Following the UK Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, some charities are feeling pressure to make immediate and costly changes to their premises. In this short piece, CFG's co-CEO, Clare Mills, uses the example of two schools' approaches to safeguarding to make the case for stepping back before making the decision to spend.
In the town where I live, some years ago, there were two middle schools. Each looked after children from age 9-13. The two schools, at their closest point, were about 60m apart.
In 2011, safeguarding was the hot topic in education and Ofsted had made it very clear that this would be the first thing they looked at during an inspection. If a school failed on safeguarding then nothing else would be inspected or assessed.
On the basis of safeguarding, one of the schools installed a 1.8m high fence around the perimeter of their entire school site. It cost just over £28,000. No one had a problem with keeping the children safe – but the fence went right around the edge of the field and cut off access to some people’s gardens.
There was an outcry from neighbouring residents. In the end, the fence was moved, at a further cost of £11,500.
Meanwhile, the other school did nothing about a fence around their site. (There’s a big fence round it now, because it’s a building site, but the 2ft high stone wall that runs along the side of the school field, next to the road, was never made taller.)
Children continued to climb happily over the wall, to get to school, almost every morning – as well as climbing through the hole in the old wooden fence that separated the school field from the play park.
Safeguarding was considered through how the school operated, and the procedures the staff followed for keeping children safe when they were out on the field and in the playground.
Who was right? Both approaches kept children safe, both schools were inspected by Ofsted and met the safeguarding requirements. What I think this situation shows is that there are different ways that we can make sure we meet our legal and moral requirements and that spending thousands of pounds is not always needed.
I’ve been thinking about this in relation to the pressure some charities are coming under following the UK Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. This piece of writing isn’t about the legal or moral arguments (I have my views, mind you).
It’s my take on making good decisions about spending charity money. The ruling confirms that single sex spaces relate to biological sex, but current legal commentary stresses that no structural alterations are required at this stage, and charities should prioritise prudence in spending.
Trustees and leaders should ensure their organisations do not rush – and are not pushed – into capital expenditure unless there is a clear benefit to the organisation. And keeping a record of deliberations and decisions is vital for wider understanding – of whether you decide to spend, change your ways of working, or a mixture of both.
CFG has produced a short guide on the current position and some helpful questions for trustees to ask themselves before committing to capital expenditure in response to the ruling. In a nutshell: “do we need to buy a fence?”
Read our guide to navigating the UK Supreme Court ruling