When I carry out a safeguarding audit, I’m obviously interested in whether the organisation has appropriate policies, procedures and training in place, but that is only the starting point. What I’m really trying to understand is whether safeguarding is being lived and breathed across the organisation and whether people experience the culture in the way leaders believe they do.
I want to know whether staff take their safeguarding responsibilities seriously, whether leaders role-model the behaviours they expect, whether Governors and Boards provide genuine scrutiny and challenge, and whether staff and service users feel safe. I also want to understand what happens when something goes wrong, what the organisation learns from near misses and whether people feel able to speak up without worrying about negative consequences.
Is safeguarding genuinely embedded?
One of the first things I look at is whether safeguarding feels like something that belongs to the whole organisation or whether it is mainly seen as the responsibility of the safeguarding team. Staff don’t all need the same level of knowledge or responsibility, but they do need to understand their role and feel confident enough to act when something doesn’t feel right.
Leadership behaviour matters here because staff notice how leaders respond when concerns are raised. If questions are welcomed, concerns are taken seriously and challenge is accepted, that helps create an environment where people feel safer to speak up. If raising something difficult is treated as inconvenient or unwelcome, that sends a very different message about the culture.
Staff wellbeing is part of safeguarding culture
I also look closely at how organisations support staff who are carrying safeguarding responsibility, particularly where they are dealing with trauma, disclosures and difficult situations. During one audit, staff told me they didn’t feel enough was being done to support their wellbeing and that they needed more than simply having an Employee Assistance Programme number available somewhere.
When I discussed this with senior leaders, they weren’t clear about where the information was held or how staff would access the service. There was also limited additional support available for staff dealing with the emotional impact of safeguarding work, and the organisation recognised that this was something it needed to strengthen.
For me, staff wellbeing is closely connected to safeguarding culture. If people are expected to take safeguarding responsibility seriously, they also need to know that the organisation will support them when that responsibility affects them personally.
What isn’t appearing in your data?
I’m interested in the referrals an organisation receives, but I’m equally interested in what may be missing. If referrals are unusually low from a particular service, department or group, I want to understand whether leaders have noticed that and what questions they have asked.
The same applies where one category of abuse rarely appears in the data. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, but leaders still need to be curious about whether staff are recognising concerns consistently and whether particular teams need more awareness or support.
Low numbers don’t automatically provide reassurance. Sometimes they tell leaders that they need to look more closely at what might not be being seen or reported.
Are you learning from near misses?
Near misses and lessons learned are another important part of the picture because organisations shouldn’t have to wait for serious harm before asking what could have been done differently. A near miss can highlight weak communication, an unclear process or a situation where somebody noticed something just in time.
The important question is what happens afterwards. If the same issues continue to appear, leaders should be asking whether learning is being translated into changes in training, supervision, policy, communication or practice.
Are people passing the baton in safer recruitment?
Safer recruitment is one area where I regularly think about whether people are passing the baton effectively from one part of the process to another. Recruitment may involve several different people, with one person writing the advert, another shortlisting, others conducting the interview and somebody else managing references, DBS information and onboarding.
That creates several points where information needs to move between people. Something identified on an application may need to be explored at interview, something raised during interview may need to be considered alongside a reference, and information from a reference or DBS disclosure may require another conversation before an appointment is confirmed.
Each individual step may have been completed correctly, but if safeguarding information doesn’t move with the process, important details can still be lost. That is why communication and joined-up working matter just as much as completing the required checks.
Do staff and service users actually feel safe?
I also want to understand whether staff and service users feel safe and, importantly, whether they can explain what creates that sense of safety. A service user may talk about visible security, staff who have their back, knowing who they can speak to or feeling able to disclose something if they need help.
They may also talk about whether the environment itself feels safe and whether risks inside and outside the setting have been properly considered. That can include contextual safeguarding issues and how effectively the organisation has responded to them.
The same questions apply to staff. Do they feel safe to speak up? Do they believe leaders will listen and act? Do they feel that raising something difficult will be taken seriously rather than held against them? Those experiences tell you a great deal about the culture people are actually working within.
What does good governance look like?
One of the most positive signs I see when feeding audit findings back to senior leaders, Governors or Trustees is when they start asking questions. That tells me they are listening, thinking about what the findings mean and considering what needs to happen next rather than treating the audit as an exercise that simply needs to be completed.
I also notice when leaders ask what support they may need next or how they can begin implementing the recommendations. That suggests they are thinking beyond the report itself and considering how to translate the findings into practical improvement.
An audit is a snapshot, not an endpoint
I see an audit as a snapshot of where an organisation is at that particular point in time. It should help leaders understand where they are now, where they want or need to be and what they need to do to strengthen safeguarding across the organisation.
The report should help organisations take the right actions so that people feel safer and are better protected from harm. The value doesn’t come from being able to say that an audit has been completed, it comes from using what the audit shows you to strengthen culture, leadership, governance and practice.
If safeguarding is genuinely embedded, people across the organisation should broadly understand the same expectations and know how their role connects to everybody else’s. That is what stronger safeguarding culture starts to look like in practice.
One question to take away
If somebody asked your organisation today how you know your safeguarding arrangements are working, think about the evidence you would use to answer. Would your response focus mainly on policies, training and case data, or could you also talk confidently about staff wellbeing, organisational learning, governance challenge, safer recruitment, culture and whether people genuinely feel safe?
If you’re unsure, the five-minute BCS Safeguarding Culture & Governance Assurance Check is a useful place to start. If the results raise questions or you would value an independent view of how safeguarding is working across your organisation, you’re welcome to have a conversation with me.
Leave a Reply