From a lack of engagement and mistrust to partnership? Public attitudes to the disclosure of sex offender information. Faculty Work In Progress Seminar 4 th April 2013 Kieran McCartan

Abstract This paper discusses public attitudes to the current limited disclosure of sex offender scheme in the UK. The study focuses on two ‘countries’ of the UK (i.e., Northern Ireland and Wales) where, up until now, no direct research has been done with the public on their attitudes to the sex offender disclosure scheme. This study is based upon six socially representative local focus groups (members of the public) (three in each locale) with a total of 35 members of the public between them. The focus groups are semi-structured in nature and were interpreted through qualitative (thematic) content analysis. Results indicate that the public believed that in principle they had a right to have access to information regarding sex offenders living in their communities, but when the practicalities of this were discussed the participants became divided on the validity of disclosure. In respect to the limited disclosure scheme the participants did not feel that it went far enough, it was too restrictive, they were unhappy with the structure of it (especially the background checks and the confidentiality agreement) and that they did not trust the state (i.e., the police) to run it appropriately. Ultimately the participants thought that communities needed to be more involved in the management of sex offenders within them, but they were conflicted as to whether communities could handle this role. The results of this study reflects and builds upon the English (Kemshall et al, 2010; Kemshall et al, 2012) and Scottish (Chan et al, 2010) pilots, suggesting that more work needs to be done on the administration of the disclosure process.

Development to current sex offender management policy & practice Child sexual abuse, especially paedophilia, is a high profile social issue, media story and moral panic in modern society (Thomas, 2005; Davidson, 2008), making it a central concern for the public, government and criminal justice system. This has resulted it all aspects of predicting, catching, monitoring and regulating child sexual abuse having become core policing and public protection issues over the past decade, evidenced by a number of high profile changes in UK, both nationally and regionally, policy and legislation in the area of child sexual abuse (Home Office, 2007). These policy and legislative changes have developed in reaction to: – a number of high profile media stories – reactionary public attitudes; – evidence based research – the highly politicised nature of sexual offending England and Wales a series of policy developments have been implemented, which have either simultaneously or later been introduced into both Scotland and Northern Ireland; however, there are regional differences

Policy, practice and public attitudes Societal responses to child sexual abuse are constructed out of the reality and impact of existing discourses. To fully understand the most effective policy for responding to this offending population we must realise that societal discourses (i.e., public, professional and media) are as heterogeneous as the offending population they describe. There is often a fraught relationship, in policy and related, between individuals, society and the state (Wood, 2009). Often public attitudes do not reflect the realities of state policy leading to difficulties and mistrust which is often compounded if there is already a lack of trust in the state (Newman, 2008). There is often disagreement, misunderstanding between the state and society (both in micro and macro terms) on crime policy (Wood, 2009), which can be heighten in respect to sexual and/or interpersonal crimes (Brown, 2009).

Current English, Welsh & Scottish 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 2: Applications Stage 3: Information & empowerment Stage 4: Full risk assessment Stage 5: Decision routes and outcomes  Advice/guidance on the limits and/or implications of disclosure: 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.

Research justification and questions Since its introduction in 2010 the limited disclosure scheme has received media criticism (Wilson, 2011), been misunderstood as well as misrepresented (i.e., being discussed by the Coalition as Sarah’s law, which it is not) (Home office, 2012) and had poor take up by the public (Kemshall et al, 2012; Chan el al, 2010). The lack of public engagement during, and post, the pilot is relevant given that the one constant through these debates was the perception that this legislation, especially full public disclosure of sex offender information, was what communities wanted (Silverman & Wilson, 2002). This means that it is important to understand community attitudes and responses to the scheme so to understand the gap in reality between implementation, community engagement and risk management of offenders. The current research aims to examine community perceptions of, and attitudes to, the disclosure of sex offender information generally and more specifically the current limited disclosure scheme operating in parts of the UK (i.e., England, Wales and Scotland). This research will focus on Wales (which has the current disclosure scheme) and Northern Ireland (which does not), because neither ‘country’ of the UK has had any research done with the public, individually or as communities, on sex offender public disclosure in general or the scheme specifically.

Methodology (1) This research is qualitative in nature, consisting of a series of semi-structured focus groups with members of the public in Northern Ireland (Belfast area) (n = 3) and Wales (Cardiff area) (n = 3). The locations of Belfast and Cardiff were selected for the research because; – The two locales pronounced cultural and social similarities; and – The two locales similarities and differences in regard to the limited disclosure scheme. Focus groups were conducted rather than interviews with members of said communities as it was felt that because sexual violence and sexual offender management are community concerns it was felt that this community perspective was essential.

Methodology (2) The focus group topics were partially developed in advance from ideas and issues developed out of the literature as well as in regard to the aims of the research – attitudes to child sexual abuse and abusers; – the best response to child sexual abusers; – disclosure of sex offender information; and – the current limited disclosure scheme but these were not an exhaustive list with the participants being allowed to discuss any related issues they wished. As such, the focus groups were participant focused and participant lead (Mason, 2002).

Methodology (3) This study used qualitative content analysis to examine the data (Miles & Hubermann, 1994). When the themes where identified, checked and verified they were then contextualised in terms of how they related to the other themes, the overall findings from the research, the existing literature and to the participants. Throughout the qualitative data analysis care was taken to ensure that the themes established themselves.

Main themes The research produced three interconnecting and distinct themes around public attitudes to the disclosure of sex offender information, – (1) Community attitudes to sexual abuse and sexual offenders; – (2) Attitudes to the structure, regulation and functionality of the limited disclosure scheme; and – (3) Resentment surrounding applicant background checks and confidentiality.

Community attitudes to sexual abuse and sexual offenders. The majority of the participants had a realistic understanding of who sexual offenders are and what types of offences they generally committed. Participants stated that stranger danger is not an appropriate factor for identifying potential child sexual abusers, suggesting that the disclosure of sex offender information was irrelevant. Participants were not as clear on current responses to child sexual abusers though. Participants stated that there was a strong resentment of child sex abusers in the community among members of the public. Participants felt that it was unrealistic to suggest that all communities know who their local child sexual abusers are, instead arguing that some communities have a better idea than others based on the level of community interaction, solidarity and engagement. Participants believing that they, the community, was better placed and more likely to respond to sex offenders than the state; but they felt the criminal justice sector did not trust the community appropriately respond to sex offenders.

Attitudes to the structure, regulation and functionality of the limited disclosure scheme Participants took one of two positions in respect to sex offender disclosure, – those that wanted full disclosure as it would make them feel safer; and – those who wanted no disclosure as it was counterproductive, damaging to communities and people would not feel safer as a response Participants argued that the limited disclosure scheme is not doing anything new, that it does not work to protect children and that it does not give them the information they want. Participants agreed that the scheme should be controlled and regulated they felt that the limited disclosure scheme went too far. One of the main complaints about the structure of the scheme was the fact that the state, namely the police, was in control of the scheme. Participants felt that scheme was really about the state wanting to be seen to be doing something about sex offenders rather than actually doing something.; that the state is pushing the management of offenders onto the community. Interestingly, the participants suggested that the public could use the scheme in a number of inappropriate ways that were not its original design or intention.

Resentment surrounding applicant background checks and confidentiality All the participants had difficulties in accepting the security provisions put in place; believing these provisions to be unfair and unrealistic. Participants felt that the background checks made them feel ‘guilty’, that they were under suspicion, that they had done something wrong and that, again, the state did not trust or respect them. Participants felt that signing the confidently agreement was placing an extra burden on the applicant, and the community more widely. Participants stated that they were not sure if they would sign the confidentiality agreement, instead accepting the request to sign as proof that their concerns where founded or if they did sign it they would then feel complied to break the agreement.

Conclusions Main findings – The main issue that has emerged is that the participants, across the board, all had a mistrust of the state, particularly the police, and their handling of sex offenders feeling that they could be better informed. – Although participants realised the possibility for vigilante action against sex offenders, which was not always disapproved of, they felt that they could and should do better as communities at monitoring (child) sex offender reintegration. Recommendations – more work needs to be done on the administration of the disclosure process, the regulation and response to breaches of confidentiality, publicising the scheme to communities and helping with take up by individuals – the government need to do more to educate the public around the realities of sex offender rehabilitation, reintegration and management; maybe through the partnership model suggested by the participants although this needs to be done cautiously – With the participants mistrust of the state, especially the police, there needs to be a discussion on whether the police are the best suited agency to handle the disclosure process, and if not who should do it; maybe a charity or NGO like in Scotland – what support is there available for applicants, in terms of accessing the and support post completion. – the government should also look to consult with the public about what the scheme is, what it aims to do and the potential outcome in a realistic way which communities will engage with. Conclusion – If sex offender management in the community is about risk prevention but because the level of risk is unknown to the public the management of expectation versus reality is unrealistic; particularly if the public think that the government is off loading its responsibility for crime and justice on to them.

Questions?