1. Kieran McCartan, University Of The West of England Kirsty Hudson, Cardiff University Hazel Kemshall, De Montfort University ESRC Knowledge Impact Proposal: Sex Offender Public Disclosure – Learning from the UK pilots & international research WCCSJ Conference, Violence research network 18 th April 2012, Gregynog

2. Summary ► The origins of sex offender registration and public disclosure in the UK: ► Attitudes toward Public disclosure in the UK: ► The public disclosure scheme & pilots  England & Wales  Scotland  Northern Ireland ► Public and practitioner attitudes in Wales ► ESRC Bid

3. Child Sexual Abuse Policy developments  Child sexual abuse is a high profile and central issue for the government, politicians and policy makers;  In recent years there has been a series of high profile changes in UK policy and legislation regarding child sexual abuse (Home Office, 2007).  (Child) Sex Offender Policy has been driven by High profile media stories (Sarah Payne; Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman; Mark Cummings) High profile media stories (Sarah Payne; Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman; Mark Cummings) Reactionary public attitudes Reactionary public attitudes Evidence based research Evidence based research  Regional differences & sex offender management: (un)United Kingdom?  Different public, practitioner and policy perspectives  Different legislations, policies and management stagraties  Public disclosure of sex offender information in:  Wales  England  Northern Ireland  Scotland

4. Current UK public disclosure scheme  “it is not an aim of this scheme to introduce a US-style Megan’s Law or automatic disclosure of sexual offenders details to the general public..” (Home Office, 2010; 2)  Disclosure process: Stage 1: Enquiries Stage 1: Enquiries ○ Anyone is free to make enquires, but primary & secondary care givers maybe more successful than others ○ Written application and preliminary police check ○ Only gets passed on if directly relating to a specific child Stage 2: Applications Stage 2: Applications ○ Formal application done through face-to-face interview with a trained/specialised member of the police ○ Full background checks are done on the applicant Stage 3: Information & empowerment Stage 3: Information & empowerment Stage 4: Full risk assessment Stage 4: Full risk assessment Stage 5: Decision routes and outcomes Stage 5: Decision routes and outcomes ○ A decision on ‘concerns’ or ‘no concerns’ about the offender in question is made. ○ Concerns = previous conviction for child sexual abuse and/or other acts regarding the safeguarding children, as well as intelligence on the subject regarding child safety concerns ( ○ Information will only be disclosed to the person best suited to protect the child. ○ All decisions will be given in person in a secure setting, no written conformation will be given. (i.e., MAPPA or Case Conference)  Advice/guidance on the limits and/or implications of disclosure: May only be used for the purpose it was requested (i.e., child protection) May only be used for the purpose it was requested (i.e., child protection) The applicant will have to agree and sign a confidentially agreement which if broken could result in legal proceedings; if they do not consent to this the police will need to consider if disclosure should take place. The applicant will have to agree and sign a confidentially agreement which if broken could result in legal proceedings; if they do not consent to this the police will need to consider if disclosure should take place.

5. UK Pilot Studies ► England & Wales (Kemshall et al, 2010).  Ran from September 2008 – September 2009 in Warwickshire, Cleveland, Hampshire & Cambridgeshire  Although piloted in ‘England and Wales’, Was only really piloted in England  Police forces where selected from a volunteer sample – claimed to be, not fully piloted in England & Wales  Method: interviews (applicants, stakeholders, sex offenders & police), disclosure application forms & scoping days/follow up visits.  Applications where about family members, neighbours, friends and ex-partners, based upon third party information.  Out of 315 applications there were 21 disclosures.  Revealed low inquiry rates by the public, high degrees of public confidentiality and no public disorder or vigilantism  Participant attitudes: mixed professional attitudes, concerns from sex offenders & positive attitudes from the public ► Scotland (Chan et al, 2010)  Ran from September 2009 and May 2010 in Tayside.  Method: interviews (applicants, stakeholders, sex offenders & police), disclosure application forms.  Applications where about family members, neighbours, friends and ex-partners, based upon third party information.  Out of 52 applications there were 11 disclosures  Revealed low inquiry rates by the public, high degrees of public confidentiality and no public disorder or vigilantism  Participant attitudes; Applicants were happy with process, improved child protection, helped policing and no direct (negative) impact upon sex offenders ► Northern Ireland  Review of Sex offender Management (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11371282) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11371282  no plans to develop and/or roll out a pilot study in Northern Ireland (Police doubt 'Sarah's Law' will cause vigilante attacks, 2010, August 1: bbc.co.uk) with the decision being left until the new assembly post the may 5 th elections.

6. Welsh Perspectives on sex offender disclosure (McCartan, 2011) ► The public do not want child sex offenders reintegrated back into their communities; although they do release that if they do not go into their communities they will simply be placed in another community but as long as it was not in their ‘backyard’. ► The public do not have a great deal of trust in the criminal justice system and its agencies generally, but especially in terms of sex offender management sex. ► There was a strong belief by the public that sex offender hostels should not be located in residential areas. ► The majority of the public participants where not happy to have criminal checks done on them as part of the disclosure process, with some of them arguing that it made them feel guilty or that they were doing something wrong. ► There was a feeling across the majority of participants that signing the confidentiality agreement was placing a burden on the applicant, suggesting that people would both not sign it and feel that their suspicions where confirmed or that they would sign it and then break the agreement. ► There was annoyance by professionals that the public disclosure scheme was not piloted in Wales. ► There was a strong resentment of child sex abusers in the community among members of the public, with some participant saying that they would rather have any other type of sexual offender living next door to them as opposed to a child sexual abuser. ► There were concerns raised about access to the scheme for members of ethnic communities, especially when English was not their first language and they may have to get children or neighbours to translate. ► There was a feeling among the public that the sex offenders register should be reanalysed, with the potential of splitting it into two registers (a ‘child sexual abuse register’ which is public and ‘sexual offences register’ which is not) and making it independent of the police. ► Professionals believed that child protection and children’s rights should be at the heart of all legislation. ► Professionals argued that some families had children between 11 -16 as the main caregiver or substitute parent and this should be taken into account by the scheme.

7. ► This research aims to understand the community and practitioner attitudes towards the current public disclosure of sex offender scheme. ► This research looks to examine different degrees of local/community social networking, in/formal information sharing, community action, community policing, restorative justice, public protection and the reintegration of offenders regionally in the UK. ► Two regional areas selected for this research are Belfast and Cardiff, because of:  Neither has had research on the current public disclosure conducted previously  there pronounced similarities (i.e., similar geographical size, population size and attitudes to identity politics) and differences (i.e., Northern Ireland with its pronounced history of community action/vigilantism and Wales without) ► The research uses a mixed method design; interviews with stakeholder/practitioners and focus groups with the public from different political communities - Northern Ireland (nationalist, republican and mixed community sample) and Wales (rural welsh, urban welsh and urban immigrant). ► Preliminary Welsh Data  Concerns over the impact of public disclosure on community – on offenders, neighbours and family members (public and practitioners)  Believe that sexual offences should be split into two categories; child sexual offenders and other sexual offences, with the former being publical disclosed. (public)  Believe the public have a right to know about child sex offenders in there locales, and that the police should inform them straight away (public)  Believe the current scheme is too complicated, makes the applicant feel like they’ve done something wrong and that it should not be the police that handle the scheme. (public)  Not happy to sign a disclosure form, but would do it and then may break it. (public and practitioners) Community & Practitioners attitudes to public disclosure (McCartan, ongoing)

8. What is the knowledge exchange network for? ► To bring researchers, practitioners and policy makers/implementers closer together ► To exchange good practice and emerging ideas ► To ‘network’- challenge, critique and develop ► To network for influence and impact with key decision makers

9. The current network- who we are Three universities Three universities Supported by other key academics in UK and abroad Supported by other key academics in UK and abroad Key statutory and third sector partners with expertise and interest in the area Key statutory and third sector partners with expertise and interest in the area Spread across the UK plus Southern Ireland Spread across the UK plus Southern Ireland Those who were pilots, those currently implementing, those considering such schemes (e.g. Northern Ireland) Those who were pilots, those currently implementing, those considering such schemes (e.g. Northern Ireland) Those who have some responsibility for sex offenders, or their victims, families and child protection Those who have some responsibility for sex offenders, or their victims, families and child protection

10. Organisation of events and activities Four Events Four Events  Access, impact and value-added (Scotland - Feb 2012)  Localism, community and reintegration (Northern Ireland – May 2012)  Devolution, Context, and Partnership Networks (Wales – September 2012).  Public perceptions, media framing, and risk policy formation (England – November 2012). Website - publications, briefing notes, presentations, etc Website - publications, briefing notes, presentations, etc Discussion boards Discussion boards 1: Public awareness of sex offender aetiology, policy and practice. (April) 1: Public awareness of sex offender aetiology, policy and practice. (April)  2: Sex offender reintegration. (June)  3: Public disclosure and minority groups. (October)  4: Transational policy, practice and information sharing. (January) U Tube for public outreach U Tube for public outreach Final conference in 2013. Final conference in 2013.

11. Discussion points and questions ► Seminar Three: Devolution, Context, and Partnership Networks. Located AT Cardiff University and co-hosted with Welsh Centre for Crime and social justice (WCCSJ) and including key Welsh policy makers, practitioners and Welsh based academics. This event would address the impact of devolution and its links to 'shared' Criminal justice services; cultural/social/economic differences in rural and urban contexts; existing local networks/partnerships and their role in shaping the design and delivery of public disclosure. This is event would therefore address the relationship between govermentality, austerity and the realty of offender management. ► What should the welsh event focus on? ► Who should speak at the Welsh event? ► Who should attend the Welsh event?