Cleveland Police: National child protection inspection
Contents
Print this document
Overall summary
Our judgments
Our inspection assessed how good Cleveland Police is at safeguarding children who are at risk. Our graded judgments are as follows:
HM Inspector’s summary
Cleveland Police has worked hard over the years to improve how it safeguards vulnerable children and families. But there is still much more to do.
I have identified two causes of concern regarding the performance of Cleveland Police in safeguarding children at risk. These concerns relate to how the force responds to children that are missing, and how the force investigates online child sexual exploitation.
The force doesn’t consistently recognise the risks posed to missing children. Nor does it respond to them effectively. And the force needs to improve how it investigates cases involving children being sexually exploited online. This includes how it assesses wider risks posed by offenders, and how it provides support to children and families.
The force doesn’t have enough trained officers and staff to investigate reports of child abuse, neglect and exploitation. Also, although the force has worked hard to train its officers and staff, this training doesn’t always result in improving outcomes for children.
The force needs to make sure it equips officers and staff to recognise risk and consistently record the voice of the child. It needs to make sure it effectively shares relevant information with its safeguarding partners. And it needs to improve how it assesses and responds to children at risk of, or harmed by, exploitation.
Chief officers and senior leaders understand their statutory responsibilities to safeguard children. The force chairs one of its two safeguarding children partnerships. This demonstrates the force’s investment in partnership working.
However, at an operational level, improvements are needed. Especially to the force’s joint working arrangements in managing children at risk of exploitation.
I commend the dedication and steadfastness shown by officers and staff at Cleveland Police. They are committed to safeguarding children, while operating in an increasingly complex and demanding environment. But despite the efforts of senior leadership, the force isn’t yet achieving consistently good outcomes for children. This affects the provision of safeguarding and potentially leaves children at risk.
I will closely monitor progress within Cleveland Police over the coming months.
HM Inspector of Constabulary
Introduction
About us
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) independently assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of police forces and fire and rescue services, to make communities safer. In preparing our reports, we ask the questions that the public would ask, and publish the answers in an accessible form. We use our expertise to interpret the evidence and make recommendations for improvement.
Child protection and our inspections
Children are among the most vulnerable in society. Most children grow up in loving, caring families and reach adulthood unharmed. But some don’t – they fall prey to people who coerce them into criminal enterprises or exploit them for sexual gratification. Children who don’t grow up in loving, caring families face heightened risks, as do children who go missing from home.
These things are well known. Public services, including the police, have a shared responsibility to look for the warning signs, be alert to the risks and act quickly to protect children.
In February 2024, we introduced a new child protection rolling inspection programme. For each police force in England and Wales, we make five judgments on how effectively the force safeguards children at risk.
Our inspection findings are intended to provide information for the police, police and crime commissioners, and the public. The expectations of agencies to safeguard and promote the welfare of children are set out in statutory guidance: ‘Working together to safeguard children 2023’ and ‘Wales safeguarding procedures’.
In each inspection, we focus on the experiences of children who come into contact with the police when there are concerns about their safety or well-being.
Terminology in this report
Our reports contain references to, among other things, ‘national’ definitions, priorities, policies, systems, responsibilities and processes.
In some instances, ‘national’ means applying to England and Wales. In others, it means applying to England, Wales and Scotland, or the whole of the United Kingdom.
Leadership of child protection arrangements
Cleveland Police’s leadership of its child protection arrangements requires improvement.
Areas for improvement
Area for improvement
The force needs more officers and staff trained to investigate reports of child abuse, neglect and exploitation
The force’s leaders recognise that many of the officers and staff investigating crimes against children are inexperienced and not fully trained.
Although the force’s specialist child abuse investigation development programme isn’t mandatory, the programme gives officers and staff a good understanding of the principles set out in the Working together to safeguard children 2023 guidance. It also explains how to work with safeguarding partners to better protect children at risk. But in this inspection, we found only one in seven officers in the complex exploitation team have completed the programme. And even though the force has offered the team a range of training, this is having a limited effect on outcomes for children. Officers also aren’t experienced enough to carry out their role.
In the child abuse and vulnerable adults team, which investigates child abuse and neglect, less than a third of officers have completed their initial crime investigators development programme.
The complex exploitation team should consist of 22 officers, but at the time of this inspection it only had 11 officers in post. Some of its officers and staff are also assigned to long‑term investigations, such as complex and lengthy child sexual exploitation investigations, putting more pressure on the team.
Area for improvement
The force needs to record children’s demographic information more consistently
We found that the force didn’t record children’s ethnicity in half of our case file reviews (25 out of 50 files). This means the force can’t accurately analyse the quality of its response to particular ethnic groups. Nor can the force fully understand potential risk factors affecting people because of their cultural heritage.
We were pleased to see force leaders actively monitoring performance in relation to the recording of personal data. This is an area where they are making some improvement. But there is still more work to do.
Main findings
In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to the force’s leadership of its child protection arrangements.
Chief officers and senior leaders understand their statutory child protection and safeguarding responsibilities, but there is no child-centred strategy in place
In August 2023, Cleveland Police published its strategic plan. The plan states the priorities for its officers and staff are to:
- protect people;
- protect communities;
- tackle criminals; and
- be the best [they] can.
The force’s 2024 Strategic Threats Risk Assessment clearly identifies domestic abuse and “sexual offending and exploitation (against children and adults)”, as examples of its high-risk areas.
But the force doesn’t have a force-wide child protection strategy. During our inspection we found that, because of this, officers and staff weren’t always clear whether child protection was a priority for the force.
The force still needs to improve the quality of its performance data
Senior leaders scrutinise the force through strategic board meetings, such as the improving and managing performance across Cleveland together (IMPACT) board (which takes place monthly), the safeguarding board and the prevention board. The force regularly reviews its performance in important areas such as child exploitation, domestic abuse and missing children. Senior officers throughout the force attend these meetings. Chief officers hold them to account for their performance in line with the force’s strategic plan.
At both strategic and operational meetings, we saw force leaders and supervisors discussing important issues that affect children. But in some instances, we saw force leaders and supervisors focus on quantitative performance data, which means they focused on meeting targets, not assessing outcomes. For example, they were measuring how often officers and staff completed public protection notices (PPNs) but not assessing the quality of the information frontline officers provided in the PPNs. It was reassuring to see that the force is working to improve how it uses the data it gathers about the quality of its responses to risk and vulnerability.
The force’s leaders conduct audits and reviews to help improve the force’s child protection arrangements. The force’s safeguarding and prevention strategic governance boards assess these audits and reviews. But the findings from these audits and reviews aren’t leading to consistent improvement. For example, they don’t address the need for training to improve how frontline officers recognise hidden harm and risk to children.
There are regular monthly performance meetings in local policing areas, but many senior district leaders don’t use the data well enough to reduce risk to some vulnerable children
We observed senior district leaders hold performance meetings with their respective teams. They used the force’s PowerBi application software, which refers to the force’s strategic plan, to review areas such as:
- incident response times;
- whether personnel are completing PPN referrals; and
- whether supervisors are completing reviews.
But we found that some district leaders don’t prioritise supervising the quality of the work to reduce the risk to children who regularly go missing or are being exploited. Quality assurance and effective supervision is important, as all officers need to understand what good-quality outcomes are for children when police are called. Particularly, district leaders should be assured that officers and staff are accurately recognising risks and providing comprehensive information, on referrals, about the lived experience of children.
The force has worked hard to train its officers and staff, but the training isn’t always having the desired results
The force’s learning and development department has a clear understanding of the force’s training requirements. The learning and development team maps demand and provides the courses and training programmes that are needed. There is a development programme for sergeants that covers child protection and vulnerability.
Additionally, officers and staff can access multi-agency child protection courses organised by the Safeguarding Children Partnership.
Although the provision of this extra training is positive, we found some officers still struggle to recognise risk. This skills gap was apparent in how the force responded to some incidents.
The force has invested in the welfare of its workforce, but high workloads are having a negative effect on the wellbeing of some teams
Morale is good in the force’s control room. Officers and staff we spoke with reported having access to appropriate wellbeing support. Personnel we spoke with told us support and supervision is good.
However, we didn’t find a similar level of positive feedback when speaking with personnel investigating child protection cases. Workload pressures, officer and staff attrition levels, and sickness rates are all affecting officers’ wellbeing. Our case file reviews, interviews and focus group sessions found that the lack of capacity in teams investigating crimes against children was negatively affecting how the force supports children. Officers from one district told us they felt “forgotten” as they tried to manage what they described as unmanageable workloads. They also reported that giving meaningful updates to victims about their cases can be challenging. Often, this was due to the lack of progress in many investigations.
Working with safeguarding partners
Cleveland Police is adequate at working with safeguarding partners.
The expectations of agencies to safeguard children are set out in statutory guidance: ‘Working together to safeguard children 2023’ and ‘Wales safeguarding procedures’.
The framework for how forces and statutory safeguarding partners should effectively protect children is set out in the following primary legislation:
- Children Act 1989
- Children Act 2004
- Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014
- Children and Social Work Act 2017.
Statutory safeguarding partners have a legal duty to work together, and with other local partners, to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area.
Cleveland Police is a partner in two safeguarding children partnerships:
- Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees safeguarding children partnership;
- South Tees safeguarding children partnership.
The force also works closely with:
- NHS North-East and North Cumbria.
Area for improvement
Area for improvement
The force needs to work more effectively with its safeguarding partners
The force has worked hard over the last few years to provide effective and consistent representation at its safeguarding children partnerships with Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees, and South Tees. This includes representation at their executive boards. This helps it to make effective contributions to multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.
When we spoke with the force’s safeguarding partners, they told us police representatives who attended the various partnership subgroups were sufficiently skilled and knowledgeable. We also saw good police participation at partnership subgroups.
But at an operational level, improvements are needed. We didn’t always see a good understanding or application of the Working together to safeguard children 2023 guidance. For example, in 14 out of 31 cases, we didn’t find a record of a strategy discussion taking place where one was required. Additionally, the force’s joint working arrangements in managing children at risk of exploitation needs to improve. We provide more details on this in an area for improvement later in this report.
Main findings
In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force works with safeguarding partners to help safeguard, protect and promote the welfare of children.
The force understands and carries out its statutory responsibilities to safeguard children
The force has an assistant chief constable responsible for its child protection arrangements. This is good, as it clearly identifies who has responsibility at chief officer level.
We interviewed senior leaders from the force’s safeguarding partners. They spoke positively about the force’s strategic commitment to working jointly to protect children. For example, we found the force has a designated safeguarding lead. This is a detective superintendent, who chairs the South Tees safeguarding children partnership. This demonstrates the force’s investment in partnership working.
Senior leaders from across the partnerships also described a positive working relationship, where partners regularly share information and raise professional challenges.
The force learns from local and national reviews to improve the effectiveness of local safeguarding arrangements for children
The force participates in multi-agency audit activity and quality assurance processes. This includes rapid reviews and local safeguarding practice reviews. This work creates a positive culture of practice improvement, which the partners share with each other.
The force recently participated in a partnership audit in relation to serious youth violence. The audit identified good practice, weaknesses, and areas for development for all agencies to improve outcomes for children. This demonstrates the force’s willingness to improve in this challenging area.
The force works well with local and national partner organisations on safeguarding arrangements for children
The force told us it works in partnership with third-sector organisations, such as Barnardo’s. Additionally, there are third-sector workers working in different teams across the force, directly supporting child and adult victims of abuse. Force personnel were complimentary about the contribution the partnerships are making.
The force invites partners to its daily district meetings
In April 2023, the force introduced an initiative where it invites safeguarding partners to its daily district meetings. The force uses these meetings to share critical updates about incidents in the force area. This is a positive step and presents opportunities to discuss concerns that need additional support and early intervention. There is regular information sharing and good documentation of actions, including those relating to children. However, the force hasn’t evaluated the effect this initiative is having on the outcomes for children. An evaluation would help it identify any gaps in the services provided by the partners at the meetings.
Responding to children at risk of harm
Cleveland Police is inadequate at responding to children at risk of harm.
Cause of concern
Cause of concern
The force doesn’t consistently recognise the risks posed to missing children, or respond to them effectively
In this inspection we mostly found the force’s response to missing children to be poor. Officers and staff in the control room didn’t always recognise the risks, and we saw examples of inconsistent grading of risk, which affected the force’s subsequent response to missing children. This was despite the force having access to information on relevant risk factors, including the risk of child sexual exploitation.
In the year ending 31 March 2024, our data shows that the force assessed 6.9 percent of missing children incidents as high risk. Over the same period, the national average of incidents of missing children assessed as high risk was 11.5 percent. But we found children who are looked after by local authorities – and who are often especially vulnerable – experience a poorer service from the force. Over the same 12 months, it assessed just 1.7 percent of missing children incidents from local authority care as high risk, compared to the national average of 14.2 percent.
We found similar evidence in our case file reviews. In three of the six missing children case file reviews, the force graded the children as being at medium risk of harm, when it should have graded them as high risk. In all three cases, the force hadn’t considered additional risks associated with exploitation or victimisation.
We carried out further analysis on ten additional missing children incidents assessed by the force as high risk. We found that the force places too much emphasis on a ‘threat to life’ when assessing incidents as high risk. The College of Policing authorised professional practice, and the force’s policy on missing children, defines serious harm as “a risk which is life threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible”. The force isn’t considering how other vulnerabilities such as the risk of exploitation affect the risk to children when they are missing. The force’s approach to assessing risk significantly reduces its ability to protect some of the most vulnerable children.
The force’s response to most of the missing children incidents we reviewed wasn’t good enough. Trigger plans were often ineffective. Referrals to safeguarding partners were submitted in only half of the cases, and we found prevention interviews weren’t always comprehensive.
Officers should conduct prevention interviews with a child who is no longer missing and has returned home or to a place of care. But we found the quality of information recorded in interview notes to be poor in all six missing children case file reviews. Officers rarely recorded important information, such as where the children went, who they were with and what had happened to them during the time they were missing. Too often, officers didn’t physically see the children. Instead, they completed the prevention interviews by talking with care home staff or by speaking to the child on the telephone.
This means the force doesn’t always gain the information it needs to assess whether a child has been the victim of offending, to assess whether they are at risk of exploitation, or to reduce the likelihood of them going missing again. This means when a child does go missing again, they may be at risk of significant harm. A better response from the force would help to make sure the child is found and returned safely.
Recommendations
With immediate effect, in respect of missing children, Cleveland Police should make sure that:
- officers and staff responsible for grading the risks of incidents involving missing children are sufficiently trained and able to appropriately assess the risks using all relevant information held by or available to the force;
- risk assessments are appropriate in all cases;
- that its response is proportionate to the level of risk;
- investigations into cases of missing children are effective from the first point of contact;
- the force works with its partners to improve the quality of prevention interviews so that the voice of the child is clearly recorded; and
- the force policy and guidance for responding to missing people is up to date, and that it is consistent with the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice, including the definition of serious harm.
Main findings
In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force responds to help safeguard children at risk.
The force website provides advice and information that is beneficial for children and those who care for them
The force website lists several ways for members of the public to contact the police. This includes options for in both emergency and non-emergency situations. There is also an ‘advice and information’ section with links to topics that may affect children. These include links to information about types of child abuse, vulnerability and forms of exploitation. There is also information about support organisations and how to contact them. This is also helpful for families, professionals or individuals acting on behalf of children.
The force’s control room is using research appropriately to highlight risks to children
We were pleased to find that officers and staff in the force control room (FCR) were recognising risks in most cases, except for incidents involving missing children. We saw that the threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement (THRIVE) model of assessments were routinely completed and resources were allocated appropriately. The force uses flags on Niche to identify children at risk of harm. This allows the force to carry out timely research that provides information to help grade calls and equips attending officers with relevant intelligence.
The force uses a scheduled appointment system in its control room to effectively manage non-critical demand
The force uses an appointment system in the FCR to allocate non-critical incidents. This makes sure incidents are appropriately attended by officers. The force flags incidents involving potential vulnerability, so that supervisors are aware of them and can review them. We were pleased to find that the force is making effective use of this system.
However, although the force told us it aspires to reassess incidents hourly after the initial report, this doesn’t routinely take place during very busy times. The force told us this is due to a lack of capacity within the FCR. It means that when the risk level of an incident changes, the force’s reassessments aren’t always up to date, and it can’t consistently respond appropriately. At the time of our inspection, the force told us it was considering ways to address this issue.
The force’s response to missing children incidents is frequently poor
The force isn’t always taking advantage of the ‘golden hour principle’ when children are reported missing. In four of the six case files we reviewed, we found delays of up to three hours before officers attended missing children incidents. In one case, there was a delay of up to 11 hours before supervisors effectively acknowledged and assessed the risk. Personnel are also often not carrying out enough investigative action to find missing children. The delays in responding, coupled with ineffective investigation plans, mean the force is sometimes missing opportunities to locate children quickly.
In the six cases we reviewed, and in the additional ten cases we sampled, on most occasions we also found a lack of professional curiosity by attending officers. In these examples, as in the case study below, officers were too quick to accept what children were telling them. They didn’t always confirm that missing children were safe and well. We also found examples where officers didn’t speak to the children who had been missing at all.
Case study
The force responded ineffectively to a report of a child missing for the first time
A care home reported a 15-year-old girl missing at approximately 10.10pm. As this was the first time the girl had gone missing, the force graded the incident as medium risk. But it took officers over five hours to respond to the report, during which time there was little police activity or investigation to find her.
After the girl returned to the care home, the force conducted a prevention interview over the phone. It recorded that the girl had been at a boyfriend’s house. But officers recorded in the public protection notice that the child wasn’t seen by officers and had returned to the care home of her own accord. The force didn’t show much professional curiosity. It didn’t enquire whether the girl was at risk while she was at the boyfriend’s house.
Almost eight hours passed from the time the girl was first reported missing by the care home to when she returned home, with little investigation by police.
The force’s supervision of missing children incidents is inconsistent
We found that the quality of supervisor reviews of missing children incidents was inconsistent. While the force set some enquiries and tasks, these didn’t always focus on the risk to the individual child. Nor were they always reviewed effectively enough. We found examples of victim blaming language in three of 12 cases involving child sexual exploitation and missing children we reviewed. We were also concerned to find some, though not many, instances where supervisors recorded inappropriate comments about missing children. For example, “child does not understand her behaviour” and “engages in behaviour that is highly risky”. This contributed to our view that, too often, the force doesn’t consider and respond to risk effectively.
The force doesn’t always understand the links between missing children and child exploitation
In three of the six case files we reviewed, we found examples of missing children incidents graded as medium risk. This was despite the force having information to suggest the children were at high risk of exploitation. We also found delays in the force taking action to find the children. This was despite clear information on the force’s IT system warning personnel that the child concerned was at risk of sexual or criminal exploitation. But we did find that the force’s response was sometimes good when the missing children incident was graded high risk.
Case study
The force responded well to a firearms incident involving a high‑risk missing boy
Members of the public contacted the force to report the sound of gunshots at an address. A 17-year-old boy and his father were at the incident. The force quickly responded, allocating personnel, including a detective inspector. Officers soon identified the 17-year-old boy as the target of the shooting. They suspected he had links to organised crime groups, firearms and drugs. At the time, he was a high-risk missing child with exploitation concerns. But he had already left before officers arrived at the scene.
The force responded effectively. Officers located the boy shortly afterwards. They found him in possession of drugs and arrested him. The officers quickly liaised with the local authority’s emergency duty team. Together, they decided to remand the child in custody to make sure he was safe. This decision had strong rationale and followed good practice.
The force attended a strategy meeting with safeguarding partners to discuss the risks to the boy and his sibling. An urgent strategy meeting also took place for another boy who was involved in the shooting, resulting in an agreed safeguarding plan.
Three days after the incident, the 17-year-old boy appeared in court, pleaded guilty, and received a six-month conditional order.
The force carried out a thorough investigation, which included good supervisory oversight, detailed investigation plans, and regular updates. Officers maintained a clear focus on safeguarding the high-risk missing child and his family throughout the investigation.
Case study
When the same child was later reported missing, the force’s risk assessment was poor
The 17-year-old boy’s social worker contacted the force because the boy had been missing for 11 days. He hadn’t been seen since his appearance at court. The force was already aware of the boy’s links to organised crime groups, firearms and drugs. A separate crime report noted that his brother had been allegedly kidnapped and assaulted. Despite the force having all this information, it still graded this missing child incident as medium risk.
Four days after the social worker contacted the force, supervisor reviews noted the delays (and demand pressures) in progressing priority actions such as making financial checks. But this didn’t increase the pace of the investigation.
A detective inspector then reviewed the incident, acknowledging the firearm discharge and the assault on the missing boy’s brother. This review indicated that there wasn’t any intelligence or information suggesting the boy was in immediate danger. The detective inspector noted that this boy was a member of an organised crime group, and was wanted on recall back to prison. They stated these were appropriate factors in not considering the child as high risk. They concluded that the boy wasn’t in any immediate danger.
Despite the supervisory review, the missing child incident incorrectly remained at medium risk.
The force responds to domestic abuse incidents well, but doesn’t always recognise risks in incidents involving children
The force encourages its workforce to take a robust approach to tackling domestic abuse. It has good systems and processes in place to support personnel. Officers and staff routinely complete PPNs, take positive action, and ask for evidence‑led prosecutions where possible.
We reviewed six domestic abuse cases, all of which had PPNs completed and shared. But in five of the six cases, officers didn’t record the voice of the child. In four of the six cases, frontline officers who visited the homes didn’t speak to – or enquire about – children the force recorded as living at the address.
While it is important to make sure officers consistently submit PPNs, recording the voice of the child, as well as a detailed description of the lived experience, is also important. This helps safeguarding partners to have a better understanding of risk and to consider appropriate safety plans. We describe this issue in more detail in the next chapter.
Case study
Officers responded well to some aspects of a domestic abuse incident but didn’t record the voice of the child
When police received a call about a domestic assault in progress, the force graded the incident for immediate response. Officers arrived quickly and arrested the suspect 17 minutes after the initial call. The FCR provided attending officers with details about the children present in the home. It indicated concerns about the children’s vulnerability. The force assessed the incident as high risk and referred the victim to the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC).
But on the subsequent PPN, details of the four children were scant. Officers recorded three of them – aged between three and 12 – as being “safe and well; sleeping upstairs” at the time of the incident. Officers recorded that the remaining child, aged 14, was staying with friends. This was based on information provided to them at the scene. But they didn’t confirm this was true, nor did they record whether they checked on the children inside the home. A supervisor review later agreed that the children were safe and well, but there was no record of whether any officers had actually seen them.
Frontline officers use police protection powers well
In five of the six case files we assessed, we found that when officers took children into police protection, the initial risk assessment and decision-making was good. These cases related to incidents where the children were at risk of significant harm. When officers used this power, we found that they contacted the local authority’s children’s social care emergency duty team quickly. The force held the required strategy discussions promptly to agree the next steps and implement an appropriate safety plan for the child. In the cases we examined, we were pleased to find decisions to take a child to a place of safety were well-considered and made in the best interests of the child.
But the force needs to improve how it records its use of these important police powers. In five of the six case files, we didn’t see good recordkeeping. Records should include details such as when the police protection has ended or been rescinded, effective supervisory oversight, and who the designated officer is.
Officers prioritise finding suitable accommodation when taking children into police protection
In five of the six case file reviews we carried out, we found officers prioritised sourcing suitable accommodation for the children taken into police protection, instead of taking them to a police station. We welcome this. It is child-centred practice, with decision‑making that is in the best interest of the child. The placement of children in suitable home environments quickly may mean that trauma to the child is reduced.
Case study
Good and effective use of police protection powers
A social worker contacted the force to report a 15-year-old girl missing. The social worker was trying to return the girl home to her mother after she had spent time living with a foster carer. A group of 16-year-old boys found the missing girl and asked a pub landlady to call the police. The force dispatched officers and the girl was quickly located. But her mother then refused to take her back into her care.
Officers exercised good judgment and used their protection powers appropriately. They completed a PPN recording the voice of the child and highlighting exploitation risks posed to the girl. The force immediately contacted the local authority’s emergency duty team and, during a strategy discussion, a foster placement was quickly identified. At another strategy discussion the following morning, the force and the safeguarding partners agreed a plan for the child to stay with a family friend. The designated officer recorded an appropriate rationale for finalising the police protection order. Officers adopted an effective, child‑centred approach.
Assessing risk to children and making appropriate referrals
Cleveland Police requires improvement at assessing risk to children and making appropriate referrals.
Areas for improvement
Area for improvement
The force needs to make sure it equips officers and staff to recognise risk and consistently record the voice of the child, and effectively share relevant information with its safeguarding partners
During our inspection, we found that officers didn’t always record the voice of the child before sharing public protection notices (PPNs) with safeguarding partners. Officers had recorded the voice of the child in only 24 of the 50 cases we reviewed. We found that the force routinely checks whether officers are submitting PPNs. But it doesn’t regularly review or audit the quality of these submissions, whether internally or as part of a multi-agency audit programme.
When personnel recorded children’s views, these were appropriately detailed, and their living conditions described well. We expect to see this in all PPNs, as it helps other safeguarding partners to better assess the needs of children and promote their welfare. But in too many cases, personnel didn’t document interactions with children well enough.
Area for improvement
The force needs to improve how it responds to child sexual exploitation
The force told us it has a process for assessing children at risk of, or harmed by, exploitation. But officers and staff in the complex exploitation team told us this process is confusing and disjointed. We agree. Cases are allocated to specialist officers through a multi-agency child exploitation referral process. The force has child criminal exploitation and child sexual exploitation guidance documents that describe this. But we didn’t see how the force’s processes reflect these guidance documents.
The force shares information about children at risk of exploitation – including those who are missing – as part of a multi-agency process often referred to as a multi-agency child exploitation panel. The force told us multi-agency safeguarding partners refer cases to its complex exploitation team. But the force doesn’t know how many children this team is managing. The link between the vulnerable children discussed at the multi-agency exploitation panel meetings, and those managed by complex exploitation team officers are unclear and inconsistent.
We also saw that there are multiple meetings to manage children at risk of exploitation, with a range of different titles. Some meetings are daily, while others are weekly or scheduled on an ad-hoc basis. This inconsistency is contributing to the force’s fragmented approach to managing child sexual and criminal exploitation. The force can’t always be sure there is a consistent level of service to all children at risk of exploitation.
The force needs to resolve this urgently to make sure that effective governance is in place. It also needs to make sure that officers and staff have the necessary skills, experience and training to carry out their roles.
Main findings
In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force assesses risk to children, and makes appropriate referrals.
The force’s understanding of child sexual exploitation has some weaknesses
Child sexual exploitation (CSE) is one of the specified threats in the government’s Strategic Policing Requirement. Yet the force doesn’t have a problem profile on CSE. An updated problem profile would help the force understand how best to tackle the problem. It would help the force identify victims, perpetrators, and locations of interest. Critically, it would also help the force identify how best to collaborate with partners to tackle the issue.
Force personnel we spoke with had a limited understanding of the Home Office’s 2019 Child exploitation disruption toolkit. The force doesn’t use the toolkit with safeguarding partners to identify high-risk locations, suspects and offenders, or those victims who are at the highest risk. Additionally, some personnel were unclear on which processes or risk assessment toolkits to use.
Multi-agency planning takes place, but this varies across the districts that make up the force area. Some officers and staff managing child protection investigations haven’t had sufficient training for their role, and we found little evidence of joint working on any of the exploitation cases we reviewed. This often reduced the quality of the investigations we saw, when risks posed to children weren’t identified quickly enough by personnel.
The force isn’t always recognising how to support children at risk of child criminal exploitation
In three of the six case file reviews of child criminal exploitation investigations, we found children didn’t benefit from a referral to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM). We also assessed five additional child criminal exploitation investigations, which showed that the force completed the NRM in only one of them. This means that not all children who require support are receiving it.
In the case study below, the force recognition of a child’s vulnerabilities was poor following an arrest for possession with intent to supply drugs.
Case study
A lack of recognition of risk factors affected how the force assessed a child
A 16-year-old boy, who was on a local authority child protection plan for neglect, was detained by officers using their stop and search powers. Officers arrested the boy for possession with intent to supply drugs. At the time of his arrest, the boy was in the company of a 50-year-old man who is a registered sex offender.
The force completed and shared a PPN with safeguarding partners but didn’t identify or record the exploitation concerns that it knew about. There was also no record of a strategy discussion to consider these new concerns, which officers had highlighted at the time of the arrest. The force recorded that the child didn’t need support through the NRM. But six months after the incident, a safeguarding partner agency submitted an NRM referral. A force supervisor stated: “No evidence, and even denials from the victim. This appears to be a false NRM report and shouldn’t be a crime because a professional has done all they can do with the victim, and he is now in prison.”
The outcome of the NRM referral contradicted the force’s view. It found there were reasonable grounds to suspect the boy was being exploited.
It is important that vulnerable children are safeguarded at the earliest possible opportunity. By not initially recognising the vulnerability, the force unnecessarily delayed support for the boy.
The force’s protecting vulnerable people hub provides a support function to improve the quality of referrals from domestic abuse incidents
The force has a protecting vulnerable people team based in the multi-agency children’s hubs across the force area. The role of personnel in the hubs is to review all domestic abuse, stalking, harassment risk assessments and additional information about children within submitted PPNs. They refer appropriate cases to the multi‑agency risk assessment conference. To improve the force’s performance in this area, they also provide feedback to managers, supervisors and officers on common themes such as completing detailed PPNs.
The force has a clear process for overseeing the domestic violence disclosure scheme, but this doesn’t always include children
The protecting vulnerable people hub also proactively identifies and assesses cases as part of the domestic violence disclosure scheme., One part of the scheme is for when disclosures should be made to people at risk. This is often called ‘Right to Know’. Another part of the scheme is for requests for information from members of the public. This is called ‘Right to Ask.’
We reviewed ten ‘Right to Know’ disclosures that the force hadn’t yet made to people who may be at risk of domestic abuse from either a partner or ex-partner. The delays in disclosure were for reasons such as not being able to contact people.
We found that the force has a process for prioritising urgent and non-urgent disclosures, based on risk to potential victims. But this doesn’t always consider potential or changing risk to children, particularly where the potential victim can’t be traced by the force. For example, we found that the force routinely shares PPNs with safeguarding partners, including at the time of an attempted disclosure. But we didn’t see that the force follows up to find out whether any personnel have taken action to mitigate the risk to children linked to each case. This was particularly evident where no disclosure had been possible.
The force provides good multi-agency planning and support for victims and children affected by domestic abuse
We reviewed how the force supports the multi-agency risk assessment conference. We found that the cases the force referred were appropriate, with good attendance from relevant partner agencies. The conference minutes show attendees carefully considered interventions needed to protect children, both born and unborn. Actions were appropriate and clearly recorded in a timely manner.
The force regularly completes PPNs for children brought to custody
We found that the force regularly completes referrals to partner agencies for children arrested and brought into custody. We found the force completed referrals in all six cases we reviewed where officers had brought children to custody. This is positive and helps to make sure safeguarding partners assess children’s needs.
The force isn’t always recognising when to initiate strategy discussions or meetings
The force isn’t always initiating strategy discussions with safeguarding partners, despite having enough information to initiate one. We found evidence of force representation at strategy discussions in only 17 of 31 cases we reviewed. Trained and knowledgeable police personnel attend some meetings, but this isn’t consistent. In 6 of the 12 child exploitation (excluding online) cases we reviewed, we didn’t find a record of strategy discussions taking place when one was required. Officers weren’t always taking a contextual safeguarding approach in these cases. And officers managing these cases didn’t always demonstrate the required level of understanding. The Working Together 2023 statutory guidance makes it clear that the police can initiate a strategy discussion, when additional concerns become known, or when quick action needs to be taken. Strategy discussions can take place ahead of a strategy meeting, but the force wasn’t organising these regularly enough.
Case study
An ineffective police response contributed to missed opportunities to safeguard a boy
A 16-year-old boy reported to his mother that a male friend sexually assaulted him at a sleepover. He disclosed that it had been a few weeks since the incident. The mother called the police, and the force graded the call as a priority, with officers attending 12 hours after the report.
One of the attending officers was a sexual offences liaison officer, who carried out an appropriate risk assessment. Officers completed a PPN that night and shared it with safeguarding partners the following morning. But the force didn’t initiate a strategy meeting to consider, for example, the alleged offending behaviour of the suspect. The force gave the suspect some advice, but there was no rationale recorded for not interviewing him more formally. There also was no consideration of potential evidence available through the investigation of digital devices, despite the 16-year-old boy mentioning the use of Snapchat to discuss the alleged offence. Whether the suspect had recorded the alleged offence on his mobile device didn’t form part of the investigation. This meant the force may have missed opportunities to recover potential evidence of harmful sexual behaviour.
Had the force initiated a strategy discussion or meeting, the force and its partners could have discussed concerns, and considered additional safeguarding measures.
There is good attendance by the force at initial child protection conferences
Our inspection found that the force makes sure there is always representation at initial child protection case conferences. Specialist officers usually attend these, and we found them to be knowledgeable and well-informed about the case.
But we also found that, too often, the force wasn’t carrying out joint investigations with its partners when these would have been appropriate. This was especially evident in cases involving child criminal and sexual exploitation. While this may sometimes be understandable, the force didn’t always record a rationale for a single-agency approach, or make its reasoning clear enough.
Investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children
Cleveland Police is inadequate at investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children.
Cause of concern
The force should improve how it responds to and investigates cases involving children who are sexually exploited online
We found that the force has clear processes and policies in place to help officers and staff investigate reports of online child sexual abuse and exploitation. But uniform response officers, who often conduct the initial investigations, don’t understand these processes well enough.
In five of the six case files we reviewed, we found that uniform response officers didn’t recognise children’s vulnerability or assess risks posed to children well enough. And they didn’t complete public protection notices consistently. This means some children may have been left unprotected. And in four of the six case files, uniform response officers didn’t signpost victims to adequate support or guidance for families affected by online child sexual abuse and exploitation.
The force should also review how it allocates the investigation of cases involving children being sexually exploited, whether online or through in-person contact. In our inspection, we found the force’s allocation of exploitation cases wasn’t consistent. Some online investigations were allocated to non-specialist uniformed officers, who didn’t have the skills and training to investigate these complex cases. And in reports of criminal or sexual exploitation, it isn’t clear how the force decides whether to allocate investigations to the complex exploitation team or to the criminal investigation department. We didn’t always find a rationale to support the allocations in these cases. This means children are getting an inconsistent service from the force.
We didn’t find that the force made effective use of its own investigative tools, such as the child abuse image database or other digital forensic tools, in any of the six cases we reviewed. When specialist advice isn’t obtained by frontline officers, it means potential evidence on digital devices isn’t recovered. This is because, too often, frontline officers aren’t seizing devices. In all six case file reviews, the wider risks that the perpetrators posed to other children weren’t considered. This included the two cases investigated by specialist trained officers in the force’s online investigation team.
Recommendations
With immediate effect, Cleveland Police should take steps to make sure:
- it allocates all exploitation investigations to officers and staff who have the appropriate knowledge and skills;
- officers and staff have the knowledge, skills and appropriate tools to identify children at risk from online child sexual exploitation and share these concerns with partners to make sure children get the right help;
- it effectively uses the Police National Database by completing intelligence checks during investigations;
- it follows all reasonable lines of enquiry to identify suspects; and
- it signposts all victims and families to available guidance and support.
Main findings
In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force investigates reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children.
The force has effective arrangements to respond to the sudden and unexpected deaths of children, but the officers who need training haven’t received it
The force has a clear policy in place for investigating reports of sudden and unexpected deaths in infancy and childhood (SUDIC). There are specialist officers across the force who are responsible for these investigations. This means there is a good understanding of who should respond to a SUDIC incident. However, some of the officers investigating SUDIC haven’t been trained in responding to incidents involving the death of a child. If officers in this role aren’t trained, there is a risk that they may not capture evidence and may not identify appropriate support for family members. The force is aware of this risk, and mentions it in its May 2024 force management statement.
The force’s initial investigation of reports of online child sexual exploitation is inadequate
The force doesn’t investigate some allegations of online blackmail well enough. Specifically, these are ‘sextortion’ cases, in which children are coerced into sharing indecent images of themselves online so that money can be extorted from them. These cases are typically perpetrated by people who don’t reveal their identity.
Often the uniform response officers investigating this type of crime aren’t qualified or trained to do so. None of the 16 cases we reviewed were investigated by a professionalising investigations programme level 2 qualified investigator. And in 15 of the 16 cases:
- the force didn’t investigate the allegation;
- the force didn’t examine the mobile device; and
- the force didn’t recover evidence.
There is an online child sexual abuse and exploitation investigation template on Niche to support non-specialist uniformed supervisors and investigators in how to approach these investigations. But we found that personnel don’t use it well enough.
When we raised our concern about the investigation of sextortion with the force during the inspection, the force acted quickly to make sure these types of crimes are only investigated by officers with the right skills and experience. This is a positive step.
Case study
Risks to a child from online sexual exploitation weren’t recognised by the force and resulted in a poor safeguarding response
A woman visited a police station to report that someone was sextorting her 16‑year-old son using an online platform. Neither the woman nor her son knew who the individual was. The woman stated that the person threatened to share sexual images of her son unless money was sent to them. Although the woman refused, her son was distraught. While she was at the police station, she received a text message from her son in which he stated he wanted to kill himself.
An officer attended the front counter to complete a crime report. Although the force found the crime required a qualified investigator, it didn’t recognise the son’s vulnerabilities or complete a PPN. Instead, officers gave the woman an Action Fraud leaflet. This was highly inappropriate. The force advised the woman and her son to contact the police again if there were any further offences, and officers closed the investigation with no suspect identified.
The force didn’t recognise the traumatic impact on the boy. Officers didn’t ask for specialist advice to consider any possible organised crime group involvement. Officers didn’t retrieve the boy’s phone to recover any available evidence. As officers didn’t complete a public protection notice, the force’s safeguarding partners weren’t informed. It meant the force hadn’t safeguarded the child or any other possible victims.
Specialist teams usually carry out good child protection investigations
The cases we reviewed showed that investigations carried out by specially trained officers in the child abuse and vulnerable adults team are commonly carried out jointly with the local authority. These investigations are child-centred. Where it was necessary, officers regularly considered the use of intermediaries and medical examinations. We also found clear supervisory oversight of investigations, with lines of enquiries clearly documented and followed through by personnel. This approach puts children at the heart of a safeguarding response and promotes their welfare.
In our case file reviews, we found that all investigations led by the online investigation team had good investigation plans, with regular updates from supervisors. Officers offered families a referral to national support organisations and gave them information packs that explain the investigation process and what should happen. The packs also offer advice on what other support is available.
Too often the force relies on children’s social care services to decide whether a criminal investigation is required
We reviewed 12 child exploitation cases and mostly found inconsistent joint working with social workers by officers investigating child exploitation. We found officers regularly rely on children’s social care services to make initial enquiries, and joint visits weren’t always routine when required. By not taking part in the investigation from an early stage, the force risks losing valuable evidence. And not speaking with the children means officers aren’t recording the children’s voices.
Case study
The force didn’t carry out joint investigations into some child sexual abuse cases
A mother telephoned the police to report the rape of her 12-year-old daughter by a named suspect. The mother also reported that her daughter had been self‑harming but was receiving support from her school. On the same day, the force assigned a detective, who met with the victim at their home. Officers arrested the suspect the following day and, later that day, discovered more potential victims of rape. In total, the force investigated the suspect for 3 reported rapes of 12-year-old girls.
The force’s response to the disclosures was timely, but wasn’t child-centred. Officers provided advice regarding sexual health and made a referral for specialist sexual violence support, but the force didn’t allocate a sexual offences liaison officer to see one of the victims. In all three cases, we found no evidence that the force considered medical examinations for the victims. Medical examinations could have provided reassurance to the victims.
Officers shared public protection notices with safeguarding partners. However, a strategy discussion didn’t take place until seven days later. Despite the serious nature of the offences, only a single-agency local authority-led section 47 child protection investigation took place, instead of a joint investigation. The rationale for this decision was unclear. Best practice in these circumstances is that investigations are carried out jointly.
The force carried out its own investigation, independent from its safeguarding partners.
Case study
The force inappropriately agreed a single agency investigation
A social worker called the police to report that a 16-year-old girl had disclosed a sexual assault on her by a man she had met in person. She had first met the man online. The girl also said she was traumatised by the assault. The force sent officers to meet her. The same day, officers completed a PPN, identifying exploitation risks and shared this with safeguarding partners. The local policing supervisor used victim-blaming language, stating: “She engages in activity that is highly risky and puts herself in positions making her vulnerable.” Such comments inappropriately place the responsibility for any offending on the child. This is wrong.
It took five days for the force to allocate the investigation to a police team. The strategy meeting took place the following day. At the strategy meeting, safeguarding partners agreed to a single-agency investigation, despite the need for a police investigation. The officer in the case spoke to the child on the phone but didn’t visit the child. The force arranged to take a statement over the phone, without consideration for the child’s wellbeing or reported neurodiverse needs.
Officers didn’t carry out research or a risk assessment on the suspect, who had a young child. And the force had arranged for the suspect to attend the police station voluntarily. This means it may have missed the opportunity to gather evidence from mobile devices.
Had the force carried out a joint investigation, it probably would have meant a more effective, child-centred response to the victim.
Some investigations are poorly supervised
Good child exploitation investigations are usually characterised by timely information sharing between police and other safeguarding partners. This includes co-ordinated joint working following a strategy discussion or meeting, and officers following reasonable lines of enquiry, all underpinned by effective supervision. Supervisors have an important role in helping to set investigation plans and make sure they are completed.
We reviewed 20 child exploitation investigations, including allegations of offences online. We found effective supervision in just six of these. This was similar to what we found in our ‘PEEL 2021/22’ report on Cleveland Police, where we noted that there was a lack of effective oversight of crime investigations generally.
We also found that officers often missed important lines of enquiry. These included:
- not seizing digital devices suspected to hold potential evidence; and
- not conducting enquiries to identify the suspect.
In these cases, supervisors hadn’t challenged their officers and staff when they appeared not to have completed enquiries or hadn’t completed them quickly enough. And we found some investigations were either not started at all or were closed too soon by the force.
In one investigation, a supervisor didn’t take a child-centred approach when providing supervisory oversight on a case involving a 17-year-old child who had been missing for three days. An update on the crime report stated: “I have discussed with inspector – considerable resources are being used to try and locate this male who won’t engage or provide whereabouts he is clearly safe and well and has a mobile phone he has stated his social worker is sorting out accommodation for him. He has called police and is therefore clearly able to call police himself should he require any assistance. I am happy this subject can be cancelled as missing without being seen.”
This potentially sends a message to the supervisor’s team that this is an appropriate way to manage investigations. But this isn’t appropriate. Despite initially allocating considerable resources to mitigate the risks to the child, this case was closed with no indication that these risks had been addressed.
Next steps
Within eight weeks of this report’s publication, Cleveland Police should tell us in writing how it has addressed or intends to address the areas for improvement, causes of concern and recommendations we have specified. It would be helpful for this information to be in an action plan.