{"id":1394,"date":"2015-12-15T15:08:53","date_gmt":"2015-12-15T15:08:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?p=1394"},"modified":"2022-12-19T11:19:49","modified_gmt":"2022-12-19T11:19:49","slug":"an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/","title":{"rendered":"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_left_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”2\/3″][vc_custom_heading text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h3″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Articles[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_separator sep_color=”color-210407″ el_height=”1px”][vc_custom_heading auto_text=”yes” text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h1″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”accent”]This is a custom heading element.[\/vc_custom_heading][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Published<\/span><\/td>\n15\/12\/2015<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Type<\/td>\nArticle<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Author(s)<\/td>\nJackie Craissati, Claire Quartey<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corresponding Authors<\/td>\nJackie Craissati, Consultant Clinical & Forensic Psychologist, Oxleas NHS Trust Claire Quartey, Assistant Psychologist, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOA<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DOI<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Disclosure – sharing specific information about an offender with a third party – is an important tool in the range of risk management options available to agencies when managing convicted sex offenders placed on the Sex Offender Register in England and Wales. However, disclosure has not been widely researched, and assumptions that it is effective in reducing the likelihood of further sexual offending cannot be empirically supported as yet. This study aimed to gather descriptive data on the frequency and nature of third party disclosures on Registered Sex Offenders in five London boroughs, with reference to the method of disclosure, the outcome, and subsequent offence failures. One hundred and twenty nine third party disclosures were made over the one year period, most commonly to those in close relationships with the offender. Outcomes were variable in terms of acceptance and rejection, although the method by which disclosure was made had a significant impact on the outcomes. The rate of offender non-compliance with statutory regulations over the research period was relatively high suggesting that this was a group of less compliant offenders. Implications for future research and good practice are discussed.[\/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”3″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ align_mobile=”align_center_mobile” mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/1″][uncode_share layout=”multiple” bigger=”yes” separator=”yes”][\/vc_column_inner][\/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]Introduction<\/strong>
\nDisclosure is considered to be an important and necessary resource for the effective risk\u00a0management of sexual offenders. Disclosure, in this context, refers to \u2018the sharing of\u00a0specific information about a MAPPA offender with a third party (not involved in MAPPA)\u00a0for the purpose of protecting the public\u2019 (MAPPA Guidance, 2012). This should not be\u00a0confused with information-sharing between agencies.<\/p>\n

MAPPA refers to the multi-agency public protection arrangements which were introduced\u00a0in England and Wales in 2001 under Sections 67 and 68 of the Criminal Justice and Court\u00a0Services Act (2000) to facilitate the sharing of information among agencies to improve\u00a0public protection. MAPPA is now covered by the Criminal Justice Act (2003, section 325-327). Police, probation and prison services form the Responsible Authority with a\u00a0statutory duty to ensure that the risks posed by specified sexual and violent offenders are\u00a0assessed and managed appropriately, and other agencies – such as health, youth justice\u00a0and the local authority – have a \u2018duty to co-operate\u2019 (Criminal Justice Act, 2003, section\u00a0325(3)).<\/p>\n

One of the categories of offenders falling within the remit of MAPPA is Registered Sex\u00a0Offenders (RSOs). These are convicted sex offenders who are subject to notification\u00a0requirements under the Sexual Offences Act, 2003. Under the terms of the Act, RSOs\u00a0must notify police of their name, address, all foreign travel, bank and credit card details,\u00a0as well as information about their passports and other identity documents. RSOs – as with\u00a0other MAPPA offenders – can be managed at three levels. Level 1 refers to ordinary\u00a0agency management where the risks posed by the offender can be managed by the\u00a0agency responsible for the supervision or case management. This involves information\u00a0sharing but does not require multi-agency meetings. Level 2 is for those offenders whose\u00a0risk requires active multi-agency management and for whom risk management plans are\u00a0agreed via a multi-agency meeting. Level 3 is reserved for cases which meet the level 2\u00a0criteria but where the management issues require senior representation from the\u00a0agencies, and there may be a need to commit significant resources at short notice.<\/p>\n

The most recent MAPPA guidance (Section 10.2, 2012) sets out principles underpinning\u00a0the use of disclosure. Disclosure should be lawful, proportionate, accurate and necessary.\u00a0Proportionate refers to a number of considerations within the guidance, including the\u00a0potential risk to the offender as a result of disclosure and the consideration and recording\u00a0of alternatives to disclosure; the provision of information regarding key triggers for\u00a0offending behaviour or other advice regarding management, not necessarily an offence\u00a0history; and procedures to support both victims and offenders in case there is a\u00a0breakdown in the process. Finally, the guidance suggests that \u2018it is preferable that the\u00a0offender knows that disclosure is taking place. On occasion, the offender may make the\u00a0disclosure himself or herself in the presence of the police or the Offender Manager\u00a0(probation officer), or may later confirm or verify the content of the disclosure\u2019 (p.56).<\/p>\n

Although there have been process evaluations of the MAPPA process (for example, Wood\u00a0and Kemshall, 2007), there are only two published research studies on the use of third\u00a0party disclosure under MAPPA. Cann (2007) reported on a survey of the 43 police areas in\u00a0England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only 29 of the 40 areas which responded had made\u00a0disclosures in the preceding six months. The survey revealed that the primary reason for\u00a0disclosure was child protection, usually precipitated by a change in an offender\u2019s personal\u00a0relationships, housing or employment situation. Most commonly it was the details of the\u00a0convicted offence which were disclosed. Both negative and positive consequences were\u00a0highlighted: potential destabilisation of the offender versus enhanced public protection by\u00a0limiting opportunities for offenders to access risky situations.<\/p>\n

Penny and Craissati (2012) surveyed regular participants in MAPPA level 2 meetings across\u00a0London with a response rate of 196 questionnaires. Respondents expressed confidence in\u00a0their knowledge of disclosure law and procedures, but widely divergent views in their\u00a0response to a range of hypothetical disclosure scenarios. The authors raise implications of\u00a0the research for practice including improved understanding and guidance around third\u00a0party disclosure, additional training and governance oversight.<\/p>\n

In 2007, the Review of the Protection of Children from Sex Offenders was published,\u00a0which led to the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme. This scheme was rolled out across\u00a0England and Wales in three stages and was implemented across the country in 2011. The\u00a0scheme is primarily the responsibility of the police, who manage a clear access route for\u00a0the public to register their child protection interest in a named individual and – should\u00a0there be relevant convictions and a risk posed – to receive a\u00a0disclosure of pertinent\u00a0information regarding the individual. A pilot over 36 weeks resulted in 53 enquiries, with\u00a025 child concern reports being raised as a result (Chan, Homes, Murray and Treanor,\u00a02010). Eleven of these reports involved disclosure to a parent regarding the offender\u2019s\u00a0conviction. The authors note that there was no indication that the scheme had had a\u00a0negative impact on the behaviour of RSOs in the area, although this was not formally\u00a0investigated. A related study with similar findings was conducted in four police areas in\u00a0England and Wales (Kemshall and Wood, 2010). Interestingly, Kemshall, Kelly and\u00a0Wilkinson\u2019s (2012) reviewed the views of applicants within the Child Sex offender Public\u00a0Disclosure Scheme. They found that in the few cases where a disclosure was made, the\u00a0applicants who were not in a professional role remained anxious, and uncertain as to how\u00a0to make use of the information.<\/p>\n

The evidence from the United States, where community notification has been in place\u00a0from the late 1990s onwards, is equivocal. Sex offender details have been publically\u00a0available for a number of years; a summary of the evidence (Fitch, 2006) would suggest\u00a0that there is no empirical evidence that community notification has had a positive impact\u00a0on sex offender recidivism rates, nor has it resulted in fewer assaults by strangers on\u00a0children.<\/p>\n

There have been some attempts to consider disclosure from the offender perspective.\u00a0Both Connor (2007) and Hudson (2005) had similar findings. Connor\u2019s qualitative study\u00a0found that sex offenders were deeply avoidant of situations potentially requiring\u00a0disclosure, for fear of rejection and retaliation; the offenders had already constructed\u00a0personal narratives around their offending which avoided stigma – minimising or lying –\u00a0which disclosure threatened,\u00a0not least because of a fear of losing control over the\u00a0disclosure process, and it being used against them.<\/p>\n

Traditional approaches to risk management have focused on identifying risk factors for\u00a0targeted intervention, a strategy identified by Kemshall and Wood (2008) as a \u201cprotection\u00a0strategy\u201d which aims to protect communities through control of risk. This approach is\u00a0often dominated by the offender adopting avoidance strategies which can lead to\u00a0impoverished lives and hopelessness, as suggested by the participants in Connor\u2019s (2007)\u00a0study. There is a growing research literature which suggests that the progression from\u00a0persistent offending to desistence is the outcome of a complex interaction between\u00a0subjective and social factors (Farmer, McAlinden and Maruna, 2015); that is, structure\u00a0(informal social controls such as relationships with intimate partners and employment)\u00a0and agency (the way in which offenders think about themselves and their lives). For persistent offenders in particular, this entails finding a more positive identity as a nonoffender\u00a0which includes meaningful engagement in the community, which has a more\u00a0powerful impact on desistance than traditional risk management methods (Maruna and\u00a0Farrell, 2004; Farmer, McAlinden and Maruna, 2015). The desistance literature also\u00a0highlights the importance of building and sustaining hope in the journey from offending to\u00a0a new non-offending identity, which includes others believing in the offender\u2019s current\u00a0personal identity rather than his \u2018old me\u2019. There has been little published research into\u00a0desistance from sexual crime. Kruttschnitt, Uggen and Shelton (2000) conducted a\u00a0retrospective study of 556 sexual offenders to examine whether informal social controls –\u00a0specifically employment and marriage – predicted desistance from offending, and found\u00a0that job stability significantly reduced the probability of re-offending but marital status did\u00a0not. Harris (2014) in a qualitative study of 21 desisting sexual offenders found that the\u00a0majority of them attributed their desistance to changes in thinking. The most recent\u00a0qualitative study of apparently desisting sexual offenders (Farmer, McAlinden and\u00a0Maruna, 2015) found that the offenders themselves attributed their desistance to\u00a0cognitive factors, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of repeating their\u00a0crimes. The authors tentatively suggest that the desisting narratives in their study tended\u00a0to support a move away from backward looking approaches towards future-focused\u00a0therapeutic interventions with an emphasis on optimism and hope.<\/p>\n

As yet, there is no published evidence available to confirm whether disclosure does indeed\u00a0protect the public by managing (or perhaps avoiding) risky situations, or whether it\u00a0inadvertently reduces opportunities for accessing socially valued roles (such as a parent,\u00a0or skilled worker) which in turn impedes processes of recovery or desistance.<\/p>\n

The aim of the study was to build on the limited evidence base in relation to disclosure\u00a0under MAPPA arrangements, by focusing on\u00a0RSOs and providing details of the frequency\u00a0of disclosures and how they are made, the life domains in which they are made, and the\u00a0outcomes in terms of inclusion or exclusion. There were no specific hypotheses, although\u00a0it was expected that:<\/p>\n

\u2022 disclosures would probably be made most commonly in higher risk sex offenders;
\n\u2022 there would probably be fairly high levels of rejection as a result of the disclosure.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/strong>
\nParticipants
\nThe sample included all those individuals convicted of a sexual offence, held on the Sex\u00a0Offender Register in five boroughs of south east London, and who were subject to a third\u00a0party disclosure at any time within the preceding 12 months (December 2013 to\u00a0November 2014). The five boroughs were primarily chosen for their geographical\u00a0proximity to each other (for each of data collection) and were considered to a reasonable\u00a0spread of types of London borough; the lead author was known to the police teams in the\u00a0area which greatly facilitated cooperation with the project.<\/p>\n

Data was collected on the type of offence (child victims, adult victims, or non-contact sex\u00a0offending), the start date of the Sex Offender Registration, the risk level (as measured by\u00a0the Risk Matrix 2000, Thornton et al., 2003), and whether the offender was subject to a\u00a0Sex Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). Additional data was collected in a semi-structured\u00a0interview with the Jigsaw teams (the police teams responsible for participation in MAPPA\u00a0and maintenance of the SOR), including details on the disclosures, how they were made\u00a0(by the police first by telephone or visit, or offender first, and then followed up by the\u00a0police), and the outcomes.<\/p>\n

Disclosure domains<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0were divided into the following domains: employment (current or\u00a0potential), training establishments (such as colleges), relationships (family and friends),\u00a0social (such as clubs, the church, or housing associations).<\/p>\n

Outcomes<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0were defined, in relation to the response of the person\/organisation disclosed\u00a0to, as follows: accepted, partially accepted (subject to conditions such as restricted access\u00a0or supervised contact), rejected, and withdrawal (of the offender prior to the disclosure in\u00a0anticipation of a disclosure being made).<\/p>\n

Offence failures<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0were defined as any re-arrest for a general, violent or sexual offence, or a\u00a0recall to prison, between the time the disclosure was made and the data collection point.\u00a0Therefore, the time at risk for a failure was up to a maximum of one year.<\/p>\n

Procedure<\/strong>
\nAnonymised and non-identifiable data was provided by the Metropolitan Police Public\u00a0Protection Unit, from the ViSOR7* electronic record system, where the specific indicator\u00a0\u2018disclosure\u2019 was endorsed on the offender record. The ViSOR and PNC (police national\u00a0computer) numbers enabled the Jigsaw teams to identify the offenders, and discuss\u00a0disclosure information without identifying individual offenders. The Metropolitan Police\u00a0lead for Public Protection contacted the head of each of the five Jigsaw teams, advising\u00a0them of the nature of the research, and the support of the London MAPPA Strategic\u00a0Management Board (SMB). Individual meetings were then set up with each of the five\u00a0team leaders, in order to work through the semi-structured interviews, and complete any\u00a0missing information.<\/p>\n

The researchers were given local ethical approval by the National Probation Service (NPS)\u00a0London Division to access the London probation electronic record system; additionally\u00a0they were provided with a list of the Registered Sex Offenders held on post-custodial\u00a0licence or community orders by the probation service in the five boroughs, and who had\u00a0been in the community for the past 12 months (December 2013 to November 2014). This\u00a0data was cross referenced and checked with the police data (above), and any additional\u00a0offenders who had been subject to a probation third party disclosure were added to the\u00a0sample.<\/p>\n

Measures<\/strong>
\nThe Risk Matrix 2000 (Thornton et al., 2003) is routinely completed by Jigsaw teams\u00a0and\/or probation officers from file information on all convicted sex offenders across\u00a0London. It is an actuarial measure predicting sexual reconviction in sex offenders. It\u00a0comprises a simple baseline risk classification based on conviction data, adjusted at stage\u00a0two if two or more aggravating factors are found (for example, male or stranger victims).\u00a0Two cross-validation studies tested the predictive validity of the scale in a short-term\u00a0follow up sample of treated sex offenders and a long-term follow up sample of untreated\u00a0sex offenders. The ROC Area under the Curve was 0.77 and 0.75 for the two samples.\u00a0ROC provides a measure of predictive accuracy, with 0.50 representing no better than\u00a0chance, and higher scores reflecting increasing accuracy. The two and sixteen year follow\u00a0up recidivism rates were 0.9% and 8% low risk, 1.3% and 18.3% medium risk, 5.7% and\u00a040.5% high risk, and 17.2% and 60% very high risk, respectively.<\/p>\n

Ethical approval<\/strong>
\nSupport for the project was provided by the Strategic MAPPA Board for London, and\u00a0ethical approval obtained from the Metropolitan Police and from the Deputy Director of\u00a0the National Probation Service for London. The consideration of safe and anonymised\u00a0transfer and storage of sensitive information was an important consideration.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong>
\nThe ViSOR records did not identify all the disclosure cases, and some cases recorded as\u00a0disclosures in fact pertained to information exchange with other agencies. However,\u00a0Jigsaw teams clearly knew their caseload of offenders on the SOR, and were able to\u00a0identify all suitable cases with ease. Cross referencing with the probation service records\u00a0confirmed the police disclosure in 10 cases, and identified a further 19 cases where the\u00a0probation officer had made a disclosure, not already recorded in police records. An\u00a0examination of these cases confirmed that there were no significant differences, and they\u00a0were incorporated into the main analysis.<\/p>\n

In December 2014, there were a total of 1,576 offenders on the Sex Offender Register\u00a0(SOR) in the five boroughs in the study. There were 129 third party disclosures made for\u00a0this group of offenders across the year of study, suggesting an approximate 8% disclosure\u00a0rate within the year. All the participants in the study were male (there were no disclosures\u00a0in relation to female offenders). Of the offenders on the SOR, 51 (3%) were being\u00a0managed at MAPPA level 2 at the time of disclosure, and all the rest were managed at\u00a0level 1, save two managed at level 3. The start of the SOR was unknown in 15 cases, but\u00a0for the remaining 114 offenders, the average time on the SOR was 4 years 8 months (sd 4\u00a0years 2 months, range 1 month to 21 years 10 months). The results are set out in more\u00a0detail in Table 1.<\/p>\n

Table 1: Offence related details in relation to Borough<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Disclosures were made about twice as often for those with child victims (63, 49%) as for\u00a0those with adult victims (29, 23%) or those with non-contact offences (37, 29%).\u00a0However, the spread of offender types was broadly similar across the five boroughs.<\/p>\n

There were significant differences between the boroughs in terms of risk level, as\u00a0measured by the Risk Matrix 2000 (X2 23,075, df 12, p<.05): Borough B and Borough D\u00a0made disclosures on a much greater number of very high risk offenders, while Borough A\u00a0and Borough E made the most disclosures on low risk offenders. There were also\u00a0significant differences between the boroughs in terms of the MAPPA level at which the\u00a0offenders (for whom there was a disclosure) were being managed (X2 27.540, df 4,\u00a0p<0.01): Borough E and Borough D managed nearly all the disclosures at Level 1, while\u00a0Borough A managed the majority at Level 2. There were no significant differences in\u00a0relation to risk between offender types.<\/p>\n

There were 47 (36%) offenders on Sex Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs), with a\u00a0proportionally greater number in Borough A borough although this was not a significant\u00a0difference (p<.09). Although there were no significant differences in the number of SOPOs\u00a0by offence type, there were significant differences in relation to risk level (X2 12,987, df 3,\u00a0p<.01): 11 (52%) low risk, 8 (18%) medium risk, 10 (30%) high risk, and 16 (62%) very high\u00a0risk offenders were on SOPOs.<\/p>\n

For 10 of the 129 disclosures (8%), either the method of disclosure or the outcome was\u00a0unknown, and these cases were therefore excluded from the following analysis. By far the\u00a0most disclosures were made in the domain of relationships, and training was the least\u00a0common domain. Overall the most common method was for the police to telephone the\u00a0disclosure recipient (22, 19%) or to visit and disclose ((47, 40%). However, in terms of\u00a0relationships, almost half the disclosures were made by the offender informing the\u00a0recipient first and this being followed up by the police and confirming the disclosure.\u00a0Table 2 provides more detailed findings.<\/p>\n

Table 2: Method of disclosure and outcome in relation to disclosure domains<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Disclosures and outcomes
\nEmployment<\/strong>
\nThere were 20 disclosures to potential or actual employers, two thirds of which resulted in\u00a0rejection of the offender. Within the sample, only one offender (out of 29) with adult\u00a0victims had an employment disclosure, and he was accepted. Fifteen (out of 62, 24%)\u00a0disclosures were in relation to offenders with child victims, of whom 60% were rejected;\u00a0all six (out of 37) of the non-contact offenders were rejected. Offenders were no more\u00a0successful in applying to work for charitable organisations (paid and unpaid) than for\u00a0private companies.<\/p>\n

Training<\/strong>
\nDisclosures were evenly spread across offender types. Twenty-two percent of offenders\u00a0were rejected by training establishments, either by withdrawing an offer, or by not\u00a0responding following the disclosure. There was no difference in outcome in relation to\u00a0how the disclosure was made.<\/p>\n

Relationships<\/strong>
\nDisclosures were evenly spread across offender types. Two thirds of offenders (44, 67%)\u00a0were accepted by those to whom the disclosure was made, and a further 3 (5%) were\u00a0accepted with conditions, usually regarding supervised contact with their children. However, 19 (29%) were rejected following the disclosure. Forty of the disclosures were to partners (including ex-partners) or the offender\u2019s children; the rest were made to friends and close family members with children. Offenders were half as likely to be rejected (37% versus 63%) if the offender disclosed first rather than the police (X2 15,395, df, 6, p<.05).<\/p>\n

Social<\/strong>
\nDisclosures were evenly spread across offender types. These disclosures were to\u00a0situations regarding shared housing, schools, churches and clubs. Overall around half\u00a0resulted in rejections although the disclosure was significantly more likely to result in\u00a0acceptance if the offender disclosed first (X2 15,395, df 6, p<.05).<\/p>\n

Further analysis of the data to explore the possible relationships between the method of\u00a0disclosure, disclosure domain, outcome and risk level did not result in any significant\u00a0findings.<\/p>\n

Offence failures<\/strong>
\nOverall, there were 25 (20%) failures, in terms of re-arrest or recall, following the\u00a0disclosure, but within the study period. However, these failures were linked to 20\u00a0offenders, as one offender failed after two disclosures, and another offender failed after\u00a0five different disclosures. There was one re-arrest for a sexual offence, and one for a\u00a0violent offence; there were five general (acquisitive) re-offences, three for failing to reregister\/breach of notification requirements, and seven breaches of SOPO. Three further\u00a0offenders were recalled without any re-arrest for a further offence. There were no\u00a0significant differences between offender types and failure overall, although there was a\u00a0significant difference in the way in which offender types failed (X2 21,161, df, 10, p<.05):\u00a075% of those failures with adult victims breached their SOPO, and 44% of failed noncontact\u00a0offender generally re-offended. Although the numbers were very small, the one\u00a0violent failure and all three of the recalls had been rejected following disclosures. The\u00a0most significant association with failure was the risk level (X2 7.685, df 3, p<.05): 2 (10%) of\u00a0failures were low risk, 3 (8%) medium risk, 8 (24%) high risk, and 7 (28%) of failures were\u00a0very high risk. Furthermore, 7 (64%) of those on a SOPO failed by breaching their order (X2\u00a011,380, df 5, p<.05).<\/p>\n

Offenders were significantly more likely to fail following disclosure to employment if the\u00a0police made the disclosure first (X2 16,232, df 4, p<.01). There were no significant findings\u00a0in relation to disclosure method and failure in the other domains. However, those\u00a0offenders who were rejected by training establishments were significantly more likely to\u00a0fail (X2 9,000, df 2, p<.05).<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/strong>
\nThis paper presents the results of a descriptive study into the frequency and nature of\u00a0third party disclosures on RSOs in five London boroughs, with reference to the method of\u00a0disclosure, the outcome, and subsequent offence failures. The overall aim was achieved,\u00a0providing data which can serve as a bench mark for other MAPPA areas in London and\u00a0further afield.<\/p>\n

There were some methodological limitations to the study. First, the official records were\u00a0not entirely accurate, in terms of the ViSOR system, and although the police teams clearly\u00a0had a good grasp of their caseload, some disclosures may have been missed.\u00a0Furthermore, there seemed to be no routine recording within the probation electronic\u00a0record of disclosures, and there was an impression that the probation service were only\u00a0leading on disclosure decisions in a minority of cases (18 out of the 129). It is not clear\u00a0whether this accurately reflects practice, but may raise questions as to whether probation\u00a0staff should be leading such decisions where the offender is under their statutory\u00a0supervision.<\/p>\n

The decision to disclose, and the outcome of disclosure may have been related to factors\u00a0not picked up in this study, such as the non-compliance of the offender, or the\u00a0inappropriateness of the life domain in which they wished to participate. The study can\u00a0make no judgment on the appropriateness or otherwise of the decision to disclose. The\u00a0findings should therefore be interpreted with caution, and require further exploration.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, some interesting differences and associations were found. The boroughs\u00a0were not identical in their practice, with one borough making twice as many disclosures\u00a0during the study period as any of the other boroughs, despite no discernible difference in\u00a0risk levels; and another borough managed the majority of disclosures at MAPPA level 2 as\u00a0compared to the other boroughs who were making decision at level 1. The MAPPA\u00a0Guidance (2012) suggests that disclosure decisions should be made at a level 2 meeting,\u00a0although in reality, the lead agency may consider it more expedient to make decisions and\u00a0carry out the actions without reference to the multi-agency setting.<\/p>\n

The tentative hypothesis that disclosures would be more likely to be made on higher risk\u00a0RSOs was only partially borne out, with a significant number of low risk RSOs in two\u00a0boroughs also being subject to disclosure. Similarly, there were significantly more SOPOs\u00a0(in the disclosure group) in the low and the very high risk category, as compared to the\u00a0medium and high risk categories. These findings suggest that there is a group of low risk\u00a0offenders who are subject to stringent risk management arrangements. Without further\u00a0information, it is not possible to know whether this relates to the particular living\u00a0circumstances of the offender – perhaps a family setting with available child victims – or\u00a0different professional practices across boroughs.<\/p>\n

Disclosures were made twice as often on offenders with child victims than for those with\u00a0adult victims or non-contact offences. Again, it is difficult to draw conclusions without\u00a0knowing the proportion of offender types on the SOR; however, there were no differences\u00a0in risk level across offender types, and it may therefore reflect a greater focus on those\u00a0with child victims, mirroring public concerns.<\/p>\n

The suggestion that disclosures would result in rejection was also only partially borne out.\u00a0As might be expected, the greatest number of disclosures were made in the relationships\u00a0domain, but this was also the category most likely to lead to acceptance. This may be of\u00a0some reassurance to offenders who fear rejection within relationships as a result of\u00a0disclosure. However, the protective quality of these relationships was not investigated in\u00a0this study, and there is the possibility that the acceptance into relationships led, in some\u00a0cases, to further involvement from social services. Although training was the least\u00a0common domain, the outcomes were also encouraging with around 80% acceptance. The\u00a0caveat to this is that those who were rejected from training establishments were\u00a0significantly more likely to fail than those accepted.<\/p>\n

The picture was least encouraging with the employment domain, and to some extent, the\u00a0social domain, with relatively high levels of rejection. This may represent the appropriate\u00a0management of high risk situations, but raises the possibility that RSOs are encountering\u00a0obstacles which may not always be warranted, when seeking the social capital (i.e. the\u00a0\u2018new me\u2019 roles) which is central to a model of desistence from offending. Potential\u00a0employers, charities, clubs, churches and housing associations may not have any\u00a0significant investment in tolerating or managing risk in the current climate of public\u00a0concern.<\/p>\n

The rate of offence failure (20%) during the study period seemed to be rather high,\u00a0although only one offender was re-arrested for a sexual offence. Half of the offence\u00a0failures related to breaches of statutory requirements (SOPOs and SOR notification). In\u00a0particular the majority of offenders with adult victims breached their SOPO, and almost\u00a0half the non-contact offenders were re-arrested for general offences. This raises the\u00a0possibility that these were particularly non-compliant or antisocial offenders; an\u00a0interesting question is whether disclosures tended to target less compliant offenders,\u00a0whether less compliant offenders were more likely to be alienated by the disclosure\u00a0process, or an element of both.<\/p>\n

The disclosure method yielded some interesting findings which may have implications for\u00a0practice. Although not a universal finding, it would appear that when the offender was\u00a0able to make the disclosure first – followed up by the police – the acceptance rate was\u00a0significantly improved, particularly in the relationships and social domains. Furthermore,\u00a0when the police initiated disclosure in the employment domain, this was significantly\u00a0associated with subsequent offence failure. This suggests that allowing the offender\u00a0opportunities to initiate the process of disclosure may improve the offender\u2019s sense of\u00a0control, and enhance the willingness of the person\/organisation to whom the disclosure is\u00a0made, to be accepting. However, not surprisingly, the most robust association with\u00a0offence failure was the risk level, which provides some additional reassurance that the\u00a0RM2000 is a reasonable tool for use by MAPPA agencies.<\/p>\n

The implications of this study for future research and practice fall into two broad areas:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Replicating the investigation with a larger sample across London or in less\u00a0urban environments, in order to explore further the decisions to disclose,\u00a0and their positive impact in terms of effective risk management, reduced\u00a0offence failures and increased community reintegration.
\n\u2022 Investigating the emerging possibility that it might be feasible to improve\u00a0social integration and acceptance by developing a good practice model for\u00a0carrying out disclosure – including allowing the offender to make the\u00a0disclosure first – which could be further evaluated.<\/p>\n

Disclosure remains an important and potentially powerful tool for effective risk\u00a0management. Public protection and the needs of victims should always be the priority.\u00a0However, this study provides an opportunity to ensure that disclosure decisions are\u00a0consistent across areas and between agencies, and raises opportunities to enhance good\u00a0practice models which have positive outcomes for both offenders and victims.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Acknowledgements<\/strong>
\nThe authors would like to acknowledge the support of the London MAPPA Strategic\u00a0Management Board (SMB) in conducting this research, and to thank the Metropolitan\u00a0Police teams who gave their time to engage with the study.<\/p>\n

7*\u00a0ViSOR is a UK-wide system used to store and share information and intelligence on those\u00a0individuals who have been identified as posing a risk of serious harm to the public; it is designed to\u00a0facilitate the work of MAPPA by assisting co-operative working between the three \u2018Responsible\u00a0Authorities\u2019 (police, probation and prison services).<\/p>\n

8*\u00a0Total on Sex Offender Register (SOR) as at December 2014.<\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

Cann, J. (2007).\u00a0Assessing the extent of discretionary disclosure under the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)<\/em>. Report 13\/07. London: Home Office Online.
\nChan, V., Homes, A., Murray, L. and Treanor, S. (2010).\u00a0Evaluation of the Sex Offender Community Disclosure Pilot<\/em>. Ipsos MORI: Scotland
\nConnor, J. (2007).\u00a0Disclosure of Sexual Offending: Offenders\u2019 Perspectives<\/em>. Doctoral thesis (Clinical Psychology): University of East London.
\nFarmer, M., McAlinden, A, and Maruna, S. (2015). Understanding desistance from sexual offending: A thematic review of research findings.\u00a0Probation Journal<\/em>, 62 (4), 320-335.
\nFitch, K. (2006).\u00a0Megan\u2019s Law: Does it Protect Children?<\/em>\u00a0NSPCC.
\nHarris, D. (2014). Desistance from sexual offending: Findings from 21 life history narratives.\u00a0Journal of Interpersonal Violence<\/em>, 29(9), 1554-1578.
\nHome Office (2003)\u00a0Criminal Justice Act 1991<\/em>. London: HMSO.
\nHudson, K. (2005).\u00a0Offending Identities. Sex Offenders\u2019 Perspectives on their Treatment and Management<\/em>. Devon, UK: Willan.
\nKemshall, H., Kelly, G. and Wilkinson, B. (2011-2012) Child Sex Offender Public Disclosure Scheme: The views of applicants using the English pilot disclosure scheme.\u00a0Journal of Sexual Aggression<\/em>, 18 (2) 164-178.
\nKemshall, H. and Wood, J. (2008). Risk and Public Protection: Responding to Involuntary and \u2018Taboo\u2019 Risk.\u00a0Social Policy and Administration<\/em>, 42(6), 611-629.
\nKemshall, H. and Wood, J. (2010).\u00a0Child Sex Offender Review Public Disclosure Pilots: A Process Evaluation<\/em>\u00a0(2nd edn). Home Office.
\nKruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C. and Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social control.\u00a0Justice Quarterly<\/em>, 17(1), 61-87.
\nMaruna, S. and Farrall, S. (2004). \u2018Desistance From Crime: A Theoretical Reformulation\u2019 ,\u00a0K\u00f6lner Zeitschrift f \u00fcr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie<\/em>\u00a043: 171-194
\nNational MAPPA Team, National Offender Management Service (2012).\u00a0MAPPA Guidance: Version 4<\/em>. https:\/\/www.justice.gov.uk\/downloads\/offenders\/mappa\/mappa-guidance-2012-part1.pdf
\nPenny, C. and Craissati, J. (2012). Decisions on disclosure to third parties made at MAPP meetings: opinions and practice.\u00a0The Psychiatrist<\/em>, 36, 379-385.
\nThornton, D., Mann, R., Webster, S., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C. and Erikson, M. (2003). Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism.\u00a0In<\/em>\u00a0R.A. Prentky, E.S. Janus, & M.C. Seto (Eds.)\u00a0Sexually coercive behavior:<\/em>\u00a0Understanding and management (pp. 225\u2013235). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 989). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
\nWood, J. and Kemshall, H. (2007)\u00a0The operation and experience of Multi-Agency Public\u00a0Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)<\/em>. London: Home Office.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”2″ back_color=”color-lxmt” overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ shift_y=”0″ shift_y_down=”0″ z_index=”0″ medium_width=”0″ mobile_width=”0″ width=”1\/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1593440492913{padding-right: 26px !important;padding-left: 26px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading heading_semantic=”h3″ text_font=”font-128611″ text_size=”h4″ text_weight=”500″ text_color=”color-210407″]Latest Issue[\/vc_custom_heading][uncode_index el_id=”index-163686″ loop=”size:1|order_by:date|post_type:post|categories:3″ gutter_size=”3″ post_items=”title,date” screen_lg=”1000″ screen_md=”600″ screen_sm=”480″ single_text=”overlay” single_style=”dark” single_overlay_opacity=”50″ single_overlay_anim=”no” single_text_visible=”yes” single_text_anim=”no” single_h_align_mobile=”left” single_padding=”0″ single_title_family=”font-128611″ single_title_dimension=”h4″ single_title_weight=”500″][vc_button button_color=”accent” size=”btn-xl” radius=”btn-square” wide=”yes” custom_typo=”yes” font_family=”font-128611″ font_weight=”500″ border_width=”0″ link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fmmuperu.co.uk%2Fbjcj%2Fnewsletter%2F|title:Newsletter||”]Subscribe to our Newsletter[\/vc_button][vc_raw_html]JTNDYSUyMGNsYXNzJTNEJTIydHdpdHRlci10aW1lbGluZSUyMiUyMGRhdGEtd2lkdGglM0QlMjI0MDAlMjIlMjBkYXRhLWhlaWdodCUzRCUyMjU0NSUyMiUyMGhyZWYlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnR3aXR0ZXIuY29tJTJGYmpjb21tdW5pdHlqdXN0JTNGcmVmX3NyYyUzRHR3c3JjJTI1NUV0ZnclMjIlM0VUd2VldHMlMjBieSUyMGJqY29tbXVuaXR5anVzdCUzQyUyRmElM0UlMjAlM0NzY3JpcHQlMjBhc3luYyUyMHNyYyUzRCUyMmh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGcGxhdGZvcm0udHdpdHRlci5jb20lMkZ3aWRnZXRzLmpzJTIyJTIwY2hhcnNldCUzRCUyMnV0Zi04JTIyJTNFJTNDJTJGc2NyaXB0JTNF[\/vc_raw_html][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAn Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders - BJCJ<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders - BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BJCJ\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-12-15T15:08:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-19T11:19:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nathan Monk\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"headline\":\"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-12-15T15:08:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:19:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":5629,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Articles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/\",\"name\":\"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders - BJCJ\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-12-15T15:08:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-19T11:19:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/articles\\\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/assets\\\/uploads\\\/bjcj_files\\\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/\",\"name\":\"BJCJ\",\"description\":\"British Journal of Community Justice\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061\",\"name\":\"Nathan Monk\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nathan Monk\"},\"description\":\"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/sleek.bio\\\/n\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/mmuperu.co.uk\\\/bjcj\\\/author\\\/nathansmonk\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders - BJCJ","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders - BJCJ","og_description":"[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ override_padding=”yes” h_padding=”2″ top_padding=”3″ bottom_padding=”2″ overlay_alpha=”50″ equal_height=”yes” gutter_size=”3″ column_width_use_pixel=”yes” shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ column_width_pixel=”1000″][vc_column column_width_percent=”100″ position_horizontal=”left” gutter_size=”2″ override_padding=”yes” column_padding=”0″ overlay_alpha=”50″ shift_x=”0″ […]","og_url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/","og_site_name":"BJCJ","article_published_time":"2015-12-15T15:08:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-19T11:19:49+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Nathan Monk","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nathan Monk","Estimated reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/"},"author":{"name":"Nathan Monk","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"headline":"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders","datePublished":"2015-12-15T15:08:53+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:19:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/"},"wordCount":5629,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg","articleSection":["Articles"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/","name":"An Exploration of Third Party Disclosure and Outcomes in Registered Sex Offenders - BJCJ","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg","datePublished":"2015-12-15T15:08:53+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-19T11:19:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/articles\/an-exploration-of-third-party-disclosure-and-outcomes-in-registered-sex-offenders\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/assets\/uploads\/bjcj_files\/13.3_AN_EXPLORATION_OF_THIRD_PARTY_DISCLOSURE_Fig_1.jpg"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#website","url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/","name":"BJCJ","description":"British Journal of Community Justice","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/#\/schema\/person\/280e1d3e78088d24e4a8f17aab814061","name":"Nathan Monk","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5fc3733cd1573566f62865ea625e7e6ca5e2e6a28ed6e8ad889e373e7c4cae6d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nathan Monk"},"description":"I'm proud to work for some of the world\u2019s most influential brands that shape cities and define lives: Universities and colleges. I provide advice to forward-thinking senior leaders on how to exceed their organisational targets by creating user-focused, digital-first strategies.","sameAs":["https:\/\/sleek.bio\/n","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/nathansmonk\/"],"url":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/author\/nathansmonk\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1394"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2851,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1394\/revisions\/2851"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mmuperu.co.uk\/bjcj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}