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 |
There is evidence that all staff subscribe to the ideology that safeguarding is everybody's business. |
Red |
There is evidence to suggest that Safeguarding responsibilities rely on only one person. The statutory definition of safeguarding in policies has not been updated to include prevention of impairment of mental and physical health or development, providing help and support to meet the needs of children as soon as problems emerge and protecting children from maltreatment, whether that is within or outside the home, including online. |
Amber |
There are explicit statements in relevant policies which are regularly reviewed regarding the joint ownership of the responsibility of safeguarding arrangements across the whole setting’s community. Staff can understand what safeguarding is (using the updated statutory definition) and their own role in safeguarding children. The setting has taken steps to become a ‘trauma informed’ setting and is aware of the impact of the manifestation of trauma from adverse childhood experiences particularly when it comes to the management of behaviour. |
Green | In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER: There are systems in place that view mental health, SEND, behaviour, attainment, and attendance as interconnected and potential signs of safeguarding concerns. These connections are clearly shown in the setting’s policies and practices. For example, staff responsible for attendance, special educational needs and behaviour are part of the 'Safeguarding Team' or equivalent and regularly contributes towards supporting, identifying, and responding to vulnerability/safety planning. |
Resources | |
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.17 | The setting’s approach to remote education has been reviewed since COVID-19 lockdowns. |
Red | The setting has not formally reviewed the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements for providing remote education. Due diligence has not been considered for a change in process such as effective data protection (i.e., A Data Protection Impact Assessment has not been completed) |
Amber |
The setting documented their approach to delivering online safety since the COVID-19 lockdown. A Data Protection Impact Assessment has been completed/reviewed in relation to a change or development of practice since the pandemic. |
Green |
The setting has formally reviewed and evaluated practice since the COVID-19 lockdowns. The Data Protection Impact Assessment has been adapted for consideration of when remote education can/should be used to support reasonable adjustments for more vulnerable children of for use in the future. The use of remote learning with children is monitored and reviewed regularly by governance. The Designated Safeguarding Lead and Attendance Lead can evidence that arrangements are regularly reviewed, appropriate, and in the best interest of the child Policies and process are available and accessible to parents and carers. This includes general guidance around remote education such as what children are asked to do online and who are likely to be interacting with for the purposes for their education. Parents and carers are also provided with information of how to keep their child safe online |
Resources | Keeping Children Safe in Education Part 2 |
Ref 2a.20 |
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.21 |
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.22 |
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.23 |
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.24 |
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.25 |
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.26 |
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.27 |
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 |