Gloucestershire Constabulary: National child protection inspection

Overall summary

Our judgments

Our inspection assessed how good Gloucestershire Constabulary is at safeguarding children who are at risk. Our graded judgments are as follows:

 

HM Inspector’s summary

Gloucestershire Constabulary has experienced some instability in its two most senior positions.

I have identified three causes of concern about the performance of Gloucestershire Constabulary in safeguarding children at risk. These concerns relate to:

• the constabulary’s leadership of child protection;
• how the constabulary records incidents when children are missing; and
• how the constabulary investigates incidents involving children.

The constabulary doesn’t have effective governance arrangements for child protection across its area. Leaders aren’t clear as to how the constabulary is improving its performance on child protection. Nor are they clear on their strategic work on improving outcomes for children.

There are serious concerns with the way the constabulary records reports of vulnerable missing children. It doesn’t properly record missing children when it should. It has been aware of these concerns for some time but has been too slow in addressing them.

The constabulary needs to improve how it manages, supervises and carries out investigations when children are abused, neglected or exploited. Officers and staff don’t always take a child-centred approach when investigating incidents involving children. We regularly found delays in starting investigations, with enquiries often not pursued.

I have received assurances from the temporary chief constable that senior leaders are taking the findings very seriously, and are determined to oversee improvements. I will closely monitor progress in Gloucestershire Constabulary over the coming months.

Michelle Skeer

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 mayoral equivalents) 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

Gloucestershire Constabulary’s leadership of its child protection arrangements is inadequate.

Main findings

In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to the constabulary’s leadership of its child protection arrangements.

Chief officers and senior leaders understand their statutory child protection and safeguarding responsibilities, but the constabulary lacks a clear plan for protecting children

At the time of our inspection, the chief constable and the deputy chief constable positions were filled on an interim basis. The constabulary told us both chief officers had been in post four and six weeks respectively. Notably the deputy chief constable position had been vacant between January and November 2024. This means the constabulary had been experiencing a sustained period of instability in these two positions. Once the chief constable position had been filled temporarily, the constabulary announced in December 2024 that it was recruiting a permanent deputy chief constable. It filled the position in January 2025.

The chief constable has delegated their child protection responsibilities to an assistant chief constable. The role includes having oversight of vulnerability and safeguarding children. It is positive to note that the recent instability in senior leadership hasn’t adversely affected this role.

The constabulary’s strategic assessment dated December 2024 lists ‘Child Abuse and Exploitation’ as a priority in its control strategy. There is also a child sexual exploitation and abuse problem profile. These are positive steps. They help officers and staff to understand the nature and scale of sexual abuse and exploitation affecting children.

But it isn’t clear from the strategic assessment whether the constabulary understands how other forms of abuse or other risks are affecting children. These include domestic abuse and the risks to consider when children are reported missing from home or care. Both these issues are missing from the strategic assessment.

Most officers and staff we spoke to do see the protection of children as particularly important. But they didn’t feel that senior leaders provide focus and direction on child protection performance across the constabulary. And we found the same. This is having an adverse effect on how officers and staff respond to and protect children.

The constabulary’s governance arrangements don’t provide strong oversight of its child protection activities

The constabulary’s vulnerability and serious organised crime and exploitation (SOCEX) board provides strategic oversight of vulnerability and serious and organised crime across the constabulary area. An assistant chief constable chairs this board. The board reports to the chief constable’s performance board, which oversees a range of qualitative and quantitative data. At the time of our inspection, the constabulary told us it was reviewing the way it manages the performance board.

We concluded that the vulnerability and SOCEX board doesn’t have effective oversight of child protection performance. It doesn’t regularly review key child protection data that it does have, such as quality of child abuse investigations. It is therefore not clear how the board can improve the constabulary’s performance on child protection. Nor is it clear how it can carry out the constabulary’s strategic work on improving outcomes for children.

At a local level, district commanders we spoke to described some of the challenges they face in keeping children safe in their area, such as balancing demand with available resources. But we didn’t find a strong understanding of performance of child protection matters, in any of the three local policing areas. We also didn’t find effective links with the vulnerability and SOCEX board. This means local responses to children don’t always have strategic input. The constabulary could improve its understanding of its performance by commissioning audit activity. This would also allow its officers to better understand any local changes in performance.

The constabulary has appointed senior officers to lead specific themes of work relating to children. Examples include the constabulary’s response to reports of missing children, or its response when children experience domestic abuse. But we found, through the constabulary’s own scrutiny, a distinct lack of grip on – or co-ordination of efforts to act on – some of the issues identified. An example is improving how the constabulary assesses and records missing children. We discuss this in more detail in the ‘Responding to children at risk of harm’ section of this report.

The constabulary’s three local policing areas each have a superintendent responsible for that area. We found the superintendents had insufficient understanding of issues affecting children in their respective areas. They make little use of performance data to help them understand the needs of children in their area. For example, we found they didn’t review trends or patterns in data on missing children. We also found inconsistent attendance at safeguarding partnership meetings or at the vulnerability and SOCEX board.

Chief officers and senior leaders are resourcing teams with officers and staff who don’t have the right training to investigate child abuse

In June 2023, the constabulary introduced what it called its ‘enhanced operating model’ (EOM), restructuring some of its teams and changing where investigations are allocated. This model also assessed capacity levels, and the constabulary expected fully staffed teams by summer 2024.

Despite the introduction and implementation of the EOM, we found some teams still had reduced staffing levels. Most of the officers and staff we spoke to – across various teams – reported their workload to be unmanageable. And some child abuse investigations were allocated to officers and staff who didn’t have the right skills or training. Senior leaders told us they may carry out further analysis to understand if the EOM still meets the constabulary’s requirements. And they will make adjustments, if necessary.

Chief officers and senior leaders make some efforts to help officers and staff provide a child-centred service

The chief officers and senior leaders we spoke to show a commitment to improving the provision of child-centred services in the constabulary’s area.

The constabulary has made sure its curriculum for new recruits covers matters which may affect how they manage children. Some of the courses cover areas such as understanding the lived experiences of children. This is to help recruits recognise and report children’s concerns. New recruits also get an opportunity to observe other personnel in the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH). This helps them better understand how safeguarding information is shared to protect children.

The constabulary commissioned domestic abuse matters training for all its operational officers and staff, as it considers tackling domestic abuse a priority. It has a good understanding of which officers and staff have received this training.

Some officers and staff received training from the NSPCC in a ‘train the trainer’ course on child sexual abuse. The course aims to increase officers’ skills, knowledge and confidence in effectively providing training to officers and staff across the constabulary. Senior leaders told us that they are working to produce a crime training plan for 2025/26.

The constabulary has made efforts to raise awareness with its officers and staff about using victim-blaming language. During our inspection, an assistant chief constable wrote and shared a blog on the constabulary’s intranet about the effect of using such language. Despite his efforts, some officers and staff told us they didn’t know what it is.

In 8 out of the 20 case files we reviewed, we found examples of officers using victim‑blaming language. The examples involved missing or exploited children. Some examples include “risk as a result of misadventure”, “misper [short for missing person] is capable and street wise, she clearly knows how to survive” and “places herself in risky situations”. We mostly saw this language used by supervisors and managers when they were reviewing investigations. When they used this language or displayed these types of attitudes, we saw an adverse effect on the service provided to children. For example, as the risks weren’t properly understood or assessed, the constabulary didn’t carry out activity to find the children.

Some officers and staff investigating child abuse don’t know about the constabulary’s well-being support

The constabulary has a range of well-being services for its workforce. They include services intended to help maintain good physical and mental health. Some officers and staff we spoke to told us they knew how to access support should they need it.

The constabulary has designated some roles as high risk. These include roles held by some officers and staff who carry out child protection work. Those in these roles have access to an annual psychological assessment. This should help to identify if officers and staff are suffering from trauma. But some officers and staff we spoke to, such as those working in the MASH, told us they don’t qualify for the assessment, even though they work in high-risk roles.

Across the constabulary, some officers and staff told us they were aware of some therapeutic services, but some told us they suffered poor mental health due to work‑related demands. And they told us leaders weren’t addressing this. They also expressed frustration that they felt “undervalued” by senior leaders.

The constabulary still isn’t consistently recording children’s demographic information

Senior leaders make some effort to improve the accurate recording of children’s demographic information. For example, they commission audits to understand where the constabulary should focus improvement efforts. But, in our inspection, we still found many case files where officers and staff hadn’t recorded the ethnicity of children. This means officers and staff aren’t always taking into account all relevant information when carrying out risk assessments.

Senior leaders are aware of the need for the constabulary to improve how it records equality data. In our 2023–2025 PEEL inspection report, we described this as an area for improvement.

Working with safeguarding partners

Gloucestershire Constabulary 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.

Gloucestershire Constabulary is a partner in the Gloucestershire safeguarding children partnership (GSCP).

Within this partnership, the constabulary is an equal partner with the local authority and with the NHS Gloucestershire integrated care board.

Main findings

In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the constabulary works with safeguarding partners to help safeguard, protect and promote the welfare of children.

The constabulary understands and meets its statutory responsibilities to safeguard children

During this inspection, we spoke to senior leaders from the constabulary’s statutory safeguarding partners. They positively described their relationship with the constabulary as one with a “culture of candour” and a determination to work together to protect children.

Shortly before our inspection, the constabulary joined its safeguarding partners in introducing its ‘One Plan’ for children in Gloucestershire. This is the partnership’s strategic plan for children, with one of its aims being to get the right help at the right time, for all children. An assistant chief constable provides visible leadership by chairing the GSCP. At the time of this inspection, the GSCP was planning to change the term of leadership from one year to two. The reason for the change was to provide more stability and a consistent level of assurance.

The constabulary also chairs some subgroups of the GSCP, such as the child exploitation missing group, with good attendance and representation at some other subgroups.

The constabulary has social workers working alongside officers and staff in its child exploitation team. This provides a good opportunity for effective sharing of information and responding to children’s needs more quickly.

The constabulary has recently produced a problem profile on child sexual abuse and exploitation, which includes some partnership data. The constabulary acknowledges that future problem profiles should also contain data from education partners.

The constabulary works well with local and national partner organisations to understand the effectiveness of its arrangements to safeguard children, but isn’t making enough improvements

Between 2017 and 2024, the constabulary worked on a complex child sexual abuse investigation called Operation ACORNE. The crimes affected families in two of the constabulary’s policing areas (Cheltenham and Tewkesbury), and involved numerous partner agencies. In August 2024, the constabulary invited the Hydrant Programme team, in its capacity as national advisor on child sexual abuse investigations, to lead a two-day multi-agency investigation debrief. Partners who attended told us the process generated learning, such as greater awareness of the roles and responsibilities of other partner organisations.

The constabulary, along with its partners, commissioned the NSPCC to complete an analysis of the GSCP’s understanding of and response to child sexual abuse. This analysis proposed recommendations, one of which was to provide comprehensive training to multi-agency partners (including police officers and staff). This is to increase their understanding of child sexual abuse. Positively, some constabulary officers and staff have received this training. They will be involved in passing on this training to other officers and staff and safeguarding partners.

In summer 2023, the constabulary sought advice from the College of Policing’s Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme (VKPP). In October 2023, the VKPP carried out a review of the constabulary’s response to missing persons. The review led to the VKPP identifying concerns with how the constabulary managed reports of missing children and adults. The VKPP also gave advice about how to address them. However, the concerns raised by the VKPP – some of which we also identified in this inspection – haven’t been addressed by the constabulary. It has been too slow in rectifying many of the issues raised. This forms part of the cause of concern in the section ‘Responding to children at risk of harm’.

Twelve months later, in October 2024, local safeguarding partners wrote to the constabulary. They identified an unusual trend in the number of children recorded as missing by the constabulary. The trend was “a significant drop in recorded missing episodes in 2023 and 2024, the lowest levels of missing [children] that have been recorded in the last five years”. Partners also noted that the reduction appeared “disproportionate” and were keen to understand the reasons. The constabulary told us it was working to respond to the concerns partners raised. However, at the time of our inspection, it hadn’t provided a formal response. This should be a priority. If the partnership has an incomplete picture of when incidents occur, children may not be receiving an appropriate response.

The constabulary has good arrangements to share information and contribute to joint plans to prevent harm to children

The constabulary and its partners have one MASH. We found that the constabulary provides sufficient resources to the MASH. This allows it to quickly share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

Local safeguarding children partnerships are expected to produce a threshold document. This aims to promote consistent understanding and application of referral and intervention thresholds. The thresholds help to make sure children receive the right support at the right time. We found officers and staff had a good understanding of the GSCP’s threshold and applied it well. The constabulary and partners in the MASH also regularly review decisions and application of the thresholds, to make sure they are consistent.

At the local level, the constabulary works inconsistently with partner organisations

We found some inconsistencies across the constabulary’s local policing areas. Some of these include how the constabulary works with partner organisations to minimise risks to children.

For example, in one local policing area, there is a range of meetings with local partners to reduce risk to children. Every two months, the local superintendent attends a board meeting called ‘no child left behind’. The meeting considers activities to achieve the best outcomes possible for children, whatever their background. In the same policing area, there are also local initiatives to keep exploited children safe from their exploiters. However, these meetings and initiatives, or similar ones, aren’t taking place in all the policing areas.

The constabulary has vulnerability officers in each of the three local policing areas. Their role is to work with local partners and local constabulary teams in supporting vulnerable people. However, we found an inconsistent use of the vulnerability officers across the local policing areas. In some areas, they act as subject matter experts in providing support to local police officers. This includes helping to review issues affecting children, such as when they are missing from home or care. In some other areas, their work focuses on adults, and children aren’t prioritised.

Some of the vulnerability officers told us they hadn’t received training on appropriate use of the vulnerability identification screening tool, the importance of the voice of the child or avoiding victim-blaming language. They have picked up their knowledge whilst on the job.

Responding to children at risk of harm

Gloucestershire Constabulary is inadequate at responding to children at risk of harm.

Main findings

In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the constabulary responds to help safeguard children at risk.

Children, and people acting on their behalf, can contact the constabulary

The constabulary’s website explains how people can make reports to the police, including reports about crimes or concerns affecting children. It has an ‘advice and information’ page. This includes links to topics that affect children, such as child abuse and county lines. There are also details on how to contact the constabulary, as well as various support organisations, for help and support. However, there isn’t a specific system for children to report problems to the constabulary, for example using online chat tools.

Officers and staff aren’t always identifying vulnerable children

The constabulary has provided officers and staff in its force control room (FCR) with guidance and training on how to assess vulnerability. Call handlers in the FCR use the threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement (THRIVE) model of assessment to decide the type of police response needed. We found their assessments to be good in some cases, but not in others. Officers and staff in the FCR told us there’s often a reliance on what they described as “professional compliance over professional curiosity”. They also told us they haven’t received any child-focused training. This is sometimes having an effect on how they assess the vulnerability of children.

The constabulary uses flags on its IT systems to identify children at risk of harm. This allows the constabulary to carry out timely research that provides information to help grade calls. It also equips attending officers with relevant intelligence. However, we found that FCR officers and staff aren’t consistent in when they use flags to highlight children’s vulnerability. For example, we found consistent use when there were reports about domestic abuse. But this wasn’t the case for reports about child exploitation. Of the nine instances when officers and staff didn’t use flags, seven were exploitation cases.

We also found that when FCR officers and staff carried out research to get a better understanding of risks, they didn’t always access all relevant systems available to them. This means officers and staff aren’t always fully informed about the level of risk when responding to calls.

The constabulary doesn’t always address safeguarding concerns about children promptly and effectively

We found that officers and staff in the FCR sometimes carry out ineffective vulnerability assessments when requests for police service come from third parties. An example is when a social worker or domestic abuse advocate makes a request. And we often saw a delay in officers attending incidents or, sometimes, no police attendance.

We also found poor responses in all six case file reviews involving online child sexual abuse. Often in such cases, the victim or their parent, carer or teacher reports the matter. We found delays in attendance of up to eight days. In some cases, officers didn’t see children who may have been encouraged to take part in sexual activity, persuaded to share indecent images of themselves or forced to pay money.

We also saw non-attendance when members of the public reported missing children. In response to a report of a 14-year-old missing boy, the constabulary asked the father to call back if the boy didn’t return and closed the call with no further action. The constabulary told us that this can be due to the demand in the FCR. But when this happens, it potentially leaves children at risk of further harm or abuse during that period.

The constabulary’s initial response isn’t always child-centred

The constabulary isn’t taking a child-centred approach when responding to or investigating concerns about children. Officers and staff aren’t always taking the time to speak to children who are the subjects of incidents. We found in many cases they don’t see them at all.

The constabulary uses the VIST for officers and staff to screen for vulnerability and refer for support. We found that officers and staff are sometimes completing the VIST assessment without seeing the children whose vulnerability they are assessing. When they do this, the voice of the child is invariably absent. In this inspection, we found the voice of the child was absent in just over half (25 of 48) of the case file reviews. And we made a similar finding in our 2023–2025 PEEL inspection.

Officers and staff in the FCR told us they sometimes complete VIST assessments on behalf of responding officers. Officers and staff can complete the assessments either over the phone or, if they can’t speak to the child, using information the constabulary already holds. When this happens, it means sometimes no one from the constabulary sees the child. And we saw nine examples in our case file reviews where officers didn’t see the child when completing a VIST assessment.

Some officers and staff we spoke to told us they hadn’t received training on how to complete the VIST assessments.

The constabulary has a plan to address some of the issues, including improving how officers use the VIST. It has already begun to implement it.

Officers sometimes display good decision-making when using their protection powers

It is a serious step for the police to use their power to take a child into police protection. We found officers usually handled incidents well where there were concerns about the safety of children, such as when a young child was left alone. In the six cases we examined, officers made well-considered decisions to take a child to a place of safety. They did this in the best interests of the child.

We also found that, in five of the six cases, officers recognised they should contact children’s social care services at the earliest opportunity. And this resulted in good joint planning and decision-making.

This power should be overseen by the designated officer, who should be an inspector or above. Their role includes supervisory oversight, such as considering the length of time the child is under police protection. However, the constabulary didn’t always make sure that this was done. It needs to improve how it records its use of these important police powers. In five of the six cases, we didn’t see good record keeping. Records should include details such as when the police protection has ended. They should also include commentary that provides effective supervisory direction and the name of the designated officer.

The constabulary told us officers used these powers only 12 times in 2024. Senior leaders believed that this number was too low and officers had missed opportunities to remove children from harm’s way. In our case file reviews, we also saw occasions when officers could have used their protection powers to safeguard children but didn’t. For example, in one case of child neglect, the child disclosed abuse from her mother, but officers didn’t record whether they considered using their protection powers.

Assessing risk to children and making appropriate referrals

Gloucestershire Constabulary requires improvement at assessing risk to children and making appropriate referrals.

Main findings

In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the constabulary assesses risk to children, and makes appropriate referrals.

The constabulary isn’t always effectively assessing risk in incidents involving children

We found the FCR response was mostly good (in five of six cases) when officers and staff identified children experiencing or witnessing domestic abuse. Officers and staff completed relevant checks, and we saw appropriate grading of risk assessments according to the risks and vulnerabilities. However, for missing or exploited children, officers and staff weren’t always effectively assessing risk.

The constabulary’s missing persons policy makes it clear that all missing persons must be recorded on COMPACT, so that investigations can be effectively managed, and relevant information shared with the local authority. But we found that officers and staff didn’t always record all missing children incidents on this system. The constabulary told us it was updating its missing persons policy at the time of our inspection.

We found that when members of the public report children as missing, the constabulary doesn’t explore concerns about criminal exploitation or sexual exploitation well enough. This is leading to delays in its response. In four of the six case files that we reviewed involving missing children, officers and staff didn’t fully understand the risks of criminal or sexual exploitation. In one case, despite the constabulary having information on its systems that the child was vulnerable to criminal exploitation, officers and staff didn’t carry out any enquiries for five days.

Risk assessments aren’t always child-centred

The constabulary has an area for improvement from our 2023–2025 PEEL inspection regarding how well officers and staff use the VIST to record information about vulnerable children. This inspection found that officers weren’t always seeing and speaking to children when they were completing VIST assessments. However, it is reassuring to see that the constabulary has already begun to carry out some work to improve the quality of the assessments. Initiatives include rolling out training for officers and staff and improving how supervisors review VIST assessments.

We found that officers and staff working in the MASH provide a safety net by reviewing all VIST assessments. They carry out further research on constabulary systems and add information about the people or children connected to the incident. We found this research usually added detail and understanding, which helps the constabulary and its safeguarding partners to make decisions in the child’s best interests.

But, as we mentioned in the ‘Responding to children at risk of harm’ section of this report, when frontline officers don’t see children, the voice of the child is invariably absent. This then affects the quality of the VIST assessments reviewed by the MASH team.

We also found examples of victim-blaming language, especially when supervisors were reviewing and updating VIST assessments. Sometimes when this happened, it influenced their decisions about keeping children safe.

In 16 of the 48 case files we reviewed, we found the constabulary hadn’t recorded the ethnicity of children. This means officers and staff aren’t always taking into account all relevant information when carrying out risk assessments. It also makes it more difficult for the constabulary to analyse how risks in some communities may be higher, or if children may be affected differently, because of their cultural heritage. For example, children from some ethnic backgrounds are more at risk of honour-based abuse or adultification.

The constabulary’s IT system allows it to record whether a child has a disability or a special educational need, or whether that information isn’t known. In 15 of the 48 case files we reviewed, officers and staff hadn’t recorded this information. And in the two examples where officers and staff had recorded the child’s disability, they didn’t adequately assess or consider this complexity. This meant the constabulary didn’t sufficiently consider the risks in its response, leaving the child at greater risk of harm.

The constabulary sometimes assesses risk to children well, but doesn’t always use the assessments to protect and safeguard children

When children are reported missing, it is good practice for the officer in the case to create a trigger plan. This plan is informed by a good risk assessment. The plan should outline key actions to be taken when children are found. Additionally, prevention interviews, especially when completed in person, often provide officers with useful information to understand the circumstances of the missing person episode.

We found good trigger plans in all six missing person case files we reviewed. They included enough detail on the risks and listed appropriate actions officers and staff should take. We also found frontline officers completed prevention interviews in person in all six cases. This is good practice. When officers and staff use the information from trigger plans and prevention interviews, it results in the constabulary providing a good response.

Unfortunately, we didn’t always see officers and staff using this information to review risk. And we didn’t see them progressing the actions identified in trigger plans. We found in four of the six case files we reviewed that the constabulary didn’t use the trigger plans, despite them being available. And, as described in the cause of concern in the section ‘Responding to children at risk of harm’, when children reported as missing aren’t appropriately recorded on COMPACT, subsequent research may be incomplete. This is because officers and staff can’t assess the cumulative risks.

Return home interviews also help provide the constabulary with helpful information about the circumstances of a missing person episode. However, we found that the constabulary doesn’t routinely upload this information on its systems. None of the six case files we reviewed had return home interviews recorded on the constabulary’s systems.

The constabulary shares appropriate information to get the right help for children

We found that officers and staff who contributed to multi-agency risk assessments had the right skills and knowledge. We saw many examples of them using that knowledge to explain their concerns and clarify their expectations when sharing information.

We found good attendance by the constabulary’s officers and staff at strategy meetings. The meetings are usually timely and appropriately trained staff attend them. In some instances, officers and staff initiate them. We found officers and staff were also good at recording the outcome of strategy discussions. Outcomes were usually visible on systems and contained detailed information. This is positive, as it demonstrates a good understanding of police responsibilities outlined in working together statutory guidance. We also found that the constabulary participated in a multi-agency partnership audit, which partner agencies told us led to sustained improvements.

We found clear and effective processes in the MASH to assess risk and share information. Officers and staff in the MASH have received relevant training for their role. This helps them to confidently assess reports, add context through research and make decisions about further sharing. We found good decision-making. Officers and staff work well together with other agencies in getting the right help for children. Those we spoke to told us staff welfare is positive in the team. And officers and staff know when to escalate matters to senior managers.

The constabulary has a daily vulnerability meeting with partners to discuss concerns regarding cases that don’t meet the threshold for statutory child protection procedures. At this meeting, we found that the constabulary and its partners used their MASH arrangements well. Partners worked together to agree which agency takes the lead to help families access early help services. This is important because it gives services a better chance to address issues before they escalate and cause harm to children.

The constabulary effectively contributes to some multi-agency information‑sharing arrangements to protect vulnerable children

We found that the constabulary sometimes played an active role when sharing information with partners. For example, the constabulary chairs the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC). We reviewed three recent sets of minutes of this meeting and found them detailed. The meeting has wide-ranging representation from statutory and third-sector partners.

However, we also found there could be delays in holding MARAC meetings. The constabulary told us it schedules MARAC meetings “when required” as opposed to at a fixed frequency, such as every four weeks. Our case file reviews of domestic abuse incidents showed that there could be delays of up to eight weeks from the date of referral to the date of the meeting. Our case file reviews also showed that the constabulary uses the daily vulnerability meeting to review some domestic abuse incidents. MARACs discuss only high-risk cases. Meetings should take place without delay to allow for effective safeguards to be put in place.

We didn’t find an effective process for how the constabulary shares information at the multi-agency child exploitation (MACE) meetings about children at risk of exploitation. When we reviewed the minutes of these meetings, we found ineffective contributions from the constabulary across all the local policing areas. Area leaders were unaware of how many children were at risk of exploitation in their areas. It is unclear how the meetings lead to authorities taking steps to reduce risk to children at risk of exploitation.

Investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children

Gloucestershire Constabulary is inadequate at investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children.

Main findings

In this section, we set out our main findings that relate to how well the constabulary investigates reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children.

The constabulary has trained officers and staff to respond to the sudden and unexpected death of children, but they aren’t always recording relevant information

When tragically a child dies, it is usually because of illness or accidental injury. Therefore, when the police respond they must find a balance between compassion and professional curiosity.

The lead investigator must work closely with health professionals, children’s social care services, the local coroner and other partner organisations to quickly understand the circumstances leading to the death. Together with these, they must decide how to proceed.

The constabulary’s policy is that a detective inspector, who has received suitable training, will be the lead investigator when responding to one of these deaths. The constabulary also has an on-call senior investigating officer, who is available to provide investigative advice.

We reviewed six cases when the constabulary responded to the death of a child. In all six, we were pleased to see that a suitably trained detective inspector had attended as lead investigator. But in five of the six cases, we found poor recording of decisions by officers and staff. They didn’t record their reasons for not carrying out joint investigations. Nor did they record relevant actions such as exploring information and intelligence relating to the families. Also, supervisors didn’t record any oversight they provided.

The constabulary doesn’t have enough officers and staff trained to investigate reports of child abuse, neglect and exploitation

Since February 2023, the constabulary’s leaders have been aware that some of its child protection teams are under-resourced. Many of the officers and staff investigating crimes against children are inexperienced and not fully trained.

At the time of our inspection, the constabulary told us that its specialist child abuse investigation team should have 35.27 full-time equivalent (FTE) officers and staff but could deploy only 19.05 FTE officers and staff. Similarly, the child exploitation team should have had 23.16 FTE officers and staff but could deploy only 13.08 FTE officers and staff. This is significantly affecting the level of service the constabulary is providing to children, as we found poor quality investigations and, as a result, numerous poor outcomes for children.

The constabulary has made considerable efforts to understand the level of training that investigators have had in all of its teams. It also closely monitors vacancies in those teams. Some of these issues are on the constabulary’s risk register. But we didn’t always find effective mitigation against them, for example addressing the lack of suitably trained investigators in specialist teams.

In June 2023, the constabulary introduced its EOM for how crimes are allocated. The aim of this model was to review how some teams are structured and what investigations they manage, and the capacity of specialist teams. For example, in October 2023, the constabulary established the child exploitation team. It told us the team provides a dedicated investigative focus on all forms of criminal and sexual exploitation of children. The model was meant to result in fully staffed teams by summer 2024. Despite this, we found some teams still had reduced staffing levels and vacancies.

The constabulary allocates some less complicated enquiries, which may involve children, to its reactive investigation team and its desktop investigation team. These teams have investigators managing less complex crimes. The investigators are known as professionalising investigations programme (PIP 1) investigators. But most of the staff we spoke to – across both teams – reported their workload to be unmanageable. As in our 2023–25 PEEL inspection, this inspection found that the reactive investigation team was staffed mainly with student officers.

The constabulary is poor at investigating crimes involving the exploitation of children

The constabulary has a child exploitation team (CET). The team primarily deals with all forms of criminal and sexual exploitation of children, including cases involving online exploitation.

The constabulary’s crime allocation policy states that officers and staff should consider allocating cases to a specialist investigations team (such as the CET) when the crime involves one of child exploitation. But we didn’t find this in cases where suspects approach and groom children online. We found that these cases were usually allocated to officers without the right training to investigate these offences.

In five of our six case file reviews of online child sexual exploitation, we found that officers didn’t seize media devices or arrange for them to be examined. And they didn’t always explore the extent to which a suspect had groomed and exploited the child. This means that the constabulary hadn’t established if the offender was in contact with other children.

The constabulary has the capability to examine digital devices quickly to provide an enhanced service to vulnerable victims. We found that the digital forensic unit has a priority system. The system prioritises devices assessed to be of greater risk, with the highest priority being within 24 hours. This is an area that our 2023–25 PEEL inspection identified as promising practice. Providing such a service to investigators helps to bring offenders to justice quickly and provide a better service to victims. But we found officers didn’t seize devices for examination.

We found the constabulary didn’t always signpost children and families to appropriate services. This is important as it helps to make sure families can access the support they need.

We also found the constabulary didn’t carry out effective investigations involving cases of criminal or sexual exploitation. We found delays in 10 of the 12 case files we reviewed. We mostly found that enquiries weren’t often progressed promptly, with delays in starting investigations. In one investigation, officers didn’t record any updates for two months.

The constabulary’s child exploitation policy sets out some procedural guides to help officers and staff understand exploitation. The policy also references the Home Office’s ‘Child exploitation disruption toolkit’. But the policy is unclear which risk assessment officers and staff should use in cases of child exploitation.

Investigators sometimes consider the needs of victims, but investigations aren’t always child-centred

Children have specific rights under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. Like all police forces in England and Wales, the constabulary must complete a victim needs assessment to establish what support the victim needs. The assessment should also explore the best way to record the child’s evidence and how to present it at court. The constabulary must keep all victims updated about specific events and the decisions it makes.

The constabulary sometimes carries out these assessments so investigators can keep the child’s needs at the centre of their investigation. However, we found some cases when officers hadn’t completed the assessment. This happened most often when officers were carrying out enquiries as part of section 47 investigations. This was despite investigating officers speaking to the child.

Child-centred investigations are usually characterised by good consideration of the needs of the child. There is timely information sharing between police and other safeguarding partners. This includes co-ordinated joint activity following a strategy discussion or meeting, and officers following reasonable lines of enquiry, all underpinned by effective supervision.

However, officers and staff aren’t always taking a child-centred approach when investigating incidents involving children. Our case file reviews showed that in 13 of 48 cases, officers didn’t see the child involved in the incident. This was more common when there were concerns about exploitation. When investigating officers did see the child, we sometimes saw delays of up to two months.

Many of the constabulary’s investigations aren’t prompt

Many officers and staff we spoke to told us that domestic abuse was an area of focus for the constabulary. For example, senior leaders regularly scrutinise how well the constabulary is responding to domestic abuse. Our case file reviews found officers and staff proactively disrupted offending behaviour by arresting suspects and using appropriate bail conditions.

But the level of inexperience in some teams is contributing to investigations not progressing quickly enough, such as when children are exploited. We regularly found delays in starting investigations, and little supervisory direction. In one case, we found a delay of several weeks before an investigation started.

Supervisors aren’t supporting officers and staff to carry out high-quality investigations

Supervisors have an important role in helping to set investigation plans and making sure they are completed. The constabulary expects supervisors to review crime reports at the start and allocate them to the most appropriate investigator in their team. It also has a process for supervisors to consider allocating crimes to specialist teams. An example is in cases where children may have suffered significant abuse. The constabulary also scrutinises in performance meetings how well supervision is carried out.

But we found ineffective supervision in 32 of 48 case file reviews. Reviews by supervisors didn’t always take place. And when they did, they were often of poor quality because they didn’t provide sufficient challenge or guidance for the investigators. Most reviews lacked detail and added little to no value to the investigation. We found examples of poor supervision across all the areas we audited.

This is an area for improvement, as identified in our 2023–2025 PEEL inspection. The constabulary should make sure there is timely supervisory oversight, so that it takes all investigative opportunities.

Next steps

Within eight weeks of this report’s publication, Gloucestershire Constabulary 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 contained in an action plan.

Back to publication

Gloucestershire Constabulary: National child protection inspection