Missing From Care: Prevention, Response, Return Interviews and Ofsted Expectations

What missing from care means and the legal foundation

A looked-after child is missing from care when they are absent from the placement without authorisation. This includes children who have left without permission and children who have failed to return when expected. The term covers a range of situations, from a child who is late returning from school to a child who has left with no indication of where they are.

Away from placement without authorisation (AWOL) is a related but different concept. A child who is AWOL has left without permission but may be in a known location. The distinction matters for risk assessment, but the response should focus on the child's safety, not on the label.

The missing policy and local protocols

The home's missing policy cannot be generic. It must reflect the needs of the children in the home, the local authority protocols that apply, and the police force areas the home works with. A generic policy downloaded from the internet will not meet the needs of the children or the expectations of Ofsted.

Local missing protocols matter. Different local authorities and police forces may have different definitions, risk thresholds, and response arrangements. Staff need to know which protocol applies to each child, and the home should ensure it has the relevant protocols for each placing authority.

Do not assume every police force operates identically. Some forces have dedicated missing person teams; others do not. Some will treat certain situations as higher risk than others. The home should build relationships with local police and understand how they operate.

Planning before the first incident

Missing planning begins before the first incident. Each child should have an individual missing plan that sets out their specific risks, triggers, and response. The plan should be developed with the child, the placing authority, and the police where relevant.

The plan should address: what is known about the child's missing history, what triggers might lead to missing, where the child might go, who the child might contact, what the risks are, and what the response should be. A generic plan that says the same thing for every child is not adequate.

Staff need to know the plan before the incident. If a child goes missing at night, the waking night staff need to know what to do without having to read through a file. Key information should be immediately accessible.

Child-centred question

If a child in this home went missing tonight, would the staff on duty know what the specific risks are, where the child might go, and what to do first?

When the child leaves: immediate response

When a child leaves without authorisation, staff should act promptly. The first step is to try to make contact with the child. The way contact is made matters: a calm, non-judgemental approach is more likely to work than a demanding or panicked one.

If the child cannot be contacted, staff should look for the child. Searching should be planned, not aimless. Staff should know where to look based on the child's known patterns and the information in the missing plan.

Staff should inform the police and the placing authority. The information given to the police should be useful: the child's description, what they were wearing, where they might be, what has changed since they left, and any specific risks. Vague or incomplete information slows the response.

Risk while the child is missing

Risk changes while a child is missing. A child who left in a low-risk situation may move into a higher-risk situation as time passes. Staff should keep reviewing risk and should update the police and placing authority if the situation changes.

If the home knows where the child is, the response depends on the situation. If the child is safe with a known person, the priority may be to negotiate their return rather than to call the police. If the child is in a risky situation, the response should be different. Each situation needs judgement, not a formula.

When the child returns: immediate priorities

When a child returns, the first words matter. A warm, non-judgemental welcome is more likely to lead to a useful conversation than an interrogation. The child should be made safe and comfortable before being asked questions.

Immediate priorities include checking the child's physical safety, offering food and drink, and providing a safe space. Do not interrogate the child immediately, but do not ignore immediate intelligence either. If the child discloses something that suggests they or another child is at risk, that information should be acted on promptly.

The police safe-and-well check is not the same as an independent return-home interview. The safe-and-well check is a police function to check the child's immediate safety. The return interview is an independent conversation to understand what happened and why.

The independent return-home interview

The independent return-home interview is a statutory requirement for looked-after children who go missing. It should be carried out by someone independent of the home, usually arranged by the placing authority. The interview should explore what happened, why the child went missing, what they experienced, and what would prevent it happening again.

If the child says they do not want to talk, the interview should still be offered and the reasons for refusal recorded. The home should not treat refusal as the end of the matter. The child may be willing to talk later, or to someone different.

If the local authority never arranges the return interview, the home should follow up. The home may need to use Regulation 5 (the duty to have regard to the child's needs) to escalate the issue if the local authority is not meeting its statutory duties.

Return interviews are intelligence. The home should ask for the outcome of the interview and use it to update the child's missing plan and risk assessment. If the interview identifies risks to other children, that information should be shared appropriately.

Repeat missing: a different level of curiosity

Repeat missing requires a different level of curiosity. A child who goes missing repeatedly is telling the home something. The question is what. Each episode should trigger a review, and the pattern should trigger a deeper analysis.

Ask what happened before the child left. Ask what they were moving towards, not just what they were moving away from. Ask whether the placement is still right for the child. A child who keeps going missing may be in the wrong placement, and the home should be honest about that possibility.

Missing should not be punished. Punishing a child for going missing makes them less likely to return and less likely to talk when they do. The response should be supportive, not punitive, while still addressing any underlying risks.

Exploitation, trafficking and online risks

Missing episodes can be a sign of exploitation. Sexual exploitation, criminal exploitation, and trafficking are all risks associated with missing episodes. Staff should be trained to recognise the signs and should respond with curiosity, not assumption.

A child who is being exploited may not see themselves as a victim. They may be protective of the people exploiting them, may not want to talk, and may go missing again. The home should not wait for the child to disclose. The pattern itself is information.

Online relationships can be a missing trigger. A child may be in contact with someone online who is exploiting them. Do not assume that confiscating the phone solves the problem. The phone is a means, not the cause. The relationship and the risk need to be addressed.

Peer influence inside the home can also be a factor. Do not simply separate children without analysis. Understanding what is happening between children is more effective than moving them apart without knowing why.

Restrictions, placement stability and care-plan reviews

Restrictions placed on a child who goes missing should be reviewed. A restriction can make missing worse if it pushes the child away or makes them feel trapped. Restrictions should be proportionate, reviewed regularly, and lifted when they are no longer needed.

Missing can be a placement feedback mechanism. If a child keeps going missing, it may be telling the home that something about the placement is not working. The home should be willing to hear that message, not just to manage the missing.

Family contact can be a missing trigger. If a child is going missing to see family, the home should explore whether the contact arrangements are working. The solution may be to adjust the contact arrangements, not to restrict the child.

Regulation 40 notifications and Ofsted expectations

Not every missing episode is a Regulation 40 notification. The home needs to judge whether the episode meets the threshold for notification. However, the threshold is lower than many managers assume. A short episode could still be serious if the child was at risk, and a long episode may clearly increase regulatory concern.

Ofsted will look at how the home prevents and responds to missing episodes. Inspectors will triangulate information from records, staff, children, and other agencies. Strong practice is not having no children ever go missing. Strong practice is knowing why children go missing, responding well when they do, and learning from each episode.

Service-level numbers can hide child-level deterioration. A home with a low overall missing rate may still have one child whose missing is getting worse. The manager should look at individual patterns, not just aggregate numbers.

Records, supervision and management review

Missing records should separate fact from assumption. Record what is known, what is suspected, and what is being done. Do not present assumptions as facts. Children's language matters in records: use the child's own words where possible, and do not interpret their experience without evidence.

The home should carry out a management review after each missing episode. A 24-hour manager review should look at what happened, what the home did, and what should change. A repeat missing review should look at the pattern and what it means for the child's placement.

Supervision should include missing from care. Staff should be asked about their understanding of the missing plan, their response to recent episodes, and any concerns they have. Missing fatigue, where staff become desensitised to missing episodes, is a real risk and should be addressed in supervision.

Common missing from care mistakes

• Using a generic missing policy instead of one specific to the children and local protocols
• Assuming repeat missing means low risk instead of high risk
• Waiting before acting when a child leaves
• Giving police only basic information instead of specific, current detail
• Treating the return as an interrogation instead of a welcome
• Confusing the police safe-and-well check with the independent return interview
• Not following up when the local authority does not arrange the return interview
• Punishing the child for going missing
• Looking at aggregate numbers instead of individual patterns
• Not sharing information that could protect another child