What’s happening with the research?

The researchers have now undertaken interviews with 10 Safeguarders from across Scotland, and just have a couple of follow-up interviews to complete. Thanks so much to everyone who has participated – the project wouldn’t be possible without your support.

The Safeguarders who kindly agreed to take part in the research come from a range of professional backgrounds, and are based in urban, rural and remote areas of Scotland. Some have been Safeguarders for a long time, whereas others are comparatively new to the role. This diversity helps ensure that a variety of perspectives and experiences are reflected in the findings.

What did we find out?

Data analysis is still underway. However, some of the key themes that have emerged so far are that:

• The policy narrative constructs Safeguarders as independent, neutral and objective, and this view is reflected in discussions with Safeguarders and those who support them. Yet Safeguarder sense-making is agentic and entangled. By this, we mean that Safeguarders are not remote and removed, but are very much engaged and involved. They undertake frequent communication (often in the form of informal phone calls and text messages) with parents/carers and professionals. They visit homes and schools. They shape, influence and sometimes drive what is happening with a family’s case, particularly when they believe intervention and momentum is required. They decide who and what is involved in forming their report and recommendation (e.g. who constitutes a “relevant person” and will be included in the Safeguarder’s investigations; who and what will be quoted in their report; what information influences the recommendation, etc). Their recommendations carry authority with Children’s Panels, Reporters and Sheriffs.
• Delay is a significant issue in the Children’s Hearing system. It is fairly unusual for Safeguarders to be appointed, undertake an investigation and submit a report within a straightforward 35 day turnaround period. Typically, a Safeguarder will accept an appointment, but there will then be delays in getting the grounds established. Several proof hearings are usually required before a case can proceed to a Children’s Hearing. These legal issues have a substantial impact on the length of time that a Safeguarder is involved with a child and their family – sometimes up to a year. This problematises the notion of the Safeguarder as an expert who is appointed for a brief amount of time in order to provide a succinct overview with concise recommendations.
• Delay can be both positive and negative, however. In some instances, Safeguarders have concerns that young people have been left to “drift” with no substantive decisions being made about their future and inadequate (or non-existent) support being provided for them. In other situations, Safeguarders are of the view that delays can be useful if it means that families remain under the surveillance of the system, which gives time for positive changes to be made.
• Added value is a phrase that some Safeguarders use to describe what they do and what they bring to the system. While previous research and policy narratives suggest that Safeguarders merely replicate the work of other professionals, particularly social workers, this research found that Safeguarders actively shape and influence cases, something which is enabled by their being both within and outside of the system. Safeguarders can “speak truth to power”: they can provide challenge and scrutiny, and can use their position of power to influence other professionals to act.
• Identity, both in terms of professional background and personal experience, is a significant influence on sense-making and on Safeguarders’ understanding of their role and how they enact it. Safeguarders use their knowledge and skills to engage with families and with professionals, and this draws heavily on their background, whether this is in social work, education, health, or law. Their own values and beliefs also shape how they make sense of cases, which sources of information they emphasise and who has influence on their thinking. Beliefs about parenting, childhood, personal responsibility, optimistic or pessimistic views of human nature and many other issues all play a role.
• In terms of the quality of Safeguarders’ judgements and reflexive thinking, we found that engagement with support for sense-making is complex and variable. Some Safeguarders interact with their Support Manager frequently and/or strategically, e.g. when they believe they need to sense-check or challenge their thinking about a case. In some cases, Safeguarders make use of formal or informal support networks of other Safeguarders. In contrast, other Safeguarders only engage with Support Managers as per the minimum requirement. Narratives of independence, expertise and personal orientations inform these different positions.
• The findings can help inform the support that is provided for Safeguarders in order to enhance their practice. For instance, Safeguarders may benefit from additional opportunities to share experiences of analysing risk and conflicting truth claims, or how they approach particularly challenging situations with families or other professionals (in an anonymised format). Another issue is that Scotland is an increasingly multicultural society, including in rural and remote areas, and additional support for Safeguarders in relation to diversity issues may be beneficial.

Quotes from participants

These are a selection of quotes from the data that illustrate some of the themes outlined above. These aim to show, in Safeguarders’ own words, the complexities and nuances involved in making sense of what are often very difficult situations. They give a sense of how Safeguarders interpret their role and what “the best interests of the child” might mean in a specific context.

This is the state intervening. And if the state’s gonnae intervene then there’s got to be a really, really, really sound legal basis for it. And that might well be the legal basis, but is there actually a need to do it? And that, really I think needs to be teased out… because from the point that [children] enter the system and the decision is made to process it, is it then just a process that has its own life, if you like? As an outsider sitting in looking at it, you gather that all together, and you say, “how does this system work for kids”? So, my contribution on an individual level is to make sure that when I am doing a report… I’m not going to follow mistakes. But there have been critical points along the pathway. Sometimes the Safeguarder has to be the one that’s saying, “no, I don’t think we need a supervision order here, and here’s why; I’ll tell you why. You don’t have to agree with me, but I’ll tell you why.”

Susan

It’s sometimes hard with cases like this to be – not objective, but… I sometimes feel you end up reviewing practice, and that’s not my role. But you’re there for the child’s best interest, and if something’s not right you do have to ask the questions.

Christine

We’re there  to add value to the process. And to do that very firmly from what’s in the best interests of the child… to never forget the child, but always add value to the process. There’s all sorts of good reasons why people are concentrating on all sorts of other things, but as Safeguarder we’ve got the privilege of very much keeping the child at the centre.

Douglas

[Panels] look to me to make a hard decision. And I was annoyed with myself, but I was like, “I just cannot make this decision.” [Safeguarder] guidance says you should always give a recommendation, and I have this case and I just cannot, I just don’t know the right thing to do, and I’m just going to say, “here’s your options, here’s option 1, here’s option 2, and quite honestly in this case I cannot differentiate.”

Alistair

Sometimes my recommendations can be on a knife-edge. I had a case last week where I did all my analysis but the actual recommendations of – stay with mum; don’t stay with mum – were made overnight. I just couldn’t decide, because it was going to be damaging for the children either way, and it was all a risk calculus of “what’s the least damage to the children in the medium term and in the long run?” I did lose a lot of sleep over that case, I have to say.

Isla