Education Welfare Services: The effectiveness of the support that the Education Welfare Service (EWS) provides to schools and parents/carers to tackle persistent absenteeism

Executive Summary

This thematic report examines how effectively Education Welfare Services (EWSs) support schools, PRUs, and parents and carers to address persistent absenteeism. The report draws on evidence from our inspections and discussions with the EWS and schools (9 local authorities, 21 primary schools, 18 secondary schools, and 6 all-age schools) and identifies key features of effective practice and areas for improvement.

Regular school attendance has a positive impact on learner outcomes, standards and progression, as well as on emotional and physical well-being. Conversely, extended absence may have long-term consequences for a young person’s mental health and future life chances (Welsh Government, 2023). This report highlights the valuable support provided by the EWS to schools and how this contributes positively to identifying pupils at risk of persistent absence and co-ordinating support for families. It emphasises that strong professional relationships between education welfare officers (EWOs), schools and partner agencies underpins effective practice in many areas. It also highlights areas where improvements could improve the effectiveness of the system.

Overview of findings

• Although most EWSs provided valuable support to schools and families, variability in practice, limited service capacity and the inconsistent strategic use of evidence constrained their ability to secure system-wide improvements in attendance. To strengthen the effectiveness of the EWS, action is needed at both national and local authority levels as there is currently not a sustainable approach to attendance posts and welfare services, strengthening national data systems and guidance, and improving early intervention and preventative work.
• Across the local authorities reviewed, the EWS provided valued support to schools, pupils and families and contributed positively to addressing barriers to attendance. In most local authorities, effective relationships between EWOs, schools and families supported constructive dialogue and early identification of concerns. Where officers were regularly present in schools and worked closely with pastoral teams, support was particularly effective, often improving attendance for individual pupils and strengthening family engagement. However, the overall impact of the EWS on reducing persistent absence remained too variable. Nearly all local authorities reported significant capacity pressures, which limit preventative work and early intervention
• In most local authorities, communication between the EWS, schools and families was effective, particularly where officers were based in schools regularly enabling positive engagement with school staff and families. In these local authorities, well-established professional relationships and authority-wide campaigns helped promote consistent messages about the importance of attendance and supported relationship-based engagement with families. However, in a few local authorities, capacity pressures and differing approaches led to inconsistent communication. In addition, in a majority of local authorities, engaging families whose attitudes to attendance had become more entrenched since the pandemic remained challenging.
• Collaboration with other services formed an important part of attendance support. In most authorities, the EWS maintained appropriate working relationships with social care, health services, educational psychology and youth services. This enabled a holistic understanding of the barriers affecting pupils and helped support co-ordinated responses. In a minority of authorities, well-established multi-agency arrangements supported co-ordinated responses for pupils with complex needs. These arrangements contributed positively to safeguarding and well-being. However, partnership work was not always sufficiently strategic and often relied too heavily on individual working relationships between EWOs and services. Capacity pressures within health and specialist services, alongside underdeveloped early intervention and preventative family support in a few areas, limited the timeliness and overall impact of multi-agency intervention on attendance outcomes.
• Local authorities generally had secure systems for collecting and monitoring attendance data. In nearly all cases, authorities gathered regular attendance information and shared it with schools to identify pupils at risk of persistent absence. Many authorities also analysed attendance patterns for vulnerable groups. In many cases, leaders did not use attendance data strategically enough to evaluate the impact of interventions or identify longer-term trends. In addition, they do not share effective practice between schools well enough.
• Funding arrangements had a considerable influence on the capacity and stability of local authority efforts to tackle persistent absenteeism. In many authorities, grant funding enabled leaders to increase staffing capacity and strengthen early intervention work with families. Additional roles, such as family engagement officers (FEOs) or attendance support officers, often improved communication with families and supported reintegration for pupils at risk of persistent absence. These roles are in addition to the statutory activity that local authorities are expected to carry out as a core function under the Local Authority Revenue Support Grant (RSG). However, across nearly all authorities, these additional roles are reliant on short-term or annually allocated grants. This created uncertainty, limited workforce stability, and restricted longer-term strategic planning. As a result, although examples of effective practice existed, the overall funding approach lacked the consistency, sustainability and strategic alignment required to secure lasting improvements in attendance.
• Across the local authorities reviewed, compliance with statutory duties relating to school attendance was generally secure. Most EWSs had clear graduated response processes, well-defined escalation pathways and appropriate oversight arrangements that supported proportionate action when attendance concerns escalated. In many areas, statutory measures such as warning letters, fixed penalty notices (FPN) and legal proceedings were applied appropriately in collaboration with schools. However, the impact of statutory enforcement on improving attendance over time was variable and often limited, particularly where absence was linked to complex family circumstances, well-being concerns or entrenched disengagement. In a minority of local authorities, inconsistencies in how statutory processes were applied between schools or officers due to workforce capacity and approaches to addressing persistent absenteeism created challenges for equitable implementation.