An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders
| Author | Jackie Craissati, Claire Quartey |
Introduction
Disclosure is considered to be an important and necessary resource for the effective risk management of sexual offenders. Disclosure, in this context, refers to ‘the sharing of specific information about a MAPPA offender with a third party (not involved in MAPPA) for the purpose of protecting the public’ (MAPPA Guidance, 2012). This should not be confused with information-sharing between agencies.
MAPPA refers to the multi-agency public protection arrangements which were introduced in England and Wales in 2001 under Sections 67 and 68 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act (2000) to facilitate the sharing of information among agencies to improve public protection. MAPPA is now covered by the Criminal Justice Act (2003, section 325-327). Police, probation and prison services form the Responsible Authority with a statutory duty to ensure that the risks posed by specified sexual and violent offenders are assessed and managed appropriately, and other agencies - such as health, youth justice and the local authority - have a ‘duty to co-operate’ (Criminal Justice Act, 2003, section 325(3)).
One of the categories of offenders falling within the remit of MAPPA is Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs). These are convicted sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act, 2003. Under the terms of the Act, RSOs must notify police of their name, address, all foreign travel, bank and credit card details, as well as information about their passports and other identity documents. RSOs - as with other MAPPA offenders - can be managed at three levels. Level 1 refers to ordinary agency management where the risks posed by the offender can be managed by the agency responsible for the supervision or case management. This involves information sharing but does not require multi-agency meetings. Level 2 is for those offenders whose risk requires active multi-agency management and for whom risk management plans are agreed via a multi-agency meeting. Level 3 is reserved for cases which meet the level 2 criteria but where the management issues require senior representation from the agencies, and there may be a need to commit significant resources at short notice.
The most recent MAPPA guidance (Section 10.2, 2012) sets out principles underpinning the use of disclosure. Disclosure should be lawful, proportionate, accurate and necessary. Proportionate refers to a number of considerations within the guidance, including the potential risk to the offender as a result of disclosure and the consideration and recording of alternatives to disclosure; the provision of information regarding key triggers for offending behaviour or other advice regarding management, not necessarily an offence history; and procedures to support both victims and offenders in case there is a breakdown in the process. Finally, the guidance suggests that ‘it is preferable that the offender knows that disclosure is taking place. On occasion, the offender may make the disclosure himself or herself in the presence of the police or the Offender Manager (probation officer), or may later confirm or verify the content of the disclosure’ (p.56).
Although there have been process evaluations of the MAPPA process (for example, Wood and Kemshall, 2007), there are only two published research studies on the use of third party disclosure under MAPPA. Cann (2007) reported on a survey of the 43 police areas in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only 29 of the 40 areas which responded had made disclosures in the preceding six months. The survey revealed that the primary reason for disclosure was child protection, usually precipitated by a change in an offender’s personal relationships, housing or employment situation. Most commonly it was the details of the convicted offence which were disclosed. Both negative and positive consequences were highlighted: potential destabilisation of the offender versus enhanced public protection by limiting opportunities for offenders to access risky situations.
Penny and Craissati (2012) surveyed regular participants in MAPPA level 2 meetings across London with a response rate of 196 questionnaires. Respondents expressed confidence in their knowledge of disclosure law and procedures, but widely divergent views in their response to a range of hypothetical disclosure scenarios. The authors raise implications of the research for practice including improved understanding and guidance around third party disclosure, additional training and governance oversight.
In 2007, the Review of the Protection of Children from Sex Offenders was published, which led to the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme. This scheme was rolled out across England and Wales in three stages and was implemented across the country in 2011. The scheme is primarily the responsibility of the police, who manage a clear access route for the public to register their child protection interest in a named individual and - should there be relevant convictions and a risk posed - to receive a disclosure of pertinent information regarding the individual. A pilot over 36 weeks resulted in 53 enquiries, with 25 child concern reports being raised as a result (Chan, Homes, Murray and Treanor, 2010). Eleven of these reports involved disclosure to a parent regarding the offender’s conviction. The authors note that there was no indication that the scheme had had a negative impact on the behaviour of RSOs in the area, although this was not formally investigated. A related study with similar findings was conducted in four police areas in England and Wales (Kemshall and Wood, 2010). Interestingly, Kemshall, Kelly and Wilkinson’s (2012) reviewed the views of applicants within the Child Sex offender Public Disclosure Scheme. They found that in the few cases where a disclosure was made, the applicants who were not in a professional role remained anxious, and uncertain as to how to make use of the information.
The evidence from the United States, where community notification has been in place from the late 1990s onwards, is equivocal. Sex offender details have been publically available for a number of years; a summary of the evidence (Fitch, 2006) would suggest that there is no empirical evidence that community notification has had a positive impact on sex offender recidivism rates, nor has it resulted in fewer assaults by strangers on children.
There have been some attempts to consider disclosure from the offender perspective. Both Connor (2007) and Hudson (2005) had similar findings. Connor’s qualitative study found that sex offenders were deeply avoidant of situations potentially requiring disclosure, for fear of rejection and retaliation; the offenders had already constructed personal narratives around their offending which avoided stigma - minimising or lying - which disclosure threatened, not least because of a fear of losing control over the disclosure process, and it being used against them.
Traditional approaches to risk management have focused on identifying risk factors for targeted intervention, a strategy identified by Kemshall and Wood (2008) as a “protection strategy” which aims to protect communities through control of risk. This approach is often dominated by the offender...
To continue reading
Request your trial