Thames Valley – National child protection inspection

Foreword

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

This report is a summary of the findings of our inspection of police child protection services in Thames Valley Police, which took place in May 2023.

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

Main findings from the inspection

Thames Valley Police has recently experienced some changes in its senior leadership. Despite this, it is clear that the chief constable, his senior team and the police and crime commissioner are committed to protecting vulnerable people, including children.

The force contributes effectively to multi-agency work. It has developed strong professional relationships with its partners and other safeguarding organisations, both at strategic and practitioner level.

We found some areas of effective practice. And there are dedicated officers and staff who are committed to keeping children safe.

We saw examples of good work, including:

• specialist child protection officers carry out high-quality and child-centred investigations;
• domestic abuse is triaged promptly in multi-agency safeguarding hubs, which supports better joint working to safeguard children;
• children are only held in custody when necessary; and
• decisions to take a child to a place of safety are well-considered and made in the best interests of the child.

Specific areas for improvement include:

• the governance for child protection isn’t consistent and doesn’t have clear reporting structures;
• the use of intelligence isn’t effective, and there aren’t any problem profiles specific to child protection;
• the force doesn’t consistently listen to and record the voice of the child;
• the force isn’t effectively investigating cases of child neglect;
• there is an unacceptable number of overdue visits to registered sex offenders; and
• investigations to locate missing children are ineffective and not focused on risk.

During our inspection, we examined 70 cases in which the police had identified children at risk. We assessed the force’s child protection practice as good in 19 cases, requiring improvement in 16 cases, and inadequate in 35 cases. This shows the force needs to do more to give a consistently good service for all children.

Conclusion

Throughout the inspection, we found dedicated officers and staff, often working in difficult and demanding circumstances.

The force needs to do more to make sure that its commitment to improving the service leads to better results. It doesn’t have the necessary strategic governance and performance management arrangements to inform decisions about how it needs to improve.

The force has invested a significant amount of time and focus on the welfare of its officers and staff. But in too many cases, we found inconsistent practices and decision-making.

And, in too many cases, children weren’t being seen, their voices weren’t heard and they weren’t being appropriately protected by the force.

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

Terminology in this report

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

1.  Introduction

The police’s responsibility to keep children safe

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

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

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

Expectations set out in the ‘Working Together’ guidance

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

The specific police roles set out in the guidance are:

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

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

2.  Context for the force

Thames Valley Police is the largest non-metropolitan force in England and Wales. It has a workforce of approximately 8,200:

• 4,534 police officers;
• 3,127 police staff;
• 320 police community support officers; and
• 279 special constables.

The force serves a population of nearly 2.32 million people across an area of 2,200 square miles, covering Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. It shares borders with nine other police forces.

There are 11 local policing areas based on the districts/boroughs of:

Buckinghamshire:

• Aylesbury Vale
• Milton Keynes
• Wycombe, Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire

Berkshire:

• Slough
• Windsor and Maidenhead
• Bracknell and Wokingham
• Reading
• West Berkshire

Oxfordshire:

• Cherwell and West Oxfordshire
• Oxford
• South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse.

There are eight custody suites, in:

• Abingdon
• Aylesbury
• Banbury
• High Wycombe
• Loddon Valley
• Maidenhead
• Milton Keynes
• Newbury.

The force has collaboration arrangements with Hampshire Constabulary for IT, information management and uniformed operations.

The force published four priorities in its Strategic Plan 2023/24:

• Serving victims
• Fighting crime
• Building trust
• Valuing our people.

Safeguarding partnerships are required by the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Thames Valley Police works closely with other organisations to safeguard children, including:

• Berkshire West Safeguarding Children Partnership (Reading, Wokingham and West Berkshire tripartite partnership);
• Bracknell Forest Safeguarding Board;
• Buckingham Safeguarding Children Partnership;
• Milton Keynes Together Safeguarding Partnership;
• Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board;
• Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Safeguarding Children Partnership; and
• Slough Safeguarding Children Partnership.

The force also works closely with the two NHS Integrated Care Boards as statutory safeguarding children partners.

Recent inspections

See figure 1 for the most recent Ofsted judgments of the services these local authorities offer children who need help and protection.

Figure 1: Ofsted judgments for local authority inspections

Local authority inspection	Judgment	Date published
Inspection of Wokingham Borough Council local authority children’s services	Requires improvement	May 2023
Inspection of Slough local authority children’s services	Requires improvement	March 2023
Inspection of Bracknell Forest local authority children’s services	Outstanding	July 2022
Inspection of West Berkshire local authority children’s services	Good	May 2022
Inspection of Buckinghamshire Council children’s services	Requires improvement	February 2022
Inspection of Milton Keynes local authority children’s services	Requires improvement	December 2021
The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead inspection of children’s social care services	Good	February 2020
Reading Borough Council Inspection of children’s social care services	Requires improvement	October 2019
Oxfordshire County Council Inspection of local authority children’s services	Good	May 2018

3.  Leadership, management and governance

Thames Valley Police’s senior leadership has recently changed. In April 2023, the force appointed a new chief constable (previously the deputy chief constable) and new deputy chief constable. There are four assistant chief constables (ACCs). Each assistant chief constable is responsible for one portfolio – these are local policing, contact management, and crime and justice which includes the area of protecting vulnerable people (PVP). The assistant chief constable responsible for PVP was appointed in April 2023.

The force’s governance arrangements for child protection aren’t fully effective

Staff and officers across the force are responsible for child protection. This includes specialist resources within the PVP teams, response and neighbourhood officers and control room personnel.

The force doesn’t have effective governance structures, particularly for child protection. It has a number of different meetings but there is little co-ordination between these. Police forces with effective governance structures can understand how well their child protection arrangements work. This means leaders know if the force’s activity, and the outcomes for children, correspond with their plans. They can also tell if they need to make changes to address problems as they arise.

A vulnerability board meets on a quarterly basis and is chaired by an assistant chief constable. This meeting receives updates on vulnerability including child protection, such as child abuse, exploitation and missing persons. Due to its frequency, and the number of issues covered, this meeting is limited in what it can achieve in protecting children.

The force has thematic leads for rape, sexual offences and domestic abuse, with associated governance groups providing support and oversight. But this governance doesn’t exist for child protection, and there is no supporting strategy for this area. The force has recognised this strategic gap in its oversight.

The force has a range of quantitative datasets but should use qualitative measures to improve its understanding about child protection response

We found that force performance data wasn’t good enough to inform senior leaders about the type, demand and outcomes of activity for child protection. Most data seen by the PVP teams is quantitative. This limits the force’s ability to fully understand its provision of services for children.

However, we did find that in some areas more detailed data is available which can help the force better understand how well it protects children. In April 2023, the force introduced two detailed dashboards to provide quantitative data on child exploitation and missing children incidents. Qualitative information about individuals or places of vulnerability and risk is also available. These dashboards have good potential and we look forward to seeing the results in a future inspection.

The violence reduction unit and force intelligence unit also have access to data, including that held by other agencies.

In the cases we examined, we found that the force doesn’t consistently record details about the ethnicity and cultural heritage of children. Some communities are disproportionately affected by so-called honour-based violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. This lack of recording means the force doesn’t have a clear understanding of these vulnerabilities in its communities. And it means it can’t positively work and communicate with them about these issues.

The force has effective statutory partnership arrangements that improve outcomes for children

Senior officers attend the seven safeguarding partnership boards that operate across the force area. Force representatives also attend several subgroups that support the work of these boards.

During our inspection we spoke with statutory safeguarding partners, including the NHS Integrated Care Board and the children’s social care service. Overall, partners gave a positive assessment of the force’s contribution at both strategic and operational levels.

However, the safeguarding partners told us the force doesn’t always consult with them about changes to child protection arrangements that affect them. For example, they told us the force made changes to how it structured the missing and exploitation teams without any consultation.

The force should improve its use of intelligence to better inform child protection service delivery

Since 2015, the Strategic Policing Requirement has recognised that child sexual abuse is one of the biggest national threats. But the force’s response to child sexual abuse isn’t co-ordinated.

The force doesn’t use problem profiles to understand the threat, risk, challenges and opportunities for child protection issues, including child sexual exploitation. It recognises that it could improve in this area. The force should use partnership data to develop problem profiles and help it better understand what it needs to do to protect children.

The force supports staff and officer well-being, and provides good training and guidance

Most police officers and staff we spoke with didn’t raise concerns about their workloads. They told us support for their welfare was good and the force invests time and energy to maintain personnel health and well-being.

We found the guidance and information provided about child protection was good quality and easy to find. Frontline officers and staff can also easily access guidance via the ‘Snap Guides App’ on their handheld devices.

The learning and development department clearly understand what training is needed for effective child protection. They map demand and provide relevant courses and training programmes.

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

How a child behaves or what they say gives essential information about how an incident has affected them. This is particularly important when the child is too young to speak with officers or when there might be a risk if a child did so. Officers should take time to watch how the child behaves and listen to what they say. This will inform both the initial assessment of need and the decision whether to refer a child to social care services.

During our inspection we didn’t find any evidence of officers using victim-blaming language. This is a good example of how the force puts children at the centre of the service it provides. However, officers don’t consistently speak with children or record their voices. This is despite extensive campaigns, initiatives and training about the importance of the voice of the child.

In the cases we examined involving domestic abuse, officers didn’t speak with children or check their welfare. And we found managers weren’t effectively challenging officers when the child’s voice wasn’t recorded.

Even when children were experiencing sexual exploitation and neglect, officers still didn’t speak with them. This means that both officers and their supervisors aren’t sufficiently focused on identifying and understanding a child’s vulnerability and risk. Force leaders and managers should act to improve this at once.

4.  Case file analysis

Results of case file reviews

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

Our inspectors also assessed the same 33 cases.

Cases assessed by both Thames Valley Police and us

Force assessment:

• 20 good
• 8 require improvement
• 5 inadequate.

Our assessment:

• 10 good
• 6 require improvement
• 17 inadequate.

Our inspectors selected and assessed 37 more cases during the inspection.

Additional 37 cases assessed only by us

• 9 good
• 10 require improvement
• 18 inadequate.

Total 70 cases assessed by us

• 19 good
• 16 require improvement
• 35 inadequate.

Breakdown of case file audit results by area of child protection

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

• 5 good
• 2 require improvement
• 2 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• investigations by the child abuse investigation unit are often of a high quality and investigated in a child-centred way;
• in non-specialist investigations, the voice of the child is often missing from referrals;
• referrals often lack detail of positive action taken by officers and a rationale for decision-making;
• there is a reliance on children’s social care services to carry out single agency investigations which should be joint; and
• neglect isn’t always considered in addition to other offences or investigated effectively.

Cases assessed involving referrals relating to domestic abuse incidents or crimes

• 4 good
• 3 require improvement
• 3 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• where young children are known to be present in domestic abuse incidents, the risk is recognised and officers are sent quickly to incidents;
• safeguarding partners are promptly informed of risk to children;
• incidents where children are affected by domestic abuse are dealt with by telephone resolution, meaning children aren’t seen or spoken to;
• in most incidents, the voice of the child isn’t considered; and
• investigative opportunities are being missed and supervision is poor.

Cases assessed involving referrals arising from incidents other than domestic abuse

• 2 good
• 2 require improvement
• 4 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• officers consistently submit child protection referrals to the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH), but they aren’t always sent as quickly as required to protect children;
• MASH processes help identify linked children;
• supervisor reviews are generally of a good quality and provide clear expectations and actions needed to progress investigations;
• investigations can be delayed by officers not consistently completing actions identified by supervisors and not being challenged about this; and
• limited professional curiosity at incidents means risks to children aren’t always fully understood.

Cases assessed involving children at risk from child sexual exploitation

• 3 good
• 0 require improvement
• 13 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• strategy review meetings are held regularly and appropriately when new information is known about the child;
• child abuse investigation unit personnel consistently record the voice of the child and take the child’s views into account in their decision-making;
• there are strong professional relationships with the local authority designated officer and designated safeguarding leads within schools for persons in position of trust investigations;
• consistent use of bail conditions in specialist investigations;
• inconsistent recording of children’s ethnicity;
• intelligence on the force IT system isn’t recorded in a searchable format for the Police National Database;
• telephone appointments are inappropriately used in cases of online child exploitation; and
• work with children’s services isn’t taking place before enforcement activity for online child sexual exploitation offenders.

Cases assessed involving missing children

• 0 good
• 0 require improvement
• 6 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• missing children aren’t recorded as being ‘low risk’ or as ‘no apparent risk’;
• warning markers and vulnerability flags are added to the force systems, but child abduction warning notice markers are linked only to the perpetrator, not the child;
• when children are reported missing or raised to high risk, the force allocates appropriate resources with detective oversight;
• control room personnel assess the deployment to an incident but not the risk to the child;
• risk markers and vulnerabilities aren’t taken into consideration during control room deployment assessments;
• current force processes and guidance create significant delays in risk-assessing missing children;
• trigger plans aren’t easily accessible and signposted on police systems and aren’t used during missing episodes;
• investigation plans to locate missing children are ineffective with a lack of supervisory oversight and a culture of ‘copy and paste’; and
• responsibility for missing child investigations isn’t consistently clear.

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

• 2 good
• 4 require improvement
• 0 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• officers’ decisions to protect children are taken quickly;
• children’s social care services were contacted every time police protection was used to make sure that children were placed with appropriate carers;
• in using police protection powers, officers identified criminal offences, such as physical abuse and neglect;
• no evidence of handovers between designated officers or details of the circumstances or times the power was rescinded;
• strategy meetings were inconsistently held and recorded; and
• no evidence of the ethnicity or cultural heritage of children subject of police protection being recorded.

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

• 1 good
• 0 require improvement
• 5 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• very good liaison and information exchange with the probation service, including holding joint police and probation meetings with the registered sex offender;
• very good liaison and information sharing with children’s services, including attending strategy meetings and initial child protection conferences;
• minutes from strategy and other multi-agency meetings being added to the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR);
• widespread use of eSafe, remote monitoring software that allows the officers to check on a registered sex offender’s internet use;
• home visits to registered sex offenders are frequently carried out by lone officers;
• safeguarding isn’t always carried out with the urgency that the situation demands, including arrest attempts and making disclosures; and
• actions aren’t being recorded in the correct place on ViSOR, which means they are delayed or not completed at all.

Cases assessed involving children detained in police custody

• 2 good
• 5 require improvement
• 2 inadequate.

Common themes include:

• custody staff and officers take a child-centred approach when dealing with children who are brought into custody;
• children who are detained are seen by a healthcare professional and the liaison and diversion service staff;
• children in custody are often given distraction boxes;
• duty inspector reviews were generally good, with detail and rationale for further detention or release where appropriate;
• the voice of the child was present in duty inspector reviews but often absent from routine cell checks and reviews; the demeanour and the child’s responses also weren’t recorded;
• alternative accommodation was considered in all cases, supported with a juvenile detention certificate where required;
• custody personnel made prompt requests for appropriate adults; and
• child protection referrals weren’t always completed for children in custody.

5.  Initial contact

Thames Valley Police has three control rooms, in Abingdon, Kidlington and Milton Keynes.

Officers and staff in the control rooms have been provided comprehensive and wide-ranging training about child protection, including online grooming, child sexual exploitation and the effect of domestic abuse on children.

Call takers and despatchers told us that the force had provided them with sufficient training to deal with vulnerability.

There is an inconsistent approach to recognising risk to children involved in domestic abuse incidents

Contact management personnel complete a threat, harm, opportunity and risk assessment for every incident reported to the police. They use flags and warning markers linked to the address and people involved to inform this.

We found when personnel know young children are present during domestic abuse incidents the risk is recognised and officers are sent quickly. This means officers can quickly safeguard the children and take appropriate action, such as arrest, to protect adult victims.

We also found officers promptly complete referrals to partners, such as children’s social care services.

But we also found examples where risk to children wasn’t identified. When contact management personnel allocated appointments in domestic abuse cases, some of these were later resolved on the telephone or by the adult victim attending the police station. This means officers don’t always see children and their home environment, and so can’t check on their well-being or for any sign of injury.

Each control room has an inspector who is responsible for reviewing all domestic abuse incidents over four days old which officers haven’t visited. They assess the response and set actions to reduce any risk. In the incidents we reviewed, frontline officers didn’t carry out these actions consistently. For example, one incident was quickly resolved after the inspector’s intervention but in another no action was taken.

Staff and officers aren’t consistently following guidance on safeguarding children at domestic abuse incidents

The force’s policy for dealing with domestic abuse was due to be reviewed in 2021. But at the time of our inspection, this still hadn’t taken place.

Officers attending domestic abuse incidents are expected to complete a domestic abuse risk assessment referral form. And, where children are in the household, a child protection referral is also required. But in the cases we reviewed where children were in the home, we found officers aren’t consistently submitting child protection referrals.

A senior leader told us they felt officers still weren’t aware of their safeguarding responsibilities for children at domestic abuse incidents. This included the need for officers to physically see and speak with children.

Operation Encompass is used to support children affected by domestic abuse

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

For cases where an officer has failed to complete details either about the child or their school, an automated process searches the police systems. We found when there are delays in this process, the school isn’t informed as quickly as it should be.

The standard of missing child investigations is poor

When they receive a missing report, call handlers in the force control room complete a set of questions with detailed information that helps identify risk and the child’s vulnerability. But they don’t consider these factors when grading the type of response required.

Control room staff don’t complete risk assessments for those reported missing. Instead, the officer who attends the incident does this.

Children aren’t recorded as low risk or no apparent risk, but we did find delays of up to four hours before officers completed the risk assessment. This process isn’t in line with the College of Policing major investigation and public protection authorised professional practice. And it means that children can be left exposed to risk of harm for long periods before the force provides a suitable risk-based response.

Officers complete intelligence checks for every missing child, but we found these don’t routinely include checking the Police National Database. And the force doesn’t consistently add child abduction warning notice flags to children’s records.

Not using the Police National Database or having a warning flag on a police system means the risk assessment may not be fully informed. This can lead to delays in locating the child and minimising any potential harm before they are found.

In the cases we examined, we found delays and an inconsistent approach to the reviews of investigations relating to missing children. There is a routine practice of using ‘cut and paste’ on investigative updates, actions and reviews, rather than providing specific information for that child and investigation. This means police activity isn’t always targeted at the risks and individual vulnerabilities faced by each missing child.

We found investigation plans were ineffective and supervisors weren’t routinely overseeing and approving the plans as force policy requires.

Responsibility for an investigation isn’t always clear. When the investigation is handed over, details of the new officers aren’t recorded and there is a lack of supervisory oversight. This means there are delays in officers taking appropriate action and this often took place when vulnerable children were missing overnight.

Officers provide a good response to missing children identified as being at high risk of harm

Missing incidents which are assessed as being high risk receive a good response. Officers are quickly allocated to the report and supported by a detective overseeing the investigation. These cases are also discussed at the daily force management meeting, which is chaired by a senior leader. This makes sure there is good oversight of the investigation and it can be progressed effectively.

The force has recently created a missing investigation support team, but this has yet to show benefits

In July 2022, the force established a missing investigation support team (MIST) to help frontline personnel deal with missing investigations (both adult and child).

The MIST shares information with partners, including return home interview updates, and attends strategy meetings for children who repeatedly go missing. This team doesn’t currently provide support to frontline officers or partners at weekends.

The MIST is also responsible for creating and updating trigger plans. However, we found trigger plans aren’t regularly updated and priority actions for police aren’t always specific for that child. Some plans had no priority actions identified.

We also found the trigger plans aren’t easy to find on police systems. These issues prevent the force from finding missing children quickly.

The force’s understanding of why children go missing is poor and doesn’t inform risk management

Force policy doesn’t require officers to complete a child protection referral when a child goes missing. Information regarding the missing episode is shared with partners through prevention interviews. These should be completed when a child returns home.

But in the cases we examined, we found officers’ prevention interviews lacked detail and they didn’t consistently seek and record the voice of the child. This means the force is missing important information and intelligence which could help reduce future risk to vulnerable children.

Partners don’t consistently share return from home interviews for missing children, which negatively affects the force’s understanding of risks to children

The force told us that information from return home interviews, which are carried out by the local authority, aren’t consistently shared soon enough for the information to be effectively used. Delays in receiving this information mean officers and staff can’t record new intelligence and update trigger plans. This could increase the risk of harm if the child goes missing again. The force told us it has raised this issue with the relevant local authorities.

The force and its safeguarding partners don’t make effective use of the philomena protocol

Many forces and their safeguarding partners – particularly local authority children’s homes – have implemented the philomena protocol. The protocol encourages carers, staff, families and friends to compile useful information that could be used to help quickly and safely find children if they go missing.

The force has been trialling the protocol in one local authority area, but this approach hasn’t yet been rolled out across the whole force area. Nationally, there is evidence that the implementation of the philomena protocol results in a significant reduction in the number of looked after children reported as missing. The force should prioritise this with statutory partners.

6.  Assessment and help

There are nine multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASHs) across the force area, aligned to the nine local authority areas. This can make it challenging for the force to make sure there is a consistent approach. It has therefore appointed a strategic MASH lead who has a strong background in safeguarding to help standardise processes and working practices.

MASH staff and officers have received multi-agency threshold and domestic abuse training. MASH managers also undertake the specialist child abuse investigation development programme (SCAIDP) training. This helps them better understand child protection and the decisions required in multi-agency working.

All staff and officers have received crime data integrity training and we saw evidence of crimes being correctly recorded. This makes sure that the police recognise child victims of crime and appropriately record them on police systems to inform future risk assessments.

MASH leaders have regular meetings to discuss operational demand

MASH daily management meetings are held Monday to Friday to discuss new and outstanding referrals. This helps the force understand additional risk children may face, such as for those involved in domestic abuse incidents. The meeting also scrutinises details of children in custody to identify potential exploitation concerns and make sure relevant referrals are made for further review.

Supervisors and senior leaders hold performance meetings to review quantitative performance measures. But there is no audit process to assess the quality of activity, such as decisions made about information sharing or in strategy discussions. This would help leaders better understand decision-making within the MASH and make sure it is consistent, as well as identify any training needs.

Prompt domestic abuse triaging supports better joint working to safeguard children

We found effective joint working in the MASH with the police triaging domestic abuse referrals with their local authority partners. At the time of our inspection, we found no significant delays in domestic abuse referrals awaiting review. This means information can be shared promptly so partners can support the safeguarding of vulnerable children.

We also found the MASH consistently records on police systems what information is shared and with which partners.

The force has good multi-agency risk assessment conference arrangements

The force complies with SafeLives’ multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) guidance.

During the inspection we observed a MARAC meeting in Slough. We saw good joint working and discussions from a wide variety of partner agencies, with relevant actions being raised and allocated.

The force uses software logic to support safeguarding of children

The force has developed a robotic process automation (RPA) that carries out several functions in checking police systems to make sure children are identified. The system carries out the following tasks:

• The RPA automatically searches the police system (Niche) for domestic abuse incidents with children linked. If it finds an incident in a control room queue which the police haven’t yet attended, and one of the linked children has a child protection flag, it will alert the MASH team to the incident.
• MASH risk assessments are reviewed to make sure all children previously linked are added to a referral.
• If a child’s school details are missing from a risk assessment, the RPA will search for previous school information.
• Risk assessment grading is checked against previous ones for the same relationship. If the grading has been high in the 12 months before the referral and the current incident is graded standard risk, the RPA will highlight the different grading.

Training for personnel attending strategy meetings is inconsistent

The MASHs receive a significant number of requests from other safeguarding partners to attend strategy meetings.

The MASH team reviews these requests to see if the child is subject of a current investigation. If so, it allocates the meeting request to the relevant investigating officer or team. For those requests where there is no current investigation, or where the section 47 threshold isn’t yet met, the MASH supervisors complete the strategy discussions.

In the cases we examined, we found inconsistent recording of whether a strategy meeting had been requested or held. Records also weren’t stored in a consistent location. This makes it difficult for others to access previous history to help inform decision-making about risk to children.

Child abuse investigation unit personnel and MASH supervisors have received training to support them in undertaking strategy meetings. However, frontline and domestic abuse officers and staff haven’t had training and said they felt unsure about their role.

The force told us that they have received feedback from partners that police personnel attending strategy discussions often don’t understand their role in the meeting and so can’t contribute effectively. Strategy meetings are crucial to make sure effective multi-agency safeguarding plans are in place to protect children.

The force has good attendance at initial child protection conferences

The force has personnel in the MASH allocated to attend child protection conferences. They attend over 90 percent of initial conferences, and safeguarding partners confirmed the high level of attendance.

But for review conferences, the attendance rate is lower. Priority is given to those cases discussing children at risk of exploitation. MASH staff and officers prepare reports for all initial and review conferences.

Following each conference, officers put flags on the force systems for children who are on a plan. This helps inform the control room and frontline personnel about children at risk.

The force has an inconsistent approach to protecting children at risk of exploitation

In April 2023, the force restructured the way it manages and allocates child sexual exploitation cases. It has created an exploitation hub that receives all referrals concerning children at risk of exploitation. The hub reviews the referrals and sends them to the most appropriate team for investigation and preventative work. Most referrals are sent to local policing area teams.

But we found that there is no consistency in how the local policing area teams are structured and respond to child sexual exploitation. And governance arrangements for this work are different in each of the local policing areas.

Some areas have designated an officer to the child sexual exploitation safeguarding role, although these roles had different titles. Some areas have multi-agency child exploitation (MACE) meetings, but other areas weren’t aware that MACE meetings existed. This leads to confusion about the approach to child sexual exploitation and the force can’t be assured there is a consistent level of service across all areas to all children at risk of exploitation.

Staff and officers told us they didn’t feel adequately trained to carry out the investigations and multi-agency working. They said “we just learn on the job”.

The force needs to resolve this urgently to make sure that effective governance is in place and that those working in the hubs have the necessary skills, competence and training to support them in their role.

7.  Investigation

The force provides good training and support to specialist child protection staff and officers

Senior managers within the child abuse investigation unit (CAIU) have a very good understanding of the capability and competence of teams that deal with serious and complex child protection investigations. There are also good levels of supervision.

CAIU officers and staff receive specialist training for interviewing children (such as achieving best evidence) and they are all qualified to or working towards professionalising investigations programme level 2 (PIP2) and the specialist child abuse investigation development programme (SCAIDP) national accreditation. They also have continuing professional development days, with training on topics relevant to their professional practice.

The CAIU managers have meetings every two months with service improvement and learning and development teams to consider local and national child safeguarding reviews. Managers then share what they learn with staff and officers or provide this at the next continuing professional development event.

There is good well-being and psychological support for CAIU staff and officers. They can access annual welfare assessments and receive automatic trauma risk management referrals following cases of child deaths and indecent images of children investigations. Every month, a welfare officer holds sessions for anyone to drop in and discuss welfare concerns.

We found officers and staff in these teams are highly motivated and determined to do their best to help protect children from abuse.

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

In our case audits we found CAIU investigations are high quality and child-centred. Cases have clear and comprehensive investigation plans with effective supervision.

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

The force sometimes relies on children’s services to carry out investigations

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

The force isn’t recognising or effectively investigating neglect

We found that neglect isn’t always investigated effectively. In many cases before an investigation has started, decision-makers determine that the ‘wilful’ element can’t be proven. This means child victims of neglect aren’t being protected and the offences aren’t being investigated.

We also found officers sometimes don’t consider neglect alongside other offences under investigation.

We found the police response to neglect was inconsistent. For example, when there were drug or alcohol abuse issues or mental health concerns for adults living with a child, officers didn’t consider neglect offences. This means that children could continue to be left at risk in unsuitable and potentially harmful home environments.

Good specialist support is available for children, although there are sometimes delays

We were told that intermediary provision was good and investigators weren’t experiencing delays in using intermediaries to support child victims. We found clear guidance to help officers understand when intermediary use was required.

We found there is good specialist support. There are two sexual assault referral centres located in Oxfordshire and Slough, one in a police station and one in a hospital.

We were told doctors from the referral centres also engage with multi-agency safeguarding processes such as strategy meetings. But sometimes only one doctor is available across the force. This results in delays when a child requests a same-sex doctor to complete their examination.

Specialist officers, with appropriate training, investigate high-risk domestic abuse cases

The force has a specialist domestic abuse investigation unit (DAIU) which investigates any complex or high-risk domestic abuse crimes. They also review all high-risk referrals to make sure risk grading and police activity is appropriate.

The DAIU investigators are all PIP2 and SCAIDP trained or on the pathway to receive the training. This makes sure that domestic abuse investigations are led by officers and staff who understand child protection and can take a child-centred approach. The DAIU investigators work well with the CAIU and will hand over cases that require greater child protection expertise.

There is a clear allocation process for child sexual exploitation investigations

In the cases of child sexual exploitation we examined, many were breaches of position of trust. These had been allocated to the CAIU.

We found strong relationships between police investigators, the local authority designated officers and safeguarding leads within schools. This means there is a good partnership approach to prevent further offending by the perpetrator and this protects both the current and potential future victims from sexual exploitation.

We also found the force and its partners work well together in both initial strategy meetings and strategy review meetings. This is positive because it provides a clear understanding of joint working and the decisions reached to safeguard children.

Supervision of investigations is good but there are delays in progressing outcomes

In the cases we examined, we found supervisors generally carried out good investigative reviews to identify actions needed. But they don’t effectively hold officers to account to make sure action is taken within appropriate timescales.

In one case we examined there was a three-month delay between the inspector’s recommendation to submit a file to the Crown Prosecution Service for early advice and the officer doing so. This means investigations can continue for extended periods, leaving children at risk of harm. And it means the force is failing to provide the best service to children and their families.

Specialist investigators carry out child-centred child sexual exploitation investigations

In the cases we examined where the CAIU was responsible for child sexual exploitation investigations, the voice of the child was consistently recorded and their views considered in the decision-making about their case. This was particularly evident in one investigation where the child was reluctant to take part in a visually recorded interview. The investigating officer didn’t put any pressure on the child and explained the processes clearly. They listened to the child and told them the interview would only take place when they were ready.

In most cases we also found that there was good use of police powers relating to suspects. This included the use of a superintendent extension while the suspect is in police custody, officers using bail with conditions and applying to the magistrate’s court for extensions to bail. This robust control of offenders makes sure the force considers the safeguarding of victims of child sexual exploitation.

The force’s investment in more staff to deal with online child sexual abuse has reduced delays in referral processing

Over several years, there has been an increase in demand for the paedophile online investigation team (POLIT). In 2022, to meet this demand, the force put more personnel into the POLIT and its intelligence support team. We found this has reduced the backlog of online child sexual abuse cases. Dealing with cases more promptly means child victims of sexual abuse can be identified and protected sooner.

Force guidance could be improved for frontline officers and staff dealing with online child sexual abuse and exploitation investigations

Force guidance for officers and staff dealing with online child sexual abuse and exploitation is clear and includes information about device examination and other digital evidence-gathering techniques.

But the guidance doesn’t contain information about online grooming or how to safeguard children, including making sure indecent imagery of children is added to the Child Abuse Image Database (CAID). It is essential frontline officers fully understand how to investigate online child sexual abuse cases to achieve best evidence and make sure all child victims are safeguarded.

The frontline officers we spoke with told us they didn’t feel appropriately trained to deal with some types of online child sexual abuse investigations. They also said they didn’t receive the specialist support they expected when seizing digital devices, especially when carrying out online referral search warrants.

In the cases we examined, we found telephone appointments are inappropriately used in cases of online child sexual exploitation.

We also found that officers weren’t carrying out investigations for child victims of online sexual exploitation. This means children are being left at significant risk of harm. Not identifying offenders risks allowing them to continue to offend against other children.

The force isn’t using systems effectively to help identify offenders and protect children

The force uses intelligence from the National Crime Agency, child protection systems and child online protective services (as well as other sources) to identify addresses in its area where indecent images of children are being downloaded or distributed. The force must then risk assess the information so it can safeguard children and deal with offenders.

During our inspection we found the force isn’t effectively using the child protection system. There is no force guidance for those using the system and there is no supervisory oversight or audit of its use. Only two researchers are trained to use this system. Not regularly accessing this system means the force is missing opportunities to identify potential offenders who pose a high risk of harm to children.

We also found the force isn’t recording intelligence within the Niche system in a searchable format for the Police National Database. For example, in the online child sexual exploitation cases we looked at, usernames and email addresses linked to potential suspects are recorded in the Niche occurrence log rather than in a separate intelligence report. This means the risk posed by offenders in this force area isn’t visible to other forces. This can result in offenders being left to offend against children in other areas of the country.

The force has invested in its specialist team to deal with online child sexual abuse referrals, but training could be better

The force recognises the importance of identifying children at risk of significant harm and uses the victim identification tools on the CAID.

It has invested in a victim identification investigator whose primary role is to identify and protect children who are victims or at risk of sexual abuse. The investigator uses CAID investigative tools to review devices seized in investigations and identify offenders and locations where abuse is taking place. This role is attached to the POLIT. Due to demand for victim identification capability, the force has recruited a second officer.

POLIT personnel told us the force supported their well-being and provided them with enhanced occupational health support.

Members of the POLIT receive child sexual abuse image grading training, as required for their role. Officers and staff told us they hadn’t received any other recent training specific to joint working with partners, the voice of the child or adverse childhood experiences but they felt this would be useful in their role.

The force has a clear policy to determine responsibility for online child sexual abuse referrals

We found the force has a clear allocation policy for dealing with online child sexual abuse referrals. The POLIT risk-grades referrals using the Kent internet risk assessment tool. The team then deals with very high and high-risk referrals and refers medium and low-risk investigations to other frontline teams such as CID and local policing areas.

In some of the cases we examined, the POLIT supervisor had recorded a detailed investigation plan to support the frontline investigator. We also found the POLIT retains oversight of these cases to make sure they progress promptly.

Frontline officers use digital media investigators to support their investigations, some of which had a digital media investigation strategy. This is positive and in line with force guidance.

Information about children at risk isn’t shared quickly enough with children’s social care services

When research identifies that a child may be at risk, officers don’t contact children’s social care services quickly enough. We found that there is no guidance requiring prompt information sharing. But this is crucial in establishing the level of risk in each case. And it allows joint protective plans to be put in place.

Supervisors told us they contact children’s social care before police enforcement, such as the execution of a search warrant and arrest. But we found this isn’t happening. This is particularly significant given the sometimes long delays for a warrant to be executed, leaving children at potential risk.

The force is proactive in supporting the family and children of arrested suspects in online offending cases

When a warrant is executed or a suspect is arrested, the POLIT assigns an officer to the role of family officer. Their role is to engage with the family during the warrant and obtain relevant information from them, which includes identifying other children that may need safeguarding. The family officer can also refer the family, with their consent, to the charity Family Matters and other support agencies.

8.  Decision-making

The force has good guidance about the use of police protection powers and officers use these well

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

We found good guidance on the force intranet about using police protection powers. It was clear that police inspectors must take responsibility as designated officers, authorise police protection and record decisions with a rationale. The guidance is accessible and easy to navigate.

But this guidance doesn’t require designated officers to record the decision to rescind police protection powers, such as when the child is placed with a family member. By not recording that the power is no longer required, the force has no documented record that the child is no longer at risk of significant harm, or of who has responsibility for the child. This means that the force can’t evidence its decision-making.

In the cases we examined, we also found no record of handovers between designated officers. Without continuously reviewing the power, the force can’t be sure if continuing to use it is proportionate and necessary.

In every case we examined, children’s social care services were contacted to make sure that children were placed with appropriate carers. But the force wasn’t consistent in holding or recording strategy discussions. It should make sure there is always a strategy discussion to share appropriate information with partner agencies, and to make effective decisions and longer-term plans for the child.

Officers identify criminal offences well but could do more to record the voice of the child

We found officers are good at identifying criminal offences such as physical abuse and neglect. They gather evidence and record investigation and safeguarding plans. These plans were supervised.

But we found officers are inconsistent in their approach to talking with children and recording the voice of the child.

9.  Trusted adult

It is important children feel they can trust the police. We saw that, in many child protection cases, officers carefully consider how best to approach a child and/or their parents or carers. Officers explore the most effective ways to communicate with them and give children time to consider their involvement with the investigation. Such sensitivity builds confidence and creates stronger relationships between the police and children, and their parents or carers.

The force is proactive in diverting children away from custody, where appropriate

The force doesn’t want to unnecessarily criminalise children and is keen to avoid the arrest of children and minimise the time they spend in custody. It works well with other organisations to provide alternative outcomes for children. For example, it provides early intervention and support through Operation Deter for children arrested in possession of bladed articles or knives. We found the force is proactive in its approach to divert children away from the criminal justice system wherever possible.

The force understands the benefits of working closely with schools and recognises it needs to move schools officers back to their roles

The force has designated schools liaison officers in the neighbourhood policing teams. But, due to competing demands, these officers haven’t been in this role for the last 12 months. The schools officers play a vital role in helping to engage children with the police as well as providing education and crime and harm prevention work in schools.

As part of its violence against women and girls agenda, the force takes an innovative approach to engaging with female children and young people. It has started working with a reality TV personality who has a significant presence on social media.

The force provides positive messaging for the personality to endorse and share with their followers. These messages aim to encourage children to report incidents of concern to the police. They also inform members of the public about Safer Spaces and other initiatives.

The force promotes its voluntary police cadet scheme as a way of engaging with children

At the time of our inspection, Thames Valley Police had 14 cadet units. These aim to:

• promote citizenship and inspire young people to play a positive role in the community;
• support ongoing police operations and initiatives and have a clear link to local policing priorities;
• help divert young people on the verge of criminal activity away from the criminal justice system;
• encourage a practical interest in policing; and
• provide training to encourage positive leadership within communities, including volunteering opportunities.

Each unit has around 25 cadets, and the force encourages children from vulnerable backgrounds to join. The cadets meet weekly and carry out volunteering activities in their communities.

10. Managing those who pose a risk to children

The force has clear governance to help it to meet its statutory requirements

In March 2023, Thames Valley Police was managing 1,827 registered sex offenders living in the community.

The force has good multi-agency arrangements for the management of registered sex offenders. Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) meetings are co-chaired by the police and probation service.

A central MAPPA team shares information for all levels of MAPPA offenders and attends MAPPA meetings for both violent and other dangerous offenders.

The offender managers in area-based management of sexual offenders and violent offenders (MOSOVO) teams attend meetings for the registered sex offenders they manage.

MOSOVO personnel are trained in line with national guidance

All the staff and officers in the MOSOVO unit are trained in line with national guidance. They also receive indecent imagery of children grading training to help them investigate child sexual abuse media offences.

The unit holds dedicated ‘team in action’ days. During these days, supervisors provide feedback to the MOSOVO staff and officers to improve their understanding of child protection processes and procedures.

Personnel we spoke with told us they felt they would benefit from additional training on digital technology use in offending.

Managers need more detailed information to be sure risk is being appropriately managed

The detective inspector and sergeants managing the MOSOVO unit use weekly management data to understand and co-ordinate activity to best manage offenders. Having detailed and regular data helps supervisors make sure they are aware of the risk posed by registered sex offenders, and can direct personnel to manage this and protect children.

The weekly data provides details of:

• personnel numbers;
• information for high-risk incidents and offenders;
• high-risk prison releases; and
• the current numbers of registered sex offenders wanted or missing.

There are details of overdue visits at each risk level. However, this data only provides a total number and has no details of how long overdue the visits are. We found the longest overdue visit for a low-risk case should have taken place in June 2022 – a delay of around ten months.

The number of overdue visits to registered sex offenders is unacceptable

The police should visit all registered sex offenders at their home address to assess their current risk. According to College of Policing authorised professional practice guidance, the force should decide the frequency of these visits for each individual.

In April 2023, there were 211 overdue visits to registered sex offenders. This level is unacceptable. We were told the force has increased the number of officers and staff visiting offenders. But at the time of our inspection, too many visits were still overdue.

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

At the time of inspection, the force didn’t have plans in place to address this and mitigate the risks.

Supervisory review of cases is subject to significant delays meaning risk management isn’t effective

During our inspection, we found that MOSOVO sergeants have large backlogs of work to review on ViSOR.

This means supervisors can’t understand the true level of risk their team is managing. And they can’t prioritise those offenders who pose the most risk of harm to children or make sure officers and staff are supported.

The quality of work with partner organisations to reduce risk from registered sex offenders is good

In our case audits we found very good liaison and information exchange with probation officers from the National Probation Service, who manage offenders subject to court-imposed licence restrictions.

We also found very good liaison and information sharing with children’s social care services. This is crucial to safeguard children who may be subject of harm or potential harm from registered sex offenders.

MOSOVO officers follow the ‘Working Together‘ guidance by submitting child protection referrals and attending strategy meetings and initial child protection conferences. This means offender managers are fully aware of measures taken to protect children and can manage the offender accordingly. In the cases we examined, we found minutes from strategy meetings and other multi-agency meetings are put on ViSOR. As ViSOR is a national system, this means other agencies or forces will have all the necessary information to understand and actively manage the registered sex offender if they are in a different force area or involved with another agency.

The force has also developed good working practices with the Crown Prosecution Service and the court service for sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) applications.

MOSOVO sergeants meet with the Crown Prosecution Service to agree wording on the SHPO application for common restrictions, before submitting the application to the court. As a result of this proactive working and consistent approach, the number of applications rejected by the court has reduced.

Neighbourhood officers work well with MOSOVO officers and understand how to police SHPOs linked to registered sex offenders

Frontline neighbourhood staff and officers told us that there were good links with the MOSOVO team, and they knew who the registered sex offenders were in their area. They also had a good knowledge of SHPOs and were confident about how to respond when dealing with a registered sex offender that had one in place.

The force uses eSafe, a remote monitoring software, to check internet use on registered sex offenders’ devices. We found officers use this consistently. This is good risk management, providing police with early information to investigate offences and arrest suspects quickly.

Officers visit registered sex offenders alone, which isn’t in line with national guidance

Force guidance allows MOSOVO officers to carry out home visits to registered sex offenders alone. This isn’t in line with College of Policing national guidance.

Home visits carried out by lone officers can be less effective because they can’t check the offenders’ activities and devices or observe their demeanour as thoroughly.

This practice also increases the risk of offender managers being groomed or manipulated by registered sex offenders and there is no support to help them recognise this is happening. Officers told us they don’t agree with doing lone home visits but said it was necessary to deal with the high workloads.

The offender manager responsible for registered sex offenders rarely changes. One officer told us they had managed some registered sex offenders for seven years. This approach leaves officers at increased risk of being manipulated.

Both the lone visits and length of time offender managers are responsible for the same registered sex offenders are concerning. The force should improve these practices.

Safeguarding isn’t always carried out with the necessary urgency

In our case audits we found that actions set within the active risk management system (ARMS), risk management plans or activity logs are recorded in the body of the report which is added to ViSOR. But the actions tab on ViSOR isn’t being used. This means there may be delays in officers completing actions and some aren’t completed at all.

In one case, the investigating officer recognised the police had very few police powers to control the registered sex offender and an interim SHPO was required. The registered sex offender had been arrested but, rather than using bail with conditions to best manage his offending, he was released under investigation. It then took five months to obtain the SHPO.

Delays like these mean offender management isn’t as good as it should be and children remain at risk longer.

11. Police detention

The force has invested in supporting children in custody

The force has eight custody suites, at Abingdon, Aylesbury, Banbury, High Wycombe, Loddon Valley, Maidenhead, Milton Keynes and Newbury.

The force has invested time in making the custody environment more positive for people, including children and those with neurodivergent needs. Many suites have large photographs of landscapes such as mountains, forests and sea views on the walls. This makes the custody environment feel less oppressive.

We found that some of the custody suites have dedicated cells for children being detained as well as separate areas for booking them in. In custody buildings with no designated child-friendly booking-in areas, staff and officers try to make sure adult detainees aren’t present when they are booking a child in. This provides privacy and protection for the child at a time when they may be feeling very vulnerable and need additional support.

Custody personnel are given relevant child protection training

A police inspector is the custody lead responsible for overseeing children and young people who are detained. They make sure that all staff and officers receive child protection training. And they monitor performance and custody practices to make sure they are appropriate and child-centred.

The force provides dedicated training days for custody personnel and has also introduced protected learning time.

All custody staff and officers dealing with children also receive trauma-informed training. This provides custody personnel with an awareness of the experiences children may have previously suffered and how this could affect the way they behave or may have resulted in their arrest. It also helps officers to understand the lived experience of the child and not just focus on the outcome of their behaviour.

We found good daily scrutiny of cases where children were detained in custody. Each child was discussed at both the local area and daily management meetings. This helps senior leaders make sure appropriate supervision and resources are available. This approach should allow prompt investigation and minimise the amount of time each child spends in custody.

The force has a robust process to make sure children aren’t unnecessarily criminalised

Children are only held in custody when necessary and the force aims to keep them there for the least time possible. Senior leaders and frontline officers told us they discuss the arrest of any child with their supervisor before the child is taken to custody to make sure the arrest is necessary.

When the child arrives in custody and their detention is authorised, the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) inspector on duty is notified and they also review the necessity for the child to remain in custody.

Custody personnel told us that it was routine practice to show each child to their cell and explain the intercom system to them. This means the child can get help or speak with one of the custody team when they need to.

Custody staff and officers also support the child’s needs by giving them age‑appropriate distraction items. This helps children feel less worried. We were also told this has reduced the demand on staff and officers who manage children during their detention.

PACE inspectors listen to and record the voice of the child in custody, but other custody staff and officers fail to

The PACE inspector carries out a review of each child in custody. We found they consistently record the voice of the child. This approach recognises the effect that police detention can have on children. And it makes sure they are listened to and their views are taken into account in decision-making about their continued detention.

Custody staff and officers routinely check on the child’s welfare and ask if they have any physical injuries when booking the child in.

But in routine checks of the child in their cell, no records are made of the voice of the child or their demeanour. All staff and officers are responsible for the safe detention of children and adults in custody. When checks are made, officers should speak and listen to children, and record what they say and how they appear. This helps make sure the child’s welfare needs are met and their views understood.

Appropriate adults are called promptly for children, but the force could do more to make sure they arrive quickly

In all cases we examined, officers called appropriate adults quickly for children in custody. PACE guidance states police should ask appropriate adults to come to the custody facility as soon as possible. We found, in most cases, they arrived within an acceptable time.

But in one case it took over four hours for the appropriate adult to arrive. This is an unacceptable delay. When officers identified there was going to be a significant delay, they should have called children’s social care services to attend. This would have minimised the length of time the child spent in custody.

Custody staff and officers make sure children are seen by specialists for support

Custody personnel make sure that each child is physically seen and spoken to by a healthcare professional who assesses their health and welfare. Liaison and diversion service staff also see each child in custody. This means children receive support and help from specialists.

Force guidance isn’t clear about when a child protection referral should be submitted

The force has no clear guidance that a child protection referral should be made every time a child is detained. This is considered best practice. Instead, force guidance gives a list of criteria for officers to use to decide if a referral should be made. We found officers don’t take a consistent approach to completing referrals.

Frontline staff and officers told us there was some confusion about when they needed to complete a child protection referral for children detained in custody. They thought the healthcare practitioners or liaison and diversion service staff made the necessary referrals to children’s social care services.

This inconsistent approach to submitting child protection referrals means children’s services may not be aware of the child’s arrest and can’t assess the risk or vulnerability to them or the wider family.

The force consistently considers alternative accommodation for children in police custody

The local authority is responsible for finding suitable alternative accommodation for a child charged with offences and denied bail. It is only in exceptional circumstances that this isn’t in a child’s best interests (for example, when the travelling distance to take them to the accommodation and then to court would mean the child has no rest).

In rare cases, such as when a child is at high risk of causing serious harm to others, they may need secure accommodation. There are no secure accommodation facilities within the force area – as is the case for many forces across England and Wales. The force can access alternative accommodation in other force areas and told us it had used this previously. But the travel time between the accommodation and court means this often isn’t practical.

In cases where alternative accommodation wasn’t appropriate, such as being too far away, we found custody officers consistently complete detention certificates. These contain clear reasons why the child remained in custody.

The force has good scrutiny processes for children who are strip searched in custody

We found there is good scrutiny of strip searches for children who are detained. Each child’s case is reviewed at a monthly meeting with partners including children’s social care services and the youth offending team.

At a scrutiny meeting, before our inspection, the force recognised a good response by a custody officer who refused the arresting officer’s request to strip search a child for drugs due to evidence the drugs were discarded before their arrest. This decision-making was clearly recorded on the child’s detention record.

It shows the force takes a child-centred approach when considering when to use this power. Strip searches can be very traumatic for a child and should only be used when absolutely necessary.

Conclusion

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

Thames Valley Police officers and staff at all levels are passionate and committed to providing a child-centred service to children.

But the strategic governance and performance management for child protection practice are inconsistent and ineffective. We reviewed a number of different strategic meetings set up to tackle specific themes such as child exploitation and group-based child exploitation. But we found these meetings haven’t resulted in consistent activity.

Force performance management focuses on very limited information about child protection. This doesn’t help the force understand or manage the threats and risks in this high-risk and high-harm area of work. This limits the force’s ability to improve the service it provides to its communities.

The force has invested well in supporting the well-being of its workforce. Many of the staff and officers we spoke with talked positively about the support they receive. But we are concerned that frontline and specialist officers have variable knowledge and understanding of good child protection practice.

We were told by staff and officers in several teams that they didn’t feel adequately trained or experienced to carry out the role they had been given. And we found this has negatively affected the quality of outcomes for children.

In many of the cases we examined, the force was letting down children who were missing from home, vulnerable to or victims of criminal and sexual exploitation, or present in homes where domestic abuse had taken place. And some practices for managing registered sex offenders or investigating online child sexual abuse have failings which expose children to high risk of harm.

In too many cases children weren’t being seen, their voices weren’t heard and they weren’t being appropriately protected by the force.

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

Next steps

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

Thames Valley Police should also provide an action plan, within six weeks of the publication of this report, setting out how it intends to respond to our other recommendations.

Annex A – Child protection inspection methodology

Objectives

The objectives of the inspection are:

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

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

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

These areas of practice are the focus of the inspection.

Inspection approach

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

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

Methods

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

The purpose of the self-assessment is to:

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

Self-assessment and case inspection

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

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

Back to publication

Thames Valley – National Child Protection Inspection