Investigation

Investigators should follow a cyclical approach to missing person investigations, rather than a linear one. This means that enquiries, reviews and decisions are repeated as new information emerges, ensuring that risk is reassessed dynamically and actions remain proportionate. 

A cyclical approach enables the police service to work effectively with other agencies. Forces should ensure that multi-agency processes are based on a problem-solving model, with clear communication and shared responsibility for safeguarding. Reviews should be built into the process to ensure that decisions are appropriate and that further enquiries are initiated when necessary. For further information, go to:

• Effective implementation of problem-oriented policing guidelines
• Problem-solving policing

Hypotheses

Hypotheses at the start of an investigation may evolve as lines of enquiry are pursued.

While evaluating competing hypotheses can support the risk assessment process, evaluating hypotheses is not the same as evaluating risk. Risk assessment determines the level of harm that may occur and the likelihood of that harm occurring, whereas hypotheses provide possible explanations for what may have happened to the missing person. Supervisors and missing person specialists may use hypotheses to inform their understanding of the circumstances, but the two processes should not be confused. 

When evaluating hypotheses, officers should identify objective factors that support or challenge each possibility. They should avoid assumptions that are not grounded in evidence. Officers should also consult with colleagues with relevant experience to improve the accuracy of hypotheses. Hypotheses can assist in shaping enquiries but should be evidence-based and continually reviewed.

All information gathered during each missing episode should be recorded accurately. This information provides intelligence for current and future investigations and supports wider problem-solving and safeguarding work. Officers should consider missing incidents in the context of previous missing incidents, not in isolation. Officers should explore the reasons behind repeat missing incidents and should analyse information to identify links between missing individuals, locations, associates and potential exploiters. In cases involving repeat missing persons, future lines of enquiry and safeguarding actions should be guided by details of previous locations, associates and circumstances.

Searching and multi-agency meetings are integral to the investigative process. Officers should ensure that these activities are documented and linked to the risk assessment and investigative plan.

The missing person case review process

Reviews are essential for maintaining investigative integrity and safeguarding. All missing person cases should be subject to regular review to ensure that:

• risk is reassessed
• actions are completed 
• new lines of enquiry are identified

A detective supervisor should conduct case reviews, in addition to formal reviews carried out by those working closest to the case, as they have the necessary investigative expertise. In high-risk cases, the review should take place as soon as possible. In all other cases, the first review should occur no later than 48 hours after the report is made. The reviewing officer’s rank should be no less than detective inspector. Between detective reviews, interim reviews may be undertaken by patrol supervision, such as sergeants or inspectors. 

The purpose of each review is to:

• review the level of risk, including information from social care and other sources when appropriate
• check for any outstanding and incomplete actions
• quality assure actions already taken
• set new actions and enquiries in order to bring the investigation to a successful conclusion
• make recommendations about the management and ownership of the investigation
• set future review date (or dates) as appropriate

All decisions and rationale should be recorded as policy decisions within the case record.  

Long-term cases

In long‑term cases, where the missing person has not been located, officers and staff should ensure that risk continues to be reviewed and that any new information is acted upon. A senior officer trained as a senior investigating officer (SIO) should conduct formal reviews of cases open for 28 days or longer. Reviews should normally take place at:

• 28 days
• three months
• six months 
• 12 months
• annually thereafter

The timing or frequency may be varied by the SIO where this is appropriate, based on the circumstances of the case, changes in risk or investigative complexity. Any significant new information should trigger an immediate review. Consideration may also be given to cold‑case reviews of outstanding missing person incidents.

Families and carers should be kept informed of progress in long‑term cases. Officers should agree how and when updates will be provided and should manage expectations regarding the review process and possible outcomes. Where all reasonable enquiries have been completed, families should be informed whether the case will continue to be reviewed periodically or closed pending further information. All contact with families or carers should be handled sensitively to minimise distress. For further information, go to Case closure.

Partial remains found

If partial remains of a body are found and they are believed to be that of a missing person a decision may be taken to discontinue the investigation. In such circumstances the missing person record may remain open to allow for the recording of any information concerning further remains that might be located in due course.

All unidentified body or people reports must be sent to UK Missing Persons Unit (UKMPU) within 48 hours of discovery. Go to the Unidentified cases section of this authorised professional practice (APP) for detail on how UKMPU can assist such cases. 

If there is no likelihood of matching the person against a found person or body, the missing person case should remain inactive until authority to discontinue has been made by senior management. Authority to discontinue is likely to be granted when all potential lines of enquiry have been explored. Further advice can be sought from the UKMPU. 

For further information, go to the Found remains or people section of this APP.

Cold-case reviews

Advances in forensics, technology and information sharing capabilities mean that cold cases should be reviewed to determine the potential for further investigation that may resolve the case. The extent and timing of any review will necessarily depend on the circumstances of the case. Advice and support can be obtained from the UKMPU.

In unsolved missing person cases that are over a year old, forces should seek to process and retain records of as many of the available forensic identification samples as possible. Any reasons why a forensic sample is not available should be documented. Where an individual has been missing for a number of years and a direct DNA profile from belongings or medical samples is not available, consideration should be given to obtaining profiles from family members. For further information, go to Identifying missing persons globally through family DNA matching.

Critical incidents   

Any incident where the effectiveness of the police response could have a significant impact on public confidence should be designated as a critical incident. For information, go to Critical incident management APP.

If an investigation develops into a major enquiry, investigators should consider transferring the record to the relevant case management system (such as HOLMES).

Investigators should manage and assess sightings reported by the public in the context of the overall investigation. All sightings should be recorded using an appropriate system based on the seriousness of the case and force policy. This may include:

• the missing persons database or application
• the force command and control log
• the HOLMES system for complex or serious crime investigations

The reliability of each sighting should be evaluated. Officers should seek corroboration through means such as closed-circuit television (CCTV), financial transactions or telephony data, in line with relevant authorities to do so. Where multiple sightings are received, officers should consider mapping them by date and time, which may identify clusters that require further investigation.

Sightings should be assessed alongside other information gathered during the investigation, and the rationale for any actions taken should be documented. In high-profile cases where large volumes of sightings are received, forces should implement a grading and prioritisation process to manage resources effectively.

For further information, go to:

• Information management APP
• Missing people sighting report form
• Missing people sighting evaluation form

Rewards

Offering rewards can encourage public engagement and reinvigorate media interest in a missing person case. However, forces should carefully consider any offer of a reward before acceptance. Investigators should assess the potential impact on resources, as all information received will require evaluation and corroboration. Decisions regarding rewards should be documented. Any associated communication strategy should be aligned with the overall investigative plan.

Effectively managing the return of a missing person should be considered as part of the investigation. The investigation cannot be concluded until the full circumstances of the disappearance have been explored and appropriate safeguarding measures put in place. Understanding the reasons why the person went missing should inform future prevention strategies and assist in locating them if they go missing again.

When the missing person is located, officers should undertake a prevention interview to identify ongoing risk factors that may affect the likelihood of the individual going missing again.

Effective management of a person’s return is important because the person may have:

• been the subject of crime or otherwise been at risk of harm
• gone missing in order to harm themselves or take their own life
• been unsafe or at risk owing to their inability to look after themselves properly due to age, incapacity or other reasons
• been the perpetrator of crime

The approach to managing the return will be determined by the risk assessment. The following points may need consideration.

• Should a multi-agency consultation or strategy meeting be held to decide what will happen next?
• What is the best engagement process when the person is found and who should talk to them?
• Where will they be accommodated?
• Are any further interventions or support needed? Go to the Support services section of this APP.
• Who is the person best suited to conduct the return interview and when? For example, arrangements for children based in accommodation outside of the force area, who will not be returned to the original force that recorded them missing.

There is no requirement to create a missing person record on the force case or record management system if the incident was delayed and both:

• the individual either returned or was located before the review point
• the reporting person has no ongoing concerns

In these circumstances, a bespoke closing code should be used to close the incident log, so that all reports that do not result in a formal missing person record can be monitored and audited.

For further information, go to:

• Code of Ethics
• Appendix: Missing children
• NPCC: Police duties and powers when a missing person is found

Accommodation 

Investigators should consider whether it is appropriate to return the missing person to their home address or the location they went missing from. Planning for accommodation should take place before the person is found, as waiting until they return may result in missed opportunities to prevent future episodes. Strategy discussions should include appropriate levels of supervision, as well as alternative accommodation where necessary.

Confidentiality 

Police officers must be mindful that when a missing person is located, their whereabouts must not be disclosed to others if this is against their wishes. For adults, the police must not reveal their location to the person who made the report, or to family or friends, unless the individual has given consent. 

Officers may need to share the individual’s location with other authorities or services if this is necessary to: 

• prevent significant harm 
• address a real and immediate risk to their safety 

For children, officers should inform parents or those with parental responsibility of the child’s location.

The police should inform the person who reported them missing that they have been located. It is possible that the person making the missing person report has an ulterior motive for submitting a report. 

Interviews 

Prevention interviews and independent return interviews can provide an important opportunity to identify ongoing risk factors that may affect the likelihood of the individual going missing again. They should not be treated as simply administrative procedures to close a missing incident.

Prevention interviews are usually conducted by the police and are different to return interviews, which are often provided by third-sector partners. The learning points from any interviews need to feed into the police systems to improve the response to that individual if they go missing again.

For further information, go to the NPCC Advice to police forces on prevention interviews and independent return interviews.

Prevention interviews 

The police have a responsibility to ensure that the returning person is safe and well. The purpose of the prevention interview is to identify any ongoing risk or factors that may contribute to the person going missing again. Prevention interviews should therefore be carried out in all high-risk and medium-risk cases. They should also be considered for very low-risk and low-risk cases. The interview provides a valuable opportunity to find out useful information that may indicate harm suffered by the returning person. It can also identify details that may help trace the person in the event of a future missing episode.

Supervisors or missing person specialists may exercise discretion not to carry out prevention interviews in very low-risk or low-risk cases. They may also exercise discretion not to carry out prevention interviews in cases where both:

• the missing person returns or is located prior to police deployment
• the reporting person is satisfied that the person has not suffered harm or been exposed to harm while absent

However, before applying this discretion, an assessment of the circumstances should be completed to determine whether visiting the returning person would add value.

This assessment should consider:

• the circumstances of the disappearance
• what is known about the person’s experience while missing
• the potential to gather information useful for future investigations

The interviewer should:

• check for any indications that the person has suffered harm
• establish where and with whom they have been
• provide an opportunity for them to disclose any offending against or by them

Forces should determine the most appropriate method for conducting a prevention interview, considering necessity and proportionality. In some cases, the adverse impact of police attendance may mean that someone other than a police officer should conduct the interview, or that the interview is carried out remotely via video or telephone.

When considering an external body to carry out an interview, it is important to ensure that all relevant information is passed back to policing, so that:

• risk of harm to that person or anyone else is addressed 
• this can inform any future missing person enquiries involving this person

In reaching a decision, it is important to consider:

• the full circumstances of the missing incident
• the harm or potential harm 
• the impact of police involvement on the individual

Timing of the prevention interview

A prevention interview should be carried out as soon as practicable after the person has returned, taking into account their welfare and immediate needs. It is important to identify the right person with the appropriate skills to conduct the interview. Doing so maximises the opportunity to gather information that can inform safeguarding and prevention work. If the interview reveals that the person has been harmed or is at risk of harm, appropriate safeguarding action should be taken.

Professional experience suggests that some missing persons, particularly children, may be unwilling to engage in the process. If this occurs, officers should record:

• the person’s demeanour
• their physical state
• their clothing
• any other relevant factors

This information may assist in any ongoing criminal investigation or care planning.

Further investigation should be considered where risks are identified, and where there is a likelihood that the person will go missing again. Investigators should create a trigger plan to guide future responses.

Frequency of checks

Where a person goes missing frequently, particularly from a care setting, it may not be practicable to conduct an interview every time. In these cases, officers should agree a proportionate approach – for example, conducting one interview per day at a convenient time.

A joint decision should be made between police and those responsible for the child’s care regarding the frequency and method of prevention interviews. As previously stated, the person conducting the interview should have the appropriate skills and experience to engage effectively and gather relevant information. For further advice on prevention interviews for children, go to the Appendix of this APP. 

Independent return interview 

Police forces should work with local authorities to ensure that independent return interviews are always offered to children who have been missing. In England, the legal responsibility sits with the local authority. However, it is expected that police forces will work with their partners to ensure that these are completed and that information is shared. 

Where available, the independent return interview should be provided by a professional from an independent agency. This agency could be an independent advocacy service or specialised runaways’ project. The professional should be:

• trained to carry out these interviews
• able to follow up any actions that emerge with the authority responsible for the individual’s care

Forces should establish a process for providing return interviews where individuals are deemed to be vulnerable and/or at risk of harm. Following the return of the missing person, individuals should be offered the opportunity to engage in a more in-depth interview, in order to do the following:

• Identify and deal with any harm they have experienced, including harm that might not have already been disclosed as part of the police prevention interview. Any medical conditions should be discussed and any need for medical attention should be assessed.
• Understand and try to address the reasons for the disappearance.
• Try to prevent it happening again.

The information gathered from the interview helps professionals to understand the reasons why the person went missing and to take action to prevent future missing episodes. It is important that a process exists to share information in line with national guidance gathered from these interviews with partners (go to Multi-agency protocols). 

For further information, go to:

• APP on information sharing 
• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – A 10-step guide to sharing information to safeguard children

Timing of independent return interviews

The independent return interview should take place without undue delay and preferably within 72 hours of the person being located or returned.

Delays in return interviews may result in:

• the retraction of statements and disclosures
• a loss of evidence
• a loss of confidence in police response

Information and intelligence supplied by parents and carers, such as details of telephone calls or messages on mobile phones, can be very relevant and should be recorded.

Indicators of exploitation or harm

Officers should note any indicators that the individual has come to harm or may be the victim of crime. These indicators should be escalated for further investigation as relevant.

Where evidence is identified that the person may have been exploited, radicalised or otherwise harmed by a third party, officers should make referrals to the appropriate specialist team for investigation and pursuit of suspects.

The following guidance has been developed to support investigators in cases where it is suspected that a child may be at risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation, abduction, forced marriage or radicalisation:

• Indicators of concern for a child
• Risk identification
• Action in urgent or serious cases
• Child sexual exploitation APP 
• Forced marriage and ‘honour’ based violence APP

Care planning on return

For looked-after children and some vulnerable adults, reviewing their care plan is an important element of managing their return from a missing episode. Although this is not the responsibility of the police, it is important for police officers to share any information with partners that may influence the care plan.

Care planning involves a comprehensive assessment of the individual’s needs and takes into account their wishes, feelings and aspirations for their future. The care plan should be used to decide which placement will be most appropriate (for example, foster care or residential home).

The police should consider how best to support the family and carers of the missing person during an investigation.

While it may be practical for missing person investigations to be managed within uniformed response, this may not always meet the needs of families and carers. Rotating ownership of the investigation through a 24-hour shift pattern may not allow for a consistent point of contact. In the early stages of an investigation, officers should ensure that there is a nominated point of contact available to the family or carers at each shift change. The family or carers should be informed of whom this is.

Consideration should be given to appointing a single point of contact (SPOC) where:

• an investigation continues beyond the initial stages
• risk, complexity or family need indicates this may be necessary

Decisions about appointing a SPOC should be based on professional judgement and kept under review as the investigation develops.

Police actions in relation to support for families

The trauma associated with a missing person investigation may place families under immense pressure and stress. Investigators are likely to require them to provide detailed information and there may also be public and media interest.

The information required by families and carers of those reported missing will depend on the circumstances of the case. However, police officers or staff with responsibility for investigating a missing person report should support their needs by doing the following:

• Providing a SPOC (whom they can realistically contact) and provide regular updates.
• Informing them of support services. This information may be provided as a leaflet or similar that includes details of the role of the Missing People charity.
• Listening and responding to any concerns that they may have about the investigation. Officers and staff should recognise the importance of the incident and investigation to families and carers.
• Managing their expectations by giving realistic updates on what is being done and how an investigation is being conducted. This includes any limitations that may be placed on it.
• Ensuring that they are made aware of any media releases and press conferences before they take place.
• Maintaining contact in long-term cases and informing them of reviews.
• Providing a family liaison officer (FLO) in appropriate cases.
• Discussing social media aspects with the family. For example, this could include whether social media could be effective in taking the investigation forward and whether this will leave a difficult and unwanted footprint.

For further information, go to:

• Working with victims and witnesses
• Factsheets for families
• Experiences of reporting missing people
• Family support – Missing People