Grandparents are tops for protecting children from abuse.

Mr x thought you might be interested in the attached piece of research, which demonstrates that grandparents have been active participants in the recent pilot scheme for a system of Sex Offender Community Disclosures.

You will note that approximately one in five of the applications for information came from grandparents.

Mr x trusts this is of interest.

If you require any further information, please get back in touch.

Kind regards
D.
On behalf of x MSP


Ipsos MORI Scotland, in collaboration with Beth Weaver of the University of Strathclyde, undertook an independent evaluation of the sex offender community disclosure scheme piloted in Tayside between September 2009 and May 2010. The evaluation was conducted primarily through in-depth interviews with applicants, professionals involved in administering the pilot, Registered Sex Offenders ( RSOs) and national stakeholders. The evaluation also comprised analysis of data on the type of enquiries handled by the pilot and the movement of RSOs in Tayside.
Main Findings
• Overall, the scheme has enhanced the existing child protection arrangements in Tayside. While it is impossible to measure the impact of the scheme on sex offences against children, it is clear that:
• a number of Child Concern Reports have been raised and subsequent, specific action to protect children has been taken as a direct result of the scheme - in cases which were unlikely to have come to Police or Social Work attention otherwise
• the Police have received additional intelligence (on RSOs and other individuals) which may help protect children in the future.
• It is likely that in a significant number of cases, applicants would have contacted Police or Social Work with their concerns anyway (in the absence of the scheme). However, the evidence from practitioners suggests that the existence of a formalised route and a dedicated team enhances existing arrangements:
• the chances of cases falling through the net are reduced
• checks are conducted faster
• applicants receive a higher level of service and feel more reassured that appropriate action is being taken.
• Overall, there were 53 enquiries made to the scheme over the course of the 36 week pilot. The majority were made by parents. In ten cases, the subject of the enquiry was an RSO and a further 16 subjects had previous sexual convictions. Twenty-five Child Concern Reports were raised through the pilot and specific actions taken as a result.
• Applicants were generally very satisfied with the way their enquiries were handled and, in particular, were very positive about their contact with the Disclosure Officer and the speed with which enquiries were dealt with. However, the evaluation highlights the need for more aftercare for applicants and for signposting to sources of advice and support.
• There is no evidence to suggest that the scheme has had a negative impact on the behaviour of RSOs in Tayside: there has not been a notable effect on the movement of RSOs transferring in or out and no indication from Offender Managers that compliance has been affected.
• There have been no reports of vigilante attacks or other negative outcomes as a result of disclosures made under the scheme.
Background
In June 2007, the Home Office published its Review of the Protection of Children from Sex Offenders. 1 One of the conclusions was that more information should be shared with the public about specific Registered Sex Offenders ( RSOs) who may pose a threat to particular children. A disclosure scheme was piloted in four English police force areas in 2008/9.
In parallel to these developments, the Scottish Government decided to pilot a similar disclosure scheme in the Tayside Police force area between September 2009 and May 2010.
The pilot involved a dedicated Disclosure Team being set up to deal with enquiries from parents about specific individuals perceived to pose a threat to their children. For each enquiry, the Disclosure Team conducted a comprehensive risk assessment using the information provided by the applicants and existing information on Police, Social Work and NHS systems. Depending on the outcome of the risk assessment, the team had the option to disclose information and/or trigger existing mechanisms to deal with child protection and the management of sex offenders.
Aims and methods
The overall aim of the evaluation was to explore the extent to which the pilot enhanced child protection beyond what would happen anyway under existing child protection measures and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. The evaluation also focused on how the scheme might be refined and improved before being implemented more widely.
The evaluation was conducted primarily through in-depth interviews with a range of stakeholder groups (including applicants, professionals involved in administering the pilot, RSOs and national stakeholders). The evaluation also comprised analysis of data on the type of enquiries handled by the pilot, financial resources related to the pilot and the movement of RSOs in Tayside.
Overview of enquiries and outcomes
Overall, there were 53 enquiries made to the scheme over the course of the 36 week pilot, of which 52 enquiries resulted in an initial call back from a Disclosure Officer, and 45 resulted in a face to face interview with a Disclosure Officer. The majority (34 of 52 enquiries) were made by parents. Fourteen enquiries were made by other family members (11 of whom were grandparents) - we have referred to this group as 'close concerned others'.
The most common reason applicants gave for contacting the scheme was because they had received 'third party' information relating to the subject (36 of the 46 applicants cited this as a reason for making their enquiry). In most cases, this related to information they had been told by friends or family, or local 'gossip'. In other cases, the applicant had read about the subject in a newspaper. There were fewer enquires made in response to direct observations of the subject's behaviour (14) or the child's behaviour (2). Applicants most commonly made enquiries about a neighbour (16).
In ten cases, the subject of the enquiry was an RSO and a further 16 subjects had previous sexual convictions. Twenty-seven cases involved a subject who was not an RSO and did not have prior sexual convictions.
Twenty-five Child Concern Reports were raised through the pilot and specific actions taken as a result. Specific actions - and more than one type of action might be taken in a particular case - included disclosure to the parent (11 cases), a referral to Social Work (19), an RSO being recalled to prison (1) and amendment to an offender risk category (1). In addition, intelligence entries were made in relation to 37 enquiries.
For a number of reasons, it is not possible to quantify the number of children that have been directly protected as a result of the pilot: just because a child is judged to be at risk and protective action is taken as a result, this does not mean that the child would definitely have been harmed if action had not been taken. In any case, depending on the circumstances, it may be difficult to know how many children were at risk and so how many are affected by the protective action (e.g. a recall to prison).
Moreover, we do not have baseline data so it is not possible to accurately account for what would have happened in the absence of the pilot. Instead, the research team have used the number of Child Concern Reports raised in connection with the pilot as a proxy for protective action and have used data from qualitative interviews with applicants to assess what might have happened in the absence of the pilot (e.g. whether they would have contacted the Police with their concerns anyway).
Direct impact on child protection
Overall, the scheme has enhanced the existing child protection arrangements in Tayside. While it is impossible to measure the impact of the scheme on sex offences against children, it is clear that:
• a number of Child Concern Reports have been raised and subsequent, specific action to protect children has been taken as a direct result of the scheme - in cases which were unlikely to have come to Police or Social Work attention otherwise
• the Police have received additional intelligence (on RSOs and other individuals) which may help protect children in the future.
It is likely that in a significant number of cases, applicants would have contacted Police or Social Work with their concerns anyway (in the absence of the scheme). However, the evidence from practitioners suggests that the existence of a formalised route and a dedicated team enhances existing arrangements:
• the chances of cases falling through the net are reduced
• checks are conducted faster
• applicants receive a higher level of service and feel more reassured that appropriate action is being taken.
Impact on applicants
Applicants were generally very satisfied with the way their enquiries were handled and, in particular, were very positive about their contact with the Disclosure Officer and the speed with which enquiries were dealt with. However, the evaluation highlights the need for more aftercare for applicants and for signposting to sources of advice and support. In particular, there is a need to provide more support and reassurance to applicants who are not eligible for disclosure themselves (e.g. 'close concerned others' such as grandparents) who, at the end of the process, can be left just as concerned as they were at the outset because they do not know whether the child in question is at risk or whether any action has been taken as a result of their enquiry.
Impact on RSOs
There is no evidence to suggest that the scheme has had a negative impact on the behaviour of RSOs in Tayside: there has not been a notable effect on the movement of RSOs transferring in or out and no indication from Offender Managers that compliance has been affected. Nor have there been any reports of vigilante attacks or other negative outcomes as a result of disclosures made under the scheme.
However, the potential for some RSOs to avoid contact with members of their community (because they are worried about being the subject of an enquiry and having information about their conviction disclosed) should be monitored. Reintegration into communities has been shown to be an important factor in rehabilitation and, while it is clearly appropriate for some RSOs to avoid contact with children, others (e.g. those whose offences were unrelated to children) might unnecessarily avoid contact with children or avoid forming relationships with adults who have children.
Recommendations for roll-out
The picture emerging from this study is a positive one but there are lessons to be learned. The full report includes guidance on good practice designed to help local decision makers through the set up and implementation of the scheme. Some of the key points include:
• Call handler guidance should state that if enquiries are received outwith office hours that they should be recorded and passed onto the scheme for the Disclosure Team to deal with the next day - rather than leaving the onus on the potential applicant to call back.
• Disclosure Officers should have a friendly manner and be able to put the applicants at ease. They must also have the ability to show empathy, good listening skills and sensitivity to the subject area.
• Disclosure Officers should provide an explanation of the potential role of Social Work in the process to help reassure applicants.
• More detailed guidance should be provided to Disclosure Officers over exactly what the applicant should be told when the outcome of the enquiry is no disclosure.
• While information relating to the subject's offences cannot be disclosed to 'close concerned others' and 'concerned others' under the remit of the scheme, more should be done to provide reassurance. This could be achieved in a number of ways: reassurance from the Disclosure Officer, when they communicate the outcome of the enquiry, that no information can be disclosed but relevant action is being taken as a result of the enquiry; reassurance in the letter; and where tensions and relationship difficulties within the family are highlighted, relevant advice or signposting of sources of advice and support could be provided.
• Consideration should be given to aftercare for applicants, signposting them to sources of advice/support (including where an application highlights other problems in the household).
• Where a disclosure has been made, the Disclosure Team should stress to people that if they feel uncomfortable not sharing this information with others (for example, if they are worried that somebody else may be at risk) they should contact the team immediately. The team should then offer appropriate support and advice.
• The terminology used in the naming and the marketing of the scheme needs to encourage the public to get in contact to provide information, as well as to obtain it.
• In light of concerns over confidentiality and hesitancy in making an enquiry, the anonymity of applicants should be emphasised in marketing materials.
• RSOs should be notified about the scheme, preferably face to face by Offender Managers. In a few cases, RSOs had heard about the pilot through the media prior to the notification exercise and had misunderstood its purpose.
• The notification exercise should reassure RSOs that information is only disclosed to applicants who have genuine concerns about child safety and that applicants are required to sign a document agreeing to keep the information confidential.
• The letter given to RSOs should be in plain English. While it is important that the wording of the letter reflects the legal circumstances, there is a danger that legalistic language fails to communicate the details of the scheme effectively.
This document, along with full research report of the project, and further information about social and policy research commissioned and published on behalf of the Scottish Government, can be viewed on the Internet at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch. If you have any further queries about social research, please contact us at socialresearch@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or on 0131-244 7560