---
title: "Child Exploitation: Identifying, Tracking and Reducing Harm: Assisting Exploited Children Who Fall Under the Radar"
type: "pdf"
year: "2020"
canonical: "/projects/375"
---
# Goldstein Submission 2021
# Table of Contents
- [Goldstein Submission 2021](#goldstein-submission-2021)
- [https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/goldstein-awards](#httpspopcenterasueducontentgoldstein-awards)
- [Child Exploitation: Identifying, tracking and reducing harm: assisting exploited children who fall under the radar.](#child-exploitation-identifying-tracking-and-reducing-harm-assisting-exploited-children-who-fall-under-the-radar)
- [A. Scanning:](#a-scanning)
- [B: Analysis](#b-analysis)
- [Victim](#victim)
- [Location and Offender](#location-and-offender)
- [Victim](#victim)
- [Location and Offender](#location-and-offender)
- [C: Response](#c-response)
- [Multi-agency approach](#multi-agency-approach)
- [Referral process](#referral-process)
- [Joint Screening Process](#joint-screening-process)
- [Multi-Agency Operational Meeting](#multi-agency-operational-meeting)
- [Communications and training](#communications-and-training)
- [Sustainable and standardised approach](#sustainable-and-standardised-approach)
- [Management of challenges and difficulties](#management-of-challenges-and-difficulties)
- [D: Assessment](#d-assessment)
- [OFFENDER: Case Study - 19 year old male posing risk to 12 year old female](#offender-case-study-19-year-old-male-posing-risk-to-12-year-old-female)
- [3. Agency and Officer Information:](#3-agency-and-officer-information)
- [Durham Constabulary, UK](#durham-constabulary-uk)
- [References](#references)
- [4. Appendices:](#4-appendices)
- [Appendix 1: Types of Exploitation](#appendix-1-types-of-exploitation)
- [Analyads $=\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{a}} \mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{a}} \mathrm{T}$ PAST](#analyads-mathrmp_mathrma-mathrma_mathrma-mathrmt-past)
- [Analysis = P_A,T _PRESENT_](#analysis-p_at-_present_)
- [P_A,T = 2nd Layer](#p_at-2nd-layer)
- [Handlers](#handlers)
- [Manager](#manager)
- [Guardian](#guardian)
- [SUPER-CONTROLLERS](#super-controllers)
- [Strategic Child Exploitation Group – Durham and Darlington](#strategic-child-exploitation-group-durham-and-darlington)
- [Analysis- PAT Location](#analysis-pat-location)
- [Contextual Safeguarding](#contextual-safeguarding)
- [Response VICTIM](#response-victim)
- [Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker](#child-exploitation-vulnerability-tracker)
- [THINK CHILD](#think-child)
- [Appendix 5: QUANTITATIVE DATA - CHLD EXPLOITATION VULNERABILITY TRACKER](#appendix-5-quantitative-data-chld-exploitation-vulnerability-tracker)
- [Appendix 6: Evaluation Findings](#appendix-6-evaluation-findings)
- [Appendix 7 Child Exploitation Referral Form](#appendix-7-child-exploitation-referral-form)
- [Child Exploitation Risk Assessment Information Form](#child-exploitation-risk-assessment-information-form)
- [Child Exploitation Risk Assessment](#child-exploitation-risk-assessment)
- [The Child Exploitation Risk Assessment should be developed alongside with and complimenting any other plan for the young person's welfare. Please use this tool in line with local Safeguarding Partnership Procedures.](#the-child-exploitation-risk-assessment-should-be-developed-alongside-with-and-complimenting-any-other-plan-for-the-young-persons-welfare-please-use-this-tool-in-line-with-local-safeguarding-partnership-procedures)
- [Professional Assessment of Safeguarding Risk Indicators](#professional-assessment-of-safeguarding-risk-indicators)
- [Other child(ren) \& family factors to consider.](#other-children-family-factors-to-consider)
- [What Next](#what-next)
- [Overall Assessed Level of exploitation Risk](#overall-assessed-level-of-exploitation-risk)
- [Line Manager/ Designated Child](#line-manager-designated-child)
- [Review timescales](#review-timescales)
- [35](#35)
## https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/goldstein-awards
## Child Exploitation: Identifying, tracking and reducing harm: assisting exploited children who fall under the radar.
1. Summary (395 words)
Problem This project addressed the absence of a systematic approach to identify and account for children who are being exploited in the Durham Constabulary area.
Scanning This project recognised the severe physical, sexual and psychological harm caused to a child through exploitation and the potential for organised networks to be operating 'under the radar', whereby harm suffered by children can be multiplied and repeated within communities. The difficulties in identifying and accounting for children left the Constabulary and partners exposed and concerned that exploitation was not being identified. Learning from previous exploitation scandals and reviewing emerging threats, gaps were discovered in local arrangements to identify those most at risk.
Analysis The objectives were to implement a systematic approach to identify and account for exploited children by (i) identifying those most at risk; (ii) preventing harm through early intervention and (iii) by embedding multi agency working to recognise and reduce harm. The emerging components of exploitation were defined with local agencies. Application of the Problem Analysis Triangle (PAT) identified that, although strong measures were in place to support victims, measures to address locations and offenders needed further development. Effective coordination was established through a Strategic Child Exploitation Group. Applying the Contextual Safeguarding Model strengthened effective analysis of location features within the PAT.
Response Agreeing a strategic vision across safeguarding agencies assisted in developing a multi-agency approach. A referral process encouraged agencies to identify children who were at risk of exploitation. The Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker was introduced which recognised the different forms of exploitation such as sexual exploitation, criminal exploitation, County Lines, Modern Slavery, Trafficking and Organised Crime involvement. A weekly joint screening process was introduced within the Multi-agency Safeguarding
Hub (MASH) with a further multi-agency meeting where Victim-Offender-Location tactics were applied. This was underpinned by communications and raising awareness across agencies.
Assessment The objectives were achieved and this is evidenced through quantitative data outlining the cohort of children significantly increasing by $61 \%$, with a more even gender balance (from $95 \%$-female/5\%male to $53 \%$-female/ $47 \%$-male) and a broader range of exploitation (from one to five categories). Underlying issues of vulnerability were more effectively identified and case studies evidence early intervention working effectively. Multi-agency working was effectively embedded with a single unified risk assessment process used by all agencies and very positive feedback from those involved. The initiative has been of value to other localities and law-enforcement agencies.
2. Description (3995 words)
Child Exploitation: Identifying, tracking and reducing harm: assisting exploited children who fall under the radar.
# A. Scanning:
Problem identification: This project addressed the absence of a systematic approach to identify and account for children who are being exploited.
The consequences of this problem were significant due to the physical, sexual and psychological harm which is caused to a child if exploitation is not addressed at the earliest opportunity. There is a real threat posed by organised networks operating 'under the radar' which multiplies and repeats the harm suffered by children. Difficulties in identifying and accounting for children are magnified by the reluctance many will have in reporting exploitation to those in authority due to manipulation, coercion and fear. If not addressed, this problem has the potential for devastating sexual, physical and psychological harm to be caused to children and severe criticism to those in authority.
The scanning process included reflection upon lessons learnt from Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) investigations which had occurred in Rotherham, UK, involving the abuse of 1,400 victims between the 1980s and 2013; which had occurred in Rochdale involving the abuse of 47 victims between 2003 and 2014; and Operation Sanctuary in the Northumbria Police's area, which involved the abuse of 278 victims between
2010 and 2014. The challenge posed from these investigations was to ensure that the local police and safeguarding agencies were working effectively with a systematic means of proactively identifying and accounting for exploited children who may be hidden within communities. The requirement for more effective working in this area was justified given the harm caused to victim survivors. This has recently been expressed at a national level in the UK by findings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) which highlights improvements required across agencies.
Understanding of the problem was assisted by scanning guidance produced nationally, including the Home Office publication: Criminal Exploitation of Children and Vulnerable Adults: County Lines Guidance 2018 and the Children's Society Child Exploitation Programme (2018 to date). These highlighted emerging recognition of different forms of exploitation including Child Criminal Exploitation, Modern Day Slavery and County Lines, the latter involves using children to transport illicit drugs, cash and weapons to support mobile phone drug-dealer lines.
By reviewing what was in place at a local level, it was established that the multi-agency processes concentrated primarily on missing children and those exposed to CSE. Local data demonstrated that a cohort of children and young people were being supported through a process which invited agencies to make a referral into the 'Missing and Exploited Group'. This enabled support to be provided through a small number of CSE support workers and missing from home coordinators from the police, charities and local government agencies working together. The number of children being supported through this mechanism had an average range of 19 - 25 at any one time over the 12 months prior to May 2019. Over $95 \%$ were females aged between 14 and 17 years. There were positive community relationships in dealing with these children through, for example, initiatives which improved the safety of children in care homes. However, it was recognised that other forms of exploitation needed to be considered and a more robust process of identifying exploited children across agencies needed to be implemented to understand the true extent of exploitation within local communities.
The scanning process also involved scrutiny from the National County Lines Coordination Centre (NCLCC) which had been established in 2018 through the National Police Chief's Council and National Crime Agency working in collaboration. An NCLCC review team was invited into the Constabulary in May 2019 to provide
scrutiny of the Constabulary's response to County Lines. The review team commended the partnership approach which was already in place to tackle Child Sexual Exploitation but also highlighted gaps in gathering and sharing multi agency information regarding child criminal exploitation. This resulted in recognition that the County Lines Tracker, a scoring tool to identify and rank order children at risk of County Lines, developed by the NCLCC, and already implemented in other areas of the UK, would be worth considering.
Scanning also considered an evidence base from Applied Criminology which supported an approach to identify the 'power few'. This concept established the justification for 'concentrating scarce resources on the 'power few': the small percentage of places, victims, offenders, police officers or other units in any distribution of crime or injustice which produces the greatest amount of harm' (Sherman 2007). This principle had been effectively applied in a number of studies establishing for example, that 3\% of all offenders were responsible for $90 \%$ of all harm in a study of Intimate Partner Violence (Barnham, 2017) and that $3.75 \%$ of all victims accounted for $85 \%$ of all harm (Dudfield et al, 2017). This research steered the initiative towards an approach which identified and concentrated interventions upon children who were at the most risk of harm through exploitation.
# B: Analysis
Objectives of this POP initiative were to implement a systematic approach to identify and account for children who are being exploited by:
(i) Identifying those most at risk
(ii) Preventing harm through early intervention and
(iii) By embedding multi agency working to recognise and reduce harm.
The first stage of analysis involved rationalising the different components of exploitation. This resulted in the use of the broad term of 'Child Exploitation' which would build on the existing structures which already catered for missing children and those harmed by CSE.
Child Exploitation would therefore incorporate children who were at risk from being:
- Frequently missing from home
- Subject to Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)
- Subject to Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE), including involvement in County Lines or Organised Crime.
- Subject to Modern Day Slavery or Human Trafficking.
Other forms of exploitation were also acknowledged, such as online exploitation which ran throughout the different types of child exploitation. Radicalisation was considered but was not identified as an area of focus due to processes already being in place through established Prevent and Channel.
The second stage of analysis involved applying the Problem Analysis Triangle (PAT) (see Appendix 2):
# Victim
- This Victim aspect of the PAT was the most mature and well developed in that there were established CSE workers and Missing from Home Coordinators to support individuals who were at risk of CSE or who repeatedly went missing. There was an embedded multi-agency risk assessment process in place which provided effective support for children who were at risk of CSE. Initiatives within the Constabulary had included programmes such as 'Intervene to protect a child' which equipped front line officers with the knowledge of risk factors and the importance of accounting for children in every interaction. The Philomena Protocol had also been launched by the Constabulary 12 months earlier to ensure more effective 'parental' responsibility was applied to children by staff in care homes.
## Location and Offender
- The Location and Offender aspects of the PAT were less well developed. Although, there was clear evidence of effective investigations, disruptions and prosecutions in relation to cases of CSE, the application of the PAT identified that a more joined up approach was required to tackle offenders and locations based upon greater understanding from the wider definition of child exploitation.
The third stage of analysis identified the current PAT structures which were required to improve problem solving, and in particular strengthen the offender and location aspects of the PAT. This was to be implemented through the following features:
# Victim
- Building upon existing structures outlined above, the County Lines Tracker would be adapted and expanded into a Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker and used as the basis of a multi- agency process to identify, score and rank order children most at risk of wider forms of exploitation, not just County Lines.
## Location and Offender
- The Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker would provide the basis for improved analysis of disruption work at specific locations and against specific offenders. This would be coordinated through multi agency Child Exploitation Meetings and the application of Contextual Safeguarding principles.
- An additional team incorporating a Detective Sergeant and two experienced Detective Constables would facilitate more joined up investigative work, disruptions and prosecutions making use of existing investigative, digital, covert and multi-agency disruption forums across the force and region. Analysis of the outer layer of the PAT identified:
- Handlers of the offenders were identified as police investigators; National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company officers; Youth Offending Service staff, Social Care social workers and Health professionals.
- Managers of typical locations were identified as Social Care workers; Neighbourhood Policing Teams and Private Children's homes.
- Typical Guardians of victims were identified as Parents; Looked After Children's Services; Private Children's Homes; Education institutions and Third Sector Agencies such as Barnardos. In order to provide effective coordination of handlers, managers and guardians at 'super controller' level, and ensure multi-agency co-operation, a Strategic Child Exploitation Group was established which met quarterly, chaired by a Police Detective Superintendent and covering two local authority areas. This was established to monitor and support the problem solving initiative and manage performance in relation to
missing children, CSE, CCE, School exclusions and elective home education trends. The strategic group was attended by senior managers from the Police, Health, Clinical Commissioning Groups, Education, Children's Services, substance misuse support services, mental health services, Barnardos, Safeguarding Partnerships and Crimestoppers.
This enabled effective coordination and response to direction provided from national super controllers such as OFSTED, IICSA, Home Office, Local Authorities, National Crime Agency, NPCC, and the Children's Commissioner.
Further analysis also identified the value of applying the Contextual Safeguarding model developed by Professor Carlene Firmin from Bedfordshire University (Firmin 2020), particularly when considering the features of location within the PAT. Contextual Safeguarding challenges services to complete analysis outside of the traditional familial settings, recognising that traditionally, legal and social care systems are set up for younger children facing risks at home, but are less sensitive to adolescents facing risks outside of the family environment. The latter may have to be considered both as suspects in criminal activity and as victims of criminal exploitation and are more likely to be facing risks outside of the family environment. This prompts analysis of risks they face within peer groups; schools and neighbourhoods, as well as the online environment. Effective analysis of these other locations produces improved responses to engage and safeguard. Clear benefits were identified from applying the Contextual Safeguarding model to generate improved understanding of the locations and environments where children were likely to be exploited.
The hypothesis which concluded the assessment process was that: the implementation of a multi- agency identification and referral process would improve early interventions to reduce harm suffered by the 'power few' of exploited children.
# C: Response
An early step in responding to this problem was achieving agreement across safeguarding agencies that tackling hidden harm through exploitation was of central importance. This was achieved through promoting, as part of a simple multi-agency vision incorporated into the local Safeguarding Children's Partnership, that a central tenet of the vision should be to 'keep children safe' by identifying hidden harm through listening to and observing 'children who can't or won't speak out'.
# Multi-agency approach
From the start of implementing a response, the importance of ensuring the process was supported effectively by partners was of upmost importance. Therefore, a Task and Finish Group including the relevant partners was established, led by the police. A multi-agency process was agreed and implemented (introduced in November 2019):
## Referral process
This encouraged all agencies to make a referral for children who were at risk of the different forms of exploitation through a Child Exploitation Referral which contained a matrix indicating levels of risk (appendix 7).
## Joint Screening Process
On a weekly basis, within the MASH, key agencies review the referrals, sharing information and jointly working through the Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker scoring process. Those agencies involved include the Police, Education, Drugs and Alcohol Services, Health, Mental Health, Children's Services, Barnardos and Children's Services.
The Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker was introduced providing a weighted scoring for the risk level from assessing the below five areas with detailed sub-categories under each headings (Appendix 3):
1. Welfare
2. Victim of crime
3. Criminal Behaviour
4. County Lines
The overall score generated from the Tracker (Microsoft-Excel platform) is used, alongside the risk matrix to determine an overall score. This provides opportunity to address immediate safeguarding issues and more specific referrals, for example, for a strategy discussion to be documented; for a National Referral Mechanism submission; for Exploitation support or for a Harmful Sexual Behaviour assessment to be completed.
# Multi-Agency Operational Meeting
Those children with the greatest risk are referred to a monthly Child Exploitation Operational meeting, a multi-agency forum where consideration is given as to how risks to the child may be reduced. This meeting provides the forum to apply tactics through the lens of Victim-Offender-Location considerations.
## Communications and training
Awareness raising across agencies was delivered, concentrating upon the requirement to understand and recognise the different forms of exploitation within a Contextual Safeguarding model. Within the police, awareness sessions were delivered to all front-line officers and investigators, with bespoke training delivered to Control Room staff, custody staff as well as the use of other mediums such as team briefings and screen saver messages.
## Sustainable and standardised approach
The implementation of a joint screening process overcame a significant problem as different agencies had previously used their own risk assessments to understand the level of harm faced by exploited children. The new process achieved multi-agency agreement in adopting a uniform risk assessment process. This was illustrated by agencies submitting referrals based on volume of incidents rather than harm level. Where the score was not sufficiently high to justify the child being considered at a Child Exploitation Operational meeting, it was built into the process that the decision would be fed back to the referrer with the rationale and it was confirmed which agency would have primary responsibility for that child.
## Management of challenges and difficulties
A difficulty which quickly led to an adaptation of the process was the introduction of a discretional additional scoring category for a child where the collective professional judgement of those conducting the screening recognised that there were issues not fully captured in the scoring criteria. This allowed qualitative information to be included within the scoring mechanism and was welcomed by practitioners as making the joint screening more effective. Reserving the right to add some weighting to the score was frequently used where there was particularly high risk in immediate circumstances, for example, where a child was potentially being groomed by a dangerous offender.
Another issue which was not initially anticipated was the raw score from the Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker not being sufficiently sensitive to change so that it could be used as an indicator to remove the child from the attention of the Child Exploitation Operational meeting. This was because, many of the scoring features on the Tracker related to longer term aspects of the individual's childhood and background, which did not change significantly in the short term, despite positive interventions and safeguarding. This was rectified by using the Child Exploitation risk matrix assessment as the primary indicator to decide when the child could be taken off the tracker. This risk assessment enabled a qualitative assessment and more accurately reflected the immediate changes in the safety and risks posed to the child. It was also agreed that archiving a child from the tracker was only completed with multi-agency agreement of the group.
# D: Assessment
The first objective of this POP initiative ('to implement a systematic approach to identify and account for children who are being exploited by identifying those most at risk') was achieved with significant improvements evidenced. Quantitative data outlined in Appendix 5 demonstrates that the overall cohort of children significantly increased from an average range of 19 - 25 at any one time over the 12 months prior to May 2019, to a cohort of 57 children in June 2020; 69 children in October 2020; 59 children in March 2021. This process also identified a more even balance of genders ( $47 \%$ male - $53 \%$ female) and a much broader range of risk factors. The number of children impacted by County Lines remained very low but a much broader spectrum of exploitation, including local forms of Child Criminal Exploitation were being identified.
The process itself also identified underlying issues in a child's life as their vulnerability was being scored. For example, $61 \%$ were associating with others who were exploited, $47 \%$ were associating with a person of risk such as a Registered Sex Offender, member of an organised crime group or violent offender. $47 \%$ had attendance issues at school and $30 \%$ had been excluded or placed in an alternative education setting.
A significant proportion had suffered domestic abuse (44\%); were a victim of sexual crime (39\%) or a victim of serious violence (23\%). The challenge of dealing with children who are victims but also causing harm to others is also apparent as some children were recorded as suspects for serious violence (19\%); possessing a weapon (25\%) or supplying drugs (23\%).
A very high proportion of children had one or more identifiable Adverse Childhood Experience (86\%) and misuse of drugs or alcohol was present in $75 \%$ of cases and mental health issues in $65 \%$. Some data prompts further consideration as no children were identified as having a physical disability, raising questions as to whether further awareness raising should be completed amongst professionals and carers. This has recently begun to be addressed with specific awareness raising regarding children with identified special educational needs and disabilities.
In assessing whether the second objective of 'preventing harm through early intervention' was achieved, the below case studies provide qualitative assessment to demonstrate positive outcomes achieved for children who were identified as being at risk of exploitation. They are categorised under VICTIM-OFFENDERLOCATION perspectives to exemplify the achievement of this objective.
VICTIM: Case Study -15yr old male -This child's mother is a drug addict using Class A drugs. The child was using and selling drugs to fund his and his mother's habits. A referral was made in March 2020 which was graded high risk, recorded on the Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker and allocated to an Exploitation 'ERASE' worker. The child, when consulted in July 2020 explained:
"My life was very unhappy before all the services became involved, I was in a bad place and was crying out for attention, I felt not listened to and misunderstood. Everyone saw me as a bad lad when in fact I was the victim. My involvement with ERASE has been very good as I was listened to and supported consistently around my past experiences. Life is very different now, I am in a safe place with my Gran and go to college. I would like to go into the army and make a career for myself in logistics.'
LOCATION: Case Study - Local authority Children's home - This Children's Home housed 3 teenage females at risk of Sexual Exploitation particularly through online contacts. A joint approach between police and children's services resulting in 16 Child Abduction Warning notices issued. None of these notices were breached and this effectively ended contact from those who could potentially pose a risk to the females. One of the females was found a more suitable placement which assisted in managing the risk. One of the remaining females ( 16 years) was consulted in June 2020. She had been regularly going missing prior to the interventions, was deemed to be at high risk of sexual exploitation and had her mother had recently died. She explained:
"Things are actually looking up" and "before I didn't care about myself or the risks but now I do care and I care about me and staying safe and making something of myself. I don't think I would have got here without the support"..."to do something good for myself and have a good future and to achieve something". "I want to make my Mam proud"
# OFFENDER: Case Study - 19 year old male posing risk to 12 year old female
The 12 year old was at high risk of being sexually exploited when the Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker was applied. She was being visited and potentially exploited by a 19 year old male. The male was issued a Child Abduction Warning Notice and following proactive targeting, was found to have breached this notice some four weeks later. This resulted in the offender being charged with Child Abduction offences and put before the court, thereby preventing further contact and safeguarding female.
The third objective of the initiative to 'embed rigorous multi-agency working to recognise and reduce harm' was achieved with the implementation of the process described above. In May 2020, consultation with practitioners involved in the process highlighted that the process was well embedded as exemplified by the following feedback:
'A really positive difference in the efficiency of triaging the most at risk young people in our County. The multiagency approach has improved and we have a good weekly representation of services...good rapport has built in the team where we are able to challenge and discuss young people effectively and contact each other outside of the CEVT meeting' (Team Leader, Children Young People Services)
'Without this excellent shared practice and review system, decisions about risk levels would be made in isolation by agencies and that would not be safe.' (Equalities Education Team Leader)
'Prior to this, there was no local authority held 'list' of young people at risk of exploitation from an education perspective... Without this excellent shared practice and review system, decisions about risk levels would be made in isolation by agencies and that would not be safe.' (Local Authority Education SPOC)
'The meetings are a good way for professionals to share information which is beneficial to the child receiving appropriate services' (Heath SPOC)'
An evaluation was conducted in July 2020 with a wider range of stakeholders from across the agencies involved. This consisted of a structured survey which probed for feedback in relation to how the process could be improved. The benefits of the initiative were identified as the process being effectively targeted and providing a timely response to the child's needs; it had improved information sharing, filling gaps in intelligence; it ensured appropriate support for the child; it provided an improved platform for looking at child exploitation; it provided clear recommendations to agencies; it promotes effective partnership working
ensuring the most vulnerable are 'on the radar'; it provides an improved overview of risks; offers early intervention to disrupt behaviour and offers opportunities for children to work with intervention workers on a voluntary basis.
The survey identified areas for improvement. These included concerns that the referring agency needed to ensure referrals were appropriate and provide improved rationale. The feedback process needed to be standardised. There needed to be sufficient rationale provided when a child's support was ended. There was a request for further ongoing multi-agency training / refresher training regarding the process and relevant definitions. Some improved recording practices were also identified. Overall, the survey demonstrated a good understating within the safeguarding agencies involved in the process. The potential improvements were considered at the Strategic Child Exploitation Group with solutions implemented through the group's delivery plan.
Therefore, this initiative has resulted in a sustainable approach which is now embedded across agencies. Sufficient components of the County Lines Tracker have been maintained within the Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker so that it can be used to share risk factors for children at risk in different parts of the UK. The process has been introduced without incurring any significant expenditure as it has been founded by agencies with an existing responsibility to safeguard children working together to implement improved processes. The feedback illustrates the mutual value the initiative has brought to agencies working in partnership. Performance data from the Tracker and Operational Meetings continues to improve the safety of individual children and assist in focussing on groups at risk. The platform the initiative provides to reduce harm posed to exploited children is transferable to other geographical areas and has generated interest from neighbouring police forces.
# 3. Agency and Officer Information:
## Durham Constabulary, UK
Key Project Team Members: David Ashton, Lee Blakelock, Andy Nimmo, Karen Naunton
Project Contact Person: Name: David Ashton
Position/Rank: Detective Superintendent, Head of Safeguarding
Address: Durham City Police Office, New Elvet, Durham City, Durham
City/State/Postal code: DH1 3AQ
Phone: 07736084347 (+44 7736084347)
Email: david.ashton@durham.police.uk
## References
Barnham, L., Barnes, G.C. and Sherman, L.W., 2017 Targeting escalation of intimate partner violence: Evidence from 52,000 offenders. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(2-3), pp.116-142.
Dudfield, G., Angel., C., Sherman and L.W., Torrence, S. 2017 The "Power Curve" of Victim Harm: Targeting the Distribution of Crime Harm Index Values Across All Victims and Repeat Victims over 1 Year, Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, June, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 38-58
Firmin, C 2020 Contextual Safeguarding and Child Protection Rewriting the Rules published by Routledge
Sherman, L.W. 2007 'The power few: experimental criminology and the reduction of harm', Journal of Experimental Criminology, 34: 299-32.
# 4. Appendices:
## Appendix 1: Types of Exploitation
Appendix 2: Analysis through PAT - Past, Present, $2^{\text {nd }}$ Layer, Location
## Analyads $=\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{a}} \mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{a}} \mathrm{T}$ PAST
# Analysis = P_A,T _PRESENT_
## P_A,T = 2nd Layer
### Handlers
- Police Investigators
- NPS / CRC
- YOS
- Children's Services
- Health
### Manager
- Children's Services
- Neighbourhood Policing Teams
- Private Children's Homes
### Guardian
- Children's Service (Looked After Children)
- Private Children's Homes
- 3rd Sector eg Barnardos
## SUPER-CONTROLLERS
### Strategic Child Exploitation Group – Durham and Darlington
- **Performance:** MFH, CIE, CCI, School exclusions, ENE
- **Agencies:** Police CODPI, OCE & DBC (Education and CIC), NECA, HDPT, TENPI, CCG, Barnardos, DSCR DSR (Unwarrings)
- **Local Authorities (plural):** Ofsted; CCGs; IICSA; Home Office; NCA; NPCC; Childrens Commissioner
# Analysis- PAT Location
## Contextual Safeguarding
Dr Carlene Firmin MBE
## Response VICTIM
## Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker
Appendix 3: Child Exploitation Vulnerability Tracker - Weighted scoring categories
| Welfare | - Age |
| :--: | :--: |
| | - Social Services involvement |
| | - Looked after child |
| | - Missing |
| | - Self-Harm / Suicide |
| | - Mental Health |
| | - Physical Disability |
| | - Learning difficulties |
| | - Drug / Alcohol Issues |
| | - Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) |
| Victim of Crime | - Victim of sexual / serious violence / Modern Day Slavery / Other crime |
| | - Witness of sexual / serious violence / Modern Day Slavery / Other crime |
| | - Domestic Abuse experienced |
| Criminal | - Suspect of or accused of Sexual / Serious Violence / |
| Behaviour | Possession of a Weapon / Other Crime |
| | - Intelligence regarding Firearms / Knife possession |
| County Lines | - County Line Arrest |
| | - Stopped in Another Force |
| | - County Line Intel |
| | - Cuckoo-ing of Home Address |
| Other Risk | - Sexually Inappropriate Behaviour |
| Factors | - Not in Education or Training |
| | - Alternative Provision education |
| | - Attendance issues at school |
| | - Home Schooled |
| | - Gang association |
| | - Social isolation |
| | - Parental engagement |
| | - Rewards / unexplained financial gain |
| | - Coercion / control |
| | - Association with RSO / OCG / Violent Offenders / Significant Criminal |
| | - Trafficking /located in another force area |
| | - Radicalisation (if so referred to Prevent) |
# THINK CHILD
Is the child you're dealing with being exploited?
## Appendix 5: QUANTITATIVE DATA - CHLD EXPLOITATION VULNERABILITY TRACKER
| QUANTITATIVE DATA - CHLD EXPLOITATION VULNERABILITY TRACKER (Snapshot June 2020) | | |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Demographics | Total reaching threshold for Operational Meeting and multi-agency safety plan | 57 |
| | Gender | $\begin{aligned} & 53 \% \text { female; } \\ & 47 \% \text { male } \end{aligned}$ |
| | Age distribution | $\begin{aligned} & 10 \text { yrs } 2 \% \\ & 11 \text { yrs } 2 \% \\ & 12 \text { yrs } 5 \% \\ & 13 \text { yrs } 7 \% \\ & 14 \text { yrs } 21 \% \\ & 15 \text { yrs } 14 \% \\ & 16 \text { yrs } 23 \% \\ & 17 \text { yrs } 26 \% \end{aligned}$ |
| Home circumstances | Parental Engagement | 51\% do not have parental engagement |
| | Elective Home Education | 1 child subject to EHE |
| | Known to Social Services? | $86 \%$ are known to social services |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Looked after? | 26\% are Looked After Children |
| County Lines | County Line Arrest | $2 \%$ |
| | Stopped in another Force | $5 \%$ |
| | County Lines Intelligence | $11 \%$ |
| | Cuckooing | $2 \%$ |
| Risk Factors | Sexually Inappropriate Behaviour | $61 \%$ |
| | Not in Education or Training or in alternative placement | $30 \%$ |
| | Attendance issues | $47 \%$ |
| | Gang Association | $16 \%$ |
| | Associates with others who are exploited | $61 \%$ |
| | Socially isolated | $46 \%$ |
| | Unexplained financial gain or rewards | $54 \%$ |
| | Coercion and control | $56 \%$ |
| | Association with RSO/ OCG/ Violent Offenders/ Significant criminal | $47 \%$ |
| | Trafficked or located in another force area | $9 \%$ |
| Criminal
Behaviour | Suspect of sexual or serious violence offence | $19 \%$ |
| | Suspect other crime | $84 \%$ |
| | Suspect possession of weapon | $25 \%$ |
| | Intelligence re firearms or knife | $21 \%$ |
| | Suspect of possession with intent to supply drugs | $23 \%$ |
| Victim of crime | Sexual crime | $39 \%$ |
| | Serious violence | $23 \%$ |
| | Modern Day Slavery | $7 \%$ |
| | Domestic Abuse | $44 \%$ |
| | Other crime | $68 \%$ |
| | Witness of sexual / serious crime | $19 \%$ |
| Welfare | ACE | $86 \%$ |
| | Drug Alcohol | $75 \%$ |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| Learning difficulties | $40 \%$ | |
| Mental Health | $65 \%$ | |
| Self-Harm | $46 \%$ | |
| Physical disability | $0 \%$ | |
# Appendix 6: Evaluation Findings
## Appendix 7 Child Exploitation Referral Form
## Child Exploitation Risk Assessment Information Form
All of the following information is required when there are concerns regarding a child being at risk of /and or experiencing exploitation.
This referral should be used where there is evidence or intelligence to suggest that a child is being or has been 'exploited'.
'Child Exploitation' includes:
- Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)
- Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE)
- County Lines
- Children involved or living within or affected by Organised Crime Groups
- Child Trafficking and other forms of Modern Day Slavery
| Named worker leading on the Risk Assessment | | | Contact Details \& Agency | | Date | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Authorising line manager | | | Contact Details \& Agency | | Date | |
| Child's full name (+ aliases) | D.O.B. | Age | Home Address and contact number | Agency I.D.
Reference Number |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | |
| Disability | Gender
Identity | Ethnicity | nguage | Child Legal Status |
| | | | | |
| GP Details \& contact
number | Known to
Police | Known to
YOS | Known to CAMHS | Current School |
| | | | | |
- Additional Information
# Child Exploitation Risk Assessment
## The Child Exploitation Risk Assessment should be developed alongside with and complimenting any other plan for the young person's welfare. Please use this tool in line with local Safeguarding Partnership Procedures.
## Professional Assessment of Safeguarding Risk Indicators
- In order to identify children at risk of or experiencing exploitation and follow a clear plan of effective inter-agency action, consider ALL of the 14 risk indicators and record a level of risk against each, before proceeding according to local procedures.
- Evidence of exploitation is mandatory.
- Note: where a child under the age of 13 years old, and /or has learning disability and there are concerns regarding child exploitation, a referral to Children's Social Work Services is required.
- The 14 main heading risk indicators are not exhaustive; they are simply those mostly commonly recognised which may indicate a risk of child exploitation; there may be other relevant factors present which require consideration and analysis. One tick in a high risk box, or several in low risk may indicate a serious risk of child exploitation, alternatively this might be an indication of other concerns that require addressing via the child's overall plan, or by accessing other appropriate services
- The risk and vulnerability factors provided against each of the 14 risk indicator headings are also not exhaustive; they are simply prompts for consideration. Consequently, the recorded risk for each of the 14 risk indicators does not necessarily need to correspond with the risk and vulnerability factors highlighted. It is therefore important to provide analysis to evidence how the assessment of an individual risk indicator has been achieved.
- When assessing a child or young person's risk of exploitation, it is essential to highlight if the concerns and the information being provided is current or historic. If the concern or information is historic but relevant, it necessary to evidence how this relates to the current assessed risk.
- When completing the CE risk assessment, it is crucial that the child or young person's use of social media is considered throughout.
- Consider a referral via the NRM if it is suspected that the child is being moved for the purposes of exploitation.
*Please indicate a level of assesses risk against ALL the following 14 risk indicators
| 1. | Risk Indicator - Family and peer relationships | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation.
- Carer(s) show warmth, support the young person and have positive communication with the young person.
- The young person has positive friendships. | |
| Low | | |
| | - Appropriate boundaries are in place and effective.
- Reduced contact with family or friends which is of concern or there is an unexplained change in attitude from the young person regarding the relationship, which raises some concerns. | |
| Moderate | - Carer(s) lack understanding, tolerance and at times warmth towards the young person.
- Parents fail to report missing episodes.
- Family relationships are strained.
- Report a change in behaviour or presentation.
- Family or Friends or peers are suspected or known offenders. | |
| Significant | - Suspected abuse in family (emotional, neglect, physical or sexual).
- There is little or no communication between the carer(s).
- There is a lack of warmth or understanding, attachment or trust.
- Parents fail to report missing episodes.
- Parent or Carer does not implement age appropriate boundaries
- Breakdown in family relationships / no contact.
- Family or Friends or peers are known offenders.
- Young person is socially isolated from peers.
- Friends are assessed to be at risk of CE.
- Criminality within the family environment. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
| 2. | Risk Indicator - Accommodation | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| No risk
identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. | |
| Low | - Some accommodation concerns, but overall accommodation meets young
person's needs and the young person is happy. | |
| Moderate | - The young person is unhappy with their accommodation.
- The young person moves frequently or leads a transient existence. | |
| Significant | - Concerns about location and isolation. | |
| | - The young person has left accommodation without explanation. - Homeless. - Intelligence to link young person to suspected trap houses. - The unexplained access to keys to premises. |
| :-- | :-- |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | |
| 3. | Risk Indicator - Education | |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. | |
| Low | - Mainly engaged in employment, school or training. - Some truanting but limited concerns, mainly positive friendships in education, training or employment setting. | |
| Moderate | - Full time education, training or employment but irregular or poor attendance during school hours often unknown. - Friendships in education, training or employment setting are with others at risk of exploitation. - Noticeable change in attendance, performance or behaviour. | |
| Significant | - Regular breakdown of school or training placements due to behavioural problems. - Not engaged in education or employment or motivated to be. - Being excluded from mainstream education, in particular attending alternative education. - Whereabouts often unknown. - Friendships or peer groups either within or outside the education, employment or training setting are with others at risk of exploitation. - Electively home educated. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
| 4. | Risk Indicator - Emotional Health | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which may relate to exploitation | |
| Low | - Concerns regarding low mood. | |
| Moderate | - Low self-esteem or self-confidence, at times expression of despair. - Internal Self-harm: Cutting, Overdosing, Eating disorder. - Trauma-related symptoms. - External (intensive acting out): Bullying or threatening behaviour, aggression, violent outbursts, offending behaviour. - Concerning substance misuse. | |
| Significant | - Chronic low self-esteem or self- confidence. - Mental health problems or expression of despair. - Internal (Self-harm): Cutting, Overdosing, Eating disorder. - Previous suicide attempts. | |
| | - External (intensive acting out): Bullying or threatening behaviour, violent outbursts, Offending behaviour. - Dependency on substances or alcohol. - Trauma-related symptoms. |
| :-- | :-- |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | |
| 5. | Risk Indicator - Experience of Violence | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. | |
| Low | - No known reported incidents of the young person being a victim of violence or witnessing domestic abuse, (including peer relationships) although some professional concerns. | |
| Moderate | - Concerns that the young person has been or is being exposed to violence in the home or from others. - Abusive significant relationship - Physical symptoms suggestive of physical or sexual assault. - Disclosure of physical or sexual assault followed by withdrawal of allegation. | |
| Significant | - Known abuse towards the young person from family members. - Peers or older friends or partners are violent towards the young person. - Abusive significant relationship. - Unexplained physical injuries, whether sexual or otherwise. - Evidence of coercion or control. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
| 6. | Risk Indicator - Running away / going missing | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. - Concerns relate to behaviours which fall within normal young person behaviour. | |
| Low | - Often comes home late or has incidents of absence without permission and returning late. - Whereabouts often unknown. | |
| Moderate | - Often staying out late or overnight without permission or explanation. - Whereabouts at times unknown, young person secretive about whereabouts. - Repeated episodes of running away or going missing or absent from placement. (Including short periods and unreported episodes) - Regular breakdown of placements. | |
| Significant | - Frequently reported missing due to extensive or frequent periods of missing or running away from placement. - Whereabouts often unknown. - Missing with others known to be at risk of CE. - Located in separate force area. - Regular breakdown of placements. | |
| | - Pattern of street homelessness. |
| :-- | :-- |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | |
| 7. | Risk Indicator - Contact with abusive adults and / or unsafe environments | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. young person has a good understanding of exploitative or abusive behaviour and can use it to keep themselves safe. (including how to stay safe on social media or the internet) | |
| Low | - Associates with unknown adults or young people suspected to be at risk of exploitation. - Accessing one or more social networking sites and may be 'friends' with a number of unknown people, but there are limited concerns. | |
| Moderate | - Associating with unknown adults or other exploited young people. - Extensive use of phone (particularly late at night, \& secret use). - May have use of more than one mobile phone. - Reported to have been in areas where there are concerns related to criminal activity. - Some understanding of abusive or exploitative behaviour and may recognise risks but unable to apply knowledge. | |
| Significant | - Evidence of association or relationships with adults or older peers believed or known to be involved in grooming or exploitation. - Willing to meet up with people they have only met online. - Seen or picked up, in areas where street sex work is known to take place. - Gang association either through relatives, peers or intimate relationships. - Very limited or no recognition of abusive or exploitative behaviour. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
| 8. | Risk Indicator - Controlled Substances | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. | |
| Low | - Mild use of substances (including alcohol) drugs or alcohol, but concerns relate to behaviours which fall within normal experimental behaviour. | |
| Moderate | - Evidence of regular substance (including alcohol) use. - Concerns for use or dependency \& change or increase of use. - Some concerns regarding how substance misuse is being funded. - Concerns regarding how substances are being accessed. - Intelligence linking young person to drug supply. | |
| Significant | - Evidence of heavy or dependant or worrying substance misuse (including alcohol). - Chronic dependency of highly addictive substances. - Increased concerns for use or dependency and funding and supply of usage. - Arrested for drug supply offences. | |
| | - Intelligence suggesting county lines involvement. | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | . | |
| 9. | Risk Indicator - Coercion / control | |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation | |
| Low | - Some concerns about coercion or control within significant relationships. - Reduced contact with family or friends, which raises concern. | |
| Moderate | - Limited contact with family or friends. - Appears to be 'controlled' or negatively influenced by others. - Concerns about significant relationships and domestic abuse or violence. - Physical injuries, whether external or internal, including unexplained injuries. | |
| Significant | - No contact with family or friends - Disclosure of physical or sexual assault followed by withdrawal of allegation. - Physical injuries - external or internal. - Significant relationship(s) is assessed to involve abuse, violence or is controlling. - Abduction or forced imprisonment. - Disappears from system (no contact with support systems). - Gang association through relatives or peers or intimate relationships. - Young person is being exploited by a gang or criminal group or associated to gang members. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
| 10. | Risk Indicator - Rewards (Including online reward) | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation | |
| Low | - Some unaccounted for monies or goods (new clothes, mobile top-ups, mobile phones- etc). - Ability to fund non tangible goods. | |
| Moderate | - Unaccounted for cash or goods, (new clothes, make-up, jewellery, mobile phones, mobile phone top-ups, sim cards etc). - Concerns regarding the funding of misuse of drugs or alcohol or use of tobacco through unknown sources. - Some concerns about how the young person funds other items (fast food, taxi fares, etc). | |
| Significant | - Significant concerns regarding unaccounted for cash or goods, especially jewellery, items of clothing and mobile phones, which the young person is unable to provide explanation for. - Has use of more than one mobile phone. - Unexplained funding of meals, taxis, alcohol, tobacco and controlled substances. | |
| 11. | Risk Indicator - Sexual health & relationships | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| No risk identified | • No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation, is not sexually active and is aware of where to get support and advice when needed. | |
| Low | • Young person is sexually active and in an equal consensual relationship with a peer.
• Young person does not feel pressured, they feel they can say 'no' and is following 'safe sex' advice.
• Possible evidence of having or had a sexually transmitted disease. | |
| Moderate | • Recurring or more than one sexually transmitted disease.
• Miscarriage(s) or concerns about untreated STIs, termination(s), pregnancy.
• Young person is sexually active, is not practising safe sex and is not accessing or willing to access support from any sexual health services. | |
| Significant | • Recurring or multiple STIs.
• Concerns about untreated STIs.
• Miscarriage(s), termination(s), pregnancy.
• Physical symptoms suggestive of sexual assault.
• Young person pressured to have sex or to perform sexual.
• Young person is being sexually abused by an adult or there is an inappropriate relationship age gap.
• Young person is under 13 and sexually active (rape, unable to consent).
• Sex is non-consensual – young person is experiencing violence or coercion with sex, or are unable to consent due to intoxication or substance misuse.
• Young person is made to watch sexual acts being performed on others.
• Young person discloses sexual abuse. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
| 12. | Risk Indicator – Social Networking | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| No risk identified | • No concerns identified in this area which relate to social networking. | |
| Low | • Contacting unknown adults or older peers through the internet, but concerns are limited.
• A high volume of friends or followers on social media platforms. | |
| Moderate | • Concerns about proactive inappropriate or risky use of the internet and social media, sharing of images, sexting, making contact with adults or peers via social media.
• Unknown adults initiating contact with young person via social media. | |
| Significant | • Inadequate privacy settings.
• Lack of education regarding safe internet use.
• Access to dating sites. | |
| | - Has posted inappropriate language, information or sexual pictures, when asked to by an adult or older peer or unknown person. - Proactively uses the internet or social media to share images, make contact or arrange to meet up with adults or peers. - Interacts with young people or adults known to be involved with sexual exploitation online. - Evidence of sexualised bullying via the internet or social media sites. |
| :--: | :--: |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | |
| 13. | Risk Indicator - Physical risks | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. | |
| Low | - No identified risk to others. | |
| Moderate | - Evidence of intimidation within peer group. - Bullying and threatening behaviour. - Offending behaviour. | |
| Significant | - Displays violence towards others, angry outbursts (including family members and carers). - Bullying and threatening behaviour. - Offending behaviour. - Gang association either through relatives, peers or intimate relationships. - Intelligence suggesting weapons or firearms possession. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
| 14. | Risk Indicator - Engagement with services | |
| :-- | :-- | :-- |
| No risk identified | - No concerns identified in this area which relate to exploitation. - Concerns relate to behaviours which relate to normal young person behaviours. | |
| Low | - Lack of engagement, some difficulty in contacting the young person which raises concern. | |
| Moderate | - Some engagement but sporadic contact, often misses appointments, limited explanation, professional concern, sudden or lack of engagement, secretive and unwilling to engage meaningfully. | |
| Significant | - Frequently not brought to medical appointments. - Secretive, limited explanations or secretive and unable to engage meaningfully, concerning changes in behaviour. | |
| PROVIDE EVIDENCE (Mandatory) | | |
# Other child(ren) \& family factors to consider.
(Please highlight if any are relevant.)
- Family:
- Abuse / neglect in the family.
- Parental Substance misuse / criminal activity / criminal associations.
- Parental mental health.
- Adult sex work.
- Learning disabilities.
- Child:
- Learning disabilities.
- Financially unsupported.
- Migrant/refugee/asylum seeker.
- Recent bereavement or loss or illness of a significant person in the child's life.
- Unsure about sexual orientation or unable to disclose sexual orientation to their families.
- Young carer.
Voice/views of the child or young person
Views of the parent / carer
Information about suspects, vehicles and locations
(*Such as the name of adults /peers about who there are concerns, relating to the child's risk of exploitation)
# What Next
- On completion of this risk identification tool, please make an initial judgement about the level of risk of criminal exploitation for the child / young person.
- Please tick against your assessed level of risk and discuss this with your Team Manager /designated Child Protection Lead and take appropriate action to manage the risks, in accordance with the Local Authority / Safeguarding Partnership procedures.
# Overall Assessed Level of exploitation Risk
| No exploitation concerns | Whilst there may be concerns for the welfare of the young person, which may involve the requirement of service provision, for other assessed risks, the assessment or risk indicates that there is no current risk of the young person being at risk of, or experiencing exploitation. | |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| Low Risk | The indicators and assessment raise some concerns that the young person is at risk of exploitation, and or places him or herself at risk. Concern that the young person is at risk of being targeted or exploited, but there are positive protective factors in the child young person life. | |
| Moderate Risk | The assessment indicates that the young person is vulnerable to exploitation, but that there are no immediate or urgent safeguarding concerns. There is evidence the young person may be a risk of opportunistic abuse, or is being targeted or groomed. The young person may experience protective factors, but circumstances or behaviours place him or her at risk of exploitation. | |
| Significant Risk | Indicators, Assessment, Evidence, Disclosure suggests that the young person is being, or at significant risk of being criminally exploited. | |
## Line Manager/ Designated Child
Date agreed
Protection lead verification
## Review timescales
For those children and young people who are judged to be at low, medium or high risk of Child Exploitation, the level of risk must be reviewed at the following frequency:
| LOW RISK | Durham 6 weekly | At low risk work should be incorporated into the child's current care plan |
| :--: | :--: | :--: |
| MODERATE RISK | Durham 4 weekly | Forward this assessment form to ERASE (Child Exploitation) Team (email below) |
| SIGNIFICANT RISK | Durham 4 weekly | Forward this assessment form to ERASE (Child Exploitation) Team (email below) |
# 35