VAWG and CSE: turning the White Paper moment into safer outcomes

Jess Phillips’ remarks at the CSAE Disruption Conference landed because they described what many frontline practitioners already feel: the current safeguarding landscape is a patchwork that asks people to work around systems rather than through them.

Her description of “a weird shack with loads of bits put into it” is blunt, but accurate. Over time, we have layered processes, thresholds, forms and workarounds onto responses for child sexual exploitation (CSE) and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG). The result is that risk is often managed through administrative compliance rather than genuine problem-solving.

The new policing reform White Paper, as the Minister framed it, is a rare opportunity to rebuild from “day zero”. But rebuilding is not simply a technology programme. It is a chance to reorient the system around three outcomes that matter most: reduced repeat harm, faster protection, and sustained recovery.

From “checkbox thresholds” to needs-led safeguarding

One of the most important points in the Minister’s speech was her challenge to how services are rationed: tools and thresholds have become checkboxes that decide whether someone qualifies, rather than frameworks that identify what someone needs.

That matters because both VAWG and CSE rarely present as tidy, discrete events. They are patterns of behaviour and vulnerability—often escalating—shaped by coercion, trauma, exploitation, substance misuse, and unstable housing. When systems force professionals to prove a case meets a score, rather than respond to emerging need, we create delay, displacement and disengagement. We also disempower victims and survivors by turning safeguarding into a bureaucratic test.

The White Paper moment should be used to standardise what “good” looks like across forces and partners: a needs-led approach that speeds up protective action and reduces repeat exposure, not one that merely documents risk.

Whole-system disruption means whole-system pathways

The CSAE Disruption Conference brought together policing, statutory safeguarding partners, specialist third-sector organisations and academia for a reason: we already know one agency cannot solve CSE or VAWG alone. The best outcomes occur when safeguarding is designed as a joined-up pathway—rather than a hand-off.

In practice, that means three things:

1. Clear, shared thresholds and shared accountability
   Not “who owns this case?” but “who owns this risk, right now?”—with agreed decision points for escalation, safety planning and disruption activity.
2. Integrated support before, during and after the criminal justice response
   The Minister’s focus on support “before, during and after” is crucial. Criminal justice can be slow, contested and traumatic. Survivors stay engaged when they experience consistent communication, visible action, and coordinated advocacy—especially in high-risk domestic abuse and exploitation contexts.
3. Disruption plus safeguarding plus recovery
   Disruption activity (whether place-based, online, covert, or intelligence-led) must sit alongside safeguarding actions and longer-term recovery support. Otherwise we simply move the problem, rather than reduce it.

Perpetrator intervention is not optional if we want prevention

If we are serious about prevention, we must stop pretending enforcement alone will break cycles of harm.

In VAWG, repeat perpetration is a major driver of demand and risk. In exploitation, offenders and facilitators operate in environments—physical and digital—that adapt quickly. Sustainable safety comes when robust investigation is combined with structured perpetrator interventions, consistent compliance management, and coordinated safeguarding.

This is not about being “soft” on offenders. It is about being realistic: without effective intervention pathways, we can process the same individuals repeatedly through policing and courts while victims and families live with the consequences.

Technology should reduce fatigue, not replace judgement

The Minister’s caution on AI and big data is the right one. Technology is not the solution to safeguarding; it is the enabler of better safeguarding.

The goal should be exactly as she described: making professionals “less tired” so they can exercise professional curiosity—the extra phone call, the final check, the decision to act early. That means building systems that:

• reduce duplicate data entry across police, social care and health
• enable real-time multi-agency visibility of risk and actions
• surface patterns of repeat harm and escalation without replacing human judgement
• support victims and survivors with clarity, transparency and consistent updates

The biggest win would be a data model that makes sense across all 43 forces and partner agencies—so that risk doesn’t get lost in translation when people move, cases transfer, or agencies interpret categories differently.

Measuring what matters: outcomes, not activity

If we rebuild, we must also change what we count. Senior leaders need assurance on outcomes that reflect real safety, such as:

• repeat incidents and repeat victims
• escalation patterns and time-to-protective action
• disruption outcomes linked to reduced harm (not just “disruptions delivered”)
• referral speed, engagement and completion of interventions
• survivor engagement and withdrawal rates (and why)
• longer-term reoffending and compliance indicators

Without this, systems drift back to counting forms completed, thresholds met and meetings held activity that can look impressive while harm continues.

A strategic choice—and a narrow window

The Government’s commitment to improving the response to these crimes, including work connected to Baroness Casey’s audit and new national activity referenced by the Minister, signals intent. But intent only becomes safety when it is translated into locally embedded pathways, properly resourced, quality-assured, and governed.

Senior leaders now face a practical choice:

• Continue to manage CSE and VAWG primarily through crisis response and enforcement—accepting high repeat demand and persistent risk; or
• Use the White Paper opportunity to build a whole-system model that prioritises prevention: coordinated safeguarding, effective disruption, structured perpetrator pathways, and consistent survivor support.

Reform will fail if it becomes a new layer on the old shack. It will succeed if it simplifies the system, standardises good practice, strengthens partnerships, and frees professionals to act earlier—before harm escalates.

That is the shift we need: from reactive policing to sustainable prevention, designed around people, not paperwork.

About the author
Jonathan Hussey is the managing director of Red Snapper Managed Services (RSMS). He is an award-winning leader in offender rehabilitation and behaviour change, and for the past decade has helped governments and justice organisations transform how they engage with individuals in the system.
Jonathan.hussey@rsg.ltd