As Children’s Commissioner I have the privilege of speaking to and working with thousands of professionals supporting children in every aspect of their lives. I know first-hand how caring and dedicated the vast majority of them are, and how the relationships they build with children can be transformative.
But I have also seen the other end of that spectrum, where individuals who lack professional curiosity, training or basic care cause acute damage to some of our most vulnerable children. Something that happens far too often – though of course, even just one instance would be too many.
Recent examples: from the appalling treatment of children at Whitefield School in Walthamstow, at the Hesley Group schools, and – just last month – allegations about the Witherslack Group of schools show that children are still suffering at the hands of adults who should protect them.
One of my biggest concerns from these cases is the failure to listen to children – and often parents too. Every child deserves to have a voice in their education or their care, no matter their needs or circumstances.
The role of the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is crucial to ensuring safeguarding concerns are escalated and children’s best interests upheld. And yet, there are currently challenges with the way the role operates.
It is my duty as Commissioner to press for the best and most effective safeguarding system possible for these children, including those living in children’s homes or attending special school, and to make sure those who are entrusted with caring for them do not cause them harm.
Looking at the Local Authority Designated Officer role
Through the work of Help at Hand, my independent advocacy team, to support children and families directly, I have become increasingly aware of troubling cases which highlight the lack of protection for vulnerable children in institutional settings, particularly regarding concerns about the misuse of restraint and seclusion, or where allegations against professionals are made.
These cases, coupled with the failures of safeguarding in the high-profile cases mentioned above, deepens my concerns that the child protection system does not adequately safeguard those most at risk.
The Commissioner’s School Census
Last week the office published ‘The Children’s Plan – The Children’s Commissioner’s Schools Census’, a report outlining responses to the largest-ever survey of schools and colleges in England. It gave, for the first time, a national picture using real-time information from schools of the challenges children are bringing into school, how schools support them and what more is needed to make sure every child, everywhere, has what they need to attend, engage and excel in education.
When I used my statutory powers to conduct the survey, I included a question on the number of referrals each institution made to the LADO in the 2023/24 academic year. As would be anticipated, most schools did not make any referrals in this time period (overall median 0.0). However, there were variations in the mean number of referrals by institution type, for example special schools, schools with lower Ofsted ratings and schools in more deprived areas made slightly more referrals than others on average. This supports the observation that children with existing vulnerabilities may be more likely to experience abuse in school. However, even if referrals are made to the LADO for these vulnerable children, as my team’s discussion with professionals shows, often little action is taken.
The Local Authority Designated Officer roundtable
My team convened a roundtable of experts to examine these issues, and one role in particular: the LADO. It looked at various themes:
- Firstly, the important role of the LADO in overseeing how concerns about adults working with children are managed, but inconsistencies in practice and limited coordination between agencies mean that the safeguarding response can vary depending on local arrangements.
- Secondly, a lack of clarity in how to handle allegations made against professionals that do not meet the test for criminal prosecution. Often, serious harm is identified but no criminal prosecutions are brought because the evidence did not meet the threshold required for legal action.
- Finally, the role of institutional culture, particularly in how restraint and seclusion are understood and applied, in influencing how well children are listened to and safeguarded.
Inconsistencies in practice and ‘working in silos’:
Every local authority in England has a LADO whose role is to oversee how allegations against adults who work with children are managed. This applies equally to teachers, staff working in children’s homes and volunteers. The LADO does not investigate the allegations directly, but ensures the right steps are taken. This might include advising employers, coordinating with police and social care, and making sure children are protected throughout the process[i].
If an allegation is found to be true and the adult is removed from their role – or would have been, had they not already resigned – the employer has a legal duty to refer the case to the DBS. which then decides whether that person should be barred from working with children in the future[ii]. The LADO supports this process by advising the employer, but the responsibility for making the referral lies with the employer or agency.
This link between the LADO and the DBS is essential. It ensures that people who pose a risk to children cannot move from one job to another without scrutiny. However, with no national standard for how referrals to the DBS are handled in practice, the process can vary depending on local authority procedures and policies, leaving safeguarding responses open to confusion, employers unaware of crucial information and children exposed to risk.
Another key theme raised in the roundtable was how information is often lost in silos. Agencies such as Ofsted, the DBS, LADOs, the police and local authorities all hold important safeguarding data, but this is frequently stored in separate systems with limited coordination. There is also confusion about who is responsible for making referrals and when. Some professionals refer to the DBS but not to Ofsted, or vice versa, which can result in incomplete safeguarding records.
The lack of clear and accessible data makes it even harder to understand the full picture. The DBS, for example, publishes only headline figures and does not routinely provide feedback to those who make referrals. This makes it difficult for professionals to know whether action has been taken, or whether others have raised similar concerns. Without better information sharing and a more joined-up approach, children remain at risk of falling through the gaps.
Test for criminal prosecution: proving ‘wilful’ harm
One key weakness in the current system is the difficulty of prosecuting cases where institutional abuse is alleged or found. In part that is because of the difficulty in proving that harm was caused ‘wilfully’, as required under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933[iii]. In settings like schools or children’s homes, where harm may result from neglect or poor systems rather than deliberate intent, this legal threshold is often too high to meet.
In the examples from institutions used above, involving the use of restraint or similar behaviour management practices, proving that harm was ‘wilful’ can be even more challenging due to the highly complex needs of the children involved.
Role of institutional culture
The roundtable discussion also highlighted that children with disabilities are often unheard. In one investigation, non-verbal children were found to have experienced serious abuse, but no one was held accountable. With the legal burden of proof set so high, and when too often those investigating rely solely on children speaking up to provide this evidence, it can often fall back on the argument that process is to blame, not individual intent.
This means some institutions avoid responsibility by claiming they were simply following procedure. It also means that children with disabilities are often left without justice. More must be done to ensure these children are heard, whether through specialist advocates, adapted communication methods, or changes to how investigations are carried out.
My Help at Hand advocacy team has been involved with concerning cases that illustrate the failings in the current system. Below is a real example of a case the Help at Hand team supported, from a child at a SEND day school:
Change needed to address system challenges
Throughout the roundtable discussion there was a clear willingness among all the attendees to work towards a more joined-up approach. While several projects are already underway, including Ofsted’s review of LADO processes and work within the Department for Education to strengthen multi-agency child protection teams, more is needed.
I am calling for urgent and ambitious reform. This includes:
The LADO role must be truly independent from the local authority, ensuring there is strong accountability for children.
The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s report on safeguarding children with disabilities and complex health needs in residential settings (focusing on the Hesley Group) recommended a strengthened LADO role. I supported this recommendation which included calls for joint working across local authorities, with host local authorities sharing information with placing local authorities.
Building on this, we need a national approach to recording and sharing safeguarding information between DBS, Ofsted, LADOs and the police. And we need clear, consistent thresholds for referrals. Ultimately, we need these expectations to be outlined in statutory guidance for the LADO role.
Children with disabilities must be included meaningfully in all safeguarding reforms and not as an afterthought but as a priority. In the Hesley Review the recommendation on provision of specialist non-instructed advocacy services was accepted, yet I have seen little progress on the implementation of this reform since. I am calling for the updated advocacy standards to be published, and funding for these specialist advocacy roles.
We need urgent improvements in the quality of children’s homes, and the availability of foster carers – no child should be growing up in a home where the adults who should be loving and caring for them are instead exploiting and harming them.
The priority must always be to understand a child’s needs, to de-escalate a situation without using force, or isolation. I have welcomed that there will be new guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion, and I was reassured by the focus on minimising their use through early support, prevention, and de-escalation strategies. However, there was a lack of focus on the need for improved training for staff in identifying and responding to children’s different needs. Restraint must only ever be used to keep a child safe, and only then for the shortest time possible.
As Children’s Commissioner, I will continue to push for a system that works better for children. I will work with agencies to improve coordination, strengthen accountability, and ensure that safeguarding is not just a process but a genuine commitment to children’s safety and wellbeing. Most importantly, I will keep listening to children, especially those who are least likely to be heard, because their voices are needed if we are to create systems that truly work for them.
[i] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children–2
[ii] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-barring-referrals-to-the-dbs
