The child grooming scandal – was underfunding at the root of failings?

While looking into the grooming scandal involving group-based child sexual exploitation, and the subsequent failings that emerged, I received an anonymous note.

It was from either a serving or former police officer who cites his experience of dealing with a vulnerable young person. I present it here in full, as I received it, including a few spelling and grammatical errors:

“I am not trying to defend those in the police who have shamed the uniform in the way they have dealt with the child grooming scandal in the past – in my view, it’s criminal negligence and they should probably go to prison. I can only highlight my personal experience as an officer in early 2010, not to look for sympathy or deflect blame from the police, but to stimulate discussion and debate about the potential causation.
During my time as a response officer, a call led me and a female colleague to a house where a workman had reported seeing a young girl alone with several older Asian men (later identified as of Pakistani origin).
On arrival, one of the men reassured us that nothing was amiss, but we insisted on entry. Inside, we found a girl, looking about 15, with a fag in her hand and obviously tipsy, surrounded by half a dozen older men. She claimed that one was her boyfriend and the others were his relatives, and she then sat on one of the men’s knees and put her arm around him.
We asked questions, such as name, age, and if she wanted to leave; all met with various levels of abuse, from ‘nosey, aren’t you’ and 'haven't you got anything better to do' to ‘eff off!’. Regardless, believing she was at risk, we invoked an emergency protection procedure. She resisted violently, so we had to restrain her for her and our own safety and practically had to carry her to the police car.
At the station, we had to wait hours for a social worker, who turned up looking totally worn out. Her workload was horrendous and she [had] been delayed at another case, but she was immediately able to identify the girl, informing us that she had recently turned 16 and was [a] 'missing person' from care.
The girl refused to make any complaint against the men, so the social worker had no option but to take her back to the care home. However, within half an hour, she'd absconded again (care homes aren't prisons) and was seen getting into a car containing Asian men.
Yes, she wasn’t compliant. Yes, she resisted being taken to a safe place, and yes, she refused to make a complaint against the men: 'he's my boyfriend!' But she was clearly vulnerable. She had been rejected by her parents (for persistent shoplifting), and these men made her feel wanted, albeit for their own evil purpose of abusing her. But can someone explain what we or the social worker could do differently? Is there a gap in the law? Could someone point out where we acted wrongly? No doubt the police or social services will be blamed, but maybe politicians should look at themselves in the mirror?
Yes, there are deeper societal problems that need to be addressed. But, in my humble opinion, they should admit that, fundamentally, decades of lack of interest in, and under-funding of, our essential services by successive governments caused the problem – but they won’t, of course. But, watch, it'll be us Plebs who'll get blamed.”

The officer makes it very clear he’s not making excuses for what happened in the past, or for the apparent failures.

But does he have a case? Could lack of investment in our essential services lie at the root of the child grooming scandal? Were resources stretched so thin that social workers and police officers had to prioritise their efforts on those vulnerable people who either sought help or were receptive to the offer of help?

I am deliberately not engaging with the allegation that blind eyes were turned due to the ethnicity of the perpetrators, for fear of being called racist. I have no direct evidence to support that claim, so I will leave it to the forthcoming inquiry to determine. But the officer asks what he could have done differently, so I will wave a magic wand and revisit 2010 – but this time with a well-resourced social services and police force – to assess whether better funded public services would have made a difference.

A different approach

With ample resources, police and social services would respond swiftly to two or more men found on premises with a 16-year-old, where child abuse is suspected, despite the young person’s reluctance to complain, possibly due to intimidation. Under the Children Act 1989, the police would immediately remove the 16-year-old to a place of safety (for example, a child-friendly police suite) without a warrant, on reasonable grounds of significant harm.

A specially trained child protection officer, following the Achieving Best Evidence (2006) guidelines, would assess the young person’s needs, while a forensic team would secure evidence (her DNA, phones). Simultaneously, police would arrest all men at the house under PACE 1984 on suspicion of indictable Sexual Offences Act 2003 offences, such as Section 48–50 (arranging child sexual exploitation, 14 years in prison max) or section 16–24 (abuse of trust, seven years in prison max).

Suspects would be detained or bailed with strict no-contact with the girl conditions.

Social services, notified within hours, would initiate a Children Act 1989 enquiry via the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), A dedicated social worker, supported by fully funded child sexual exploitation (CSE) specialists (such as from Barnardo’s), would assess risks and provide counselling, medical exams, and advocacy, potentially securing an emergency protection order.

A multi-agency strategy meeting within 24 to 48 hours would coordinate police, social services, and health professionals, with Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) support for suspected organised abuse. The young person, treated as a vulnerable witness under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, would receive special measures (such as video testimony) for any trial.

Long-term, a child protection plan would ensure ongoing support, while Child Abduction Warning Notices or Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs) would restrict suspects’ access to children. With adequate staffing, training, and technology (such as digital forensics), this response would avoid 2010’s real-world gaps – austerity-driven delays, poor awareness of CSE, and under-resourced safeguarding boards – ensuring swift protection, robust investigation, and prosecution without the need for new laws.

Impact of austerity

So what went wrong? Although the Casey Report provided evidence of child grooming as far back as the 1960s, the problem was exacerbated by austerity cuts implemented by chancellor George Osborne after 2008, which reduced local authority children’s services budgets by around 20 per cent (£2 billion nationally, according to the Local Government Association). Social workers were left with caseloads of 30 or more, and many enquiries were delayed or missed altogether.

Police forces were hit hard, too. Between 2010 and 2018, the Home Office budget for policing fell by 19 per cent in real terms, resulting in the loss of over 20,000 officers nationally. Specialist units – including those focused on child protection and exploitation – were often the first to be scaled back. Response teams were stretched thin, and officers lacked the resources to identify grooming patterns or pursue complex safeguarding cases. In many areas, child sexual exploitation wasn’t even recognised as a distinct threat until high-profile scandals forced a reckoning.

Fast forward to 2025. Despite recent reforms, the government is investing less than £500 million in child protection. The Local Government Authority estimates that to meet best-practice standards would require between £1.7 and £2 billion annually. That leaves a shortfall of at least £1.2 billion every year.