A qualitative study of the practices and experiences of staff in multidisciplinary child sexual exploitation partnerships in three English coastal towns

Abstract

This article presents findings from a qualitative study of the practices and experiences of people working in multidisciplinary child sexual exploitation (CSE) partnerships in three coastal towns in England. The study is based on focus groups conducted with 36 practitioners from a range of professional groups, including police, social work, substance misuse, education, specialist youth workers, sexual health, and statutory and non-statutory children's services. The article begins with an overview of the three towns and the structure of their responses to CSE. It goes on to explore a range of factors, which contribute to the local issues around CSE and which affect and direct multiagency working. These include practitioner perspectives on CSE vulnerability, the discrepancy between young peoples' and practitioners' views about "exploitation", a discussion of how CSE perpetrators initiate and develop contact with young people and the role of incentives-including drugs and alcohol-as part of CSE exploitation. We finish by drawing out some general conclusions.

A systematic review of the United Kingdom's contact child sexual exploitation perpetrator literature: Pointing a way forward for future research and practice

“…Berelowitz et al (2012) highlight that in cases involving groups, the 'boyfriend model' of grooming is less common and instead victims are either frequently contacted via phone or social media and taken to various locations where the abuse can occur with others, usually in cars, private houses, parties, food establishments and hotels, linked to the 'night-time economy'. This was also supported in the findings from Radcliffe et al (2020), whereby food establishments with free Wifi was likely to be the most successful grooming method, where adult attention would be viewed as flattering and non-threatening.…”

“…The studies report that definitional clarification was attempted with the introduction of the DfE (2018) statutory definition of CSE; however, Radcliffe et al. (2020) argues that CSE will always be “a fluid and changing problem with no single local manifestation” (2019, p. 1224). Similarly, there was agreement within the studies about the overlap between the many categorisations used to describe the CSE crimes committed, resulting in flagging and data recording issues, such as CSE cases being recorded as CSA, criminal exploitation or domestic abuse making it harder to analyse (CEOP, 2013; Kelly & Karsna, 2017).…”

“…Moreover, if there is no consensus amongst practitioners in defining the phenomenon, it is not surprising that the victims themselves fail to recognise that they are involved in exploitative relationships, as reported in Radcliffe et al. (2020), resulting in serious safeguarding implications, with an obvious similarity to stalking (Richards et al., 2012).…”

“…A lack of definitional clarity was reported to delay professional responses, impede prosecutions and prevent researchers improving the knowledge base on such serious CSE crimes, due to difficulties with interpretation and differing threshold levels for protection (Drummond & Southgate, 2018;Kelly & Karsna, 2017;Hackett & Smith, 2018;Walker et al, 2018aWalker et al, , 2018b. The studies report that definitional clarification was attempted with the introduction of the DfE (2018) statutory definition of CSE; however, Radcliffe et al (2020) argues that CSE will always be "a fluid and changing problem with no single local manifestation" (2019, p. 1224). Similarly, there was agreement within the studies about the overlap between the many categorisations used to describe the CSE crimes committed, resulting in flagging and data recording issues, such as CSE cases being recorded as CSA, criminal exploitation or domestic abuse making it harder to analyse (CEOP, 2013;Kelly & Karsna, 2017).…”

“…Societal expectations and reactions to CSE could potentially be blurred by such shifting terminology and therefore lead to a differing operational response from law enforcement teams, such as the comparison between organised offending networks and lone offenders. Moreover, if there is no consensus amongst practitioners in defining the phenomenon, it is not surprising that the victims themselves fail to recognise that they are involved in exploitative relationships, as reported in Radcliffe et al (2020), resulting in serious safeguarding implications, with an obvious similarity to stalking (Richards et al, 2012).…”