LADO Investigations Explained (For Teachers)

What a LADO actually is

Every local authority in England is required to have a Local Authority Designated Officer, or LADO — sometimes a small team rather than a single individual, depending on the size of the authority. Their job is to be the single point of coordination whenever a safeguarding allegation is made against a person who works with children in a paid or voluntary capacity, teachers very much included. That coordination role covers giving advice to schools on how to handle a specific case properly, chairing or contributing to the initial strategy discussion that decides what happens next, and keeping an overview of how the case progresses so nothing falls through the gaps between the school, children's social care, and the police where relevant.

It's worth being precise about what the LADO is not. The LADO does not work for your school, does not decide whether you keep your job, and does not run your school's disciplinary process. They are a local authority safeguarding professional whose focus is specifically the child protection dimension of an allegation — making sure it's handled consistently, proportionately, and in line with statutory guidance, whether the person concerned works at a maintained school, an academy, or in another children's service entirely. Understanding this separation matters, because it explains why a LADO case and a school-led HR process can run at the same time without one overriding the other, and why LADO involvement is a process question, not a verdict.

What actually triggers LADO involvement

A LADO referral isn't triggered by any complaint that happens to involve a child — it's specifically for allegations that meet the recognised safeguarding threshold. That threshold is not a local invention or a matter of judgement about how serious a complaint feels; it is set out in four bullets in statutory guidance, at paragraph 437 of Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026, Part four, Section one — the version in force since 1 September 2026. A school should follow that part of the guidance where it is alleged that anyone working in the school has:

• Behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child
• Possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child
• Behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children
• Behaved, or may have behaved, in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children

That fourth bullet is the one that catches people out, because KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 438) makes explicit that it includes behaviour that happened outside school or college — what the guidance calls "transferable risk". Paragraph 439 adds that where appropriate an assessment of that transferable risk should be undertaken, and that the school should seek advice from the LADO if in doubt. This is why something in a teacher's personal life can occasionally trigger a professional safeguarding process even where the school itself is not the setting in which anything is alleged to have happened.

That threshold is intentionally broad, because it has to capture everything from the most serious end (a suspected criminal offence) through to concerns that fall well short of that but still raise a genuine safeguarding question about someone's suitability to work with children. It's also why a wide range of allegations can technically meet the threshold for referral even though, on investigation, a substantial proportion turn out to have an innocent or misunderstood explanation — the threshold for referring a concern is deliberately lower than the threshold for actually substantiating one.

It's equally important to know what falls outside that threshold. A parent being unhappy with a mark their child received, a disagreement about classroom management style, or a straightforward complaint about teaching quality doesn't, on its own, indicate possible harm or unsuitability, and wouldn't normally trigger a LADO referral at all — those sit within ordinary school management, complaints, or capability processes instead. If you're unsure whether a specific process you're going through is safeguarding-led or not, that's a reasonable and important question to ask your headteacher or union rep directly, because the two tracks come with quite different procedures and protections.

LADO process vs your school's HR process

One of the most common sources of confusion — and unnecessary anxiety — for teachers going through this is not realising that two separate processes can be running at once, for two separate purposes.

• The LADO-led safeguarding process exists to establish whether a child has been or may be at risk of harm, and to decide what safeguarding steps (if any) are needed. It typically involves the local authority, the school, and sometimes children's social care or the police.
• Your school's HR or disciplinary process exists to establish whether, as your employer, the school needs to take any employment action against you — which could range from no action at all through to, in the most serious cases, dismissal.

These two processes are meant to run in parallel and inform each other, not replace one another. A school will usually wait for the outcome of the LADO strategy discussion, and sometimes the fuller investigation, before deciding how (or whether) to proceed with any internal disciplinary process of its own — partly to avoid taking separate, potentially conflicting steps, and partly because the safeguarding investigation may need to happen first, particularly if the police are involved. That's usually why a LADO case can feel like it's "on hold" from your side for a period — the safeguarding strand is working through its own required steps before anything else can sensibly move forward.

Two specifics are worth knowing about who does what, because they change what you can reasonably ask for. First, the guidance is blunt about the limits of the LADO's role: "The role of the LADO is not to investigate the allegation, but to ensure that an appropriate investigation is carried out" (KCSIE 2026, paragraph 451). The LADO advises on who should investigate — the police, children's social care, the school, or a combination — and oversees that it happens properly. In straightforward cases the guidance expects the investigation to be carried out by a senior member of the school's own staff; an independent investigator is expected where the school lacks the resource or the allegation's nature or complexity requires it (paragraph 452).

Second, there is a named person on the school side who owns the process, and it is not whoever happens to be available. KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 440) calls this person the "case manager", and specifies who it must be: the headteacher or principal, or — where the allegation concerns the headteacher — the chair of governors, the chair of the management committee, or in an independent school the proprietor. If you do not know who your case manager is, that is a reasonable and precise question to ask, and it is usually more productive than asking generally who is "dealing with" your case.

What actually happens, step by step

Your rights, support and how to prepare

Being told a concern has been referred to the LADO is understandably unsettling, and the natural instinct is to treat everything that follows as something being done to you. A useful corrective is that statutory guidance places an explicit duty of care on your employer, with a specific list attached. KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 471) says employers should do all of the following — which means these are things to expect and, if necessary, ask for by name, not favours.

• Manage and minimise the stress caused by the allegation. This is the framing the guidance opens with, and it sets the tone for everything that follows in that paragraph.
• Inform you as soon as possible, explaining the likely course of action, guided by the LADO and, where necessary, the police. Note the qualification: KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 446) says when to inform you is decided case by case with LADO guidance, so a delay at the very start is not automatically a procedural failure.
• Advise you to contact your trade union representative, or a colleague, for support. Your employer is expected to point you towards representation — so if anyone suggests union involvement is inappropriate in a safeguarding case, that is squarely contradicted by the guidance.
• Appoint a named representative to keep you informed about the progress of the case. This is the single most useful entitlement on the list. If you have not been given a name, ask for one in writing.
• Provide access to counselling or medical advice where appropriate. For staff in local authority maintained schools this may include support through the authority's occupational health arrangements.
• Not prevent social contact with work colleagues and friends where you are suspended, unless there is evidence to suggest this may prejudice the gathering of evidence. Suspension is not supposed to mean isolation.
• If you are suspended, confirm it in writing within one working day with reasons, and tell you at that point who your named contact is (paragraph 468). The guidance states directly that it is not acceptable for an employer to leave a suspended person without any support.

Alongside what you are owed, a short list of things to do yourself makes a genuine difference — particularly if you are asked to attend a fact-finding conversation or a more formal investigatory interview.

• Contact your union immediately, before any meeting is scheduled rather than after — and confirm your representative can attend with you, speaking to them beforehand about what to expect.
• Ask in advance, in writing where possible, what the meeting is specifically about, so you are not walking in cold.
• Write down your own recollection of relevant events beforehand while it is fresh, even if you don't take the notes into the meeting itself.
• Keep a dated running record of conversations, meetings and anything you are told, as you go, rather than reconstructing it from memory months later.
• Ask for a short adjournment during the meeting if you need one — a completely normal and reasonable request that no one will read anything into.
• Before the meeting ends, ask what happens next and roughly when, and who will be in touch, so you are not left guessing afterwards.
• Avoid discussing the substance of the allegation with colleagues, pupils or on social media while the process is ongoing — noting that this is different from, and does not override, your entitlement to ordinary social contact and to talk to your representative.

It's also worth accepting in advance that you may not get every question answered in a single meeting. Some information genuinely cannot be shared partway through an ongoing investigation, particularly where the police are involved — and separately, section 141F of the Education Act 2002 places reporting restrictions on allegations against teachers while investigations are in progress, which is why parents are also told to maintain confidentiality (KCSIE 2026, paragraph 472). A question left unanswered at this stage is usually a limitation of where the process has got to, not something being deliberately withheld from you personally.

How long a LADO case takes: the real timescales

Almost every explanation of this says there is no fixed timescale and stops there. That is half true, and the half it leaves out is the useful half. There is no national deadline for concluding a LADO case — but current statutory guidance does set specific, checkable deadlines for several steps inside it, and knowing them gives you something concrete to ask about instead of a general sense that things are drifting.

• One working day to inform the LADO. Working Together to Safeguard Children (paragraph 264) requires that the designated officer is informed within one working day of all allegations that come to an employer's attention or are made directly to the police. Any allegation should be reported immediately to a senior manager within the organisation.
• One working day to confirm a suspension in writing, with reasons and a named contact (KCSIE 2026, paragraph 468).
• First case review: no later than four weeks after the initial assessment. KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 453) requires the case manager to monitor progress so cases are dealt with as quickly as possible, and states that wherever possible the first review should happen within that four-week window.
• Then fortnightly, and no longer than monthly. Paragraph 454 says dates for subsequent reviews — ideally at fortnightly and no longer than monthly intervals — should be set at the review meeting if the investigation continues. So if you have gone six weeks without hearing anything, a review should have been scheduled, and asking whether one has taken place is a precise and legitimate question.

It is also worth knowing what the pace looks like in practice, because published LADO caseload data tells a different story from the aspirational targets. Knowsley Council's LADO annual report for April 2024 to March 2025 — the kind of report many local authorities publish and almost nobody reads — records 163 referrals in the year, of which 63.2% met the LADO threshold. It reports that 85% of referrals were responded to on the same day, but that of 63 completed allegation management meetings, just 14% were resolved within one month. One authority is not the whole country, and figures vary widely between areas. But it is an honest illustration of the gap between the one-month benchmark and the typical reality, and a reason not to read a case that takes longer than a month as a sign that something has gone wrong with yours specifically.

Where a case does run long, the most common reason is a parallel police investigation that has to take precedence over the school's own timeline. That is genuinely difficult to sit with. Asking your named contact and your union for a timescale update is a completely reasonable request at any point — and if the review cadence above has slipped, that is a specific thing your representative can raise on your behalf rather than a vague complaint about delay.

Possible outcomes of a LADO case

LADO cases are formally closed with one of a small number of recorded outcome categories. Broadly, these cover:

• Substantiated — there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation on the balance of probabilities
• Unsubstantiated — there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation
• Unfounded — there is no evidence, or credible evidence, to support the allegation having occurred at all
• False — there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation
• Malicious — there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and evidence it was made with intent to deceive

What the split between those categories actually looks like is rarely published nationally, but individual authorities do publish it. In the Knowsley LADO annual report cited above, the 2024-25 outcomes recorded were 20 substantiated, 21 unsubstantiated and 16 unfounded — that is, a majority of concluded allegations fell into the two categories that mean the allegation was not made out. The same report notes that of the 163 referrals received, 36.8% did not meet the LADO threshold at all and went no further. Local figures vary and one authority is not a national picture, but the shape is consistent with what practitioners describe: a substantial proportion of referrals close without an adverse finding.

What goes on your record, and for how long

This is the question people ask most often once the immediate fear subsides, and it has real, specific answers in KCSIE 2026 (paragraphs 498 to 502) rather than the vague reassurance it usually attracts.

Start with the best case. Where an allegation is found after investigation to have been malicious or false, the guidance says the details "should be removed from personnel records unless the individual gives their consent for retention of the information" (paragraph 498). That is a removal, not a redaction — and the consent exception exists because some people prefer a record showing the allegation was disproved.

For every other outcome — substantiated, unfounded and unsubstantiated — a record is kept on the file of the person accused. KCSIE 2026 specifies exactly what it should contain: a clear and comprehensive summary of the allegation; details of how it was followed up and resolved; a note of any action taken, decisions reached and the outcome; a copy provided to you, where agreed by children's social care or the police; and a declaration on whether the information will be referred to in any future reference. That last item is worth reading twice, because it means the reference question is decided and written down at the time, and you are entitled to a copy.

That retention period surprises people, and it is worth understanding why it is so long rather than reading it as a permanent black mark. Paragraph 499 gives the purpose explicitly: to enable accurate information to be given in response to a future reference request, to provide clarification if a future DBS check surfaces police information about an allegation that never led to a conviction, and — the point that most benefits the person accused — to help prevent unnecessary re-investigation if the same allegation resurfaces years later. A record that says an allegation was investigated and found unsubstantiated is what stops the whole thing being run again from scratch.

On references specifically, the guidance is firmer than most people realise. Paragraph 502 states that cases in which an allegation was found to be false, unfounded, unsubstantiated or malicious should not be included in employer references — and that repeated concerns or allegations which have all been found to fall into those categories should also not be included. Substantiated allegations meeting the harm threshold should be included, provided the information is factual and does not include opinions. If you have reason to think a reference has gone out that breaches this, it is a concrete, quotable point for your union representative to take up.

Common misconceptions about LADO involvement

A lot of the anxiety around a LADO referral comes from a handful of assumptions that feel intuitively true but don't actually hold up. It's worth naming them directly, because unpicking them tends to make the whole process feel more manageable, even while it's ongoing.

• "The LADO is investigating me." They aren't. KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 451) states that the LADO's role is not to investigate the allegation, but to ensure an appropriate investigation is carried out — by the police, children's social care, the school, or a combination. In straightforward cases the investigator is expected to be a senior member of your own school's staff.
• "Being suspended and being LADO-referred are the same decision." They're made separately, by different people, for different reasons. KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 469) is explicit that the power to suspend is vested in the governing body or proprietor as employer, and that police or children's social care can give a view but cannot require a suspension — police involvement does not make suspension mandatory.
• "If the LADO is involved, it will definitely go to a disciplinary hearing." Many cases close as unsubstantiated or unfounded, with no disciplinary process following at all.
• "I can't talk to anyone about it." You can, and should, talk to your union representative — that's a different thing from discussing the substance of the allegation with colleagues or on social media.
• "Once a LADO case is open, it will drag on forever." Straightforward cases are often resolved within weeks; the ones that take longer are usually the more complex minority, not the norm.

None of this is to minimise how stressful the experience genuinely is while it's happening — it's a serious process precisely because it exists to protect children properly, and that seriousness is appropriate. But understanding what the process is for, rather than assuming it already implies a conclusion, tends to make it easier to engage with calmly and constructively.

What happens after the case closes

Where a case closes as unsubstantiated, unfounded, false or malicious, the expectation is that it should have no ongoing negative bearing on your employment — the case is closed, and any related school HR process, if one had been paused, should also be closed or should proceed on that basis. Where a case is substantiated, the outcome feeds into the school's own disciplinary process, which then determines what employment consequences (if any) follow, and — only in the more serious substantiated cases — whether a referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency is appropriate. Our guide on TRA prohibition orders explains that further, much less common, escalation route in detail, including the Teaching Regulation Agency's own published figures on how many referrals reach a hearing and how many result in any action at all.

There is one more step that happens after closure which most teachers never hear about, and it is worth knowing exists. KCSIE 2026 (paragraph 503) requires that at the conclusion of a substantiated case, the LADO reviews the circumstances with the case manager to identify improvements to the school's procedures — and specifies that this review should include issues arising from any decision to suspend, the duration of that suspension, and whether the suspension was justified. It goes further: lessons should also be learnt from the use of suspension where the individual is subsequently reinstated, and the LADO and case manager should consider how similar investigations could in future be carried out without suspending the person at all. Paragraph 504 applies a lighter version of the same exercise to cases that closed as unfounded, false, malicious or unsubstantiated. If your case involved a suspension you believe was unnecessary, that review is a real, named part of the process, and asking what it concluded is legitimate.

If your case has run alongside a period of suspension, it's worth reading our guide on what happens when you're suspended, which covers pay entitlement and what a return to work (or, in some cases, a negotiated exit) can look like once a safeguarding process has concluded.