Katrina Whale (PhD researcher, University of South Wales)
Introduction
Whilst there is no universal definition of child criminal exploitation (CCE), adding to the difficulties in its quantification, the Serious Violence Strategy (2018) defines it as “where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18 into any criminal activity:
- in exchange for something the victim needs or wants; and/or
- for the financial or other advantage of the perpetrator or facilitator; and/or
- through violence or the threat of violence” (p.18).
The Serious Violence Strategy was developed in 2018 to set out the government’s response to violence. The definition above is not included in legislation, also it is ambiguous as it is open to interpretation by those who use it. This could lead to an under-identification of CCE. Furthermore, the lack of a definition has led to a misunderstanding of what CCE is and has also limited the identification of its victims across wider society, both at a micro and macro level (Children’s Society, 2021). This post reflects on some important aspects of CCE which are not yet fully understood and proposes a methodology with which the author aims to explore gaps in knowledge to widen understanding of this important phenomenon.
Barriers to identification
A county line is where a drug supply network is set up to transport illegal drugs from one county to another. This involves the use of phone lines and the exploitation of vulnerable children and adults into job roles along the network (Pitts, 2021). County Lines are considered to be an example of CCE and use of the term has become common within this field. Maxwell and Wallace (2021) found that the term county line is not helpful when used in the context of discussing CCE. They argue that by equating county lines with CCE, other forms of CCE, such as familial exploitation, can end up being neglected. The Department of Education (2021) suggests that children may not be identified as a victim of CCE until after an arrest has been made. Marshall (2023) found that there were several issues at play here. Firstly, not only do the victims of CCE often not recognise themselves as such or want to be referred to as a victim of exploitation, but there are also implications for the imbedded patterns of behaviour that led to the arrest that could have been addressed at an earlier stage if the exploitation had been recognised. Furthermore, Maxwell and Wallace (2021) suggest that CCE would be easier to identify and understand if the terminology used to describe it was different. An example is the use of the term ‘recruitment’ instead of ‘grooming’ when describing the process that all victims of CCE are subjected to. Maxwell and Wallace (2021) found that practitioners adapted their reaction based on the social constructs of grooming and recruitment, sometimes mistaking the latter as a mature decision rather than exploitation. The availability of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit to investigate suspected online child sexual exploitation is a step forward to identify victims, however the grooming of CCE is often missed (Maxwell and Wallace (2021). Given that children do not tend to be identified as a victim or at risk of becoming a victim of CCE before the point of arrest, there are likely to be a large number of victims who are never identified. (Department of Education (2021).
Vulnerable victim or vulnerable accused
The classification of a child accused of an offence as a vulnerable victim is highly contested and can depend on the crime committed, and how the behaviour which led to the crime has unfolded (Marshall, 2023). Child First justice prioritises welfare, however the reality is that “current responses to CCE further entrench children in the justice system” (Marshall, 2023 p.1156). The responses to victims of CCE by the UK government have included an update to Section 45 of The Modern Slavery Act (2015) which provides a defence for some children who commit certain offences. The Act states that a child will not be guilty of an offence if:
“(a) the person is under the age of 18 when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act as a direct consequence of the person being, or having been, a victim of slavery or a victim of relevant exploitation, and
(c) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would do that act” (Modern Slavery Act 2015, s.45).
However, the defence is open to interpretation (Baidawi et al., 2020) and its focus on particular offences still leaves many children and young people vulnerable and facing serious charges. Further, this defence does not apply to all victims of CCE. Offences which are not included in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act (2015) include kidnapping, false imprisonment, and manslaughter. In some cases, criminalisation is used as a safeguarding tool (Marshall, 2023). The National Referral Mechanism (NRM) is a national framework designed to support the identification and referral of victims of modern slavery to ensure that they receive the correct advice and the most appropriate support (Home Office, 2021). It is important to recognise that when considering the referral to the NRM process for children, safeguarding is a priority and no consent is required from professionals, care givers or the children themselves. (Home Office, 2021). The NRM process interprets and identifies whether a victim is eligible for the section 45 defence (Home Office, 2021). Marshall (2022) found that Youth Justice Service (YJS) practitioners were frustrated by the length of time the NRM process takes, leaving some young people having their cases adjourned or not being given a positive result. Moreover, Marshall (2023) found that the impact of this interpretation can lead to some charges being upheld for children with a positive NRM outcome due to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) highlighting a clear offending pattern in the behaviour of the child before the arrest. Furthermore, the wait for the outcome left some children in limbo, and still being exploited without the support that a positive outcome brings (Marshall, 2023).
How measurable is child criminal exploitation?
The extent of CCE is unclear and there is no systematic data collection in place to measure its prevalence (Maxwell and Wallace, 2021). The Children’s Commissioner (2019) estimated that at least 27,000 children were at risk of criminal exploitation in England in 2019. It is not clear how this estimation was calculated, however, this figure could be much higher (Barnardo’s, 2023). CCE is often missed for several reasons including by victims themselves who may not recognise exploitative behaviour, victims who do not want to be addressed as a victim and some young people who do not fit the criteria for certain surveys (for example the Crime Statistics for England and Wales (CSEW) only records responses from those aged 16 years and above) (CSEW, 2023). Also, some children are not recognised as being at risk until there is a significant event such as exclusion from school (Department for Education, 2021). The Department for Education (2021) suggests that marginalisation of children from the school environment happens at an early age, well before any exclusions occur. This factor highlights the risk of exploitation at a younger age, increasing opportunity for earlier identification of the behaviours associated with a raised risk of children being exploited, which are currently being missed. Attention has also been drawn to the link between vulnerability, exclusion from school and higher risks of exploitation (Department for Education, 2021). However, Dando et al. (2023) suggest that the understanding of CCE and the county lines model need to evolve with the reality of the contemporary landscape. This contributes to the fact that those at risk of, and those who are victims of, CCE are not reflected in the available statistics, illustrating that the extent of CCE is currently immeasurable. To summarise, understanding of the identification of CCE and responses to children and young people who are at risk of becoming (or who are victims) is in its infancy. The following section will propose a methodology to explore these issues further within a thesis.
Proposed Methodology
The author is undertaking doctoral research which will explore the issues identified above. This research will use both quantitative and qualitative methods. A multiple case study design will be used, and access will be sought from two local authority areas of Wales, to represent both an urban and a rural setting. Purposive sampling will be used in each area to identify children who are engaging with third sector agencies and statutory services such as Access and Inclusion, Social Services, YJS and the Secure Estate and are deemed at risk/or suspected of being a victim of CCE.
The methods the author aims to use (subject to ethical approval) are:
- Unstructured observations of children and young people who are at risk of or are considered victims of CCE both within and outside of the criminal justice system in the sample area.
- Semi-structured interviews of those supporting the children and young people observed both professionally and by those who have parental/carer responsibilities.
- Documentary analysis of case files, policies, and procedures.
- Freedom of Information (FOI) data analysis. Applications would be made to all local authorities in Wales to address questions around prevalence.
Conclusion
To conclude, this paper has outlined some of the gaps in the existing literature and knowledge of CCE. Consideration of the issues that arise from a lack of a universal definition of CCE (Maxwell and Wallace, 2021; Marshall, 2023; Windle et al., 2020) and the impact on the identification and misidentification of CCE need further exploration. The needs of children and young people who are not identified as vulnerable and accused before arrest can really impact the children and their ability to take on the role of victim or identify themselves as such (Baidawi, 2021). The lack of a system to support quantification of CCE equates to an inability to understand the prevalence of this strategy (Maxwell and Wallace, 2021). Challenges outlined by Marshall, (2023) pinpoint a combination of the welfare versus justice debate with the impact of late identification of CCE, and the use of criminalisation as a safeguarding tool as areas that need further exploration. The author has included a proposed methodology that aims to explore the gaps in understanding in more depth.
References
Barnardo’s (2023) Child exploitation: A hidden crisis, Accessed at:
https://www.barnardos.org.uk/research/child-exploitation-hidden-crisis, Accessed on: 10/08/23.
Baidawi, S. Sheenan, R. and Flynn, C. (2020) ‘Criminal exploitation of child protection involved youth’, Children and Youth Services Review, 118 (1) p.105-396.
Baidawi, S. and Ball, R. (2023) ‘Multi-system factors impacting youth justice involvement of children in residential out-of-home care’, Child and Family Social Work, 28, p.53-64.
Children’s Commissioner (2021) Still not safe? The public health response to youth violence, p.1-29, Accessed at: https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2021/02/cco-still-not-safe.pdf Accessed on: 10/08/23.
College of Policing (2021) Introduction to vulnerability related risk, Accessed at: https://www.college.police.uk/guidance/vulnerability-related-risks/introduction-vulnerability-related-risk#:~:text=We%20have%20adopted%20the%20THRIVE,others%20from%20harm%20or%20exploitation, Accessed on: 28/08/23.
CSEW (2023) Crime in England and Wales: Year ending March 2023, Accessed at: Crime in England and Wales – Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk), Accessed on: 29/8/23.
Dando, C. Ormerod, T. and Atkinson-Sheppard, S. (2022) ‘Parental experiences of the impact of grooming and criminal exploitation of children for county lines drug trafficking’, Journal of Public Health, 45 (2) p.246-354.
Department of Education (2021) Excluded or missing from education: Literature review and stakeholder views on safeguarding practice – strategic briefing, p.1-14, Accessed at: https://tce.researchinpractice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2757_TCE_Education__Exploitation_briefing_v2.pdf, Accessed on: 25/8/23.
Home Office (2021) Modern slavery and the national referral mechanism, p.1-47. Accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/modern-slavery-national-referral-mechanism-and-duty-to-notify-statistics-uk-end-of-year-summary-2021/modern-slavery-national-referral-mechanism-and-duty-to-notify-statistics-uk-end-of-year-summary-2021, Accessed on 25/8/23.
Marshall, H. (2023) ‘Victims first? Examining the place of ‘child criminal exploitation’ within ‘child first’ youth justice,’ Children and Society, 37 (4) p.1156-1170.
Maxwell, N. and Wallace, C. (2021) Child criminal exploitation in Wales, CASCADE, Cardiff University, p.1-62.
Modern Slavery Act (2015) Schedule 4, Accessed at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/schedule/4, Accessed on: 29/08/23.
Pitts, J. (2021) County Lines: HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic insights 2021, Accessed at: County Lines (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk), Accessed on 21/09/23.
The Children’s Society (2021) Rising tides of child exploitation, Accessed at: https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/blogs/the-rising-tide-of-child-criminal-exploitation, Accessed on: 01/04/23.
Windle, J. Moyle, L. and Coomber R. (2020) ‘’Vulnerable’ kids going country: children and young people’s involvement in county lines drug dealing’, Youth Justice, 20 (1-2) p.64-78.
Defending Vulnerability 