Role of the safeguarder in the children's hearing system
This research is to examine the role of the safeguarder in the children’s hearings system from the perspectives of six key stakeholder groups.
Appendix 2: tables and figures
Chapter 2 tables and figures
Table 201: Demographics for the 99 safeguarders who responded to the survey
| Variable | Levels | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 35 (35) |
| Female | 64 (65) | |
| Age (years) | 30 – 39 | 7 (7) |
| 40 – 49 | 9 (9) | |
| 50 – 59 | 21 (21) | |
| 60 – 69 | 48 (48) | |
| 70+ | 14 (14) | |
| Previous panel member | Yes | 13 (13) |
| No | 86 (87) |
Table 20 2: Age distribution for the 35 male and 64 female safeguarders. The denominator for the percentage calculations is the total number of males (n = 35) and females (n = 64)
| Age Category | N (%) male | N (%) female | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 – 39 | 1 | (3) | 6 | (9) |
| 40 – 49 | 2 | (6) | 7 | (11) |
| 50 – 59 | 12 | (34) | 9 | (14) |
| 60 – 69 | 16 | (46) | 32 | (50) |
| 70+ | 4 | (11) | 10 | (16) |
Table 203: Summary information on the length of time an individual has been a safeguarder. The figures indicate the number and percentage of male safeguarders (n = 35), female safeguarders (n = 64) and all safeguarders (n = 99) in each of the length of service categories
| Length of time (years) | N (%) male | N (%) female | Total (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – 3 | 11 | (31) | 16 | (25) | 27 | (27) |
| 4 – 5 | 5 | (14) | 6 | (9) | 11 | (11) |
| 6 – 7 | 1 | (3) | 9 | (14) | 10 | (10) |
| 8 – 10 | 2 | (6) | 10 | (16) | 12 | (12) |
| More than 10 | 16 | (46) | 23 | (36) | 39 | (39) |
Table 204: Length of time that an individual has been a safeguarder for each of the age categories
| Length of time (years) | Age (years) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 – 39 N (%) | 40 – 49 N (%) | 50 – 59 N (%) | 60 – 69 N (%) | 70+ N (%) | |||||||
| 1 – 3 | 2 | (7) | 3 | (11) | 9 | (33) | 13 | (48) | 0 | (0) | |
| 4 – 5 | 0 | (0) | 1 | (9) | 4 | (36) | 5 | (46) | 1 | (9) | |
| 6 – 7 | 2 | (20) | 2 | (20) | 0 | (0) | 6 | (60) | 0 | (0) | |
| 8 – 10 | 3 | (25) | 1 | (8) | 3 | (25) | 2 | (17) | 3 | (25) | |
| More than 10 | 0 | (0) | 2 | (5) | 5 | (13) | 22 | (56) | 10 | (26) | |
Table 205: Number of different areas where the 99 safeguarders fulfil their role
| Number of areas safeguarder role fulfilled | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
| N (%) safeguarders |
2 (2) | 14 (14) | 21 (21) | 30 (30) | 15 (15) | 7 (7) | 6 (6) | 2 (2) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) |
Table 206: Number and percentage of safeguarders (n = 99) working in each area. Note safeguarders could select more than one area
| Number of areas safeguarder role fulfilled | N (%) safeguarders |
|---|---|
| Perth & Kinross | 12 (12) |
| Renfrewshire | 12 (12) |
| Scottish Borders | 3 (3) |
| Shetlands | 5 (5) |
| South Ayrshire | 9 (9) |
| South Lanarkshire | 14 (14) |
| Stirling | 9 (9) |
| West Dunbartonshire | 12 (12) |
| West Lothian | 9 (9) |
| Argyll & Bute | 3 (3) |
| East Lothian | 13 (13) |
| Moray | 5 (5) |
| East Renfrewshire | 12 (12) |
| Falkirk | 5 (5) |
| Fife | 13 (13) |
| Glasgow | 26 (26) |
| Highland | 10 (10) |
| Inverclyde | 5 (5) |
| Western Isles | 3 (3) |
| North Ayrshire | 10 (10) |
| Aberdeen | 6 (6) |
| Aberdeenshire | 6 (6) |
| Angus | 13 (13) |
| Edinburgh | 14 (14) |
| Clackmannanshire | 8 (8) |
| Dumfries & Galloway | 2 (2) |
| Dundee | 17 (17) |
| East Ayrshire | 8 (8) |
| East Dunbartonshire | 13 (13) |
| North Lanarkshire | 15 (15) |
| Orkney Islands | 5 (5) |
| Midlothian | 11 (11) |
Table 207 : Main occupation for the 95 safeguarders who responded to this question
| Main occupation | Males N (%) | Females N (%) | Total N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawyer | 9 (33) | 18 (67) | 27 (28) |
| Social Worker | 4 (36) | 7 (64) | 12 (13) |
| Teacher | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) |
| Retired | 17 (42) | 24 (58) | 42 (44) |
| Other | 1 (8) | 11 (92) | 12 (13) |
Table 208: Demographics for the 357 non-safeguarders in the study
| Variable | Levels | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 102 (29) |
| Female | 250 (70) | |
| Prefer not to say | 5 (1) | |
| Age (years) | Under 20 | 2 (1) |
| 20 - 29 | 28 (8) | |
| 30 – 39 | 75 (21) | |
| 40 – 49 | 69 (19) | |
| 50 – 59 | 95 (27) | |
| 60 – 69 | 77 (22) | |
| 70+ | 11 (3) |
Table 209: Age distribution for those non-safeguarders who identified themselves as male (n = 102), female (n = 250), and prefer not to say (n = 5)
| Age Category | N (%) male | N (%) female | N (%) prefer not to say | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 20 | 0 | (0) | 1 | (0) | 1 | (20) | |
| 20 - 29 | 3 | (3) | 25 | (10) | 0 | (0) | |
| 30 – 39 | 21 | (21) | 53 | (21) | 1 | (20) | |
| 40 – 49 | 15 | (15) | 54 | (22) | 0 | (0) | |
| 50 – 59 | 26 | (26) | 66 | (26) | 3 | (60) | |
| 60 – 69 | 29 | (28) | 48 | (19) | 0 | (0) | |
| 70+ | 8 | (8) | 3 | (1) | 0 | (0) | |
Table 210: Occupations for the non-safeguarders in the study
| Main occupation | Males N (%) | Females N (%) | Total N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Children’s reporter | 10 (11) | 28 (13) | 41 (13) |
| Lawyer | 8 (9) | 8 (4) | 16 (5) |
| Panel member | 58 (62) | 87 (41) | 145 (47) |
| Social worker | 12 (13) | 73 (35) | 85 (28) |
| Other | 5 (5) | 15 (7) | 20 (6) |
Table 211: Number of areas where the non-safeguarders worked
| Number of areas non-safeguarder role fulfilled | N (%) non-safeguarders |
|---|---|
| 0 | 53 (15) |
| 1 | 278 (78) |
| 2 | 8 (2) |
| 3 | 7 (2) |
| 4 | 6 (2) |
| 6 | 2 (1) |
| 7 | 1 (0) |
| 9 | 1 (0) |
| 10 | 1 (0) |
| Total | 357 (100) |
Table 212: Areas where the non-safeguarders worked
| Number of areas role fulfilled | N (%) safeguarders |
|---|---|
| Perth & Kinross | 7 (2) |
| Renfrewshire | 19 (5) |
| Scottish Borders | 9 (2) |
| Shetlands | 6 (2) |
| South Ayrshire | 12 (3) |
| South Lanarkshire | 26 (7) |
| Stirling | 12 (3) |
| West Dunbartonshire | 11 (3) |
| West Lothian | 10 (3) |
| Argyll & Bute | 11 (3) |
| East Lothian | 16 (5) |
| Moray | 5 (1) |
| East Renfrewshire | 12 (3) |
| Falkirk | 17 (5) |
| Fife | 19 (5) |
| Glasgow | 40 (11) |
| Highland | 12 (3) |
| Inverclyde | 9 (2) |
| Western Isles | 5 (1) |
| North Ayrshire | 2 (1) |
| Aberdeen | 9 (2) |
| Aberdeenshire | 15 (4) |
| Angus | 10 (3) |
| Edinburgh | 29 (8) |
| Clackmannanshire | 3 (1) |
| Dumfries & Galloway | 5 (1) |
| Dundee | 12 (3) |
| East Ayrshire | 8 (2) |
| East Dunbartonshire | 7 (2) |
| North Lanarkshire | 7 (2) |
| Orkney Islands | 3 (1) |
| Midlothian | 9 (2) |
Table 213: Length of service for the 304 non-safeguarders and 13 sheriffs who responded
| Length of time (years) | N (%) safeguarders | N (%) sheriffs |
|---|---|---|
| 1 – 3 | 78 (26) | 3 (19) |
| 4 – 5 | 49 (16) | 0 (0) |
| 6 – 7 | 43 (14) | 2 (13) |
| 8 – 10 | 42 (14) | 4 (31) |
| More than 10 | 92 (30) | 4 (31) |
Table 214: Authority to, and appointment of, safeguarders by the 303 non-safeguarders and 13 sheriffs who responded
| Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N(%) | |
|---|---|---|
| No authority to appoint | 162 (54) | - |
| Authority to appoint and done so | 125 (42) | 12 (92) |
| Authority to appoint and not done so | 16 (4) | 1 (8) |
Table 215: Number of hearings where safeguarders have been involved for the 303 non-safeguarders and 13 sheriffs who responded
| Number of hearings | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| None | 6 (2) | |
| 1 – 10 | 163 (54) | 5 (38) |
| 11 – 30 | 81 (27) | 2 (15) |
| 31 – 50 | 19 (6) | 2 (15) |
| More than 50 | 34 (11) | 4 (31) |
Table 216: Variables used to extract data for the sheriff sample
| Record ID | Local Authority |
| Gender | Age at Safeguarder Appointment |
| Number of Additional Children (Siblings) Included on Allocation Form | Gender and Age of Additional Children, as appropriate |
| Date of Safeguarder Appointment | Type of Proceedings |
| Stated Reason for Safeguarder Appointment | Additional Information Stated |
Table 217: Grouping and variables used to extract data for SCRA sample
| Background | Safeguarder Appointment | Substantive Hearing Decision | Appeals |
|---|---|---|---|
| Record ID | Age of Child at Safeguarder Appointment | Date of Hearing | Was Substantive Decision Appealed? |
| Gender | Date of Safeguarder Appointment | Purpose of Hearing | If Yes, By Who? |
| Local Authority | Purpose of Hearing | Hearing Decision – Compulsory Measures | Reason for Appeal |
| Date of Established Grounds | Was Hearing Arranged to Consider New Grounds? | Other Measures in Place | Appeal Outcome |
| Type of Order in Place at Safeguarder Appointment | If Yes, First Grounds Referred to Hearing? | Residence Conditions | Date Appeal Concluded |
| Date of Order | Is Purpose to Consider Additional Grounds Arising Since Existing Order Made? | Contact Conditions | |
| Date that Order was First Made | Hearing Decision – Compulsory Measures 1 | Other Conditions | |
| Other Measures in Place | Hearing Decision – Compulsory Measures 2 | Hearings Reasons Relevant to Safeguarder Appointment | |
| Residence Conditions | If Hearing Continued (Decision Deferred) Why? | ||
| Contact Conditions | Decision to Appoint a Safeguarder | ||
| Other Conditions | Reason to Appoint a Safeguarder | ||
| Date of Safeguarder Report | |||
| Safeguarder Recommendation |
Table 218: Variables used to extract data for the paired report analysis
| Report ID | Safeguarder Appointed By Hearing or Sheriff |
| Structure of Safeguarder Report | Safeguarder’s Remit, if specified |
| Basis of Safeguarder’s Investigation | Reference Made by Safeguarder to Professionals? |
| If Yes, Who Was Consulted and Why? | Resources/Services Identified by Safeguarder |
| Tone/Style of Safeguarder Report | Length of Safeguarder Report |
| Safeguarder’s Recommendation | Agreement Between Safeguarder and Social Worker Recommendations? |
| Similarities Between Safeguarder and Social Workers Reports | Differences Between Safeguarder and Social Worker Reports |
| Duplication of Effort |
Chapter 3 tables and figures
Table 301: Questionnaire responses on to what extent safeguarders felt that (a) they, and (b) others in the children’s hearings system were clear about what is expected of a safeguarder
| Scores awarded | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
| Safeguarders N (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (5) | 8 (9) | 25 (28) | 51 (58) | |
| Others N (%) | 2 (2) | 11 (13) | 17 (20) | 17 (20) | 22 (25) | 13 (15) | 4 (5) | 1 (1) | |
Table 302: Questionnaire responses on the roles that, in the opinion of safeguarders, do not fully understand the safeguarder role/remit. Results are stratified by main occupation of the safeguarder
| Role | Main occupation of the safeguarder | Total N (%)* | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lawyer N (%) | Social worker N (%) | Teacher N (%) | Other N (%) | Retired N (%) | ||
| Children’s reporters | 1 (25) | 1 (25) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (50) | 4 (4) |
| Lawyers | 9 (48) | 3 (16) | 0 (0) | 1 (5) | 6 (32) | 19 (19) |
| Panel members | 15 (32) | 7 (15) | 2 (4) | 5 (11) | 18 (38) | 47 (48) |
| Sheriffs | 5 (42) | 3 (25) | 1 (8) | 1 (8) | 2 (17) | 12 (12) |
| Social workers | 10 (33) | 5 (17) | 0 (0) | 3 (10) | 12 (40) | 30 (30) |
| Other | 15 (31) | 4 (8) | 1 (2) | 8 (16) | 21 (43) | 49 (50) |
*the total number of responding safeguarders (n = 99) is used as the denominator for the percentage calculations in the total column
Table 303: Interview responses, by stakeholder group, on which roles in the children’s hearings system do not fully understand the safeguarder role
| Interviewee Group | Stakeholder groups lacking understanding |
|---|---|
| Safeguarders | Social workers; Children 1 st |
| Solicitors | Safeguarders |
| Reporters | Panel Members; Sheriffs; Children and Families |
| Panel members | Safeguarders |
| Sheriffs | None |
Table 304: Groupings used for both the safeguarder and non-safeguarder free text responses on the key function/role of a safeguarder
| Grouping term | Activities covered |
|---|---|
| Child’s views | Ascertain child’s views, convey child’s views/wishes, give the child a voice in proceedings |
| Independence | Provide independent view/perspective/recommendation, undertake independent enquiry/assessment, produce independent report/impartial report, be independent from/challenge other agencies |
| Child’s best interests | Represent/promote child’s best interests, safeguard child’s best interests at hearing/court, recommend what is in the child’s best interests, keep the child at the centre of proceedings |
| Decision making | Assist/inform/support decision making, identify options/course of action for child, ensure best outcome for child, enable child-centred decision making |
| Information gathering and processing | Investigate child’s circumstances, consult with child/family/professionals, collate/assess/evaluate available information |
Table 305: Number, and percentage of (a) safeguarders (n = 99), (b) non-safeguarders (n = 357), and (c) sheriffs (n = 16) who felt that these activities were a key part of the safeguarder role
| Grouping term | Safeguarders N (%) | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child’s views | 21 (21) | 63 (18) | 4 (25) |
| Independence | 27 (27) | 133 (37) | 4 (25) |
| Child’s best interests | 81 (82) | 157 (44) | 9 (56) |
| Decision making | 22 (22) | 110 (31) | 4 (25) |
| Information gathering and processing | 19 (19) | 119 (33) | 1 (6) |
Table 306: Number and percentage of safeguarders that indicated that the safeguarder role (a) was unique in the hearings process, or (b) overlapped with other roles
| Variable | Levels | Unique N (%) | Overlap N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Safeguarder | NA | 71 (81) | 17 (19) |
| Gender | Males (n = 32) | 24 (75) | 8 (25) |
| Females (n = 56) | 47 (84) | 9 (16) | |
| Length of service | 1 – 3 (n = 25) | 20 (80) | 5 (20) |
| 4 – 5 (n = 11) | 6 (54) | 5 (46) | |
| 6 – 7 (n = 8) | 6 (75) | 2 (25) | |
| 8 – 10 (n = 9) | 8 (89) | 1 (11) | |
| More than 10 (n = 35) | 31 (89) | 4 (11) | |
| Main occupation | Lawyer (n = 23) | 17 (74) | 6 (26) |
| Social Worker (n = 11) | 10 (91) | 1 (9) | |
| Teacher (n = 2) | 2 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| Retired (n = 39) | 32 (82) | 7 (18) | |
| Other (n = 12) | 10 (83) | 1 (17) |
Table 307: Number and percentage of non-safeguarders that indicated that the safeguarder role (a) was unique in the hearings process, or (b) overlapped with other roles
| Variable | Levels | Unique N (%) | Overlap N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-safeguarder | NA | 163 (59) | 113 (41) |
| Gender | Males (n = 86) | 54 (63) | 32 (37) |
| Females (n = 187) | 106 (57) | 81 (43) | |
| Prefer not to say (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| Length of service | 1 – 3 (n = 66) | 36 (54) | 30 (46) |
| 4 – 5 (n = 45) | 26 (58) | 19 (42) | |
| 6 – 7 (n = 42) | 26 (62) | 16 (38) | |
| 8 – 10 (n = 39) | 27 (69) | 12 (31) | |
| More than 10 (n = 84) | 48 (57) | 36 (43) | |
| Main occupation | Children’s reporter (n = 33) | 23 (70) | 10 (30) |
| Lawyer (n = 15) | 7 (47) | 8 (53) | |
| Panel member (n = 132) | 95 (72) | 37 (28) | |
| Social worker (n = 80) | 32 (40) | 48 (60) | |
| Other (n = 16) | 6 (38) | 10 (62) |
Table 308: Number and percentage of sheriffs that indicated that the safeguarder role (a) was unique in the hearings process, or (b) overlapped with other roles
| Variable | Levels | Unique N (%) | Overlap N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sheriffs | NA | 9 (75) | 3 (25) |
| Length of service | 1 – 3 (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 4 – 5 (n = 0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| 6 – 7 (n = 2) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | |
| 8 – 10 (n = 3) | 3 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| More than 10 (n = 4) | 2 (50) | 2 (50) |
Table 309: Number, and percentage, of (a) safeguarders (n = 15), (b) non-safeguarders (n = 113) and sheriffs (n = 3) who identified overlap between these roles and that of the safeguarder (more than one role could be specified)
| Role overlapped with | Safeguarder N (%) | Non-safeguarder N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 2 (13) | 6 (6) | 0 (0) |
| Social worker | 7 (47) | 71 (63) | 2 (67) |
| Legal representative/solicitor | 5 (33) | 13 (12) | 2 (67) |
| Advocate/advocacy worker | 6 (40) | 28 (25) | 0 (0) |
| Children’s rights officer | 1 (7) | 10 (9) | 3 (100) |
Table 310: How (a) safeguarders (n = 17), (b) non-safeguarders (n = 113), and (c) sheriffs (n = 3) think the overlap between the safeguarder role and others in the children’s hearings system affects the safeguarder role
| Feelings about the overlap between roles | Safeguarders N (%) | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complements/assists safeguarder role | 10 (59) | 40 (35) | 2 (67) |
| Makes safeguarder role more difficult | 5 (29) | 26 (23) | 0 (0) |
| Negates the role of safeguarder | 2 (12) | 47 (42) | 1 (33) |
Table 311: How (a) non-safeguarders (n = 113), and (b) sheriffs (n = 3) think the overlap between the safeguarder role and others in the children’s hearings system affects the safeguarder role. Information stratified by main profession
| Children’s reporter | Lawyer | Panel member | Social Worker | Sheriff | Other | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complements/assists safeguarder role | 6 | 1 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 42 |
| Makes the role of the safeguarder more difficult | 1 | 2 | 9 | 13 | 0 | 1 | 26 |
| Negates the role of the safeguarder | 3 | 5 | 10 | 24 | 1 | 5 | 48 |
| Total | 10 | 8 | 37 | 48 | 3 | 10 | 116 |
Chapter 4 tables and figures
Table 401: Grouping categories used for the free text question on the types of situations or circumstances that a safeguarder should be appointed
| Grouping term | Activities covered |
|---|---|
| Interests | To safeguard the child’s interests in proceedings, where child’s best interests are not adequately protected, where child’s interests have been overlooked/lost sight of, where decision in child’s best interests is unclear |
| Rights | To protect the child’s rights, where the rights of the child are not adequately protected, where the child cannot understand the process, where the child cannot participate in the process, where the child is too young to instruct a solicitor but needs representation, when grounds are sent to the sheriff for proof |
| Conflict | Where there is conflict between parents/carers and relevant agencies, predominately social work, where there is conflict within the family, where there is disagreement/differing views about child’s plan, where relationship/communication between family and professionals has broken down, where there is lack of engagement/cooperation by family with relevant agencies |
| Views | To obtain the child’s views, where the child’s views are unknown, where the child’s views have not been represented within proceedings, where child’s voice is lost – to give child a voice, mainly child’s views, but some indication that safeguarders can be appointed to obtain parents’/carers’ views and professionals’ views |
| Information | Insufficient information available to allow hearing to make substantive decision, missing information or gaps in available information, conflicting information/factual dispute, lack of clarity within available information, specific information sought by hearing on particular issue, need for information to be verified – concerns around honesty of parents/carers and potential entrenched views of professionals |
| Independence | To obtain independent assessment, to provide an independent view of the child’s circumstances, to provide an independent overview of case, need for impartial/objective report and recommendation, need for independent perspective |
Table 402: Number, and percentage, of non-safeguarders (n = 357) and sheriffs (n = 16) who felt these were the types of situations or circumstances in which a safeguarder should be appointed. (Respondents could give more than one)
| Grouping term | Non-safeguarders (N, %) | Sheriffs (N, %) |
|---|---|---|
| Conflict | 208 (58) | 6 (38) |
| Gathering information | 139 (39) | 2 (12) |
| Ascertaining views | 128 (36) | 4 (25) |
| Independence | 68 (19) | 1 (6) |
| Child’s interests | 65 (18) | 6 (38) |
| Child’s rights | 46 (13) | 0 (0) |
Figure 1 : Reasons for safeguarder appointment extracted from the SCRA sample
Figure 2 : Reasons for safeguarder appointment extracted from the sheriff sample
Table 403: Roles that mentioned conflict as a reason to appoint a safeguarder
| Roles | Conflict N (%) | Information gathering N (%) | Ascertaining views N (%) | Independence N (%) | Child’s interests N (%) | Child’s rights N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel members | 98 (47) | 69 (50) | 72 (56) | 35 (52) | 45 (69) | 19 (14) |
| Social workers | 61 (29) | 38 (27) | 22 (17) | 13 (19) | 6 (9) | 6 (13) |
| Children’s reporters | 27 (13) | 16 (12) | 23 (18) | 13 (19) | 10 (15) | 15 (33) |
| Lawyers | 10 (5) | 6 (4) | 7 (6) | 3 (4) | 3 (5) | 2 (4) |
| Other | 12 (6) | 10 (6) | 4 (3.1) | 4 (6) | 1 (2) | 4 (9) |
Chapter 5 tables and figures
Table 501: Groupings used for the free text responses that indicated the activities that took up most of the safeguarders’ time
| Grouping term | Activities covered |
|---|---|
| Child/family related activity | Playing with child, obtaining child/family views, meeting with child/family, interviewing child/family, explaining process to child/family, observing contact, mediating, handing out leaflets, travelling to family/child meetings |
| Information gathering | Phone calls, obtaining professional views, interviewing professionals, meeting with professionals, talking and listening, travelling |
| Information processing | Reading paperwork and reports, collating information, assessing and evaluating, thinking and analysing |
| Court hearing/attendance | Travelling, sitting in court/hearing waiting rooms, attending hearings/courts |
| Report preparation | Keeping to limited timescales, writing report/recommendations, oral presentations |
Table 502: Number, and percentage, of male (n = 35), female (n = 64) and all (n = 99) safeguarders who spent most of their time involved in these activities. (Respondents could give more than one response)
| Activity | Gender | Total N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Males N (%) | Females N (%) | ||
| Child/family related activity | 21 (60) | 45 (70) | 66 (67) |
| Information gathering | 23 (66) | 38 (60) | 61 (62) |
| Information processing | 8 (23) | 18 (28) | 26 (26) |
| Court hearing/attendance | 2 (6) | 4 (6) | 6 (6) |
| Report preparation | 9 (26) | 13 (20) | 22 (22) |
Table 503: Non-safeguarder (n = 276) and sheriff (n = 12) opinions on the usefulness of safeguarder reports
| Role | Usefulness of safeguarder reports (N, %) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely useless | Moderately useless | Slightly useless | Neither useful nor useless | Slightly useful | Moderately useful | Extremely useful | |
| Non-safeguarder | 6 (2) | 11 (4) | 5 (2) | 37 (13) | 18 (7) | 92 (33) | 107 (39) |
| Sheriff | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (8) | 4 (33) | 7 (58) |
Table 504: Opinions of non-safeguarders (n = 276) on the usefulness of safeguarder reports
| Role | Usefulness of safeguarder reports (N, %) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely useless | Moderately useless | Slightly useless | Neither useful nor useless | Slightly useful | Moderately useful | Extremely useful | |
| Children’s reporter | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | 0 (0) | 2 (6) | 3 (9) | 10 (30) | 17 (52) |
| Solicitor | 1 (7) | 1 (7) | 0 (0) | 1 (7) | 3 (20) | 7 (47) | 2 (13) |
| Panel member | 4 (3) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) | 5 (4) | 6 (4) | 43 (33) | 72 (55) |
| Social worker | 1 (1) | 8 (10) | 3 (4) | 9 (11) | 20 (25) | 27 (34) | 12 (15) |
| Other | 0 (0) | 1 (6) | 0 (0) | 1 (6) | 5 (31) | 5 (31) | 4 (25) |
Table 505: Non-safeguarder (n = 388) and sheriff (n = 12) opinions on whether it is better for safeguarders to appear at the proceedings to present their report
| Attendance at proceedings | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 264 (74) | 12 (100) |
| No | 5 (2) | 0 (0) |
| Unsure | 8 (3) | 0 (0) |
Figure 3 : The extent to which safeguarder recommendations were followed
Table 506: Non-safeguarder (n = 276) and sheriff (n = 12) opinion on whether the involvement of a safeguarder makes the decision in the case more robust
| Response | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 159 (58) | 10 (83) |
| No | 81 (29) | 1 (8) |
| Don’t know | 36 (13) | 1 (8) |
Table 5 07: Number, and percentage, of safeguarders (n = 86) who provided an opinion on whether the involvement of a safeguarder affected the number of appeals
| Response | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Yes | 36 (42) |
| No | 12 (14) |
| Don’t know | 38 (44) |
Table 508: Summary information on whether the involvement of a safeguarder affected the number of appeals. Results stratified by main occupation of the safeguarder
| Response | Main occupation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lawyer N (%) | Social worker N (%) | Teacher N (%) | Other N (%) | Retired N (%) | |
| Yes | 15 (42) | 5 (14) | 0 (0) | 5 (14) | 11 (31) |
| No | 4 (33) | 2 (17) | 1 (8) | 2 (17) | 3 (25) |
| Don’t know | 3 (8) | 4 (11) | 1 (3) | 6 (16) | 24 (64) |
Chapter 6 tables and figures
Table 601: Groupings and number of respondents for the free text responses that indicate the changes that have been seen since the 2013 shift to a national panel. Note some individuals may give multiple responses
| Grouping | Activities covered | Safeguarders N | Non-safeguarders N |
|---|---|---|---|
| None | I have not noticed any, I have not observed any changes to practice, I see no difference, I am not aware of any, not in my experience | 4 | 106 |
| More safeguarders | Increase in number of safeguarders with different abilities, greater number of safeguarders available, more appointments for safeguarders | 1 | 11 |
| More support/training | Support sessions and mandatory training, a lot more training, less isolation, targeted training for safeguarders, better trained safeguarders | 24 | 5 |
| Increased quality/standards and supervision | More homogeneous approach to role, a drive towards a national standard, better adherence to timescales/attendance at hearings, better/more supervision, better/more regulation, better assessments by safeguarders, more accountability, development of a professional identity | 34 | 18 |
| Negative changes | Unnecessary intervention in the role, too much oversight/scrutiny, threat to independence of role, greater number of appointments outside of local area, no improvement in safeguarder quality, increased number of people lacking key skills and local knowledge, poor quality safeguarders, more bureaucracy, less autonomy, ineffective training | 20 | 29 |
| Don’t know | Experience is post 2013, cannot comment, don’t know, don’t interact with enough safeguarders to comment, limited/short time experience of CHS | 9 | 94 |
| Score | Safeguarders (N, %) | Non-safeguarders (N, %) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 (1) | 38 (14) |
| 1 | 2 (2) | 14 (5) |
| 2 | 3 (4) | 25 (9) |
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 21 (8) |
| 4 | 3 (4) | 6 (2) |
| 5 | 9 (11) | 106 (39) |
| 6 | 6 (7) | 20 (8) |
| 7 | 14 (17) | 17 (6) |
| 8 | 14 (17) | 13 (5) |
| 9 | 10 (12) | 8 (3) |
| 10 | 19 (24) | 4 (12) |
Table 603: Safeguarder (n = 81) and non-safeguarder (n = 271) opinion on whether there have been any changes in policy following the 2013 shift to a national panel
| Response | Safeguarders N (%) | Non-safeguarders N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 9 (11) | 7 (3) |
| No | 34 (42) | 46 (17) |
| Don’t know | 38 (47) | 218 (80) |
Table 604: Groupings and number of respondents for the free text responses for changes in policy that have been seen since the 2013 shift to a national panel. Note some individuals may give multiple responses
| Grouping | Activities covered | Safeguarders N | Non-safeguarders N |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interactions with child/family | Better understanding of effect of circumstances on child, increased understanding of how to get information from child, more friendly interactions | 3 | 3 |
| Standards/accountability | Adhering to standards, meeting timelines, more consistency in practice | 1 | 1 |
| Provision of guidelines and training | More guidance on how to gather different views, training on how to gather information | 4 | 2 |
| Communication | Better reports, more detailed reports, better contact with safeguarders | 0 | 2 |
| Score awarded | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| Number (%) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (2) | 10 (12) | 4 (5) | 13 (15) | 18 (21) | 19 (22) | 18 (21) |
Table 606: Safeguarder (n = 86) opinion on the extent that the seven practice standards for safeguarders provide a good framework for the safeguarder role. Results stratified by main occupation for safeguarder
| Score | Main occupation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lawyer N (%) | Social worker N (%) | Teacher N (%) | Other N (%) | Retired N (%) | |
| 2 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) |
| 3 | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| 4 | 1 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) | 0 (0) |
| 5 | 3 (30) | 2 (20) | 0 (0) | 1 (10) | 4 (40) |
| 6 | 0 (0) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) |
| 7 | 8 (62) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (23) | 2 (15) |
| 8 | 2 (11) | 3 (17) | 0 (0) | 3 (17) | 10 (56) |
| 9 | 4 (21) | 1 (5) | 1 (5) | 2 (11) | 11 (58) |
| 10 | 3 (17) | 2 (11) | 1 (6) | 3 (17) | 9 (50) |
Table 607: Safeguarder (n = 86) opinion on the extent that the seven practice standards for safeguarders provide a good framework for the safeguarder role. Results stratified by length of service as a safeguarder
| Score | Length of service as a safeguarder (Years) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 – 3 N (%) | 4 – 5 N (%) | 6 – 7 N (%) | 8 – 10 N (%) | More than 10 N (%) | |
| 2 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) |
| 3 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) |
| 4 | 0 (0) | 1 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (50) |
| 5 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (30) | 1 (10) | 6 (60) |
| 6 | 2 (50) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (25) | 1 (25) |
| 7 | 1 (8) | 2 (15) | 1 (8) | 1 (8) | 8 (62) |
| 8 | 5 (28) | 2 (11) | 2 (11) | 3 (17) | 6 (33) |
| 9 | 9 (47) | 3 (16) | 1 (5) | 1 (5) | 5 (26) |
| 10 | 7 (39) | 3 (17) | 1 (6) | 2 (11) | 5 (28) |
Figure 4 : Safeguarder opinions on how important each of the seven key practice standards are
Table 608: Ranking, in order of importance, of the seven practice standards for safeguarders. One indicates most important while seven indicates least important
| Practice standard | Order of importance N (%) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| Putting the child at the centre | 52 (63) |
2 (2) |
1 (1) |
2 (2) |
1 (1) |
2 (2) |
22 (27) |
| Developing relationships with all involved | 13 (16) |
11 (14) |
8 (10) |
7 (8) |
9 (11) |
13 (16) |
21 (26) |
| Acting with independence of practice | 1 (1) |
18 (22) |
25 (30) |
14 (17) |
12 (15) |
10 (12) |
2 (2) |
| Providing clear and timely reports | 5 (6) |
4 (5) |
9 (11) |
19 (23) |
22 (27) |
15 (18) |
8 (10) |
| Maintaining confidentiality | 1 (1) |
5 (6) |
16 (20) |
27 (33) |
17 (21) |
13 (16) |
3 (4) |
| Acting with integrity, honesty and fairness | 4 (5) |
34 (42) |
15 (18) |
10 (12) |
8 (10) |
9 (11) |
2 (2) |
| Keeping up to date with skills/knowledge | 6 (7) |
8 (10) |
8 (10) |
3 (4) |
13 (16) |
20 (24) |
24 (30) |
Table 609: Number, and percentage, of non-safeguarders and sheriffs who were either aware or not aware of the 7 key practice standards
| Main occupation | Aware N (%) | Not aware N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Children’s reporter | 21 (18) | 12 (7) |
| Lawyer | 7 (6) | 8 (5) |
| Panel member | 54 (47) | 78 (45) |
| Social worker | 20 (17) | 60 (39) |
| Sheriffs | 7 (6) | 5 (3) |
| Other | 7 (6) | 9 (5) |
| Total | 116 | 172 |
Table 610: The extent that safeguarders (n = 82), non-safeguarders (n = 276) and sheriffs (n = 12) felt that the underlying professional skills/qualifications of safeguarders helped them in their role as a safeguarder
| Score | Safeguarders N (%) | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 (0) | 7 (2) | 0 (0) |
| 1 | 0 (0) | 5 (2) | 0 (0) |
| 2 | 0 (0) | 6 (2) | 0 (0) |
| 3 | 0 (0) | 7 (2) | 0 (0) |
| 4 | 0 (0) | 9 (3) | 1 (8) |
| 5 | 1 (1) | 43 (16) | 0 (0) |
| 6 | 0 (0) | 28 (10) | 0 (0) |
| 7 | 4 (5) | 35 (13) | 0 (0) |
| 8 | 19 (23) | 46 (17) | 3 (25) |
| 9 | 19 (23) | 50 (18) | 4 (33) |
| 10 | 39 (48) | 40 (14) | 4 (33) |
Table 61 1: Groupings used for the free text responses that provided further information on the underlying professional skills/qualifications/qualities that were important to the safeguarder role
| Skill | Activities covered |
|---|---|
| Communication | Written and verbal communication, ability to effectively communicate with a range of groups, listening skills, ability to explain roles/process/report/recommendations in a range of settings/to a range of audiences, report writing skills |
| Information gathering and processing | Interviewing skills, investigation/assessment skills, observation skills, analytical skills, ability to collate and synthesise relevant information, ability to present information clearly in reports/at hearings/in court |
| Interpersonal | Ability to relate to/engage with children and families, ability to work alongside relevant professionals, appreciation of family dynamics, life experience, empathy/compassion, integrity/respect, humour, honesty, confidence/tenacity, objectivity/impartiality, sensitivity, confidentiality, autonomy and independence, child centred approach |
| Professional | Knowledge of legal systems/process, understanding child development, understanding of mental health/addiction/domestic abuse/disability/trauma, experience of working with vulnerable groups, legal/court/hearings experience, advocacy skills, mediation/negotiation skills, problem solving skills, professional qualification in law/social work/health/psychology |
Table 612: Number, and percentage, of safeguarders, non-safeguarders and sheriffs who felt these skills/qualifications/qualitites were important to the safeguarder
| Skill | Safeguarders N (%) | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | 57 (58) | 149 (42) | 5 (31) | |
| Information gathering/processing | 32 (32) | 75 (21) | 1 (6) | |
| Interpersonal | 66 (67) | 159 (44) | 7 (44) | |
| Professional | 56 (57) | 161 (45) | 8 (50) | |
Table 613: Non-safeguarder (n = 273) and sheriff opinion on whether safeguarders are provided with appropriate training and support to fulfil their role
| Response | Non-safeguarders N (%) | Sheriffs N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 46 (13) | 6 (54) |
| No | 35 (13) | 3 (27) |
| Don’t know | 192 (70) | 2 (18) |
Table 614: Groupings used for the free text responses that provided further information on the additional skills/training that safeguarder would find useful
| Skill | Activities covered |
|---|---|
| Support | Mentoring/buddying, peer support, group support sessions, support hotline, counselling, genuine support – not supervising/monitoring/compliance/management |
| Professional development | Problem solving skills, restorative approaches, consultation of practice guidance, safeguarder input in training – provision and identification of subject matter |
| Specialist training | Court work, legal processes/procedures, safeguarder role in court proceedings (particular appeals), social work input, substance misuse, interviewing techniques, conflict resolution, identification of neglect/abuse, training should be paid |
Table 615: Grouping used for free text reponses for skills that would be useful, in the opinion of non-safeguarders, for the safeguarder role
| Skill | Activities covered |
|---|---|
| Child development and protection | Training on attachment, training on neglect, training on domestic violence, training on substance misuse, training on physical and sexual abuse |
| Legal issues and processes | Training on legal framework and process, training on court work – how to be a party to proceedings, training on permanence legislation and procedures, training on social work processes/decision-making |
| Communication skills | Court work, legal processes/procedures, safeguarder role in court proceedings (particular appeals), social work input, substance misuse, interviewing techniques, conflict resolution, identification of neglect/abuse, training should be paid |
| Assessment skills | Training on how to engage and effectively communicate with children, training on how to communicate effectively with parents/carers, training on how to communicate effectively with professionals, advocacy skills, professionalism – engaging with families/professionals in a respectful manner |
| Reporting skills | Training on how to write a comprehensive report, consistent standard of reporting, adherence to timescales for reports, attendance at hearings and ability to speak to report, training on how to undertake a thorough and independent investigation |
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback