Whistleblowing & LADO Awareness

The four R's of safeguarding (Recognise, Respond, Record, Refer) cover concerns about a child. When the concern is about an adult — the dynamic changes. The route does too.

What counts as a concern about an adult at JLK:

• A colleague behaves towards a child in a way that crosses a professional boundary (rough handling, shaming language, isolating a child).
• A colleague's personal conduct outside work raises concern (alcohol arriving on shift, posts on social, criminal charges).
• A colleague is suspected of having harmed any child — at JLK or elsewhere.
• A manager or DSL appears to be ignoring or downplaying child safeguarding concerns.
• A parent or visitor behaves in a way that concerns you (towards their child, towards another child, towards staff).

What this is NOT: ordinary performance issues, personal grievances, or pay disputes — those go through HR, not the safeguarding route.

⚠️ JLK practice standard: "I'm not sure" is enough. If you're not sure whether your concern is about an adult, raise it — the manager or DSL will help you route it correctly. Withholding because you're worried about being wrong is the bigger risk.

• I can distinguish a concern about an adult from a concern about a child
• I understand "I'm not sure" is enough — raise it anyway
• I know HR grievances and safeguarding concerns are different routes

The LADO is the Local Authority Designated Officer. Every local authority in England has one. They are the named person responsible for managing allegations against adults who work or volunteer with children.

The JLK escalation route for concerns about an adult:

1. Tell the manager (or in their absence, the DSL). Same day. In person if possible.
2. Manager assesses — does this meet the LADO referral threshold? (Anything that suggests an adult has harmed or might harm a child usually does.)
3. If yes, the manager refers to the LADO within 1 working day. LADO then advises on next steps — investigation, holding action, etc.
4. You are kept informed on a need-to-know basis. You may not learn the outcome. That's normal and not a sign nothing happened.

What if the concern is about the manager themselves?

• Go directly to the JLK Director (Admin@justlittlekidz.co.uk) or the area manager.
• If that's also unavailable / inappropriate, contact the LADO yourself directly — you do not need permission.
• Or contact the NSPCC whistleblowing line: 0800 028 0285. Free, confidential, available to any UK worker concerned about a child's welfare.

The JLK no-retaliation guarantee: raising a concern in good faith — even if it turns out to be unfounded — will never be held against you. This is protected by UK law (Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998) and reinforced by JLK policy. Anyone who retaliates against a whistleblower at JLK is themselves subject to disciplinary action.

📞 Keep these numbers somewhere accessible: Your site DSL · Your area manager · NSPCC Whistleblowing 0800 028 0285 · Your local LADO (manager has the number).

• I know what the LADO is and roughly when a referral is made
• I know to go to the area manager / director if the concern is about my site manager
• I know the NSPCC whistleblowing line: 0800 028 0285
• I understand JLK's no-retaliation guarantee for good-faith whistleblowing

The single biggest safeguarding failure mode across UK early years isn't bad people doing bad things — it's good people noticing and not telling. The reasons:

• "I might be wrong." — You might. The DSL is trained to assess. You're trained to notice.
• "They've always been so nice to me." — Harmful adults are often charming. That's how they sustain access.
• "It might ruin their career." — The investigation, not the report, decides outcomes. Reports proven unfounded don't ruin careers.
• "The team will turn against me." — If they do, that's the team's problem to address, not yours to manage. JLK doesn't tolerate retaliation.
• "I'll wait and see if it happens again." — A child may be harmed in the meantime. Waiting is itself a choice with consequences.

What the JLK culture commits to in return:

• You will be listened to.
• You will not be punished for raising a concern in good faith.
• You will be kept as informed as the investigation allows.
• If the concern was unfounded, the investigation closes cleanly — not held over the person it was about, not held over you.
• Your identity is protected as far as legally possible. (Full anonymity isn't guaranteed at later stages of investigation, but JLK will tell you upfront if that point is reached.)

💛 The JLK principle: the discomfort of raising a concern is real and short-lived. The harm of not raising one can be life-shaping for a child. Always tell.

• I can name the common reasons people withhold concerns
• I understand "I might be wrong" is not a reason to stay silent
• I know JLK will protect my identity as far as legally possible

Scenario: Apprentice Maya is in her third month at JLK Croydon. Over two weeks, she's noticed her room leader Folake speaking sharply to one specific 2-year-old — Tomi — in a way that doesn't match how Folake speaks to the other children. Once, in the toilet area, Maya overheard Folake say to Tomi "I am sick of you, you're a nightmare." Tomi has been visibly more withdrawn since starting in Folake's room.

Maya's instinct: doubt herself. Folake is experienced, popular, supportive. Maybe Maya is being oversensitive. Maybe Tomi is going through a phase.

Maya's actual action (JLK trained): Same day, she goes to the site manager Ade, in person. She says: "I want to flag something I've noticed about how one staff member speaks to one particular child. I might be wrong, but I'd rather raise it and be wrong than not." She describes what she's seen, factually. She notes the dates.

Ade thanks her, makes contemporaneous notes, and within the same day reaches out to the local LADO for advice. LADO confirms the threshold is met for a referral. Ade refers. The investigation proceeds carefully and confidentially. Maya is supported and kept as informed as possible.

The outcome (months later): Folake is found to have been under significant personal pressure and her conduct was found to be a serious lapse, not a pattern, but warranted a formal action plan and a period of close supervision. Tomi was supported through a careful transition. Folake later thanked Maya for raising it — the early flag stopped it escalating.

What Maya did right: raised it the same day she felt sure · went in person · used the word "might be wrong" rather than letting that stop her · stayed factual · trusted the system to assess.

Reflection prompt: Have you ever noticed something you weren't sure about? Did you raise it? What stopped you, if not?

• I've reflected on a concern I've held back on, or confirmed I have none