Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

Child abuse figures in Sandwell: the “missing years” aren’t missing — they’re just inconvenient

If you read my last blog on Sandwell’s child abuse figures, you’ll remember the key issue: data continuity.

We had police-recorded child-abuse-related crime figures for Sandwell (2021–2024) — and a big gap for 2012–2020, which matters because that’s the era linked to the widely reported “6,226 allegations” figure (2012–2016).

At the time, West Midlands Police told us older data wasn’t available due to “system changes/issues”.

Since then, there’s been an update — and it changes the story significantly.

This update is about what has now been admitted, what is still being withheld in practice, and why selective political language at Sandwell Council doesn’t cut it.

1) What’s new: the data isn’t “not available” — it’s held, archived, and accessible in principle

West Midlands Police have now stated (in response to our follow-up FOI) that:

• “Crimes” is a legacy system
• Historical data is archived in a central database
• They store and have access to individual data lines
• They are developing applications to access it

So, let’s be plain:

The pre-2021 data is not “gone”.
It is held.

But…

2) The new barrier: “We could, but it would take more than 18 hours”

West Midlands Police say it is possible to build a search to retrieve what we asked for — but it would exceed 18 hours and therefore they are relying on FOIA section 12 (cost limit) to refuse.

They also say they can’t provide even aggregate totals until their application is “tested”.

So the position has shifted from:

“Not available”

to

“Held, but not retrievable within FOI time limits (right now)”

That matters, because it turns this from a “technical loss” story into a governance and transparency story.

If you can access the data lines, you can’t credibly pretend the years don’t exist — you can only argue about cost and effort.

And FOI law doesn’t allow public bodies to just shrug and walk away at that point.

3) The problem WMP now have: duty to help you narrow the request

When a public body relies on section 12, it also has a duty to advise and assist under FOI (section 16).

That means they should be offering practical options, such as:

• “We can do 2012–2016 only”
• “We can do one offence category only”
• “We can provide force-wide totals, if LPA breakdown is hard”
• “We can do two years at a time”

Instead, the response amounts to:
“Come back later, once our application is developed.”

That’s not transparency. That’s a holding pattern.

So the next step is already underway: internal review, and narrowed FOIs designed to test what is genuinely retrievable within the cost limit.

4) Why this matters in Sandwell specifically

Because Sandwell has a historic figure hanging over it — the widely reported 6,226 allegations (2012–2016).

If we can’t access consistent historic police data to compare with recent years, the public cannot:

• understand long-term trends
• assess whether safeguarding demand has changed
• test whether political “commitments” match reality
• track whether lessons were learned or quietly dropped

Data gaps aren’t just technical issues.
They become accountability gaps.

5) Meanwhile at Sandwell Council: big words, selective naming

Now for the part that should make anyone with a straight face slightly uncomfortable.

Police disclosures for 2021–2024 show hundreds of sexual offences against children each year in Sandwell.

And yet, at the most recent full council meeting, Labour’s safeguarding language has been carefully general.

Child abuse is mentioned in broad terms.
But Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) is not explicitly named.

That matters because:

• CSE is not “optional” safeguarding
• it’s not a footnote
• and historically, failure to name it clearly is how institutions end up “managing reputations” rather than managing risk

If your politics can’t name the risk plainly, it’s not safeguarding leadership — it’s comms management.

That’s not a legal allegation of motive.
It’s a political judgement based on what is — and isn’t — being said on the record.

6) What happens next

Here is what we are doing now:

1. Internal review of the latest WMP response, asking:

   • why older data was first described as “not available” when it is held
   • what narrowed request would be answerable within the cost limit
   • whether any existing aggregate reports / returns exist

2. New narrowed FOIs aimed at:

   • 2012–2016 only
   • or one offence group only
   • or a two-year slice (to test feasibility)

3. Continuing FOIs to Sandwell bodies to pin down:

   • what the 6,226 figure actually counted
   • what definitions were used
   • and what the updated series looks like, year by year

7) The simplest point of all

If you can say:

• “We hold it”
• “It’s archived”
• “We can access the data lines”

then the public is entitled to ask:

Why can’t you provide even basic historic totals — and what exactly needs to happen before you can?

Because safeguarding isn’t a PR campaign.
And child abuse figures aren’t something you “pause” until the software catches up.

#Sandwell #Safeguarding #ChildProtection #CSE #ChildSexualExploitation #FOI #Transparency #Accountability #WestMidlandsPolice #DataGovernance