Avon and Somerset – National child protection inspection

Foreword

All children deserve to grow up in a safe environment, cared for and protected from harm. Most children thrive in loving families and grow to adulthood unharmed. Unfortunately, though, too many children are abused or neglected by those responsible for their care; they sometimes need to be protected from other adults with whom they come into contact. Some of them occasionally go missing, or end up spending time in places, or with people, harmful to them.

While it is everyone’s responsibility to look out for vulnerable children, police forces – working together and with other organisations – have a particular role in protecting children and meeting their needs.

Protecting children is one of the most important things the police do. Police officers investigate suspected crimes involving children and arrest perpetrators, and they have a significant role in monitoring sex offenders. They can take a child in danger to a place of safety and can seek restrictions on offenders’ contact with children. The police service also has a significant role, working with other organisations, in ensuring children’s protection and well-being in the longer term.

As they go about their daily tasks, police officers must be alert to, and identify, children who may be at risk. To protect children effectively, officers must talk to children, listen to them, and understand their fears and concerns. The police must also work well with other organisations to play their part in ensuring that, as far as possible, no child slips through the net, and to avoid both over-intrusiveness and duplication of effort.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) is inspecting the child protection work of every police force in England and Wales. The reports are intended to provide information for the police, the police and crime commissioner (PCC) and the public on how well the police protect children and secure improvements for the future.

Summary

This report is a summary of the findings of our inspection of police child protection services in Avon and Somerset, which took place between 24 July and 4 August 2023.

We examined how effective the police’s decisions were at each stage of their interactions with or for children. This was from initial contact through to the investigation of offences against them. We also scrutinised how the constabulary treated children in custody. And we assessed how the constabulary is structured, led and governed, in relation to its child protection services.

Main findings from the inspection

During our inspection, we examined 69 cases in which the constabulary had identified children at risk. We assessed the constabulary’s child protection practice as good in 17 cases, requiring improvement in 30 cases and inadequate in 22 cases. This shows the constabulary needs to do more to provide a consistently good service for all children.

The constabulary has a stable senior leadership team with clear priorities that include child protection. It has an effective governance structure that helps senior leaders to understand the demand and service provision for some elements of child protection.

The constabulary analyses performance-related data about its service to the public. However, a significant amount of this is quantitative rather than qualitative data, which doesn’t help it to understand the full extent of threat and risk posed to children. It also doesn’t help it to find out whether its response is better protecting children from harm.

The constabulary contributes effectively to multi-agency work. It has developed strong professional relationships with its safeguarding partners and other safeguarding agencies. But partners did raise concerns about the constabulary’s senior-level representation.

We found several areas of effective practice, which we describe later in this report, and dedicated officers and staff who are committed to keeping children safe.

We saw examples of good work, including:

• Specialist child protection teams are involved from the start of investigations, generally leading to a better overall response. This includes the initial safeguarding, investigation and outcomes for the child.
• Officers quickly contact the children’s social care services emergency duty team about incidents that occur out of hours, where appropriate. Specifically, when there are concerns for a child, a child has been taken into police protection, a child is missing or a child is being detained in custody.
• Good multi-agency involvement and decision-making at strategy discussions.
• Response officers are committed to locating missing children quickly, seeking support from specialist teams when required.
• Specialist investigators and offender managers use arrest and bail conditions to protect children from harm in most cases.

Areas for improvement include:

• Officers and staff attending incidents or carrying out investigations aren’t recognising the broader risk to siblings in households or that other children are at risk of harm from perpetrators.
• Officers aren’t speaking with children and consistently recording the voice of the child.
• The constabulary is relying on children’s social care services to carry out initial investigations instead of carrying out joint investigations.
• The constabulary has inconsistent methods of making referrals to children’s social care services. Officers aren’t completing and submitting the risk assessment tool used for referrals consistently, when required.

Summary: Conclusion

Child protection and wider vulnerability is a priority for the constabulary and the senior leadership team is committed to improving the protection of children.

The constabulary has well-developed strategic governance and performance management arrangements. These need to be used effectively to make sure that performance and practice are scrutinised appropriately. This will support continual improvement in how the constabulary identifies and protects children at risk.

Overall, throughout the inspection we found dedicated officers and staff, often working in difficult and demanding circumstances. The constabulary has made significant investments in officer and staff welfare.

The constabulary needs to do more to make sure that its commitment to improving the service leads to better results. In too many cases we found inconsistent practices and decision-making. For example, we found that children weren’t being seen and listened to. In some cases, they weren’t being appropriately protected by the constabulary.

Senior leaders have acknowledged that there are some inconsistencies and areas for improvement in the service the constabulary provides to children. The constabulary is acting to address the areas of concern we identified during our inspection. We welcome this positive response.

We have made a series of recommendations. If the constabulary acts on them, these will help improve outcomes for children.

Terminology in this report

Our report contains references to ‘national’ bodies, strategies, policies, systems, responsibilities, processes and data. In some instances, ‘national’ means applying to England and Wales. In others, it means applying to England and Wales and Scotland, or the whole of the United Kingdom.

1. Introduction

The police’s responsibility to keep children safe

Under section 46 of the Children Act 1989, a constable is responsible for taking into police protection any child they have reasonable cause to believe would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm. The same Act also requires the police to inquire into that child’s case. Under section 11 of the Children Act 2004, the police must also keep in mind the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Every officer and member of police staff should understand it is their day-to-day duty to protect children. Officers going into people’s homes for any reason must recognise the needs of any child they meet and understand what they can and should do to protect them. This is particularly important when officers are dealing with domestic abuse or other incidents that may involve violence. The duty to protect children includes those detained in police custody.

The National Crime Agency’s (NCA) strategic assessment of serious and organised crime (2021) established that the risk of child sexual abuse continues to grow, and is one of the gravest serious and organised crime risks. Child sexual abuse is also one of the six national threats specified in the Strategic Policing Requirement.

Expectations set out in the ‘Working Together’ guidance

The statutory guidance published in 2018, Working together to safeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, sets out what is expected of all agencies involved in child protection. This includes local authorities, clinical commissioning groups, schools and voluntary organisations.

The specific police roles set out in the guidance are:

• identifying children who might be at risk from abuse and neglect;
• investigating alleged offences against children;
• inter-agency working and information sharing to protect children; and
• using emergency powers to protect children.

These areas are the focus of our child protection inspections. Details of how we carry out these inspections are in Annex A of this report.

2. Context for the constabulary

Avon and Somerset Constabulary has a workforce of more than 6,300, comprising:

• 3,057 police officers;
• 2,656 police staff;
• 365 police community support officers; and
• 289 special constables.

The constabulary serves a population of more than 1.7 million people in an area of 1,847 square miles.

There are eight local policing areas: North Somerset, Somerset East, Somerset West, Bristol East, North East Bristol, South Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset, and South Gloucestershire.

Safeguarding children partnerships are required by the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Avon and Somerset Constabulary works closely with partner organisations to safeguard children, including:

• Bath and North East Somerset community safety and safeguarding partnership;
• Keeping Bristol safe partnership;
• North Somerset safeguarding children’s partnership;
• Somerset safeguarding children’s partnership; and
• South Gloucestershire children’s partnership.

The constabulary also works closely with the three NHS integrated care boards as statutory children safeguarding partners.

The most recent Ofsted judgments on local authority services for children who need help and protection are set out below.

Figure 1: Ofsted judgments for local authority inspections

Local authority inspection	Judgment	Date published
Inspection of North Somerset local authority children’s services	Requires improvement	May 2023
Inspection of Bristol local authority children’s services	Requires improvement	March 2023
Inspection of Somerset local authority children’s services	Good	September 2022
Inspection of Bath and North East Somerset local authority children’s services	Good	April 2022
Inspection of South Gloucestershire children’s social care services	Requires improvement	May 2019

3. Leadership, management and governance

The constabulary has an established leadership team. Three assistant chief constables each have their own area of responsibility, covering strategic development; investigations and operational support; and neighbourhood, partnership and response.

The constabulary has a clear strategy that prioritises child protection based on the police and crime commissioner’s Police and crime plan 2021–2025 and its own Corporate strategy 2022–2025.

It has adopted the National vulnerability action plan (PDF document) to improve its approach to vulnerability, and also the National Police Chiefs’ Council Policing violence against women and girls national framework for delivery. Senior leaders in the constabulary have responsibility for all areas of vulnerability, including child abuse and exploitation, missing children and domestic abuse.

Clear governance structures help chief officers to understand what makes a service effective and make sure the constabulary provides an effective service. Strategic meetings help chief officers to hold leaders to account for progress against relevant delivery plans, including meetings of the:

• constabulary management board;
• confidence and legitimacy committee;
• vulnerability and violence against women and girls strategic group; and
• child protection performance management group.

However, we found no consistent governance and effective service in relation to child sexual exploitation and a lack of focus on perpetrators who pose a risk to children.

Performance reporting is good, but there are gaps in information on child protection

Performance data is used in strategic meetings to help leaders understand demand and performance.

A child abuse and exploitation dashboard provides data on some child protection demand and activity. But we found that it didn’t provide senior leaders with the right information, such as the amount of demand and outcomes for children. The constabulary has recognised this and is developing a new dashboard. This will help it to understand both quantitative and qualitative information on specific issues for individual children or cases.

The dashboard also provides details about data quality issues, such as when officers and staff don’t record children’s ethnicity or cultural background. This is a recording problem we found in our review of cases. The constabulary was already aware of this issue, but we found limited management accountability to rectify it.

Some communities are disproportionately affected by so-called honour-based violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. This lack of recording means the constabulary doesn’t have a clear understanding of these vulnerabilities in its communities. And it means the constabulary can’t work well with these communities and communicate with them about these issues.

The constabulary should improve its use of intelligence to better understand child sexual exploitation risks in its communities

The constabulary’s strategic threat assessment, dated February 2022, identifies child sexual abuse and exploitation as a priority for intelligence-gathering. However, it doesn’t have an up-to-date problem profile for child sexual exploitation – the only profile is dated November 2019.

The constabulary has a harm experienced by young people profile. However, this doesn’t provide an overall understanding of the current threat, harm and risk to victims. It also doesn’t identify locations that need attention or perpetrators who require effective management.

The constabulary has begun some intelligence analytical work to identify young people who may be at risk of or are involved in child sexual exploitation. But the analysis needs to include locations and perpetrators who pose a high risk of harm to children to help the constabulary safeguard children.

The constabulary doesn’t consistently use multi-agency data to inform its understanding of child protection risks

The constabulary’s analytical work in relation to child sexual exploitation is informed only by police information. In some areas of the constabulary, such as the violence reduction units, multi-agency data is used to identify risk to individuals or areas of the community. But the use of partners’ data isn’t consistent enough to help the constabulary properly understand the risks posed to children in the community, and which children are most at risk of harm.

The constabulary should explore partnership opportunities to use its data to improve joint child protection and safeguarding interventions.

The constabulary understands its training requirements and provides well-being support for those in specialist teams

The constabulary’s learning and development department has a clear understanding of personnel training requirements. It maps demand and provides courses and training, as needed. Although there are gaps in the numbers of trained detectives and specialist child protection investigators, the constabulary has a plan to resolve this.

More than 80 percent of specialist child protection personnel (Operation Ruby) have completed the specialist child abuse investigation development programme (SCAIDP) or are working towards completing it. The constabulary also invests in specialist training on elements of SCAIDP for staff involved in child protection decision-making and multi-agency working.

But specialist registered sex offender managers and internet child abuse team investigators don’t have any SCAIDP or bespoke training in relation to child protection. This includes training on their statutory responsibilities regarding multi-agency working.

Custody officers and staff who deal with children at times of increased vulnerability also don’t have any bespoke child protection or trauma-informed training. Such training would help them to identify and understand the risks posed to children and support more effective partnership working.

Welfare provision for specialist officers is good. Staff and officers we spoke with told us support for their welfare is good. The constabulary supports health and well-being arrangements for its personnel.

Strategic support of the statutory safeguarding partnership arrangements is ineffective, which is affecting outcomes for children

During our inspection we spoke with statutory safeguarding partners, including the Integrated Care Board (NHS) and children’s social care services. Overall, safeguarding partners had a positive view of the constabulary’s contribution at both frontline and middle management levels.

But most safeguarding partners were critical of police representation at the strategic Safeguarding Children Partnership executive groups. The chief constable has delegated local area commanders (superintendent or chief inspector rank) to attend strategic meetings on her behalf. Partner agencies told us that the current delegated attendees don’t know enough to make decisions about the constabulary’s safeguarding practices. They believed this was because delegated attendees lack experience in safeguarding and aren’t part of the safeguarding command structure.

Also, safeguarding partners told us that constabulary attendees lack authority to decide the level of resource contribution to the statutory partnership. This means there is ineffective and delayed decision-making by the partnership, which we were told is affecting outcomes for children. The constabulary should review its current arrangements and make sure that it is meeting the requirements of Working together to safeguard children.

There is some good child-centred practice but an inconsistent approach to recording the voice of the child

Constabulary procedures are clear that a child-centred approach is required when dealing with incidents involving or affecting children. But during our inspection we found some evidence of officers using victim-blaming language. This means the constabulary doesn’t always put children at the centre of the service it provides.

The constabulary doesn’t provide any bespoke voice of the child training, but told us it was incorporated in other training. In April and May 2023, public protection leads carried out a constabulary-wide ‘Think Child’ campaign. This included a ten-minute online presentation covering safeguarding, voice of the child and Every child matters content.

The quality of information recorded in the child protection referral forms about the voice of the child was poor in all but a small number of cases we reviewed. We also found officers don’t speak with children often enough.

Officers told us they didn’t understand the importance of speaking with children and many hadn’t heard of the term ‘voice of the child’. Recording the child’s voice is important to help inform officers’ decision-making and to support onward referral to safeguarding partners.

We also found line managers weren’t effectively challenging officers when the child’s voice hadn’t been recorded. This means that both officers and their supervisors aren’t sufficiently focused on identifying and understanding a child’s vulnerability and risk. Constabulary leaders and managers should act to improve this urgently, within three months.

4. Case file analysis

Results of case file reviews

For our inspection, Avon and Somerset Constabulary selected and self-assessed the effectiveness of its work in 33 child protection cases. Under HMICFRS criteria, the cases selected were a random sample from across the area.

Our inspectors also assessed the same 33 cases.

Cases assessed by both Avon and Somerset Constabulary and us

Constabulary assessment:

• 20 good
• 8 require improvement
• 5 inadequate.

Our assessment:

• 6 good
• 15 require improvement
• 12 inadequate.

Our inspectors selected and assessed 36 more cases during the inspection.

Additional 36 cases assessed only by us

• 11 good
• 15 require improvement
• 10 inadequate.

Total 69 cases assessed by us

• 17 good
• 30 require improvement
• 22 inadequate.

Breakdown of case file audit results by area of child protection

Cases assessed involving enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989

• 5 good
• 2 require improvement
• 3 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• Specialist child protection teams were involved from the start of investigations, generally leading to a better overall response.
• Appropriate safeguarding partners attended strategy discussions and made valuable contributions to the process.
• In many cases children’s social care services were being relied on to carry out initial investigations and decide on criminal thresholds, referring back to the police if required.
• Officers weren’t effectively completing the risk assessment process for referrals of child protection cases.
• Child neglect cases didn’t clearly show who was responsible for the case or recognise the need for joint agency investigations.

Cases assessed involving referrals relating to domestic abuse incidents or crimes

• 0 good
• 9 require improvement
• 1 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• Officers were using body-worn video in most domestic abuse cases.
• Officers made Operation Encompass referrals in all cases where the child was of school age.
• The constabulary shared Operation Encompass referrals with children’s social care services but not directly with schools. This meant there were delays, sometimes of several weeks, before information was shared with schools.
• Officers weren’t consistently recording the voice of the child at domestic abuse incidents.
• The child’s ethnicity had been recorded in only two of the ten cases we reviewed.
• The constabulary was using desk-based (telephone) resolution for domestic abuse incidents affecting children, meaning police personnel never saw or spoke with children in person.

Cases assessed involving referrals arising from incidents other than domestic abuse

• 2 good
• 4 require improvement
• 4 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• Control room personnel recognised risks to children and deployed officers promptly.
• The constabulary wasn’t consistently holding timely strategy discussions where appropriate.
• When attending incidents, officers didn’t recognise the broader risk to siblings in the household and left them at risk of harm.
• Officers didn’t speak with children in all cases.
• Criminal investigations were either poor or didn’t take place and decision-making didn’t consider children’s views.
• Children’s social care services made single agency visits which should have been joint agency visits, some of which the police had agreed as single agency visits.

Cases assessed involving children at risk from sexual exploitation

• 2 good
• 6 require improvement
• 6 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• There is regular supervisory oversight on child sexual exploitation investigations in specialist teams.
• The internet child abuse team used arrest and bail conditions when appropriate to protect children.
• Cases didn’t consistently record use of the threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement assessment model.
• The constabulary wasn’t recognising and classifying group-based child sexual exploitation.
• The constabulary didn’t have multi-agency meetings or multi-agency child exploitation meetings to identify the victims at most risk and those experiencing child sexual exploitation, the highest harm perpetrators, or locations.
• The constabulary had an unacceptable number of cases involving online sexual exploitation or abuse and indecent images of children that required investigation and action to protect children from harm.
• The constabulary wasn’t contacting children’s social care services about online cases before enforcement activity took place.

Cases assessed involving missing children

• 2 good
• 1 requires improvement
• 3 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• Control room staff used a comprehensive question set to gather information, which helped to create an accurate initial risk assessment for children who had been reported missing.
• Response officers were committed to locating missing children quickly.
• The constabulary process of a local policing area inspector completing a risk assessment before deploying officers caused significant delays.
• Officers completed prevention interviews with most missing children but their quality was inconsistent and often they didn’t include the voice of the child.
• Local authorities across the constabulary area didn’t consistently complete and share return home interviews with the constabulary.

Cases assessed involving children taken to a place of safety under section 46 of the Children Act 1989

• 2 good
• 1 requires improvement
• 3 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• Overall, decisions to take children into police custody were appropriate.
• Every time police protection was used, children’s social care services were contacted quickly to make sure that children were placed with appropriate carers.
• In most cases there was designated officer oversight and a record of their involvement.
• The voice of the child wasn’t recorded in any of the cases we reviewed, and in some cases there was no evidence that the designated officer had seen or spoken with the child.
• No strategy discussions had been recorded for any of the children taken into police protection.
• The constabulary wasn’t consistently using police protection to protect all children at risk of significant harm.

Cases assessed involving sex offender management in which children have been assessed as at risk from the person being managed

• 2 good
• 3 require improvement
• 1 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• All registered sex offenders had a warning and ‘Notify if’ flag on Niche.
• There was good liaison and information exchange with the probation service.
• The constabulary had an unacceptable number of visits to registered sex offenders waiting to be made.
• The constabulary had an inconsistent approach to making decisions about investigating and prosecuting registered sex offenders who don’t fulfil their notification requirements.

Cases assessed involving children detained in police custody

• 2 good
• 4 require improvement
• 0 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• Officers contacted the local authority emergency duty team in all cases where children had been detained without an appropriate adult, such as a parent, being present.
• Detained children were seen by healthcare professionals and where possible the NHS Advice and Support in Custody and Court team.
• Custody staff weren’t always requesting appropriate adults attend custody promptly to support the child through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice rights and entitlements, when the child first arrived in custody.
• Inspectors didn’t routinely visit or speak with children in custody when carrying out reviews of their detention.
• Checks on children in police detention didn’t consistently record children’s concerns, demeanour or behaviour.
• Not all custody officers understood the difference between alternative and secure accommodation for a child detained in custody overnight or following charge.
• Officers didn’t always complete referrals to children’s social care services for children in custody.

5. Initial contact

Personnel in the control room have been given vulnerability training. This includes training on domestic abuse, missing children and child sexual exploitation.

The constabulary has domestic abuse and missing person ‘champions’ within the control room, who support staff and help increase awareness of any new information or processes.

The constabulary uses a structured risk assessment tool to grade its responses to incidents. In most domestic abuse cases involving children that had been called-in using 999, we found an appropriate response grading and that officers attended quickly.

But where the caller hadn’t contacted the police as an emergency, we found the constabulary doesn’t always respond in a child-centred way. For example, control room staff and officers had allocated many domestic abuse incidents where children were present to the Incident Assessment Unit to investigate. This unit carries out desk-based (telephone) investigations, which means officers don’t always see the children or their home environment, and so can’t check on their well-being or for any sign of injury.

Officers generally respond well when attending domestic abuse incidents involving children

When officers attend incidents of domestic abuse involving children, they turn on their body-worn video cameras in almost all cases. This means the voice of the child, their behaviour and their demeanour are recorded, along with the conditions of their home. The police therefore have a record of how the child may have been affected by the incident and the conditions of the home environment, helping to identify any safeguarding concerns.

But despite officers submitting child protection referrals in almost all domestic abuse cases we reviewed, the vast majority didn’t have any written record of the voice of the child, their behaviour and their demeanour or details of their home conditions. Valuable information captured on the video footage isn’t being shared with safeguarding partners to help inform and provide evidence for the safeguarding referrals the officers are making.

Officers only recorded the ethnicity of children involved in domestic abuse incidents in a small number of cases we reviewed.

The constabulary’s process for sharing Operation Encompass referrals is ineffective

Through Operation Encompass, police provide information about any domestic abuse incident affecting a child to their school. When the information is shared quickly it means the child can be given appropriate support, depending on their needs and wishes.

It is positive that the constabulary does have Operation Encompass in place across all schools, and officers attending domestic abuse incidents are completing referrals in all cases where children are of school age.

But the constabulary’s process of sending these referrals to children’s social care services and not directly to the schools is creating delays, sometimes of several weeks, before the information is shared with schools. This means schools aren’t able to promptly understand any potential risk to children exposed to domestic abuse, recognise the impact and intervene to provide support in a timely way.

Control room personnel carry out well-informed initial risk assessments for children reported missing

When children are reported missing, control room personnel have a comprehensive question set to gather information from callers about the child. This helps them make an accurate initial risk assessment and use this to make a deployment grading.

Missing children are never assessed as low risk or no apparent risk, which is positive.

Warning markers are visible on police systems, which control room personnel use to help inform the initial assessment of risk for the child who is missing.

The process the constabulary uses to review initial risk assessments leads to delays in sending officers to find missing children

Unless the call requires an immediate response, the constabulary process requires a police inspector to review the initial risk assessment before sending officers to find the missing child. We found this was leading to delays of sometimes several hours before officers were despatched because inspectors weren’t always available to carry out their review. However, we found that once frontline officers were sent they carried out child-focused investigations.

We also found that managing demand appears to be influencing decisions regarding the risk grading and response to missing children. In several cases we saw repeated references to other demands on the constabulary’s resources as justification for why officers weren’t being deployed to missing children incidents.

We understand that police forces face competing demands, but children can be at significant risk of harm when they are missing. An appropriate response is required to minimise this risk by locating them quickly.

The constabulary has a process that requires incidents to be reviewed regularly and any that aren’t attended within three hours will be upgraded to an immediate response. We found this process wasn’t taking place in all cases of missing children. In several cases we found significant delays in responding to reports of missing children.

The missing person co-ordinator supports officers to locate children quickly

The missing person co-ordinator supports the response to missing children. They make sure trigger plans are developed for those children who go missing on three occasions in 28 days. We found that trigger plans for relevant children were visible on police systems and were being used to inform investigations.

The co-ordinator also makes sure children’s social care services can access a missing person report published each morning, Monday to Friday. The constabulary told us officers inform the emergency duty team directly if high-risk missing children are reported out of hours. Prompt information-sharing regarding missing children means partner agencies can provide intervention and support to the child and family as required.

The constabulary doesn’t consistently complete quality prevention interviews with children who have been missing

The police usually carry out prevention interviews after a missing child has returned home. We found the quality of information recorded in these interviews varies widely. Officers didn’t always speak with the child or record important information, such as where they went, who they were with and what happened to them during the time they were missing.

If officers don’t complete comprehensive prevention interviews, they have little or no understanding about why the child went missing, their vulnerabilities and the risks they face. It also means they don’t have valuable intelligence to prevent future missing episodes or incidents of harm and to produce safeguarding or trigger plans.

Local authorities aren’t safeguarding children by consistently completing return home interviews and sharing this information with the constabulary

Local authorities provide the constabulary with an inconsistent service regarding the completion and sharing of children’s return home interviews. We found not all local authorities carry out these interviews with all missing children, and they aren’t always sharing interview information with the constabulary.

At the time of our inspection, we also found the multi-agency safeguarding hub had a backlog of return home interviews waiting to be reviewed of up to five months.

Delays in receiving and reviewing this information mean officers and staff can’t record new intelligence and update trigger plans. This could increase the risk of harm if the child goes missing again. The constabulary told us it has raised this problem with the relevant local authorities.

6. Assessment and help

The neighbourhood and partnership directorate is responsible for the three Lighthouse Safeguarding Units (LSUs) that receive and assess child safeguarding concerns and refer them to partner agencies. The regional hubs cover: Somerset and North Somerset; Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire; and Bristol. The five multi-agency safeguarding hubs are aligned to each local authority area and report to the LSUs.

The constabulary covers multiple local authority areas and it needs to make sure a consistent approach is being used. It has therefore appointed a strategic lead with a strong background in safeguarding to help standardise processes and working practices.

LSU managers undertake some parts of the specialist child abuse investigation development programme training. This helps them better understand child protection and the decisions needed in multi-agency working. The constabulary has guidance for staff and officers about thresholds for sharing referrals with partner agencies. But it acknowledged that LSU and multi-agency safeguarding hub personnel don’t have formal joint-agency training to make sure there is a collective understanding. Staff told us they need to “learn on the job.”

The constabulary’s process for recording and sharing child safeguarding concerns is ineffective

The constabulary told us its main tool for child protection referrals was the BRAG (Blue, Red, Amber, Green) risk assessment tool. It uses this for all children and any adults who require a safeguarding referral.

But we found officers made referrals to children’s social care services by emailing social workers directly or contacting the emergency duty team on the telephone, without submitting a formal referral.

Multiple routes of referral mean the constabulary can’t be sure all necessary referrals have been made or made in a timely manner. And the quality of the information provided can’t be checked. It also means police systems don’t accurately show the cumulative or escalating risk to children, which would be clear if child protection referrals were submitted following a consistent process.

After an officer completes a BRAG risk assessment, the processes are complex and cause delays to children’s social care services receiving the referral.

In the multi-agency safeguarding hub and LSU teams, we found cases that had been delayed by as long as 12 days. Delayed cases included a referral for an 8-month-old baby whose mother was having problems with her mental health; a 6-year-old child with complex needs who had assaulted their carer; and a headteacher reporting concerns of neglect and drug abuse in a house containing 2 children aged 10 and 11 years.

Multi-agency arrangements for daily triaging need to be more consistent

The constabulary has daily incident review meetings in three of the five local authority areas. It triages with partner agencies any incidents of domestic abuse and safeguarding matters involving children.

But in two local authority areas there is no such arrangement, and in another area children’s social care services don’t attend the incident review meeting. This means children involved in such incidents aren’t being given the same service in all areas.

Also, not all local authority areas discuss the same levels of risk. Safeguarding partners may be missing chances to intervene sooner with families affected by repeated exposure to domestic abuse and to prevent serious harm.

In addition, the lack of consistency makes it difficult for the constabulary to understand specific and cumulative risk to children. This means it is harder for it to create an appropriate multi-agency response to safeguard them.

Multi-agency risk assessment conference arrangements across the constabulary aren’t consistently recognising and managing risk

There are well-established multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) arrangements across the force area. But in Bristol, the SafeLives guidance isn’t followed because LSU personnel are screening out cases in advance of MARAC meetings. The constabulary told us this was because of a lack of time to hear all cases. This is a risk. The constabulary is deciding not to hear cases at MARAC without assessing information about victims’ circumstances that other safeguarding partners, such as health or social care, could provide.

Strategy discussions aren’t always held when they should be

Because the constabulary referral process is so complex, it isn’t clear who is responsible for arranging strategy discussions about a child at risk of significant harm or who should attend them.

We saw evidence that officers did recognise that partners should be informed of safeguarding concerns for children and therefore made referrals. But personnel didn’t request strategy discussions take place to make sure there was a joint safeguarding approach. Supervisors didn’t challenge the lack of strategy discussions.

Initial child protection conferences are well attended

Partners spoke positively about police attendance and involvement at initial child protection conferences. The constabulary has dedicated conference attendees, which means information about children on child protection plans is regularly updated on police systems. This helps the police in making decisions about these children.

There are no multi-agency meetings to ensure joined-up risk management and support for children at risk of harm from sexual exploitation

Personnel we spoke with had a limited understanding of the Home Office’s Child exploitation disruption toolkit, published in 2019. The constabulary doesn’t use the toolkit with safeguarding partners to identify high-risk locations and perpetrators, or victims who are at the highest risk of harm.

The constabulary doesn’t hold multi-agency child exploitation meetings. This means it can’t be sure that children at risk of sexual exploitation are being identified, their risks are understood and multi-agency support is being put in place to keep them safe.

The constabulary has a good multi-agency approach in its violence reduction units

The violence reduction units deal with violence against children, many of whom are also at risk of criminal exploitation. Most multi-agency support for these children is at an early intervention level. We found good multi-agency prevention and intervention work taking place in these units.

7. Investigation

Specialist child protection officers carry out high-quality child-centred investigations

In the cases we reviewed, we found investigations by specialist child protection trained officers and staff are generally high quality and child centred. Cases had clear and comprehensive investigation plans with effective supervision.

We found those officers and staff work with children in a positive way, recording their voice and views, and prioritising their safeguarding. In most of the cases we reviewed, we found the outcome for the child was appropriate.

Too often the constabulary relies on children’s social care services to establish whether a criminal investigation is required

In many of the cases we reviewed, we found officers rely on children’s social care services to make enquiries and decide whether the criminal threshold has been met. This isn’t children’s social care services’ responsibility. It is the responsibility of the police to investigate crime. By not engaging in the investigation from an early stage, the constabulary risks losing valuable evidence. And not speaking with the child means their voice isn’t heard.

Also, we found officers were too focused on either the specific child or the adult victim and didn’t demonstrate professional curiosity about the risks the offender posed to others.

The constabulary doesn’t always recognise risk in domestic abuse investigations involving children

The constabulary isn’t always allocating domestic abuse investigations in accordance with the seriousness of the crime under investigation, or the potential risk to the victims. These crimes should be investigated by personnel who have completed the professionalising investigations programme to level 2 (detectives).

We found cases of non-fatal strangulation being investigated by response officers. This treated them as low-level assaults rather than as the more serious and substantive offence of non-fatal strangulation listed under section 70 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

The constabulary has specialist child sexual exploitation personnel

The constabulary has a specialist team, Operation Topaz, which investigates child sexual exploitation and child criminal exploitation. The constabulary told us it was a proactive team involved in suspect disruption and working with high-risk victims.

Topaz officers told us that it wasn’t clear which specialist team, Operations Ruby, Bluestone or Topaz, should investigate child exploitation and offences of rape against children aged 14 years and over.

We saw this led to child sexual exploitation reports being passed around departments, particularly overnight and at weekends. This means there are significant delays in contacting, safeguarding and supporting child victims and golden hour investigative opportunities are missed.

Supervisors review child sexual exploitation cases but this doesn’t always make sure they are progressed effectively

We found investigations of child sexual exploitation had regular recorded supervision. But investigators aren’t always taking prompt action to safeguard children, and supervisors aren’t challenging this.

We found significant delays in arresting a suspect. Strategy discussions weren’t being held or there were long delays before they were held. This means the police can’t use conditional bail to protect children from further harm, and joint planning and decision-making aren’t taking place when they should.

The constabulary can’t be sure it is identifying and supporting children at highest risk of harm from sexual exploitation

The constabulary doesn’t use any child sexual exploitation risk assessment tool, so it can’t be sure it understands the true risk posed or prioritise those children who are at the highest risk of harm.

The constabulary requires Operation Topaz specialists to support children at the highest risk of harm. It told us this is achieved by a detective sergeant reviewing cases, researching police systems and from this identifying a cohort of children. Partner agency information or wider multi-agency discussions are used to support this process and subsequent decision-making. When we asked how the officers and staff can be sure they have identified the right cohort of highest risk children, we were told the sergeants “just know”.

The constabulary doesn’t consistently identify children at higher risk of exploitation

Flags and warning markers can be added to police IT systems to provide information when children are at risk of harm. This information should then be used to help inform any risk assessment involving the child. But in half of the child sexual exploitation cases we reviewed, flags weren’t linked to children identified as being at risk of sexual exploitation. If children aren’t flagged as at risk, officers may not be aware of their level of risk if these children are involved in other incidents or are reported missing.

Also, officers are inconsistent in recording ethnicity for children involved in or at risk of sexual exploitation. This means the child’s cultural heritage isn’t always fully considered in referral decisions.

The constabulary provides good welfare support for specialist personnel investigating online child abuse

The constabulary makes sure officers and staff receive good welfare support. They have psychological support sessions every six months and line managers receive additional training to support officers and staff.

The constabulary has a specialist team to deal with online child abuse referrals

Officers and staff in the internet child abuse team don’t receive any bespoke training for that role and rely on any previous safeguarding training or experience. This means team members’ understanding of child protection and multi-agency safeguarding is inconsistent.

The constabulary does provide training to complete child sexual abuse image grading.

The constabulary has a dedicated victim identification officer based within the internet child abuse team who makes sure the Child Abuse Image Database is used in victim identification work.

It also uses Child Abuse Image Database investigative tools to help quickly identify children who may be experiencing abuse locally or nationally.

The constabulary’s child protection system provides intelligence on property addresses associated with the downloading or distribution of indecent images of children.

The constabulary told us it uses the system on a weekly basis, but at the time of our inspection, it hadn’t always taken action when it could have done in the last 365 days. Not fully using this system means the constabulary isn’t identifying and dealing with those offenders who pose a risk to children and who may already have access to children in the home, in their employment or in voluntary work.

Delays in the constabulary assessing referrals for risk mean children aren’t protected promptly

The constabulary uses the Kent internet risk assessment tool to grade risk in each case of online child sexual exploitation. But it doesn’t carry out this grading until after the intelligence research has been completed. Only intelligence staff are trained to complete this risk assessment. We found delays in completing intelligence checks.

Also, some cases waiting for intelligence research already had named offenders who were linked to children. But the police weren’t taking any action to arrest or deal with the suspect or carrying out any safeguarding activity to protect the child.

This means the constabulary doesn’t always immediately understand the risk posed by offenders and therefore isn’t protecting children at the earliest opportunity.

The constabulary has unacceptable delays in progressing online child sexual exploitation investigations

We found the constabulary had an unacceptable number of cases of online child sexual exploitation, abuse of children and indecent images of children that require investigation and action to protect children from harm. Some cases had been held by the constabulary without investigation for two years. Even when the cases are identified as high risk of harm, we found significant delays. Such delays in investigations mean children aren’t quickly safeguarded and they are left at risk of harm.

Information about children at risk of abuse isn’t shared soon enough with children’s social care services

When police identify that a child may be at risk from an offender, officers don’t contact children’s social care services quickly enough, meaning children are left at risk of harm for significant periods. This is of particular concern given the long delays before an arrest is made. Prompt contact and work with children’s social care services is crucial to fully understand the level of risk in each case and put in place joint protective plans.

In all the cases we examined where offenders had contact with children, there were significant delays in the police contacting children’s social care services. In most cases this didn’t occur until after enforcement activity had taken place.

Online child sexual exploitation cases weren’t always investigated by specialist officers and the risk to children wasn’t always recognised

Local policing area officers, neighbourhood officers and the criminal investigation department take responsibility for online child sexual abuse and exploitation investigations not dealt with by specialist internet child abuse team personnel. These investigations may include lower-risk peer-on-peer offending, such as a child sharing self-generated images between peers within school.

Some cases involve a child sharing a self-generated indecent image with an unknown person online and this person threatening to share the image with the child’s friends if the child doesn’t give them money. The constabulary wasn’t recognising the seriousness of these offences, which could be sextortion or blackmail. These cases weren’t being dealt with by specialist officers and we found the constabulary’s response was poor.

In two of these incidents, the police made no investigations. In one of these cases, the fraud co-ordinator who was assigned to the incident didn’t speak with the child victim and the matter was recorded as malicious communications.

Officers didn’t consider wider safeguarding or support and didn’t record the voice of the child. And they made no investigations into identifying the offenders.

8. Decision-making

Decisions to use police protection powers are mostly appropriate

It is a very serious step to remove a child from a family by way of police protection. When there are concerns about children’s safety, such as parents leaving young children at home alone or being intoxicated while looking after them, officers identify the need to immediately protect the child and use their powers well.

In most cases, once police protection powers were used there was designated officer oversight and their involvement was recorded.

When officers took children into police protection, they quickly contacted children’s social care services, usually the emergency duty team, which found the children places to stay.

We found that were no examples of children having to remain at police stations or other inappropriate places of safety for long periods. Placing children in suitable home environments quickly means additional trauma to the child is reduced.

Strategy discussions aren’t being held after police protection powers are used

In all cases we assessed, after using police protection powers, officers did contact children’s social care services to make sure children were placed with appropriate carers. However, we found no strategy discussion was held. This was also the case in the example above. The constabulary should make sure there is always a strategy discussion to share appropriate information with partner agencies, and to make effective decisions and longer-term plans for the child.

Officers using police protection powers don’t seek the voice of the child

Officers hadn’t recorded the voice of the child or their wishes in any of the cases we assessed. It is crucial that officers speak with children when they are being removed, in many cases, from their homes and their parents. This information can then be considered when professionals make decisions about the children’s immediate and longer-term care.

In some cases, we didn’t find any record that the designated officer had seen or spoken with the child, which is a requirement when using police protection powers.

9. Trusted adult

It is important children feel they can trust the police. We saw in many of the cases that officers carefully considered how best to approach a child, their parents or their carers. In these cases, officers explored the most effective ways to communicate with them and gave the children time to consider being involved with the investigation process when required. Such sensitivity builds confidence and creates stronger relationships between the police and children, parents and/or carers.

Avon and Somerset Constabulary works well with other safeguarding agencies and professionals to protect children when they need immediate safeguarding.

The constabulary is taking steps to avoid criminalising children

The constabulary doesn’t want to unnecessarily criminalise children and is keen to seek options to avoid the arrest of children and minimise the time children spend in custody. We found the constabulary is proactive in its approach to divert children away from the criminal justice system wherever possible. It does this by working with other agencies in the multi-agency custody review panels and scrutinising cases where children have been arrested and detained in custody.

The constabulary recognises the importance of prevention and provides training to children to help them to stay safe online

The constabulary has a child exploitation prevention officer who provides children across the constabulary area with age-appropriate training and raises their awareness. The training includes information and case studies about:

• cyber bullying;
• sextortion and sexting;
• child sexual exploitation;
• criminal exploitation (county lines);
• human trafficking;
• online grooming of children; and
• voice of the child.

This bespoke training on online safety has been provided to schools, colleges, scouts as well as community groups.

The training is also adapted and given to adults who either volunteer or have professional roles working with children. These sessions include the voice of the child and the importance of appropriate language when dealing with children. This training helps adults to understand that children are victims in online exploitation offences and that they can provide a safe space for children to tell them about any concerns.

We saw that the child exploitation prevention officer has received significant positive feedback about the sessions they provide to both adults and children.

The constabulary uses an interactive approach in schools to prevent harm to children from knife crime

Since 2021, the constabulary has collaborated with the NHS to provide workshop sessions to secondary school children in Bristol and South Gloucestershire called ‘The Blunt Truth’.

The aim of this workshop is to encourage young people to report to their school, the police or through Fearless (the youth arm of Crimestoppers) when someone they know is carrying a knife. The project’s ambition is to prevent assaults using knives or weapons.

The sessions are interactive. The film ‘Blunt Truth’, involving local young actors, is shown to the group before the issues raised in the film are discussed.

The second session is provided by either a doctor, nurse or paramedic working in emergency medicine. They tell children about the medical consequences and possible long-term impacts of a stab wound.

The children then learn some basic first aid on how to treat a victim who is bleeding. After completing the workshop, the children receive a certificate.

The constabulary also promotes the volunteer police cadet scheme, but local units weren’t operating at the time of our inspection. It told us there was a plan to start them in September 2023, when more staff could be assigned to running the scheme.

It has set up a mini police unit in one special educational needs school in the constabulary area.

10. Managing those who pose a risk to children

The constabulary’s integrated offender management team is responsible for the management of sexual offenders and violent offenders (MOSOVO) in its area. At the time of our inspection, 1,431 registered sex offenders lived in the community.

Within the integrated offender management team, the high harm team of offender managers manage the highest risk registered sex offenders who need more intensive supervision.

In addition, the constabulary has a MOSOVO internet team, which manages the most prolific online child abuse offenders. These personnel have received specialist digital forensic training. They carry out proactive investigations into registered sex offenders’ use of the internet so that they can intervene quickly to prevent further risk to children or adults.

MOSOVO staff spoke positively of the support they have received from this specialist team, which has helped them to better safeguard children and identify new offences committed by their registered sex offenders. The constabulary told us that all personnel who manage registered sex offenders will be nationally accredited by October 2023, to support the current number of MOSOVO staff and officers already trained.

In addition to the national accreditation, staff and officers have completed digital interrogation training. They told us this helped them to effectively manage offenders who have been issued with court orders, such as sexual harm prevention orders.

MOSOVO personnel told us they received good well-being support from the constabulary. They could access in-person occupational health appointments and could self-refer if they need specific support. This is important because staff and officers managing registered sex offenders work in a high-risk area of policing.

We found officers and staff on the MOSOVO teams were dedicated and committed to effectively managing their offenders to protect children.

Performance data sets aren’t helping senior leaders to understand and address risks posed by offenders

The constabulary has introduced a new performance governance structure with performance data presented at regular management meetings. The data is only quantitative and in many cases just a total figure, such as in relation to outstanding home visits and outstanding active risk management (ARMS) assessments.

The constabulary told us some of the high-risk cases were reviewed in the meetings. But such basic data doesn’t help senior leaders to understand the overall risks offenders pose. It also doesn’t help them to determine the best way to use their personnel to effectively manage these risks and protect children from harm.

The number of overdue visits to registered sex offenders is unacceptable

The police should visit all registered sex offenders at their home address to assess their current risk. National authorised professional practice guidance states police forces should decide the frequency of these visits for each offender.

At the time of our inspection, there were 266 overdue visits to registered sex offenders, including 44 overdue visits to high-risk offenders. This high number of overdue visits is unacceptable.

This means officers haven’t visited registered sex offenders who pose a risk to children or reviewed their home circumstances to see if they have access to children. The constabulary therefore can’t understand the current level of risk.

The constabulary doesn’t follow national guidance in relation to reactive management of registered sex offenders

To place a registered sex offender under reactive management, National Police Chiefs’ Council guidelines stipulate that they should have been managed as low risk and haven’t reoffended for at least three years. This allows officers to focus active management on medium and high-risk cases.

The constabulary policy deviates from the national guidance, meaning that registered sex offenders can be managed reactively if they are low risk and don’t reoffend for 12 months (not three years). In addition, registered sex offenders who are the subject of a sexual harm prevention order can also be managed reactively. This means many more registered sex offenders aren’t managed actively by the constabulary with home visits and annual ARMS assessments when they should be.

If officers don’t visit registered sex offenders who pose a risk to children, they can’t check offenders’ home circumstances to see if they have access to children. Without home visits, the constabulary can’t understand the level of risk the offenders pose.

The constabulary does have a reactive management team, which carries out online and analytical research on the offenders who are reactively managed. But this team doesn’t complete any offender visits or risk assessments.

Frontline officers and staff are aware of registered sex offenders in the constabulary area

The constabulary makes sure all registered sex offender records have a warning marker on police systems and in addition a flag that alerts the MOSOVO personnel if their managed offender is the subject of any police attention. This means constabulary control room and frontline officers and staff can include this warning information in risk assessments when dealing with incidents or intelligence relating to registered sex offenders.

But the constabulary doesn’t have access to the Violent and Sex Offender Register at all times. Currently, access to the register is limited to times when MOSOVO personnel are on duty. The register is important to understand details of registered sex offenders living in the constabulary area and those who live outside the area who may visit.

There is good joint agency working by frontline offender managers in the police and probation service

Police offender managers and probation service colleagues are good at working together and sharing information, carrying out joint visits when required. This joined-up approach to offender management is considered best practice. It helps to prevent offenders misleading or deceiving different agencies.

However, senior leaders don’t sufficiently challenge probation-led ARMS assessments to make sure they are completed promptly. One agency may ‘lead’ the offender risk assessment process, but the risk management of the offender is a joint agency responsibility. Without current risk assessments for registered sex offenders, the constabulary can’t understand the risk the offender poses and take appropriate action to protect children.

The constabulary isn’t consistently sharing information about children at risk from registered sexual offenders with children’s social care services

In the cases that we examined that required referral to children’s social care services, we found the constabulary responded inconsistently. In some cases, officers spoke with children and to the emergency duty team but didn’t complete a child protection referral. The referral would have recorded more information, for example on the circumstances of the risk, immediate safeguarding activity and the voice of the child.

In one case, the reason given for not sharing the referral with children’s social care services or education was that the mother had acted protectively and the offender was arrested and now in prison. This decision wasn’t child-centred. It meant that the child and mother didn’t receive any support from partner agencies. It also didn’t help future safeguarding of the child.

The constabulary has an inconsistent approach when registered sex offenders breach their notification requirements

The constabulary’s decision-making about investigating and prosecuting registered sex offenders who don’t fulfil their notification requirements is inconsistent.

MOSOVO personnel told us that supervisors across the constabulary varied in their decision-making about when to start prosecutions of registered sex offenders who breached their notification requirements. They told us this led to differences in approach across the constabulary area in dealing with offenders, placing children in some areas at greater risk of harm. There was no constabulary guidance or training to support consistency of approach and to ensure robust management of risk. We raised this matter with the constabulary.

11. Police detention

The constabulary has a culture of challenge to make sure children are only detained in custody when necessary

The constabulary encourages officers to contact the custody officer before they decide to arrest a child. The custody officer checks the officer has explored alternatives to arrest and advises whether, in the circumstances, the detention of the child is likely to be authorised.

The constabulary records when children are arrested and taken to custody without their detention being authorised. It told us that in cases of a disagreement about the appropriateness of detention, the matter is raised with the duty superintendent for a decision. This robust approach makes sure children aren’t unnecessarily criminalised.

The constabulary has good governance arrangements to support effective scrutiny of its approach to children in custody

The constabulary has a children and young people strategic group, chaired by a superintendent, that meets every three months. This meeting covers elements of the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Child-centred policing: best practice framework (PDF document) and includes youth offending and criminalisation, police custody, and youth justice and interventions.

The meeting has access to information based on quantitative performance data, including age, gender and ethnicity of children arrested and those subject to a strip search in custody.

But the data doesn’t include custody officer requests for secure or alternative accommodation for children remanded after charge or held in police custody overnight. The data also doesn’t show whether such accommodation was provided. The local authority is responsible for providing this accommodation in the best interests of the child. Not having this data means the constabulary can’t hold the local authority to account.

We reviewed the action log from the strategic meeting held in May 2023 and found appropriate scrutiny of the constabulary’s custody performance in many areas. Although an action existed to improve the timeliness of inspector Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) reviews, the data is only quantitative, meaning the constabulary can’t understand the quality of these reviews.

Inspectors aren’t routinely seeing or speaking with children in custody when they carry out their PACE reviews

PACE inspectors carry out reviews of each child in custody. But we found the inspectors didn’t routinely visit, see or speak with the children. In many cases, the inspector recorded that they hadn’t spoken with the child because they were asleep, even when reviews took place at 1pm and 5pm.

On occasions, inspectors asked the custody officer to speak with the child and provide an update of the detention review, but no record was made that this had taken place.

Custody detention officers carrying out routine checks on children in their cells didn’t consistently record the voice of the child, their demeanour or behaviour. If they don’t understand the child’s views, or monitor their behaviour or demeanour, staff can’t understand the child’s needs and recognise any change in their well-being over time. And the child’s views can’t be included in decisions made about them.

When we told the constabulary about this practice, it responded promptly to assess how it could change and improve.

Constabulary guidance is clear on what is required when children are detained in custody

Constabulary guidance requires custody officers to make sure every child sees a healthcare professional who assesses their health and welfare. Custody officers must also make sure every child has a visit from the NHS Advice and Support in Custody and Court (ASCC) team. In the cases we assessed, we found both services obtained information that affected the risk assessment of the child. We also found these services shared vulnerabilities they found with the constabulary, which is important to make sure the children are kept safe and future risks are understood.

In addition, constabulary guidance requires that the children’s emergency duty team is contacted when an appropriate adult, such as a parent, isn’t with the child.

In the cases we examined, custody officers and staff were consistently contacting the emergency duty team when required. But we found that they weren’t always requesting that appropriate adults attend promptly in order to be present to support the child through their PACE rights and entitlements. In most cases they were requested only to attend at the time of the child’s interview.

Also, we found the constabulary wasn’t challenging the timeliness of attendance of appropriate adults. In two cases we reviewed, we found delays of 6 and 12 hours before an appropriate adult attended. This means children aren’t getting help and welfare support from the appropriate adult from the time they arrive in custody and they are remaining in custody longer than necessary.

The constabulary can’t make sure that all children see a member of the specialist ASCC team due to limited contracted hours

We found that custody officers and staff in most cases made sure that children in custody are seen by healthcare professionals.

Custody officers also tried to make sure children see a member of the ASCC team. However, the ASCC team is only available within the custody suites between 8am and 8pm. This means children who attend custody outside these hours don’t benefit from the prompt advice, support and onward referral that other children experience. The constabulary should review this.

The constabulary isn’t consistently completing child protection referrals for children detained in custody

Constabulary guidance is clear that the arresting officer must complete a child protection referral. If this isn’t done, the officer investigating the case must complete a referral to make sure children’s social care services are aware of the child’s arrest.

But we found that officers hadn’t completed child protection referral forms for most children detained in custody. This means the local authority and partner agencies aren’t aware of the child’s arrest and don’t receive other information about the child and the vulnerability in the wider family.

The constabulary has a child-centred approach in some cases where children are in custody for long periods

In some cases we reviewed, custody officers had recognised the effect of custody on children and arranged for a trusted adult to visit them.

The constabulary has an inconsistent understanding of alternative and secure accommodation requirements

We found, and partner agencies told us, that custody officers don’t always understand the difference between alternative and secure accommodation. This means requests to them for such accommodation for children detained overnight or following charge are confused and at times inappropriate.

In addition, we found custody officers either didn’t complete detention certificates or children’s custody records showed poor grounds for requesting alternative or secure accommodation.

There is good multi-agency review of children who attend custody

The constabulary attends the five local authority custody review panels which take place across the constabulary area every three months. The meetings have good partner agency attendance, including by the youth offending service, children’s social care services (including the emergency duty team), family intervention services and the ASCC team. The constabulary representative is the custody lead.

We attended one meeting and found partner agencies had prepared a review of their involvement before and during the custody attendance in ten named children’s cases. Multi-agency findings help promote good practice and develop learning which is shared across agencies.

Conclusion

The overall effectiveness of the constabulary and its response to children who need help and protection

Child protection and wider vulnerability is a priority for the constabulary leadership team, which is committed to improving its services for children.

Senior leaders have acknowledged that there are some inconsistencies and areas for improvement in the service the constabulary provides to children. The constabulary is acting quickly to address the areas of concern we identified in the child protection cases we assessed during our inspection. We welcome this positive response.

As we have highlighted, we found examples of good work by individual frontline officers and staff responding to incidents of concern involving children. We also found specialist child protection personnel who worked hard to keep children safe while working in an increasingly complex and demanding environment.

Investigations that had proper supervisory oversight, joint working and effective safeguarding plans in place helped to provide a better outcome for the child. If the constabulary uses this approach in all areas, it will achieve consistency of service and better outcomes for all children.

We have therefore made recommendations to help the constabulary improve outcomes for children.

Next steps

Within six weeks of the publication of this report, we require an update of the action the constabulary has taken to respond to those recommendations where we have asked for immediate action.

Avon and Somerset Constabulary should also provide an action plan, within six weeks of the publication of this report, setting out how it intends to respond to our other recommendations.

Annex A – Child protection inspection methodology

Objectives

The objectives of the inspection are:

• to assess how effectively police forces safeguard children at risk;
• to make recommendations to police forces for improving child protection practice;
• to highlight effective practice in child protection work; and
• to drive improvements in forces’ child protection practices.

The expectations of organisations are set out in the statutory guidance Working together to safeguard children: a guide to interagency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The specific police roles set out in the guidance are:

• the identification of children who might be at risk from abuse and neglect;
• investigation of alleged offences against children;
• inter-agency working and information sharing to protect children; and
• the exercise of emergency powers to protect children.

These areas of practice are the focus of the inspection.

Inspection approach

Inspections focus on the experience of, and outcomes for, children following their journey through the child protection and criminal investigation processes. They assess how well the police service has helped and protected children and investigated alleged criminal acts, taking account of, but not measuring compliance with, policies and guidance.

The inspections consider how the arrangements for protecting children, and the leadership and management of the police service, contribute to and support effective practice on the ground. The team considers how well management responsibilities for child protection, as set out in the statutory guidance, have been met.

Methods

• Self-assessment of practice, and of management and leadership.
• Case inspections.
• Discussions with officers and staff from within the police and from other organisations.
• Examination of reports on significant case reviews or other serious cases.
• Examination of service statistics, reports, policies and other relevant written materials.

The purpose of the self-assessment is to:

• raise awareness in the service about the strengths and weaknesses of current practice (this forms the basis for discussions with HMICFRS); and
• initiate future service improvements and establish a baseline against which to measure progress.

Self-assessment and case inspection

In consultation with police services, the following areas of practice have been identified for scrutiny:

• domestic abuse;
• incidents in which police officers and staff identify children who are in need of help and protection (for example, children being neglected);
• information sharing and discussions about children who are potentially at risk of harm;
• the exercising of powers of police protection under section 46 of the Children Act 1989 (taking children into a ‘place of safety’);
• the completion of section 47 Children Act 1989 enquiries, including both those of a criminal nature and those of a non-criminal nature (section 47 enquiries are those relating to a child ‘in need’ rather than ‘at risk’);
• sex offender management;
• the management of missing children;
• child sexual exploitation; and
• the detention of children in police custody.

Back to publication

Avon and Somerset – National child protection inspection