Greater Manchester – National child protection inspection

Overall summary

Our judgments

Our inspection assessed how good Greater Manchester Police is at safeguarding children who are at risk. Our graded judgments are as follows:

HM Inspector’s summary

I am pleased with some aspects of the performance of Greater Manchester Police in safeguarding children at risk. But there are some areas in which it needs to improve.

Chief officers and senior leaders understand and carry out their statutory child protection and safeguarding responsibilities. They have strong oversight and understanding of the force’s performance and the quality of service it provides to the public.

The force contributes well to multi-agency child protection arrangements and works productively with its statutory safeguarding partners.

Leaders have made sure there are enough skilled and knowledgeable officers and staff to provide effective safeguarding to children and their families.

We found most officers and staff can identify vulnerable children, assess the risk and effectively respond to protect them. They know when and how to refer child safeguarding concerns to partner organisations, such as children’s social care services.

The force has effective arrangements to respond to sudden and unexpected deaths of children. It carries out many joint child protection criminal investigations that are child centred and considers a range of options to help protect and support children. It uses its specialist resources well to support those investigations.

But there are some areas in which the force needs to improve. The force should do more to make sure its officers and staff understand the well-being support available to them and how to make use of it. It also needs to improve how it records information about children, which would help it to assess risks more effectively.

The force needs to make sure its officers and staff are able to identify all risks to children. It should also improve how it investigates online child exploitation, and make sure there are enough officers and staff trained and available to record children’s evidence.

I was reassured that the force responded promptly and comprehensively to our ongoing feedback during this inspection. It has already put plans in place to address the areas in which it needs to improve. I will continue to monitor its progress.

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

Greater Manchester Police’s leadership of its child protection arrangements is good.

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

‘Working together to safeguard children 2023’ introduced changes to how forces should work with their statutory safeguarding partners as part of their local child safeguarding arrangements. On publication of this guidance, the force asked for advice from the College of Policing’s Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme. This helped the force to understand its obligations and respond in line with them.

The chief constable is the force’s lead safeguarding partner under the guidance. An assistant chief constable supports him in this role and also leads the force’s strategy in relation to child protection.

The chief constable appointed chief superintendents, who are the district commanders in each of the ten local authority areas covered by the force, as his delegated safeguarding partner for each district. They are the force representatives for the local child safeguarding arrangements. All chief superintendents we spoke to understood their role. Most of them had extensive experience of investigation and of child protection work. Some had already begun to chair the arrangements in their area.

The force’s governance arrangements provide strong oversight of performance and practice

Each month, the deputy chief constable chairs a victims and communities performance framework meeting (VCPF). This meeting focuses on the quality of practice as well as quantitative performance data. It uses information and analysis from audit and dip sampling activity to provide assurance to the chief officers that their expectations are being met.

An assistant chief constable chairs a monthly crime and vulnerability board which links to, and supports, the VCPF. This also focuses on performance.

The force’s performance framework contains targets aligned to the force’s priorities. We were reassured that targets in relation to crimes against children deliberately excluded cases when children were suspects. This is to guard against unnecessarily criminalising children to meet targets.

Chief superintendents chair a vulnerability practice meeting and a crime practice meeting each month. These focus on the quality of service when the force needs to safeguard vulnerable people and when it carries out criminal investigations. The audit work they commission helps the force understand changes in performance and the causes of these changes.

The force has a rolling programme of audits focused on different case types, including child protection issues. Chief officers and senior leaders can also direct the audit team to carry out specific work when they want to understand the reason for a change in performance.

The force has also appointed senior officers to lead specific themes of work relating to children. The themes include the force’s response when children are reported missing or are victims of child exploitation and other forms of abuse. We saw those leaders co‑ordinate the force’s improvement plans and work to make sure they acted on issues identified through audits and scrutiny. For example, instigating work to improve the speed at which the force shares information with its safeguarding partners.

District commanders have similar oversight meetings within their local policing areas. All the district commanders we spoke to had a thorough understanding of the performance in their district relating to the protection of children. They report the detail of that oversight to the force’s VCPF.

The force has good oversight of current and ongoing issues through its daily management meetings. These take place in each district, followed by a force‑level meeting. We were pleased to see that the meetings gave priority to matters relating to children. For example, we saw discussion about children who were missing and the response to crimes committed against children. We also saw that, where necessary, senior leaders chairing those meetings made sure that activity from the previous day had been completed or was being progressed.

We found evidence that this governance had a positive effect on outcomes for children. For example, scrutiny of the response when children were reported missing identified that officers and staff in the force contact, crime and operations centre (FCCO) weren’t always following force policy when assessing risk. In April 2024, the force provided further guidance for those officers and staff. We saw a marked improvement in their compliance with the policy and subsequent risk assessments after that date.

In early 2024, the force also recognised that it wasn’t always sharing information quickly enough with its safeguarding partners. Subsequently, it made sure the capacity of the teams carrying out this role was discussed each morning in daily management meetings. This again resulted in improved performance. We saw no delays in the most recent cases we examined.

Chief officers and senior leaders mostly make sure there are enough officers and staff to provide effective safeguarding services for children and their families

In late 2021, the force restructured its child protection resources. The previous operating model didn’t include specialist child abuse investigation teams. At that time, the force allocated most child abuse investigations, along with many other crime types, to the criminal investigation department (CID).

To improve its response when children are victims of abuse, the force decided to reintroduce child protection investigation units (CPIU). The force set out how many investigators it would need in those units and what training they should have. It then implemented a plan to achieve this.

The force is clear about the resourcing and training needs for other roles connected to the protection of children. This includes teams responsible for sharing information with its safeguarding partners. We found the force had a good understanding of whether those teams had the numbers of officers and staff they needed, what training they had received and what training they still needed to complete.

The force has commissioned several problem profiles to make sure it understands the nature and scale of crimes and issues affecting children. These include analysis of crimes committed against children, child neglect and child sexual exploitation. By the end of 2024, the force intends to carry out analysis of child criminal exploitation.

The force worked closely with its safeguarding partners to share data that would improve their joint understanding.

At the time of our inspection, the force was planning to review its district operating model again (in September and October 2024). This analysis should help the force understand local needs and whether sufficient resources are in place to tackle those issues.

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

The chief officers and senior leaders we spoke to demonstrated a commitment to providing a child-centred service in Greater Manchester. All those we spoke to had a good understanding of the issues affecting children in their district and the wider force area.

The force has made sure the curriculum for new recruits covers matters which may affect how they deal with children. This helps officers and staff to understand adverse childhood experiences and the effects of childhood trauma, so they can recognise and report their concerns.

The force has made tools available to help guide the workforce, such as an e-book available on the force’s intranet. This contains guidance documents advising what to do when dealing with a variety of incidents which affect children.

The force commissioned specific child protection training for all its operational officers and staff. This includes information about listening to children, and observing and reporting their circumstances. The training also helps officers and staff to have age‑appropriate conversations with children.

The force recorded who received this additional training and had a good understanding of who was yet to receive it and when it would take place.

We found operational officers and staff understood the need for them to be child centred, and that the protection of children was a priority for the force.

The force is also working to make sure its officers and staff don’t use victim-blaming language. It is addressing this in several ways. As well as covering this in training, the force posted information on its intranet along with a video message from an assistant chief constable.

It has provided similar guidance specifically to FCCO officers and staff, using the large-screen TV briefing system. This constantly repeats and highlights examples of victim-blaming language and suggests alternatives they should use. For example, using the phrase ‘victims of sexual exploitation are putting themselves at risk’ implies that the child is responsible for the risks posed by an exploiter. This information helps to make sure FCCO officers and staff use appropriate language when logging incidents and deploying resources.

The force hosts an annual continuing professional development event for senior investigating officers. During the most recent event, the major investigation team highlighted how victim-blaming language had a detrimental effect on the way the force carried out investigations in the past.

The force has also used an IT solution to find language associated with victim blaming on its systems. This allows the force to give feedback to officers and staff.

The force recognises this is an ongoing process. We carried out case file reviews of 48 cases and dip samples of a further 67. We saw victim-blaming language in only two cases. In one of those cases, we were pleased to find a detective sergeant identified the language when reviewing the crime, and provided feedback to the officer who used it.

The force provides a range of well-being support for officers and staff, but many don’t know or understand what is available

The force’s well-being strategy aims to promote a culture of support for its officers, staff and volunteers. It encourages various measures intended to help them maintain good physical and mental health.

The force offers trauma risk management when its officers and staff have been exposed to potentially traumatic incidents. It has trained some officers in trauma impact prevention techniques and has a wide-ranging employee assistance programme. There are also well-being volunteers who provide advice and guidance on a variety of subjects.

The force told us about other informal support groups it had. Officers and staff can also receive respite at Police Treatment Centres.

The force has designated some roles as high risk. These include roles held by some officers and staff who carry out child protection work. Those in high-risk roles have access to an annual psychological assessment. This should help to identify if officers and staff are suffering from trauma. The force provides additional services when those assessments identify that trauma is having a detrimental effect on someone.

But we found that many people in those roles either didn’t know about the additional support available to them or had only recently been told about it.

We also found that not all officers and staff exposed to traumatic material had access to that support because their roles weren’t designated as high risk. For example, CID investigators routinely investigate cases involving indecent imagery of children, but don’t receive that offer.

Many operational investigators described a supportive culture in their teams. They said this was often because of good local management. We heard examples of line managers encouraging their teams to take breaks or arranging well-being events. But most told us that they were expected to recognise stress and trauma in themselves, then request a referral to occupational health or other services.

Those working in the FCCO told us they should receive a ten-minute reflection period with their supervisor after handling specific types of calls. They told us this doesn’t always happen. And when other calls are equally as traumatic, they aren’t given time to collect their thoughts.

Working with safeguarding partners

Greater Manchester Police is good 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.

Greater Manchester Police is a partner in ten safeguarding children partnerships:

• Bolton
• Bury
• City of Manchester
• Oldham
• Rochdale
• Salford
• Stockport
• Tameside
• Trafford
• Wigan.

Within these partnerships, the force has joint and equal duties with each of the ten local authorities and with NHS Greater Manchester integrated care board, which provides local representatives from:

• NHS Bolton
• NHS Bury
• NHS Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale
• NHS Manchester
• NHS Oldham
• NHS Salford
• NHS Stockport
• NHS Tameside and Glossop
• NHS Trafford
• NHS Wigan.

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 has strong arrangements in local areas to meet its statutory responsibilities to safeguard children

During this inspection, we spoke to ten senior leaders from the force’s statutory safeguarding partners. All of them spoke positively about the force’s commitment to working with them to achieve better outcomes for children in their communities. They described strong working relationships.

All of them knew, and had regular contact with, senior police leaders in their area. They described being able to easily contact the force to resolve issues, if necessary.

We found that those officers and staff who represented the force in the partnership arrangements were sufficiently senior and knowledgeable to contribute to discussion and make decisions. This included safeguarding partnership subgroups, those who attended strategy meetings and those who attended other multi-agency meetings to help protect children and families, such as multi-agency risk assessment conferences.

We also found the force provided enough officers and staff to meet its commitments to multi-agency teams, such as the complex safeguarding teams (CST), and to information-sharing arrangements.

The force has also made it easier for its operational officers and staff to understand the local services available to communities. It has developed an app called Making A Difference, which is available on mobile devices. The app contains details of support services, which officers and staff can share with the children and families they encounter. It separates services into different districts, so if an officer is covering another area they still have access to the right information.

We saw evidence of the force working with its safeguarding partners to meet changing local circumstances. For example, the force’s problem profile on neglect, along with analysis by safeguarding partnerships, has resulted in a better joint understanding of where, when, how and why parents and carers neglect their children.

At the time of our visit, the force was designing internal training material on this subject for its officers and staff. It was also contributing to multi-agency training plans, along with its safeguarding partners, to increase awareness and understanding of the different aspects of neglect.

The force works well with local and national partner organisations to understand and improve the effectiveness of its arrangements to safeguard children

The serious case review team is responsible when the force needs to contribute to joint practice reviews, such as those on adult safeguarding, domestic homicide or child safeguarding. Those responsible for joint reviews relating to children are experienced child protection investigators.

The team monitors for incidents and investigations which may require the local authority to make a referral to the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel. When they see cases which fit the criteria, they formally report them to the relevant local authority.

The team is then responsible for contributing to the partnership decision to make a referral, carry out a rapid review and jointly analyse the findings. Leaders in the partnerships spoke favourably about the team’s contribution.

The serious case review team records learning for the force and presents it at the force organisational learning board. This board co-ordinates and influences future practice through training, guidance and communications to officers and staff.

We also found the force carried out quality assurance analysis with its safeguarding partners in each of the district information-sharing teams we visited. It supplements this with regular joint audits of practice.

In addition, the Greater Manchester complex safeguarding hub uses a peer review process to understand practice and identify learning. This is to help all partners that contribute to district complex safeguarding teams.

This programme of review involves each district team reviewing four cases from another district each year. Staff in the complex safeguarding hub co-ordinate this process and analyse the findings. A detective sergeant is the force representative in the hub. They report learning from this process to the force’s organisational learning board.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester has commissioned us to work with the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted to assess this process in more detail. We will report on that separately.

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

The force provides resources to joint teams in every district to allow it to quickly share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Those teams have different names, such as an integrated front door or multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH), but the way the force contributes to each is similar. In this report we refer to them as MASH.

Each local partnership is expected to produce a threshold document to promote consistent understanding and application of referral and intervention thresholds. They help to make sure children receive the right support at the right time. Each area may have a slightly different threshold and different services available.

The force provides bespoke training to help its MASH officers and staff understand their roles and their contributions to the partnership. Each team member also receives further training about local processes and services. This gives them a good understanding of their local thresholds, what information they should share and how it will be used.

We found the force had provided sufficient resources to these teams to make sure they assess information and share it promptly. As mentioned in the section on the force’s governance arrangements, the force monitors those resources daily to make sure it maintains this capacity.

The force works with its partner organisations to target responses to help safeguard children

We found the force worked well with partner organisations to minimise risks to children.

For example, the force instigated Operation Luka when analysis of intelligence and other data revealed that children at risk of exploitation were regularly visiting a part of Manchester city centre. Those who would exploit them were also regular visitors. The force worked with the local authority to improve lighting and CCTV. It used high‑visibility patrols and covert tactics to disrupt the activity of offenders. The operation also involved the force working with British Transport Police and Metrolink (the tram operator) to prevent exploiters using rail and tram networks to travel to the area. At the time of our inspection, this operation was ongoing.

The force also identified a large number of missing children reports related to a small number of care providers. The force prevention hubs, located in every district, used this information to begin working directly with those care providers. The force calls this Operation Addition. The prevention hub teams visited the relevant care homes to discuss the issues and understand what could help to prevent children going missing. For example, the care provider setting realistic, age-appropriate curfew times.

Prevention hub personnel used the Philomena protocol to make sure the force, and the homes, had up-to-date information about children living in those homes. Together they developed plans, which they could quickly use to find those children if the children did go missing.

The force reported that Operation Addition reduced the number of missing children reports by 1,543 between 1 November 2022 and 31 October 2023, when compared to the same period the previous year. At the time of our inspection, a further full year of data wasn’t available. But the force told us it was confident it was maintaining this reduction.

Responding to children at risk of harm

Greater Manchester Police is adequate 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 force responds to help safeguard children at risk.

Children, and people acting on their behalf, can easily contact the force

The force’s website explains how people can make reports to the police, including about crimes or concerns affecting children. It has a section on child abuse which provides specific advice for children to help them report matters to the police. It also signposts them to children’s services or support organisations for help and support.

The FCCO has an online reporting portal and live chat service, which children and adults can use at any time of day or night. This is positive because we believe children may be more likely to communicate with the force in this way. The force has used advertising on buses and local radio to promote different ways of contacting the police. But there hasn’t been a campaign directly aimed at children.

Officers and staff can usually identify vulnerable children and know how to safeguard them

The force gives FCCO officers and staff information and guidance to help them understand risks to children in their initial training. They also learn how to adjust their communication style when children call.

The force provides officers and staff within the FCCO with tools to help them assess risks. When a call relates to a concern about a child, the force has developed question sets which help call handlers guide the conversation. Using the detailed information they collect using these questions, call handlers carry out threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement risk assessments to correctly prioritise the response.

FCCO officers and staff are supported by a team that carries out research to get a better understanding of the situation and risks. This was particularly evident when children were reported missing. This research can identify risks or concerns that the caller may not have known or mentioned in the original call, such as previous concerns raised that the child may have harmed themself. The team add information to the incident log. This means officers are well informed about the level of risk and urgency when they receive these cases.

In addition to its initial training, the Making A Difference app and the e-book, the force also includes a child focus during stop and search training. The training debrief includes discussion about how officers should approach searches of children differently to those of adults.

Most operational officers and staff we spoke to were confident about identifying concerns and how to respond. As the case study example demonstrates, this included when it wasn’t immediately obvious that there was a concern for children. They understood when they should submit a Child Action Plan (CAP), which is the form the force uses to share information with its safeguarding partners.

The force needs to make sure its prompt, effective response to safeguarding concerns about children applies to all children who are at risk

In many cases, the force provides a prompt and effective response to address immediate safeguarding concerns about children.

We found the force usually prioritised its response to children. FCCO officers and staff give any incident involving a child a title that makes it obvious a child could be affected. This helps dispatchers and district supervisors to see them quickly.

The FCCO officers and staff we spoke to were clear that incidents which involved concerns for children should receive an immediate response. They acknowledged it was rarely appropriate to schedule an appointment. Consequently, in our case file reviews, we saw few delays in responding to incidents.

But we saw a delayed response in some cases when children were exploited online. Often in these cases, either the victim, parent, carer or teacher reports the matter. Offenders may have incited children to take part in sexual activity, coerced them into sharing images or extorted them for money. Clearly this can be very traumatic for those child victims and their families.

We found that FCCO officers and staff didn’t always understand the risks to those children or the harm they may have suffered. In one case, the FCCO made an appointment for an officer to see the child two days later. In two cases, we could see no record that the force had seen or spoken to the child. These are cases when the risks can escalate quickly.

We also saw other examples when officers and staff didn’t identify risks when they should have.

We were reassured that the force’s oversight processes often identified missed opportunities and instigated action to help safeguard those children. But, as in the above example, that means the appropriate response can be delayed.

The force usually has a child-centred initial response

In most of our case file reviews, we saw that officers investigating or responding to concerns about children took the time to speak to them and understand their needs and concerns. Officers used the CAP form to record information about a child’s living environment, where that was relevant. They recorded those observations so others, who may be making decisions in the interests of that child, could understand them.

We found this practice was strongest when a specialist child abuse investigator, either in the CPIU or the complex safeguarding teams, was responsible for the investigation.

As we mentioned in the section on officers and staff usually identifying vulnerable children and knowing how to safeguard them, the force has spent time and effort helping its officers and staff to understand why it is important to think about, understand and record children’s perspectives. Some officers and staff we spoke to told us they had received that training and were positive about how it improved their confidence and understanding.

But we saw that officers tended to record the voice of the child less comprehensively when children were exploited online and when children returned from being missing.

It is positive that the force insists that an officer will physically see children when they return from being missing. But we identified some cases when greater professional curiosity may have helped the force to understand where a child had been, and whether they were harmed or at risk while missing. For example, in one case a sergeant asked the care provider to speak to the child but didn’t record the outcome of the conversation. In another, an officer spoke to the child briefly on the phone.

Officers and staff carefully consider when to use their protective powers to safeguard children but this needs better oversight

It is a very serious step for the police to use their power to take a child into police protection. We found officers handled incidents well where there were concerns about the safety of children, such as when a parent assaulted a child or a young child was left alone.

Having assessed the need to take immediate action, officers used their powers appropriately to remove children from harm’s way. 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 found that, in all six cases, officers recognised they should contact children’s social care services at the earliest opportunity. This resulted in good joint planning and decision-making.

However, this power should be overseen by the designated officer, who should be an inspector or above.

The designated officer should do what is reasonable for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare. This includes considering the length of the time the child is under police protection.

It also includes making sure they are aware of the wishes and feelings of the child. The designated officer should consider and allow contact between the child and their parents or carers when it is reasonable and in the best interests of the child.

We found that in five of the six cases they hadn’t recorded this information, whether they reviewed the use of the power, or in what circumstances the use of the power ended.

The force should make sure that those who carry out the role of designated officer understand their obligations.

Assessing risk to children and making appropriate referrals

Greater Manchester Police is adequate 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 force assesses risk to children, and makes appropriate referrals.

The force provides effective training, guidance and tools to assess risk and manage responses to vulnerable children

The force uses a variety of tools to help its officers and staff understand risk and respond appropriately. In the FCCO, call handlers use question sets to help them gather information. They use the threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement model to assess the risk and grade the urgency of the initial response.

The force’s missing persons policy makes it clear that when a child is reported missing who is 13 or under, or at risk of exploitation, they should immediately be categorised as high risk. We carried out a dip sample of ten cases reported after April 2024. The force applied this policy in all those cases.

As we mentioned above, the force provides training and guidance to its operational officers and staff about risks to children. They can access this guidance at all times, using their mobile devices.

The force has provided the MASH teams with suitable training to help them identify and describe risks to children.

We found that when officers and staff attended domestic abuse-related incidents, they consistently completed a domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour-based violence risk assessment. They also completed the force’s domestic abuse report to share information with its safeguarding partners.

When officers have concerns for children, they usually understand that they should complete a CAP form. The form includes various questions designed to help officers and staff explain their concerns.

Risk assessments are usually child centred, but the force doesn’t always record information about children’s ethnicity, special educational needs and disabilities

We found officers and staff usually took a child-centred approach when assessing risk and recording their decisions. The force’s communications around victim-blaming language are having a positive effect. As we mentioned in the section on chief officers and senior leaders making efforts to help officers and staff provide a child-centred service, we saw little evidence of victim-blaming language in the many records we reviewed.

Overall, when officers reported their concerns about children, we found the content of CAP forms was focused on the needs of the children involved, rather than simply reporting the circumstances of the case.

Officers and staff working in the MASH enhance these reports. They carry out further research on force systems and add information about the people connected to the incident. We found this research usually added detail and understanding which helped the force and its safeguarding partners to make decisions in the child’s best interests.

But in 12 of the 48 case file reviews, we found the force hadn’t recorded the ethnicity of children. This makes risk assessment harder in cases when a child’s ethnicity may be a factor. For example, children from some ethnic backgrounds are at more risk of honour-based abuse. It also makes it more difficult for the force to analyse how risks in some communities may be higher, or if children may be affected differently, because of their cultural heritage.

The force told us it was aware of this issue. It has worked with its IT provider to modify the computer system, so users can’t input records without including ethnicity data. We were told that this change would take effect in October 2024. We were pleased to hear that the force will release the update alongside guidance about why it is important to record this information accurately.

The force’s system allows it to record whether a child has a disability or special educational need, or whether that information isn’t known. We found officers and staff hadn’t recorded this information in 20 of 48 of our case file reviews.

It may be that officers and staff leave the field blank when they don’t know the information. But we found examples when that information was available within a report, but not logged on the child’s record. Better recording would allow the force to identify when a child is at higher risk and respond accordingly.

Encouragingly, when we provided this feedback to the force, it took prompt action to include this element of recording in its plans for upgrading the IT system.

The force usually assesses risk well, but it could improve this with better use of its intelligence system

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. For example, explicitly asking for a strategy meeting to be held.

We also found personnel completed comprehensive risk assessments when children were reported missing. They draw on information from force intelligence systems, previous knowledge of the child and trigger plans. This results in the force providing a good response when those who are at most risk are reported missing.

But we found that the force didn’t link individuals on its intelligence system. This makes it very difficult to assess who poses a risk to whom, especially in large or complex family groups. To understand those connections, officers and staff must research numerous previous reports. This can lead to errors and delays.

We found two examples where the officer in the case didn’t adequately assess those complexities. This meant the force didn’t sufficiently consider the risks or communicate them to its safeguarding partners.

The force was already working to improve this. During this inspection, it was evaluating new IT solutions to make searching the system easier. It also promptly responded to our feedback and began work to make sure it links all new records, where appropriate.

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

All the MASHs we visited worked well to share information to get the right help for children. This happened even when the concern didn’t meet the threshold for statutory child protection procedures. In those circumstances, we found the force and its partners used their MASH arrangements to help families access early help services. These are local services such as parental support, children’s centres and youth programmes. They support children and families as soon as problems are identified. This is important because it gives services a better chance to address issues before they escalate and cause harm to children.

We also saw that the force made good contributions to other information-sharing arrangements. For example, we found the force played an active role in multi-agency risk assessment conferences. It chairs meetings and contributes to activity which mitigates risk to children and adults, such as disclosing the previous history of an abusive partner to the victim.

When school-aged children are exposed to domestic abuse, the force also shares information with the child’s school through Operation Encompass. We were pleased to see that the force had responded quickly to the findings of the joint targeted area inspection of Rochdale carried out in April 2024. This inspection found that the force didn’t always share information with schools when it should.

The force has responded by introducing a new process. This allows each MASH team to monitor whether attending officers at domestic abuse incidents affecting school-aged children have reported this to the relevant school. If not, the MASH team completes a report to make sure the child’s school is notified. We carried out a dip sample of 12 cases before the change in process and 12 after. This demonstrated improvement. In the sample before the change, the force didn’t share information about six incidents. After the change, this reduced to two.

Each complex safeguarding team holds daily meetings to share up-to-date information about the children it is working to protect. The meetings also cover other children, incidents of note and emerging risks.

We were pleased to see that the teams took action even when concerns were raised about children they weren’t directly working with. They worked to gain a better understanding of the concerns and to help the children involved. Often, officers and staff fill out a CAP to refer children to the MASH for appropriate help.

But the complex safeguarding teams take differing approaches to recording information. Some teams keep a standalone spreadsheet of decisions and actions taken which relate to children who aren’t part of their allocated group. Others update or create a CAP.

When people store information on separate systems it makes it difficult to assess risks should the same child come to the attention of a different team. The force should make sure that all information which could affect risk assessments is available to its officers and staff.

The force contributes well to multi-agency information-sharing meetings to help protect vulnerable children

We found the force made sure appropriate officers were available to take part in strategy discussions. We saw evidence they contribute positively, which results in clear decision-making about the need for a joint investigation and what should happen next. The representative from the force is usually the MASH sergeant or constable, or, if the matter relates to an ongoing investigation, a CPIU sergeant.

We found the force was good at recording the outcome of strategy discussions. Outcomes were usually visible on the force systems and contained detailed information. This means that the officer in the case can be clear about strategy meeting decisions. It also means those dealing with future incidents have a good understanding of previous decisions.

Investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children

Greater Manchester Police is adequate 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 force investigates reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children.

The force effectively responds to the sudden and unexpected death of children

When a child tragically dies, it is usually because of illness or accidental injury. A small proportion of child deaths are because of abuse. Therefore, when the police respond they must find a balance between compassion and professional curiosity. This relies heavily on the knowledge and skill of the lead investigator.

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 and decide together how to proceed. How services respond in the early stages can have a substantial effect on the resulting investigation.

The force’s policy is that a detective inspector, who has received suitable training, will be the lead investigator when responding to those deaths.

The force has detective inspectors on duty at all times, day and night. A detective superintendent is also available to provide support and assistance if necessary.

We reviewed ten cases when the force responded to the death of a child. In all ten, we were pleased to see that a suitably trained detective inspector had attended to act as lead investigator.

The force mostly has enough officers and staff who are trained to investigate reports of child abuse, neglect and exploitation

In 2021, the force reinstated specialist child abuse investigation units as part of a restructure of its divisional operating model. A reduction in police numbers over several years, and problems we see nationally in recruiting and retaining detectives, means reinstating those units with trained, experienced personnel is difficult.

By transferring officers in from other forces, direct recruitment and developing existing officers and staff, the force now has the number of investigators it needs. But it takes a minimum of a year to become an accredited investigator and even longer to become an accredited specialist child abuse investigator. Therefore, at the time of our inspection, many investigators were still working towards their accreditation.

We found the force had a good understanding of the level of training investigators have had in all teams across the force. It also closely monitors vacancies in those teams. The deputy chief constable scrutinises these figures each month at the victims and communities performance framework meeting.

This allows the force to monitor its training requirements and mitigate any risks that a lack of experience can bring.

For example, shortly before our inspection, the force merged two CPIUs in the City of Manchester district. This was to make sure there was a better mix of experience and training across the whole team.

The force allocates some less complicated enquiries, which may involve children, to its divisional investigation teams. These are investigators accredited to deal with less complex crimes, they are known as professionalising investigations programme (PIP 1) investigators.

The force has appointed a detective sergeant to each team to provide support and oversight for those investigations. They are responsible for reviewing crimes with a child protection element and setting an investigation plan. They also give advice and guidance. Investigators and managers we spoke to talked positively about the benefits this brings.

The force has a comprehensive policy designed to make sure it allocates crimes to the most appropriate team. A central team creates crime reports, often at the time the matter is reported to the FCCO. It uses a decision-making matrix and professional judgment to help it decide which team would be best to deal with each investigation. We found that this usually led to a good decision. But we saw that some cases were allocated to the CID when an investigator with experience of child protection procedures would have more knowledge and skill to achieve a good outcome. For example, cases where a parent abducted their children and took them out of the UK.

The force makes good use of its specialist resources to carry out or assist with investigations

We found that investigators had good access to the support of specialist officers and staff. For example, the major investigation child sexual exploitation team regularly reviews the cases of the complex safeguarding teams. It offers advice and guidance for cases where there are multiple suspects or victims. This demonstrates the force learning from errors it made in the past, to inform its current practice.

Those reviews also include analysis of files to make sure the force promptly arrests known suspects, and to check they aren’t suspects elsewhere in the force area.

We also saw the force use its specialist serious and organised crime resources to support local investigations into exploitation. During our inspection, the force was working to break up a network of offenders who were suspected of criminally exploiting children. The local complex safeguarding team asked for support from the force’s county lines task force. Together, they developed intelligence about the children concerned and those who were exploiting them. They acted to disrupt the exploiters, using that intelligence to make arrests and bring charges, helping to protect the children involved.

When missing children are at high risk, we saw the force has taken innovative steps to help find them quickly. Over and above traditional methods of locating children, such as making enquiries with their friends or visiting places they are known to go, the force uses resources from Operation Trinket and Operation Firbank. Specialist personnel from these operations use techniques and intelligence-gathering methods often applied to tackle serious and organised crime to help locate children.

The force is poor at investigating some types of online exploitation of children

The force has a central online child abuse investigation team. The team primarily deals with cases relating to the possession and distribution of child abuse images. These are cases the National Crime Agency brings to the attention of the force, or the force finds through its intelligence systems.

The force doesn’t usually allocate cases to the online child abuse investigation team’s specialist investigators when offenders approach and groom children online. These are often cases when offenders incite children to take part in sexual activity, coerce them into sharing indecent images of themselves and, in some cases, extort them for money.

As we mentioned in the section on the force needing to make sure its prompt, effective response to safeguarding concerns about children applies to all children who are at risk, the child, a parent, carer or teacher often reports these cases by contacting the FCCO.

In the cases of this type we reviewed, the force allocated a response officer to attend. But these response officers didn’t have sufficient training and guidance to help them understand what they should do. The force’s e-book doesn’t cover this type of offending.

This meant the force missed opportunities to trace offenders. Officers often didn’t seize media devices or arrange for them to be examined. In those cases, the force didn’t explore the extent to which a suspect had groomed and exploited the child. It also means that the force hadn’t established if the offender was in contact with other children.

We also found the force didn’t always recover images and upload information to the child abuse image database. Making sure these opportunities aren’t missed would help to reassure children that if an offender uploaded their image to the internet in the future, it could be quickly seen and removed.

The force assured us it can quickly examine devices and recover images. When victims consent to examination of their devices, the force can return them within 24 hours, 95 percent of the time.

We carried out a dip sample of ten cases when children had been extorted to pay money after sharing indecent images of themselves. The force didn’t make enquiries with financial institutions to try to identify the suspect in any of those cases.

By recording information and intelligence about usernames, phone numbers and accounts, the force could help other forces and the National Crime Agency to identify patterns of offending or links to other cases. In most of the cases we reviewed, we found the force didn’t record this information. So investigators searching the Police National Database couldn’t see it. This disrupts efforts to tackle this offending, both in the UK and internationally.

The force’s Making A Difference app links to the National Crime Agency’s child exploitation and online protection command and other national guidance, which is positive. This helps officers and staff give the best advice to children about internet safety.

But we found that, although response officers were typically good at reporting concerns using the CAP form, in cases of online exploitation this wasn’t the case. This means that children may not receive additional support.

We saw similar practice across the country in our thematic inspection of online child sexual exploitation. There is limited national guidance to help the force, but it needs to do more to make sure it improves how it investigates this type of exploitation.

The force did respond quickly to our feedback about this during the inspection. It immediately instigated a review of its approach and set out a plan about how it would improve.

Investigations consider the needs of victims and are usually child centred

Children have specific rights under the code of practice for victims of crime. The force must complete a victim needs assessment to establish what support they need.

This gives children an opportunity to choose how, and when, they would like the force to contact them. The assessment should also explore the best way to record the child’s evidence and how it will be presented at court. The force must keep all victims updated about specific events and the decisions the police make.

We were pleased to see that the force usually carried out these assessments so investigators could keep the child’s needs at the centre of their investigation. We found some cases when this assessment hadn’t been completed. But this was often because the investigating officer had been unable to encourage the child to speak to them. This happened most often when the child was a victim of criminal exploitation.

We found the force usually kept children up to date with the progress of the investigation, in line with the victim needs assessment.

Many investigations are effective and prompt, but we found delays in completing video-recorded interviews with children

Children are entitled to have their evidence recorded on video when they are victims of abuse. Providing a comfortable environment, such as an informal room with soft furnishings, can help children to talk about what has happened to them. It also means they may not have to repeat their account in court.

Officers, staff and social workers are specially trained to be able to carry out these interviews. We saw delays in the progression of some investigations because there weren’t enough trained officers and staff available to complete them.

Not being able to carry out a prompt video interview misses many opportunities. A detailed account from the child should inform the investigation strategy. The interview should generate lines of enquiry which may support or contradict that account. An in-depth video interview may also reveal other offences, more detail about the offence reported and how it has affected the child.

That could affect important investigative decisions, such as whether the child should receive a medical examination, treatment or other therapeutic support.

The lack of a detailed account may also influence decision-making in subsequent child protection procedures. It could even affect family court proceedings or the criminal case.

The force was aware of this issue and had already made plans to train 50 percent of its CPIU investigators to carry out these interviews by 31 March 2025. It was also considering different options to make it easier for trained officers and staff to work across different districts and teams.

Some investigative activity isn’t properly recorded on the force crime recording system

We found that it was common practice in the force for CPIU and CST investigators to record activity and information in an investigation book. Investigators use these for each investigation they have responsibility for. This means they may have several in use at the same time.

There are circumstances when this may be appropriate practice, such as making a verbatim note of a child’s disclosure. But we found officers and staff often used the books to record investigative activity when they could enter that information directly onto the force’s crime recording system.

This means that if an officer doesn’t duplicate their written notes onto the crime recording system, the information won’t be available to others. This makes it difficult for supervisors to adequately review cases. Officers told us that supervisors didn’t often examine these books.

It also means the force’s quality assurance process could be undermined because information needed to understand the quality of practice isn’t visible to auditors.

We saw several crime reports where investigative activity hadn’t been recorded but it was obvious something had happened since the previous entry.

The force should set its expectations about when investigators should and shouldn’t use these written notes. It should make sure it stores all information about investigative activity on the crime recording system.

Supervisors often support officers and staff to carry out high-quality investigations

The force expects sergeants to review crime reports at the outset and allocate them to the most appropriate investigator in their team. The sergeant should review the investigation within 7 days and again every 28 days after that. The detective inspector should complete a review after 56 days.

The force also scrutinises crime reports regularly in district performance meetings.

We found supervisory oversight wasn’t always effective. We saw delays in sergeants reviewing crimes and approving investigation plans. In some cases, their reviews didn’t expedite the investigation, such as when a video interview was required.

But we found many examples of sergeants leading good child-centred investigations. Detective sergeants in the CPIU and CST demonstrated a good understanding of how they should work jointly with their safeguarding partners. They considered the needs of children, the skill level of their team and the resources they could use to help get the best outcome for children. The following case study is an example of this.

Next steps

Within 8 weeks of this report’s publication, Greater Manchester Police should tell us in writing how it has addressed or intends to address the areas for improvement we have specified. It would be helpful for this information to be contained in an action plan.

Back to publication

Greater Manchester – National child protection inspection