Safeguarding KPIs and Dashboards: What Boards Should Measure (and What They Shouldn’t)
Safeguarding dashboards are increasingly common, but not all metrics create insight. Poorly chosen KPIs can provide false reassurance or drive the wrong behaviours. Effective safeguarding dashboards support curiosity, escalation and learning, rather than simply reporting activity.
This article forms part of Safeguarding Audit, Assurance & Board Oversight and should be read alongside Understanding Types of Abuse, because meaningful metrics vary depending on the type of safeguarding risk faced.
The purpose of safeguarding KPIs
Safeguarding KPIs should help boards and senior leaders:
- Understand risk trends over time
- Identify weak points in systems
- Trigger challenge and escalation
They should not be used to “score” services or suppress reporting.
KPIs that usually add value
Useful safeguarding indicators often include:
- Timeliness of safeguarding referrals
- Repeat concerns involving the same themes
- Conversion rate from incident to safeguarding referral
- Completion and validation of safeguarding actions
These measures focus on system performance, not blame.
Operational example 1: improving referral timeliness through KPI review
Context: A provider believed safeguarding referrals were timely, but data was inconsistent.
Support approach: A KPI was introduced measuring time from incident recognition to referral decision.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Managers reviewed delays weekly and explored reasons during supervision and team meetings.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Referral delays reduced and decision-making became more consistent, evidenced through safeguarding logs and audit findings.
KPIs that can mislead if used alone
Some common metrics require careful interpretation:
- Total number of safeguarding alerts (high numbers may indicate good reporting)
- Low referral rates (may mask under-reporting)
- Training completion percentages (do not show competence)
These metrics should always be considered alongside qualitative information.
Operational example 2: reframing “low alerts” as a risk indicator
Context: One service consistently reported very low safeguarding concerns.
Support approach: The dashboard flagged low alerts as an exception requiring review.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Managers conducted targeted audits and staff interviews, identifying uncertainty about thresholds for reporting.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Reporting increased initially, followed by improved early intervention and fewer serious concerns.
Dashboards that support board oversight
Effective safeguarding dashboards share common features:
- Trend data rather than single snapshots
- Clear commentary explaining what the data means
- Links to actions and assurance activity
Boards should expect narrative alongside numbers.
Operational example 3: board dashboard driving action
Context: A board received a safeguarding dashboard but discussions remained superficial.
Support approach: Each dashboard section was linked to a specific governance question.
Day-to-day delivery detail: For example, rising repeat concerns triggered a deep-dive review and additional audit activity.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Board minutes showed clearer challenge and more targeted actions, with follow-up reporting on impact.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect safeguarding data to be used intelligently, supporting learning, improvement and timely intervention.
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC)
CQC expectation: CQC expects providers to use data and information effectively to monitor safety and respond to emerging safeguarding risks.
Practical takeaway
Safeguarding KPIs and dashboards are powerful when they prompt the right questions. Boards should focus on trends, exceptions and learning, not just counts and percentages.