Responsibility without power?: local education authorities and child protection
By Mary Baginsky (January 2003)
Executive summary
Local education authorities (LEAs) are key partners in any attempt to protect children. The Children Act (1989) places a duty on the local education authority to assist Social Services departments acting on behalf of children in need or enquiring into allegations of child abuse. These duties are reflected in the guidance for educational services set out in Department for Education and Employment circular 10/95, Protecting Children from Abuse: The Role of the Education Service. Every LEA should also nominate a senior person within the LEA as lead officer with responsibility for co-ordinating policy and action on child protection for the schools it maintains. This designated officer should represent education services on the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC), be involved in establishing local procedures (including arrangements for designated teachers) and be the LEA point of contact with Police, Social Services and other agencies.
Circular 10/95 also recommends that all schools and colleges should have a designated member of staff responsible for co-ordinating action within the institution/service and liaising with other agencies, including the ACPC. Given the statutory and strategic role of LEAs in relation to the protection of children it is logical that schools and their LEAs should work together closely.
These responsibilities were placed on LEAs at a time when their role was being transformed and even their future status brought into question. As schools were given more autonomy their ties with LEAs were weakened. Although LEAs were clearly charged with the responsibility to support maintained schools in relation to child protection, it was an uncharted area for each to negotiate. An earlier survey had examined how LEAs were responding. It was evident that while there was a considerable level of activity in this area there were major obstacles to overcome. In view of the demise of grant maintained schools, the appearance of unitary authorities, the publication of two key documents,1 and the continuing debate around the autonomy of schools and the responsibilities of LEAs, it seemed an opportune time to revisit the subject. It also seemed appropriate to look at how LEAs were being judged to fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection by examining the relevant sections of Ofsted reports on LEAs.
The questionnaire had already been distributed when the Education Act (2002) received Royal Assent. Section 175 requires LEAs to make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred on them are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. It also places a responsibility on the governing bodies of maintained schools to make arrangements for ensuring that their schools operate in such a way as to safeguard and promote the welfare of their pupils. A proportion of respondents were followed up to collect their views on the section and on steps which would be necessary to support its introduction.
Survey
Questionnaires were sent to all designated officers with responsibility for child protection in the 150 LEAs in England as well as to the relevant officers in the Welsh authorities and the Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland. The results from Wales and Northern Ireland are reported in the appendices of Responsibility without power in order to make the data available to those who will find the national data useful. Many of the key messages from the English authorities also apply to the other two countries.
One hundred and fourteen of the 150 LEAs in England responded to the questionnaire, which represents a response rate of 76 per cent.
All but three of the 114 LEAs provided written guidance for schools on child protection issues, although only a small number made this available through a website.
It was usually the named officer in the LEA with responsibility for child protection who represented the LEA on the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC). In only ten per cent of authorities was there more than one representative on the ACPC, somewhat lower than the 25 per cent where this was the case in 1997.
There were some calls for a new senior post to be created, dedicated to ensuring that an LEA fulfilled its statutory responsibility in relation to child protection.
- In 72 per cent of responding LEAs schools were directly represented on the ACPC and in a further eight per cent they were represented on sub-groups alone.
- Working together to safeguard children (Department of Health et al., 1999) makes it clear that Social Services departments and ACPCs should offer the same level of support and advice to independent schools in matters of child protection as they do to maintained schools. So although LEAs do not have specific statutory responsibility for child protection in relation to independent schools it was relevant to ask if they considered that they had any responsibility. The majority thought they did, and the level of involvement with independent schools was higher than that reported in 1997:
- Seventy-six per cent of respondents considered they had some responsibility and/or were involved with all or some independent schools in their areas (52 per cent in 1997).
- Sixty-three per cent of these LEAs sent independent schools copies of all child protection mailings distributed to schools in the maintained sector (47 per cent in 1997).
- Fifty-four per cent of them had provided some training for independent schools in their areas (14 per cent in 1997).
- Forty six per cent would be prepared to support independent schools in making a child protection referral to Social Services (24 per cent in 1997).
- Thirty per cent of respondents referred to the advice provided by LEA officers to independent schools about child protection matters (27 per cent in 1997).
- The respondents were asked to say if their LEAs took responsibility for checking that LEA schools and independent schools had the following:
- Written policies on child protection
Eighty-five per cent checked maintained schools while 20 per cent checked independent schools. - Procedures in relation to child protection
Ninety-three per cent checked maintained schools and 26 per cent checked independent schools. - Designated teachers with responsibility for child protection
Ninety-eight per cent checked that maintained schools had such teachers in place and 23 per cent checked independent schools. - Measures to communicate the policy and procedures to staff
Eighty-six per cent checked the maintained sector and 25 per cent the independent sector. - A nominated governor with responsibility for child protection
Sixty-six per cent checked this in maintained schools while only eight per cent of authorities did so in relation to independent schools.
- Ninety-two per cent of responding LEAs said that they provided a consultation service for their own schools in relation to child protection issues.
- Those responding on behalf of their LEAs were asked to say if they issued guidance, policies or procedures in relation to child protection in settings outside school used by pupils or students:
- Thirty-eight per cent of LEAs did so in relation to work experience.
- Thirty-four per cent did so in relation to other settings such as foreign exchanges, schools trips and summer schemes.
- Ninety-two per cent included child protection training in their training programme for schools and 98 per cent of LEAs offered some training to the designated teachers in their schools, either directly or through the ACPC programme.
- The major difficulties identified in relation to the provision of child protection training for teachers were high staff turnover, the ability of schools to release staff, a shortage of supply teachers to provide cover, and funding.
- Most LEAs (85 per cent) provided some training either for all their teaching staff or for all those working in schools, although in most cases it was in response to a request from schools.
- There was some concern expressed about the difficulties involved in providing training for the large numbers of classroom assistants and learning mentors now working in schools.
- A higher proportion of LEAs (91 per cent) offered training to governors than they did to teachers who did not have the designated role. However, there were comments about difficulties in recruiting enough governors to attend training to make specific courses viable.
- The majority of LEAs maintained a database of the training designated teachers had received on child protection; and two thirds recorded the general level of training schools had received, where this had been provided by or through the LEA.
- Working together to safeguard children (Department of Health et al., 1999) was prepared and issued jointly by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education. It sets out how all agencies and professionals should work together to promote children's welfare and protect them from abuse and neglect, so it is important that everyone involved in safeguarding children is aware of the implications. Although 78 per cent of LEAs had at least taken account of this document in the child protection training they offered, only a minority of authorities had targeted all designated teachers for specific training.
- The Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families (Department of Health et al., 2000) provides a systematic way of analysing, understanding and recording what is happening to children and young people both within their families and the wider context of the community in which they live. There is an inbuilt assumption that the assessments will adopt a multi-agency approach. Although 73 per cent of LEAs had provided some relevant training, in most cases it was ad hoc, even more so than training provided in relation to Working together to safeguard children. In many cases it amounted to little more than briefing sessions at meetings for head teachers and/or designated teachers. Just over 20 per cent of LEAs referred to multi-agency training on the Assessment framework, usually conducted by Social Services (sometimes with Health and more rarely with Education). A small number of respondents referred to schools being well represented, but the majority stated specifically, or implied, that this had not been the case.
- Seventy-two per cent of respondents indicated that they issued specific guidance on informing parents when the school makes a child protection referral. Some of the documentation sent by LEAs gave schools very clear guidance about the procedures under Working together to safeguard children and the Framework for assessment in relation to circumstances where parental consent to a referral should be gained. Other documents were less than clear and some seemed confused. There was not always consistency in the advice given across LEAs or ACPCs.
- Just under half (48 per cent) of these LEAs were involved in other multi-agency training.
- Thirty-seven per cent of responding LEAs kept a record of the number of child protection referrals made by schools over the course of a year, although a few respondents made the point that the details of these may be recorded elsewhere, by the ACPC or Social Services. Twenty-eight per cent kept a record of outcomes.
- A third of LEAs recorded the number of child protection conferences at which schools were represented each year, and a quarter recorded the number of schools presenting written reports to conferences.
- Thirteen per cent of the LEAs provided funding to meet the cost of supply teachers to enable staff to attend conferences, although there were references from others to how this would be provided in the budgets devolved to schools.
- Sixty-two per cent of the LEAs issued schools with guidance in relation to children and young people displaying inappropriate sexual behaviours.
- Just over half (54 per cent) of the responding LEAs provided schools with specific guidance in relation to peer abuse, and nearly all those who did not thought it was a necessary step to take.
- Ninety-four per cent of responding authorities had recommended a procedure to schools for dealing with allegations of abuse against classroom teachers and head teachers.
- Fifty-two per cent thought there had been a need for the newly created regional posts of Investigation and Referral Support Co-ordinators, 32 per cent disagreed and 15 per cent were uncertain. Nearly every respondent was positive about having another officer with a child protection brief, but there was uncertainty about the nature of the role.
- Sixty-nine per cent had worked with unions and professional associations in the development of child protection policies and procedures, leaving a considerable number who had not.
- Respondents were asked if, in their opinion, the system for involving key agencies was working. Just over 75 per cent thought that it was. The rest were divided equally between those who thought it partly worked, those who were not sure and those who believed it was not working. But even those who approved of the system thought its effective operation was challenged by a number of factors: limited resources; the threshold at which Social Services intervenes in relation to cases under Section 47 of the Children Act; Social Services' apparently limited response to Section 17 (children in need referrals); and general communication issues. The conclusion has to be that the majority believed either that a system is in place which is not working as intended or that a protective system for all children does not exist.
- There was concern about the availability of services for all children, both those at risk and those in need and about the ability of the current system to protect specific groups. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents thought that primary school children at risk would be protected, but only sixty-eight per cent thought this would be the case for secondary school children. In relation to children and young people in need only 47 per cent of respondents thought the system protected primary school children in need and the figure fell to 42 per cent for secondary school children.
- Fifty-seven respondents were emailed to obtain their reaction to Section 175 of the Education Act (2002) which requires LEAs to make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred on them are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. The idea of making LEAs and schools statutorily responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children was generally welcomed by just over half of the 42 LEAs who responded to this request, although many of them were reluctant to be too positive without further details. The majority of respondents believed most schools did not need compulsion and that there were factors that stopped them from attending training and child protection conferences, such as difficulties making cover arrangements and a shortage of permanent and supply staff. These would have to be ameliorated before any significant change was possible.
- Respondents were asked to suggest what they thought LEAs would need to do to support the introduction of this legislation:
- Review staffing and other resources devoted to child protection in order to make an appropriate allocation to meet the standard of practice required.
- Create a LEA child protection post where one does not exist.
- Promote a closer relationship between LEAs and ACPCs, possibly facilitated by the post holder suggested above.
- Establish the means to respond to the expected demand from schools for support.
- Provide an appropriate range of training to meet the needs of all teachers and others working in schools.
- Review regularly the training received by designated teachers specifically and schools in general, especially as the data in relation to training of designated teachers, and support for newly qualified staff may be inspected.
- Respondents were asked to suggest what they thought schools would need to do to support the introduction of this legislation:
- Recognise that all schools have a key responsibility in the area of child protection.
- Plan structured training for all staff in relation to child protection.
- Access the training and support offered by the LEA.
- Appoint a nominated governor for child protection who has received appropriate training.
- Report to governors annually on the management of child protection in the school.
- Identify a member of the school's senior leadership team to be the designated teacher with responsibility for child protection, even if a second designated teacher is appointed who does not hold such seniority, to allow that person the opportunity to effect change and influence attitudes.
- Allow the designated teacher sufficient time away from school to attend training, child protection conferences and other meetings.
- Respondents also had clear ideas about what they wanted to see in place as the legislation came into effect
- Clear guidance from the DfES, written in consultation with experienced LEA and school personnel.
- A code of practice or a set of minimum standards to underpin the amendment.
- Earmarked funding, to support training and supply costs.
Ofsted reports on local education authorities
Of the 133 Ofsted reports on LEAs which were examined 79 per cent (105) commented on the procedures the LEA had established in relation to child protection. Over the years the proportion of reports not referring to procedures has declined. So while a third of the 1999 reports failed to address LEA procedures, this fell to just over a quarter of the 2000 reports, and one tenth of those written in 2001. All of the 2002 reports examined covered the procedures in place
Only 41 per cent of the inspection reports actually referred to whether the LEA was meeting its statutory responsibilities. The proportion containing such a reference increased over the years until 2002, although not as significantly as in relation to procedures.
The Ofsted reports contained numerous examples of single issues taken as indicators of success or failure in specific LEAs which did not appear in other reports. However, with the new Framework for these inspections there may be a greater consistency and a sharper focus.
In just over half (53 per cent) the reports examined reference was made to the relationship between the LEA and Social Services at a strategic level and/or as part of a multi-agency approach to child protection. Only a minority of reports produced in 1999 and 2000 contained such a reference while the majority of the 2001 and 2002 reports did.
Seventy-one per cent of the reports examined contained a reference to the training provided by LEAs for teachers. The number of reports containing such a reference showed a marked increase between 1999 and 2000, but over a quarter of the reports produced in 2001 still made no mention of training. However, the quality of the information recorded about training showed an overall improvement, although there was little consistency and the improvement was not universal.
Challenges
There are challenges facing LEAs in meeting their responsibilities in this area which include:
- High staff turnover and limited resources in many Social Services departments that have resulted in higher thresholds for responses to schools' concerns.
- The establishment of a shared understanding of the roles of the respective agencies involved.
- The non-statutory nature of ACPCs and the variations in how they operate.
- Ambiguities surrounding the relationship between LEAs and schools.
Responsibility without power? concludes with a series of recommendations for both central and local government.
Full report:
Baginsky, M. (2003) Responsibility without power?: local education authorities and child protection. London: NSPCC.
ISBN: 1842280333
Available from NSPCC Publications
1. Working together to safeguard children (Department of Health et al., 1999) and Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families (Department of Health et al., 2000).
Copyright © 2011 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.