Setting

Robert South Strategic Director of Children and Young People The London Borough of Ealing Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road London W5 2HL

p.1

Focused visit to the London Borough of Ealing Children’s Services

This letter summarises the findings of the focused visit to Ealing children’s services on 24 and 25 June 2026. His Majesty’s Inspectors for this visit were Zafer Yilkan and Naintara Khosla.

p.1

Focused visit to the London Borough of Ealing Children’s Services

Inspectors looked at the local authority’s arrangements at the ‘front door’ with a particular focus on the identification of risk and the response, including strategy meetings, when there are concerns about children’s safety. This visit was carried out in line with the inspection of local authority children’s services (ILACS) framework.

p.1

Headline findings

There are significant gaps in the response to children who are referred to the local authority in Ealing because they may be in need or at risk of harm.

p.1

Headline findings

When children are referred to the Ealing Children’s Integrated Response Service (ECIRS), the initial identification of risk and need is appropriate and timely for most children. This aspect of practice has strengthened since the last inspection.

p.1

Headline findings

However, once transferred to other teams, children do not consistently receive the timely and effective response required. A significant number of children and young people do not have their needs met at the right time or at the right level, and some children remain in situations of unassessed risk or without effective help to meet their needs. Children experience delay in professionals responding to their presenting needs and tackling known risks. For some children, child protection strategy meetings are not convened or are delayed, and child protection enquiries are not always completed when children’s needs and risks warrant them.

p.1

Headline findings

Supervision is regular but is of variable quality, and a lack of sufficient focus on children’s lived experiences, in both supervision and wider management oversight, contributes to actions not consistently being followed through effectively to improve children’s safety and welfare. Ofsted

p.1

Headline findings

Store Street Manchester M1 2WD T 0300 123 1231 Textphone 0161 618 8524 enquiries@ofsted.gov.uk www.gov.uk/ofsted

p.1

Area for priority action

◼ Urgent action is needed to address weaknesses in the response to children at risk of harm, in particular to ensure the timely and effective completion of child protection strategy meetings and enquiries, child and family assessments, more effective managerial oversight and the subsequent provision of appropriate help and support (outcome 2, national framework).

p.2

What needs to improve in this area of social work practice? 1

◼ The quality, consistency and impact of management oversight and supervision (enabler: leaders drive conditions for effective practice).

p.2

What needs to improve in this area of social work practice? 1

◼ The consistency of child focus, so that efforts to engage with parents do not detract from prioritising and meeting children’s needs (outcome 2: national framework).

p.2

Main findings

Initial responses in the ECIRS are timely and mostly appropriate. Ealing’s emergency duty team provides a timely service to children who need urgent help or protection in the evenings and at weekends, with a seamless transition to day services assisting ECIRS to respond to children’s needs.

p.2

Main findings

However, once transferred from ECIRS to the assessment and intervention service and other teams, children do not consistently receive the timely, effective response required. When concerns have been assessed as meeting the threshold for a child protection strategy meeting, there are significant delays in progressing some children’s cases before the meeting takes place. Consequently, too many children are left in situations of unassessed risk of harm, do not receive the right assessments or timely multi-agency responses, or do not have their serious allegations of abuse appropriately investigated. This leaves some children vulnerable to abuse or neglect.

p.2

Main findings

The response to children experiencing domestic abuse is variable. When practice is strong, children are recognised as victims in their own right and their needs are considered and responded to well, with social workers and police officers working together effectively, developing safety plans and taking action to mitigate risks. Families are able to access resources that help to enable both victims and perpetrators to gain insight and understand the impact of domestic abuse. Integrated Domestic Violence Advisers are consistently available to support vulnerable victims, and when there are issues of immigration vulnerabilities, families are supported by culturally sensitive specialist services. Practice is typically strongest and most effective when it is informed by the oversight, guidance and support of a very capable specialist senior social worker. Where this worker does not have the

p.2

Main findings

1 The areas for improvement have been cross-referenced with the outcomes, enablers or principles in the Children’s Social Care: National Framework . This statutory guidance sets out the purpose, principles for practice and expected outcomes of children’s social care. capacity to support every child’s case, practice is less effective in reducing risks for children and families.

p.2

Main findings

When children have experienced, or may be at risk of, sexual abuse, responses are not consistently robust or effective. Sexual assault referral centre medicals are not routinely considered or sufficiently utilised when children disclose sexual abuse or report sexual assault. Concerns about adults who may pose a risk of sexual harm to children do not consistently lead to child protection strategy meetings being held, and children may continue to have contact with high-risk individuals. Risk and safety plans are not routinely in place, and ‘stepping down’ to early help services is often considered prematurely when concerns remain or a reduction in risk is very recent.

p.3

Main findings

For most children who are missing and are at risk of harm outside the home, practice is appropriate and timely, actions help to inform risk assessment and children’s needs are responded to well. Some children who go missing and who are at risk of extra-familial harm do not receive regular visits, and their lived experiences are not fully understood. Risk and safety plans are not consistently effective, and risks are unassessed or not mitigated for some children.

p.3

Main findings

Collaborative and responsive partnership working with the police, schools and health supports timely decision-making to protect children whose level of risk is such that the police have had to use their powers of protection. For these children, child protection strategy meetings happen more quickly, and concerns are jointly investigated with the police. When it is not safe for children to remain living with their parents, appropriate actions are taken, including seeking protective legal orders. Social workers explore family networks to ensure that, when safe and achievable, they can remain living with family members.

p.3

Main findings

Social workers generally understand trauma well. When practice is strong, they build relationships to help children better understand their lives and provide opportunities for children to share their wishes and feelings. They are cognisant of children’s religion, ethnicity and culture throughout their assessments. They carry out direct work with children to better understand their lived experiences, and they provide reassurance to children and help them understand why services are involved with them and their families.

p.3

Main findings

However, practitioners are not always seeing children quickly enough when their needs require a rapid response, including in some children’s cases where there are reports of physical harm and neglect. In some children’s cases, engagement with children is not sufficient to build trusting relationships, or an over-emphasis on parental engagement detracts from the focus on children’s lived experiences.

p.3

Main findings

Management oversight beyond the point of initial screening does not sufficiently assist social workers to plan effectively with families so that next steps are set out and clearly followed through. Social workers experience differing management recommendations to address risks identified in child and family assessments. This lack of clarity about levels of harm means that threshold decision-making can be confused and children’s needs are not consistently met. Management oversight and supervision are regular, although the actions discussed are not always sufficiently focused on children’s safety or on progressing their plans.

p.3

Main findings

Social workers said they enjoy working in Ealing, and they described a positive and inclusive culture. They benefit from a strong induction package and from a broad range of training that is available, including to agency social workers. Some social workers who left Ealing have returned and say that this is because of the supportive environment, regular supervision and the approachable managers. Some agency social workers are considering becoming permanent.

p.4

Main findings

Ealing Council’s corporate and political leaders are passionate about doing what is right for children. Leaders are committed to ensuring that children get the best start in life. Leaders are strong advocates for children, and support for children’s services is a key corporate priority. Leaders have had some awareness of inconsistencies in practice, but quality assurance processes have not picked up the full extent of the failings or led to sustained improvement. Prior to the visit, leaders had recognised the need to strengthen both audit and wider quality assurance processes and have invested in doing so. This is positive, and some audits, particularly those that have benefited from moderation, are adding value to practice. However, it is a measure of the progress still required that the local authority’s quality assurance processes had not sufficiently identified these shortfalls. Leaders responded quickly to the findings

p.4

Main findings

of the focused visit, including taking action while the visit was still ongoing to better support and protect specific children.

p.4

Main findings

Ofsted will take the findings from this focused visit into account when planning the next inspection or visit.

p.4

Main findings

We have notified the Department for Education of the area for priority action. You should submit an action plan that responds to this and to the areas for improvement within 70 working days of receiving this letter. It would be very helpful if you can share an early draft of the action plan with us within 20 working days of receiving this letter.

p.4