Agenda item

Child Exploitation

For the committee to understand the different ways children are at risk of exploitation and to scrutinise how the different agencies work together to tackle the issue.

Minutes:

The Service Director, Early Help, CIN and Safeguarding provided a brief overview of the report and then the Chief Inspector of Weste Mercia Police and the Head of Service

Vulnerable Children in Need of Support and Assessment delivered a short presentation on the topic. The Key points were:

 

The Chief Inspector of West Mercia Police provided the committee with broad definitions of child exploitation including: child criminal exploitation (CCE) and child sexual exploitation (CSE). Data and trends demonstrated that there was a relatively low prevalence of child exploitation in Herefordshire compared to other counties, which was largely due to the county’s proactive safeguarding work.

 

It was pointed out that county lines was the most common form of CCE in Herefordshire and that children were often trafficked in from larger cities such as Birmingham and Wolverhampton to distribute drugs.

 

A breakdown of the strategic framework in place to tackle child exploitation explained that multi agency child exploitation (MACE) meetings were held regularly:

 

  • MACE 1 meetings focused on individual children and direct support.
  • MACE 2 meetings identified themes, hotspots and recurring risks.
  • An exploitation and missing subgroup was in place to provide strategic oversight and to escalate systemic needs.

 

The Head of Service Vulnerable Children in Need of Support and Assessment explained the role of the Safe Team in providing targeted interventions for at-risk and missing children. It was explained that:

 

  • The process for return home interviews had been increased beyond the existing 72-hour timeframe.
  • A new protocol with Ofsted was in place for early intelligence sharing around online exploitation.
  • A collaboration with health partners meant a unique alert system within medical records was in place to flag exploitation risk across health settings.

 

 

The Chair invited comments and discussion from the committee in relation to the report. The key points of the discussion are detailed below:

 

  1. The committee asked about the current extent of child criminal and sexual exploitation in Herefordshire.

 

  • The Chief Inspector of West Mercia Police explained that Herefordshire reported low levels of organized CCE and CSE relative to other areas. However, local agencies remained vigilant and exploitation was actively monitored through MACE processes and safeguarding referrals.

 

  • It was pointed out that county lines, especially from Birmingham and Wolverhampton, were the main form of CCE.

 

  1. The committee enquired about local hotspots and trends in child criminal exploitation.

 

  • The Chief Inspector of West Mercia Police pointed out that most county lines activity involved children from outside of the county.Drugs were trafficked into Herefordshire and exploitation primarily occurred in private properties used as distribution hubs.

 

  • Local children were more likely to be involved in low-level supply and usage, with hotspots including parks, certain housing areas and colleges.

 

  1. The committee enquired as to why Herefordshire was less impacted by child exploitation compared to other areas.

 

  • The Chief Inspector of West Mercia Police partially attributed the lower prevalence of child exploitation to proactive disruption, rural geography, and strong local partnerships. It was expected that ongoing reviews and force-wide and county-specific threat profiles would provide further clarification on the matter.

 

  1. In relation to quantitative data the committee requested figures for the number of children assessed in Quarter 4 and the levels of concern involved.

 

  • The Service Director, Early Help, CIN and Safeguarding provided Quarter 4 figures from Get Safe assessments:

 

-        73 assessments completed

-        17: No concern

-        35: Emerging risk

-        15: Moderate

-        6: Significant (3 on Child Protection Plans under contextual harm)

 

  1. The committee enquired about the accuracy of the available data and whether it was accessible to the right agencies.

 

  • It was acknowledged that current data was fragmented due to lack of a distinct criminal offence for CCE.Officers were encouraged to flag concerns broadly, which resulted in some over-reporting, but national legislation was expected to improve consistency.

 

  1. The committee asked how a ‘Get Safe’ plan interacted with child protection plans.

  • It was explained that Get Safe was often the child’s own safety plan and could run alongside formal statutory plans. When child protection was needed, "contextual harm" was used as a category to avoid blaming parents for peer/environmental exploitation.

 

  1. The committee enquired as to whether parents were typically aware of the exploitation.

  • The Service Director, Early Help, CIN and Safeguarding stated that often, exploitation was not recognised by parents until advanced. Children often did not identify as victims and believed they were in a relationship or friendship.

 

  • Significant outreach efforts had targeted parents via conferences, schools, and public campaigns. Work was ongoing and aimed to raise parental awareness and identify emerging risks early.

 

  1. The committee asked for details regarding the red flags or early warning signs of exploitation.

 

  • The Early Help and Prevention Service Manager explained that red flags included:

 

-        Truancy

-        Sudden wealth (trainers, phones)

-        Withdrawal

-        Risky online activity

-        Social exclusion

-        Frequent missing episodes

 

  1. The committee asked whether red flags were systematically identified across services.

 

  • It was explained that the Get Safe risk tool was embedded across services and offered prompts for each type of exploitation. The Safe Team and police were trained to respond to the signs of exploitation.

 

  1. The committee discussed online exploitation and asked how agencies were responding to children being targeted online.

 

  • The Head of Service Vulnerable Children in Need of Support and Assessment stated that grooming, live-streaming, coercion and blackmail were common, and that new challenges were posed by artificial intellgence and encrypted platforms.

 

  • The police were supported by a centralised online CSE team and worked with national crime agencies, this was backed up by preventative outreach through schools and community events.

 

  1. The committee discussed the role of community and volunteers and enquired as to how organisations and charities such as Vennture were contributing to intelligence gathering.

 

  • The Chief Executive Officer of Vennture explained that one area of support for detection and prevention of child exploitation came through street patrols (weekends and holidays), which involved volunteers (including sixth formers) who had been trained in safeguarding and exploitation awareness. Intelligence from the patrols was shared directly with the police and used to adjust patrols.

 

  1. The committee considered disruption and prevention and asked how the police disrupted exploitation before children were criminalised

 

  • The Chief Inspector of West Mercia Police stated that the partnership focused on early help, not criminalisation. Criminalisation was only used when children posed a risk to others (recruiting other children for example). Individual children were monitored and supported through targeted plans.

 

  1. The committee discussed schools and social Inclusion and asked what was being done to support children who appeared socially isolated but attended school.

 

  • The Head of Service Vulnerable Children in Need of Support and Assessment explained that social exclusion was treated as a red flag and that Get Safe assessments and school engagement helped identify children at risk and intervene early. Home-educated and part-time-attending children were also monitored.

 

  1. The committee looked at the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and enquired how the Modern Slavery Act applied to exploited children committing offences.

 

  • The Head of Service West Mercia Youth Justice Service explained that the Youth Justice Service screened for eligibility for NRM and if exploitation was suspected, a referral would be made and considered during court proceedings. The aim was to ensure there was a contextual understanding of offending behaviour so that outcomes could be adjusted accordingly.

 

  1. In relation to separated and unaccompanied children the committee enquired about how children arriving through the National Transfer Scheme were being safeguarded.

 

  • The Head of Service Vulnerable Children in Need of Support and Assessment, explained that age assessments, health screening and exploitation risk assessments were completed post-arrival. Materials were translated and support provided to aid understanding, and weekly visits and oversight continued even when a child was placed out-of-county.

 

  1. The committee raised concerns about apparent gaps in data being provided, which made it difficult to identify longitudinal trends and outcomes. It was suggested that it would be useful for the committee to be given an explanation of ‘what good looks like’ along with relevant key data, so that it could determine whether or not children in the county were safer.

 

  • The Cabinet Member Children and Young People, and the Service Director, Early Help, CIN and Safeguarding provided an explanation for the lack of data and suggested that a discussion/briefing to establish what data the committee would like to be provided with could be held outside of the meeting.

 

Action: Meeting around data dissemination to be arranged with the committee chairs, statutory scrutiny officer, corporate director and cabinet member for children young people.

 

  1. The committee enquired if an update could be provided on the implementation of recommendations made by the task and finish group who had previously carried out an inquiry into child exploitation in the county.

 

Action: Copy of the historic task and finish group report on child exploitation in the county to be forwarded on to Service Director, Early Help, CIN and Safeguarding for comment.

 

 

  1. The committee noted that there wasn’t adequate time left to formulate any recommendations on the item during the meeting and it was proposed that any recommendations on the item be discussed and compiled ahead of the next committee meeting.

 

Resolved That:

 

The committee discuss and compile any recommendations it might have before the next meeting, where they could be presented and voted on.

Supporting documents: