Inspection: Part 6 – Allegations - Don’t rush in

The Vanessa George case has provided us with many lessons. Imagine how different it could have been if the manager heard the allegations first and did some initial fact-finding. Ms George could have been alerted and may have tried to destroy evidence. This in turn could have resulted in there not being enough evidence for police to carry out a prosecution.

Often a manager’s first thought is ‘the allegation is ridiculous and cannot be true’. Regardless, the right procedure must be followed to protect children, your staff and your nursery. Failure to do so will lead Ofsted to question your own suitability and your ongoing ability to have a childcare business.

When an allegation is first made, your natural instincts are to find out what happened. Yet the very thing you must not do is investigate at this stage.

It is excruciating to have to report concerns without being able to investigate them. But wherever there is an allegation of harm against a child by a member of staff, the local area designated officer (LADO) must be informed before making any decisions about what to do next.

NOT INVESTIGATING

As well as any questioning ruining potential evidence, a setting’s own investigation could alert staff who do not need to know. We do not want staff who are innocent to have their business gossiped about, nor do we want to taint evidence against a perpetrator.

I am often told that between initial contact, a message being left or an email sent, there may be a couple of days delay. Until contact with the LADO has been made, there are things you can do.

You can review any CCTV and set this aside ready for police or social services. You can take copies of any relevant documents ready to show police or social services (but be careful about this, as no document must be tampered with in any way).

You can also review supervision forms to see if anything on similar lines has been picked up before; if the member of staff is on the DBS update service, you could run a new check. These things will not interfere with an investigation and will provide information to the LADO during the initial call.

I would also consider suspending the member of staff until the investigation is complete. If the member of staff has done something untoward then the children and your business have been protected. If the member of staff is innocent and gossip starts, they may either find themselves talking about the events (therefore potentially ruining evidence), finding themselves in a witch hunt, where others come forward and start making false claims, or even have parents taking issues into their own hands and ‘dealing with them’ directly.

So it can also be protective for the staff member.

It is important to deal with everything as confidentially as possible until the process led by the LADO starts to unfold.

As you save CCTV footage, write a suspension letter and gather documentary information, etc, it is important to keep a full chronological record of all your actions, with both dates and times.

When you leave messages for the LADO, it is important to make a note of the date of this and the message that you left.

Ofsted must also be informed of any allegation made against a member of staff – it is an offence if you fail to do so within 14 days. There will be more on this and the role of the LADO in later instalments of this series.

CASE STUDY

In one case I was privy to, a member of staff had been accused of carrying out bizarre internal investigations on a child which involved their anus and vagina. When this was reported to management, the setting carried out their own investigation through their HR department. The alleged perpetrator was interviewed and shown drawings of where the incidents were supposed to have happened, time sheets, children’s personal care records and other pieces of information. The HR department could not reach a conclusion but did feel it was a safeguarding issue and so then called the LADO. A joint investigation with police and social services took place.

The children were examined at hospital and internal damage was found. But the police had to drop the case as the HR investigation had ruined evidence. As a result the police could not get enough evidence against the member of staff to prosecute.

Ofsted, the police and social services took action against the provider as a result. The setting was closed and Ofsted made a referral to the DBS regarding the provider. As the setting had its registration cancelled, the provider is now disqualified from working with children.