Recurring concern

Unreliable safeguarding information management in schools and colleges

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 21 Nov 2018•Latest report 4 Feb 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in school- or college-based safeguarding information-management arrangements, including inconsistent tools or processes, recording of safeguarding information, maintenance of relevant records, and defined sharing arrangements and responsibilities between schools, colleges and relevant education functions.

Not included

  • Excludes failures to transfer child safeguarding information from external services to schools where the school-facing receipt process, rather than school and college information management, is the supported concern.
  • Excludes generic school or college safeguarding, staffing, training or governance deficiencies unless they directly impair safeguarding information management.
  • Excludes clinical, social-care or police information systems where the assertion does not concern safeguarding information management within schools or colleges.
  • Excludes the substantive safeguarding assessment or protective action after relevant information has been reliably recorded, shared and made available.
Reports
3

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
4

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2018–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
1

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Education3
Royal Hospital School1
Surrey County Council1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Georgia Charlotte SCARFF · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Georgia Charlotte SCARFF, aged 16, died immediately on 15 April 2024 after stepping into the path of a lorry on the A14 near Bury St Edmunds; the inquest concluded that she had been experiencing anxiety and acted impulsively in taking her own life. Concerns were raised that staff were not always proficient in using CPOMS, resulting in important safeguarding information not being recorded, and that the absence of a single standard safeguarding information management tool could create risks to life.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of a single standard safeguarding information management tool for schools and colleges

    Wider context from the report

    “However, the Court also heard evidence that there is no single standard safeguarding information management tool for schools and colleges. Teachers moving between schools and colleges must familiarise themselves with different processes and tools depending on that used by an individual school or college. I am concerned that the absence of a single standard safeguarding information management tool for schools and colleges may result in a risk to life due to teachers being unfamiliar with different management tools and as a consequence important information relating to safeguarding not being recorded in children’s safeguarding records. ”

    Source location

    Georgia Charlotte SCARFF · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Jennifer Sharren Chalkley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jennifer Sharren Chalkley, aged 17, died by suicide on 12 October 2021 after being found hanging in her bedroom. The report identifies concerns about delays and misconceptions affecting Education, Health and Care Plan assessments, failures to transfer safeguarding information promptly when she changed college, and shortcomings in multi-agency assessment, information sharing and support for her mental health needs and suicide risk.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a national system for guaranteed transfer of safeguarding information

    Wider context from the report

    “I also heard that there is no centralised system that stores and transfers learning support and safeguarding information between schools and colleges, or other agencies who are supporting young people. Rather, the transfer of documents is undertaken by the individual schools and colleges concerned, with, I heard, variable levels of efficiency and reliability. In the circumstances, I am concerned that there is not a national system in place to require and facilitate the guaranteed transfer of safeguarding information in advance of a child or young person starting a new school or college at the start of a new term or academic year, and that this exposes a suicidal child or young person to additional and avoidable risk. ”

    Source location

    Jennifer Sharren Chalkley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 4 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delayed transfer of safeguarding information at the start of a new term

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest hearing the evidence showed that in September 2021, shortly before her death, Jennifer commenced a course at a new college. I heard that the new college did not receive her safeguarding file from her previous educational establishment prior to her death on the 12th October 2021; as a result the new college’s ability to recognise and manage Jennifer’s needs and risks, including her risk of suicide, was undermined. I heard that the Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024 statutory guidance for schools and colleges, and its previous iterations, state that where a child leaves a school or college, the designated safeguarding lead should ensure that their child protection file is transferred to the new school or college as soon as possible, and within 5 days for an in-year transfer, or otherwise within the first 5 days of the start of a new term, to allow the new school or college to have support in place for when the child arrives. I am concerned that the requirement to transfer safeguarding information “within the first 5 days of the start of a new term” means that a child who is at risk of self-harm or suicide may start at a new school or college without that establishment having all or any of the information in the safeguarding file. As that information is likely to be relevant to their management of the risk, I am concerned that permitting transfers up to five days after the start of term undermines the stated intention that the new school or college should “have support in place for when the child arrives”. ”

    Source location

    Jennifer Sharren Chalkley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review statutory safeguarding guidance for opportunities to strengthen or clarify information-sharing requirements, including this section following the case.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There is therefore a national process for sharing information between schools and colleges, and the guidance on the timing of the sharing of relevant information is clear. We are very saddened to hear that, in Jennifer's case, her new college had not received the information within the specified time to ensure continuity of support for Jennifer. This was not in line with the duties and responsibilities placed on schools and colleges. We do regularly review the statutory safeguarding guidance to see where it could be strengthened or further clarification is needed, which is subject to public consultation. In view of this very tragic case, we will keep this section under review.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Education
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A national process exists for transferring safeguarding information, with clear guidance on required timing between schools and colleges.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “There is therefore a national process for sharing information between schools and colleges, and the guidance on the timing of the sharing of relevant information is clear. We are very saddened to hear that, in Jennifer's case, her new college had not received the information within the specified time to ensure continuity of support for Jennifer. This was not in line with the duties and responsibilities placed on schools and colleges. We do regularly review the statutory safeguarding guidance to see where it could be strengthened or further clarification is needed, which is subject to public consultation. In view of this very tragic case, we will keep this section under review.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Education
    Page 5 · response
    Published 14 October 2024

    Open published response

  3. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Ben Walmsley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Ben Walmsley died by suicide at his home on 4 February 2018, by hanging. Before his death, he searched school computers for suicide-related content, but the school had no mechanism to be alerted to blocked high-risk searches; the report raised concern about whether similar monitoring functionality was mandatory or available across schools and software providers.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of automated safeguarding alerts for high-risk pupil searches on school computers

    Wider context from the report

    “It was explained to the Court that the school filters are accessed via Smoothwall which provides age appropriate filtered content. Whilst Ben could not access these pages as they were blocked , there was no mechanism in place at the time for the school to be made aware that a pupil may have attempted to search for such pages. The Court heard evidence that at the time of Ben's death the only monitoring was in lessons and was solely reliant on the teacher trying to watch what students were doing. The school has 900 pupils and the Court heard in any one day there can be 12,000 attempts by pupils to access blocked content. Not all of these would be as concerning as the content Ben was trying to access, some may relate to social media pages which the school does not allow. Evidence was provided to the Court that since Ben’s death, Smoothwall have now upgraded functionality and staff now receive notifications when blocked high risk safeguarding categories are attempting to be accessed. These alerts are “real time” notifications and go to three identified members of staff. Since the installation staff have been notified of two other children attempting to access similar sites to Ben and have taken action to speak to them and also to speak to their parents to offer support. However it is not known if this functionality is mandatory for all schools or indeed whether other software providers who are used by schools have this option. If schools do not have this facility you may wish to consider disseminating this information, this is of course a matter for yourself. ”

    Source location

    Ben Walmsley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026