An evaluation of the pilot to devolve decision-making for child victims of modern slavery

Question 1

Glossary

Accepted Answer

Child	A child is anyone who is, or is understood to be, aged 17 or under. Throughout the report we refer to child/children rather than also referring to ‘young people’ as it is the legal status of the person as a child which is relevant for this report.
Conclusive grounds (CG)	A conclusive grounds decision is the second stage of a 2-stage decision-making process to determine whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery. CG decisions are made to determine whether ‘on the balance of probabilities’ there are sufficient grounds to decide that the individual is a victim of modern slavery.
First Responder Organisations	First responders work for designated organisations, as set out by the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) guidance, and help identify and support potential victims of modern slavery.
Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTGs)	In England and Wales, ICTGs are an independent source of advice for children who have been trafficked and somebody who can speak up on their behalf. Their role is embedded within Section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Modern Slavery	‘Modern Slavery’ is an umbrella term that is used in England and Wales to refer to crimes of human trafficking, slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. The term relates to the offences provided for in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015.
Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (MAAPs)	Multi-Agency Assurance Panels are required to review all negative CG decisions made by the SCA across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The main aim and purpose of MAAPs is to help ensure robust and consistent decision-making processes are undertaken within the NRM, as well as to improve victim and stakeholder confidence in NRM decisions.
Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE)	Multi-Agency Child Exploitation meetings are local- level multi-agency meetings with representatives from statutory and voluntary agencies involved in the safeguarding of children and young people at risk of exploitation^{[footnote 1]}.
Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)	A Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference is a non-statutory process that brings together statutory and voluntary agencies to jointly support adult and child victims of domestic abuse who are at a high risk of serious harm or homicide, and to disrupt and divert the behaviour of the perpetrator(s)^{[footnote 2]}.
National Referral Mechanism (NRM)	The National Referral Mechanism is the UK’s framework for identifying victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Please see the NRM guidance for England and Wales and the NRM guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Reasonable grounds (RG)	A reasonable grounds decision is the first stage of a 2-stage decision-making process to determine whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery. The burden of proof for RG decisions is that those making the decision ‘suspect but cannot prove’ that an individual is a potential victim of modern slavery.
Scottish Guardians (SGs)	In Scotland, children and young people who are, or may have been, trafficked, or are at risk of trafficking, for whom no one in the UK holds parental rights or responsibilities, are entitled to receive independent advocacy support of a guardian from the Scottish Guardianship Service.
Single Competent Authority (SCA)	This sits within the Home Office and considers cases of potential victims referred to the NRM by First Responder Organisations.
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC)	Children or young people who have fled their country of origin without the care or protection of their parents.

Question 2

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Background and context

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct a process evaluation of the pilot to devolve (the transfer of decision-making from central to local level) the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) decision-making on modern slavery for children from the Home Office to local authorities across 10 pilot sites. The pilot commenced on 14 June 2021, the evaluation covers the first year of the pilot.

The aims of the evaluation were to:

Enable the Home Office to identify the different ways in which devolving the NRM decision-making was implemented locally.
Provide evidence that will help the Home Office understand the commitment (in terms of cost and time requirements) and benefits that this change of policy will have on local authorities.

The evaluation concentrated on the local delivery of devolving decision-making and the effect it has had on local authorities and other stakeholders, including stakeholders’ perceptions of the impact (effects experienced as a result) on affected children.

Findings are primarily based on qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in the local delivery of devolving decision-making, as well as those involved in reviewing or quality-assuring the decisions centrally. In total, Ipsos UK conducted 62 in-depth interviews, split into 3 stages: 13 interviews were conducted with pilot co-ordinators and project managers in an initial scoping exercise; 12 baseline interviews were conducted with co-ordinators in the first phase of the mainstage fieldwork; and a further 35 interviews were conducted with co-ordinators and key stakeholders in the second phase of mainstage fieldwork. In addition, 3 group discussions were held with members of the Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (MAAPs), and 2 interviews were held with the Single Competent Authority (SCA) decision-makers. All interviews were transcribed and coded into an Excel framework where they were thematically analysed by the research team.

Where relevant, quantitative data provided by the SCA is included in the report to contextualise and support qualitative findings. NRM referral data was analysed to explore the characteristics of potential victims referred to the pilot in the year from 14 June 2021. The quality and timeliness of decisions made by pilot sites are considered, drawing on NRM data for comparative decisions made by the SCA. Monitoring data collected by pilot sites via reporting templates was analysed to explore how much time panel members spent on decision-making and how the views of the child were represented in panel discussions.

It is important to note that, as the evaluation concentrated on process and is not an impact evaluation, no judgement was made in terms of attributing outcomes to the pilot.

The project underwent an internal ethics review by Ipsos UK’s ‘ethics committee’ prior to the fieldwork commencing. The committee specifically looked at the possibility of interviewing children, weighing up risks of re-traumatisation with the benefits of directly hearing from young people. The project also benefitted from external review by an Independent Expert Advisory Panel (IEAP), made up of relevant academics and third-sector organisations with an interest in modern slavery and the safeguarding of children and young people. The panel met quarterly throughout the project to ensure that practitioner’s feedback was considered throughout the project.

Together with the feedback from the IEAP, Ipsos UK and the Home Office reached the decision not to interview children for whom NRM decisions were made in the pilot as part of the evaluation. This is a limitation, although we have instead sought to capture their views through stakeholders involved in the decision-making and the review of anonymised casefiles.

Key findings

Overall, feedback suggests that the pilot is going well and stakeholders from across the pilot sites, MAAPs and the SCA, felt that the benefits of the pilot (discussed in Chapter 5) outweighed any weaknesses (discussed in Chapter 6).

In the first year of the pilot (the year from 14 June 2021), there were 460 referrals made to pilot sites which represents approximately one-eighth (12%) of all referrals for potential child victims^{[footnote 3]} to the NRM in the same time period. Potential victims were aged 10 to 17 years and predominantly male (79%). The most common form of exploitation was criminal exploitation (54%), with an additional 15% of referrals reporting criminal exploitation along with other types of exploitation. Potential victims were most commonly UK nationals (72%) and around one-fifth (21%) of referrals were for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children .

Implementation of NRM decisions and processes

Panel set-up varied from site to site, however all panels included statutory partners from local authorities, police and health representatives^{[footnote 4]}. Stakeholders wanted more guidance on the appropriate level of seniority of those attending panels, as having senior representation was seen as important.

Training provided by the Home Office was seen as useful and informative, although some would have valued a more localised approach and discussion of more complex case scenarios. Stakeholders in particular valued training refreshers to accommodate busy schedules and changes to the panel.

Sites generally felt they had all the information required to make decisions, but some sites felt that timings were tight, especially for health and police representatives to gather relevant information.

A well-organised and dedicated pilot co-ordinator was seen as key to the successful running of the pilot.

Decision-making process

Sites generally felt that the panel decision-making process worked well. Having panel members from different partner organisations was seen as an effective way of including different voices in the process to challenge the panel’s collective thinking.

The importance of having a consistent panel was highlighted by panel members. Ensuring consistency and preparing for staff changes, by having trained deputy panel members for example, was seen as key.

Panel members and wider stakeholders saw the panel decision-making as effective and accurate. This view is supported by monitoring data which shows that 92% of decisions passed the quality assurance conducted by the SCA. There was also a sense from panel members that the quality of NRM referrals had improved over the course of the pilot due to more detailed referrals coming in.

There have been significant improvements in the speed of decision-making. Monitoring data shows that reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds (CG) decisions were made in fewer days than the respective 45- and 90-day decision-making timescales provided in the guidance. On average, pilot sites made CG decisions more quickly than the SCA. However, stakeholders flagged that quicker decisions are not always better decisions and highlighted the need for flexibility around timings to ensure all relevant information is being considered.

Views were mixed on the effectiveness of the feedback from the SCA. Panel members often wanted more clarity in the explanation of their decisions and more detailed and constructive feedback to help pilot sites improve their decision-making.

Benefits of devolving decision-making

The quicker decision-making within the pilot programme was seen as the main benefit. Quicker decision-making was seen as particularly beneficial for child victims who were ‘in limbo’ because of their immigration status or who were involved with the criminal justice system.

Another benefit was the increased awareness and understanding of the NRM process, as well as modern slavery more generally, within local authorities. The NRM process was perceived as enhancing local safeguarding structures.

Pilot sites mostly reported an improvement in multi-agency partnership working or observed that it had remained the same. Improved multi-agency partnership working was also felt to have had an impact on the quality of the panels’ decision-making.

Burden and barriers of devolving decision-making

Overall, feedback on the pilot suggests that the benefits of devolving decision-making outweighed the weaknesses raised.

When asked about barriers, stakeholders mentioned: the amount of time spent on the pilot; concerns about panel resilience given the nature of the evidence and cases; lack of clarity of the impact for children; lack of flexibility of the 90-day timescale to complete the child’s NRM decision; and the relationship of panels with the SCA.

Perceived impact on young people

In panel meetings, the views of children were primarily captured through the input of practitioners, such as social workers, Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTGs) or Scottish Guardianship Service representatives, as panel meetings tended not to include direct engagement with the child. This was seen as an appropriate way of including the child’s views and wishes whilst accounting for situations where the child did not want to, or was unable to, engage directly with the NRM process.

ICTGs and Scottish Guardians were valued for their subject matter expertise and ability to advocate for the child in question. However, some stakeholders felt the pilot could benefit from additional guidance on the role of the ICTG and the Scottish Guardian within the decision-making process, to support panel members in gauging how much weight they should give to their views.

At this early stage of the pilot, there is limited evidence about the impact on children. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the shortened timescales benefit children as it gives them more stability and allows them to start the process of recovery. However, panel members expressed interest in knowing whether and how their decisions impacted on the child – both for the child’s sake and to inform their future decision-making in similar cases.

Conclusions and implications

Overall, the pilot was seen as successful. While stakeholders taking part in the evaluation raised a small number of challenges (see our recommendations on how these could be addressed below), the overall sentiment was that the benefits of the pilot outweighed any weaknesses.

Considerations for wider roll-out

When thinking about the possibility of a wider roll-out of the pilot, the following should be considered:

This evaluation did not examine how the devolution of decision-making engaged with, or impacted on, children themselves, but any future monitoring should evidence how children’s views are presented to, and taken into consideration by, the panel. There is a need for future research to explore and identify relevant outcomes to track what impact the pilot is having on children who are subject to devolved NRM decisions.

Whilst the pilot sites appreciated the flexibility in setting up the pilot locally, they felt there was a need for additional guidance in relation to panel set-up, the seniority of panel members and their roles and responsibilities, the role of ICTGs and Scottish Guardians, and who holds voting rights (including how many individuals from one agency can vote). Ensuring detailed guidance is available to all new sites prior to a wider roll-out will help sites navigate the set-up stage even better and avoid delays.

Whilst feedback on the training provided by the Home Office was positive, sites could benefit from additional training to clarify thresholds and legal definitions at set-up stage. At a later stage, the need for additional training about more complex case scenarios was flagged. Offering repeat training sessions was seen as beneficial and should be considered when expanding the pilot.

Defining the role and key responsibilities of the pilot co-ordinators, for example through a job specification, could benefit the pilot by setting clear expectations for co-ordinators and panel members alike. A dedicated and well-organised co-ordinator was seen as key to the successful delivery of the pilot. Best practice examples should be shared with any additional pilot sites to ensure the continued success of the programme.

Flexibility around the 90-day timescale for CG decisions should be considered as part of any updated guidance to ensure all relevant information has been gathered and is being considered by the panel.

Differences in legislation and governance need to be taken into consideration when rolling out to devolved nations, in particular how NRM decision-making connects to safeguarding processes.

The time commitment for panel members was higher than anticipated, especially in relation to pre-meeting preparation and the collating of meeting minutes and Home Office reporting requirements. As this could lead to panel ‘fatigue’, it may be helpful to provide sites with additional training and guidance on what should be included in the discussion and reporting templates to help reduce the amount of time spent on reporting and in panel meetings.

Question 3

1.  Introduction

Accepted Answer

Ipsos UK were commissioned by the Home Office in June 2021 to evaluate the pilot to devolve (the transfer of decision-making from central to local level) the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) modern slavery decisions for children from the Home Office to local authorities across 10 pilot sites.

The aims of the evaluation were to:

Enable the Home Office to identify the different ways in which devolving NRM decision-making was implemented locally.
Provide evidence that will help the Home Office understand the commitment (in terms of cost and time requirements) and benefits that this change of policy will have on local authorities.

The evaluation concentrated on the local delivery of devolving decision-making and the effect it has had on local authorities and other stakeholders, including stakeholders’ perceptions of the impact, and effects experienced as a result, on affected children.

Findings in the report are primarily based on qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in the local delivery of devolved decision-making, as well as those involved in reviewing or quality assuring the decisions centrally. Monitoring data provided by the local authorities, as well as NRM data provided by the Single Competent Authority (SCA), was used to contextualise the qualitative findings.

It should be noted that for reasons including practical considerations and to minimise the possibility of re-traumatisation, the evaluation did not directly engage with the children who had been referred into the NRM as part of the pilot. Provisions were made to gather evidence of the children’s views from information already collected by each site; this is referenced throughout the report where sites were able to provide this information.

The evaluation was supported by an Independent Expert Advisory Panel (IEAP) made up of relevant academics and third-sector organisations with an interest in modern slavery and the safeguarding of children and young people.

1.1 Policy context

The Home Office is in the process of developing a plan to better support child victims of modern slavery. At present, the NRM is the framework used to identify and refer potential victims of modern slavery, and ensure they receive appropriate support. Whilst children have always been in scope for the NRM, initially referrals to the NRM mostly related to adults. However, in recent years the profile has shifted with an increasing number of referrals for children and young people. In 2021, 43% of potential victims claimed exploitation as children compared with 30% in 2015^{[footnote 5]}.

The Home Office selected 10 sites (either single local authorities or a consortium; see Table 1.1) to pilot the devolving of modern slavery decision-making for children to local authorities. The aim of the pilot was to establish whether devolving decision-making improves knowledge and understanding of modern slavery and ensures that those who are identified and referred through the NRM are adequately supported and safeguarded using existing multi-agency structures.

Table 1.1: Successful pilot sites

Local authority	Country	Joint bid	Independent Child Trafficking Guardians or Scottish Guardian site^{[footnote 6]}
North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire	England	Yes	No
Cardiff Council	Wales	No	Yes
Glasgow City Council	Scotland	No	Yes^{[footnote 7]}
London Borough of Islington and London Borough of Camden	England	Yes	No
Hull City Council	England	No	No
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Borough of Westminster	England	Yes	No
North Yorkshire County Council and the City of York	England	Yes	Yes
Solihull Council	England	No	Yes
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham	England	Yes	No
Newport City Council and Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, Monmouth and Caerphilly	Wales	Yes	Yes

Objectives of the evaluation

The aims of the evaluation were to understand how the devolved decision-making process was being implemented across the 10 pilot sites and what the effect has been on participating local authorities and affected children (as perceived by stakeholders).

In particular, the evaluation sought to explore the following questions:

How has devolving child-related decision-making from the SCA to local authority multi-agency structures been delivered?
What was the effect on local authorities and stakeholders?
What was the impact on children whose cases are in the pilot, as perceived by stakeholders?
What were the opinions and experiences of children whose cases are in the pilot of the process, as perceived by stakeholders?

1.2 Methodology

The evaluation ran in parallel to the first year of the pilot and involved both qualitative and quantitative elements.

Qualitative process evaluation

The qualitative element of the process evaluation was split into 3 stages. In total, Ipsos UK conducted 62 interviews during the scoping stage and both phases of the mainstage.

Scoping stage

An initial scoping exercise with the 10 pilot sites took place between June and September 2021. This encompassed a review of the bids made by the successful local authorities and an initial consultation with pilot co-ordinators for the evaluation team to familiarise themselves with the sites and processes. The initial consultation involved 13 semi-structured interviews with co-ordinators across all sites. The document review and interviews with co-ordinators were used to inform the drafting of site-specific logic models (see supplementary diagrams published alongside this report), which were validated with the sites as part of the mainstage.

Mainstage

As part of the mainstage, Ipsos UK conducted 49 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders.

Mainstage interviewing was split into 2 phases; 12 baseline interviews with co-ordinators in November 2021, followed by interviews with up to 8 key stakeholders at each pilot site involved in the local delivery of the pilot between March and June 2022. This included repeat interviews with co-ordinators, as well as interviews with representatives from local authorities, police and health representatives who sat on the devolved decision-making panels. Where Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTGs) or Scottish Guardians were aligned to sites, these were included in the sample. Although it was anticipated that up to 80 interviews would be held during the mainstage, 49 were achieved after the scoping revealed that the number of stakeholders per devolved decision-making panel tended to be 4 or 5 rather than the anticipated 8, meaning that fewer interviews were required to achieve good coverage.

Table 1.2: Sample breakdown

Stakeholder group	Number of interviews achieved in scoping phase	Number of interviews achieved in mainstage (Nov 2021)	Number of interviews achieved in mainstage (Mar to Jun 2022)	Format
Pilot co-ordinators and project managers	^{[footnote 8]}13	^{[footnote 9]}12	8	In-depth interview via Microsoft Teams, Zoom or phone
Other panel members such as police, local authority, health representatives, Independent Child Trafficking Guardians and Scottish Guardians			27	In-depth interview via Microsoft Teams, Zoom or phone
Single Competent Authority			2	In-depth interview via Microsoft Teams, Zoom or phone
Multi-Agency Assurance Panels			9	3x focus groups via Zoom

Mainstage interviews were structured around several key topics touching on pilot delivery and the impact of devolving decision-making on stakeholders and affected children (see Annex B). Stakeholders were asked to draw on specific examples to generate evidence in terms of best practice, benefits and lessons learnt.

In addition to interviews with local stakeholders, the evaluation included semi-structured interviews with those involved in reviewing and quality assuring the devolved decisions. Ipsos UK conducted 3 focus groups with members from the Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (MAAPs), tasked with reviewing all negative conclusive grounds (CG) decisions, as well as 2 in-depth interviews with the SCA staff in charge of quality assuring each devolved decision made as part of the pilot. Interviews and focus groups with central stakeholders took place after the interviews with local stakeholders, to inform and contextualise findings in relation to the quality of decision-making.

All interviews were transcribed and coded into an Excel framework where they were thematically analysed by the research team.

In addition to the interviews, a light-touch literature and document review took place to help inform the research materials.

Quantitative data

The qualitative element of the research was supplemented by a quantitative element. Home Office Analysis and Insight analysed monitoring data provided by local authorities and NRM data provided by the SCA. The purpose of the analysis was to explore the characteristics of cases, decision outcomes and the timeliness of decision-making for cases referred to pilot areas in comparison to non-pilot areas. Decision outcomes and timeliness were examined to understand how devolving decision-making from the SCA to local authorities was delivered. The analysis also provided some initial exploration of the impact of the pilot on affected children (for example, the speed at which children received NRM decisions), although outcomes cannot be attributed directly to the pilot.

The SCA collected data on the outcomes and timescales of decisions made by pilot sites as part of monitoring and quality assurance processes. Where relevant, outcomes and timescales for decisions made by the pilot sites were compared to NRM data for non-pilot sites, extracted by the SCA (this information is collected as standard through the usual NRM reporting mechanisms). However, it must be noted that the NRM data for non-pilot sites is not intended as a control group. Referrals received by the SCA where the potential victim was less than 100 days away from their 18th birthday were excluded from the data to increase the comparability of the samples^{[footnote 10]}. Cases where the date of birth of the potential victim was not known on referral were also excluded. The comparative SCA data covers outcomes and timescales for decisions made in the year from 14 June 2021 to 13 June 2022, meaning that SCA figures include cases referred to the SCA prior to this time period and may include reconsideration cases. This time period was chosen to capture a fuller picture of SCA decision-making. The alternative comparison time period of decisions made on cases referred in the first year of the pilot, would skew the comparison group towards cases which can be decided within a year and so this alternative comparison group may have different characteristics to those which take longer to reach an outcome. However, it should be noted that decision timeliness is likely to be affected by the existing backlog of cases in the SCA.

Monitoring data was collected by local authorities via reporting templates which were completed for every panel decision made. From 11 April 2022 onwards, due to amendments to reporting templates, information was collected about the ways in which the views and wishes of the child were being represented in decision-making panels. Researchers in Home Office Analysis and Insight extracted and collated data from reporting templates (647 in total^{[footnote 11]}), including how sites were representing the views of the child. Data was analysed to identify how decision-making was being implemented locally in terms of how the views of the child were being considered.

Quantitative findings are included throughout the report to contextualise and support the qualitative findings.

Ethical clearance

The project underwent an internal ethics review by Ipsos UK prior to the fieldwork commencing. Ipsos UK’s internal ethics group is made up of senior researchers experienced in working with children and young people, as well as vulnerable audiences. The group follows the GSR Ethical Assurance for Social and Behavioural Research guidance and draws on other relevant ethical codes such as the Economic and Social Research Council ethics framework, the Social Research Association ethical guidelines and the Market Research Society code of conduct. For this evaluation, the group specifically looked at the possibility of interviewing children, weighing up risks of re-traumatisation with the benefits of directly hearing from young people.

The project further benefitted from an external review by the IEAP. The panel met quarterly throughout the project to ensure that practitioners’ feedback was taken into consideration throughout the project.

Together with the feedback from the IEAP, Ipsos UK and the Home Office reached the decision not to include children for whom NRM decisions were made in the pilot as part of the evaluation. This is a limitation, although we have instead sought to capture their views through stakeholders involved in the decision-making and the review of a few anonymised casefiles.

Limitations

Findings from the evaluation should be interpreted with some limitations. An important limitation was that children were not interviewed as part of the evaluation. While efforts were made to include the views of the child through interviews with social workers and ICTGs and Scottish Guardians, these views may not be reflective of those of the children.

As the evaluation aimed to better understand the underlying process of devolving NRM decision-making (process evaluation), findings about the impact the pilot programme had on participating sites and the children subject to the decision-making is limited.

Although quantitative data has been used to contextualise and support findings from the interviews, the findings are primarily based on qualitative research, which is illustrative and exploratory.

The evaluation sought to include anonymised casefiles from local authorities, detailing the views of the children. While efforts were made to set up Data Sharing Agreements (DSAs), only 2 sites decided to sign the DSAs, limiting the amount of secondary data included in the report.

Only negative CGs decisions were reviewed by MAAPs. Feedback from MAAP members on the quality of devolved decision-making should be interpreted with this in mind.

The sample of SCA staff was small (n = 2) and so these findings should be interpreted with additional caution.

Understanding safeguarding outcomes for young people

Home Office researchers explored the feasibility of collecting and analysing short-term safeguarding outcome data to identify how the pilot has impacted children going through the NRM. Through engagement with the IEAP and pilot sites, several variables^{[footnote 12]} were identified as potential measures of safeguarding outcomes. These were variables on which most local authorities were believed to hold data. Potential methodologies were considered, and a control group was identified by matching local authorities in which the change is being piloted with local authorities outside of the programme, based on children’s services data^{[footnote 13]} and NRM referral data. However, after further discussions with relevant local authorities, it was determined that it would not be feasible to conduct the analysis to assess the immediate safeguarding outcomes for children in the pilot. This was for several reasons.

First, the numbers of observations available was low, owing to the relatively low numbers of child NRM referrals for some local authorities. This limited the possibility of being able to detect any statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts.

Furthermore, the way that safeguarding data is stored locally meant that it would have been extremely time-consuming for individual local authorities to extract the relevant data to share with the Home Office. This, coupled with the reasonable possibility that the analysis would produce inconclusive results, meant that it was felt the burden placed on local authorities to provide the data would be too high.

Additionally, concerns were raised about the validity of the analysis, given the difficulties of interpreting safeguarding variables. For instance, if the number of missing incidents had increased, that could be interpreted both positively (in that missing incidents are being noticed and recorded more frequently) and negatively (in that children are going missing more frequently). Therefore, it would have been difficult to interpret any difference observed between pilot and non-pilot sites. There were also potential differences in the way safeguarding variables were defined and recorded by different local authorities, meaning available data would have been patchy.

Overview of the report structure

The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 – provides a short overview of the context and sets the scene for the evaluation.
Chapter 3 – describes the implementation of the pilot locally.
Chapter 4 – explores the decision-making process.
Chapter 5 – concentrates on the benefits of devolving decision-making as perceived by the stakeholders involved in the delivery of the pilot.
Chapter 6 – examines the challenges associated with devolving decision-making.
Chapter 7 – discusses how the pilot is integrated within local safeguarding and what the effect of the pilot has been on children (as perceived by stakeholders).
Chapter 8 – provides an overview of the conclusions drawn from the process evaluation and recommendations for a wider roll-out of the pilot programme.

Throughout the report, relevant verbatim quotes from participating stakeholders have been included to illustrate findings.

Question 4

2.  Context

Accepted Answer

This chapter provides an overview of the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) and how the devolving NRM decision-making pilot was intended to work. The chapter also covers monitoring data to give additional context to the evaluation findings.

2.1 Overview of the National Referral Mechanism

The NRM was introduced in 2009 and is the UK framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive appropriate support. Potential victims are referred to the NRM by designated First Responder Organisations. Official statistics show a continued increase in the overall number of NRM referrals since the introduction of the system; 12,727 potential victims were referred to the NRM in 2021 compared with 3,266 in 2015^{[footnote 14]}. There has also been a shift in the referrals profile with an increasing number of referrals for children and young people; 43% of potential victims referred to the NRM in 2021 claimed exploitation as children compared with 30% in 2015^{[footnote 15]}.

Prior to the Pilot, all NRM referrals were considered centrally by the Single Competent Authority (SCA) within the Home Office^{[footnote 16]}. The relevant Competent Authority makes a reasonable grounds (RG) decision to determine whether it ‘suspects but cannot prove’ that an individual was a potential victim of modern slavery. Guidance states that RG decisions should be made within 5 working days of referral. The relevant Competent Authority goes on to make a conclusive grounds (CG) decision no sooner than 45 calendar days after the RG decision, to determine whether ‘on the balance of probabilities’ there are sufficient grounds to decide that the individual is a victim of modern slavery.

2.2 Intended pilot delivery

In 2021, following an open competition, the Home Office selected 10 sites to pilot devolving modern slavery decision-making for children (who are more than 100 days away from their 18th birthday) to local authorities. Based on the ‘Devolving child decision making pilot programme: general guidance’ originally published by the Home Office in June 2021 (updated in July 2022), the aim of the devolving NRM decision-making pilot was to:

Test whether determining if a child is a victim of modern slavery within existing local safeguarding structures is a more appropriate model for making modern slavery decisions for children.
Ensure the decisions made are closely aligned with the provision of local, needs-based support and any law enforcement response.

The pilot did not include potential adult victims exploited as children.

While the pilot programme provided local authorities with flexibility on their local implementation, the Home Office’s guidance set out several elements that should have been incorporated, including those within the extract below:

RG and CG decisions should be made by a multi-agency panel with representation from 3 statutory safeguarding partners – the local authority, health and police – as a minimum. The chair of the multi-agency panel should not be the lead social worker involved in a child’s case.

RG decisions should be made no later than 45 days from the date the Pilot site receives the referral.

A positive CG decision can be made at the same meeting if there is sufficient evidence to do so.

If a Pilot site deems the evidence gathered for the first multi-agency meeting is insufficient for a positive CG decision to be taken at the same meeting, a second meeting to make the CG decision should take place no later than 45 days after the first meeting.

A negative CG decision should not be made at an initial meeting if a positive RG decision has been reached. Instead, a second meeting to make the CG decision should be scheduled to allow for further evidence to come to light or be collected.

Where the multi-agency panel has considered the evidence to make a CG decision and assesses that there is insufficient evidence to make a positive decision, sites must notify the Home Office of that assessment and provide a date for a follow-up meeting no later than 45 days after that initial meeting.

Decisions should be completed within 90 days. However, there is flexibility for Pilot sites to inform the SCA if a decision is going to take more than 90 days due to evidence not being available.

Pilot sites must keep the SCA informed of outcomes of a RG and/or a CG decision.

The SCA must quality assure all of the decisions made by Pilot sites.

All negative CG decisions should be reviewed by Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (MAAPs). This is the same process as for non-Pilot sites.

Where the Pilot Programme is in an area where the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service, the Scottish Guardianship Service or equivalent statutory provision is rolled out (see table 1.1 above), the views of the ICTG or Scottish Guardian should be sought before taking a CG decision to ensure the ‘voice of the child’ is being heard. The ICTG and the Scottish Guardian however do not hold voting rights.

Children in the Pilot Programme should continue to receive appropriate safeguarding and support in line with current statutory requirements irrespective of the stage they are at in the decision-making process.

2.3 Numbers and characteristics of potential child victims

In the first year of the pilot (the year from 14 June 2021), there were 460 referrals of potential child victims of modern slavery made to pilot sites, which represents approximately one-eighth (12%) of all referrals for potential child victims^{[footnote 17]} to the NRM in the same period. There was a slight overall decrease (-2%) in the number of referrals to local authorities involved in the pilot compared to the preceding year (471). The number of referrals varied across sites (see table 2.1). Cardiff Council received the highest number of referrals (16%; 74) and Glasgow City Council received the fewest (5%; 22). The monthly number of referrals to the pilot fluctuated between around 30 to 50 referrals from July 2021 to May 2022. Data for June 2021 and June 2022 are not included in Figure 2.1 as the pilot started halfway through the month, meaning a full month’s data was not available.

Table 2.1: Number of referrals by Pilot site, 14 June 2021 to 13 June 2022

Pilot site	Number of referrals
Cardiff Council	74
Glasgow City Council	22
Hull City Council	47
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham	54
London Borough of Islington and London Borough of Camden	46
Newport City Council and Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, Monmouth and Caerphilly	55
North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire	25
North Yorkshire County Council and the City of York	54
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Borough of Westminster	30
Solihull Council	53
Total	460

Notes:

Glasgow went live on 5 August 2021 due to delays in publishing the Decision-making guidance for pilot sites in Scotland, so the number of referrals is taken from this date.
Includes referrals made by all First Responder Organisations in each pilot area.

During the same timeframe, the SCA received 3,779 referrals for child potential victims^{[footnote 18]}. The monthly number of referrals to the SCA also appeared to fluctuate but showed a slight upward trend (see Figure 2.1 below).

Figure 2.1 Monthly number of referrals to SCA and Pilot, July 2021 to May 2022

Notes:

Referrals to the SCA are for potential victims of modern slavery who were more than 100 days away from their 18th birthday on referral and includes pilot cases.
Excludes referrals to the SCA where the date of birth was unknown.

Referrals by age group, gender and exploitation type

The age of potential victims of modern slavery referred to the pilot ranged from 10 to 17 years. Of the 460 potential victims referred, approximately four-fifths were male (79%; 362) and one-fifth were female (21%; 97). The gender of one potential victim was recorded as other.

The most common form of exploitation was criminal exploitation (54%; 248) for referrals to the pilot. An additional 15% (68) of referrals stated that the potential victim had been referred for criminal exploitation along with other types of exploitation. The second most common form of exploitation was sexual exploitation (12%; 57), with an additional 8% (37) of referrals referred for sexual exploitation along with other types of exploitation (see table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Number of referrals by exploitation type, and exploitation type as a percentage of all referrals, 14 June 2021 to 13 June 2022

Exploitation type	Number of referrals	Percentage of all referrals
Criminal	248	54%
Sexual	57	12%
Labour	36	8%
Labour and Criminal	36	8%
Not specified or unknown	36	8%
Sexual and Criminal	28	6%
Labour and Domestic	6	1%
Domestic	3	1%
Sexual and Labour	3	1%
Sexual, Labour and Criminal	3	1%
Sexual, Labour and Domestic	3	1%
Labour, Domestic and Criminal	1	<1%
Total	460	100%

The characteristics of potential victims referred to the pilot were generally similar to child potential victims referred to the SCA. For the same timeframe, 79% (2,976) of potential victims referred to the SCA were male, 21% (795) were female, and the gender of under 1% (8) was recorded as other. Similarly, the most common form of exploitation recorded for referrals to the SCA was criminal exploitation (54%; 2,042). However, in contrast to referrals made to the pilot, the next most common form of exploitation recorded was other/unknown (14%; 526), followed by sexual exploitation (10%; 385) and labour exploitation (8%; 312).

Referrals by nationality

The most common nationality referred to the pilot was UK nationals, which accounted for 72% (330) of all potential victims. The second most referred nationality was Sudanese (6%; 29) and the third was Eritrean (3%; 15). Around one-fifth (21%; 99) of referrals were Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

Exploitation type appeared to vary by nationality. The most common form of exploitation for non-UK nationals was labour exploitation (27%; 35), followed by criminal exploitation (22%; 28). Comparatively, criminal exploitation (67%; 220) was the most common form of exploitation for UK nationals, followed by sexual exploitation (15%; 48).

There was a slight difference in the proportion of nationalities referred to the SCA during the same timeframe^{[footnote 19]}. UK nationals were the most common nationality referred to the SCA, yet accounted for a lower proportion of referrals (66%; 2,495) than for the pilot. The second most referred nationality was Afghan (4%; 145) and the third was Sudanese (4%; 133).

Question 5

3.  Implementation of National Referral Mechanism decisions and processes

Accepted Answer

This chapter sets out findings from the qualitative research about the implementation and processes of devolving decision-making across pilot sites.

Key findings

Panel set-up varied from site to site. However, all panels included statutory partners from the local authority, police and health representatives. Stakeholders wanted more guidance on the appropriate level of seniority of those attending panel, as having senior representation was seen as important.

Training provided by the Home Office was seen as useful and informative, although some would have valued a more localised approach and discussion of more complex case scenarios. Stakeholders in particular valued training refreshers to accommodate busy schedules and changes to the panel.

Sites generally felt they had all the information required to make decisions, but some sites felt that timings were tight, especially for health and police representatives, to gather relevant information.

A well-organised and dedicated pilot co-ordinator was seen as essential to the successful running of the pilot.

3.1 Panel set-up

In line with Home Office guidance, all panels included members from the local authority, local police force and health representatives. While there was agreement that all relevant agencies were represented on panels once the pilot had started, there was some initial confusion about the inclusion of health representatives and Independent Child Trafficking Guardians or Scottish Guardians, as local authorities felt this had not been made clear in the bidding process. In addition to the statutory members, some sites had an education representative or members from local third sector partners and charities attend panels when available.

Stakeholders also wanted more guidance on the appropriate seniority levels of those attending panels. Some panel members expressed concerns that those with less experience and expertise in the area may not be able to effectively escalate any issues raised in the panel (see Chapter 6 for more detail).

The frequency of panel meetings ranged from weekly to monthly. Attending a panel, especially for sites where meetings took place weekly or bi-weekly, was a challenge for panel members and the pilot co-ordinators, as decisions could not take place without all the core members present. For example, in one pilot site several panels had to be cancelled as necessary representatives were unable to attend. To resolve resourcing difficulties, several pilot sites trained backup panel members from the various agencies to ensure that the panels could go ahead. Despite these challenges, panel members felt there was a commitment to the pilot from across the different agencies to attend the panels to the best of their ability.

3.2 Training and support

Feedback from pilot co-ordinators suggested that sites generally felt positive about the amount of support and training they received in the set-up stage of the pilot. Home Office project managers were seen as particularly useful as they were able to direct questions from the sites to relevant individuals or agencies and therefore support the sites in setting up the pilot locally.

Co-ordinators also saw steering group meetings^{[footnote 20]} as beneficial, as they provided learning opportunities to hear about how other pilot sites were operating. This allowed sites to learn from each other, while retaining flexibility to run the pilot in a way that best met local needs and complexities.

Initial training on the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) process provided by the Home Office was seen as useful and informative, providing a good overview of modern slavery and the NRM. However, panel members suggested that the training could have been more in-depth and covered more complex scenarios that might arise during the panels. Feedback suggested that the training could also have been more localised, to better accommodate variation between sites, whilst including national legal context.

In addition, training sessions were described as quite long, making it difficult to fit in with panel members’ day jobs and not all panel members were able to attend. Therefore, training refreshers were seen as useful. Pilot sites also developed their own bespoke training either within the local authority or provided by a charity to accommodate for their needs locally.

“I think if it’s left at those really simple examples of case studies from the training, then you get real-life panels, it’s never that straightforward. It’s very grey and you have to work towards it. I think, panel members aren’t potentially sufficiently prepared for what that would look like in practice. And whether that is a case of adding further time for those training sessions, or, perhaps there should be more of a focus on what panel members are likely to see in practice, as well as the theory behind it.”
(NRM Pilot panel member)

Stakeholder feedback suggested that information sharing between the different agencies taking part in the pilot worked well.

Home Office guidance did not set out specific processes around data sharing. However, all of the sites had processes in place to ensure that information about the case under discussion was shared before the NRM meeting took place. The pilot co-ordinator would be responsible for requesting and collating relevant information for the panel. For example, co-ordinators would request that police or health colleagues fill in a template with the information they hold around the case. The co-ordinator would then share the information in a timely manner with all panel members ahead of the panel meeting.

Gathering the information within the timeframes set out in the Home Office guidance was seen as challenging in some instances. For example, some police representatives found it time consuming to gather the information, and in one site they sought additional help from colleagues in the intelligence team. For health panel members, not all were frontline workers and so they did not have access to the relevant NHS information systems. In addition to system issues, challenges were also reported in obtaining information from GPs: they could be difficult to contact, unaware of what the NRM is, and may not understand the information request. There were further challenges when GPs were based outside of the panel’s area.

“It raises issues about one health rep doesn’t have access to all the NHS systems, so actually in terms of getting the right information in for a panel, that highlights one of the difficulties and challenges in partnership working. Because with the best will in the world, they were coming up against GPs who were saying, ‘Why do you need this information? And what rights have you got? Under what remit am I sharing information with you?’ And often not understanding what the NRM is.”
(NRM Pilot panel member)

While there were some challenges for health representatives to gather all information within the prescribed timeframes, there were also examples of how these challenges could be overcome. For instance, one of the pilot sites set up health information pathways to access the right information in a timely manner.

Sites might have benefitted from additional guidance from the Home Office on what information should be sought and what would be appropriate to request from each agency, as some were unfamiliar with what information agencies might have or be allowed to share.

However, panel members generally felt that information sharing was working well, and that the information they received was sufficient to make an informed decision.

3.4 Impact of the pilot on local authority and agency processes

Panel members described the pilot as being well embedded in the local authorities. In particular, the pilot was considered to have a positive impact on local authorities by increasing awareness of the NRM and modern slavery (this is explored further in Chapter 5). Conversely, the pilot also added to already-strained resources due to the additional time demand on the staff involved (this is detailed in Chapter 6) and limited extra resources.

3.5 Role of the pilot co-ordinator

The pilot co-ordinator was viewed by panel members as essential to the running of the pilot. Their role included organising the panel meetings and ensuring the right people attended, ensuring all information is gathered in time, writing the meeting minutes, and reporting back to the Single Competent Authority. In some pilot sites, the co-ordinator was also the panel chair, though it was noted that co-ordinators had varying knowledge of modern slavery across the sites. Having a highly organised and dedicated pilot co-ordinator, able to support panel members and act as a key point of contact, was seen as particularly effective. When comparing part- and full-time co-ordinators, those who had the role full-time felt that they were able to engage more fully with the pilot than those who had other responsibilities. This was echoed by panel members.

“We need the co-ordinator to run this process, someone who is completely focused on this process, on these children, that is their job. They do all the evidence returns for the Home Office, they link with the Home Office, they go to all the Home Office meetings, they produce all the reports, they chase. It is a full-time job, and they develop processes from this including safeguarding processes. We could not have run it without the co-ordinator.”
(NRM Pilot panel member)

Question 6

4.  Decision-making process

Accepted Answer

This chapter presents quantitative data provided by the pilot sites on the number of decisions made and the quality and timeliness of decision-making. Where relevant, quality and timeliness data for equivalent child cases decided on by the Single Competent Authority (SCA) are included for context. This chapter further sets out findings about the effectiveness of devolved decision-making as viewed by pilot co-ordinators, panel members and stakeholders from Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (MAAPs) and the SCA.

Key findings

Sites felt that the panel decision-making process worked well. Having panel members from different partner organisations was seen as an effective way of including different voices in the process to challenge each other’s thinking.

The importance of having a consistent panel was frequently highlighted by panel members. Ensuring consistency and preparing for staff changes, for example by having trained deputy panel members, was seen as crucial.

Panel members and wider stakeholders saw the panel decision-making as effective and accurate. Monitoring data shows that 92% of the decisions made passed quality assurance checks conducted by the SCA.

There was a sense from panel members that the quality of National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referrals had improved over the course of the pilot due to more detailed referrals coming in.

Monitoring data shows that reasonable grounds (RG) and conclusive grounds (CG) decisions were made in fewer days than the respective 45- and 90-day decision-making timescales provided in the guidance. On average, pilot sites made CG decisions more quickly than the SCA.

However, stakeholders flagged that quicker decisions are not always better decisions, and that there needs to be some flexibility around timings to ensure all relevant information is being considered.

Views were mixed on the effectiveness of the feedback from the SCA. Panel members often wanted more clarity in the explanation of their decisions and more detailed and constructive feedback to help pilot sites improve their decision-making.

4.1 Quantitative findings on decision-making

Number of decisions made

From 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, pilot sites issued^{[footnote 21]}:

417 RG decisions including joint RG and CG decisions – of these decisions, 94% (391) were positive and 6% (26) were negative
348 CG decisions including joint RG and CG decisions – of these decisions, 90% (314) were positive and 10% (34) were negative

The above figures include 147 joint positive RG and CG decisions made by pilot sites.

Quality of decision-making

The proportion of positive decision outcomes for decisions made by pilot sites and the SCA were broadly consistent (see Figure 4.1)^{[footnote 22]}. For RG decisions made from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, 94% (391) of RG decisions made by pilot sites were positive in comparison to 91% (3,417) of decisions made by the SCA. In addition, 90% (314) of CG decisions made by pilot sites were positive, in comparison to 95% (1,241) of CG decisions made by the SCA.

Figure 4.1: Reasonable grounds (RG) decision outcomes for decisions made by pilot sites and the Single Competent Authority (SCA), from 14 June 2021 to 13 June 2022

Notes:

SCA data is for cases where the potential victim was more than 100 days away from their 18th birthday on referral. Referrals to the SCA where the date of birth was unknown have been excluded.
SCA data is for decisions made from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, meaning figures include cases referred to the SCA prior to this period and may include reconsideration cases.
The number of decisions made by pilot sites is smaller than that of the SCA, therefore small changes will have a larger impact on the percentage.
RG decisions made by pilot sites include joint RG and CG decisions.

Figure 4.2: Conclusive grounds (CG) decision outcomes for decisions made by pilot sites and the Single Competent Authority (SCA), from 14 June 2021 to 13 June 2022

Notes:

SCA data is for cases where the potential victim was more than 100 days away from their 18th birthday on referral. Referrals to the SCA where the date of birth was unknown have been excluded.
SCA data is for decisions made from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, meaning figures include cases referred to the SCA prior to this period and may include reconsideration cases.
The number of decisions made by pilot sites is smaller than that of the SCA, therefore small changes will have a larger impact on the percentage.
CG decisions made by pilot sites include joint RG and CG decisions.

The outcomes of internal reviews of decisions made by pilot sites further suggest that the quality of decision-making is high. From 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, 92% (568) of issued decisions reviewed by the SCA passed quality assurance and 8% (50) did not. Decisions failed quality assurance when the SCA disagreed with a decision due to more information being required to support a decision, lack of representation of all 3 statutory partners at panel meetings, the wrong type of decision being recorded, and issues with the credibility of the information used to come to the decision. Decisions failing quality assurance were subsequently changed or overruled by the SCA, in line with recommendations from the SCA.

In the same timeframe, MAAPs reviewed 37 negative CG decisions made by pilot sites. Overall, 92% (34) of decisions were agreed with and negative CG decisions were served, while 8% (3) of decisions were disagreed with, resulting in the decisions being changed to positive CGs. Three cases were reviewed by MAAPs more than once.

The proportion of decisions agreed with by MAAPs are roughly consistent for decisions made by pilot sites and the SCA. Of the 55 negative CG decisions made by the SCA, which were reviewed by MAAPs in the same timeframe^{[footnote 23]}, 96% (53) of decisions were agreed with and decisions were served, and 4% (2) of decisions were disagreed with and the decisions were changed. Four SCA cases were reviewed by MAAPs more than once.

Timeliness of decision-making

For referrals received from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, the average (median) time taken from referral to pilot sites to RG decision (including joint RG and CG decisions) being made was 30 (calendar) days. Excluding joint decisions, the average time taken from referral to RG decision being made was 29 days. When looking solely at cases where a single joint RG and CG decision was issued, the average time taken was 32 days.

In comparison, for referrals received in the same timeframe, the average time from referral to RG decision being made by the SCA was 5 days. Therefore, RG decisions made by the SCA were made more quickly than pilot sites. However, it should be noted that guidance covering the SCA advises RG decisions should be made within 5 working days whereas the guidance for pilot sites states decisions should be made within 45 days from receipt of referral. The average time taken for pilot sites to issue an RG decision was still considerably lower than the 45-day timescale.

CG decisions were made more quickly by pilot sites than the SCA. The average time taken from referral to pilot sites to a CG decision (including joint RG and CG decisions) being made was 52 days. Excluding joint decisions, the average time taken from referral to pilot sites to a CG decision being made was 65 days. For CG decisions made by the SCA, the average time taken was 381 days. However, it is important to note that pilot sites started with a ‘work in progress’ caseload of zero, with all cases referred prior to the set-up of the pilot remaining with the SCA. This provided pilot sites with greater opportunity to make quicker decisions.

Figure 4.3: Average (median) decision-making times by decision type for pilot sites and the Single Competent Authority (SCA), for referrals received from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022

Notes:

SCA data is for cases where the potential victim was more than 100 days away from their 18th birthday on referral. Referrals to the SCA where the date of birth was unknown have been excluded.
Average (median) decision-making times for pilot sites are for decisions made on referrals received from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022. Comparative SCA decision-making times are for decisions made from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, irrespective of the date of referral meaning figures include cases referred to the SCA prior to this period and may include reconsideration cases.
Average (median) decision-making times relate to 417 RG decisions (including joint decisions) and 348 CG (including joint decisions) decisions made by pilot sites and 3,769 RG decisions and 1,649 CG decisions made by the SCA.

4.2 Panel decision-making

Feedback from panel members suggests that devolved panel decision-making was achieved either through a unanimous or majority vote. If there was a split decision, the panel chair (who would also vote in the initial round) usually made the final decision. Panel members who made a different decision to the majority were asked to provide their rationale as to why they have made that decision. This was reported back to the SCA to allow for additional quality assurance.

There could be multiple voting members from one organisation. This led to examples of panel decisions being made with 2 or more representatives from the local authority. This was seen as potentially problematic as the decision-making was usually done through a unanimous or majority vote (see above), and panel members from the same organisation tended to share similar views. This could influence the outcome of the decision-making. It may, therefore, be prudent for the guidance to set out exactly who holds voting rights and how many individuals can represent an agency.

“I think [we] need to tie down who actually has voting rights in the panel, because some panels will have multiple members from health, the police or social services, which kind of gives them an in-built voting advantage.”
(SCA staff)

While panel members tended to have similar views and opinions about a case, feedback suggests that sometimes different positions were held by those in social work backgrounds or child-focused roles versus those in the police and community safety roles. For example, it was less common for police to view the child as a victim compared with panel members from other backgrounds. This was especially pronounced at the start of the pilot.

However, panel members acknowledged that different views voiced at the panel ensured a rigorous debate. There was also a general sense that while discussions were often challenging, they were conducted in a way that enabled positive debate and made panel members feel safe, which was highly valued by panellists across all sites and meant that the decision-making process overall was seen as fit for purpose.

“We’ve got a couple of challenging people on there, which is very, very good…there are lots of challenges involved, there are lots of questions involved. […] you’ve got to be on your toes, you’ve got to listen to everything.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

“[We] have a panel where if somebody doesn’t agree with something, they will raise those concerns and say, ‘Actually, I don’t agree with you.’ It’s a safe place to do that.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

4.3 Importance of panel consistency

The importance of having a consistent panel was frequently highlighted by panel members. Several benefits of having a consistent panel were mentioned, such as:

it ensured a clear and shared understanding of the thresholds for every panel decision
it allowed the panel to reflect and learn from previous decisions, which helped with continuity in decision-making and familiarity with cases
it allowed for every NRM decision to be informed by the same level of knowledge each time by offering consistent advice across the board

“I think that it’s been really good to have a consistent group of people who are panel members…I think the key takeaway is that the knowledge and the field, the experience of the panel members making those decisions. They have had a career worth of experience in safeguarding children, whereas I don’t imagine that the SCA have that… There are some real subject matter experts within their field and bringing it all together from health, from youth offending, from the police, from the social workers, analysts. It really brings quite a solid panel to make quite robust decisions.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Another advantage of having a consistent panel was the ability to share open and honest opinions with other panel members, even if the views were conflicting. Building a relationship and rapport with other panel members seemed to be an important contributor to making decisions that were effective and well thought out.

“I think that’s probably why people then feel more comfortable to share their views. I think if [the panel] was different every time, you might feel you wouldn’t want to share.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

4.4 Seniority of panel members

Panel member feedback suggests that there was a good level of seniority across all 3 statutory agencies. However, as pointed out in Chapter 3, finding suitable replacements with the same level of knowledge and understanding of the process proved to be difficult at times. Some pilot areas struggled to maintain a consistent level of seniority, and the lack of understanding from representatives became apparent during the panel discussions.

“I think there does need to be a level of seniority which is a little bit removed from direct work sometimes from representation of panel, I think some of the comments from some of those police representatives, who are at that front-line policing, were, ‘I’m concerned about them getting a positive conclusive grounds decision because it will mean they’ll be able to utilise section 45 defence.’”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

The importance of a consistent and resilient panel, as well as relevant levels of seniority that allow for more strategic oversight and ensure wider agency buy-in, are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

4.5 Effectiveness of panel decision-making

Panel members and wider stakeholders saw panel decision-making as effective. The diversity of panel members from a range of professional backgrounds was seen as a main contributor to the effectiveness of the panel as it allowed for insight and expertise from different sectors.

“I would say it is robust, because we’ve got such a range of professional backgrounds, especially the trafficking guardians, who would advocate for the child, and sometimes we’ll have, for example, a health professional or a school professional that might just give that tiny bit of information. For example, a learning difficulty, or something that can sway the decision. It’s so important to have that range of expertise.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

This is in line with the quantitative data discussed earlier in the chapter^{[footnote 24]} and was echoed by SCA staff, who generally felt that the quality of decision-making was good. SCA staff did however point out that, while they were satisfied with the overall quality of the decisions, panels still required some support with unusual or uncommon cases such as financial exploitation or sexual exploitation. This was consistent with comments from pilot sites, who asked for additional training on complex case scenarios (see Chapter 3).

“Overall, where you’ve got the cases that they get that they’re familiar with then you’re getting up to 95%, almost 100%, getting through [SCA quality assurance]. It tends to be more ones where it’s scenarios where they’ve not experienced that before, that we’re still having to get them to look back, or where they haven’t got the evidential threshold just quite right, those would be the times where you would [disagree with the decision].”
(SCA staff)

Panel members also noted that gathering as much information and evidence as possible was necessary to make a well thought out decision, and that decision-making is only going to be as comprehensive as the information the panel has. Not having access to, or not being aware of, information was seen as a limiting factor in making decisions, particularly when making a CG decision, as noted in Chapter 3.

“It’s only as robust as the information that the group receives or the people that are involved in the meeting. If they don’t have all the information at hand, then the decision-making’s going to be flawed, and I guess that’s exactly what happened a couple of days ago, where a conclusive grounds decision was not met, but actually, there could be information that does exist, just that the YPSP [Young Person Support and Protection] meeting were not aware of, so therefore were not informed fully to be able to make the right decision.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

4.6 Quality of evidence

There was a sense from panel members that the quality of referrals had improved over the course of the pilot due to more detailed referrals coming in. If a referral with limited evidence came through, panel members felt that the devolved panel was in a better position than the SCA to request more evidence. This was linked to improved multi-agency working. Panel members often supported and advised first responders on what information should be put on a referral and what makes a good referral.

“It’s not only just the timings, it’s the quality of the evidence that’s been submitted as well. You don’t just have 3 lines on a submission form now. You’ve got that really good intelligent picture, the data gathered in order to make those decisions that you’re making. It just makes them really defensible at the end of the day because the details are there.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

4.7 Feedback from the Multi-Agency Assurance Panel on decision-making

MAAP members mirrored pilot site panel members’ views that the decision could only be as good as the evidence available. There was a view among MAAP members that the information they received as quality assurers was not comprehensive enough, as they did not have access to the evidence discussed in the panel meetings. MAAPs were also unaware of which agencies attended panels or were consulted as part of the decision-making, further limiting their ability to feedback on the pilot.

There was some concern about the quality of panel discussion. Based on the information available, MAAP members noted that, at times, decisions felt rushed to them due to shorter timeframes. MAAP members linked this to it being harder for devolved panels to have the capacity to reach out and confer with other agencies. MAAP members highlighted that although timely decisions were a huge benefit in many ways, it could also impact the quality of the decision-making. For example, it was mentioned that due to limited access to health records, panels could have difficulty in accessing records on time, potentially missing out on important evidence that could help decide on a positive decision.

“I think they feel rushed to do it, and because of who sits on their panels, they will not necessarily look to other agencies who might have some information that the SCA would have looked at. I would probably say immigration is a key one as to how somebody has come to be in the UK.”
(MAAP member)

Furthermore, MAAP members felt that within the devolved decision-making the discussion tended to be more heavily centred around the viewpoint of social services or social care, as opposed to taking into consideration the points of view from all agencies involved in the decision-making process.

“There seems to be a heavier focus on the social services side of things when we do the devolved child-making process, whereas through the previous process, we would get a wider range of material to look at and review, that would have been taken into consideration to make that decision.”
(MAAP member)

4.8 Speed of decision-making

The improved quality of evidence on the referrals not only helped the panel make positive RG decisions, but also meant they could make positive CG decisions within the first meeting if they felt they had all the necessary information. As a result, it allowed for identifying victims at a much earlier stage which, in turn, could help reduce court adjournments and provide relevant support for young people. However, stakeholders flagged that quicker decisions did not always mean better decisions. This is explored further in Chapter 6.

“It just means that the decision is made quicker, and hopefully the services are in place quicker for the children. And I suppose for the children where there is a criminal aspect to it, and if they are waiting to go to court and things, the courts are aware that they’ve had their conclusive grounds, and are able to move forward with that.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

4.9 Working with the Single Competent Authority

Pilot sites were able to speak with technical advisors within the SCA and had the option of requesting an SCA member to be present for the meetings. Pilot areas either opted for occasional SCA involvement or chose for the SCA to be present throughout all panel meetings. Regardless of whether pilot sites had an SCA member present at meetings or not, all pilot sites got feedback from the SCA after a decision was made.

Although most panels were confident in their decision-making, they were reassured by the fact that their decision would be quality assured by the SCA.

“Because it’s quality assured by the Home Office, I think that that does add a robustness.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

However, views were mixed on the effectiveness of the feedback from the SCA. While often seen as a useful source of support or as an added layer of reassurance, panel members felt that the SCA often lacked clarity when explaining their decisions and reported the need for more detailed and constructive feedback to help the Pilot sites improve their decision-making. Additionally, in cases where the SCA disagreed with a decision made by the panel, panel members felt they had to agree with the SCA’s decision but wanted more opportunity to discuss the case with the SCA and reach a mutual decision.

“Their [SCA] feedback’s hit-and-miss. Sometimes it can just be a line to say that, ‘It should be this.’ We had one case where they disagreed with the CG decision, we had to meet with them, to discuss it with them further, because the feedback on the form wasn’t very detailed.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Receiving detailed feedback was seen as particularly relevant at the start of the pilot and for more complex cases where the panel felt they could benefit from additional knowledge. Cases which panel members viewed as more complex included cases of modern slavery involving people arriving in the UK from abroad where the exploitation had happened abroad, Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children cases, and financial or sexual exploitation cases. Where the SCA had disagreed with a decision, it was often cases where the young person had been a victim of modern slavery abroad and been smuggled into the UK. This applied to both negative and positive CG decisions reached by the panel and could be indicative of the panel’s lack of understanding of smuggling and trafficking and the need for in-depth training on this matter.

“With the ones that I’ve been involved with as a panel member, I’ve had 2 that’ve come back, that the Home Office haven’t been happy with, and they’ve both been children who have come over from abroad.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Question 7

5.  Benefits of devolved decision-making

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores the main benefits of devolved decision-making as perceived by stakeholders taking part in the pilot.

Key findings

Quicker decision-making within the pilot programme was seen as the main benefit.

Quicker decision-making was seen as particularly beneficial for child victims who were in limbo because of their immigration status or who were involved with the criminal justice system.

Increased awareness and understanding of the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) process as well as modern slavery within local authorities was seen as another key benefit.

Pilot sites mostly reported an improvement in multi-agency partnership working, or that it had remained the same. Improved multi-agency partnership working was also felt to have had an impact on the quality of the panels’ decision-making.

5.1 Quicker decision-making times

Monitoring data and stakeholder feedback suggests that the devolved decision-making led to quicker decision-making for child victims across all pilot sites.

The number of referrals made to the NRM has increased in recent years. In 2021, 12,727 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the NRM, compared with 10,601 in the previous year, representing a 20% increase^{[footnote 25]}. As of 7 January 2022, the majority of referrals (80%; 10,214) made in 2021 were still awaiting a conclusive grounds (CG) decision. One of the main benefits of the devolved decision-making, as perceived by those taking part in the evaluation, was the notably quicker decision time for CG decisions (see monitoring data at the beginning of Chapter 4) compared to Single Competent Authority (SCA) decision-making. However, it is worth noting that SCA’s decision times were likely impacted by the backlog of cases, whereas the pilot sites were starting from scratch. As a result of the faster decisions in the pilot sites, young people were able to access the support they need more quickly which provided them with more stability. There were several factors that stakeholders felt enabled quicker decision-making times, such as improved multi-agency working and increased access to information and evidence.

“We’re making the decisions much more quickly than the SCA were making them, young people aren’t living in a state of limbo and uncertainty for long periods of time. Those decisions can be made much more quickly, leading to stability and safety for young people.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Stakeholders felt that quicker decision-making was particularly beneficial for victims who were ‘in limbo’ because of their immigration status or who were known to the criminal justice system. For example, getting a quicker NRM decision could assist them in resolving their immigration situation more quickly. Feedback suggested that this, in turn, could help victims to address the therapeutic needs resulting from their exploitation and any other trauma that they had experienced more effectively.

Similarly, feedback from panellists suggests that if a young person had been criminalised as part of their exploitation, a quicker positive decision could enable them to access the section 45 defence^{[footnote 26]} in court more quickly (if they have been charged), or to avoid prosecution altogether^{[footnote 27]}. This, in turn, could allow children who have been a victim of trafficking to access support (for instance, supporting them with their mental health or helping them re-engage with education) quicker. Both benefits are covered in more detail when talking about the impact of devolved NRM decision-making on children in Chapter 7.

“Now, for a young person, a child, a conclusive grounds decision could be a Section 45 defence at court. And a lot of these children that enter the NRM have been committing crime because they’ve been exploited to do so. So, that conclusive grounds decision could be really important [for the] rest of that child’s life.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Another key benefit stakeholders identified was that a shorter decision-making time could help those potential victims nearing 18 to have a smoother transition into adult services and enable them to access the appropriate support.

“It does help a transition to adult services to have an early, quicker, informed decision.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

5.2 Awareness and understanding of the National Referral Mechanism and modern slavery

Increased awareness and understanding of the NRM process as well as modern slavery within local authorities was highlighted as another key benefit by those taking part in the evaluation. This was particularly pertinent for the core statutory agencies such as the police, health and social care involved within the panel. Panel members reported that the knowledge, skill set, and experience of the people involved increased over time. This was relevant to both individual panel members but also for other stakeholders on a wider level within the different local authorities. Overall, there was a sense that the pilot drew attention to issues surrounding modern slavery and the NRM process and brought them to the forefront in local areas.

“I think I’ve definitely raised awareness in terms of NRM, certainly raised awareness amongst practitioners as well in terms of if somebody’s got a Conclusive Grounds NRM, what we need to be doing with them [in terms of safeguarding].”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Due to increased understanding and knowledge, many pilot sites felt there had been an increase in the number of NRM referrals for children in their area. Whilst this was seen as positive, sites raised concerns that this might put additional pressure on staff capacity to deal with an increased number of referrals. It should be noted that this perceived increase was not reflected in the monthly referral data.

“Because of the volume of NRMs that we receive, it can only be indicative of the fact that people are aware of the process and we’ve been quite overwhelmed with the volume. It can only be a positive sign that people understand it and know when to put them in.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

In some pilot sites, awareness of the NRM process and modern slavery filtered through to education and healthcare providers who were doing preventative work in schools and safety awareness training around exploitation with healthcare professionals. Similarly, some sites reported that the NRM process and modern slavery indicators were now being shared on GP forums and with educational providers. While the pilot was seen as a good starting point to raise awareness, there was general agreement that the need for better awareness remained.

Furthermore, it was mentioned that the pilot allowed for increased learning of the different types of exploitation, particularly around child sexual exploitation (CSE) for young women. This is an important finding, as feedback suggests that cases concerning young women and victims of CSE were seen less frequently by panels and that the impact on them has been limited so far (more in Chapter 7).

“In the beginning panel members didn’t have that much understanding around the different types of exploitation, but you can see as panels have gone along they’ve increased in confidence in their own decision-making and looking at the information and interpreting that and then applying some of the guidance and their definitions to their decision-making process”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

5.3 Improved multi-agency partnership working

Most pilot sites reported an improvement in multi-agency partnership working. In sites where there had been an increase in partnership working, this was perceived to be due to working collaboratively on panels, as well as the pilot improving existing relationships with stakeholders and agencies and building new partnerships. Sites that did not report any increases tended to link this to already having good levels of multi-agency working prior to the pilot.

Improved multi-agency partnership working was felt to have had an impact on the quality of the panels’ decision-making. Among the panel members who were interviewed, it was felt that effective local partnership working brought the advantage of being able to collate detailed evidence from a multitude of different agencies, allowing panels to have more contextual information to back up decisions.

“I would say being able to have that multi-agency approach has meant us possibly making decisions that might not have gotten made had we not added those extra little bits of information to create a full picture of the child… It can be very small pieces of information that can make a change in decision.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

In general, panel members agreed that multi-agency partnership working allowed for better-quality decisions as more detailed discussions were being held by local statutory partners on a local basis for a young person. For example, having access to speak and discuss the case with key workers associated with the young person was seen as highly valuable in being able to unpick and understand the situation in a more nuanced way. This also allowed for the child’s views and wishes to be more present in panel discussions compared to the more removed SCA process.

“The SCA are different types of experts, but having a panel made up of multi-agency members who are experts in their own field and they’re applying those practices to their decision-making, I think is different to what the SCA are doing. So, I think the decisions made by the panel are, They’re experts in their own rights. So, I think their decisions are more robust than, say, what the SCA would make. The SCA only have to go by what is submitted to them on paper, whereas the panel are able to have discussions, dig deeper, do a bit more examination of the information there and use their own knowledge and practice to make a decision.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Question 8

6.  Challenges of devolving decision-making

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores the main challenges of devolved decision-making, as well as the commitments required by local authorities taking part in the pilot.

Key findings

Feedback suggests that the benefits of the pilot outweighed any weaknesses.

When asked about barriers, stakeholders mentioned the amount of time spent on the pilot, concerns about panel resilience, lack of clarity on the impact for children, lack of flexibility of the 90-day timescale, and the relationship with the Single Competent Authority (SCA).

The large amount of time spent on the pilot was seen as the biggest burden on local authorities. Suggestions were made that additional training and guidance on what should be included in their discussions would help to make panel meetings more efficient.

Concerns about panel resilience were linked to the amount of time required in the decision-making process, as well as a potential drop in seniority levels as the pilot continues.

Some sites remained unclear about the wider impact the pilot had on children.

Whilst quicker decision-making was seen as a clear benefit of the pilot, there were some concerns about timescales being too tight and not allowing enough time to gather all the relevant information.

Sites generally valued the SCA’s support but there was mixed feedback on the usefulness of the feedback provided by the SCA when quality assuring the decisions.

6.1 Pilot weaknesses

While overall feedback suggests that the pilot is going well and stakeholders from across the pilot sites, Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (MAAPs) and the SCA felt that the benefits of the pilot (discussed in Chapter 5) outweighed any weaknesses, a small number of challenges were brought up routinely by participants. These included the amount of time spent on the pilot, concerns about panel resilience, lack of clarity of impact for children, lack of flexibility of the 90-day timescale, and the relationship with the SCA. Pilot co-ordinators also mentioned challenges specific to the pilot set-up stage.

Initial challenges

Looking back at the set-up stage of the pilot, co-ordinators identified 4 key challenges:

Initial delays in publishing the official National Referral Mechanism (NRM) pilot guidance^{[footnote 28]} led to some confusion about what information needed to be collected by agencies to reach a conclusive grounds (CG) decision, the different thresholds for reasonable grounds (RG) and CG decisions, and which agencies were required to attend panel meetings. Co-ordinators also flagged that not all aspects of the guidance were applicable for the Devolved Nations, however a separate guidance for Scotland has since been published^{[footnote 29]}.

Related to the delays in the publishing of the pilot guidance, not all co-ordinators were aware of the requirement for a health representative to attend panel meetings. This meant that pilot sites who had not assumed the need for a health colleague to regularly attend meetings struggled to set up the first few panel meetings. The additional demands placed on the healthcare system due to the COVID-19 pandemic made it even more difficult for co-ordinators to secure continuous representation from health professionals.

The initial training provided by the Home Office was seen as informative and helpful in ensuring that all sites were starting the pilot with the same understanding of the wider aims and objectives of the programme. However, co-ordinators felt that panel members could have benefitted from more in-depth training about the underlying legislation (for example the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and a more detailed breakdown of the different thresholds for RG and CG decisions (see also Chapter 2), especially at the set-up stage.

Lack of clarity about the role of Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTGs) and Scottish Guardians. Some sites were initially unclear about the requirements for ICTGs to attend panels, as well as what their roles and responsibilities on the panels would be. While ICTGs and Scottish Guardians expertise and ability to advocate for the child or young person in question was valued by panel members, feedback suggests that more guidance on how best to use this expertise would have been beneficial to sites.

Any rollout should take these initial challenges into account to ensure local sites are adequately supported.

Time spent on the pilot

Pilot sites

Although the amount of time sites spent on the pilot varied (see Chapter 3), it was generally accepted that the pilot required a major time commitment from pilot co-ordinators and panel members alike. This was seen as one of the key impacts of the pilot on the participating local authorities. Police and health representatives especially struggled with the additional time commitment to the pilot in addition to their day job, and raised the number of meetings, length of panel discussions and time required to prepare for the panel meetings as key challenges.

Stakeholders also felt that, for health representatives in particular, finding the right individuals to attend panel meetings could be challenging.

“From a health point of view, there are limited staff that are going to be able to come on. You’re not going to have a ward nurse who’s going to be able to be released to do things like this [attend panel]. So [for health] you are restricted to the people who can be part of the panel.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Panel members reflected on the overlap between individuals attending NRM panel discussions and other multi-agency meetings such as Multi-Agency Child Exploitation meetings putting additional strain on staff. Panel members mentioned the need for greater streamlining to reduce the amount of time spent on panel decisions and avoid duplication with other meetings.

“I think as time’s gone on, the initial meetings got quite bogged down with safeguarding, and as much as that’s important, that gets dealt with outside. So, for me, I kept wanting to the meeting to be reined in a bit more and let’s just talk about what we’re here to talk about because all this other stuff will get addressed but this isn’t the forum for it.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Stakeholders from both MAAPs and the SCA felt that additional guidance and training on what information is required to make RG decisions would benefit sites and help reduce the amount of time needed to discuss individual cases. In particular, stakeholders felt that guidance on how to structure and record the discussion may be beneficial, for example by providing examples of best practice.

Based on feedback from the interviews, the time panel members spent preparing for panel discussions was seen to have decreased slightly since the start of the pilot, as panel members became more familiar with the decision-making process.

However, the view of panel members was that any minor time savings would be undone if there were staff changes (see sub-section on resilience below) or an increase in the number of NRM referrals.

SCA and MAAPs

Devolving decision-making had not yet led to a reduction in time for SCA and MAAPs. Both the SCA and MAAPs feedback suggests that they were still spending a significant amount of time reviewing and/or quality assuring devolved decisions. MAAP members in particular felt that, although the amount of information for them to review for devolved decisions was lower than for SCA decisions where they had access to all of the evidence considered, they tended to spend more time discussing and providing feedback on the devolved decisions. This was mainly linked to the information provided being limited to meeting minutes, making it more difficult for MAAPs to deconstruct and understand the panel’s rationale.

6.2 Concerns about panel resilience

As referenced in Chapters 3 and 4, concerns about panel resilience were common amongst pilot sites. This was especially pertinent for sites where the panel make-up had recently changed due to individuals moving roles, as this was linked to a perceived loss of subject matter expertise, consistency and confidence in decision-making by the newly appointed decision-makers. Some sites were able to overcome this by training reserve or deputy panel members within the key partner agencies. In one example of good practice, reserve members would shadow panel meetings before attending them as a voting member.

Another risk that was flagged was that agencies might start replacing current panel members with less senior colleagues as the novelty of the pilot wore off and priorities shifted. The suggestion was made to include the level of seniority in the official guidance to address this issue.

“At the beginning of the process, everyone was really keen, and we’d prioritise these meetings, and now, it is a bit of, ‘Here we are again,’ and what might start happening, is the responsibility to attend these panels and make this decision might start getting delegated to lower level staff. I think if the pilot was to continue, I think some really clear, strong guidance as to what level of responsibility the voting member needs to be. […] The panel members started off at a quite high level, operational manager level, and I can see its dropping a bit as they feel they haven’t got the capacity to carry on, or they’re just a bit fatigued with the whole process.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

6.3 Lack of clarity of impact on children

At the start of the pilot, pilot co-ordinators flagged the difficulty of not knowing what happened to the child after the NRM decision had been made. This was echoed by panel members in the mainstage fieldwork. Not knowing what happens after the decision made it difficult for the panellists to know how the NRM decision impacted the child’s life (more on this in Chapter 7).

“We [panel members] don’t get to hear exactly what has happened post the actual panel meeting. Once the voting has been made, and the case has been heard, and it’s finished with, we don’t know what happens beyond that. I don’t know, for example, what support plan has been put in for a particular individual or child.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

Providing more clarity about the impact on the child or young person in question could help ensure buy-in in the long run.

6.4 Lack of flexibility of the 90-day timescale

While shorter timeframes were seen as a clear benefit of devolving decision-making (see Chapter 5 above), a small number of panel members felt that the 90-day timescale from referral in which to make the CG decision did not always provide enough time for panel members to gather all the relevant information.

“There are definitely situations where we’re reaching the 90-day mark, we’re perhaps at a conclusive grounds panel discussion, and there’s information there which warrants concern that perhaps isn’t at the threshold for balance of probabilities. But we can see that there are remaining lines of enquiry and additional work that could really impact that decision. And I think the current model suggests that we can’t extend it. It’s going to have to be a negative conclusive grounds decision, and if the additional information does come to light at a later stage, then we refer back in depending on the timescale or requested reconsideration. But I think that’s unnecessarily bureaucratic.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

This issue, although only raised by a small number of panel members, was seen as particularly relevant in cases where the exploitation had happened abroad. The concern was that, especially in these cases, information may take longer to be gathered and shared and the current process did not account for these circumstances. This, combined with the above observation that decisions involving exploitation abroad were more likely to be queried by the SCA, suggests that one standardised process may not work for all exploitation types covered under the NRM.

Feedback from MAAP representatives, based on the evidence they reviewed for negative CG decisions, was much stronger on this point. In the group discussions, MAAP members were very vocal about their concern that a too stringent adherence to the 90-day timescale occasionally resulted in the decision not being based on sufficient information. There were cases where they felt that waiting for additional information not available within the 90 days would have benefitted the decision-making. It should be noted that SCA feedback suggested that they had some flexibility around the 90-day timescales, meaning that this may have been a miscommunication between the SCA and pilot sites.

Concerns about re-traumatising the children about whom the NRM decision was being made were also raised in the context of stringent timelines.

“Sometimes the SCA are saying: ‘We would like more information about A, B, C and D about young person’s experiences in Libya.’ And we’ve got 45 days to do it, so essentially that’s maybe one visit or two visits by an ICTG who they don’t [yet] know. It might be you’re faced with that balance between trying to get the information the SCA have said you need to try and gather, versus re-traumatising a young person by forcing them to talk about things they’re not ready to talk about. That bit, is tricky with that cohort of young people I think.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

6.5 Improving relationships with the Home Office and SCA

The relationship between pilot sites and the Home Office, and SCA in particular, differed between sites. Whilst most sites took up the offers of support from the Home Office and the SCA, for example having an SCA technical specialist attend panel meetings to feed back on the decision-making process, others did not engage with the Home Office and the SCA outside of the statutory requirements.

“There have been times when I [as the ICTG on the panel] have disagreed with what they [SCA] are advising [in relation to trafficked children], and usually if I’ve disagreed, I’ve been right in my disagreement, I’ve gone back and checked the legislation. It’s not me disagreeing with their decision, it’s me disagreeing with their advice regarding the procedures.”
(NRM devolved pilot panel member)

This was mirrored by comments from one SCA staff who felt that their feedback was not always taken on board.

“Sometimes our [SCA] feedback is taken on board […] And sometimes the [original] decision still stands, but at least we know that we discussed the case as a whole. Sometimes [however] they just say, ‘No, you are wrong.’ I’ve been to a few panel meetings, [where I’ve had to say] ‘you should at least look at this [piece of evidence]. It’s not that you need to base your decision on [it] but you need to consider it, you can’t just ignore that’.”
(SCA staff)

It should, however, be noted that the same SCA representative felt that relationships had improved since the start of the pilot and that issues were limited to a small number of pilot sites.

Question 9

7.  Perceived impact on young people

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores how the pilot has integrated within existing local authority safeguarding structures, as well as looking at key findings about the perceived impact on the young person going through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).

Key findings

Overall feedback suggests that devolving decision-making to local authorities was seen as enhancing existing local safeguarding structures.

The views of the child were primarily captured through the input of practitioners, such as the child’s social worker, Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) or Scottish Guardian, into the panel discussion. This was seen as an appropriate way of including the child’s wishes whilst accounting for situations where the child did not want to, or was unable to, engage directly with the NRM process.

ICTGs and Scottish Guardians were valued for their subject matter expertise and ability to advocate for the child in question. Some stakeholders felt the pilot could benefit from additional guidance on the role of the ICTG and Scottish Guardian within the decision-making process.

At this early stage of the pilot, there is limited evidence about the impact on children. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the shortened timescales benefitted children as it gave them more stability and allowed them to start the process of recovery. More timely decisions were seen as particularly beneficial for Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) and children experiencing criminal exploitation.

7.1 Safeguarding structures

The NRM process across the pilot sites was described as enhancing the safeguarding structures that already existed, as many sites already had strong multi-agency partnerships. The NRM panel is not a safeguarding panel itself but was felt to be closely linked to safeguarding structures in each pilot site in England, Wales, and Scotland. In most pilot sites, those who sat on the panel were also part of other agencies that would deal with safeguarding.

“At the NRM, it’s just an extension of the safeguarding practice that’s already in place. It doesn’t replace what’s already there, it’s just another way to safeguard that child.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

Often, young people were already known to the different agencies and were receiving support as part of a safeguarding plan, so the NRM was an addition to pre-existing safeguarding structures.

“[The pilot] fits in really well, and what you do find is a lot of the children that were here at the panel, they’re also at MACE [multi-agency child exploitation meetings]. Families might also be at MARAC [multi-agency risk assessment conference]. They might also be on a safeguarding plan, so it’s really important that we have representation from those agencies, and that information access.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

In several pilot sites, the NRM decision fed into other multi-agency meetings like MACE. Stakeholders felt this helped to identify and discuss themes in local exploitation cases and make proactive decisions based on trends in NRM referrals. For example, when the professionals involved heard of cases of several young people from a certain area experiencing exploitation, police and other professions were able to map these hotspots to build a picture of local issues.

As the young people were being discussed at several safeguarding meetings, there was some concern expressed that the NRM process was duplicating other work. However, other panel members felt the remit and place of the NRM was clear, as it concentrated on modern slavery decisions only. They felt that panel time should not be used to discuss how to approach the child’s safeguarding, as this would be addressed afterwards by the different agencies once a decision was made. This mixed feedback suggests that more could be done to remove unnecessary administration and avoid duplication. One way of achieving this may be through clearer guidance on the remit of the NRM panel discussions.

“I think when you talk about those cases as well, we’ve got a co-chair of MACE with our policing partners. You’ve got those partners that are really brought into the MACE agenda, so having the pilot as part of that MACE agenda has really again enhanced that partnership contribution. Because they prioritise it. They understand it, they see the need for it.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

7.2 Including the perspectives of the child in decision-making

The child’s perspective was primarily captured through the direct work with practitioners, such as their social worker and ICTG or Scottish Guardian, who had spoken to them about their experiences and would reflect on what they said during the panel meeting. Other ways panels captured evidence of the child’s views and wishes were through engagement such as a ‘return interview’ conducted after the child had returned from a missing episode. Including the child’s own views was seen as crucial for decision-makers to understand the young person’s experiences of modern slavery. Panel members found that in some cases the ways in which the evidence of the young person’s views and wishes were used differed depending on the type of exploitation experienced.

One particular challenge was that some young people, for example those who experienced exploitation in the UK and were involved in county lines, did not see themselves as a victim of exploitation and did not understand the NRM process. Their perspective could even be found to be contrary to the evidence presented during the panel. In these cases, the child’s social worker, ICTG or Scottish Guardian explained to them how they may have been exploited, and the purpose of the NRM. The young person’s views would then be considered in their wider best interests during the panel discussion.

For UASC who experienced exploitation abroad, the experiences they shared were often the key pieces of evidence that panel members depended on to make their decisions, as there was likely to be less information available than for cases of young people experiencing exploitation in the UK who were already known to authorities. There were some barriers for UASC specifically, as they may not speak English and might be unfamiliar with how systems in the UK work. However, one panel member felt, for example, that because of the reliance on those young people voicing their experiences, their views came through more clearly than those of children in the UK who did not think they were being exploited and had their views filtered through the professionals working around them.

In some cases, the Single Competent Authority (SCA) requested more information through questions to the young person, especially in cases of UASC where the experience they shared (either in the NRM referral form or with a professional supporting them) was the main evidence used. However, panel members were concerned about the risk of re-traumatisation by going back to the young person and getting them to re-live their difficult experiences. Speaking to them again when they had already shared their story was seen as a welfare issue and not necessary to the NRM panel evidence, especially given the short timeframes available to build trust with that young person.

“We [SCA] need more information on their journey, but our service is pushing back and saying, ‘Well, actually they’re a traumatised young person who’s witnessed rape, or murder, on their journey. It may be more harmful to talk to them about that. The voice of the child is considered, and the impact on the child.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

Feedback from Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (MAAPs) suggested that, on occasion, they felt the perspectives of the child came through less clearly in the devolved panels. However, it is important to note that MAAPs were not privy to the underlying information sought out by the panel. When reviewing SCA decisions on the other hand, MAAPs were able to see documentation about the SCA asking questions to the child through their social worker or legal representative. This feedback should therefore be viewed in relation to the visibility of the evidence concerning the views and wishes of the child, rather than the inclusion of the views of the child in the decision-making process itself.

Monitoring data on capturing the views of the child

Monitoring data capturing the ways in which the views and wishes of the child were being represented in decision-making panels was collected from 11 April 2022, following changes made to the reporting templates used by pilot sites to record information about decisions. Responses from reporting templates have been collated and analysed below.

Out of 145 decisions made between 11 April and 13 June 2022, approximately 82% (119) of reporting templates included information about how the views of the child were represented, and all pilot sites provided information on this topic.

The extent to which pilot sites provided information about how the views and wishes of the child were represented varied greatly. For instance, 2 pilot sites only recorded information on the views of the child in one case out of all those handled by them since the change was implemented, suggesting that the change had not been adopted equally across all pilot sites. This could have been because the change to the reporting template had not been in place for long when the data was collated.

Responses from sites were analysed to identify common themes in the ways in which sites were representing the views of the child in decision-making (see table 7.1). There were several key themes, such as:

for 46 decisions (39%) the views of the child were represented through ICTGs
for 33 decisions (28%) the views of the child were represented through social workers
for 10 decisions (8%) a statement from the young person was used
for 10 decisions (8%) a multi-agency holistic assessment was used

Table 7.1: Key themes for ways in which pilot sites represented the views and wishes of the child in decision-making, 11 April to 13 June 2022

How the views of the child were represented	Number of decisions	Percentage of decisions^{[footnote 30]} (%)	Number of sites using method
Received from Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTG) or ICTG regional co-ordinator best interests view	46	39	5
Provided by the social worker (at the panel meeting)	33	28	5
Multi-agency holistic assessment	10	8	1
Statement from young person	10	8	3
Social work assessment	9	8	2
Police present to share the view of child	9	8	4
Youth offending team worker present	8	7	4
Youth justice officer present	3	3	1
National Referral Mechanism referral form	2	2	2
New Pathways referral	1	1	1
Response and agreement from mother	1	1	1

7.3 Role of Independent Child Trafficking Guardian and Scottish Guardianship services

Panel members found the ICTG’s and Scottish Guardian’s subject matter expertise on modern slavery and ability to understand the young person’s point of view helpful in their decision-making. Panel members who were less informed about exploitation abroad, for example, found the ICTG informative as they were felt to have a greater overview of global and national trends, and were able to share information such as reports on what was happening in other countries. This contributed to the panel’s learning and helped guide the decision-making of the panel, particularly where there was less evidence available on a UASC’s experiences abroad.

“We do find the ICTGs’ involvement in the panels really helpful, especially for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children [UASC], because they work closely with them, and they also have a lot of knowledge about what’s going on in the countries where these young people are being exploited, and are able to share their knowledge with us, that we don’t necessarily know. I think it’s really provided that evidence that we need in those cases to get those positive CG [conclusive grounds] decisions, because I think sometimes with those cases, we are just going off what the child, or the young person, has said.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

There was a strong sense that ICTGs were able to advocate for the child and that they brought a unique perspective through the eyes of the child. In some instances, the ICTG directly supported the child and helped them understand the NRM. Panel members felt ICTGs had more time to do this than a social worker would. The fact that ICTGs are independent of the local authority (the service is currently run by Barnardo’s) was commented on as an important aspect that allowed the children to feel more able to speak to them and know that their support would still be there after the panel.

“[They are] somebody that has come to that young person who doesn’t have an adult parental care figure in place who can hear their voice, can advocate for their rights. I think what it does for the Pilot [is they have] more time to convey, and more knowledge to convey the actual understanding about what the referral system is for and what it can achieve and what the impact may be for them, what the purpose of it is, than a social worker who is allocated and [who] maybe have twenty other young people.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

However, mirroring the differing perspectives described in Chapter 4, police and community safety panel members sometimes described ICTGs and Scottish Guardians to be too ‘activist’ in their views and ‘pushing the panel to change any negative decisions’. Despite challenges on some panels with differing points of view, ICTGs themselves noted that their expertise on the panel had been respected and their contributions were more accepted over time.

“We’ve got a representative from Barnardo’s who are the Independent Child Trafficking Guardians. So, every time we speak to a child, they have their best interests decisions for children, they’re not decision-makers but they give an overview from the child’s perspective, they represent the child, which is a good thing and I think that’s a strength.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

7.4 Perceived impact on children

As detailed in the methodology, the evaluation did not seek to quantitatively assess the impact of the Pilot on children. Instead, stakeholders were asked for their thoughts on this topic.

Evidence about the impact on children of devolving decision-making was limited. Stakeholders, especially those who were not directly working with the child in question, felt it was too early to comment on the impact on children, especially as they were often unaware of what happened to the child after their NRM decision was made (in line with comments in Chapter 6). Most of the feedback was anecdotal, although at least one site used a case study approach (see template in Annex A) to capture what happened next and what difference the NRM outcome made to the young person. However, there was a strong appetite for more formal feedback once the NRM decision had been made and panellists felt that this could encourage agency buy-in into the pilot.

Where stakeholders felt able to answer the question about the impact on children, the shortened timescales were seen as the main benefit. This applied to all children, as getting an NRM decision earlier was seen to give them more stability and better allow them to move on from their experience. Two types of victims in particular were highlighted as benefitting from shorter decision-making; UASC and those involved in criminal exploitation.

For cases involving UASC, a timely NRM decision was seen as leading to a quicker overall decision on their immigration claim. This was because delays in the NRM process were often seen as delaying the children’s asylum process, especially in cases where the asylum decisions were interlinked with their trafficking.

“[For UASC children] because the decisions are made very quickly compared to the SCA, there’s not that ongoing delay in their immigration case […] making these [NRM] decisions a lot more quickly enables that process to continue a lot quicker. And where it’s a positive decision for the young person, that can assist them to regularise and settle within the UK.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

Similarly, for those children involved in criminal exploitation (especially around county lines or other drug offences), there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that shorter NRM timescales had a positive impact as evidence was gathered more quickly and children were able to access their statutory defence sooner. Examples included a case where a timely CG decision meant that charges were dropped and a case where a child was released from custody.

Example 1

“We have a young person in service who was charged and by being able to access a conclusive grounds decision more quickly, CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] were able to arrive at a decision of not offering any evidence for those proceedings and therefore obviously the case being withdrawn leading to young person being really able to appreciate the value of that shorter decision-making process.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

Example 2

“I had one case of a young man that was exploited through cannabis production and he ended up in prison and coming out, because we had that devolved decision-making around his disclosure, we had evidence.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

In contrast, stakeholders felt that there were fewer examples of the impact of the pilot on children in cases involving young women and victims (male or female) of child sexual exploitation (CSE). This was linked to a smaller number of cases of young women and CSE being discussed at panel and a sense that female victims were harder to identify.

“I think that male victims are easier to recognise, especially when it’s criminal exploitation. I think that female victims, especially when it comes to sexual exploitation, there is always that stigma. I think people don’t recognise that females are victims.”
(NRM pilot panel member)

However, as mentioned in Chapter 5, one of the benefits of the pilot was an increase in awareness and understanding of CSE, which could help address this inequality in the longer term.

Question 10

8.  Conclusion and recommendations

Accepted Answer

Overall, the pilot to devolve NRM decision-making for children to local authorities was seen as successful. While stakeholders taking part in the evaluation raised a small number of challenges (see the recommendations on how these could be addressed below), the overall sentiment was that the benefits of the pilot outweighed any weaknesses.

The standout benefits mentioned by stakeholders were: the notably reduced timings for conclusive grounds (CG) decisions, especially for child victims who were in limbo because of their immigration status or who were known to the criminal justice system; increased awareness and understanding of the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) process as well as modern slavery within local authorities and local areas; and the fact that decisions were made within a multi-agency setting.

Although out of the scope of the evaluation, there were also early indications that these changes might lead to better outcomes for the children subject to the NRM decisions in the future.

However, there were also some challenges for local authorities raised as part of this evaluation. When thinking about the possibility of a wider roll-out of the pilot, the following should be considered.

This evaluation did not cover how the devolution of decision-making engaged with or impacted the children themselves, but any future monitoring should evidence how children’s views are presented to, and taken into consideration by, the panel. There is a need for future research to explore and identify relevant outcomes to track what impact the pilot is having on children who are subject to devolved NRM decisions.

Whilst the pilot sites appreciated the flexibility in setting up the pilot locally, the need for additional guidance came through in relation to the set-up of the panel, seniority of panel members and their roles and responsibilities, including the role of Independent Child Trafficking Guardians and Scottish Guardians, and who holds voting rights (including how many individuals from one agency can vote). Ensuring detailed guidance is available to all new sites prior to a wider roll-out will help sites navigate the set-up stage even better and avoid delays.

Whilst feedback on the training provided by the Home Office was positive, sites could benefit from additional training to clarify thresholds and legal definitions at set-up stage. At a late stage, the need for additional training about more complex case scenarios was flagged. Offering repeat training sessions was seen as beneficial and is something that should be considered when expanding the pilot.

Defining the role and key responsibilities of pilot co-ordinators, for example through a job specification, could benefit the pilot by setting clear expectations for co-ordinators and panel members alike. A dedicated and well-organised co-ordinator was seen as key to the successful delivery of the pilot. Best practice examples should be shared with any additional pilot sites to ensure the continued success of the programme.

Flexibility around the 90-day timescale for CG decisions should be considered as part of any updated guidance to ensure all relevant information has been gathered and is being considered by the panel.

Differences in legislation and governance need to be taken into consideration when rolling out to devolved nations, in particular how NRM decision-making connects into the safeguarding processes.

The time commitment for panel members was higher than anticipated, especially in relation to pre-meeting preparation and collating of meeting minutes, and Home Office reporting requirements. As this could lead to panel ‘fatigue’, it may be helpful to provide sites with additional training and guidance on what should be included in the discussion and reporting templates to help reduce the amount of time spent on reporting and in panel meetings.

Question 11

Annex A: Perceived impact on children

Accepted Answer

Case study approach used by one site

Description of incident(s) and evidence

Key elements:

how child/young person came to attention of authorities
how child/young person presented
what child/young person disclosed
what child/young person described about situation
how authorities/agencies responded
what National Referral Mechanism (NRM) panel did

Example indicative content:

found by police at scene
appears 14, little English
trafficked to repay debt
unknown women present
children’s services attend
met 8 days after referral

What happened next for the young person?

Key elements:

housing situation
social work contact / support
other contact / support
NRM panel activity

Example indicative content:

moved to children’s home
allocated social worker
health review / Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG)
+ reasonable grounds and + conclusive grounds decisions

What difference did the NRM outcome make?

Key elements:

police response
social work / third sector support
housing / health / education

Example indicative content:

investigation expanded
ICTG providing support
engaged in school

What were the young person’s views on NRM outcome?

Key elements:

views of own situation
views of own wellbeing and safety
opinion of support being provided

Example indicative content:

does not see self as victim
does feel more secure
sees ICTG as supportive

What were the families’ views on the NRM outcome?

Key elements:

dependent on whether family are present / engaged

Example key content:

N/A as not present

Did it affect safeguarding / exploitation processes?

Key elements:

safeguarding processes
action around exploitation

Example indicative content:

has safeguarding plan now
less engaged with abuser

Did it affect police / health involvement?

Key elements:

police engagement with processes
health engagement with processes

Example indicative content:

made further disclosures
limited engagement so far

Development actions

Key elements:

awareness
processes
training

Example indicative content:

question initial evidence
connect to other agencies
share learning from case

Question 12

Annex B: Key topics explored in mainstage interviews

Accepted Answer

Key topics

Roles and responsibilities

Purpose: To understand stakeholders’ roles within the pilot, including time committed to the pilot.
Related evaluation objectives:

how has devolving child-related decision-making from the Single Competent Authority (SCA) to local authority multi-agency structures been delivered?
what is the effect on local authorities and stakeholders?

Context and governance

Purpose: To understand how local governance arrangements or structures impacted the pilot and decision-making.
Related evaluation objectives:

how has devolving child-related decision-making from the SCA to local authority multi-agency structures been delivered?
what is the effect on local authorities and stakeholders?

Pilot design and delivery

Purpose: To explore the key strengths and weaknesses of the pilot’s design and any impact on local authority processes.
Related evaluation objectives:

how has devolving child-related decision-making from the SCA to local authority multi-agency structures been delivered?
what is the effect on local authorities and stakeholders?

Purpose: To understand if and how multi-agency working has increased and how this has impacted decision-making.
Related evaluation objective:

what is the effect on local authorities and stakeholders?

Safeguarding approach

Purposes: To understand the extent to which the pilot fits within existing local safeguarding structures and how the views of the child are captured, and; To explore the role of Independent Child Trafficking Guardians and Scottish Guardians in the pilot.
Related evaluation objective:

how has devolving child-related decision-making from the SCA to local authority multi-agency structures been delivered?

Perceived benefits to young people

Purpose: To explore stakeholders’ views on the potential benefits to young people as a result of devolved decision-making.
Related evaluation objectives:

what is the impact on children whose cases are in the pilot, as perceived by stakeholders?
what are the opinions and experiences of children whose cases are in the pilot of the process, as perceived by stakeholders?

Outcomes

Purpose: To explore the extent to which stakeholders felt changes had occurred due to activity being undertaken as a result of the pilot.
Related evaluation objectives:

what is the effect on local authorities and stakeholders?
what is the impact on children whose cases are in the pilot, as perceived by stakeholders?

Examples of agencies often involved in MACE meetings include Early Help, Children’s Social Work Service, Police Child Exploitation leads, Adults and Health, Youth Justice Service, Health, Education officers, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), Youth Offer, accommodation providers and others. ↩
Home Office, ‘Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance’, 2022. ↩
All comparative data for referrals sent to the SCA are for referrals where the potential victim was more than 100 days away from their 18^th birthday on referral to match pilot cases. SCA cases where the date of birth was not known on referral have been excluded. ↩
Health professionals (from Clinical Commissioning Groups in England and Wales), for example Named Nurse for Safeguarding Children. ↩
Home Office, ‘Modern Slavery: National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify Statistics UK, end of year summary, 2021’, 2022. ↩
Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTGs) are a statutory provision to support children’s interests and voice in processes. ICTGs have been rolled out in approximately two-thirds of local authorities in England and Wales, with the intention of a full rollout by 2024. For more information about ICTGs see ‘Interim Guidance for Independent Child Trafficking Guardians’. ↩
In Scotland, children and young people who are or may have been trafficked, or at risk of trafficking, for whom no one in the UK holds parental rights or responsibilities, are entitled to receive independent advocacy support of a guardian from the Scottish Guardianship Service. See Guardianship Scotland: National Child Trafficking Support Service’](https://www.aberlour.org.uk/service/scottish-guardianship-service) for more information. ↩
This number is higher than the number of sites due to staff changes requiring the evaluation to speak with more than one co-ordinator per site on occasion. ↩
See above. ↩
The pilot is open to all children in the pilot areas who are more than 100 days away from their 18^th birthday on referral. ↩
The number of reporting templates analysed was greater than the number of decisions issued in the period as some decisions were yet to be issued when extraction occurred. Additionally, some decisions failed quality assurance and went back to panels to be discussed again. ↩
Variables included: Number of young people who go missing; number of young people considered at risk of exploitation; number of young people considered at risk of child criminal exploitation or child sexual exploitation; number of young people who have become looked-after; number of young people who are not in education, employment or training; number of children subject to a Section 47 Enquiry; number of children subject to a Child in Need Plan or Child Protection Plan. ↩
The ‘Local authority interactive tool (LAIT)’, produced by the Department for Education, was used to match local authorities based on children’s services data. ↩
Home Office, ‘Modern Slavery: National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify statistics UK, end of year summary, 2021’, 2022. ↩
See above. ↩
On 8 November 2021, the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA) was created for adults who are subject to forms of immigration control, including any adults in respect of whom deportation is being pursued and those who are held in administrative immigration detention. All other potential victims of modern slavery will continue to have identification decisions made by the SCA. It should also be noted that the IECA does not consider child NRM decisions. ↩
All comparative data for referrals sent to the SCA are for referrals where the potential victim was more than 100 days away from their 18^th birthday on referral, to match pilot cases. SCA cases where the date of birth was not known on referral have been excluded. ↩
See above. ↩
For referrals where the potential victim was more than 100 days away from their 18^th birthday on referral. SCA cases where the date of birth was not known on referral have been excluded. ↩
Monthly meetings attended by representatives from all pilot sites as well as the Home Office. ↩
Decision outcomes relate to referrals received from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022. Of the 460 referrals received in this timeframe, 417 (91%) referrals had at least one decision issued. ↩
Comparative SCA data on decision-making is for referrals where the potential victim was more than 100 days away from their 18^th birthday on referral. Referrals to the SCA where the date of birth was unknown have been excluded. Figures relate to decisions made from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, meaning SCA figures include cases referred to the SCA prior to this period and may include reconsideration cases. The percentage of positive CG decisions made by the SCA and pilot sites, in the same timeframe, is similar. However, the number of decisions made by pilot sites is considerably smaller than the number of decisions made by the SCA during the same timeframe. Therefore, small changes will have a larger impact on the percentage. ↩
MAAP review outcomes are for decisions made by the SCA from 14 June 2021 up to and including 13 June 2022, regardless of the date of referral for potential victims more than 100 days away from their 18^th birthday on referral. In this period, 65 negative CG decisions were made but only 55 received a decision from MAAPs, as ten cases were referred prior to the SCA being formed and were not required to be reviewed by MAAPs. ↩
As described earlier in the chapter, monitoring data shows that the proportion of positive decisions were broadly consistent for decisions made by pilot sites and the SCA; 92% of decisions made by pilot sites passed SCA quality assurance checks. ↩
Home Office, ‘Modern Slavery: National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify statistics UK, end of year summary, 2021’, 2022. ↩
Modern Slavery Act 2015, s 45. Note that the law in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 does not give people who have been trafficked blanket immunity. They will still face prosecution for the most serious crimes, including murder, terrorism, serious violence, or sexual crimes – see ‘Victims of modern slavery to be further protected from prosecution by earlier investigation’ for more details. ↩
Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Modern Slavery, Human Trafficking and Smuggling’, 2022. ↩
Home Office, ‘Devolving child decision-making pilot programme: general guidance’, 2022. ↩
See above. ↩
Method of representing the views of the child as a percentage of decisions where information was provided about the ways in which views of the child were represented. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Glossary

Executive summary

Background and context

Key findings

Implementation of NRM decisions and processes

Decision-making process

Benefits of devolving decision-making

Burden and barriers of devolving decision-making

Perceived impact on young people

Conclusions and implications

Considerations for wider roll-out

1. Introduction

1.1 Policy context

Table 1.1: Successful pilot sites

Objectives of the evaluation

1.2 Methodology

Qualitative process evaluation

Quantitative data

Ethical clearance

Limitations

Understanding safeguarding outcomes for young people

Overview of the report structure

2. Context

2.1 Overview of the National Referral Mechanism

2.2 Intended pilot delivery

2.3 Numbers and characteristics of potential child victims

Referrals by age group, gender and exploitation type

Referrals by nationality

3. Implementation of National Referral Mechanism decisions and processes

3.1 Panel set-up

3.2 Training and support

3.3 Information sharing

3.4 Impact of the pilot on local authority and agency processes

3.5 Role of the pilot co-ordinator

4. Decision-making process

4.1 Quantitative findings on decision-making

Number of decisions made

Quality of decision-making

Timeliness of decision-making

4.2 Panel decision-making

4.3 Importance of panel consistency

4.4 Seniority of panel members

4.5 Effectiveness of panel decision-making

4.6 Quality of evidence

4.7 Feedback from the Multi-Agency Assurance Panel on decision-making

4.8 Speed of decision-making

4.9 Working with the Single Competent Authority

5. Benefits of devolved decision-making

5.1 Quicker decision-making times

5.2 Awareness and understanding of the National Referral Mechanism and modern slavery

5.3 Improved multi-agency partnership working

6. Challenges of devolving decision-making

6.1 Pilot weaknesses

Initial challenges

Time spent on the pilot

6.2 Concerns about panel resilience

6.3 Lack of clarity of impact on children

6.4 Lack of flexibility of the 90-day timescale

6.5 Improving relationships with the Home Office and SCA

7. Perceived impact on young people

7.1 Safeguarding structures

7.2 Including the perspectives of the child in decision-making

Monitoring data on capturing the views of the child

7.3 Role of Independent Child Trafficking Guardian and Scottish Guardianship services

7.4 Perceived impact on children

8. Conclusion and recommendations

Annex A: Perceived impact on children

Case study approach used by one site

Description of incident(s) and evidence

What happened next for the young person?

What difference did the NRM outcome make?

What were the young person’s views on NRM outcome?

What were the families’ views on the NRM outcome?

Did it affect safeguarding / exploitation processes?

Did it affect police / health involvement?

Development actions

Annex B: Key topics explored in mainstage interviews

Key topics

Roles and responsibilities