Agenda item

Purpose of the report:

To provide the Social Care Services Board with an update of the work being carried out by Children Schools and Families (CSF) and together with partners to tackle Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in Surrey.

Witnesses:

Linda Cunningham, Deputy Designated Nurse Child Protection, Guildford and Waverley CCG

Claire Curran, Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing

Ben Byrne, Head of Early Help
Julie Fisher, Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families and Deputy Chief Executive
Paul Furnell, Detective Chief Superintendent, Surrey Police
Julian Gordon-Walker, Head of Safeguarding, Children’s Services

Mary Lewis, Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Families
Karl Mittelstadt, ?Partnership Manager (Child Sexual Exploitation)

Declarations of Interest:
None

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Officers highlighted the distinction between Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) and Child Abuse and the challenges that arise with regard to the age of consent. It was noted that all young people under the age of 18 within the service would be classified as “children,” constructing a robust response from the service with regard to those experiencing exploitation within that age group. Members highlighted this definition, noting that the difference must be clear between a healthy relationship and an exploitative one. Officers responded that the service and Surrey Police look closely at individual cases and act accordingly to determine whether the child is being exploited.

2.    The Board queried the structure of the Multi-Agency approach, questioning the number of Surrey Police and Surrey County Council specialist staff available to work with cases of CSE. The representative of Surrey Police responded that there were approximately 190 officers spread across several specialist teams, including a unit for online investigations and other CSE related teams. Surrey County Council officers noted that there were approximately 400 dedicated social workers across the four areas and 140 Youth Support service workers who would have a role in identifying and working with victims of CSE. It was also noted that Surrey County Council was also working closely with District and Borough Councils.

3.    The Board expressed concerns regarding the high number of Looked After Children (LAC) at risk. It was pointed out that approximately 20% of those considered at risk of CSE were LAC. The Board queried what Surrey County Council was doing to reduce this risk. The Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing responded that the wellbeing of LACs at risk of CSE was a standing item for the Corporate Parenting Board. It was also noted that Cabinet Members regularly meet with the Interim Head of Children’s Services to be updated on any issues arising.

4.    Members questioned how information regarding spotting CSE early warning signs was distributed amongst the service. Officers responded that the service was improving awareness, citing presentations on the issue of CSE awareness being undertaken and the work being done in partnership with District and Borough authorities and with Surrey Police to raise awareness. It was noted that Surrey County Council was investigating the possibility of working closer with the Metropolitan Police and their work with “Operation Makesafe,” an awareness raising campaign involving the community. Officers noted that more work could be undertaken with voluntary and faith sectors and that these avenues would be explored.

5.    The representative of Surrey Police highlighted the creation of a “Make Safe Toolkit,” including a mobile phone application to engage with families and children who may not normally come forward with information as a means of prevention being utilised by the police.

6.    Members raised concerns with children’s access to the “Dark Web” and the risks that potential ease of access to this could create and if any preventative measures could be taken to prevent online grooming and access to indecent imagery. The representative for Surrey Police noted that there was an issue with children’s ease of access to this material and that Surrey Police and officers were looking into ways of raising awareness in schools.

7.    The Board queried the Deputy Designated Nurse Child Protection, NHS regarding how many children were referred for therapeutic support for those who have suffered from CSE in childhood and adulthood. Figures for those referred to therapeutic support were unavailable as due to the report being published relating to quarter one of 2016 and it was noted that there was currently no specific service commissioned for victims of CSE. However, the Deputy Designated Nurse Child Protection, NHS responded that discussions had taken place with the Chief Executive of Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to prepare for possible increased demand for mental health services given the nature of the Goddard Inquiry in relation to sexual abuse in childhood.

8.    It was questioned how the service had modified itself as a result of increased awareness of CSE. It was highlighted that the NHS utilises a CSE tool to identify children at risk of CSE. It also was noted that General Practitioners (GPs) have had access to CSE awareness training and should have full access to the CSE prevention toolkit. It was stated that all GPs were expected have good knowledge regarding CSE recognition and prevention as a result of this.

9.    Members queried the post-18 support for victims of CSE. It was noted that Youth Support Services was working with victims of CSE beyond 18 and was working with Adult Social Care to create a crossover service for victims of CSE. It was also noted that the Sexual Exploitation and Management Board (SEAMB) was working across children’s and adult’s services and with partners to support victims of CSE.

10.  Members questioned whether the Youth Support Service’s “Sliding Doors” support programme for young girls who were victims of CSE could be extended to young boys at risk of CSE. It was noted that more work needed to be undertaken to identify young boys at risk of CSE and a future “Sliding Doors” project for boys would be a key aspect of this, acknowledging that this could be a future project for the service.

11.  The Board questioned the number of convictions relating to CSE and checks on perpetrators of CSE. Surrey Police noted that all perpetrators would be placed on a national register for a minimum of 15 years. It was also noted that a conclusive compilation of conviction data was a challenge within the police service due to the difficulties arising from CSE not being a specific offence. It was noted that the police service was working on putting in place a framework to compile this data into one place for analysis.

Recommendations:

The Board thanks witnesses and officers for their contributions to the item.

It expresses concern about the number of children who are Looked After who have been identified at risk of CSE, but also notes the efforts of the Corporate Parenting Board to ensure this is a priority.

The Board Recommends:

1.    That officers develop the work to support families in identification of CSE, and how parenting tools can help them reduce risk.

2.    That officers, the Clinical Commissioning Groups and Adult Social Care give further consideration to what therapeutic support can be commissioned to support those victims of CSE, both as children and in later life.

3.    That officers provide a further short report to the Board on efforts to engage faith networks, licensed venues, families and communities on the subject of CSE.

4.    That the Board receive an update on what consultation has been undertaken with those children at risk, or victims, of CSE, and how services have altered to take account of this feedback.

Keith Witham left the meeting at 12.00pm. Margaret Hicks resumed the meeting as Chairman.