Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) MSA evaluation

Question 1

Executive Summary

Accepted Answer

In 2016, the UK government committed to roll-out Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTGs) nationally across England and Wales^{[footnote 1]}. To date, a staggered roll-out has been adopted with built-in assessments and subsequent amendments to the model, including the introduction of the ICTG Regional Practice Coordinator (RPC)^{[footnote 2]} role. In May 2021, additional changes were introduced to the model including:

The introduction of a Post-18 Worker role to provide continuing ICTG support to children following their 18th birthday. The Post-18 work is intended to provide additional short-term support to young people where there is exceptional need to ensure a smoother transition to adult services. This change was piloted in ICTG sites in London (London Boroughs and Croydon), the North (Merseyside, North Yorkshire, and West Yorkshire) and the Midlands (Warwickshire and West Midlands).
The introduction of a Regional Practitioner (RP) role to provide one-to-one support to children who have a figure of parental responsibility for them in the UK. The allocation of direct support to children is intended to be a short-term piece of work where exceptional need has been identified. This change was piloted in Wales, the East Midlands, and the West Midlands ICTG sites.

Evaluation objectives and methodology

In August 2021, the Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct an evaluation of these 2 changes across the pilot ICTG sites. Ipsos UK led on qualitative findings based on 29 interviews and 2 focus groups with Barnardo’s ICTG staff and stakeholders from statutory and other services working with trafficked children and young people. Monitoring data from Barnardo’s was gathered and analysed by Home Office Analysis and Insight researchers to produce quantitative findings. The evaluation aimed to understand how the 2 new roles have been implemented across the pilot sites and to what extent stakeholders felt that the intended outcomes had been achieved.

Key findings

Barnardo’s staff and wider stakeholders felt there was a clear need for the 2 additional roles and advocated for the continued roll-out of both changes. The changes were seen as increasing the flexibility of the ICTG service to better meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people. In addition, those interviewed were generally positive about the ability of the new Post-18 Worker and RP roles to provide effective support to children and young people who had not previously been eligible for direct ICTG support.

Introduction of the Post-18 Worker role

Of the 355 children supported by ICTG Direct Workers in the pilot sites, 56 received additional support from a Post-18 Worker between May 2021 and April 2022. Over half of these children (52%) were from the London region, while 27% were from the North and 21% from the Midlands region. Most children who received Post-18 support in this period either experienced criminal exploitation (41%) or labour exploitation (39%) as their primary exploitation type. Males were more likely to receive Post-18 support compared to females (80% versus 20%), and the most common nationalities of children receiving Post-18 support were Albanian (23%), Vietnamese (21%), Sudanese (13%), Eritrean (11%) and Afghan (9%). This is consistent with trends in National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referrals in the pilot sites.

Barnardo’s staff valued the guidance provided to them to identify and assess the need for Post-18 work. They felt that the Needs Assessment Framework allowed them to make accurate decisions about situations which constituted ‘exceptional need’.

Stakeholders underlined the importance of tailoring the support to young people’s individual needs. Therefore, the frequency, duration, and type of support provided to young people by Post-18 Workers varied. Over half (55%) of young people required multiple types of Post-18 support. Common types of support included:

finding accommodation
accessing financial benefits
support with asylum claims
navigating the criminal justice system

The length of support also ranged from less than one month to 12 months.

Many services adjacent to Post-18 Workers had a positive view of the role. However, Barnardo’s staff highlighted common challenges to implementing the role alongside these services. These included:

a lack of awareness of modern slavery (particularly criminal exploitation) amongst statutory adult services
a reluctance within statutory services to engage
concerns over duplication of the role in local authorities
high turnover amongst Personal Advisors (PAs) in local authorities

Despite this, Post-18 Workers reportedly upskilled frontline workers (particularly PAs and other adult support staff) to better understand the specific needs of young victims of modern slavery.

Overall, stakeholders and Barnardo’s staff thought that Post-18 work provided consistency in the support offered to those who would otherwise have faced a gap in their transition from child to adult services. Stakeholders felt that Post-18 Workers had helped the young people they worked with gain the confidence, knowledge, and skills to independently interact with adult statutory services.

Stakeholders and staff thought the Post-18 role mitigated the risk of children and young people going missing or being re-trafficked. In many cases, stakeholders felt that the regularity and consistency of support provided would not have been possible without the Post-18 Worker. They felt this helped mitigate vulnerabilities which can enable re-trafficking, such as:

lack of employment
poor accommodation
the young person feeling uncared for
lack of engagement with, or trust in, law enforcement

Introduction of the RP role

Of the 627 children supported indirectly by an RPC in the pilot sites, 26 also received one-to-one support from an RP between May 2021 and April 2022. The number of children receiving one-to-one RP support was equally spread across ICTG sites where this change was piloted, with the highest in Wales (10 children), followed by the East Midlands (8 children), and the West Midlands (8 children).

Most children who received RP support experienced criminal exploitation (20 of the 26 children receiving support) as their primary exploitation type, with 5 children experiencing sexual exploitation. The majority were male (21 of the 26 children receiving support) and UK nationals (19 of the 26 children receiving support), which is consistent with pilot site child NRM referrals.

As with the Post-18 Workers, RPs valued the guidance provided to them to make informed decisions about ‘exceptional need’. This was assessed using a set template and guidance, taking into account various factors around a child including whether there was a lack of services in the area, concerns about familial exploitation, mental health or domestic abuse issues in the family, pending court cases, or a history of low engagement with statutory services.

Barnardo’s staff highlighted how it could take time for RPs to build trust and engagement with the children they supported. Therefore, the type, frequency, and duration of RP support depended on individual needs. The length of support that children received ranged from less than one month to 11 months.

RPs generally thought their collaboration with other statutory services worked well. Stakeholders thought the RP role could help reduce their workload and provide specialist support. However, as with Post-18 support, there could be challenges with capacity amongst statutory services and some RPs found services could vary in their willingness to engage or share information.

Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders felt that RPs were providing added value to existing statutory services, fitting into existing safeguarding structures to fill gaps and upskill the services that they worked alongside.

Stakeholders also felt that RPs helped them better understand the modern slavery experiences of children and how this can manifest in children’s behaviours. Barnardo’s staff had challenged negative perceptions held by some in other services and encouraged a more trauma-informed approach.

Overall, stakeholders and Barnardo’s staff felt RP support had improved children’s feelings of safety. They felt the role had increased children’s understanding of their exploitation experiences, with children more likely to recognise signs of exploitation and less likely to self-blame.

The RP role was also seen as an enabler to children being involved in their own safety plan and having an increased understanding of their rights, the systems around them, and the roles of statutory agencies. The role was also seen as improving awareness of exploitation amongst parental figures of responsibility.

Conclusions and recommendations

Staff and stakeholders felt that the introduction of the Post-18 Worker and RP roles had positive outcomes on both the flexibility of the ICTG service and on the quality of support for children and young people. They advocated for both roles to be rolled-out nationally.

Continuing to raise awareness of the wider ICTG service could enable effective implementation of new roles (such as Post-18 Workers and RPs). Barnardo’s staff reflected on the barriers they faced when working with local authorities and statutory services with lower levels of awareness of the ICTG service, and child trafficking and exploitation in general. Awareness-raising activities, both about the whole ICTG service, and about specific roles, could help gain buy-in from other services working to support children and young people.

A focus on relationship building and strong communication with statutory services should be both an initial and ongoing focus of the new roles. Working effectively with other services supporting the child or young person was highlighted as an important enabler to successful implementation. Training Barnardo’s staff on the remit of statutory services and the limitations of provisions across regions could support this.

Clear guidance and templates were seen as important. Setting out the remit of the roles, the parameters of support provided and the criteria for exceptional needs assessments were essential for ensuring consistency and effective, time-constrained support.

However, stakeholders felt that this should be balanced against the need to maintain flexibility of provision. Having the ability to tailor support on a case-by-case basis to the needs of individual children and young people was seen as important to the success of the changes.

Sharing best practice across the ICTG service could improve service delivery. Stakeholders recognised the benefits of organised meetings to enable peer support, identify exploitation and trafficking trends from other regions, and positively shape the new roles.

Ongoing monitoring and further review of the implementation of the outcomes of these changes will be important for continued learning and identification of best practice.

Question 2

1.  Introduction

Accepted Answer

1.1 Background and context

In 2016, the UK government committed to roll-out Independent Child Trafficking Guardians (ICTGs) nationally across England and Wales. ICTGs (previously known as ICTAs and referred to in this report as ICTG Direct Workers) were introduced to provide an independent source of advice and advocacy for trafficked children^{[footnote 3]}. To date, a staggered approach to the roll-out has been adopted, with built-in assessments and subsequent amendments to the model along the way. The ICTG service is currently delivered by Barnardo’s via a grant from the Home Office.

Based on findings from an evaluation of ICTGs from 2017 to 2019, the government revised the ICTG model to include the ICTG Regional Practice Coordinator (RPC) role to provide indirect support by working with professionals who are already protecting and supporting trafficked children for whom there is someone with parental responsibility in the UK. This revised ICTG model was implemented in one-third of local authorities. A subsequent evaluation focused on the RPC model specifically, with results published in October 2020. The ICTG service was further rolled-out in May 2021 to cover two-thirds of local authorities.

The Independent Review of the Modern Slavery Act (May 2019) examined the operation and effectiveness of the Act, which provides the legal framework for tackling modern slavery in the UK. Section 48 of the Act includes provision for ICTGs, and the review was broadly supportive of continued national roll-out of the scheme. Building on the detailed findings of the Review, the government committed to testing 3 of the recommendations put forward in relation to the ICTG service. The following changes were first introduced in May 2021 in the sites specified:

Removing the 18-month limit on ICTG support in all ICTG sites.
Introduction of Post-18 Workers: offering continued ICTG support to children with exceptional need^{[footnote 4]} following their 18th birthday. This change was tested in London, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Merseyside, Warwickshire, Birmingham and Coventry.
Introduction of Regional Practitioners (RPs): allowing children who have a figure of parental responsibility in the UK to access one-to-one support where there is exceptional need^{[footnote 5]}. This change was tested in Wales, the East Midlands, and the West Midlands Combined Authority.

Figure 1: Support provided by the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service

1.2 Evaluation

In August 2021, the Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct an evaluation of the introduction of the Post-18 Worker and the RP role (changes highlighted in purple in Figure 1)^{[footnote 6]}. The evaluation focused on assessing the value of implementing the 2 roles across a range of ICTG sites. The Post-18 Worker scheme was assessed in London (as the largest ICTG area), West Yorkshire (for its strong Post-18 support services already in place), and Warwickshire (with more limited Post-18 support already in place). The RP role was assessed in Wales (chosen to enable testing across a whole nation) and within England, in the East and West Midlands (chosen to understand the overlap between these 2 areas).

The evaluation was delayed from August 2021 to April 2022 to enable more time for the effects of the changes to take place and for more children to have received support prior to data collection.

The findings from the evaluation will inform future plans of the national roll-out of the ICTG service.

1.3 Research objectives

The evaluation aimed to understand how the changes have been implemented across the sites. The evaluation sought to answer the following questions through qualitative and quantitative research.

Continue ICTG support beyond the age of 18 for children who need it

Qualitative research questions:

does enabling young people to continue receiving ICTG support following their 18th birthday (where there is an exceptional need for it) improve their transition out of child services; if so, why?
are there differences in perceptions of Post-18 support and its outcomes between Barnardo’s staff in the different pilot sites?
are there differences in perceptions of Post-18 support and its outcomes between stakeholders from the services children transition to?
how has the ICTG service interacted with other services to improve children’s transition out of child services?
what has worked well?
what are the challenges?

Quantitative research questions:

how many young people who turn 18 are provided with additional support?
how long do these young people continue receiving support; how regularly is support provided and how long are sessions?
for what reason was the continuation of ICTG support beyond a young person’s 18th birthday required; are there any trends in terms of nationality / need?

Allow children who have a figure of parental responsibility in the UK to access one-to-one support where there is exceptional need

Qualitative research questions:

in the opinion of stakeholders, has the provision of one-to-one ICTG support improved the outcomes for children; if yes, how?
who was involved in the decision to provide direct support to the child? (for example, multi-agency panel)?
how was the decision taken in practice?
what were the determining factors in the decision-making process?

Quantitative research questions:

how many children with parental responsibility for them in the UK received one-to-one support?
for how long did these children with parental responsibility for them in the UK receive one-to-one support; how regularly was support provided?
why did these children with parental responsibility for them in the UK receive one-to-one support?

1.4 Overview of the report structure

The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 – Evaluation methodology. This section outlines the overall evaluation methodology as well as the Logic Models and evaluation framework.
Chapter 3 – Expanding direct support for trafficked young people beyond their 18th birthday through Post-18 Workers. This chapter explores the rationale behind the change, how the change has been implemented, including barriers and enablers, and the perceived outcomes as a result of the change.
Chapter 4 – Expanding direct support to children with a figure of parental responsibility in the UK through Regional Practitioners (RPs). This chapter explores the rationale behind the change, how the change has been implemented, including barriers and enablers, and perceived outcomes as a result of the change.
Chapter 5 – A flexible Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service. This chapter explores the extent to which these changes have resulted in a more flexible service and the impact this has had on young people, the ICTG service generally, and other statutory services.
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and recommendations. This section will summarise the lessons learned and provide clear and actionable recommendations for the future roll-out of the changes in scope of this evaluation.

Question 3

2.  Evaluation methodology

Accepted Answer

2.1 Overview of approach

The evaluation included qualitative and quantitative elements. Ipsos UK led on qualitative findings based on interviews and focus groups with Barnardo’s Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) staff and stakeholders from statutory and other services working with trafficked children and young people. Findings from Barnardo’s monitoring data were gathered and analysed by Home Office Analysis and Insight (HOAI) researchers in the Modern Slavery Research and Analysis Team.

Qualitative research

As part of the qualitative research, Ipsos UK conducted 2 focus groups with 9 Barnardo’s staff followed by 29 interviews with Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders from other services supporting young people, such as:

social workers
youth offending services
leaving care services
refugee and migrant centres
legal professionals

Focus groups were held first to inform the development of the interview topic guide and ensure that evaluators had an initial understanding of how the changes were operating in practice before exploring implementation in more depth during interviews.

Fieldwork took place between June and August 2022. A full sample breakdown is included in tables 2.1 to 2.5. The sample was designed to ensure a split across the different ICTG sites implementing changes and to include a mix of operational and strategic roles. Interviews generally focused on one of the 2 changes, but 4 interviews were conducted with strategic staff who were able to discuss both changes.

Several of Barnardo’s staff members who participated in focus groups also took part in individual interviews to provide more detail on their experiences. For the Post-18 support, 3 of the Barnardo’s staff from the focus group also took part in an interview. For the Regional Practitioner (RP) support, one of the Barnardo’s staff took part in both the focus group and interview. These staff members have been counted in both the focus group and interview sample tables in tables 2.1 to 2.5.

Interview participants were identified by Barnardo’s and were asked to consent to being contacted by HOAI researchers about the evaluation. HOAI researchers then invited those who consented to take part in interviews to contact Ipsos UK researchers directly. Interviews and focus groups were held over Microsoft Teams.

Qualitative sample breakdown

Table 2.1: Interview sample that covered both changes

National / Strategic Barnardo’s staff
Total	4

Table 2.2: Support post-18th birthday focus group sample

Region	Barnardo’s staff
London	2
North	2
Midlands	1
Total	5

Table 2.3: Support post-18th birthday interview sample

Region	Barnardo’s staff	Wider stakeholders
London	3	0
North	2	1
Midlands	2	3
Total	7	4

Table 2.4: Regional practitioner support focus group sample

Region	Barnardo’s staff
Wales	3
Midlands	1
Total	4

Table 2.5: Regional practitioner support interview sample

Region	Barnardo’s staff	Wider stakeholders
East Midlands	2	2
Wales	2	3
West Midlands	2	3
Total	6	8

Qualitative data analysis

All interviews and focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed. Notes from observations were also recorded and summarised. The findings were then analysed thematically, in line with the research questions and outcomes in the Logic Models.
A 2-stage analysis process was then undertaken, starting with:

Content analysis, whereby transcriptions from individual interviews or focus group discussions were organised by stakeholder type, and then summarised to help identify content and subject matter against the discussion guide questions.
Thematic analysis, whereby a thematic coding framework was developed for data management and coding. This framework was developed deductively based on the Logic Models and research questions, and inductively, based on unexpected topics or issues emerging in the data.

Limitations to the qualitative findings

The qualitative data generated and used in this evaluation created a snapshot of the implementation and potential benefits of the 2 new changes. The sample process looked to ensure a wide coverage of ICTG sites and types of stakeholders within these, which provides detailed data about the perceptions of these stakeholders.

However, there are several limitations to the qualitative data, and it cannot provide a comprehensive assessment of the changes. Qualitative data is descriptive and illustrative, and findings are not statistically representative. The data can, however, provide some understanding of the perceptions and experiences of those spoken to.

Not all stakeholders that were approached took part in the research, particularly those working for statutory agencies alongside Barnardo’s. Therefore, the sample may be influenced by response bias. For example, stakeholders who had a more positive experience of working with Barnardo’s or had the time and resources to attend interviews may have been more likely to take part in the research. In particular, no statutory service stakeholders from the London region working alongside the Post-18 change responded to the request for interview. The findings are therefore presented cautiously and within this context.

Children were not interviewed as part of the evaluation, and so their direct views on ICTG support were not collected. It was deemed that the potential harms to children and young people outweighed the benefits to the evaluation. In addition, there were practical issues with the recruitment of children from a small potential sample within evaluation timescales. However, discussion guides with Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders were developed to ensure that frontline workers reflected the opinions of the children they worked with.

Quantitative research

The quantitative research in this report was led by HOAI researchers in the Modern Slavery Research and Analysis Team. It involved the analysis of the following datasets:

Data collected by Barnardo’s about children referred into the ICTG service onto the Indirect (Regional Practice Coordinator (RPC)) and Direct (ICTG) Worker streams. This includes data on demographics, primary exploitation type and the status of children. This data covers the timeframe of February 2017 to April 2022^{[footnote 7]}.
Monthly data collected by Barnardo’s detailing the support provided to children in the service on the Indirect (RPC) and Direct (ICTG) Worker streams. This data details children who also receive one-to-one support from an RP on the RPC stream and additional support around their 18th birthday from an ICTG Post-18 Worker on the Direct Worker stream. The data also includes information about the additional support such as reasons for starting and ending the support, as well as the frequency, length, and type of additional support provided. This data covers the timeframe of 1 May 2021^{[footnote 8]} to 30 April 2022.
National Referral Mechanism data was used to make comparisons about the demographic data of children who experienced the new changes in the ICTG sites in which Post-18 and one-to-one RP support was being tested.

All datasets were used to produce descriptive statistics within the report, which complement the qualitative findings. This analysis was reviewed by Barnardo’s strategic staff and anecdotal comments have been included to add context to any patterns seen. However, these comments should not be viewed with the same weight as the findings derived from the qualitative research.

2.2 Logic models

The Logic Models were developed by HOAI researchers and Ipsos UK to consider the rationale, inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of each change.

The Logic Models are included in Appendix A of this report.

2.3 Evaluation framework

An evaluation framework was developed which built on the Logic Models. This informed the research questions used in the discussion guides and laid out how each would be answered by the different elements of the research.

The evaluation frameworks are included in Appendix B of this report.

Question 4

3.  Expanding direct support of trafficked young people beyond their 18th birthday through Post-18 Workers

Accepted Answer

3.1 Background and aims of the change

Figure 3: Post-18 Workers are assessed in this section of the report

The extension of direct Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) support to young people past their 18th birthday aims to help bridge potential gaps in support for young people at this age and ensure a smoother transition to adult services. Wider literature suggests that the transition from childhood to adulthood is a particularly vulnerable time. For example, Coy (2016) warns against distinguishing between sexual exploitation of girls and exploitation of women given the connections that span the age of majority^{[footnote 9]}. Moreover, Chase (2020) notes the transition between child and adulthood as a critical time due to the changes in legal rights and the need for young adults to have increasing autonomy over their environments, support and futures^{[footnote 10]}.

The change also aims to upskill adult services to provide more effective support to young people who have been victims of modern slavery.

To implement the change, a new Post-18 Worker role was introduced to the ICTG service. Two Post-18 Workers were hired in each of the pilot regions (London, North, Midlands), with workers coming from a variety of backgrounds. This role was designed to provide short-term direct support to children and young people before and after they turn 18, to provide consistency during the transition from child to adult services. While the role had a particular focus on those 17 and 18 year olds transitioning to adult services, Post-18 Workers were also expected to work with children and young people at a variety of ages.

3.2 Children supported by the change

Total number of children who received Post-18 support

Between May 2021 and April 2022, 355 children in total were supported by an ICTG Direct Worker in the sites in which a Post-18 Worker was piloted. Of these children, 56 (16%) received additional support from a Post-18 Worker near, or after, their 18th birthday.

The caseload of Post-18 Workers increased steadily from May up until November, as referrals increased and no cases were closed (Figure 3.1). November had the greatest number of referrals (10) compared to other months in this period, where referrals ranged from one to seven per month.

The rate of increase in the monthly caseload reduced between November and December when referrals slowed and the first cases closed. Closures may have been due to cases reaching 6 months active, the average time for support to last (see below), and a reduction in the number of referrals was potentially attributable to the Christmas period.

The rate of increase in the monthly caseload in January returned to a similar level to months prior to December, as more children were being referred in ranging from 4 to 7 children per month, compared to one in December. During qualitative interviews, Barnardo’s staff reflected that they would anticipate referral numbers and case closures to continue to increase as the ICTG service is further embedded in new pilot sites.

Figure 3.1: Number of children in total receiving Post-18 support, referred to Post-18 support and whose case closed per month from May 2021 to April 2022

Characteristics of children receiving Post-18 support

Demographics

Children who received Post-18 support were more likely to be male (80%) in comparison to female (20%). This reflects the profile of children referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) in the pilot sites, where 78% were male.

The most common nationalities of children receiving Post-18 support were Albanian (23%), Vietnamese (21%), Sudanese (13%), Eritrean (11%) and Afghan (9%), which were consistent with the most common non-UK nationalities of children referred to the NRM in the pilot sites. Although child NRM referrals in the pilot sites were predominantly from the UK (59%), no UK nationals received Post-18 support. This is due to the nature of the ICTG Direct Worker and Post-18 Worker support, which focuses on children for whom there is no figure of parental responsibility in the UK (only 2% of ICTG Direct Worker caseloads consisted of UK nationals in this period). Most UK nationals were likely to have fallen under Regional Practice Coordinator and Regional Practitioner (RP) coverage, which is covered in Section Four of this report.

As expected, the average age of children who received Post-18 support was 17 years and 11 months^{[footnote 11]} and the youngest child who started Post-18 support was 17 years and 4 months. This indicates that assessments for, and implementation of, Post-18 support started, at the earliest, 8 months before a child’s 18th birthday.

Primary exploitation type

Most children who received Post-18 support experienced criminal exploitation (41%) or labour exploitation (39%) as their primary exploitation type. This differed from the exploitation types experienced by children referred to the NRM in the pilot sites, where criminal exploitation was slightly more common (65%) and labour exploitation less common (17%). This implies that children experiencing labour exploitation were more likely to be identified as needing Post-18 support compared to other exploitation types.

There were differences in the primary exploitation type between genders. As children supported by Post-18 Workers were mostly male, the most common exploitation types experienced by males were consistent with the overall trend, with the highest proportions experiencing criminal exploitation (47%) or labour exploitation (40%). However, a mix of modern slavery typologies were experienced by the 11 females who received Post-18 support, including labour exploitation, domestic servitude, sexual exploitation, and criminal exploitation.

Figure 3.2: Primary exploitation type by gender of children receiving Post-18 support from May 2021 to April 2022

Region

Children who received Post-18 support between May 2021 and April 2022 were predominantly from the London region (52%), followed by the North (27%) and the Midlands (21%). This may be due to the established relationships developed in Croydon (one of the London sites), as a longer-term ICTG site. In addition, the ICTG service reflected that the Midlands already had a more developed network of similar Post-18 services for young people, potentially reducing the demand for the Post-18 Worker role in this region.

Table 3.3: Number of children who received Post-18 support in Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) sites from May 2021 to April 2022

ICTG region and site	Number of children who received Post-18 support	Number of children receiving any form of ICTG direct support	Proportion of total number of children support by ICTG Direct Workers in the region who received Post-18 support
Total London	29	159	18%
Croydon	15	45	33%
London Boroughs	14	114	12%
Total North	15	68	22%
Merseyside	3	12	25%
North Yorkshire	6	33	18%
West Yorkshire	6	23	26%
Total Midlands	12	128	9%
Warwickshire	2	5	40%
West Midlands	10	123	8%
Total (all pilot sites)	56	355	16%

However, some sites had higher proportions of children who were initially supported by ICTG Direct Workers and went on to receive Post-18 support. This included Warwickshire (2 of the 5 children supported by an ICTG Direct Worker received Post-18 support) and Croydon (15 of the 45 children supported by an ICTG Direct Worker received Post-18 support). Generally, the sites with more children supported by ICTG Direct Workers had a lower proportion of those receiving Post-18 support. This included London Boroughs (12% of the 114 children support by an ICTG Direct Worker received Post-18 support) and the West Midlands (8% of the 123 children supported by an ICTG Direct Worker received Post-18 support). This could be a result of young people navigating towards cities as they turn 18 and increasing the need for Post-18 support in urban centres. In these cases, the ICTG service assessed and planned their transition to adult services in advance. Contrastingly, in more rural areas there may be less support for children turning 18 and therefore a more expansive role for Post-18 ICTG support. Furthermore, this could also be because the expansion of direct support to children after their 18th birthday is still being embedded. Strategic staff considered rural areas as an opportunity for expansion. With less provision of transition services, rural areas could have a greater need for Post-18 Workers and staff felt this would translate to increased referrals as the changes were implemented.

3.3 Implementing the change

Identification and assessment of need

Referrals and assessments of eligibility for Post-18 support were carried out internally, with ICTG Direct Workers identifying children and young people who may need additional support beyond their 18th birthday. Exceptional need was assessed on a case-by-case basis and ICTG Direct Workers and Post-18 Workers were encouraged to explore the added value ICTG support could provide in combination with the statutory services available. Barnardo’s staff generally saw the selection and eligibility assessment for Post-18 work as accurate and working well across regions. However, one member of staff noted that a case-by-case approach held a higher risk of subjective decision-making. Barnardo’s strategic staff felt that this could be mitigated by the guidance provided and by making decisions collectively.

A Needs Assessment Framework (included in Appendix C) was used to assess young people’s level of need and to identify where the threshold was met for “exceptional need”. This framework considered information on immigration status, progress made through the NRM process, mental health needs, areas where support might be required, and the value that a Post-18 Worker could bring. The assessment allowed ICTG Direct Workers, Post-18 Workers and managers to assess the complexity of a case as well as the vulnerability of different aspects that make up a child’s needs. Barnardo’s staff reflected on the usefulness of the visual aspect of the assessment, which used a Red, Amber and Green (RAG) rating framework to lay out information in a visual way. This helped ensure their assessment and subsequent support plan considered all the varying needs of each young person.

“I think it’s very individual, we do have a bit of a checklist but I think it’s really hard to kind of say we’re going to go through this checklist and tick tick tick to see that a young person needs support. I think there’s more nuance involved in it.”
(Barnardo’s, North)

Children and young people were also given a choice as to whether they wanted to engage with a Post-18 Worker. Although stakeholders reported that some young people did not want to engage past their 18th birthday, most were keen to receive continued support from the service.

“The majority of young people will say ‘I really, really want to continue receiving support from you because it’s beneficial, it means that I don’t have to think about starting from scratch with a different worker,’ or let’s face it, in most cases the services won’t be there at all. That is scary for young people, to know that they will not be receiving a similar service to ones that we offer.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

The age of a child or young person was also an influential factor. Children aged 17 and a half years or over were generally automatically assigned to a Post-18 Worker rather than an ICTG Direct Worker. This was to ensure continuity should the child need to receive support past their 18th birthday. Strategic Barnardo’s staff also suggested that an assessment of potential Post-18 support should be a standardised part of the service for those referred in at 17 or over, particularly where children may clearly have complex and longer-term needs (for example, due to their asylum status).

“I think what worked really well with the Post-18, is to really be able to predict a little bit about how long will that child be with us. Because we’ve got that understanding, we know that if a child comes in at 17, and they’re from a country where they’re going to have to seek asylum, we’re going to see quite a longevity there. So, we might as well start that Post-18 work because, in a year’s time, they’re going to be transitioning into Post-18 work.”
(Barnardo’s strategic staff member, National)

Analysis of quantitative data estimated that 181 children (51% of children supported by an ICTG Direct Worker in these sites) reached 17 and a half years old between May 2021 and April 2022^{[footnote 12]} and therefore could have been considered eligible for assessment for Post-18 support. However, whilst the numbers suggest that more children could be considered potentially eligible for Post-18 support, ICTGs carried out a careful assessment of the child’s needs as they transitioned into adulthood and determined that not all children needed the ongoing direct support available.

Types of support provided

Support provided for children and young people following their 18th birthday varied depending on individual needs. Each young person had a tailored pathway support plan and Barnardo’s staff reflected on the importance of developing this plan as early as possible to set expectations and provide clarity about the short-term nature of support.

“I think that we do need to make sure that we’re offering the support for young people Post-18 with a view of them moving out of the service because we can’t be there forever and we need to make sure that we’re supporting young people to move towards independence, that we’re always planning for them to leave the service so that they’ve got a really clear understanding that we can’t be here in the long term to offer support, we need to be supporting them to engage with any services that are there to meet their needs and try and build those working relationships with other professionals so that they’ve got continued support if they need it.”
(Barnardo’s strategic staff member, National)

Post-18 Workers engaged with multiple statutory services, such as ‘leaving care’ services, stakeholders in the criminal justice system, local authority staff, and stakeholders in the asylum system. Barnardo’s staff mentioned multiple different types of support provided by Post-18 Workers, including:

explaining young people’s rights and entitlements, including any changes taking effect upon reaching adulthood
helping young people attend appointments
helping young people access appropriate accommodation
helping young people build relationships with new support workers, such as personal advisors (PAs)
signposting young people to appropriate non-statutory support, such as local charities and non-government organisations
supporting young people to integrate into communities and socialise in appropriate settings, such as sports clubs
supporting young people through the NRM process, including helping them through the decision to consent to enter the NRM
supporting young people with navigating the criminal justice system
supporting young people with asylum claims
bridging the communications gap between young people and services which may be available to them, as well as any gaps between different services

The varied nature of the Post-18 support is reflected in the monitoring data, which shows that most children (55%) required multiple types of support. In terms of regional breakdowns, children in London (69%) and the North (53%) most commonly needed multiple types of support. A smaller proportion of children and young people in the Midlands required multiple types of support (25%), with the majority receiving support in only one area (although the type of support provided varied widely). This could reflect the need for the service to provide more targeted work in rural locations to fill gaps in existing service provision. This is compared to larger cities, such as London, where more holistic support may be needed around existing Post-18 provisions.

Figure 3.4: Types of Post-18 support provided to 56 children from May 2021 to April 2022

Frequency and hours of support

Most children and young people (86%) received between 0 and 10 hours of Post-18 support a month, seeing their Post-18 Worker either every 2 weeks (52%) or weekly (21%). The length of support was generally limited to between 5 and 7 months for most types of support.

However, as with the type of support provided, the frequency and intensity of support could vary depending on the needs of the individual. Children and young people receiving multiple types of support were generally seen for longer (on average 10 months) and more frequently (29% had weekly contact with their Post-18 Workers), reflecting potentially more complex support plans. Those receiving immigration support were also seen for longer (on average 11 months) but less frequently (42% met with their Post-18 Worker monthly). This could be because solicitor appointments and immigration interviews tended to be infrequent and spread over a longer period of time.

The type and frequency of the support provided might also change as young people’s needs changed. Staff reported that support plans needed to be flexible and responsive to changes in circumstances, with Post-18 support varying in intensity. For example, if the risks to the young person increased due to new associations or activities, the Post-18 Worker could increase the frequency of visits or change the type of support. On the other hand, Post-18 support could reduce in frequency if the risks to the young person seemed to diminish, or if their relationships with other support services strengthened.

“It might be that we have very frequent contact with them initially and then after a couple of months or after a few months it, kind of, drops down as we’re seeing the other services take more handle on the systems and the support. Sometimes it increases, so we’ll feel like it’s okay and then something happened and then we need to review it and it increases.”
(Barnardo’s, London)

Ongoing assessment and ending support

A young person’s needs were continually assessed over the support period, with a view to ending support as soon as it was appropriate to do so in the best interests of the child. Therefore, timeframes for support varied on a case-by-case basis.

Between May 2021 and April 2022, the average (mean) length of time for which children received Post-18 support was 5 months, with a range of less than one month to 12 months^{[footnote 13]}. This was generally consistent across ICTG regions, with London having the highest mean length of time for support (6 months), followed by the Midlands (5 months) and the North (3 months). The slightly higher length of time in London could be explained by the faster mobilisation in sites such as Croydon, where the ICTG service was already embedded prior to the introduction of Post-18 support.

Barnardo’s staff reported that it was important to set clear goals as part of a young person’s support plan to ensure a pathway for ending support could be established at the start of the work. These goals often involved building strong relationships between a young person and other statutory support services to ensure young people were able to access the support they needed once the ICTG service direct support ended.

“I don’t like to step back unless there’s still somebody around for that young person to go to. So that’s a key aim for me.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

“It’s about always thinking about the ending, not in a negative way, but thinking about how are we adding independence, how are we promoting looking outside, how are we making sure, particularly for looked-after children that they know that there are independent advocacy services there to support them and how they can link in with them if they need somebody when we’re not there anymore.”
(Barnardo’s strategic staff member, National)

Barnardo’s staff mentioned that the confidence to end support in a timely manner could vary amongst Post-18 Workers. More established staff who had worked for the ICTG service for longer may have felt more able to end support, while newer staff could be unsure of the processes for doing so. Staff reflected that more guidance or shared best practice around how and when to end this support could be useful. However, it was acknowledged that developing general rules to follow could be difficult due to the complexity and individuality of each case.

Barriers to implementation

Many of the other services providing support to children and young people (for example in the social work, immigration and criminal justice sectors) were pleased to work closely with Post-18 Workers. However, Barnardo’s staff highlighted challenges around a lack of willingness of some services or local authorities to engage with Barnardo’s around young people as victims of modern slavery. Although Barnardo’s staff reflected on the progress made across the pilot sites regarding statutory service awareness of modern slavery and the vulnerability of children involved in criminal exploitation, they felt that this did not always extend to teenagers or young adults. They reported that some statutory services still viewed older children and Post-18 victims of criminal exploitation as complicit in illegal activities. Post-18 Workers hoped to upskill statutory adult services to support young people to navigate the criminal justice system. Post-18 Workers reported spending significant time facilitating multi-agency communication and information-sharing to ensure effective support for each young person.

In addition, Barnardo’s staff reported that awareness and understanding of the function of the ICTG service more generally could vary across local authorities. Local authorities could be more territorial and reluctant to communicate or share information with the ICTG service in areas where they were less clear on the added value of Post-18 Workers in addition to the existing internal PA role. Barnardo’s staff reflected that the difference between PA and Post-18 Worker roles had not always been clear at the beginning of implementation. However, clarity around remits and responsibilities of the 2 roles had improved over time with training and as the Post-18 Worker role became more embedded in the pilot sites.

“Local authorities that strongly believe that their own living care team, through the allocation of a personal adviser, would be there to offer all the support for the children and young people. That’s one of the biggest barriers.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

“When [a] young person is transitioned from children’s services to leaving care, whoever that PA is, that information as to who the new worker is, they don’t reach out.”
(Barnardo’s, London)

The relationship between Post-18 Workers and PAs could be important in supporting individual children and young people, but stakeholders mentioned some barriers to effective working. Barnardo’s staff noted the high turnover of PA staff meant that it was difficult to forge long-term, effective working relationships. Furthermore, changes in personnel had the potential to cause upheaval for young people. For example, PAs could change every 2 to 4 months, meaning both the Post-18 Worker and the young person themselves would have to build relationships from scratch each time. In addition, due to capacity issues, there could be delays in assigning PAs to young people ahead of their 18th birthday. This could mean that Post-18 Workers would have limited time to work with PAs and help establish trust between the young person and their PA.

On the other hand, while the Post-18 Worker role was generally seen as beneficial by PAs, there were instances where the role of the Post-18 Worker as an advocate for young people could cause friction. There were cases where stakeholders from statutory services felt that Post-18 Workers had created an “us and them” mentality between young people and other services. For example, a stakeholder in one region felt a Post-18 Worker had undermined the views of other statutory services. In another case, a Post-18 Worker had pushed for a child to be moved from a placement because this was what the child wanted, even though other services disagreed about what was best for them and felt the child was in a more vulnerable position as a result.

In addition, some local authority stakeholders were concerned that Post-18 Workers were not always clear on the role of statutory services and their limitations.

“I think in the same sense that we are not completely clear on their roles, I don’t think they’re probably completely clear on our roles either. I think we need better understanding on what each other does.”
(Stakeholder, North)

This could be in relation to legal restrictions on services working with adults, or the limitations on what support or opportunities were available in a particular region. For example, stakeholders in the North region felt that the Post-18 Workers inflated young people’s expectations of what sort of accommodation would be possible in the region.

“[Young people have] also been given unrealistic expectations as well in terms of accommodation and that kind of thing…I think North Yorkshire is quite different in that perhaps we haven’t got those opportunities that are in bigger cities in terms of accommodation. We are limited as to what can be offered, and so it’s fine to tell a young person that you have a right to access this type of accommodation or that type of accommodation, but if that accommodation simply doesn’t exist…you can’t have it.”
(Stakeholder, North)

While the workload was seen to be manageable by Barnardo’s staff, travel time could be a challenge in implementing the change, particularly in regions outside of London. Post-18 Workers covered a wide geographical area and often had to spend a significant amount of time driving to see young people. Young people were also likely to gravitate towards urban centres, such as London, once they had turned 18, moving further from their assigned Post-18 Worker and exacerbating this barrier. However, the quantitative data suggests that this was mitigated by Post-18 Workers having longer but more infrequent sessions with children and young people in larger regions. Barnardo’s staff also hoped that further roll-out of the change could enable a more even geographical distribution of Post-18 Workers.

Enablers to implementation

Effective multi-agency working and establishing personal relationships were seen as important to effectively implementing the Post-18 Worker role. This was easier in sites where the ICTG service was already embedded, and Barnardo’s had forged networks and connections across local authorities. Referrals were higher in established ICTG sites (such as Croydon as part of London) whereas referral rates were slower in new pilot sites. Undertaking awareness-raising activities was seen as the first step to working effectively with agencies. Staff felt that it was vital to ensure that stakeholders understood the purpose and support options provided by the whole ICTG service, as well as the value the Post-18 Worker could provide.

“There are just some local authorities that are known for being territorial…we have to be smart and creative enough to just continue to knock on the door and say, ‘Look, actually we are also commissioned by the Home Office, and this is what we do under the legislation, the Modern Slavery Act.’ So you bring those big words, and say, ‘We have a duty under Section 48.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

The guidance developed by Barnardo’s for Post-18 Workers and managers was seen as an important enabler to providing support to young people. Post-18 Workers said the Needs Assessment Framework helped to assess the needs of young people and target support. Post-18 Workers gained confidence assessing exceptional need the more they used guidance documents and provided support in practice.

“There are some forms that we need to complete, I think they facilitated a lot because that makes you really understand what you are supposed to do, and it will make the support that you provide quite targeted.”
(Barnardo’s, London)

The Post-18 pathway form was also seen as providing a helpful structure to identify the risks, child support needs and what support would add value to existing statutory services.

“Without it, I think it would be really difficult because it summarises the cases and puts everything in one place. So instead of having lots of different documents everywhere or looking through case notes, because there can be so many case notes, it gives you a clear indication on one document…I think it’s so useful because you basically see where the young person’s been, where they’re at now and where they need to go. So, without that form I’d be a bit lost.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Extra training and meetings organised between Post-18 Workers helped embed best practice and share learnings. Post-18 Workers valued the opportunity to meet, support each other, share what works and identify patterns from other regions. Networking also helped Post-18 Workers co-develop the role, while still allowing for flexibility between regions and individual cases.

“It definitely helps not being a lone worker, so having other people doing the exact same role, that’s worked really well and I think without it, it would be a real struggle.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Barnardo’s staff reported that effective support was also easier to provide in instances where it was possible for Post-18 Workers to meet and start building a relationship with a young person at least 6 months in advance of their 18th birthday. However, they acknowledged that this was not always possible, for example when a young person was referred nearer to their 18th birthday.

3.4 Perceived outcomes

This section explores the perceived progress made towards each of the intended short-term outcomes laid out in the Logic Model, included in Appendix A of this report.

Young adults experience a smoother transition in support when they turn 18 and are able to access statutory services which have an understanding of their experiences

Overall, stakeholders felt that the Post-18 Worker role added value to the existing support available to young adults and provided consistent support during a difficult transition period. Prior to the change, stakeholders reported the transition from child to adult services could be marked by a drop-off in support as young people’s care shifted from social workers to PAs and/or involved a step down of direct support from an ICTG worker. Stakeholders felt the implementation of the Post-18 role bridged this gap for those most in need.

Supporting children and young people through the NRM process was often given as an example of how the Post-18 work provided added value to existing services. Post-18 Worker’s in-depth knowledge of the NRM process was seen as filling a potential gap in awareness among adult services. Post-18 Workers were better able to navigate the NRM and understand the requirements of the process, such as the need to update the Single Competent Authority with any new and relevant information to inform appropriate decision-making. They were also seen as being able to explain the NRM process to the young people they supported, including the need to consent to the process at age 18. This support and expertise was cited as a determining factor in young people continuing with the NRM process and achieving a positive conclusive grounds decision. Stakeholders reported that this, in turn, helped young people be officially recognised as victims of modern slavery during criminal justice processes, gain employment and build independent lives.

The wider support provided by Post-18 Workers in finding appropriate accommodation, accessing financial aid and establishing employment or education options was also seen as crucial. For example, Barnardo’s staff highlighted previous cases where the leaving care service hadn’t identified financial issues quickly enough, leaving young adults without money during their transition from child to adult services. Conversely, Post-18 Workers were able to work with adult services at a senior level and ensure that the young adults they supported had access to the financial support to which they were entitled.

“If young people get a conclusive grounds NRM, and that comes from us updating the NRM, comes from us getting consent, that means…that they’re seen as a victim of trafficking and modern slavery and I think that’s kept young people out of prison, it’s given young people the support they need to recover in the future.”
(Barnardo’s, North)

Barnardo’s staff also highlighted how Post-18 Workers had been able to give children and young people the skills needed to independently interact with statutory services. Post-18 Workers felt that giving young people knowledge of their entitlements had empowered them to use their voice when it came to their support and had helped increase their confidence to ask questions of other services or request updates on their case. For example, young people were more confident discussing their cases with solicitors, or asking their PA about their leaving care allowance. Without this support, Barnardo’s staff felt that young people would not be asking for, and accessing, the support they need.

“In some cases… [young people] don’t know who to go to when something doesn’t go right. So for example, when they are not getting their weekly allowance. After explaining to them what they can do, so I had cases where firstly they would call me, and then after I explained to them what steps they can follow, they started doing it themselves.”
(Barnardo’s, London)

Case study:

A stakeholder from social services described the positive impact the Post-18 Worker had on a young person’s sense of independence. The Post-18 Worker had initially provided more regular, structured support to the young person, supporting them with their immigration case and attending solicitor’s appointments. Over time, they had lessened their support to allow other services to step in as the young person felt more comfortable and confident in interacting with these agencies directly. The stakeholder highlighted how smooth the transition had been and how impressed they were about the positive impact of the Post-18 support.

“I think that the ICTG worker has helped with her independence. That was one of our main concerns really. She came into care, almost 18 and was put in quite a rural, isolating placement for her safety, which made it very difficult to build up her skills of independence, actually. But that’s something that the ICTG workers did work on with her. Just small things at first, like being safe on the internet, mobile phone, being out in the community, meeting other young people, talking to her about the risks around other young people from her country, from her culture, and around trafficking.”
(Stakeholder, Midlands)

Similarly, stakeholders and staff also highlighted that Post-18 support had helped to build the independence and confidence of the young people they supported. This made them feel positive about the future of these young people and their ability to transition smoothly into adult services and begin to build independent lives.

Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders also highlighted the advantages of the Post-18 Worker role to statutory adult services. They reported that the support provided by the Post-18 Workers had taken pressure off their adult social care services and upskilled frontline workers to better understand the specific needs of child victims of exploitation and modern slavery. This was particularly true for PAs and other adult service support workers with less direct experience of modern slavery.

“I think the guardian role can be really helpful in actually expressing what that young person’s needs might be. I rely, probably, less on that because I’ve been working in this area for so long. But people who haven’t, I think the guardian role is crucial in the sense of how they interact with the young people and they understand. They have a level of understanding of what they’ve been through. Some of the difficulties that they might have faced. Not only is that helpful for the young person and how they work them, but they can then advocate for them and they can express their needs to professionals who might not be experts in this area and might need that helping hand really.”
(Stakeholder, Midlands)

Staff also noted that the change had taken pressure off ICTG Direct Workers to provide time-constrained and intensive support to young people before their 18th birthday. Provisions to continue direct support when needed meant that support prior to age 18 could be given at the appropriate speed and intensity.

Victims of modern slavery do not ‘fall off the radar’ or go missing when they turn 18

Staff and stakeholders were generally clear that the Post-18 role had made children and young people less vulnerable to ‘falling off the radar’^{[footnote 14]} of support services. Staff and stakeholders highlighted how the Post-18 role had mitigated the heightened risk of young people going missing, or being re-trafficked, during their transition out of child services by providing more consistent, frequent support.

“As young people reach 18, a lot of stuff in their life changes. So, they lose their social worker when they get a Personal Advisor, they move potentially from quite supportive accommodation to semi-independent, or independent accommodation. And a lot of the support they’ve previously received reduces quite heavily. What I think was being seen is that young people around that period became exceptionally vulnerable to re-trafficking.”
(Barnardo’s, North)

They felt that the strong relationships that could be forged between Post-18 Workers and young people gave them consistent support and helped them make the decision to continue with support services, mitigating some of these risks.

“I think it can make a really big difference there, because I think the onus is on the individual once you reach 18. So, if you don’t reach out for support, or you don’t attend an appointment, or if you don’t engage…it’s more seen as your choice as an adult not to do that.”
(Barnardo’s strategic staff member, National)

“I think the main benefits are young people not going under the radar and not falling through the net. So, even those ones where we have got concerns around them going missing and not being reported missing because the PA hasn’t had contact for 2 months and they don’t know that they’re missing. We’ve come in and we’ve been able to keep those young people on the radar even though sometimes it’s a challenge. We’ve definitely done that, keep them on the radar. Not letting them fall through the net, not letting them slip under. That’s been a big benefit.”
(Barnardo’s, London)

Post-18 Workers also reported that they were able to have more frequent contact with young people whereas statutory services were often limited in the number of visits they could make. They also mentioned that they were able to offer flexible support, being available at short notice and as a point of contact in an emergency for a young person. This was seen as being an important mitigation at pivotal points where young people may otherwise have become re-exploited or gone missing.

“Other professionals, they do…statutory visits but that’s pretty much, that’s it. Whereas we don’t do that, we go off the young person’s needs. So if a young person needs to see me twice a week and then needs to phone me in between or needs me to attend an appointment, I can be there. So you’re filling those gaps where other people are not always available.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Victims of modern slavery do not become re-trafficked when or after they turn 18

It was challenging to measure the extent to which Post-18 support had reduced levels of re-trafficking among those turning 18. However, stakeholders and staff felt that this was an important advantage of having the option of Post-18 work.

“We put safety plans in place, we make recommendations to professionals, they’re all based on our learning and our knowledge and our understanding of the vulnerability and risk to future exploitation. But I don’t think you can ever fully understand whether or not that’s the thing that made the difference.”
(Barnardo’s strategic staff member, National)

Case study:

Staff highlighted the case of a young Afghan person who was transferred to Post-18 support due to high risks of re-trafficking, county lines and gang involvement. He had complex needs, including serious mental health issues and learning disabilities. The Post-18 Worker was able to refer the young person to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and the National Autistic Society to ensure that the young person had the appropriate support. When he became at risk of re-trafficking from gang members, the young person reached out to his Post-18 Worker, who was able to help move the young person to a safer area. Services supporting the young person saw him as having a low risk of exploitation and he was able to enrol in college in his new local area.

“I strongly believe that if our service wasn’t there, even up to now, Post-18, we would sadly have lost that young person. He wouldn’t be alive today.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Staff and stakeholders described that there were a number of factors at play when a young person is re-trafficked. These could relate to a lack of appropriate support, including lack of employment support, poor accommodation and not feeling cared about. They could also include factors specific to the relationship between a victim and their trafficker such as owing exploiters money, or fear of their traffickers or the police. Due to their work to ensure consistency in support and a smooth transition from child to adult services, the Post-18 role was seen to be beneficial in mitigating these factors. For example, workers were able to help young people into employment or to access universal credit, and/or support immigration claims. They were also able to help young people communicate with police and other services, advocate for young people and help them access a section 45 defence^{[footnote 15]} (if applicable), help them navigate the criminal justice system, and help them to be recognised as a victim of modern slavery which could then be fully taken into account during any criminal justice proceedings.

“If the ICTG service wasn’t involved, I think there is probably a higher chance that she [young person] may have gone missing or been re-trafficked again. I think that having them involved helped to keep her settled, give her that education, help us to get all the support services in place that she needed, very quickly as well. So might have had a different outcome, if they weren’t involved.”
(Stakeholder, Midlands)

Barnardo’s staff also noted examples where Post-18 support had deterred exploiters from re-contacting victims or disrupted the re-trafficking of young people.

Case study:

In one case, a Post-18 Worker reported providing support to a young person who was nearing their 18th birthday. Due to their established relationship, the Post-18 Worker was aware that the young person’s exploiter might attempt to make contact once the young person had turned 18. On the young person’s birthday, the exploiter attempted to make face-to-face contact. However, the Post-18 Worker was able to intervene to stop the exploiter contacting the young person. The Post-18 Worker felt that if the young person hadn’t been receiving direct support, they would have left with the exploiter and ‘fallen off the radar’ of statutory services. Instead, the Post-18 Worker managed to maintain contact with the young person and provided further support on safety planning and worker rights to help avoid future labour exploitation, as well as providing links to further support.

“It [ICTG] has reduced it [missing people] a lot, because prior to the Post-18 service we were seeing lots of young people, like, Vietnamese and Albanian, as they were getting close to turning 18, they would completely drop off the radar and go missing. But now, we’ve got that Post-18 work, we’re seeing that less with the young people that have stayed open for Post-18 and that they are staying around. And that might be because potential traffickers and exploiters know that that child is still, sort of, being seen by the professional network or by a professional.”
(Barnardo’s, London)

Question 5

4.  Expanding direct support to children with a figure of parental responsibility in the UK through Regional Practitioners (RPs)

Accepted Answer

Figure 4: Regional Practitioners are assessed in this section of the report

4.1 Background and aims of the change

This change aimed to allow greater flexibility of the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service by providing direct tailored support to children with a figure of parental responsibility in the UK in cases of exceptional need. The ICTG model previously only provided direct support to children without a figure of parental responsibility in the UK (through an ICTG Direct Worker – see Figure 1 in Section 1), whereas children with a figure of parental responsibility were only provided with indirect support by Regional Practice Coordinators (RPCs). The RP role was therefore implemented to work temporarily with children with a figure of parental responsibility who would benefit from specialised direct support. RPs were set up to work closely with other services working with the child (such as social care, children’s services, youth offending services, immigration and education) to advocate for, and re-engage, children with this support, bridge the gap between them and other services and signpost them to appropriate longer-term support networks.

4.2 Children supported by the change

Total number of children who received RP support

Between May 2021 and April 2022, 627 children with figures of parental responsibility were supported indirectly by an RPC in the sites in which RP support was piloted^{[footnote 16]}. Of these children, 26 received additional one-to-one support from a RP. Since this additional one-to-one support was operationalised in May 2021, there was a slow but steady increase in the monthly caseload^{[footnote 17]} of RPs to 16 children in November 2021. After this, the RP caseload stayed at a similar level of between 16 and 18 children per month.

This can be explained by the number of children being referred to RP support each month, which was generally higher prior to November 2021. After this, referrals became more consistent, with around one to two children referred per month. However, case closures by RPs increased and ranged from one to three children per month, except in April 2022 where there were no closures. This shows a steadier and more consistent RP caseload in 2022 when the change was more fully embedded in the sites.

Figure 4.1: Number of children in total receiving Regional Practitioner (RP) support, referred to RP support and whose case closed for RP support^{[footnote 18]} per month from May 2021 to April 2022

Characteristics of children receiving one-to-one RP support

Primary exploitation type

Most children who received RP support experienced criminal exploitation as their primary exploitation type (20 of the 26 children receiving support). This reflects the profile of children referred to the NRM in these sites, where 67% of children had experienced criminal exploitation, which suggests that exploitation type may not influence the need for RP support. The second most common exploitation type of children receiving RP support was sexual exploitation (5 of the 26 children receiving support).

Primary exploitation type was related to gender. All children supported by an RP experiencing criminal exploitation were male (20 children)^{[footnote 19]}, whereas all children experiencing sexual exploitation were female (5 children)^{[footnote 20]}.

Demographics

Most children who received RP support were male (21 of the 26 children receiving support), which is consistent with pilot site child NRM referrals. The average (mean) age of children starting RP support was 16 years old, which is similar to the average (mean) age of child NRM referrals (15 years old). However, the figures suggest that RP support tended to focus more on older children. Children receiving one-to-one support from an RP ranged in age from 11 to 18 years old, whereas pilot site child NRM referrals cover a broader range of ages including from 6 to 17 years old. This may be due to there being fewer statutory support options for older children.

Most children who received RP support were UK nationals (19 of the 26 children receiving support), which is a similar proportion to child NRM referrals in the pilot sites. This is as expected as most children who have a figure of parental responsibility in the UK (and therefore fall under the RPC and RP remit) are of UK nationality. Although there were low numbers of non-UK nationals with a figure of parental responsibility in the UK, 7 children of non-UK nationality were provided with RP support (out of 174 children supported indirectly by an RPC), compared to 19 UK nationals (out of 1,086 children supported indirectly by an RPC). This suggests that non-UK nationals were more likely to have an exceptional need to receive the RP support.

During the qualitative interviews, Barnardo’s staff reflected that the volume of children with a non-UK nationality who received RP support was higher than originally anticipated. RPs reported supporting children and young people from asylum-seeking families, with EU settled status and from Roma and Travelling communities. It was felt that direct RP work was often needed in these circumstances to help children and their families navigate the immigration and asylum systems.

“I definitely agree with that [extension] because the parents [in asylum seeking families], it’s not that they’re not capable of looking after their children, but they have also come from another country. Some of them don’t even know their rights. If they don’t know their own rights, it’s difficult for them to lead their own child when they have no idea what’s going on themselves.”
(Stakeholder, Midlands)

Region

The number of children receiving one-to-one RP support was equally spread across ICTG sites, with the highest in Wales (10 of the 26 children receiving support), followed by East Midlands (8 children), and West Midlands (8 children).

When looking at the total number of children supported by RPCs in this period at each ICTG site where this change was implemented, the proportion that also received one-to-one RP support was consistent across the sites, with 4% of children in Wales, East Midlands, and West Midlands.

Table 4.2: Number and proportion of children supported by Regional Practice Coordinators (RPCs) who received Regional Practitioner (RP) support in each Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) site from May 2021 to April 2022

ICTG region and site	Number of children supported by an RPC	Number of children who received RP support	Proportion of children supported by RPCs who received RP support
East Midlands	183	8	4%
Wales	262	10	4%
West Midlands	182	8	4%
Total (all pilot sites)	627	26	4%

4.3 Implementing the change

Identification and assessment of need

Barnardo’s developed guidance and an RP flowchart (Appendix C), which set out how to identify individual children who would benefit from RP support and the steps to be taken for RP support to be provided. Children were often referred to RP support through their RPC, which staff felt had helped there be a smooth transition of care as the children were already known to the ICTG service. Frontline workers supporting children could also directly request RP support but would often first discuss the referral with the other services supporting the child.

To assess exceptional need, an RP template was completed by an RP or RPC before being discussed with an ICTG manager. The RP template included a set of criteria which the service would measure exceptional need against. This included:

concerns about familial exploitation
mental health or domestic abuse issues in the family
an upcoming transition to adult services
a history of low engagement with local authority social services
pending court cases
children from asylum seeking families where figures of parental responsibility need additional support

Barnardo’s staff felt the RP template was thorough and incorporated the individual child’s safety, wellbeing, emotional needs and the context of their modern slavery experiences. Final decisions were made by the ICTG manager to ensure consistent assessment and best allocation of resources according to the child’s needs. However, there was an option for RPs to challenge any negative decision if they felt a child with exceptional need might ‘slip through the net’. Over time, Barnardo’s staff felt that it was easier to recognise where this additional support was needed and what constituted exceptional need.

The level and type of specialist services available in the regions were influential factors in determining whether a child had exceptional need. Lack of services in the area was the most common reason identified for exceptional need (this was the case for 9 of the 26 children receiving support). During qualitative interviews, Barnardo’s staff said it was important to consider to what extent other support services were available to support the child and how willing the child was to engage with these services. This could vary across regions as some areas had better or more flexible local provisions for supporting child victims of modern slavery. For example, the monitoring data suggests that a lack of services was the most common reason for direct support in the East Midlands, which stakeholders felt reflected the more limited exploitation services available in the region compared to the West Midlands.

Barnardo’s staff would also consider the level of specialist modern slavery support amongst available services. A lack of professional knowledge was the exceptional need reason for 7 children of the 26 children supported.

“From what I’ve experienced, quite often that exceptional circumstance is there is absolutely no other service available, who can effectively engage these children, that have their understanding and the knowledge around exploitation that’s needed to explore those concerns with the children.”
(Barnardo’s, Wales)

In 7 instances, a “themed piece of work” was recorded as the main cause of exceptional need. This may include family work where immigration was a factor or upskilling courts on legislation if a child was facing criminal charges due to their exploitation. Themed pieces of work could also involve an RP co-working with the RPC to support the child by carrying out wider strategic pieces of work. In the West Midlands, most children received RP support for a “themed piece of work” (5 of the 8 children supported in the region).

Barnardo’s staff would also judge to what extent it could be more helpful or harmful to add another professional into the child’s life for a limited time. They reported that careful consideration would be made about whether there was a risk the child could become too reliant on their RP support and struggle to transition into other services once RP support ended.

“It’s about being really careful, particularly when we’re talking about short-term work, for a lot of these children it’s going to take a number of months just to build up that relationship before any work can take place. So, making sure that we’re not going to do more harm than good by coming in for a short-term piece of work.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Although most children in the East and West Midlands were supported due to the factors above (lack of services, lack of professional knowledge or for a “themed piece of work”), in Wales, 3 children had an unspecified “other” exceptional need for RP support. Data from Barnardo’s suggests that this relates to instances where children were not receiving the local authority support they may need. For example, if local authorities did not recognise the signs of exploitation and RP support was needed to assist local authorities to understand the complexities of child trafficking and exploitation. This category also covered cases where there were no other support services involved with the family, or where a child might be moving between addresses of family members and across local authority borders, which could make it challenging for local authorities to assess and offer support.

Type of support provided

The type and intensity of one-to-one support provided to children was dependent on the child’s specific needs. RPs would generally work with the child to tailor their support according to their individual experiences of exploitation.

The type of exploitation experienced by a child could be an important factor in tailoring support. For those who had experienced criminal exploitation, RPs reported supporting children with pending court cases and advocating for their rights and entitlements (for example, pushing for the section 45 defence). Children coming up to their 18th birthday may need help to understand, and consent to, the NRM process (which could impact their court case). In one instance, an RP described supporting a child to understand the legislation involved in their upcoming court case. The RP also wrote a letter to the judge about the child’s exploitation and helped frontline services around the child to assess the exploitation risks.

For children from asylum seeking families who had experienced exploitation outside the UK, Barnardo’s staff described providing more holistic support. RPs would help children to access services like a local refugee and migrant centre, register with health services, and enrol in further education.

In some cases, RPs also supported figures of parental responsibility with their child’s safeguarding and with understanding their child’s experiences of exploitation. The extent of the interaction depended on a child’s individual needs and whether there was any potential risk posed to the child (for example, if the family were suspected to be involved in their exploitation). Support was carefully tailored if there were any concerns that a figure of parental responsibility was involved in a child’s exploitation. For example, RPs would visit the child at school or at a children’s centre instead of carrying out home visits.

“It varies from one extreme to the other and we’ve had some parents who flat out said, ‘No, you’re not working with my child. I don’t want you involved. There’s nothing to worry about. I’ve got it all in hand.’ Other parents who said, ‘Thank goodness you’re there. Help me. These are all the things I’ve tried. Is there anything else I can do?’ So it’s really everything between those two extremes.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Frequency and length of support

The frequency of RP visits depended on the level of need and was agreed with the child at the outset.

RP support generally consisted of a planned, short-term piece of work conducted over a few months, with the intention that the child’s support would then transition to other support services. On average (mean), children received RP support for 4 months in the period from May 2021 to April 2022 (this includes cases which were ongoing as at the end of April 2022). However, in some cases there could be a need to work with a child over a longer or shorter period of time and so support ranged from less than one month (the shortest duration that a child received RP support for was 11 days) up to 11 months (this includes ongoing RP support).

RPs reported that building trust with children and their families could take time and required multiple visits. Many children and their families referred for RP support had contact with multiple services and had “practitioner fatigue”. Building trust could be especially challenging in the Roma and Traveller communities or if families didn’t speak English due to language barriers. RPs underlined the importance of being clear that Barnardo’s is an independent service. Additionally, figures of parental responsibility who struggled to recognise that their child had been exploited also required a more tailored approach. In these cases, RPs emphasised the importance of letting the family know that their focus was only on the children’s safety, rather than critiquing their parenting.

“It can take 6 to 8 weeks to actually engage a child in the first place because you are just another person turning up to them. Not in every case, but in a fair few cases, because of the people who’ve tried to engage them historically, they’ve just got a bit of practitioner fatigue, and so we had to be really consistent and persistent and demonstrate how we were different to these children.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

RP support provided through a “themed piece of work” (mean = 6 months) was, on average, slightly longer than for other exceptional needs (mean range = 2 to 5 months). This is likely because “themed pieces of work” tended to refer to cases that were particularly complex in delivery or needed more time for the RPs to build trust. On average, children in the West Midlands received one-to-one support from an RP for 8 months, which was much longer than children in Wales (mean = 2 months) and the East Midlands (mean = 4 months). More children in the West Midlands received a “themed piece of work” from their RP, which could explain why the West Midlands provided longer support than the other sites.

Ongoing assessment and ending support

RP cases were frequently reviewed. For example, RPs and their line managers discussed each child’s needs and support plan on a monthly basis. Should a child’s needs change, RPs explained that they could be flexible in adjusting the type, frequency, and duration of support to ensure it continued to be appropriate.

“It’s about very much looking at if we’re the right support service, we’re the right service to be involved and if there is a need for us. It would be looking at what we were bringing and is that benefiting the child and the professionals. If it’s not, then there’s no need for us to be there, or if there is something else we can do then there is. So it’s a constant evaluation.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

An exit plan was generally included in the child’s original support plan to ensure a successful transition after the RP support ended. RPs reported that they would plan exit sessions with other services to ensure that the child felt empowered to engage with those services going forward. RPs found that reducing the support they provided to the child over time could be more difficult if there was limited capacity from other support services or if the child was distrustful or reluctant to work with other services.

Out of the 26 children supported by an RP, 10 children had finished receiving support in the period of May 2021 to April 2022. RP support finished for most of these children because the specific piece of work had been completed (6 of the 10 children who had completed support). Other children had other unspecified reasons for finishing one-to-one RP support (3 of the 10 children supported). This could be due to many or multi-faceted reasons, for example: the RP identifying statutory or voluntary services which could support the child on a longer-term basis, changes to the child’s living and supervision arrangements, or a decision to focus on another aspect of the child’s life, for example, substance misuse reduction intervention or mental health/capacity assessments. In a few cases, support had to end because there continued to be no positive engagement from the child. RPs felt that their managers were understanding in these cases when they decided to end support.

Barriers to implementation

RPs found that the willingness of local authorities to engage with the ICTG service in general and with the RP role specifically could vary, particularly in local authorities that were newer to the service. This could limit multi-agency working, with services less receptive to RP suggestions, and could impact the RP’s ability to support the child (for example, if they had difficulty accessing accommodation or other services). Barnardo’s staff felt that additional time was sometimes needed to build trust and help these local authorities understand the remit, role, and value of the ICTG service.

“You’re always going to get local authorities that are a bit wary. It’s part and parcel of voluntary work. So, you do have to have difficult conversations. There’s a lot of fracture and repair because a lot of the time you’re disagreeing with the local authority.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

“Lack of knowledge around where our service sits within a local authority can create barriers…. we have local authorities who will work alongside us but express a complete lack of understanding or knowledge of our service, but we know that we have been in several times and upskilled, and shared information and raised awareness.”
(Barnardo’s strategic staff member, National)

Similarly, RPs reported that some statutory services could be challenging to work with. Although social care and youth offending services were reportedly more open to working with RPs, RPs felt some police officers were reluctant to share information. Particularly in cases of criminal exploitation, RPs reported that some police officers viewed RP advocacy for the child as creating barriers around police investigations or impacting drug offence prosecutions. RPs saw this reluctance from statutory services as linked to a lack of understanding of criminal exploitation and the NRM. Therefore, RPs aimed to upskill these services to improve their awareness of the NRM and the factors behind criminal exploitation.

RPs mentioned that in a few instances they had to be clear with the other services involved that their only remit was the child, and that they would not be directly supporting the families involved aside from educating them on exploitation and the relevant legislation.

In addition, RPs reflected that a lack of capacity within statutory services could lead to slower communication or delayed information sharing. In some cases, the lack of response from social workers impeded RPs support. In one example, an RP was unable to start work with a child due to repeated delays to the introductory visit arranged by social care. Additionally, high turnover in statutory services could impact on the progress made on cases, with RPs needing to upskill new staff and rebuild professional relationships from scratch.

RPs also discussed specific challenges around supporting children where figures of parental responsibility were suspected of being involved in the child’s exploitation, but where there was not enough evidence to remove the child from the adult’s custody. Parental consent for RPs to support the child could be difficult to obtain and could leave the child vulnerable while the RP worked to communicate with the family.

“There will be many instances unfortunately where that person with parental responsibility likely is a familial exploiter in some sense. Particularly we see that in respect of criminal exploitation and supply. It’s really difficult for those children to perhaps receive the support from an RP…that person with PR [parental responsibility] is always going to be a pause to that work taking place. So that’s a bit of a barrier and obstacle sometimes.”
(Barnardo’s, Wales)

There were some challenges in the Midlands for RPs who were covering both the East and West Midlands. The need to travel long distances to visit children they were supporting meant their caseload had to be managed carefully. After this was raised with management, more RPs were hired to cover different areas.

Enablers to implementation

Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders felt that one of the biggest enablers of the effective implementation of the RP role was Barnardo’s staff proactively networking with statutory and third sector agencies and building relationships with services in different areas. Presentations to raise awareness of the RP role were seen as very helpful to educate agencies, and for RPCs to carry out more referrals within Barnardo’s itself.

RPs reported feeling supported by their managers, which helped with their caseload and ability to effectively support children. For example, one RP was offered a hire car when they drove to visit a child who lived far away in an area where they did not feel safe. RPs also mentioned how management helped when support services were not willing to listen to, or disagreed with, the RP and could step in if an issue needed to be escalated.

Additionally, RPs felt that the reputation and independence of Barnardo’s was instrumental in building trust with children and their families who may distrust statutory services. RPs could explain that they were not associated with other services that families may have had previous negative experiences with, for example children who may have been told to distrust the police. Having trust in the RPs who made efforts to consistently demonstrate their independence enabled children to open up and feel listened to, and enabled RPs to provide the necessary support.

“Families, they don’t trust services, a lot of the families that I’ve worked with, but once you say you work from Barnardo’s, they seem to have some sort of good memory of Barnardo’s, or they’ve had a good relationship with Barnardo’s, and that seems to build in the relationship.”
(Barnardo’s, Wales)

4.4 Perceived outcomes

This section explores the perceived progress made towards each of the intended short-term outcomes laid out in the Logic Model, included in Appendix A of this report.

Children feel empowered to participate in safeguarding meetings, are better supported, kept safe and understand their legal position

Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders generally felt that children had gained a greater understanding of their exploitation experiences due to RP support. RPs were able to directly work with children to help them recognise risk factors and understand the complexities of their exploitation. Children supported by RPs would often have previously worked with multiple services and could feel unheard by, and distrustful of, professionals. RPs reported that their expertise and focus on listening to and advocating for the child enabled them to re-engage children and represent them during decision-making.

“We understand the complexities of child trafficking and exploitation and we understand why children present the way they do. I think a direct benefit for children who have an RP worker from our service is that their voice is really heard, that the knowledge that our RPs have around the complexities of exploitation, in addition to being able to hear that child’s voice, is really powerful because we advocate for that child’s voice all the time.”
(Barnardo’s, Wales)

Stakeholders and Barnardo’s staff described how RPs had empowered children to contribute to their own safety plan, with RPs often co-developing the safety plan with the child. RPs explained that they ensured children understood the systems around them (such as the NRM) and the roles of the different support services. They felt that this helped children feel more confident to contribute to their own safety plan and to speak to the services around them.

Case study:

An RP was supporting a young person who had been a victim of sexual exploitation and was unable to engage with the support services around her. She did not feel that services were listening to her or that she had a say in her own support. She had been moved to safe accommodation for her protection under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)^{[footnote 21]} order but she was not happy there. Initially she was reluctant to engage with the RP, but the RP built a trusting relationship over time where they worked on her safety and provided support around wellbeing and missing episodes. As a result of positive engagement with the RP, the young person became more confident to speak to the professionals from other services and advocated for herself to be moved out of the accommodation. She was able to return to her hometown and had no further missing episodes.

“Something that sticks with me is what a girl said to me when I first met her, because her walls were massively up and I remember her being quite reluctant to engage with me…she said, ‘I do not feel like I have a voice in my life. I don’t make any decisions for what’s going on around me.’ …She really advocated for herself in the end, and she was moved back with her family and she’s in supported accommodation, she’s no longer on a DoLS and she’s doing really well. So, I think, seeing the difference with someone saying, ‘I have no say in my life,’ to see a child that says, ‘You know what? This is what I need’ and just being more at the centre of it it’s quite nice to see.”
(Barnardo’s, Wales)

Staff and stakeholders thought that the trusted relationships RPs built with children were important in improving each child’s ability to feel safe and supported. Stakeholders described how children disclosed additional information to their RP that they had not shared previously with other statutory services. This information could be important in providing appropriate support for the child, for example by adding evidence to an NRM referral or court case. In one case, the relationship built between the child and the RP gave the child the confidence to write down their experiences, which was then used to challenge drug charges against them and resulted in the charges being dropped. The stakeholders involved in this case commented that the progress made would not have happened without the involvement of the RP.

“There’s been some really positive examples of where that work has actually led to the child disclosing more information which has then been able to be submitted to the SCA (Single Competent Authority) towards conclusive grounds decisions, but also has been able to give practitioners a much more in depth perspective on (a) what is going on for that child so we can safety plan better, but (b) the perspective of the child of what is going on for that child.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Stakeholders reported on the RPs’ ability to clearly explain children’s rights and relevant legislation to both the children themselves and the other support services involved. They considered this to be most important for children who had experienced criminal exploitation and who had an ongoing court case. It was felt that RP involvement had often been pivotal in ensuring children understood court processes and in gaining consent to NRM referrals. They also referred to examples where the RPs ensured the child’s defence team were aware of the section 45 defence (of the ‘Modern Slavery Act (2015)’) and that the child’s exploitation was taken into account at trial.

“We’ve had a number of young people where they are approaching 18, and they don’t understand the NRM, and they don’t understand court processes they are in, and their rights within the courts’ processes and what the Modern Slavery Act can bring to them. So we’ve had a few where literally the RP has gone in and done like 3 sessions with the child, literally around educating them, explaining all this stuff to them, helping them understand that, answering their questions, really empowering them to know their rights in terms of what they can ask for.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Case study:

As a result of their criminal exploitation, a young person was facing serious charges for a section 18 assault (‘Offences against the Person Act (1861)’). The direct involvement of the RP raising awareness of their exploitation amongst law enforcement stopped the young person from receiving a custodial sentence. The RP worked to ensure the young person had support and a safety plan in place. After RP support had ended, the young person was able to secure a work-based placement.

“He [young person] was going to prison and it’s only because of the direct involvement from the RP role, and the judge wrote it into his order, they had to do this exploitation work in order to have his community sentence, and we did the work. I really unpicked his exploitation and looked at his safety moving forward, so without that, he wouldn’t have had that direct support, he would have been serving a prison sentence. That young person now is doing really well and he’s moving on with his life independently.”
(Barnardo’s, Wales)

Barnardo’s staff also helped the children’s figures of parental responsibility become more involved in their child’s safeguarding. Stakeholders commented that the RP had encouraged them to support figures of parental responsibility in understanding their child’s journey of exploitation and how it happened, but also to work alongside the family to support the child.

“We’re asked to work with our families, it’s in the sight of the Barnardo’s workers, that we get the parents to understand the journey of exploitation. They’re very clear on how we should be working with exploitation, which is to look at the contextual side of it and how the family need to be understanding the complexity of how it happens, how grooming can happen.”
(Stakeholder, Midlands)

Frontline workers feel that the ICTG service provides added value to existing statutory services for these trafficked children

Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders felt strongly that RPs brought added value to existing statutory services through providing specialist advice that would not be available otherwise. Stakeholders felt that RP expertise on modern slavery and the associated processes of accessing support (for example, the NRM and relevant legislation) would not have been available otherwise. It was noted that RP support had a positive impact on the ability of statutory services to understand the needs of exploited children and provide appropriate support. Additionally, stakeholders reported that RPs brought a national view of modern slavery issues, which could be helpful to bring into discussions on specific cases.

“I would say that it’s made my role easier. Having somebody who knows a lot about the legislation, about their rights and the young person, and the specialist knowledge, which is not something we have in Youth Offending Service, and being able to access other systems, and have a network they can work with, it makes things much faster and safe for the kids.”
(Stakeholder, Midlands)

Stakeholders highlighted how RPs shifted mindsets among some agencies, moving from perceived victim-blaming language to a more nuanced and trauma-informed approach to exploitation and modern slavery. Barnardo’s staff challenged narratives held by services about child victims of modern slavery (particularly around male victims of criminal exploitation). RPs helped those working for other support services to see cases from a different perspective, and to understand the child’s perspective, their experiences of exploitation and why they may act in certain ways. This, in turn, could improve the relationship between children and the different services around them.

“She [a young person] had professionals around her that felt like she was putting herself at risk, and she always felt like everything was her fault. But now, I feel like the professionals really understand that, ‘Okay, things might not be 100% perfect, but she has been through a lot.’ And just supporting her with it, rather than becoming frustrated with her and expecting her to do differently because she’s done these sessions or has more understanding. I think that has a massive impact on the young person, and you start seeing changes with the young person when the professionals around them recognise that it’s not on them, it’s not their fault, and you can see a shift in those relationships then as well.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Stakeholders also felt the RP’s short-term involvement had helped reduce their workloads. Stakeholders highlighted how RPs helped them share knowledge on their cases. For example, a professional who was supporting a refugee family alongside an RP found that they were able to aid each other’s work by sharing advice and information about the family. Stakeholders spoke very positively about the time RPs dedicated to the children involved, as they sometimes found it difficult to have enough time when working in a stretched statutory service.

Children have improved needs assessment scores and safeguarding structures

Stakeholders reported how the RP role had enhanced existing safeguarding structures rather than significantly altering them. Safeguarding meetings could be a useful platform for RP influence, with stakeholders highlighting how RPs could effectively advocate for the child to ensure they were at the centre of decision-making. RPs also held services to account over agreed action points.

“I think that the ICTG has held agencies accountable when they haven’t delivered on actions, when they haven’t prioritised my young person’s needs, when minutes haven’t been typed up or actions followed through on, and advocated on behalf of the child where there’s clearly concerns that aren’t being addressed.”
(Stakeholder, Midlands)

Barnardo’s staff felt that the introduction of the RP role had enabled the whole ICTG service to provide additional safeguarding measures and reduce the risk of children falling through the gaps of support services. This was because RP support had often helped re-engage children with statutory services, which they had previously distrusted or been reluctant to interact with. Through bridging this gap between the children and other services, children had stronger safeguarding structures around them.

“There are vulnerable children who need to have that level of support and the fact that we can offer that service means that if we’ve got a child who’s had everything else offered to them and isn’t easy for the local authority to engage because they view social services negatively then actually we’ve been able to come in and say, ‘You know, we’re completely separate to that, so let’s just have a talk and let’s see what we can put together to support you.’ So, I think that it’s been really key, that safety net almost for children that have fallen through gaps.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Question 6

5.  A flexible Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service

Accepted Answer

The 2 changes to the ICTG service discussed in the report both aimed to increase the flexibility of the service to better meet the needs of vulnerable children and young people who are victims of modern slavery. This chapter explores the extent to which staff and stakeholders perceived the changes to have increased the flexibility of the ICTG service.

Barnardo’s staff felt strongly that the changes had successfully achieved this goal and had given the ICTG service more and better options for providing support to those who needed it.

“It seems almost bizarre that we haven’t done this sooner because if you’re not working with both UK nationals and non-UK nationals, then you’re not working with all the child victims of trafficking. I hope this continues because I think it’s so necessary.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

In fact, this flexibility was seen as the most important outcome of both changes to the service for many of the staff interviewed for this evaluation.

“We’re now in a position where we can respond to the emerging needs of those children. So, if we’ve got a child there that really needs that support but for some reason there either isn’t the support there or the other support agencies haven’t managed to engage that child, gives us the flexibility to get in there…Whereas before…we spent so long trying to upskill other professionals to go in…From that perspective we were really able to meet the needs of children that previously we weren’t able to.”
(Barnardo’s strategic staff member, National)

Not only did providing this additional support make the ICTG service more flexible, staff and stakeholders highlighted that the support itself was also provided flexibly. As discussed above, Regional Practitioners (RPs) and Post-18 Workers had the flexibility to provide tailored support at a frequency and intensity that suited the needs of the individual child or young person. They felt that this flexibility allowed the support to be as effective as possible.

“There was scope for it being extended which is really good because that shows the flexibility of the service. If this individual does need further support, then you’re not just going to go away. So, that’s another positive.”
(Stakeholder, Wales)

Staff felt that these changes should be rolled-out across England and Wales to ensure this flexibility was available across regions. They felt that there was a need for these types of support across the country and that the benefits should be available to those who needed it regardless of geography.

“Sometimes they might have a case where they feel like, ‘If only we were able to support them,’ and now we’re able to provide that direct support. If it was to roll-out, I think it would make us very flexible in terms of being able to support the young people directly where there’s that support identified and the exceptional circumstances identified.”
(Barnardo’s, Midlands)

Furthermore, with the introduction of RPs, Regional Practice Coordinators were able to transfer those on their original caseload needing direct support to RPs. Barnardo’s staff reflected that over time this would free up capacity to allow them to do more strategic work.

Question 7

6.  Conclusions and recommendations

Accepted Answer

6.1 Conclusions

The evaluation aimed to assess the added value of introducing 2 new roles providing support: the Post-18 Worker and the Regional Practitioner (RP). Barnardo’s staff and external stakeholders generally perceived that introducing the Post-18 Worker and RP roles had positive outcomes on both the flexibility of the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service and the quality of support provided to children and young people.

Overall, stakeholders felt there was a clear need for both changes and advocated for their national roll-out across sites. They felt that adaptations to the ICTG service in pilot regions addressed existing gaps in the support available for vulnerable children and young people. Stakeholders also said there are a significant number of children and young people across England and Wales who could benefit from these changes.

They saw Post-18 Workers improving the transition from child to adult services for supported children, by providing consistency throughout a difficult period of change for young people. Both Barnardo’s staff and stakeholders reported that Post-18 Workers had helped to build the independence and confidence of the young people they supported. This was seen as crucial for young adults who were beginning to interact more independently with statutory adult services following their 18th birthday. There was also a sense that consistent support provided by Post-18 Workers helped to maintain connections with young people, making it less likely they would go missing, ‘fall off the radar’ or be re-trafficked following their 18th birthday.

While further embedding of the change was needed to identify whether the RP role had led to better outcomes for supported young people, staff and stakeholders were positive about the effect of the role so far. Frontline workers saw one-to-one ICTG support adding value to existing statutory services for the young people supported under this change. There was also a sense from staff and stakeholders that supported children had gained a greater understanding of their exploitation experiences as a result of RP support. The trusted relationships built with RPs were also perceived to have improved children’s ability to feel safe and supported.

Overall, a flexible ICTG service was seen as better meeting the needs of victims and potential victims of modern slavery. Staff and stakeholders agreed that the changes have led to a more flexible ICTG service. They felt that this flexibility allowed them to respond better to the specific needs of individual children and young people, meaning fewer victims of modern slavery were falling through the gaps in service provision. They hoped that this would continue and that the whole ICTG service, as well as the specific changes covered in this evaluation, would continue to lead to better outcomes for the children and young people supported.

6.2 Key learnings

The evaluation identified a number of key learnings for further roll-out of the changes.

Continued awareness-raising of the wider ICTG service could enable effective implementation of new roles (such as Post-18 Workers and RPs). The changes were more easily and efficiently implemented in sites where the ICTG service was already strongly embedded. Although caseloads of Post-18 Workers and RPs increased steadily across the sites, there were higher referral numbers from existing pilot sites. This suggests that statutory services in these areas were more aware of, and more comfortable engaging with, the ICTG service. Awareness-raising activities, both about the ICTG service as a whole, and about specific roles, could help gain buy-in from other services working to support children and young people.

Clear guidance was seen as important for consistency and for providing effective, efficient and time-constrained support. Barnardo’s staff valued the guidance and templates that set out the remit of the roles, the parameters of the support provided and the criteria for exceptional needs assessments. They felt that these guidance documents allowed them to make accurate decisions about support provision and enabled them to put clear support plans in place for children and young people. While one staff member highlighted the risk of subjective decision-making, Barnardo’s staff generally thought the process of identifying cases with exceptional need was accurate and worked well.

In addition, staff were also not always confident on when and how to effectively stop or reduce support to children and young people. As both changes are intended to deliver short-term pieces of work, further guidance or sharing of best practice could be helpful to ensure the remit of the roles remain clear.

Maintaining flexibility was seen as important to the success of the changes. Having the ability to tailor support to the needs of individual children and young people on a case-by-case basis was seen as fundamental to the success of the changes. Any guidance should ensure there is space for the ICTG service to adapt to individual cases as appropriate, to ensure that each child’s needs are effectively met.

Sharing best practice across the ICTG service could improve service delivery. Post-18 Workers and RPs spoke about the benefits of holding meetings across the service to embed best practice and share learning. Bringing workers together could help enable peer support, identify patterns from other regions, and positively shape and grow the new roles.

A focus on relationship-building with other statutory services was seen as important and clear guidance should be circulated on ICTG roles. Working effectively with other services supporting the child or young person was highlighted as an enabler to providing effective support. In most cases, staff and stakeholders had made good relationships, and stakeholders reflected positively on the new roles. However, in a small number of cases, communication or relationships had broken down. Reasons cited for this included: some reluctance of some services to provide information to ICTG workers^{[footnote 22]}, a lack of understanding of the Post-18 or RP roles and how they fitted alongside existing statutory support (such as social workers or personal advisors), and personality clashes. To address these ongoing issues, relationship-building and strong communication with statutory services should be an ongoing focus of the new roles. Guidance could also be provided more generally on all the ICTG roles and how they fit into the wider support system.

Furthermore, some stakeholders felt that Barnardo’s staff needed to have a better understanding of the work and limitations of statutory services. This was particularly important for the Post-18 work, where young people’s expectations of the services available needed to be realistic. Any roll-out will need to consider the importance of training ICTG workers on the limitations of statutory services and how this can vary across regions^{[footnote 23]}.

Ongoing monitoring is needed as changes continue to embed across pilot sites. The implementation and outcomes of these changes should continue to be reviewed as the changes become part of ‘business as usual’ activity across the pilot sites. Further review will also allow new examples of best practice and/or new barriers to implementation to be taken into consideration during future roll-outs.

ICTGs provide an independent source of advice and advocacy for trafficked children. The ICTG service is currently delivered by Barnardo’s via a grant from the Home Office. ↩
RPCs work with professionals who are already protecting and supporting trafficked children for whom there is someone with parental responsibility in the UK. ↩
According to ICTG guidance, a child who has been trafficked means any child who is or who is suspected of being trafficked, as per the definition in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. ↩
Exceptional need is assessed on a case-by-case basis against a Needs Assessment Framework (found in Appendix C). ↩
Exceptional need is assessed on a case-by-case basis using an RP Template (Appendix C). ↩
The first change was not evaluated because it is believed that all children should benefit from support for as long as they need it. Therefore, this change will become part of the ICTG service model going forward. ↩
As the additional support was offered to all children in the service, referral data dating back to when the ICTG service started was required to gather all necessary information from this dataset on children receiving the additional support detailed in the monthly dataset. ↩
The mobilisation of the expansion and extension of the ICTG Service was from the 17 May 2021. Data was analysed from 1 May to consider all children under Direct Worker and RPC streams of the ICTG service in that month. ↩
Coy, 2016, Joining the dots on sexual exploitation of children and women: A way forward for UK policy responses, Critical Social Policy. ↩
Chase, 2020, Transitions, capabilities, and wellbeing: How Afghan unaccompanied young people experience becoming ‘adult’ in the UK and beyond. ↩
Age of children receiving post-18 support was calculated from the day they started post-18 support. ↩
Total figures for the number of children that were assessed for post-18 support are not available. The ICTG service evaluates the needs of the child they support on a continuous basis to ensure that these are being addressed. This will also include identifying cases where post-18 support is necessary to address their individual needs due to their circumstances. This assessment data is captured by Barnardo’s in individual case notes but was not required as reporting data to the Home Office. ↩
This includes all children who received Post-18 support including case closures and children receiving ongoing Post-18 support. ↩
This term is used to describe situations where services are under pressure to deal with other priorities and a child who is ‘off their radar’ does not get the attention that is required. ↩
Section 45 of the ‘Modern Slavery Act (2015)’ lays out that a person is not guilty of an offence if compelled to do the act and the compulsion is attributable to slavery or to relevant exploitation and a reasonable person in the same situation would have no realistic alternative to doing the act. In the cases of those aged 17 and under, a person is not guilty if the person does the act as a direct consequence of the person being, or having been, a victim of slavery or relevant exploitation and a reasonable person in the same situation would also do the act. ↩
Barnardo’s reports management information on children who have been specifically supported by RPCs through provision of help and advice to the frontline staff who are in direct contact with the child. The RPC work also includes advising first responders on a child’s National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referral or advising professionals on the child’s safeguarding or support options. Only children supported individually by RPCs appear in RPC caseload data. The data does not include children who may have been supported through the general advice, guidance, and strategic developments that the RPCs provide to frontline staff in a range of settings. The total number of children supported by the service is therefore referring only to children who appear on ICTG and RPC caseloads. ↩
This includes all children receiving the additional support from the month the change was implemented. Children were not included on the caseload in months when the one-to-one support ended or had their cases closed. ↩
Closures include children who have finished RP support but may still be on RPC caseloads. ↩
At the time of data extraction, it was not clear what the primary exploitation type was for the remaining cases of males. It is likely there were multiple forms of exploitation. ↩
This refers to the primary exploitation type of children on referral, and often after this a better assessment was made from the RPC or RP and exploitation types identified were multi-layered. However, there was a clear pattern of referring professionals being more confident in identifying criminal exploitation for males, and sexual exploitation for females. ↩
A ‘DoLS order’ is used when it is necessary to deprive someone of their liberty, for example a resident or patient, who lacks the capacity to consent to their care and treatment to keep them safe from harm. ↩
Similar challenges were also raised in the ‘evaluation of the introduction of the Regional Practice Coordinator role’, where stakeholders reported local authorities and police were reluctant to engage with the service. ↩
Barnardo’s strategic staff noted that, following completion of interviews, whole service training on this had been rolled-out and they were confident that this learning was being embedded across the ICTG service. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England and Wales

Executive Summary

Evaluation objectives and methodology

Key findings

Introduction of the Post-18 Worker role

Introduction of the RP role

Conclusions and recommendations

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and context

Figure 1: Support provided by the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service

1.2 Evaluation

1.3 Research objectives

Continue ICTG support beyond the age of 18 for children who need it

Allow children who have a figure of parental responsibility in the UK to access one-to-one support where there is exceptional need

1.4 Overview of the report structure

2. Evaluation methodology

2.1 Overview of approach

Qualitative research

Qualitative sample breakdown

Qualitative data analysis

Limitations to the qualitative findings

Quantitative research

2.2 Logic models

2.3 Evaluation framework

3. Expanding direct support of trafficked young people beyond their 18th birthday through Post-18 Workers

3.1 Background and aims of the change

3.2 Children supported by the change

Total number of children who received Post-18 support

Characteristics of children receiving Post-18 support

Demographics

Primary exploitation type

Region

3.3 Implementing the change

Identification and assessment of need

Types of support provided

Frequency and hours of support

Ongoing assessment and ending support

Barriers to implementation

Enablers to implementation

3.4 Perceived outcomes

Young adults experience a smoother transition in support when they turn 18 and are able to access statutory services which have an understanding of their experiences

Victims of modern slavery do not ‘fall off the radar’ or go missing when they turn 18

Victims of modern slavery do not become re-trafficked when or after they turn 18

4. Expanding direct support to children with a figure of parental responsibility in the UK through Regional Practitioners (RPs)

4.1 Background and aims of the change

4.2 Children supported by the change

Total number of children who received RP support

Characteristics of children receiving one-to-one RP support

4.3 Implementing the change

Identification and assessment of need

Type of support provided

Frequency and length of support

Ongoing assessment and ending support

Barriers to implementation

Enablers to implementation

4.4 Perceived outcomes

Children feel empowered to participate in safeguarding meetings, are better supported, kept safe and understand their legal position

Frontline workers feel that the ICTG service provides added value to existing statutory services for these trafficked children

Children have improved needs assessment scores and safeguarding structures

5. A flexible Independent Child Trafficking Guardian (ICTG) service

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

6.2 Key learnings

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK