Safeguarding Self-Audit for Low-Risk Grantees

• These notes explain how to interpret the filled safeguarding self-audit for low-risk grantees.
• Low-risk grantees have a degree of flexibility regarding safeguards.

Interpreting the Self-Audit Table Headings

• The table headings provide a quick overview to understand the audit.
• Expectation: Contains the expectations for an organization's safeguards, based on the Oak Child Safeguarding Standards.
• Why we ask about this: Explanatory column to help grantees understand the reason for each expectation/standard.
• Evidence: Column prompting grantees to locate and verify the existence of safeguards, ensuring consultation with relevant colleagues.
• Status: Column for grantees to assess progress in implementing safeguards, and whether actions have been taken including timescales.

Interpreting the Findings

• The table assists programme staff in interpreting responses and identifying potential warning signs, needing further scrutiny.
• Focus on three outlined expectations for low-risk grantees.
• Determine whether grantees know how to respond to reported safeguarding incidents.
• It is expected they have thought about how they would react, and have a key person responsible.

Designated Responsibility

• Organizations with infrequent contact with children often neglect assigning responsibility.
• Someone of seniority should be named as accountable for safeguarding matters.
• Responsibility includes both operational (decision-making on specific cases) and strategic concerns.
• There should be arrangements for adequate resourcing, but can be different people.
  • Positive signs that the correct person is in place include:
    • A designated person is willing and understands the issues
    • When responsibility for safeguarding included in the job description
  • Watch out for:
    • No named person
    • Named person not having sufficient seniority
    • Not recognizing both aspects of the role
    • No definition

Staff Awareness and Reporting

• All staff must know who to inform about safeguarding concerns.
• Arrangements should consider organizational operations, with contact details available and steps for when the designated person is unavailable.
• Action should be taken as a matter of urgency.
  • Positive signs that staff are adequately trained include::
    • The above is communicated to all staff as their employment begins
    • Arrangements reflect the practical way the place operates
    • Designated officers are named, and contact details listed
  • Watch out for:
    • Lack of clarity about who to contact and how
    • No deputizing arrangements in place
    • Unrealistic arrangements e.g. 1 person covering an unreasonably large area or number of staff

Reporting Procedures

• Determine who has the duty to refer matters to the police or social care agencies.
• The decision-making responsibility is crucial when control is transferred to another organization or agency.
• Ignoring procedures is not uncommon, with senior managers overriding designated individuals, especially when concerns involve staff or volunteers.
  • Positive signs that policies are in place:
    • Up to date information about referral pathway provided, including contact details
    • Recognition shown of different referral pathways for concerns about behaviour of staff or volunteers
  • Watch out for:
    • Lack of clarity about who makes the decision
    • Lack of criteria for making the referral
    • Actions that deviate away from procedure
    • Lack of timescales

Additional Expectations for Intermediary and Re-granting Organizations

• Even low-risk grantees should meet expectations outlined in this section.
• Escalate the audit if re-granting organizations lack safeguarding measures.
• This will likely involve direct discussions and external service provider referrals.
• The additional questions have been included due to the indication that re-granting will occur.
• Expect that re-granting organizations have safeguards in place.
• These groups may work or will be in contact with children
• Safeguarding is "everybody's business" so re-granting functions need related policies and procedures.
• This sector is new to many and low levels should be expected initially.
  • Positive signs include:
    • Has safeguards in policy alongside associated ones on harassment, equity, whistleblowing
    • Has reporting framework in place for fraud, bullying etc.
    • Above reporting Frameworks includes grantee complaints
    • Safeguarding is discussed with any grantees
    • Safeguarding clauses included in grant agreements
  • Watch out for:
    • No policies or procedures to describe responsibilities
    • Agreements that do not mention it
    • Not seeing it to be their individual role