MPA report on child sexual exploitation

Report: 11
Date: 13 October 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of child sexual exploitation, sex offences against children in London, and the MPS response to child sexual exploitation.

A. Recommendation

That Members

1. Members note the issues in relation to policing child sexual exploitation.
2. Members consider the Areas for Development section at the end of the report and recommend that the MPS produce a policy/ strategy in relation to Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) which addresses these recommendations.

B. Supporting information

1. This report was produced following agreement by MPA Members that child sexual exploitation would be a Public Protection priority for the MPA in April 2011. Members will be aware that in May 2011 the Minister for Children Tim Loughton MP announced that the government would produce an action plan to tackle sexual exploitation. Also announced was a commitment on behalf of James Brokenshire MP (Minister for Policing) that police forces would be equipped to tackle this issue and recognised that it was a serious and sometimes ‘organised’ crime.

Definition of child sexual exploitation and the criminal justice context

2. The UK National Working Group has developed the following definition which was referenced in Every Child Matters [1];

The sexual exploitation of children and young people under 18 involves exploitative situations, contexts and relationships where young people (or a third person or persons) receive ‘something' (e.g. food, accommodation, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, affection, gifts, money) as a result of performing, and/or others performing on them, sexual activities.

Child sexual exploitation can occur through use of technology without the child's immediate recognition, for example the persuasion to post sexual images on the internet/mobile phones with no immediate payment or gain. In all cases those exploiting the child/young person have power over them by virtue of their age, gender, intellect, physical strength and/or economic or other resources.

3. Barnardo’s identified [2] three types of child sexual exploitation;

1. Inappropriate relationships. Usually involving a lone perpetrator who has inappropriate power or control over a young person, whether physical, emotional or economic. There is likely to be a significant age gap between perpetrator and victim. The young person may also believe that they are in a loving, equal relationship.
2.  Boyfriend model of exploitation and peer exploitation. The perpetrator befriends and grooms a young person into a ‘relationship’ and subsequently coerces them to have sex with friends or associates. This includes gang exploitation and peer-on-peer exploitation.
3.  Organised/networked exploitation or trafficking. Young people are passed through networks of offenders, possibly between towns and cities, where they may be coerced into sexual activity with multiple individuals. Victims may also be used as agents to recruit other children and young people.

4. Researchers have recently outlined the networks of offenders who groom and exploit girls and young women as cases of internal child sex trafficking (ICST). This makes reference to Section 58 of the Sexual offences Act (2003) under which it is illegal to arrange or facilitate the movement of a person within the UK with the intent to exploit them sexually. This differs notably from what is commonly understood as child trafficking in several ways; the children are UK nationals; they are being moved within UK borders; and they are being exploited exclusively for sexual purposes [3]. However it should be noted here that the above does fall into the definition of child trafficking.

Offenders and methods of offending

5. Recently published [4] research [5] conducted at UCL exposes some interesting details of both the nature and activity of informal networks of abusers and also their victims. Academics were allowed access to two extensive and complex cases of child sexual exploitation, including victim and offender interviews and case summaries. They used techniques such as social network analysis [6] and crime scripting [7] to explore the offender networks, the victims, the methods of offending, and suggestions for future police investigations and intelligence gathering.

6. Contrary to commonly held perceptions, these reports state that offenders would not always target girls who were by definition ‘vulnerable’, such as those who were in care. They accessed girls through a range of methods, including driving around looking for girls near schools, parks, shopping centres and other places where young girls might be expected to be. They also accessed new victims through relationships with existing victims, or share ‘access’ to victims already being abused by others in the network. The paper notes that in the most extreme case, a single victim was abused by 150 men over an 18 month period. However, reports by CEOP [8] and Barnardo’s [9] looking at larger data sets have demonstrated clear links between being vulnerable, going missing and being targeted for abuse.

7. Methods of offending identified in the CEOP report were similar to those identified in the above research; accessing children who are already vulnerable, grooming and utilising the internet and social media to access children and young people.

8. The papers highlight how different these methods of accessing victims are to those used by child sex offenders; other research has shown that only 4% of child sex abusers act within an organised network [10]. However it is possible that those child sex abusers who do work together use similar methods, and not enough is known about those who form internal or informal child sex trafficking networks to make definitive statements about their operation.

Victims

9. As noted above, most research on CSE shows a relationship between going missing from home or from a care setting, and increased likelihood of being sexually exploited. Barnardo’s found that of the children and young people they support, 51% went missing on a regular basis. A survey conducted in 2011 found that of the 498 victims of CSE it supported at one of its 20 local bases, 76% of those in the North West are looked after. The proportion dropped to 42% among those in London.

10. A 2011 report on missing children by CEOP [11] also notes the links between those children who go missing from home or from care and those that are abused and exploited. The report states that missing incidents often ‘begin with or are further exacerbated by’ contact or relationships with perpetrators. In keeping with the UCL research, the report states that those who go missing or are abducted are groomed to believe their abusers are ‘boyfriends’, they are transported around by other perpetrators and victims are often provided with drugs and alcohol. The report highlights the risks involved where children repeatedly go missing, for longer periods of time, stating that as the grooming process is successful and the perpetrator exerts more influence, the victim may be coerced into sexual activity with a wider range of perpetrators and moved around UK town and cities to facilitate this abuse.

11. A report from The Children’s Society also note the vulnerability of children and young people who run away from home or care settings, noting that this is not the same as ‘going missing’ since two-thirds of runaway children are never reported to police as missing [12] . The same report also notes that every five minutes a young person runs away from home or care, and one in twelve (8.3%) report being harmed or hurt.

12. The Children’s Society also highlight the use of mobile phones and social networking sites both to target vulnerable children and as a tool for abuse. Using ‘friends’ of existing victims to identify possible future victims, using online cameras to view children in the seemingly safe environment of their own homes, and then threatening to share the images and using this blackmail technique to extort more explicit images of the child.

13. Needless to say, the impact on victims is huge. Victims can experience the trauma associated with sexual violence and abuse, as well as the peripheral impacts on their other relationships, their education and all other aspects of their lives. A presentation by the Croydon Eclipse project at a seminar in July 2011 noted that 76% of the people missing in Croydon during 2008 were children and over 70% were children placed within the Croydon Care System. The Children’s Society notes the cost per missing persons inquiry as over £1000 per case, equating to a total cost to policing services of £47 million per year [13], whilst the cost of a rape investigation will be significantly higher, particularly in such cases where there are multiple victims and multiple unknown perpetrators.

Volume in London and UK

14. Because of the nebulous and, until recently, often undocumented nature of child sexual exploitation, building up a national or even regional picture is difficult and existing data is widely accepted to be only a very limited snapshot of the whole picture. However several recent reports have begun to shed light on the prevalence of CSE in London and the UK.

15. On 14th October 2011, the office of the Children’s Commissioner announced a two-year national Inquiry into the scale, scope and extent of the sexual exploitation, victimisation and abuse that girls and boys are subjected to by street gangs and loosely formed groups in England. The launch press release stated ‘Current data based on limited reporting indicates that up to 10,000 children may be affected’.

16. A 2011 thematic assessment  [14]of ‘localised grooming’ undertaken by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) received reports of 2379 individuals of possible offenders in relation to street grooming and confirmed 1,217 of these. 230 networks were identified.

Figure 1 – 2009 England and Wales data [15]

17. The NSPCC produced national statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse (which, it must be noted, is distinct from child sexual exploitation as the sexual offences against children include all offences committed by strangers, acquaintances, friends and family which will account for the bulk of the offences). However these statistics show that 5% of children had experience contact sexual abuse.

18. Barnardo’s produced a London-specific research in 2005 [16] which outlined findings based on 507 cases of sexual exploitation. They stated that the vast majority of these cases (490, or 96%) were young women. They also produced a map which highlighted the estimated risk of sexual exploitation by borough.

19. Those considered at high risk were; Haringey; Hackney; Newham; Islington; Lambeth; Southwark; Lewisham; Greenwich; and Croydon.

Figure 2 – MPS London data on all sexual exploitation (children and adults) [17]

Figure 3 – MPS London data on all sexual offences against children A )Overall Offences

B) Victims

C) Victims in care at the time of the offence  [18]

D) Suspects

20. It is widely acknowledged that there are significant gaps in the available national data and it is impossible to state definitively that the above MPS data provides a full picture of the extent of child sexual exploitation. We accept that many cases will go unreported, and that where cases are identified they may be recorded as a crime-related incident, child abduction or something else. The sexual offences against children include all offences committed by strangers, acquaintances, friends and family which will account for the bulk of the offences. So under-reporting and difficulty in identifying cases from within the system play a role in scoping the extent of the problem in London difficult.

21. The full data set is provided in Appendix One. The data shows that sexual offences against children overall is slightly increasing; a 12% increase from 2008/09 to 2010/11. Within these offences, the only exploitation-specific offence is the trafficking one, which has increased 80%. However this figure must be taken with the caveat that the MPS now has SCD9, the Human Exploitation Unit and that these figures will include those who have been trafficking both internally and internationally. Likewise, we know that since the creation of SCD2, reported rape has increased significantly and that changes in recording practices have contributed significantly to this increase. We know that offences against children represent approximately a third of all reported rapes so it is unsurprising in this context to see an increase in victims identified or coming forward.

22. The data on those who were in care at the time of the offence is noteworthy. The total of these victims is a tiny proportion of those identified overall and it must again be noted here that these offences may not have taken place in the context of the definitions of child sexual exploitation provided above. It is positive to note that these victims have the confidence to report to the police and that increasing numbers are being identified, a 50% increase in the given time period, though of course the actual numbers are very small. However, given the clear links established in much of the research outlined above, and the possible reluctance of victims to perceive their situation as exploitative, it is likely this represents a small portion of the actual prevalence.

23. It is notable that the majority of victims are aged 13-26 in the time periods specified, and are largely female (87% in 2010/11). Of those proceeded against in 2011, 94% were male though 25 females were proceeded against. It is interesting to note that 10-19 is the most frequently recorded age bracket for those proceeded against (118 suspects), followed by 20 – 29.

24. When we compare this with the figures provided by SCD2 in their paper to this Committee, we find a notable difference. For sexual offences against both adults and children investigated by SCD2 in the current 12 month period, 13.3% of accused were aged 10-17, and the highest proportion (32%) were aged 18-29. This trend is reversed for the offences against children recorded in 2010/11; 28% of offenders were aged 10-19 and 17% were aged 20 – 29.

25. In 2010/11, the number of people proceeded against is approximately a quarter of offences, a slight decrease from the figures in 2008/09, when the proportion was approximately a third. There may be many reasons for this. As noted above, the data includes offences committed by strangers, acquaintances, family and others and there are a number of complex reasons why it may not be appropriate to progress a case through the criminal justice system. Additional trauma for the victim is one, an investigation which does not produce a known suspect another.

26. One of the challenges is that often young people will not clearly state they have been assaulted or exploited. Instead they may state that they were with their boyfriend and admit that they had sex. However if the circumstances are such that the girl is aged under 16 and the ‘boyfriend’ is older than the relationship is viewed differently by the police and the girl, and some awareness raising work must take place for her to understand the situation is exploitative. Once this has taken place she may be ready to give an interview and then action can be taken to manage the perpetrator, such as serving a Child Abduction notice (a civil order which states that the recipient may not be in the presence of that particular child). In other cases it may be more appropriate to charge with an offence of sexual activity with a child or another sexual offence. However it must be noted that in such cases the perceived ‘consent’ given by the child may mean that the case may not be deemed suitable for progression by the CPS.

27. Another barrier to taking cases forward is often the age of both the victims and the perpetrators. Anecdotal information suggests that in London, the majority of cases identified as CSE include perpetrators who are also young people. In such cases, to ask a victim to go through the criminal justice process can mean that she must be cross examined by the barristers for each defendant individually; an extremely traumatic process for a young person. Therefore it is sometimes considered inappropriate to pursue such cases through the formal justice route. Stakeholders such as Rape Crisis have highlighted to the MPA several such cases; some involving the same perpetrators, who are then led to understand that they can abuse with impunity.

MPS response

28. The MPS has provided the following for clarification on which MPS unit holds responsibility for child sex exploitation.

29. The MPS have been asked to clarify its position around our response to an allegation made of Child Sex Exploitation. It is a “what if” scenario as follows:
“A girl aged under 16 has been exploited by an older man who she knows and may be in some form of relationship with, and who may have moved her around the country and “shared” her with friends or otherwise facilitated access to her sexually for other men - which MPS unit would have primacy? If she has been moved around the country for sexual purposes (by an informal but organised network) that’s trafficking. If she’s in a relationship and he’s controlling and abusing her that’s domestic violence. He and others have sexually assaulted her - that’s for SCD2 I presume? Where do SCD5 fit in, in terms of child protection/referrals to the local Safeguarding Children’s Board etc?”

30. In order to understand the scenario above it is necessary to clarify and deal with each part separately.

‘Exploited’ could have differing meanings within the context of the Sexual Offences Act and to avoid misunderstanding, I will assume that we are referring to Rape. Given the information above I am also assuming that the girl is over 13 but not yet 16 and the male 18 or over. If she was under 13 then the offence of Statutory Rape exists and depending on the relationship between the two, would depend on whether Sapphire or the Child Abuse command took primacy. The child is not yet 18 so this cannot be classed as a “Domestic Incident”, as both parties would need to be 18 or over, for this to be an ACPO defined Domestic Incident.

If the girl has been moved around the country and raped then depending on whether the rape allegation is “live” i.e. within the last seven days - would determine whether SCD2 or SCD9 would take primacy. Discussions would take place at a high level to ensure that the victim received the best appropriate care. If an allegation of Rape had occurred within the previous seven days, this would be investigated by SCD2. If the allegation of rape is older than seven days then SCD9 would take primacy, but the best interests of the victims are always paramount.

If the female had willingly engaged in sexual activity with the male, then assuming the male believes the female is over 16, then SCD2 would again investigate this. Ultimately, the priority will be to secure the best evidence from the victim and to ensure their safety. If such a scenario were to arise, then discussions around primacy would take place initially at Sergeant level but if necessary it would be escalated to SMT level. If there were any vulnerabilities or concerns identified about individuals, then regardless of whether SCD2/5 or 9 were investigating then the referral pathways to the local safeguarding provisions would apply. (End of MPS response to scenario)

31. It must be noted again here that the volume of existing data is an inadequate reflection of the true scale. The CEOP report on ‘localised grooming’ noted that the despite the thousands of victims and offenders identified, the findings of the report ‘represents only a small fraction of the full picture’ as not all areas provided information for the report (only 13 local safeguarding children’s boards responded) and it did not include online grooming, peer-to-peer grooming and a range of other exploitative situations.

32. In Croydon, a Sexual Exploitation and Missing Persons Investigations Team (SEMPIT) was created when the funding for the successful Eclipse project ended. SEMPIT undertake or continue the missing person investigation. Once the person is found, they are debriefed. This is a process by which officers ascertain where the person has been and why they went missing. The debrief is also the point at which a person may disclose being a victim of crime. If that is the case, a crime report will be opened.

33. MPS performance management systems for missing persons include ensuring that the debrief takes place and that risk factors are identified. Almost all boroughs conduct debriefs and complete the risk factors in at least 80% of cases. However few boroughs have the targeted approach shown in Croydon and this may be an area for improvement.

Areas for Development

34. Good practice: The Children’s Society refers to good practice in Newcastle, where a Missing, Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking subgroup of the local Safeguarding Children Board has been created. Similar structures exist in Hillingdon and Croydon, as noted above. It is suggested that this practice could be more widely spread across London and particularly in those boroughs which have been identified as ‘high risk’.

35. Leadership: In Meeting the Needs of Sexually Exploited Young People, Barnardo’s states ‘Police action has been undermined by a lack of clarity about which team has the remit and lead for coordinating intelligence and responding to sexual exploitation across London’. The above scenario was intended to identify this, though it is clear that cases are dealt with by different units and it is possible that intelligence and expertise could be better retained and utilised in a single lead command with a clear strategic approach.

36. Strategy: Service-wide strategic assessments of the nature and scale of child sexual exploitation, and the links between this and other risk factors such as going missing or running away . Ensuring cross over between strategies relating to child protection, missing people, gang and youth violence, and sexual violence has also been highlighted as an area for possible improvement.

37. Prevention. Concerns have been raised by stakeholders money, time and effort is being spent on engaging with the wrong children or at the wrong point. Prevention can sometimes depend on the willingness of a school to engage with such a controversial topic. Activity is sometimes being targeted at the wrong age groups; 13- and 14-year olds are already experiencing this exploitation and require intervention rather than prevention.

38. Training: A review of training was also suggested by Barnardo’s and others to ensure that sufficient training is provided; not only to those investigating alleged sexual offences but to those in missing persons teams and those working with social services to manage the risk to looked after children.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. There are a range of equality and diversity issues associated with child sexual exploitation; most notably the vulnerability of the children involved. The prevalence of female victims of sexual abuse is also an equality issue; as it is accepted that violence against women and girls is both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality.

Consideration of MET Forward

2. This area of work forms part of the Public Protection and Violence against Women sections of the Met Partners strand under child protection. This paper also supports a strategic driver under Met Forward II: protect the most vulnerable from harm.

Financial Implications

3. There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Legal Implications

4. There are no legal implications associated with this report.

Environmental Implications

5. There are no environmental implications associated with this report.

Risk Implications

6. There are no immediate risk implications as this report is focused on prevalence and existing practice, however it is recognized that child sexual exploitation inherently involves high risk to the victims and reputational risk to the MPS and others in the event that a child has not been protected from harm if possible.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Lynne Abrams, Public Protection Policy Officer, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback