Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland s Safeguarding Children Learning

Transcription

1 The Competency Framework in Practice: Early years: A pre-school setting who run morning and afternoon sessions for up to 30 children per session. The setting has 16 staff (mainly permanent) and is owned and managed by a mother and daughter team, who have extensive experience in working with early years. They had some newly appointed staff and some very experienced long standing staff members. Prior to the competency framework they sent staff to the free LSCB Essential Awareness training course to access safeguarding learning. Applying the framework: Every member of staff were matched to a competency Group: The early years practitioners are Group 2 Room leaders Group 3 Deputy Group 5 & 6 (Designated and manager / supervisor) Owner / Manager (Group 5,6 & 7) The organisation were keen to find a new approach to their training. They undertook a cost analysis by looking at commissioning in some bespoke training that would allow the whole setting to train together, and allow the training to be set into the context of the setting. They looked at the cost of accessing the free LSCB training and by balancing out the cost of staff cover and found that the costs were similar to looking at commissioning training in house. They commissioned a bespoke sessions that supported the following approach: The learning was split into 2 sessions, and delivered on a time and date of their choosing allowing 100% attendance. The first session was essential awareness training which allowed the setting to train together and also reference their policy and procedures and be clear about the referral pathway. After this session the staff reflected on their learning by using the evidence logs and worked with the managers to look at testing out this knowledge. 6 weeks later the second session was delivered which covered the following, a retest of application of signs and indicators by using scenario based discussion. Page 1 of 5

2 During this session the focus was also on session on barriers and blocks and challenges in safeguarding by using the scenario of Vanessa George. This also led to further work on escalation, confidence and roles and responsibilities and also acknowledged the dynamic and challenge of working in an organisation where there are owner / managers to be discussed. The managers were supportive of this session and allowed discussion to develop to support practice and gave permission to refer outside of the usual route if the workers were concerned about the manager s practice. This session was also used as contributing evidence for the practitioners competency set. The managers also peer assessed themselves for their competencies by discussing issues around staff conduct and subsequent referral and following procedures. This also indicated commitment, confidence and competence in their practice. The setting recently had a successful Ofsted inspection and there was specific mention about learning culture and use of competencies with their inspection report. The setting was graded as outstanding. Voluntary Sector Organisation: A setting that provides support both for practitioners and families. The service provides direct work with families, parents and a training for trainers approach for practitioners to run parenting groups. The setting has a range of staff including business interns, who support the project. The organisation was mapped across the framework as follows, all who are involved receive safeguarding learning to different levels. Group 1: Admin / front of house staff / business interns (on short term placements) - Group 3: practitioners who undertake specialist work with families Group 5, 6: managers / supervisors Group 5,6,7 & 8 (Dual Role) Designated lead, manager, strategic lead and management committee member. Group 8: Management Committee members (range of experience and different expertise ie some were on the committee to support fundraising and had no childcare experience.) Group 9: Parenting group leaders. When considering the learning needs and test of competence, the principle of proportionality was important to adhere to. Page 2 of 5

3 two of the roles were unlikely to have direct contact with children; these were the business interns who supported the accountancy functions and also those on the management committee who had a role to support fundraising. The organisation took the approach of wanting all to have at least an introductory understanding of safeguarding, this was applied as followed. The business interns would complete an e-learning package as part of their induction and this would be discussed within their induction session to make sure that in the very unlikely situation where they had safeguarding concerns that they would know how to escalate this. For the management committee they would have a safeguarding briefing delivered within a meeting (this happened already) this would be delivered in house and they would test out / peer assess as a group. Certain members of the committee had a more specific and detailed role in relation to safeguarding i.e. those who had a lead in looking at staff conduct, policy, procedure and the safeguarding leads. These members had a more detailed briefing session, and also the development of policy, procedures, use of Safe Network materials, attendance on LADO briefings and understanding about allegations sessions all contributed to their learning and skills. By pragmatically using the principles of proportionality and relevance: this allowed the organisation to apply the framework successfully in a meaningful way. School: A primary school have applied the framework in the following way. They found that by using their existing systems and training that they have available, they have planned and started to apply the framework as follows. The head teacher and a governor attended a briefing session on the framework which a allowed them to map the workforce out and find out more about using the framework. They recognised that the core training that they accessed via the Safeguarding in Education team contributed and supported the knowledge requirements for Group 2 & 5 (Designated Leads). They also recognised that many of their existing systems could be used to test out competence, and will undertake this annually via annual appraisals and induction / probation systems. They embedded this approach by using existing systems and this allowed the framework to be applied in a realistic but meaningful way. Page 3 of 5

4 The school (like many others) were accessing training / learning on safeguarding annually, so they were more than meeting the minimum requirements for frequency of learning, and were keen to have this reflected and recorded. The school may also ask for a different delivery the following year, where there is a brief refresher and possibly a topic update on a different issue, ie FGM / CSE / Internet safety. The school also started to recognise and record centrally other whole school learning and briefing i.e. learning on moving and handling / CSE awareness / briefings from serious case review as additional safeguarding learning activity. The school also ensured that non-teaching staff were recognised and trained alongside teaching staff as being significant in supporting children (this is common place in most whole school deliveries.) The school also recognised current alternative learning that happened in the setting and also started to attend additional learning events via the interagency programme that supported learning in different ways i.e. briefings for designated leads, serious case review briefings sent from central government etc. Local authority workforce - Early Help Service: 70 staff members in a varied number of settings and roles were mapped out to their competency groups. The majority for the workforce were Group 3 practitioners and Group 5/6 (managers) A series of learning events were accessed to support the learning, and briefing sessions on the framework for the managers have been delivered to support them in applying the framework and support assessment of competency. The service will test ensure staff have at least one formal multi-agency learning event every 3 years, but recognise that there are many other informal and formal learning events that happen throughout the year these will be acknowledged and recorded. The evidence log will be used throughout the year (as a working document), and competencies are a set agenda item on supervision. At the point of appraisal the managers sign off competency on the sign off sheet. (Supporting evidence is referenced.) This document is available on the LSCB website. Page 4 of 5

5 Environmental Health Officers: Environmental health officers are part of the wider workforce (ie non children / adults), and therefore do not have to evidence competency in line with the LSCB / SAB requirements. The nature of the work undertaken by environmental health officers, means that they have potential to see a number of concerns in relation to adults and children. This was supported by the fact that the majority of referrals received by the Designated Officer within a District Borough Council were from Environmental Health Officers, therefore indicating that this is a role that requires an understanding and ability in safeguarding. However given the nature of their work and role, they receive essential awareness training and additional input relevant to their role i.e. learning around neglect and child sexual exploitation issues. Within the context of their role, it was identified that it would be beneficial to test out competency given that the learning had been received, even though Environmental Health are not formally adults or children s workforce. Using the principles of relevance and proportionality it was clear that talking through briefly the last referral provided evidence that both the environmental health officer and line manager were demonstrating confidence, competence and commitment in Safeguarding for Group 2 Competencies as follows: During a visit the officer had noted significant concerns around hygiene and household conditions that presented a potential and significant risk to the household. The EHO identified this as a risk to the child and adult who lived at the address. They took action in a timely way: i.e. they referred up to their line manager, immediately, and also completed the relevant paper work / recording on the forms required. The line manager then escalated this to the District Borough Council Designated Officer, (in line with internal procedures). They worked within the organisational processes and also within the legislative framework. Paperwork was completed. This again was managed in a timely way. The referral was then made to children s services by the Designated Officer. Considering the competencies and in line with the role and responsibility of an Environmental Health Officer: this action both by the officer and manager demonstrated confidence, competence and commitment to safeguarding in a way that was proportionate to their role and responsibility. Page 5 of 5