Chadrack Mbala MULO · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Apr 2017•Inner North London

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Delays in conducting a home welfare visit after unexplained non-attendance
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to conduct required welfare checks on people in distress
  2. Lack of comparable non-attendance welfare response systems in other schools
  3. Failure to immediately contact police when no one answers at the family home
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to escalate welfare concerns after unsuccessful contact

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Department for Education

    Identify how to reinforce guidance on escalating child safety or welfare concerns to children’s social care services or police.

  2. Department for Education

    Examine how to update safeguarding and attendance guidance to recommend that schools hold more than one contact number.

  3. Department for Education

    Make changes strengthening the guidance at the earliest opportunity, subject to formal consultation on safeguarding guidance.

  4. Department for Education

    Examine how to update attendance and safeguarding guidance to clarify links between attendance management and welfare considerations.

  5. Department for Education

    Forward the coroner’s report to the Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills for consideration.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Delays in conducting a home welfare visit after unexplained non-attendance

Wider context from the report

“2. If a child unexpectedly fails to attend and no relevant adult can be contacted via phone, staff at the school do not now wait three to five days as they did then, but instead immediately send a member of staff to the family home. They now make a distinction between an attendance issue that may warrant a penalty (not the case for Chadrack because he was under the age of five years) and a potential welfare issue. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to conduct required welfare checks on people in distress.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of comparable non-attendance welfare response systems in other schools

Wider context from the report

“3. If there is no answer at the family home when staff members attend, they now immediately contact the police, who in most cases are likely to force entry. This protocol seems very sensible, but is clearly driven by the appalling tragedy of Chadrack’s death. It seems unlikely that other schools in Hackney, elsewhere in London, or indeed in the rest of England & Wales, have such a system in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to immediately contact police when no one answers at the family home

Wider context from the report

“3. If there is no answer at the family home when staff members attend, they now immediately contact the police, who in most cases are likely to force entry. This protocol seems very sensible, but is clearly driven by the appalling tragedy of Chadrack’s death. It seems unlikely that other schools in Hackney, elsewhere in London, or indeed in the rest of England & Wales, have such a system in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to escalate welfare concerns after unsuccessful contact.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of multiple adult contact numbers for each child

Wider context from the report

“1. The school had a telephone number for Chadrack’s mother, but not for any other family member or friend. Now, they insist that for every child in the school they have the telephone number of three different adults. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Identify how to reinforce guidance on escalating child safety or welfare concerns to children’s social care services or police.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would anticipate that guidance will continue to make clear that professional judgement should be used in deciding when child safety or welfare concerns should be escalated to children’s social care services and/or the police. I have also asked the Department to identify the best way to reinforce this point further in the attendance and safeguarding guidance.”

Source location

2017-0120-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Examine how to update safeguarding and attendance guidance to recommend that schools hold more than one contact number.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The school only held a single number for Chadrack’s mother and no contact number for any other family member or friend. I have asked Departmental officials to examine how we can best update the statutory ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ guidance and the ‘School Attendance’ guidance so that they reflect best practice and recommend that schools hold more than one contact number.”

Source location

2017-0120-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Make changes strengthening the guidance at the earliest opportunity, subject to formal consultation on safeguarding guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I will ensure that changes to strengthen the guidance will be made at the earliest opportunity, subject to formal consultation on the safeguarding guidance. I have asked Departmental officials to forward your report to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills for her consideration.”

Source location

2017-0120-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Examine how to update attendance and safeguarding guidance to clarify links between attendance management and welfare considerations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You make an important distinction in your report between attendance issues and welfare issues and underline that school staff should be considering welfare when managing attendance. In this area too, the Department will examine how best we can update attendance and safeguarding guidance to make this link clearer.”

Source location

2017-0120-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Forward the coroner’s report to the Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills for consideration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I will ensure that changes to strengthen the guidance will be made at the earliest opportunity, subject to formal consultation on the safeguarding guidance. I have asked Departmental officials to forward your report to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills for her consideration.”

Source location

2017-0120-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2017

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026