The Knowledge GapThe Knowledge Gap Safeguarding missing children in Wales 8 Executive summary During...

The Knowledge GapSafeguarding missing children in Wales

1


July 2017

By Tom Davies

2

Contents

Foreword 4

Definitions 6

Executive Summary 8

Methodology 11

Introduction 12

Chapter One – The scale of the problem 14

Chapter Two – Information-sharing and risk assessments 18

Chapter Three – Provision of debriefs 22

Chapter Four – Information-sharing from debriefs 26

Chapter Five – Children who are placed out of area 28

Conclusion 34

Recommendations 34

References 36


3


4

Foreword

When a child or young person goes missing from home or care, it’s often a cry for help. Many young people are running away from abuse or neglect at home, or because they have been groomed by adults for sexual or criminal exploitation. But when children go missing, they are at serious risk of abuse, harm and exploitation on the streets. We know that children in care are particularly vulnerable, and more likely to go missing on multiple occasions. It’s crucial that all children and young people who go missing get the help they need, so the dangers in their lives can be tackled.

In Wales, there are many statutory and non-statutory agencies doing an excellent job to prevent children from going missing and safeguarding those who have. However, with almost 4,500 children going missing across the country in 2015/16 – sometimes on multiple occasions – it’s clear that we can do more to protect them. This report outlines some of the improvements that can be made to better support these very vulnerable young people.

In 1999, The Children’s Society produced its first UK study on missing children. Since then we have continued to examine the scale of the problem and the reasons some children feel that going missing is the only choice they have. In 2016 we began a new partnership with the Church in Wales to bring The Children’s Society’s expertise in children’s issues together with the Church’s expertise in working with communities.

In this report, we focus on how key agencies in Wales are safeguarding children who have gone missing or who are at risk of going missing. We compare practice and procedures to England, where safeguarding processes differ to those in Wales. We analyse how important information about children is shared between agencies, how children are given an opportunity to talk about their experiences, and the tools available to help keep children safe.

We are grateful to colleagues and organisations across the public, voluntary and faith sectors who have generously shared their stories and expertise during the development of this research. It is vital we ensure that the safeguarding response to missing children continues to improve. Together, we can help to keep more children and young people safe.

Matthew ReedChief ExecutiveThe Children’s Society

Bishop John DaviesBishop of Swansea and BreconThe Church in Wales


5


6

Definitions of terms used in this report

A ‘safe and well’ check is conducted by a police officer after a missing episode. The purpose of a safe and well check is to find out whether a child encountered danger or harm during a missing episode, whether the child was a victim of a crime or may have committed a crime, and to develop a general understanding of the child’s experience whilst missing. If, after conducting a safe and well check, a police officer believes that there are safeguarding concerns, that police officer will refer the child to partner agencies to put in place arrangements to safeguard the child. This should include a debrief.

‘Return Home Interviews’ (RHI) or ‘Return Interviews’ are terms used in statutory guidance in England. In Wales, this practice is more commonly referred to as a ‘debrief’. While the two terms are interchangeable, for the purposes of this report we will refer to ‘debriefs’ throughout when referring to practice in Wales.

After a child is found or returns home following a missing episode, it is important that information is gathered about the missing episode in order to increase the possibility of effectively safeguarding the child from going missing in the future. A debrief provides an opportunity to gather this information. Debriefs differ between providers, but core information that should be gathered includes, but is not limited to:

▪ Why the child went missing

▪ Duration of the missing episode

▪ What happened during the missing episode

▪ Where the child was during the missing episode and who they were with

▪ How the child felt before, during and after the missing episode.

Debriefs are an important safeguarding tool that should be used as part of the process of safeguarding the child from future missing episodes. They should also be used to address the reasons for going missing.


7


8

Executive summary

During 2015/16, almost 4,500 children in Wales went missing from home or care.1 Some of these children will have gone missing only once, while others will have experienced multiple missing episodes. In total, there were 11,279 incidents when a child went missing from home or their care placement in 2015/162, meaning that on average each child who went missing did so more than twice.

A child may go missing to escape difficulties faced at home or in care, or be enticed to go missing by an external source. In both cases, children who go missing can face a number of dangers such as sexual exploitation, criminal exploitation, or trafficking.

The Children’s Society opened its first service for missing children over 30 years ago. At that time there was very little provision across the country to support young runaways, and as an issue it received little public or professional attention.

Since then, The Children’s Society has been at the forefront of shaping policy and practice. We currently operate 12 services across England that work closely with local authorities, the police and schools to provide a vital safety net for children who run away from home or care. We have also conducted the most authoritative research in the UK to

understand the nature and scale of the issue.

As a result, there has been an improvement in how professionals respond to children who go missing. Detailed statutory guidance sets out procedures and protocols for the police, local authorities and other agencies. Yet despite this, all too often children are not protected because agencies are not identifying them and meeting their needs.

Building on The Children’s Society’s previous work on missing children3, this report examines the safeguarding response for children in Wales who have been missing or are at risk of going missing. This report complements a study we have recently published on the safeguarding response to children and young people who go missing in England, Making Connections.4 To do this, we have examined five key areas:

▪ The number of children who have been missing and the number of missing episodes they experienced.

▪ The initial response undertaken by key agencies when a child is reported as missing.

▪ The provision of debriefs when a child is found or returns from a missing episode.

▪ The information gathered from conducting debriefs and how this is shared with partner agencies.

▪ Safeguarding practice for looked-after children who have been placed out of their local authority area and who go missing.

Our research showed that practice across Wales for safeguarding children who have gone missing is inconsistent. We found that information-sharing with partner agencies like the police is not practised by most local authorities in Wales. A lack of information-sharing arrangements between local authorities and the police can compromise the ability to build a holistic profile of a child who has been missing and ensure they do not go missing again.

Return interviews or debriefs are undertaken after a child is found or returns home. They are used to gather information about what happened to the child during the missing episode and what caused them to go missing in the first place. Unlike in England5, return interviews or debriefs are not statutory in Wales.

Information gathered from debriefs is not regularly shared with partner agencies; complex commissioning arrangements often mean that information needs to be shared between local authorities and police forces – both of whom may commission such interviews. Debriefs are an important tool for enabling greater understanding


9

of a child's experience while he or she was missing and the reasons why the child went missing. By not providing debriefs and subsequently not sharing the information with partner agencies, opportunities to prevent further missing episodes – and the associated the dangers young people could face whilst missing – are lost.

Looked-after children placed out of their home area are more likely to go missing and more likely to face particular vulnerabilities.6 Yet while the responsibility sits with the placing local authority to provide the receiving local authority with a proactive risk assessment on the young person, our findings indicate this rarely happens.

Looked-after children may be placed in another local authority area to remove them from the risks they faced in their home local authority area. However, this safeguarding procedure may be jeopardised if information is not shared effectively, and if these children are not given the opportunity to talk about their experiences while they were missing.


10

Key findings

▪ According to Freedom of Information (FOI) responses, in 2015/16, 44% of children in care who went missing experienced a single episode and 23% experienced five or more missing episodes. This differs to the number of children who were missing from home, of whom 69% experienced a single missing episode and just 7% experienced between five or more missing episodes.

▪ Out of the 14 local authorities that responded to our requests, only two local authorities stated they operate data sharing arrangements through a multi-agency model at the time of an initial risk assessment. While 12 local authorities reported that they have no data sharing agreement with their local police force in place at all.

▪ In Wales, more debriefs are decided on a case-by-case basis than in England, where children who have gone missing are more likely to be offered an interview as standard. This means that children in Wales who are reported missing are a lot less likely to receive a debrief than their peers in England.

Key recommendations

We suggest a number of recommendations for how the issues uncovered by this report may be addressed. Our key recommendations are listed below, with the full list of recommendations listed on page 34–35.

▪ Independent debriefs should be a statutory requirement across Wales. A debrief is an important tool for gathering information on a child's experience during

a missing episode and for understanding the reasons why a child went missing. It is also important that a debrief is conducted by someone the young person can trust, so that young people are free to discuss the reasons why they went missing (which may include issues with their care placement or professionals supporting them). Based on a debrief cost of £95, we estimate the annual cost of introducing debriefs for

all children going missing to be approximately £1.1m.7

▪ The UK Government and National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) should consult with a wide range of stakeholders across Wales and England, including the Welsh Government, to ensure the new National Missing Persons Database meets the needs of all agencies with safeguarding responsibilities.


11

Methodology

This report combines FOI requests with semi-structured interviews to gain a greater understanding of both the data on missing children and the partnership working practices in place across Wales to safeguard missing children and young people.

Freedom of Information requests

▪ We sent one FOI to all police forces in England and Wales. The FOIs sought to establish what information police forces had access to in relation to children who went missing and what information they shared with other statutory agencies. All four police forces in Wales responded.

▪ We sent one further FOI to all police forces in Wales. The FOIs sought to establish what the format and commissioning procedure was for Return Home Interviews. All four police forces in Wales responded.

▪ We sent one FOI to all local authorities in England and Wales. The FOIs sought to establish information-sharing practices and data sharing around Return Home Interviews. We received responses from 17 local authorities in Wales, giving a response rate of 77%.

▪ We sent one further FOI to all local authorities in Wales and received 15 responses, giving a response rate of 68%. This FOI sought information around the numbers of repeated missing episodes, how promptly Return Home Interviews were completed, and what services children and young people were subsequently referred on to (if applicable).

Interviews

▪ Interviews were conducted with representatives from two regional Safeguarding Children’s Boards (SCBs); a representative from a local authority in the South West Wales area; and a practitioner from the Gwent Missing Children Hub.

This report is complementary to and sits alongside our report Making Connections (2017), which examines the provision of Return Home Interviews (RHIs)* and patterns of information-sharing in England. Throughout this report we reference and compare practices across the two countries and how these practices affect the safeguarding response to children who go missing. While social care is a devolved matter, policing is not. As a result, some

practices across the two nations are similar, while in other areas they vary. Through comparing the policies and practices within the two countries we are able to highlight the strengths and challenges in each.

*Whilst the high availability of debriefs/return home interviews amongst local authorities in England is positive it does not equate to a high uptake of the offer of a debrief, as examined further in our report Making Connections.


12

Introduction

Going missing can be an important risk indicator for children and young people. Running away is often a sign that something is wrong in a child’s life, but the very act of going missing can put young people in danger.

When a child goes missing the risk of them experiencing sexual exploitation, criminal exploitation or being harmed increases.8 The term ‘going missing’ can encapsulate a wide variety of experiences: some young people only ever go missing once, whereas others can go missing repeatedly. It is also important to consider that many of these children have faced, or are facing, adverse childhood experiences, and will go missing to escape from these.

When young people go missing there are a number of opportunities to protect them; from the initial risk assessment – sometimes based upon multi-agency data sharing agreements – through to the provision of debriefs. This report examines the information-sharing procedures when a child first goes missing to inform a comprehensive risk assessment, and then discusses what happens when a child returns home. This report also examines how the provision of a debrief provides a vital opportunity to protect these children and prevent them going missing in the future.

In 2011 the Welsh Government adopted the All Wales Protocol for Missing Children (developed by the All Wales Procedure Group) as the primary framework for responding to children who go missing. While the Protocol was last revised in 2012, it remains an advisory document, with the only statutory element being that children missing from care must be provided with access to independent advocacy services.9

The Protocol stipulates that children should be ‘given an opportunity’ to discuss why they went missing – this is usually via a debrief. However, the Protocol does not make this mandatory, meaning that provision of these interviews is variable. Debriefs tend to be funded through a range of different measures, sometimes directly by the local police force or local authorities, at other times via grants or other income sources. Since 2014, providing ‘independent return interviews’ has been statutory in England and must be carried out within 72 hours of the child returning to their home or care setting.10

Through our direct work with children and young people we know11 that debriefs can provide vital disclosure opportunities where a young person can reveal abuse and provide important information about the individuals who target them.

In its thematic review of children and care leavers who exhibit risky behaviours12, the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW) noted that Safeguarding Children Boards needed to do more to ‘strengthen the systems in place to gather, share and analyse multi-agency information’, with a particular emphasis on those looked-after children who are placed out of area. The report also noted that information and intelligence from debriefs with a young person who had gone missing (where they happened) was not being routinely shared.

In the next section, we will explore the current profile of missing children, the legislative framework around missing children, and how key agencies and stakeholders work together to respond to a child going missing. We also describe what happens when a child returns home or to their care setting.


13


14

Chapter One – The scale of the problem

There are a number of sources that help to show the picture of missing children in Wales, but no one source is likely to be comprehensive on its own. Local authorities will hold their own data on missing children, individual police forces will track and monitor children missing and recorded as either ‘absent’ or ‘missing’ (See Box A) and national data sets on missing children are available through the National Crime Agency.13

In 2015/16 police forces across England and Wales recorded 148,050 incidents of children and young people missing from home or care, with many going missing repeatedly. In Wales 11,279 missing incidents were recorded for children under 18. Of the four

police forces in Wales only one is using the absent category, recording 82 children as ‘absent’ in 2015/16.14

Data collected by the National Crime Agency (NCA)15 demonstrates that the number of children going missing from home or care has been rising, though this could also be attributed at least in part to better recording.

Many children run away more than once, either away from something in their life they wish to escape (‘push’ factor) or to something or someone (‘pull’ factor). While the risk of child sexual exploitation (CSE) is often recognised, criminal exploitation, trafficking and other risks are often given less focus. Children

in care, especially those placed outside of their local area, are at particular risk of going missing, and going missing multiple times.16

Children in care are some of the most vulnerable in society, yet we know that when they are placed out of area – away from their family and friends – they are at increased risk of going missing. According to data from the NCA, 43% of missing children incidents in Wales were the result of children in care (who account for fewer than 1% of the child population) going missing.17

Local authorities and local police forces need to be able to share information appropriately and safely to keep children free from harm. Understanding the patterns of young people going missing in their area is key to enabling them to provide the right support and intervention for these children and to inform risk assessments.

We were concerned that only six local authorities who responded to our FOI could tell us how many children in their care were reported missing in the last year, equating to just half of those local authorities who answered this question. Some local authorities stated that their system did not break down the information in this way, suggesting that the current picture of missing children in Wales is not comprehensively held by, or accessible to, local authorities.

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

2014/15 2015/16

Figure 1: Scale of missing children in Wales

9,761

11,279


15

Box A. Definitions of ‘Absent’ and ‘Missing’

In April 2013 the National College of Policing introduced new guidance on the management, recording and investigation of missing persons and the distinction between those who were ‘missing’ or ‘absent’.

A ‘missing’ child was defined as: ‘Anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established and where the circumstances are out of character or the context suggests the person may be subject of crime or at risk of harm to themselves or another.’ Cases classified as ‘missing’ by the police receive an active response.

An ‘absent’ child was defined as: ‘A person not at a place where they are expected or required to be.’ Cases where the child is classified as ‘absent’ will be recorded by the police and risk assessed regularly, but no active response will be deployed.

In January 2017, the College of Policing replaced the definitions of missing and absent.18 A new graded response ranging from ‘no apparent risk’ through to ‘high risk’ (based on a cumulative risk that the missing child faces) was given.

A ‘missing’ child is: ‘Anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established will be considered as missing until located, and their well-being or otherwise confirmed.’

A child at ‘No apparent risk’, is considered not to be at risk of harm to themselves or the public. Actions will be taken to locate the child and/or gather further information. This category replaces the previously-used ‘absent’ category.

The only police force in Wales that used the ‘absent’ category at the time of our FOI request was Gwent Police. Through the use of their Missing Incident Risk Assessment Form (MIRAF) and multi-agency working, the force evaluates the potential risks facing the young person who’s missing before classifying them as either ‘absent’ or 'missing’, allowing them to allocate resources proportionate to those evaluated risks.


16

Repeat missing episodes

According to NCA data, 59% of missing children incidents are attributable to repeat missing individuals, compared to 21% for the adult population. According to data we have collected from local authorities, less than half of children in care (44%) were reported missing just once to their local authority, with almost a quarter of children in care (23%) reported missing five times or more in 2015/16. It is likely that this figure will be higher as, according to our FOI requests, 39 children went missing more than 20 times in Wales – but local authorities were unable to tell us whether these children were in care or living at home.

A different picture emerges for children reported missing from home, where a greater percentage go missing once, with no cases reported of children of living at home missing more than 10 times. While the number of responses to our FOIs from local authorities was low – meaning that figures should be treated with some caution – there is a clear trend which matches with existing evidence that children in care go missing more frequently than children living at home.19

This supports existing research20 suggesting that young people in care need more support to prevent them going missing multiple times and becoming more at risk of exploitation.


17

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

1x 2x 3–4x 5–10x >11x

Figure 2: Profile of missing incidents for children in care in Wales (n*=6)

44%

13%19%

26%

5%

% recurrence of children who go missing from care

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1x 2x 3–4x 5–10x >11x

Figure 3: Profile of missing incidents for children living at home in Wales (n=4)

69%

13% 12% 7% 0%

% recurrence of children who go missing from home

*Number of responding local authorities


18

Chapter Two – The initial response: Information-sharing and risk assessments

When a child goes missing, a well-informed risk assessment is vital to understanding the risks faced by a child, and this assessment needs to be based on all the available information from a range of stakeholders. This is important because stakeholders can build up a complete picture of a child and take action to prevent repeated missing episodes. The information in this chapter compares the data sharing and risk assessment processes in place in Wales with those in England, which are outlined in more detail in Making Connections.

A holistic profile of a child can only be achieved when multi-agency working is embedded in stakeholders’ practice. According to the All Wales Protocol on Missing Children, all agencies should share information in order to work cooperatively to effect the safe recovery of children who are missing from home or care. At the time of a missing episode, the information held by the local authority, as well as local police intelligence, is vital to informing the risk assessment carried out by the police. Yet one of the issues found in the research for this report is that information-sharing is decided upon and progressed locally.

Information-sharing is equally important whether a child has gone missing for the first time or whether they have gone missing

repeatedly. This is particularly important when a looked-after child is placed outside of their local area – which we will address later on in this report. As looked-after children placed out of area are more likely to go missing and less likely to receive the support they need when they do return home. In the majority of areas the initial risk assessment is undertaken on the limited information at the disposal of the police, and it requires strong local leadership to progress enhanced data sharing procedures (as explained in the good practice example on page 19).

The high number of missing children, particularly children who go missing repeatedly, highlights the need to understand the reasons behind missing episodes and find interventions that can reduce the likelihood of a child going missing again. This can only be achieved if different agencies work together to understand the risks to individual children who go missing, and risks to all children who go missing in their areas.

The sharing of information between different agencies is fundamental to the safeguarding of those missing from home or care. It informs police missing persons investigations, child sexual exploitation and criminal investigations, risk mapping, local authority risk assessment and further support by children’s

social care services, and multi-agency safeguarding assessments.

The UK Government’s Department for Education identified information-sharing as the key to providing effective help in their most recent guidance published on the subject, 'Working Together guidance on safeguarding children and young people.'21 In the same report, the UK Government also made a commitment to the introduction of a National Missing Persons Register – an England and Wales police database to record and share information about missing children. If designed well, information about previously identified risks, where young people go missing from and to, and whom they go missing with could all be stored in one place. This would give police access to vital information that could lead to a child being found, rather than the child remaining missing for a longer period of time and increasing their risk of serious harm.

This is a welcome development that can become an effective way to share information about vulnerable children who go missing. While policing is not a devolved matter, safeguarding and social services are, and therefore the Welsh Government needs to ensure the new database meets the needs of devolved authorities.


19

Gwent Missing Children Hub

The Gwent Missing Children Hub is a multi-agency, co-located team consisting of representatives from children’s services, Gwent Police, health, education and the third sector. Formed in 2013 with funding from Welsh Government and the Big Lottery Fund, the Hub was set up in response to the approximately 300 children and young people who went missing from home each month.

The overall objectives of the Hub were to improve quality information-sharing between practitioners and agencies; provide a means for children and young people who go missing to have a say on their caring arrangements and ensure that children’s voices are heard; share expertise and knowledge with practitioners; and improve the knowledge and understanding of children, families and carers.

Representatives of the five agencies housed in the Hub all use and contribute towards a Missing Incident Risk Assessment Form (MIRAF), via an integrated IT system, which brings together key intelligence and risk profiles that could contribute towards a child being recovered or prevent future missing episodes. While Hub workers hold editing rights to the MIRAF, their respective ‘home’ organisations all have read-only access. Stakeholder contributions include, but are not limited to, A&E visits, good or bad friendships and any additional learning needs. Information gathered by the Hub’s independent debrief workers is also inputted into a MIRAF.

The MIRAF provide the basis for risk assessments meetings undertaken twice a week, which are then used to provide advice on whether a child should be reported and responded to as missing or absent.

While the collection of evidence to demonstrate the Hub’s success is ongoing, case study evaluations clearly illustrate that repeated missing episodes have reduced; children and young people who go missing are facing reduced risks around criminal offending, sexual exploitation, substance misuse, and homelessness due to the Hub’s work; and considerable public sector savings can be made through focussed and coordinated intervention support. Its work has led to a 38% decrease in missing episodes.

Using its direct experience, the Hub also offers training programmes for key practitioners and other individuals that may come into contact with missing children, such as taxi drivers, to help them spot the signs of missing and/or exploited children. Training is also offered to new policy officers to impart information to help with understanding what is meant by ‘a missing episode’ and the risks faced by a child during a missing episode. A practitioner from the Hub told us that the training has helped new police officers in 'how to understand a young person' and has improved attitudes towards children who have been missing.

The Hub covers the entire Gwent Police force area, and five component local authority areas: Blaenau Gwent, Caerphilly, Monmouthshire, Newport and Torfaen. It is the only service of its kind in Wales or England.

For more information on the Hub, please contact Kerry Wade on [email protected]


20

Through consultations with our practitioners and missing person coordinators for our research in Making Connections it emerged that having read-only access to children’s services databases in real time can provide a positive step towards a safer risk assessment process. In England, 10% of police forces and local authorities can share information in this way. No local authority in Wales told us they provided real time access to their database to support with missing children risk

assessments. However, in Gwent this information-sharing happens through the MIRAF for children who have been missing. When a child is reported missing, risk assessments need to be informed by different agencies who have been in contact with the child and know their circumstances. This is particularly important when police attach the ‘no apparent risk’ or ‘low risk’ categorisation to young people who are missing.Only two local authorities that responded stated they operate

data sharing arrangements through a multi-agency model, with 12 reporting they have no data sharing agreement in place at all (compared to 70 out of 104 authorities in England). This applies to both children missing from home and those missing from care.

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Police have read only access to

children's social care database in

real time

Police have access to children's social care information through a multi-agency hub

database

Police do not have access to local

authority information systems at the time of

inital assessment

Figure 4: How local authorities share their data with the police at time of initial risk assessment in Wales (n=14)

0 2

12


21

Markers for high-risk young people

In many cases, children’s services will be aware of the risks to young people and may be able to request to place a flag or marker on a young person’s record within the police database. This will draw attention to the police call handler that a young person may be at risk of, for example, sexual exploitation, involved in a gang or being trafficked. This pre-emptive risk-marking is especially critical in Wales where information sharing at the point of initial assessment is limited.

Three quarters of police forces in Wales (three) utilise this procedure, with one police force limiting this flagging procedure to children at risk of child sexual exploitation. The remaining two police forces are able to flag a number of issues, including vulnerability of a child, whether the child is subject to a Child Abduction Warning Notice – a measure that can be issued against individuals who are suspected of grooming children that prevents them from further association with that child or face arrest – or whether the child is at risk of trafficking. Only one police force was able to share with us how many children had been marked as high risk, with that area identifying 84 children under the age of 18 at risk of child sexual exploitation. Proactive flagging of the potential risks faced by young people can support the police in making robust and comprehensive risk assessments.

Recommendations

▪ The Authorised Police Practice (APP), which covers Wales and England, should stipulate that lower risk categorisation should not be made without information being obtained from children’s services.

▪ The National Police Chiefs Council should work with the All Wales Heads of Children’s Services (AWHOCS) and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) to review and standardise how the system of placing markers about vulnerable children should be utilised across the police. This is particularly important to ensure standardisation across Wales and England.

▪ When developing this the UK Government and National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) should consult with a wide range of stakeholders across Wales and England, including Welsh Government, to ensure the new database meets the needs of all agencies with safeguarding responsibilities.


22

Chapter Three – Provision of debriefs

The primary framework that is currently in place for supporting missing children in Wales is the All-Wales Protocol for Missing Children, which was created in 2011 by the All Wales Procedures Review Group. During the writing of this report, we learnt that a Missing Persons Strategy/Wales Action Plan is being developed in line with revised All Wales Child Protection Procedures. While we welcome this development, it is still useful to examine the differences in the tools used in Wales and England. By doing so, we hope to offer some suggestions for the consideration of stakeholders involved in developing this new strategy.

The Protocol sets out the guidance to children’s services and other stakeholders for supporting a child who may be at risk of going missing, for helping police to find a child during a missing episode, and supporting a child who has been found or returned from a missing episode. The Protocol advises that stakeholders adopt multi-agency working as they practise their safeguarding response to children who have been missing or who are at risk of going missing. The table to the right shows how this protocol compares to the statutory guidance in place across England with regard to debriefs.

Debriefs

After a child is found or returns home following a missing episode, it is important that information is gathered about the missing episode to increase the possibility of effectively safeguarding the child from going missing in the future. Debriefs differ between providers, but core information that should be gathered includes, but is not limited to:

▪ Why the child went missing.

▪ Duration of the missing episode.

▪ What happened during the missing episode.

▪ Where the child was during the missing episode and who they were with.

▪ How the child felt before, during and after the missing episode.

A practitioner told us that 'debriefs can last, depending on a young person’s engagement, from half an hour to three hours', and that it 'gives the young person the opportunity to be listened to'.Through our direct work with children and young people who have been missing, The Children’s Society knows that debriefs can

Procedure for the provision of debriefs

All-Wales Protocol for Missing Children (2011)

Department for Education’s Statutory Guidance on children who run away or go missing from home or care (2014)

Debriefs

The protocol details what information should be gathered from a return interview/debrief and states that the interview 'should take place as soon as possible but at least within three working days'.

The interview should be carried out within 72 hours of the child returning to their home or care setting.

Practice

It should be determined and agreed as to who is the most appropriate person to talk to the child. This could be a police officer, social worker or independent person.

The debrief should be an in-depth interview and is normally best carried out by an independent person (ie someone not involved in caring for the child) who is trained to carry out these interviews and is able to follow-up any actions that emerge.

Statutory footing

Does not place a statutory duty on stakeholders to provide debriefs for all children who have been missing. The protocol is advisory.

Places a statutory duty that states 'when a child is found, they must be offered an independent return interview'.


23

Different groups of children and whether local authorities said they would be offered a debrief

Welsh local authorities(n=13)

English local authorities (n=104)25

Children missing from the family home 7 out of 13 (53.8%) 84 out of 104 (80.8%)

Looked-after children missing from care 9 out of 13 (69.2%) 84 out of 104* (80.8%)

Interviews are provided on a case by case basis

4 out of 13 (30.8%) 20 out of 104 (19.2%)

help children understand if they are in exploitative relationships and enable them to disclose abuse. Also, information shared by young people during the debrief can help with identifying ‘hot spots’ (areas where children go missing) and individuals who target them.

A good debrief can allow professionals to identify areas in which they can offer the child support as early as possible to protect them from harm and disrupt any risks, stopping them from escalating further.

Moreover, there is a large financial and social cost attached to children going missing. Responding to missing children puts pressure on public services as mentioned above.22, 23

Our practice demonstrates that an effective debrief and follow up support can reduce the number of missing episodes and in some cases might stop a child from going missing all together. Across the border in England, Ofsted reported24 a 30% reduction in missing children incidents in Worcestershire over a year as a result of debrief provision.

It is vital that the interview keeps the voice of the child at its centre and that the young person has the right to confidentiality. The

interview should be seen as a chance to understand the reasons why they went missing and the support that may stop them from running away again in the future.

Crucially, debriefs also provide an opportunity to refer a child to further support if needed. Statutory guidance published in England in 2014 requires councils to offer a young person who has been missing a debrief. In Wales there is no statutory requirement to offer a debrief, just a recommendation that they should.

Before looking at how information obtained through debriefs is shared, it is important to establish who receives the interviews and who conducts them. Across England many police forces still

use the ‘absent’ category when children are reported missing, and findings from our report Making Connections showed that these children are less likely to receive a debrief than those recorded as missing. As highlighted previously, only one police force in Wales used this category, which in January 2017 was replaced by a new graded response to risk. We have therefore removed children marked as absent from the table below.

These findings show that, when compared to England, in Wales a greater proportion of debriefs are decided on a case-by-case basis. According to information received from local authorities children reported missing in Wales are a lot less likely to receive an offer of a debrief than their peers in

*Whilst the high availability of debriefs/return home interviews amongst local authorities in England is positive it does not equate to a high uptake of the offer of a debrief, as examined further in our report Making Connections.


24

England. This information from local authorities is supported by corresponding information received from police forces. We learnt that, in some areas, young people received a debrief on the 1st and 5th occasion of going missing and in others they had numbers of debriefs received where there was a concern of CSE only, with no reference to other risks.

Debrief intelligence may contain key bits of information that could lead to the quick and safe return of a missing young person. For instance, details about where the young person has gone to in the past, and people they tend to spend time with whilst missing, may be contained within the report.

Therefore, sharing some information contained in the debrief report between the police and children’s services could improve not just the risk assessment but the missing investigation too.

Commissioning and delivery of debriefs

There are a variety of commissioning models for debriefs in Wales, with a range of commissioning arrangements in place across the country – some are funded by Police and Crime Commissioners, others through consortium arrangements, and some via a Police Innovation Fund.

The protocol states that it should be agreed who is the most appropriate person to conduct the debrief – but that this could be a police officer, social worker or independent person. Some police forces reported their debrief meetings were carried out by local charities or, where children were at risk of CSE, by specialist CSE advocates.

It is very important that the opportunity provided by a debrief is not lost. The young person should feel supported and safe to speak openly about why they went missing. Children in care in particular should be supported to be honest if concerns about the quality or location of their placement is a driver to going missing. Through our direct work with children and young people, we know26 that debriefs can provide vital disclosure opportunities where a young person can disclose abuse and provide important information about the individuals who target them.

Research by Railway Children27, estimated a potential saving of £2,416 per young person for police services thanks to the delivering of debriefs. This figure is based on time saved where debriefs help to reduce or eliminate further instances of going missing. Furthermore, they suggest debriefs can mitigate the need for additional counselling and support services in schools.

It is estimated that this could save £400 per child based on eight hours of support per young person at £50 per hour.

Mapping and data gathering of debriefs

Through our research, we uncovered variable provision and data sharing of debriefs for children who go missing.

Worryingly, only one local authority in Wales was able to tell us the number of debriefs conducted in their area in 2015/16 for looked-after children. This rises to six local authorities who stated that all children who are looked-after receive a debrief or could not break down the number between children missing from home or care. No local authority in Wales was able to tell us how many children missing from home specifically received debriefs. We would suggest this is in part due to the complex commissioning arrangements in place in Wales for the provision of debriefs and data sharing between agencies.

It is vital that whoever conducts or commissions the debrief, information is shared across agencies who need it to keep children safe in the future. It is evident through FOI responses we received that police forces tend to be the commissioning authority for debriefs in Wales. While social services in most areas in Wales do not commission


25

debriefs, they should hold information on – and gathered from – debriefs for children who were missing from both home or care. Debrief intelligence contains vital information about a young person – for instance where the child has run to or what they may be running away from. Therefore, we would recommend every area puts in place a data-sharing agreement to share information between police, debrief provider and local authority to improve not just the initial risk assessment, but also the longer-term support plan available to young people.

Any information-sharing protocol must take account of the rights of the child or young person. It must be made clear to them that any information they share will be treated confidentially and securely, with their informed consent gained before conducting any debrief.

Referral rates

In our FOI requests to local authorities we asked about the follow-on actions from debriefs – examining which risk factors were identified in these interviews and how many children had been referred or signposted to other services as a result. The results received from this question do not enable further analysis, with only one local authority (out of 11 that

responded) being able to provide us with any information at all. This one local authority was able to tell us how many children were taken into care or subject to a strategy meeting as a result of information disclosed in a debrief.

Whilst debriefs are not necessarily commissioned directly by the local authority it is vital that they are recognised as providing vital intelligence about the needs of young people, are acted upon, and referrals are made as a result.

Recommendations

▪ As part of the new Welsh Action Plan for missing children, independent debriefs should be a statutory requirement across Wales. This should be adequately funded by Welsh Government to enable delivery. Based on a debrief costing £95, we estimate the annual cost of introducing debriefs for all children going missing to be approximately £1.1m.28

▪ Our evidence found that not all children who go missing in Wales receive a debrief. We are calling for this provision to be made statutory. Welsh Government should collect local data (ideally broken down by police force and local authority) on the number of debriefs offered and conducted, to compare this to the number of missing children.


26

Chapter Four – Information-sharing from debriefs

Debriefs are first and foremost a chance for a child to speak to someone about what happened to them when they went missing, including what drove them to go missing in the first place. They also can provide an intelligence building opportunity, provide important information to prevent future missing episodes, and inform a comprehensive risk assessment for young people who go missing.

In order to achieve the most from debriefs, partners need to work together to identify what they would find useful from them, with the primary focus always being that the process is worthwhile for the young person. In order to achieve the best outcomes for the child it is important that the debriefs gather the right information to enable the best course of action to be planned for the young person to keep them safe in the future.

As debriefs are commissioned through a number of different arrangements in Wales it is difficult to understand the full picture of data sharing from

these interviews across the country. Whoever commissions the debrief, it is important that the information is shared with the relevant safeguarding partners, and that police have access to necessary information to inform future missing risk assessments.

Unlike in England where information is more likely to be shared in a uniform manner by the local authority or – via their commissioned provider – with the police, the situation in Wales is more complex, with the commissioning arrangements meaning information needs to be shared both ways. From our analysis, we know that a much higher proportion of local authorities report that debrief providers are co-located with the police (three times more likely than in England).

The information aligns to the responses received from the police where three out of four police forces reported that they have access to debrief intelligence when a report of a missing child is made. The final police force reported that they had access if

previous absences were under the terms of the All Wales Child Protocol. Interestingly, one police force reported that information from debriefs was available to inform their risk assessment if the interview was carried out by a debrief worker but not if it was conducted by a social worker.

Recommendations

▪ The Welsh Government, in collaboration with the All-Wales Heads of Children's Services, should develop guidance on a standardised system to record and share key information from debriefs – this should be included within the proposed revision of the All Wales Protocol on Missing Children.

▪ The new Missing Persons Database should include provision for local authorities, police forces or debrief service providers to input and store relevant information from debriefs to inform risk assessments and local intelligence on missing children. This provision should work across both Wales and England.


27

Information-sharing of debrief intelligence with the police

Welsh local authorities(n=13)

English local authorities (n=97)29

Information not routinely shared with the police 1 out of 13 2 out of 97

An external provider passes it on to the police 5 out of 13 11 out of 97

External debrief provider is co-located with the police 5 out of 13 15 out of 97

Individual practitioners pass relevant information on according to professional judgement

5 out of 13 29 out of 97

Debrief forms are automatically shared with the police with no redaction

1 out of 13 48 out of 97


28

Chapter Five – Children placed outside of area

In 2015/16 approximately 1,500 looked-after children in Wales lived in placements outside of their local authority boundaries: equivalent to 27% of all looked-after children.30

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Runaway and Missing Children and Adults report into ‘Safeguarding Absent Children’ found that children in placements are particularly at risk of going missing.31 The report found that half of looked-after children reported missing or absent by the police are children missing from placements outside the boundaries of their local authority – despite representing a smaller proportion of all looked-after children. More recent data from the NCA finds that 43% of missing children incidents in Wales were children in care going missing, who account for fewer than 1% of the child population.

It should be noted that the high rate of looked-after children who go missing is not necessarily a reflection on the care system. There are a range of research studies32 that have made it clear that many of these young people had started going missing from their families before being taken into care. Nonetheless, this is a group of particularly vulnerable young people who are more likely to go missing. It is therefore important that this risk is reflected in their care plans and any risk assessments.

For some children and young people, being placed away from their local area can be in their best interests, because it can protect them from risks such as exploitation in their neighbourhood. However, for many moving from the area they know and call home can be an isolating and daunting experience.

Children who are placed out of their home area can find it more difficult to secure help and be referred into the appropriate services due to a lack of communication between agencies in different local authority areas. There are currently different procedures for placing children out of area, which are dependent on distance, the type of place and the home-nation in which a child is placed, with children from England placed in Wales and vice versa. In response to this the Welsh Government, in conjunction with the children’s residential care sector in Wales, designed a national Out of Area Notification Protocol Form. This form provides standardised information about the young person, including contact details of the child’s social worker and name and address of the child’s GP. This is the protocol used for notifying the local authority and the local health board when a child has been placed there from outside the area, and again when the placement ends. Crucially, the receiving police force are not always notified.

Information-sharing on out of area placements

Through our FOI requests, we sought to ascertain how information is shared when a young person is placed outside of area and how they first come to the attention of the local authority. We also wanted to understand more about the provision of debriefs for children placed outside of their home areas.

A good information-sharing protocol must ensure each local authority receives notification when a child is placed in their area, even if these young people are deemed to be at a low risk of going missing.

Local authorities’ awareness of children placed in their area

We obtained responses from 13 local authorities on the number of looked-after children they were aware of who were placed in their area by other local authorities. This amounted to 1,030 children across Wales. The real number of children placed outside of their own local authority in Wales will be significantly higher when data from all 22 local authorities is taken into account.

We then asked how each looked-after child, placed out of area, had come to the attention of the local authority in which it was placed –


29

Out of area placements: Handle With Care

In 2015/16 there were 5,662 children in care in Wales. These children are very vulnerable, and many will have experienced family breakdown.

Being placed far from home can makes things worse, yet more than 1,500 of these children are housed in placements away from their home area. These out of area placements are often necessary to ensure the safety of the young person, but they can be particularly daunting and disruptive for them, too. They may have to change schools, have less contact with their social worker or doctor, struggle to see family and friends, and miss out on social activities.

Working with young people affected by this issue, in 2014 we developed some key steps that we want councils to take to improve support and ensure their moves are handled with care.

Give them the resources and support they need to keep in touch with their friends and family, such as visits and access to computers and phones.

Provide young people with as much notice as possible before a move.

Make sure young people are supported with their moves – including providing luggage or boxes, help with packing and appropriate transport.

Ensure all the relevant support services, including other local councils, know a move is happening.

Enable young people placed out of area to have their voices heard through Children in Care Councils.

Ensure that when a young person is moved out of area they get the same level of face-to-face time with crucial support workers.

Involve young people placed out of area in the training of professionals, so their voices are heard.

Plan moves around a young person’s education, particularly thinking about exams and coursework.


30

whether this was from the placing local authority, children’s home, foster family or a combination. Local authorities were able to provide notifying information for 309 looked-after children placed in their area, accounting for 30% of the total.

Encouragingly, this shows that the majority of notifications – 253 (82%) – were made by the placing local authority, although this is slightly less than the 87% for local authorities in England. It still amounts to almost 20% of notified young people not coming through the local authority who has a statutory responsibility to do so.

To ensure the safety of looked-after children, not only do the local authority need to be made aware of young people placed

in their area, but the police and health authority need to be made aware too.

Without clear statutory guidance and standardised information-sharing requiring the placing local authority to notify the new local authority, health authority and local police force, there is a risk that children placed out of area will slip through the net, thereby causing them to face increased risk of harm if they went missing.

Local authorities notifying the police

We asked local authorities how they provide police with information when a looked-after child is placed in their area, as often they may be the first statutory agency notified when a child is placed in their area.

We found that almost all local authorities who responded did not provide any information to the local police force when they received a looked-after child in their area (13 out of 14 local authorities), with one local authority reporting they notify the police if they are aware the child is high risk. Interestingly, many local authorities stated that this would be the responsibility of the placing local authority to share this information, yet when compared to their own practice only 5 out of 13 local authorities stated that they always shared a risk assessment with the police force where the child was being placed.

Four out of thirteen local authorities do not notify the local police force when placing a child in their boundaries, and

Figure 5: How Welsh local authorities received notification of a looked-after child placed in their area

300

250

200

150

100

50

0Placing local

authority only (n=7)

Their children's home only

(n=7)

The foster agency only

(n=7)

Other placements

Both the LA and placement

(n=7)

No notification – came to

our attention missing (n=7)

No notification – came to our

attention as victim of crimminal or anti-social

behaviour (n=7)

253

0 24 0 30 3 0

Nu

mb

er o

f ch

ildre

n


31

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

No Yes Only for high risk looked-after children

When a child is received in their authority (n=14)

When placing a child in another authority (n=13)

13

40

51 4

Figure 6: The number of Welsh local authorities that provide risk assessments to the relevant police force when placing a looked-after child in their area

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

We provide return interviews for all out of

area looked-after children placed in our locality

We provide a spot-purchase service for local

authorities who have placed children in our area

We do not provide return interviews to children

placed in our area by other local authorities

0

3

9

Figure 7: Welsh local authority arrangements for the provision of debrief for children placed in their area from another local authority (n=12)

Nu

mb

er o

f lo

cal a

uth

ori

ties


32

a further four only do so when the child is deemed to be high risk. In many instances children and young people are placed out of area specifically due to their vulnerabilities, and as they are more at risk of going missing, all children in out of area placements can be considered at a high risk in case they go missing.

Provision of debriefs for children placed out of area

We know from our practitioners that children placed out of area may struggle to receive a debrief due to the distance they may be placed from their local authority. So, we asked local authorities if they had arrangements in place to provide debriefs for children placed in their area.

Nine local authorities told us they had not been asked by the placing local authority to provide debriefs to children placed in their area, but encouragingly three of these did state that they would provide debriefs to these children in exceptional circumstances. In Wales, the commissioner of debriefs may be the police, so it is vital that the local force is informed about children placed in their area, because not only may they be the first responder but they also may be able to provide a debrief to that young person (for example, via spot-purchasing).

As no national database currently exists to share information for missing children, the failure of local authorities to notify the relevant police force when placing a child within their

boundaries could impede the risk assessment, future police investigations and safeguarding work.

Recommendations:

▪ The Out of Area Notification Protocol Form used for children’s homes in Wales should be extended to include the police force as an agency that needs to be notified when a young person is placed in their area.

▪ Welsh Government should introduce a statutory requirement to require local authorities to send notification about children they are placing outside their local authority boundaries to the police force where the placement is located. We are calling for the same recommendation to apply to statutory guidance in England to ensure children are equally protected when placed across both countries.

▪ Protecting missing children is a responsibility that sits across a number of different agencies, and geographical boundaries. In many cases these agencies are inspected in isolation. The Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW), whilst working with other inspectorates, should undertake a joint inspection with a focus on children in out of area placements, including responses they receive when they go missing.

▪ Welsh Government should collect local authority level data on both the number of children in care placed out of area – broken down by placement type – and the number of these children who go missing.


33


34

Conclusion

It is clear that practice across Wales to safeguard missing children is variable and there are key areas that could be improved. Specifically, there need to be better information-sharing arrangements between partner agencies, and debriefs should be a statutory requirement and offered to all children who have been missing from care or home. Particular improvements must be made in the safeguarding response for children in care who go missing and are living in a placement outside of their local authority area.

Children’s social care and safeguarding is a devolved issue, yet with policing being a non-devolved matter, lessons can and should be learnt across Wales and England. Both this report and Making Connections – which explores the safeguarding response to children and young people who go missing in England – highlight the need for better communication between local authorities in both countries to better safeguard children who go missing after being placed out of area.

We recognise that good work is happening in Wales to safeguard children who have been missing and to try and prevent them from experiencing repeat missing episodes – a particular example being the Gwent Missing Children Hub. There is also recognition of

the link between missing episodes and child sexual exploitation, and some local authorities in Wales are acting on this. We also acknowledge that work is underway to revise the All-Wales Protocol for Missing Children, in alignment with revised All-Wales Child Protection Procedures.

From discussions with stakeholders, we experienced a preparedness to collaborate, conceive and implement solutions to problems, and this will be enshrined further by way of the 2015 Well-being of Future Generation (Wales) Act. As we have discussed in this report, working in partnership increases the chances of successfully safeguarding children who have gone missing from further risks and harm.

We know the sector is eager for continued improvement in this field. Decision-makers should take advantage of this will to do more to provide practitioners with the right statutory framework and funding to enable them to ensure an appropriate safeguarding response to children and young people who go missing. This will lead to better outcomes for the children and young people concerned. It will also provide the opportunity to make considerable savings, by reducing the number of missing incidents and the associated service interventions that may follow.33

In 2015/16, there were over 11,000 instances where a child or young person went missing. Each of those episodes represents a child being at risk of harm. It is vital to ensure that these children are pre-emptively protected by agencies working effectively together, supported when they return home, and receive the appropriate service to have someone to talk to so as to prevent further missing episodes.

Recommendations

Welsh Government and UK Government

▪ The UK Government and National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) should consult with a wide range of stakeholders across Wales and England, including the Welsh Government, to ensure the new National Missing Persons Database meets the needs of all agencies with safeguarding responsibilities.

▪ The new Missing Persons Database should include provision for local authorities, police forces or debrief service providers to input and store relevant information from debriefs to inform risk assessments and local intelligence on missing children.

▪ Welsh Government should collect local data (ideally broken down by police force and local authority) on the number of debriefs offered and conducted, to compare this to the number of missing children.


35

▪ Debriefs should be a statutory requirement across Wales, ensuring children and young people can request they be undertaken by a person the child can trust.

▪ Welsh Government should develop guidance on a standardised system to record key information from debriefs.

▪ Welsh Government should introduce a statutory requirement to require local authorities to send notification about children they are placing outside their local authority boundaries to the police force where the placement is located.

▪ Welsh Government should collect local authority level data on both the number of children in care placed in out of area placements – broken down by placement type – and the number of these children who go missing.

Local authorities

▪ All Wales Heads of Children’s Services (AWHOCS), in collaboration with the Welsh Government, should develop guidance on a standardised system to record key information from debriefs.

Other agencies or joint recommendations

▪ The National Police Chiefs Council should work with the AWHOCS and the Association of Directors of Children’s

Services (ADCS) to review and standardise how the system of placing markers about vulnerable children should be utilised across the police. This is particularly important to ensure standardisation across Wales and England.

▪ The Out of Area Notification Protocol Form used for children’s homes in Wales should be extended to include the police force as an agency that needs to be notified when a young person is placed in their area.

▪ The Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW), whilst working with other inspectorates, should undertake a joint inspection with a focus on children in out of area placements, including responses they receive when they go missing.

▪ The Authorised Police Practice (APP) should stipulate that lower risk categorisation should not be made without information being obtained from children’s services.


36

1. National Crime Agency (2017) Missing Persons Data Report 2015/16 2.0

2. Ibid.

3. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/resources-and-publications/publications-library/here-listen

4. H. Chetwynd, Making Connections 2017

5. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/children-who-run-away-or-go-missing-from-home-or-care

6. APPG for Runaway and Missing Children and Adult (2016) Inquiry into the safeguarding of ‘absent’ children http://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/appg-absent-inquiry-final-report-may-2016.pdf Page 37

7. £1.1m finding is based upon 11,279 missing incidents per annum (as in 2015/16, according to NCA data) receive a debrief at a cost of £95 per debrief.

8. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/research_docs/Still%20running%202%20-%20Findings%20from%20the%20second%20national%20survey%20of%20young%20runaways.pdf

9. www.childreninwales.org.uk/wp-content/.../All-Wales-Protocol-Missing-Children.pdf

10. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307867/Statutory_Guidance_-_Missing_from_care__3_.pdf


12. http://cssiw.org.uk/docs/cssiw/report/150130lacen.pdf


14. National Crime Agency (2017) Missing Persons Data Report 2015/16 http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/783-missing-persons-data-report-2015-16/file




18. College of Policing (2016) https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/missing-persons/#the-risk-assessment-table



21. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592101/Working_Together_to_Safeguard_Children_20170213.pdf

22. Centre for the Study of Missing Persons (2012) Establishing the cost of missing person investigations https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/1552104/Establishing_the_Cost_of_Missing_Persons_Investigations.pdf

23. Railway Children (2015) The value of return home interviews and follow-up support when young people go missing: a social return on investment analysis https://www.railwaychildren.org.uk/media/38047/the-value-of-return-home-interviews-full-report.pdf

24. Ofsted (2013) Missing Children, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/missing-children



27. Railway Children (2015) The value of return home interviews/debriefs and follow-up support when young people go missing: a social return on investment analysis https://www.railwaychildren.org.uk/media/38047/the-value-of-return-home-interviews-full-report.pdf

28. See endnote 7


30. http://gov.wales/statistics-and-research/ad-hoc-statistical-requests/?lang=en


32. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/tcs/research_docs/Still%20running%202%20-%20Findings%20from%20the%20second%20national%20survey%20of%20young%20runaways.pdf

33. Railway Children (2015) The value of return home interviews/debriefs and follow-up support when young people go missing: a social return on investment analysis

References


37

It is a painful fact that many children and young people in Britain today are still suffering extreme hardship, abuse and neglect. Too often

their problems are ignored and their voices unheard. Now it is time to listen and to act.

The Children’s Society is a national charity that runs local services,

helping children and young people when they are at their most vulnerable, and have nowhere left to turn.

We also campaign for changes to laws affecting children and young people, to stop the mistakes of the past being repeated in the future.

Our supporters around the country fund our services and join our campaigns to show children and young people they are on their side.

childrenssociety.org.uk@ChildSocPol© The Children’s Society 2017. The copyright of all material appearing in this publication belongs to The Children’s Society. It may not be reproduced, duplicated or copied by any means without our prior written consent. The names of case study participants have been changed. All images posed by models. Photos © Laura McCluskey © Stella Scott

Charity Registration No. 221124

For more information on this report please contact:

Tom Davies Children and Families Policy Adviser e: [email protected] t: 02920 348 274

PCR129/0717

The Knowledge GapThe Knowledge Gap Safeguarding missing children in Wales 8 Executive summary During...

Documents

Transcript of The Knowledge GapThe Knowledge Gap Safeguarding missing children in Wales 8 Executive summary During...