Understanding and Responding to Child Sexual Exploitation

Helen Beckett, Jenny Pearce, Helen Beckett, Jenny Pearce

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781138293724
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351866576
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

The issue of child sexual exploitation (CSE) has received intense scrutiny in recent years, following a number of high profile legal cases, serious case reviews and inquiries. This has resulted in increasing expectations that those working in the field will know how to appropriately manage and respond to this form of abuse. Of course, this is no easy task given the widely acknowledged difficulties of identifying and responding to sexual abuse and the particular complexities associated with the gain dynamic within CSE and the predominantly older age of children affected by it.

This edited collection draws on the latest research evidence and academic thinking around CSE to consider issues of understanding and response. Written by researchers from 'The International Centre: Researching child sexual exploitation, violence and trafficking' at the University of Bedfordshire, Part I considers issues of understanding and conceptualisation. Part II considers the practical implications of some of this thinking, sharing learning from research and evaluation on prevention, identification and response.

Understanding and Responding to Child Exploitation presents critical learning for academics and students, and for those working in the fields of policy, practice and commissioning. It is relevant to a wide range of disciplines including social care, youth work, education, criminology, health and social policy.

p.7

PART I

Contemporary perspectives on understanding

p.9

1

WORDS MATTER

Reconceptualising the conceptualisation of child sexual exploitation

Helen Beckett and Joanne Walker

Introduction

Words matter because they affect how we conceptualise problems, prioritise issues, and forge responses. Inconsistent use of language and terms can lead to inconsistent laws and policy responses on the same issue. Despite the existence of legal definitions for a number of sexual crimes against children, there is still considerable confusion surrounding the use of different terminology related to the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children. Even where the same terms are used, there is quite often disagreement concerning their actual meaning, leading to use of the same words to refer to different actions or situations. This has created significant challenges for policy development and programming, development of legislation, and data collection, leading to flawed responses and limited and ineffective methods of measuring impact or setting targets.

(Inter-agency Working Group on Sexual Exploitation of Children, 2016, p. 1)

Ever since the term ‘child sexual exploitation’ (CSE) entered policy and practice discourse, confusion around its meaning, application and relationship to the wider concepts of ‘child sexual abuse’ (CSA) and ‘sexual violence’ has abounded. This is true of its usage in both the UK and in a range of other international contexts, as reflected in the above quotation from the 2016 Luxembourg guidelines.

Recognition of this confusion, and discussion of both the practical and conceptual implications of this, is not new (Melrose, 2012, 2013; Pitts, 2013; Hallett, 2015; Coy, 2016). The introduction of new definitions of CSE in three of the four United Kingdom (UK) nations in 2016/17¹ – and the production of the new set of international terminology guidelines referenced above – does however shift the parameters and context of the debate somewhat. As such, it is timely to revisit the application and utility of the concept and its relationship to other forms of sexual violence and abuse.

p.10

The chapter draws on an evaluation of CSE policy frameworks across the four UK nations and a review of UK CSE literature conducted by the authors. It also draws on the authors’ reflections on their delivery of CSE training programmes to a range of professionals across the UK over the last five years,² specifically participant engagement around issues of definitional confusion and practice challenges. The chapter considers international learning from and for UK developments with particular reference to the 2016 Luxembourg Terminology Guidelines referenced above.

We commence with a brief overview of the development of the concept of CSE within the UK. This is followed by an exploration of how CSE is currently defined across the four UK nations and the ongoing challenges in relation to its conceptualisation and interpretation. Core to this is consideration of the role of ‘exchange’ and the resultant conceptualisation of victims when they are the ones receiving something from the abusive act. Also critical is the lack of clarity as to the parameters of this exchange.

Having explored some of the key challenges in relation to the concept of CSE, we take a step back from the current policy position to consider the relative merits of continuing along the CSE trajectory or adopting an alternative conceptualisation of the forms of harm currently labelled CSE. Whilst evidenced primarily with reference to developments in the four UK nations, the issues raised hold wider significance for other jurisdictions also facing the conceptual and consequent operational confusion referenced above.

The journey to CSE

Although a relatively recent term, CSE is in no way a new phenomenon. Cases of what we would now term CSE have been recorded as far back as the 19th century (Brown and Barrett, 2002). As accounts of the historical development of the issue are well documented elsewhere (Brown and Barrett, 2002; Melrose, 2012; Hallett, 2015, 2017) they will not be rehearsed here. We will however briefly consider the recent history of the issue within the UK, specifically the move from the terminology of ‘child prostitution’ to that of ‘CSE’ witnessed since the turn of the 21st century, as this holds pertinent learning for where we are now in 2017.

In brief, the 1980s and 1990s saw increasing discomfort in child protection circles with the application of the term ‘prostitution’ to those under 18 years of age. Adopting the adage that ‘if a child cannot consent to have sex, they cannot consent to sell it’ campaigners, both within the UK and internationally, lobbied for recognition of what was then called ‘child prostitution’ as a form of child abuse rather than a criminal offence on the part of the child (Barrett, 1997; Inter-agency Working Group on Sexual Exploitation of Children, 2016).

A significant win for those campaigning for this change within the UK occurred at the turn of the century, when new government guidance (DOH, 2000, p. 12) recognised that children ‘involved in prostitution should be treated primarily as the victims of abuse’. Further progress was observable in 2004 (Wales) and 2006 (England) which shifted the discourse from children ‘involved in’ prostitution to those abused through the same. Whilst still retaining the language of prostitution, this move further reframed a child’s involvement in it as abusive rather than criminal. In doing so it redefined them primarily as victims rather than offenders, a development in line with international discourse on the issue at the time.³ Relatedly it was the beginning of the movement away from a criminal justice response and towards a child protection response to those affected by the issue.

p.11

Interestingly, the guidance did retain the option to pursue a criminal justice response to those who would not accept help and were deemed to be persistent offenders. Whilst not couched as such, this was clearly predicated on a judgement-based understanding of victimhood that differentiated between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ victims. As explored below, this is a harmful binary distinction that continues today and has clearly contributed to the overlooking of harm in some cases of CSE, particularly those cases where a young person can be seen to be benefiting from and/or initiating the exchange.

Whilst the recognition of the abusive nature of child prostitution was welcomed, campaigning efforts continued to move away from the terminology of prostitution entirely and its association with an adult practice, and reframe the issue more clearly in child protection terms. 2008–2010 was a seminal time period in this regard, with the English and Welsh governments introducing statutory guidance that reframed the issue as one of ‘child sexual exploitation’ rather than as prostitution (All Wales Child Protection Procedures Review Group, 2008; DCSF, 2009; Welsh Assembly Government, 2010). The language of CSE has dominated discourse since and has now become deeply embedded within both practice and policy. This has not however been without complications or challenges, as explored below.

Current policy definitions of CSE and CSA in the UK

All four UK nations currently operate a definition of CSE that, although expressed in slightly different terminology, hold true to a number of core common components.⁴ All purport that CSE is a form of child sexual abuse that can affect any child under the age of 18 years. Although less explicitly stated, also common to all four nations’ policy positions is recognition that CSE:

• Is an umbrella term covering many different manifestations of abuse; both contact and non-contact;

• Can affect both males and females;

• Can be perpetrated by a range of abusers – male/female; adult/peer; any social class or ethnicity; operating alone, in groups or organised gangs.

Interestingly, all of the same things can be said of the broader definitions of CSA across the four UK nations. So, if CSE is a form of CSA, what is it that distinguishes CSE from other forms of CSA?

Although there are some differences between the four nations’ CSE and CSA definitions around the degree to which power dynamics are referenced and, relatedly, whether the abuse is described as coerced or enticed, these are more semantics rather than substantive differences. The core substantive difference between definitions of CSE and broader definitions of CSA is the additional requirement in the former for some form of ‘exchange’, in which the victim and/or perpetrator ‘receives something’ in return for the sexual activity.

This exchange or receipt of something – the defining feature of CSE within current policy definitions – is variably defined across the four UK nations, with resultant differences in what is understood to constitute CSE within those jurisdictions. As explored below, the lack of clarity around the parameters of the exchange within this has also resulted in varying interpretations of what might fall within or outside of the conceptualisation. We explore this with reference to (a) victim gain and (b) perpetrator gain in turn below, the presence of either (or both) of which would constitute a case as CSE.

p.12

Victim gain: can a young person gain from their abuse?

Before considering the detail of what is defined as constituting victim gain for the purposes of CSE, it is worth commenting on the general concept of victim gain itself, given (a) its centrality to the definition of CSE and (b) the apparent discomfort that exists in some circles around this. Our experience of training professionals and supporting definition development clearly demonstrates that people can struggle with the concept that a child or young person may engage in sexual activity in return for something they need or want, and thus gain something as part of an abusive dynamic. A specific anxiety articulated to us in relation to this is that highlighting the gain for the child could conceal the abusive nature of the act. This concern – that professionals will not recognise it as abuse if the child is getting something they need or want from the situation – has led some to propose that recognition of such gain should be less central within, or indeed entirely removed from, the definition. This, we argue, is not a definitional issue. It is instead an educative one. Indeed, it is one that lies at the heart of the problem and a significant contributor to our failure to adequately identify and respond to some cases of CSE.

Core to these identification and response problems is our partial understanding of victimhood and our flawed perception of what constitutes a victim, together with a failure to adequately recognise the potential complexities of, and variations within, abusive situations. To expand, our understanding of, and responses to, CSE have historically been informed by the ‘puppet on a string’ model (Barnardo’s, 2011), in which the child is perceived as having no say or choice in what happens to them, their actions and experiences being entirely manipulated by an abusive individual or group. Whilst this degree of external control is indeed present in some cases of CSE, we know that there are many other cases in which the axis of power and decision-making is much more subtle and complex (Melrose, 2010; Pearce, 2010; Beckett, 2011; Beckett et al., 2013; Pitts, 2013; Hallett, 2015; Beckett, Holmes and Walker, 2017). Practice evidence shows that the reality of many young people’s experiences of CSE are not necessarily driven by threat or force, but may be driven more by need or want or, akin to many domestic violence situations, loyalty to or love for the perpetrator. Although also provided for within the definitions of CSE, these are the cases that we are less likely to recognise as abusive, and where the child/young person can be misconstrued as ‘making active lifestyle choices’ (Jago and Pearce, 2008; Griffiths, 2013; Pearce, 2013; Jay, 2014; Bedford, 2015; Research in Practice, 2015).

This dynamic of ‘choice’ or ‘agency’ – and the presence of victim gain often observed within CSE – complicated and uncomfortable as it may be, is not one that can be avoided or denied. Indeed it is the very presence of such gain that both distinguishes cases of CSE from other cases of sexual abuse and adds an additional layer of complexity in responding to such cases.⁵

What constitutes victim gain within CSE?

So, if we can resolve the ideological dilemmas addressed above and accept that one of the core dynamics of CSE is the fact that someone receives something in return for the sexual activity, and, critically, that this someone can be ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Understanding and Responding to Child Sexual Exploitation
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Lists of Illustrations
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part I Contemporary Perspectives on Understanding
• Part II Contemporary Perspectives on Prevention and Response
• Index