Staff perspectives on safeguarding training in further education: Putting theory into practice

Alexandra Clarke

BA (Hons) Health & Social Care

Abstract

Statutory guidance states safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. This study explores how the designated safeguarding team at a further education college (Setting A) may support and develop knowledge and skills amongst all staff to encourage a culture of listening to learners by ensuring their approach is child centred. A survey was undertaken with ten members of staff at Setting A that provided rich data of a positive culture of staff engagement ensuring safeguarding facilitates institutional empathy. Analysis of the survey data and a literature review has informed recommendations suggesting safeguarding training could identify staff with less than six years’ experience working with children to level up their vigilance and interpersonal skills. Training may also identify staff with considerable work and training experience to receive training that upskills and challenges their experiences. Training that offers an understanding of adverse childhood experiences may offer insights into the behaviours of learners experiencing abuse or neglect and shape the use of interpersonal skills for improved disclosure. A further understanding of contextual safeguarding may allow experienced staff opportunities to analyse critical information and engage with multiagency stakeholders more effectively to address the impact of abuse, oppression, and exploitation.

Introduction

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) defines 54 articles that provide a common international framework for national governments, non-governmental organisations and all professionals associated with the care and education of children to work within. The United Kingdom ratified 52 articles into legislation through the Children’s Act (2004) which ensures that all people and organisations working with children uphold their responsibility to help safeguard children and promote their welfare. Policy (DfE, 2018) to facilitate this responsibility, states:

Training is necessary for people who work with children or in services affecting the safety and welfare of children. Training should cover how to identify and respond early to the needs of all vulnerable children. (DfE, 2018, p.6)

The importance of this requirement places responsibility on all further education professionals to receive safeguarding training so that their duty meets the needs of learners. However, there is very little research to offer advice on how best to train staff on the appropriate skills with which to help learners disclose abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

A small-scale research project was undertaken using a qualitative survey to seek an understanding of how safeguarding training may offer better outcomes for learners through increased vigilance and improved communication for effective disclosure. The survey provided rich data and evidence determining how case histories may be used to offer training that levels up inexperienced staff through improved vigilance and interpersonal skills to encourage learner disclosure.

Case histories may also be used to upskill more experienced staff by reflecting on appropriate use of documentation and contextual information so that barriers to learning may be identified and strategies devised to mitigate the impact on transition to higher education, employment and engaged citizenship.

Literature Review

This small-scale research project seeks to understand how safeguarding training may offer better outcomes when meeting the needs of learners in a further education setting. This literature review focuses on three key themes to achieve this aim: vigilance, communication, and disclosure.

Vigilance

Maslow (1943) established that children and young people cannot learn effectively if their basic needs for physiological safety, love, and belonging are not met due to harm, abuse or exploitation. Department for Education (2018a, p.10) states that children need adults to notice when things are troubling them, thus requiring vigilance, staff collaboration and accurate documentation. Yet the causes and symptoms of harm or abuse are varied (Department for Education, 2018b). Allnock and Miller (2013, p.50) state that recognition of harm or abuse is complex in nature as signs can be missed, hidden, misinterpreted, or dismissed as attention-seeking by troubled learners. Results of a survey by Allnock and Miller (2013, p.7) revealed young people felt their outcomes would have improved had the professional asked more questions. The authors go on to suggest that an understanding of the cause of inappropriate behaviours used as a coping strategy for abuse, and examination of wider familial issues may ensure better outcomes for young people. Baginsky et al., (2015, p.355-356) posit that existing data from parents, carers, previous educational establishments, and early help/social workers may facilitate early identification of learners requiring vigilance for disclosure of harm or exploitation. Systematic analysis of academic attendance records may identify patterns or trends that give rise to concern and could allow staff to ask the learner relevant questions to avoid issues becoming overlooked or embedded (DfE, 2022, p.6). Further vigilance by observing subtle, escalating, or changed behaviours could also be documented along with attendance analysis, learner disclosures, and peer or witness reports so that these insights may be pieced together (DfE, 2022, p.3).

Unicef (2019, p.3) state that some learners are at risk of harm from the actions of others or themselves as they are unable to protect or take care of themselves and that they may be more vulnerable to risk if they have special educational needs, disability, or a physical/mental health diagnosis. The Munro Report (1996) uses a jigsaw analogy to argue that all professionals involved in safeguarding have pieces of context information with which to share and build complex judgements (Baginsky et al., 2015, p.355). Contextual Safeguarding (CS) (Firmin, 2017. p.1) recognises that young people can form non-familial relationships in their neighbourhoods, schools and online within which they may experience violence and abuse. Firmin (2020, p.59) discusses the work of Bourdieu and his theory of social field, social capital, habitus, and symbolic violence which offer useful insights into local activity such as child sexual exploitation (CSE), youth violence, domestic abuse, bullying, gang association, and radicalisation. It is through the lens of local knowledge, social justice, and early help which utilises a signs of safety toolkit that professionals may cooperate to offer a multiagency approach to contextual safeguarding (Turnell and Edwards, 1999). This greater vigilance and collaborative approach may ensure learners feel they have been noticed and are secure in the knowledge that their needs are being met holistically and proactively (DfE, 2018a, p.10).

A comprehension of the complex issues affecting learners requiring safeguarding interventions is as essential as determining the impact of trauma from a single life event or anticipating need in a holistic and contextual approach. Learners may be subject to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that can impact on their quality of life, physical and mental health outcomes, and life expectancy. Felitti (1998, p.245) connects adverse childhood experiences such as neglect or witnessing domestic violence with symptoms such as depression or eating disorders which may result in poor health outcomes such as heart disease leading to early mortality. Furthermore, Felitti (2002, p.251) suggests the greater the number of ACEs a learner may encounter could also determine the increased potential impact on unhealthy coping strategies and inappropriate risk-taking such as self-harm or substance abuse. An understanding of ACEs and familial safeguarding practice may offer insights on how learner behaviours can be influenced by fear, shame, blame, and stigma. These experiences may, therefore, inform learner reluctance to communicate or create positive relationships with staff. Bronfenbrenner (1994) posits in his ecological systems theory that it is the quality of environment and context which have the most significant influence on learner development.

Reder and Duncan (2004, p.109) argue that training is a cornerstone to improving safeguarding practice. Training empowers staff to carry out their professional responsibility towards safeguarding with appropriate knowledge, skills, and confidence (Lexton et al., 2005, p.195). Training that positively engages all staff in an understanding of the complexity of familial and contextual safeguarding may convey institutional empathy which allows for greater collaborative management and better outcomes for learners requiring safeguarding intervention (Szilassy et al, 2017, p.1728). Training may allow staff at Setting A to discuss relevant queries, raise concerns and debate issues by drawing on the expertise of their trainer and experiences of colleagues (Tarr et al., 2013, p.109). This opportunity for greater reflective practice may avoid a tokenistic approach to safeguarding (Schon, 1987). Case histories that detail the complexity of social field, social capital, habitus, and symbolic violence may create an awareness of how positive community interventions and youthwork may facilitate child protection, social justice, and crime prevention as advocated by Firmin (2020, p.49). These histories may also reflect ACE (Felitti et al., 1999) cases that are specifically relevant to the demographics of Setting A in the hope of ensuring knowledgeable and informed reflexive practice that allows for improved interactions with learners for better safeguarding outcomes (Schon, 1987).

Communication

In research young people state they need to be protected from all forms of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. They go on to state they need the stability of a trusting relationship to navigate them through necessary safeguarding investigation and intervention (DfE, 2018a, p.10). Trust between learners and staff allows for advocacy and negotiation of new relationships with multi-agency stakeholders such as early help/social workers, police, and health care teams for engaged cooperation which may also determine better outcomes for the learner (Lexton et al, 2005, p.202). The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC, 2021) recognises barriers to disclosure such as concerns about confidentiality and lack of trust. Unconditional positive regard may convey warmth to learners and instil a sense of belonging, understanding, affection and acceptance regardless of their experience, as advocated by Rogers (2003). This skilled reassurance may nurture a trusting relationship between learner and staff that could allow for further positive communication of needs. Behaviour is a form of communication, therefore, understanding the manifestations of behaviour through training may allow for better awareness of the signs and symptoms (DfE, 2018b) that need to be identified and documented swiftly for analysis and investigation. Goleman (1996) suggests staff development of emotional intelligence is important to understand learner behaviours and to form trusting relationships with learners by offering empathy so they may feel reassured that their needs are the primary focus (NSPCC, 2021). Furthermore, Gardner (1999) suggests that interpersonal intelligence is the capacity to aid an understanding of the intentions, motivations, and desires of other people. Training may allow staff to recognise poor behaviour, attendance, and engagement as a sign of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation rather than apathy, laziness and defiance (Ofsted, 2022). Spitzberg (2003) advocates for the development of interpersonal skills such as effective verbal and non-verbal communication and active listening which may allow staff to assess situations and to act accordingly by offering reassurance and critical information during safeguarding investigation (Allnock and Miller, 2013). Therefore, training that engenders an understanding of behaviour, communication and the complexity of ACEs and CS may also nurture empathy which can offer learners further experience of trust and necessary awareness that their best interests are being addressed (Rogers, 2003).

Role-play serves as a useful tool in safeguarding training as it allows for greater empathy, investment in nurturing skills, meaningful dialogue to be planned, vocabulary to be attuned with learners’ developmental stages, and body language to be modified. Training may consider role-play using experienced actors who are trained to convey emotion to an audience and offer ‘connections between feelings, thoughts, and behaviours’ (Lexton et al, 2005, p.197). A trained counsellor may create scenario content, model, and advise on best practice whilst reflecting on common misconceptions, challenge responses, and acknowledge the need for new research to be integrated into training (Tarr et al., 2013). Role-play could allow new staff at Setting A an opportunity to pause and consult legislative, policy and procedural checklists during delivery. Collaboration with social workers, counsellors, and staff at Setting A could also allow for bespoke safeguarding training delivered by a facilitator offering feedback and reflection to improve communication (Schon, 1987).

Disclosure

Keeping Children Safe in Education (DfE, 2021a) details the statutory guidance on compulsory safeguarding training for anyone working in education so that disclosure is managed confidentially and in the best interests of the learner who should be kept safe from further negative experiences.Staff may facilitate disclosure by directly addressing the learner with circumstantial and/or data evidence to gain an understanding of specific behaviours through gentle coercion (Allnock and Miller, 2013). Alternatively, learners may wish to voluntarily disclose issues affecting themselves or others with a specific member of staff who should be available to the learner with information, advice, and guidance towards safeguarding practice (DfE, 2018a). To ensure the needs of the learner are met, discourse during disclosure should be explicit to avoid unnecessary repetition of emotive information. Consideration may be given to training staff on the use of developmentally appropriate vocabulary whist encouraging the learner to describe body parts using standardised terminology (Allnock and Miller, 2013). Staff at Setting A should be mindful that learners may not fully disclose because of mistrust in safeguarding procedures, concern they will not be believed, fear of unfavourable outcomes or retribution, victim shaming, and embarrassment when recalling sensitive or intimate actions (Allnock and Miller, 2013). Furthermore, young people have stated they need frequent reassurance that they are not to blame for the actions of the perpetrator and should be respected as a credible witness to their own experience (DfE, 2018a). A distressed or traumatised learner may need time to disclose and silences to allow them to: recall, process information chronologically or to consider the emotional impact of their experience through accurate reflections (NSPCC, 2021). Allnock and Miller (2013) reveal that learners may only partially disclose their experience or infer that there is an issue using ambiguous vocabulary. Partial disclosure may serve to minimise the experience of harm or abuse whilst offering control to the anxious learner. Young people have stated that when trust is no longer present, transparency appears impartial, bias is perceived if information is ignored or denied, or if the professional is unhelpful then they may retract the disclosure. DfE (2022) state retraction may allow the learner to regain further control of the safeguarding intervention which may become overwhelming and distressing (Allnock and Miller, 2013). Young people have stated a need to be ‘involved in procedures and decisions, to be informed of the outcome of assessments’ and to be provided with’ reasoning when their views have not met with a positive response’ (DfE, 2018a, p.10). Furthermore, young people have stated they need to be heard and understood, treated with respect, and afforded the expectation that they are competent to make decisions regarding their own outcomes (DfE, 2018a). National Safeguarding policy (DfE, 2021a) goes on to state that staff should listen, refer to social care, and press for reconsideration when investigation is slow or not taken seriously. Therefore, management of documentation is essential to ensure the learner experience is shared with multiagency stakeholders accurately and represented truthfully to avoid unnecessary repetition by the learner whilst acknowledging that prompts for further information may be necessary (DfE, 2021a).

Safeguarding training may offer staff at Setting A support with paraphrasing techniques to ensure disclosure of abuse or harm is communicated accurately (NSPCC, 2021). Training could also address how staff may positively encounter and nurture difficult conversations. Staff need to make the learner aware that other multiagency stakeholders will be informed of their disclosure, and that they cannot keep secrets or promise favourable outcomes for the learner. Training that offers practice to avoid the desire to comfort the learner with promises may help to manage learner expectations and facilitate trust (DfE, 2018a). Staff at Setting A who are practised in the art of discourse that instils a feeling of being valued by offering praise for brave conversations may ensure learners negotiate their safeguarding journey with resilience and capacity for change. Furthermore, staff using vocabulary that reinforces appropriate behaviours, and promotes self-esteem, confidence, and self-worth, may reassure learners they are not a burden to staff or multiagency stakeholders (NSPCC, 2021). Ofsted (DfE 2021b) assess the effectiveness of safeguarding procedures, yet the tools to measure learner outcomes and the quality of safeguarding training is limited (Tarr et al 2013). A safeguarding training toolkit that offers upskilling of interpersonal intelligence, meaningful dialogue and fosters a greater understanding of ACEs and CS may ensure better outcomes for learners seeking safeguarding intervention. Kolb (1988) posits that this style of active engagement or experiential learning (EL) allows staff to relate with learners in a holistic manner that utilises experience, perception, cognition, and behaviour from an integrative perspective. Tarr et al (2013) state ‘the value of knowledge should not be underestimated as every safeguarding event provides opportunity for lessons to be learned’ (p.14). Furthermore, Hood, Gillespie and Davies (2016) posit that ‘expertise consists of the skills, knowledge and practices that enable professionals to develop proficiency, and whose emergence is influenced by political, educational and organisational contexts’ (p.6). Pan et al, (2018) suggest that staff who are ‘less stressed, less neurotic, more agreeable and extroverted tend to be better at raising potential child abuse issues’ (p.9). Therefore, by replacing stress and anxiety with confidence, interpersonal skills and empathy staff may build increasingly trustworthy relationships with learners for greater vigilance, communication and discourse, and better safeguarding outcomes. This literature review reveals a lack of research on the impact of interpersonal skills training for sensitive communication and disclosure during safeguarding investigation. However, the importance of acquiring interpersonal skills to reassure staff that they can make a difference to a learner’s long-term wellbeing, mental health, and life expectancy is highlighted. This literature review also promotes vigilance, early identification, and training opportunities for better outcomes.

Method

This research project aimed to seek the perspectives of staff at Setting A on practical safeguarding, and how theory, gathered during training, may be practiced reflexively to meet the needs of learners. Setting A is a small further education college offering specialist courses. The setting is located within a large city and attracts learners from neighbouring counties. Much of the student cohort (85%) are 16-18 years of age. National safeguarding policy (DfE, 2021a) states all staff should be familiar with procedures dealing with learner disclosure of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Staff should also offer reassurance that learner disclosure is ‘taken seriously and understand the importance of challenging inappropriate behaviours’ (DfE, 2021a, p.7). These requirements often necessitate staff acting reflexively to ensure these interactions are negotiated with sensitively. This research project sought to understand how staff at Setting A may learn, nurture, and model the skills necessary to provide learner reassurance during disclosure of harm.

Paradigm

The research project used a non-experimental design to collect primary data via an electronic online survey using Microsoft Teams™. The survey, in the form of a questionnaire was disseminated to 14 colleagues at Setting A to gain detailed responses and opinions: 10 responses were gathered. The survey posed 11 questions using both closed and open questions which sought to capture staff feedback on experience and insights into safeguarding training. The objective of the research project was to interpret participant feedback whilst acknowledging that each participant experiences safeguarding from their own unique perspective and will not, therefore, elicit one true answer to the questions posed in the survey. Another characteristic of this interpretivist approach is the researcher perspective, which filters responses to make a more informed summary and shape the participants’ experiences and insights, to ensure a contextualised and consistent critical approach (Rossman and Rallis, 2017). However, interpretation of qualitative research relies on the experience of the researcher to avoid distortion of the participants’ perspectives and responses (Bryman et al., 2021). Focus on the subjective experiences of staff also required interpretation offered by literature review for meaningful and critical analysis. The identification of themes and keywords in staff experiences, training and reflexive interactions are valuable resources offering new perspectives for better provision and outcomes at the setting. Data from the survey was, therefore, supported by thematic analysis which cannot be measured numerically (Thomas, 2013). The transformation of information gathered from applied research into knowledge as an active learning process may inform safeguarding training, actions and enhance reflexive decision making (Rossman and Rallis, 2017).

The research aimed to also determine whether some/considerable experience in professional practice offers staff confidence and reassurance when engaging with learners disclosing a safeguarding issue. The questionnaire used both open and closed questions to yield specific data (Sharp, 2012; Thomas, 2013). Clough and Nutbrown (2008) state that questionnaires allow researchers to seek a broad range of views yet are unlikely to reveal depth to these views. However, results can be useful when exploring a topic where participants’ views are under researched, as is the case for this small-scale research project (Rae et al, 2017).

My role as Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead has required me to deliver staff training on safeguarding. The participants are aware of my research with Bishop Grosseteste University (BGU) and prominent statutory role in Setting A, and this positionality may have conferred influence on the responses to the survey or imparted bias which staff who have not participated may have identified as a good reason for withdrawing from the survey (Thomas, 2013). However, staff may recognise that they may influence future safeguarding training opportunities. This unique advantage strengthens reliability and validity as responses were anonymised whilst the survey offered consistency and impartiality through standardised questions. Furthermore, the delivery style of previous safeguarding training and reference to effectiveness and appropriateness at Setting A were not gathered by the questionnaire. It may be argued that this positionality confers accountability due to my visible presence. This insider knowledge may address a systematic yet bespoke approach to safeguarding training at Setting A so that learner needs may be met with improved outcomes (Chavez, 2008).

Sample

The staff at Setting A reflect a unique range of experiences and a variety of teaching, support, and administrative roles. When deciding the research method of dataretrieval, consideration was afforded to conducting interviews or creating a focus group, however, reflection on the obligations of staff who had recently undertaken Ofsted assessment and embarking on a period of external marking determined the need to allow staff to submit data easily and swiftly (Opie, 2004). By inviting all 14 staff from Setting A to complete the survey, this purposive and convenient sample reflected a variety of different job roles and training experiences (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2005). All staff are legally obliged to undertake basic training as part of their professional responsibility towards safeguarding requirements (DfE, 2021b). A 71% return rate was achieved over a 2-week period, and this was deemed a good response rate from amongst a small work force and may reflect staff recognising the potential for better outcomes for learners from a more inclusive training programme. This positive response may also indicate that staff deemed the research to be a worthwhile undertaking.

Ethical Considerations

Compliance with Educational Guidelines for Ethical Research (BERA, 2018), Ethics Code of Practice (BGU, 2018; 2021), and Ethical Conduct in Youth Work (NYA, 2014) ensured ethical practice was adhered to throughout the project. Prior to any research being conducted, ethical consent was gained from BGU. A consent form was countersigned by the Centre Manager at Setting A (BGU, 2022). An information sheet was provided to potential participants prior to commencement of the survey, stating confidentiality and anonymity could not be assured if illegal or harmful behaviours came to light during completion of the survey, and advised that referral would be made to appropriate authorities. A covering letter attached to the survey clearly explained the reason for the questionnaire and advised that whilst there was no immediate participation benefit, it was hoped that insights might be made into safeguarding training by the research project. Participants were made aware that they had an opportunity for their views relating to safeguarding training to be heard and included to existing understanding on safeguarding training. Seeking feedback on negative experiences in safeguarding was deemed intrusive and upsetting due to the nature of this emotive subject. It was decided that this rich insight was unethical and avoided. Assurances of anonymity were used to encourage participation (Bryman, 2012; Olsen, 2012). Anonymity was important to ensure participants an opportunity to provide honest answers that may improve valid and reliable data for greater research integrity (Cohen et al., 2014). A risk assessment was undertaken and identified administration of the online questionnaire to be a risk. However, the risk of a data breach was minimised by downloading all data to One Drive, which is General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliant and deleted from all other devices. All data was documented digitally, and paper formats were not used, to minimise risk further. Once the report has been marked and returned by BGU, data will be deleted. Consent was assumed by voluntary participation and advice was given that it was not possible to withdraw responses once they had been submitted electronically as the individual may not be identifiable as anonymity was imparted. Bias was avoided by offering the survey to all teaching, support and administration staff as legislation places safeguarding responsibility on all staff working in education. The manager at Setting A was made aware that the findings of the project would be made available to them. However, data collected will be deleted upon completion of the project and detailed information about each participant will also be destroyed. The manager will not, therefore, be able to determine which participants made which specific responses. Research was conducted in accordance with Data Protection Act (2021). Data is GDPR compliant and collected through Microsoft Forms™ operated through BGU systems. This research project was deemed ethical by the Ethics Committee; however, it is not possible to mitigate against all eventualities.

Analysis

The data gathered was positive and offered useful feedback. Analysis of responses were compared for similarities and differences so that a better understanding of how experienced and confident staff may have become skilled in safeguarding practices at Setting A. Furthermore, these responses identified how less experienced staff might develop the necessary skills for safeguarding through reflective practice and more experienced staff might further their understanding of learner behaviours for enhanced reflexive interactions. Critical evaluation of data gathered from participants through feedback and reflective practise offered an informed justification for modifying safeguarding training delivery at Setting A (Agee, 2009).

Analysis and outcomes of findings

Analysis of raw data gathered from the survey allowed for research findings to be determined and outcomes to be considered. By seeking staff perspectives on safeguarding in further education, and reflection on how theory is put into practice it was hoped that specific skills would be identified and nurtured through training to ensure better safeguarding outcomes for learners. Analysis of research findings and outcomes identified four themes embedded in the data: staff experience, emotional availability, documentation, and safeguarding training. The influence of these four themes on safeguarding training will be discussed.

Staff safeguarding experience to date

Data revealed that five out of ten staff participating in the survey had less than seven years’ experience working with children and young people in an educational setting. These participants state they are happy with the safeguarding obligation conferred by policy (DfE, 2021b) which details statutory guidance on safeguarding training for anyone working in education. However, these same participants also identify their lack of safeguarding experience. The paucity of both work and safeguarding experience demonstrates corroboration and validity in the findings. Participants that state they have some or considerable safeguarding experience have all served more than seven years in their professional role. This data indicates the effectiveness of repetitive safeguarding training embedding essential information, the opportunity to be involved in reflexive practice and ability to reflect on these experiences through exposure and immersion for mastery (Charles, Bainbridge and Gilbert, 2010).

The questionnaire does not ascertain participants perceived strengths and weaknesses or measure participants skills or veracity of their confidence. This short coming in the questionnaire identifies a need to look at safeguarding holistically to ensure themes such as ACEs (Felitti, 2002) and CS (Firmin, 2020) are addressed frequently and updated with new information regularly. Safeguarding training may, therefore, need to focus on levelling up less experienced staff by providing opportunity for experience and greater reflexive practice. Opportunities to nurture relationships with learners, offer unconditional positive regard, and challenge absences may require senior staff to schedule opportunities for inexperienced staff to take the lead during disclosure. Debriefing by senior staff and DSLs should be encouraged as essential reflective practice (Tarr et al., 2013).

One participant who has the greatest professional experience was also the only participant to demonstrate a keen interest on updates and training. This significant finding may reflect a recognition of how safeguarding impacts on learner engagement and informs staff of the obstacles in learner knowledge acquisition. Training could ensure professionally experienced staff with significant safeguarding experience recognise the impact of identifying and dealing with safeguarding issues early and thereby removing barriers to learning. Therefore, training that upskills experienced staff and focuses on ACEs and CS may enable them to identify these often-complex issues. These enhanced skills may offer greater insights on how abuse, neglect or exploitation may impact on engagement, academic progress and transition to higher education, employment and engaged citizenship.Firmin (2020) concurs with Hood, Gillespie and Davies (2016) and argue that CS is ‘an anti-oppressive approach to practice, informed by the idea that inequality is both the cause and consequence of contextual harm’ (p.6). Safeguarding legislation (DfE, 2021a) asserts that the core value of contextual safeguarding is ‘everybody’s responsibility’ and suggests that ‘a wide range of agencies, communities and individuals play an active role in creating safe spaces’ (p.6). This stance conforms with Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) theory of ecological systems outlining the importance of the learner’s biological environment as key to their development. Experienced staff may negotiate geographical borders and help facilitate the breakdown of institutional barriers.

Experienced vigilance, reflective practice, and good interpersonal skills may allow subtle, escalating or changed behaviours to be observed for learner trust and early disclosure. Five out of ten participants state they are experienced in safeguarding and further data suggests these same five participants also feel confident with this role yet state they deem their professional obligation towards safeguarding matters to be a necessity This attitude may be a short coming in the questionnaire that could have offered more options to describe the participants attitude or allowed them to articulate this using their own vocabulary to express their feelings appropriately. However, training could identify a means by which experienced staff may view safeguarding as a tool to identifying improved learner engagement by seeking context to poor behaviours, inappropriate relationships, lack of engagement and absenteeism.

One participant reveals that training was perceived as repetitive. With three years’ experience this may suggest that the participant had training needs that had yet to be addressed. This participant also raised a considerable response when asked for feedback on skills/qualities they feel are necessary to support learners during disclosure. Acquisition of these important skills should be prioritised to ensure this participant, and all other staff at Setting A, recognise their needs being valued and their valuable insights and feedback being taking into consideration for bespoke training (Rae, Cowell and Field, 2017). Opportunity to engage in safeguarding training that offers more challenging concepts such as ACEs and CS may ameliorate and alter the perception of repetitiveness in training (Felitti, 2002; Firmin, 2020). When staff experience improved outcomes for their learners because of their safeguarding training, they may then recognise the importance of training and the impact they may have on the lives of learners and the purpose of their safeguarding role.

Interpersonal Skills

Data from enquiry into what skills or qualities staff felt were necessary for them to support learners and encourage disclosure of harm or abuse elicited a wide range of responses. Analysis of this data revealed a trend that participants felt approachability, reassurance, and non-judgemental qualities were the most necessary skills to support learners. Interpersonal skills, as advocated by Spitzberg (2003) that utilise ‘effective verbal and non-verbal communication, and active listening skills’ may convey interpersonal intelligence with which to understand the intentions, motivations, and desires of learners (Gardner, 1999). The NSPCC (2021) state that empathy reassures learners they are the primary focus. Therefore, approachability, reassurance, and non-judgemental skills may instil empathy through effective communication, and an understanding of learner behaviours for improved disclosure (Allnock and Miller, 2013). Training that offers the opportunity for staff to practice and become more skilled at interacting with learners for better outcomes should be provided. Tarr et al (2010) suggest that role-play allows for greater empathy and nurture skills. Planned dialogue, appropriate vocabulary and modified body language may also be practised by staff to connect with the feelings, thoughts, and behaviours of learners (Lexton et al, 2005). Role-play may allow staff to pause and consult legislative, policy and procedural checklists during delivery. Opportunity for reflection and feedback from the training facilitator could allow for improved communication and interpersonal skills (Schon, 1987). Ensuring all staff are practised with interpersonal skills ensures institutional empathy as posited by Szilassy et al (2017).

Documentation

Documentation was a further trend observed in the rich data gathered by the survey. Analysis of documentation may identify patterns in attendance, engagement, and attainment data with which to provide context to inappropriate learner behaviours, relationships, and motivations. DfE (2022) states that ‘where persistent absence appears to be intransigent there are often complex factors at play’ (p.14). The document goes on to state that ‘these factors may be related to family circumstances and often involve some of the most vulnerable students’ (DfE, 2022, p.14). The use of documentation held on all learners gathered from previous educational establishments, parents and local authorities may inform staff vigilance. DfE (2022) suggest that observation of subtle, escalating or changed behaviours should be documented. Patterns in data established by documentation may serve to initiate discussion with learners which may elicit disclosure of safeguarding issues. As such, the use of all relevant documentation and data is important to provide essential information on learners for better safeguarding outcomes. Accurate documentation of the conversation between learner and staff is essential to ensure the learner experience is recorded truthfully and avoids unnecessary repetition by the learner (DfE, 2021b). The Munroe Report (1996) states that comprehensive safeguarding documentation is necessary for the purpose of collaboration with multi-agency staff. Baginsky et al (2015) argue that all professionals involved in safeguarding have pieces of information with which to inform complex judgements. Inaccuracies may jeopardise the relationship established between staff and the learner, compromise interventions used subsequently to protect the learner, risk withdrawal of the disclosure, and threaten the veracity of the investigation and judicial processes. Safeguarding training that promotes this importance, identifies skills with which to record observations, systems that allow for accurate recording of documentation and allows for analysis, management and cross-referencing of data should be invested in.

Safeguarding Training

When asked to reflect on how interpersonal skills have best been demonstrated in previous safeguarding training five out of ten participants have indicated that case histories have been more successful than discussion, quizzes, tests, and questionnaires. These same five participants have more than six years’ experience and most of them state that they feel their experience is considerable. This finding offers veracity to the conclusion that case histories are deemed the most appropriate method to improve the interpersonal skills of staff. Case histories detailing the impact of issues such as poverty and oppression on ACEs and CS may embed this essential knowledge and inform safeguarding practice (Felitti, 2002; Firmin, 2020). Analysis of these findings supports identification of specific themes that may influence and inform staff safeguarding training and practice which may offer better outcomes for learners.

Further Thoughts

Several questions posed in the survey did not reveal any meaningful or useful data which may reflect research inexperience. A question asking participants about their views on how interpersonal skills influence their learner interactions could have revealed insights into their knowledge and understanding of these skills thus encouraging critical analysis and greater depth as a response.

Recommendations

This small-scale research project has identified several strategies which may influence how safeguarding training at Setting A could improve the outcomes of learners:

An understanding of how systematic analysis of data through record keeping and documentation facilitates early identification abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

Awareness of how interpersonal skills may impact learner perception of being noticed and listened to so that trusting relationships may be established between learners and staff.

Level up inexperienced staff with interpersonal skill training through case histories and role play so that reflexive practice may be better established as a tool for effective communication aiding learner disclosure of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

Upskill more experienced staff through case histories that reflect on adverse childhood experiences and contextual safeguarding.

Enhanced data analysis may also be identified as a training need to ascertain learners experiencing inequality. Anti-oppressive practices may identify barriers to learning and strategies to overcome hegemony for better outcomes for learners.

Seek feedback from staff regarding their training requirements so that bespoke training may embed local issues and gaps in staff knowledge.

Conclusion

This small-scale research project aimed to seek staff perspectives on safeguarding training in further education and how an understanding of safeguarding theory may be put into practice. To achieve the aim of this research project a literature review identified vigilance, disclosure, and communication as themes to address the skills necessary to provide learner reassurance during disclosure of harm. A survey identified useful data on participants’ professional experience and training experience. Thematic analysis of participants’ perspectives on interpersonal skills, documentation and preferred training methods was identified.

Staff training that focuses on accurate documentation should help inform multi-agency stakeholders’ collaboration. DfE (2021a) state that the initial response to a report from a child is incredibly important and can encourage or undermine the confidence of future victims. Therefore, the need for a better understanding of the impact interpersonal skills may have on staff interactions with learners has been demonstrated. Improved interpersonal skills may also offer equanimity and empathy with which to ensure the learner feels valued and listened to. These interpersonal skills may be practised during safeguarding training using role-play within scenarios informed by case histories. Safeguarding training may extend to offering more experienced staff an understanding of how critical analysis of documentation may establish extra vigilance and context for behaviours and motivations of learners. Furthermore, an understanding of adverse childhood experiences and contextual safeguarding may help to identify the hegemonic powers that serve to oppress or exploit learners and their families so that safeguarding investigation is appropriate and multiagency stakeholders are aware of the complexity of some learner experiences.

References

Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431-447. DOI: 10.1080/09518390902736512

Allnock, D., & Miller, D. (2013). No one noticed, no one heard: A study of disclosures of childhood abuse. NSPCC. https://uobrep.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10547/600875/no-one-noticed-no-one-heard-report.pdf?sequence=1

Alvarez,K. M., Donohue, B., Carpenter, A., Romero, V., Allen, D. N., & Cross, C. (2010). Development and preliminary evaluation of a training method to assist professionals in reporting suspected child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 15(3), 211-218. DOI: 10.1177/1077559510365535

Baginsky, M., Driscoll, J. and Manthorpe, J. (2015). Thinking aloud: Decentralisation and safeguarding in English schools. Journal of Integrated Care, 23(6), p. 352-363. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DOI: 10.1108/JICA-09-2015-0037

Bishop Grosseteste University. (2019). Research Ethics Policy. BGU.

British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research. BERA.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.

Bryman, A., Clark, T., Foster, L., and Sloan, L. (2021). Bryman’s Social Research Methods (6th ed.). Oxford.

Charles, G., Bainbridge, L., and Gilbert, J. (2010). The University of British Columbia Model of Interprofessional Education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(1), 9-18. DOI: 10.3109/13561820903294549

Chavez, C. (2008). Conceptualising from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality. The Qualitative Report, 13(3), 474-494. DOI: 10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1589

Clough, P., and Nutbrown, C. (2012). A students guide to methodology. Sage.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2017). Research Methods in Education. Routledge.

Cronin, M. & Smith, M. (2010). Safeguarding to Safeguarding. In G. Brotherton. H. Davies. & G. McGillivray (Eds.), Working with children, young people, and families. SAGE.

Devaney, J. (2004). Relating outcomes and objectives in child protection. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 27-38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00320.

Department for Education. (2018a). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. HM Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/942454/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_inter_agency_guidance.pdf

DfE. (2018b). Tackle Child Abuse Campaign. West Yorkshire Police.https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westyorkshire.police.uk%2Fadvice%2Fchild-protection%2Fchild-abuse%2Fchild-abuse&psig=AOvVaw0GsFngEMUOXCwM_sagFZc7&ust=1649414813268000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAoQjRxqFwoTCNjfo5njgfcCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

DfE. (2018c). New alliance to boost confidence in reporting child abuse. GOV.UK http://www.govwire.co.uk/news/children-and-young-people/new-alliance-to-boost-confidence-in-reporting-child-abuse-15023

DfE. (2021a). Keeping Children Safe in Education. DfE. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education-2

DfE. (2021b). Safeguarding. Ofsted. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofsted-safeguarding-policy/ofsted-safeguarding-policy

DfE. (2022). Research and analysis: Securing good attendance and tackling persistent absence. Ofsted. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/securing-good-attendance-and-tackling-persistent-absence

Drewett, O., Hann, G., Delacroix, S., & Pan, X. (2018). Can a virtual reality communication scenario be used to teach general practitioners and trainees how to recognise and manage safeguarding issues? Child Protection Special Interest Group, British Medical Journal, 103, G146. https://adc.bmj.com/content/103/Suppl_1/A60.1

Eisenstein, C., & Ford, A. (2017). Evaluation of the ‘Me First’ training on children and young people centred conversations about child sexual exploitation (CSE) and safeguarding concerns. Report to NHS England. Child Outcomes Research Consortium. https://www.mefirst.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Me-First-CSE-Training-Evaluation-Report-Dec.-2017-Final.pdf

Finklehor, D., Turner, H., Hamby, S., & Ormrod, R. (2011). Poly-victimisation: Children’s exposure to multiple types of violence, crime, and abuse. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. US Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs. www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Firmin, C. (2020). Contextual Safeguarding and Child Protection: Rewriting the rules. Routledge.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bloomsbury.

Graham, P., & Machin, A. I. (2009). Interprofessional working and the children’s workforce. In R. Barker. (Ed.), Making Sense of Every Child Matters (pp. 33). Policy Press.

Hood, R., Gillespie, J., and Davies, J. (2016). A conceptual view of interprofessional expertise in child safeguarding. Journal of Interprofessional Care. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2016.1173656

HM Government. (2021). Promoting children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing: A whole school or college approach. Children & Young People’s Mental Health Coalition https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1020249/Promoting_children_and_young_people_s_mental_health_and_wellbeing.pdf

Lexton, A., Smith, M., Olufemi, D., & Poole, G. (2005). Taking a risk and playing it safe: The use of actors in interagency child protection training. Child Abuse Review, 14, 195-206. DOI: 10.1002/car.895

McKee, B.E., and Dillenburger, K. (2010). Child abuse and neglect: Training needs of student teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(5), 320-330. DOI.1016/j.ijer.2010.03.002

Morrison, N. (2014, September 26). Teachers are the front line of children’s safety. Times Educational Supplement. www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storyCode¼6443937

National Youth Agency. (2014). Ethical code of conduct in youth work. NYA.

NSPCC. (2021). Recognising and responding to abuse. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-abuse-and-neglect/recognising=and-responding-to-abuse

Opie, C. (2010). Doing educational research. Sage.

Pan, X., Collingwoode-Williams, T., Antley, A., Brenton, H., Congdon, B., Drewett, O., Gillies, M. F. P., Swapp, D., Pleasance, P., Fertleman, C., & Delacroix, S. (2018). Study of professional awareness using immersive virtual reality: The responses of general practitioners to child safeguarding concerns. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5(80). DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2018.00080.

Rae, T., Cowell, N., and Field, L. (2017). Supporting teachers’ well-being in the context of schools for children with social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 22(3), 200-218. DOI: 10.1080/13632752.2017.13311969

Rossato, C., & Brackenbridge, C. (2009). Child protection training in sport-related degrees and initial training for physical education: An audit. Child Abuse Review 18, 81-93. DOI: 10.1002/car.1052

Reder, P., & Duncan, S. (2004). Making the most of the Victoria Climbié inquiry report. Child Abuse Review, 13, 95-114. DOI: 10.1002/car.834

Rogers, C. (2003). Client centred therapy. Constable.

Rossman, G. B., and Rallis, S. F. (2017). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field. 4th ed. Sage.

Maslow. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-96. https://www.academia.edu/9415670/A_Theory_of_Human_Motivation_Abraham_H_Maslow_Psychological_Review_Vol_50_No_4_July_1943

Sharp, J. (2012). Success with your education research project. Sage.

Smith, M. K. (2020). Dealing with the ‘new normal.’ Offering sanctuary, community and hope to children and young people in schools and local organisations. The encyclopaedia of pedagogy and informal education. https://infed.org/mobi/dealing-with-the-new-normal-creating-places-of-sanctuary-community-and-hope-for-children-and-young-people/. Retrieved 06/08/2021

Spitzberg, B. H. (2003). Methods of interpersonal skills assessment. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, 93-134. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Szilassy, E., Drinkwater, J., Hester, M., Larkins, C., Stanley, N., Turner, W., & Feder, G. (2017). Making the links between domestic violence and child safeguarding: An evidence-based pilot training for general practice. Health and Social Care in The Community, 25(6), 1722-1732. DOI: 10.1111/hsc.12401

Tarr, J., Whittle, M., Wilson, J., & Hall, L. (2013). Safeguarding children and child protection education for UK trainee teachers in higher education. Child Abuse Review, 22, 108-115. DOI: 10.1002/car.2275

Thomas, G. (2013). How to do your research project: A guide for students in education and applied social sciences. Sage.

UK.GOV. (2018). Data Protection Act and General Data Protection Regulation. (GDPR).

Unicef. (2019). Safeguarding Policy. Unicef.

Walker, J. and Donaldson, C. (2010). Intervening to improve outcomes for vulnerable young people: A review of the evidence. Department for Education. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Intervening-to-improve-outcomes-for-vulnerable-%3A-a-WalkerDonaldson/186393fe80c86df52b5d2d4bbf9fbe5535c4432c

Wong, M-K. R., (2018). Safeguarding in social work practice: a lifespan approach. China Journal of Social Work, 11(1), 108-110. DOI 10.1080/17525098.2018.1512444