working together. |
Amber |
The setting maintains a vulnerable children list that is RAG rated to ensure that the setting’s resources are appropriately assigned to those who require it. The list is reviewed during regular safeguarding meetings by the Designated Safeguarding Lead (and deputies). This often is done with other professionals in the setting responsible for behaviour, attendance, and attainment. Relevant colleagues should have access to information for them to participate and contribute effectively. The Designated Safeguarding Lead works with other staff to monitor and promote educational outcomes for those on the list. This is in line with their statutory duties under Annex C of Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: The vulnerable children’s list is a live document. Cases are reviewed on a systemic basis based on need and requirement. The setting has resource to appropriately administrate the vulnerable children’s list, so it is accurate and actions are SMART. Relevant members of the safeguarding team review children systemically but at least on a termly basis (or more regularly as required) to inform practice. This is protected time which is separate and differentiated from strategic safeguarding meetings. Management of meetings involves cross referencing data around behaviour, attendance, and attainment to ensure that the setting can put in reasonable adjustments to ensure high aspirations around educational outcomes for vulnerable children. The vulnerable children's list is for those who require early help, those who require a social worker, those who have been allocated a social worker and those who have just had a social worker. |
Resources |
N/A |
Ref 2b.3 | The setting has reviewed its practice around the transfer of safeguarding/child protection files to ensure that it is compliant with Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
Red | The setting has not reviewed its practice and does not transfer safeguarding/child protection files within 5 days of an in-year transfer or within the first 5 days of the start of a new term. After a learner has left the setting, records relating to that individual are not retained securely, in line with Local Authority guidance (in line with KBSP procedures) up until the child’s 25th birthday. |
Amber |
The setting has reviewed its transfer of safeguarding/child protection files within 5 days of an in-year transfer or within the first 5 days of the start of a new term. Where possible safeguarding/child protection files should be transferred separately from the main pupil file, ensuring secure transit, and confirmation of receipt should be obtained working in partnership with the receiving setting. If a child and family are open to children and family services a meeting is convened to handover (Multi-agency team around child/family meeting). If this is not possible a list of children who are currently open to children's social care is made to the next setting to enable the Designated Safeguarding Lead to prioritise action. After a child has left the setting, records relating to that individual are retained securely, in line with Local Authority guidance (in line with KBSP procedures) up until the learner’s 25th birthday. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: Capacity has been considered, resourced, and protected to ensure the following: The setting has a schedule set up alongside the vulnerable children’s list to ensure timely information is shared with the next setting. Suitable resources have been put in place to ensure that transfer of files can happen within the statutory timescales. The most vulnerable cases are prioritised and there is evidence that additional information is shared with the new setting in advance of the child leaving to help the new setting put in place the right support, aid a successful transition, to effectively safeguard the learner and enable them to thrive (meetings/visits with the new setting) Where possible any information shared in advance is done with consent from parents/carers and the child themselves (use of pupil passports). Where there are multiple children transferring to a setting, a transition meeting takes place to share relevant and salient information. |
Resources | |
Ref 2b.4 | Appropriate action is taken by the receiving setting to ensure support is in place for vulnerable children. |
Red | The setting stores and accesses the safeguarding/child protection file as and when new concerns are identified. This is generally accessed only by the Designated Safeguarding Lead (and deputies). The setting does not have records of enquiring about historical safeguarding/child protection file if a child develops vulnerabilities. |
Amber |
The safeguarding/child protection file is shared and accessed by key staff such as the Designated Safeguarding Leads and Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENDCos) and other relevant staff are aware as required. Files are triaged. Staff at the new setting read and process files. Capacity may not be protected and activity is limited to members of the safeguarding team. The setting can evidence chasing previous settings where a safeguarding/child protection file has not been shared and there is suspected vulnerability. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: Capacity has been considered, resourced, and protected to ensure the following:
|
Resources | N/A |
Ref 2b.5 | The setting demonstrates robust practice to safeguard children who are educated off site. |
Red | Risk information is limited or sanitised to avoid delaying placements. Safeguarding information is withheld which can put the placement at risk and the safety of the child. The setting does not quality assure provisions for children on their rolls. |
Amber |
There is evidence to indicate that moving a child is done in the best interest of the child. Members of the senior leadership team and the Designated Safeguarding Lead have read the Local Authority guidance about and protocol on the use of and commissioning of Alternative Learning Provision (available on the Bristol City Council Website). There is evidence that the setting has processes to ensure that the safeguarding team, SENDCo and/or behaviour lead work together to monitor the child's needs and placement. If a child has an Education Health and Care Plan, there is evidence that an emergency annual review is convened. There is a transition plan which ensures safety and mitigates risk. The setting only commissions from the Local Authority Alternative Provision framework and exercises its own quality assurance processes. |
Green |
In addition to conditions in the AMBER:
Where a child remains on the setting’s roll.
|
Resources | |
Ref 2b.6 |
The setting has a process for effectively managing Operation Encompass Police Safeguarding Notifications when they are received. |
Red | The setting has not signed to receive Operation Encompass Police Safeguarding Notifications and or has not signed up to have access to the Think Family Education App (where applicable). The setting does not act upon receipt of an Operation Encompass Police Safeguarding Notification in a timely manner or check the Think Family Education App (on a daily basis). Knowledge of the scheme is limited to those members of staff receiving the notifications or have completed a briefing. |
Amber |
The setting has a process for managing Operation Encompass Police Safeguarding Notifications in a timely manner. For those settings who have access. The Designated Safeguarding Lead (and deputies) ensure that the notification is added to the children's safeguarding/child protection file. Information is shared and cascaded to those working with the child to ensure a trauma informed approach. Support for the child/family is provided where and when necessary. |
Green | In addition to conditions in the AMBER: The setting has reviewed capacity and resource to ensure that notifications are actioned on the day that they are received in line with the national Operation Encompass Scheme. There is evidence of support and safety planning involving relevant colleagues on receipt of an Operation Encompass Police Safeguarding Notification and or an alert on the Think Family Education App (if accessed by the setting). This can include making reasonable adjustments for children. Operation Encompass notifications and the Think Family Education App are reviewed as part of case reviews/monitoring to help inform longer term support and intervention. If necessary timely referrals are made in line with the setting’s safeguarding/child protection policy if additional concerns are held by the setting (changes in behaviour, disclosure from the child). |
Resources | |
Ref 2b.7 |
The setting has processes, resources, and capacity to ensure that requests for information are completed and returned in a timely manner. These include (but not limited to): Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) Child Protection Conferences (initial/review) |
Red |
There is no process in place to ensure that requests are received and dealt with robustly. There is limited capacity to complete requests for information. Returns are not always met and/or not met within time limits. |
Amber |
Requests for information are completed by the Designated Safeguarding Lead (and/or deputies). There is appropriate capacity and resource to complete requests for information (such as reports) and these are consistently returned within the expected time frames during term time. Information requests/reports are not consistently recorded on the child's safeguarding/child protection file. |
Green |
In addition to conditions in the AMBER: The setting has robust processes to ensure that requests for information are appropriately triaged, delegated and quality assured by the Designated Safeguarding Lead (and/or deputies). The Designated Safeguarding Lead has oversight over reports and quality assures the information requests. Reports are completed and shared with parents/carers where necessary and where it is safe to do so. Reasons for not sharing information with parents/carers are justified in record keeping. Rotas are created and established to ensure adequate safeguarding cover during setting holidays so education can always provide reports when requested. The setting has developed a generic safeguarding email account which is accessible for different member of the safeguarding staff to enable a sustained and continuous response. |
Resources | Welcome to the Bristol Safeguarding in Education website. |
Ref 2b.13 |
The setting has processes and procedures to ensure that safeguarding and welfare are priority considerations when a child is at risk of suspensions, exclusions and or pupil movement. |
---|---|
Red | The setting’s behaviour policy (or equivalent) has not been reviewed since national guidance has been updated in May 2023. There is limited evidence that early intervention is used to address any causes of disruptive behaviour – this includes whether appropriate provision is in place to support any Special Educational needs or disability, mental health, or familial problems. Duties around managing suspensions and exclusions are delegated to other members of the senior leadership team without appropriate supervision of the headteacher/principal. |
Amber |
The setting is compliant with local and nation guidance. This has been reviewed to include newest iterations of and have reflected changes updates in statutory guidance since September 2023.
The setting has processes and practices which ensure that safeguarding of children is a priority consideration if a child is at risk of suspension and or exclusion. The headteacher/principal has oversight of decisions made.
The Bristol Inclusion Surgery have been consulted where there are concerns about risk of exclusion or suspensions for children. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: There is evidence that the setting’s governing body, senior leadership team, and the Designated Safeguarding Lead systemically reviews the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements for cases of suspension and exclusion. Any deficits are rectified in a timely manner. Evidence of proactive identification and preventative intervention should be demonstrated to show proportionate responses. Work has been evidenced to review whole setting data on protected characteristics against the setting's interventions to ensure that anti-discriminatory and anti-oppressive practice is undertaken across the whole setting and community. Updates to the Public Sector Equality Duty objectives are amended, as necessary. |
Resources |
|
Ref 2b.14 |
The setting supports the welfare and education outcomes for children during and after an exclusion or suspension. |
Red | The setting has ceased their involvement and renounced responsibility to safeguard to the Local Authority. Or there is no evidence to indicate that children have been offered emotional support and academic work provided (that has been marked) when they have been suspended or excluded. Disengagement by the child or family is cited as a reason by the setting to not provide support. |
Amber |
For all cases where a child has been suspended or excluded - The setting proactively works together with the family and other professionals to ensure the safety of the child:
Work is provided and marked to cover all curriculum areas missed to support further disruption to a child's educational outcomes. Where possible remote education is considered. Attendance is monitored with greater scrutiny by members of the senior leadership team. There is evidence that the setting continues to support multi-agency support Following the sixth day of:
a permanent exclusion, the relevant Local Authority/Authorities are contacted on the day the decision is made, to arrange full-time education from the 6th day of an exclusion. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: There is evidence that the setting monitors the welfare daily with parents/carers – and if appropriate the child themselves to promote a sense of belonging (e.g, phone calls, face to face or virtual meetings). The setting’s policies and practice guarantee that the arrangement of reintegration meetings do not delay the pupil returning to the setting following a fixed term exclusion. There is evidence that the governing body, senior leadership team, and the Designated Safeguarding Lead review /audit cases of suspensions and exclusions to ensure:
Think family (safety considerations for other family members). |
Resources |
School suspensions and permanent exclusions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) |
Ref 2b.15 |
The setting has robust safeguarding practice when using managed moves or offsite directions. |
Red | There is limited evidence so suggest that arrangements have been made in the best interest of the child. There is limited evidence to suggest that arrangements have been implemented to improve future behaviour and not as a sanction or punishment for past misconduct. There is limited evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Lead has been involved and consulted with the arrangement. |
Amber |
The work of pupil movement is underpinned by national and local guidance. In particular - resonating with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s Bristol Belonging strategy and attempts are made to mitigate the feeling of exclusion. There is evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Lead or member of the Safeguarding Team have led a discussion and assessment of need to ensure safety and welfare are paramount considerations. There is evidence that arrangements are made in partnership with parents/carers as a form of supportive intervention. Parents/carers are provided with a clear agreement of who is responsible for support during period of the arrangement and how to contact them. There is evidence of suitable planning between settings (and involved professionals), with clear time scales, to ensure a child isn’t further put at harm physically or emotionally. This should include:
Work provided to cover curriculum areas missed. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: There is evidence that the setting facilitates a physical introduction with the child on the first day of attendance at a new provision. Action is evidenced to monitor the successful educational outcomes of a child – that agreed targets are being met with reasonable adjustments being made to consider the trauma the child has/may experience. The setting’s governance, senior leadership team and designated safeguarding lead audits and reviews records around these arrangements to ensure that they are compliant with the Equality Act and Human Rights Act. Discourse analysis is made to identify whether decisions are made in the best interest of the child (or not). There is evidence that extra familial harm is assessed and considered explicitly to ensure that children will remain safe travelling to and whilst present in their intended destination. Contextual safeguarding should consider at the very least: setting, neighbourhood, and peer group. |
Resources |
Ref 2b.16 |
The setting has appointed a Designated Teacher/ Person for children in care who has read and ensures that the setting is compliant with statutory guidance Designated teacher for looked after children (2018) and Promoting the education of looked-after children (2018). (For Early Years, this is likely to be the Designated Safeguarding Lead) |
---|---|
Red |
The setting does not have a dedicated designated teacher who has read and is compliant with the statutory guidance. Children in care (including Children who have been previously looked after) do not consistently have protected resource and processes to monitor their educational outcomes in partnership with the Local Authority virtual school. or Designated teachers are in place, but do not have authority to delegate duties to other members of staff. The Designated Safeguarding Lead does not have oversight (unless it is an Early Years provider) |
Amber |
The setting has appropriate levels of resource to ensure that the designated teacher is able to monitor the educational outcomes for children in care and children who have previously been looked after. The designated teacher is supported by the Designated Safeguarding Lead and has appropriate levels of training for them to carry their roles effectively. This must include engagement with the Local Authority virtual school (training/networks) to ensure that local procedures are adhered to. Designated Safeguarding Leads have oversight of Personal Education Plans (PEP), and other statutory reviews in line with their statutory duties. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: The setting has measures to identify children who have previously been looked after as part of their admissions and or home school agreement. This is done sensitively and in line with Data Protection legislation. Robust consideration of ongoing support is provided for kinship carers and those who have been previously looked after. The setting has reviewed and considered appropriate resource, capacity to do the role. The designated teacher is a member of the safeguarding team and trained to DSL level. Their expertise are utilised to promote the educational outcomes for children with a social worker. |
Resources | Training about children in care or previously looked after children |
Ref 2b.17 |
The Designated Safeguarding Lead and safeguarding team are able identify and undertake appropriate enquiries to determine whether a learner maybe privately fostered and make referrals to children's social care for a statutory assessment. This must be to the Local Authority to which the child is currently habitually resident. |
Red | The setting does not have any colleagues trained to understand the legislation and professional duties around children who are privately fostered. The setting has limited systems to identify and respond to meeting the needs of children who are privately fostered. |
Amber |
The Designated Safeguarding Lead and safeguarding members of staff are able to identify and assess whether a referral to Childrens social care is required. The Designated Safeguarding Lead and the safeguarding team have undertaken additional training about children in the family court system and have read/are able to use the guidance Parental responsibility: guide for schools and local authorities - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Children who are privately fostered are identified as vulnerable and are provided early help support alongside any reasonable adjustments that are required in their day-to-day provision. Where appropriate both parents and carers are signposted to additional support where appropriate. There are clear agreements in place around agreed decision making between parents/carers and those with parental responsibility. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: The setting has evidence of effective mechanisms to proactively identify and respond to the needs of children who are identified as privately fostered. (admissions process, awareness raising through all staff training). The support for children in care with regards to reviewing educational outcomes is replicated for children who are privately fostered:
The setting is able to consider access to additional resource and support which isn’t afforded to kinship/private foster carers. |
Resources |
Ref 5.1 |
The admission policy and procedures are effective to ensure safety and welfare of children when they start at the setting. |
---|---|
Red |
Information collated at the admissions processes is done via a form. No additional information is collated that can support the ongoing safeguarding of the child. This is formal and limited. Information is not shared or reviewed by the Designated Safeguarding Lead. |
Amber |
There is an admission policy and processes which include actions which support the promotion and safety of children when they first join the setting. Appropriate safeguarding information is sought, and support offered – a follow meeting is set up to discuss further. Information that is proactively sought:
Parents and families are told explicitly around why and how support can be offered around requests for sensitive information about safeguarding. For example:
The setting has allocated and dedicated staff to coordinate the experiences for families (which can include access to the SENDCo /Designated Safeguarding Lead). A plan is put in place before children start considering any vulnerabilities or concerns that are identified. This is done in partnership with the family. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: The setting has evidence of being able to have a forum around asking more sensitive questions that are sensitively explored beyond admissions. A support offer is evidenced. Pre- visits are encouraged where parents/carers can be supported with transitions. Where there is suspicion of vulnerability or a safeguarding concern, professional curiosity is exercised (e.g., phone call is made to the previous setting). |
Resources | N/A |
Ref 5.2 |
The setting has an effective privacy notice which supports the safety and welfare of children. |
Red | There is a privacy notice are inconsistently managed. For example, it hasn't been reviewed in over a year and or has not considered additional vulnerability status - for children in care and or those who may be survivors of abuse. |
Amber |
The Privacy Notice (previously known as a Fair Processing Notice) is signed by parents/carers when they register with the setting. They are reviewed annually by the Data Protection Officer and reviewed and shared whenever a significant change is made as to how you process personal data (E.g., introduction of CPOMS). |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: Attempts have been made to ensure that children are aware of their own data and why the setting keeps them safe as part of a wider piece of interventions. There is an appropriate privacy policy which sets a whole setting culture to consider sensitive and personal data of all members of the setting's community. There is evidence that the Designated Safeguarding Lead can trigger and review a child/family privacy notice when there has been a change in circumstance. |
Resources |
Child-friendly privacy notices for schools (dataprotection.education) |
Ref 5.3 | The setting have an effective number of contacts for each child. |
Red | The setting only seeks to obtain contacts from those with parental/carer responsibilities. There is evidence that the setting does not have more than one contact for every child. |
Amber |
The setting has more than one emergency contact for each child. It is made clear with parents who is able to be an emergency contact including close friends and wider family members. These are not just those with parental/carer responsibility. Emergency contacts are reviewed and updated at least on an annual basis. This can be done through a home school agreement. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: The setting is complaint with local safeguarding partnership’s expectation of having three emergency contacts for children. In the case of young carers or for children in residential settings, children can contact parents/carers when necessary. This is facilitated in a way which does not prevent the setting from proportionately monitoring and controlling the use of electronic communications. |
Resources | |
Ref 5.4 | There is a home setting agreement where expectations are clear about parental/carer duties. |
Red | There is a home setting agreement. This is not evidenced for each child and their family. |
Amber |
There is a home setting agreement which is signed at least at the point of admission for each child. The agreement has been drafted with the Designated Safeguarding Lead and contains basic requirements around what the setting's expectations are around the how they are expected to keep the child safe. These are present for each child and family. |
Green |
In addition to the conditions in the AMBER: There is evidence that the setting refreshes a home setting agreement (even a reduced version) with parents/carers on an annual basis to reflect changes and developments in policy and practice. This is used and supplemented alongside wider engagement pieces such as newsletters/parent/carer portal/apps. |
Resources |