Pupil Referral Unit
-
Upload
walesonline -
Category
Documents
-
view
137 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Pupil Referral Unit
1
Pembrokeshire County
Council
Independent Review
Pupil Referral Unit
January 2010
Pamela Munday
Sheila Booth
2
Independent investigation
Pembrokeshire Pupil Referral Unit
Introduction
Background to the Independent Investigation
1. In June 2009, an independent advocate, who was working with a previous pupil of
the Pembrokeshire Pupil Referral Unit (PRU), reported to Pembrokeshire Child
Care Services that he and other pupils at the unit had been locked in a room
(called the time-out room) when they were out of control.
2. A strategy meeting was held with the police the same day and the police agreed to
undertake a single agency investigation the following day (a Saturday). The young
man and his family were interviewed. The PRU was visited the following Monday,
15th June 2009, and files and CCTV footage taken. The manager was interviewed
about processes and the ‗time-out‘ room viewed. It was quickly decided at a Senior
Management level that the time-out room would not be used and the room was
locked and the keys returned to senior officers.
3. While initially it was agreed that the enquiries would be conducted under the
procedures for professional abuse, within a short time it was agreed to move to the
procedures for multiple and organised abuse. A series of Senior Strategy
meetings were held. Enquiries were undertaken.
4. By September 2009, it was agreed that no further action should be taken with
regard to the criminal investigation. However, at a Senior Strategy meeting held on
10th September 2009, it was decided that the educational Directorate would link
with the Personnel Service in order to initiate a ‗without prejudice‘ investigation of
the issues raised so far. Whilst this internal investigation would be led by an
3
independent educationalist, that person would be supported by an independent
person with safeguarding experience.
The Investigators and their Brief
5. Pamela Munday, the retired head of Milford Haven Comprehensive School and
Sheila Booth, a previous Head of Children‘s Services with Merthyr Tydfil County
Borough Council, agreed to undertake a joint investigation. Their brief was to look
at leadership and governance matters, relevant operational policies and practices
of the Pupil Referral Unit and safeguarding arrangements. The brief specifically
asked them to:
Investigate further the specific use of the time-out room and any further
operational practices that have a bearing on safeguarding issues.
Analyse the evidence and garner any further information they may need to
draw reliable conclusions – including interviewing staff.
Examine processes and procedures so as to ensure that any policy or practice
deficiencies are identified and, where necessary, improvements can be put in
place.
Identify any appropriate conclusions – including recommendations for action.
Interview any further personnel as necessary.
Methodology
6. All relevant and available staff at the PRU and Child Care Services were
interviewed. Senior managers from both departments and the Detective Inspector
in the Police Protection Unit with responsibility for children‘s safeguarding were
also seen. Relevant legislation and guidance was consulted, children‘s files in both
the PRU and Child Care Services and minutes of meetings were read. Policies
and procedures were examined and CCTV footage viewed. The Welsh Assembly
Government were contacted for advice and clarification.
4
Legislation and Guidance
7. It is important that the relevant legislation and guidance and the confusion that
exists is understood. Education legislation and guidance in relation to the
management of behaviour in schools is not clear.
8. The Education Act 1996 (as modified by the Education Act 1997) is the only certain
piece of legislation implemented in Wales. The 1997 Act, in Section 4 says:
After section 550 of the [1996 c. 56.] Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
Power to restrain pupils
550A Power of members of staff to restrain pupils
(1) A member of the staff of a school may use, in relation to any pupil at the
school, such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of
preventing the pupil from doing (or continuing to do) any of the following,
namely—
(a) committing any offence,
(b) causing personal injury to, or damage to the property of, any person
(including the pupil himself), or
(c) engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good
order and discipline at the school or among any of its pupils, whether
that behaviour occurs during a teaching session or otherwise.
(2) Subsection (1) applies where a member of the staff of a school is—
(a) on the premises of the school, or
(b) elsewhere at a time when, as a member of its staff, he has lawful
control or charge of the pupil concerned;
but it does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a pupil which
constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning of section
548.
5
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be taken to prevent any person from relying on any
defence available to him otherwise than by virtue of this section.
(4) In this section—
―member of the staff‖, in relation to a school, means any teacher who works
at the school and any other person who, with the authority of the head
teacher, has lawful control or charge of pupils at the school;
―offence‖ includes anything that would be an offence but for the operation of
any presumption that a person under a particular age is incapable of
committing an offence.
9. This was clearly implemented in Wales. There is a later Act, the Education and
Inspection Act 2006, which in Section 93 outlines the powers of members of staff
to use force. There is very little difference to the wording of this section, which is
attached in full as appendix 1. It was clearly intended that this act be implemented
in Wales. However, the Welsh Assembly Government has confirmed that no
commencement order was made for Section 93 of the Act and it is therefore not
implemented in Wales. It is planned to begin consultation in the near future with
an intention to implement Section 93 for the school year 2010/2011, when new
guidance will also be issued.
10. Guidance, The Use of Reasonable Force to Control or Restrain People, was
issued by the then Welsh Office under Circular 37/98 in December 1998. The
Welsh Assembly Government have confirmed that this guidance is still in force in
Wales. The guidance uses the legal framework that is found in Section 550A of the
Education Act 1996 (as amended by the Education Act 1997). It goes on to say
that there is no legal definition of ‗reasonable force‘ and what is reasonable will
always depend on particular circumstances. The circumstances of the incident
must warrant it, the degree of force must be proportionate and ‗reasonableness‘
may also depend on the age, understanding, physical maturity and sex of the
pupil. It gives a list of situations where the use of reasonable force may be
6
appropriate. It also lists some examples of the form of physical intervention which
may be applicable which include:
Staff physically interposing themselves between pupils or blocking a pupil‘s
path.
Holding, pushing, pulling, leading by the arm.
Shepherding a pupil away by placing a hand in the centre of the back.
Using classroom furniture to restrict movement.
11. It also lists unacceptable practices. Nowhere is there a reference to the use of
seclusion or locked doors, (unlike the Department For Education and Skills
guidance referred to below).
12. In March 2005, Welsh Assembly Government issued guidance, Framework for
Restrictive Physical Intervention Policy and Practice. The guidance was issued for
professionals who worked with children, young people, adults and older people in
health, education and social care settings. However, enquiries have established
that this was not issued under Section 7 of the Local Government and Social
Services Act 1970 and therefore is not statutory guidance. The authors of this
report understand that it had been the intention of Welsh Assembly Government to
issue detailed and specific guidance but this has yet to be done. In this guidance
the term restrictive physical interventions is defined as:
direct physical contact between persons where reasonable force is positively
applied against resistance, either to restrict movement or mobility or to disengage
from harmful behaviour displayed by an individual.
13. There were a number of guidance documents issued by the Department for
Education and Skills including Guidance on Restrictive Physical Interventions for
People with Learning Disability and Autistic Spectrum Disorder, in Health,
Education and Social Care Settings. It is worth repeating the first paragraph of this
guidance.
7
This guidance on the use of restrictive physical interventions in special schools,
care and health settings, is issued jointly by the Department for Education and
Skills/Department of Health. It stands as guidance under Section 7 of the Local
Authority and Social Services Act 1970; and as advice to support the
implementation of Section 550A of the Education Act 1996, in particular in special
school settings catering for pupils with severe behavioural difficulties associated
with learning difficulties and/or autistic spectrum disorders. Additionally, this
guidance will have relevance for working with pupils with severe emotional
and behavioural difficulties. Whilst the principles that underpin this guidance will
have wider relevance and implications for children in mainstream schools (and
LEAs may wish to bring the guidance to the attention of mainstream schools within
their area), this guidance is not intended to cover all forms of extreme behaviours
in all schools.
14. The guidance focused on the need for provider agencies to have effective policies,
procedures and training for staff who work with people who may have behavioural
episodes where restrictive physical intervention is necessary for their safety and
the safety of others. Significantly, this guidance defined the term restrictive
physical intervention in a very specific way and it includes the use of forcible
seclusion and/or a locked door.
15. There appears to be a convention among educationalists in Wales that, if there is
no similar guidance in Wales, then the Guidance issued in England can be
implemented. However, recent Welsh Assembly Government advice indicates that
this is not the case and their view is that the guidance issued in Wales in 1998 and
2005 should be followed. This leaves some lack of clarity over the definition of
restrictive physical intervention and advice from Welsh Assembly Government is
that this will depend on what has been agreed by the educational establishment
and the LEA.
16. The situation for children‘s services is significantly different. Under the Children Act
1989, any practice or measure, such as ‗time out‘ or seclusion, which prevents a
8
child from leaving a room or building of his own free will, may be deemed a
‗restriction of liberty‘. Under this Act, restriction of liberty of children being looked
after by a local authority or accommodated by NHS establishments is only
permissible in very specific circumstances, for example when the child is placed in
secure accommodation approved by the Secretary of State or where a court order
is in operation.
17. Other relevant legislation includes the Human Rights Act 1998 which enshrines in
Article 5 the right to liberty and personal freedom and the European Convention on
the Rights of the Child which include the prohibition of inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment by any public authority. Finally, false imprisonment is the
unlawful physical interventions of freedom of movement which does not fall within
the realms of reasonable parental discipline.
18. The legal situation is thus confused and contributed greatly to some of the
difficulties faced by the authority in their response to the allegations made.
Pupil Referral Unit
Background
19. As with all Pupil Referral Units, Pembrokeshire PRU is not designated as a school
but is part of the behaviour support service. This means that it is not required to
have a Board of Governors. Instead the LEA has appointed a Management
Committee, being one of the first to have done this, with representatives from the
LEA, local secondary head teachers and appropriate agencies such as Social
Services, SNAP, Educational Psychology Service, Special Educational Needs, etc.
Unfortunately this group has not met consistently and there was no clear remit
over the matters that should be reported to the group or to the extent of their
involvement in the management of the PRU.
20. The PRU was set up in 1995 with 16 children, who could not easily be
accommodated in mainstream school because of behaviour difficulties. It has
gradually been built up over 15 years to its present size, with 130 children based
9
on three sites. In addition, it supports a further 170 out in schools, across Key
Stages 2 and 3 and 14 sixth formers.
21. The Neyland site is home to the KS3 PRU, the KS4 PRIDE provision, and the sixth
form. KS2 children too challenging for Portfield Special School, attend the Penally
site, and those who would formally have been sent out of county, are catered for at
The Elms. Some pupils are on individual programmes, which include home tuition
and attending Prince‘s Trust courses.
22. The Head of the Behaviour Support Service is Mrs Judy Jones. She has overall
responsibility for providing behaviour support, including all units of the PRU and
the team of Behaviour Support teachers attached to each family of schools. She
sits on the Inclusion Panel and provides support and training for teachers and
Learning Support Assistants in behaviour management, including the use of
restraint techniques, across Pembrokeshire.
23. Although not officially classed as a school, the PRU is allowed to run as one, with
its own budget, for which Mrs Jones has responsibility and uses as she sees fit,
with reference to senior managers of the County Council Education Service but
without reference to the Management Committee. The Management Committee
provides an advisory and support role relating to the provision needed to cope with
the increasing number of children coming under its auspices.
24. Since Mrs Jones‘ job remit extends much wider than the PRU at Neyland and
requires her to be often off site, there is also a Head of School, Mrs Jan Cannon.
Under her is a Head of KS3, Head of KS4 and a Business Manager. General
staffing includes dedicated KS3 teachers and Learning Support Assistants, KS4
teachers and LSAs, administrative assistants, home tutors and a Pupil Support
Officer.
25. All staff are supposed to undergo Level 1 Safeguarding immediately, though this
does not always happen as soon as it should, and Restraint Techniques and
Behaviour Management training as soon as possible. They are encouraged to gain
10
further qualifications and two teachers have recently gained Masters degrees in
Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. Suitably qualified staff are difficult to
recruit but the PRU has an excellent track record in training its own, including the
placing of newly qualified teachers in schools to run nurture groups before bringing
them back on site on completion of their probationary year..
26. Schools can self-nominate pupils for the initial six week KS3 Phoenix class. From
there pupils either return to mainstream school or move over into the two term
assessment programme depending on progress and identified needs. After a
period of ongoing assessment they either return to mainstream or gain a
permanent placement in the PRU, from which they mostly transfer to the KS4
Pride Programme at the appropriate age. Some will move to the Elms provision
and others will be placed on individual programmes involving home tuition, often
delivered on the Neyland site.
The Time-out Room (TOR)
27. A newly refurbished, lockable, TOR, with a light switch in the next room, has been
in place since Easter 2009. It was constructed in its present form, on advice from
the Clerk of Works, by a firm which provides such facilities nationwide and has
been used in another Pembrokeshire school. It is designed to be completely safe,
with padding on the walls, floor and ceiling.
28. The previous TOR, which was vandalised by a pupil with complex challenging
behaviour, had no lock and a light switch in the corridor. Damage to ceiling tiles,
window, door, lighting and furniture prompted the search for a safe room. The light
was intended to be kept on unless the pupil requested otherwise because it was
too bright. The switch is in the adjoining room because other pupils were known to
turn the light on and off when they knew someone was inside. Some pupils state
that the room was dark. CCTV images are clear. There is no furniture, staff and
pupils have to sit on the padded floor. It is very small. There is no ventilation,
despite it having been requested at the planning stage. There is a very definite
presence of fumes coming from the material padding the walls, ceiling and floor.
11
Use of Time-Out Room
29. The concept of using time-out to give children space, privacy and opportunity to
regain self-control, and therefore avert a more serious situation, is well recognised
as good practice. Pupils would be asked to make use of this facility (or other
facilities such as the corridor) voluntarily, and mostly they did so. Sometimes the
request came from the pupil who recognised their own need to take a few minutes
to calm down. One pupil regularly asked to sleep in there. In these situations the
pupil was free to decide to leave the room at any time.
30. There is specific reference in the individual education plans (IEPs) for some pupils,
referring to the use of voluntary time out as a means of learning better self-control.
This was agreed by parents. Instances of this kind were only very occasionally
recorded since they were not regarded as significant incidents.
31. Where a pupil refused to go to the TOR voluntarily and staff judged it necessary for
the safety and well-being of others, they would be placed there. This sometimes
required the use of physical restraint and the locking of the door. Pupils were given
to understand that they could come out as soon as they had calmed down
sufficiently to be of no danger to others. On average they were in there between
15 and 35 minutes, although it could be longer, especially if awaiting the arrival of
the police.
32. Although senior staff including the Head of Service, believed that the door was
only locked in exceptional situations, interviews with staff showed that locking of
the door was common practice when pupils were placed in the room against their
will. Again, it was expected that there would always be a member of staff within
earshot and that pupils could request to come out by knocking on the door. In
reality the practice differed considerably. Some staff did monitor outside the door
or in the corridor but others went back to the classroom and returned periodically
to monitor the situation. There tended to be a reliance on other staff in the vicinity
or monitoring of the CCTV by business staff but no process to check that they
12
were available to monitor the situation. These incidents were usually recorded in
pupils‘ files.
Findings
33. Legislation is difficult to locate, with little having been produced by the Welsh
Assembly Government. However, DFES policy and guidance states clearly that it
is reasonable to use a locked room in extreme circumstances where a child is
violent and therefore a danger to themselves or others. This is at variance with
legislation for children‘s homes. (See Education Act 1997 and DFES Guidance
2002)
34. There was no written policy specifically for the use of the TOR, but all staff were
aware of what was generally agreed to be good practice. A policy is currently being
produced, with a draft version now available. Whilst all teaching staff believe they
have used the TOR in line with accepted policy and in everyone‘s best interests, it
appears that some have made more use of it than others. It is universally regarded
as a much safer and more comfortable place than the previous room.
35. There are discrepancies between some pupil accounts given to Social Services
and PRU staff recollections. There is also confusion in some pupils‘ memories as
to which room they were in as descriptions of the room match the current provision
which was installed after they left the unit.
36. There are some full accounts of incidents involving the TOR, but not all records
have been dated and signed. Not all incidents are recorded, and not all details of
methods of restraint included. There was no specific log book for the TOR, but one
is in place now.
37. Staff felt supported by their colleagues and senior staff and there were
opportunities at the end of each day for staff to discuss incidents that had
occurred. However, there was little evidence of more formal and individual
opportunities to debrief after an incident.
13
38. Comprehensive risk assessments are carried out on all pupils attending the PRU.
These focus largely on behaviour difficulties, and do not contain references to
health or emotional issues that might have a bearing on decisions regarding the
use of the TOR.
39. Since it has been out of use pending investigation, the lack of a TOR has led to
pupils being left on corridors, in offices and in reception. This has been far from
ideal and certainly not safe. Discipline has also been more difficult to maintain
since it was necessary for Social Services to visit and write to parents.
40. Although parents were not aware of the changes made to the TOR since Easter, in
particular the facility to lock it, there is evidence that parents still broadly support
the use of a TOR for the right reasons. There have been no formal complaints
made despite the very clear opportunity to do so. There are currently vulnerable
pupils in the PRU with extreme difficulties and for whom the current provision is
not adequate. This puts staff and other pupils at risk. There has been an unusually
high incidence of assaults on staff reported to the police.
41. All PRU staff were clear as to who to speak to if they had concerns, but not all
understood what is meant by whistle blowing. All said they had no concerns.
However, the authors of this report understand that a degree of unease about the
use of the room did exist, but it was not felt possible to raise this concern with
management or the authority.
42. Too much time has passed since the original referral, putting PRU staff under
unnecessary strain. Relationships between them and Social Services staff have
become very strained.
Conclusion
43. Use of a TOR is not illegal. It can be used in the interests of safety for the young
person concerned, and other pupils and staff. PRU staff believe that they have
only ever acted in everyone‘s best interests. They were not aware that they were
opening themselves up to allegations of false imprisonment. They looked upon the
14
use of time out as a way of giving pupils the opportunity to regain self-control.
Occasionally they found it necessary to protect other pupils and staff when a pupil
was clearly out of control. On the whole this policy was adhered to, but it was open
to temptation to use it more frequently than was perhaps strictly necessary.
The Investigation
Relevant Legislation
44. Child Care Services in Pembrokeshire have a responsibility to make enquiries
about children who are believed to be suffering significant harm. The primary
legislation is the Children Act 1989 Section 47 which says
(1) Where a local authority—
(a) are informed that a child who lives, or is found, in their area—
(i) is the subject of an emergency protection order; or
(ii) is in police protection; or
(b) have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their
area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,
the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider
necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to
safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
New Guidance was issued by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2007,
Safeguarding Children - Working Together under the Children Act 2004,
45. Local education authorities, schools and further education institutions have
responsibilities to ensure that they are promoting and safeguarding the welfare of
children. This is to be found in Section 175 of the Education Act 2002, which
imposes a duty on LEAs, the governing bodies of maintained schools, and the
governing bodies of further education institutions to make arrangements with
regard to the welfare of children. LEAs must make arrangements to ensure that
15
their functions in the capacity of an LEA are exercised with a view to safeguarding
and promoting the welfare of children (i.e. persons under 18 years of age).
Similarly governing bodies must make arrangements to ensure that their functions
relating to the conduct of the school, or institution, are exercised with a view to
safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children who are pupils at the school, or
who are receiving education or training at the institution. New guidance was issued
by Welsh Assembly Government in 2009 entitled Safeguarding Children In
Education – The Role of Local Authorities and Governing Bodies under the
Education Act 2002.
46. There are also a number of procedural and practice issues that are relevant. The
Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families 2001 clearly
sets out how children‘s services should deal with referrals. When it is likely from
the information received that the referral will lead to a strategy discussion or
strategy meeting followed by Section 47 investigations, the All Wales Child
Protection Procedures 2008 are also relevant as is the 2007 edition of Working
Together to Safeguard Children.
47 On the afternoon of Friday 12th June, Child Care Services in Pembrokeshire
received a referral from an advocate working with a former pupil of the PRU. This
advocate had recently attended safeguarding training and had realised that she
had been told information which should be referred to social services. The
information related to the use of a locked room at the PRU, which it was alleged
was used for children whose behaviour was out of control. It was alleged that
children were left in this room on their own until they calmed down.
48. In line with the All Wales Child Protection Procedures, a strategy discussion was
held that day between the Child Care Assessment Team and the Police. As it was
late on Friday afternoon, it was agreed that the police would interview the young
person concerned and his family over the weekend. This was done and the young
person confirmed that he had been placed in a room at the PRU against his will.
He (and his parents) also named other children who had been placed in the room.
16
49 An initial strategy meeting was held the following Monday, 15th June at 9am, in
compliance with the All Wales Procedures for Professional Abuse. The police
confirmed that the agreed interview had taken place for the purpose of clarifying
information. The young person concerned had not been interviewed under
Achieving Best Evidence procedures as his parents did not wish to make a formal
complaint. The strategy group was also told that some adults had also expressed
concern about the escalating use of the room as ‗punishment‘.
50. Decisions were made to continue a Section 47 child protection enquiry on the
basis that there were alleged offences of unlawful imprisonment committed
regarding vulnerable children/young people with emotional difficulties and there
were risks of significant harm. A joint investigation was agreed between child care
services and the police. An outline action plan was agreed and the meeting was to
be reconvened at the end of the day or early the next day.
51. Investigations took place that day and the PRU was visited by child care services,
the police and the Head of School Improvement and Inclusion. The time-out room
was examined and photographed. The head of behaviour support was interviewed
about the arrangements for using the time-out room and asked about policies,
procedures and recording of incidents. Arrangements were made for the collection
of the files of pupils identified as having used the time-out room and for copies of
the CCTV coverage. It was also established that there may be other similar
facilities in Pembrokeshire schools. A further action plan was agreed and this
included seeing all the children, who had been identified as having used the room.
The joint investigation was to continue with all the named children to be
interviewed.
52. The families of the children were contacted and arrangements made to visit
although not all the families responded. The police wished to distance themselves
from these interviews in case there was a later criminal investigation. A decision
was made by child care managers not to deal with this as Section 47 enquiries but
as part of an initial assessment. A ‗script‘ (a series of questions) was agreed with
17
the police and a group of workers briefed to undertake the interviews. Apart from
one newly qualified social worker, these were unqualified social work assistants
and one student social worker. They had clear instructions to stick to the ‗script‘
and not to embark on any ‗fishing expeditions‘. The two members of staff
interviewed were clear that they had adhered to the brief. The visits were
recorded on all the children‘s files. This will be returned to in the conclusions
below.
53. The chair of the strategy meetings made the decision to move the investigation
from one of allegations of professional abuse to one of multiple and organised
abuse. Multiple and organised abuse is described in Working Together to
Safeguard Children as:
abuse involving one or more abuser and a number of related or non-related
abused children and young people. The abusers concerned may be acting in
concert to abuse children, sometimes acting in isolation, or may be using an
institutional framework or position of authority to recruit children for abuse.
54. This necessitated the convening of a strategic management group to oversee the
investigation and this was held on Tuesday 21st July 2009 when all relevant senior
managers were present. The meeting received a briefing report prepared by the
Duty Manager Child Care Assessment Team on the investigation and also included
a statement from the Head of Behaviour Support. At the meeting, the police
outlined their position. They had not received any complaint but that would not
have prevented them investigating further, if there had been evidence of false
imprisonment. They were concerned that the absence of record keeping
supporting the staff actions left them in a very vulnerable position. The police had
made a decision not to be involved in any further investigation.
55. The following action was agreed to safeguard children.
All schools in Pembrokeshire had already been requested to stop the use of
lockable ‗time-out‘ rooms.
18
The group would act as steering group at a strategic level.
Decisions to be made about what the parents were to be told.
Legal advice to be available to the group.
The police were willing to come back into a Section 47 enquiry if necessary.
Independent review of PRU to be commissioned.
Complaints route to be clarified.
Personnel to be contacted to see if there are any staffing issues to be
addressed.
Governance issues of PRU to be addressed.
56. The Customer Service Manager and the Duty Manager visited the families who
were seen in the earlier visits to give the parents an update of the investigation
and information regarding the possible outcomes. These meetings took place on
20th and 21st August 2009. Six sets of parents/carers were interviewed and five
sets of parents/carers were written to but not seen. An analysis of the CCTV
footage of the time-out room, the reports in the PRU files and what the children
said in interview was completed.
57. A summary report was prepared for the second senior strategy meeting held on
10th September 2009. This report summarised the views of each of the families
interviewed and set out a series of conclusions. These included comments that
not all the relevant children were interviewed and that staff of the PRU had not
been interviewed.
58. The meeting discussed the report. The police confirmed that the formal criminal
investigation had been concluded with no further action. Actions arising from the
meeting included:
A final strategy meeting to be held
A report to be presented to cabinet
19
The British Institute of Learning Difficulties to provide a summary report on
the governance and policy position within the PRU
An internal independent investigation to be commissioned
Current TOR to be no longer used
The complaints process be reviewed and advocacy considered
Core assessments be undertaken for some young people identified as being
children in need
Meeting to be arranged with all head teachers regarding safeguarding.
That appears to have been the end of the investigation.
Conclusions
59. It was totally appropriate for child care services to commence Section 47 enquiries
on receipt of the referral on 12th June 2009 and to deal with it under the All Wales
Child Protection Procedures. The initial decision to use the procedures for
allegations of professional abuse was appropriate in the early stages but, when it
became clear that the allegations involved more than one professional and a
number of children, it was equally appropriate to move to the procedures for
multiple and organised abuse. The senior strategy meeting was convened with
appropriate membership.
60. The investigation itself raises more concerns. The child care managers made the
decision not to conduct the interviews with the children and their families as
Section 47 enquiries but as initial assessments. This allowed them to use
unqualified staff to carry out these interviews. It is clear that a ‗script‘ had been
prepared and staff carefully briefed. However, a formal strategy meeting had been
convened and decisions made to interview the appropriate children. This should
have been under Section 47 and, certainly, given the potentially high profile of the
case, it would have been more appropriate for registered, experienced social
workers to conduct the interviews. This may have reduced the concerns that some
20
agencies had about the brief being overstepped and also about the recording of
the interviews. There is anecdotal evidence that some of the staff overstepped
their brief and advised families to complain.
61. Staff at the PRU were not interviewed. No clear reason has been established for
this. At the early stages of the investigation, when it was unclear if there would be
a criminal prosecution, it was appropriate not to interview staff. Once the police
had confirmed that there was to be no criminal prosecution, there was no reason
for staff not to be seen. Staff at the PRU felt excluded from the process, did not
feel supported by the authority and felt that the investigation was one sided. They
were anxious about their jobs and their futures in education. They also felt that
there had been a presumption of their guilt.
62. While it is imperative to listen to children and hear what they have to say, this
should be in a measured and sensitive way. There are discrepancies in what
young people and their families said and what was recorded in the PRU files. This
was inevitable. The recording of incidents did not always describe the build up to
the incident, the decision making and the details of the restraint used. For the
young people, who had been placed in the room on more than one occasion, the
details of each episode would not always reflect what had actually happened. This
does not imply that there was any attempt to deceive or distort what happened by
the children, their parents/carers or the staff of the PRU. What also emerged was
that child care services held information on children, which would have been very
helpful to the Pupil Referral Unit in their risk assessments and decision making on
the appropriate way to manage certain young people.
63. Some of the child care services reports were judgemental in their tone and
reflected a lack of understanding of the complicated and contradictory legal
situation. There also seemed to be little recognition or understanding of the
difficulties PRU staff faced in dealing with disruptive and at times dangerous
behaviour in group situations with young people with a range of emotional and
behavioural difficulties.
21
Conclusions and Recommendations
64. Child care services and the police had no alternative but to make enquiries
following the allegations that were made. It is not possible to investigate such
allegations without causing distress to the people concerned. Initially, when there
was a likelihood that criminal proceedings may have ensued, it was necessary to
exclude the staff of the PRU from the sharing of information. However, when this
situation changed, they should have been interviewed and certainly kept informed
about the progress of the investigation.
65. The authority needs to decide whether the time-out room, with the suggested
adaptations and safeguards put in place, should re-open. If the decision is made to
permanently close it, the authority will need to urgently consider what safeguards
are to be put in place to protect children and staff at the PRU and to ensure that
they meet their duty of care to both.
66. There are a number of recommendations for the PRU, Child Care Services and
the Authority.
Recommendations for the PRU
67. The PRU need access to a range of appropriate time-out facilities including the
current TOR. The new policy for the use of the TOR needs to be completed and
implemented, after consultation with staff, pupils, parents, and LEA.
68. Record keeping needs to be tightened up, with a specific separate record kept of
incidents involving the TOR; reports of incidents must be dated and signed, an
indication given as to whether or not the room was locked and why, and full details
of any physical restraint or handling used.
69. Use of the TOR needs to be restored as soon as possible, with the following
provision:
Adequate ventilation
Control of light switch inside room
22
Soft, safe seating
To be locked only in extreme circumstances for safety reasons
A member of staff always outside the door
CCTV watched continuously whilst a pupil is in the room
70. The current TOR should only be used for safety reasons. A separate, larger,
pleasanter room should be provided as soon as possible for voluntary time out, or
imposed time out for a pupil to regain self-control. There needs to be more training
in the use of restraint and particularly in safe ways of moving pupils into the TOR
when they are behaving dangerously.
Recommendations for Child Care Services
71. All interviews and enquiries that are part of any Section 47 enquiry should be
undertaken by registered and experienced social workers in line with the Victoria
Climbé Enquiry Report recommendations.
72. Reports must be written in a non-judgemental way reflecting the enquiries that
have been undertaken. While in no way suggesting that the safeguarding and
wellbeing of children and young people should not be at the centre of every
investigation, the wider circumstances should also form part of the discussion and
decision making.
73. The Authority should consider establishing arrangements for independent
investigation of complex internal safeguarding matters. Discussions should take
place with the Welsh Assembly Government and with the neighbouring authorities,
who are members of the Dyfed Powys Safeguarding Children‘s Forum, about a
way forward.
Recommendations for the Authority
Legislative Matters
74. The legal position in Wales is very confusing and it is not acceptable for two
agencies that work with children and young people to work to such different
23
legislation and guidance. This leaves both services open to criticism and
education, in particular, is left vulnerable to possible criminal charges. The
authority should enter into urgent discussion with the Welsh Assembly
Government to ensure that there is much greater clarity with regard to legislation
and guidance.
Governance Matters
75. The governance arrangements of the Pupil Referral Unit are not satisfactory. It is
not a school but, in many ways, it is treated and viewed as a school. The
establishment of a management group went some way to bridging the gap but it
did not meet consistently and its remit was not clear.
76. The authority must make decisions about the governance arrangements. There
must be proper governance arrangements with very clear terms of reference.
These must include:
monitoring the management of behaviour within the unit, including the use of
physical restraint,
assaults on staff,
complaints,
staff recruitment, training and development,
support arrangements.
There should also be reporting mechanisms to senior management, cabinet and
scrutiny.
77. It is also suggested that consideration be given to the establishment of an
operational group as a subgroup of whatever governance arrangements are put in
place. It should be made up of senior, but operational, staff from the PRU, the
LEA, a schools representative, child care services, the YOT and health, particularly
CAMHS. It could be used to:
24
assist in the development of policies and procedures,
audit practice in relation to behaviour management,
act as a conduit for the sharing of information on all new admissions to the
unit,
provide support in managing particularly difficult young people including
accessing specialist services,
improve understanding and relationships between agencies and reduce the
isolation of the PRU.
Policies and Procedures
78. All the policies and procedures for behaviour management should be updated and
formally ratified by the authority. These must include authority wide agreed
definitions of, and guidance on, the use of, reasonable force and restrictive
physical intervention.
Management and Education of Children with Educational difficulties
79. It is clear from this inquiry that the PRU has been successful with a substantial
number of pupils. However, there were also a number of young people with very
significant difficulties whose needs were not being met. Staff and parents had
concerns about the considerable delays in obtaining assessments and, as a result,
access to appropriate education for their children, particularly those on the autistic
spectrum. This resulted in young people inappropriately remaining at the PRU until
they were inevitably excluded. Some then had home tuition or, in the case of one
young man, self education using the internet. The authority should urgently
address this issue.
Advocacy
80. The authority should provide an independent advocacy service to all children and
young people who are using the behaviour support service. This should be a
25
proactive service, well publicised, with children and their families being routinely
informed about its work.
Complaints and Representations
81. The Complaints and Representation policy and procedures should be reviewed
and systems established for it to be managed independently of the behaviour
management service. Again, it should be a proactive service, well publicised, with
children and their families being routinely informed about how it works. There
should also be regular information sought from children and their families about
the service they are receiving and this should be reported to the governing body.
Training
82. The Head of the Behaviour Support Service is qualified at Masters level in Social
and Behavioural Emotional Difficulties as are two of her senior staff. While staff at
the PRU (and throughout the Behaviour Support Service) receive a range of
appropriate training, training in the use of restrictive physical intervention, including
restraint techniques has been very much left to the Head of the Behaviour
Support Unit to deliver. While staff have been very complimentary about the
quality of training delivered, she was not in fact qualified as a trainer in this aspect.
83. The authority needs to ensure that recognised and suitable training is delivered to
all appropriate staff. This must include information on the factors contributing to
emotional and behavioural difficulties and on alternative ways of managing such
behaviour. There should also be more opportunities for joint training with other
agencies in safeguarding and other aspects of children‘s behaviour.
Support for the PRU
84. The PRU appears and feels to be isolated and staff are left very much on their own
to manage some very difficult young people. The LEA needs to revisit the support
it provides through a range of staff including the assistant director, educational
26
psychologists etc. and to satisfy itself that this is sufficient. The operational group
suggested above will also give a more informal support mechanism.
85. The authority should consider approaching health for the provision of some
emotional health support to the unit. There should be discussion with the police
about the management of very difficult/dangerous behaviour and consideration
given to a protocol for their involvement. It would also be useful if more formal
links could be forged with similar services in other local authorities.
Whistle blowing
86. Staff in the PRU had differing knowledge of whistle blowing procedures and a
varying level of confidence in the system. This has contributed to the authors‘ view
that the unit has become quite closed and inward looking. Staff must be made
aware of the authority‘s policies and procedures and must be afforded
opportunities to discuss issues of concern without anxieties about their future.
Improving Relationships
87. Opportunities should be made for staff from both child care services and the PRU
to meet in a structured way to discuss the issues raised in this report. There
needs to be a greater understanding of the differences in legislation and guidance.
Staff from both services need to recognise that, while they are dealing with many
of the same children, they work in different environments, with different
expectations and responsibilities for these young people. Better working together
can only be beneficial to these young people.
88. While much will depend on the development of personal relationships between
services, this will be greatly assisted by the establishment of some formal
mechanisms. Consideration should be given to establishing forums for staff to
meet and for job shadowing which should also become part of induction for both
services.
Pamela Munday
27
Sheila Booth
2nd January 2010
28
Appendix 1
Education and Inspections Act 2006
Use of reasonable force
93 Power of members of staff to use force
(1) A person to whom this section applies may use such force as is reasonable in the
circumstances for the purpose of preventing a pupil from doing (or continuing to do) any
of the following, namely—
(a) committing any offence,
(b) causing personal injury to, or damage to the property of, any person (including the
pupil himself), or
(c) prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school or among any
pupils receiving education at the school, whether during a teaching session or
otherwise.
(2) This section applies to a person who is, in relation to a pupil, a member of the staff
of any school at which education is provided for the pupil.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) may be exercised only where—
(a) the member of the staff and the pupil are on the premises of the school
in question, or
(b) they are elsewhere and the member of the staff has lawful control or charge of the
pupil concerned.
Subsection (1) does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a pupil which
constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning of section 548 of EA
1996.
The powers conferred by subsection (1) are in addition to any powers exercisable apart
from this section and are not to be construed as restricting what may lawfully be done
apart from this section.
29
In this section, ―offence‖ includes anything that would be an offence but for the
operation of any presumption that a person under a particular age is incapable of
committing an offence.