Child sexual abuse

This is part of our safeguarding insights section.  Our aim is to provide you with a broader understanding of a specific topic through a researched and referenced article that contributes towards your professional development and ensures that you can support your staff accordingly.

20 minute read

DSLs and Safeguarding Teams

Introduction

In a press release at the beginning of February 2020 published on GOV.UK (Unseen evil: Sex abuse in families going under radar, say inspectorates), a group of inspectorates (led by Ofsted) stated that:

local agencies are often woefully ill-equipped to deal with child sex abuse in families.  Efforts to prevent abuse are largely absent …

Further down the same press release, Amanda Spielman, Chief Inspector for Ofsted, is quoted as saying:

As a society, we are far too reluctant to talk about sex abuse within the family home.  It’s much easier to think of abuse happening elsewhere, to other people. […] As it stands, children abused in the home are going unseen and unheard because agencies simply aren’t capable of keeping them safe.

This represents a damning indictment of the state of safeguarding in relation to sexual abuse.  However, there is evidence from a number of sources, including a number of case reviews that supports this viewpoint.

Whilst the report above (Ofsted, 2020) relates to child sexual abuse in the family environment (which the report estimates as accounting for two thirds of all instances of child sexual abuse), it is also important to note that sexual abuse can and does occur in organisations that work with or allow access children and young people.  The scope of the Independent  Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse demonstrates this, with their website identifying that the Inquiry launched 15 investigations into a wide range of institutions including local authority residential provision, religious settings and custodial settings.  Separately we have also seen reports of child sexual abuse in football and the wider issue of sexual abuse in the entertainment industry which lead to international use of #MeToo, with Dierking (2019) suggesting that this “laid the grounds for addressing the widespread rape culture that pervades western society” (p.4).

Using the Ofsted report as a base document, in this safeguarding insight we will look at some of the issues identified in greater detail.

Taboo subject

One of the key findings of the report into the multi-agency response to child sexual abuse in the family (Ofsted, 2020) is that as a society it is difficult to talk about sexual abuse which then has a significant impact on our ability to respond to it.  The report identifies that if we do talk about it, often the language used will seek to minimise the abuse or imply that there was consent involved.

Our views about sex and sexuality are influenced by culture, religion, family and personal experiences.  Stevens (2014) highlights that sex is the foundation of society, without procreation there would be no human race, and that for most societies sexual maturity – the ability to effectively fulfil the most basic human need – marks entry into adulthood.  Different cultures will mark this in different ways, for example through acts such as female genital mutilation, through ceremony and rites of passage, or not at all.  In some cultures hormonal processes associated with sexual maturity are subject to shame and stigma and seen as unclean process (e.g. as seen in areas of India).

For some sex is seen as being strictly regulated, for example a number of religions advocate for no sex outside of marriage, whilst for some the right to have sex is seen as a male right (a recent example of this being seen in the UK Courts with a judge referring to the right of a man to have sex with his wife as a fundamental human right).  Wider cultural expectations can also impact on how we view sex, a report by Coventry Rape And Sexual Abuse Centre (2014) illustrating how where there is abuse, culture can impact on disclosure, with the research identifying that for South Asian women there is a pressure to conform to “notions of ‘respectability’” which can result in abuse being deliberately covered up, ignored or hidden by families as a result of decision making being led by the need to avoid shame and preserve honour.

Views around sexuality are equally diverse, with sexuality in this case meaning a person’s sexual orientation or preference.  Whilst Western society purports to be open an inclusive, there are ongoing issues on a daily basis about whether any other sexual orientation other the “traditional” male / female relationship are allowable, with an individual’s culture and background influencing their viewpoint.

Differences in attitudes between generations can also have an impact – Martellozzo et al. (2016) found that through the increasing prevalence and indispensable nature of technology more and more children are being exposed to pornography whether inadvertently or through actively searching for it.  This is then shaping expectations in relation to sex, the same report finding that particularly boys believed what they were viewing to be realistic, presenting a poor model around the role of consent and what is and is not acceptable in relationships.  This complexity around sex, coupled with embarrassment of talking about sex and acts associated with sex, means that inevitably as a society we do not talk about it or seek some way to lessen the impact of what is being discussed.

Finally stereotypes can also impact on the way things are seen – Jackson et al. (2015 – cited in Ofsted, 2020) identify that children abused by females can face higher levels of disbelief and dismissal than children who disclose abuse by males, with the resultant abuse potentially being seen as less serious and less harmful.  Arguably, this is linked with the stereotype that females are naturally caregivers and with their instinct to be to care for and nurture children, not harm them.

In order for us to successfully address sexual abuse and safeguard children in our care, we need to understand what these issues mean for us as individuals and how they can impact on the way we receive and filter information.

Child sexual exploitation

As a society we are able to overcome difficulties associated with language and understanding, with the Ofsted report (ibid.) identifying that we have been able to develop knowledge and skills as a professional body in relation to child sexual exploitation (CSE).  It was not too long ago that CSE was a relatively unknown term, with child prostitution being a phrase you were more likely to hear.  The awareness of CSE, along with an understanding that the children are victims, no matter how much of a role they are appearing to play, has meant that there is greater discussion in all agencies about exploitation (with it now not just being limited to CSE, but also the wider concept of child criminal exploitation which also includes aspects such as county lines) and a greater awareness of the potential signs and symptoms.  Work in relation to CSE has also provided us with a clearer understanding of consent and inherent power imbalances that are then exploited to the advantage of the abuser.

Ofsted however go on to state that:

The knowledge agencies have gained and the systems that have been put in place for dealing with child sexual exploitation are not being applied in the context of abuse within the family environment. (p.4)

The key message here therefore is that CSE is another form of child sexual abuse, and yet whilst significant improvements have been made in our understanding of CSE, we are still relatively knowledge poor in relation to child sexual abuse even though a lot of the knowledge is transferable.  An example of this is seen in relation to signs and symptoms – in relation to CSE as professionals we are now attuned to potential signs and symptoms of CSE, however in relation to sexual abuse, the NSPCC (2020) note that as professionals we are “sometimes slow to identify sexual abuse as an explanation for a child’s behaviour or medical presentations – particularly where other explanations are offered.”

Sexual abuse in the family

The Children’s Commissioner provides the following definition for sexual abuse in the family environment:

sexual abuse perpetrated or facilitated in or out of the home, against a child under the age of 18, by a family member, or someone otherwise linked to the family context or environment, whether or not they are a family member. Within this definition, perpetrators may be close to the victim (e.g. father, uncle, stepfather), or less familiar (e.g. family friend, babysitter). (Children’s Commissioner, 2015, p.6)

When thinking about the earlier discussion in relation to stereotyping, it is interesting to note that this definition uses all inherently male roles when talking about perpetrators who may be close to the victim.

In his anthropological investigation, Stevens (ibid.) reports that data seen as part of his research shows that “sexual relations with the nuclear family – between parents and children, and between siblings – are universally forbidden”, with the act seen as violating “very serious supernaturally sanctioned laws of nature”.  It may therefore be this deeply held seemingly universal view that is the reason why in families and communities, as Ofsted (2020) summarise, “there remains a disbelief and denial about familial sexual abuse, which means it is less likely to be identified and discussed.” (p.4)

For professionals, who both Ofsted (ibid.) and the NSPCC (2020) propose are knowledge poor in how to deal with cases of child sexual abuse, there is a high risk that elements of professional dangerousness will creep into their practice.  Examples of practice that may be observed  include, following the rule of optimism (wanting to believe that all is well for the child and finding evidence to support this view as opposed to challenging their view), assessment paralysis (as a result of professionals feeling helpless and incapacitated) and professional uncertainty.  Ofsted (ibid.) provide the example where professionals are tasked with assessing the risk to children in a home where a parent has been accessing online child abuse images – they found that more often the professional would focus on neglect or some other form of abuse that the professional was more confident in assessing the risk for.

Statistics

There is a need to put this in some form of context.  The Children’s Commissioner (2015) reported that their data showed that child sexual abuse in the family environment comprises of around two thirds of all child sexual abuse.  The same report also estimated that only 1 in 8 victims of child sexual abuse come to the attention of statutory agencies.

The most recent statistics available (Child sexual abuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2019, ONS 2020) identified that the Police recorded 73,260 sexual offences where the victim was identified as a child.  Using the 1 in 8 ratio, this would mean approximately 5% of children are victim of child sexual abuse.  However, the Police data has caveats that information about age of victim is not always included in police records and so not all sexual offences against children can be identified, and some children may have been the victim of more than one offence (therefore recorded more than once).

Taking a different approach (through interviewing young adults, parents, etc. and relying on self-disclosure) NSPCC research from 2011 (Radford, et al.) suggested that 11% of children suffer sexual abuse (whether in the family environment or elsewhere).  The Crime Survey for England and Wales (2019) meanwhile estimated that based on their research, 7.5% of the population aged 18-74 experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16.  Even with these figures there are caveats, such for people to talk about their experiences as a child they have to have recognised what has happened to them and be in a place where they are comfortable talking about it.

The overall picture is therefore that we do not know the true prevalence of child sexual abuse (Parke & Karsna, 2019), the implication of this being that it is even more important that we consider the behaviour and what else we know about individual children and that we ensure that we entertain all possibilities, rather than following the path that we know.  Ofsted (2020) identify that sexual abuse in the family environment:

often comes to the attention of statutory and non-statutory agencies as a result of a secondary presenting factor, for example self-harm, which becomes the focus of the intervention.  In many cases, the underlying issue of sexual abuse may not be identified until much later on. (p.8)

Disclosure

A key theme from both the Ofsted report (2020) and the NSPCC report (2020) is that there is a heavy reliance by professionals on the child disclosing what is happening to them, with professionals not feeling able to act without a verbal disclosure.  The same reports accept that there are occasions when there can be no evidence of abuse, or evidence may be inconclusive.  It is also accepted that victims often do not disclose their experiences till much later in their lives.

Children can face multiple barriers to disclosure, including (but not restricted to):

• not understanding that they are being abused or the abuse being normalised in everyday contexts (e.g. the victim believing that the abuse is part of a normal loving relationship).
• threats made by the abuser.
• fear of loss – the victim may worry that if they disclose they will be taken away from their family.
• loss of face for the victim and / or their family – as we saw above there may be an underlying rule that the family honour is preserved at all costs.
• feeling responsible for the abuse.
• religious or cultural beliefs which may include victim having a fear of being ostracised by their family or community.
• boys may perceive there to be barriers due to the expectation that as a man they should sort things out for themselves or that if they disclose abuse by another male their sexuality may be questioned.

As with all types of abuse SEND children face additional barriers to disclosing, including people believing that whatever is happening is part of their care package, not understanding their individual communication styles or due to their learning needs (NSPCC 2020).

For all children, a significant barrier is the view that they are not going to be believed, or that nothing will happen as a result meaning that they will be left to face the abuser.  As the diagram below shows, even in the categories with the highest number being charged / summonsed to court only around 30% of cases get that far, with the vast majority dropping off for one reason or another.

What is however important, as the Ofsted report (ibid.) reminds us, safeguarding does not end just because the criminal enquiries have come to an end – it is important that the child remains the focus and that they remain safeguarded.

Allnock, Miller & Baker (2019) identify that there are different interpretations of what a disclosure is across different professions.  In completing their research they opt for a broad definition of ‘one person conveying their experience to another’.  Their research, however, reinforces the message above, that verbal disclosure is not common at the time the abuse is happening, but attempts to disclose (remembering the above definition) are made in other ways (signs or actions) with the hope that adults around them will notice or react to them.  For schools and organisations working with children and young people on a regular basis, the chances are that these will be the settings where these signs are given.

In relation to this, their report states [emphasis as per original document]:

Children have described mixed experiences of disclosure to teachers, which highlight key practice messages for all practitioners. Children want teachers to notice signs such as self-harm; eating disorders; acting out in class; school attendance; and being alone and withdrawn at school. Professionals and children both highlight the importance of a trusted relationship between a child and a reliable professional which provides the child with the opportunity to disclose. Both ‘noticing’ and ‘opportunity’ emphasise that disclosure is relationally dependent and emerges through open dialogue. Children may require significant periods of time to build the trusted relationship that supports disclosure, particularly if they have had previous negative experiences of interacting with authority figures. (p.7)

Sexual abuse in organisations

We have so far primarily considered sexual abuse in the family context, but as noted at the beginning, children can also be victims of abuse in organisations.  The Ofsted report (ibid.) notes research “also indicates that girls are at a higher risk of being abused by a family member than boys, whilst boys are more likely to be abused by someone in a position of trust” (p.14).  Smellie et al. (2020) propose that this may be because of the higher proportion of boys in residential settings.

Smellie et al. (ibid.) suggest that schools present opportunities for abusers by virtue of being “closed, hierarchical environments” where “perpetrators can develop and create opportunities, aided by both the formal and informal power and status the role bestows.” (p.3)  As seen in the cases of William Vahey and Vanessa George, both of whom were people who worked in organisations where they had regular access to children, perpetrators can develop unassailable positions of power and trust which then make challenge by pupils, parents and colleagues difficult and mean that they hide in plain sight.

As with perpetrators who abuse children in family settings, there is a high degree of grooming and reinforcement of behaviours involved.  In organisations the perpetrator may also groom their colleagues to have an alternative point of view, meaning that the voice of the child is lost and the focus redirected elsewhere (e.g. Jeremy Forrest).

Smellie et al. (ibid.) discuss the presence of “cultural, organisational and even geographical blind spots” in schools (but this could be in any organisation working with children and young people) which irrespective of safer recruitment processes or safe working practices could potential still exist today.

Further information and a staff update relating to safe working practices can be found on our safe working practices resource page.

Children who abuse other children

Whilst we have not considered this specifically in this safeguarding insight, it is important that we recognise that children can abuse other children.  This can be very pertinent for organisations that work with children and young people on a regular basis.  In such circumstances it is important that we see the perpetrator as a potential victim in their own right and ensure that both victim and perpetrator are safeguarded.  More information can be found on our resource page on sexual violence and sexual harassment.  Safeguarding Network also have an online course available to enhance staff knowledge of this crucial area.

Professional curiosity and challenge

A key message from Ofsted (2020) and the NSPCC (2020) is that there is a need for professional curiosity and for professionals to challenge if they feel that a child is not being kept safe.  Ofsted (ibid.) highlight that in their reviews they saw too much silo working (i.e. agencies all working independently of each other and not sharing information), along with a lack of professional challenge between agencies about responses to child sexual abuse. The NSPCC (ibid.) state that serious case reviews evidence the need for agencies to work together and for there to be “positive, robust questioning of child protection decisions, practices and actions”, with professionals needing to “remain curious about the source of children’s distress, behaviour or physical indicators of abuse, even if other agencies assessments are inconclusive.” (p.4)

An example of this is can be seen in the 2017 Overview Report in relation to Claire.  Claire was a young girl who suffered sexual abuse when at home with her mother and was moved initially to live with an extended family member and then, when that broke down, to live in foster care.  The foster carers were newly approved and Claire was their first placement.  Introductions were made and Claire moved to the foster carer’s home.  The report notes [emphasis as per original document]:

After Claire had spent her first overnight stay with Mr and Mrs George, as part of a planned introduction to the placement, she was observed at school to be walking ‘splay legged’ and complained that her vagina was sore. School staff knew her well as she had been at the school since her reception year, and this behaviour was uncharacteristic. The school contacted the social worker and suggested that a strategy meeting was needed. The social worker was newly qualified and she appropriately sought advice from her manager about this request. The manager felt that Claire’s behaviour may have been linked to her previous abuse and, as Claire had not made a disclosure, it was decided that a strategy meeting was not needed, but that Claire’s paternal grandmother should be asked to take Claire to the GP. The school were informed of this decision; they were unhappy with the response but were not sure what else they could do. (p.17)

Over the course of the next 18 months there were ongoing issues with Claire’s behaviour which led to the female carer taking a backseat and the male carer assuming the main caring role.  The female foster carer then noticed that Claire had vaginal discharge which she attempted to treat unsuccessfully with over the counter medicine.  The carer made contact with the GP who asked to review Claire.  The GP was concerned and took swabs, also speaking to Claire in the presence of a chaperone, before contacting social care.  Social care however decided that there would be no action taken before the swabs came back, and despite unsuccessful attempts to escalate by the GP, Claire remained in the care of the foster carers with there being no child protection process.  Claire was eventually removed from placement six days later.

Whilst this is a very much abridged version of the chronology of events, just in these two snapshots of key points in Claire’s life we can see the significant impact of lack of challenge.  Professional curiosity is evident, and in the second incident there are a number of clear attempts by the GP to challenge the decision however these were unsuccessful.  These snapshots do however evidence some of the areas that have been discussed through the course of this safeguarding insight.

Conclusion

Child sexual abuse is a difficult and emotive subject that is within an area of life that is often seen as a taboo subject to discuss.  As we have seen in this safeguarding insight, there is significant evidence that as professionals we will not see things for what they are, or default to something that we feel more confident in addressing.  There is a need to skill staff in our organisations to ensure that they feel able to identify and talk about concerns, whilst asking the question whether what they are seeing and hearing could be indicative of child sexual abuse.  It may not be, however there is a need to have a conscious thought process before dismissing it, as opposed to arriving at the wrong decision because it has not been considered.  As organisations we need to be sure that staff are aware of the risks that colleagues could pose and the means by which those risks are reduced (e.g. blind spots being removed from buildings where possible, ensuring a culture of openness).