County Lines

Executive Summary ‘It wouldn’t be County Lines if there wasn’t exploitation’: Deep Dive exploration of Safeguarding Partnership responses to County Lines and Serious Youth Violence

May 2021

Due to the current rise in County Lines and Serious Violence, this study examines best practices for safeguarding young people.

Based on thematic analysis of 164 interviews, best practice recommendations have been developed.

/

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people and organisations for supporting this research: The nine Safeguarding Partnerships (SPs), British Transport Police (BTP) Operation Defiant County Lines Task Force team, and the various essential Voluntary Charity Sectors (VCS) and organisations that gave their time to be interviewed when we had just entered into a UK-wide third lockdown; the project Steering Group for providing insight and positive challenges along the project journey, and Dr. Rachael Steele for assisting with proofing transcriptions.

/

Authors School of Justice, Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) Michelle McManus Emma Ball

Public Health Institute (PHI), Ellie McCoy Rebecca Harrison Rebecca Bates

World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Violence Prevention Daniel Silverstone James Alexander Zara Quigg For further information contact Michelle McManus: M.A.McManus@ljmu.ac.uk

Table of Contents

#################..........................................01 #################..........................................01

Covid-19 resulted in the perfect storm for child exploration due to the closure of school structures, an increase in drug abuse and a rise in teenage mental health issues.

Introduction COVID-19 has resulted in a perfect storm for child exploitation: ordinarily vigilant school structures and systems have been disrupted, concerns of increasing drug and substance abuse (NSPCC, 2021), teenage mental health crisis is escalating (UK Parliament, 2020), youth services are struggling to cover their remit (Local Government Association, 2020) and the pandemic has increased isolation and financial adversity amongst our most vulnerable (Gibson et al., 2021, BBC, 2020).

This evaluation was tasked with exploring multi-agency safeguarding arrangements in place across England in responding to serious youth violence risk and county lines exploitation. However, in undertaking this task it inadvertently opened Pandora’s Box into the vast and complex landscape demonstrating the realities of safeguarding children and young people. Safeguarding Partnerships are structured with a tripartite statutory responsibility held across Police, Health (via a Clinical Commissioning Group [CCG]) and Local Authority (County Council/Borough).

This set-up allows the tentacles of the safeguarding response to spread across universal services encompassing health visitors, community centres, schools and youth services. However, responses to child exploitation are reported to be more shortterm, targeted at already ‘at risk’ groups and consequently missing opportunities for early intervention and ‘true’ prevention.

Health, policing, social care, education and the voluntary and charity sector have all produced numerous reports [1] on how they have been working tirelessly, but often separately, to combat the problems we are facing. This report has brought together 164 professionals from across all these roles and sectors dealing with child exploitation, in providing an abundance of evidence to help address the immense task surrounding child safeguarding issues such as county lines exploitation and serious youth violence.

Cross-organisationally, all professional interviews unanimously concur that county lines exploitation and serious youth violence risk are forms of child exploitation.

This report, through its key recommendations, requires an urgent response from sectors of Government to join together to respond to child exploitation, via means such as county lines and serious youth violence. The mantra that ‘safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility’ necessitates a joined-up crossgovernment comprehensive vision and strategy to take action in addressing this growing crisis.

COVID-19 = The Perfect Storm for Child Exploitation School Structures & Systems Disrupted Concerns of increasing drug abuse

Teenage Mental Health Crisis

Youth Services Unable to Cover Remit

Increased Isolation

Financial Adversity

The term County Lines describes gangs and organised crime networks involved in the export of illegal drugs into one or more importing areas within the UK. using dedicated mobile phone lines, otherwise known as 'deal lines'.

Literature Review The literature review has been informed through a rapid review and synthesis of 108 relevant policy documents[2]. A concise overview is provided here bringing key findings together from the wider reading, and a full reading list of relevant literature can be found in the main report. The literature review identified seven overarching thematic areas of policy and guidance related to the safeguarding of children at risk of child criminal exploitation, county lines and serious violence.

This includes policy documents and guidance related to;

County lines and drugs

Serious Violence

Exploitation

Children and young people

Education

Early Intervention

Serious case reviews relating to child criminal exploitation and county lines.

Multi-agency safeguarding partnerships have been present within England and Wales since the 1980s. The Children Act (1989) established one of the first statutory requirements for inter-agency collaboration and joint working, concerning children and young people. Since then, other acts, policies and guidelines have been introduced to promote a multi-agency approach to safeguarding including Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018). Despite much agreement on the benefits of multi-agency, collaborative approaches in safeguarding, it is widely acknowledged that transferring policies into practice is problematic, with implementation of these models varying greatly.

Previous reviews have identified overlapping policies, guidance and practice making internal navigation problematic (McManus & Boulton, 2020; Ford, et al., 2017). Questions are often raised as to which agencies should be involved, and how, with challenges surrounding governance, formalised structures, information sharing, funding and resources (Shorrock et al., 2019)[3].

Government approach to serious violence, county lines and associated criminal exploitation The UK government defines county lines as: A

term

used

to

describe

gangs

and organised criminal networks involved in exporting illegal drugs into one or more importing areas within the UK, using dedicated mobile phone lines or other form of ‘deal line’.

They are likely to exploit children and vulnerable adults to move and store the drugs and money and they will often use coercion, intimidation, violence (including sexual violence) and weapons (PHE, 2021). There has been significant re-focus from government to foster relationships between frontline professional and young people at risk of child criminal exploitation (CCE) with a new statutory duty on public sector agencies and bodies in the prevention and disruption of serious violence (Serious Violence Strategy, 2018). Other developments have included the launch of the National County Lines Coordination Centre (2018), funding of Violent Reduction Units, Early Intervention Youth Fund, the Youth Endowment Fund, and the ‘Trusted Relationship Fund’. A key concern is how these funded initiatives are being brought together to inform practice and improve safeguarding responses. A recent systematic review of CCE (Maxwell et al., 2019) highlighted a number of issues when attempting to identify the scale, nature and characteristics of CCE. As there is no specific legislation for CCE and in the absence of a statutory definition for CCE, offences have utilised the Modern Slavery Act (2015),

The Children and Young Persons Act (1933), The Child Abduction Act (1984) and The Children Act (1989). This makes responding to CCE difficult to identify, measure and audit (HMICFRS, 2020). This has been reflected through huge variances in how multi-agency safeguarding arrangements are able to identify, risk assess, intervene and effectively protect children and young people at risk of serious violence and exploitation 1by county lines (Children’s Commissioner, 2019).

CCE poses a significant challenge for multiagency safeguarding due to its complex process and the diverse risk factors associated with it.

The recent Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (2020) and Children’s Commissioner (2019) suggest that current guidance is not sufficiently reflecting the increased risks posed to children and young people outside the home, including the risks posed by county lines and serious violence. County lines crosses disciplines, organisation accountabilities and thresholds, meaning that it does not fit ‘neatly’ into current partnerships (VVU & ATCM, 2018).

As such, no single agency can respond to child exploitation alone and it requires skilled collaboration between universal and specialist services.

An additional challenge in responding to child exploitation is that the source of threat and harm that the child or young person is experiencing, is most often from outside of the family home. Therefore, needing to move away from traditional views of safeguarding and take contextual safeguarding into account (Firmin et al., 2019). This does not neatly align to the safeguarding policies, processes and procedures within the child protection system, which is arguably structured to respond to intra-familial harm and is already operating with increased demand alongside increased cuts to funding (Local Government Association, 2019). This presents challenges around safeguarding ownership, organisational remit and responsibilities, alongside highlighting the flaws in a fragmented system, which struggles to have the resource and flexibility to meet children’s needs and keep them safe.

Working Together (2018, p7) notes that ‘nothing is more important than children’s welfare’ and that ‘children who need help and protection deserve high quality and effective support as soon as a need is identified’. Whilst few would disagree with this statement, there appears to be a significant disconnect between legislative policy and frontline practice. It can be argued that child exploitation exposes the contradictory nature of how we view our children in society, particularly our perception of their ability to take responsibility for their unmet needs, despite us as adults acknowledging it is our responsibility to prevent impairment of children’s mental and physical health or development (Working Together, 2018). The abundance of legislation into child protection indicates that we recognise that simply by the nature of being a child, all children are vulnerable and therefore all children are entitled to protection.

Yet, when we look at how we view and work with children and young people who are victims of exploitation, there is often an incongruence in these expectations. Despite the premise that all children are potentially vulnerable, our expectation is that once children are enlightened to potential risks they may face, that they are able to successfully act on this information and remove themselves from perpetrator manipulation, coercion and control.

1 Whilst the perpetrator faces seemingly little consequence for grooming and exploiting the child, the child is expected to trust and cooperate with the adults, organisations and institutions, who have often failed to protect them in the past. In the absence of this cooperation, the young person risks being viewed as an offender in their own right, one who is now making informed choices, rather than viewed as a victim or vulnerable child. This is particularly poignant when a young person reaches the milestone age of 18, when expectations of the young person are arguably even greater, yet levels of risk, need and vulnerability remain unchanged (HMICFRS, 2020).

Although a child or young person’s experience in county lines can escalate rapidly, risk factors

This can result in overlapping of the information available, concerning safeguarding

to exploitation can be identified much earlier in a child’s life and there are opportunities for organisations to respond to critical and reachable moments to support unmet need, before it can develop into a potential risk (Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, 2020).

Whilst any child or young person can be vulnerable, there are additional vulnerable circumstances which can make them more susceptible to being groomed and exploited.

These can include experiencing previous trauma, growing up in poverty, family breakdown, being within the care system or being known to social care, missing from home episodes, experiencing behavioural and developmental issues, being excluded from school as well as experiencing bereavement and parental mental health problems and substance misuse (PHE, 2019). Young people identified as at risk of becoming criminally exploited are not always known to children’s services or police but are almost always known to wider and universal services such as health, education and youth services (ADCS, 2019), highlighting the

children with a variety of vulnerabilities and there is a definite need for this to be joined-up to enable an effective multi-agency response. A common theme arising is a persistent call for a public health, whole-systems and whole family approach, with the ability for collaborative and local flexibility using place-based approaches 1 recognising that (PHE, 2019; Ofsted et al., 2018), young people are influenced by a range of environments and people outside of their family (PHE, 2021). There is a firm consensus that we must support all of our children and young people and this requires investment in universal support services, which are flexible and able to respond to the diverse needs of young people, at different points in time, without waiting for a crisis to occur.

Professionals have a role to play in raising awareness and identifying risk and protective factors throughout a child's life (PHE, 2021), yet too often practitioners are restricted from acting upon best practice, as they are constrained by strict statutory agency threshold criteria and governed by insufficient resource.

crucial role of a collaborative and multi-agency response. There is also recognition that the impact of Covid-19 and associated restrictions

As well as a substantial and mandated investment from national government in early intervention and prevention, there needs to be

have impacted upon increasing isolation and disenfranchisement for many young people,

a move away from smaller short-term, singleissue funding streams, if we are to be in a

reduced protective factors and organisation's ability to safeguard (University of Nottingham, 2021).

position to deliver on a long-term strategy (Early Intervention Foundation, 2018).

Subsequently, there is a wealth of research, policy and guidance relating to children, young people and families ranging from health to education, which can be relevant when looking at how we respond to county lines exploitation.

There are a multitude of government departments which are focussed on various aspects relating to supporting children, young people and families and addressing surrounding societal issues and this broad range of departments allows for a wealth of experience. However, it can also result in a lack of collective ownership and a fragmentation within policy, governance and funding; all of which can be cascaded down to frontline operations, challenging the delivery of a whole systems approach. If we assert that a multiagency response is the most effective way to respond to exploitation by county lines, the wealth of research and evidence which is available to us, must now be acted upon. To safeguard from child exploitation, we need a coherent whole systems-based investment considering structural inequalities and individual circumstance, to offer appropriate, coordinated and meaningful support, at the time in which they need it.

The evaluation overarching aim is to consider the response of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements to serious youth violence and county lines exploitation and to identify areas of promising practice, learning and recommendations for all safeguarding partners.

1

1

1

1

In partnership with The Home Office, Safeguarding Partners were selected for this study.

A total of 134 professionals were interviewed from areas that were identified as violent and subject to other risk factors.

A thematic analysis of their interviews produced National Insights.

Methodology Study Sites

01

03

Data Collection

Recruitment

02

04

Ethical Considerations

01

Study Sites Safeguarding Partnerships (SPs) included in the study were selected by the Home Office and Department for Education (DfE) following a selection process that: Selection Process

01

Ranked all areas based on the extent and impacts of serious violence and underlying risk factors; and, county lines National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referrals; and, Split the ranked list into London and non-London areas to ensure geographical spread and creating two long lists.

Inclusion of British Transport Police

02

The long lists were further refined based on additional considerations (e.g. position in ranked list; flagged capacity issues, limiting participation in the study; importing or exporting county lines force). This resulted in an initial set of four London and 11 non-London SPs to initially approach, with a reserve list of an additional seven London and 11 non-London SPs.

Expansion of Evaluation

03

In addition to the identified SPs, the evaluation was expanded to include Voluntary and Charity Sector (VCS) and specialist charities who worked with children and young people, families and parents and carers, and supported local and/or national responses to county lines, serious violence and child exploitation.

Inclusion of British Transport Police

04

In addition, British Transport Police (BTP) were included due to their specialist county lines team and as the national police force that work with many SPs across the UK.

02

Recruitment Business managers played a significant role in this study as key gatekeepers to participants. There were a total of 134 professionals interviewed as part of the study. The majority of these interviews took place in a virtual environment.

An email was sent to all safeguarding partner business managers (December 2020) introducing the LJMU evaluation lead and the project. Business managers were asked to either contact the evaluation lead directly if their safeguarding partnership was interested in being part of the work, or had further questions about the project, or to reply directly to Home Office and DfE if they were unable to participate. Due to low initial uptake (and time constraints) the wider list of safeguarding partners were contacted as per the reserve list.

The final SP sample included nine SPs: two from London and seven outside of London, including three South East areas, one Southern area, one South West area, one North West area and one East Midlands area.

There was a requirement for each SP to include between 10-15 interviews across each SP with a total of 134 interviews conducted across those formally involved in the local area SP. These included those within strategic roles, managerial, tactical and operational frontline roles[4]. See table 1 for the breakdown of sectors included across the nine SPs.

On the following page, you will find a breakdown of participants

In addition, interviews were conducted with professionals outside formal safeguarding 1 partnerships, which included: VCS (n=21)[5]; BTP – Operation Defiant County Lines Task Force (n=6); and Rescue and Response (n=3; included as part of the London SPs (as they [were deemed to sit between VCS and statutory services]). In total, the research project completed 134 professional interviews.

After initial agreement from the SP had been confirmed, the lead researcher provided a Microsoft Teams briefing to the SP along with a briefing sheet to circulate to the Safeguarding Partnership Board. From this, the SP business manager for the local area then provided the research lead for their area an initial set of names and contact email addresses to contact for an interview. These were deemed to be the key people within their SP that were part of their response to county lines exploitation and serious youth violence risk. These individuals were contacted via email separately with a Participant Information Sheet (PIS) and a Consent Form, along with the project briefing sheet. This began a snowball process whereby from each interview more names were gathered that were mentioned as part of process who were subsequently contacted via email. An individual time slot for the interview was arranged, with most occurring via Microsoft Teams, with only a few opting for a telephone interview.

Participant Breakdown Summary

32 Police

23 LA Social Care

14 LA Youth offending Service

16 Health

12 LA Specialist Team

11 Education

A total of 134 professionals were interviewed for this study including 32 Members of the Police Force, 23 Local Authority Social Carers and 16 Health Workers

7 VCS/ Lived Experience Consultant

5 Police VRU

4 LA housing

3 LA Early Help 1

3 LA Community Safety

1 3 LA Intelligence Data

1 Vulnerability Lawyer

Total: 134

03

Data Collection & Triangulation A team of seven researchers conducted all interviews, mostly on MS Teams, between 14th January and 26th March 2020.

1. The interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 1 hour and 47 minutes.

All interviews were conducted by the

lead

researcher

for

the

partnership (with each researcher developing the report for this SP).

Each participant was assigned a participant

5. On completion of

individual

the 11 individual

number reports

within to

the

ensure

anonymisation.

reports, the findings were merged to provide a National overview of SP

2.

1.Research Schedule

working in response to

Interview

imported

responses into

(https://otter.ai/)

county lines

transcription

2. Transcription

exploitation and violence.

or

Trint

programme

verified by the researcher.

serious youth

3. Initial Analysis

4. Inductive & Deductive Analysis

5. National Insights Gained 4. The interviews were thematically analysed The

research

both inductively (being

3.

led by patterns than

fortnightly to discuss emerging

become apparent in the

findings as interviews were being

dataset) and

conducted and started to build

deductively (looking for

some

specific concepts

help guide initial approaches to

previously identified in

the individual reports which they

the relevant literature).

were responsible for.

overarching

were Otter.ai

team

themes

met

to

and

04

Ethical Considerations This study was considered low risk. All participants voluntarily agreed to participate and the data was carefully collected and monitored.

LJMU ethical processes assessed the study as no/low risk. However, usual ethical processes were implemented within the evaluation including Participant Information Sheet (PIS), consent forms and a study briefing sheet that were provided to each participant. Each participant was offered to engage in the study via a telephone interview, or Microsoft Teams video conference call that would be recorded on a 1 separate digital device. Once recorded, it was transferred to LJMU systems, transcribed and analysed. DfE Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) agreements were also required to be submitted and followed to ensure the study was GDPR compliant and Data Protection guidelines followed.

Overall, 11 Key Findings and subsequent Recommendations have been developed based on the research conducted for this study.

Among these are an increase of Government Strategies, amendment of the laws regarding child exploitation, and the establishment of a National Referral Mechanism.

Overview of Key Findings & Recommendations

When developing a core set of principles and structure in response to CCE, we used best practice examples from the full report in order to determine the best safeguarding practices.

1

1

These included; A multi-agency child exploitation (MACE) strategy group.

Pre-Mace Meeting to ensure that MACE is able to hear the most complex and high-risk cases.

Multi-agency team targeting child exploitation cases.

Front door service for children and adults (anyone can refer in).

Early Help provision within the local area. key supporting agencies such as; psychologists, SEND officers, Inclusions officers, Housing Enforcement and Lived Experience Representation.

Key Findings & Recommendations From the deep dive research across 164 safeguarding professionals, including professionals from 9 local safeguarding partnerships, 10 different voluntary sector organisations, BTP Operation Defiant County Lines Task force and Rescue and Response, 11 key areas were identified. These 11 areas outline the core evidence, along with any national and local recommendations.

County lines illustrates beautifully in terms of the problem we're trying to solve. It does require a whole system response, solution and perhaps some stretch of boundaries and different ways of working that are thinking about what is it we are trying to achieve in terms of improved safety

1

Governance, Strategies and Action Plans

Evidence: There was agreement across all participants that county lines was a form of child exploitation and that by thematically differentiating different forms of exploitation (including child sexual exploitation [CSE], child criminal exploitation [CCE], county lines, which also mentions links to serious violence and triggers of missing from home [MFH]), there was significant risk in missing exploitation victims that do not necessarily conform to the known profile.

The evidence from the review found that Safeguarding Partnerships (SPs) had all created their own separate, often overlapping strategies and guidance on the various forms of child exploitation (CE), such as CSE, CCE, MFH and county lines, with reported problems in how to navigate through these effectively (see Theme 3 in full report). In addition to thematic variation, there is often a cliff-edge in service response to exploitation once a young person turns 18 years. A key theme within the findings was a gap in knowledge, awareness and skills in being able to ‘connect’ and engage with adolescent and young people age groups (see Theme 2 in full report), particularly when harm was taking place outside the family home.

We need an umbrella, there is so much crossover. Actually all we need to do is take three lines and put criminal exploitation, take out four lines and put CSE, take out four lines and put drugs and alcohol, same for mental health, its semantics. It frustrates me. And I just wrote a report to the director and put we are really missing the point here that we need an umbrella strategy. We need to have one strategy that encompasses actual vulnerability with strands underneath it in relation to policy and practise and process with what action plan

Local Recommendations #1 Local areas should consider developing and publishing a SP owned Child and Young People[6] Exploitation (CYPE) Strategy and Action Plan jointly created and owned by the tripartite responsibility of Police, Local Authority (LA) and Health.

This should include, but not limited to:

1 Definitions, risk factors, protocols, legislation and options of administrative notices available to disrupt early signs of exploitation of each form of child exploitation, including CCE, CSE, county lines and links to gang involvement and serious youth violence.

A section on ‘Language’ taking into account the findings under Theme 11 in full report.

Outline and detail of Operation Defiant multi-agency dedicated County Lines Team within British Transport Police that can support county lines safeguarding and investigations.

A clear indication of the role and flexibility in ‘who’ the trusted professional can be, allowing for the SP relevant panel (e.g., Multi Agency Child Exploitation [MACE] meetings) to wrap multi-agency support around that trusted adult working with the young person.

Outline area profile, in regards to child exploitation, pathways for referrals and interventions.

Agreement on joined up communication, with a lead identified from statutory owners.

The need to liaise and fit into inspections, particularly the JTAI[7]. Some SPs referenced JTAI guidance within their MACE preparation as part of their child exploitation strategy/protocol.

Consideration of child exploitation flags on systems – currently being used by a number of SPs.

Consideration of the 4P approach[8] (Prepare, Prevent, Pursue, and Protect) within MACE, which was evident within a number of SPs.

Shared ownership and collective commitment to the strategy within LA including a collaborative approach between Children’s Services, Adult’s Services and Community Safety Partnership (CSP).

Local CYPE Strategy CYPE Partnership Structure

Workforce Stability

Adolescents & Young People Service

National Referral Mechanism Processes within SP

CYPE Screening & Risk Assessment

Engage VCS/ Lived Experience

Understand & identity process at critical/ crisis moments

Embed reflective learning & horizon scanning across SP

Practitioner & community awareness

1.1 Children and Young People Exploitation (Local) Safeguarding Partnership Structure: Consideration of the development of a core set of principles and structure (Strategic to Operational) in responding to CCE using best practice examples from this report (see Theme 5 in full report for more detail) included: MACE (Multi-Agency Child Exploitation) strategic group.

Adolescents and Young People multiagency meeting (Pre-MACE meeting). This was seen as an umbrella children’s vulnerability meeting, which then allowed any cases stepped up to MACE to be the most high-risk and complex.

An intelligence multi-agency officer/analyst that was aligned to these core groups. This helped to agree data sharing agreements and gave that role permission to access police and local authority data, which better facilitated discussions and actions at meetings.

Targeted multi-agency child exploitation team (providing on ground support and interventions to young people, with a lived experience VCS/Consultant as part of the team).

Integrated Children’s and Adults Front Door Service (anyone can refer in).

Early Help provision and offer of support within the localities.

Given the report's findings which note the wide range of risk factors associated with exploitation, the multi-agency team may want to consider representation from the 1 key supporting agencies working in this area: Representation of a psychologist [9] Representation of a Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) officer Representation of an Inclusion officer (that links into schools) Representation of Housing Enforcement officer Representation of VCS/Lived Experience

Agreed pathway for Community Safety Partnership (CSP) involvement.

Agreement on how the partnership engages and collaborates with those outside the partnership who are essential in the response to exploitation, such as Education and the VCS. Parental Involvement: the need to support parents and carers was identified as an area which is often underdeveloped, particularly in areas where there was no VCS in place to support them.

Transparency, feedback and sharing good practice across the area – one SP had a quarterly newsletter (rather than waiting for the SP annual report), which provided updates and links to important information.

1.2 Workforce stability within Local Safeguarding Partnerships (SPs):

1.3 Adolescents and Young People Service within Local Safeguarding Partnerships (SPs):

An evaluation of multidisciplinary research found that a number of key factors led to more effective Safeguarding Partnerships with a positive morale and collective responsibility. Whenever possible, Safeguarding Partners should recruit key positions as permanent positions in order to ensure workforce stability and partnership effectiveness.

A Multi-Agency Adolescent and Young Persons Service (AYPS) could also help safeguarding partners eliminate the 'cliff edge' of age transition. Such a service would be more effective in responding to adolescents (pre-MACE) as well as identifying more complex cases that should be escalated directly to MACE.

As found in much multi-disciplinary research that brings together individuals from across agencies to work as a ‘multi-agency’, a number

Using the best practice evidence from this evaluation (see Theme 2 and Theme 5 in full report), SPs should consider the development of

of key factors were present in those SPs that were viewed as more ‘effective’ with a positive

a ‘Multi-Agency Adolescent and Young People Service’ (AYPS) within each local area to join up

morale and collective responsibility (see Theme 5 in full report for more detail). Therefore,

Adult and Children Social 1 Care (and other services) to help eradicate the ‘cliff edge’ of age

where possible, SPs should consider recruiting key positions as permanent roles to maximise workforce stability and partnership relationship

transition.

A multi-agency AYPS could allow for a more effective response to ‘Adolescents’ and

working.

Young People (pre-MACE), with those more complex cases of exploitation stepped up to MACE.

1.4 National Referral Mechanism (NRM) Processes within Local Safeguarding Partnerships (SPs): Participants commented that receiving a positive NRM outcome is part of a process and it is too simplistic to consider this as an adequate, solo safeguarding response. In support of this, there were many examples where victim status was given to a child (due to positive NRM return), but there was no consent from the child to engage in any form of non-statutory intervention, or disclose any information about their exploiters. This allowed the continued exploitation of the child and further entrenchment in criminal activity. This was deemed as waiting for another ‘Rotherham’ scandal (see Theme 10 in full report). Processes regarding the NRM mechanism should be detailed within the SP CYPE strategy with clear guidance on processes for decision making and responsible owners for review and actions.

The NRM process triggers a ‘dual process’ in terms of safeguarding of the child, but clear actions and ownership around the exploitation requires a multi-agency response (responsibility and decisions should sit within MACE) with police ‘owning’ the investigation of the criminal exploiters as part of the safeguarding response and YOS/local authority (Adolescent Service) owning the safeguarding.

Clearly set out that investigation of the county lines exploitation is part of the safeguarding process and is a statutory duty of the SP response (particularly because of time taken for NRM return)

The NRM process within the CYPE strategy needs to provide specific guidance regarding the options of ‘safeguarding pathways’ from the NRM trigger to ensure that safeguarding support is provided and ‘who’ should be responsible for this, which may depend on consent and disclosure, such as: Consent based engagement with supportive Youth Offending Service 1(YOS), Voluntary and Charity Sector (VCS) services; Mandatory engagement with diversionary services such as engaging with YOS/VCS/mentoring and completion of actions plans; Consideration of tagging, or curfews as part of the diversion scheme; Charge of the child/young person (this should be part of the review of the NRM process to protect the child and ‘enforce’ engagement [as last resort]) to run in parallel with safeguarding support.

Local awareness raising and training needs to be prioritised on the Modern Slavery legislation, particularly within local CJS, due to concerns and inconsistency around Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) and Judge’s lack of knowledge and confidence in applying[10].

There needs to be agreement of who is allowed to complete the NRM referral and guidance on where this process should sit.

Evidence suggests this should be discussed and agreed at MACE (seen as the consistent overarching multi-agency exploitation forum).

1.5

Child

and

Exploitation (CYPE) Risk Assessment:

Young

People

Screening

and

1.6 Engagement with voluntary sector and lived experience within SPs:

In order to record broader risk factors and contextual circumstances, effective screening tools and risk assessments are necessary.

As part of their exploitation response, SPs should involve VCS with lived experience in both the design and exploitation of services.

It was identified that SPs had created their own, or adapted known tools, in creating a form of child exploitation (CE) risk assessment or screening tool. Whilst some local areas felt that they had effective screening tools and assessments, it was acknowledged by some that they were not fit for purpose and tended to centre on familial, early years risk within the home, or CSE. There was an agreement that contextual safeguarding factors, strengthsbased approaches and considerations of risks outside the family were often missing (see Theme 3 in full report). Therefore, SPs should seek to review and evaluate their screening and risk assessment tools in that they are able to

SPs should seek to involve VCS with lived experience in both the designing of services and their exploitation processes, with wider dissemination of SPs engage and involve VCS/Lived experience as part of their

record broader risk factors and contextual situations often seen within child exploitation and county lines. The evaluation identified SPs were adapting their assessment to include peer related risk factors, but were not always included, or considered within assessments.

This should ensure appropriate language, guidance about the applicability of any tool (front door, versus later more detailed reviews) and frequency of re-assessments, given the speed of escalating risk that is often reported within county lines and serious youth violence.

1

exploitation response .

Best practice[11] (see also Theme 5 in full report) within the SPs identified effective strategic and operational engagement with Voluntary and Charity Sector (VCS) and/or lived experience consultants with a wide range of benefits seen across the SP. One SP specifically employed a VCS coordinator within their multi-agency hub.

The role enabled professionals to be aware of services provided within the community

by VCS. Given the importance of the VCS in relation to county lines, serious violence and wider CCE, SPs should ensure there is an up-to-date directory of VCS services within their local authority, alongside a pathway to refer into partner agencies.

1.7 Understand and identify processes at ‘critical/crisis’ moments within SPs:

The moment of arrest or admission to A&E as a result of a violent incident, were considered as critical moments for a child or young person to be further exploited by county lines.

The point of arrest, admittance[12] to A&E due to a violent incident and frequent missing episodes were deemed by many participants as critical moments for a child or young person being further exploited by county lines, and at risk of (further) serious violence (other critical moments such as exclusion and school transition are included under Recommendation 5 below and within Theme 8 of the full report).

However, the opportunity to adequately safeguard and make the most appropriate decision was complex and challenging due to the organisation pressures at these ‘crisis’ points such as PACE[13] (see Theme 3 in full report).

Many discussed this as a need to ‘hold your nerve’ and ensure that professionals were aware of the larger risks at play within county lines.

The SP should seek to review processes for safeguarding for young people at these critical moments (e.g., arrest) who are deemed as potentially at risk of county lines exploitation, or more general child exploitation. This should be included within the local SP CYPE strategy and mandate minimal safeguarding checks such as ‘fast action multi-agency discussions’ and basic phone checks as part of this process.

1.8 Sharing of reviews and intelligence across the partnership in regards to County Lines, CCE activity and serious youth risks:

violence,

particularly

online

SP practitioner’s identified the changing nature of county lines exploitation and serious youth violence risk, with these changes in typologies needing to be shared 1 amongst those practitioners working with young people. Most professionals within SPs, VCSs and British Transport Police (BTP) mentioned there was a huge gap in knowledge around the recruitment of children and young people via social media and the general use of Apps in advertising and pulling them into county lines activity (see Theme 3 in full report). This did overlap with conversations about the NRM investigative processes in that not enough was being done to understand and investigate the exploiters within the county line. Most professional’s comments on the notion that as society has adapted and shifted our day to day work and activity online, this is no different for the business model of county lines. Therefore, we are at a significant risk of falling behind in understanding, responding and attempting to get upstream in the prevention of exploitation of further young people. Therefore, SPs should consider ways to embed reflective learning and horizon scanning through the sharing of key evidence and reports to enable dissemination across sectors within their local area so that changes to threats can be identified and minimised.

1.9 Local practitioner and community awareness: Contextual safeguarding and ‘Child First’

'Children First' was a key theme throughout the interviews and was reflected throughout a significant amount of the research and evidence across all sectors. 'Children First' should be a priority for all organizations and roles.

A key theme throughout the interviews and evidenced throughout a significant amount of research and evidence across all sectors is that seeing the ‘Child First’ should be a priority for all organisations and roles (see Theme 11 in full report). Over the last few years there is significant awareness of trauma informed practice and the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), with many individuals within the interviews using the language and evidence from these frameworks. However, there was a view that this drive and language was being ‘lost in translation’ due to issues such as: unconscious bias, ‘adultification’ of certain ages/race, poverty, drug use and any cognitive or behavioural disabilities. Presence of some, or multiple factors results in varying treatment of young people with some cohorts more likely to be criminalised and not seen as a child and victim first.

There were examples of engaging in contextual safeguarding awareness raising within communities (through media campaigns), with some good practice examples of multi-agency disruption using housing enforcement. There were also good examples of the use of lived experience workers (VCS and independent consultants) in wrapping around support and mentoring to children and young people in a 1 more target driven way (within PRUs and at arrest). However, there was a significant gap in early intervention and prevention identification and responses involving the community. Whilst the majority of children and young people who had experienced exploitation via county lines were recognised as vulnerable, some participants noted that more recently exploiters were also targeting young people not known to services. Stakeholders noted that whilst the majority of young people are known to services and on their radar, some cases completely took them by surprise, as there were no indicators of risk and were not previously meeting any thresholds for support. Participants across sectors expressed concerns about the escalation of risk in these cases, and some areas noted that they were focusing on this cohort of young people.

In the last few years there has been an increasing awareness of trauma informed practice and the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), with many individuals in the interviews using the language and evidence from these frameworks.

Within the local SP, there needs to be a drive in contextual safeguarding awareness across professionals and within communities that applies to all children, young people and families ‘any child is at risk’: As part of SP practitioner training, the evaluation highlighted the need for mandatory training on child exploitation to address issues such as practitioner and professional unconscious bias, adultification and language, which should be delivered locally.

As part of community and wider awareness raising, it is recommended that each partnership (possibly though the Community Safety Partnership or Adolescents and Young People Multiagency Service) create a Child and Young People exploitation group for parents. This may want to differentiate CSE and CCE for the purposes of ensuring smaller, private groups of parents.

Creation of media awareness campaigns such as ‘Alfie’s story’[14] should be provided to all parents as part of the school information sharing and to children (at appropriate ages) to raise awareness of the realities of these experiences for young people, and de-stigmatise particularly how drugs are viewed by parents and carers.

Other SPs were raising awareness of exploitation contextually within their community, amongst taxi drivers, bus stations and local businesses within the community, with clear pathways of how to share concerns or information

1

1

National Recommendations #1 Government should consider establishing a national CYPE Working Group.

In supporting the above Local Safeguarding Partnerships (SPs) development and implementation of a localised CYPE strategy and action plan, there are a number of 1 National Recommendations from the evaluation: A specific National Working Group should seek to review local Safeguarding Partnerships CYPE strategies and core principles in reviewing the potential of a National CYPE Guide. This reflects professionals voice that were asking for a more consistent, joined up approach in responding to all forms of child exploitation through a National Child and Young People Exploitation (CYPE) Guide jointly owned by Department for Education, Home Office and Department for Health and Social Care should be considered (see Theme 13 in full report). This should act as a key document across safeguarding partners and be disseminated within each of the organisations (e.g., Local Authority (LA), Health and Police). In addition to the above points raised above (local recommendations), this National CYPE Guide could include, but not limited to:

Feed into any amendments of Working Together going forward.

Consider wider parts of the criminal justice system given the issues highlighted in barriers across CPS and the courts (see Theme 13 in main report).

Nationally, we need to all work together. If we put a barrier around our (SP) area, they (county lines exploiters) would just go elsewhere. It doesn’t solve any of the root problems we are all experiencing.

The National Working Group should seek to reflect on local SP progress in regards to commonalities in their CYPE framework (Strategic to Operational) and core principles as part of the Safeguarding Partnership response to Child Exploitation. Similarly, an expert panel is recommended to be convened in reviewing SPs CCE/CSE/child exploitation risk assessments and screening tools with the aim of developing and piloting a National CYPE tool:

This tool needs to allow for a multi-agency completion and sharing, with clear indicators of pathways for those children and young people not reaching specific thresholds for support.

Development needs to consider the timing and purpose of the child exploitation tool, recognising that any front door screening of CYPE will contain less information and intelligence than later MACE child exploitation risk assessment reviews.

Appropriate language must be considered to avoid victim blaming and captures the evolving activity and nature of child exploitation (particularly CCE and county lines).

Furthermore, evidence suggests the need for a cross-Government focus on improving, reviewing and disseminating data regarding online risks in child criminal exploitation relating specifically to county lines, particularly regarding the online recruitment of young people via social media.

2

Legislation gap in Child Exploitation: ‘Coercion and Control’

Evidence: As per recent recommendations from the Children’s Society[15], evidence from this report has identified a gap in being able to respond appropriately to exploiters, due to the lack of legislation that exists around early signs of coercion and controlling behaviour of children and young people. Similar to what is advocated by the Children’s Society, the great advances that have been made for Domestic Abuse victims suffering from coercive and controlling behaviour under the Serious Crime Act (2015), should also be prioritised for children who are being exploited. This raises questions about how we can acknowledge that adults that can be subjected to this behaviour and need protection, but not children and young people? Professionals within the study were aware of the availability of the Modern Slavery legislation available to them, however, due to issues in application and use of this (see Key Finding 3) and definitional issues around county lines (see Key Finding 6). This leaves a gap for the many locally exploited children that would not be protected by this legislation. The evidence also indicates that a legislative framework can significantly contribute to enabling the child being seen as a victim, actually being treated as a victim. Currently, professionals often felt like their hands were tied.

We really need to be talking about child exploitation as a form of abuse of children that encompasses many overlapping elements. Talking about county lines as a model, as part of that overarching exploitation, I can understand why it's become kind of the synonymous term for criminal exploitation. But it is very much just, you know, it is one model in a whole range of suite of ways of grooming and coercing children into awful, awful situations and experiences.

National Recommendations #2 Introduction of a legal definition of child exploitation, which includes all forms of child exploitation behaviour, including coercive and controlling behaviour (as per Children’s Society, 2021).

1 This legislation should follow similar statutory guidance in language to that within domestic abuse (Serious Crime Act, 2015 and guidance within the New Domestic Abuse Bill) that allows full coverage of all forms of child exploitation.

Consideration of how the legislation should map over existing policies in terms of cohort age to ensure the ‘cliff edge’ of services and options is not further exacerbated.

3

3

National Referral Mechanism (NRM) process: what is safeguarding and who owns it?

Evidence: It was clear from across all sectors that county lines is a national problem that crosses geographical boundaries. The framework to respond appropriately, however, is currently constrained by segmented policy and practice relating to broader child exploitation (CE). This is due to the various forms of child CE viewed and treated differently, such as CCE and county lines exploitation, compared to CSE. This segregated policy and profiling of the various forms of child exploitation often then dictates the response to the exploited child, in terms of ‘safeguarding’ and diversion from the Criminal Justice System (CJS), versus criminalisation and statutory intervention. This results in an inconsistent and differential treatment of children according to the form of exploitation they are subject to. See Theme 10 and 11 in full report for more detail.

A key issue with seeing these as two separate responses is that it does not allow for the child to be effectively safeguarded from further exploitation. A child that is seen as a victim of CSE is more often provided with safeguarding and offered emotional and other forms of support. In order to be safeguarded from future harm, a victim of county lines, regardless of whether they are charged and prosecuted, must be offered additional appropriate support and a pathway to recovery. Receiving a positive NRM outcome is part of a process and it is too simplistic to consider this in itself, an adequate, solo safeguarding response. In support of this, there were many examples where victim status was given to a child (due to positive NRM return), but there was no consent from the child to engage in any form of non-statutory intervention, or disclose any information about their exploiters. This allowed the continued exploitation of the child and further entrenchment in criminal activity. This was deemed as waiting for another ‘Rotherham’ scandal.

Furthermore, due to complications particularly with county lines exploitation crossing geographical boundaries, the evaluation identified a gap in ‘safeguarding’ due to the lack of investigations into the exploiters. There were difficulties from the result of the NRM as to who ‘owned’ the investigation side (e.g., where a child was found versus where the child resides).

National Recommendations #3 National review of NRM process[16] and statutory guidance.

1

Within the review, this should seek to explore the varying impacts of NRM referrals and outcomes in terms of factors identified within the evaluation, such as ethnicity and gender.

Awareness is required for agencies to understand the full purpose of the NRM. Some areas provided a strong multi-agency package of support (and diversion) around the victim and therefore considered ‘not needing the NRM as the support was already in place’. This does not allow for an accurate representation in the use of NRM and the section 45 defence to be utilised, if, for example, continuity of support is required (particularly out of area).

There needs to be a review of who is allowed to complete the NRM referral and guidance on where this process should sit. Evidence suggests this should be agreed at MACE (seen as the consistent overarching multi-agency exploitation forum).

We charged and it got dropped at court because the judge said, and CPS, go back in all this person's offending history, who has investigated his exploitation?

And I sat down with OIC (officer in charge) and we went through an awful lot of material and the answer was nobody … So for the next two years, this kid kept getting arrested. And every time he got arrested, quite fairly, would present the same conclusive grounds because no one's ever investigated it. It wasn't until we charged him that it all came out.

4

Health colleagues as part of the local (SP) child exploitation response

Evidence: The evaluation found huge variances in the involvement of Health services within SPs, regardless of the fact that they have a statutory duty to work together with police and local authority. The review identified a universal misunderstanding of the complexity that is ‘Health’. The complex and fragmented structure of Health ultimately means that no one role exists across the SP area that would have access to all the potentially relevant ‘health’ organisations, touch points and data (see Theme 2 in the full report).

“…health is a bit like peeling an onion, I didn’t realise there was so many layers to it”

Local Recommendations #2 Local SPs to undertake a set of reviews to (i) identify (ii) map (where) and (iii) review contributions (added value) of health colleagues within the SP CE response and (iv) identify collaborative solutions where there are barriers to local health representatives fulfilling their statutory duty. Findings within this evaluation indicated 5 out of 9 SPs included a CCG representative as part of their safeguarding response, with other SPs stating that buy in was better at tactical 1 level, with gaps in strategic level information cascading down to frontline workers.

This was alongside issues in identifying an appropriate, effective and embedded health representative that could meaningfully input into child exploitation meetings. Best practice (Theme 2 and Theme 5 within full report) highlighted the positive and essential role that health can play at strategic and operational level, across the lifespan, which needs to be implemented at local level within SPs: Evidence under ‘critical moments’ (Theme 8 in full report) identified key roles and touch points (within health services) that should be prioritised in better connecting them into information sharing and working with the safeguarding partnership. This centred on universal health services such as health visitors, school nurses, midwife, GPs, A&E and those health professionals working with neurodiversity/SEND/educational psychologists, CAMHS.

Local SPs should ensure they have sufficient knowledge of the health landscape within their local area, where the connections are and how they can contribute to safeguarding. When issues, or gaps are identified in engaging ‘health’ within the SP and cannot be resolved, this should be escalated to strategic level using the governance structures in place.

Review of system advances such as ‘Graphnet’[17] and how data may unlock barriers to safeguarding representation from health within SPs.

National Recommendations #4 Clear communication with SPs about what support is available 1

Clear communication with SPs about what support is available (e.g., DHSC facilitator) to help re-target and support those SPs struggling to identify, or meaningfully engage health colleagues within their child exploitation safeguarding response.

It is recommended that national government disseminate examples to SPs (particularly at MACE level, as found within this report) of what is working well across SP areas, with examples of added value from these health roles and how they can best be embedded into local structures.

5

Shifting the focus and delivery of education.

Evidence: There was large agreement from across all sectors and all regions that the education system needs transforming to enhance opportunities to safeguard children. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated just how fundamental schools are to the safeguarding process and they must be supported to be represented and involved within local SP and multi-agency exploitation processes. Some good practice was identified within SPs that have maximised the shift of virtual meetings to breakdown previous engagement barriers with education. However, as many professionals discussed ‘safeguarding’ being an ‘add-on’ role to full-time teacher duties, shifts in prioritising pastoral roles within schools is well overdue. In addition, due to increasing number of Academies, recent uncovering around the scale of sexual abuse and harassment, along with the reduction of funding, and the last year of COVID-19, there was recognition that now is the time to respond and fundamentally change our education system (see Theme 2 in the full report).

Children's behaviour is seen as challenging or problematic, resulting in school exclusion, rather than it being a communication that their needs are not being met, that the approach that is taken to educate and support them and integrate them into society and help them develop is not meeting those needs.

Local Recommendations #3 As part of the SP CYPE, it is recommended that the SP works towards creating a local area Terms of Reference regarding exclusion risks of young people and continually review with local schools.

This should provide agreement regarding a minimum expectation and evidence capture detailing the efforts that have been made to understand and support the root causes of the behaviour, which often 1 leads to exclusion. It must demonstrate what alternatives have been considered and offered before a permanent exclusion can be approved.

Local SPs should work with local schools to understand and minimise the use of zero tolerance to drugs policies, linking to the above point regarding required action plans to be developed and agreed in partnership with a specialised service alongside local authority Inclusion officers, to ensure there is support and appropriate interventions (e.g., mentoring) for the young person and their family.

This could include an action plan in partnership with a specialised service alongside local authority Inclusion officers, to ensure there is support and appropriate interventions for the young person and their family. For example, referrals to substance misuse support, youth services, relevant VCS and lived experience mentors.

Local areas should consider a Pastoral/Safeguarding dedicated (substantive) role within each school.

This role should not be an add-on role to an already full-time teacher. This role should seek to be the expert within the school for any staff, pupil or family concerns. They should act as a family liaison and develop relationships with parents and be the link into SPs and other relevant support organisations.

Nominated safeguarding leads within all schools should have clear, established pathways and relationships with the Multi-agency Adolescents Young People Service for advice and support.

There is a need to review and promote local secondary school curriculum offering vocational pathways to reflect the diversity of needs and aspirations within the school population.

National Recommendations #5 Further revisions of the current 2017 DfE Exclusion Statutory Guidance should specifically address root causes of the behavior.

1

Any further revisions of the current 2017 DfE Exclusion Statutory guidance [18] should consider specifically addressing root causes of the behaviour, documenting what efforts have been made to understand and support the causes of the behaviour, what alternatives have been considered and offered before a permanent exclusion can be approved (e.g., allocation of a lived experience ‘mentor’).

Any national services that are introduced, such as the helpline/support for those pupils who are/have experienced sexual abuse/harassment should also ensure it does not alienate those experiencing other forms of exploitation (criminal) and should clearly indicate any form of child exploitation has the right to be raised and safeguarded [19].

6

County lines typology and expansion of definition.

Evidence: As per many of the recent reports on county lines activity and within the current findings, county lines activity is a million pound business model that is continually evolving and adapting its business methodology to maximise its profits, with COVID-19 no exception to this. This has resulted in the activity of county lines changing and adapting to these circumstances (see Theme 6 in full report).

I think sometimes we get a bit tied up in county lines, and I think our partners definitely get confused with it and the fact that county lines is Class A drugs. So if you've got a child using the rail networks, transporting cannabis, the partners will refer to that as being county lines. I think we need to do some work on that. Around what county lines is, and obviously the vulnerability within that for the children, and then the violence that goes along with it.

National Recommendations #6 A revised definition of county lines that considers:

Local operating of county lines to be emphasised within definitions.

1

Use of phone line is changing so that it is becoming harder to identify whether a young person is part of a line, with the young person themselves being used as the commodity, therefore, become removed from the actual phone line itself. This is important as it should not detract from the criminal exploitation of the child, protection and safeguarding triggers that should still be employed.

Use of ‘gateway’ drugs that do not conform to the Class A definition required for county lines exploitation.

Online activity of the county lines has increased (likely due to COVID-19) with intelligence gaps in how children and young people are being recruited online, such as the increased use of snapchat maps in ‘deliveroo’ style of drug supply.

Lack of information around girls involved in county lines and also reluctance of police in stop and searching young females, alongside the disproportionate representation of black boys, as per the HMICFRS (2020) report.

Incentivising techniques of children and young people into county lines.

Anecdotal accounts from lived experience mentors and specialist police teams within the study noted previous daily rates are being replaced by percentages of profits, therefore, incentivising children and young people to work harder, involve more of their peers in drug use and potentially create wider community issues.

Deprived towns, rural areas are now being purposely targeted by wellknown county line exporters, taking advantage of social issues such as low aspirations, poverty, and lack of youth activities and high use of drugs to import drugs into the area.

1

Cuckooing model used within county lines activity is also continuously adapting, with properties often used for a day or two, paid a daily rate, and then moved on before sufficient intelligence/warrants have been secured.

Exploiters are making children and young people aware of the NRM and s.45 defence, therefore, some are now declaring s.45 on arrest, but refuse to disclose any information or intelligence or engage with any services (also reported within HMICFRS, 2020).

There was also a consensus across partners that the plugging of drugs should be treated as a child sexual offence within legislation.

7

Viewing Serious Youth Violence through the lens of Exploitation

Evidence: Reflecting on the findings of much previous research and reports, along with the evidence within the current evaluation, serious youth violence has been impacted by the ‘perfect storm’ of adverse factors. This included cuts to youth services, poverty, deprivation, low aspirations, youth drug taking and lack of belonging, along with the further restrictions and negative consequences on these populations through COVID-19.

Professionals within this study highlighted a clear link between county lines and serious youth violence (see Theme 6 in full report) being based on: Debt bondage revenge (for the young people losing their supply, commodity).

Re-establishing of physical county lines boundaries due to COVID-19 (where physical boundaries have been blurred, with lifting of restrictions resulting in battling the physical lines again).

Lack of ability for young people to financially pay back debt bondage due to higher likelihood of getting caught for acquisitive crimes (such as shoplifting and burglary – shops lower footfall, more people at home), therefore, being asked to pay back debt by committing acts of violence.

Increased use of purposeful taxing/stealing of children and young people’s drug supply to create debt bondage to the exploiter and further entrenchment of county lines activity.

Exporting lines moving into deprived towns and rural areas to run county lines out of, with violence initially in setting up the line and establishing their presence.

Adapted movement of drugs from youths on public transport to groups of young people and adults going into areas via private car/taxi, increasing risk of violence.

Continued >

Findings within this evaluation unanimously linked county lines exploitation to serious youth violence (although also acknowledging one can exist without the other, but is rare). However, serious youth violence did not overtly feature in discussions around child criminal exploitation, almost negating the notion that a child that commits a serious violent act is vulnerable. Therefore, there was a clear conflict in the theory of knowing that county lines and serious youth violence are linked, but only one is ‘treated’ as possible child criminal exploitation, which is no doubt influenced by legislation and NRM requirements (Schedule 4 of the Modern Slavery Act, 2015).

This leads to questions about how we can better integrate and understand serious violence perpetration within child exploitation. Further issues regarding barriers in responding to disruption of potential serious youth violence risk were centred on: (i) policing culture and expectations around foot patrol and (see Theme 13 in full report) and (ii) concerns over stop and search, particularly girls and young black boys (see Theme 6 in full report).

Additionally, the project indicated that SPs that were within a Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) area (4/9 SPs) were not effectively joined up in regards to children safeguarding. Again highlighting a disparity between how we view serious violence (the result/consequence) and child criminal exploitation (the pathway).

Language and definitions is a really key part of the groundwork around county lines and gangs. How does it become serious violence and how is that different to just violence? Where's the line drawn? Are we diminishing just violence by saying, well, there's serious violence over here, and therefore, it's just violence over there. You know, and exploring that's really important to me about the language we use in terms of county lines and, and gangs, serious violence and what is it we actually mean by that?

Local Recommendations #4 Further work is required (locally and nationally) to explore how to better identify, raise awareness and provide appropriate responses that treat serious youth violence through the lens of child exploitation.

This should consider how to enhance synergies and collaborative working between local serious violence reduction partnerships (including, but not limited to VRUs), county lines and child exploitation 1 and SPs.

8

Children and Young People’s Drug Response Strategy

Evidence: There was significant concern across all sectors that within society we have a serious youth drugs issue, with a clear link from participants that one of the key pathways into criminal exploitation, county lines and serious youth violence was through the young person’s own personal use of drugs (see Theme 7 in full report).

Relating to the ‘perfect storm’ due to various contributing factors (such as experiencing trauma, deprivation, low aspirations, lack of activities, lack of social spaces, cuts in youth services, along with education structures and late diagnosis of cognitive and/or learning disabilities, along with COVID-19 restrictions), this was creating a much-needed escapism and means of self-medicating for many young people.

This was further compounded by the social media recruiting within local drug activity and county lines that glamorises the lifestyle, which can lead to young people recruiting their peer groups.

Various concerns around this were raised, such as: Failures in trying to understand ‘why’ children and young people are taking drugs to identify potential exploitation and safeguarding issues.

Normalisation of drug taking amongst children and young people, as well as amongst some practitioners.

National data that recognises the increased proportion of young people taking drugs.

The reduction of youth drug services, support and interventions that exist, with most support only available once criminalised.

Zero drug policies within schools that immediately penalise and further disengage young people from society.

Toxicity and strength of drugs such as cannabis was noted as much stronger.

Discretion in amounts seen as possession and possession with intent to supply, with this leading to differing responses in regards to criminalisation and safeguarding.

All of the above was seen as providing a toxic mix of risk factors that may lead to further harm through drug use and further involvement in county lines exploitation and perpetration of other forms of criminal activity.

Local Recommendations #5 Local SPs should seek to identify their local drug support services that exist for young people and how they link into their SP child exploitation meetings and also feature within the PHSE curriculum.

This should include a review of: 1

Educational inputs to schools on drugs and alcohol, whether this forms part of the PHSE curriculum within schools, with clear pathways of drug support in place for children and young people to access support when needed (e.g., through a support service/mentoring, etc)

Identification of specialised support for children and young people whose parents/carers are experiencing problems with substance misuse.

Identification and provision of targeted support at lower levels of risk (before criminalisation) as part of Adolescents and Young People service and Early Help offers.

National Recommendations #7 A National Children and Young People’s Drug Response Strategy should be considered, building on what is contained with the current Drug Strategy 2017, but addresses the significant gap in relation to the 1 response to youth drug taking, requiring a clearer safeguarding response in youth drug taking.

This strategy should seek to address the need for, but not limited to: A universal response to youth drug taking that is trauma informed. This should include drugs and alcohol within the PHSE curriculum within schools, with pathways of drug support in place for children and young people to access support when needed (e.g., through a support service/mentoring, etc).

Increased funding and longer term investment to be able to provide the resource that is needed in educating, supporting and rehabilitating young people.

9

Prioritisation of community Universal Services

Evidence: When exploring the range of interventions in response to county lines exploitation and serious youth violence risk, there was an acknowledgement that services and responses tended to be more targeted, with universal services neglected (see Theme 7 & 8 in full report). Yet these universal services were viewed as critical in identifying unmet need that may later increase the risk of exploitation.

Participants talked about limited, targeted driven funding with proposed outcomes that were often short-term and unrealistic, which were also subject to ‘post-code lottery’.

When asked about reachable moments in the prevention of county lines and serious violence, most participants centred these on the universal services of: Education (primary) Health visitors (early development needs) Universal youth services, clubs and activities.

It is within the universal settings where examples of unmet need can be identified. Findings revealed a key risk factor in exploitation can be undiagnosed learning disabilities, difficulties and neurodiversity issues that were being picked up at later in life at point of arrest. This identified gaps in sufficient expertise, clear pathways and adequate resource to identify and support unmet need within early years. The consequences of not identifying and providing support was seen as increasing disengagement from education, thus increasing risk of exploitation. Only with early identification can the appropriate support be put in place. Professionals continually raised the huge proportions of learning and neurodiversity issues that are being picked up in late adolescence when crisis has been reached.

National Recommendations #8 Evidence from this report suggested a move from funding short-term, target driven approaches/interventions to focus on cross-government universal services funding. The pooling of funding will also help to drive 1 better connected policies in response to safeguarding across these key organisations.

Suggestions from the evaluation included:

A collective-cross Government long-term funding uplift to these critical universal services that have been continuously reported as key places where children can be identified as being at risk and allowing for the appropriate support to be put in place before any exploitation occurs.

Review of the indicators, measurements and inspection criteria’s that exist within these universal services to shift attention and focus to the child first.

Prioritisation and focus on community support and services, with areas requiring community centres and ‘Sure Start’ centres to bring communities together again. Particularly after the experience of COVID19.

Creation of National media awareness campaigns such as ‘Alfie’s story’ [20] extending on the awareness being driven locally.

10

Discussions and Notifications when moving children out of area

Evidence: The movement of children into ‘their SP area’ without notification was raised by most professionals. Given this is a statutory requirement [21], there was agreement that this was not happening in practice and often they would find out about children (particularly within private care homes) after they had been placed. The lack of discussions, information sharing and risk planning for these often very vulnerable children moving into areas with no knowledge about the local context may further increase the risk to the child and young person. There was also a clear message regarding the moving of children out of area generally as a disruption tactic. The premise should be that this as an absolute last resort, however, this was more seen as “easing professional anxiety” rather than actually being the “right decision for that child”. See Theme 4 in full report for more information.

…we're seeing a bit of a trend, particularly in (area), of families being moved out of London because of risks because of county lines. And they've been moved into (area). Okay, and I'm sure I'm sure other county authorities with very little prep, very little communication, very little understanding that actually the risk doesn't reduce because (area) is not 100 miles from London.

Local Recommendations #6 There needs to be a conscious effort within the SPs to highlight, review and report on their mechanisms for dealing with children out of area, with a clear, published protocol that is agreed within the SP.

1

National Recommendations #9 A national review is required to (i) understand the problem, (ii) identify the extent of how many children and young people are being placed in care homes within the host local authority without prior discussions and 1 notification and (iii) identify potential solutions and actions to address this [22].

As part of recommendation 1 (formation of a National CYPE Working Group), the local review of structures and wider national review should consider development of a ‘MACE to MACE’ protocol as part of the statutory process when dealing a with children and young people across borders (e.g., county lines young person being found in area, or moving a young person out of area).

11

Low aspirations of our youth.

Evidence: Throughout interviews with safeguarding partners, there was a clear agreement regarding the low aspirations of youth across society, but particularly those children and young people that have been and continue to suffer with multiple adversities (see Theme 7 in full report). There is statutory guidance for local authorities to secure services and activities for young people aged 13-19 years, with those with learning difficulties up to age 24, in attempt to improve young people’s wellbeing [23]. However, findings from the evaluation, even before the restrictions and cuts due to COVID-19, stated that there is an urgent need for this to be reviewed, prioritised and resourced. Most professionals’ view of the lack of youth activities, safe spaces and general community support was worrying and seen as contributing to low aspirations, boredom and providing an open door for exploiters to groom and exploit. Concerns from those SPs in financial crisis was creating further concern around how to continue providing appropriate levels of support and interventions to their children and young people.

We've got to realise that if we're going to challenge any of this, that our offer to young people in terms of even in terms of jobs or possibilities, it's got to be better than the alternative. And in the moment, I don't think it is

Local Recommendations #7 The ‘Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities on Services and Activities to Improve Young People’s Well-being’[24] creates a duty in regards to the provision of offering young people opportunities in safe environments to take part in a wide range of sports, arts, music and other activities. It is recommended, due to the reporting of low aspirations across areas, that SPs have sight of and can contribute their insight into contextual risks and the creation of safe, active spaces in their area.

1

National Recommendations #10 National recognition of a need to re-engage, revive and reinvest in our 1 youth through community services, activities, support and employment.

References ADCS (2019). ADCS Discussion paper. Serious Violence and Youth Crime. https://adcs.org.uk/assets/documentation/ADCS_Discussion_Paper_on_Serious_Yo uth_Violence_and_Knife_Crime_FINAL.pdf BBC. (2020). Covid: Poverty and virus pushing families closer to the brink. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-55232270 Children Act. (1989). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents aChildren and Young Persons Act. (1933). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12/part/I Child Abduction Act. (1984). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/37/contents/2014-04-22 Children’s Commissioner. (2019). Keeping kids safe. Improving safeguarding responses to gang violence and criminal exploitation. https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CCOGangs.pdf Child Practice Safeguarding Review. (2020). It was hard to escape. Safeguarding children at risk from criminal exploitation. https://tce.researchinpractice.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Safeguarding_children_at_risk_from_criminal_exploitation_ review.pdf Early Intervention Foundation. (2018). Realising potential of Early Intervention. https://www.eif.org.uk/report/realising-the-potential-of-early-intervention Firmin, C., Jayne Horan, J., Holmes, D. and Gail Hopper, G. (2019). Safeguarding during adolescence– the relationship between Contextual Safeguarding, Complex Safeguarding and Transitional Safeguarding. https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/Safeguarding%20during%20adole scence-Briefing_Jan19_v3.pdf Ford, K., Kelly, S., Newbury, A., Meredith, Z., Evans, J. & Roderick, J. (2017).

Adverse Childhood Experiences: Breaking the Generational Cycle of Crime Turning Understanding into Action: Summary Report. Public Health Wales. https://www.rsph.org.uk/static/uploaded/4cfb1e8b-e427-47fda1ec7f29f2b5978f.pdf Gibson, B., Schneider, J., Talamonti, D. & Forshaw, M. (2021). The impact of inequality on mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Special Issue, Psychological perspectives on the pandemic. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2021-35525-006.html Working_together_to_safeguard_children_inter_agency_guidance.pdf

HMICFRS. (2020). Both Sides of the Coin: The police and National Crime Agency’s response to vulnerable people in ‘county lines’ drug offending. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/both-sidesof-the-coin-police-nca-response-vulnerable-people-county-lines-drug-offending.pdf Local Government Association. (2019). Explaining Variation in Spending - Children's Services. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Explaining%20Variation%2 0in%20Spending%20-%20Children%27s%20Services%2C%20Full%20Report_0.pdf Local Government Association. (2020). Re-thinking local: Youth services. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/campaigns/re-thinking-local/re-thinking-localchildren-and-young-people/re-thinking-local Maxwell, N., Wallace, C., Cummings, A., Bayfield, H & Morgan, H. (2019.) A systematic map and synthesis review of child criminal exploitation. http://orca.cf.ac.uk/131950/1/Child%20Criminal%20Exploitation%20Report%20Final .pdf McManus, M.A., & Boulton, L. (2020). Evaluation of multi-agency operational safeguarding arrangements in Wales (MAOSA). http://safeguardingboard.wales/2021/01/06/national-evaluation-of-multi-agencyoperational-safeguarding-arrangements-in-wales-phase-1/ Modern Slavery Act (2015). https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/modernslavery National County Lines Coordination Centre. (2018). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-county-lines-coordination-centreto-crack-down-on-drug-gangs NSPCC. (2021). Contacts to the NSPCC about drug and alcohol misuse among parents soar during the pandemic. https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/newsopinion/2021/parents-drug-and-alcohol-misuse-raises-concerns-as-reports-tonspcc--soars-during-the-pandemic/ Ofsted and colleagues. (2018). Protecting children from criminal exploitation, human trafficking and modern slavery: an addendum. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta chment_data/file/756031/Protecting_children_from_criminal_exploitation_human_traf ficking_modern_slavery_addendum_141118.pdf PHE. (2019). Public Health England, Collaborative Approaches to Preventing Offending and Re-offending In Children (CAPRICORN). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta chment_data/file/828228/CAPRICORN_resource.pdf

PHE. (2021). Public Health England, County lines exploitation: applying All Our Health. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/county-lines-exploitationapplying-all-our-health/county-lines-exploitation-applying-all-our-health Serious Violence Strategy. (2018) Serious Violence Strategy, Home Office. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/serious-violence-strategy Shorrock, S., McManus, M. M., & Kirby, S. (2019). Practitioner perspectives of multiagency safeguarding hubs (MASH). Journal of Adult Protection, 22(1), 9-20. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAP-06-2019-0021/full/html UK Parliament. (2020). Covid-19: impact on young people’s mental health. House of Lord Library. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/covid-19-impact-on-young-peoplesmental-health/ University of Nottingham. (2021). Policing County lines: Impact of COVID-19. Interim research briefing. https://tce.researchinpractice.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Policing-County-Lines.-Impact-of-Covid-19.pdf VVU & ATCM. (2018). Violence & Vulnerability Unit (VVU) in association with the Association of Town Centre Management (ATCM), County lines - a National Summary and Emerging Best Practice. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/County%20Lines%20Natio nal%20Summary%20-%20Simon%20Ford%20WEB.pdf Wood Report. Sector expert review of new multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. (2021). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta chment_data/file/987928/Wood_Review_of_multiagency_safeguarding_arrangements_2021.pdf Working Together to Safeguard Children. (2018). Working Together to Safeguard Children. A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta chment_data/file/942454/Working_together_to_safeguard_children_inter_agency_g uidance.pdf

Designed by Interactive Academia. www.InteractiveAcademia.com