Amendments

Update of links in related Policies and Procedures. 

Full update Christine Hutson

Full update 23.02.2024

Updates by JH CSC uploaded by CH

Added Peer pressure from Childnet

Changing Missing to Absent from Education

Changing Missing to Absent from Education

Changing Missing Education to Absent from Educations

LA Missing Children Practice Guidance link added. (No longer embedded)

+

Change of 5.1.11 sentence added to reference and differentiate between the LA Missing Practice Guidance and the Multi-Agency Missing 3.7 Children Missing from Care, Home and Education: Procedure

Update of DAPOs and DAPNs from Faye Blunstone

Update on IDVAS from MARAC Chair Kathryn Francis.

Updating link to new Joint Protocol for Homeless 16 and 17 year olds. 

Updating Joint Protocol for Homless 16 and 17 year olds. 

Updating links. 

Updating Links.

Updating logos on appendix forms.

Removal of link to website no longer working. 

Updating Training link.

National Update - Links.

National Updates 

National Updates - Updated Example of people in Positions of Trust

National Update - link added to Child sex offender disclosure scheme.

National Update - link added to Updated Statutory guidance for Modern Slavery.

National Update - Resource Pack and what is Forched Marriage link. 

National Update Easy Read

National Update - Link for Easy Read. 

National Update - Link

National Update - Link 

Updates added from DA Board Fay Blunstone & Steven Kensington.

New definition added for abusive behaviour

Broken Links

Brokne links fixed. 

'Co-existing conditions' added in place of Dual Diagnosis. 20.04.2023 CH RE ORB recommendation. 

Uodated 3.2.6 on recommendations of AM Chrildren;s Care Management.

Update to 6.1.5 to include other adults and siblings. From revision of policy. 

National Update of Use of reasonable force in schools link 

New link added The Children's Society. Suggested by National Updates from PHEW. 

Update of links for 3.2 Children Living Away From Home, Guidance. 

13.03.23 Link for NSPCC Cyperbullying added.  

8.2.10 Updated from notification on National updates March 2023.

Updated 07.03.2023 From National Updates 'Where Can I go to get research or learn more?' Extra link added to Criminal Exploittion of children and vuerable adults: County Lines guidance .gov.

23.06.2022 Update of inititials of CPS

23.06.2022 Removed link

23.06.2022 New link  and details in Paragraph.

23.06.2022 Revision of names. 

23.06.2022 Updated Paragraph.

LCSPR added 23.06.2022

23.06.2022 Some changes made to paragraph wording. 

23.06.2022 Updated.

23.06.2022 Paragraph updated

23.06.2022 LCSPR 

23.06.2022 LCSPR added.

Revised 23.06.222

23.06.2022 Update of last sentence.

22.06.2022 Links added.

Updated Link 23.06.22

23.06.22 New link added.

23.06.2022 Removal of link to Delayed reporting.

23.06.2022 Pre-Birth Flow Chart Updated by BSCP CH/JS

22.06.2022 Extensive updating of whole document. 

June 2022 all resources updated.

• Department of Education Mental health and behaviour in schools - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2013) Self-harm Quality Standard
• NSPCC Self Harm Preventing Child Self-Harm & Keep Them Safe | NSPCC
• Mental Health Foundation (2006) Truth Hurts: Report of the National Inquiry into Self-harm among Young People
• Public Health England (2014) Intentional self-harm in adolescence: An analysis of data from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey for England. Main heading (publishing.service.gov.uk)
• Royal College of Psychiatrists (2014) Managing self-harm in young people.
• Murphy, G and Wilson, B (1985) Self-injurious Behaviour. Kidderminster: British Institute of Mental Handicap Publications.

Added reference to Keeping Children Safe in Education under 'peer on peer abuse'.

Each organisation or school providing a service to children, young people and families must have its own policy on how it manages child safeguarding concerns so that staff, children and families know how to identify and report abuse and neglect. The policies should be consistent with and refer to these procedures. Safeguarding training for staff should be provided and refreshed regularly, Children young people and families should be regularly reminded of how they can report concerns.

Where services for children and families are being commissioned, commissioners should ensure that contracts include these requirements.

Each organisation or school should identify a named senior manager with overall responsibility for:

• Ensuring that the organisation deals with allegations in accordance with these procedures; · Resolving any inter-agency issues;
• Making statutory notifications to professional bodies and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS);
• Liaising with the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Partners on the subject.

Organisations or school should also appoint:

• A DSL to whom allegations or concerns should be reported. This person should be a senior manager. They should:

• Seek advice from the LADO regarding incidents where it is unclear whether it is an allegation or a concern;
• Report all allegations of harm to the LADO.

• A deputy to whom reports should be made in the absence of the DSL or where that person is the subject of the allegation or concern.

In practice the named senior manager or head Teacher and the designated safeguarding lead may be the same person.

All staff should be made aware of the organisation's whistle-blowing policy and feel confident to voice concerns about the attitude or actions of colleagues.

If a member of staff believes that a reported allegation or concern is not being dealt with appropriately by their organisation, they should report the matter to the LADO. In addition, where the senior manager/Headteacher/DSL fail to take action which puts children at further risk, then they could be subject to disciplinary.

Local authorities should assign a LADO or a team of LADOs, to:

• Receive reports about allegations and to be involved in the management and oversight of individual cases;
• Provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations;
• Liaise with the police and other agencies;
• Monitor the progress of cases to ensure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible, consistent with a thorough and fair process;
• Provide advice and guidance to employers in relation to making referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and regulatory bodies such as Ofsted, the General Medical Council (GMC) etc.

It is very important that those giving advice have expertise in this area, as any errors in the advice could have serious ramifications, both for those individuals who have had allegations made against them and for those making the allegation. It is important to be aware that LADOs do not carry out investigations into allegations – responsibility for the investigation remains with the employer (or whoever is commissioned by the employer to investigate the process) and/or the police. The LADO can provide advice and, where necessary, co-ordinate the process. The LADO is also responsible for ensuring an appropriate outcome is reached. Where it is not straightforward to establish which organisation should lead an investigation, for example, where responsibility may be shared between an employment agency and the organisation where the person was working, the LADO will also provide advice regarding which organisation is best placed to lead the investigation.

Case responsibility will usually lie with the LADO for the Authority area in which the adult works or volunteers, i.e. where the employing organisation is based. For example, a member of staff might work or volunteer in Authority area A, but live in Authority area B. Any allegations regarding this adult in relation to their work role would be made to the LADO in Authority area A, because that is where the employing agency is based.

Some organisations are national with strong local presence, e.g., CAFCASS or large voluntary organisations. In these cases responsibility will be where the person is based or their normal office base. If in doubt LADOs should negotiate.

Cases will often be relevant to more than one authority area. For example, an allegation could be made against an agency worker who works across multiple authority area and whose agency is based in a further authority area. Decisions about which LADO should take the lead are complex and should consider the following:

• Which agency holds the greatest risk? For example, if an agency worker has only worked one day in the school where the allegation has taken place and won’t be returning, it might be that the employment agency holds the most risk;
• Where is organisational learning required? For example, an agency worker may have only worked in a school for a day, but if the school did not follow good practice with the worker and this contributed to the incident, the greatest learning might be with the school.

The police Detective Inspector in the Child Abuse Investigation Unit (CAIU) will:

• Have strategic oversight of the local police arrangements for managing allegations against staff and volunteers. This will include, for example, responsibility for informing partners of changes to police practice (such as the changes to bail process and legislation) and keeping partners aware of the number of cases they are dealing with and any themes which emerge from them;
• Liaise with the safeguarding partners on the issue and which section of the police will lead the investigation, which will usually be the Child Abuse Investigations Unit (CAIU) where the incident took place.
• Ensure compliance with these procedures.

The police should designate a Detective Sergeant/s to:

• Liaise with the LADO and their team;
• Take part in meetings / discussions;
• Review the progress of cases in which there is a police investigation;
• Share information as appropriate, on completion of an investigation or related prosecution.

If a police officer receives an allegation, they should, without delay, report it to the duty Detective Sergeant at CAIU. The detective sergeant should then immediately inform the LADO.

Relevant statutory guidance

• Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018
• Keeping Children Safe in Education: Statutory Guidance for Schools and Colleges
• Use of reasonable force in schools Disqualification under the Childcare Act 2006
• Making barring referrals to the DBS
• DBS barring referral guidance

 Allegations dealt with by these procedures

These procedures should be applied when there is an allegation that any person who works with children/young people, in connection with their employment or voluntary activity, has:

• Behaved in a way that has harmed a child/young person, or may have harmed a child/young person;
• Possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child/young person;
• Behaved towards a child/young person or children/young people in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children/young people.
• Behaved or may have behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children/young people.

Allegations can be made in relation to physical chastisement and restraint but can also relate to inappropriate relationships between members of staff and children or young people, for example:

• Having a sexual relationship with a child under 18 if in a position of trust in respect of that child, even if consensual (see ss16-19 Sexual Offences Act 2003);
• 'Grooming', i.e. meeting a child under 16 with intent to commit a relevant offence (see s15 Sexual Offences Act 2003);
• Other 'grooming' behaviour giving rise to concerns of a broader child protection nature e.g. inappropriate text / e-mail messages or images, gifts, socialising etc;
• Possession of indecent photographs / data images / pseudo-photographs of children.

In addition, these procedures should be applied when there is an allegation that any person who works with children:

• Has behaved in a way in their personal life that raises safeguarding concerns. These concerns do not have to directly relate to a child but could, for example, include arrest for possession of a weapon;
• As a parent or carer, including holders of Special Guardianship orders, has become subject to child protection procedures;
• Is closely associated with someone in their personal lives (e.g. partner, member of the family or other household member) who may present a risk of harm to child/ren for whom the member of staff is responsible in their employment/volunteering.

Finally, these procedures should be followed where a person’s employment is covered by the Childcare Act 2006 (See definition in the statutory guidance.)

It is also important to note that, whilst not specifically covered by statutory guidance, the risks associated with the wider family and close associates of the member of staff may also need to be considered even if their work with children does not fall within the remit of the statutory guidance.

These procedures should be followed where allegations are made against a 16 or 17 year’s old who has been put in a position of trust by an organisation in relation to anyone under the age of 18. For example, where they might be involved in coaching a sport or in other school or out of school activities.

The procedures for dealing with allegations need to be applied with objectivity and professional judgement. Many cases may not meet the criteria set out above or may do so without warranting consideration of either a police investigation or enquiries by Local Authority Children’s Social Care Services. In these cases, employers should follow their safeguarding and other relevant procedures to resolve cases without delay.

It might not be clear whether an incident constitutes an ‘allegation’. It is important to be mindful that in order to be an “allegation” the alleged incident has to be sufficiently serious as to suggest that harm has or may have been caused harm to a child/ren or that the alleged behaviour indicates the individual may pose a risk of harm to children (or otherwise meets the criteria above). Issues that do not meet this threshold may constitute conduct or disciplinary issues and should be addressed by employers using the appropriate organisational procedures.

If it is difficult to determine the level of risk associated with an incident the following should be considered:

• Was the incident a disproportionate or inappropriate response in the context of a challenging situation?
• Where the incident involved an inappropriate response to challenging behaviour, had the member of staff received training in managing this, and is training up to date?
• Does the member of staff understand that their behaviour was inappropriate/subject to review and express a wish to behave differently in the future? For example, are they willing to undergo training/can they demonstrate reflective skills?
• Does the child/young person, or family want to report the incident to the Police, or would they prefer the matter to be dealt with by the employer?
• Have similar allegations been made against the employee – is there a pattern developing?

Incidents which fall short of the threshold could include an accusation that is made second or third hand and the facts are not clear, or the member of staff alleged to have done this was not there at the time, or there is confusion about the account.

Whether an incident constitutes an allegation and hence needs to be dealt with through these procedures, may need to be discussed by the LADO and the employer’s safeguarding lead. If it falls short of this threshold there may still be a role for the LADO to provide advice and support to the employer. Where the matter constitutes a conduct or performance issue, the employer should follow the appropriate disciplinary procedures and let the LADO know of the outcome.

Investigators should be alert to signs of organised or widespread abuse and/or the involvement of other perpetrators or institutions. They should consider whether the matter should be dealt with in accordance with complex abuse procedures which, if applicable, will take priority. See Organised and Complex Abuse Procedurehttps://bscb.procedures.org.uk/pkqlx/joint-working-procedures-and-guidance/complex-abuse-procedure .

Allegations of non-recent abuse should be responded to and reported in the same way as contemporaneous allegations. In cases of non-recent abuse, the person against whom the allegation is made may still be working with children and young people and it will be important to investigate whether this is the case.

Relevant statutory guidance

• Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018
• Keeping Children Safe in Education: Statutory Guidance for Schools and Colleges
• Use of reasonable force in schools Disqualification under the Childcare Act 2006
• Making barring referrals to the DBS
• DBS barring referral guidance

Roles and responsibilities

Each organisation or school providing a service to children, young people and families must have its own policy on how it manages child safeguarding concerns so that staff, children and families know how to identify and report abuse and neglect. The policies should be consistent with and refer to these procedures. Safeguarding training for staff should be provided and refreshed regularly, Children young people and families should be regularly reminded of how they can report concerns.

Where services for children and families are being commissioned, commissioners should ensure that contracts include these requirements.

Each organisation or school should identify a named senior manager with overall responsibility for:

• Ensuring that the organisation deals with allegations in accordance with these procedures; · Resolving any inter-agency issues;
• Making statutory notifications to professional bodies and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS);
• Liaising with the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Partners on the subject.

Organisations or school should also appoint:

• A DSL to whom allegations or concerns should be reported. This person should be a senior manager. They should:

• Seek advice from the LADO regarding incidents where it is unclear whether it is an allegation or a concern;
• Report all allegations of harm to the LADO.

• A deputy to whom reports should be made in the absence of the DSL or where that person is the subject of the allegation or concern.

In practice the named senior manager or head Teacher and the designated safeguarding lead may be the same person.

All staff should be made aware of the organisation's whistle-blowing policy and feel confident to voice concerns about the attitude or actions of colleagues.

If a member of staff believes that a reported allegation or concern is not being dealt with appropriately by their organisation, they should report the matter to the LADO. In addition, where the senior manager/Headteacher/DSL fail to take action which puts children at further risk, then they could be subject to disciplinary.

Local authorities should assign a LADO or a team of LADOs, to:

• Receive reports about allegations and to be involved in the management and oversight of individual cases;
• Provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations;
• Liaise with the police and other agencies;
• Monitor the progress of cases to ensure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible, consistent with a thorough and fair process;
• Provide advice and guidance to employers in relation to making referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and regulatory bodies such as Ofsted, the General Medical Council (GMC) etc.

It is very important that those giving advice have expertise in this area, as any errors in the advice could have serious ramifications, both for those individuals who have had allegations made against them and for those making the allegation. It is important to be aware that LADOs do not carry out investigations into allegations – responsibility for the investigation remains with the employer (or whoever is commissioned by the employer to investigate the process) and/or the police. The LADO can provide advice and, where necessary, co-ordinate the process. The LADO is also responsible for ensuring an appropriate outcome is reached. Where it is not straightforward to establish which organisation should lead an investigation, for example, where responsibility may be shared between an employment agency and the organisation where the person was working, the LADO will also provide advice regarding which organisation is best placed to lead the investigation.

Case responsibility will usually lie with the LADO for the Authority area in which the adult works or volunteers, i.e. where the employing organisation is based. For example, a member of staff might work or volunteer in Authority area A, but live in Authority area B. Any allegations regarding this adult in relation to their work role would be made to the LADO in Authority area A, because that is where the employing agency is based.

Some organisations are national with strong local presence, e.g., CAFCASS or large voluntary organisations. In these cases responsibility will be where the person is based or their normal office base. If in doubt LADOs should negotiate.

Cases will often be relevant to more than one authority area. For example, an allegation could be made against an agency worker who works across multiple authority area and whose agency is based in a further authority area. Decisions about which LADO should take the lead are complex and should consider the following:

• Which agency holds the greatest risk? For example, if an agency worker has only worked one day in the school where the allegation has taken place and won’t be returning, it might be that the employment agency holds the most risk;
• Where is organisational learning required? For example, an agency worker may have only worked in a school for a day, but if the school did not follow good practice with the worker and this contributed to the incident, the greatest learning might be with the school.

The police Detective Inspector in the Child Abuse Investigation Unit (CAIU) will:

• Have strategic oversight of the local police arrangements for managing allegations against staff and volunteers. This will include, for example, responsibility for informing partners of changes to police practice (such as the changes to bail process and legislation) and keeping partners aware of the number of cases they are dealing with and any themes which emerge from them;
• Liaise with the safeguarding partners on the issue and which section of the police will lead the investigation, which will usually be the Child Abuse Investigations Unit (CAIU) where the incident took place.
• Ensure compliance with these procedures.

The police should designate a Detective Sergeant/s to:

• Liaise with the LADO and their team;
• Take part in meetings / discussions;
• Review the progress of cases in which there is a police investigation;
• Share information as appropriate, on completion of an investigation or related prosecution.

If a police officer receives an allegation, they should, without delay, report it to the duty Detective Sergeant at CAIU. The detective sergeant should then immediately inform the LADO.

Responding to an allegation or concern – the role of the employer

An allegation or concern raised about a member of staff may arise from a number of sources, for example, a report from a child / young person, a concern raised by another adult in the organisation, or a complaint by a parent / carer. It may also arise in the context of the member of staff and their life outside work or at home.

The person to whom an allegation or concern is first reported should treat the matter seriously and keep an open mind. They should not:

• Investigate or ask leading questions;
• Make assumptions or offer alternative explanations;
• Promise confidentiality.

They should follow their organisation’s procedures, which should include the following:

• Making a written record of the information (where possible in the child , young person/ adult's own words), including the time, date and place of incident/s, persons present and what was said; · Signing and dating the written record by the person who has written the record;
• Immediately reporting the matter to the designated safeguarding lead, or the deputy in their absence or; where the designated safeguarding lead is the subject of the allegation report to the deputy or other appropriate senior manager.

Police should be immediately informed where there is an urgent safeguarding risk or the allegation is of a very serious nature – this will also enable prompt action to be taken to gather evidence from mobile phones, etc.

When informed of a concern or allegation, the designated safeguarding lead should not investigate the matter but they should continue to gather factual information in regards to the incident and ensure any evidence is preserved. This fact-finding should be a neutral process and should not amount to an investigation of the incident.

They should:

• Obtain written details of the concern / allegation, signed and dated by the person receiving it (not the child, young person/ adult making the allegation);
• Approve and date the written details;
• Record any information about times, dates and location of incident/s and names of any potential witnesses;
• Record discussions about the child, young person and/or member of staff, any decisions made, and the reasons for those decisions.

The designated safeguarding lead should review the information available and consideration should be given as to whether the case meets the threshold of harm/risk of harm.

• If it is decided it meets the threshold of harm/risk of harm and therefore is an allegation they should follow the procedures below and notify the LADO within one working day. If appropriate, the police should also be notified within one working day – or immediately if necessary;
• If it is decided that the incident does not meet the threshold of harm/risk of harm and is a concern about conduct or practice only, then they should take steps to ensure any conduct or practice issues are addressed with the member of staff through normal employment practices;

If the designated safeguarding lead is unclear whether the incident meets the threshold of harm/risk of harm they should seek advice from the LADO.

The designated safeguarding lead must inform their LADO within one working day when an allegation is made and prior to any further investigation taking place. A failure to report an allegation in accordance with procedures is a potential disciplinary matter.

• If it is outside of normal working hours and there is an immediate risk to a child or young person, the Local Authority Emergency Duty Team for children’s social care. The LADO should be informed as soon as possible;
• An immediate risk assessment should be carried out;
• If appropriate the police should also be notified within one working day – or immediately if necessary;
• It is important to note that information gathering is distinct from investigation. Employers should continue to gather information about the facts of the case, for example, checking if there is any evidence and taking statements from other witnesses.

Suspension should be considered only in cases where there is caused to suspect a child or other children and young people at the place of employment is/are at risk of harm or the case is so serious that it might be grounds for dismissal. The case manager must consider carefully whether the circumstances warrant suspension from contact with children until the allegation is resolved and may wish to seek advice from their HR Consultant / HR Advisor personnel adviser and the LADO.

The case manager should also consider whether the result that would be achieved by immediate suspension could be obtained by alternative arrangements. In many cases an investigation can be resolved quickly and without the need for suspension. If the LADO, police and Children’s Social Care Services have no objections to the member of staff continuing to work during the investigation, the case manager should be as flexible as possible to avoid suspension. Based on assessment of risk, the following alternatives should be considered by the case manager before suspending a member of staff:

• Redeployment so that the individual does not have direct contact with the child or children and young person concerned;
• Providing an assistant to be present when the individual has contact with children;
• Redeploying to alternative work so the individual does not have unsupervised access to children;
• Temporarily redeploying the member of staff to another role in a different location.

These alternatives allow time for an informed decision regarding the suspension. This will, however, depend upon the nature of the allegation. The case manager should consider the potential permanent professional reputational damage to employees that can result from suspension where an allegation is later found to be unsubstantiated or maliciously intended.

If immediate suspension is considered necessary, the rationale and justification for such a course of action should be agreed and recorded by both the case manager and the LADO. This should also include what alternatives to suspension have been considered and why they were rejected.

Where it has been deemed appropriate to suspend the person, written confirmation should be dispatched within one working day, giving as much detail as appropriate for the reasons for the suspension. It is not acceptable for an employer to leave a person who has been suspended without any support. The person should be informed at the point of their suspension who their named contact is within the organisation and provided with their contact details.

Children’s Social Care Services or the police cannot require the case manager to suspend a member of staff or a volunteer, although they should give appropriate weight to their advice. The power to suspend is vested in the employer. However, where a discussion concludes that there should be enquiries by the Children’s Social Care Services and/or an investigation by the police, the LADO should canvass police and Children’s Social Care Services for views about whether the accused member of staff needs to be suspended from contact with children in order to inform consideration of suspension. Police involvement does not make it mandatory to suspend a member of staff; this decision should be taken on a case-by-case basis having undertaken a risk assessment.

If a suspended person is to return to work, the employer should consider what help and support might be appropriate (e.g. a phased return to work and/or provision of a mentor), and also how best to manage the member of staff's contact with the child or young person concerned, if still in the workplace.

Police Bail

The necessity for arrest is set out in Code G PACE 1984 and guides police decision making as to whether a suspect is arrested (need to establish identity, prevent harm, secure evidence etc.). If the requirement to arrest is not met, the suspect will often be interviewed under caution on a voluntary basis.

If arrested, police have several options if the decision is made to release the suspect from custody whilst the investigation continues. The default option is to “release under investigation” (RUI) which means the suspect remains under investigation, albeit there are no linked conditions or specific timescales imposed on them.

The other option is to release on police bail under Section 50a of PACE 1984, where specific conditions may be imposed. The decision to bail and impose conditions must be both necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances and has strict timescales associated with it. These are initially set at 28 days, however, can be extended to 3 months by authority of a police superintendent and longer by application through the magistrate’s court.

The decision by police to arrest or interview a suspect on a voluntary basis and whether they are RUI or bailed should have no bearing on assessing the evidential merits of the case. Any decision to suspend an individual should be made after a full assessment of the evidence and information gathered.

Schools and colleges - interim prohibition order

In cases where a school or college is made aware that the Secretary of State has made an interim prohibition order in respect of an individual at the school or college, it will be necessary to immediately suspend that person from teaching pending the findings of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) investigation.

The role of the LADO

Deciding if it is an allegation of harm or a concern

• All concerns reported to the LADO should be assessed to decide if the threshold for an allegation has been met. In cases where it is not clear whether the threshold has been met, it might be necessary to have a discussion (by phone or in a meeting) to evaluate whether the threshold is met.
• It is essential to keep the employer who raised the concern informed whilst the case is being assessed. Organisations raising concerns may want to challenge or discuss decisions made by the LADO and will need to be updated on any action taken;
• The employer and the LADO should discuss the incident and agree whether it meets the threshold for risk of harm. Consideration should be given to the risk or potential risk to both the child/ren or young person directly affected by the issue and any other children or young people who may also be at risk;
• Where it is decided that the incident does not meet the threshold of harm/risk of harm and is a concern only, then the employer should take steps to ensure any conduct or behaviour issues are addressed with the member of staff through normal employment practices.

Considering an allegation there are up to four strands in the consideration of an allegation:

• A police investigation of a possible criminal offence;
• LA Children’s Social Care enquiries and/or assessment about whether a child or young person is in need of protection or services;
• Consideration by an employer of disciplinary action in relation to possible performance/ conduct issues;
• Whether action in regards to the person making the allegation should be considered where the allegation has no foundation and may be malicious.

The LADO and the designated safeguarding lead should consider first whether further details are needed and whether there is evidence or information that establishes that the allegation is false or unfounded.

If the allegation is not demonstrably false and there is cause to suspect that the adult (or in specific circumstances the 16 or 17 year old) poses a risk of harm, the LADO should convene a LADO Strategy meeting/discussion. This will sometimes have to take place immediately but the speed at which it is convened should be commensurate to the risk.

If the allegation does not meet the threshold for risk of harm, and there is no evidence of harm, but there is concern about inappropriate behaviour etc., the LADO should inform the employer/HR provider of this who will then take responsibility for addressing the issue.

The LADO can provide advice and support to the employer where necessary.

The police must be consulted about any case in which a criminal offence may have been committed.

LADO Strategy meeting/discussion will decide the strategy for managing the allegation. Where necessary this will be a face-to-face meeting. Many cases can be managed through a discussion between the designated safeguarding lead, the police, any other relevant agency and the LADO. Where communication is via phone or email records should be kept for audit purposes.

The LADO Strategy Meeting will be chaired by the LADO. It will normally be attended by the police, social care and the employer. The employer is advised to bring a Human Resources advisor. In situations where the allegation is against a health professional, the designated or named nurse for safeguarding (Clinical Commissioning Group/CCG) should be invited; or appropriate safeguarding lead from a provider trust/organisation.

Where the allegation relates to the individual’s workplace, A LADO Strategy Meeting will be chaired by the LADO and, with Children’s Social Care present, will determine if a S47 is required ensuring that the welfare of the child is paramount.

Where there is a larger number of people involved in the case, the benefit of convening a face-face meeting is increased.

A LADO Strategy Meeting will normally only be convened when it has been decided that the threshold of harm/risk of harm has been met. Meetings should not be used to further investigate concerns about inappropriate behaviour or conduct where there are not clear indications of harm /risk of harm to a child or young person.

The meeting/discussion should:

• Decide if there is to be a police investigation;
• Decide if a s47 is required and plan accordingly
• Consider whether any parallel disciplinary process can take place and agree protocols for sharing information;
• Consider the current allegation in the context of any previous allegations or concerns;
• Where appropriate, take account of any entitlement by staff to use reasonable force to control or restrain children (e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-reasonableforce-in-schools);
• Consider whether a complex abuse investigation is applicable (see Organised and Complex Abuse Procedure);
• Plan enquiries if needed, allocate tasks and set timescales;
• Decide what information can be shared, with whom and when.

The meeting /discussion should also:

• Ensure that CSC have put arrangements in place to protect the child/ren or young person involved and any other child/ren affected, including taking emergency action where needed;
• Consider what support should be provided to all children and young people who may be affected;
• Consider what support should be provided to the member of staff and others who may be affected and how they will be kept up to date with the progress of the investigation;
• Ensure that investigations are sufficiently independent;
• Make recommendations where appropriate regarding suspension, or alternatives to suspension;
• Identify a lead contact manager within each agency;
• Agree protocols for reviewing investigations and monitoring progress by the LADO, having regard to the target timescales;
• Consider issues for the attention of senior management (e.g. media interest, resource implications);
• Consider reports for consideration of barring;
• Consider risk assessments to inform the employer's safeguarding arrangements;
• Agree dates for future meetings / discussions.

A final meeting /discussion should be held to ensure that all tasks have been completed, including any referrals to the DBS if appropriate, and, where appropriate, agree an action plan for future practice based on lessons learnt.

Meetings/discussions in relation to allegations against staff in their personal lives

If an allegation arises about a member of staff, outside of their work with children and young people, and this may present a risk of harm/risk of harm to child/ren for whom the member of staff is responsible through their employment/volunteering, a Positions of Trust (POT) meeting/discussion should be convened to decide whether the concern justifies:

• Approaching the member of staff's employer for further information, in order to assess the level of risk of harm; and/or
• Inviting the employer and their HR Advisor to a further meeting/discussion about dealing with the possible risk of harm.

If the member of staff lives in a different authority area to that which covers their workplace, liaison should take place between the relevant agencies in both areas and a joint meeting/discussion convened.

In some cases, an allegation of abuse against someone closely associated with a member of staff (e.g. partner, member of the family or other household member) may present a risk of harm to child/ren for whom the member of staff is responsible through their employment/volunteering. In these circumstances, a POT meeting/discussion should be convened to consider:

• The ability and/or willingness of the member of staff to adequately protect the child/ren or young person;
• Whether measures need to be put in place to ensure their protection;
• Whether the role of the member of staff is compromised.

It is in everyone’s interest to resolve cases as quickly as possible consistent with a fair and thorough investigation. All allegations should be investigated as a priority to avoid any delay. The time taken to investigate and resolve individual cases depends on a variety of factors including the nature, seriousness and complexity of the allegation, but these targets should be achieved in all but truly exceptional cases. Target timescales are shown below:

• For those cases where it is clear immediately that the allegation is unsubstantiated or malicious, they should be resolved within one week;
• Where the initial consideration decides that the allegation does not involve a possible criminal offence it will be for the employer to deal with it, although if there are concerns about child protection, the employer should discuss them with the LADO;

In such cases, if the nature of the allegation does not require formal disciplinary action, the employer should institute appropriate action within three working days;

If a disciplinary hearing is required and can be held without further investigation, the hearing should be held within 15 working days

It is expected that:

• 80 per cent of cases should be resolved within one month;
• 90 per cent should be resolved within three months;
• All but the most exceptional cases should be completed within 12 months.

Taken from ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ [Sept 2019]

The LADO should monitor and record the progress of each case, either fortnightly or monthly depending on its complexity. This could be by way of review meetings / discussions or direct liaison with the police, LA children's social care, or employer, as appropriate. Where the target timescales cannot be met, the LADO should record the reasons.

The LADO should keep comprehensive records in order to ensure that each case is being dealt with expeditiously and that there are no undue delays. The records will also assist safeguarding partners to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures for managing allegations and provide statistical information to the multiagency safeguarding partners as required.

If a police investigation is to be conducted, the police should set a date for reviewing its progress and consulting the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about continuing or closing the investigation or charging the individual. Wherever possible, this should be no later than four weeks after the meeting/discussion. Dates for further reviews should be so be agreed, either fortnightly or monthly depending on the complexity of the investigation.

Outcomes following an investigation

Substantiated

There is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation that a child or young person has been harmed or there is a risk of harm.

If the facts of the incident are found to be true but it is not found that a child or young person has been harmed or there is a risk of harm, then consideration should be given to deciding that the outcome is ‘unsubstantiated’ or ‘unfounded’.

Malicious

There is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive. The police should be asked to consider what action may be appropriate in these circumstances.

False

There is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation, however, there is no evidence to suggest that there was a deliberate intention to deceive.

False allegations may be an indicator of abuse elsewhere which requires further exploration. If an allegation is demonstrably false, the employer, in consultation with the LADO, should consider referring the matter to LA Children's Social Care to determine whether the child is in need of services, or might have been abused by someone else.

Unsubstantiated

There is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation. The term, therefore, does not imply guilt or innocence.

Unfounded

The additional definition of ‘unfounded’ can be used to reflect cases where there is no evidence or proper basis which supports the allegation being made. It might also indicate that the person making the allegation misinterpreted the incident or was mistaken about what they saw. Alternatively, they may not have been aware of all the circumstances.

The LADO should make a record of the agreed outcome and forward this to the employer.

Cases in which an allegation was proven to be false, unfounded, unsubstantiated or malicious should not be included in employer references. A history of repeated concerns or allegations which have all been found to be false, unsubstantiated or malicious should also not be included in any reference.

Details of allegations that are found to have been malicious should be removed from personnel records. However, for all other allegations, it is important that a clear and comprehensive summary of the allegation, details of how the allegation was followed up and resolved, and a note of any action taken and decisions reached, is kept on the confidential personnel file of the person subject to the allegation and a copy provided to the person concerned. The purpose of the record is to enable accurate information to be given in response to any future request for a reference, where appropriate. It will provide clarification in cases where future DBS checks reveal information from the police about an allegation that did not result in a criminal conviction and it will help to prevent unnecessary re-investigation if, as sometimes happens, an allegation resurfaces after a period of time. The record should be retained at least until the accused has reached normal pension age or for a period of 10 years from the date of the allegation if that is longer. The Information Commissioner has published guidance on employment records in its Employment Practices Code and supplementary guidance, which provides some practical advice on record retention.

Substantiated allegations

The DBS was established under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and merges the functions previously carried out by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). The relevant legislation is set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

There is a legal requirement for employers to make a referral to the DBS where they think that an individual has engaged in conduct that harmed (or is likely to harm) a child; or if a person otherwise poses a risk of harm to a child; or is there is an investigation and the outcome is substantiated either by criminal investigation or by the balance of probabilities

If an allegation is substantiated and the person is dismissed or the employer ceases to use the person's service or the person resigns or otherwise ceases to provide his/her services, the guidance regarding making a referral - available on the Disclosure and Barring Service website.

The DBS will refer cases involving teachers to the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) to consider prohibiting the individual from teaching.

See the DBS referral guidance and tools

The following groups have legal duty to refer information to the DBS:

• Regulated activity suppliers (employers and volunteer managers);
• Personnel suppliers that may be an employment agency, employment business or an educational institution;

The following groups have the power to refer information to the DBS;

The power to refer may be used when a local authority or regulatory body is acting in a role other than as a regulated activity provider, for example, when undertaking a safeguarding role.

• Local authorities;
• A Health and Social Care (HSC) trust;
• Keepers of registers e.g. General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, HCPC, Social Work England;
• Supervisory authorities e.g. Care Quality Commission, Ofsted. in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

The DBS will refer cases involving teachers to the Teacher Regulation Agency (TRA) to consider prohibiting the individual from teaching. The TRA is part of the Department for Education and is responsible for the regulation of teachers in respect of serious misconduct.

Whenever a local authority refers a person to the DBS, they must consider whether they are doing so under the duty to refer or their power to refer.

Child minders and day care

Ofsted should be informed of any allegation or concern made against a member of staff in any day care establishment for children under 8 or against a registered child minder. They should also be invited to take part in any subsequent meeting/discussion.

Foster carers, prospective adopters and residential care

A senior manager of the employer or fostering agency should inform Ofsted of all allegations made against a foster carer, prospective adopter, or member of staff in a residential childcare facility. There are established notification processes in place.

Disciplinary or suitability process and investigations

The LADO and the employer should discuss whether disciplinary action is appropriate where:

• It is clear at the outset or decided by a meeting/discussion that a police investigation or LA children's Social Care enquiry is not necessary;

Or

• The employer or the LADO is informed by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service that a criminal investigation and any subsequent trial is complete, or that an investigation is to be closed without charge, or a prosecution discontinued.

The discussion should consider any potential misconduct or gross misconduct on the part of the member of staff, and take into account:

• Information provided by the police and/or LA children's social care;
• The result of any investigation or trial;
• The different standard of proof in disciplinary and criminal proceedings.

In the case of supply, contract and volunteer workers, normal disciplinary procedures may not apply. In these circumstances, the LADO and employer should act jointly with the providing agency, if any, in deciding whether to continue to use the person's services, or provide future work with children, and if not, whether to make a report for consideration of barring or other action. See Substantiated allegations and referral to the DBS.

If a disciplinary hearing is required, and further investigation is not required, it should be held within the timeframe laid out in the employer’s procedures.

If formal disciplinary action is not required, the employer should meet the employee to discuss fully the outcome of the allegation and ensure they are reintegrated into the work environment.

If further investigation is needed to decide upon disciplinary action, the designated safeguarding lead and the LADO should discuss whether the employer has appropriate resources or whether the employer should commission an independent investigation because of the nature and/or complexity of the case and in order to ensure objectivity. The investigation must not be conducted by a relative or friend of the member of staff.

The aim of an investigation is to obtain, as far as possible, a fair, balanced and accurate record in order to consider the appropriateness of disciplinary action and/or the risk of harm to children. Its purpose is not to prove or disprove the allegation.

If, at any stage, new information emerges that requires a child protection referral, the investigation should be held in abeyance and only resumed if agreed with LA Children's Social Care and the police. Consideration should again be given as to whether suspension is appropriate in light of the new information.

The investigating officer should aim to provide a report within ten working days.

On receipt of the report the employer should follow their disciplinary procedures.

Sharing information for disciplinary purposes

Wherever possible, police and LA children's social care should, during the course of their investigations and enquiries, obtain consent to provide the employer and/or regulatory body with statements and evidence for disciplinary purposes.

If the police or CPS decide not to charge, or decide to administer a caution, or the person is acquitted, the police should pass all relevant information to the employer without delay.

If the person is convicted, the police should inform the employer and the LADO straight away so that appropriate action can be taken.

Every effort should be made to reach a conclusion in all cases even if:

• The individual refuses to cooperate, having been given a full opportunity to answer the allegation and make representations;
• It may not be possible to apply any disciplinary sanctions if a person's period of notice expires before the process is complete.

Settlement Agreements (sometimes referred to as compromise agreements), by which a person agrees to resign if the employer agrees not to pursue disciplinary action, and both parties agree a form of words to be used in any future reference, should not be used in cases of refusal to cooperate or resignation before the person’s notice period expires. Nor should they be used as a way of concluding any disciplinary investigation where there is a substantiated outcome. Such an agreement will not prevent a thorough police investigation where that is appropriate.

The employer and the LADO should review the circumstances of the case to determine whether there are any improvements to be made to the organisation's procedures or practice.

General responsibilities when investigating an allegation

The organisation, together with LA Children's Social Care and/or police where they are involved, should consider the impact on the child or young person concerned and provide support as appropriate. Liaison between the agencies should take place in order to ensure that the child's needs are addressed.

Keeping parents/cares and children informed

• The employer must inform the parents of the child/ren or young person involved of the allegation and the process that is being followed unless this will impede the disciplinary or investigative processes. The LADO can advise the employer whether or not the parents should be informed. However, in some circumstances, the parent/s may need to be told straight away (e.g. if a child or young person is injured and requires medical treatment);

• The parent/s and the child, if sufficiently mature, should be helped to understand the processes involved.

Support to the accused member of staff

As soon as possible after an allegation has been received, the accused member of staff should be advised to contact their union or professional association. Human Resources should be consulted at the earliest opportunity in order that appropriate support can be provided via the organisation's occupational health or employee welfare provision

Keeping the accused member of staff informed

Subject to restrictions on the information that can be shared, the employer should, as soon as possible, inform the accused person about the nature of the allegation, how enquiries will be conducted and the possible outcome (e.g. disciplinary action, and dismissal or referral to the DBS or regulatory body).

The accused member of staff should:

• Be treated fairly and honestly and helped to understand the concerns expressed and processes involved;
• Be kept informed of the progress and outcome of any investigation and the implications for any disciplinary or related process;
• If suspended, be kept up to date about events in the workplace.

The employer may need to seek advice from their LADO, the police and/or LA Children's Social Care about how much information should be disclosed to the accused person. However, providing information to the accused person throughout the process of dealing with the concern or allegation is an essential part of the common law duty to act fairly. The person that is alleged to be responsible for abuse and/or neglect should be provided with sufficient information to enable them to understand what it is that they are alleged to have done or threatened to do that is wrong and to allow their view to be heard and considered. This also needs to be seen in the wider context of prevention, for example, information can be used to support people to change or modify their behaviour. Feedback should be provided in a way that will not exacerbate the situation or breach the Data Protection Act 2018 or General Data Protection Regulations.

Withholding Information

Consideration should be given to withholding information in the following circumstances:

• Whether it is safe to disclose – this applies both to any child/ren young people and any witnesses particularly where there is domestic abuse;
• If the matter is subject to police involvement, the police should always be consulted so criminal investigations are not compromised.

The Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman can provide advice and the Information Commissioner provides advice on sharing information.

Every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality and guard against publicity while an allegation is being investigated or considered. Apart from keeping the child, parents and accused person (where this would not place the child at further risk) up to date with progress of the case, information should be restricted to those who have a need to know in order to protect children, facilitate enquiries and manage related disciplinary or suitability processes.

The police should not provide identifying information to the press or media, unless and until a person is charged, except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. an appeal to trace a suspect). In such cases, the reasons should be documented and partner agencies consulted beforehand.

Parents and carers should also be made aware of the requirement to maintain confidentiality about any allegations made against teachers whilst investigations are ongoing as set out in Section 13 of the Education Act 2011 (which amended the Education Act 2002). If parents or carers wish to apply to the court to have reporting restrictions removed, they should be advised to seek legal advice.

The restrictions remain in place unless or until the teacher is charged with a criminal offence, though they may be dispensed with on the application to the Magistrates’ Court by any person, if the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so, having regard to the welfare of:

1. The person who is the subject of the allegation, and
2. The victim of the offence to which the allegation relates.

There is a right of appeal to the Crown Court.

This restriction will apply to allegations made against any teacher who works at a school, including supply and peripatetic teachers. ‘School’ includes academies, Free Schools, independent schools and all types of maintained schools.

The reporting restrictions also cease to apply if the individual to whom the restrictions apply effectively waives their right to anonymity by going public themselves or by giving their written consent for another to do so or if a judge lifts restrictions in response to a request to do so.

The legislation imposing restrictions makes clear that publication of material that may lead to the identification of the teacher who is the subject of the allegation is prohibited. “Publication” includes “any speech, writing, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public”. This means that a parent who, for example, published details of the allegation on a social networking site would be in breach of the reporting restrictions (if what was published could lead to the identification of the teacher by members of the public).

Amends made to 8.1.3 to bring in line with amends to WT December 2020.

Amends to 8.1.1 in line with amended WT December 2020.

Added 'mental and physical health' to 1.1.5 as per amended WT from December 2020.

Updated to WT2018.

Added link to National Referral Mechanism

Added WT2018 content and information about the Family Support Service.

Added link to Family Support Service

Updated by Harrison Langford due to changes in the Appendix C: Flow Diagram

In a situation where senior officers have become involved in resolving disagreements between agencies and those disputes relate to the safeguarding needs of children, the BSCB team must be made aware of them via the agency's Board representative. The purpose is to help monitor interagency safeguarding activity and to identify issues which may benefit from quality assurance scrutiny. The agency which found it necessary to escalate an issue to such a high level in another organisation should advise the other organisation of the intention to notify the Board.

It is acknowledged that some organisations have flat management structures. Where this is the case, the same individual manager may have involvement in more than one of the above stages (see flowchart - Appendix C).

Each stage should be completed in 5 working days (15 days maximum)

Content changed on the 23rd January 2018 to reflect the update in procedures

Content changed on the 23rd January 2018 to reflect the update in procedures

Content changed on the 23rd January 2018 to reflect the update in procedures

Content changed on the 23rd January 2018 to reflect the update in procedures

Content changed on the 23rd January 2018 to reflect the update in procedures

Content changed on the 23rd January 2018 to reflect the update in procedures

Content changed on the 23rd January 2018 to reflect the update in procedures