77 Not Accepted

CSA experience for Chief Officer progression

IICSA · Interim Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse · Issued 25 April 2018 · Addressed to: Home Office

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation, G

The Chair and Panel recommend that any police officer (or staff equivalent) who wants to progress to the Chief Officer cadre must first be required to: have operational policing experience in preventing and responding to child sexual abuse; and achieve accreditation in the role of the police service in preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. The Home Office should amend entry requirements using its powers under the Police Regulations 2003 to achieve this. The Chair and Panel recommend that the College of Policing develops the training content and accreditation arrangements.

IICSA, Interim Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse · 25 Apr 2018 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- In July 2019, the UK government stated that the Home Office and College of Policing had drawn up a programme of non-legislative changes to ensure future chief officers have operational child protection experience (Government Response, Home Office, July 2019).
- In May 2023, the government noted that this recommendation was being progressed through College of Policing competency frameworks (Government Response to IICSA Final Report, HM Government, May 2023).
- No published mandatory requirement that all prospective chief officers must have operational child protection experience has been identified to March 2026.

Response — verbatim from government

UK Government — initial response

The Home Office agrees that there is a need within the police to raise the profile and status of work to tackle child sexual abuse. However, the Home Office is concerned that the Inquiry's recommendation is not practical and would not achieve the desired aim. The Home Office and the College of Policing have drawn up a programme of non-legislative changes which seek to ensure that there is a broader understanding of safeguarding and vulnerability across all levels of leadership in policing.

UK Government · 20 Dec 2018 Written response →

UK Government — follow-up

The College of Policing has made progress delivering the programme of non-legislative changes: 1) Testing a licence to practise scheme through its Public Protection and Safeguarding Leaders programme (first cohort commenced May 2019); 2) Developed a self-assessment tool for Senior PNAC applicants; 3) Redesigned the 2019 Strategic Command Course with increased vulnerability-related learning including a day dedicated to child sexual abuse; 4) Updating advice to chief officers and PCCs on selection processes; 5) HMICFRS continues its National Child Protection Inspection programme.

UK Government · 22 Jul 2019 Written response →

UK Government — follow-up

On 22 July 2019, the UK government stated that the Home Office and College of Policing had drawn up a programme of non-legislative changes which sought to ensure that there is an understanding of safeguarding and vulnerability across all levels of leadership in policing. Its response also stated that the Home Office had not identified any need for legislative changes but that it would keep this under review.

UK Government · 22 May 2023 Written response →

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

No published activity has been recorded against this recommendation yet.

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.