Safeguarding Self-Audit Interpretation

• The document explains how to interpret a completed safeguarding self-audit for low-risk grantees.
• A low-risk grantee has a degree of flexibility regarding expected safeguards.

Interpreting Self-Audit Table Headings

• The document then gives an overview of the table headings used in the self-audit to aid understanding.
• The table headings are as follows:
  • Expectation containing expectations for an organization's safeguards
    • Builds on the Oak Child Safeguarding Standards
  • Why we ask about this explains why grantees need to adhere to expectations
  • Evidence includes what to look for and where to find evidence
  • Status shows whether the expectation is met, not met, in progress, the actions taken, and timescales

Interpreting Self-Audit Findings

• The document helps programme staff interpret an organization's self-audit response, highlighting potential warning signs.
• While there are ten total expectations, low-risk grantees focus on three:
  • Whether they know what to do if someone reports a safeguarding incident.
  • Whether they have a focal point who would be responsible

Expectation: Designated Seniority for Safeguarding

• There should be someone of sufficient seniority with designated responsibility for safeguarding matters.
• This is vital for organizations with infrequent or indirect contact with children.
• Responsibility should cover operational aspects like decision-making and strategic concerns like proper arrangements and resources.
• Positive Signs:
  • The designated person wants the job and understands the issues.
  • Safeguarding is included in their job description, not just tagged on.
• Look Out For:
  • No named person
  • The named person lacks sufficient seniority
  • Not recognizing both operational and strategic aspects of the role
  • The role not being defined

Expectation: Staff Awareness of Reporting

• All staff should know who to inform about any safeguarding concern.
• Arrangements should account for the organization's operational structure:
  • Physical locations, numbers, and hours.
• Include contact details in policy documents and steps to take if the designated person is unavailable.
• Take action as a matter of urgency
• Positive Signs:
  • Communication to all staff upon joining the organisation.
  • Practical arrangements reflecting the organisation's operations
  • Designated officers are named with contact details
• Look Out For:
  • Lack of clarity about who to contact and how
  • No deputising arrangements in place
  • Unrealistic arrangements such as one person covering too large an area.

Expectation: Responsibility for Referrals

• There should be clarity on who has the responsibility to refer matters to the police or social care agencies with a statutory duty to investigate concerns.
• This indicates that no real thought has been given as to how the organisation will respond.
• This decision-making is crucially important as control over what happens next passes to another organisation or agency
• Positive Signs:
  • Giving information about referral pathways, including contact details.
  • Recognition of different referral pathways for concerns about staff or volunteers.
• Look Out For:
  • Lack of clarity about who makes the decision.
  • No criteria for making a referral.
  • Evidence of deviation from stated procedure.
  • Lack of timescales for action.

Additional Expectations for Intermediaries and Re-granting Organisations

• Intermediary and re-granting organizations should meet certain expectations even if considered low risk.
• If a re-granting has none of these measures in place, the audit can be pushed up for a recommendation on how to move forward.
• Direct discussions with the organisation and referral to external providers can be part of how to move forward
• These questions are included to account for organizations that re-grant funding from Oak.
• Although organizations rarely have contact with children, safeguards should be in place.
• Many re-grant to smaller, front-line organizations, meaning "safeguarding is everybody's business."
• Being new to most intermediaries, low levels of understanding are not surprising.
• Positive Signs:
  • Having a safeguarding policy or related policies
  • Having a reporting framework
  • Reporting framework includes grantee complaints
  • Discussing safeguarding with prospective grantees
  • Includes safeguarding clauses in the grant agreement
• Look Out For:
  • No policies or procedures describing safeguarding responsibilities
  • Grant agreements do not mention safeguarding
  • Not believing safeguarding is their responsibility