Sexual grooming strategies were often methodical and gradual, and involved befriending children and their families. Case files illustrated that alleged perpetrators were often charismatic, competent individuals who were well liked and respected by colleagues. Their positive perceptions may have resulted in their offending behaviours being minimised or excused by those around them. We observed that alleged perpetrators:

(a) denied the child sexual abuse occurred at all; or

(b) admitted the contact had occurred but denied it was sexual abuse, using tactics such as victim blaming or describing the sexual abuse as a consensual ‘relationship’; or

(c) admitted the sexual abuse but minimised their responsibility, for example by claiming they had made ‘mistakes’ or ‘poor judgements’; or

(d) disputed they held ‘positions of trust’, indicating that, therefore, safeguarding policies did not apply to them and had not been breached.

Most child sexual abuse took place in physical locations away from institutional premises. Physical locations where sexual abuse occurred included cars, hotels or the child or adult’s home. Where child sexual abuse took place within institutional premises, alleged perpetrators sought out private spaces in which to isolate children and remain undetected, such as bathrooms or disused classrooms. They also targeted children on social media platforms which afforded them constant access to children in unsupervised and unmonitored online spaces.

Institutional cultures of over-familiarity and informal relationships between adults and children contributed to child sexual abuse. Informal interactions between adults and children were normalised and were therefore not considered ‘unusual’ or potentially harmful by institutions and professionals. A range of behaviours associated with informal institutional cultures were observed in the case files, including sharing cars, socialising outside of the institution, going to the pub or fast-food restaurants, and contacting and befriending children via social media or instant messaging. These behaviours and activities often formed part of the culture of institutions, particularly in sports or leisure clubs, societies, and voluntary and community sectors, as well as in schools and residential care homes. In almost all of the cases analysed in this research, alleged perpetrators had developed an informal social relationship with the child. These informal relationships provided opportunities to sexually groom and abuse children without raising suspicions.

Sexually abusive relationships between adults and children were conflated with consensual and romantic relationships. This had the effect of normalising and legitimising risk behaviours, and led to institutions not properly assessing risk of harm and handling concerns or allegations where abusive relationships were known to have formed between adults and children under their care. In some cases, children had been groomed to believe they were in consensual relationships with the alleged perpetrators, hindering children’s ability to recognise and disclose incidents of child sexual abuse. In some cases, child sexual abuse was concealed due to the wider informal social relationships that commonly occurred.

Institutions and professionals responded inappropriately to low-level disclosures. Disclosure pathways were often poorly established which may have made it difficult for children, peers or concerned adults (whether colleagues, parents or family members) to raise concerns. There were examples where information sharing had not occurred across and between institutions. In some cases, the totality of the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour was missed and they went on to offend in other institutional contexts. Low-level concerns were often not fully investigated and institutional actions were not always proportionate or timely in addressing the severity of the concerns. Across cases, there were inconsistencies in what constituted harm, how risks of harm were assessed, and where concerns met the threshold of an allegation that should have been formally addressed.

The frequency and quality of safeguarding training varied significantly between institutions and was not always proportionate to roles that involved contact with children. Several cases referred to institutional social media policies which restricted or prohibited the use of social media to communicate with students, but application and enforcement of and compliance with these policies was often poor. There were contradictions between safeguarding policies, which made certain conduct or behaviour unacceptable, and institutional norms and practices which tolerated the behaviour. Cases where staff did not escalate and disclose concerns exemplified that safeguarding policies were not upheld at all levels by all members of staff, safeguarding ‘responsibilities’ were not always seen as everybody’s business, and institutions may have found it challenging to navigate complex safeguarding processes.