‘What's Going On’ to Safeguard Children and Young People from Child Sexual Exploitation: A Review of Local Safeguarding Children Boards’ Work to Protect Children from Sexual Exploitation

Abstract

This article draws on findings from research into the implementation by local safeguarding children boards (local government multi‐agency panels responsible for child protection in England) of national guidance on safeguarding children from child sexual exploitation (CSE). Despite there being some excellent examples of practice, a lack of awareness of the issues faced by sexually exploited children or a lack of resources to address them meant that only a quarter were implementing the dual aim of the guidance: protecting children and prosecuting abusers. The research developed a data monitoring tool, its use showing that children experiencing CSE had multiple problems, many already receiving support from a range of service providers for other related problems. This suggests that there might be scope for better early identification and prevention of CSE. The research showed new forms of CSE, including peer‐on‐peer sexual exploitation, raising important questions about engaging with children who were both perpetrators and victims of abuse. Finally, research findings identified methods of disrupting and prosecuting abusers, giving insight into some of the complexities involved in achieving both. In the main, safeguarding children was best facilitated through co‐located multi‐agency teams where child protection and law enforcement practitioners worked together. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Messages: Local safeguarding children boards have a key responsibility to protect children from sexual exploitation and disrupt and prosecute abusers. Sexually exploited children experience a range of different problems, and are often known to service providers who need better training to respond to the abuse. Exploitation is changing, including peer‐on‐peer sexual violence. Protection can be achieved through co‐located multi‐agency teams supported by direct service provision to young people.

Mitigating Harm: Considering Harm Reduction Principles in Work with Sexually Exploited Young People

“…Some of these experiences include childhood physical, emotional and sexual abuse (Roe‐Sepowitz, ), parental substance misuse (Reid & Piquero, ) domestic abuse in the home (Pearce and others, ) and running away from home or care (Pearce, ). In the UK in particular, much of the knowledge and awareness raising around CSE has come about from research and practice work with young runaways and homeless young people (see McMullen, ; Newman, ).…”

Child Protection and Social Inequality: Understanding Child Prostitution in Malawi

“…The result is an equation between child prostitution and child sexual abuse (Pearce 2006;Brown and Barrett 2013). The children's rights perspective has moved perceptions of children involved in prostitution from being seen as delinquent (Phoenix 2002), to being seen as victims of child sexual exploitation in need of protection (Van Meeuwen et al 1998;Hounmenou 2016;Montgomery 2001;Pearce 2014;Phoenix 2007). However, this has led to a generalised perception that children must have been forced into prostitution (Stacey 2009;ECPAT 2011), supported by vivid imagery of living conditions characterised by abuse and exploitation including being chained in brothels, drugged, raped/gang raped and trafficked (Pearce, Hynes and Bovarnick 2013).…”

Teenagers and their Sexual Partners: What Age Difference Should Raise Concerns of Sexual Exploitation?

“…Having an older ‘boyfriend’ (Pearce, ), or there being a ‘significant age difference’ between a young person and his/her partner has been identified as a risk indicator for CSE (Barnardo's on behalf of All Wales Child Protection Procedures Review Group, ; Department for Education, ). However, the actual age difference is not clearly defined and this has been identified as a gap in current research knowledge (May‐Chahal et al, ).…”

“…The absence of an age difference does not imply that the relationship can be deemed ‘appropriate’, and other vulnerabilities and risk indicators should be considered. It is well recognised that ‘peer‐on‐peer’ exploitation occurs where young people can be exploited by friends and peers (Berelowitz et al, ; Clayton et al, ; Kaestle et al, ; May‐Chahal et al, ; Pearce, ). Perpetrators and victims can be of the same age or an adolescent may perpetrate CSA against a much younger victim (May‐Chahal et al, ).…”