Answer ### Children going missing in the UK — the headline number --- Q…

Children going missing from local authority care present significant safeguarding chal lenges, yet little is known about how care home staff perceive and respond to these incidents. This study explores perspectives and experiences of care home staff and managers (CHS/Ms) regarding factors facilitating or hindering the prevention of, and re sponse to, children who go missing from care. Thematic analysis of fourteen interviews highlighted five key themes: (1) multi-agency communication and collaboration, (2) child-centred responses, (3) relationships with children, families, and communities, (4) professional skills and organizational support, and (5) timely and effective Return ... In the UK, a person is defined as missing when their ‘whereabouts cannot be established’ and they are ‘considered missing until located and their well being or otherwise confirmed’ (College of Policing [CoP] 2021). Children ac count for 63 percent of the 319,000þ annual missing reports made to UK police, with 75 percent involving repeat episodes (National Crime Agency [NCA] 2023). Responding to these incidents represents one of the largest single demands on policing resources (Greenhalgh and Shalev-Greene ... Children in the care of local authorities are disproportionately repre sented in these statistics, with those between the ages of thirteen and sev enteen most likely to be reported missing (Bezeczky and Wilkins 2022). Although care-experienced children comprise approximately 1 percent of the child population, they account for more than one-third of all missing incidents (NCA 2023). They are approximately twenty times more likely to be reported missing than children living in family homes and are more likely to experience repeat missing episodes (Missing People 2022), leading to recurrent police contact that can contribute to stigmatization and crimi nalization (Bezeczky and Wilkins 2022). For example, disproportionate police responses can result in behaviours that would typically be managed by parents in home settings being criminalized and resulting in cautions ... Many looked-after children have also experienced trauma, neglect, and instability prior to entering care, adding complexity to the reasons under pinning missing episodes (Mitchell 2018). Children typically enter local authority care when they cannot safely remain with their families, often due to neglect, abuse, family breakdown, parental substance misuse, do mestic abuse, mental health issues, or unmet and complex needs (NSPCC ... 2020). These patterns reflect both the complex and often trauma-related needs of care-experienced children and the systemic challenges of deliver ing consistent, trauma-informed care across diverse residential settings (Brown et al. 2019). Public services are expected to operate within national protocols applicable to all children missing under the age of eighteen (Department for Education [DfE] 2014; NPCC 2023), alongside local proto cols and guidance that typically emphasize the importance of considering age and individual circumstances, including vulnerability and ... 2007). Care home staff and managers (CHS/Ms) are typically the first to identify when a child is missing and, through their daily contact, develop detailed knowledge of individual children and potential ‘triggers’ for miss ing episodes. Despite this frontline role, CHS/M perspectives remain un derrepresented in the literature, which has tended to focus on police views and procedural challenges (Waring et al. 2023a). Existing research suggests that although agencies adopt a shared formal definition of ‘missing’ in line with the CoP (2021) as ‘anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established’, interpretations differ in practice. Police have been found to place weight on behaviour being ‘out of character’, despite this no longer forming part of the national definition, whereas CHS/Ms and other part ner agencies emphasize ‘whereabouts unknown’ as the primary threshold for reporting a child missing (Waring et al. 2023a). These different inter pretations can create barriers to effective inter-agency working, producing inconsistencies in expectations and tensions. ... Multiple agencies, including the police, residential care providers, local authorities, social services, and educational institutions, have a responsibil ity to respond when children go missing from care. Effective inter-agency collaboration is essential to reducing missing episodes and improving out comes (HM Government 2018). In England and Wales, policy frameworks highlight multi-agency working as central for prevention and protection and include the Runaway and Missing from Care Protocol (DfE 2014) and the Children Who Go Missing from Care Framework (NPCC 2023). The lat ter provides tiered guidance for intervention, encouraging proportionate, risk-based responses, and distinguishes between three levels: (1) waiting or monitoring where no immediate risk is identified, (2) proactive carer and social worker involvement, and (3) formal police intervention (NPCC 2023). ... Despite these intentions, implementation remains inconsistent, with re curring issues such as inadequate communication and disproportionate police involvement (Waring et al. 2023b). Conflicting definitions of ‘missing’ and ‘absent’, alongside varied interpretations of risk, contribute to fragmented practice (Allsop et al. 2020). Police often feel responding falls disproportionately on them, frequently noting frustration driven by perceptions that many cases are reported unnecessarily without CHS/Ms having taken necessary steps to try to locate the child first (Greenhalgh and Shalev-Greene 2021). Conversely, CHS/Ms worry under-reporting could leave them vulnerable to blame if a child comes to harm (Waring et al. 2023b). This echoes the so-called ‘Baby P effect’ (Murphy 2022), in which fear of scrutiny can drive risk-averse behaviour and overreporting. ... care contexts themselves also vary considerably in purpose, staffing models, and the needs of the children they support. These differ ences shape patterns of reporting children missing to the police. For ex ample, larger homes and those accommodating mixed levels of need tend to report more missing episodes. This is partly attributed to lower staff to-child ratios, which ... All participants emphasized that effective multi-agency working is essen tial to both prevent and respond to missing child incidents. Key partners typically included police, residential care providers, local authorities, social services, and education. Timely information sharing was viewed as critical for developing shared understanding, consistent risk assessment, and coor dinated action. However, multi-agency working was also described as one of the most significant challenges. Participants reported either excessive or poorly coordinated involvement from multiple agencies or insufficient sup ... Participants frequently described dismissive attitudes, particularly from police, towards children who repeatedly go missing. Repeat incidents were perceived to reduce responsiveness, contributing to delayed action and inter-agency tension. Some participants also felt blamed by partner agencies for recurrent missing episodes, undermining confidence and exacerbating stress. Additionally, expectations that care staff undertake potentially unsafe searches or enter high-risk situations were reported as a significant concern. ... All participants identified several mechanisms to strengthen multi agency working. These included having consistent designated SPOCs, reg ular multi-agency meetings, and joint training to build familiarity, trust, clarify roles and responsibilities, and promote trauma-informed under standing of missing behaviour. All participants emphasized the importance of shifting perceptions away from viewing repeated missing incidents as a ‘nuisance’ towards recognizing children’s vulnerability. Clear, jargon-free

CLA who were missing or away from placement without authorisation - by local authority - OFFICIAL STATISTICS, Data set from Children looked after in England including adoptions - Explore education statistics - GOV.UK ... # CLA who were missing or away from placement without authorisation - by local authority - OFFICIAL STATISTICS ... OFFICIAL STATISTICS. Users should be cautious making comparisons between LAs, or across years due to changing reporting practices - see the methodology document. CLA who were missing or away from placement without authorisation. ... Geographic levelsLocal authority, National, Regional ... - Children who are missing or away without authorisation ... | Table showing first 5 rows, from underlying data | time_period | time_identifier | geographic_level | country_code | country_name | region_code | region_name | old_la_code | la_name | new_la_code | missing_status | number | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 2025 | Reporting year | National | E92000001 | England | Average number of away from placement without authorisation incidents per looked after child | 4.5 | | 2025 | Reporting year | National | E92000001 | England | Average number of missing incidents per looked after child who went missing | 6.8 | | 2025 | Reporting year | National | E92000001 | England | Children away from placement without authorisation at 31 March | 60 | | 2025 | Reporting year | National | E92000001 | England | Children looked after during the year | 115410 | | 2025 | Reporting year | National | E92000001 | England | Children missing at 31 March | 220 | ... National and regional numbers have been rounded to the ... 10. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. Historical data may differ from older publications which is mainly ... made by local authorities after the previous publication. However, ... longer time series ... in earlier releases of this publication ... Missing is defined as a looked after child who is not at their placement or a place they are expected to be and their whereabouts is not known. Away from placement without authorisation is defined as a looked after child whose whereabouts is known but who is not at their placement or place they are expected to be and the carer has concerns or the incident has been notified to the local authority or the police. Since 2017 a growing number of local authorities informed the department that they do not record incidents as 'away without authorisation' but instead report all incidents as 'missing' to maintain consistency with local police reporting. We estimate this could mean an overestimate of missing incidents of up to 13% in 2021, 10% in 2022, 11% in 2023, 13% in 2024 and 12% in 2025; suggesting the true figures could be more like 9,600, 11,100, 11,500, 11,500 and 11,300. There is a corresponding estimate of an undercount of away without authorisation incidents of up to 32% in 2021, 30% in 2022, 32% in 2023, 36% in 2024 and 32% in 2025; suggesting the true figures could be more like 3,800, 3,600, 3,900, 4,300 and 4,300. However some of these local authorities submitted some 'away without authorisation' information and this has been included in the away from placement without authorisation table.

Although the concept of a miss ing child may seem readily under standable, especially in cases that come to media attention, a care ful examination shows that the notion is actually quite complex. A child can become missing because of a variety of cir cumstances, such as running away, being abducted, or being delayed by a mishap on the way home. Even sim ... , lost, or injured events. ■ Missing benign explanation situations. A caretaker missing child was considered to be reported missing if a caretaker contacted the police or a missing children’s agency to locate the child. Note that the category “reported missing” does not include children who were reported to the police for reasons other than locating the missing child, e.g., to report an incident as a crime or simply to recover a child whose whereabouts were known. Not all children who experience qualifying NISMART–2 episodes can be classified as caretaker missing. For example, when a child is abducted by a family member, the caretaker may know very well where the child is but may be unable to retrieve the child. The parent of a runaway child may not know the child’s whereabouts but may not be alarmed or try to find the child. These children would not be counted among the caretaker missing children in NISMART–2 because they fail to meet one or more of the three criteria noted above: the child’s whereabouts must be unknown, the caretaker must be alarmed for at least 1 hour, and the caretaker must attempt to locate the child. In addition, to ensure that minor misunderstandings would not inflate the estimates, those who became missing because of benign reasons were only considered to be missing if police were contacted about the episode. To summarize, NISMART–2 conceptualizes children in terms of three nested classes: The largest set com prises all children with a qualifying NISMART–2 episode who may or may not be missing (e.g., a child runs away from home).3 Within that group, some children meet the additional criteria that classify them as caretaker missing children (the runaway child’s parent notices the child is gone, does not know where the child is, becomes alarmed for at least an hour, and tries to find the child). Finally, within that group of caretaker missing children, a subset meets the further requirement that qualifies the children as reported missing (the parent calls the police or a missing children’s agency to help locate the child). ... Estimates by Type of Episode Table 3 reports the reasons children became missing. Data are shown for all caretaker missing children and for those who were reported missing. Of all caretaker missing children, nearly one-half (48 per cent) were missing because of a runaway/thrownaway episode. More than one-fourth (28 percent) became miss ing as a result of benign explanation circumstances (mis communications or misunderstandings between child and caretaker). Children who were missing because they became lost or injured accounted for 15 percent of all caretaker missing children. Less than one-tenth (9 per cent) of caretaker missing children were abducted by family members, and only 3 percent were abducted by nonfamily perpetrators. ... Rate per 1,000 Children in U.S. 95% Confidence Population Episode Type Estimated Total* Interval† Percent* (N = 70,172,700) Caretaker Missing Children (n = 1,315,600) Nonfamily abduction‡ 33,000§ (2,000–64,000) 3§ 0.47§ Family abduction 117,200 (79,000–155,400) 9 1.67 Runaway/thrownaway 628,900 (481,000–776,900) 48 8.96 Missing involuntary, lost, or injured 198,300 (124,800–271,800) 15 2. ... 3 Missing benign explanation 374,700 (289,900–459,500) 2 ... Reported Missing Children (n = 797,500) Nonfamily abduction‡ 12,100§ ... 340,5 ... A somewhat different picture emerges from the esti mates of children who were reported missing to police or missing children’s agencies. Although runaway/ thrownaway children reflect a substantial minority of reported missing children (45 percent), nearly as many children (43 percent) became missing because of benign reasons. Comparable percentages of reported missing children were missing because they were lost or injured (8 percent) and because they had been abducted by a family member (7 percent). Only a small percentage were missing because of a nonfamily abduction (2 percent). Stereotypical kidnappings. In table 3, the estimates for nonfamily abducted children include primarily crimes involving a modest amount of forced movement or de tention that correspond with the way in which abduction is legally defined in most State ... Children Not Classified as Missing The earlier discussion under “Conceptualizing the Missing Child Problem” notes that children counted as “caretaker missing” or “reported missing” in NISMART–2 were not the only children to experi ence episodes of interest to the study. Some children experienced nonfamily or family abduction episodes or runaway/thrownaway episodes but were neither missing from their caretakers nor reported missing to authori ties. Examples include children who ran away to the homes of relatives or friends, causing their caretakers little or no concern; children who were held by family members in known locations (e.g., an ex-spouse’s home); and children who were abducted by nonfamily perpetrators but released before anyone noticed that they were missing. These children experienced episodes but were not counted as missing children. For each of the five types of episodes, table 7 shows the total number of children who experi enced an episode, the percentage who were classified as caretaker missing, and the percentage who were classified as reported miss ing. As the table shows, all chil dren who experienced missing involuntary, lost, or injured epi sodes and missing benign expla nation episodes were classified as caretaker missing; this is because such episodes involve ... a missing child by definition. Only a little more than half of the children who experienced family and nonfamily abductions and 37 percent of those who experi enced runaway/thrownaway episodes, however, were included in NISMART estimates of care taker missing children. For all types of episodes except missing benign explanation, between one fifth and one-third of children ex periencing episodes were reported missing. (Benign explanation episodes, by definition, involve police contact. The percentage of children reported missing for this type of episode is 91 percent, not 100 percent, because some cases were reported to the police for rea sons other than locating the child.) ... Most of the caretaker missing children became missing because they ran away (48 percent) or because of benign misunderstandings about where they should be (28 per cent). Together, these two reasons accounted for 84 per cent of all children who were reported missing. (This estimated combined percentage was carefully developed to count each child only once. Because some children had more than one type of episode, the estimates in table 3 should not be summed.) This is consistent with the fact that about three-fourths of those who were caretaker missing (or reported missing) were young ... adolescents and teenagers (age 12 and older), an age group with more independent comings and goings than younger children and more conflicts with parents and other caretakers. No significant gender differences were found, but white children were at significantly lower risk of becoming missing. Contrary to the common assumption that abduction is a principal reason why children become missing, the NISMART–2 findings indicate that only a small minority of missing children were abducted, and most of these children were abducted by family members (9 percent of all caretaker missing children). Close to 3 percent of caretaker missing children were ab ducted by a nonfamily perpetrator; among these, an extremely small number (90) were victims of stereo typical kidnapping.

Although the concept of a miss ing child may seem readily under standable, especially in cases that come to media attention, a care ful examination shows that the notion is actually quite complex. A child can become missing because of a variety of cir cumstances, such as running away, being abducted, or being delayed by a mishap on the way home. Even sim ... , lost, or injured events. ■ Missing benign explanation situations. A caretaker missing child was considered to be reported missing if a caretaker contacted the police or a missing children’s agency to locate the child. Note that the category “reported missing” does not include children who were reported to the police for reasons other than locating the missing child, e.g., to report an incident as a crime or simply to recover a child whose whereabouts were known. Not all children who experience qualifying NISMART–2 episodes can be classified as caretaker missing. For example, when a child is abducted by a family member, the caretaker may know very well where the child is but may be unable to retrieve the child. The parent of a runaway child may not know the child’s whereabouts but may not be alarmed or try to find the child. These children would not be counted among the caretaker missing children in NISMART–2 because they fail to meet one or more of the three criteria noted above: the child’s whereabouts must be unknown, the caretaker must be alarmed for at least 1 hour, and the caretaker must attempt to locate the child. In addition, to ensure that minor misunderstandings would not inflate the estimates, those who became missing because of benign reasons were only considered to be missing if police were contacted about the episode. To summarize, NISMART–2 conceptualizes children in terms of three nested classes: The largest set com prises all children with a qualifying NISMART–2 episode who may or may not be missing (e.g., a child runs away from home).3 Within that group, some children meet the additional criteria that classify them as caretaker missing children (the runaway child’s parent notices the child is gone, does not know where the child is, becomes alarmed for at least an hour, and tries to find the child). Finally, within that group of caretaker missing children, a subset meets the further requirement that qualifies the children as reported missing (the parent calls the police or a missing children’s agency to help locate the child). ... Estimates by Type of Episode Table 3 reports the reasons children became missing. Data are shown for all caretaker missing children and for those who were reported missing. Of all caretaker missing children, nearly one-half (48 per cent) were missing because of a runaway/thrownaway episode. More than one-fourth (28 percent) became miss ing as a result of benign explanation circumstances (mis communications or misunderstandings between child and caretaker). Children who were missing because they became lost or injured accounted for 15 percent of all caretaker missing children. Less than one-tenth (9 per cent) of caretaker missing children were abducted by family members, and only 3 percent were abducted by nonfamily perpetrators. ... Rate per 1,000 Children in U.S. 95% Confidence Population Episode Type Estimated Total* Interval† Percent* (N = 70,172,700) Caretaker Missing Children (n = 1,315,600) Nonfamily abduction‡ 33,000§ (2,000–64,000) 3§ 0.47§ Family abduction 117,200 (79,000–155,400) 9 1.67 Runaway/thrownaway 628,900 (481,000–776,900) 48 8.96 Missing involuntary, lost, or injured 198,300 (124,800–271,800) 15 2. ... 3 Missing benign explanation 374,700 (289,900–459,500) 2 ... Reported Missing Children (n = 797,500) Nonfamily abduction‡ 12,100§ ... 340,5 ... A somewhat different picture emerges from the esti mates of children who were reported missing to police or missing children’s agencies. Although runaway/ thrownaway children reflect a substantial minority of reported missing children (45 percent), nearly as many children (43 percent) became missing because of benign reasons. Comparable percentages of reported missing children were missing because they were lost or injured (8 percent) and because they had been abducted by a family member (7 percent). Only a small percentage were missing because of a nonfamily abduction (2 percent). Stereotypical kidnappings. In table 3, the estimates for nonfamily abducted children include primarily crimes involving a modest amount of forced movement or de tention that correspond with the way in which abduction is legally defined in most State ... Children Not Classified as Missing The earlier discussion under “Conceptualizing the Missing Child Problem” notes that children counted as “caretaker missing” or “reported missing” in NISMART–2 were not the only children to experi ence episodes of interest to the study. Some children experienced nonfamily or family abduction episodes or runaway/thrownaway episodes but were neither missing from their caretakers nor reported missing to authori ties. Examples include children who ran away to the homes of relatives or friends, causing their caretakers little or no concern; children who were held by family members in known locations (e.g., an ex-spouse’s home); and children who were abducted by nonfamily perpetrators but released before anyone noticed that they were missing. These children experienced episodes but were not counted as missing children. For each of the five types of episodes, table 7 shows the total number of children who experi enced an episode, the percentage who were classified as caretaker missing, and the percentage who were classified as reported miss ing. As the table shows, all chil dren who experienced missing involuntary, lost, or injured epi sodes and missing benign expla nation episodes were classified as caretaker missing; this is because such episodes involve ... a missing child by definition. Only a little more than half of the children who experienced family and nonfamily abductions and 37 percent of those who experi enced runaway/thrownaway episodes, however, were included in NISMART estimates of care taker missing children. For all types of episodes except missing benign explanation, between one fifth and one-third of children ex periencing episodes were reported missing. (Benign explanation episodes, by definition, involve police contact. The percentage of children reported missing for this type of episode is 91 percent, not 100 percent, because some cases were reported to the police for rea sons other than locating the child.) ... Most of the caretaker missing children became missing because they ran away (48 percent) or because of benign misunderstandings about where they should be (28 per cent). Together, these two reasons accounted for 84 per cent of all children who were reported missing. (This estimated combined percentage was carefully developed to count each child only once. Because some children had more than one type of episode, the estimates in table 3 should not be summed.) This is consistent with the fact that about three-fourths of those who were caretaker missing (or reported missing) were young ... adolescents and teenagers (age 12 and older), an age group with more independent comings and goings than younger children and more conflicts with parents and other caretakers. No significant gender differences were found, but white children were at significantly lower risk of becoming missing. Contrary to the common assumption that abduction is a principal reason why children become missing, the NISMART–2 findings indicate that only a small minority of missing children were abducted, and most of these children were abducted by family members (9 percent of all caretaker missing children). Close to 3 percent of caretaker missing children were ab ducted by a nonfamily perpetrator; among these, an extremely small number (90) were victims of stereo typical kidnapping.

caretakers in 1999, including children who were reported missing and those who were not, is estimated to be 1,315,600. Because this estimate is based on samples, sampling error qualifies its statistical precision. The 95-percent confidence interval indicates that if the study were to be repeated with the same methodology 100 times, 95 of the replications would produce an estimate between 1,131,100 and 1,500,100. The total estimate of a little more than 1.3 million reflects an annual rate of 18.8 children per 1,000 in the general population of children nationwide. 4 The number of missing children who were reported missing in 1999 (i.e., reported to police or missing children’s agencies in order to locate them) was estimated to be 797,500, which is equivalent to a rate of 11.4 children per 1,000 in the U.S. population. Children reported missing to police and other missing children’s agencies represent 61 percent of all children classified as caretaker missing. The diagram accompanying table 2 illustrates the fact that children who were reported missing are a subset of the caretaker missing children. Table 2: Unified Estimates of Caretaker Missing Children and Reported Missing Children In considering these estimates, it is important to recognize that nearly all of the caretaker missing children (1,312,800 or 99.8 percent) were returned home alive or located by the time the study data were collected. Only a fraction of a percent (0.2 percent or 2,500) of all caretaker missing children had not returned home or been located, and the vast majority of these were runaways from institutions who had been identified through the Juvenile Facilities Study. 5(Details on episode outcomes—whether the child was returned home alive or located—are presented in the NISMART–2 episode-specific Bulletins.) Estimates by Type of Episode Table 3 reports the reasons children became missing. Data are shown for all caretaker missing children and for those who were reported missing. Table 3: Reasons Children Became Missing Of all caretaker missing children, nearly one-half (48 percent) were missing because of a runaway/thrownaway episode. More than one-fourth (28 percent) became missing as a result of benign explanation circumstances (miscommunications or misunderstandings between child and caretaker). Children who were missing because they became lost or injured accounted for 15 percent of all caretaker missing children. Less than one-tenth (9 percent) of caretaker missing children were abducted by family members, and only 3 percent were abducted by nonfamily perpetrators. A somewhat different picture emerges from the estimates of children who were reported missing to police or missing children’s agencies. Although runaway/ thrownaway children reflect a substantial minority of reported missing children (45 percent), nearly as many children (43 percent) became missing because of benign reasons. Comparable percentages of reported missing children were missing because they were lost or injured (8 percent) and because they had been abducted by a family member (7 percent). Only a small percentage were missing because of a nonfamily abduction (2 percent). Stereotypical kidnappings. In table 3, the estimates for nonfamily abducted children include primarily crimes involving a modest amount of forced movement or detention that correspond with the way in which abduction is legally defined in most State statutes. Such abductions are rare enough that the estimates of the number of caretaker missing and reported missing children abducted by a nonfamily perpetrator are not very reliable and have very large confidence intervals. Stereotypical kidnappings are the particular type of nonfamily abduction that receives the most media attention and involves a stranger or slight acquaintance who detains the child overnight, transports the child at least 50 miles, holds the child for ransom, abducts the child with intent to keep the child permanently, or kills the child. They represent an extremely small portion of all missing children. (The Law Enforcement Study found that an estimated 115 of the nonfamily abducted children were victims of stereotypical kidnappings and that 90 of these qualified as reported missing.) 6 Multiple episodes. In table 3, children who had multiple types of episodes are included in every row that applies to them. Of the 1,315,600 caretaker missing children, 36,500 (3 percent) experienced more than one type of episode during the year. All of these multiple-episode children experienced a runaway/thrownaway episode and one other type of episode (missing benign explanation for 86 percent of the children, family abduction for 8 percent, and missing involuntary, lost, or injured for 5 percent). Of the estimated 797,500 reported missing children, 31,100 (4 percent) experienced multiple types of episodes. Every reported missing child with multiple episodes experienced a runaway/thrownaway episode and a missing benign explanation episode. Estimates by Age, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity Tables 4, 5, and 6 show the demographic characteristics of missing children. The tables show distributions by age, gender, and race/ethnicity for caretaker missing children and for children who were reported missing to police or missing children’s agencies. The tables also include demographic distributions for all children in the U.S. population, providing a basis for assessing the relative level of risk of becoming caretaker missing (and being reported missing) for children in each demographic group. Age. As shown in table 4, the great majority of missing children were older teenagers (ages 15–17) and young adolescents (ages 12–14). Together, these age groups accounted for about three-fourths of caretaker missing children. The age distribution of reported missing children mirrors that of caretaker missing children. The table also shows that, for nearly all age levels, the percentage in the U.S. child population falls well outside of the 95-percent confidence interval for the study. This means that children age 12 and older had a risk of becoming caretaker missing (and of being reported missing) that was significantly higher than would be expected on the basis of their representation in the U.S. child population, whereas the risk for younger children was significantly lower than would be expected. Table 4: Ages of Missing Children Gender. Table 5 shows that, although boys appear to be somewhat overrepresented among caretaker missing and reported missing children, the U.S. child population percentages fall within the 95-percent confidence intervals. This means that the gender distribution for missing children is not significantly different from the distribution for the U.S. child population. Table 5: Gender of Missing Children Race/ethnicity. White children had a significantly lower risk of being caretaker missing and reported missing than one would expect based on their representation in the overall U.S. child population. Although the percentages of minority children among missing children appear slightly higher than their percentages in the U.S. child population, no single group of minority children had a significantly higher risk of becoming missing. Table 6: Race/Ethnicity of Missing Children Children Not Classified as Missing The earlier discussion under “ Conceptualizing the Missing Child Problem” notes that children counted as “caretaker missing” or “reported missing” in NISMART–2 were not the only children to experience episodes of interest to the study. Some children experienced nonfamily or family abduction episodes or runaway/thrownaway episodes but were neither missing from their caretakers nor reported missing to authorities. Examples include children who ran away to the homes of relatives or friends, causing their caretakers little or no concern; children who were held by family members in known locations (e.g., an ex-spouse’s home); and children who were abducted by

Broadly, a "missing child refers to any youth under the age of 18 whose whereabouts are unknown to his or her legal guardian."10The total annual number of missing children—both reported and unreported—is estimated to be around 1.3 million.11Of these missing children, nearly all were returned home alive or were located; only a fraction of one percent were not. Of those relatively few children who were still missing, the majority were runaways from institutional care.12The most common categories of missing children, from most frequent to least frequent, are as follows: "juvenile runaways," "family abductions," "lost and/or injured children," and "nonfamily abductions."13 ... half of active missing-persons cases.14Three-quarters of missing children are ages 12–17. Male ... female children have a nearly equal likelihood of going missing. Of missing children about 55 percent are White, 20 percent are Black, and 20 percent are Hispanic.15 ... Most missing children (84 percent) are runaways or are missing for benign explanations. The most common categories of missing children are not necessarily those in which the child is at greatest risk. The least common missing-child case is the most dangerous—stranger abductions. However, initially, police may not know if the reason the child is missing is a brief runaway episode, a lost child, a miscommunication about the child's whereabouts, or a stranger abduction, which emphasizes the importance of the initial investigation. ... Runaway and thrownaway juveniles (children forced from their home or abandoned) comprise the most significant portion of missing-person cases.† As many as 1.7 million children run away from home each year, with approximately 20 percent of those cases reported to police. Most runaway episodes last only a day or two (75 percent of such juveniles return home within a week), and most do not leave the local area.19 ... Most abductions of children are perpetrated by noncustodial parents, sometimes referred to as "family abductions."† Over 200,000 children a year (and this number appears to be declining) are victims of family abductions, although only about one-quarter of them were reported to police. More than half of family abductions are perpetrated by the biological father, and an additional 25 percent are perpetrated by the biological mother.38Almost half of the family-abducted children are under the age of 6, and about half are missing for less than a week, with about one-fourth missing for less than a day. Male and female children are equally likely to be the victims in family abductions. The most likely place that abductions occur is their or someone else's home or yard; school/daycare abductions are relatively rare. The majority of the children abducted are with the abductor just before the abduction; typically, in these abductions, the children are not returned to the custodial parent after visits. Family abductions are more likely to occur in the summer. Most of the children are returned (91 percent).39Contributing factors to family abductions may include unresolved conflicts over child-custody issues that make abduction seem a last option. ... Missing children that do not fall within any of the above categories are commonly missing because of miscommunication: they are too young to contact a caretaker; or they are lost, stranded, or injured and therefore unable to contact a caretaker. As many as 200,000 children a year are involuntarily missing from caretakers because they were lost, injured, or stranded. These children are most commonly White male teens who disappeared from wooded areas or parks. An additional nearly 350,000 children are missing for benign reasons; they are not actually lost, injured, abducted, victimized, or runaways. Rather, their cases were basically false alarms.42Most of those missing for benign explanations are teenagers who failed to return home when expected. The reasons for these types of cases (MILI and MBE) can include car trouble or car accidents, inclement weather, poor communication, helping a friend, riding the wrong bus, truancy, or sleeping in unknown places. Most of these children are teenagers, missing for fewer than six hours.43Although these categories of missing children account for far greater numbers than kidnapped or abducted children, less attention has been paid to preventing cases of MILI and MBE children, as opposed to cases of runaway and abducted children. As the popularity of adventures such as hiking, camping, boating, flying, rock climbing, and other outdoor activities increase, police may encounter more of these cases. Children missing for the reasons described here often come from families that are otherwise socially and economically stressed, a confluence of factors that leave such children more vulnerable to going missing.44

County lines is a type of criminal exploitation. Urban gangs persuade, coerce or force children and young people to store drugs and money and/or transport them to suburban areas, market towns and coastal towns. 1 It can happen in any part of the UK. County lines is against the law and a form of child abuse. Children and young people may be criminally exploited in multiple ways. Other forms of criminal exploitation include child sexual exploitation, trafficking, gang and knife crime. County lines gangs are highly organised criminal networks that use sophisticated, frequently evolving techniques to groom young people and evade capture by the police. ... Perpetrators use children and young people to maximise profits and distance themselves from the criminal act of physically dealing drugs. 2 Young people do the majority of the work and take the most risk. ... County lines often overlaps with other forms of abuse and criminal exploitation, such as child sexual exploitation and child trafficking. It can lead to serious physical and emotional harm to young people. 1 > Find out more about child sexual exploitation ... There is a strong link between county lines activity and: - serious violence such as knife and gun crime - the use of substances such as acid as a weapon - homicide. 2 Conflict between rival gangs that are in dispute over who controls an area can lead to serious injury or death for young people who get caught in the wrong place. ... Some children are forced to transport drugs in ways that are invasive and harmful to their bodies. Young people may be forced to swallow bags of drugs to transport them, which could potentially be life threatening. The practice of ‘plugging’ is also common, whereby drugs are inserted into a child’s rectum or vagina. This is a form of sexual abuse and in some cases it can cause a child’s death. 3 ... As well as being used to transport drugs, county lines gangs may sexually abuse and exploit children of any gender. 4 > Find out more about sexual abuse and exploitation occurring alongside child criminal exploitation ... The grooming process involves the gang: - seeking out a child to exploit - observing the child for vulnerabilities - finding out what the child’s needs and wants are - manipulating the child into believing that being in ... gang can fulfil these needs. Once they have ... via a mobile ... Some children are groomed through family members, for example if they have a sibling or relative who is already involved with a county lines gang. County lines gangs offer money and status to attract young people. Children may also be attracted to joining a gang by the prospect of belonging to a ‘family’ that will protect them if their own family feels unstable or unsafe. Once a child is part of a county lines gang their loyalty and commitment will be tested. The gang will begin to trap the child by making them feel powerless to leave. This might include: - threats of violence if they leave - making the child feel like they are betraying their new ‘family’ - telling the child they will get in trouble if they seek help because they have committed a criminal offence. 1 ... is being groomed ... exploited for county lines are ... This includes behavioural signs such as going missing, frequent travel to different locations, being unwilling to explain their whereabouts, changes in mental health and use of drugs and alcohol. ... County lines exploitation may involve children and young people being trafficked to different locations. ... The process of supporting a child or young person to break away from county lines exploitation can be complex. It requires tailored and consistent support, multi-agency working and support from specialist organisations. Young people who are involved with a county lines gang may not accept that they have been exploited. They may also be scared of recriminations if they leave the group. This can lead children and young people to push back when help is offered. Gangs convince young people that there is no way out for them, in order to trap and control them. This means it’s important for adults to reassure young people that there is a way out of gang life and that help is available when they are ready to leave. Young people may finally reach out for help in the event of a major incident or emergency. This might include a serious injury or the threat of serious injury to themselves or someone they know, or if someone they know was killed. If professionals do not act quickly and effectively to intervene at this point, the child may be ‘re-groomed’ or pressured back into the gang. 3 ... Engaging with parents and carers can help protect children and young people who are at risk of or are experiencing county lines exploitation. Parents and carers are often best placed to understand both the needs and strengths of their children. However, professionals should be aware that parents and carers may have fears around: - having their other children ‘taken away’ from them - their child being excluded from school - criminalising their child - recriminations from the county lines gang. 1, 1 It’s also important to remember that county lines exploitation may be happening in the context of wider challenges for the family, and it can also occur within the family.

Criminal exploitation of children and vulnerable adults is a geographically widespread form of harm that is a typical feature of county lines activity. It is a harm which is relatively little known about or recognised by those best placed to spot its potential victims. This guidance is intended to explain the nature of this harm to enable practitioners to recognise ... County lines is a major, cross-cutting issue involving drugs, violence, gangs, safeguarding, criminal and sexual exploitation, modern slavery, and missing persons; and the response to tackle it involves the police, the National Crime Agency, a wide range of Government departments, local government agencies and VCS (voluntary and community sector) organisations. The UK Government defines county lines as: County lines is a term used to describe gangs and organised criminal networks involved in exporting illegal drugs into one or more importing areas within the UK, using dedicated mobile phone lines or other form of “deal line”. They are likely to exploit children and vulnerable adults to move and store the drugs and money and they will often use coercion, intimidation, violence (including sexual violence) and weapons. County lines activity and the associated violence, drug dealing and exploitation has a devastating impact on young people, vulnerable adults and local communities. ... Child criminal exploitation is increasingly used to describe this type of exploitation where children are involved, and is defined as: Child Criminal Exploitation is common in county lines and occurs 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. The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual. Child Criminal Exploitation does not always involve physical contact; it can also occur through the use of technology. Criminal exploitation of children is broader than just county lines, and includes for instance children forced to work on cannabis farms or to commit theft. ... • can affect any child or young person (male or female) under the age of 18 years; • can affect any vulnerable adult over the age of 18 years; • can still be exploitation even if the activity appears consensual; • can involve force and/or enticement-based methods of compliance and is often accompanied by violence or threats of violence; • can be perpetrated by individuals or groups, males or females, and young people or adults; and • is typified by some form of power imbalance in favour of those perpetrating the exploitation. Whilst age may be the most obvious, this power imbalance can also be due to a range of other factors including gender, cognitive ability, physical strength, status, and access to economic or other resources. One of the key factors found in most cases of county lines exploitation is the presence of some form of exchange (e.g. carrying drugs in return for something). Where it is the victim who is offered, promised or given something they need or want, the exchange can include both tangible (such as money, drugs or clothes) and intangible rewards (such as status, protection or perceived friendship or affection). It is important to remember the unequal power dynamic within which this exchange occurs and to remember that the receipt of something by a young person or vulnerable adult does not make them any less of a victim. It is also important to note that the prevention of something negative can also fulfil the requirement for exchange, for example a young person who engages in county lines activity to stop someone carrying out a threat to harm his/her family. ... At least one vulnerable female has been used by a gang from London to sexually service its members and has been subjected to sexual violence. As a result of drugs debts they attempted to kidnap her at least twice and it is believed that they have also trafficked her to London in order to pay off a debt through prostitution. ... • children as young as 12 years old being exploited or moved by gangs to courier drugs out of their local area; 15-16 years is the most common age range • both males and females being exploited • White British children being targeted because gangs perceive they are more likely to evade police detection but a person of any ethnicity or nationality may be exploited • the use of social media to make initial contact with children and young people • class A drug users being targeted so that gangs can takeover their homes (known as ‘cuckooing’). • having prior experience of neglect, physical and/or sexual abuse We do know that county lines exploitation is widespread, with gangs from big cities including London, Manchester and Liverpool operating throughout England, Wales and Scotland. Gangs are known to target vulnerable children and adults; some of the factors that heighten a person’s vulnerability include: • lack of a safe/stable home environment, now or in the past (domestic violence or parental substance misuse, mental health issues or criminality, for example) • social isolation or social difficulties • economic vulnerability • homelessness or insecure accommodation status • connections with other people involved in gangs • having a physical or learning disability • having mental health or substance misuse issues; • being in care (particularly those in residential care and those with interrupted care histories) • being excluded from mainstream education, in particular attending a Pupil Referral Unit. ... A young person’s involvement in county lines activity often leaves signs. A person might exhibit some of these signs, either as a member or as an associate of a gang dealing drugs. Any sudden changes in a person’s lifestyle should be discussed with them. Some potential indicators of county lines involvement and exploitation are listed below, with those at the top of particular concern: • persistently going missing from school or home and / or being found out-of-area; • unexplained acquisition of money, clothes, or mobile phones • excessive receipt of texts / phone calls and/or having multiple handsets • relationships with controlling / older individuals or groups • leaving home / care without explanation • suspicion of physical assault / unexplained injuries • parental concerns • carrying weapons • significant decline in school results / performance • gang association or isolation from peers or social networks • self-harm or significant changes in emotional well-being. ... with local authority social services. If you believe a person is in immediate risk of harm, you should contact the ... If you are aware that a potential victim may have come from / travelled to another area as part of their involvement in county lines, you should include this information in your referral to enable liaison between safeguarding agencies in the different areas. Further information on safeguarding can be found in the Department for Education’s Working Together to Safeguard Children Guidance. If you are worried that a vulnerable person is at immediate risk of harm you should also contact the police: your local public protection officer or, in the case of a child, local children’s protection officer. If you are a designated First Respond er for the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), you should also consider referring any young person or adult you suspect of being a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery to the NRM. Any referral should be after appropriate safeguarding steps have been taken and in light of multi-agen cy discussions. Further information and guidance on county lines exploitation can be found from The Children’s Society. NSPCC and Childline also offer sources of support for young people. Mind is a source of help for those suffering with mental health issues.

Child sexual exploitation - Child criminal exploitation and gangs ... #### Child criminal exploitation and gangs Criminal exploitation is a form of child abuse where children and young people are manipulated and coerced into committing crimes. The most common form of child criminal exploitation is ‘county lines’. This refers to gangs and organised criminal networks involved in exporting illegal drugs around the UK using dedicated mobile phone lines or other forms of a ‘deal line’. Gangs exploit children and vulnerable adults into moving drugs from a hub, normally a large city, into other markets such as suburban areas and market and coastal towns. Gangs will often use coercion, intimidation, violence (including sexual violence) and weapons. Children as young as 12 years old have been criminally exploited into carrying drugs for gangs. This can involve children being trafficked away from their home area, staying in accommodation and selling and manufacturing drugs. This can include: Airbnb and short term private rental properties, budget hotels or the home of a drug user, or other vulnerable person, that is taken over by a criminal gang- this may be referred to as cuckooing. Victims may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual. Child criminal exploitation does not always involve physical contact, it can also occur using technology like social media. ... Gang membership is complex. For some children, it represents little more than a loose social connection - a hashtag for Instagram. Yet this is the exception. The criminal gangs operating in England are complex and ruthless organisations, which use sophisticated techniques to groom children and chilling levels of violence to keep them compliant. They prey upon marginalised children who have often been let down by multiple agencies. As well as gang members, there are many gang associates and others on the periphery, not given the status of membership but who are being groomed and exploited by gangs. Many of these children don’t feel that they have any choice about their situation. All children can fall victim to gangs and criminal exploitation. However, the Children’s Commissioner report, ‘Keeping kids safe. Improving safeguarding responses to gang violence and criminal exploitation’, shows that on the whole gang members are highly vulnerable children with a range of factors increasing their risk of being drawn into gangs. The children at greatest risk are children who have multiple interlinked vulnerabilities – both at the individual level (such as mental health or special educational needs) and the family level (such as abuse and neglect). Gangs exploit children experiencing three particular risk factors: - Risks around their home environment such as domestic abuse, unstable housing, neglect or abuse, substance or alcohol misuse. - Child-level characteristic: special educational needs, poor mental health, being bullied, being excluded from school, being denied CAMHS input. - Children at risk because of a failure of institutions to respond adequately, for example children excluded from school or deprived of much-needed mental health support. Once a child is within a gang, extricating them can be very difficult. While gangs may entice children with money and bribes, once children are involved, they use threats, violence and intimidation to keep children under their control. These children may need a range of interventions, but the single most important thing is for them to have a relationship with at least one trusted adult who can help divert them away from gangs and access other services. Because of this, the children most at risk are those who are isolated and invisible to the authorities, generally let down by multiple agencies.

Girls involved in youth violence: Key findings and recommendations Local Government Association

County Lines becoming more localised National Police Chiefs' Council

Hundreds of children who arrived in the UK and were put up in hotels have gone missing since July 2021. The BBC has spoken to one police force about how many lone teenage asylum seekers it has since found and where they are turning up. Early last year, Sussex Police began to notice a steady increase in missing-children reports coming from a hotel providing temporary accommodation for young asylum seekers in Hove. By June, the number reported by the hotel - which has more than 50 bedrooms and is just a two-minute walk from the seafront - was in double figures. ... The force set up a special unit and to date it has found 68 children who had disappeared from the hotel. The majority were discovered with people known to the individuals, usually family. But some were identified after being arrested for crimes, including supplying drugs. Eight were found in situations in which they could be exploited. One had fled a car wash. Sussex Police continue to search for 69 other children reported missing from the hotel. ... (not his ... and arrived in ... 2022 ... aged over 18 (like him) and families. By May, he had been groomed by a local drug gang, which he told ... lure him into ... - Four hotels in England are contracted to provide temporary accommodation to lone under-18s while they await a place in care - but in 2022 dozens of children began going missing - 440 lone teenage asylum seekers have disappeared from hotels since June 2021 - about 200 still have not been found - 4,600 children - mainly teenage boys, aged16-17 - have been accommodated in the hotels since they opened (95% of all unaccompanied children arriving to claim asylum in the UK are male) - The Home Office says it has no alternative to using the hotels to give unaccompanied asylum-seeking children a roof over their heads due to the rise in dangerous small-boat crossings The Home Office says the vast majority (88%) of the children who have gone missing are Albanian nationals. ... "They don't ... criminals. They are ... The Home Office said it was "determined to stop the use of hotels for all minors". In a statement to the BBC, it said: "The wellbeing of children and minors in our care is an absolute priority. "Robust safeguarding and welfare measures are in place at all temporary hotels to ensure children are safe, secure and supported as we urgently seek placements with a local authority." ... Trying to track down a missing person about whom very little is known is challenging and the large numbers of young asylum seekers going missing from temporary accommodation while they wait for a place in care has prompted Sussex Police to rethink their approach. The force now gathers key information about each of the children arriving at the hotel to give them a better chance of finding them in the event that they were to disappear. "The work almost starts before people go missing," Det Supt Ottery says. "It's always good to be as prepared as we can and make sure that we're off to the ... possible start."

More than 50 of the lone asylum-seeking children who went missing from council care in Kent over a six-year period are unaccounted for, BBC South East can reveal. Figures obtained from Kent County Council show that 52 under-18s disappeared from care and did not return between 2018-19 and 2023-24. KCC says it works closely with Kent Police, the Home Office and carers to reduce the risk of unaccompanied asylum-seeking (UAS) children going permanently missing and keep them safe. ... Roger Gough, leader of Kent County Council, said that any child or young person going missing was a "serious concern" and the council made "every effort to prevent this from happening". "We also work to address factors that can cause them to go missing – such as seeking contact with extended family or friends who may already be in the UK," he said. He added that it was "important to remember these children are not in detention while in our care" and that it was "unlawful to restrict the freedom of any child or young person without the permission of the courts". ... Concerns about missing asylum-seeking children attracted national attention when some disappeared from hotels that were being used to temporarily house them by the Home Office, a policy which they have now ended. The Children's Commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza told a Commons committee this month that some children who had been placed in hotels by the Home Office, outside of council care, were still missing. The charity Every Child Protected Against Trafficking UK (ECPAT UK) said it was concerned unaccompanied asylum-seeking children could be approached by traffickers within the UK. Patricia Durr, the chief executive of the charity, said: "In our work, many of the children who are unaccompanied have been trafficked into the UK, trafficked en route, or trafficked here. "They are separated from home, families, friends and communities and they need more care. "Our concern is that once a child does go missing they are either being exploited, or they will be more vulnerable to exploitation or trafficking."

The Home Office’s “routine” housing of unaccompanied child asylum seekers in hotels is unlawful, the high court has ruled. The charity Every Child Protected Against Trafficking (Ecpat) brought legal action against the government department over the practice of housing unaccompanied children in hotels, claiming the arrangements were not fit for purpose ... In a ruling on Thursday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the routine use of hotels for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children had become unlawful, as the power to place the children in hotels was only intended to “be used on very short periods in true emergency situations”. He told the court in London: “It cannot be used systematically or routinely in circumstances where it is intended, or functions in practice, as a substitute for local authority care.” The judge continued: “From December 2021 at the latest, the practice of accommodating children in hotels, outside local authority care, was both systematic and routine and had become

• Local authorities and central government define ‘missing’ in different ways reflecting differing concerns and agendas. • There is limited attention given to ‘missing’ unaccompanied young people seeking asylum once they turn 18. • The transition to institutional adulthood (at 18 years) greatly increases young people’s anxieties and fears about their futures. Fear of being apprehended and deported drives many young people with no secure status to disengage from services and abscond. • Disengaging from services means for many an abrupt transition into precarity and destitution. Absconding means relying on community and support networks and may lead to forms of exploitation and vulnerability. ... EU country and then be counted again under a different bureaucratic label. This phenomenon may be more widespread than many assume. Data on missing unaccompanied children we collected from Local Authorities in England via a Freedom of Information request (FOI) do not correspond to Home Office data on missing UASC 3. The discrepancy between the FOI responses and Home Office data may be explained by the wide range of definitions of ‘missing’ provided by local authorities. ‘Missing’ for some local authorities was classified as ‘any missing episode’, not necessarily those where a young person remained missing. Whereas for other local authorities ‘missing’ was defined as all contact interrupted or ended with the Home Office. In some cases young people go missing but local authorities may not try too hard to find them, while in other cases, they become destitute and therefore have no practical way of keeping in touch with the Home Office (e.g. no money for transport, no fixed abode, dependent on others for accommodation and unable to make Home Office reporting appointments). Bearing in mind these definitional differences, according to the FOI, the local authorities with the highest percentage of missing children were Warrington Council, Portsmouth City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, while the largest numbers of recorded missing children in absolute terms were Kent County Council (116), Sussex County Council (26) and Essex County Council (17). There are no published national statistics regarding former UASC care leavers who go missing. Most local authorities build their operational definition of ‘missing’ around lack of information on whereabouts, but significant variation exists as to further elements included in the definitions. Local authorities explained that as care leavers are over 18 years of age ‘as they are neither children, nor looked after, such events would not constitute or be reported as a ‘missing’ episode’. The wide definition of missing for former UASC may reflect the difficulty of recording a person who is more than 18 years old as missing with the police. This indicates differing perceptions of vulnerability and risk associated with those who are less than and more than 18 years old. These perceptions of vulnerability are connected to the definition of childhood and echoed in the institutional care of children and young people in need of protection. There was a repertoire of responses to the issue of missing young people in our research with statutory and non-statutory actors working with young ... by their legal status. Young people who were appeal rights exhausted often described violent transitions at 18 (including immediate homelessness; enforced relocation far from their social networks and friendship groups and reduced models and packages of care). “They didn’t even give me like you know one week or two weeks’ notice. The next day I just came there and they put my clothes in a small bag and I took my clothes and just left.” (Dalmat, Albania) Moreover, a number of young people described purposefully disengaging from social care when they received or anticipated a negative outcome from their asylum application. Some young people’s narratives indicate how the decision to remove themselves from the surveillance of statutory services is seen as inevitable. While there is some degree of awareness of the risks of exploitation that are associated with the transition into illegality, these are outnumbered by those associated with a forced return to their country of origin (see Research Brief no. 7). A non-statutory support worker explained how whether or not young people continued to engage with her while ‘under the radar’ depended on what their prospects were: “Sometimes they just go and I don’t hear from them again. But I know they haven’t been removed because I still get letters saying, ‘Can you update this person’s details and where are they?’ Other times yes they will keep in contact with me if we know that they need to get a certain amount of time in the UK before they can make an application again. And that might succeed under the immigration laws for instance. If they just want to be under the radar they may still check in with me now and again or they might not, it really depends on what their prospects ... This finding suggests that current policy discourses surrounding the underlying reasons for children going ‘missing’ (such as being subjected to trafficking) may be over simplified and indicates that in practice, the situation is likely to be more complicated. For young people who receive a Home Office letter dictating their removal and decide to become ‘invisible’, or those who move away and hide in order to avoid receiving the letter – the outcome can be living by illegal means and in constant fear of police and immigration services. Direct and indirect experiences of detention and removal contributed to this anxiety. “I had to go to X (name of place) to sign but I refused it because I said if I get caught (detained) there, no one can help afterwards… and I know so many Afghan people and after 18 that’s what has happened to them… they have been deported. My friend who was studying with me in the same school, same class, that’s what happened to him… and another one I know from the community, that’s what happened to him.” (Kushan, Afghanistan) Many experienced sometimes severe mental health problems including problems with sleep, generalised anxiety and depression. If they had physical health problems they feared going to the hospital and one young person, Ghulam from Afghanistan, spoke of how when he eventually accessed help for his poor health through an NGO, he was found to have severe tuberculosis. Young people talked about how they depended on the good will of others, frequently moving around to find somewhere to stay and often feeling a burden on others. In order to make money to survive and try and contribute to the households of others, they worked cash in hand, in restaurants or leafleting for small companies, usually in exploitative conditions, paid well below the minimum wage and in continuous fear of being reported or apprehended by the police because of their undocumented status. Shamal’s experience as an underpaid and yet resigned cash-in-hand worker was shared by a number of other participants: “Basically they pay me a very low wage because I don’t have my national insurance number. I’m not gonna lie to you I’m gonna be straight forward. I been working cash in hand only 3 days a week. And they give me like 8 hours and every hour they give me like £3.50.” (Shamal, Afghanistan). ... • Protracted legal uncertainty impacts negatively on young people’s health and wellbeing and has potential long term impact on their capacity to integrate in society. • There are crucial transitions when ‘invisibility’ becomes one of the few options left for young people who cannot or refuse to go back to their country of origin. • Disengaging from services means for many an abrupt transition into precarity and destitution which in turn may make them more vulnerable to different forms of exploitation.

Tuesday briefing: The shocking kidnapping of unaccompanied children The Guardian

Missing People is the UK's only charity dedicated to finding missing people, it supports the work of police, Social Services and works in partnership with other agencies. Missing People - for sightings and to report someone missing: - Tel: 116 000 (Freephone) - Text 116 000 - Email 116000@missingpeople.org.uk Runaway Helpline - for young people under 18, to call who are away from home or care: - Tel 116 000 (Freephone) - Text 116 000 - Email 116000@runawayhelpline.org.uk Message Home - for missing adults, allowing them to pass a message home: - Tel 116 000 (Freephone) - Text 116 000 - Email 116000@missingpeople.org.uk ... | Question Q259: Do I have to wait 24 hours before I can report a person missing? Answer There is no rule that states you must wait 24 hours to report a missing person. It depends on the person who is missing, their age, mental state and vulnerability. If the missing person is a child, elderly or a person in vulnerable state, you need to alert the police straight away. If the person is late home or late for an appointment, then it is sensible to try and contact the person or the last place they were, then wait a reasonable amount of time prior to contacting the police. For more information please see below and the websites in Related Information. Missing People is the UK's only charity dedicated to finding missing people, it supports the work of police, Social Services and works in partnership with other agencies. Missing People - for sightings and to report someone missing: Tel: 116 000 (Freephone) Text 116 000 Email 116000@missingpeople.org.uk Runaway Helpline - for young people under 18, to call who are away from home or care: Tel 116 000 (Freephone) Text 116 000 Email 116000@runawayhelpline.org.uk Message Home - for missing adults, allowing them to pass a message home: Tel 116 000 (Freephone) Text 116 000 Email 116000@missingpeople.org.uk |

Missing People is the UK's only charity dedicated to finding missing people, it supports the work of police, Social Services and works in partnership with other agencies. Missing People - for sightings and to report someone missing: - Tel: 116 000 (Freephone) - Text 116 000 - Email 116000@missingpeople.org.uk Runaway Helpline - for young people under 18, to call who are away from home or care: - Tel 116 000 (Freephone) - Text 116 000 - Email 116000@runawayhelpline.org.uk Message Home - for missing adults, allowing them to pass a message home: - Tel 116 000 (Freephone) - Text 116 000 - Email 116000@missingpeople.org.uk

The missing northern Lincolnshire people whose families never got answers Grimsby Live

Families' heartbreak over loved ones missing at Christmas www.irishpost.com

Richey Edwards: New appeal over missing Manic Street Preachers guitarist Sky News

Our county lines guidance for parents and carers will help you spot the signs and understand how to protect your child. ... County lines is a form of criminal exploitation. It refers to gangs using children and vulnerable adults to move, hold and sell drugs across the UK. ... Although children might break the law while involved in county lines, it' ... form of child ... As a parent or carer, you know if something is a change for your child. There's specific behaviour related to county lines it's important to talk to your child and support services about. - Regularly going missing from their school, home or care. - Being aware that they're travelling to unfamiliar locations. - Noticing money, clothes, accessories or mobile phones they've received and been unable to explain why or where they came from. - Having several mobile phone handsets or sim cards. ... If you're worried that criminals are exploiting your child, you should report this to the police. If your child stays away from home, you should report them as missing to the police immediately. If you're worried about your child's safety, you can report these fears to your local Children's Services. ... ## Who you can contact If a child is at immediate risk, call the police on 999. If you're worried about a child but they aren't in immediate danger, you can use the organisations below for help: - Contact your local child protection services. You can find their details on your local council's website. The local authority where the child lives is primarily responsible. Still, it's also good practice to contact the local authority in the area where the child is found, if they've run away or crossed county lines. - Call our Helpline on 0808 800 5000 (08088005000) or email help@nspcc.org.uk ... - Contact the police on 101 for non- ... - You can also contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 (0800555111) - The Children's Society works to stop the criminal exploitation of children, provides support to victims, and campaigns for change. - Catch22 offers services to prevent and stop child exploitation, including a national helpline called SafeCall (run by Missing People) and a County Lines Support and Rescue service. You can reach SafeCall on 116 000 (116000) Early intervention is vital in protecting children from county lines and criminal exploitation. If you're worried, always reach out for help straight away. ... Help for children and young people Call Childline on 0800 1111 (08001111)

FBI and NSPCC alarmed at ‘shocking’ rise in online sextortion of children | Online abuse The Guardian

The Duchess of Edinburgh attends events in Belgium to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse The Royal Family

More than 70 million warnings sent to people seeking child abuse material BBC

Jersey team aims to step in earlier to support vulnerable teenagers The Times Jersey

Child sexual exploitation (CSE) has been a strategic priority, and a key area for practice development, for Barnardo’s for over two decades. Within Wales, Barnardo’s Cymru has worked closely with the Welsh Government since 2005 to support the development of robust policy and practice guidance to address CSE in Wales. Established research and practice evidence demonstrates a strong correlation between children and young people going missing and risk of sexual exploitation. 1 Over the past few years, a series of high-profile prosecutions of cases of CSE have raised public awareness of this crime. Networks of perpetrators who had been abusing children and young people over many years were uncovered in Rotherham, Rochdale, Derby, Sheffield, Manchester and Oxford, leading to an increase in activity across all sectors to improve safeguarding and disrupt perpetrators. This research aims to improve understanding of the nature of the relationship between going missing and CSE, and to improve responses to children and young people at risk. Although this issue has been considered at a UK level, very little research into children and young people who go missing and the link between going missing and risk of CSE has been undertaken in Wales. This research was carried out in North Wales but might usefully inform practice across Wales. ... Recommendation 1: Information and guidance should be developed for parents, carers and residential staff on the best ways to respond to children and young people when they return from a missing episode. Recommendation2: A Welsh Government child sexual exploitation guide, developed with young people, to help children and young people stay safe and get help is already available. 2 Consideration should be given to the development of a similar guide to provide children and young people with information about the risks of going missing. This could include information on where to go for help and support with the things that may be making them think about going missing and during periods when they are missing. Recommendation 3: Robust and sustained programmes of direct intervention and therapeutic support should be provided to children and young people at significant risk of or abused through CSE, as part of a care and support plan to secure their safety and recovery. ... Between 2006 and 2008, Barnardo’s Cymru developed and piloted the Sexual Exploitation Risk Assessment Framework (SERAF). The framework assists professionals in identifying children and young people at risk of CSE, so that risk can be prevented and children and young people better protected. The pilot study identified 129 cases of children and young people as at significant risk of sexual exploitation, which represented 9% of a sample of 1,486 cases drawn from social services and youth offending teams across three local authorities. 4 The Barnardo’s Cymru Seraf service was established in 2006 to provide specialist support to children and young people at risk of or abused through CSE, and to provide multi-agency training and awareness raising for professionals. ... The North Wales police missing/CSE service responds when children go missing from the North Wales police area. The service comprises of two missing co-ordinators, line managed by a police detective chief inspector from the Public Protection Unit, and three Barnardo’s Seraf practitioners, managed by Barnardo’s Cymru staff. There are three missing/CSE multi-agency strategic task groups in place, covering Gwynedd and Anglesey, Conwy and Denbighshire, and Wrexham and Flintshire. All children and young people returning home from a missing episode receive a visit from the police, who carry out a ‘safe and well’ check. If a child or young person goes missing on three or more occasions, a missing strategy meeting will be called. Seraf practitioners carry out return home interviews with children and young people who are looked after and those who have already been identified as at risk of CSE. A CSE strategy meeting will be called in relation to a child or young person where further evidence of risk is identified. The Seraf practitioners also deliver a 12-week risk awareness programme as part of this service. This is delivered on a one-to-one basis and young people are referred following a CSE strategy meeting. ... 3: A Welsh Government child sexual exploitation guide, developed with young people, to help children and young people stay safe and get help is already available. 16 Consideration should be given to the development of a similar guide to provide children and young people with information about the risks of going missing. This could include information on where to go for help and support with the things ... Recommendation 4: Robust and sustained programmes of direct intervention and therapeutic support should be provided to children and young people at significant risk of or abused through CSE, as part of a care and support plan to secure their safety and recovery. ... more entrenched in CSE.’ Practitioners were able to give examples of the ways in which the information they got from young people could be used to inform safeguarding responses: ‘We would never have had that information otherwise at all… It’s for development and safeguarding… it might identify hot spots that we can target or a particular person that we need to target and disrupt, we have had loads come back from it – it’s been really, really positive.’ Practitioners also said that it was important that police officers who conduct the ‘safe and well checks’ on children who have returned from being missing but are not looked after or already identified as at risk of CSE are equipped to ‘ask the right questions’. As part of the North Wales police missing/CSE service, some young people are referred to a 12-week intervention programme delivered by Seraf workers. The intervention aims to reduce the number of missing episodes and is a targeted response to children and young people assessed as at mild or moderate risk of CSE through a SERAF assessment. The programme involves working with young people to improve their understanding of safe, healthy and appropriate relationships, keeping safe and recognising the signs of grooming and CSE. Seraf practitioners reported that the intervention gets some positive results with young people assessed as at mild or moderate risk of CSE, including reductions in the number of missing episodes, positive engagement and further disclosure of intelligence. However, respondents also raised concerns about the suitability of a 12-week intervention as a response to young people at significant risk of or abused through CSE, who need a more intensive response: ‘Twelve weeks with a young person who has experienced two years of being exploited… you are not even going to scratch the surface. I would argue that you would need a minimum of 12 months to even start addressing the issues for that young person.’ ‘A lot of those 12 weeks will be just about building a relationship, so how much work can you do in 12 weeks? You can maybe… give them some strategies and tools or techniques… but it depends how vulnerable that young person is... if they have had experiences and difficulties then you are talking about long-term therapy really… to try and change the mind-set of a young person.’ There were also concerns about ongoing, managed support at the end of the 12-week intervention and about lack of capacity as more children and young people at risk are identified: ‘There is only so much that [the Seraf practitioner] can do … she is available to do specific pieces of work for up to 12 weeks… that’s not going to target everybody is it? There is going to come a point where she is going to have a waiting list. So I do think that more specialist workers like that would be needed definitely.’

Record number of young in the UK ‘at risk of exploitation’ this summer | Children The Guardian

£25 million injection to help ‘life-changing’ children’s services GOV.UK

Police 'too slow' to recognise exploitation of girls in Bristol The Guardian

County Lines becoming more localised National Police Chiefs' Council

Criminal exploitation of children, young people and vulnerable adults for the supply of drugs, and transportation of the associated money and weapons, has a devastating impact on victims, families and local communities but is often not recognised by those who are best placed to spot it. This guidance is intended to explain the nature of this harm to enable practitioners to recognise its signs and respond appropriately so that victims and potential victims get the protection and support they need. ... “County lines” is a violent and exploitative form of drug distribution. A common feature of county lines is the exploitation of children, young people and vulnerable adults who are instructed to deliver and/or store drugs, and associated money or weapons, to dealers or drug users, locally or in other counties. ... British Transport Police identified a child at a train station who was avoiding coming to police attention. Grounds to stop and search were formed and it was established that the child had been missing for a number of days. He was in possession of two mobile phones and some Vaseline with a large amount scooped out of it, as well as some cash. The child later told officers that a ball of drugs which was wrapped in tape had been inserted into his anus. The child was taken to hospital and required surgery to repair the internal damage. The child described being exploited and intimidated to deal drugs in a market town and that threats had been made to his family, causing him to feel trapped to continue. The child was offered a rescue service and ongoing support from a voluntary sector organisation. Children’s services and the other agencies in the local authority have supported the whole family through the child protection framework. The investigation into this child’s exploitation has led to the charging and remanding of several adults and further children identified who were also being exploited. ... Any child, young ... or vulnerable adult could be a victim of county lines exploitation as exploiters continue to adapt who they target to avoid ... • Age: 15-17 year olds make up the majority of the vulnerable people involved in county lines but children of primary school age and adults are also known to be targeted (National County Lines Coordination Centre). ... • Location: county lines are widespread nationally, in rural and urban areas, and while they can involve the movement of drugs across county borders from one area of the UK to another, some lines supply the drugs market locally, within the same town, city or county in which they originate. County lines grooming can take place in a range of settings, including in homes, public spaces, schools and universities, prisons and youth offender institutions as well as online. ... • going missing from school or home ... being found in ... they have no ... Any child, young person or vulnerable adult who you think may be at risk of county lines exploitation requires a safeguarding response. ... • National County Lines Coordination Centre, County Lines Awareness Video – a 10 minute video created in partnership with Sketchups, discussing the county lines methodology and how this is impacting children, young people and vulnerable adults, partners, law enforcement and society. • The Children’s Society, #LookCLoser exploitation awareness campaign – funded by the Home Office and run in partnership with the National County Lines Coordination Centre and British Transport Police, which asks everyone to play a role in spotting the signs of county lines and other forms of child exploitation and taking action to ensure these children get help. • The Children’s Society, County lines and criminal exploitation toolkit – toolkit for supporting young people who are at risk of or being trafficked for the purpose of criminal exploitation. ... Support for victims Professionals can refer victims and families to the following Home Office-funded specialist support services: • Catch22 County Lines Support and Rescue – a specialist support and rescue service in London, West Midlands, Merseyside and Greater Manchester for young people up to the age of 25 and their families who are criminally exploited through county lines. • Missing People’s SafeCall – a confidential and anonymous helpline and support service for young people and family members in England and Wales that are affected by county lines and criminal exploitation. The service also provides confidential support and advice for professionals in relation to their work with an exploited young person or family. Call or text 116000 for free, 9am to 11pm, 7 days a week. ... • St Giles Trust • The Children’s Society • NSPCC

County Lines & Child Exploitation | The Children's Society # County lines and child criminal exploitation Children as young as six are being forced to carry and sell drugs far away from their homes. They are made to skip school, sleep in drug dens, keep secrets from their loved ones. They are treated as criminals when they often feel trapped in a hopeless situation. Enough is enough. County lines and child exploitation must stop. We work hard to end this type of abuse and give those who have been exploited a chance for a better future. ## How many young people are caught up in county lines? 46,000 children in England are thought to be involved in criminal groups. There is likely many more. 84% of parents are worried about county lines in their area. 4,000 teenagers are being criminally exploited in London alone. ... We work hard to stop criminal exploitation of children and make sure it doesn’t define a young person’s future. Young people who have been exploited come to us and we make sure they're treated as victims, not criminals. This distinction is especially important during teenhood, when exploitation is often mistaken for choice. We help them rebuild their trust and make sure they're not targeted by criminal groups again. ## #LookCloser ... Our #LookCloser campaign works with the British Transport Police and National County Lines Coordination Centre to help people pick up on the signs of child exploitation and learn how to report it. ... Our Project Pathfinders programme is a project working across Bedfordshire, to offer one-to-one support to young people aged 10-25 who are impacted by exploitation, serious violence and harm. The service offers young people access to trusted, trained and experienced professionals, in safe spaces. Project Pathfinder specialists work alongside Police Missing Teams, probation services and multi-agency panels ensuring a coordinated, trauma-informed response. By doing this, young people can find sustained support and reduced harm. What is county lines? County lines is a form of criminal exploitation that targets young people during teenhood. It is more prevalent in the UK than you might think. It's not just a 'big city problem' that affects young people from a certain age group or background. ## Preventing exploitation Preventing exploitation Our Prevention Programme empowers professionals and the public to help keep children safe. In our first year people we trained said they felt more confident in spotting the signs and responding to cases of county lines and criminal exploitation. We focus on how public spaces like bus and train stations, fast food outlets, shopping centres, roadside services and hotels may be places where exploitation is visible. We talk to commuters, coach drivers and railway staff about how to identify children being exploited. Through this project, we have identified potential victims and helped them to escape dangerous situations. We now work alongside the British Transport Police, delivering workshops across the country. Through our training, officers are less likely to treat the child as a criminal, and more likely to help them get the right support. ## Prevention Programme impact 13,363 professionals, including police, took part in our Prevention Programme 93% of them felt better able to support young people afterwards ## Are you worried about a child being criminally exploited? If you think a young person is being exploited call 101 or 999 if you are worried they could be in immediate danger. You can also call the NSPCC on 0808 800 500 to gain expert advice and support if you're concerned about a child. If you are concerned about a child’s welfare, contact your local social care department. We also have a guide for parents who may be concerned about their child being caught up in county lines. What is financial

### Missing Persons Statistical ... Below are statistical bulletins published by the UK Missing Persons Unit, outlining the extent and nature of reports made to British Police on an annual basis. Police forces in England and Wales are required to share this data as part of the 2009 Code of Practice on the Collection of Missing Persons Data. ... 2024-25 UKMPU Annual Data Report ... 2023-24 UKMPU Annual Data Report 2022-23 UKMPU Statistical Report 2022-23 UKMPU Annual Data Report ... U Statistical Report ... 2018-19 Missing Persons Statistical Report 2018-19 Missing Persons Data Report 2017-18 Missing Persons Statistical Report 2017-18 Missing Persons Data Report 2016-17 Missing Persons Data Report (Excel) 2016-17 Missing Persons Data Report (PDF) 2015-16 Missing Persons Data Report 2014-15 Missing Persons Data Report ... 2012-13 Missing Persons Data Report 2011-12 Missing Persons Data Report 2010-11 Missing Persons Data Report 2009-10 Missing Persons Data Report

Statistical Tables for the Missing Persons Data Report 2018/2019 Website: missingpersons.police.uk Contact email: ukmpu@nca.gov.uk ... Table A1: Number of calls recorded by police forces in the UK 2013-2019 Child = anyone under the age of 18 (at the time they went missing)Table A2: Number of missing incidents recorded by police forces in the UK 2014-2019 Adult = anyone aged 18 and over (at the time they went missing)Table A3: Number of missing individuals recorded by police forces in the UK 2014-2019 ... Table G1: Unidentified cases notified to UK Missing Persons Unit 2018/19Table G2: Outstanding Unidentified Cases

National Crime Agency: An inspection of effectiveness and efficiency Criminal Justice Inspectorates

There are just over 65,000 children in care in England. Most of these children live in foster care but around 7% of children in care live in one of England’s 1,810 children’s homes. 1 Many have had difficult starts to their lives and have experienced abuse or neglect. As a consequence, these children are often extremely vulnerable and easy prey for predatory adults exploiting the gaps in the systems put in place to keep them safe. 10,000 children are estimated to go missing from care in a year. 2 When these children run away they are in great danger of being physically or sexually abused or exploited. As children in care – foster care or residential care – are three times more likely to run away than other children 3, agencies’ understanding of, and response, to this issue are critical. Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the care and support received by children who go missing from care. In response to these concerns, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked After Children and Care Leavers called a parliamentary Inquiry to examine these issues more closely. They took evidence from children who have run away, ministers, national agencies such as the ... Examples of good practice and how the care system can often make a positive difference to children who have been neglected by their parents were shared with the Inquiry. But the Inquiry also heard that too many older children are placed in poor quality and unsuitable care placements. And, almost half of all children in children’s homes (46%) are placed many miles from home 8. The statistics of the sheer numbers of very vulnerable children living so far away from home are shocking and the Inquiry has seen evidence that one local authority placed every single child in its care outside its boundary. 9 This is despite evidence clearly showing that being placed a long way from family and friends is often a factor in causing children to run away. 10 ... What has come through loud and clear to the Inquiry is that far too many of the vulnerable children who go missing from care are being failed by the very people and systems that are supposed to protect them. Trafficked children from abroad are particularly being let down and their needs ignored because the authorities view child trafficking as an immigration control issue. Hundreds of them disappear from care every year and the majority are never found again. ... Children in care are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. They have often experienced abuse, neglect or trauma. As a consequence, when they go missing, they are in great danger of being physically or sexually abused or exploited. Given that children in care are three times more likely to run away than other children 12, agencies’ understanding of, and ... During the course of the Inquiry, the panel was told of ... shortcomings in the data collected on children who run away from care. The children’s minister, Tim Loughton MP, admitted that it was impossible to know the true extent of the problem as the data collected by police, care services and Ofsted was “raw and erratic” 13. Indeed, the Department for Education recorded only 930 14 instances of children going missing from care last year, whilst police data showed an estimated 10,000 individual children going missing from care in a year. 15 This is a startling discrepancy and severely hampers agencies’ and professionals’ ability to effectively intervene and protect vulnerable children. The Inquiry also heard the quality and stability of care placements was a key issue. It heard that many older children with complex needs are placed in poor quality and unsuitable care placements, and often a long way from home, family and friends. The Inquiry found that half of all children in children’s homes are living outside their own local authority, despite evidence which shows that this is often a major factor in causing them to run away 16 and goes against the duties placed on local authorities to meet the needs of children within their local authority. 17 ... Trafficked children from abroad are particularly being let down and their needs ignored because the authorities view child trafficking as an immigration control issue. Hundreds of them disappear from care every year, many within 48 hours and often before being registered with children’s services. The majority of these children are never found again. The Inquiry has shown how the system is far from fit for purpose for the thousands of children who go missing from care every year. It needs an urgent rethink. Going missing is a key indicator that something is not right in a child’s life. It must be seen as a cry for help and always trigger early help. Many of our society’s most vulnerable children are given care and support that falls dramatically short of what we would expect for our own children and what is needed to keep them safe. ... 5,000 children cared for in children’s homes averaging £200,000 per child. 23 2. A local authority performance ‘scorecard’ should be introduced to assess the care and protection of the 10,000 estimated to go missing from care in a year. 3. Urgent action on “out of area placements” to reduce the number of children living outside their own local authority, despite evidence which shows that this is often a major factor in causing them to run away and putting them at risk. ... How many children and young people are reported missing from care? 3. The local authority with responsibility for a child is required to report on whether they have run away for more than 24 hours to the Department of Education (DfE) once a year 27. Data for 2011 shows that 930 individual children went missing. 28 Using this measure of going missing for over 24 hours, police figures suggest 17,000 incidents and 5,000 individual children going missing form care every year. 4. The Inquiry heard persuasive evidence of the risks ... • It is estimated that 60% of suspected child victims of trafficking in local authority care go missing. 42 • Almost two thirds of trafficked children are never found. 43 • Most victims go missing within one week of being in care, many within 48 hours and often before being registered with social services. • One of the reasons many non-British trafficked children go missing from care is that they are groomed so effectively by their traffickers that the children are so terrified of what might happen to them or their families if they break their bond or tell the authorities that they run back to their traffickers. ... 26. The Inquiry also heard how many children and young people are given little time to prepare for moving from one care placement to another. Sadly, it also often means that they are provided with little information about where they are going in advance of being moved, such as how many other children they are going to live with and how old those children are. 58 Practitioners told us that this can be a reason young people run away – it is the only way in which they can exercise control over their own lives. As Richard Haigh, Programme Manager, The Children’s Society, put it “These are young people who have no power in any area of their lives, and one of the things they do have power is, ‘you know what, I will come back when I feel like it’”. 59 ... 45. The practice of placing a child or young person for whom one local authority has corporate parental responsibility in a care placement within another local authority is known as an ‘out of area’ or ‘cross-boundary’ placement. Evidence submitted to the Inquiry suggests that being placed a long way from family and friends is often a factor in causing them to run away and cross-boundary placements often have a detrimental impact on the young person. 76

| 1.3 | The aim of the protocol is to assist practitioners across all agencies to develop robust responses to children who run away and go missing. This will include preventing the child suffering harm and recovering them to a place they are safe as soon as possible. | ... 1.6 While the individual circumstance of each episode needs to be considered, children who run away are at a heightened risk of being victims of crime, being involved in crime, being involved in substance misuse, or being exploited. Additionally, research shows that the level of risk to the individual child escalates with each episode they go missing and repeat episodes have been identified as a significant indicator of high risk to the child ... the Philomena ... 7.2 When the whereabouts of a child is suspected, or becomes known, it is the responsibility of the parent/carer to arrange for the child’s return where possible, unless to do so would place them at risk. In exceptional circumstances, the police, in conjunction with children’s services, may assist in the return of the child where necessitated. ... 8.1 When a child is located or has returned home of their own accord, a quality ‘Found Debrief’ (safe & well check) will be undertaken by the police or in some exceptions, another professional where appropriate, as soon as possible. The purpose of the check is to establish whether the child has suffered any harm, to confirm where they have been and who with and to provide the child with an opportunity to disclose any offences committed by them, or against them. As much information as possible should be gathered to help prevent further missing episodes, and to safeguard the child where necessary. ... 9.1 Statutory guidance on children who go missing (2014) states that when a child goes missing, they should be offered an independent return interview. 9.2 In Stoke-on-Trent, the completion of return interviews is delivered by specialist RHI Workers within the Local Authority who conduct all return interviews for children up to 18 years old living in Stoke-on-Trent including children who are Looked after by Stoke on Trent Local Authority placed outside of the city (but excluding Children Looked After by other Local Authorities living in Stoke on Trent). ... • Provide independent, non-judgmental, confidential and child- centered return home support for all vulnerable children who go missing, in spaces where they feel safe and able to talk. • Develop prevention and risk reduction strategies alongside children who regularly go missing including safety planning and addressing wider risk factors such as exploitation, drug and alcohol misuse and domestic abuse. ... 9.5 The return interview should be carried out within 72 hours of the child being located or returning from the missing episode. This is particularly important if they have been missing before and/or if there are risk indicators suggesting potential exploitation, involvement in crime or if the child has been harmed. ... | 10.1 | When any child goes missing they are at risk, however these risks can increase when they have gone missing for an extended period, they have gone missing on a number of occasions or there are particular risks associated with their periods missing from | | --- | --- | | | home (e.g. sexual exploitation; criminal activities; substance use; self-harm, etc.). | ... , 5 and 9 is ... 11.3 Missing Intervention meetings should take place in the event of repeat episodes of children going missing from care and home and should be held within five working days. The meetings should be chaired by the most appropriate person from the local authority as detailed below. It is the responsibility of the appropriate person within the Local Authority to also arrange these meetings. These meetings should take place within 10 working days of the missing episode that triggered the meeting. ... 11.9 The meeting should try to identify any ‘push’ or ‘pull’ factors, and in the missing person’s welfare and circumstances. In the case of ‘pull’ factors it may be necessary to target those in the community who are felt to harbour the missing person or exploit them through crime, exploitation or drugs. The police should consider all disruption tools available to them in this situation e.g., Child Abduction Warning Notices (CAWNs) etc. See Appendix 1. Consideration should also be given as to whether a National referral Mechanism referral should be undertaken ... | • | Children where the risks involved in even a single future-missing episode is very | | --- | --- | | | high | | • | Children where it has been identified that immediate safeguarding action is | | • | necessary to ensure the well-being of the person A quick succession of missing episodes eradicating the need for 90 days to elapse | | • | Children where there is an extended duration of missing episode(s) – these meetings need to be considered from the third day of an active missing episode when the child is missing | ... • Whether the child should return to that placement when located; ... | 14.4 | When a child’s whereabouts is not known, and there are no immediate risks or concerns, care staff are expected to complete necessary checks. Part 3 of the protocol should be completed along with checks with known associates, addresses and hotspots included on part 2. If child is not located by care staff, then care staff should | ... 15.1 Trigger Plans are a Policing tool created to assist officers when investigating a repeat missing child, the plan should inform Police of any known risks and concerns, associations and places the child frequents. The Trigger plan should also provide officers with fast-track actions and safeguarding information to allow an effective tactical response when dealing with a missing investigation. This will enable officers to protect themselves and others from significant harm. ... | 16.3 | Where children, who are at risk of going missing, are placed outside of their home authority area, arrangements should be made to notify the host Police Force and Local Authority of the risks, safety planning and any other relevant documentation | | | (Philomena Protocol/Trigger Plan). | ... 17.1 Where the police or other agencies assess that a child is suffering, or likely to suffer significant harm, a referral is made to the Integrated Front Door team (IFD) on 01782 235100 or to the out of hours Emergency Duty Team (EDT) on 01782 234234 out of hours. ... 17.3 Where no onward referral to the IFD is made, the police are still obliged to notify the missing episode to the relevant Local Authority. In Stoke-on- Trent, when a missing notification is received, IFD determine if this meets criteria for a referral to children’s social care and further assessment and if not then record contact on the information system (Liquid logic) as missing notification. If a child is not open and has been missing for longer than 24 hours they should be open for an assessment to ensure they are safe and found. ... • Expectations of the parent or care provider e.g. at which point the police will be notified; what processes will follow an incident; who will collect a child if they are missing; details of who conducts immediate assessments on their return, and arrangements for return interviews. • Agreements around rules for staying overnight at friend’s houses or going on trips. NB: For children in care this is frequently raised as a major issue by young people and Local Authority Circular (2004) 4, suggests that “decisions on overnight stays should normally be delegated to foster carers and residential care staff. Arrangements for such decisions should be written into the Placement Plan or equivalent.” There is no statutory duty for DBS checks to be carried out on adults in a private household where a child may stay overnight and so restrictions should only be placed on Looked After Children if there are exceptional circumstances.

Young people run away both from home and from substitute care placements, such as foster care or ... homes. Most decide to leave on their own or choose not to ... when expected, but in some cases, their parents or guardians tell them to leave or do not allow them to ... (such young people are often referred to as “thrownaway ... A runaway episode refers to an overnight stay away from home, except in the case of young children, who can be in danger ... time. Runaways ... those who voluntarily go missing—were once believed to be youth seeking adventure or rebelling against ... values and the ... of their parents; more ... , runaways ... been regarded as victims of dysfunctional families, ... , and social service ... argued for eliminating ... tends to lead ... to treat the occurrence ... In fact, runaways and thrownaways constitute the most significant portion of missing-person cases. 2 As many as 1.7 million children run away from home each year, with approximately 20 percent of those cases reported to police. Most runaway episodes last only a day or two (75 percent of such young people return home within a week), and most do not leave their local area. 3 ... These difficulties notwithstanding, a 2019 report from the Congressional Research Service found that approximately 700,000 youth ages 13 to 17 had experienced homelessness within a 12-month period because they were sleeping in places not meant for habitation, in shelters, or with others while lacking alternative living arrangements. Only about one-third of these young people were actually “missing,” meaning that their parents or caretakers did not know where they were and were concerned about their absence. Only about one-fifth of all runaway episodes were reported to police. 4 Some parents do not report runaway episodes to police because they know where their children are or because they do not think the police are needed to resolve the issue. 5 Others do not report runaway episodes because they want to avoid police involvement or because they had a negative experience when previously reporting to police. 6 ... Youth in substitute care (e.g., foster care, group homes) are more likely to run away than those who live at home with a parent or guardian. The chances of youth in care running away are highest in the first few months after placement, and older children are more likely to run away than younger ones. 13 Youth who run away from substitute care are more likely to run away repeatedly than youth who run away from home. 14 Although they are only a small proportion of the total number of youth who go missing, those who run away from care consume a disproportionate amount of police time and effort. 15 Those who run away from care also tend to stay away longer and travel farther away than those who run away from home. 16 ... - Few jurisdictions have ... facilities for placement once runaways are taken into ... custody. - Processing ... consume significant amounts of time. - Police might perceive runaway cases as less serious than some other public safety threats. - Some police believe parents and substitute care providers want police to act as disciplinarians or security guards. - Runaway cases may be frustrating when neither the young people nor their parents want them to return. - Young people often run away again shortly after police return them home. ... The triggers underlying a runaway episode from foster care or a group home may be different from those underlying a runaway episode from home. When youth in care do not have strong emotional ties to their caretakers, they often find it easier to leave. 22 Young people run away from care to - return home or to their neighborhoods to spend time with friends, romantic partners, and family; 23 - get attention or provoke a reaction—to confirm that caretakers care about them and they are wanted; 24 - escape crowded facilities or seek privacy; 25 - protest inadequate service or attention from social workers; 26 - protect themselves from bullying or sexual harassment by other residents; 27 - escape abuse by staff;2 8 - resist imposed limits, particularly as many young people in care come from homes with few limits. 29 Young people in the foster care system are often shuttled among multiple placements. These disruptions can cause them to feel disempowered and detached and may lead to runaway episodes. 30 The substitute care placement’s culture or environment may also create an incentive to run away. Placements lacking structure and activities and those with overwhelmed staff who do not exercise their authority properly have higher rates of runaways than facilities with strong leadership, staff support, and young people involved in activities and setting rules. 31 ... About one-fifth of runaways return within 24 hours, and after one week, three-quarters of all runaways have returned home or to care. 43 Less than 1 percent of runaways never return. Even when their absences are short, runaways are still at higher than risk of harm than other young people, particularly if they are not staying in a safe location. ... Most runaways eventually return to their homes, placements, or another safe alternative. Sometimes they return on their own; sometimes they are located by a parent, guardian, friend, or relative and convinced to return; sometimes they are apprehended by police and brought home; and other times, their return is negotiated by a shelter or other social service working on their behalf. They may return with the hope of reconciling or because they are tired of their stressful life on the street. 57 Although shelters and other social services may negotiate the young person’s return, families rarely receive the comprehensive services needed to resolve the issues causing the child to flee in the first place. 58 Some runaways do not want to return home and avoid contact with services and authority figures so they are not forced to do so. Similarly, some parents blame the young people for running away and do not recognize their own contributions to the problem. 59 In these situations, automatic or immediate reunification may place the young person at risk of continued harm. ... The majority of missing Native American young people are runaways, 60 though the vast majority of those who are reported missing to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) are located and returned home. ... own law enforcement are the primary responders to a report that a ... away from home or other residential ... jurisdiction. If further investigation indicates foul ... , or at ... able to get assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), local sheriff ... or city police.

Missing children (those under the age of 18) are recognised as those “who spend time away from where they ought to usually live, without the consent of parents or carers, or because they have been forced to leave by parents or carers” (Biehal & Wade, 2002: 6). In 2020/21, 47,870 children were reported missing, with an average of 2.9 missing incidents a year, demonstrating the extent of repeat missing episodes (National Crime Agency [NCA], 2021). This figure is identified through the number of individuals recorded as missing compared to the number of incidents reported to the police, calculating the repeat episodes. According to some reports, repeat missing episodes are recognised as three or more missing incidents within a 90-day window (Shalev Greene & Hayden, 2014; Sidebottom et al., 2020), and are more common in children than adults (Biehal et al., 2003), and each year, repeat episodes range from 37 to 65 percent of all missing children’s reports (NCA, 2021; UK Missing Persons Unit, 2021). Repeat missing children (RMC) pose significant demands on police forces in England and Wales for their resources, personnel, and associated investigative costs, thought to estimate fourteen percent of routine police time and around £2000 per investigation (Babuta & Sidebottom, 2020; College of Policing, 2015; Smith & Shalev Greene, 2014; Wade, 2015). These demands extend to health providers, social services, and youth worker provisions, and Wade (2015) estimates the total cost to be more than £300 thousand a year. ... The current focus on repeat missing children (RMC) from residential care is justified by their higher rates of going missing each year. Children in residential care have an average of six missing episodes a year, compared to 2.6 episodes for children living with their parents/guardians (Baker & Hunter, 2018). Further, Tansill’s (2021) thesis identified a 20 times higher risk of going missing repeatedly for children in residential care. Similar findings have been reported in Hutchings et al. (2019) and Rees (2011). Other figures estimate that one in ten children in residential homes go missing each year, compared to one in 200 children who live with their parents/guardians (National Crime Agency [NCA], 2019). These figures justify the focus on children missing from residential care, given that only one percent of children reside in care, yet they represent 30 percent of all missing child reports (Hayden & Goodship, 2015). The concern, and focus of this paper, is the repeat missing episodes for children in all forms of residencies, including foster and kinship care, and with their parents/guardians. While the rates of children missing from foster care are not specified in the above statistics or academic discussions, Hayden and Goodship (2015) suggest that repeat episodes are common among these children. As the statistics infrequently reference the type of home environment the child is missing from, the patterns are difficult to ascertain (Shalev Greene & Hayden, 2014). Not differentiating between the type of placement poses difficulties in understanding risk and harms for children while missing, and the role/influence of their home environment. ... One example of multi-agency working specifically sought to ensure that Return Home Interviews (RHIs) were conducted, with information disclosed being shared with relevant agencies to ensure a continuation of support (Hill et al., 2016). The scheme was introduced in 2009 by the NPCC’s Missing Children’s Service and was specifically focused on supporting children missing from home, or those with no prior involvement with social services (Hill et al., 2016). This is the only multi-agency scheme identified to support children missing from non-residential care. This scheme was deemed successful because the RHIs were completed and the 152 children who accessed the service over a one-year period were appropriately signposted for further support (Hill et al., 2016). However, it is unclear whether these children were experiencing repeat missing episodes and the type of home environment they reside in (with parents/guardians, kinship, or foster care) was not specified. ... This scoping review sought to explore the prevalence of RMC, how risks and harms are identified for children missing repeatedly from different residential types (e.g., residential care, foster and kinship care), and which strategies have been identified, implemented, and evaluated in practice to reduce episodes and harms. The primary focus of the paper was considering the studies which have identified and explored the influence of the home environment. A PRISMA (2020) scoping review identified 76 articles for discussion, which centred upon the potential for harms experienced while missing, and this predominantly focused on discussions of criminal and/or sexual exploitation of the child (Beckett et al., 2015; SEU, 2002). Other studies recognised the need for effective-multi-agency working initiatives and schemes to reduce repeat occurrences, mitigate harm, and provide ongoing support for children (APPG, 2012; 2016; 2019; Ofsted, 2013; Wade, 2015). Despite this call from both academics and practitioners, the main finding is that the strategies that are implemented are quite sporadic, and not widely implemented (e.g., localised to only one force). The successful MASH example from Wade’s (2015) study would address some of the challenges within multi-agency working, yet it was only implemented in one force area. There seems to be some limitations in areas of best practice being shared across local authorities and policing regions, with perhaps some tendency to patch their existing mechanisms rather than identifying new prevention opportunities. This was particularly evident in the Return Home Interviews (RHIs) and safe and well checks. ... RHIs remain the primary mechanism for debriefing children upon their return, but they can still be refused, and these rates were highest among children in residential care (Boulton et al., 2022). One explanation for this could be the requirement to disclose or discuss sensitive or embarrassing information. Children in residential care may have built up relationships with their carers and social workers, so someone known to them may hinder the disclosure process. Conversely, the same can be argued for children in foster and kinship care, or with their parents/guardians, where there may be a reluctance to engage in the process because of a fear of judgement or punishment. The efficacy of RHIs alone may not be sufficient in reducing repeat missing episodes and safeguarding children. Thus, examples of other multi-agency approaches, including the NPCC’s (2009) referral process for children missing from home, or the All-Wales Protocol (Wade, 2015), may be more effective prevention efforts. These do warrant further examination and application though. ... the child’s home type, and then exploring the prevalence and risk of repeat episodes more thoroughly. Once a baseline of prevalence is known, further research can seek to confirm whether the risks and harms identified above are applicable to children in all home environments, and how interventions can address their needs. This study has demonstrated some problems with the current intervention strategies, but they also need to be reflective of all home environments. By exploring RMC through a public health lens, a more sufficient preventive intervention can be devised, but this will require support from academics, practitioners, and policy makers. As noted within this article, there is a significant lack of evaluation studies for RMC in general, without considering specific home types, which presents challenges in identifying suitable intervention methods, and how these may work in practice. Studies are limited to only one or force areas, and so what works in one police force area may not be feasible in another: without this analysis though, it is

home or from local authority care 1. 2. There are no exact figures for the number of children who go missing or run away, but estimates suggest that the figure is in the region of 100,000 per year 2. Children may run away from a problem, such as abuse or neglect at home, or to somewhere they want to be. They may have been coerced to run away by someone else. Whatever the reason, it is thought that approximately 25 per cent of children and young people that go missing are at risk of serious harm 3. ...  placement instability was a key feature of looked after children who ran away;  reports about looked after children missing from their care placement were not routinely provided to senior managers in local authorities; and  there was little evidence that safe and well checks or return interviews were taking place. 5. Although looked after children are particularly vulnerable when they go missing, the majority of children who go missing are not looked after, and go missing from their family home. They can face the same risks as a child missing from local authority care. The same measures are often required to protect both groups of children. The first part of this guidance therefore refers to protecting all children from the risks associated with going missing, whether from home or from care. A separate section sets out the additional steps to be taken in regard to children missing from care. 6. This guidance sets out the steps local authorities and their partners should take to prevent children from going missing and to protect them when they do go missing. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of best practice, research or evidence regarding missing children. This guidance replaces the statutory guidance issued in 2009, in line with changes in evidence, policy and the statutory framework covering looked after children. ... 31. When a child is found, they must be offered an independent return interview. Independent return interviews provide an opportunity to uncover information that can help protect children from the risk of going missing again, from risks they may have been exposed to while missing or from risk factors in their home. 32. The interview should be carried out within 72 hours of the child returning to their home or care setting. This 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. Children sometimes need to build up trust with a person before they will discuss in depth the reasons why they ran away. ... 42. When a 16 or 17 year old runs away or goes missing they are no less vulnerable than younger children and are equally at risk, particularly of sexual exploitation or involvement with gangs. A 16 or 17 year old who has run away may present as 6 The Children Act 1989, Part V - Protection of Children, Section 46 ... 50. Looked after children are particularly vulnerable. Though the number of looked after children going missing is a small percentage of the overall number of children that go missing, it is disproportionately high compared with the children’s population as a whole. Further responsibilities on local authorities for looked after children who go missing are detailed below. ... 52. Local authorities have a duty to place a looked after child in the most appropriate placement available, subject to their duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. Placing the child in an appropriate placement should help to minimise the risk of the child running away. The care plan should include details of the arrangements that will need to be in place to keep the child safe and minimise the risk of the child going missing from their placement. 53. Any decision to place a child at distance should be based on an assessment of the child’s needs including their need to be effectively safeguarded. Evidence suggests that distance from home, family and friends is a key factor for looked after children running away. ... 55. Care plans should include a detailed assessment of the child’s needs, including the need for the provision of an appropriate placement that offers protection from harm. Where a child goes missing from a placement, a statutory review of their care plan can provide an opportunity to check that it addresses the reasons for an absence. The review should result in the development of a strategy to minimise a repeat of the missing episode. In particular, any issues relating to the vulnerability of the child to sexual exploitation, trafficking or criminal or gang involvement should be identified. Actions to address these needs and ensure the child is kept safe should be clearly set out in the care plan. The police and other relevant agencies should be given the opportunity to contribute to the review. 56. Where a child already has an established pattern of running away, the care plan should include a strategy to keep them safe and minimise the likelihood of the child running away in the future. This should be discussed and agreed as far as possible with the child and with the child’s carers and should include detailed information about the responsibilities of all services, the child’s parents and other adults involved in the family network. Independent Reviewing Officers (IROs) should be informed about missing and away from placement without authorisation episodes and they should address these in statutory reviews. ... 65. Care leavers, particularly 16 and 17 year olds may go missing from their home or accommodation and face the same risks as other missing children. Local authorities must ensure that care leavers live in “suitable accommodation” as defined in regulation 9(2) of the Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010, (made under section 23B(10) of the Children Act 1989). In particular, young people should feel safe in their accommodation and the areas where it is located. Local authorities should ensure that pathway plans set out where a young person may be vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking or going missing, and put in place support services to minimise this risk. ... 68. When the child has been located, the responsible local authority should review whether the child’s placement remains appropriate. The decision should be informed by discussions with the child and carers where appropriate. The outcomes and reasons for the decision should be recorded. 69. An independent return interview should be offered when a missing looked after child is found. Where possible, the child should be given the opportunity to talk before they return to their placement. The person conducting the interview should usually be independent of the child’s placement and of the responsible local authority. An exception maybe where a child has a strong relationship with a carer or social worker and has expressed a preference to talk to them, rather than an independent person, about the reasons they went missing. The child should be offered the option of speaking to an independent representative or advocate. When a looked after child is placed in a host authority, the responsible authority should ensure the independent review interview takes place, working closely with the host authority. 70. Children’s home staff or foster carers should continue to offer warm and consistent care when a child returns, and running away should not be viewed as behaviour that needs to be punished. The need for safe and reliable care may be particularly significant for a child who faces pressure to run away from their placement as a result of circumstances beyond the control of their carers. In these circumstances, it will be even more important that the child’s care and placement plans are kept up-to-date and include a strategy to reduce the pressure on the child to run away.

Overall numbers Between 1st January and 31st December 2020, 392 Croydon children were reported missing (including Croydon CLA placed out of borough). These children accounted for 2,628 missing episodes in this period. The number of missing episodes reported for 2020 is 15% lower than for 2019 (3095 missing episodes in 2019). The cohort of children where there are risks of child exploitation evidenced/suspected concerns, the following themes have been noted:  48% were discussed at Complex Adolescent Panel (CAP) in 2020 (190 out of 392 children).  1 in 3 children missing at least once in 2020 have been subject to MACE protocol (which is configured within the CAP) at some point since 1 April 2019 (34%; 133 out of 392 children).  1 in 4 children missing at least once in 2020 have been subject to MACE at some point since 1 April 2019 in relation to Child Criminal Exploitation concerns (mainly county lines drug dealing).  The above is indicative of a clear correlation with exploitation and children who are missing. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on numbers There is a direct link between a lower volume of missing episodes in 2020 and long periods of lockdown in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. If comparing the April December periods of 2020 and 2019 (lockdown period started in 2020 back in late March 2020) – the reduction in missing episode numbers is more pronounced – 27% reduction for that period. Greater reductions in numbers logged during April 2020 (1st lockdown), November 2020 (2 nd lockdown) and December 2020 (current 3 rd lockdown). ... Croydon Children Looked After account for 79% of all the missing episodes recorded in 2020 (2074 out of 2628 missing episodes). Some key findings re: CLA missing cohort:  17yr olds account for 41% of all CLA missing episodes logged (1078 out of 2628 missing episodes).  16yr olds account for 28% of all CLA missing episodes logged (723 out of 2628 missing episodes)  Therefore children aged 16+ account for 2/3’s of all missing episodes.  55% of all the Croydon CLA missing episodes in 2020 related to children placed out of borough (1135 out of 2074 CLA missing episodes).  55% of all the Croydon CLA missing episodes in 2020 relate to children missing from Semi-Independent Placements.  Of the 20-30 children repeatedly missing each month (3+ missing episodes started in month) around 85-90% are CLA.  The above demonstrates that our CLA who are older, have an increased number of missing episodes. Top 20 missing children – frequency of missing episodes The top 20 missing children in 2020 account for 38% of all missing episodes in period (998 out of 2628 missing episodes). Some key findings re: the top 20 repeat missing individuals:  100% CLA (20 out of 20).  60% Male (12 out of 20).  85% children from BAME backgrounds (17 out of 20).  14 Local/6 UASC children.  75% have at some point been subject to MACE Protocol due to evidenced risk of either CSE or CCE.  19 out of 20 have been discussed at Complex Adolescent Panel in this period  12 out of 20 have evidenced either recent/current CCE risk via MACE Protocol.  This data demonstrates that our CAP has good oversight of risk and social workers are duly concerned to complete referrals. ...  There were 162 missing episodes lasting longer than 7 days reported in 2020 – 80 children with at least one missing episode lasting longer than 7 days. Of these 80 children, 88% were discussed at Complex Adolescent Panel – with 66% being added to MACE Protocol.  Again the above is indicative of the CAP having sufficient oversight of risk. How do we compare to other authorities/London/Nationally re missing numbers?  ... on 2019-20 benchmarking data provided via ADCS ... Benchmarking Tool – Key findings are CLA missing were: - 2 ... CLA missing during 2019-20 FY – compared to ... 6 for ... Key Issues identified from the data  Linked to the data above – the key issues Croydon currently faces in relation to missing children are:  High volume of missing episodes/children despite pandemic lockdown (although lower than 2019). ...  High proportion of Croydon missing children at risk of criminal exploitation. ...  Top 20 repeat missing account for large volume of episodes. ... with CLA 17+/Semi Independent/Out of Borough placements. ... episodes via Emergency Duty Team ... High volume of Other LA CLA missing from Croydon based placements - The great unknown – initial findings suggest around 150 additional missing episodes each month linked to Other LA CLA residing in Croydon. - Need a process map for analysing OLA CLA data including DPIA update. ...  These recommendations will need to be overseen in tandem with a broader scope of practice development as a result of the realignment of the adolescent service. Analysis needs to be undertaken of the top 20 children who have been missing for a long duration and cross reference this analysis with the VAR undertaken. It is possible that recurrent themes may be indicative of changes needed in practice improvement and resource alignment.  Encouraging greater mobilisation of Operation Philomena protocol to reduce a potential inflated number of reported missing episodes to police/EDT. It is important that regardless of the type of placement a young person resides in, there is agreed expectations regarding curfew times and the process of contacts to be made to try and ascertain the young person’s whereabouts. These arrangements will need to be ongoing collaborative conversations with young people that are subject to reviews.  Changing the threshold for a CLA episode to be regarded as missing – cut down on over-reporting CLA 17+ short episodes as missing ...  Amalgamate the missing/CE risk assessment/CAP forms so that social workers can complete one form rather than several to evidence/update on risks.  Refresher training on Missing strategy meeting forms/discussion – emphasise the importance of these meetings taking place, even if the police are not able to attend. Workshops are imminently to be rolled out to all managers to consider themes and best practice with respect to matters pertaining to missing and exploitation.  CAP/MACE to have oversight of all CE/missing risk regardless of placement in or out of the borough.

Repeat disappearances are common, can indicate underlying vulnerabilities and have been linked with various forms of exploitation and abuse. Inspired by research on repeat victimisation, this paper examines the prevalence and temporal patterns of repeat missing episodes by children, as well as the characteristics of those involved. Using data on all missing children incidents recorded by one UK police service in 2015 (n = 3,352), we find that: (a) 75% of missing incidents involving children were repeats, i.e. attributed to children who had already been reported missing in 2015; (b) a small proportion of repeatedly missing children (n = 59; 4%) accounted for almost a third of all missing children incidents (n = 952, 28%); (c) over half of all first repeat disappearances occurred within four weeks of an initial police recorded missing episode; and (d) children recorded as missing ten times or more over the one year study period were significantly more likely than those recorded missing once to be teenagers, in the care system or to have drug and/or alcohol dependencies. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for future research and the prevention of repeat ... Sagovsky and Johnson, 2007; Townsley et al. 2000). Going missing is clearly in itself neither a crime nor a form of victimisation. Rather, in this paper we take a similar analytical approach to that which has examined repeat victimisation, and use it to explore three hitherto understudied research questions in the missing persons literature. First, how prevalent are repeat missing incidents involving children (defined here as two or more police recorded missing episodes ofsomeone aged under 18 yearsin a one year period)? Second, what factors are associated with a child repeatedly going missing? And third, what is the time course of repeat disappearances by children, measured here as the time elapsed between a child’s first and second missing episode? This paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first to examine ... In addition to studies focused specifically on missing children, other research has considered going missing within the context of various forms of abuse and exploitation. While the proportion of missing incidents linked to serious victimisation may be low (figures are not known at present), there is evidence suggesting a high rate of going missing among exploited children. For example, a study of over 9,000 children accessing Barnardo’s support services for child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the UK found that over half were referred due to concerns around missing episodes (Cockbain et al. 2015). Numerous other studies and reports have emphasised a link between child sexual exploitation and going missing (e.g. CEOP, 2011; Jago et al., 2011; OCCE, 2012; Scott & Skidmore, 2006; Sharp, 2012; Smeaton, 2013). As alluded to ... Table 2 showsthe extent of repeat disappearances by children. It can be interpreted in several ways. First, it shows that 75% of missing incidents involving children were repeats, that is, missing episodes by children who had already been reported missing in 2015. Second, it shows that the distribution of disappearances is highly skewed among our sample of missing children. Most children (n = 834; 62.7%) were recorded as missing once in 2015. However, ... is that it covers the entire calendar year of 2015. No indication is hence provided as to when the risk of a repeat disappearance is greatest, and for how long risk may be elevated. To explore this question, we again draw on the repeat victimisation literature, where extensive research across a range of crime types suggests that following an initial victimisation, the risk of being revictimised is heightened and decays quickly over time (Chenery et al. 1997; Polvi et al. 1990; Sagovsky and Johnson, 2007; ... Figure 1 presents the time course of first repeat disappearances by children. It indicates that the risk of going missing a second time decays swiftly over the two months following an initial missing episode. In both groups, roughly half of all first repeats occurred within four weeks of an initial disappearance (in care = 59.2%, not in care = 53.4%). vii The count of repeat disappearances per week following an initial missing incident was significantly correlated across the two groups (r = 0.90, n = 52, p < .001), indicating that the temporal signature of time to first disappearance was similar whether a child was missing from care or not. ... It is a leading source of police demand. Protecting missing children is not only a priority for the police but also a public health concern, in light of emerging evidence that missing children may be at heightened risk of abuse, exploitation and harm. Despite this, relatively little is known about the prevalence and temporal patterns of repeat child disappearances, as well as the characteristics of those involved. This study, informed by research and theory on repeat victimisation, set out to examine (1) the extent of repeat disappearances by children, (2) the characteristics of children who go missing more frequently than others, and (3) the time ... The present analysis found a high volume of repetition. Repeat missing episodes constituted 75% of all police recorded missing incidents involving children over the one year study period. This figure is markedly higher than is typically found for repeat victimisation – normally in the order of 40% (Farrell, Tseloni and Pease, 2005) – and represents the sizable proportion of missing incidents that might, in theory, be reduced if repeat disappearances by children were prevented. Our results also indicated that missing incidents were highly concentrated across our sample of missing children. While the majority of children (n = 834; 62.7%) were recorded as missing once over the 12 month study period, 59 children (4.4%) were recorded as being missing ten times or more and accounted for 28.4% (n=952) of all police recorded missing child incidents. From a safeguarding perspective, there are obvious grounds to believe that these chronically missing children may be at greater risk of harm (broadly defined). Moreover, from an economic perspective, their recurrent disappearances exact considerable investigation costs. Using the average cost per missing episode proposed by Shalev Greene and Pakes (2013 = £2,415.80), this group of 59 children accounted for an estimated police expenditure of £2.29 million over the one year study period viii. ... In the context of this study, over half of all first-repeats were found to occur within four weeks of an initial disappearance. This pattern held for children that were in care and those that were not. As the first analysis of this kind in relation to missing children, the representativeness of these results is uncertain. If generalisable, however, this pattern may hold both theoretical and preventive implications. From a theoretical perspective, it is useful to consider why repeat missing episodes exhibit such temporal patterns. For repeat criminal victimisation, the frequently observed time course is explained in terms of event dependence (the boost account) and risk heterogeneity (the flag account), and interactions between the two (see Farrell and Pease, 2017). Something similar might also apply here: some aspect of a prior missing episode might increase the likelihood of a child going missing again. Likewise some factor(s) at the child’s home environment might remain unchanged thereby influencing their decision to go missing repeatedly. Distinguishing empirically between these two (and potentially other) plausible mechanisms is an important subject for further research. From a prevention perspective, the time course pattern observed here suggests that efforts to reduce recurrent disappearances by children may need to be put in place shortly after (within four weeks) a child has returned home. The same is true of return to home Interviews,

There are around 200,000 reports of missing children each year in England and Wales, and around 65 per cent of these relate to repeat disappearances. Such repeat disappearances are a social care and policing concern due to the multiple risks that children are exposed to while they are missing from home, including exploitation, substance misuse, and violence. Understanding the characteristics of children who go missing repeatedly could help services protect them and meet their needs more effectively. ... In England and Wales, there are approximately 200,000 reports of missing children each year and around 65 per cent of these relate to repeat disappearances (UK Missing Persons Unit, 2021). The volume of repeat disappearances is a problem for the police, social services, and the children themselves. Children who often go missing risk becoming detached from their home and school life (Biehal and Wade, 2000). They are also at risk of involvement in crime, particularly assaults, grievous bodily harm, and “survival crimes” such as shoplifting and theft (Shalev, 2011). Practitioners are advised that repeat disappearances may increase a child’s risk of exploitation or be a sign that they are already being exploited (College of Policing, 2020a,Jago et al., 2011). Frequent missing episodes are also associated with adverse experiences later in life including substance misuse (Windle, 1989) and homelessness (Brakenhoff et al., 2015). The number of children who are reported missing repeatedly to the police puts pressure on services. The police and social services are responsible for agreeing a plan on how to respond to missing children, completing safe and well checks and return home interviews, sharing information, case planning, and organising support for children and their families (Department for Education, 2014). Social services have further responsibilities to protect children in care (Department for Education, 2014). These include developing a care plan to promote the welfare of the child and reduce the risk of missing episodes. Children in care are more likely to be reported missing repeatedly than their peers. On average, children in care who are reported missing in the UK have 6 missing incidents per year while children not in care have 2.6 missing incidents per year (Baker and Hunter, 2018). This is likely to be due to a range of factors including difficult relationships with staff and peers, wanting to see family and friends, a lack of freedom, and frequent placement moves (Biehal and Wade, 2000,Taylor et al., 2014). Staff and carers may also have a lower threshold for reporting children in care as missing and do so regularly as they follow protocols and care plans (Newiss, 1999). It is possible that social services may become involved with children who are not in care as repeat disappearances may signal that a child is beyond parental control and therefore, require social work involvement (Children Act, 1989). ... Next, we examined the length of time that elapsed between repeat reports. Out of the 372 children reported missing between April 2014 and March 2015, 173 (47 per cent) were reported missing for a second time in the four years after their first missing person report.Fig. 2shows the length of time that passed between the children’s first and second missing person reports. Over a third (39 per cent;*n*=68) of children were reported missing for a second time within one month of their first report. A further 18 per cent (*n*=31) of children were reported missing between one and two months afterwards. After that time, there was a considerable drop in the number of children experiencing repeat reports. ... successive reports was also examined (Table 2). These figures are presented separately for children who were living in residential care and children who were not. This is due the heterogeneity of risk. Children in care are consistently reported to be at high risk of repeat missing person reports (Babuta and Sidebottom, 2018,Hutchings et al., 2019,Sidebottom et al., 2019). If the analysis was completed for high and low risk groups simultaneously, it is likely that the results would reflect the temporal pattern experienced by the high-risk group only (Sidebottom et al., 2019). The median scores suggest that children in residential care were reported missing for a second time at a quicker rate (median=37days) than children who were not in residential care (median=66days). The time intervals decreased for both groups after the third report, with a median of less than three weeks between reports. ... We also found that there was a quick succession of repeat reports. Over half (57 per cent) of children were reported missing again within two months. Children in residential care were reported missing for a second time at a quicker rate than their peers. An earlier study bySidebottom et al. (2019)found no significant difference in the timing of repeat reports for children in care and children at home. In their study, children living in different care placements were grouped. It is possible that there are subgroup differences in the temporal pattern of repeat reports for children in care and there is evidence to suggest that children living in different placements are at different levels of risk, with children in residential care more likely to go missing than children in foster care (Courtney and Zinn, 2009). ... This study demonstrates the potential opportunity that exists to help prevent a substantial number of future missing person reports. Most missing child reports (82 per cent) were concerning individuals who had been reported missing previously. Intervening promptly at the time of a child’s first missing episode could help protect children from further risk of harm and reduce future demand on police services. The timing of support is likely to be particularly important for children in residential care, where there appears to be a smaller window of opportunity (one month) to intervene if future disappearances are to be minimised. The police are responsible for conducting a ‘safe and well’ check as soon as possible after the child returns, and this is followed by a more in-depth Return Home Interview that is organised by social services (HMIC, 2016). Together these interviews aim to understand why a child went missing, what happened while they were away, and what support they may need to reduce the likelihood of future disappearances. In practice, the interviews are not always offered in a timely way and information is often not routinely shared between agencies (HMIC, 2016; NYASCmyru, 2020). They are also not consistently documented in police records or used to inform case planning (Ofsted, 2013). ... Children who go missing repeatedly are at risk of exploitation, involvement in crime, substance misuse, and homelessness (Brakenhoff et al., 2015,Jago et al., 2011,Shalev, 2011,Windle, 1989). It is important to improve our understanding of repeat missing episodes so we can better support and protect children from harm. Reducing repeat disappearances would benefit children, their families and carers, and the community. It would also ease the demand and cost to services. This study used five years of police data to explore the repetitive nature of missing child reports in one local authority. Our findings suggest that professionals and services need to act quickly to support children after their first missing episode to prevent future disappearances. Results from the logistic regression identified that children who were White and living in residential care were more likely to be reported missing repeatedly. The relationship between being in care and repeat missing reports has been consistently reported (Babuta and Sidebottom, 2018,Hutchings et al., 2019,Sidebottom et al., 2019). Future research in more diverse parts of the UK would help us understand more about the potential relationship between ethnicity and missing person reports.

Protecting lives, building hope: a plan to halve knife crime (accessible) GOV.UK