Circles of Support & Accountability · Sarah Armstrong, Yulia Chistyakova, Simon Mackenzie and...

REPORTNo.01/2008 CirclesofSupport&Accountability…………………………………………………………………

CirclesofSupport&Accountability:ConsiderationoftheFeasibilityofPilotsin

Scotland

SarahArmstrong,YuliaChistyakova,SimonMackenzieandMargaretMalloch

UniversitiesofGlasgowandStirling

May2008


www.sccjr.ac.uk 2

COPYRIGHTNOTICEThispublicationiscopyrightSCCJR.Permissionisgrantedtoreproduceanypartorallof thisreportforpersonalandeducationaluseonly.Commercialcopying,hiringorlendingisprohibited.Anymaterialusedmustbefullyacknowledged,andthetitleofthepublication,authorsanddateofpublicationspecified.Copyright©SCCJR2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWewouldliketothankallthosewhogavetheirtimetothisprojectincludingthecriminaljusticeprofessionalsinScotland,membersofthevoluntarysector,theScottishGovernmentpolicyandresearchteamsliaisingwiththiswork,andthoseinvolvedinthepilotsinEngland.WeareparticularlygratefultothestaffoftheHampshireandThamesValleyCirclesofSupportandAccountabilityProjectandCirclesUKforallowingustotakeuptheirofficeandtimeinmeetingwiththemandtheagenciesthatparticipateinCOSA.Finally,wewouldliketomakespecialmentionofourappreciationofthecontributionsoftheCirclesMembersinHampshireandThamesValley,bothvolunteersandcoremembers,whospokewithusinfranktermsabouttheirfeelingsandviewsontheirCircles.

SarahArmstrong,YuliaChistyakova,SimonMackenzieandMargaretMalloch

(May2008)


www.sccjr.ac.uk 3

DISCLAIMERANDCONFLICTOFINTERESTSTATEMENTThe research team benefited from the involvement of Professor Alec Spencer(UniversityofStirling)andProfessorMikeNellis(UniversityofStrathclyde)whobothacted as special advisers to this work. Professor Spencer, in his prior capacity asDirector of Rehabilitation andCare Services of the Scottish Prison Service, advisedthe Justice 2 Committee on issues regarding sex offender treatment andrehabilitation, including Circles of Support and Accountability. Professor Nellis hasworkedcloselywithQuakerorganisationsinEnglandthathavepromotedCircles.Healso sits on the board of SACRO, an organisation that has submitted a proposalseeking funding to operate pilot Circles in Scotland.Neither Professors Spencer orNellis were responsible for writing any part of this report, nor directed researchactivity.Theirrolewaslimited,albeitveryusefully,tosharingtheirpastexperiencesandknowledgeofdevelopmentsonthistopic.This research did not consider the particular feasibility of the Sacro proposal, nordoesitintendtoimplyeitheranendorsementorrejectionofitscontent.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 4

ABBREVIATIONSCC CircleCoordinatorCJA CommunityJusticeAuthorityCJSW CriminalJusticeSocialWorkCOSA CirclesofSupportandAccountabilityCSC CorrectionalServiceofCanadaHTVC HampshireandThamesValleyCirclesProjectIMPACT InnovationMeansPrisonsandCommunitiesTogetherISP IntensiveSupportPackageLFF LucyFaithfullFoundationMAPPA Multi‐AgencyPublicProtectionArrangementsNOMSNationalOffenderManagementServiceOLR OrderforLifelongRestrictionPPO PublicProtectionOrderRM2000 RiskMatrix2000RMA RiskManagementAuthorityRRASOR RapidRiskAssessmentforSexOffenceRecidivismSACRO ScottishAssociationfortheCareandResettlementofOffendersSCCJR ScottishCentreforCrimeandJusticeResearchSPS ScottishPrisonServiceViSOR ViolentandSexualOffendersRegister


www.sccjr.ac.uk 5

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

CHAPTERONE‐INTRODUCTION1.1 CirclesofSupportandAccountability (COSAorCircles)havebeenoperatinginCanadaandEnglandforseveralyears.FollowingarecommendationbytheJustice2 Committee, the Scottish Government now believes it timely to consider thefeasibility of introducing COSA pilots to Scotland. The SCCJR was subsequentlycommissionedtoundertakethisinvestigationonbehalfoftheScottishGovernment.Thisreportbroadlycoverstheseareas:

TheimplementationexperienceofCirclesinEnglandandCanada; ThedistinctivefeaturesofScottishcriminaljusticethatmightaffect

implementationofpilots; Theimplicationsofvolunteersworkingwithsexoffenders; TheevidenceofeffectivenessofCirclessofar;and, FeasibilityissuesofestablishingpilotCirclesinScotland.

1.2 COSA use volunteers to form a ‘circle’ around a high risk, high needs sexoffender(thecorememberoftheCircle)tosupportthatperson’sreintegrationintothe community. Volunteers support an offender by modelling pro‐socialrelationships, assistingwith practical needs such as housing and employment, andgenerallyencouraging theoffender to leada life free from furtheroffending.Theyholdtheoffenderaccountablebychallenginghisattemptstorationaliseorminimiseoffending behaviours and risky thought patterns, and by reporting concerns toauthorities.11.3 Some of the claimed advantages of this approach are: enhancing themonitoring capacity of statutory agencies; addressing the social support needs ofoffenderswhicharelinkedtooffendingbutbeyondthecapacityofprofessionalstomanage; empowering communities to participate in reducing reoffending; andprovidingameansofpubliceducationforvolunteersandtheirsocialnetworksaboutthenatureandrealitiesofsexualoffending.1.4 Some of the claimed concerns raised by this approach are: attempting toprovide statutory supervision ‘on the cheap’; risks of using volunteers from thecommunitytoworkwithahighlymanipulativegroup(suchasrisksofcollusionandsafety); difficulty recruiting adequate numbers of appropriate volunteers; greatexpense in providing adequate training, support and supervision of volunteers;1Thevastmajorityofcoremembershavebeenmenandsothisreportgenerallyreferstotheminthemasculine.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 6

difficulty in isolating the role of Circles in reduction of reoffending for evaluativepurposes;andaddingacompetingdemandforcriminaljusticefunding.1.5 Findingsinthisreportarebasedoninformationsuppliedfromthethreemainresearch activities: interviews with a range of Scottish stakeholders includingstatutory agencies, the voluntary sector, and faith groups; review of the availableliterature describing and evaluating Circles, mainly in England and Canada; and afieldvisit toand interviewsatthe largestEnglishCirclesproject (inHampshireandThamesValley).

CHAPTERTWO‐IMPLEMENTATIONOFCIRCLESINCANADAANDENGLAND1.6 The Canadian experience with implementation was ad hoc and developedincrementally. In Canada, core members generally are under no form of criminaljusticecustodyorsupervisionandsoCirclesprovidestheironlymonitoring.1.7 In England, four identified potential pilot areas led to three pilots actuallybeing funded. The pilot that did not get past the planning stage seems to haveexperienceddifficultiesduetodifferentprioritiesinthearea.OnepilotthatreceivedinitialfundingbutfailedtodevelopmanyCirclesappearedtosufferfrominadequatepersonnelresourcingwhichlimitedvolunteerrecruitmentandestablishmentofthenecessarylinkswithlocalagencies.1.8 The ongoing pilots offer two distinctive models of running Circles. TheHampshire and Thames Valley Circles project (HTVC) is a substantial organisationdevotedtotheneedsofaparticularregion.TheLucyFaithfullFoundation(LFF)pilotis a ‘goanywhere’modeldesigned to setupCircleswhereveroffendersare living.Eachhasitsadvantagesandchallenges.1.9 ThefactorswhichappearedtobemostimportantforimplementationofpilotCirclesinclude:responsivenessofCOSAtoaperceivedproblem;positivelocalagencyattitude to working with the voluntary sector; strong relationships among localagencies and with COSA; adequate resourcing of infrastructure and agencycoordination; relevant professional experience and expertise of COSA managers;integrationofCOSA intoMAPPA;substantial investment intraining;adaptabilityofthemodeltoanoffender’slocation;andtargetedrecruitmentofvolunteers.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 7

CHAPTERTHREE‐DEMANDANDTARGETING–WHICHOFFENDERSANDWHY1.10 TheCOSAconceptisdesignedtotargetparticularlyhighrisk,highneedssexoffenders. High risk offenders are often extremely socially isolated, a factor thatexacerbatesthelikelihoodofreoffending.Moreover,reoffendingcanbeofthemostserious and traumatic kind. There is therefore an argument that the resourceintensivenessoftheCOSAapproachshouldbereservedforthisgroup.1.11 ResearchontheCanadianCOSAshowedthatinamatchedcomparisoncoremembers tended to have higher STATIC‐99 and RRASOR scores than theircounterparts,suggestingthehigherrisktargetingcriterionwasbeingmet.1.12 AreviewofcasedatafromtheHampshireandThamesValleyCirclesprojectshowsCirclesarebeingusedbymediumtohighriskoffenders(RM2000scoresweremainly ‘medium’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’, with most in the latter two groups; allparticipantsstudiedwerebeingmanagedatMAPPALevels2or3).1.13 Although risk data suggests COSA is being used for the client‐group it wasintended for, screening and assessment for Circles depends on a case‐by‐caseassessmentandsometimesrisk isbalancedwiththesocialneedsofanoffender inthedecisiontoformaCircle.1.14 Scottishstakeholdersfeltthatapopulationofhighrisk,highneedsoffenderswhomay fit the criteria forCOSAdidexist inScotland. Itwas commonly reportedthatmeetingthesupervisionandsupportneedsofthisgroupwasamajorchallengeforstatutoryagencies.1.15 Other eligibility criteria used by Hampshire and Thames Valley Circles, forexample, are exclusion generally (but not automatically) of: chronic deniers, thosewithpsychopathicpersonalitydisorder, and thosewhohavenotparticipated inorwhohavefailedtreatmentprogrammes.Factorstendingtosupportinclusionintheproject include: high needs; high profile offending; low self‐esteem; limited or nopro‐social supports; and a demonstrated interest in wanting to lead a healthy,offence‐free life. These criteria were consistent with the views of Scottishrespondents who commented on issues of eligibility. Other factors which requirespecial consideration in deciding to form a Circle are the age andmaturity of theoffender,thepresenceofalearningdisability,andalcohol/substancemisuseissues.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 8

CHAPTERFOUR‐STAKEHOLDERSPERSPECTIVESONSCOTTISHINFRASTRUCTURE1.16 Scottish management of sexual offenders has undergone majordevelopments in recent years. These developments include: recommendations ofthe Cosgrove Report resulting in greater local involvement in development anddelivery of programmes; implementation of joint arrangements for sex offendermanagement (MAPPA); creation of the Community Justice Authorities (CJAs);establishment of the Risk Management Authority; the roll‐out of a sex offenderregister and risk management database (ViSOR) that links all parts of Scotland;national adoption of common tools of risk assessment and management; anddevelopmentofanaccreditedgroup‐worktreatmentprogrammeforsexoffenders.1.17 Views on current management of sex offenders: there was widespreadconsensus that these developments had enhancedmanagement of sex offenders,particularly in increasing the consistency of responses and use of a commonlanguage forworkingwith thisoffendergroup.Therewasalso stronganduniformsupport among respondents for the belief that one of the most pressing gapsremaining in the systemarepost‐treatment support services for themost isolatedandhighriskoffenders.1.18 AwarenessandsupportforCircles:nearlyallScottishrespondentshadheardofCirclesandweregenerallypositiveabouttheconcept,believing itaddressedanidentifiedneed.TheScottishstakeholderstendedtoknowmoreaboutthe‘support’aspectofCircles, although thosewithmoreknowledgeof theapproachwerealsoabletocommentonits‘accountability’function.1.19 Responsibility for running Circles: there was strong support for theinvolvement of the voluntary sector in criminal justice, and acceptance of itspotential to contribute. However stakeholder respondents were divided betweenthosewho felt Circleswould be best run as an independent operation, and thosewho felt it should be located within the public sector (e.g. run within a CJSWdepartment or centrally by the government). Everyone felt that whateverorganisationalmodelwaspreferred,Circlesshouldhaveclearlinesofaccountabilitytostatutoryagencies.1.20 ThebiggestconcernaboutpilotingCirclesinScotlandwasaroundtheuseofvolunteers.ThishasbeenacommonconcernamongstakeholdersinallareaswhereCircles have been introduced. Specific worries included volunteers’ ability tomaintain boundaries, risks of collusion, information sharing/confidentiality, andappropriate reporting of concern about an offender’s thoughts and acts. Nostakeholder felt strongly that these concerns ruled out piloting Circles, but it was


www.sccjr.ac.uk 9

acknowledged that vigilant and stringent preparation of procedures and protocolswouldberequired.1.21 ScottishrespondentsalsoidentifiedmanypotentialbenefitsofCircles.Theseincludedrespondingtoanimportantaspectofoffenderneedthatstatutoryagenciescannot prioritise (e.g. pro‐socialmodelling); the ability of Circles to provide addedmonitoringcapacity,andforthismonitoringtoallowagenciestoactwhenpotentialrecidivistbehaviourwasidentifiedbeforeitescalatedintoreoffending.Respondentsalsoidentifiedtheuniquesupportrelationshipthatcouldbeprovidedbyanunpaidpersonwhochoosestospendtimewithanoffender.Itwasgenerallyacknowledgedthat this relationship between offender and volunteer could have benefits foraddressinganoffender’sself‐esteemandopennessissues.1.22 In terms of implementation issues for pilots, Scottish stakeholders desiredstrongoversightofCircles,butinawaythatminimisedtheburdenonprofessionals’time, specifically in terms of day‐to‐day contact with volunteers. A commonsuggestionforachievingthiswasforCirclestobeaccountabletoMAPPAs,althoughtherewasarangeof ideasabouthowthismighthappen.WhilesomerespondentssuggestedCirclesshouldbeembeddedwithinMAPPA(e.g.withMAPPAinchargeofdecisionstoformorreferoffenderstoCircles),otherswereoftheviewthatCirclesshould have only a reporting function to MAPPA. Developing clear information‐sharingprotocolswasalsoseenasaprimaryimplementationissue.1.23 Perspectives of the feasibility of Circles in Scotland: the common viewwasthatCirclesisfeasibleinScotland.Theyaregenerallyseenasan‘addedvalue’optionin the overall system of management of sex offenders. However, stakeholderswantedclarityaboutwhattheycandoandwhotheyarefor,aswellasreassurancethatadequatesafeguardscouldbeputinplace.1.24 The voluntary sector respondents were predominantly in favour of theintroductionofCOSApilotsinScotland,andinvaryingdegreeseithersupportedtherunningoftheprogrammeinthevoluntarysector,orsawarolefortheiragencyinthe provision of COSA. Respondents were generally satisfied that pilots could beeffectively operated by voluntary bodies who had sufficient credibility with, andsupport from, statutory agencies. These respondents echoed the views of thestatutory sector respondents in both their support for and concerns about COSA,withparticularagreementaroundissuesrelatingtovolunteers.

CHAPTERFIVE‐USINGVOLUNTEERSWITHSEXOFFENDERS1.25 There is increasing government recognition of the value of volunteers incriminal justice work, particularly in the context of community development and


www.sccjr.ac.uk 10

safety.VolunteersparticipateinavarietyofwaysincurrentcriminaljusticepracticesincludingasSpecialConstables,appropriateadults,youthmentors,andindependentcustodyvisitors,aswellasinoffenderresettlement.1.26 The central role of volunteers in COSAwas seen bymost of our interviewrespondentsasastrengthofthemodel.Therewasarangeofargumentsinsupportofvolunteers:itallowscommunitiestobepartofthechangeprocess;itreducesfearof crime (in addition to whatever impact COSA has on crime itself); it takesadvantageofarelativelycost‐effectivecommunityresource;theexistenceofawell‐established volunteer tradition in Scotland will support recruitment efforts; itenhancestheabilitytoestablisharelationshipoftrustthatencouragesoffenderstobe open about their thoughts and conduct; ‘volunteer’ does not mean‘inexperienced’,andCOSAmaydrawonthosewithaprofessionalorpriorvolunteerexperienceincriminaljusticeorsocialwork;anditisadaptabletochangingoffendercircumstancesandneeds.1.27 There are many conceptual concerns about the volunteer aspect of theprogramme, including: lack of certainty that therewould be a sufficient supply ofvolunteers for COSA; questions about volunteer recruitment and motivation; theneed for serious and substantial training; risk of collusion and need for stringentoversight; negative effects on volunteers and their support needs; exit strategy;implications of faith group involvement in COSA; maintaining the balance andresolvingthetensionsbetweensupportandaccountabilityroles.1.28 The empirical evidence on the volunteer experience provides a context forthese issues. In Canada, volunteers’ views of Circles changed from anxiety andidealism to reduced anxiety and greater pragmatism about their potential impact,followingtheirinvolvementinacircle.ThevolunteersfromHTVCprovidedarichandnuanced account of how they felt Circles worked, and how support andaccountabilityaremutuallyinclusiveaims.1.29 Recruitment in HTVC began by targeting faith communities, primarily theQuakers. Targeting recruitment may assist in minimising the risk of atabloid/vigilante backlash, although some Circles have recruited via their agencywebsitewithnoapparentnegativemediaeffect.Vettingproceduresseektoidentifyvolunteers considered to be stable, known in the community,mature, possessinghealthyboundaries,availabletomakeasignificanttimecommitment,andtohaveahealthyandbalancedlifestyleandviewpoint.1.30VolunteersfromHTVCgenerallyidentifiedanumberofmotivationstobecomeavolunteer,ratherthanhavingasingledominantreason.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 11

1.31 Training is given considerable attention by contemporary Circles projects.Volunteerrespondentsandlocalstakeholderagenciesexpressedstrongsupportforthe rigour of theHTVC training packagewhich includes initial training,mandatoryannualboostersessionsandadhocevents.Trainingtopicsaddressissuesincluding:boundaries, manipulation and collusion, practical aspects of criminal justicesupervision,andconfidentiality.1.32 Onemajorgapintheresearchisthelackofinformationaboutthelong‐termimpactofCOSAonvolunteers.Becauseofthepotentiallydisturbinginformationthatmaybesharedbysexoffenders,itisconcerningthatlittleattentionhasbeenpaidinthe research topotential traumaticeffectsonvolunteers.However, volunteersweinterviewedfromHTVCexpressedsatisfactionwiththesystemofsupport inplace.Therearealsonumeroussafetyprotocolsthathavebeen implementedtomanagetherisksofworkingwiththisoffendergroup.1.33 Information sharing and disclosure issues are managed successfully withinHTVCthroughtrainingandthroughtheHTVC’sorganisationwhich includes regularoversightandmonitoringofCirclesandtheissuesdiscussedinthem.

CHAPTERSIX‐ASSESSINGEFFECTIVENESSOFCIRCLES1.34 Questionsabout‘whatworks’canleadtonarrowdefinitionsofeffectivenessand limited research design. Evaluation of effectiveness is better guided by thequestion–whataretheeffectsoftheinitiative?Specifically,inthecaseofCircles:

HowmightCOSAbeeffectiveforoffenders?

HowmightCOSAbeeffectiveforcommunities?

HowmightCOSAbeeffectiveforcriminaljusticeprofessionals?

1.35 There are several linked elements constitutingeffectiveness for offenders:reconvictionandrecidivism,pro‐socialskillsacquisition,andcommunityintegration.

1.36 Recidivismandreconvictionresearchisonlynowemerging,andisbasedonsmallsamplesizes,butthe initialworkshowsverypromising impactsand isworthvalidating inreplicationresearch.InCanada,astudyof60coremembers,matchedto 60 sex offenders not in Circles, showed that Circle participants, despite havinghigherriskratingshadlowerratesofgeneralreoffendingthanthecomparisongroupand a 70% reduction in sexual recidivism. In the HTVC project, a self‐evaluationinvolving16coremembersnotedthattherehadbeenno instancesofreconvictionfor a sexual offence. Circles also contributed to the recall of offenders to prison,showing that recidivism, rather than being treated as a programme failure,might


www.sccjr.ac.uk 12

actually be evidence of the successful ability of Circles to pick up on recidivistconductbeforeanoffenceoccurs.

1.37 The evidence base on pro‐social change is also emerging. PsychometrictestingofoffendersparticipatingintheHTVCfoundimprovedattitudesinsomecoremembers.QualitativeresearchconductedintheHTVCself‐evaluationclaimedCirclesassistedcoremembers inacquiring strategies for copingandmanaging their lives.These claims need independent validation, but it is clear that the philosophy ofCirclessharescommongroundwithpro‐socialoffendertreatmentapproaches,andthere is evidence that pro‐social improvements are linked to reductions inreoffending.

1.38 Reintegrationintocommunitiespartlyflowsfromhavingpro‐socialskillsandattitudes,butCirclesmighthelp inotherwayswith thisgoal.Volunteerassistancewith daily activities is one way that they can be helpful to the process of anoffender’sreintegration.

1.39 Research in Canada has suggested COSA can be effective for changingcommunity perceptions about crime and sexual offending. Surveyed respondentsreportedthatifahighrisksexoffendermovedintotheirneighbourhood,theywouldfeel less angry and fearful if hewere involved in a Circle.Our interviews ofHTVCvolunteerssuggestedthatCirclesprovideopportunitiesforcommunitymemberstofeel involved and informed, and even to deepen a sense of duty to do somethingabouttheproblemofsexualoffending.

1.40 Criminal justiceprofessionals inthesameCanadianresearchalsofelt thataCircle would improve community safety. There may also be additional aspects ofCOSA’s effectiveness for professionals if it supported their work and improvedmorale.

CHAPTERSEVEN‐ASSESSINGFEASIBILITY/ISSUESFORPILOTS1.41 Itisimportanttodistinguishthefeasibilityofdoingsomethingonapilotbasisfrom itsadoptionasgeneralpolicy.Ourdiscussionof feasibility is limited inthat itaims only to inform thinking about the value of pilot Circles in Scotland.WehaveidentifiedseveralquestionswhichanyoneconsideringpilotingCircleswouldwishtoresolvebeforemakingthischoice:

Aretherisksreasonablywellknownorforeseeable?

Arethereacceptablemechanismsformanagingrisks?

Canallrelevantimplementationfactorsbeidentified?


www.sccjr.ac.uk 13

Is the approach sufficiently promising to show a pilot project would beworthwhile?

1.42 ThemainfeasibilityandimplementationissuesforScotlandare:sitingapilot;choosing an appropriate organisational model; defining the mission and role ofCirclesinScotland;investinginvolunteertraining;buildingadequateorganisationalinfrastructure; developing information sharing protocols; putting in place a robustevaluation strategy;attending toa communicationsand publiceducation strategy;considering andmanaging project costs; deciding on national or local organisationandfunding;and,havinganexitstrategy.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 14

CONTENTS

COPYRIGHT NOTICE...............................................................................................................................2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................................2 DISCLAIMER AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT......................................................3 ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................5 CHAPTER TWO - IMPLEMENTATION OF CIRCLES IN CANADA AND ENGLAND...............6 CHAPTER THREE - DEMAND AND TARGETING – WHICH OFFENDERS AND WHY..........7 CHAPTER FOUR - STAKEHOLDERS PERSPECTIVES ON SCOTTISH INFRASTRUCTURE..8 CHAPTER FIVE - USING VOLUNTEERS WITH SEX OFFENDERS..............................................9 CHAPTER SIX - ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF CIRCLES.....................................................11 CHAPTER SEVEN - ASSESSING FEASIBILITY/ISSUES FOR PILOTS ......................................12

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................14 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................16

WHAT ARE COSA?...................................................................................................................................17 PROS AND CONS OF CIRCLES....................................................................................................................17 METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES..........................................................................................18

2. IMPLEMENTATION OF CIRCLES IN CANADA AND ENGLAND .........................................20 CANADA ....................................................................................................................................................20 ENGLAND ..................................................................................................................................................21

Northumbria Pilot ...............................................................................................................................21 Quaker/Thames Valley Pilot...............................................................................................................22 Hampshire Pilot ..................................................................................................................................24 Lucy Faithfull Foundation Pilot.........................................................................................................25

KEY IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS ............................................................................................................26 3. DEMAND AND TARGETING – WHICH OFFENDERS AND WHY ........................................29

LEVEL OF RISK ..........................................................................................................................................29 OTHER ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA..................................................................................................................31

Factors supporting inclusion: ............................................................................................................32 Factors supporting exclusion:............................................................................................................32

PERSPECTIVES OF SCOTTISH PROFESSIONALS .........................................................................................33 4. STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON SCOTTISH INFRASTRUCTURE..............................35

POLICY AND PRACTICE DEVELOPMENTS .................................................................................................35 VIEWS ON CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS ......................................................................38 PERSPECTIVES ON THE CIRCLES CONCEPT ..............................................................................................40

Awareness and Support for Circles ...................................................................................................40 Concerns about Circles ......................................................................................................................41 Potential of Circles .............................................................................................................................41 Views on Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................42 Views on Feasibility of Circles in Scotland.......................................................................................43

VOLUNTARY SECTOR VIEWS....................................................................................................................44


www.sccjr.ac.uk 15

5. USING VOLUNTEERS WITH SEX OFFENDERS........................................................................47 DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE VOLUNTEERING ........................................................................47 CONCEPTUAL DIMENSIONS OF USING VOLUNTEERS IN CIRCLES ...........................................................49

Factors Supporting the Use of Volunteers.........................................................................................49 Concerns ..............................................................................................................................................50

EMPIRICAL DIMENSIONS OF VOLUNTEERS IN CIRCLES...........................................................................53 Information on Samples ......................................................................................................................54 Demographics and Background.........................................................................................................55 Motivation............................................................................................................................................57 Volunteer Views about Circles and Core Members..........................................................................57 Recruitment and Vetting .....................................................................................................................60 Training ...............................................................................................................................................61 Operational Features of HTVC Circles.............................................................................................63 Effects on Volunteers, Safety and Support Issues .............................................................................64 Information Sharing and Disclosure..................................................................................................66

KEY POINTS...............................................................................................................................................67 6. ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS OF CIRCLES ..............................................................................70

EFFECTIVENESS FOR OFFENDERS .............................................................................................................71 Reconviction and Recidivism..............................................................................................................71 Pro-social Change ..............................................................................................................................74 Reintegration into Communities.........................................................................................................76

EFFECTIVENESS FOR COMMUNITIES.........................................................................................................78 EFFECTIVENESS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSIONALS ......................................................................79

7 ASSESSING FEASIBILITY – ISSUES FOR PILOTS ....................................................................80 SITING ISSUES............................................................................................................................................80 CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE ORGANISATIONAL MODEL .......................................................................81 DEFINING THE MISSION AND ROLE OF CIRCLES IN SCOTLAND ..............................................................81 INVESTMENT IN VOLUNTEER TRAINING ..................................................................................................82 ORGANISATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................82 INFORMATION SHARING ...........................................................................................................................83 ROBUST EVALUATION STRATEGY............................................................................................................83 COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION STRATEGY.......................................................................84 COST ..........................................................................................................................................................85 LOCAL OR NATIONAL SPONSORSHIP........................................................................................................86 EXIT STRATEGY ........................................................................................................................................86

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................88 ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE RESEARCH ..........................................................91 METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES..........................................................................92

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................92 REVIEW OF OPERATIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES ...............................................................................92 INTERVIEWS AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................93

REPORT01/08 CirclesofSupport&Accountability

www.sccjr.ac.uk 16

1.INTRODUCTION1.1 CirclesofSupportandAccountability(‘COSA’or‘Circles’)havebeenrunningnowforsevenyearsinEnglandandfornearlytwicethatamountoftimeinCanada.AlmostsincethefirstCircleswerepilotedinEnglandtherehasbeeninterestinanddebateaboutintroducingthemtoScotland.Formalproposalstoinitiateapilotwererejected by the Scottish Government, partly on the grounds that it would bebeneficialtoawaitoutcomesoftheexperienceofthepilotsinEnglandaswellasseethrough implementation inScotlandofmajorpolicyandpracticechangesaffectingthemanagementofsexoffenders.Regardlessoftiming,fundingforcriminaljusticeactivities is finite and constantly under pressure from competing demands forservices.TheimplementationofCirclespilotsthusrequiresconsiderationofwhetherthiskindofapproach–namely,volunteer‐basedsupportandmonitoringofhighrisksexoffendersinthecommunity–wouldaddressanidentifiedandimportantgapinexistingservicesorcontributeto‘bestpractice’inthisfield.

1.2 InDecember2006,aftertakingevidence froma rangeoforganisations, theScottish Parliament’s Justice 2 Sub‐Committee on Child Sex Offenders compiled areportandrecommendationsonmovingforwardinthisarea:

‘TheSub‐Committee,recommendsthattheScottishExecutiveconsidersthepotentialofCirclesofSupportandAccountabilityprojectsand,iffoundtobeeffective, instigates pilot projects within Scottish communities.’(Recommendation17,Justice2SubCommitteeReportJ2SC/S2/06/R1)

1.3 TheScottishCentreforCrimeandJusticeResearch(SCCJR)wassubsequentlycommissionedtocarryoutthisworkonbehalfoftheScottishGovernmentandstudythefeasibilityofpilotingCirclesinScotland.Ourremitwastoconsidertheissuesbutwithoutmakingarecommendation.Inthisreportweaimto:

Review the implementation experience of Circles in areaswhere they haveandhavenotbecomeestablishedfeaturesofhighriskoffendermanagement.

IdentifythedistinctivefeaturesofScottishcriminaljusticepolicyandpracticethat might affect implementation of pilots in Scotland;Consider theimplicationsofvolunteersworkingwithsexoffenders.

AssesstheevidenceofeffectivenessofCirclessofar. Setoutrelevantfeasibilityissuesshouldadecisionbetakentoproceedwith

CirclesinScotland.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 17

WhatareCOSA?

1.4 COSAusevolunteers fromthecommunitytoformaCirclearoundapersonwithahistory,andassessmentofpotentialhighrisk,ofsexualoffendingwhoisorisabout to live in thecommunity.Volunteersand thepersonforwhomtheCircle isformedareallCircleMembers,buttheoffendingindividualisreferredtospecificallyas the core member. The Circle meets regularly (often weekly) in places such aschurchhallsorcoffeeshopsratherthaninformalsettingssuchasaprobationoffice.The Circle aims to provide an informal environment and a healthy ‘community’ toassist the core member’s development of a stable social existence. The COSAconcept fits within the general principles of restorative justice given its focus onreintegration,althoughitdoesnotdirectlyseektoinvolvevictims.1.5 ThesupportroleofCircleMembersrangesfrompracticalactsofassistance,likefillingouta joborhousingapplication,to lesstangiblecontributions likegivingan offender a sense of hope or confidence to move away from old patterns ofbehaviour. The accountability role of Circles requires volunteers to confront andchallengeacoremember,forexampleifhetriestorationalizeorminimisehispastoffending.2 Volunteers often say the accountability and support functions areintertwined, for example if the core member is provided with a supportiveenvironment of people, he will be more able and willing to open up about andgenuinely confront entrenched sexual beliefs. COSA is positioned as a post‐treatment, post‐custody form of support that either works alongside statutorysupervisionstructures(asistypicallythecaseinEnglishCircles)orintheabsenceofsuch structures because of the offender’s completion of sentence (as is morecommon in Canada). It is also a voluntary programme in that offenders willinglyagreetoparticipateinaCircle.

ProsandConsofCircles1.6 Throughout our work, we learned of claims for and against Circles in theliterature and from respondents. These ‘pros’ and cons’, listed below, are not astatementoffactaboutwhatCirclesalwaysorneverdo;itwouldbemoreaccurateto say they reflect the commonly stated aspirations, on the one hand, andscepticisms,ontheother,thatexistaboutthisapproach.Intherestofthisreportweaddresstheevidenceforthesevariousclaims,butitisusefultohaveanoverviewtoguideunderstandingofwhatissuesplayintoanassessmentoffeasibility.

2Thevastmajorityofcoremembershavebeenmenandsothisreportgenerallyreferstotheminthemasculine.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 18

Pros

Can enhancemonitoring capacity of statutory agencies, providing an extra‘pairofeyes’inthecommunity.

Canofferthekindof informalsupportthat isbeyondtheremitofstatutoryagencies.

Byaddressingsocialisolationandlowself‐esteem,Circleshavethepotentialto reduce likelihood of driving offenders underground, which would makeformalsupervisionmoredifficult.

Can empower communities to participate in the management of sexoffending.

Canprovideamechanismofpubliceducationforvolunteersandtheirsocialnetworksaboutthenatureandrealitiesofsexualoffending.

Cons

Criticised as being an attempt to provide statutory supervision ‘on thecheap’;

Volunteer collusion and safety concerns (sex offenders can be highlymanipulativeandsophisticated,andthoseworkingwiththemrequirespecialtrainingandexperience);

Canbedifficulttorecruitanadequatenumberofappropriatevolunteers; Expensiveduetocostofprovidingadequatetrainingandsupervision; DifficulttoisolatetheroleofCOSAinreductionofreoffending; Competingdemandsforcriminaljusticefunding.

MethodologyandResearchActivities1.7 Themethodologyofthisstudywastailoredtoinformpolicydebatesaroundthe feasibility of piloting Circles in Scotland. This involved three main researchactivities.First,wereviewedtheavailableliteratureonCircles.Weprioritisedpeer‐reviewed, independent published research. The evaluativework on Circles is onlynowemerging,however,andourworkwasalsoinformedbysourcesincludingself‐evaluations of Circles projects, project documentation, written evidence, mediasources,andothermaterials.1.8 Second, we interviewed Scottish stakeholders (31 interviews) who haveresponsibilityfor,areinvolvedinorhaverelevantknowledgeofthemanagementofsex offenders in the community. These stakeholders included respondents fromstatutoryagenciesandpublicbodies (police, socialwork, prisons, localauthorities,


www.sccjr.ac.uk 19

MAPPAs,CJAs,ScottishGovernmentpolicyand research)andthevoluntarysector,wherewesoughttheviewsofarangeoforganisationsrepresentingoffenderwork,childprotection,andvictims’rights.Intervieweesalsorepresentedarangeoflevelsof public and private organisations including leaders and policymakers, managersandfrontlineworkers.1.9 Third, we conducted a field visit to the largest English Circles pilot, theHampshireandThamesValleyCirclesofSupportandAccountabilityproject(HTVC).We observed office operations, and interviewed project staff and representativesfrom local statutoryagencies (8 interviews)aswell as spokewithkey respondentsinvolved generally in English Circles efforts (5 interviews). We also conductedinterviews of Circle members (volunteers and offenders) (12 interviews). Thisprovided informationalongthe linesofacasestudyaboutthe logisticalaspectsofrunning Circles, relationshipswith local agencies, and the views of and impact onoffenders and volunteers (detailed information about these research activities canbefoundinAnnexC).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 20

2.IMPLEMENTATIONOFCIRCLESINCANADAANDENGLAND

Canada 2.1 Canadian Circles grew out of an entirely community‐led response to theneedsofaseriousoffenderandtheconcernsofa localcommunityoutragedathispresence:

‘TheCirclesofSupport&Accountability initiativebegan,quitesimply,asaninnovativeresponsetoasinglesetofcircumstances:ahighrisk,repeat,childsexualabuserwasreleasedtothecommunityfromafederalpenitentiary[in1994].Theresponseofthecommunitywasswift–picketing,angrycalls forpolitical intervention, heightened media attention, and 24‐hour policesurveillance.Inresponsetotheoffender’spleasforassistance,aMennonitepastor agreed to gather a group of congregants around him, to offer bothhumanesupportanda realisticaccountability framework.’ (Wilson,PichecaandPrinzo,2005:i)

2.2 AsimilarsituationinanotherMennoniteparishledtothedevelopmentofasecond Circle, after which the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) expressedinterest in developing the concept and introducing pilots. Circles continue to havetheactivesupportoftheCSCwhichhasalsofundedan independentevaluationoftheirwork(Wilson,PichecaandPrinzo,2005).2.3 ThereareseveraldistinctivefeaturesoftheCanadianCircles.Theybeganasacommunity‐led and faith group‐led initiative rather than a top‐down governmentpolicy change. The involvement of faith groups remains a core component ofCanadian Circles and is relevant for understanding the emergence of the EnglishCircles. Canadian Circles deal with high risk offenders who typically are under noformofstatesupervision.Theyfocuson ‘sexoffenderswhohadbeendeemedtoorisky to release early under supervision, and who were therefore released at theabsoluteendpointoftheircustodialsentence,withoutanysupervisionorsupportatall’(Nellis,2008:3).Hence,Circlesprovidesupervisionandsupportintheabsenceofstateinvolvement.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 21

England2.4 In2002, theHomeOfficeprovided initial three‐year funding for threepilotCOSAprojectsandhadintendedtofundafourth:regionalisedpilotsinNorthumbria,Hampshire,ThamesValley,andanationalpilotrunbytheLucyFaithfullFoundation.Althoughonlythepilotproject inThamesValleywasrunbytheQuakers, this faithgroup was instrumental in disseminating information about the work of theCanadianCirclesandlobbyingtheHomeOfficetointroducepilotprojectsintheUK.Thissectionoffersabriefoverviewoftheexperienceofthesepilotsandconcludeswithadiscussion of those factors thatappeared tohavebeenmost salient to theimplementationprocess.Thediscussion reliesheavilyonabriefhistoryofCOSA inthe UK presented in Nellis (2008), and in the case of the Thames Valley pilot, onobservationsandinterviewsbytheSCCJRteam.2.5 AccordingtosourcescitedinNellis(2008),thewillingnessoftheHomeOfficetosponsorCirclesmarksasubstantialshiftfromapreviouspositionthatdiscouragedinvolvement of volunteers working with sex offenders. ‘Recent Home Officeguidancehadstatedthat“inviewofthemanipulationanddenial thatcharacterisemuchsexualoffending, it isgenerallyunsafetodeployvolunteers inworkwithsexoffenders”’(Nellis,2008:4,quotingDrewery,2000).PlanningforthepilotsalsotookplaceamidstthefuroresurroundingthemurderinJuly2000ofeightyearoldSarahPayne by a known paedophile. These points are noteworthy for highlighting theability of the Home Office to re‐examine some basic precepts about the use ofvolunteers and engage constructively with a potentially controversial approach toworkingwithsexoffendersduringaverysensitiveperiod.Interestingly,thefailureoftwoof thepilots,discussedbelow,wasnot fomentedby theexternalpolitical andmediaenvironmentbutbyinternalfactors.

NorthumbriaPilot2.6 Northumberlandappearstohavebeenchosenasapilotsitebecauseofthenovelexistenceofa‘SexualBehaviourUnit’,‘adistinctinteragencybodycomprisingtheForensicPsychiatryServiceoftheNorthumbriaNHSTrust,theNorthumberlandProbationAreaandBarnardos’ (Nellis,2008:8). Theadditional involvementofTheDerwentInitiativecharityinplanningforthepilotledtoaninitial focusonworkingwith learning disabled sex offenders (Id.). The pilot in Northumbria failed at theplanning stage: no business plan was submitted and no funding provided. Circleswere never established in Northumbria despite the presence of a special, multi‐agencybodywell‐placedtoprovideasupportiveinfrastructureforvolunteers’work.There is no obvious explanation why Circles should have failed to take root herecomparedwithotherareas.Nellis(2008)suggeststhatdespitethepresenceoflocal


www.sccjr.ac.uk 22

champions, their influencewasnotabletoovercomeagencyresistance;therewasalso a perception that the most pressing need was for services targeting sexoffenders with severe learning disabilities, a need which was met through othermeans.3

Quaker/ThamesValleyPilot2.7 ThamesValleypresentedwhatcanbedescribedasanaturalchoiceasasiteforaCirclespilot.Thearea iswellknownforitsexperimentswithandopennesstorestorative justice initiatives, and its police and probation departments have longexperienceofpartnership. Inaddition, theQuakershadworkedhard in the regionestablishing linkswithvariousagency stakeholders, settingupa steeringgroup forCOSAinThamesValley,chairedbyTimNewell,thenGovernorofHMPGrendon.Thispaved the way to develop a COSA project run by the Quaker Peace and SocialWitness charity (QPSW, the social action arm of the Quakers). Once HomeOfficefunding for pilots was released, QPSW employed two former senior probationworkers (with experience managing sex offender treatment programmes) toestablish and operate the project. They in turn hired twomore probation officers(also experienced in sex offender treatment) to work for them as CircleCoordinators.Volunteerrecruitmentwasinitiallyaimedatfaithgroups(particularlytheQuakers). TheThamesValleypilotwasable to securebothenoughvolunteersandoffenderreferralstogetanumberofCirclesstartedearly inthefirstperiodofpilot funding. This success at the implementation stage led to a second round ofHomeOfficefunding(foranotherperiodofthreeyears).2.8 Theeffortsof theThamesValleyproject toestablisha relationship of trustandcooperationwithstatutoryagenciesdidnot stopatthe implementationstage.Thisproject inparticularhascontinuallyemphasisedpublicprotectionasaprimarygoal. Towards thisend, thepilotworkedcloselywith localpoliceandprobation tointegrate COSA into the MAPPA process. Assessments of referred offenders arepresented to the MAPPA, which must review and endorse applications before aCircle canbe formed.MAPPAsalso receiveminutesofCirclemeetings, and reviewissuesraisedintheseorbytheCirclesCoordinatorsinreviewingthelevelofriskatwhichanindividualismanaged.Thesepracticesreflectformalprotocolspreparedbythe police liaison to COSA. Police, probation, hostel managers and otherprofessionals also contribute to the volunteer training programme, so there isconfidenceamongagenciesthatallCirclemembersunderstandthecriminal justiceprocessandthelimitsconstrainingthecoremember’smovementsandconduct.TheThamesValleyprojectalsohasnotedthatinseveralcaseswhereacorememberwasrecalledtoprison,theinformationpickedupandreportedbyCirclevolunteerswasthemainorcontributingfactorinthisdecision.Thefactthattherehastodatebeen

3ItshouldbenotedthatthefirstCircleinCanadawassetupforanoffenderwithalearningdisability.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 23

noknownsexualreoffendingbycoremembersinvolvedintheThamesValleyprojectisapointofprideandreinforcesthebeliefofitsstaff,aswellasthecriminaljusticeprofessionalswithwhomtheywork,thatthisisasuccessfulapproach.2.9 One implication of embedding Circles in MAPPA is that unlike in Canadawheremostoffenders inCirclesareunder no formal supervision,almostallof theThamesValleycoremembers(atleastatthetimeoftheirCirclecommencing)areonlicenceoraprobationorder,oractivelyregisteredassexoffenders(entailingpolicemonitoring).2.10 A graphical presentation of information flow and coordination amongparticipants in a Circle in Thames Valley makes clear the crucial and central roleplayedbyCirclesCoordinators(Figure2.1). 4TheCircleCoordinator(CC)actsasthemainpointofcontactbothforCircleMembersandstatutorybodies.NotonlydoestheCChaveresponsibilityforoverseeingtheworkoftheCirclesasawhole–sittingin on meetings, reviewing minutes, monitoring group dynamics – he or she alsomaintains contact individually and separately with the core member and eachvolunteer. The CC liaises with the core member’s Offender Manager to discussrelevant points arising at a meeting, feeds information into the MAPPA whennecessary, reports to the Project Manager, supports the efforts of Probationassessmentofoffenders,andisthefirstportofcall,bothforthoseintheCircleandthoseresponsible foroffendersupervisionoutsideof it.One importantexampleoftheCC’swork ismanagingtheprocesswhenaCirclediscoversan issueofconcernaboutacoremember’sthoughtsorbehaviour.Such issuesultimatelycouldbethebasisofa recall toprisonand so theCCworkswithCircleMembers, consultswiththeprojectmanagerandoffendermanagerindeterminingwhethertheissuewillbe‘contained’ within the Circle or referred beyond it to the police, probation orMAPPA.

4ThefigureaimstoisolateinformationflowaroundaCircleandsonotallpointsofinteractionandbodiesinvolvedinCircles

arerepresentedhere.Forexample,ifavolunteerfelttherewasanimminentthreatofharm,thefirstpointofcontactwouldbe

thepolice;also,prisonsplayakeyroleinCirclesbutarenotincludedintheillustrationintheinterestofclarityandbrevity.In

addition,the‘ProjectManager’titlewillchangeto‘ChiefExecutive’whentheprojectachievesitscharitystatusinApril2008.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 24

Figure1:HampshireandThamesValleyCircleProjectOrganisation

2.11 The CC forms the hub of the overall Circle operation, revealing that whileCOSAisanapproachthatisfuelledbythepowerofvolunteers,itisalso,inthecaseofThamesValley,one that isdirectedand supportedbya substantialprofessionalorganisation. 2.12 HTVC personnel estimate their current pool of volunteers at around 80‐90people,andthereareapproximately20‐25activeCirclesrunningintheirregionsatanygiventime.

HampshirePilot2.13 The Hampshire pilot was set up as a partnership between HampshireProbation and the Hampton Trust, a locally‐based voluntary organisation/charitywhichworkswith offenders. The sitemay also have been considered appropriategiven thatHampshireencompassesAlbanyPrisonon the IsleofWight, a specialistprison for sexoffenders.TheHomeOffice fundingpaid forahalf‐timemember ofstafftocoordinatetheCirclesproject,whichincludedrecruitmentofvolunteersandinterfacingwithagencies.UnliketheThamesValleyinitiative,thefundedpostwentto a person with a strong background in volunteer organisation rather than inprobation. Even so, volunteer recruitmentwas identifiedasamajordifficulty, andonekeydifferencebetweenthepilotswasthatrecruitmenteffortsinHampshiredidnot target faith communities (Nellis, 2008). As the coordinator came from avoluntarysectorratherthanacriminaljusticebackground,localpoliceandprobation

MAPPA

Police Probation Mgmt

Offender Manager

Project Manager

Circle Coordinator

Volunteers

Core Member


www.sccjr.ac.uk 25

agencies did not have established prior contact with the co‐ordinator, as was thecaseinThamesValley.This,combinedwiththefactthatthepostwasonlyhalftime,severely limitedtheabilitytobuilduptrustand spendtimeactivelyengagingwithlocalagenciesandprofessionalstodevelopsupportfortheinitiative.2.14 Twoor threeCircleswere formed inHampshireduring the initialperiodofpilot funding, but this was widely recognised as inadequate to justify furtherinvestment.Attheendofthefirstpilotperiod,ongoingdifficultiesrequiredThamesValleyCOSAtotakeovertheCirclesthathadbeenstarted,andnowHampshirehasbeen formally amalgamated into the ThamesValley pilot (hereafter referred to astheHampshireandThamesValleyCirclesof SupportandAccountability,orHTVC).The HTVC project then secured a full‐time Circle Coordinator post for Hampshire,and thiswas filledbya secondedHampshireprobation officerwhohadworked inAlbany Prison on resettlement of sex offenders andwhohad also had experienceprovidingsexoffendertreatment.

LucyFaithfullFoundationPilot2.15 TheLucyFaithfullFoundation(LFF)setupthefirstCircles inBritainafter itsdirectorbecameaware, via theQuakers’efforts,of theworkhappening inCanada(Nellis, 2008). COSA was seen in this case as an opportunity to provide post‐treatment support and supervision of men coming out of the LFF’s WolvercoteClinic’s residential treatment programme for sex offenders. The fact that theWolvercoteClinicwas inSurreyand its clientswouldbe returning to communitiesthroughout the UK, possibly with no support whatsoever, required an entirelydistinctiveorganisationalapproachtorunningCirclesthatwasnationalincoverage.LFF consultants travelled to communities where an offender would be settling toworkwith localagenciesandcommunitymembers (quiteoften faithcommunities)to establish a local Circle. The transaction costs of such an approach wereconsiderable.‘Findingvolunteerswassometimesdifficult,andineachareaLFFhadtowinoverpoliceandprobationanew,rarelyaneasytask’(Nellis,2008:9).2.16 The residential unit of the Wolvercote Clinic has closed, but LFF’s CircleprojectremainsactiveandasuccessfulcaseofCirclesimplementation.LFFrespondsto an invitation from local agencies interested in setting up a Circle. It sendsconsultants to the area to work with these agencies, recruiting volunteers andcoordinatingwiththelocalMAPPAprocess.2.17 This ‘go anywhere’ model, despite the challenges of having to start fromscratch in each new area where it is invited to set up a Circle, offers anorganisationalmodelthatcanbenationalincoverage.Itmightalsobeanapproachsuited for managing the particular complexities of working with sex offenders inruralcommunities.A large, locallybasedCirclesoperationmightnotbe feasibleor


www.sccjr.ac.uk 26

desirablegiventhehigherprofile itwouldhave insparselypopulatedareas. Inthissituation,a centraloffice inan urban locationwith theability to offer site‐specificCircledevelopmenttodistantareasmightmitigatethisproblem.

KeyImplementationFactors2.18 CirclesinCanadaandthepilotsinEnglandarenowwell‐established,andthesuccessfulandre‐configuredEnglishpilots(i.e.HTVCandLucyFaithfullFoundation)are continuing to receive support from theMinistry of Justice. As a result of theEnglishexperience,recentHomeOfficeworkhasendorsedtheCOSAmodel.First,aqualitative study of operational practices for sex offenders managed at MAPPALevels 2 and 3 recommended that MAPPAs ‘expand availability of longer‐termintervention strategies, e.g. Circles of Support and Accountability’ (Wood andKemshall, 2007: 4). Second, the Review of the Protection of Children from SexOffenders report (Home Office, 2007: 14) noted COSA ‘is considered to be aninnovative way of monitoring’ offenders. In concluding this chapter, we note thefactors thatappeared tohave some influenceon thecourseof implementation ofCOSA projects. This is an impressionistic inventory given that it mainly relies onsecondarysources.Athoroughexaminationofimplementationissueswouldrequiremoreintensivestudyofallthepilotsitesandtheactorsinvolvedinthem.2.19 Responsiveness of COSA to the perceived problem. NorthumberlandseemedtofounderoverdisagreementsabouttheappropriatefocusofCOSA–onallhigh risk sex offenders or specifically on thosewith identified learning disabilities.This issuewas eventually resolved in favour of the latter, and addressed throughexistingstructures.TheLucyFaithfullFoundationdevelopedamodelthatrespondsto invitations from local agencies anywhere in the UK, allowing services to flowwhereverdemandarises.ThamesValley’slocallyembeddedapproachcanallowforregularadaptationtochangesinlocalneeds,andalsocreatesasenseof‘ownership’amonglocalstakeholders.2.20 Local openness to voluntary sector assistance with serious offenders.Thames Valley and Hampshire were both areas where the voluntary sectorpartnership was seen to be consistent with criminal justice goals and practices.However, this will be a continuing challenge for LFF with its range of projectlocations, although one that may ease as its work around the country becomesincreasinglywellknown.2.21 Strong relationships between COSA and local agencies. The strongrelationship between HTVC and local agencies in Thames Valley and Hampshire is


www.sccjr.ac.uk 27

the product of assiduous efforts by HTVC personnel in working with, makingpresentationstoandinvolvingagencypersonnelinCOSAtocreateawarenessofitswork. A significant factor in establishing basic trust between HTVC personnel andlocalagencies is theprofessionalexperienceofHTVCworkers inprobationandsexoffendertreatment.Thiscreatedalevelofcredibilitythatwouldbeverydifficultforsomeonewithoutthisbackgroundtoachieve.2.22 Good relations and partnerships among local agencies. Thames ValleyprovidedahospitablesettingforanewinitiativelikeCOSApartlybecausethereisalong tradition of partnership‐working between probation and the police in thatregion.ThiseasedthepathforcoordinatingtheworkofCOSAbyavoidingtheneedtodevelopsuchpartnershipsfromtheoutset.2.23 Adequate resourcing of infrastructure and agency participation. A widelyrecognisedlessonoftheHampshireexperiencewasthatahalf‐timeposttorecruit,coordinatevolunteersandestablishlinkstoagencieswasinsufficient.2.24 Staffing COSA organisation with people who have extensive professionalexperience working with sex offenders. This has already been mentioned, butdeserves separate identification as a factor of successful implementation, andreminds us that COSA cannot accurately be characterised entirely as a volunteer‐based initiative. The professional background of Thames Valley staff not onlyreassured local professionals that project personnel understood the risks andparticularchallengesofworkingwithsexoffenders,butalsomeantthattheywerepersonallyknowntomanyinthepoliceandprobation.2.25 Integration of COSA into statutory processes such asMAPPA. This was arelevant factor forThamesValleythat institutionalisedthismodel’s focusonpublicprotection, although it is not a factor that affected, for example, the successfulimplementationof theoriginalMennoniteCircles. LFFalsoworkswithMAPPAandwillnotsetupCircleswithouttheiragreement.2.26 Substantial investment in training, both prior to volunteering and as anongoingpartofthevolunteerwork.ThamesValley’ssuccessinimplementationhasbeenenhancedbyinvestingheavilyinthedesignanddeliveryofitstrainingpackage.ThisissueisconsideredinmoredetailinChapter5.2.27 Flexibility and responsiveness in establishing Circles. The ‘go anywhere’modeloftheLucyFaithfullFoundationallowsforaCircletobesetupinanypartoftheUK.2.28 Targeted recruitment of volunteers.This seemed to be another importantdifferencebetweentheoriginalHampshirepilotandtheoneinThamesValley.The


www.sccjr.ac.uk 28

latter focused initially on Quaker groups (and has since expanded its recruitmentefforts substantially) andwas able to secure an adequate supply of volunteers toinitiatemultipleCircles.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 29

3.DemandandTargeting–WhichOffendersandWhy3.1 ThischapterconsidershowdemandforaservicelikeCOSAcanbeassessed,andcriteriaforparticipatinginaCircleasaCoreMember.

LevelofRisk3.2 COSA is a service designed for an exceedingly small butworrying group ofpeople.Therelativesizeofthesexoffendergroupwithinagivenpopulationwouldbesmall,butCOSAtargetsanevensmallersub‐groupwithinthis:thosewhopresentthehighestriskofharmandthehighestsocialneeds.Thiscomplicatesthe issueofdemandbecauseonecannotsayaspecificnumberofoffenderswouldbeminimallynecessary to make a Circles project viable. The severity of risk that an individualpresents is an important consideration,and so itwouldbepossible that resourcesforCircleswouldbeallocatedtosupporttheirdevelopmentinareaswithrelativelyfewoffenderswhohaveademonstratedhighlevelofrisk.TheoriginalCirclewasaresponse to just this situation: a single individual in a community requiringassistance.3.3 Two indicators in Scotland of very serious offenders whose supervisionpresents major concerns are those receiving 24 hours a day / 7 days a weekmonitoring through Intensive Support Packages (ISPs) and those under Orders forLifelongRestriction(OLRs).OLRshavebeenavailabletoHighCourtjudgessinceJune2006andare issuedonthebasisofariskassessmentthatan individualpresentsahighriskofseriousviolentorsexualoffending.TherecanbeoverlapbetweenOLRand ISP groups. Individuals on ISPs, however, are typically accorded this level ofmonitoringbecauseoftheirpastperformanceinprogrammes:theymayhavefailedor refused treatment, chronically denied their offences or risk, or otherwise beassessed to be difficult to engage in developing internal controls. These criteriawould tend to exclude them from participation in most COSA operations, whichgenerally reject chronic deniers and may require prior successful completion oftreatment.Thesearenotsurprisingcriteriagiventhevoluntarynatureofthemodel;withoutawillingnesstoengage,anoffenderisunlikelytodesiretheformationofaCircleinthefirstplace.3.4 InCanadaand theUK,whileCircles targetshigh riskoffenders, the specificmeasure of high risk varies by project. For example, the Hampshire and ThamesValleyproject(HTVC)specificallytargetsoffendersmanagedatMAPPALevels2and3(italsoperformsaseparateassessmentandtakesintoaccountRM2000scores).A


www.sccjr.ac.uk 30

recentstudypublishedbyaforensicpsychologistwithThamesValleyProbationandHTVCprojectstaffpresentedadetailedcaseanalysisof16coremembersregisteredwith the project between November 2002 and May 2006 (Bates, Saunders andWilson, 2007). Bates et al’s review confirmed that all 16 core members weremanagedatMAPPALevel2(n=10)or3(n=6).TheyalsoreviewedtheRM2000ratingofthese16coremembersnotingthatmorethanhalfwererated‘high’or‘veryhigh’risk(n=9),nearlyone‐third(n=5)hada‘medium’levelofrisk,andonlytwoofthe16wereratedbyRM2000aspresentinga‘low’risk(Id.).Table1belowprovidessomecontext forthepopulationsHTVCworkswith,summarisingthenumbersofMAPPALevels2and3inthetworegions.Figure2:MAPPALevels2and3inHampshire(2006‐7)andThamesValley(2005‐6)

• • Level 2

• Level 3

• Total

• Hampshire • 801 • 50 • 851 • Thames

Valley • 457 • 28 • 485

• Total • 1,258 • 78 • 1,336 Source:HampshireMAPPAAnnualReport,2006‐7;ThamesValleyMAPPAAnnualReport,2005‐6

3.5 InCanada,Circlestargetsexualoffenderswhoarecomingoutoftheprisonor criminal justice system and would otherwise be receiving no other form ofsupervision.IntheirmatchedstudyofCanadiansexoffenders,Wilsonetal(2007c)noted that for the group participating in COSA, the STATIC‐99 (estimates risk ofsexualandviolentoffending)andRRASOR(estimatesriskofsexualoffending)scoreswerehigheronaveragethanforthoseinthematchedcomparisongroup.5ThisagainsuggeststhatCOSAtargetspeoplewhoareatthemoreseriousendoftheriskscale.3.6 TotalsizesofgroupsmanagedatdifferentMAPPAlevelsarenotyetavailableforScotland,althoughitisworthmentioningthattherearearound3,600peopleonthe Violent and Sex Offenders Register (ViSOR).6 SCCJR interviews of Scottishprofessionals working directly with sex offenders were consistent in claimingnumbers and levels of riskwere high enough towarrantmore services that couldenhancemonitoringandintegrationcapacity.3.7 RespondentsinScotlandframeddemandforaservicesuchasCOSAintermsof how it would fill existing gaps in management of high risk individuals in thecommunity. As one respondent put it: “practitioners are constantly looking foraddedsupport,monitoring,[and]integrationforhighriskoffenderswhichatpresent

5Thereportedfindingsdidnotincludethespecificscoresobtained.

6Althoughreferredtoasa‘register’,usersaretrainedtounderstanditmoreasanassessmentandmanagementsystem.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 31

can be very difficult to access due to funding pressures and access criteria forservices”(Interview15).ThiscommentwasmadeinsupportofdevelopingCOSAinScotland.Thebeliefthatthereisacontinuingneedforserviceswhichcanbeofferedtoagroupwhichisdifficulttoworkwithforanumberofreasonswasacommononeamongrespondents.Thismaybeanendemicfeatureofworkinginthisfieldratherthan a specific statement of demand for COSA, however. Many respondentsidentified ‘lackofresources’asthegreatestchallengetotheirworkonthe issueofsexual offending. By ‘resources’, interviewees included money, personnel andappropriateandaccessibleservices.COSAmightbeanespeciallyappropriatemeansof addressing this gap in that it focuses on the community integration andmonitoring of individuals, which also emerged as a strong concern of Scottishstakeholders. Most respondents felt Scotland’s management of sex offenders hasmadegreatstridesduetotherollingoutof commontools forriskassessmentandmanagement,introductionofMAPPAs,andtheexistenceofanaccreditedtreatmentprogramme for sexoffenders. Some respondents commented that theseadvancescan only be sustained if there are adequate systems of reintegration and supportwhen offenders go back into communities (Chapter 4 provides the mainpresentationoftheviewsofScottishstakeholders.)

OtherEligibilityCriteria3.8 ThesecondfactorinadditiontoriskofharmthatisconsistentacrossCirclesprojects is social isolation. Social isolation isa typical feature of life for individualswhose offences are very disturbing, especially when the victim is a child and notunusuallyalsoarelativeorfamilyfriend.Inthesecasestheoffenderoftenwill losehis support network of family and friends. The concern for justice professionals isthat theeffectsof social isolation,whichmayalsobecompoundedbycommunityharassment or vigilantism,will drive an offender underground away from servicesand supervision and into networks of similar individuals. There is also a risk ofsuicide.3.9 A third factor is an offender’s willingness to engage with volunteers. As avoluntary project, core members are free to seek a Circle or not, although coremembers in theHTVCproject commit toaminimumof sixmonths.ThevoluntaryaspectofCOSAtheoreticallymeansthatindividualsaremorelikelytoenterintotheprogramme with a willingness to engage because they have freely chosen toparticipate. HTVC project staff as well as the agencies with whom they work,includingprobationand thepolice,all cite ‘willingness toengage’asan importantcriteriaforparticipation.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 32

3.10 OneHTVCvolunteerfeltthatacorememberinarecentCirclewasnotreallyinterested inworking on his issues and left as soon as theminimumperiod of sixmonths had elapsed, showing the difficulty of perfect screening for an offender’sgenuine interest. Another volunteer noted that in their experience the only twoCirclesthathadbrokendownwerewherethecorememberwasayoungeroffender(early 20s); in one of these instances the individual also had severe learningdisabilities and substantial difficulties with social interaction. COSA is a long‐termapproach,however,and thecase studies included inHTVC’s interim (QPSW,2003)andthree‐year (QPSW,2005)reportsshowhow theprocessofbreakingthroughacoremember’sreluctancetotrustvolunteersandtoconfronttheiractsandthoughtpatterns can take months or even years. Willingness to make a long‐termcommitment toaCirclemaynotbea stricteligibility criterionbut couldprovideagaugeforestimatingthesuccessoftheapproachforanygivenindividual.3.11 Asummaryofeligibilitycriterianotedintheliterature,inobservationsoftheHTVC project and interviews of HTVC staff and volunteers is below. It should benotedthatnoneofthesefactorsaloneoperatetoautomaticallyincludeorexcludeaparticipant,butaretreatedasthemostrelevantfactorsinmakingadecision.Casesareassessedindividually,however,andspecificcircumstancesuniquetoanoffenderwillaffectanassessment.

Factorssupportinginclusion: highriskofreoffending,highriskofseriousharm highprofile lackoforinsufficientsupervisionstructureinplace highdegreeofsocialisolation lowself‐esteem highneedsandminimalornopro‐socialsupportincommunity expressedinterestinwantingtochange

Factorssupportingexclusion: psychopathic chronicdenier majorlearningordevelopmentaldisability youth,immaturity

3.12 Ageanddisabilityarenotautomaticexclusioncriteria,buthavebeennotedasfactorswhichhaveaffectedthelongevityofpastCirclesandwhichwouldrequirespecial attention for matching volunteers with a core member (e.g. recruitingvolunteerswith specific experienceworkingwith the learning disabled). Drug andalcohol issues are mentioned neither as considerations for inclusion or exclusion,andtheycouldaffectboththepositivedecision toformaCircle (toprovideadded


www.sccjr.ac.uk 33

supervisionandsupportinovercomingtheseissues)ortoendone(failureofacoremember to address addiction, e.g. consistently showing up tomeetings under theinfluence).

PerspectivesofScottishProfessionals3.13 Most of the Scottish stakeholders had heard of the Circles concept but didnotuniformlyhavegreatknowledgeofhowitworkedinpractice(moreseniorsocialwork/local authority respondents did appear to know a significant amount aboutCircles).PerhapsthisiswhyrespondentsweredividedaboutwhetherCOSAshouldtargethighorlowerriskindividuals.Thosewhofelthighriskoffendersshouldbethefocuseithertendedtohavemoreknowledgeoftheapproachormadethiscase intermsofthelogicthat‘resourcesshouldfollowrisk’.3.14 A minority of professionals stated that social isolation does not appear tothemtobeadominantfeatureofthegroup,notingthatthetypicallysophisticatedmanipulationandobfuscationskillsofsexualoffendersmeansthattheyoftenhavenumeroussocialtiesandahighlevelofintegration(e.g.areemployed).Thiswasnotauniformview,noronethatcaneasilybebrokendownalongprofessionallines,andtherewasstrongersupportfortheclaimthatsocial isolationisacommonproblemin themanagementofhigh risk sexoffenders. Some respondentsnoted thatevenwhen an offender has social ties, such as to family members, they may still be‘isolated’ in terms of their capacity to find support relating to addressing theiroffending behaviour: they may for instance be unable or unwilling to share theirthoughts and concerns about their sexual offending with family members, thusexperiencingpressurestokeeptheirbehavioursecret.3.15 The frequency with which accommodation was raised as an issue formanagingthe integrationofthisgroupestablishesthat integration is indeedarealconcernsincehousingdifficultymayattesttoanumberofrisk factors for isolationincluding community opposition, lack of employment, alcohol or drug issues, poorfamilial and social support; it may also increase risk of offending by putting sexoffendersintoaccommodationwithorinproximitytoeachother.3.16 Additional eligibility criteria mentioned in interviews complemented theviewsofthosealreadyatworkinCirclesprojects.Thesemainlyweretheexclusionofindividuals rating high on psychopathy tests and chronic deniers. Again, bothpresenceofseverelearningdisabilityandalcohol/drugproblemswerementionedasissuesthataggravatedtheinherentdifficultyofworkingwithsexoffenders.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 34

3.17 Some respondents suggested participation should be voluntary otherwiseCircleswouldnotwork.Anoffenderwhoparticipatesinordertosecure‘points’ontheir record may only superficially or disingenuously contribute to a Circle. Somerespondents felt it should be offered to thosewho arewilling to undertake thempre‐release or upon release from prison. Still others thought that makingparticipation mandatory or otherwise creating strong formal incentives toparticipatewouldnotundermineCOSA’ssuccess,believingthatitcouldworkwithinawiderrangeofsentencingoptionsincludingasaconditionofprobation.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 35

4.STAKEHOLDERPERSPECTIVESONSCOTTISHINFRASTRUCTURE4.1 While there are similarities and common arrangements throughout theUKformanagementofsexoffenders,Scotlandhas itsownsystemofcriminal lawandcriminal justice and possesses many distinctive features that would affectimplementation of new initiatives and policies in this area. This chapter reviewsrecentdevelopments inScottishpolicyandpracticewithregardtomanagementofsex offenders, presents perceptions of criminal justice practitioners about existingneeds and their views on COSA, and explores the voluntary sector dimension.PerspectivesonCOSAareoriented towards theconcept given the fact thatCircleshavenotbeenofficiallyadoptedhereand so therewasnopossibilityof collectingviews from Scottish stakeholders based on practical experience of theirimplementation.

PolicyandPracticeDevelopments4.2 One reason for delaying action on the early calls to introduce Circles toScotlandwasthattheseweremadeeitheratthestartoforpriortomajornationalchangestothemanagementofsexoffenders.Theseincludedthe:

ReportoftheExpertPanelonSexOffending(2001,referredtohereafterastheCosgroveReport);

ImplementationofMulti‐AgencyPublicProtectionArrangements(MAPPA); Reorganisation of local criminal justice administration through newly

establishedCommunityJusticeAuthorities(CJAs); EstablishmentofaRiskManagementAuthoritywhichwouldprovidesupport

forimprovedriskassessmentandmanagementpracticesinScotland; National roll‐out of the Violent and Sexual Offenders Register (ViSOR)

coveringandlinkingalllocalauthoritiesinScotland; Nationalroll‐outofcommontoolsofriskassessmentandmanagement;and Development of an accredited group‐work treatment programme for sex

offenders.4.3 Underlying these developments is the recognition that sex offenders havebeen identifiedas requiring specialprovision (Kemshall, 2002:5).Asa result, therehavebeen substantial changes to thecoordinationofagenciesand resourceswithimplicationsforhowandwhetheranapproachlikeCOSAwouldfitwithreconfiguredandenhancedservices.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 36

4.4 TheCosgroveReporthasprovidedaseriesof recommendationsrelatingto,amongotherthings,communityandpersonalsafetyandprevention,riskassessmentandmonitoring of sex offenders. Cosgrove emphasised the need formulti‐agencycooperation, increasedvigilance,monitoringandenforcement.More specifically, itrecommended developing a corporate approach to the management of sexoffendersinthecommunity(Recommendation10),developingprotocolstoprovidea framework for information‐sharing and jointworking (Recommendation64), andspecialist intervention programmes for those sex offenders who are subject tosupervisioninthecommunity.4.5 Significantly,Cosgrovemadecleartheneedtodevelopinitiativesatthelocallevel in an overall strategy of reducing sexual offending. Its Recommendation 22states:

‘Alllocalauthoritycriminaljusticesocialworkservicesshouldmakeavailablespecialist interventionprogrammesforthosesexoffenderswhoaresubjecttosupervisioninthecommunityandaredeemedsuitable.Allcriminaljusticesocial work services should review the skill mix of staff involved in themanagementofsexoffendersandmakeformalarrangementswithadjacentauthoritiestoensurethatspecificsexoffenderprogrammesareavailableascloseaspossibletotheoffender’sdomicile.’

4.6 Other recommendationsencourage strategies for improvingawarenessandproviding education to parents and carers about protecting children from sexualabuse.TakentogetherwithRecommendation22,Cosgrovemightbeunderstoodaschampioningimprovedcommunityawarenessandinvolvementinthemanagementofsexoffenders.Thishasbeenan interpretationpromotedbyCirclesadvocates inScotland. The Report’s Recommendation 23, which also refers to the communityaspect of managing sex offenders, states that: ‘Local authorities and the ScottishExecutive should produce an agreed “core” intervention manual for use with sexoffendersinthecommunitybasedoncognitivebehaviouralprinciples’(emphasisinoriginal), which led subsequently to the accredited Community Sex OffenderGroupworkprogramme.4.7 AsecondmajorsetofchangeswerebroughtintobeingviatheManagementof Offenders (Scotland) Act (2005), which aimed to further strengthen themanagementofsexoffenders.UnderthisAct, thepolice, localauthoritiesandSPSweregivenastatutoryfunctionto jointlyestablisharrangements forassessingandmanagingtheriskposedbysexoffendersandcertainviolentoffenders,includingthesharing of information.Health Services are included as a responsible authority for‘mentally disordered offenders’ who fall within the group of sexual or violentoffenderscoveredbytheprovisions.Voluntarysectoragencies,specialisinginwork


www.sccjr.ac.uk 37

withoffenders, arealso included in theduty to cooperate inarrangementswheretheyprovideservicesto,ordeliverservicesonbehalfof,theresponsibleauthoritiesintheestablishmentandimplementationofthejointarrangements.4.8 Themodel for the delivery of the joint arrangements, known as theMulti‐Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), have four core functions:identifying MAPPA offenders; sharing relevant information among those agenciesinvolvedintheassessmentofrisk;assessingtheriskofseriousharm;andmanagingthat risk. The eight CJAs provide the infrastructure within which theMAPPAs sit.EachMAPPA isresponsible forreportingannuallyonperformancethroughtheCJAto theNational Advisory Body onOffenderManagement that aims to shape long‐term national strategy to achieve the reduction in reoffending. The 2005 Actprovidesforthedutytoco‐operatetobeunderpinnedbyaMemorandumtoensurethat there is a clear and agreed understanding by all involved of their roles andresponsibilities.Thememorandumissupportedbyprotocolsonsharinginformation.TheScottishMAPPAarenotentirelyidenticaltotheMAPPAsysteminEnglandandWales; one important difference is that south of the border, there is a statutoryrequirementoflaymemberparticipationinMAPPAmeetings.4.9 Theestablishmentof theCJAsat the same timeasMAPPAmayhavebeenonereasonforthisdifferenceinthatCJAscreatedanew,locallybasedinfrastructurethatcouldbemoreresponsivetolocalissuescomparedwithcentraladministrationof resources. Somehave contrasted Scotland’s preference for the CJAmodelwiththe apparent trend south of the border towards greater centralisationmanifest inthe amalgamation of probation and prison services into the National OffenderManagementService(NOMS).ThismayreflectamoregenerallysupportivepoliticalenvironmentwithinScotlandforcommunity‐basedservicesanddecisionmaking,adispositionthatsitswellwiththeprinciplesguidingtheCirclesmodel.4.10 TheestablishmentoftheRMAin2003andtheintroductionofnewcommonriskassessmenttools,suchasRM2000(anactuarialscreeningtool), theStableandAcute instrument (dynamic risk assessment), and others were further steps inattempting to standardise approaches to risk assessment and management andmake them more consistent. ViSOR will also allow for greater consistency andcoverage.UnlikesimilareffortsinEnglandandWales,ViSORhasgoneliveandlinksup information on sex offenders in all local authorities, providing responsibleagencieswithcompletecoverageofScotland.ThismightbeconsideredthekindofinformationsafetynetthatcouldbuildupconfidenceinpilotingavoluntaryprojectlikeCOSA.4.11 Finally, in Scotland, the emphasis on the ideal of rehabilitation has beenretainedwithintheprovisionsoftheSocialWork(Scotland)Act1968althoughwithincreasingemphasisgiventopublicprotectionandcommunitysafetyinrecentyears


www.sccjr.ac.uk 38

(McNeill,2005).Thishasledtoadualfocusofinterventionsaimedatthepromotionofrehabilitationwhilereducingharm.While libertymayberestrictedasnecessary,ongoing emphasis is given to engaging the offender in a process of change (RMA,2007).Thus while supervision and monitoring are distinct, there is often someoverlapbetweenthetwo.Thisagainmarksacontrastwiththeprobationservice inEngland andWales,which has tended to prioritise, at least at themanagerial andpolicymakinglevels,apublicprotectionmission.4.12 Giventhedualprioritiesinsexoffendermanagement(publicprotectionandoffenderrehabilitation)andrecentdevelopmentsinlegislationandpractice,Circlescan potentially be seen as fittingwithin bothmanagement of risk and promotingpro‐socialchangeintheoffender.Scotland’ssustainedsupportfortherehabilitativeand reintegrative functions of criminal justice social work could cut both ways intermsofthedesirabilityofCOSA.Ontheonehand,COSAmightappealmostinjustthoseplaceswhereprobationhaslargelybeenstrippedofitsreintegrativerole,the‘befriending’functionofthetraditionalprobationofficer,becauseitisabletoofferservicesno longerwithin the remitof the professions.On theotherhand,COSA’stwo‐pronged aspiration to both support and hold accountable appears to fit wellwiththedualaimsofcriminaljusticesocialworkinScotland.

ViewsonCurrentManagementofSexOffenders4.13 This section reports on the perspectives of Scottish professionals from allsectors responsible for the management of sex offenders. The sample has beendescribedinourmethodology.Thediscussionhighlightsthemainareasofconsensusabout sex offender management and about Circles, but we also point out wherethere is a contrasting trend of opinion. Despite the diverse range of stakeholdersinterviewedforthisproject,therewasahighlevelofconsensusacrosssectorsaboutthepotentialsofandconcernsaboutCircles.4.14 There was also strong consistency in views about the strengths of andchallengesfacingexistingsystemsofmanagingsexoffenders.Intermsofstrengthsof thecurrent system formanaging sexoffenders, theassessmentofMAPPAswasoverwhelmingly positive, although there were a few voices of dissent. In generaltherewasstrongsupportthatthisandotherdevelopmentsareeffectiveat:

Encouragingmulti‐agencypartnershipworking Improvinginformationsharing Improvingriskassessmenttools Achievinghighlevelofconsistencyandstandardisation

4.15 Thetwobiggestchallengesintheviewsofstakeholdersare:


www.sccjr.ac.uk 39

Improvedmonitoring structures and technologies do notmean supervision

andmanagementofoffendersisorevercanbeperfect;and, Themost pressinggap in services is the lack ofpost‐treatment support for

sociallyisolatedoffenders.4.16 Despiteadvances,orpossibly in somecasesbecauseof them, stakeholderssharedconcernsaboutthebiggestchallengesfacingprofessionalsworkingwithsexoffenders.Managingpublicexpectationscanbeverydifficult.Thereisinconsistencyinwhatisgenerallyunderstoodbyday‐to‐daysupervisionandinterventionintermsof actual contact with the offender; agencies cannot provide 24/7 monitoring,although the public may feel this is what is or should be happening. It is also ofcourseimpossibletoguaranteethatreoffendingwillneverhappen,ortoprotectthepublicentirelyagainstharmfulbehaviour.Intervieweesreportedthat‘accountability’is currently achieved when the police and social workers visit offenders, but inbetween times an offender’s activities are largely unknown, unless they reoffend.Respondents from different agencies and organisations pointed out that if anoffenderisactivelyregisteredonViSOR,thisentailscheckinginwiththelocalpoliceonce a week, which is very different from providing meaningful integrationassistance or investigating concerning behaviour. Stakeholders noted thatsupervision andmonitoring is often difficult becausemany offenders resent beingsupervised. It is particularly challenging when dealing with an offender who is indenialabouttheiroffendingbehaviour.4.17 Although new risk assessment tools are believed to provide for greateraccuracy and refinement in the identification of high‐risk offenders, they arerecognised as having their limitations and some respondents questioned whethertheycouldbesufficientinstrumentsforassessingriskontheirown,orwhethertheyneedtobecombinedwithprofessionaljudgementwhichshouldhaveacapacitytooverrideconclusionsbasedonmetrics.Inviewofoneoftherespondents,thereare‘lowrisk’offenders(assessedaslowrisk)whogoontocommitveryseriouscrimes.Thiswasnotan isolatedcomment,andothersalsoexpressed someversionof theidea that ‘low riskdoesn’talwaysmean low risk’. Thismay reflect issuesover riskassessmenttools–useandtraining inthecommoninstruments isstillunderway–but it may also reflect perceptions about the nature of sexual offending. As onerespondentnoted,someofthemostserioussexualoffenceshavebeencommittedbythosewithoutanyormuchhistoryofoffending.4.18 Thekeyproblemforoffendersinthesystem,asnotedbyrespondents,islackof post‐treatment support for socially isolated sex offenders. Many respondentsemphasised the limitations of statutory support consisting of weekly social worksupervisionorcheck‐inswiththelocalpolice.Itwasnotedthat:


www.sccjr.ac.uk 40

Social workers and the police only perform the supervision/monitoringfunctionsonaweeklybasisandaretypicallyunabletoprovidewidersupportevenwheretheywantto;

Itisunclearwhetherwiderneedsarebeingmetornotbecausesexoffendersmaynotdisclosetheirparticularneedsandissues;

There is a lack of appropriate housing that suits the particular needs of anoffenderandtakesaccountoftheissuesofrisk;

Social isolation and loneliness were considered factors that could triggerreoffendingbehaviouraswellasharmtoselves.

PerspectivesontheCirclesConcept

AwarenessandSupportforCircles4.19 Nearly all interviewees for this research had heard of Circles and werefamiliar with the general idea that they use community volunteers to providesupporttooffenders.ThosewithsomebutminimalknowledgeofCirclesgenerallythought of them as a ‘support’, ‘mentoring’ or ‘befriending’ service. RespondentswhohadmoreknowledgeofCOSA,typicallybecausetheyhadheardapresentationaboutthemataprofessionalconferenceorwerepartofafaithgrouporganisationinvolved in Circles, displayed awareness of the accountability function. ThosewiththeleastknowledgeofCirclesassumeditwasanapproachforthelowrisk,whilethemoreknowledgeablewereawarethattheytargethighriskoffenders.TherewasbiasinpartsoftheinterviewsampletowardsthosemostlikelytohaveheardsomethingaboutCirclesbecause somecontactsweregenerated from themembership listofthe Steering Group for Circles in Scotland7, but this was not always the case; forexample,socialworkrespondentswereselectedfromageneralcallforparticipation.Therewas, however, consistency of views among both those contacted based onSteering Group involvement and pulled in from untargeted selection. Both thoseparticipating in or aware of the SteeringGroup and thosewith no SteeringGroupinvolvement expressed support for the concept of Circles. It is important todistinguish support for an idea from unqualified support for the practicalimplementation of that idea; there were numerous issues about how such anapproachwouldworkinpractice,discussedbelow.

7TheSteeringGroupforCirclesinScotlandwassetupbygroupsadvocatingtheiruse.Theyinvitedrelevantstatutoryagencies

andthegovernmenttojointhegroup,andnowhavemembershipfromacrosstherangeofpublicbodies.However,agencies

mayhavejoinedtheSteeringGroupinordertokeepa‘watchingbrief’allowingthemtofollowdevelopments,anditwouldnot

beaccuratetoequatemembershipofthisgroupwithsupportfortheinitiative.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 41

ConcernsaboutCircles4.20 Themajorconcernamongstakeholdersistheuseofvolunteerstoworkwithsexoffenders.TheScottishstakeholderswereconcernedaboutvolunteers’abilitytorecogniseandmaintainappropriateboundaries.Developingacloserelationshipwiththecoremembercouldlead,intheviewofsome,toprioritisingfriendshipovertheobjectivesoftheCircle.Thisinturncouldresultincollusionincludinginappropriatesharing of information with the core member or failure to report importantinformationtostatutoryagencies.4.21 Respondents also wondered about information sharing issues betweenCircles and statutory agencies because of lack of clarity regarding roles andresponsibilities(whatgetsreportedandwhatdoesnot).4.22 Respondents did not feel this ruled out the possibility of trying COSAon apilotbasisbutunderlinedtheimportanceofnotonlyhavingclearprotocolsclarifyingrolesand responsibilities of volunteersbutalso havingclear linesofauthorityandaccountabilitywithintheCircle.Onthislatteraspect,intervieweeswantedtoknowwhowithintheCirclewouldberesponsibleforensuringcomplianceandmakingsurethatboundariesarenotcrossed,andwhowouldhavetheauthorityandwillingnesstosay‘no’toavolunteerifinappropriatebehaviourwithoffendersdeveloped.ThesearethesortsofissueswhichledinHampshireandThamesValleytothecreationofthecentralroleofCircleCoordinator(seeChapter2).

PotentialofCircles4.23 Stakeholders generally felt Circles could be helpful in addressing theparticular challenges ofworkingwith sex offenders if they are able to catch ‘earlywarning’signalsofrecidivistbehaviourandrelapsethatwouldallowotheragenciestointervenebeforeanoffenceoccurs.Intervieweesfelttheyseemtobewellplaced,through developing continuous and informal relationships with the offender, toprovideuseful informationabout changes in theoffender’sbehaviour thatmaybeindicatingincreasedrisk.However,stakeholdersdesiredevidenceofthiscapacity.4.24 ManyrespondentsexpressedhopethatCircleswouldbeabletofillthepost‐treatmentgap in supportofoffendersandaddress the issueof social isolation,byproviding what seems to be in short supply (or absent) within current statutoryarrangements – friendships, local community networks, positive role models, a‘humantouch’, thesenseofcare,andmorecontinuity inthe relationshipwiththeoffender. Overall, it was felt that a relationship with someone who providesvoluntary support would be different from the relationship with police or socialworkers. In theviewofone respondent, theknowledge that someone is there for


www.sccjr.ac.uk 42

younotbecause it is their jobbut justbecause theywant tohelp could beaverypowerfulinducementtooffendersseekingtore‐buildtheirlives.

ViewsonImplementationIssues4.25 AlthoughrespondentssuggestedsomewaysinwhichCirclescouldfitintotheexisting context of managing sex offenders in Scotland, many of them hadmorequestionsthananswersaboutpracticalitiesanditwasfeltbymanythattheseissueswouldbecomecleareratthestageofpilotingCirclesinScotlandifthishappens.4.26 TheviewsofthepossiblerelationshipbetweenMAPPAprocessesandCirclesranged fromCircles being full partners to having someother link, but in any casebeing accountable to MAPPA. Interviewees identified specific means ofaccountability as feeding information back toMAPPA via a Circles Coordinator orliaison person. Most felt that MAPPA should play a role in the selection ornomination of an offender for Circles. Correspondingly, there were differences inviewsoftheextenttowhichinformationshouldbeshared.Onesuggestionwasthattheleadresponsibleauthorityforeachcasemightbeinformedofprogresswithanoffender,whileotherssuggestedinformationshouldbesharedatMAPPAmeetings.Some respondents felt strongly that volunteers should not be present at MAPPAmeetings;forthem,theliaisonwithMAPPAwouldbebestachievedthroughaCOSAcoordinator.Otherssuggestedthattherecouldbeatwo‐stageprocess,withaCOSAcoordinator or liaison person representing Circles atMAPPAmeetings at the firststageandpossiblyatthenextstageinvitingvolunteerstotheMAPPAmeetings.4.27 There were also different views about the information that should beavailabletovolunteers.Mostrespondentsseemedtosharetheviewthatvolunteers’accesstoinformationaboutanoffendershouldbesomewhatrestrictedandcarefulconsiderationmustbegiventowhatisdisclosedandwhatiskeptconfidential.4.28 At the same time it was clear that some informationmust be available tovolunteers as amatter of course because lack of this could limit their capacity toachieve progress with the offender. Volunteers might also need access toinformation which is directly related to the conditions of a probation order orlicence, orwhichwould allow them to understand if an offender slips into formerpatternsofoffending.4.29 ItisclearthatifCirclesweretobesetupinScotlandthequestionofsharingof information and confidentiality and other aspects of data protectionwill be animportantissuetoconsider.Informationsharingandconfidentialitywasseenasoneoftheongoingconcerns intheMAPPAprocesscurrently.Managementofsensitiveandpersonaldataandtheneedtoprotectprivatedatawasseenasabigchallenge;whilesome respondentspointedoutsome issueswith informationsharing.Similar


www.sccjr.ac.uk 43

problems may be experienced, or existing tensions exacerbated, with theintroductionofCircles;itisimportantasemphasisedbysomerespondentstohaveaMemorandumandclearprotocolsoninformation‐sharinginplace.4.30 Similarly, there is currently some lack of clarity about roles andresponsibilitiesofagenciesinvolvedintheMAPPAprocessleadingtodisagreementsabout how to proceed, particularly in terms of perceived risks. These range fromconcerns about being too complacent to concerns about over‐managing or actingpunitively.Oneofthechallengesasnotedbyarespondentwouldbeabuildupofarelationship of trust between Circles and MAPPA – so that for instance there isconfidence that no inappropriate passing on to the offender of information aboutwhat is discussed atMAPPAmeetings takes place. This goes back to the issues ofselection, vetting and training of volunteers and having a robust confidentialityagreementbetweenMAPPAandCircles.Thereshouldbeclarityaboutwhattypeofinformation would need to be fed back and what type of behaviour would beconsidered ‘at risk’, and there should be a memorandum of information sharingbetweenCirclesandresponsibleauthorities.4.31 DespitesomedifferencesinviewsofhowCirclesmightfitintoMAPPA,therewasacommonviewthatifCirclesweretobesetuptheyneedto‘addvalue’totheMAPPAprocessintermsofmonitoringandmanagementofoffenders.

ViewsonFeasibilityofCirclesinScotland4.32 ThecommonviewwasthatCirclesarefeasibleinScotlandaslongasthereisclarityaboutwhattheycandoandwhotheyarefor.Theyaregenerallyseenasan‘addedvalue’optionintheoverallsystemofmanagementofsexoffenders.4.33 It was noted by many that although Circles are feasible in Scotland inprinciple,many issuesneedtobeclarifiedbeforeonecanmake judgementsabouttheir potential in terms ofmanagement of sex offenders, and there is a need formore awareness of the operations and effects of Circles elsewhere. This did nottranslate intoanarrowdesire that stakeholders receive statisticson reconvictions.Stakeholders seemed equally interested in exploring what Circles are about andwhattheyaretryingtoachieve.4.34 Views of anticipated effects on reduction of reoffending ranged fromcautiously optimistic (can help reduce risk of reoffending if implemented andmanaged properly), to sceptical (impactwould be very limited) to neutral (cannotsaybecauseamnotawareofanyresearchevidenceoftheireffectiveness).Someofthe respondents who were more familiar with Circles or have heard about theThamesValleyCirclesquestioned the findings from the self‐evaluation reportsandpointedouttheneedforevidencefromanindependentevaluation.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 44

4.35 Therewere aminority of sceptical voices suggesting Circles would only beable to have a relatively minor impact on offending in terms of the number ofoffenders it would take on, and on these grounds would not make a significantdifferencetoScotland’smanagementofsexoffendersgenerally.Mostrespondentsrecognised therewould be somepotential value of Circles in Scotland in terms ofcontributingtoprovidingsupportandstrengtheningaccountabilityofoffenders.4.36 Itwasalsonoted that itwouldbe important to selectappropriateareas topilotCircles.

VoluntarySectorViews4.37 Many social and criminal justice services that were once delivered bystatutorybodieshavebeentakenonbythevoluntarysector.Therefore,wereCOSAtobedeliveredbyoneormoreagenciesfromthethirdsector,thiswouldnotbeamarked departure from the shape of service delivery that continues to emerge inScotland,aselsewhere.4.38 COSA isnot suggestedasanalternative toextantmeasuresofpost‐releasesupervision,butasanadditionalcomponenttobeaddedontocurrentsystems. Itmight, however, be used in a small number of cases where the highest levels ofsupervision, in the case of ISPs, have been employed due to lack of appropriatelowerintensityoptions.4.39 COSAcouldthereforeoccupythemiddlegroundbetween ISPs (whichmakeuse of voluntary organisations to assistmonitoring) at the top end of supervision,and at the bottomend current requirements to sign on at a police station once aweek,ornotifytheauthoritiesofachangeofaddress.Theselatterwerewidelyseenby our voluntary sector respondents as having deficiencies from a monitoringperspective.Therewasmuchcriticismoftheselow‐endcurrentmeasuresashavingthe formal appearance of monitoring while in fact doing little to control theirsubjects or hold them accountable in any serious way. There was also a strongfeeling that currentmeasures, other than themost intensive interventions (whichare time‐limited for reasons including resource allocation) are not capable ofdetectingriskfactorsinoffenders’behaviour.Wherethesesystemswerethoughttoworkwasintheircapacityto‘force’measuresofformalcomplianceonoffenders.Aswell as the practical limits to such forced and occasionalmeasures of compliance,oneofourrespondentscapturedtheethosofCOSAwiththeobservationthat‘Ifyouwanttogetthebestoutofpeopleyoureallyneedtogetalongsidethemratherthanintheir face’ (Interview22).Thevoluntarysectorrespondentsconfirmedtheviews


www.sccjr.ac.uk 45

of statutoryagency representatives that current systemsdonot seemdesigned toembedreleasedoffendersintocommunities.4.40 ThevoluntarysectoragencieswhichrepliedtoourinvitationtopresentviewsforthisstudywerepredominantlyinfavourofrunningCOSApilotsinScotland,andinvaryingdegreeseithersupportedtherunningoftheprogrammeinthevoluntarysector, or saw a role for their agency in the provision of COSA. There was somedisquietvoicedabouttheroleoffaithelementsindeliveringCOSA.Althoughmanyrespondents were careful to point out that they did not want to rule out faithorganisationsasserviceprovidershere,somewereconcernedthatthisshouldonlybe as part of a carefully‐managed national structurewhich included provision forensuringanappropriatespreadofvolunteersfromfaithandnon‐faithbackgrounds,andforvettingthevolunteersaspartofarigorousprocesswhichselectedonlythosewhofittedcertainpre‐definedcriteria.Therewassomesuggestionthat,forexample,Circles populated in high number by elderly church members may colour quitedramatically the kind of support and accountability that the programme is able todeliver.4.41 ItwasgenerallyacknowledgedthatthesuitabilityofthevoluntarysectortodeliverCOSAinScotlandwaslinkedtotheveryrestrictedtypeofsexoffenderstheprogrammedealtwith.Inotherjurisdictions,COSAtendstobetargetedatmediumtohighrisksexoffendersandwho,intheCanadiancase,aswehaveseen,havebeenreleasedfromprisonattheendofasentence,andarenotonparoleorotherformofsupervisionorlicence.SomeoftheScottishintervieweesfeltthatwhiletherewasnothingtopreventtheinclusionof lowerrisksexoffendersinCOSA,suchweretheresource constraints that one should start with attention to the highest relevantcategory in the risk scale. Inpassing, it isworthmentioning thatwhenconfrontedwith the prospect of using COSA for high‐risk offenders, several respondents –mostlyrepresentingvictims’groups–questionedwhetheroffendersjudgedtobeofhighriskshouldbereleasedatall.Nevertheless,currentsystemsdoprovidefortherelease of such offenders in certain circumstances, and generally respondentsacknowledged that a discussion over continuing support and accountabilitymechanismsforthemwasworthwhile.4.42 Aswellasbeingtargetedfirstatthehigherendoftheriskspectrum,COSAonly purports to apply to offenders who volunteer for the programme. In otherwords,togetintoaCircle,offendersmustbeatthehigherendoftheriskspectrumandmusthaveacknowledgedtheirproblemandwanttochange.Thisrulesoutthemajority of sex offenders, not least because the two entry requirements tendtowardsmutualexclusion.Contritionanddesireforself‐reformis likelytobemoreevident in offenders judged lower risk (or put anotherway, a high risk scoremaypartlyresult fromanoffender’sresistancetochange);onerespondentsummarisedthis view in suggesting thatCOSAwould not be applicable to ‘your run‐of‐the‐mill


www.sccjr.ac.uk 46

belligerentserioussexoffender…[who]doesn’tthinkthey’vedoneanythingwrong’(Interview 17). Offenders in denial are acknowledged by all voluntary sectorrespondentstobeunsuitableforCOSA.4.43 Theanswertothequestionwhetherthevoluntarysectorissuitablyplacedtodeliver COSA in Scotland must therefore take into account the particular type ofoffender the programme intends to engage: although it attends to offenderswithhigherlevelsofrisk,itonlyselectsthosewhoexpressadesiretohaveaCircle,andthe selection procedurewould need to develop precise categorisation of types ofsuitableoffender,excludingthoseindenial.4.44 IntheeventthatCOSAweretobetakenoninScotlandbyavoluntarysectoragencyratherthanastatutorybody,itwasacknowledgedbyrespondentsfromthevoluntary sector that theremightbe somecompetition for that leadposition.Anyagency selected to operate COSAwould need to commandwide respect; itwouldneed to represent a choice that all other agencies in all sectorswould be able towork with, and to accept as an agency that was chosen for reasons they couldunderstandandwouldsupport.Itwouldneedsubstantialstanding inthefield,andwould require to have experience working with sex offenders and rolling outprogrammescomparableinsizeandcomplexitytoCOSA.Thescaleofsuchaneffortwas also seen by some to have competitive implications for the ‘market for thirdsectorservices’,advancingtheoverallvoluntarysectormarketshareofsome,whilediminishingthatofothers.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 47

5.USINGVOLUNTEERSWITHSEXOFFENDERS5.1 The volunteer element of COSA forms both its most innovative and mostconcerningaspectinthemindsofthoseweinterviewedinScotlandandforthoseinareaswheretheyhavebeenattemptedorimplemented.Perhapsthewordsofthisvolunteer in Thames Valley capture the essence of this tension between theconcerns and benefits: ‘It is a very strange situation to be in – talking about theirsexualfantasieswithsomeoneyoudonotknowreallywell, inachurchhall,onceaweek!… I amnot sure how likely either [ofmy two] coremember[s]was/is to re‐offend, but I think that by committing to Circles they are at least putting anotherbarrierintheway’(Interview35).Giventheimportanceofvolunteerstothismodeland related concerns, we devote some considerable attention to the issue ofvolunteers,inbothconceptualandempiricalterms.

DevelopmentsinCriminalJusticeVolunteering5.2 ThemaindefiningfeatureoftheCOSAmodelisitsrelianceonvolunteersasthe‘serviceproviders’inrelationtoitsmechanismsofsupportandaccountability.Inthe recent years, the voluntary sector has increasingly come to be seen by theScottish Government, as elsewhere, as a key provider of services in communities.Whereas,previously,volunteerstendedtobeseeninthepolicydiscourseashelpfulcontributors‘attheedges’oflocalservicedelivery,thebulkofwhichwasdeliveredbypublicagenciesorcontractedouttotheprivatesector,itisnowthecasethatthethirdsectorisseenasanintegralresourceforcarryingoutstateorstate‐supportedfunctions.Themovementofthevoluntarysectorfromtheperipherytothecentreofpublic service delivery continues, and has to date largely taken place under theauspicesofadiscourseabouttheimportanceofcommunitiesassocialinstitutions.5.3 A recent white paper produced by the Department for Communities andLocal Government in England & Wales, for example, proposes various measureswhicharethoughttoenhancetheparticipationofcommunities indecision‐makingaboutthegovernanceofmatterswhichaffectthem,underthebannerofsupportingthe development of ‘strong and prosperous communities’ (Department forCommunitiesandLocalGovernment,2006).Likewise, theScottishGovernmenthasas its goals the development of ‘safer, stronger communities’. COSA, with itsintegrative ethos, tends to fit well with this trend. A major attraction of Circles,against the background of community interests, is that it allows a level ofengagementwitha rangeof those interests:with thevolunteerswhowant togetinvolved, with the offender who is given access to mechanisms of support and


www.sccjr.ac.uk 48

accountability, and with the community as a whole, which benefits from theprotectiveeffectsoftheprogramme.5.4 The domestic political context in which this study of COSA emerges istherefore one in which a heightened concern with the role and capacity ofcommunities to perform certain desirable social functions has been extended inrecentpolicymovementstowardsvolunteering,andthethirdsectorgenerally,beingseenasacentralpartofcommunityactivitiesinthefuture.Theseactivitiesincludecrimepreventionandreductionthrough,amongstotherthings,themanagementofoffenderrisk.5.5 Thecriminaljusticesystemhasforsometimebeensupportedbyarangeofvolunteers.PerhapsthemostobviousoftheseareSpecialConstables,buttherearemanylessvisiblerolesforvolunteerstosupportvarioussystemaimsandfunctions.In Scotland, these include ‘appropriate adults’, who represent and supportwitnesses, victims or detainees at police stations and through the court process;victimandwitnesssupport;mentoringandyouthvolunteering;variousroles inthesecureestate,suchasprisonvisitors;andpanelmembersintheChildren’sHearingssystem.TherearemanyvolunteerorganisationsoperatingthroughouttheUKwhichprovideopportunitiesforinterestedmembersofthecommunitytobecomeinvolvedin and around the criminal justice system. These include Community ServiceVolunteers,VictimSupport,SupportingOthersthroughVolunteerAction,andCrimeConcern, along with several of the participants in the present research (researchparticipantsarelistedinAnnexB).Ofcourse,beyondcriminaljustice,volunteersarecentralprovidersofsomeessentialservices,suchasblooddonation,andtheworkofthe Samaritans. And finally, we should note the involvement of lay members inMAPPAs in England and Wales, demonstrating the belief in that jurisdiction thatcommunity involvement can enhance the aimofmanaging the risks specifically ofsexualoffenders.5.6 Theroleofvolunteersincommunityjusticeinitiativesalsofitstosomeextentwith the current policy manifestations of the ongoing concern with publicprotection,particularly inrelationtoattemptstoreducethefearofcrime,throughmeasures such as reassurance policing. The integration of policing functions andcommunityneedsisseenasimportantinreducingthefearofcrime,andthroughtheresulting interventionsandactivitiesof less fearful communities, in reducingcrimeitself. Volunteer participation in supporting aims such as the reduction ofreoffending may actually reduce the incidence of reoffending, as the CanadianevaluationsofCircles suggests (seeChapter6). Even leavingaside the potentialofCircles to reduce reoffending, however, they may also operate to reduce fear ofcrimeincommunities,ifthesecommunitiesfeelreassuredthat‘somethingisbeingdone’inrelationtomediumandhighrisksexoffenderswhoarereleased.Whetherthisreassurancedoesinfactresult fromtheoperationofCirclesprogrammesisan


www.sccjr.ac.uk 49

empiricalquestionforfuturework.TheanswerwilldependuponpublicperceptionofwhetherCirclesisaworthwhileinitiative.Andthis,inturn,willdependuponhowentrenched public attitudes are in relation to the apparently popular view thatexclusionandharshpunishmentisthemostsuitableresponsetosexoffending,andthat rehabilitation by way of support and accountability is impossible orinappropriate.Wehavenotconductedapublicsurveyintheresearchreportedhere,but we have engaged with the question of public perceptions and reassurancethrough the interviews conducted with representatives of a range of agencies inScotland and England, including third sector agencies (see Chapters 3 and 4). Thenearlyuniversalopinionamongthesestakeholdersisthathardenedpublicattitudesare understandable but have led to calls for programmes, such as communitynotification, that may exacerbate risk rather than reduce it. Respondents inHampshire and Thames Valley point to the successful implementation of Circlesthere,whichrequiredrecruitmentofscoresofvolunteers,asevidenceofthepublic’swillingness to accept a positive social role for communities in addressing theproblemofsexualoffending.

ConceptualDimensionsofUsingVolunteersinCircles5.7 The central role of volunteers in COSAwas seen bymost of our interviewrespondentsasastrengthofthemodel.Manyrespondentsatthesametimevoicedconcernsabout thevolunteeraspectof theprogramme,however,andeven thosewhoweresteadfastlyinfavouroftheCOSAmodelacknowledgedthattheinclusionofvolunteersindeliveringsupportandaccountabilityservicestosexoffenderswasan issue that required deep consideration and sensitivity to a participant’s needs,capacities, and aspirations. The generally favourable stance taken towardsvolunteers, coupled with an acknowledgement of the specific risks and concernstheir involvementbringstoaprogramme,broadlyechoesthepositiontaken intheliterature.Wecansetouttheissueshereforconsideration.Theanswerstomanyofthesequestionsarenotyetclear;theywouldbekeyconsiderationsduringplanningforimplementationofCOSApilots,shouldthesebeadoptedinScotland.Wecangivesome context through our Thames Valley case study to the types of answers onemodelofCOSAhasdeveloped,andwilldothisafteridentifyingthekeyissues.

FactorsSupportingtheUseofVolunteers5.8 Thereismuchtobesaidinfavourofencouragingvolunteerstoworkwithsexoffenders.Someofthepointssupportingvolunteerinvolvementare:

Communitiesarepartofthechangeprocess.TheunderlyingethosofCOSA,and indeed many other post‐release programmes for offenders – re‐


www.sccjr.ac.uk 50

integration of released offenders into the community – seems to requiresomelevelofcommunityparticipationintheprocess.

CommunityinvolvementinCOSAcouldhaveaneffectonreductionsinfearofcrime.

Volunteersarea community resourcewhich tend tobe seenas relativelycost effective (although note our comments on this in Chapter 7, below–COSAareproposedasanadditional layerofsupportandmonitoring,ratherthananalternativetoanycurrentsystems).

VolunteeringiswellestablishedinScotland.ManyagenciesinScotlandhaveareadysupplyofvolunteerstohand,andmechanismsinplaceforaccessingthem.

Volunteers can encourage trust andopennessof offenders. The voluntaryaspecttoparticipation intheprogrammeispartofboththeoffender’sandthe Circle’s philosophy, in the sense that all parties to the occasion arepresentbecause they (say they)want tobe.This is thought to support theformation of relationships of trust between the parties, and tomake opendisclosuremorelikelybetweentheoffenderandtheCircle.

Offendersmaybewilling todisclose issues tovolunteers that theywouldhold back from statutory agencies. Volunteers are not officials, andtherefore the coremember should, in theory, feel less reluctant to discussriskbehaviour,problematicthoughtsandimpulses,andotherconcernsabouthis own behaviour which might otherwise lead to official measures beingtakenagainstthem.

‘Volunteer’ does not necessarily mean ‘inexperienced’ or ‘lay’. Manyvolunteersmay in fact be qualified in respect ofworkingwith offenders insomedegree, suchas retireesorpeople ona careerbreak from theprisonandsocialworkprofessions.WhileCOSAdoesnotdependonanyparticularexpertise,itmaybeaneffectivewaytomakeuseofsuchexpertisewhichispresentinthecommunity,butcurrentlyunder‐used.

Adaptability to an offender’s changing circumstances. COSA can adapt toperiodsofparticularneed inacoremember’s life inawaythatothermoreformalmeasuresmightnot. Ifacoremembergoesthroughaperiodwherethey do not need high levels of support, the Circle can adapt its workingsaccordingly;likewise,intimeswheremoresupportisneeded,suchaswhereamarriageends,orsomeothertraumaticpersonaleventoccursthatmightotherwiseleadtoanincreaseinsocialisolation,theCirclecanofferasuitableresponse.

Concerns5.9 Set against these arguments in support of using volunteers are concernsrelatingtoCOSA’suseofvolunteers:


www.sccjr.ac.uk 51

Availability of volunteers for COSA is still not certain. Will enoughvolunteersbefoundtosupporttheeffectiverunningofCOSAinalllocationsin Scotland inwhich theymight be needed?While there is an establishedtraditionofvolunteering inScotland,doingsotoassistsexoffenderswouldbearelativelynewdirection.

Recruitment and motivation of volunteers. This relates to the previousconcern but also raises separate issues about adequate screening ofvolunteers. Careful assessment of a volunteer’s motivation would benecessary to ensure that people are joining up for the right reasons. It isconceivable that COSA could attract those with an unhealthy interest insexualoffending,thosewhoareespeciallyvulnerable(e.g.survivorsofsexualabuse), thosewhomay have an underlying agenda at oddswith the COSAaims (e.g. primary interest in pursuing a faith mission with an offender),among other issues. A second and equally important concern aboutrecruitmentwouldbetheriskthatageneralcallforvolunteerswouldtriggerpublicoutcryorevenvigilanteaction.Thissuggeststhereshouldbecareful,well thought‐out approaches to targeted volunteer recruitment. COSArequiresa long‐termcommitmentbyvolunteersasaCircle slowlydevelopsthetrustofcoremembers.Recruitmentthereforehastheaddedchallengeofamassingasupplyofvolunteersnotonlywillingtoworkwithadifficultgroupbutforalongperiodoftime.

VolunteerTraining.Therewouldbeaneedforserioustrainingrequirementsfor all volunteers, along with ongoing monitoring and support. For somerespondents, the specific demands ofworkingwith sex offenders,who canoften be highlymanipulative,would involve such high levels of training forvolunteersthattheywouldinasensebeprofessionalised.Despitetheethosof COSA as a community support and accountability network, it wasrecognisedthatthedangerspresentedtotheCirclemembers,andtheirneedtobeabletopickuprisksignsfortheirownprotectionandtheprotectionofthe community demands high levels of training and support. This leads toquestionshowsuchhighly trainedvolunteersmight represent the ‘general’community,orbridgethegapbetweenoffenderandcommunity.

Volunteer Collusion and Oversight. Volunteers are at risk of becomingvested intheoutcomeofaCircleandpersonally inthe livesofoffenders. IftheCircle isnotworkingortheoffender ismanifestingriskbehaviour, theymaybe less likelythanaprofessional toseek intervention,asthefailureoftheCirclemightbeperceivedasapersonalfailureontheirpart.Respondentsin Scotland wanted reassurance that Circles would be overseen byprofessionals, either as part of an independently run organisation or as aprojectmanagedbystatutoryagencies.

EffectsonandSupportofVolunteers. The research focus so far forCircleshas been offender‐focussed; for example on the effects for reconvictionrates.Therehasbeenlittleconsiderationofthepotentialtraumaticeffectsof


www.sccjr.ac.uk 52

volunteersworkingwith sexoffenders. It isplausible that somevolunteers,particularly those who drop out and therefore are least likely to beinterviewed in ongoing research about COSA, will have had negative orpainfulexperiences.Thisisanissueforfutureevaluationwork,whichneedsto analyse the role of support systems, monitor the emotional state ofvolunteers,andconsiderprovisionforcounsellingorpeersupport.

Exitstrategy.Puttingasupportnetworkinplacecouldcreatedependencyonthepartoftheoffender:whathappensifvolunteersneedtoleavetheCircle,orthedecisionismadethattheCircleshouldend?WhilethefactthatCirclesinvolve a team of volunteers, typically between three and five, isadvantageous,losingorneedingtoreplaceevenoneortwocouldstillhaveimpacts.Aseconddimensionofthe‘exit’issueisthelackofclarityabouttheend of a Circle and developing a ‘withdrawal’ plan: When does/should aCircleend?Whattimespanisappropriateandfeasible?Whathappensaftera Circle ends – do volunteers remain in contact with the former coremember, and what degree of liability might the Circles organisation haveoverthisrelationship?

Implications of faith group involvement in Circles. There is strong interestfrom faith groups in Scotland in being involved in providing COSA in theircommunities. This may be quite appropriate where the core member is amember of the particular faith community, but where the local Circle isstaffedentirelyormostlybyvolunteersfromaparticularchurchandthecoremember iseither not religiousor belongs toadifferentdenomination, thisstructureofvolunteersmightnotbesuitable.

Maintaining the balance between support and accountability. Thereremains some confusion over the precise role of volunteers in achieving abalancebetweensupportandaccountability.Volunteersaresimultaneouslyaskedtojuggletherequirementsofbeingsupportiveinrespectofriskfactorsinthebehaviourofthecoremember,andalsotoactasthe‘eyesandears’ofthe state in ensuring accountability for the behaviour. This is a difficultbalance to strike. When a Circle becomes aware of information that ispotentially relevant for assessment of an offender’s risk, it must make ajudgementastowhethersuchbehaviourmustbereported.Thisisclearlyasiteforfurtherinvestigation,thought,andthesettingofclearprocedures.Itwouldnotbeappropriateorfairforthisjudgementtobesubjectexclusivelytotheidiosyncrasiesofagroupofvolunteers.Thereisadeeperphilosophicalissue here in that encouraging volunteers to provide a kind of non‐judgementalsupportandatthesametimeprobeforandreceiveevidenceofthoughtsandbehaviours fromthecorememberwhichmightbeworrisomeor even incriminating calls attention to a potential conflict between thesupportandaccountabilityfunctionsofCOSA.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 53

5.10 Sowecanseethataswellastherebeingobviousbenefitsof thevolunteeraspecttoCOSA,therearealsoasetofconsiderableconcerns.Asidefromthemanypractical concerns, such as the risk to the safety andmental health of volunteers,whetherenoughcanbefound,howtoadvertise,etc.,perhapsthemostproblematiclatentconcerninourreviewemergedasthesensethatinCOSAvolunteersmayhaveinflatedexpectationsoftheirroleandattempttodosomethingforwhichtheyarenotqualified.Oneof ourvoluntary sector respondents inparticularexpressed thisconcern: that volunteers who took part with the idea that they could work onoffenders,orchangethem,werealmostcertainlygoingtobedisappointed,andthatthiswasajobfortrainedcriminalpsychologists.5.11 ThisgetstotherootofoneofthecentralissuesfortheCOSAmodel:itmustbeclearaboutwhatvolunteersareexpectedtodoandtoachieve; itmustalsobeclearaboutthelimitsofthisrole.ArespondentfromthefaithcommunityevenwentsofarastosaythatCOSAwasamodelprimarilygearedtowardsmeetingcommunityneeds for increased public protection, and had no real ambition to rehabilitateoffenders through therapeuticmeans. Several respondentsechoed this concern toclarify the limited role of COSA in the overall offender change process: theimplication in some of the more enthusiastic output supporting Circles that theprocess is an effective way to change offenders should be tempered with muchcaution.Theredoesseem,however,tobeanimplicationintheCOSAmodelthattheCircle can provide exposure for the offender to conventional norms, and can helpthem to become reflexive through discussions of their personal problems andconcernsthatwouldnotbeavailabletothemelsewhere,atleastnotconfidentially.COSA also aspires to give offenders alternative socialisation groups besides otheroffenders,whichcanbetheresultofsocialisolationorexclusion,andisproblematicforobviousreasons.Theseareadmirableaims,andquitepossiblyrealisticonesforcommunity groups such as those in question, especially whenwe remember thatCOSA only proposes to deal with the minority of offenders who are contrite andwanttochange.

EmpiricalDimensionsofVolunteersinCircles5.12 In practice, Circles projects have sought to realise the advantages of andaddresstheseconcernsaboutvolunteers. Inthissectionweprimarily focusonthecase of HTVC, but also incorporate information from the research covering theCanadianexperience.InthecaseespeciallyofHTVC,whereprojectorganisershavefacedmanyof the issues identifiedbyourScottish respondentsaround theuseofvolunteers, Scotland has the advantage of seeing how a nearby jurisdiction hasworkedthroughthe issues,andwhetherthestrategiestheyhavedevelopedwouldbeapplicableandacceptablehere.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 54

5.13 It should be noted that the published research base on COSA is small; andthough it is growing, its main focus, for good reasons, is on the impact andeffectivenessoftheapproachforoffenders,andevenmorenarrowlyonrecidivism,oftenexpressedasreconvictions.Eventheworkthatincorporatestheperspectivesofvolunteerstendstodosointhecontextofestablishinghowwelltheyareabletoengageoffenders.Research intovolunteers’experienceofCOSA in theirown righthas not yet beenamain line of inquiry and sowehave only indirect evidence onimportant questions of their safety, vulnerability to trauma, sustainability as themain ‘labour’ supply of COSA, and their emotional and technical support needs.8ConsiderationofvolunteerissuesmustbeacoreelementofanevaluationstrategyfordevelopingCOSAinitiatives(seeChapter7).5.14 The existing evidence base does show a high level of commitment byvolunteerstotheprincipleofCOSA,andsatisfactionwiththeirexperiencesoftakingpart in a circle. Volunteers studied in Canada and those interviewedby the SCCJRteamhighlightedpotentiallinksbetweenvolunteerparticipationinthemanagementof sex offenders in the community, and more informed community views – andconsequentlyreducedfear–ofthisformofoffending.Hence,thereisthepossibilitythatCOSA’suseof communitymembersprovidesanopportunityofeducating thepublic about issues central to criminal justice including the meaning andmanagementofhighriskoffendersandtherealitiesandmythsofsexualoffending.Itwouldbeprudenttorememberthe limitednatureofresearchwhilereadingthesepromisingsigns.ViewsofvolunteersreportedintheliteratureandreportedhereareexclusivelythoseofactivevolunteerswhofeltstronglyenoughaboutCOSAtowantto contribute to research. In otherwords, such research has not included peoplewhodidnotmakeitthroughthevettingprocess,whobegantovolunteerbutthendecided not to continue, or, given the relatively recent emergence of COSA as anapproach in the UK, who have had many years’ distance to reflect upon theirparticipationinCircles.

InformationonSamples5.15 TheCanadianvolunteerexperience is captured inanevaluationofCOSA inone area (South‐Central Ontario) by a study team including researchers from theCanadian Correctional Service and led by Robin Wilson, a psychologist andresearcherfromtheHumberCollegeInstituteofTechnologyandAdvancedLearning(Wilson et al, 2007c).9 The research comprised a survey questionnaire covering

8Atthetimeofwriting,weareawareofoneplannedpieceofresearchthatfocusesexclusivelyonthevolunteerexperience

andwasmotivatedbyaconcernabouttheabsenceofthisconsiderationinpreviouswork.

9Thisjournalarticlepresentsapeer‐reviewedversionoftheevaluationalsoreportedinWilsonandPicheca(2005)andWilson,

PichecaandPrinzo(2005).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 55

issues of recruitment/awareness of Circles, motivations for volunteering,demographics and personal background, views about and relations with coremembers, logistical and technical matters (training received, relationships withprofessionals), and perceived impacts of Circles on offenders and communities.Findings are based on 57 completed surveys (out of 84 distributed to past andcurrentCirclesvolunteers,a68%responserate).5.16 HTVC has produced two reports/self‐evaluations with some informationabout volunteers (QPSW, 2003, 2005). The Interim Report (QPSW, 2003) containssome informationaboutall thepilots fundedbytheHomeOffice(nowMinistryofJustice), while themore recent piece focuses on Thames Valley alone. In both ofthesereportsthevolunteerexperienceispresentedmainlythroughbriefessaysbythevolunteersthemselves.105.17 The SCCJR research team’s review of HTVC comprised distribution of 35requests for interview from Circle Members (including both volunteers and coremembers) at Circlesmeeting places, towhich therewere 19 replies expressing aninterest in participating, and twelve completed interviews or emailed replies fromCircleMembers, twoofwhomwerecoremembersand tenwhowerevolunteers.(All CircleMemberswere given the choice of a telephone interviewor submittinganswerstotheinterviewquestionsviaemail.)

DemographicsandBackground5.18 The Canadian volunteer group included a balanced mix of genders (two‐thirdsmen,one‐thirdwomen),buttendedtobedominatedbythemiddle‐aged,andhad a slightly higher average age than the offenders who were in their Circles(volunteer average: 55; core member average age: 48). This may reflectdemographicpatternsamongvolunteersgenerally,wherethereisdisproportionaterepresentation by retired people (although only 25% of the Canadian volunteersreported being retired). Volunteers participating in the Canadian research alsotended to be highly educated, with more than 80% having attended universityand/orgraduateschool.Lessthanhalfthegroupwereparents(40%).5.19 One of the concerns we raised about community volunteers working insensitiveareassuchascriminaljusticeisthatanentirelyinexperiencedlaypublicwillbethesourceofvolunteers.However,consistentwiththeexperienceinHampshireand Thames Valley (discussed next), Wilson et al (2007b) report that 40% ofCanadianvolunteerslearnedaboutCOSAthroughpriorexperienceincorrectionsor

10TheMinistryofJusticeisconductingitsownevaluationofCirclesandisduetocompleteitsanalysisofdatabytheendof

2008.Itislookingexclusivelyatreconviction,however,andwillnotaddresstheissuesofvolunteers.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 56

contactwithacoremember,andalmosthalf(48%)ofthevolunteerswhowerenotretiredworked in the ‘helping’ professions (e.g. counselling). If the experiences ofthis group are not atypical among other areas of Canada, thiswould suggest thatvolunteersarenotentirelynewtoworkorcontactwithoffenders.Giventheoriginsof COSA out of aMennonite congregation, it is not surprising that 28% reportedlearningaboutCOSAthroughchurchgroups.5.20 In the Thames Valley self‐evaluation (QPSW, 2005) there is graphicaldepiction of data about volunteer backgrounds.11 About 92 volunteers came fromprofessional backgrounds (including those who are retired), with 10 of thevolunteershavingabackground in criminal justice.Evenmorevolunteers reportedthey were survivors of sexual abuse (around 22). Around 48 of the volunteersreportedcomingfromafaithbackground.5.21 Among HTVC volunteers interviewed for this report, four of the ten wereretired.Therewerealsoslightlymorewomen(sixoutoftheten)thanmenprovidinginformation.Many of the peoplewe spokewith had some experienceworking incriminal justice, from volunteering in related areas (e.g. drug abuse charities,Samaritans, prison, probation service) or due to professional experience in publicservice and helping professions (counselling, education). Five of the nine of thegroupwereQuakers.And liketheCanadiansample, thiswasmostlyamiddle‐agedgroup,withmoststillworkingorineducation.5.22 SomeareaswithintheHTVCcatchmenthavepredominantlymenwhileotherareas have mainly women volunteers. A core member commented to us that hisCirclevolunteerswereallwomenofdifferentagegroups.Hefeltthismayhavebeenthe result of availability but did not see it as necessarily a negative factor for thepotentialoftheCircle.Howeverhesaidhepersonallywouldhavepreferredamixofmaleandfemalevolunteers.Thiswouldbeanimportantconsideration,however,forreflectingonCOSA’spotentialtoprovidepro‐socialmodellingofadultrelationships.Three respondentswhoworked in Circleswhere all the volunteerswerewomen12expressed their preference for having a mix of genders as well, and there was ageneralconsensusamongvolunteersinterviewedthatamixtureisbest.HTVCstaffclaimthatsometimesgenderimbalancesareastrategicdecisioninmatchingacoremembertoanappropriategroupofvolunteers.TheygavetheexamplesofafemalesexoffenderwhoherselfwasasurvivorofmalesexualabusebeingplacedwithanallfemaleCircle,andayounggayoffenderhavingaCircleentirelyofgaymen.

11Thegraphicalpresentationofthematerialdoesnotincludenumericaldataaboutthetotalnumberofvolunteersincludedin

thisanalysis nor howmany reportedmultiple backgrounds (e.g. professionalandsurvivor ofcriminal justiceand froma faith

background).Hence,numbersareestimated.

12Duetoconfidentiality,itisnotknownwhetherthesethreerespondentsareinthesameCircle.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 57

Motivation5.23 Interviews of currentHTVC volunteers revealed a variety ofmotivations tosignuptoCircles,andinfactnovolunteerwecontactedidentifiedanysinglefactorasdominantbutnamedatleasttwoorthree.Onevolunteerstated:‘Itseemedsucha self‐evidentlygood idea,and something that I felt I potentiallyhad theaptitudeandattitudefor. Ihadalsoseentheeffectsofabuse insomeoneclosetome,andwantedtohelpthatnothappenagain’(Interview39).Thefollowingwerethemostfrequentlynotedreasonsforsigningup(butnotlistedinaparticularorder):

Wantedto‘standupandbecounted’ Reducingreoffending,publicprotection Soundedlikeareallysensible/self‐evidentlygoodidea Interestedincriminaljustice Haverelevantskills(counselling,publichealth,otherprofessionalexperience,

volunteerexperience,haveworkedinprisonsorprobation) Interestedindevelopingprofessionalcareer Faith,beliefinredemption Reactionto,feltunhappyaboutnegativetabloidcoverage,vigilanteactions Abusesurvivor,knowasurvivor Toprotectchildren,nomorevictims

5.24 Volunteers reported that theydid not feel theyoranyof thevolunteers intheir Circles had inappropriate motivations for participating. There was a lot offeedback about group dynamics, and the occasional situation of some volunteerswantingthesupportoraccountabilityfocustobecomedominant.Butdespitesomeadmissions of occasionally not being personally sympathetic to fellow volunteers,therewasconfidencethateveryonewasthereformoreor lessthe ‘rightreasons’.Theseissuesarepickedupagaininthediscussiononrecruitmentandscreening.

VolunteerViewsaboutCirclesandCoreMembers5.25 TheviewsoftheCanadianvolunteersastheywereabouttoorjustbeginningtheirwork inCirclesareapredictableblendof fear (51%)andanxiety (32%)aboutcopingwith difficult situations but also of hopefulness (91%) about their ability tomake a difference in an offender’s life, and faith (60%) in the support of theorganisationcoordinatingtheirwork.AsvolunteershadmoretimeundertheirbeltsworkinginaCircle,alloftheseviewstendedtofadeabit,reflectingperhapsashiftfromanidealisticbutnotnecessarilyself‐confidentdispositiontoamorepragmaticandself‐assuredone.Volunteersreportedmarkeddeclinesintherateofanxietytofourpercentandfearto27percentoncetheyhadhadsomeexperienceinaCircle.Howeverthisexperiencealsoledthemtobecomelesshopefulthattheirworkwasmaking a difference in the offender’s life (43%), and fewer felt supported by the


www.sccjr.ac.uk 58

organisation (23%).Nearly all the volunteers, however, reported feeling that theirworkwaswell‐receivedbythecoremember(92%),andthemajority(specificfigurenot given) felt that their Circle ‘was effective at recognizingwhen a corememberwasexperiencingdifficulties’(Wilsonetal,2007b:297).5.26 Whilethereisasensethatvolunteershadbecomelessidealisticorambitiousabout themagnitude of the impact theymight have,Wilsonetal (Id.) report thatmostofthevolunteers (61%)felt that intheabsenceofaCircle, thecorememberwould have reoffended. Moreover, nearly all felt that without a Circle the corememberwouldhavedifficultyadjustingtolifeinthecommunity(93%)andleadingastablelife(82%);nearlyallfeltthatthecommunityexperiencedanincreaseinsafety(89%) andwas at leastmoderately helpful to the offender (93%) (Id.). Volunteerswerealsobylargemarginsverypositiveabouttheimpactofthesupportiveaspectsof their work, believing the core member felt supported (96%), able to developpositivefriendships(82%),andexperiencedanenhancedsenseofself‐worth(84%).5.27 Interviews with HTVC volunteers offers a qualitative expansion on thestatistical picture from Canada. The volunteers who spoke with us, with theexceptionofoneperson,allhadatleastayear’sexperienceofbeinginaCircle,andseveralhadbeeninvolved inCirclessincethebeginningoftheThamesValleypilot.Whenaskedabout thepurposeofCirclesand how the supportandaccountabilityelementsarebalanced,volunteerstendedtoseethetwofactorsasinterrelated:

‘CirclesofSupportandAccountabilityexists fortwomainreasons.Firstlytoensure that as a result of the support of a Circle no further victims arecreatedbythecoremember.Secondlytohelpthecoremembertointegrateback into society. I believe that both aims aremutually inclusive. To theseends I have supported core members by providing them with safe,confidential and non‐judgmental listening so that they are able to expresstheirconcerns, fearsandhopes.ThisalsomeansthatattimesIhavehadtoquestion quite rigidly some of a core member’s statements and beliefs.’(Interview33)

5.28 Some volunteers seemed to suggest that ultimately, the accountabilityfunctionisparamount:

‘Supportmeans sharing knowledge, giving non‐judgemental understanding,beinghelpful.Accountabilitymeanskeepingchildrensafe.Iwouldhavenoproblem whatsoever with acting on perceived risk. That is the priority.’(Interview37)

5.29 Itwould be accurate to say though that thevolunteerswe heard from feltthat being able to support an offender, and for an offender to feel genuinely


www.sccjr.ac.uk 59

supported was the way in to effecting change and creating accountability. Onevolunteerputitthat,‘[t]hemainthingisgivingapersonhopeabouttheirfutureandtheir ability to make it’ (Interview 38). In response to a challenge about thepossibility that the support role might tend to displace accountability aims, onevolunteercounteredthat ‘supportisanecessarypartoftheapproachbecauseyoucan’tchangepeople ifyouseethemasmonstersoranimals.Youhavetoseethemashumanbeingsandhavetowanttohelpthemchange’(Interview34).5.30 The pragmatic and informed perspectives of volunteers in HTVC wasconsistent and impressive and provides powerful counterevidence of the generalperception that the public are not able to transcend the outrage of this form ofoffendingandtheinfluenceexertedbythetabloidmedia.Awarenessofthenuancesofhavingbothtoencourageopennessandyettobewaryiscapturedintheviewofone volunteer that Circles is a ‘paradox of trusting a coremember absolutely andabsolutelynottrustinghim….It’sfriendshipwithadistance’(Interview34).Thereisasense that you have to believe absolutely in the possibility that someone canbecome a contributing member of society while remaining at the same timeconstantlyawareoftheriskthattheymightdosomethingterrible.5.31 This pragmatism is born of volunteers’ hard won and long‐term efforts toworkwitha coremember. Sometimes theseeffortsdid notbear fruit in quite thewayavolunteerwouldhavehopedbutmayhavefulfilledamorelimitedpurpose.Asone respondentnoted: ‘Withmy first coremember, given thebenefitofhindsightI’mnotsurethataCirclewasevergoingtobethebestsolutionforhim.Ithinkweworkedwell at the levelofmonitoringhimand givinghima safeplace toventhisfeelings but as far as helping him fit back into society I’d have to say we didn'tachievethat’(Interview33).5.32 Some who had worked for long periods to break down walls ofcommunicationwithacorememberexperiencedakindofsuccessmoreinlinewiththeirexpectations.Onevolunteerspokeofachievinggoalsonthesocialsupportsidewhen the coremember ‘came to believe and trust in people and [he now] has agroupofpeoplehecanbefullyopenwithandhaveconfidencetotalkto.Thistookalotoftimetoachieve….andalsoprovidesstructuretohislife’(Interview37).Similarviewscamefromothervolunteers.‘Mycorememberwentfrombeingdeeplyangry,paranoid, and depressed after a seven year prison sentence but gradually camearound. Circles helped himwith [getting] a job. He found safe social relationshipsandgotapartner,buthasn’t toldhispartnerwhyhewas inprison’ (Interview40).ThehardworkoftheCirclehadpaidoffinassistingthecoremember’sdevelopmentofamoreconstructiveattitude,althoughitisclearthatissuesremainforthispersonindevelopingopennessandaccountabilityinhispersonalrelationshipgivenhehasbeen unable to disclose to his partner the reason for his long‐term custodialsentence.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 60

5.33 Perhapsofparticularinteresttocriminaljusticeprofessionals,onevolunteerfelt the impactofCircleswas tobemeasured thus: ‘our corememberhashadhisMAPPAriskassessmentdown‐graded’(Interview41).Thissimplestatementcontainssome important revelations. First, where some stakeholders in our research hadexpressedconcernaboutcollusionandtoomuchemphasisonthe‘support’roleofCOSA, volunteers we interviewed were very much attentive to public protectionissues and the official infrastructure for pursuing this goal. And in this volunteer’scasethere isevidenceofknowledgespecificallyoftheMAPPAprocess,whichmayreassure Scottish stakeholders about the ability of volunteers to work within thejointarrangementsframework.5.34 When asked about the overall purpose of COSA, one volunteer said, ‘Thestockansweristopreventthenextvictim.Butitlocksinwellwithrestorativejusticeprinciples,wherewehaveoffender,victimandcommunityasparticipants.Circlesisapowerfulexampleofhowwecouldandshouldtakeresponsibilityasacommunityforourcommunity, insteadof just leaving it to“them”’ (Interview39).ThisechoesthethoughtsofalocalagencystakeholderofHTVC,whohadadmittedbeinginitiallysceptical about Circles and the ability of volunteers tomakea difference. ‘Once itbecamecleartomethatcommunityvolunteerscandothiswork,Ibegantofeellikeit’sapublichealthissue,liketheyshouldbedoingthiswork’(Interview31).

RecruitmentandVetting5.35 As noted in the list of concerns about use of volunteers are several issuesrelated to recruitment and vetting. HTVC started out recruitment efforts in atargetedway,avoidinggeneralpubliccallsforvolunteerstominimisefuellingtabloidsensationalismandtofocusongroupsmostlikelytoprovideacceptablerecruits.TheQuakers(andsubsequentlyotherfaithcommunities),criminaljusticeoffices(mainlyprobation), university students in particular disciplines (psychology, criminology,sociology,socialwork),andmorerecentlyvolunteerfairshavebeenthemaintargetsforrecruitmentandsuppliedthemostparticipants.Effortshavebroadenedoutnowthat the project has a well‐established presence in the community. Recruitmentleafletshavebeen leftat local librariesandtheproject’s incipientwebsitewillalsobeameansofrecruitingnewvolunteers.(TheLucyFaithfullFoundationwebsitehasalways allowed for recruitment via itswebsite, with no reported adverse press orotherreactionsasaresultofthis.)5.36 TheHTVCprojectnotesthatrecruitmentofvolunteershasandwillcontinueto be a constant task but claim to have adequate numbers to support its work.Universitieshavebeenaparticularlyproductivegroundforrecruitment,and itwasnoted that students tended to bewomen. It would not be inaccurate to say thatmany volunteers who are students are likely to be at the lower end of the age


www.sccjr.ac.uk 61

spectrumamongtherestofthevolunteers,whoaregenerallymiddleaged,althoughthisisnotuniformlytruebecausesomeofthesestudentsaremature,andwecameacross studentswho had had professional or volunteer experience of prisons andprobation.5.37 Vetting of volunteers is an individualised process, although Wilson et al(2007a:10)notethebasiccriteriaappliedtoscreeningofvolunteersintheCanadianprojects13,whichprovidesagoodsenseofthesortoffactorsconsideredgenerallybyCOSAprojects.Circlesvolunteersshouldbepeoplewho:

Arestableinthecommunity Areknowninthecommunity(referenceschecked) Havedemonstratedmaturity Possesshealthyboundaries Areavailable Havebalanceinlifestyleandviewpoint

5.38 TheprocessinHampshireandThamesValleyrequiresvolunteerstocompletean application, provide a CV and two references. They also have to undergo acriminal records check before being accepted into a Circle. HTVC personnel statethatthere is littleattritionthroughthevettingprocess,eitherbecauseapplicationsare rejected by staff or a candidatewithdraws.OneHTVC staffmemberwhohadknowledgeofallvolunteerapplicationssincethestartofthepilotprojectsaidonlyonecandidatehadbeenrejectedonthegroundsofvoyeurism(expressingexcessiveinterestincasefiles).5.39 One volunteer who is a survivor of sexual abuse claimed that a fellowvolunteerwithasimilar,thoughmoreserious,experienceeventuallydroppedoutofher Circle because the issues it was raising for him personally became over‐burdensome.Wewere not able to verify this formally, but HTVC staff agree thattherehavebeenahandfulofcaseswheresurvivorshavenotbeenabletocarryonwork as volunteers for this reason, and they do attempt to screen for vulnerablepeoplewhomayhaveunresolvedissuesofabuse.

Training5.40 Training of volunteers is seen as themost importantway ofmanaging theidentifiedconcernswithvolunteers.Thus ithasbecomeaprimary focus foractiveCirclesprojects.Becauseoftheinformal,adhocoriginsofthefirstCirclesinCanada,formaltrainingsystemsdidnotexistinitsearlydays.Thecurrentsituationisvastly

13ThesearealsolistedintheCorrectionalServiceofCanada’sGuidetoProjectDevelopment(2003).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 62

differentand inbothCanadaandHampshireandThamesValleydocumentationoftheirrespectivetrainingpackagesissubstantial.5.41 Wilsonetal’s.(2007b)findingsabouttrainingofCanadianvolunteersreflectthefactthattheprojectwasevolvingatthesametimeitwasundergoingevaluation.For example, only slightlymore than half (55%) the volunteers reported receivingany trainingprior to starting theirCircle. It isnot surprising then thatwhenaskedabouthowtrainingcouldbeimproved,manydesiredmoretrainingtohelppreparethem for their work (40%), more training sessions available prior to beginning aCircle (42%),andmoreongoingtrainingsessions(44%). Intermsoftopicscovered,most received training about restorative justice (62%), but in terms of trainingopportunities that could be developed, the areas that received the most interestwere inthenutsandboltmattersofdealingwithoffenders,suchas listeningskillsandrespondingtoresistance(38%).SincetheemergenceofthefirstCanadianpilots,the CSC has established project development guidelines for Circles which includethoroughcoverageofvolunteerissuessuchasrecruitment,vetting,training,supportandcrisis(availableonlineat:http://www.csc‐scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/chap/circle/proj‐guid/index_e.shtml,andseealsoWilsonetal,2007a).5.42 Because England has had the benefit of the Canadian Circles experience,therearemarkeddifferencesintheapproachtotrainingevenfromthestartofthepilots in the UK. The training that volunteers receive in Hampshire and ThamesValley,whileundergoingsomemodificationsovertime,hasalwaysincludedtrainingthatmustbecompletedbyallvolunteerspriortocommencingaCircle.Thecurrenttrainingpackageconsistsofatwo‐day initial trainingpriortocommencingaCircle,mandatory annual booster training, and a number of special events and ad hoccoverage of particular topics. All volunteers participating in the SCCJR researchreportedhavinggonethroughthetwo‐daytrainingandannualone‐daytrainings,aswell asmostly participating in the various events scheduled throughout the year.Volunteersweheardfromreportedstrongsatisfactionwiththeirtrainingintermsofthe topics it coveredandemphasised itsadditional value forprovidinga forumtomeetwith other volunteers in order to gain confidence (where theywere new toCircles) and to share strategies or meet friends. One respondent said, ‘I will stillcontinuetogototrainings,evenifitmeansrepeatingsome,asIfindthatoneofthemostusefulaspectsistheinsightitgivestooffenderbehaviourandthinking.Thisissomething it is easy to forget when you are simply faced with a charming andplausiblepersoninthefairlysocialenvironmentofaCircle’(Interview35).5.43 HTVC staff also have been invited to provide training or consult ondevelopingtrainingpackagesinotherpartsoftheUKwheretherehasbeeninterestinCircles.Asitgainsitsowncharitystatus,HTVCisalsodevelopingplanstosecurethesustainabilityofitsprojectpartlybygeneratingincomefromtrainingothers.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 63

5.44 In terms of training topics, volunteers listed the following examples theypersonallyexperienced:

Groupdynamics; Boundariesandmanipulation; Sexualoffending,challengingstereotypes; Accommodation(deliveredbyhostelworkers); Sex offender treatment (SOTP trainers talk about purpose of courses,

theoriesbehindoffendingandcoursedelivery); Probation, conditions of licence and other legal issues (delivered by

probationstaff); PoliceandMAPPAs(deliveredbypolice); Prison; Questioningtechniques; Mediatraining; Victim’sperspective.

5.45 Theareasthatvolunteersmentionedasmostuseful fortheirrole inCircleswere:

Boundariesandmanipulation; Practical and legal issues: how licence (and probation) works, hostels,

resourcesforhousing,financeandemploymentsupport; Criminological: offender behaviour, sex offender treatment programmes

(theoryandpractice);and Workingingroups:groupdynamics,managinggroupconflicts.

5.46 Volunteers reported that the training was dynamic, delivered through avarietyofmethodsandinvolvingthemostknowledgeablepersononanissue(e.g.aprobationOffenderManagerspeakingabouthowprobationorderswork).Concreteinformationisseenasthemeansofstrengtheningthevolunteer’spositionvis‐a‐visthecoremember.Volunteers,accordingtooneinterviewee,“needtoknowalotofstuffaboutlicences,prisonsystem,MAPPA,PPOs,otherwisethereisadangerthatthecorememberwillseehimselfastheexpert (andhence incontrol!)” (Interview39).

OperationalFeaturesofHTVCCircles5.47 IntheHampshireandThamesValleyproject,volunteersmayparticipateinamaximumoftwo‘active’Circlesatatime.An‘active’Circle isonewhichexistsinaformalway,thatis,itiscurrentlyundertheregularsupervisionoftheCirclesprojectteam.ManyvolunteershavemaintainedsomeformofcontactwithcoremembersonceaCirclehasbecomeinactiveordiscontinued.Theboundarybetweenactiveand


www.sccjr.ac.uk 64

inactive Circles can be fluid, and Circles can be reactivatedwhere, for example, avolunteer’sinformalsocialcontactswithacorememberraiseissuesorconcernsthatare considered of a nature that more regular and formal contact with the entireCircleofvolunteerswouldbeappropriate(orwhereacorememberhasreturnedtoprison, the Circlemay become inactive until his release). An increase inmeetingsmay occur for public protection and accountability reasons (e.g. where a corememberisdisplayingreversiontoriskybehavioursandrequiremorefrequentcheck‐ins) or for support reasons.One volunteer interviewedduring this research notedthat a Circle that was about to go to monthly meetings reverted to fortnightlymeetingswhen the building inwhich the core member had a flat was covered invigilante posters advertising the presence of a sex offender. The Circlemetmorefrequently followingthisbecause itwasfeltheneededmoresupportasthiseventcausedhimtobecomestressedanddepressed.5.48 HTVC groups active Circles into two phases: Phase I Circles are the mostformal and featureweeklymeetingswith the coremember in traditionalmeetingplaces(e.g.churchhalls).Thisphasegenerallylastsforaperiodofsixmonths,afterwhichPhaseIImovestowardslessfrequentformalCirclesmeetings(e.g.fortnightlyor monthly) and adds in social meetings with the core member in public places.PhaseIIisearmarkedtolastforsixmonths,butthismaybeextendedbasedontheconclusions of the Circle members – volunteers and core member, Circlescoordinators and any involved statutory agency representatives (e.g. OffenderManager).PeopleinterestedinvolunteeringforCOSAhavetobeabletocommitforatleastayear.

EffectsonVolunteers,SafetyandSupportIssues5.49 InadditiontothepositiveimpactstheyfeltCircleswerehavingonthelivesofcore members, Canadian volunteers reported positive impacts on themselves aswell. Three‐quarters said it gave them a sense of community, 66% reported itprovidedthemwithfriendshipandoverhalf felt theyhadanemotionalbondwithothers(Wilsonetal,2007b:298).Therewasnodataaboutlevelsofstressortraumaexperienced by volunteers, although this was indirectly explored in the questionsabout volunteers’ feelings of fear, anxiety and being supported mentionedpreviously.Again,however,wenotethisasanunfortunategapintheresearchthatdeservesattention,perhapsnotbeforepilotsareinitiated,butinassessingthelong‐termimpactsofthisapproach.5.50 The information from Hampshire and Thames Valley provides examples ofspecific actions undertaken to ensure the safety of and provide support tovolunteers.Theseinclude:

Mobile phones are available from the project office for volunteerswhodonotwanttousetheirownphones;


www.sccjr.ac.uk 65

AllCirclemembers(volunteersandcoremembers)useonlyfirstnameswitheachother(thiscanchangewhenCirclesmoveintoaninactive,socialphase);

Social gatheringswith thecorememberarenotified toall othervolunteersandtheCircleCoordinatorinadvance;

Protocols against bringing coremember to one’s own home ormeeting insecludedorisolatedplaces;

Always having amobile phone on one’s personwhenmeetingwith a coremember;

Vetting process includes screening for the vulnerable (e.g. abuse survivorsnotreadytodealfacetofacewithoffendersofthistype);

Circle Coordinator provides oversight through regular reviews of the Circle(assessing how volunteers are getting along and communicatingwith eachother,ensuringcorememberisnotattemptingtocontrolagendaandmoveaway from discussion of key issues, e.g., identified in relapse preventionplans);

A counsellor is employed by HTVC on a part‐time basis and is available tosupportcoremembers,volunteersandprojectstaff(althoughmostvolunteerrespondentswerenotawareofthisservice).

5.51 Interestingly, no volunteer interviewed for this report identified their ownsafety as a major concern. This may be partly a result of having a robust set ofprotocols in place, which provides reassurance to volunteers. In addition, as wasnoted above, because volunteersworking in COSAoften have some experience ofcriminaljustice,theymayhaveahigheraveragelevelofsecurityandawarenessthanthelaypublic.HTVCstaffnotethatduringanearlystageofthepilottherehavebeenmanylessonslearnedaboutvolunteersafetywhichhaveresultedinthecurrentsetofprotocols.Thereoriginallywasnoexplicit ruleagainstinvitingacoremembertoone’s home, and at least one volunteer interviewed for this report, who hadparticipated in one of the first Circles, noted his family had always had the coremember over for a Christmasmeal. There have also been instances ofHTVC staffhavingtomeetwithvolunteerswhereobservanceoftheprotocolshadweakened,asintheruleaboutnotifyingothervolunteersandtheCircleCoordinatoraboutanymeetingswiththecoremember inadvance.However, theseproceduresappeartobe robust: HTVC staff reported that to date there have been no serious safetyincidentsconcerningvolunteers.5.52 Thegeneraltenorofvolunteercommentsrevealsagroupthathasamatureattitude towards working with high risk individuals. One respondent noted thatvolunteershave‘toacceptalevelofpersonalresponsibility’fortheirownsafety‘byfollowing protocols and not meeting with core members in a secluded place’(Interview34).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 66

5.53 Volunteer respondents to this research also reported feeling that they hadadequate emotional and technical support to carry out theirwork.One volunteersaid he ‘thought hearing about deviant sexual experiences might be difficult, nottraumaticbut[difficult]becauseIwouldn’tknowhowtorelate,supportorguideanindividual towards healthy ways. But it turned out not to be a big issue. Coremembershavesetouttoshockbybeingexplicit,butthishasn’tworkedonmeormyfellowvolunteers’(Interview38).Again,however,it isimportanttonotetheearlierprovisoaboutthelimitednatureofourownandothers’researchonvolunteersandtheabsenceofinformationaboutthosewhodecidednottocontinueinCircles.5.54 The Circle Coordinators play a major role in the generally high level ofsatisfaction among volunteers about support and supervision. The Coordinatorswere reported to be the first port of call for any concerns with either the corememberorothervolunteers,andconcernswerereportedtobehandledquicklyandeffectively.Thesecoveredarangeofissuesfromthoserelatedtothecoremember’sparticipation to problems in the group dynamic among volunteers. WhileCoordinatorshaveprimaryresponsibility forensuringthataCircle’s focusonCOSAaimsremainsinplace,volunteersthemselvesseemtoself‐regulatetosomedegreeinholdingthemselvesaccountabletotheirmissionandkeepingwithintheirexplicitremit. In thewords of one volunteer: ‘A general issue is that wemostly have anamateurknowledgeofcounsellingandtherapy,butarenotqualifiedtopractiseit–indeed it couldbecounter‐productive. So there isalwaysadangerof slipping intoamateurpsychology.Sometimesvolunteersneedtoholdeachotheraccountableinsuchareas’(Interview39).5.55 And finally, Circles has had effects on volunteers beyond their immediateconcernwithsexualoffenders.Onerespondentsaid‘Iwasn’tveryawareofvictimsof crime [before starting inCircles]buthavebegun tobeafterworking inCircle. IthinkCirclescouldworkforvictimstooinhelpingthemgettheirlivesbacktogether.I think it’s too bad victims don’t have same level of support as core members’(Interview34).

InformationSharingandDisclosure5.56 As noted in Chapter 4, information sharing and confidentiality issueswereraisedbymanyofourScottishintervieweesasaconcernabouttheuseofvolunteersin COSA. The Canadian research does not address this issue empirically, althoughguidelinesareprovidedintheCSC’sGuidetoProjectDevelopment(2003).5.57 In Hampshire and Thames Valley, information sharing and disclosure arecoveredbyprotocolsandprocedures.Tobeginwith,thefirstCirclemeetingwiththecorememberisa‘DisclosureMeeting’,anditisduringthisthattheoffenderoutlinesthe nature of his offences, the conditions of his licence where applicable, and


www.sccjr.ac.uk 67

relevantinformationabouthisMO.Priortothisfirstfullmeeting,Circlesvolunteerswill havemet as a group once or several times. Partly this is a social initiative, tointroduce volunteers to each other and to establish working relationships. It alsoservestheinterestofreaffirmingawarenessofconfidentiality.Itisinthesepre‐Circlemeetings that a Circle Coordinator and a core member’s Offender Manager mayprovidevolunteerswithlimitedcriminalhistoryandotherrelevantinformation.5.58 ThetrainingvolunteershavereceivedaimstoclarifylinesofcommunicationandthresholdsforreportingconcerningissuesthatariseinaCircle.HTVCvolunteerrespondentsdisplayedadherencetoconfidentialityprotocolsforexamplebynotingthat they tend to turn to other Circle volunteers for support more than to theirfamilyor friendsdue to theconfidentiality issuespreventing themdiscussing theircoremember outside the Circle. Even those volunteerswhose husbands or wivesalsovolunteerinotherCirclesstatedtheywerelimitedinwhattheywereabletotelltheirpartnersbecauseofconfidentiality.5.59 Knowing when to provide information to authorities is a key challenge ofinformation sharing. As noted, in HTVCCircles Coordinators are generally the firstplaceavolunteerwouldturneithertoreportinformationortoconsultabouthowtomanage something that has arisen in a Circle. Bates et al (2007) reported in theircase studies of several core members that there was an example of relevantinformationaboutacorememberwhowaseventuallyrecalledtoprisonnotbeingpasseduptoCirclesstafforauthorities.Oncethiswasdiscovered,HTVCpersonnelfollowedupwith volunteers and reviewed information sharing procedures. CirclesCoordinatorssitinonatleastthefirstfewmeetingsoftheCircle,andthenagainonamonthlybasistomonitor issuesthatarise.Circlesalsoproduceminutesofeverymeetingwhich are supplied to the Circle Coordinator,whomay then also providethem to the OffenderManager andMAPPA. The Coordinators may sit in on anymeetingwhen they feel theyneed to provideclosermonitoringor toworkwithaCircleindecidingwhethertocontainanissuewithinitorpassituptotheauthoritiesfor action. (The Bates et al, 2007, study provides detailed information about thecircumstanceswhenissueswerecontainedwithinaCircle.)

KeyPoints5.60 ThecentralroleforvolunteerswillalwaysconstituteCOSA’smostinnovativeandyetmostchallengingaspect.Ourconceptualandempiricalconsiderationofthevolunteer dimension concludes with several important points to consider inassessing feasibility of Scottish pilots. First, the key issues around volunteering inCircles are now well known, and in Hampshire and Thames Valley have beensuccessfully managed through establishment of formal training and supervision


www.sccjr.ac.uk 68

processes.By‘successful’wedonotmeantomakeanevaluativejudgementofthecontentoftrainingandsupervision;rather,wemeanthatalloftheparticipantsandstakeholdersintheHTVCCirclesfeelsatisfiedthatthereareadequatestructuresinplace for dealing with known issues, and clarity about whom to contact if newquestionsarise.Thissatisfactionamongvolunteers,coremembers,projectstaff,andliaison personnel in local statutory agencies and MAPPA about the adequacy ofvolunteermanagementandsupervision isreinforcedbythefactthattodatetherehavebeennoharmstovolunteersorothers.5.61 Second, the trend of responses from Canadian volunteers reflects a verypositive perception of the project and their impact and at remarkably almostuniversal rates. Volunteers feel strongly that they are having a positive impact onprecisely those issues identified in the general literature on sex offenders such associalisolationandlowself‐esteemthataretriggersforreoffending,andmoreover,believethattheyhavereducedthelikelihoodofreoffending.ThepositivefeelingsofCanadian volunteers about COSA are mirrored in the perspectives of the HTVCvolunteersweinterviewed.However,oneimportantandmissingpieceofthepictureisthelong‐termimpactonvolunteersofthiskindofwork.Itmaybethatvolunteersare provided adequate support and that negative impacts are minimal, but wecannot say this with confidence despite the high levels of satisfaction reportedamong volunteers participating in research. The limited sample sizes of existingresearchwouldneedtobeexpandedsubstantiallytoprovidestatisticalvalidationoffindingssofar.5.62 Third, recruitmentofadequatenumbersofappropriate individuals is a realconcern forCOSA.Thiswasa factor inthe implementationfailureofTheHamptonTrust pilot, which had a strategy of not focusing on faith groups for recruitment.FaithgroupsfigureheavilyintheCOSAexperience,andmorestudyofthisaspectoftheapproachwouldprovideusefulinformationabouttheimplicationsofthis.WhiletherewassomedisquietamongScottishrespondentsabout involvementofchurchgroups and the risk of COSA aims givingway to religious ones, theremay also beunique positive benefits of involving people from faith communities. For example,we could conjecture that individuals coming from such communities have a pre‐existing support system and set of beliefs well‐placed to manage any of theotherwisepotentiallytraumaticaspectsofhearingindetailaboutinstancesofsexualoffendingandvictimisation.5.63 Finally, respondents from theHTVCproject confirm the sense gained fromtheCanadianresearchaboutCircles:thisisamodelthatignitespeople’sbeliefandenthusiasm in their ability to support positive social change. Aside from COSA’smerits in reducing reoffending, this approach of involving volunteers will be ofinteresttothoseseekinginnovativewaysofenergisingandinvolvingcommunitiesingovernance.Whilevolunteersdisplayasenseofinspirationintheirwork,thisisnot


www.sccjr.ac.uk 69

achieved at the expense of awareness about the difficulties and challenges ofworkingwithsexoffenders.Asonevolunteerconcludes:

‘WhatIhavewrittenaboveperhapscomesacrossasuniversallypositive,andthat iswhat Imeant.But it isalsotruethatbeingavolunteer issometimestough. I didn’t want to hear a lot of stuff that I did have to hear. I didn’talways want to turn out on a winter evening for a challenging meeting. Ididn’t always want to spend an hour in a coffee shop trying to makeconversationwithsomeoneIdidn’tverymuchlike.ButIwoulddoitagain!’(Interview39)


www.sccjr.ac.uk 70

6.ASSESSINGEFFECTIVENESSOFCIRCLES 6.1 Whatwouldagoodsystemofsexoffendermanagementlooklikeandwhatwould it deliver?This question drives this report’s definition of effectiveness andprovidesthecontextforassessingCircles.IndoingsowebroadenquitesignificantlywhatitwouldmeanforCOSAtobe‘effective’.ForScottishstakeholders,inadditionto public protection and reduction of reoffending, there is a desire for services todeliverpublicconfidenceincriminaljusticeandtomakeefficientuseoftheirexpertcapacities.Hence,therearemultipledimensionsofCOSA’spotentialeffectiveness:

HowmightCOSAbeeffectiveforoffenders? HowmightCOSAbeeffectiveforcommunities? HowmightCOSAbeeffectiveforcriminaljusticeprofessionals?

6.2 Ultimately for policymakers, the key question for Circles is: Do theywork?Determining the answer to this questionwill require gathering extensiveevidencefrom pilots and projects obtained over a suitably long period. Should the ScottishGovernmentparticipateinpilotingCircles,itwillbeinapositiontocontributetotheanswer.The informationavailablesofar ispromising,buttheevidencebase is toosmallandfromtoobriefaperiodtodrawmorethantentativeconclusionsonmostmeasuresatthispoint.6.3 There isalsoa fundamentally important issueaboutwhat itmeansforsuchanapproachto‘work’.CurrentresearchonCOSAhasfocusedonreconvictionsasatest of effectiveness, because of all theways to define recidivism, thismeasure isreliably indexed in criminal justice records. It is the kind of ‘hard’ evidence thatpolicymakers prefer, even though there are substantial problems relating rates ofreconviction(incidentsthathavebeencaughtandsuccessfullyprosecuted)toratesof reoffending (what offenders do whether or not they are caught or convicted).Equally important,COSA is offeredasa servicewhichaims toworkwith statutoryagenciesandcommunitiestowardsagoalofmonitoringandreintegration.HenceapossiblymoresalientevaluationfocusforCOSAisonitsabilitytoenhancetheworkofthesestakeholdersratherthanitsindependentimpactonoffenderbehaviour.6.4 Furthermore,aswithallcommunity‐basedapproaches,notonlyisitdifficultto isolate the role of Circles on offender behaviour, such a research aimmay alsomissthepointofbasinginitiativesinthecommunityinthefirstplace.Thisisbecausethecommunityisnotjustthesettingof‘treatment’(liketheprisonisthesettingofanoffenderprogramme),itisalsoanagentandtargetofchange(Hope,2005).Thatis, approaches such as COSA not only use communities in the aim of changing


www.sccjr.ac.uk 71

offenders, but offenders provide the opportunity for communities to changethemselves(bybecominginvolved ineffortstoreducecrimeandthefearofcrime,and increasing a sense of community involvement, empowerment and hope).Evaluatingthe impactof initiatives likeCOSAthusrequiresaholisticperspective.A‘whatworks’orientation,withitsemphasisonmethodsofevaluationimportedfromnatural and especially medical science, has become popular in policy debates.However,theNobel laureateineconomics,JamesHeckman,remindsusthat,‘[t]heendresultofaresearchprogrambasedonexperiments [thattreatcommunitiesasblackboxesandseektoisolateefficacyfactors]isjustalistofprogramsthat“work”and“don’twork”,butnounderstandingofwhytheysucceedorfail’(HeckmanandSmith,1995:108).6.5 Inthischapterwepresenttheavailableevidenceofeffectivenessinthethreeareas listed (for offenders, for communities, for professionals) and, in highlightingthesignificantgapsofcoverage,showwherefutureresearchcouldprovidearicherpictureofhowcommunityapproacheslikethismighthaveanimpact.

EffectivenessforOffenders

ReconvictionandRecidivism6.6 The emphasis on measuring effectiveness by evidence‐based practice andquestionsof‘whatworks’haveledtoattemptstodemonstrateempiricallytheeffectof an intervention in relation to desired goals.Interventions deemed effective arethosewhichaddressoffenderrisk,whiletargetingcriminogenicneeds,enablingtheoffender to make necessary changes and encouraging motivation to do so.Whileeffectivenessisoftengaugedbyratesofrecidivismbetweenoffenders(inreceiptofa particular intervention) and amatched comparison group (not in receipt of theintervention) it is difficult to identify statistical significance in relation to sexoffenders. These kinds of comparisons, aiming for experimental or quasi‐experimentalstatus,alsocarrywiththeminternalandfundamentalproblems,aswenoted at the outset.And, as the work in Canada shows, there are challenges inidentifying a comparison group as it would be expected that Circles would targethigh‐risk offenders. Given that the number of individuals who come into thiscategoryissmall,itwouldbeexpectedthattherewouldnotbesufficientindividualsremaining to constitute a comparison group. The long‐term follow‐up periodrequired to measure recidivism also causes difficulties in establishing theeffectivenessofaspecificintervention.6.7 Even focusing narrowly on ‘effectiveness’ for offenders as a question ofrecidivismishighlyproblematic. Insexualoffendingrecidivismtherearedifficultiesin:establishingsufficientlylengthyfollow‐uptimes;lowlevelsofreportingofsexual


www.sccjr.ac.uk 72

offences (Loucks, 2002); anddiscrepancies in official sources of information aboutcriminal convictions (Friendship and Thornton, 2001). Nevertheless, theimplementation and operation of Circles has been followed by early attempts toevaluatethisaspectofeffectiveness.6.8 Studies of the Canadianmodel of Circles have been resourced through theCorrectional Services of Canada and carried out by academic researchers.Wilson,PichecaandPrinzo(2005,2007c)matchedagroupof60high‐risksexualoffendersinvolvedinCirclesfollowingreleasefromcustodytoacomparisongroupof60high‐risk sexual offenders who did not participate in Circles. The two groups werematchedoncriminalityandrisk levels (usingtheGeneralStatistical InformationonRecidivism scale) and released from prison on or close to the same date. Bothgroups were also matched with previous sexual offender treatment.A range ofmeasures were used to compare the groups (STATIC‐99, RRASOR, Phallometrictesting). The average follow‐up periodwas 4.5 years.Recidivism in this studywasdefined as reconvictions and charges for new sexual offences or for breaches oforder.6.9 ThestudyauthorsnotethattheindividualsselectedforCirclesformedinfacta slightly higher‐risk group (the higher‐risk individuals were more likely to betargeted for intervention at the end of a prison sentence).While this may havesuggestedthattheCirclesparticipantswouldbeexpectedtohavehigherratesofre‐offending, the researchers found the opposite. The study results showed thatoffenders who participated in Circles had significantly lower rates of generalreoffending than the comparison group. They also had a 70% reduction in sexualrecidivismincontrasttothematchedcomparisongroupanda57%reductioninalltypesofviolentrecidivismandanoverallreductionof35%inalltypesofrecidivism.Wherefurthersexualoffendingdidoccur,theseoffenceswerereportedtobe‘lesssevere’thanprioroffencesbythesameindividuals.6.10 Batesetal(2007)evaluatedthefirstfouryearsoftheThamesValleyproject’soperation.Thiswasaself‐evaluationandwasbasedoninformationcollectedwithintheproject.Batesetal(2007)wereunabletoconductalong‐termfollow‐upstudyas themaximum lengthof time foraCircle coremember tohave remained in thecommunity–atthattime–was3.5years(10yearsisconsideredtobethegenerallyoptimal follow‐up period in sexual offending recidivism).This study distinguishedbetween:

Reconviction(subsequentconvictionforanothersexualoffence); Re‐offending (commissionofasubsequent illegalact– includingactswhich

are not detected by the police).Loucks (2002) in a review of recidivismstudies indicates that estimates suggest that actual re‐offending rates aremorethantwicethoseindicatedbyreconvictiondata;and,


www.sccjr.ac.uk 73

Recidivism (behaviour which breaks the law and behaviour which waspresentinpreviousoffending,i.e.conductconsistentwithanoffender’spriormodusoperandi)(seealsoLoucks,2002).

6.11 Bates et al (2007) argue that Circles provide an opportunity to collate asignificantamountof dataoncoremembers through thecollationof filesand the‘local knowledge’ gained through the formal and informal group and individualmeetings which take place between core members, volunteers and CircleCoordinators.Usingthisdata,accessedthroughinterviewswithCirclestaffandcasefileskepton16coremembersbetween2002and2006,thefollowingresultswereobtained:

Nocorememberwasreconvictedofasexualoffence. One corememberwas convicted of a breach of a Sex Offence Prevention

Order. Four core members (25%) were recalled for breach of parole licence

conditions. Five coremembers (31%)were reported to exhibit some kind of recidivist

behaviour.6.12 Keeping in mind the fact that this work is not presented as a formalreconvictionstudy,theabsenceofanysexualreconvictionsamongthesamplegroupisapromising sign. Inaddition,Batesetal (2007)make thecase thatexamplesofrecidivismandrecallstoprisonareevidenceofCircles’successbecausetheyshowedtheabilityofCirclestopickuponand refertoauthoritiesbeforeanoffencecouldtakeplace.Theynote:

‘Thefactthatfourcoremembershavebeenrecalledtoprisoncanbeseenasevidence of the effectiveness of current public protection procedures ofwhichCOSAformsanactivepart.Itisimportanttoalsorecognisethatthreeof these four have retained contact with COSA and have been or will beaccommodatedinfurtherCirclesinterventions.’(Batesetal,2007:38)

6.13 In our interviews, Hampshire and Thames Valley project staff identifiedsituationswhereproblemswereexperiencedwithvolunteerspassingonappropriateinformationtoPublicProtectionOfficers–inonecasethisledtoaninternalreviewof communications procedures and resulted in more formal information‐sharingbetweenCirclesandstatutoryagencies.Inthecaseswhereactionwastakenagainstacoremember(e.g.recalltoprison)agenciesthemselveshavebeenabletoidentifybehaviour–butinthreeoutofsixcaseswherethisoccurred,Circlescontributedtothis process and in four further cases, Circles identified recidivist behaviourwhichwasaddressedinconsultationwithpublicprotectionandprobationofficers.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 74

Pro‐socialChange6.14 TheGoodLifeModel, a strengthsbasedapproachwhich isusedwithin theHTVCCircles, shifts the emphasis beyond the removal of risk factors, and aims todeveloppro‐socialopportunitiesforcorememberstodevelopafulfillinglife(Ward,2002;Lindsayetal,2007).AccordingtotheRiskManagementAuthorityStandardsandGuidelines, thismodeloffersaconstructiveframeworkforenhancingoffendermotivation(RMA,2007). Itprovidesawayof interveningthat focusespositivelyonprovidingindividualswiththerequiredskillsandsupporttoachieveameaningfullifein sociallyacceptableandpersonallymeaningfulways.AlthoughBatesetal (2007)providesomeinformationonreconvictionandrecidivism,theevaluationsconductedto date in the UK have focused on the process and development of Circles(Haslewood‐Pocsiketal,2008;QPSW,2005).AkeyconcernofthisworkhasbeentoassessCircles’abilitytofacilitategreaterstabilityandsocialintegrationinthelivesofthecoremembers(incomparisontopredictionsand/orearlierexperiences).6.15 Therefore‘effectiveness’and‘success’aredefinedbytheprovidersofCirclesas not only the reduction of recidivism, but also improvements in the lives of thecoremembers (whichmay also be inter‐related). Circlesare aimed at providing asenseofcommunityforindividualswho, it isbelieved,wouldotherwisebeisolatedand socially marginalised. Providing support in this way is aimed at addressingcriminogenicfactorsthatmaybelinkedtore‐offending–andindoingso,reducingthelikelihoodoffurthervictimisation.6.16 TheongoingrelationshipsbetweenCirclemembers(coreandvolunteer)andCircle Coordinators enable the collation of significant information about sexoffenders’ attitudes and behaviour in the community.This collaboration underpinstheexpectationthatCirclesarelikelytorevealmoredetailedinformationabouttheday‐to‐dayactivitiesofcoremembersthanrelationshipsbetweensex‐offendersandprofessionalswithinstatutoryagenciescanobtain,andthis,itissuggested,canleadtoagreaterpotentialforinterventionandcontroloverrecidivistbehaviour.6.17 The Thames Valley self‐evaluation used psychometric testing (based onHomeOffice questionnaires) tomeasure and assess coremembers’ attitudes andbeliefs (specifically levels of self‐esteem, emotional isolation and locus of control).Theevaluationindicatesthatimprovedattitudeswereidentifiedin‘certain(butnotall) core members’ (QPSW, 2005:20).This evaluation is based on a very smallnumberofcoremembersandwhileitusefullyillustratestheconceptsunderpinningCircles and the development process, is limited in what it can offer in terms ofgeneralisingfindingstoalargerpopulation.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 75

6.18 Theself‐evaluationthenshiftedtowardsrecidivismandtheuseofqualitativedata, with the aim of depicting recidivist behaviour during the period of theCircle.Theevaluationfoundthat:

Circles helped coremembers to develop tools formanaging their lives andcopingonaninter‐personallevel;and,

TheinformalcontactofCirclesprovidedmoreopportunitiestoobservecoremembers’dailybehaviourinthelongerterm(QPSW,2005).

6.19 TherelativelysmallnumbersThamesValleywasabletoinclude(exacerbatedbythesmallbaserateproblemforsexualoffendinggenerally),andthefactthatthisself‐evaluationhasnotyetbeenreplicatedinindependentresearch,meanthevalueof thiswork is limited in its ability definitively to identify the impact of Circles onoffenderintegration.However,itdoesshowthepotentialforCirclestohavearoleinpromotingpro‐socialchangeand‘internalcontrols’intheoffender’sbehaviour.Thebalancebetweenexternalandinternalcontrols(achievedthroughacombinationofintensivesupervisionwithcognitivebehaviouralinterventionprogrammes)hasbeenseen as a key success factor in riskmanagement inMAPPAprocesses (Wood andKemshall, 2007; Kemshall, 2002). Pro‐social modelling has been applied in theEnglishMAPPA processes and has been seen as contributing both to the goal ofpublicprotectionandrehabilitationofoffenders(WoodandKemshall,2007).Whileexternal restrictions are imposed on offenders’ behaviour and freedoms, internalcontrolsareenhancedthroughsupervisionandtreatmentprogrammes.6.20 ThephilosophyofCirclessuggestscontinuitybetweentreatmentprovidedbystatutoryagenciesandpost‐treatment support thatCircles canprovide,with post‐treatment support working to reinforce and sustain the effects of the treatment:‘Although treatment has helped the offender identify pro‐offending beliefs andattitudes, the Circlewill help him apply this learning into every day living’ (QPSW,2003:6).Whetherornotthis iswhatactuallyhas ledtothereduction inrecidivismidentifiedintheCanadianstudyofCircles(Wilsonetal,2007c)isanopenquestion.However it is clear that the philosophy of pro‐social change (developing victimempathy, talking openly about their offending behaviour and identifying ways toavoid situations triggering such behaviour) and the philosophy of Circles sharecommon assumptions and therefore it is reasonable to see Circles as one of thepossible post‐treatment options (for those willing to undertake it) ensuringconsistency and continuity in the process of offender rehabilitation. Moreimportantly, Circles may be able to offer something statutory agencies cannot,namely alternative constructive activities and social bonds, an approach thatmayhave more to offer in terms of reducing offending than a focus on negativeoutcomesandattitudesviaacognitivebehaviouralapproach(Hayles,2006).


www.sccjr.ac.uk 76

ReintegrationintoCommunities6.21 Developmentofpro‐socialskills, improvedcopingandreduction in isolationsupportsreintegrationofoffenders intocommunities.Butwhileattendingtothesegeneralbenefits,Circlesalsoassistthegoalofreintegrationthroughtheveryspecificand practical activities of volunteers. Some of these are seemingly very minor ormundane,butweshouldnotunderestimatetheimpactofday‐to‐daysupportonthelivesofoffenders,forwhomtheymayhaveadisproportionatebenefit.Forexample,byaccompanyingacoremembertoadoctor’sappointment,helpingacorememberfindanappropriateclubto join,orescortinghimtoacomputerclass (allexamplesprovidedtousbyHTVCvolunteers),aCirclecandirectlylinkanoffenderbackintoacommunity.6.22 AfurthersmallscalestudyofIMPACTCircles14(Haslewood‐Pocsiketal,2008)has recently been published andmay provide some insight into this issue. It wasbased on in‐depth qualitative interviews and focuses specifically on theimplementation and preliminary operation of these Circles.While the researchersinitiallyaimedtoincludefiveCirclesintheirstudy,onlyfourwereoperationalatthetimeofthestudyandofthesefour,twodifferedfromtheoriginalprocessguidelines(oneusedonlytwovolunteers;anotherwasbasedonad‐hocsupportfromarangeofpeopleandsubsequentlyformalisedasaCircle).6.23 DespitethesmallnumbersandinconsistencyofoperationacrosstheIMPACTCircles, the study highlighted a number of useful findings in relation to: the keyfeatures and dynamics of the mentoring relationship; perceptions of the riskmanagement role of Circles; and importance of the self‐employment/employmentfocusoftheCircles.6.24 The IMPACT study indicated that Circles were an additional tool in thesupport and management of sex offenders. In addition, the role of volunteersallowed an input which went beyond statutory supervision. This was viewed asimportantinreducingsocialisolationandassistingwiththeprocessofreintegration.6.25 Sex offenders do often experience stigma and marginalisation within localcommunitieswhen they are identified, as a direct result of their perceived risk as

14 IMPACT (InnovationMeans PrisonsandCommunitiesTogether)Circleswereset up in2006. IMPACT isa developmental

project in theNorthWest of England, part‐funded by the European Social Fund and led byHMPrison Service, focusing on

innovativemethods of resettling ex‐offenders into the community. The IMPACT Circles were for sex offenders and those

presentingarisktochildrenandfocusondevelopingsafeandsupportedopportunitiesforself‐employment.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 77

wellasadegreeofuninformedcommunityprejudice.ACanadianstudy(HansonandHarris, 2000) suggested that sexual offence recidivists (in comparison to sexualoffenders not considered to have committed a further offence) had: experiencedpoor social support; attitudes tolerant of sexual assault; antisocial lifestyles; poorself‐management strategies; difficulty co‐operating with community supervision;increasedangerandsubjectivedistress.6.26 Circlesaimtoaddressthesedifficultiesbyprovidingsupportfromvolunteersto assist core members to access resources in the community such as housing,employment and leisure facilities and to feel involved in local communities.Theextent to which these factors directly affect recidivism is not evident from theliteraturehowever.Evidenceofthe linkbetweenareduction insocialisolationandreductionsinrecidivismcouldbeexploredintheScottishcontextthroughthesettingupofpilots.Alternatively(orperhapsadditionally)theviewmightquitereasonablybetakenthatassistingisolatedmembersofcommunities,whetheroffendersornot,withaccessingessentialservices,support,andfriendshipnetworks,isavaluableendinitselfforsocialpolicy.6.27 Whilevariousstudieshaveattemptedto identify factors linkedtopredictedrecidivism(seeLoucks,2002),evidencefromScotlandsuggeststhatsexoffendersdonot differ significantly from the general population in terms of intelligence, age,ethnicity, education, or psychiatric status. They are mostly male, come from allsocio‐economic backgrounds (although are more likely to be prosecuted if theycome from lower socio‐economicgroups), themajorityarenotmentally ill thoughsome have learning difficulties, and the majority can be classified as antisocialpersonalitiesorasparaphiliacs.6.28 Loucks (2002) concludes that sexual deviancy was a better predictor offurther sexual offending than other general factors. The characteristics of serioussexual and violent offenders appeared to be more similar to offenders generally,thantonon‐offenders.Shealsonotesthatthetypeofsexualoffenceappearedtoinfluenceratesofrecidivism,withrapistsbeingmorelikelytocommitfurthersexualoffences.Offencetypeandpreviousoffencehistoryappearedmorelikelytoimpactonrecidivismthanothercharacteristics.6.29 Accordingly,whileCirclesarelikelytopreventtheincreasedisolationofcoremembers, the relationshipof reduced isolation and recidivism isnot clear. Loucks(2002) suggests that the complexity of this issue (prediction of recidivism) is socomplexthatsomeauthorshavearguedthat itmaybemoreeffectivetofocusonmethodsofprevention thanhow topredict recidivism. In this respectCirclesmayhavesomethingtooffer intermsoftheearly identificationofpotentiallyrecidivistbehavioursandamechanismtofeedthisbacktostatutoryagencies.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 78

EffectivenessforCommunities6.30 Interventionsaimedatenhancingthelifeexperiencesofcoremembershavealso been viewed as beneficial to the wider community.Wilson et al (2007b),throughtheuseofsurveys, identifiedaperceived increase incommunitysafetybyvolunteers involved inCanadianCircles.Theyalso collected survey responses from176communitymembers(basedonsurveysleftinlargequantitiesinpublicplaces),whichwere screeneddown to 77 (34men, 41women). Thosewho indicated thatthey were employed in the area of criminal justice or who had prior volunteerexperienceinthecorrectionalsystemwereselectedout,inordertoreducebiasbythosewhomaynaturallybefavourabletothecorrectionalsystem(Id.:293).Ofthe77communitysurveys,Wilsonetal(2007b)foundthatmostwere‘glad’(69%)and‘relieved’(62%)thattheseoffendersweregettingadditionalhelp,althoughasmallminorityreportedanger(8%)thatoffendersweregettingthissupport.Mostofthesecommunity respondents would feel fearful and angry if a high risk sex offendermoved into their neighbourhood, however, 68%of the respondents reported thatthesefeelingswouldchangeinapositivedirectioniftheyknewthattheoffenderinquestion belonged to a Circle. This appears to suggest an overall impact onperceptionsofincreasedcommunitysafetygenerally(Id.).6.31 Criminal justice professionals, who responded to the Wilson et al survey(2007b) (n=16, out of 20 surveys circulated), also appeared to believe thatcommunitysafetywasenhancedbytheoperationofCircles:

‘Approximately 70% of the professional/agency respondents believed thatthecommunity‐at‐largewouldexperienceanincreaseinsafetyinknowingthatahigh‐risksexualoffender ispartofaCOSAand63%felt thefearofreoffencewouldbereduced.Inaddition,44%reportedthatthecommunitywould also get a contributing member of society as the core memberbecamemorefunctional’(Id.:299).

6.32 Our interviews of the HTVC volunteers, described in Chapter 5, providesupport forWilson et al’s (2007b) findings and also suggest additional ways thatCircles have effects on communities. Involvement in Circles provided HTVCvolunteersathoroughunderstandingbothofthedynamicsofsexualoffendingandthestatutorysysteminplacetoaddressit.Circlesthusmayhaveaneducativeeffectforcommunitiesthatcancounteractsimplisticpoliticalandmediarepresentations.Inaddition,thefactthatthesevolunteersconsistentlyfelttheirworkwasmakinganimportantcontributiontothemanagementofsexoffendersprovidedarealsenseofempowermentandevenduty.Anapproach likeCirclesmayprovideanexampleofhow communities can shift from the view that serious crime is someone else’s


www.sccjr.ac.uk 79

problem to the view that it is an area where they can and even should make adifference.

EffectivenessforCriminalJusticeProfessionals6.33 The fact that criminal justice professionals in Wilson et al’s (2007b) smallsurvey sample sawcommunitybenefits toCOSAalso shows thatCOSAcould havebenefits for the professionals themselves. There are many ways in which Circlesmightperformsuchan‘effectiveness’function.Themodelfoundfavouramongthemajorityof the statutoryactorswe interviewed,as fillingagap in supervisionandsupport.Whether or not a reduction in recidivism is achieved, the introduction ofCOSA would seem to achieve greater satisfaction among criminal justiceprofessionals as regards the reach and defensibility of the overall system of sexoffendermanagement.Forthosecriminaljusticeprofessionalswithresponsibilityforworking towards community safety, the presence of a project that supports andenhances this goal could therefore have positive impacts for their morale andcontribute to a renewed sense of mission. Research is required to evaluate thisdimensionofCircles,asitiscentraltoanunderstandingoftheeffectofCOSA.6.34 The broader context and relationship with statutory agencies is clearly ofsignificance.Wilson et al (2000) suggest that coordinated, multi‐disciplinaryapproaches to community‐based sexual offender management can reducerecidivism. Evidence from England also suggests that the accountability aspect ofCircles may be more feasible where it is supported by: a legislative framework;robust notification procedures and agencies working together with appropriatecapacity and expertise in order to support initiatives aimed at high risk offenders.Circlesappear toworkbetterwhere there isa formal partnershipwith thepolice,probation and prison services, and so the ability to assess the effectiveness andvalue of Circles for these stakeholders is important. Certainly the agencystakeholdersinEnglandwithwhomwespokewereconvincedoftheabilityofCirclestohavean impact.Whiletheyarticulatedthis impact intermsofpublicprotectionandreducedreoffending,weobservedthatanequallyimportantelementappearedto be the confidence and satisfaction it gave them in feeling that their ownworkwith offenders (whether through a treatment programme, relapse prevention,probationsupervisionorpolicemonitoring)wasbeingsupportedinthecommunity.This is one areawhere the integration of qualitative evaluativemethods could beparticularlyuseful.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 80

7AssessingFeasibility–IssuesforPilots 7.1 AsnotedinChapter6thedecisiontodevelopCOSAasapilotprojectisquitedifferent to its endorsement as general policy. This is an important distinction tokeep in mind when assessing feasibility of pilots in Scotland and considering theimplementationissuestheywouldentail.FeasibilityofadoptingCirclesonanationallevel, as has happened for example with the development of an accredited sexoffenders groupwork programme, would require a substantial evidence basesupportingitsuse.Thisdoesnotyetexist,andonepurposeofdevelopingpilotsistodevelopsuchanevidencebase,whichwasoneofthereasonstheHomeOffice(andnow Ministry of Justice) funded the English projects. The question for Scottishpolicymakers,therefore,iswhetherenoughisknowntoinstigateapilotproject.Ourapproach in this chapter is to identify feasibility issues within this more narrowconstruction.Ithasinvolvedengagingwithseveralquestions:

Aretherisksofthisprojectreasonablywellknownorforeseeable? Arethereacceptablemechanismsformanagingrisks? Canallrelevantfactorsbearingonimplementation,andthereforeaffectinga

calculationofcost,beidentified? Is theexistingevidenceadequatelypromisingto showapilotprojectwould

beworthwhile?7.2 Our brief was to provide information without making a recommendationabout initiatingpilotCOSAprojects. Therefore, in this chapterwe raise thecentralissuesaffectingfeasibilityandimplementationofpilotstoguidedecisionmaking.

Sitingissues7.3 The implementation experience in England andWales (Chapter 2) providesuseful information about the factors that affected the success or failure ofimplementation. Where to develop pilots is a first concern and involves severalissues:7.4 Demographics and offender profile in an area: a pilot site should beresponsivetoneedbasedonthesexoffenderprofileinagivenarea.Thisdoesnotmeanapilot isbestsited inanareawiththehighestconcentrationofoffenders;alocalemaybeappropriateiftherearefewoffendersbutseveralhighrisk,highneedscases.COSAhave been used,with very few exceptions, toworkwith adult,whitemen.Henceanoffenderprofilerevealingethnic,ageandgenderdiversitymightbe


www.sccjr.ac.uk 81

challengingforthismodel,presentingnewissuestobeworkedout,forexampleinrecruitingvolunteers.7.5 Rangeofurbantoruralsettings:ScotlandisdistinctfromEnglandinitslargegeographicalmassrelativetototalpopulationsize.Therearelargeareasofverylowpopulationdensity,whichneverthelessmayhaveneedsofsupportforsexoffenders.ThebiggestCirclesprojectinEngland,HTVC,operatesinmainlyurbanandsuburbanareas,although itdoes cover some rural communities.While some respondents inScotlandidentifiedparticularareastheyfeltwouldbeappropriatetopilotCircles,itwould be useful to select a range of places so that the value of this approach fordifferentpopulationdensitiesandareascouldbeconsidered.7.6 Support of local stakeholders. This againwas a key implementation factorfortheEnglishpilots.Sitingisnotjustaquestionofgeographyandoffenderprofile;both of these might establish demand for Circles, but implementation would bedifficult if not impossible without the commitment of local agencies and thevoluntary sector and openness of the community. Views of the front lineworkersand managers in the areas being scouted for pilots are an essential piece ofinformation.

ChoosinganAppropriateOrganisationalModel7.7 The varying implementation experiences in Canada and England show thattherearemanywaysthatCirclesmightberun.The ‘goanywhere’approachoftheLucy Faithfull Foundation offers opportunities to provide bespoke services tooffenderswherevertheymaybe.ThismightbeonewaytoaddresstheneedsofsexoffendersinisolatedcommunitieswheresettingupaCirclesprojectofficewouldbeneitherfeasiblenor locallyacceptable.TheHampshireandThamesValleymodelofanindependentorganisationthatworksinclosepartnershipwithlocalagencies,ontheotherhand,avoidshavingtorenegotiaterelationshipseverytimeaCircle issetupandallowstheCirclesprocesstobeembeddedinalocalcriminaljusticestrategy.

DefiningtheMissionandRoleofCirclesinScotland7.8 Every Circles project has produced its own literature on itsmission, valuesandrolesofparticipants.Allsharethecommonelementsofrelyingonvolunteerstoengagewith offenders, and addressing both support and accountability, but thereremainsagreatdealofscopeforspecifyingthemeaningandvaluesoftheseissues.HTVC has emphasised especially the public protection mission of COSA workingclosely with MAPPA, while the first Circles in Canada focused on support. So far


www.sccjr.ac.uk 82

Circles in England and in Canada remain firmly committed to the principle ofvoluntaryparticipation,seeingitascentraltotheaimofanoffender’sengagementwiththeprocess.AminorityofScottishrespondentsfeltthatCirclescouldworkasacondition of probation or a licence, and this would be a major alteration of itsoriginalpremise,requiringconsideration.7.9 There also remain question marks over the precise roles, duties andcapacities of volunteerswith respect to techniques aiming to reduce reoffending,and a Scottish COSA model would be well advised to consider these questionscarefully as thesewill affect establishing training,monitoring and ongoing supportstructures.CirclesUK,anorganisationthatspunoff fromtheHTVCprojectaimstoprovide consistent criteria for minimum elements of a Circle project as well asofferinga setofaimsandcorevalues.Thismayturn intoanaccreditationprocessshould Circles investment be significantly expanded in England.Whether Scotlandsigns up to such a scheme will require consideration of the specific factors thatprofessionalsandcommunitiesherewouldliketoseefromtheservice.

InvestmentinVolunteerTraining7.10 AswenotedinChapter5,the issuesarounduseofvolunteersinCirclesareknown.Therelevantfocusthereforeshouldbeonaddressingthesethroughtraining,supervision and support. The HTVC volunteers felt that their initial training hadequipped them to deal with the difficult issues that arose in Circles, and thatmandatoryannualtrainingandavailabilityofadhocsessionswasjustasimportant.The levelof trainingoffered inHTVCrepresentssubstantial investmentand isseenas an essential element of the success of their project. Training also provides themostsystematicwayofmanagingissuesofriskidentifiedbyScottishstakeholders.Arobust training package thus would be a minimum element ensuring successfulimplementationof pilots.Attention should begiven to the lengthandcoverageofinitialtraining,amountandtypeofongoingtrainingandsupport,resourcestoallowfor professional contribution to training delivery, and mechanisms for ongoingreviewandevaluationoftheeffectivenessoftraining.

OrganisationalInfrastructure7.11 WhatevermodelofCOSAisseenasmostdesirable,implementationsuccessand project sustainability require attention to developing an infrastructure thatallows for strong oversight of Circles themselves. The organisational elementprovides a means also of mediating contact between volunteers and the formalcriminal justice system. HTVC does this through its Project Manager and Circle


www.sccjr.ac.uk 83

Coordinators.LucyFaithfullhasconsultantsanditsDirectoravailabletoperformthisfunction. Stakeholders in Scotland felt such an organisation could be run by thevoluntary sector, though some also saw this as appropriately located within astatutoryagency.This factor isalsorelevant fordetermininghowCircleswill relatetoorbeaccountabletoMAPPA.

InformationSharing7.12 Legislationondataprotection,agencyrules,andconcernsaboutmaintainingvolunteerboundariesaredominantconcerns.Atthesametime,thereisaneedforvolunteerstohaveaccesstosomeinformationaboutanoffender’sbackgroundandcriminal justice status in order for the Circle to be able to monitor an offender’sprogressandidentifywhenpatternsofconductrepresentachangeinrisk.Balancingthesetwoconcernsrequirescarefulattentiontoanticipatingthekindanddepthofinformation necessary for volunteers to fulfil their task and developing formalprotocols within the Circles project, and information sharing agreements withrelevantstatutoryagencies(e.g.police,socialwork,prisons,housing).

RobustEvaluationStrategy7.13 The value of a pilot project is premised on its ability to contribute to anevidencebaseon theCirclesapproach.Aswehavenotedelsewhere in this reportthisrequiresthatanevaluationstrategyisinplaceatthestartofpilotoperations.Inaddition, it is useful for pilot projects to have a strategy for collection ofmanagement information that allows for ongoing self‐review and improvement ofoperations.Forabroaderevaluationstrategy,datashouldbecollectedthatwouldallow for independent study of a broad definition of effectiveness, assessed inqualitative as well as quantitative terms, for different stakeholder groups. Basicissuestobeevaluatedincludeataminimum:Information about volunteer recruitment, attrition at different stages andmotivationalfactors;

Informationaboutoffenderrecruitment,screening,andviews; Impactonandperspectivesofprofessionals,communitiesandvolunteers; Effectsonvolunteersandprojectstaffofworkingwithsexoffenders; ‘Case’data–informationaboutCircles,suchasnumberformed,failuresby

lengthoftimeandcontributingfactors,averagetimeofCircles, frequenciesofmeetings,volunteerdynamics,numbersofvolunteersperCircle,etc.;


www.sccjr.ac.uk 84

InformationaboutmanagementandcoordinationofCirclesincludingamountandmechanismsofprojectstaffcontactwithvolunteersandcoremembers,etc.;

OutcomeinformationincludingwhenandwhyaCirclereacheditsendpoint,information about convictions and breaches of orders, qualitativeinformationaboutcorememberprogress.

CommunicationsandPublicEducationStrategy7.14 There are significant constituencies in Scotland, as elsewhere, that arefundamentally opposed to doing anything other than punishing sex offenders. Ifthere ismoney available for support or other programmes for sex offenders, theywouldratheritwasspentonmoreorharsherpunishments,oronvictims.Themediaispredominantlyheavilyvested intheseviewpoints.Withoutsuggestingthatthereare not valid fears and concerns at the root of these popular views, they are notwidespreadamong thepolicy community,who recognise theyareunproductive. IfCOSAreducesreoffendingitisinthepublicinteresttohaveitintroduced,andsomeof our respondents who represent victims groups have said that they would beprepared to work to help victims understand this point: that unless you keepoffendersinprisonforever,youhavetomanagetheirrelease.7.15 Clearly,however, the introduction ofCOSA,whether it reduces reoffendingornot,hasthecapacitytocauseconsiderablepublicalarm,andamatchingstormofadverse media coverage. COSA has the capacity to be a public education tool asregards the needs, and the management of the dangers, of sex offenders in thecommunity,butensuringthataccurateinformationgetsacrosstothepublicwillbeessential. InformingthepublicaboutCOSA,and theprocessofenlistingvolunteersfromcommunities,willneedtobeaprocesshandledwithgreatdelicacyinordertominimise the risk of the effectiveness of the programmebeing put in jeopardy byalarmist or misleading press reports. Ways of encouraging more informedunderstanding of work with sex offenders may be achieved partly through theinvolvementofvolunteersthemselves,whoselectivelysharewithmembersoftheirsocialnetworksthenatureoftheirwork.Theremayalsoneedtobesomespecificstrategies in place to pre‐empt anger and concern over sex offenders receivingpreferencefor finitetaxpayer funds.Theplanningforanationalvictimsstrategy inScotlandmaybeoneopportunitytoengagewiththisissue.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 85

Cost7.16 TheintroductionofCirclespresentsonfirstsightanextracostratherthanasaving.Thisisnotinfactentirelyaccurate,astheabsenceofalternativestocertainquite serious forms of monitoring such as ISPs means that some offenders willreceive these very expensive forms of supervision because less costly and equallyappropriatealternativesarenotavailable.TherecouldalsoofcoursebecostsavingsattributedtoCOSAif,astheCanadianevaluationssuggest,theyreducereoffending.Thesecostsavingswouldbeinrelationtothecriminaljusticeprocessavoided,andservicestosupportvictimsandfamiliesamongothers,nottomentionthesocialcostofthecrimesthemselves.7.17 Whilecostisanessentialconsiderationindevelopinganinitiative,thisreportdoesnotaddresstheissueindetailmainlybecausetherearenumerouspossibilitiesforhowCOSAcouldbeimplementedinScotland,allofwhichwouldhavemarkedlydifferentcostimplications.Thesizesofdifferentoperationswillalsoaffectcost.7.18 Another important aspect of the cost issue is the fact that introduction ofCircles to Scotland would create a newmarket for services. This is likely to be amarketinvolvingonlycharitableorganisations(althoughthefor‐profitsectorhashadlonginvolvementinoffenderprogrammesandareassuchasriskassessment,ithasnotyetplayedaroleinCOSA).Aswithanymarket,thereistheneedforcompetentmonitoringofcontractsandindependentreviewofbudgets.7.19 Onceabudgetisestimated,anevenmoredifficulttaskwillbetoperformacost‐benefitanalysis(the‘valueformoney’issue).TheresearchliteratureandthoseinvolvedinCirclesprojectsagreethatthecostsofprovidinghighcalibrerecruitment,vetting,training,supervisionandsupportofvolunteers(andalsotosomeextentofcore members) make COSA an expensive service. At the same time, police andprobationrepresentativesarguethatCirclevolunteersareabletoprovidealevelofsupervision and contact with high risk individuals that would be impossible toachieve through even massive expansion of current statutory services. And, asnoted, the benefits of avoiding victimisation result in emotional, social as well asfinancialbenefits.7.20 Theopportunitycosts(bothfiscalandpolitical)ofchoosingoneallocationofresourcesoveranotherwouldalsoneedtobeconsidered.Whatelsecouldmoneythat ismade available for Circles be invested in –more training for practitioners,increasedstaffnumbersinagivenagencyorlocale,expandingthenumberofplacesin sex offender treatment or relapse prevention programmes, providing moreservices for lower risk offenders who make up a larger proportion of the total


www.sccjr.ac.uk 86

population of sex offenders, developing more services for victims of the types ofcrimescommittedbycoremembers?Theseareallissuesthatshouldbeconsideredontheirownmeritsand inanticipationofthepoliticalandpublicdebatesthatcansurrounddiscussionofservicesforsuchadifficultgroup.

LocalorNationalSponsorship7.21 There is nothing at present stopping any community, church, or local areafrom implementing Circles pilots right now; there are several Circles in Scotlandalready, informally operating out of churches. Proposals have been made to theGovernment to fund a Circles pilot, however, raising the issue about the relativefeasibility of central vs. local funding. This obviously is amatter to be consideredunderthefactorofcost,butitisnottheonlyissue.GiventhecreationoftheCJAs,which are attempting to make reducing reoffending activities and spending morelocally responsive, there is an argument that the CJAwould be the relevant focalpoint throughwhichpilots could bedevelopedwere this identifiedasapriority intheir strategic plan. If pilots are left to the initiative of local areas, this wouldencouragethe implementationofprojects inthoseareaswherestakeholderswereespecially committed to the approach. On the other hand, central involvement infundingandplanningforCircleswouldallowfor theretobesomeconsistencyandstandardisationofpracticewhichwouldassistdevelopmentofavalidatedevidencebaseandallowdifferentpartsofScotlandrunningCirclestocomparetheirworkwitheachother.Equallyimportant, itwouldallowforthecentralgovernmenttoensurethere is regulatory oversight of Circles projects and to leverage funding on thecreationandrealisationofprojectaims.

ExitStrategy7.22 Finally,apilotprojectshouldbesettorunforatime‐limitedperiod,andsowould need a plan for seamlesswinding down of the project should renewal notoccur. This is a tricky issue forapproaches like Circleswhichworkwithahigh riskoffender population and also use volunteers in whom it would be expected asignificant investment in training has been made. It is not necessarily aninsurmountable issueasitcouldbeconceivablethatapilotwouldhaveaquotaonthenumbersofCircles,ordesignateaperiodwithinwhichallCirclesmustbeginsothat fundingwould not be discontinued at an inconvenient time (in themiddle ofvolunteer training or after a handful ofmeetings have already been heldwith anoffender).Theremightalsobeaplanfortransitionofservicesfromnationaltolocalfunding,as looks likelytobethecase inEngland.Carefulplanningtowinddowna


www.sccjr.ac.uk 87

projectisjustasimportantasplanningforimplementationandrecognisesthattherecanbeasmuchworktoendaninitiativeastobeginone.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 88

REFERENCES Bates,A.,Saunders,R.,andWilson,C.(2007)‘DoingSomethingAboutIt:AFollow‐up

StudyofSexOffendersParticipatinginThamesValleyCirclesofSupportandAccountability,’BritishJournalofCommunityJustice,vol.5(1):19‐42.

Birchfield,K.andMingus,W.(2008)‘NotInMyNeighborhood:AssessingRegisteredSex Offenders’ Experiences With Local Social Capital and Social Control’CriminalJusticeandBehaviour,vol.35(3):356‐374.

British Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (2006) ‘Circles UK – Business Plan’,London:Quakers.

Communities–TheLocalGovernmentWhitePaper,Norwich:HMSO.CorrectionalServiceofCanada(2003)CirclesofSupportandAccountability–Guide

toProjectDevelopment,Ottawa,Ontario:CSC.Department forCommunitiesandLocalGovernment (2006)StrongandProsperous

ExpertPanelonSexOffending[CosgroveReport](2001)ReducingtheRisk:ImprovingtheResponsetoSexOffending,Edinburgh:ScottishExecutive.

Friendship, C. and Thornton, D. (2001) ‘Sexual Reconviction for Sexual OffendersDischarged from Prison in England and Wales’, British Journal ofCriminology,41,285‐292.

Hanson,R.andHarris,A.(2000)‘WhereShouldWeIntervene?DynamicPredictorsofSexualOffenceRecidivism’CriminalJusticeandBehaviour,27(1)6‐35.

Haslewood‐Pocsik, I. et al (2008) IMPACT Circles: balancing riskmanagementwithsupport:Astudyofan innovativeapproach inworkingwithsexoffenders,FinalReport,UniversityofManchester:CriminalJusticeResearchUnit.

Hayles,M. (2006) ‘Constructing Safety’ in K.Gorman,M.Gregory,M.Hayles&N.Parton(eds),ConstructiveWorkwithOffenders,London:JessicaKingsley.

Heckman, J. and Smith, J. (1995) ‘Assessing the Case for Social Experiments,’TheJournalofEconomicPerspectives,vol.9(2):85‐110.

HomeOffice(2007)ReviewoftheProtectionofChildrenfromSexOffenders,London:COI/HomeOffice.

Hope, T. (2005) ‘Pretend It Doesn’t Work: The ‘Anti‐Social’ Bias In The MarylandScientific Methods Scale,’ European Journal on Criminal Policy andResearch,11:275‐296.

Jones, S. andMcCann, J. (2005)Circles of Support andAccountability: A ReviewofHomeOffice Funded Pilot Projects, September 2005, unpublished internalreport.

Justice 2 (2006) Sub Committee Report on Child Sex Offenders, J2SC/S2/06/R1,December, available online at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice2sub/reports‐06/j2subr06‐01‐00.htm


www.sccjr.ac.uk 89

Kemshall,H.(2002)RiskAssessmentandManagementofSeriousViolentandSexualOffenders: A review of current issues, Scottish Executive Social Research,online literature review,http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/11/15703/12488

Lindsay, W., Ward, T., Morgan, T. and Wilson, I. (2007) ‘Self‐regulation of sexoffending, future pathways and the Good Lives Model: Applications andProblems’,JournalofSexualAggression,Vol.13No.1p37‐50.

Loucks, N. (2002) Recidivism amongst Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders,Edinburgh:ScottishGovernment.

ManagementofOffendersetc.(Scotland)Act2005,London:HMSOMcNeill, F. (2005) ‘RememberingProbation inScotland’,Probation Journal,Vol.52

(1).Nellis,M.(2008) ‘CirclesofSupportandAccountabilityforSexOffendersinEngland

and Wales: Their Origins and Implementation between 1999 ‐ 2005,’Unpublishedpaper.Copyavailablefromauthor,andonfilewithSCCJR.

Quaker Peace and Social Witness [QPSW] (2003) Circles of Support andAccountability in the Thames Valley – Interim Report, November 2003,London:QPSW.

Quaker Peace and Social Witness [QPSW] (2005) Circles of Support andAccountability in theThamesValley–TheFirstThreeYears,April 2002 toMarch2005,London:QPSW.

RMA(2007)StandardsandGuidelines:RiskManagementofOffendersSubjecttoanOrderforLifelongRestrictionVersion1,Paisley:RMA.

Ward, T. (2002) ‘Good Lives and the Rehabilitation of Offenders: Promises andProblems’AggressionandViolentBehaviour,7,513‐528.

Wilson et al [Wilson, R., McWhinnie, A., Picheca, J., Prinzo, M., and Cortoni, F.](2007a) ‘Circles of Support and Accountability: Engaging CommunityVolunteersintheManagementofHigh‐RiskSexualOffenders,’TheHowardJournal,Vol46(1):1‐15.

Wilson et al [Wilson, R., Picheca, J. and Prinzo, M.] (2007b) ‘Evaluating theEffectivenessofProfessionally‐FacilitatedVolunteerismintheCommunity‐BasedManagement of High‐Risk Sexual Offenders: Part One – Effects onParticipants and Stakeholders,’ The Howard Journal, Vol 46, No 3.(July):289‐302.

Wilson et al [Wilson, R., Picheca, J. and Prinzo, M]. (2007c) ‘Evaluating theEffectivenessofProfessionally‐FacilitatedVolunteerismintheCommunity‐Based Management of High‐Risk Sexual Offenders: Part Two – AComparison of Recidivism Rates,’ The Howard Journal, Vol 46, No 4.(September):327‐337.

Wilson, R. and Picheca, J. (2005) ‘Circles of Support andAccountability– EngagingtheCommunityinSexualOffenderManagement’,inB.K.Schwarz(ed.),TheSexOffender, Vol. 5: Issues in Assessment, Treatment, and Supervision ofAdultandJuvenilePopulations,Kingston,NJ:CivicResearchInstitute.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 90

Wilson,R.,Picheca,J.andPrinzo,M.(2005)‘CirclesofSupport&Accountability:AnEvaluation of the Pilot Project in South‐Central Ontario,’ CorrectionalServiceofCanada,availableonlineat:

http://www.csc‐scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r168/r168_e.pdfWilson,R.,Stewart,L.,Stirpe,T.,Barrett,M.andCripps,J.(2000)‘Community‐based

sexualoffendermanagement:combiningparolesupervisionandtreatmenttoreducerecidivism’CanadianJournalofCriminology,42(2):177‐88.

Wood, J. and Kemshall, H. (2007) ‘The Operation and Experience ofMulti‐AgencyPublicProtectionArrangements(MAPPA)’,ResearchFindings285,London:HomeOffice.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 91

ORGANISATIONSPARTICIPATINGINTHERESEARCHACPOSApexBarnardosCatholicChurchChildrenFirstChurchofScotlandCirclesUKCommunityJusticeAuthoritiesHampshireThamesValleyCirclesofSupportandAccountabilityLocalAuthoritiesMAPPAsMinistryofJustice,PublicProtectionUnitMinistryofJustice,RDSQuakerPeaceandSocialWitnessSACROScottishGovernment,EffectivePracticeUnitScottishPrisonServiceScottishSocialWorkDepartmentsStopitNow!TheCapabilityCompany


www.sccjr.ac.uk 92

METHODOLOGYANDRESEARCHACTIVITIES

LiteraturereviewWeprioritisedpeer‐reviewed,independentpublishedresearchonCircles.Ourworkwasalsoinformedbyothermaterialsincludingself‐evaluationsofCirclesprojects,projectdocumentation,writtenevidence,mediasources,andothermaterials.

ReviewofOperationsinEnglandandWales HTVCsitevisit:TwoprojectteammembersspenttwodaysattheThamesValleyprojectinterviewingprojectmanagers,staffandotherkeystakeholders.ThisalsoincludedavisittoCirclesUK,thenationalcoordinatingbody.Relevantdocuments,materialsanddatawerecollectedon‐siteandsubsequenttelephoneinterviewstookplacewithCirclevolunteersandcoremembers.Thisincludedinterviewswith:2MinistryofJusticerepresentatives(researchandpublicprotection)3representativesofCirclesUK8HTVCmanagers,staffandkeystakeholders10HTVCvolunteers2HTVCcoremembersCirclemembers(i.e.volunteersandcoremembers)wererecruitedtotheresearchasfollows:TheSCCJRteamsentnumerouscopiesofaprojectinformationsheetandconsentformtotheHTVCprojectoffice.HTVCprojectstaffwereinstructedtodelivercopiestoscheduledCirclesmeetings,leavingthepapersatthemeetingsandmerelyalertingCirclememberstotheirexistencebutnotmakinganyothercomment(e.g.encouragingordiscouragingparticipation).Circlemembersinterestedinparticipatingintheresearchreturnedconsentformsinpre‐addressedstampedenvelopestotheSCCJRteam,whichdirectlyarrangedinterviews.Respondentsweregiventheoptionofspeakingtousbytelephoneoransweringtheinterviewquestionsviaemailedresponses.ResearchonotherUKCircles:Telephoneinterviewswereconductedwherepossiblewiththoseindividualsinvolvedwithand/orknowledgeableabouttheseprogrammesandvialiterature‐basedresearch.


www.sccjr.ac.uk 93

InterviewsandAnalysis31interviewswereconductedwithkeyrespondentsinScotland,primarilybytelephone,withaccessnegotiatedthroughtheScottishGovernment.Theyincluded:4interviewswithScottishGovernmentrepresentatives2CJAChiefOfficers3localauthoritySocialWorkManagers3SeniorPolicerepresentatives1MAPPArepresentative2SPSrepresentatives1ADSWrepresentative7socialworkers8representativesofindependentsectororganisationsInterviewsweresemi‐structuredandcollectedperspectiveson:

Awarenessofandpotentialinvolvementofagenciesandorganisations,and

theircommitmenttotheconceptofCircles; IssuesaffectingtransferabilityandimplementationofCircleswithinScotland; Generalviewsandcomments; Perceptionsofresourceimplications.

EthicalapprovalforthestudywasgivenbytheUniversityofGlasgowEthicsCommittee.

Circles of Support & Accountability · Sarah Armstrong, Yulia Chistyakova, Simon Mackenzie and...

Documents

Transcript of Circles of Support & Accountability · Sarah Armstrong, Yulia Chistyakova, Simon Mackenzie and...