Safeguarding disabled and SEN children and young people Governing bodies and proprietors should ensure their child protection policy reflects the fact that additional barriers can exist when recognising abuse and neglect in this group of children, including ……… Increased emphasis on importance of giving consideration to children with SEND when developing safeguarding policies

Communication barriers and difficulties in overcoming these barriers Assumptions that indicators of possible abuse relate to the child’s disability without further exploration Children with SEND can be disproportionally impacted by things such as bullying – without outwardly presenting any signs Communication barriers and difficulties in overcoming these barriers International research: Sullivan and Knutson (2000) found that pupils with SEND were three times more likely to be abused or neglected than pupils who do not have SEND. Those with behaviour difficulties/conduct disorders were most at risk: seven times more likely to be abused. Also found that where the abuse or neglect is challenged, this can lead to even further abuse. Swedish research by Keven noted children with hearing loss/deaf children were three times more likely to be abused/neglected.

Safeguarding is also about .. Meeting the needs of SEND pupils Children’s health, safety and well being, including mental health The use of reasonable force Meeting the needs of children with medical conditions Intimate care and emotional well being Behaviour policy review Recent data collection around SEN and D using thresholds Intimate care policy has recently been updated, and Natasha has supported the SNS to deliver update sessions to education providers

Factors that increase risk Complacency Female staff pose less risk Empathy with struggling parents Weak policy and procedures Social isolation Generic pshe/sre Cultural attitudes Confused ownership of self Primary emphasis on the impairment Limited means to communicate abuse Reliance on adult support Reduced capacity to resist or avoid abuse ‘it doesn’t happened to disabled children’ (NSPCC report .. ‘ nobody would abuse a disabled child – nobody would stoop so low’ Hearing that more and more female staff abusing Difficult life for some families caring but the empathy can overshadow safety; more likely to be abused within the family Whilst emphasising DSEN, not always looking at risk Frequently doesn’t address what life is like for DSEN children Not all cultures believe children with DSEN have equal rights. Some have a very worrying attitude towards a disabled child; that child or parents have done something wrong and that is why the child is diasabled; also witchcraft risk Children who receive personal care, regularly changed etc. issues/reasons for keeping silent - ownership of self - establishing boundaries - worry that if complain then no-one else would change them, so left soiled. Don’t have capacity physically or emotional to remove themselves from the situation or confidence to speak out

Promoting Safeguarding Equality Accessible complaints procedure Accessible anti-bullying policy Involve SEND pupils in school council, school policy development, etc. Safeguards in school based plans/EHC plans/explain DSL safeguarding role to parents Staff code of conduct Managing allegations policy Whistleblowing policy Relevant PSHE/SRE information and vocabulary Source local/ accessible advocacy services through SEND local offer

Indicators of Concern Staff should never automatically attribute possible concerns to the child’s impairment: Bruises on child with cerebral palsy who falls a lot Self harm in a child with autism Physical deterioration in a child with a medical condition Sexually harmful behaviour in a learning disabled child

Staff training Raise awareness of all staff ‘think safeguarding’ when interpreting pupil behaviour Tailor training to particular roles (personal carers /TA’s providing 1:1 support) Close liaison between SENCo/DSL/ Behaviour/Attendance lead Attendance rates for SEND pupils

SEND children in the child protection system School record of concern forms should record a child’s disability or SEND and method of communication Referrals to children’s social care need to explain the child’s vulnerability and the impact of the child’s disability on behaviour and communication

The early help assessment (formerly CAF) is not a child protection tool and should not used instead of a S17 or S47 assessment Keep the focus on the child. Parents may need support from another agency SEND children should have access to an intermediary for the court process

In Solihull, in 2016 In Solihull in 2016 274 pupils with disability, and 2243 with SEN were subject to child protection concerns SEN: Unity 979, Mosaic 328, Evolve 176, Rural 109, Synergy 478, post 16 and independent 0. Disability: Unity 175, Mosaic 39, Evolve 4, Rural 11, Synergy 11, Post 16 providers 2, Independent schools 32. Implications for us are: Parenting capacity is reduced in such cases: - impact on the child with D/SEN (neglect/abuse) Impact on the household of a disability/other factors (eg: toxic trio and neglect further compounded by a disability) Is the child at school a young carer? Are they being signposted to the young carers service (see pathway on young carers)

Disability 195 pupils subject to child protection concerns lived in homes where at least one other member of the household had a disability Unity 89, Mosaic 34, Evolve 12, Rural 25, Synergy 27, Post 16 1, Independent 7.