Child Sex Offender Public Disclosure Scheme: The views of applicants using the English pilot disclosure scheme

Abstract

A limited Child Sexual Offender Disclosure Scheme was launched in England and Wales in 2009–10. Drawing upon data from an evaluation of the pilot scheme, this paper explores the views of applicants seeking a disclosure. In particular, the paper considers issues around the low take-up, perceptions of satisfaction and more broadly the role of the scheme in providing reassurance to the public about child sexual offenders in the community. Interestingly, while perceptions of satisfaction with the scheme were high, anxieties about child sexual offenders were not necessarily alleviated by the scheme, and in many instances were heightened.

Keywords:

• Sex offender
• public disclosure
• risk
• applicant

Acknowledgements

Our thanks are extended to the other members of the research team. The comments here are entirely the responsibility of the authors.

Notes

1. An applicant is a person eligible to make an application under the scheme, and whose enquiry meets the criteria and is justified in terms of immediate risk. A total of 315 applications were made overall, with 159 submitted to the research team for detailed analysis. In addition, some 43 applicants were interviewed, including eight who had received a disclosure.

2. With a further 11 made as non-pilot disclosures; that is, involving information not relating to convictions for child sexual offences.

3. The methodology is available in the full report: Kemshall et al. (2010) Child sex offender review (CSOR): Public disclosure pilots, a process evaluation. London: Home Office. Available from http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/horr32c.pdf (accessed 28 April 2010).

4. There are actually a number of forms of community notification or public disclosure in the United States (see Cohen & Jeglic, 2007, p. 374), a difference sometimes overlooked in critiques of the concept.

5. As would be expected, given the initial remit of the pilot to provide parents, carers or guardians with a formal mechanism to register concerns about individuals.

6. One area in particular, area B, did not record the gender of the applicant.

7. Although based only on 50% of completed forms, these figures are similar to 2001 census data for each of the areas, which shows that minority ethnic populations make up 5% (area A), 1% (area B), 6% (area C) and 10% (area D) of total populations.

8. Applications were made about 12 women and gender was not recorded in 24 cases (Kemshall et al., 2010)

9. This was methodologically unviable given the nature of the scheme and the evaluation, and detailed exploration of motivations were limited due to the nature, timing and coverage of the interviews—1 hour in length, with topic coverage informed primarily by the evaluation specification.

10. Area C achieved a 30% conversion rate of enquiries to applications, while Area D achieved 69%. Area C achieved a conversion rate of applications to disclosure of 12%, and Area D achieved a 4% conversion rate.