Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme

1. Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme Detective Inspector Paul Cook Public Protection Unit Bedfordshire Police ‘Working together to protect the most vulnerable’

2. .; Head of Public Protection - DCI DI (Bedford Borough) DI (Luton) DI (Bedford Central) CAIU and DAIU CAIU and DAIU CAIU and DAIU SOMT/OLIT/ VULNERABLE MISPERS HBV / Forced Marriage RIU/VLO (Countywide) REFERRAL TEAM VAIU (Countywide) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

3. Extract from “BBC News” Wednesday 3rd March 2010 A scheme allowing parents to check if someone is a sex offender will be rolled out across England and Wales by March 2011, the Home Office says. A year-long pilot has already protected 60 children, ministers say. Under the scheme, police can give parents more information about someone who has access to their children. Sarah Payne ‘Sarah’s Law’ in the national media In all, police disclosed information on 32 individuals who had a record of child sex offending or posed a risk in a different way. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Victory-For-Sarahs-Law-Campaigners-Sex-Offenders-Alert-Scheme/Video/201003115566139?lpos=video_Article_Related_Content_Region_2&lid=VIDEO_15566139_Victory_For_Sarahs_Law_Campaigners_Sex_Offenders_Alert_Schemehttp://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Victory-For-Sarahs-Law-Campaigners-Sex-Offenders-Alert-Scheme/Video/201003115566139?lpos=video_Article_Related_Content_Region_2&lid=VIDEO_15566139_Victory_For_Sarahs_Law_Campaigners_Sex_Offenders_Alert_Scheme NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

5. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

6. ‘Megan’s Law’ – U.S.A • Megan Kanka – California 1994 • Limited management of R.S.Os by police (Varies state to state) – Still requires registration • Managed by parole officer / community • Legal requirement for offenders details to be made public (Internet / mobile phone applications) • Sanctions for sex offenders include placing signs in their garden, wearing arm bands/ baseball caps • Whereabouts of 45% of sex offenders is known • Suggestion that this leads to vigilantism NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

7. UK Perspective • 98% of R.S.Os (Registered Sex Offenders) whereabouts are known • Managed by Police/ Probation / MAPPA/ Other agencies • Legislation to deal with R.S.Os who breach requirements • R.S.O details remain confidential – used by agencies as part of existing safeguarding procedures. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

8. Bedfordshire • Approximately 460 R.S.Os in Bedfordshire • Approximately 370 at liberty • Approximately 70% of 370 are for child sexual offences • Significant number for Indecent Images of Children offences • 370 managed by a team of six officers & supervisor NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

9. 2007Review of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenders (June 2007) • Referred to as the “Child Sex Offender Review (CSOR)”. • Came about as a result of negative headlines around convicted sexual offenders. • Focussed on how child sexual offenders are managed, how sexual offending against children can be prevented and how to provide greater reassurance to the public. • Created 20 actions, of which Actions 4 and 1 are of particular importance to the process. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

10. ACTION 1 Pilot a community awareness programme, in partnership with non-governmental organisations, to provide better child protection and develop messages to help parents and carers safeguard children effectively. ACTION 4 Pilot a process where members of the public can register their child protection interest in a named individual. Where this individual has convictions for child sex offences and is considered a risk, there will be a presumption that this information will be disclosed to the relevant member of the public. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

11. 2008 • Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 • Places a statutory duty on MAPPA Responsible Authorities to; • Consider in every case disclosure; and • Presumption to disclose; where • Reasonable cause to believe that a child sexual offender poses a risk of • serious harm to a child(ren); and • Disclosure is necessary for the purpose of protecting the child(ren) from • serious harm. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

12. 2008 • Disclosure Pilot Trials • 15th September 2008 – trials began in Cambridgeshire Constabulary, • Cleveland Police, Hampshire Constabulary and Warwickshire Police. • Ran for 12 months. • Independent evaluation completedwww.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/horr32c.pdf • Many positive key findings • No known negative outcomes • Home Secretary expressed his desire for the process to be rolled out nationally NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

13. What is the Disclosure Process? What is New? • Principle of 2-way disclosure • Presumption to disclose • Public can request disclosure even when they have no concerns What is the same? • Safeguarding Children procedures • Process of disclosure under MAPPA/Safeguarding Children procedures • Disclosure must be lawful, necessary & proportionate NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

14. The Process Initial Contact Any person can make an application about a person (the subject) who has some form of contact with a child or children. Basic details obtained about the applicant, child, subject and the nature of the concern. Initial checks made on PNC, ViSOR and local systems (within 24hrs). Assessment made as to if there is an immediate child protection concern that requires action. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

15. The Process • Applicant may not go on to receive disclosure • Disclosure should only be made to person who is in a position to safeguard children (e.g. Parent, carer etc) • Parent, carer or guardian who was original applicant may be estranged and not in a position to protect (therefore no disclosure) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

16. The Process Face to Face Application Applicant seen face to face to obtain further details, including verifying the applicants identity and relationship with the child and subject (if applicable). Empowerment/Information The applicant is provided with information about the Disclosure scheme, keeping children safe and MAPPA via a leaflet pack. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

17. The Process Full Risk Assessment Checks are revisited, then further checks are made on Impact Nominal Index (INI) and with other agencies (including children’s services). Decision taken about whether the application raises ‘concerns’ or ‘no concerns’. Full risk assessment must be completed within 10 days. Decision Making on Disclosure Enquiry will either raise ‘concerns’ or ‘no concerns’. These involve processes on making a decision about whether to disclose information. This will usually involve a multi-agency meeting as part of MAPPA and/or safeguarding children procedures. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

18. The Process Outcome and Closure The applicant is contacted and receives disclosure or is alternatively told that there is no information that the police can disclose to them. It is important that the applicant is told that just because there is no information this does not mean that there is no risk of harm to the child and that they should continue to take steps to safeguard their child(ren). NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

19. Early Learning from Pilot Forces VOLUME OF ENQUIRIES 12 months (formal end of pilot) Enquiries 12 Applications 7 (Average per Force per month) Disclosures 1 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

20. Early Learning Compliance of RSOs with registration and monitoring requirements Maintaining confidence of RSOs Vigilantism PERCEIVED RISKS Breach of disclosure confidentiality agreement Malicious false applications i.e. Journalists NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

21. Early Learning Breaches of SOPO (Sexual Offences Prevention Order) Child Protection Investigations Recall to Prison PUBLIC PROTECTION Intelligence about RSOs (Registered Sexual Offenders) Highlights other risks (i.e. serious domestic violence) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

22. EARLY LEARNING PUBLIC PROTECTION • Good News Story 1 • Force A • Child U13 • Applicant was child’s mother • Subject was the husband of a friend • Rumours about subject • 2 custodial sentences for indecency with children • Disclosure and safeguarding advice NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

23. EARLY LEARNING PUBLIC PROTECTION • Good News Story 2 • Force B • Child U10 • Applicant single mother • Subject neighbours boyfriend • Concerns over subject behaviour • No previous convictions but a number of allegations of • serious sexual assaults • Disclosure, child protection investigation and referred for • management as a potentially dangerous person (PDP) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

24. The future • All four pilot forces extended the operation of this scheme beyond the 12 month pilot. • Full Home Office evaluation has been completed and can be found at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/worr32c.pdf • Home Secretary has expressed his wish for the scheme to be rolled out nationally. • Staggered regional roll-out, you are all in the first phase! • ‘Go live’ date of 1st August 2010. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

25. Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre • http://www.ceop.gov.uk/ • Individual Law Enforcement Agency • Intelligence, Harm Reduction and Operations Faculties • U.K Tracker Team – High Risk / VH Risk RSOs • C.E.O.P report abuse button on web-site (35-50 reports per day) • Online reporting mechanism for C.S.O.D.S (via hyperlink from Beds Police web-site) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

26. Partners • Beds Police Media release in late August • C.E.O.P reporting mechanism on agency / L.S.C.B web-sites ?? • Awareness raising with staff • Opportunity to engage with public and raise awareness and provide reassurance (Healthcare establishments, Social Care offices etc) • Co-operate with information sharing / decision making process. • Enquiries under Disclosure Scheme should be referred to police (Should not be used as a route to make referral / report child abuse) NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

27. Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme Detective Inspector Paul Cook Co-ordinator for Child Sex Offender Disclosure Process Bedfordshire Police paul.cook@bedfordshire.pnn.police.uk Tel: 01234 842287 Mob: 07500 106526