Setting

Bernie Brown, Director of Children’s Services, Staffordshire County Council Pat Flaherty, Chief Executive, Staffordshire County Council Simon Whitehouse, Executive lead, Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Integrated Care Board Ben Adams, Staffordshire Police and Crime Commissioner Rebecca Riggs, Interim Chief Constable, Staffordshire Police Jamie-Ann Edwards, Regional Probation Director West Midlands Vacant, Independent Scrutineer

p.1

Dear Staffordshire Local Safeguarding Partnership

p.1

Joint targeted area inspection of Staffordshire

This letter summarises the findings of the joint targeted area inspection (JTAI) of the multi-agency response to child sexual abuse in the family environment in Staffordshire.

p.1

Joint targeted area inspection of Staffordshire

This inspection took place from 15 to 19 June 2026. It was carried out by inspectors from Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP).

p.1

Joint targeted area inspection of Staffordshire

The inspectorates recognise the complexities in providing a multi-agency response to children and families where there is a risk of child sexual abuse in the family environment. This joint inspection of the multi-agency response to children who are at risk or victims of child sexual abuse in the family environment will highlight areas of practice and strategic leadership that need to improve as well as strengths. All references to children in this letter relate to children at risk or victims of child sexual abuse in the family environment. We anticipate that these JTAIs will identify learning for all agencies and will contribute to the debate about what good practice looks like. These JTAIs are being carried out in accordance with the recommendation from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review (CSPR) Panel report into child sexual abuse in the family environment.

p.1

Headline findings

When children show signs of or disclose sexual abuse within their family environment, Staffordshire’s multi-agency integrated front door responds in a timely and effective way to support and protect them in the majority of situations. Practitioners are curious and child focused, following up and reflecting on behaviours that might suggest or indicate sexual harm. At times, there is inconsistency in the quality, timeliness and level of response that children and families receive and in how well information is shared that can inform that response level. Some children receive a more comprehensive and proactive approach than others, with variation in the strength and detail of assessment, safety planning and preventative work offered.

p.1

Headline findings

Improved awareness and understanding throughout the partnership are leading to more children in Staffordshire being appropriately identified as at risk of sexual abuse and consequently better protected, although there are still some areas for improvement. Staffordshire Safeguarding Children Partnership (SSCP) is working on an improved data system to understand, identify and respond to the prevalence of, and response it can provide to, child sexual abuse in the family environment.

p.2

Headline findings

Improving the response to child sexual abuse in the family environment is a priority for the SSCP, and work has been taking place to progress a shared strategy. However, safeguarding partners accept that implementing a specific child sexual abuse in the family environment strategy is not happening quickly enough and pace needs to increase to enhance their joint understanding about quality of practice for children experiencing this form of abuse.

p.2

Headline findings

The multi-agency safeguarding arrangements are slowly developing the partnership approach to child sexual abuse in the family environment. Changes in personnel, restructures and amalgamations have led to the pace of change across the wider partnership being too slow to consistently respond to child sexual abuse in the family environment.

p.2

What needs to improve?

◼ The pace of implementing a clear strategy on how the SSCP will respond to children who are at risk of or are being sexually abused within their family. ◼ Greater analysis of data and performance information to better understand the impact of child sexual abuse in the family environment and to target resources. ◼ The consistent sharing of information and the level of response between and within partner agencies to identify and assess risks to children, particularly in the decision to call strategy meetings and assessments and sharing of minutes in a timely way. ◼ Safety planning needs to be more consistent. Although safety plans address risks, there is an over-reliance on one named parent or carer being perceived as protective, and safety plans are not routinely shared with critical partners, particularly in early years settings. ◼ Workforce capacity across the partnership to support staff wellbeing and

p.2

What needs to improve?

ensure that staff have space to take up the offer of multi-agency training. ◼ Child sexual abuse in a family environment is not always named and is therefore not always given sufficient focus.

p.3

Strengths

◼ The chief executive officer and the director of children’s services have been very focused on the needs of children impacted by child sexual abuse in a family environment. They have continuously driven this work, with a strong emphasis on getting this right for children and families, by ensuring the collaboration of the partnership. They have been instrumental in challenging the partnership to ensure that intentions are turned into actions.

p.3

Strengths

◼ There is a consistent emphasis across the workforce on the importance of capturing and understanding the voice of the child. Practitioners routinely identified this as a key aspect of their safeguarding responsibilities, reflecting a child-centred approach to practice.

p.3

Strengths

◼ Co-location of most partner agencies in the integrated front door (IFD) continues to improve multi-agency decision-making. ◼ Practitioners are curious and child focused. They follow up and respond to behaviours or presentations that might suggest sexual abuse in the family and identify previous concerns or behaviours that might indicate sexual harm. ◼ Most police investigations are timely and of good quality with meaningful supervisory reviews. ◼ Co-working has had a positive impact on direct work and support for children and families, with the role of the school as a protective factor, and in providing emotional support for children a key part of multi-agency planning. ◼ Commissioned independent work with various agencies and voluntary organisations has strengthened the partnership’s strategic focus and approach to supporting victims. The safeguarding advisory group, facilitated by an adult survivor of childhood abuse-led organisation, is supporting partners in the co-

p.3

Strengths

production of a draft strategy. ◼ There is creative thinking in the use of bespoke licence conditions, providing tailored protection for victims and their families from offenders. ◼ The police training offer on how to recognise the signs of child sexual abuse in the family environment through the training of new recruits.

p.3

Main findings

Practitioners are child focused, committed and bring relevant experience and skills to quickly identify and respond to children who are at risk of child sexual abuse in a family environment. Staff engage and gain the trust of children and families and undertake skilled direct work to understand their complex experiences. As a result, children make progress and parents are enabled to improve their parenting skills and provide better protection.

p.4

Main findings

Despite the co-location of partners in the IFD and greatly improved multi-agency decision-making, partner agencies rightly recognise that there is still work to do to achieve the full integration of health and probation and include them in all decisions.

p.4

Main findings

Family help workers are part of the multi-agency group working with families. These workers, when supporting at early help level, record on a different system, which is being addressed by the local authority with the introduction of a new system. However, when children are on child in need or child protection plans, information- sharing is hampered by partners not all having direct access to any of these meeting minutes, due to incompatible recording systems.

p.4

Main findings

The integrated front door responds to concerns about risks of or actual sexual abuse in a timely and effective way. Management oversight is thorough, with timely oversight and decisions to identify the key issues and next steps. When risks escalate or an urgent response is needed, strategy meetings are promptly held, and where there are significant concerns, a single or joint-agency visit takes place to further assess and, if necessary, take protective action. However, team manager summaries do not always specifically name concerns about sexual abuse but use wording such as ‘concerns about inappropriate behaviour’.

p.4

Main findings

There is some inconsistent practice regarding thresholds for strategy meetings. The meetings are not always held when thresholds for significant harm are met, which restricts multi-agency opportunities to share information, coordinate actions and safety plans. When strategy meetings are held, information-sharing is effective, with clear actions on steps to assess, investigate and safeguard children. The appropriate partner agencies are generally invited to initial strategy meetings, with occasional exceptions depending on workforce capacity and timeframes.

p.4

Main findings

Safeguarding health professionals support health practitioners to apply thresholds consistently and share relevant safeguarding information at the earliest point. As a result, children and families are more likely to receive the right level of response without unnecessary delay. However, safeguarding health practitioners do not attend daily partnership meetings in the IFD due to the current commissioning arrangements, which means that health information and professional analysis are not being included at the earliest stage. Inconsistencies exist in information-sharing among the acute paediatric team, the 0– 19 (integrated public health nursing) primary care ‘strengthening family’ practitioners, and wider partners. Specifically, these external partners often do not receive formal minutes of strategy discussions, public protection notifications, or Operation Encompass notifications. This reduces capacity to review actions and make

p.4

Main findings

decisions, but it also impacts on partners’ ability to provide timely and appropriate support.

p.5

Main findings

There is good multi-agency attendance at initial child protection conferences and core groups. The 0 to 19 service works as part of these conferences to provide insight into children’s home environments and help identify risk. This improves the plans put in place to protect children. The 0 to 19 service demonstrate professional challenge using escalation procedures if there are concerns about safety planning.

p.5

Main findings

Practitioners are curious and child focused. They follow up and reflect on current and past behaviours, or presentations by adults or children that might indicate sexual harm, to try and understand what is happening or has happened in the child’s life.

p.5

Main findings

Probation administrative workers provide a single point of contact to facilitate information exchange with the IFD. However, although they are committed, their lack of experience in managing people on probation limits assurance that they fully understand risk. They have no capacity to attend the daily partnership meetings in the IFD, intended to support multi-agency decision-making.

p.5

Main findings

The social care out-of-hours service is managed by experienced professionals who understand family-based child sexual abuse. They can identify at-risk children early and work with partner agencies to ensure they are protected. Positively, the co- location of police and children’s social care allows them to meet and hold face-to- face strategy meetings and undertake joint visits quickly, providing a strong and immediate response. Immediate actions through arrest and subsequent bail conditions are supporting children’s protection, pending handover to daytime services. However, despite access to the sexual assault referral centre (SARC) team and the on-call paediatrician, health is not part of most out-of-hours strategy meetings. During the inspection, leaders took action to direct the inclusion of the SARC in strategy meetings where child sexual abuse in the family environment is suspected or known.

p.5

Main findings

Health practitioners demonstrated tenacity in providing safe opportunities for children to disclose. For example, sexual health and substance misuse practitioners aim to see children alone during visits to promote opportunity for disclosure by routine enquiry and motivational interviewing techniques.

p.5

Main findings

Many health services use flags within recording systems to identify vulnerabilities, children to be triaged, risk of abuse, or those subject to child protection planning. Health leaders are introducing shared care records and the ‘Child Protection Information Sharing System’ (CP-IS) across the partnership, but these are not yet fully embedded.

p.5

Main findings

Closer working relationships with senior leads and designated paediatric doctors in acute care have strengthened multi-agency work across the partnership. Operational health leads meet monthly to share strategy meeting experiences. As an example of learning, they hold strategy discussions earlier in the day to facilitate prompt investigations and medicals for children. Medical proformas have improved to support updating children’s social care in a timely manner.

p.6

Main findings

When child protection medicals are required alongside SARC medicals, they take place in the secondary care unit, when possible, to prevent two medicals and further trauma or intervention for children.

p.6

Main findings

Limited information-sharing between the SARC and partner agencies can impact the collective understanding of needs and care planning, potentially resulting in fragmented provision and reduced overall assurance. However, proactive and tenacious practice by SARC practitioners is mitigating these challenges.

p.6

Main findings

Despite clear engagement and joint working, the partnership sometimes lacks understanding and clarity about probation’s role within multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. This sometimes limits the effectiveness of probation participation in supporting whole-system arrangements to protect children from perpetrators.

p.6

Main findings

Holistic assessments develop an understanding of children’s needs and lived experiences. Social care practitioners take time to get to know children, develop trust to hear from them directly through direct work and to formulate action plans. However, child sexual abuse in the family environment is often not named, but couched in a different language, which does not give it sufficient focus in planning.

p.6

Main findings

Safety planning for children is inconsistent. Some planning addresses risks, but there is sometimes a reliance on the parent perceived as protective to safeguard when they may not have sufficient agency or capacity to do so. In addition, safety planning is not consistently shared with critical partners, limiting their ability to support and protect.

p.6

Main findings

Co-working has had a positive impact on direct work and support for families, with some really positive support and teaching for parents about the impact of child sexual abuse in the family environment on children. Practitioners generally have a good understanding of how difficult it can be, particularly for non-abusing parents or carers, and manage this with sensitivity and careful work to allow information- sharing, learning and support to help them come to terms with their situations and help keep children safer. Externally commissioned assessment and work for some children and families affected by child sexual abuse in the family environment has provided some stronger examples of planning, support and protection for these children. Integrating cognitive assessments, personalised care plans, advocacy, and child and adolescence mental health services (CAMHS) demonstrate a highly effective multi-agency

p.6

Main findings

approach to preventing criminalisation and supporting family carers. For some, however, this is inconsistent.

p.7

Main findings

Child in need and core groups are regularly held and consider risks together with families and partner agencies working with the family. After probation interventions have finished, the work of assessing and managing risk continues for some children. Without probations’ specialist insight, risk assessment and decision-making are not always sufficiently well updated within child protection planning processes.

p.7

Main findings

Some children experience significant disruption due to delays within the wider criminal justice process, such as postponed court hearings. While these delays are often beyond the direct control of partner agencies, they can nevertheless have a considerable impact on children and their experiences.

p.7

Main findings

The quality and effectiveness of risk assessments vary when responding to concerns about adult family members. Some children have a robust strategy meeting, a detailed multi-agency chronology and independent specialist risk assessment to inform planning and next steps. For others, the risk assessment is less evident, and it is not clear whether the perpetrator has taken up any preventative support.

p.7

Main findings

Most children who are impacted by child sexual abuse in the family environment can access high-quality support. However, although staff throughout the partnership demonstrated a good awareness of counselling and pre-trial therapy provision, occasional misunderstandings among professionals about children’s ability to access mental health and counselling services before trial can create barriers to timely support at the earliest opportunity.

p.7

Main findings

There is good attendance from the partnership at Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement meetings at level 2 and 3 (MAPPA), providing assurance that child sexual abuse perpetrators identified as needing a multi-agency risk management plan receive a commensurate partnership response.

p.7

Main findings

Joint working between probation and police, including the Management of Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders (MOSOVO), is positive and includes creative risk management approaches. For example, ‘silent exclusion zones’ on licence conditions mean the victim’s details are not on the licence itself, but GPS trackers sound if the offender enters a specified area. Probation practitioners demonstrate professional curiosity and persistence in safeguarding enquiries. Inconsistent escalation means that issues are not always raised and resolved across the partnership, leaving room for inconsistency.

p.7

Main findings

While there are some examples of effective information-sharing to and from probation, overall, it remains inconsistent and overly reliant on individual relationships rather than systemic processes. For example, high-quality, timely information-sharing generally supports risk assessments and informs pre-sentence reports. However, at times, probation staff complete assessments with partial or delayed information, which may impact risk management decisions. This inconsistency is exacerbated across local authority boundaries.

p.8

Main findings

Most registered sex offenders in Staffordshire are managed at MAPPA level 1, and professional meetings are used to help determine level-setting arrangements and review levels. However, discussions at these meetings sometimes lack the required depth, shared understanding of MAPPA guidance and the attendance of key partners.

p.8

Main findings

There is inconsistent engagement from prison offender managers, which impacts negatively on the effectiveness of resettlement planning. This impacts the safety planning of other organisations working with the family.

p.8

Main findings

Probation capacity and resourcing to deliver programmes and toolkits to prevent reoffending are in place. However, data indicates a proportion of individuals are experiencing significant waiting times to begin programmes. This limits assurance that targeted interventions are being delivered in a timely fashion.

p.8

Main findings

There are limited enforceable safeguarding interventions for individuals on community orders and an over-reliance on voluntary engagement and work undertaken by other agencies. Appropriate enforcement action is taken if needed, but mainly with a punitive focus rather than for consideration of risk management interventions. Additionally, there are limited accommodation pathways for some perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the family environment. This has been escalated, but the issue remains unresolved.

p.8

Main findings

The police have established procedures for responding to child sex offender disclosure scheme (CSODS), or Sarah’s Law, right-to-ask requests. When concerns arise about an individual’s potential risk to children, the police assess the situation and may disclose information to protect the child. Decisions regarding disclosure are informed by effective multi-agency information-sharing, ensuring that all relevant safeguarding information is considered. Disclosures are delivered by specialist child protection officers, who are well placed to explain identified risks and support individuals in understanding the implications for children involved. While some officers and staff were aware of CSODS, we found some key personnel, such as response officers and child protection officers, had not received training. This lack of training limits their understanding of the scheme and how disclosures should be made in practice.

p.8

Main findings

When a criminal offence is suspected in relation to child sexual abuse in the family environment, there is an effective, child-centred multi-agency response from the police. Most investigations are timely and of good quality, with meaningful supervisory reviews. Appropriate decisions are made when risks to children are identified.

p.9

Main findings

Police identified a gap in the monitoring of bail conditions for suspects within child sexual abuse in the family environment suspects. Where the suspect is not a managed offender under statutory supervision through the criminal justice system, there is less robust monitoring to ensure compliance with bail conditions intended to protect victims and other children.

p.9

Main findings

Investigations are further affected by significant delays within the digital forensic unit, where backlogs are reported. These delays can significantly extend investigation timescales, postpone decisions relating to suspects, and leave victims waiting longer for outcomes within the justice system.

p.9

Main findings

A social worker based in CAMHS supports stronger multi-agency links with education and children’s social care. The role also strengthens decision-making by taking a proactive trauma-informed approach, particularly with less engaged families.

p.9

Main findings

Children and families with diverse needs told inspectors they highly value the family hub. They felt the services provided helped and supported them, making a real, positive difference in their lives.

p.9

Main findings

Schools are routinely invited and included in key meetings. Meeting minutes and assessments usually feature background information, and the voice of the child is provided through strong relationships in schools. The role of the school as a protective factor, and in providing emotional and wellbeing support for children, is a key part of multi-agency planning. The schools know children well, understand their experiences and advocate for them to ensure their voice and needs are understood.

p.9

Main findings

However, this is not consistent, and some information from partner agencies that would help schools with safety planning is not provided in a timely way. This leaves schools unclear at times of the most up-to-date information and the correct messages to give to children and families.

p.9

Main findings

Early years providers feel that poor communication from partner agencies limits their capacity to play an active role in safeguarding the most vulnerable children, often those who are nonverbal or with early communication skills and language. Practitioners are often asked to provide information, but do not receive information on outcomes unless they chase it. This leaves them working with families, without important background information or updates that would support them in their engagement with families. Early years leaders are not always included in meetings or planning and do not receive meeting notes in a timely way.

p.9

Main findings

Most practitioners across the partnership are aware of the training pathways for child sexual abuse in the family environment, and some practitioners are also aware of specialist training via other specialist providers. The knowledge and understanding of practitioners across partner agencies on child sexual abuse in the family environment is more variable. While practitioners are aware of specialist training, not all who work with families where these risks are evident have received this training or have access to those with specialist knowledge. When practitioners have received training, they feel it has been highly effective.

p.10

Main findings

Vulnerability and child protection training are compulsory components of police officer entry pathways, and safeguarding themes are embedded throughout learning programmes. This ensures that police officers entering policing have a solid foundation in recognising vulnerability, including indicators of child sexual abuse, and an understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities. The partnership training offer for achieving best evidence interviews is good. Both social workers and police attend joint training, supporting their confidence to secure evidence in a child-focused way and to complete joint interviews where appropriate.

p.10

Main findings

Some health practitioners are aware of the ability to access wider multi-agency training, but noted that there is often difficulty attending due to workforce capacity, commitments, and funding understanding, which has restricted health attendance.

p.10

Main findings

MAPPA training is delivered by the MAPPA coordinator, but engagement from partners is inconsistent.

p.10

Main findings

The partnership has demonstrated a strong commitment to learning and continuous improvement. Following CSPRs, and through commissioned work, partners have engaged in meaningful critical reflection.

p.10

Main findings

This work has been taking place alongside many current and competing priorities for the partnership, including broad public sector and local government reforms. These challenges have limited leaders’ capacity to work together at pace.

p.10

Main findings

The partnership does not consistently capture or input data relating to ethnicity and other key social markers. As a result, there is a limited understanding of the demographics and specific needs of children affected by child sexual abuse in the family environment. This restricts the partnership’s ability to fully assess risk, identify trends and develop targeted responses. The partnership does benefit from dedicated intelligence support from the police. Intelligence products are prepared and shared within a range of multi-agency forums, including child-at-risk meetings, ensuring that safeguarding decisions are informed by the most up-to-date intelligence and risk information available.

p.10

Main findings

The partnership lacks the data systems required to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of cases involving child sexual abuse in the family environment. In addition, information technology systems are not fully integrated across partner agencies, which restricts effective information-sharing. Developing more robust data collection processes and improving system integration would strengthen the partnership’s ability to identify risk, monitor performance, and prevent harm to children.

p.11

Main findings

Some strong benchmarking, through commissioned work from external agencies and multi-agency audits, is informing the partnership position in relation to addressing child sexual abuse in the family environment, but the pace of change needs to pick up to support and protect children further.

p.11

Main findings

The partnership has created a standalone ‘SSCP Child Sexual Abuse in the Family Environment’ strategic group, which started in February 2026. This allows professionals to focus specifically on children who are at risk of, or suffering from, child sexual abuse in the family environment. This standalone working group was created as the partnership mutually agreed that the general ‘intrafamilial child sexual exploitation group’ was too broad.

p.11

Main findings

The SSCP has established an advisory group, bringing together a wide range of partners, to support the development of a co-produced strategy. This work is further strengthened by input from adult victims, which provides valuable insight and lived experience from survivors of child sexual abuse in the family environment.

p.11

Main findings

Women’s Aid and the sexual violence support services are very much engaged in the Community Safety Partnership (CSP). Most funding is through this route. There are increasing links between the SSCP and the CSP in this area.

p.11

Main findings

Practitioners across the partnership are dedicated, committed and child-focused, and they told inspectors they enjoy working in Staffordshire. However, the effectiveness of staff support across the partnership is inconsistent. Some practitioners report capacity issues, with high caseloads, which is having an impact on some of their practice and on their work/life balance. Staff are aware that they can access counselling and mental health support if needed. However, it is unclear what the take-up of this is and its impact across the partnership.

p.11

Main findings

Constructive and healthy professional challenge across the partnership helps to reduce risk and enhance the protection of children from child sexual abuse in the family environment, particularly regarding risk planning and the use of bail conditions. Furthermore, partners are knowledgeable about escalation processes and use them appropriately to support timely and effective information-sharing.

p.11

Practice study: highly effective practice

Voluntary and commissioned partners provide high-quality and impactful support to children, young people and families affected by intrafamilial sexual abuse. Trusted relationships with communities, children and families make them an essential and valued component of the local safeguarding system. One commissioned service, which supports female survivors of sexual violence, works with children and has child and young person’s independent sexual violence advocates, counsellors and children’s and young people’s sexual violence support practitioners to support children who have been or are at risk from sexual abuse. Inspirational practitioners are passionate, child centred and knowledgeable. They complete creative and effective work to support a diverse range of children of all ages, including nonverbal and younger children. Preventative as well as specialist pre-court counselling help ensure that children are well supported. They have

p.12

Practice study: highly effective practice

made a positive difference through their support to many children and families who have been impacted and experienced trauma as a result of child sexual abuse, including when they await a court hearing, which sometimes takes several years.

p.12

Practice study: area for improvement

This example highlights the impact on children when the professional network uses a different category of abuse in child protection planning, when child sexual abuse in the family environment is the primary reason for involvement. In two families where child sexual abuse was clearly disclosed, agencies took protective steps, which included removing the perpetrators from the home and preventing any contact. However, at the multi-agency child protection conferences, children were placed on child protection plans for neglect or emotional abuse and not child sexual abuse in the family environment. The use of categories other than sexual abuse when child protection planning for some children is a misrepresentation of their experience and prevents partners from understanding the full nature of abuse, as well as leaving some children feeling not believed. This also results in the focus of plans not being sharp and potentially has

p.12

Practice study: area for improvement

implications for accurate recording and analysis of data.

p.12

Next steps

We have determined that the chair of Staffordshire’s safeguarding partnership is the principal authority and should prepare a written statement of proposed action responding to the findings outlined in this letter. This should be a multi-agency response involving the individuals and agencies that this report is addressed to. The response should set out the actions for the partnership and, when appropriate, individual agencies. The local safeguarding partners should oversee implementation of the action plan through their local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

p.13

Next steps

The chair should send the written statement of action to ProtectionOfChildren@ofsted.gov.uk by 12 November 2026. This statement will inform the lines of enquiry at any future joint or single-agency activity by the inspectorates.

p.13