|
ITEM |
RED |
AMBER |
GREEN |
RESOURCES |
|
The role of the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and the setting’s safeguarding team and engagement with Local Safeguarding Partnerships |
|||||
|
There is appropriate governance and oversight of safeguarding in compliance with Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
RED There is no nominated governor (or equivalent) who can carry out the functions of Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education. |
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 meets regularly with the Designated Safeguarding Lead and there are recorded minutes of these meetings.
|
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. 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. |
Keeping Children Safe in Education Support with effective safeguarding arrangements as a member of a Governing Body. |
|
|
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 work 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 have formally reviewed the role and resourcing of the Designated Safeguarding Lead in line with changes made in Keeping Children Safe in Education (Annex C). Progressive changes have been 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 learners and specifically the educational outcomes of children who have, have had, or will require a social worker. The setting holds at least termly strategic safeguarding meetings are held, include 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. |
Keeping Children Safe in Education (annex C) |
|
|
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 Safeguard 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, Skype, 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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
||
|
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 has not engaged with the Local Safeguarding Partnership on a strategic basis. |
AMBER There is a reliance on the Designated Safeguarding Lead keeping up to date with reading the new iterations 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, despite named as a relevant agency, does not actively engage with the Local Safeguarding Partnership. This means those mentioned above have read the whole of Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children.
|
GREEN In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER; 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. The setting engages with city wide strategic safeguarding as a relevant agency under the Local Safeguarding partnership. 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. |
Education Reference Group - Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership Support with effective safeguarding arrangements as a leader within an education setting. Support with effective safeguarding arrangements as a member of a Governing Body. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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 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 1 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. |
||
|
|
RED There is no one in the setting who has had training on 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. |
||
|
|
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 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. |
Data protection in schools - Responsibilities - Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Data protection impact assessments | ICO
Information sharing advice for safeguarding practitioners - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) |
|
|
|
RED The setting has not yet completed the Bristol Police Safeguarding Notification briefing or signed the local protocols to receive information about children who attend their setting. |
AMBER The setting has one colleague who has completed the briefing and is able to receive and process Police Safeguarding Notifications. 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 Police Safeguarding Notifications. Colleagues refresh their knowledge at least every 2 years to keep abreast of updates nationally and locally. 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. This allows for a sustainable and trauma informed approach to be developed within the setting and effective early help to be considered for children and their families to promote safety, welfare, and educational outcomes for those who are subject to the notifications. Action is taken on the day that the notification is received, and appropriate safety/support plans are created/reviewed for each learner for whom the setting received a notification about. |
||
Utilising Local Partnerships |
|||||
|
|
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 learners. |
AMBER The setting is aware of but does not utilise localised partnership working unless responding to an identified need for learners. 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 learners 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. |
Local Bristol services to support safeguarding in education. (bristolsafeguardingineducation.org) |
|
|
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 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. |
||
|
|
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. |
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 to review vulnerable cases. Advice may only be sought on an ad hoc basis or as a reaction to acute/crisis presentation. |
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 learners. This is evidenced through case notes/minutes. |
Local Bristol services to support safeguarding in education. (bristolsafeguardingineducation.org)
Details of Bristol's Team Around the School offer (bristolsafeguardingineducation.org) |
|
|
ITEM |
RED |
AMBER |
GREEN |
RESOURCES |
Managing Extra Familial Harm – contextual safeguarding |
||||||
|
There is evidence that the setting’s staff are familiar with the concept of contextual safeguarding and how it relates to the setting’s responsibility to safeguard learners who may be at risk of or experiencing extra-familial harm. |
RED The setting has limited knowledge of contextual safeguarding and does not identify incidents of extra-familial harm (harm occurring in school, the neighbourhood, between peers, online abuse) as the setting’s responsibility. No additional action has been taken to review the setting’s capacity to provide a contextual safeguarding approach. |
AMBER The setting’s safeguarding team have basic awareness of contextual safeguarding and can apply this in relation to considering extra-familial harm and the context of harm when responding to the individual learner’s circumstances. There have been limited attempts to assess the setting’s capacity to identify extra-familial harm and provide contextual safeguarding for all learners. |
GREEN The setting’s safeguarding team and members of the senior leadership team have undertaken training on contextual safeguarding and all the different forms of extra-familial harm. The setting’s leadership have conducted assessments and audits reviewing its capacity to provide an effective contextual safeguarding approach and have taken action to ensure that incidents of extra-familial harm are identified, assessed, and responded to. The setting understands its role in being able to prevent and mitigate risk of extra-familial harm for all learners not just for individual learners. |
Contextual Safeguarding: information and resources.
|
||
Online Safety and remote education |
||||||
|
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 iteration of Keeping Children Safe in Education nor the setting’s response to 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 Work 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 learners) 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. |
|||
|
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 be 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). |
|||
|
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 learners 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 the 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.
|
|||
Managing Extra Familial Harm - Prevent |
||||||
|
The setting has completed a Prevent self-assessment (including a Prevent risk assessment and action plan). |
RED The setting has not completed the Prevent self-assessment (includes a Prevent risk assessment and action plan) that is reviewed at least on an annual basis. |
AMBER The setting does have a Prevent self-assessment (which includes a Prevent risk assessment and action plan). This is monitored and reviewed at least on an annual basis by the Designated Safeguarding Lead and governing body as appropriate. |
GREEN In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER; The setting’s Prevent self-assessment (which includes a Prevent risk assessment and action plan) are live documents which are regularly updated and reviewed in line with local and national incidents, but also incidents that have affected the setting’s local community. There are mechanisms to ensure knowledge and key findings of the assessment and action plan are curated effectively to be cascaded to staff through training/staff meetings, updates that the setting's online safety practice, and safeguarding on the curriculum. The setting engages with Bristol’s Virtual Prevent Network and engages with updates from the Local Safeguarding Partnership. |
Prevent and Channel programmes (bristol.gov.uk)
Prevent Self-Assessment and Action Plan | Trading with Schools
Counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Sign up to South West DfE Prevent newsletter (es-mail.co.uk)
|
||
|
The setting’s safeguarding staff are familiar with local procedures for responding to extremism and/or radicalisation. |
RED The setting does not have anyone trained to identify and act when there is a concern about vulnerability to those at risk of being drawn into terrorism. |
AMBER The setting’s Designated Safeguarding Lead is familiar with local procedures for making a referral either to the Channel panel or Children’s Social Care. The setting is familiar with the referral mechanism but relies on other agencies to provide interventions around Prevent cases.
|
GREEN In addition to conditions set out in the AMBER; The setting has measures to identify vulnerability to extremism and radicalisation early. The setting can make effective timely referrals that are robust, informed and with good intention. The setting has proactively considered the impact of Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 in doing so.
Interventions are contextual and include support for peer group, the setting's site and the setting's community. The setting has multiple members of staff who can make a referral and/or seek advice if required. |
|
||
Managing Extra Familial Harm – child on child abuse/harm |
||||||
|
|
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 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 learners.
|
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, learners 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, learners, 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.
|
|
||
|
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 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, learners have limited knowledge of how concerns will and can be addressed. |
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.
|
|
||
|
The setting has systems in place to ensure that learners 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 which 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. |
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 childrne 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 learners 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. |
|
||
|
The setting takes action to safeguard all leaners 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 along side 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 learners. 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 learners 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. |
|
||
|
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 learners. 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 (police safeguarding notifications) 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 learner 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. A contextual safeguarding approach |
|
||
|
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 and carers and governance. 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 learners 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 learners involved. This data is used to shape competent practice, policy, and wider inclusive cultures (e.g., reduced level of isolation rooms) |
Educate Against Hate - Prevent Radicalisation & Extremism
Module 3 of the Annual Safeguarding Refresher Training 2023-24
Report an incident at a school or college | Avon and Somerset Police |
||
|
Report an incident at a school or college | Avon and Somerset Police2a.26 |
The setting can take a proportionate response to incidents of sexual violence and sexual harassment.
|
RED The setting does not have a member of staff who has completed additional training to assess sexual violence or sexual harassment (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, school, neighbourhood). There is a flexible approach evidenced to respond to concerns through the curriculum (assemblies, tutor time, RSHE lessons).
|
CPD: Brook Sexual Behaviours Traffic Light Tool (RSE) Course
Helping education settings identify and respond to concerns - CSA Centre
|
|
|
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 learners and their relationships within the setting. Concerns are dealt with seriously and proactively to educate and safeguard learners 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 school 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 pupils involved (even vicariously peer/year groups/wider family members) is considered rather than just the learners directly involved. |
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 learner 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.
|
Report an incident at a school or college | Avon and Somerset Police |
||
Managing Extra Familial Harm – Child Exploitation – Sexual, Criminal, and Serious Violence |
||||||
|
|
RED The setting does not or cannot identify learners vulnerable to child exploitation. They are only identified following an incident of harm. The setting has limited awareness of the agencies or knowledge of how to contact them that can support children and or families who are vulnerable to or experiencing exploitation. |
AMBER The Designated Safeguarding Lead (and deputies) work in partnership with Avon and Somerset constabulary’s Operation Topaz and Safer Options once a child has been identified as vulnerable to experiencing child exploitation. The setting can evidence screening for safeguarding concerns when managing behaviour – they can evidence consideration of whether a child is at risk of child exploitation or harm before decisions are made which may place them at further harm (for example suspension or exclusion). Where relevant and or appropriate, information and intelligence is shared proactively with Avon and Somerset Constabulary online form (TOPAZ)/Safer Options Information Sharing forms.
|
GREEN In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting’s Designated Safeguarding lead (and deputies), and all relevant members of the senior leadership team (those responsible for managing behaviour) are familiar with the referral pathways for learners and wider family members who may be vulnerable to or experiencing exploitation. The setting can demonstrate cross referencing of existing data with information known by the setting, including the use of Police Safeguarding Notifications, to provide early help before a child reaches crisis point (Diversionary work with the Safer Options Education Inclusion Managers and Targeted services). The setting has evaluated evidenced pathways and mechanisms to consider welfare and safeguarding needs before punitive sanctions are implemented by members of senior leadership in line with statutory guidance suspensions and exclusions, behaviour in schools and searching screening and confiscation and relevant learning from the Child Q Child Safeguarding review. There is evidence that records are reviewed and audited to consider bias based on intersecting protected characteristics to avoid victim blaming and or adultification in line with the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This then reflects on the setting’s culture and practice to implement change. |
|||
|
The setting is compliant with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s updated Offensive Weapons and controlled drugs in Educational Setting Guidance
|
RED The designated safeguarding lead, senior leadership team and other relevant members of staff (including those who have responsibility for managing behaviour) are not aware and have not read the most recent version of the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s guidance. |
AMBER The designated safeguarding lead and members of the safeguarding team are familiar with the guidance. Partnership working occurs following an incident of weapons or drugs in an educational setting. This warrants a safeguarding response when implementing the behaviour policy. This response is balanced and proportionate. The setting’s behaviour and safeguarding and child protection policies reflect local guidance and procedures when it concerns working together with other agencies when managing incidents involving weapons or drugs. Multi-agency work is progressed and considers exploitation before punitive actions/exclusions are exercised for infractions of the setting’s behaviour policy. |
GREEN In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting’s designated safeguarding lead, senior leadership team, and other relevant members of staff (including those who have responsibility for managing behaviour) have read the up-to-date guidance. There is evidence that support, and guidance are sought before an incident occurs where there is suspected or known intelligence of vulnerability to exploitation. A contextual safeguarding approach is taken to engage with offers of support from the Police and Safer Options to engage with the peer group and neighbourhood when concerns around weapons and drugs are suspected. Records are reviewed and audited to consider bias based on intersecting protected characteristics to avoid victim blaming and or adultification. |
|
||
Managing domestic abuse and so called ‘honour’ based violence |
||||||
|
The setting is complaint with the Domestic Abuse Act statutory guidance and The right to choose: government guidance on forced marriage.
|
RED Staff are not aware of the updates in legislation and guidance to tackle domestic abuse. The setting does not explicitly or consciously take a stance against domestic abuse (paraphernalia, posters, leaflets) and the setting does not feel like a safe space for victims of abuse.
|
AMBER Information and knowledge of services are dealt with by the Designated Safeguarding Lead who is aware of the updated legislation and guidance around the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the application of The right to choose: government guidance on forced marriage. The setting has a culture which states a clear zero tolerance approach to domestic abuse. This is reflected in staff training, safeguarding on the curriculum, and paraphernalia (e.g. posters, notices in toilets, newsletter, website etc.). This can include information about local services from the Bristol City Council website and the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership website. The setting engages with Bristol’s version of Operation Encompass the Police Safeguarding Notification scheme. |
GREEN In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The Designated Safeguarding Lead, governance and senior leadership are familiar with their statutory duties around tacking Domestic abuse and Forced marriage. There is a member of staff who has undertaken additional 'enhanced' training on the themes of domestic abuse, so-called honour-based abuse and forced marriage. The member of staff has been able to cascade learning to the wider staff cohort around the nuances and sensitivities such as the ‘one chance’ rule, the need for confidence, careful management of information and safety planning. This includes the need to make timely and sensitive referrals to relevant statutory agencies and when not to involve family members or the community. The setting has evaluated its performance against statutory guidance to consider the effectiveness of practice using an audit tool (such as completing the healthy schools award the ‘Bristol Ideal’). |
|||
|
The setting’s Designated Safeguarding Lead, and deputies, can access advice from and make referrals to local services to support victims of domestic abuse recognising that children can victims in their own rights. |
RED The Designated Safeguarding Lead and deputies have limited knowledge of local services that victims of abuse can access. The setting does not recognise that they themselves can provide support and intervention for children affected by domestic abuse. |
AMBER The Designated Safeguarding Lead and deputies have knowledge of local services that victims of abuse can access when crisis point has been met. The setting seeks advice and can signpost victims to local services for support once harm has been identified (Next Link, Victim Support, and the Independent Domestic Violence Advisors from Families in Focus) regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Early help and emotional support can be accessed and sourced through the setting. Access to a trusted adult is provided.
|
GREEN The Designated Safeguarding Lead and deputies have robust knowledge of local services that victims of abuse can access. Support is proactively and skilfully signposted to through intelligence from learners and the Police Safeguarding Notifications (Operation Encompass). The setting’s safeguarding staff can coordinate early help support through to signposting to crisis support when required. This can include referral to the local children’s centre/family hub for The Freedom Programme. Children affected by domestic abuse are monitored through a vulnerable children’s list and their educational outcomes are monitored on a regular basis. The setting can provide early help support through reasonable adjustments and targeted support for learners who have been directly impacted by domestic abuse. This includes building up resilience, counselling, play therapy, mentoring, seeking help and support and safety planning. Safeguarding Staff have engaged with the Reducing Parental Conflict training and can competently use the resources. |
Resources for Case Work with learners and families (bristolsafeguardingineducation.org) |
||
Managing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) |
||||||
|
The setting is compliant with the statutory elements to the "Multi-agency statutory guidance on female genital mutilation" |
RED The setting has limited knowledge on its duties around preventing and responding to Female Genital Mutilation beyond referencing it in the safeguarding and child protection policy.
|
AMBER There are clear records that all staff have had FGM awareness training and are aware of their legal mandatory reporting duty. The setting has refreshed and reviewed knowledge as necessary. The setting designated safeguarding lead (and or deputies) know what the signs are and how to make a referral to statutory agencies. Statutory duties are reflected in the setting's safeguarding policy and other related policies (RSHE/PSHE, Attendance, Admissions). Work is explicit to prevention and identifying girls who may be survivors to be able to access support and help.
|
GREEN In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting’s designated safeguarding lead and or deputies have undertaken additional FGM training through the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership (since 2020). This has been refreshed within the last 3 years which includes changes and developments in local procedures and developing cultural competency around managing FGM concerns. The setting has ensured that knowledge around FGM in the setting’s community is robust and can reflect the needs of the community of which it serves. The setting can evidence a zero-tolerance stance in the setting’s safeguarding policies, teaching ‘being safe’ on the curriculum, and attendance policies (around requests for extended holiday). |
|
||
|
The setting is compliant with the Local Safeguarding Partnership’s procedures and policies around managing Female Genital Mutilation concerns. |
RED The setting does not have staff that are familiar with local processes. There is limited to knowledge around multi-agency working and or the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership FGM Referral Risk Assessment Tool. |
AMBER The setting’s designated safeguarding lead and any deputies have awareness of the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership FGM Referral Risk Assessment Tool and have read the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership's FGM Multiagency Guidance. Safeguarding staff can source advice and support when required through relevant subject matter experts within the Local Safeguarding Partnership.
|
GREEN In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting consistently complete a FGM Referral Risk Assessment which forms the basis of whether a referral is required to statutory agencies and or demonstrate defendable decision making if a referral is not required. This is stored against the child's safeguarding records. There is evidence the setting utilises other professionals in the partnership including other education settings to ensure a Working Together Approach.
|
Welcome to the Keeping Bristol Safe Partnership website. (bristolsafeguarding.org) |
||
Managing Mental Health and Wellbeing |
|
|||||
|
The setting has effective measures to promote good mental health for learners.
|
RED The setting responds to concerns when acute presentations become apparent. The setting has limited measures to identify mental health concerns early or promote a culture of good mental health.
|
AMBER The setting’s Designated Safeguarding Lead and senior leadership team have read and reviewed the setting's practice under 'Children requiring mental health support' in Part 2 of Keeping Children Safe in Education and government guidance Mental Health and Behaviour in Schools. The setting has invested in additional training and CPD for a member of the senior leadership team to be appointed as a Mental Health and Wellbeing lead. Clear systems and processes are in place to help the setting identify emerging mental health needs, providing routes to escalate issues with clear referral and accountability systems. There is evidence that the setting seeks to build resilience and positive mental health on the curriculum in an age-appropriate way. |
GREEN In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: The setting’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Lead who has had appropriate training, resources, and capacity to drive an effective whole school culture and approach. The setting has invested in a wellbeing model (Thrive). The setting has appointed an appropriate member of the setting’s governance (or equivalent) to oversee the effectiveness of the systems and processes in place for early intervention and identification, referral to experienced skilled professionals, and accountability. The setting’s safeguarding, SEN and behaviour are scrutinised to consider where resource is required. This also has measures around whether resources are effective in meeting need. The setting has made accessible information and offers of the range of mental health support to the whole of the setting’s community. A strategic review/audit has taken place since the pandemic to consider the setting's community’s changing needs and availability of services. (This could be using the Healthy Schools mental health award/Anna Freud Centre Assessment)
|
Mental health and wellbeing: specialist award (bristol.gov.uk)
Auditing your school and implementing change : Mentally Healthy Schools |
||
|
The setting has mechanisms to ensure effective formulation of mental health concerns occurs with a safeguarding lens.
|
RED There is limited connectivity between processes and systems for SEND and safeguarding. The setting’s response to mental health concerns is exclusively considered under the setting’s response under statutory SEND 0-25 years Code of Practice and or is dealt with uniquely as a behaviour.
|
AMBER The setting’s Designated Safeguarding Lead and deputies, work with the SENDCo and or behaviour leads to ensure a collaborative response to mental health concerns. The setting knows how to access specialist advice from their locality Primary Mental Health Specialist or Families in Focus. For Early Years this could also include the Locality Children Centres. The setting can refer to external counselling and support services, including CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services) and make this information available to parents/carers/learners where appropriate (for Early Years, this could also include Children's Centre family support, Portage and Inclusion, Specialist Children's Inclusion Practitioners).
|
GREEN In addition to the conditions set out in the AMBER: There is a culture and recognition that behaviour is a form of communication. The setting has an integrated system where appropriate concerns can be screened and monitored by safeguarding and SEN staff (behaviour and safeguarding records are cross-referenced). The SENDCo and the behaviour lead are part of the wider safeguarding team and formally supports review of vulnerable learners. This can allow for early help and preventative measures to be taken before an acute presentation. A team around the child is evidenced where working in partnership with parents/carers in place to further an assessment or strengthen interventions. The setting actively uses tools (the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and Boxall Profile), to assess learner’s mental health needs when there are known safeguarding episodes (Police Safeguarding Notifications) to ensure that a robust offer of support is considered proactively. The setting can provide proportionate support (early help) internally and make reasonable adjustments alongside making external referrals if required. |
|
||
|
There is evidence that all learners have a choice of staff to turn to for personal guidance or help (not just those who are identified as vulnerable).
|
RED The setting does not have clearly promoted systems where children can choose who they can turn to for personal guidance. There is limited access to staff due to staff capacity. For residential settings there is no policy around learners contacting any member of staff with personal, academic or welfare concerns and reference to an independent person is not promoted nor easily accessible. |
AMBER The setting makes staff available for each vulnerable child when they are requested or when a need has been identified. Children are provided with and have access to one or more appropriate helpline(s) or outside contact number such as Childline In residential settings there is clear policy implemented in practice that children can contact any member of staff of any gender with personal, academic or welfare concerns. There is also reference to an ‘independent person’ who children can contact directly about personal problems or concerns at the setting. |
GREEN The setting has provided access to a choice of staff to turn to for personal guidance or help for all children (not just those who have vulnerability). This has been well promoted and staff are accessible. Children are provided with and have access to one or more appropriate helpline(s) or outside contact number such as Childline. These are well promoted and accessible, including being accessible on virtual platforms for when children are not in school. For residential settings there is a child friendly policy around learners contacting any member of staff with personal, academic or welfare concerns and reference to an independent person is promoted or easily accessible. The policy also references the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, to ring in case of problems or distress. |
|
||