Monitoring, Surveillance, CCTV & Regulation 24 in Children's Homes: CCTV, Door Alarms, Audio Monitoring, Location Tracking, Privacy, Consent, Data Protection & Ofsted Expectations

Regulation 24 of the Children's Homes (England) Regulations 2015 has four tests. The registered person may only use devices to monitor or surveil children if all four conditions are met. This guide explains what Regulation 24 covers, when monitoring or surveillance may be used, the necessity and proportionality tests, placing authority consent, informing the child, CCTV, door alarms, audio monitoring, location tracking, monitoring in private spaces, data protection, reviewing and reducing monitoring, and what Ofsted looks for.

Child-centred question

Are we using technology because it is necessary to keep this child safe, or because watching them is easier than trusting and caring for them?

1. Quick answer and current position

A children's home is not a shop, an office, or a CCTV control room. It is a child's home. Children sleep there, get dressed there, speak privately with family there, argue there, relax there, cry there, and speak to social workers there. Surveillance inside a children's home is fundamentally different from putting a camera over a warehouse door.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act protects respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. Ofsted expressly says inspectors consider children's rights and the Human Rights Act when evaluating surveillance arrangements. That makes the Regulation 24 framework not just a regulatory compliance point but a human rights matter.

The four statutory tests

Regulation 24(1) says the registered person may only use devices for the monitoring or surveillance of children if four conditions are met. The monitoring must be for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the child or other children. The placing authority must consent in writing. The child must be informed in advance, so far as reasonably practicable in light of their age and understanding. And the monitoring must be no more intrusive than necessary, having regard to the child's need for privacy. All four must be satisfied. If any one is missing, the monitoring is not permitted under Regulation 24.

Read the opening wording carefully

Regulation 24 does not say the registered person may use monitoring devices where appropriate. It says the registered person may only use them if the conditions are satisfied. That is an important distinction. The default should not be surveillance unless somebody objects. The better starting point is no surveillance unless we can justify it.

2. What Regulation 24 covers

Regulation 24 does not give providers a neat closed list of technology. The principles apply to any device used to monitor or surveil children. Providers should think about what the device does, not what it is called.

What counts as monitoring or surveillance?

Examples may include CCTV cameras, smart doorbells, bedroom-door sensors, window sensors, movement detectors, audio monitors, video monitors, baby monitors, smart-home cameras, GPS trackers, phone location tracking, location-sharing apps, tracking watches, vehicle trackers, and potentially other technology used to observe where a child is, what they are doing, when they move, or what they are saying. Ofsted describes its principles as applying to any kind of surveillance, so providers should not assume Regulation 24 is relevant only where a traditional CCTV camera is screwed to a wall.

Technology changes faster than regulations

Ten years ago a surveillance discussion might have been simply whether the home has CCTV. Now it may involve Ring doorbells, Alexa, smart alarms, door sensors, location sharing, AirTags, vehicle tracking, cloud cameras and phone apps. The risk is that each item feels too small to trigger a serious discussion. Together they can create continuous monitoring. The home should assess all monitoring technology together, not each device in isolation.

Ask what information the device gives you

Forget the product name. Ask what staff can learn about the child from it. A door sensor may tell staff the child has left their bedroom. A GPS app may tell staff the child is at a particular address. A smart doorbell may tell staff who the child arrived home with. A microphone may tell staff what the child is saying. A bedroom camera may show almost their entire private life. The more information the device reveals, the higher the privacy intrusion and the stronger the justification needed.

3. When monitoring or surveillance may be used

Regulation 24 sets the conditions. The decision to use monitoring must still be made for an individual child, based on an identified safeguarding need, and using the least intrusive arrangement that meets that need.

Safeguarding purpose

The first test is that the monitoring must be for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the child concerned or other children. This is not a general wellbeing or convenience test. There must be a safeguarding purpose. A desire to monitor behaviour generally, to reduce staff workload, or to make supervision easier does not meet this test on its own.

Individual need, not default practice

Ofsted says surveillance must meet an individual need and be justified at the time. It should not be the default method of monitoring children's behaviour. Groups of children should not be subjected to indiscriminate monitoring. This means a home cannot install CCTV in all communal areas and point it at all children as a blanket measure. The need must be specific to a child or a specific risk.

Court-directed surveillance

Regulation 24(2) says the regulation is subject to any monitoring or surveillance requirements imposed by a court. Where a court imposes surveillance requirements, those requirements take precedence. The home should understand what the court has ordered, what it permits, and what it does not. A court order does not give the home a general permission to install whatever surveillance it wishes. It applies to what the court has directed.

4. Necessity, proportionality and privacy

The fourth test in Regulation 24(1)(d) is that the monitoring must be no more intrusive than necessary, having regard to the child's need for privacy. This is the proportionality test. It asks whether the intrusion is justified by the need and whether a less intrusive option would work.

The least intrusive test

Before installing any monitoring, the home should ask: can this safeguarding need be met without surveillance? If not, can it be met with a less intrusive device? If a door alarm would alert staff to a child leaving their room at night, is a camera in the bedroom necessary? If a phone location app would tell staff where a child is, is a GPS tracker on their bag necessary? The least intrusive option that meets the need is the one that should be chosen.

Collateral monitoring

A device placed for one child may monitor other children. A camera in a corridor captures every child who walks past. A smart doorbell captures every visitor. This is collateral monitoring. The home should consider whether monitoring directed at one child is subjecting other children to surveillance they do not need. If so, the arrangement may not meet the proportionality test for those children.

Supervision versus surveillance

Ordinary staff supervision is not the same as Regulation 24 surveillance. A staff member being present with a child, observing them, and supporting them is supervision. Using a device to observe a child remotely, record them, or track their movements is surveillance. The distinction matters because Regulation 24 applies to devices, not to staff presence. A home should not replace supervision with surveillance simply because surveillance is easier.

5. Placing authority consent and informing the child

The second and third tests in Regulation 24 address who must agree and who must be told. These are separate requirements and both must be met.

Placing authority written consent

Regulation 24(1)(b) requires the child's placing authority to consent in writing to the monitoring or surveillance. This must be specific to the monitoring being proposed. A general consent to the placement or to the home's policies is not the same as specific written consent to a particular surveillance arrangement. The home should keep a record of the written consent, what it covers, and when it was given.

Informing the child

Regulation 24(1)(c) requires that, so far as reasonably practicable in the light of the child's age and understanding, the child is informed in advance of the intention to do the monitoring or surveillance. This is a requirement to inform, not a requirement to obtain the child's consent. The child does not have a statutory veto under Regulation 24. But the child must be told, in a way they can understand, what is being monitored, why, and what will happen with the information.

How to inform the child

Informing the child should be done in a way that is appropriate to their age, understanding, and communication needs. It should explain what the device does, where it is, what it records, who can see the information, how long it is kept, and why it has been put in place. The child should be told in advance, not after the fact. If the child's understanding changes, the explanation should be revisited. The conversation should be recorded.

6. CCTV

CCTV is the most common form of surveillance considered in children's homes. It raises specific questions about where cameras are placed, what they record, who can see the footage, and how long it is kept.

CCTV in communal areas

CCTV in communal areas such as corridors, lounges, and kitchens may be considered where there is a specific safeguarding need. The home should ask whether the need can be met by staff supervision instead. If CCTV is used, it should be the least intrusive arrangement: it may not need to record continuously, it may not need audio, and it may not need to cover every area. The camera should be positioned to address the identified need, not to capture everything.

External CCTV and smart doorbells

External cameras and smart doorbells monitor entrances, exits, and the area around the building. They may capture visitors, deliveries, and the street. They may also capture children coming and going. The home should assess whether external CCTV meets the Regulation 24 tests for the children who live there, and whether it captures people who are not the subject of the monitoring. Smart doorbells with audio and video recording should be assessed as surveillance devices.

CCTV in bedrooms, toilets and bathrooms

CCTV in bedrooms, toilets and bathrooms is highly intrusive. The privacy expectation in these spaces is at its highest. Any proposal to use cameras in these areas would need an exceptionally strong safeguarding justification, the least intrusive arrangement, and careful consideration of the child's dignity and rights. In most cases, monitoring in these spaces will not meet the proportionality test. The home should seek specialist advice before considering it.

7. Door alarms, audio monitoring and other devices

Not all monitoring is cameras. Door alarms, audio monitors, movement sensors and other devices can also constitute surveillance under Regulation 24.

Bedroom-door alarms

A bedroom-door alarm alerts staff when a child's door is opened. This may be used to monitor a child who is at risk at night, such as a child who may go missing or self-harm. It is less intrusive than a camera in the bedroom, but it is still surveillance. The Regulation 24 tests apply. The home should ask whether the need can be met by staff checks, and whether the alarm is the least intrusive option.

External-door alarms

Alarms on external doors may be part of the home's security or missing-prevention arrangements. They may alert staff when a door is opened, which may be important for children at risk of going missing. The home should distinguish between security systems that protect the building and surveillance systems that monitor a specific child. Where the system is used to monitor a specific child, Regulation 24 applies.

Audio monitoring

Audio monitoring captures what is being said. This is highly intrusive because it captures private conversations. A device that records audio in a communal area may capture conversations between children, between children and visitors, or phone calls. The home should assess whether audio is necessary and, if so, whether it can be limited. Audio monitoring in bedrooms or private spaces is likely to be disproportionate in most cases.

Window and movement sensors

Window sensors and movement detectors alert staff to movement. They may be part of a security or safety system. Where they are used to monitor a specific child's movements, Regulation 24 applies. The home should assess whether the sensor is the least intrusive way to address the identified need.

8. Location tracking and digital monitoring

Location tracking uses technology to show where a child is. This may include GPS trackers, phone location apps, location-sharing features, and vehicle trackers. These technologies raise specific privacy and proportionality questions.

GPS trackers and location apps

GPS trackers, phone location apps, and location-sharing features can show a child's location in real time or historically. They may be considered for a child at risk of going missing or exploitation. The home should ask whether the need can be met by other means, such as agreed check-in arrangements, and whether the tracking is the least intrusive option. The tracking should be time-limited, reviewed regularly, and removed when no longer necessary.

AirTags and hidden trackers

Small tracking devices such as AirTags can be placed in bags, clothing, or vehicles without the child's knowledge. Covert surveillance of a child in a children's home is extremely difficult to justify and is likely to breach Regulation 24 and data protection law. The child must be informed in advance, so far as reasonably practicable. Using a hidden tracker to avoid informing the child is not compliant with Regulation 24.

Phone monitoring and location sharing

Monitoring a child's phone, including location sharing, app usage, or messages, may constitute surveillance. The home should distinguish between safeguarding monitoring and general phone management. A child's phone is a communication device protected by Regulation 22. Monitoring it raises both Regulation 24 and Regulation 22 issues. The home should assess what it is monitoring, why, and whether it is necessary and proportionate.

Vehicle tracking

Tracking a vehicle used to transport children may be part of fleet management or safeguarding. Where it is used to monitor a specific child's movements, Regulation 24 applies. The home should distinguish between vehicle tracking for fleet purposes and tracking that monitors a child.

9. Monitoring in private or high-risk spaces

Some spaces in a children's home carry a much higher expectation of privacy. Monitoring in these spaces requires exceptional justification and careful assessment.

Bedrooms

A child's bedroom is their personal space. The privacy expectation is high. Any monitoring in a bedroom, including cameras, audio, or door alarms, must be assessed against the proportionality test. The home should ask whether the need can be met by less intrusive means, such as staff checks or a door alarm rather than a camera. CCTV in bedrooms is likely to be disproportionate in most cases.

Bathrooms and toilets

Bathrooms and toilets carry the highest privacy expectation. Monitoring in these spaces is highly intrusive and is likely to be disproportionate in almost all cases. The home should not install cameras or audio monitoring in bathrooms or toilets. If there is a specific safeguarding concern, it should be addressed through other means, such as staff support, risk assessment, and environmental design.

Monitoring during family contact and professional meetings

Monitoring during family contact, social worker visits, or professional meetings may capture private and legally privileged conversations. The home should not monitor these interactions unless there is a specific, documented safeguarding reason that meets the Regulation 24 tests. Even then, the monitoring should be the least intrusive available. Monitoring a child's private call with their solicitor or advocate is likely to breach both Regulation 24 and the child's rights.

Children needing somewhere they are not watched

All children need some space where they are not monitored. A home that monitors every space, every movement, and every conversation is not providing ordinary family life. The child should have access to private space, private communication, and unmonitored time, subject to any specific and justified restrictions. A child who is never unmonitored is being surveilled, not cared for.

10. Data protection, recording and access to footage

Surveillance produces personal data. The UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 apply to the processing of that data, including collection, storage, use, sharing, and deletion. Data protection requirements are separate from and additional to the Regulation 24 conditions.

Lawful basis and Data Protection Impact Assessments

The home must have a lawful basis for processing surveillance data. For monitoring children, this is likely to involve a careful assessment of the legal basis, given that children's data receives enhanced protection. A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) should be carried out for surveillance that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. The DPIA should assess the need, the proportionality, the risks, and the safeguards. It should be reviewed regularly.

Recording versus live monitoring

Live monitoring, where staff watch a feed in real time without recording, may be less intrusive than recording, but it is still surveillance under Regulation 24. Recording creates a data file that must be managed, stored, retained, and eventually deleted. The home should decide whether recording is necessary or whether live monitoring is sufficient. If recording is necessary, the retention period should be as short as possible.

Who can see footage

Access to surveillance footage should be restricted to those who need it. Staff should not have access to CCTV feeds on their personal phones. Access should be controlled, logged, and reviewed. Footage should not be shared casually, posted online, or used for purposes other than the safeguarding purpose for which it was collected. Subject access requests by children or others should be handled under data protection law.

Retention and deletion

Surveillance data should not be kept longer than necessary. The retention period should be determined by the safeguarding purpose and the data protection assessment. It should be as short as possible. When the retention period expires, the data should be deleted. If footage is needed for an investigation or legal proceedings, it should be preserved separately and securely.

Police requests and subject access

The police may request footage for investigation purposes. The home should have a process for handling such requests, including verifying the request, considering the legal basis, and recording what was shared. Children and others have rights of subject access under data protection law. The home should have a process for handling these requests.

11. Reviewing and reducing monitoring

Monitoring that was necessary at one point may not remain necessary. The home should review monitoring arrangements regularly and reduce or remove them when the need no longer exists.

Review dates

Every monitoring arrangement should have a review date. The review should ask: is the safeguarding need still present? Is the monitoring still necessary? Is it still the least intrusive option? Has the child's situation changed? Can the monitoring be reduced or removed? The review should be recorded, and the outcome should be communicated to the placing authority and the child.

Exit criteria

The monitoring plan should set out what would need to change for the monitoring to be reduced or removed. These are the exit criteria. Without them, monitoring can drift on indefinitely. Exit criteria might include: the identified risk has reduced, the child has been stable for a defined period, a specific intervention has been completed, or the placing authority has agreed the monitoring is no longer needed. The exit criteria should be specific and measurable.

Reducing intrusion over time

Even if monitoring remains necessary, the home should look for ways to reduce its intrusiveness over time. A camera might be replaced with a door alarm. Continuous recording might be replaced with live monitoring. Audio might be switched off. The goal is to use the least intrusive arrangement that meets the need, and to reduce it further as the need allows.

12. Ofsted, Regulation 44 and management scrutiny

Surveillance arrangements are subject to scrutiny by Ofsted, the Regulation 44 independent visitor, and the home's own management. Each provides a different check on whether the system is necessary, proportionate, and respectful of children's rights.

What Ofsted looks for

Ofsted inspectors consider whether surveillance meets an individual need, is justified at the time, and is not indiscriminate. They may look at the surveillance policy, the Regulation 24 documentation, DPIAs, the child's care plan, and whether the child has been informed. They may speak to children about their experience of being monitored. They consider children's rights and the Human Rights Act. Surveillance that is routine, indiscriminate, or not justified by individual need is a weakness.

Regulation 44 independent visits

Regulation 44 requires the independent person to visit the home at least once in each month, with a report following the visit. The independent visitor reports on whether children are safeguarded and their welfare promoted. Surveillance arrangements are relevant. The independent visitor may identify concerns about monitoring, such as devices that are no longer needed, monitoring that is more intrusive than necessary, or children who have not been properly informed. The home should respond to these concerns.

Management scrutiny

The Registered Manager and Responsible Individual should maintain oversight of surveillance. This means checking: is each device still needed? Are review dates being met? Are exit criteria being applied? Is the surveillance policy being followed? Are children being informed? Is data being managed correctly? Management scrutiny is the check that surveillance is a live, justified system, not a permanent fixture that nobody questions.

13. Tools and audit

These tools are for Registered Managers and Responsible Individuals to check and improve their surveillance practice. They do not replace legal advice or a Data Protection Impact Assessment.

Child-centred question

How would this level of monitoring feel if it were being used in an ordinary family home?

Child-centred question

What needs to change so that this monitoring can be reduced or removed?