Andrea O’Shaughnessy

Parent Advocate | Safeguarding and Whistleblowing

“WHY I SUPPORT
STEP UP FOR CHANGE

Personal Endorsement and Statement of Support


Who I am and why I support reform

I support Step Up for Change because I believe children’s social care and the wider safeguarding system must be able to recognise mistakes, examine difficult evidence and put things right. Safeguarding should never become a process of defending an organisation or preserving an established account. Its purpose must remain the safety, welfare and rights of children.

My perspective is informed by a combination of education, practical experience and lived experience. My relevant training includes a CACHE Level 3 Teaching Assistant qualification, a qualification in Criminal Intelligence Analysis (Merit), a diploma in Child Psychology, and further certificates and diplomas in related areas. I have also worked in an infant school for approximately six years and in a community-centre setting. These experiences have contributed to my interest in children’s needs, information quality, decision-making and the responsibilities of organisations working with families.

Alongside this, I have experience as a parent raising and pursuing safeguarding concerns and as a whistleblower challenging decisions and institutional responses. I do not present myself as a social worker, solicitor or statutory safeguarding professional. I speak as a parent advocate with relevant training, practical experience and first-hand experience of navigating safeguarding and accountability processes.
What my experience has taught me.

Challenging safeguarding decisions has shown me how important it is to distinguish between first-hand evidence, professional opinion, assumption, hearsay and information repeated from an earlier record. A statement does not become independently verified simply because it appears in several documents or is repeated by several people. Where multiple records rely on the same original source, that dependency needs to be recognised.

I have also seen why contradictory evidence must be examined rather than overlooked. If new information undermines an earlier account or conclusion, there should be a clear process for reviewing the decision, recording the reasoning and correcting inaccuracies where appropriate. A fair system should be willing to revisit its conclusions when the evidence requires it.

My experience has reinforced the difference between a process being completed and a concern being resolved. A complaint can receive a response without the central issue being properly investigated. A recommendation can be issued without a clear owner, deadline or way of checking whether it has been implemented. An organisation can record that a matter is closed while the family is still seeking an answer to the underlying concern.
I am particularly concerned about the way responsibility can become fragmented as concerns pass between teams, departments, managers and external bodies. Each part of a system may describe its own role as complete, while no one takes clear responsibility for the overall outcome. Effective accountability requires organisations to identify who knew what, when they knew it, what action was available, what action was taken and why.


The principles and campaigns I support
Campaign 1 — Evidence, Records and the Truth
I support this campaign because safeguarding decisions must be based on information that is accurate, relevant, properly sourced and capable of scrutiny. Records should distinguish fact from opinion and identify the source of material information. Where evidence is disputed, the dispute and the reasons for accepting or rejecting it should be recorded fairly.
Campaign 2 — Stop False Narratives and Circular Evidence
I support meaningful scrutiny of information that is repeated between professionals or agencies until it appears to have been independently established. Repetition is not corroboration. Decision-makers should identify the original source, consider whether later accounts are genuinely independent and address material contradictions.
Campaign 3 — Fair Treatment of Families
Parents and families should be treated respectfully when they ask questions, request records, challenge decisions or make complaints. Raising concerns should not, by itself, be treated as evidence of hostility, instability or unwillingness to cooperate. Concerns about a person's conduct should be assessed on evidence, not used as a substitute for answering the substance of what they have raised.
Campaign 5 — Independent Complaints Outside Councils
I support genuinely independent routes for examining serious complaints about institutional conduct, particularly where the concerns include senior management, governance or the handling of previous complaints. An organisation should not be the only authority deciding whether its own response to serious allegations was adequate. Independence must include the ability to examine underlying evidence and challenge the organisation’s conclusions.
Campaign 6 — Enforceable Complaint Outcomes and Accountability
Identifying a failure should lead to clear action. Outcomes should specify what must change, who is responsible, the timescale for completion and how implementation will be verified. Acknowledgements, apologies and promises to learn lessons may be appropriate, but they are not a substitute for corrective action or evidence that the problem has been addressed.
Campaign 10 — Professional and Management Accountability
Accountability should apply at every appropriate level. Where serious concerns arise, scrutiny should consider the original decision and the actions or omissions of those responsible for supervision, management, legal advice and governance. This should be fair, evidence-based and proportionate; responsibility should neither be assumed without evidence nor disappear as a matter moves up an organisation.
Campaign 14 — Fair Reporting for Families and Non-Professionals
The credibility of information should depend on its quality and reliability, not simply on the status of the person providing it. Parents, children, carers, whistleblowers and members of the public may hold relevant first-hand information or documentary evidence. Their evidence should be assessed objectively and should not be dismissed merely because they are outside the professional system.
Further areas of support
Campaign 4 — Support Before Escalation
I support proportionate responses that distinguish immediate safeguarding risks from situations in which practical help, early support or a fuller assessment may be more appropriate. Support should be timely, needs-led and focused on the child and family circumstances.
Campaign 7 — Independent Records, SARs and Evidence Preservation
I support stronger safeguards for the accuracy, preservation, accessibility and auditability of records. Families need clear information about how to exercise their data rights, and organisations should preserve relevant material and maintain reliable records of decisions and changes. Access to records is not an end in itself; it can be essential to understanding and scrutinising decisions.
Campaign 12 — Courts and Advocacy
I support accurate, transparent and properly tested information in proceedings affecting children and families. People should have a meaningful opportunity to identify and challenge disputed information, with the court or decision-maker retaining responsibility for evaluating the evidence.
Campaign 13 — External Oversight
I support effective external scrutiny of systemic failures and institutional conduct. Oversight should be sufficiently independent and equipped to examine evidence, identify recurring problems and monitor whether corrective action has been delivered.
From experience to practical change.

My involvement has extended beyond raising concerns about individual experiences. I have sought to develop practical information and guidance to help parents and others understand how to raise concerns, keep clear chronologies, preserve original evidence, request and review records, challenge inaccuracies and navigate complaint and escalation processes.
I believe people should not need to become experts in legislation, information rights or institutional governance simply to have a legitimate safeguarding concern properly considered. Clear guidance, accessible support and transparent procedures can help families participate more effectively and can help organisations identify and resolve problems earlier.
I also believe that people raising concerns should be encouraged to remain factual, proportionate and focused on outcomes. This protects the integrity of the concern and makes it easier for decision-makers to identify the evidence, the question that needs answering and the action required.

What meaningful safeguarding should achieve
For me, meaningful safeguarding reform should be judged by more than the number of meetings held, reports written or procedures completed. It should be judged by whether concerns were properly investigated, whether the child’s needs and safety were addressed, whether inaccurate information was corrected where necessary, and whether any identified failures led to sustained improvement.
Three practical questions should remain central: Was the concern properly examined against the available evidence? Were the child’s safety, welfare and needs addressed in practice? And where something went wrong, was responsibility identified and effective corrective action taken?

These questions do not presume that every allegation is established or that every professional decision is wrong. They require openness, fairness and a willingness to test information. Families must be heard, professionals must be treated fairly, and decisions must be capable of explanation and scrutiny.

My endorsement

I support Step Up for Change because meaningful safeguarding reform requires the courage to examine uncomfortable evidence, challenge established assumptions and hold institutions accountable where failures are identified.
My experience has taught me that raising a concern and resolving a concern are two very different things. The existence of policies, procedures and complaints mechanisms does not guarantee that the underlying issues have been addressed. Reform must therefore focus on evidence, fairness, independent scrutiny, clear responsibility and outcomes that can be demonstrated.
I do not believe safeguarding should be about taking sides between families and professionals. It should be about establishing what has happened, protecting children and ensuring that everyone involved is treated fairly. Children deserve to be heard. Families deserve honest answers. Professionals must be able to raise legitimate concerns. Institutions must be accountable for their decisions and omissions.

DON’T CHOOSE A SIDE. CHOOSE THE CHILD.

Protecting children must always take precedence over protecting institutions.”