Responding to change
A survey of local education authorities' responses to the changing policy context of child protection
By Mary Baginsky (June 2006)
Responding to change: a survey of local education authorities' responses to the changing policy context of child protection (PDF, 236KB)
Executive summary
This study was designed to examine how education services within local authorities were responding to the significant changes that were transforming children’s services and those that were proposed for the future.
Recent changes included Sections 157 and 175 of the Education Act 2002 which placed statutory responsibilities on these authorities, along with schools and colleges, to safeguard and protect children. It was translated into practice in the document Safeguarding children in education1 , which was issued in September 2004, two months after these sections were enacted. At the same time The Children Act (2004) placed a duty on local authorities to make arrangements to promote co-operation between agencies and integrate the front line delivery of services with the introduction of Director of Children’s Services and Children’s Trusts. In addition, while the Children’s Agenda, Every Child Matters was guiding a more unified approach to the development of provision in every service and agency, the White Paper, Higher standards, better schools for all - more choice for parents and pupils2 appeared to introduce further uncertainty over the relationship between schools and local authorities. The survey was directed to the officer in each authority who had sole or shared responsibility for child protection within education. Responses were received from 104 of the 150 local authorities in England.
The study found:
- About half of the authorities from which a response was received had created Children’s Service Departments, with the majority of the rest planning to do so sometime in 2006. However about one in every 13 authorities did not have plans in place.
- Half of the authorities had a Trust or similar body in operation, though not all were assuming a strategic role in relation to the provision and integration of services across the authority. Most of the rest said a trust was either planned or under discussion. This meant that about one in five respondents did not know if a trust was planned or said that there were no plans to introduce one.
- It was also evident from some responses that further attention needed to be given to the relationship between children’s services and trusts particularly where operational and strategic responsibilities overlapped.
- Local authority education services are required to have a named officer for child protection. Safeguarding children in education1 makes it clear that this should be a senior officer for child protection to undertake and manage strategic, support and operational responsibilities. In just under half of authorities responding to the survey the responsibility was held by the Head of the Education Welfare or similar. In nearly a third of authorities an Assistant Director of Education or another senior manager held the post, although operational responsibilities were then usually delegated to another officer. Whatever the arrangement, under half (46 per cent) of responding authorities had someone taking full time responsibility for child protection.
- Respondents were asked to identify up to three factors that had assisted the implementation of the Every Child Matters agenda in their authorities and three factors that had challenged the implementation. The factors most commonly identified as supporting its introduction were strong strategic partnerships and consultations with staff at all levels to ensure their engagement in the process. The main factors which were identified as militating against successful implementation were the scale of need among children and young people in many areas, failure to match demands being made with appropriate level of funding, initiative overload and the pace of change, the difficulties involved in creating capacity to develop preventative work and in fully engaging schools in the process.
- In the majority of authorities the person carrying the operational lead for child protection had represented the authority on Area Child Protection Committees (ACPCs). About a third were not then sure if they would be continuing to represent education on Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards (LSCBs). The remaining respondents divided between those who said there would not be any change in the representation and those who reported that a more senior officer would represent education.
- Safeguarding children in education1 was published in September 2004 and defined specific strategic, support and operational responsibilities for LEAs. Just over one third of respondents said these were the responsibilities of the operational lead officer in education. However nearly half said it was now part of either the local strategic planning process through the LSCB or cross-departmental work at Chief Officer level. The remainder replied that it was under review or that it was too early to be sure where these responsibilities would lie. There were comments from all these groupings that the process had not been as well co-ordinated as it should have been as a result of the many other changes that were also happening.
- Respondents were asked if Safeguarding children in education1 was appropriate to the arrangements being introduced as a result of Every Child Matters, the Children Act 2004 and Bichard recommendations3 / DfES Guidance on dealing with allegations against those working in educational settings4 . Just under half of respondents thought the document was still relevant. Although very few thought it needed a complete rewrite, just under half considered that it needed to be updated and revised. There was also the suggestion that document should be simplified, specifically to make a clear distinction between child protection and safeguarding.
- The White Paper Higher standards, better schools for all2 proposes schools will have greater independence and be able to run their own affairs through bodies such as a self-governing trust. Respondents were asked what they thought the implications were for Children’s Service Departments and Local Safeguarding Children’s Boards. The overwhelming majority believed that it represented a potential challenge to the Every Child Matters agenda, particularly in relation to accountability and compliance.
- Only a small number agreed that it was right not to place schools under a duty to co-operate to improve the well-being of children in the area within Section 10 of the Children Act 2004. The majority of respondents agreed that the duty was already imposed implicitly by the 1989 Children Act and / or sections 157 and 175 of the 2002 Education Act, but wanted an explicit duty to secure compliance and to make it clear that schools were a vital partner in the Every Child Matters agenda.
- Respondents were asked if they considered that the current changes meant that there was now a more effective system for protecting children than the one in place in 2002, the last time a similar survey was conducted. Over half of those responding to the survey believed that the system which was being put into place would be more effective in providing services for primary school aged children but the proportion fell in relation to secondary school pupils, with only around two-fifths having no reservations about improved effectiveness.
References
1. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004) Safeguarding children in education. London: Department for Education and Skills. www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection/guidance.htm
2. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005) Higher standards, better schools for all - more choice for parents and pupils. London: Department for Education and Skills. www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/schoolswhitepaper/
3. Bichard, M. (2004) The Bichard inquiry report. London: The Stationery Office (TSO).
4. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2005) Guidance on dealing with allegations of abuse against teachers and other education staff. Issued on 21 November 2005. www.teachernet.gov.uk/childprotection
Copyright © 2006 NSPCC - All rights reserved. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Weston House, 42
Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH. Incorporated by Royal Charter. Registered charity number 216401. NSPCC, charity registered in Scotland, charity number SC037717.