What proportion of convicted grooming gang offenders in the UK are British-born?

1. The data gap: police records miss two‑thirds of perpetrators

Baroness Casey’s rapid national audit concluded that ethnicity data were not recorded for two‑thirds of perpetrators in group‑based child sexual exploitation, and the government said that is “not good enough to support any statements about the ethnicity of group‑based child sexual exploitation offenders at the national level” ^[1]. Multiple news outlets repeated that absence of recording makes any national estimate of offender ethnicity — let alone birthplace — unreliable ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Local findings show over‑representation by ethnicity, not nationality

Casey’s audit examined local police data in three forces and found “clear evidence of over‑representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani heritage men” in those areas; Reuters reported the government accepted the report and will require better recording ^[2]. The audit distinguished ethnicity from birthplace: it highlighted over‑representation by ethnic background in certain areas but did not produce a national percentage of offenders who are British‑born ^{[1] [2]}.

3. High‑profile cases skew public perception, but are not national statistics

Rotherham, Rochdale and other high‑profile prosecutions involved many perpetrators described in reporting as of Pakistani or South Asian heritage, and local inquiries warned of disproportionate numbers in those cases ^[3]. Journalists and commentators have noted those cases shaped public debate, yet Casey and other reviews stress local findings cannot be extrapolated nationally because of inconsistent recording ^{[3] [1]}.

4. Competing claims and contested studies: Quilliam and others

Some third‑party reports have claimed large majorities of grooming‑gang offenders are of South Asian heritage (for example, a 2017 Quilliam figure is cited in summaries), but government auditors and major news outlets caution against relying on such figures without robust, consistently recorded data ^{[5] [1]}. The BBC and other outlets underscore methodological problems: police record ethnicity via officers’ assessment and use broad categories such as “Asian,” which can misclassify individuals ^[6].

5. British‑born status: not reported or analysed in national reviews

Available sources do not supply a national breakdown of convicted grooming‑gang offenders by country of birth. Baroness Casey’s audit and subsequent reporting discuss ethnicity recording and over‑representation in certain places, but they do not report a national proportion who were British‑born — the sources either do not mention birthplace at all or state data are missing ^{[1] [2]}. Therefore any precise figure for “British‑born proportion” is not present in current reporting.

6. Why nationality matters — and why it’s missing

Casey called for mandatory recording of both ethnicity and nationality to allow proper analysis; the government has accepted that recommendation and pledged changes so suspects “cannot hide behind cultural sensitivities” ^[1]. Until nationality (and consistently recorded ethnicity) is captured, policymakers and the public cannot distinguish whether over‑representation in local suspect lists reflects migrant status, British‑born members of particular ethnic communities, or other factors ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Contextual drivers and alternative interpretations

Academic and advocacy voices warn against treating the problem as reducible to ethnicity or religion alone; they point to systemic failures — poverty, institutional neglect, policing lapses — as drivers of exploitation that cross communities ^[7]. Conversely, Casey’s audit and some reporting say disproportionate numbers of men of Asian or Pakistani heritage in local datasets warrant further scrutiny; both perspectives are present in the sources ^{[2] [7]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

You cannot state what proportion of convicted grooming‑gang offenders in the UK are British‑born on the basis of available reporting: national reviews explicitly say ethnicity/nationality data are missing for the majority of cases, and local over‑representation findings are area‑specific, not national measures ^{[1] [2]}. Future mandatory recording of nationality and ethnicity — recommended by Casey and accepted by government — is the only path in current reporting to produce a defensible national statistic ^[1].