child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation-not separate

Child sexual abuse and child Child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation: a sexual exploitation: a contrast in current contrast in current

priorities?priorities?Centre for the Vulnerable Child, Centre for the Vulnerable Child, Fife, 20Fife, 20thth Anniversary Conference Anniversary Conference

26/9/1426/9/14Sarah NelsonSarah Nelson

CRFR, University of EdinburghCRFR, University of Edinburgh

CSA AND CSE PRIORITIESCSA AND CSE PRIORITIES

Definition of child sexual abuse: “Any act that involves the child in any activity for

the sexual gratification of another person whether or not it is claimed the child consented or assented…involves forcing or enticing a child to take part in sexual activities…may involve physical contact, including penetrative or non-penetrative acts….may include non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of pornographic material or in watching sexual activities, using sexual language towards a child or encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways.”

National Guidance for Child Protection 2010


Definition of child sexual exploitation:

“Any involvement of a child or young person below 18 in a sexual activity for which remuneration in cash or in kind is given to a young person or a third party or persons. The perpetrator will have power over the child by virtue of…age, emotional maturity, gender, physical strength, intellect and economic and other resources - e.g. access to drugs.”

Scottish Executive 2003:Sexual Exploitation through Prostitution

• CSE used to be called “child prostitution”, “organised sexual abuse”


Updated definition of CSE:

• Broadens what YP receive as inducements, to include food, drugs, place to stay, cigarettes, affection

• It adds: “Violence, coercion and intimidation are common, involvement in exploitative relationships being characterised in the main by the child or YP’s limited availability of choice, resulting from their social/economic activity and/or emotional vulnerability

DCSF, Safeguarding children and YP from sexual exploitation 2009


Brings the two phenomena closer, in the sense of:

• Explicitly recognising the coercion involved in CSE, highlighted by appalling brutalities exposed in Rochdale & Rotherham;

• Many people who suffered CSA in childhood were also enticed or “rewarded” – with money, sweets, gifts, privileges in the family, or the giving of affection.

Thus, most longstanding people in CSA field would not make a sharp distinction: rather, CSE is one form of CSA with particular aspects. Important to see extra aspects, but also to see continuum.

.


• Most publicised & recognised examples of CSE are usually

• Older children & YP, 12-17;• Abusers are outside family, e.g. gangs, sex rings, “night

economy” e.g. taxi drivers; Pakistani heritage issues in England;

• Multiple abusers, organised, making money out of this crime.

• CSA in contrast more often thought of as: mainly younger children (approx. 25 pc first abused under age 6); abusers mainly within family circle, all races, majority white; single abuser or small number; for gratification rather than money.


But clear distinctions challenged, e.g. by celebrated cases (e.g. Dana Fowley) & by evidence to Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation (2013-14):

• “The majority of young people in CSE have already suffered sexual abuse (usually by a family member) and they have low self-esteem” (18 & Under) Some family abusers also offer their chdn for money

• “Much sexual exploitation involves no exchange of goods, gifts or cash …for many girls...taking part in sexually exploitative practices…is not done for remuneration, but to be accepted and recognised in a culture that routinely objectifies women’s bodies”

(Zero Tolerance)

•


Problems with too-clear distinctions between CSA & CSE suggest failures to “join up the dots” of policy & practice:

• Different structures for investigating sexual abuse within and outside family, yet perps. often abuse in both settings;

• Risks of missing organised abuse or selling of younger children;

• Small no. of over-12s on child prot registers: but shouldn’t they be?

• Exaggerated estimate of young teens’ sexual autonomy, underplays coercion - e.g. in Rochdale & Rotherham were thought to “choose” lifestyle of promiscuity or prostitution.


Instead, worrying divergence in emphasis & urgency to tackle. Have centres like CVC in Fife become unusual in their priority for, & continuing commitment against CSA?

CSE: welcome, overdue interest:• Now major Inquiries in England/Wales, Scotland & NI.• Launch of research projects (Children’s Commissioner,

England e.g.; Scotland- CELSIS into YP in care)• Specialist investigation units (e.g. Kingfisher Unit

Oxford - 20 criminal investigations in past year alone- found 50-60 more victims)

• Media publicity & condemnation of English authorities’ failure to protect young girls over many years.


BUT for CSA, big concerns across UK that losing priority for investigation & protection: new emphasis on neglect, emotional abuse and “needs rather than risk”. But it’s not a competition!

• Range of research suggests up to 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men has experienced some form of sexual abuse before age 16;

There are 887K+ children & YP under 16 in Scotland. Sexual abuse registrations less than 10 pc of all registrations 2007-11. Only between 189 and 302 children on Register in each of these years; Represents .0003 of the under-16 population.


Child Protection stats for Scotland: 7% of CP registrations in 2009 for CSA cf. with 21% physical abuse, 47% neglect, 25% emotional abuse. Now lower than 2001 figures, though neglect more than doubled and emotional abuse almost quadrupled.

Take one city’s population e.g. Edinburgh. Approx 66,418 are under 16. If 1 in 20 is or has been CSA victim, 3320 children involved; if 1 in 10, 6641. (But prevalence studies indicate true % may be a lot higher).


CSA decline in priority: Comments from experienced Reporters to the Children’s Panels: “We hardly ever get a referral now”

• Examples of criticisms from senior social workers:

• “It seems to be bottom of our scale of priorities”• “We’re told to concentrate on drugs...but of course

they’re linked”• “I’ve been told it’s yesterday’s issue”• “I’m ashamed to say, if we asked the question we’d have

to do something, and we tend to avoid it”• Our own experience: professionals asking for basic

training of type we gave 25 yrs ago


Why might CSA be big risk factor for later CSE? And why should CP agencies & Panels be noticing behaviours?

• Reactive behaviours put children at big risk on streets- school exclusions, running away, drink/drug misuse to blot out trauma etc

• May have been addicted deliberately by earlier abusers, require more, so v. vulnerable to being offered substances

• Child sexualised, was taught this is all they were good for & all that men want - v low self esteem

• High risks in residential care (peers, absconding, predators) after being sent there for previous problems (CELSIS found one in four victims of CSE)

• Parents were less likely to protect - some offered them for abuse• “Difficult” “streetwise” reactive behaviour makes adults much

less likely to protect them. Police concentrate on their own criminality. Rochdale: teens treated with “absolute disrespect”.


My own research with women and men survivors of sexual abuse, 1998-2001 and 2006-2009: numerous addiction problems: quarter of males addicted to alcohol or drugs before teens.

To self-medicate as adults, to self -medicate before during & after abuse in childhood, and v. often kept addicted by sexual exploiters.

Ye5t hardly any had had underlying causes of addiction unearthed & trauma addressed.


How can we improve identification of CSA?Some key messages post-Savile, Harris etc were:

• Most adults don’t report disturbing things they see or hear;

• Most children don’t report their abuser (or tell anyone);

• Most adult survivors haven’t reported their abuser;

• ....Yet our whole child protection system relies very heavily on waiting for disclosures.


Lessons from these messages - for adults who see & hear worrying things

• Need routine awareness raising & confidence-building training, not strict do’s and don’ts. Subject readily invokes family/friends’ issues: training needs to be supportive not instructional

• Employees need safe whistleblowing systems • Need more “worry helplines” to consult for advice & more publicity for current helplines. CP system must accept most adults will be unsure & uncertain

CSA AND CSE PRIORITIESCSA AND CSE PRIORITIES Some needs for professionals:

• Routine awareness raising and confidence-building training, not strict do’s and don’ts. Subject readily invokes /family/friends’ issues; training needs to be supportive, not instructional

• Needs to challenge persisting fears in all Chd Prot agencies of being more proactive, due to backlash from 20+ yrs ago & continuing. Calls for renewed courage and managerial support

• Needs to challenge persisting disbelief in children’s truthfulness cf. with adults, especially “difficult” ones

.


Some lessons for main agencies:

SW across Scotland needs to upgrade its lowered priority for CSA cf. with other abuses & neglect : abuses often inter-related anyway . Reinstate joint investigation with police; more over-12s on register

CAMHS services across Scotland need to recognise CSA as major factor in children’s mental ill health as much as the CVC service in Fife does!

• Sexual health agencies urgently need policy & practice to recognise & address sexual coercion in young people


Children’s panel recommendations

• Specialist awareness-raising to recognise effects of CSA and CSE in YP should be part of all pre-service, in-service and refresher training.

• Should include greater awareness of support agencies & services;

• Access to specialist advisers to call upon should be considered;

• Concerted drive to recruit more panel members already familiar with CSA & CSE issues.


Some safety issues that need addressing earlier

• School exclusions for “acting-out” kids heighten dangers of involvement with dangerous people: alternatives must be found

• Safety in residential units: how far do staff keep kids safe from predatory outsiders or each other?

• Skilled trauma therapy urgently needed for previously abused teenagers: Erskine Bridge suicides example: absconding regularly, found in men’s flats: trauma therapy needs didn’t feature in sheriff’s recommendations


All agencies need to restore the balance between risk and family-need: the danger aspect mustn’t gradually vanish. A child at risk may be a child in need, but a child in need is also a child at risk


• A specific new initiative : the Confidential Space

• Developed by Children 1st, SN, group of “critical friends” from Scottish Govt, stat and vol sectors, BASW

• To address problem that children don’t tell and current system doesn’t protect children well from CSA. Rigid, yet v. often ineffective, procedures aimed at getting convictions – insufficient evidence sees many children returned to abuser. Is there better way to provide safety & support for these children and young people?

CSA AND CSE PRIORITIESCSA AND CSE PRIORITIESBarriers to children telling about CSABarriers to children telling about CSA

• Manipulation • Threats• Guilt & shame• Payoffs• Fear• Won’t be believed

• Body responses

• Haven’t been believed

• Losing control of process if they disclose

• Current crim J and court processes

• Family loyalty& love

Registered Scottish Charity No: SC016092


Basic principles of Confidential Space:

• Genuinely listening to children & young people in their own time

• Seeing them as having solutions, & having shown great resilience to survive

• Allowing them some control over speed & type of action

• Move to perpetrator-focussed strategies of investigation

• Packages of support that keep young people safe during the slowed-down process - including refuge.


• Would be 2 pioneering projects in Scotland, initially for 12-16 age group: this focuses on legal age of capacity

• Confidentiality could not be absolute, but would lose trust if breaking confidentiality just becomes routine again.

• Working with child at their pace, to develop trusting, honest relationships with professional team

• Raising awareness of scheme among children and adults

•


• Skilled, child-centred team - police, SW, health, education rep, child psychol, chdns support agency e.g. responsible for process, for investigation & for commissioning support.

• Crim. investigation not main focus, BUT evidence gathered slowly & carefully likely to be of better quality

• Caring adults including mothers & children’s peers whom they often disclose to, can consult team too: when child discloses e.g. to teacher, they can refer info. to team so no-one has to “keep the secret”.

• Need to work collaboratively & supportively with existing CP structures in pilot areas


Not some complete break with current system:

• “It’s greater use of the flexibility that already exists in the system to do the right thing”

• There’s already a few confidential projects for abused children

• There’s already 3rd party reporting of race and LGBT crime

• There’s already slow, gradual working with damaged alienated young people, e.g. in good CSE practice by police & SW

• It’s the way that so many good SWs police etc want to work with YP!


• We already have multi-disciplinary teams in local auths

• Many experienced CP professionals, disillusioned with current constraints, would be keen to volunteer for a more child-centred practice

• Aim to monitor, evaluate, disseminate positive lessons through system, and offer training.

• Professionals in team will need support to manage the risks

• Focus on outcomes, as opposed to formalities of Child Protection process.


.....So watch for developments,keep in touch via Children 1st, and please join our campaign for the Confidential Space!!

child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation-not separate

Documents