Keep Governance and Safeguarding logo in yellow

Keep Governance and Safeguarding

The missing piece: Part 2 What that piece looks like

Andy Churcher • April 4, 2023

Effective Boards demonstrate that safeguarding is important enough for them to be interested in

In the first part of this article, I outlined the evidence which tells us again and again that Boards must take leadership responsibility for the safeguarding arrangements in their organisations. Safeguarding is too important to treat as just another area of practice which can be held at arm’s length with assumptions being made that “we do it well enough”.

In lots of areas of life I like to turn to children’s fiction to help me understand them and, true to form, Dr Suess hid the answer deep in the Lorax when he wrote:

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,

Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”

The verb care is defined as to think that something is important and to feel interested in it and that is exactly what we need Boards to do, in a very active, purposeful and consistent way, in order to ensure safeguarding arrangements are robust. Only then will our organisations be fully equipped to identify abuse and exploitation within the organisation and with those they serve whether they are beneficiaries, customers, students, pupils or patients. 

Depending on the work of your organisation, the depth of your safeguarding arrangements will vary, but all Boards should take responsibility for taking an active interest in those arrangements. By using ‘cares’ in that statement, Dr Suess also helpfully provides us with an anacronym for the five elements of robust safeguarding governance:

  • Culture and Organisational Identity – ensuring safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility whatever the primary purpose of their role or department
  • Assurance Testing – making sure the mechanisms that support the other four elements are providing an accurate picture of the effectiveness of safeguarding
  • Risk Management – actively overseeing and owning the safeguarding risks which are associated with the organisation’s work, especially those identified as being significantly high
  • Evaluation of Practice – scrutinising operational data which provides insight to the effectiveness of safeguarding work including numbers and types of concerns or incidents as well as data on the human resources work and training that maintains a vigilant culture
  • Strategy – owning and supporting a strategic plan for ongoing improvement in safeguarding practice.

We’re applying our expertise at Keep Safeguarding to support these elements of strong governance and ensuring that Board members, especially those who take specific responsibility for safeguarding, are supported to know what they need to know.


A photo of the inside wall of a building with metal girders with the elements of the C.A.R.E.S. model of strong governance
By Andy Churcher December 17, 2024
Political ideology should never again be allowed to impact so disastrously on children
By Andy Churcher November 11, 2024
“Injustices are not the exclusive preserve of the unjust; they can be presided over by people who are in all other respects well-meaning and decent.”
By Andy Churcher September 10, 2024
It's been a long time coming... we even took a break in 2022 after Elon Musk bought Twitter. But its increasingly clear that we’ve both grown apart from each other and we can no longer stay together. Don’t get me wrong, from a safeguarding and online safety point of view, I cannot say with confidence that X is any worse than any of the other platforms. The only way social media platforms seem to be able to make the business model work is to avoid large workforces and rely on technology to moderate content. The online safety risks from inappropriate content are now well known. They also all seem committed to having some sort of encryption on their messaging services which, while apparently protecting our privacy, creates worrying space for abusers to communicate with each other and share abusive content. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a way of doing business in the 21 st century without engaging with social media and so, at the moment at least, engaging with the market on these platforms is an uncomfortable necessity for many people working in safeguarding. However, for Keep Governance and Safeguarding, our relationship with X has moved from uncomfortable to untenable. Keep Governance and Safeguarding operates to reduce the risk of abuse, neglect and exploitation through supporting strategic leaders and safeguarding managers, driving improvement in organisational safeguarding arrangements and creating ways to empower children and adults at risk. Our work to deliver on this mission is guided by our values in which we commit to always being collaborative, knowledgeable, personable, thorough and respectful . As recent actions have shown, it doesn’t seem that Elon Musk and X are working to similar values to ours and I feel increasingly uncomfortable using the platform. Twitter had banned a number of far-right voices but these were lifted by Elon Musk after buying it. If it was just about championing free speech I am not sure I would have had a huge problem with this, but he has himself published provocative, disrespectful and ill-informed posts and commented on, and therefore promoted, some from these previously banned accounts. During the riots which for a week or so erupted in the UK following misinformation spread on social media about the awful murders of children in Stockport in August, Elon Musk shared posts which seem to have little or no basis in the truth. He also made provocative comments on other people’s posts, clearly intended to stoke fires rather than try contributing to a calming of the situation. In one such example, which he later deleted, Elon Musk shared an image on X which promoted a conspiracy theory about the UK building "detainment camps" on the Falkland Islands for rioters as if it were a headline from the Daily Telegraph. He is happy to share ill-informed, antagonistic and inaccurate views with over 197 million followers on X, and is at best agnostic about the consequences of these actions or, at worst, deliberately trying to stoke right-wing opinions to undermine otherwise stable democracies. He has reposted numerous posts which personally attack the leadership in Brazil, a country trying to ban X, demonstrating a huge lack of respect for the legal processes of another country and undermining their leaders with his written attacks. In Australia, where the government are trying to regulate content on social media platforms, their eSafety Commissioner was attacked in posts by Elon Musk which led to her receiving a huge amount of online abuse including death threats. He is also taking a group of major companies to court for boycotting X… surely it is the right of any company to decide what platforms they use to interact with the market. For me, the real problem here is the hugely amplified voice of the owner of a platform. With a large amount of money, he has bought himself the ability to speak directly to many people, and his voice unfortunately reflects values which clearly do not align to those of Keep Governance and Safeguarding. So, we will shortly stop posting our social media updates to X and will be adding Youtube to our suite of socials. I am grateful that as a company in most of our work we have the ability to choose who we work with.
Show More
Share by: