Trinity College, Dublin an Examination of How One Local SORAM (Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management) Team Works to Prote

Trinity College, Dublin

An examination of how one Local SORAM (Sex Offender Risk Assessment

and Management) Team works to protect children.

for partial fulfilment of the

Postgraduate Diploma in Child Protection and Welfare

Author Jennifer Bell

Tutor Paul Sargent

Word Count: 9970

Date Submitted 15th May 2017

ABSTRACT

Child Protection and Welfare is not a new concept in Ireland but the establishment of SORAM and the launch of the manual of practice on 10/11/2017 has standardised the monitoring and management of sex offenders. An integral part of this is the protection of children. This research is aimed at examining how one local SORAM team works to protect children by exploring how issues of child protection are dealt with, the problems encountered, the experiences of agencies involved of the child protection and welfare role and potential solutions or future implications of the issues. This research will draw on qualitative semi-structured interviews with various professionals actively engaged in the SORAM process. The agencies currently engaged are An Garda Síochana, The Probation Service, TUSLA Child & Family Agency and local authorities. This research aims to explore how child protection and welfare issues are dealt with, the problems that are encountered and the experiences of agencies involved with a view to informing best practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research project would not have been achievable if not for the assistance of a number of people. Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank the participants who volunteered their time and efforts to make this research project possible.

I wish to acknowledge the support and friendship of my fellow students for making this year so memorable and for sharing their experiences. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Stephanie Holt, Course Director and her fellow course lecturers for giving so generously of their time, energies and knowledge.

I wish to thank my work colleagues Caroline and Rickie for their friendship and for listening to me relentlessly.

To my tutor Paul Sargent, thank you for everything, your advice and guidance has been invaluable throughout this year.

A special thank you to my husband James for his unwavering support and patience and for never doubting my abilities, even when I did. To my daughter Meghan, may you achieve anything you put your mind to.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ch. No. Title Page Abstract i Acknowledgments ii Table of Contents iii-iv Glossary of Terms v 1 Introduction 1 - 3 3 Methodology 4-10 3.1 Introduction 4 3.2 Rationale 4 3.3 Aims of the Research 4 3.4 Research Objectives 5 3.5 Methodological Framework 5 3.5.1 Research Design 5 3.5.2 Validity and Reliability 6 3.6 Sampling and Recruitment 6-7 3.7 Ethical Consideration 7 3.7.1 Ethical Approval 7-8 3.7.2 Distress Protocol 8 3.8 Bias 8-9 3.9 Data Collection 9 3.10 Informed Consent 9 3.11 Data Analysis 9-10 3.12 Data Interpretation by developing codes 10 3.13 Limitations 10 3.14 Conclusion 10 4 Literature Review 11-19 4.1 Media 11-12 4.2 The need for Sex Offender Management 12-13 4.3 Other Jurisdictions 13 4.4 SORAM 14 4.5 Legislation 14-15 4.6 Inter-Agency Co-Operation/Multi-Agency Management 15-16 4.7 fWhy Sex doOffenders people Sexually Offend against children? 16 4.8 Risk Assessment 17 4.9 Victim Choice and recidivism 17-19 4.10 Rehabilitation/Reintegration 19 5 Analysis of Data and Evaluation of Findings 20-30

5.1 Inter-Agency Co-Operation 20-22 5.2 Legislation 22-24 5.3 Risk Assessments: 24-25 5.4 Joint Training 25-26 5.5 Policy and Practice 26-27 5.6 Lack of Housing 27-30 6 Conclusion, Recommendations & Implications for Practice 31-34 Practice6.1 Conclusions 31 6.2 Recommendations 32-35 Bibliography 36-42 Appendices 43 I Information Sheet for Participants II Consent Form for Participants III Information Sheet for Agency/Gatekeeper IV Consent Form for Agency/Gatekeeper V Interview Schedule / Proposed Topic Outline VI (a) Pilot Semi Structured Interview Questionnaire VI (b) Semi Structured Interview Questionnaire VII Ethically Approved Application Form

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

AGS An Garda Síochána

DJELR Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform

DHPCLG Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government

DMR Dublin Metropolitan Region

DVSAIU Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Investigation Unit

HSE Health Service Executive

LST Local SORAM Team

MAPPA Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

NSSG National SORAM Steering Group

PPANI Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland

RAMP Risk Assessment Management Plan

RM2000/RM2K Risk Matrix 2000

SAO7/S&A Stable and Acute 2007 2007

SOA01 Sex Offender Act 2001

SOLO Sex Offender Liaison Officer

SOMIU Sex Offender Management and Intelligence Unit

SORAM Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management

TPS The Probation Service

TUSLA CFA TUSLA Child and Family Agency

SOIRA Sex Offender Information Registry Act

1 Introduction

This chapter will provide a brief outline of the current practice of sex offender management in existence in Ireland and allow the reader to gain an insight into the procedure on which this research study is based.

1.1 Authors Perspective

The author is a member of An Garda Síochana currently working in the Divisional Child Protection Unit based in Pearse Street Garda Station for the past 6 years. An Garda Síochana has strived to make improvements in recent years to ensure children are protected. The development of the Garda Síochana Policy on the Investigation of Sexual Crime, Crime against Children and Child Welfare (2013) is testament to this. This guideline document was developed in collaboration with Children First (2011) and has standardised the investigation procedure for child protection and welfare cases throughout An Garda Síochana, ensuring all investigations involving children are carried out with expedience and upmost professionalism. However, within every organisation it is important to continually strive for improvement.

“It is no use saying, “we are doing our best.” You have to succeed in doing what is necessary.”

– Winston Churchill (1916)

1.2 SORAM

In 2009, the Department of Justice published the report of a working group “The Management of Sex Offenders: A Discussion Document” which contained a number of recommendations for the management of sex offenders in Ireland. Recommendation 6.8.2 proposed:

‘…local risk management committees will be established…These committees will to some degree take on the tasks assigned to the equivalent committees in Northern Ireland’

Following the publication of this document the Irish concept of sex offender management was born. SORAM refers to Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management and is a multi-agency approach to the monitoring and management of convicted sex offenders1 with specific reference and focus on the protection of children and the community. When a sex offender is convicted of a sexual offence the sentence they receive determines the length of time they are subject to the requirements of Part 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 20012. A sex offender is included in the SORAM process under the following circumstances;

1. Subject to Part 2 of the Sex Offenders Act and also subject to a post release supervision order. 2. Subject to supervision by the Probation Service and either AGS of IPS has concerns regarding further re-offending.

Once included in the SORAM process they are monitored and managed on a local level through a Local SORAM Team, based in the area the offender resides. However, sex offenders who are risk assessed and assigned a risk category of low are not be included in the SORAM process and are managed by a single-agency approach.

Following inclusion in the LST a Risk Assessment and Management Plan (RAMP) is created and a RAMP2 completed before each subsequent meeting the offender is discussed.

1.3 SORAM Policy

The National SORAM Office was established in 2013 and is a co-located office made up of personnel from AGS, TPS, TUSLA CFA and in 2014 was joined by Local Housing Representative. This culminated in the production of the “Manual of practice” (NSO, 2016) the policy document for the guidance of all local SORAM teams, which was launched in November 2016 by the National SORAM Office. At present, SORAM remains a pilot scheme and is not on a statutory footing.

1 A person who is convicted of a scheduled sexual offence as set out under Section 3 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. 2 Obligations that a sex offender must comply with for the period they are subject to the act, which includes and is not limited to notification of any change in address or name.

1.4 Risk Assessment Tools

The risk assessment tools used in Ireland to categorise the level of risk of recidivism among convicted sex offenders are Risk Matrix 2000 (RM2000)3 (Thornton et Al., 4 2003) and Stable & Acute (SA07) (Hanson et Al. 2007).

1.5 Legislative Context

1.5.1 Sex Offenders Act 2001

The Sex Offenders Act (SOA2001) remains the key piece of legislation for the supervision and monitoring of sex offenders in Ireland. SORAM has been implemented as a pre-cursor to the new legislation not yet enacted. The Criminal Justice (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 amended the Sex Offenders Act 2001 to provide a power of arrest for failing to notify a change in address in accordance with the obligations under the act.

1.5.2 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 had originally outlined provisions for Assessment Teams, and would have placed SORAM on a statutory footing. The actual enactment of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 in March 2017 did not include any additional powers to manage sex offenders.

3 RM2000 is a statistically derived risk assessment tool and assesses an offender’s risk of sexual recidivism based upon historical, static, non-changeable risk factors such as previous convictions. 4 SA07 is a risk assessment tool that is designed to track changes in risk status over time by assessing changeable risk factors such as predilections and social influences.

3 Methodology 3.1 Introduction

It is vital at the outset of a research project that the researcher outline how the research will be conducted, what theoretical methods will be utilised and what approaches are best suited to collect and analyse the data. In this chapter, the researcher will outline the research framework with specific focus on the aims of the research, the research design, the reasoning behind the choice of research method, sampling and recruitment, informed consent, ethical consideration, data collection and analysis and limitations.

3.2 Rationale

The researcher is a member of An Garda Síochana and is currently working for the past number of years in the area of Child Protection and the management and monitoring of convicted sex offenders subject to Part 2 of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001. As the researcher was involved in the pilot process of the (Sex Offender Risk Assessment Management) SORAM pilot scheme she has a strong interest in the area. This research study hopes to explore each agencies experiences of the role of child protection and welfare in SORAM. The result of this study could influence the child protection policy of SORAM and could potentially influence how offenders and potential child protection risks are assessed.

3.3 Aims of the Research

This research is aimed at examining how one local SORAM team works to protect children by exploring how issues of child protection are dealt with, the problems encountered, the experiences of agencies involved of the child protection and welfare role and potential solutions or future implications of the issues. By drawing on the views, experience and expertise of the members of each agency engaged in a local SORAM team it is hoped to gather a variety of perspectives from various sources.

3.4 Research Objectives

In order to achieve it aims, this research study has the following objectives;

 To explore the experience of individuals and agencies of child protection and welfare in SORAM.

 To explore how SORAM has contributed to the protection of children.

 To examine the understanding of each agency of their role in child protection within SORAM.

 To identify what are the limitations and strengths of protecting children through a local SORAM team.

3.5 Methodological Framework

Informed by a comprehensive review of the literature, this research study utilised a qualitative exploration method of data collection. Exploratory research allowed the researcher to gather data of how a local SORAM team protects children, of which there is very little known within the Irish context. An exploratory study is a valuable way to explore, to ask questions and to investigate phenomena in a new light (Gray, 2013). It is also useful when not much is known about the phenomena.

3.5.1 Research Design

The primary research tool used in this research study is semi-structured interviews as the research study itself is exploratory in nature. In-depth semi-structured interviews have been identified as the most appropriate way to collect the data from the various sample groups. “Interviews are a flexible and adaptive way of finding out things” (Robson, C. 2002). Interviewing participants face to face allows the opportunity to change the line of enquiry and follow up on responses in a way that other self- administered questionnaires do not (Robson, C. 2002). Interviews were all audio recorded, anonymised and subsequently transcribed to facilitate a comprehensive review of content.

3.5.2 Validity and Reliability

A questionnaire (Appendix vii b) was created in preparation for interview, taking into consideration the aims and objectives of the research study. The researcher conducted a pilot interview to evaluate the validity5 and reliability6 of the questions and made amendments to questionnaire accordingly7. Gray (2013) states that an important issue in the design of interviews is to ensure that the findings are credible and trustworthy. In using semi-structured interviews the issue of validity can arise as the direction of the interview will be dependent on the responses of the interviewee. By creating a questionnaire template and conducting a pilot interview, the researcher was able to address this issue and ensured validity and reliability of the data gathered.

3.6 Sampling and Recruitment

Qualitative research often works with small samples of people (Gray, 2013). Based on the timescale and scope of this study and the necessity to ensure quality in the data, the researcher aimed to purposively recruit research participants from a local SORAM Team engaged in SORAM since its initiation.

The recruitment sample8 of the local SORAM team has been selected taking a number of factors into consideration. The researcher has selected a local SORAM team that operates within the Dublin Metropolitan Region Garda Division. The researcher has chosen this local SORAM team as it was part of the initial pilot scheme and therefore this SORAM has more experience in dealing with these issues than other SORAM teams. The geographical location of this local SORAM team logistically allows the researcher convenient access.

5 The degree to which data in a research study are accurate and credible (Gray, 2013; pp.407) 6 The degree to which an instrument will produce similar results at a different period (ibid) 7 See Appendix vii (a) 8 A sample can be defined as a subset of the population or range of elements that you wish to study (Walter, 2007; p39)

Two participants from each agency engaged in the local SORAM team were interviewed. The agencies represented in SORAM are An Garda Síochana, The Probation Services, TUSLA Child and Family Agency and the Local Authority.

The researcher engaged a gatekeeper to act as a facilitator within each agency in this research study. The role of gatekeeper involved solely facilitating access to interested participants and distributing information. The gatekeeper within each agency selected participants from the chosen local SORAM Team. Participants were invited to contact the researcher directly and not the gatekeeper.

The Detective Superintendent, Garda National Protective Services Bureau, Principal Social Worker, Senior Probation Officer and Housing Officer acted as a gatekeeper and facilitated the interview with the members of the relevant agencies. A letter was sent to each gatekeeper in advance of the commencement of this research study (Appendix iii) outlining their role and consent (Appendix iv) to act as gatekeeper.

3.7 Ethical Consideration

In this research study, comprehensive attention was given to the ethical considerations involved. The researchers’ responsibility is to carry out ethical research that protects the research participants, whose dignity and well-being is of paramount importance, while also respecting their rights. Ethically sound research is thought to reflect three fundamental core features: doing no harm; the guaranteeing of confidentiality and anonymity and ensuring voluntary informed consent.

3.7.2 Ethical Approval

A comprehensive ethical application (Appendix VII) was submitted to the Research Ethics Committee, Trinity College Dublin on the 13th January 2017. The application was reviewed and a clarification was sought from the researcher by the Research Ethics Committee. The researcher resubmitted the revised ethical application and on the 8th February 2017, this application was approved.

A comprehensive ethical proposal was submitted to the National Research Office, TUSLA Child and Family Agency (CFA) on 12th January 2017. Following a request for clarification and changes to various aspects of the research study, a resubmission was made on two further occasions. On 30th March 2017, ethical approval was granted.

There was a possibility that the researcher could be familiar with some participants that consented to be interviewed however, she is not in a senior role or hold a senior supervisory position in the local SORAM team, therefore participants were under no obligation to participate. To avoid any conflict of interest the researcher has engaged gatekeepers to act as facilitators for this reason.

3.7.3 Distress Protocol

The researcher has reviewed distress protocols in accordance with (Draucker, C.B., Martsolf, D.S. and Poole, C., 2009). The researcher acknowledges that some topics discussed could be distressing. To limit distress caused to participants in this research study researcher will engage gatekeepers in each agency.

3.8 Bias

As asserted Selltiz et al (1962) interviewers are not machines but human beings and they may unconsciously effect interviewees which creates the risk of bias. The researcher is a member of An Garda Síochana working in the area of sex offender management for a number of years, it is inevitable that they would have some preconceptions. It was important the researcher was conscious of their own bias so not to influence the interviews. As Kvale & Brinkmann (2009, p.242) stated:

“We value the ethical person who see other people as they are, and who does not impose his/her bias on them”

However, as highlighted by Bell (2010, p.53) “inside” research has advantages as the researcher has knowledge of the context of the topic and can appreciate the difficulties of the interviewee.

3.9 Data Collection

The fieldwork for this research study was carried out between March to April 2017 with semi-structured interviews being conducted at a location convenient to the interview participant. An interview schedule (Appendix vi) was created and followed in each interview. A questionnaire (Appendix vii) was used in each interview. However, some interviews included some new questions as issues were highlighted during the interview process that required further exploration.

3.10 Informed Consent

A letter (Appendix i) was sent to each participant in advance of the interview informing participants about the purpose of the research study and that their contribution to the research is voluntary. Each interviewee was informed that they are free to disengage from the study at any stage of the process, without penalty, therefore participants were under no obligation to participate. This was reiterated at the start of the interview. Each interviewee gave their signed consent (Appendix ii) to be interviewed and the information used for this study. Each interview was recorded with the participant’s permission.

3.11 Data Analysis

The qualitative data for this research study consisted of interview transcripts and fieldwork notes. In order to examine and investigate the data in a logical and rational way it was important that the data was organised prior to analysis. As Denscombe (2007) states it would be counter-productive to begin coding prior to gaining an understanding of the data. To get an understanding of the data the researcher read through each interview transcript once. The researcher then cross-referenced the material with field notes. This allowed the researcher to understand the data in context and reflect on it in relation to the main research question. The researcher was able to identify and apply appropriate codes to the data by employing this technique.

3.12 Data Interpretation by developing codes

In the initial stages, the data interpretation process began by attaching thematic codes to the “raw” data. The researcher recognized relationships and patterns among the codes and sorted them into categories. Categories were then linked together under the main themes originating from the literature review that had formed the interview questionnaire. As Tuckett (2005) states prior engagement with the literature can improve analysis by informing the researcher of aspects of the data that might otherwise be missed.

3.13 Limitations

This is a small qualitative research study of one local SORAM team and not a representative of the whole country. However, it does provide insight of the key issues being experienced in SORAM. As asserted by Bell (2010) the time available to the researcher will influence the extent of the data collected. If the researcher had more time to conduct the research study, further methods of data collection would have been explored and incorporated.

3.13 Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the research framework utilised by the researcher with specific focus on the aims and objectives of the research. It examined the methodological framework and research design and outlined the reasoning behind the choice of research method. It further discussed sampling and recruitment, informed consent, ethical consideration, data collection and analysis and limitations.

4 Literature Review

There is a dearth of research on the management of sex offenders in the Irish context. As Duffy (2006, p.7) highlighted:

“Policy development for the risk management of sex offenders in Ireland has received no attention from the academic community.”

In this chapter, the researcher will examine relevant current literature, drawing on international context of other jurisdictions, to address the research question. Literature in the following areas will be reviewed;

 The need for management and monitoring of convicted sex offenders  Policy in place in Ireland  Legislation  Interagency co-operation & Multi-Agency Management of Sex Offenders  Risk Assessment

4.1 Media

The abuse suffered by children at the hands religious orders in Ireland is well documented. In the 1990’s several documentaries9 outlined the allegations of systemic abuse suffered by children in Industrial and reformatory schools in Ireland between 1930’s and 1970’s. In response to the media outrage a Commission of Enquiry was established which resulted in the publication of the Ryan Report (2009). It found that An Garda Síochana did not prioritise the investigation of sexual crime in the 1980’s resulting in lack of recording and investigation practices.

Media response to child abuse scandals was a significant factor influencing reform in this area. Farkas and Stichman, (2002) stated that the processing of sex offenders and their subsequent return to society causes media and legislative frenzy. As asserted by Koenig (1997) there are few crimes that induce outrage in communities as much as

9 These television programs included "Dear Daughter", "Washing Away the Stain" and "Witness: Sex in a Cold Climate and Sinners".

sex crimes against children. The enactment of Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, ‘Sarah’s Law’ in the U.K was spearheaded by the News of the World following the death of Sarah Payne and led to the

The media coverage received globally by the Victoria Climbié Inquiry (Laming, H. 2003) is recognized as influencing child protection policies internationally (Ferguson, 2004). The Wood Royal Commission has been recognized as transforming national child protection framework in Australia (Wood, 2008). Reforms in policy and practice took place in the U.K as a result of the Maria Colwell inquiry (Parton, 1985), in the same way development of child protection in Ireland occurred following the Kilkenny Report (McGuinness, 1993)10.

Keeping children and young people safe from harm is of the greatest importance to most people. However, there are some who seek to harm children. (Home Office, 2007, p.3)

Child abuse enquiries have become more prevalent in Ireland since and can play a vital role in identifying serious organisational shortfalls and result in reform (Howe, G. 1999). However, the purpose of inquiries is seen as promoting accountability and transparency, but the commission of an inquiry also acknowledges failure and is sometimes resisted. (Sulitzeanu-Kenan, 2010, p. 613-34)

4.2 The need for Sex Offender Management

The Ferns Report recommended that organisations whose employees work unsupervised with children, took responsibility for protecting children from abuse (Murphy et al, 2005. p 260). The Ferns report recognised the need for an ongoing method of management, monitoring and control which would avoid abuse from occurring. The management of sex offenders in society is not a new idea.

Sexual-related crimes cause untold physical and psychological trauma to victims and need effective strategies for the community corrections field to supervise sex offenders in the community. (Payne, B.K. and DeMichele, 2011)

10 Supported by other inquiries such as; Roscommon Report (2010), West of Ireland Farmer Case(2010), The Ferns Report(2005)

However, there have been very few empirical studies in an Irish context. With the enactment of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 Ireland became one of only five countries that placed a statutory obligation on convicted sex offenders to comply with notification requirements. This notification system exists in United States of America, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom (Wilson et al. 2013).

4.3 Other Jurisdictions

Sex offender registration policies exist in all 50 states in the United States, with laws requiring that persons convicted of certain sexual offences provide the Police with specific information. These laws can be traced to the Jacob Wetterling Act, in 1994, and amended with Megan's law, in 1996, and most recently amended with the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, in 2006. It is said that the goal of naming these laws after child victims is to protect children from strangers (Payne & DeMichele, 2011). However, the effectiveness of this can be questioned as evidence shows that most reported sexual crimes involve a victim and offender that knew each other prior to victimization (La Fond, 1998).

Following the murder of Sarah Payne, the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, also known as Sarah’s Law was introduced in England and Wales allowing parents to enquire about individuals if they had child protection concerns.

Canada uses the National Sex Offender Registry as a result of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) and a database is maintained by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) but is not available to the public.

The Australia National Child Offender Register keeps details of all registered child sexual offenders. By law, confidential information can be disclosed if it is in the public interest and only in limited circumstances.

4.4 SORAM

The enactment of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 attributed, but did not legislate, responsibility for monitoring of sex offenders to two agencies, An Garda Síochana and The Probation Service. In response to this both agencies drew up guidelines to prepare themselves for future legislation. In 2009, the Department of Justice published “The Management of Sex Offenders: A Discussion Document” which contained a number of recommendations for the management of sex offenders in Ireland. Recommendation 6.8.2 proposed:

‘…local risk management committees will be established…These committees will to some degree take on the tasks assigned to the equivalent committees in Northern Ireland’

Subsequent to this discussion document, the Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management (SORAM) model was established. SORAM is a multi-agency approach to the management and monitoring of risk posed by convicted sex offenders in society, with specific reference and focus on the protection of children. SORAM is comprised of statutory agencies and a national SORAM office is established with representatives from all invested agencies working together.

4.5 Legislation

At present, SORAM is a pilot scheme and is not on a statutory footing. SORAM has been implemented as a pre-cursor to the new legislation not yet enacted. The Sex Offenders Act (SOA2001) remains the key piece of legislation for the supervision and monitoring of sex offenders in Ireland. There is very little power provided to effectively monitor convicted sex offenders when compared to the U.K legislation.

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 had originally outlined provisions for Assessment Teams, and would have placed SORAM on a statutory footing, thus ensuring agency engagement. The actual enactment of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 in March 2017 did not include any additional powers to manage sex offenders or legislation to rectify this challenge. Minister Frances Fitzgerald stated the amendments to the Sex Offenders Act 2001 is an “absolute priority” and will be brought forward as a separate piece of legislation (Seanad Éireann, 2015). To date, this has not even been drafted as a bill and the necessary reform needed in Irish Law to manage sex offenders and protect children is still outstanding.

4.6 Inter-Agency Co-Operation & Multi-Agency Management of Sex Offenders

Since 2009, joint training between AGS and TPS has been carried out to risk assess offenders (Wilson et al. 2013). The involvement of all agencies in the process is fundamental and must be supported by management. A survey conducted by Machura on the safeguarding of children through inter agency co-operation, found that supported staff rated the quality of co-operation with other agencies significantly higher (2016). As (McKeown, 2012) stated if one agency fails to participate fully in the process there is a fear that a similar response will be received from other agencies. Opportunities are missed to protect children as a result of poor inter-agency communication and role confusion (Stanley et al. 2003). Moran et al. have indicated that jointly negotiated protocols enhance inter-agency working (2007). A survey on joint protocol found that positive experiences and good communication is important in the process of inter-agency working (Webber et al., 2013)

Evaluations of the effectiveness of multi-agency management of sex offenders in the UK are positive (Kemshall, 2014). Little is publicised of the effectiveness of sex offender management in an Irish context. Successful inter-agency cooperation in SORAM allows for information sharing, prevention of recidivism and the protection of potential future victims. It provides shared risk assessment, a holistic view of the offender’s risk and behaviours, and creates a mechanism to jointly plan and jointly deliver a risk management strategy (Kemshall, 2014).

The reoffending statistics for offenders eligible for inclusion in MAPPA11, have reduced the overall annual reoffending rates by 4% and the overall annual serious reoffending rates by 2%. That is an overall reduction in victims (Bryant et al., 2015). The overall reoffending rate is reduced when a multi-agency approach is taken to managing the risk posed by sex offenders.

4.7 Why do people Sexually Offend against children?

For years, people have asked the question, what makes an individual offend against a child? Several theories have been put forward to attempt to explain this, Marshall and Barbaree’s Integrated Theory (1990), Hall and Hirschman’s Quadripartite Model (1992), Malamuth’s Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression (1996) and Ward and Siegert’s Pathways Model (2002). The most cited is Finkelhor’s preconditional theory (1984) (Morrison et al, 1994) (Walker, 2014).

This led to treatment objectives and clinical innovations for men who committed sexual offending against children. For example, targeting deviant sexual arousal, working on intimacy issues and teaching offenders how to identify and manage high- risk situations. (Ward & Siegert 2002)

Next comes the question of how do we manage, monitor and risk assess sex offenders and rehabilitate them into society.

11 Currently there are no reoffending statistics available for SORAM.

4.8 Risk Assessment

Hanson and Bussiere (1998) state that to reduce recidivism among sex offenders it is essential to develop accurate risk assessment procedures.

Probation betokens a determination to work with offenders in their communities – Where they live their lives, have their relationships, have committed their offences and where they will accomplish desistance (Canton, 2011, p.4)

According to Malinosky-Rummell and Hansen (1993) children who are physically abused or neglected are more inclined to become offenders later in their lives. A study by Farrington & Welsh (2007) acknowledged that the policies and practices of education, health, employment and housing agencies can influence crime and make a difference to an offender’s chance of rehabilitation and recidivism.

The risk posed by all offenders is now routinely assessed and the outcome of that assessment determines the type and intensity of intervention that will follow. (Canton, 2011).

According to Cumming & McGrath (2005) very often sexual assaults are planned rather than impulsive acts and sex offenders use tactics to gain the trust of and access to their victims, also known as grooming.

Payne & DeMichele (2011) assert that for most sex offenders using “One size fits all” management policy fails to deal with the primary causes and social conditions of sex offending.

4.9 Victim Choice and Recidivism

It can be evident that some criminals tend to develop patterns or preferences for certain types of crimes (Blumstein et al., 1988). Research (Abel et al. 1987, 1988) found that a large number of sex offenders changed their victim type. The research stated that sexual offenders of women frequently had prepubescent victims and a history of exhibitionism and voyeurism.

Hanson et al. found that sexual offenders who commit offences against children are different from nonsexual criminals with respect to type of recidivism and are more

often re-arrested for sexual crimes than non-violent crimes (1995). Boutin (1999) examined the criminal careers of imprisoned sexual offenders and found that sexual offenders of women were more varied in the pattern of the crimes they committed than child sex offenders.

In criminal justice and law enforcement sex offender typology is used to assess risk posed by offenders and allocate appropriate supervision and treatment (Heil et al., 2003). There is an assumption, the “Offence-Specific Fallacy” that offenders who offend against children only offend against children (Laws, D. R. 1994).

According to Heil et al., (2003) offenders can commit crossover sexual offences. Crossover sexual offending is defined as those in which victims are from multiple age, gender and relationship categories. Heil et al., (2003) also found very few sex offenders abuse only one type of victim. This is supported by a study carried out by Bradford, Boulet & Paulak (1992), of the sexual offending history of 260 male child sex offenders, evidencing that 56% admitted crossover offending. Abel et al. (1992) found that 63% of child sexual offenders whose victims were male admitted to sexually offending against females were as O’Connell (1998) found this to be 45%.

Research by Heil et al (2003, p.221) of imprisoned offenders most admitted to “sexually assaulting both children and adults from multiple relationship types.” Of those who offended against children, the majority confessed to sexually assaulting both relatives and non-relatives with a “substantial increase” in offenders admitting to sexually assaulting both genders.

Victim choice polymorphism refers to variation in victim selection across an offender’s sexual offense history, for example in the areas of victim age, victim gender, and victim-offender relationship (Stephens et al 2016). Victim age polymorphism is the most common type of variation (Cann et al 2007). A Study by Guay et al, (2001) showed significant diversity in the level of victim-choice polymorphia between imprisoned sex offenders. It revealed that serious sex offenders have a habit of maintaining their choice of victim regarding age, that child offenders tend to re-offend against children and offenders of adult women are inclined to reoffend against adult women. However, it also found that sex offenders whose victim type is pubescent children are less stable than offenders whose choice is women or children.

According to research (Lussier et al., 2008), polymorphic offenders had more sexual offense victims. (Stephens et al 2016) suggests that the number of victims a polymorphic offender has, which in itself is an increased risk for sexual recidivism, explains the higher levels of recidivism. Compared with child abusers, rapists tend to have higher rates of sexual recidivism (e.g., Hanson & Bussière, 1998). Stephens et al 2016 found polymorphism is relatively common.

4.10 Rehabilitation/Reintegration

Several jurisdictions in the United States have implemented residency restriction12 as a means of community and child protection. However, residency restrictions have not reduced crime but have in fact increased anxiety in communities and created problems for sex offenders that require housing (Beck and Travis., 2004).

Levenson & Cotter (2005a) cite the purpose oef sex offender notification and registration is to promote community safety from sexual violence through education and awareness together with vigilant surveillance and co-operation between police and citizens.

A survey by Matson & Lieb (1996) of the notification methods used by police in the United States found that 50% gave risk levels to sex offenders and disseminated information to the public according to risk posed while other states used broad community notification13 to publicise the location of sex offenders regardless of risk. Megan’s Law has no specific notification guidelines with each state creating its own policy. The U.S Supreme court dealt with two cases14 questioning the constitutionality of Megan’s Law but the supreme court upheld it.

12 A House Bill prohibiting a sex offender from living within 500 feet of a child care centre, school, or public park that shares a boundary with a school that regularly uses that park for activities. 13 Methods of dissemination included community meetings, media release, door to door flyers and mailed flyers. 14 Smith v. Doe, 2003 & Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 2003

5 Analysis of Data and Evaluation of Findings

The representation of the data will be outlined in the Analysis, Findings and Evaluation Chapter. As previously outlined, this research study interviewed 8 participants, two from each agency engaged in a local SORAM team and a thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. From this analysis six key themes emerged and will be discussed in this chapter.

5.1 Inter-Agency Co-Operation

When asked how the local SORAM protects children, all participants responded that communication, sharing of information and multi-agency approach to managing sex offenders was key to protecting children. Participant (1) expressed a view that

“The local SORAM protects children from communication between the guards & probation services & other staff involved and allows people to quickly identify if a child is at risk from an offender and to take actions to stop any likely offending against children.”

Participant (8) stated that “It is the information sharing, the knowledge that we have, that the Gardaí have and the knowledge that TUSLA have, when you put that picture together you really do get a fairly full picture…it’s a strong instrument in Child Protection.” However, participant (6) believed that SORAM is a valuable information sharing process but had limitations stating offenders “have to be at a very high risk to be even discussed at SORAM” and that “there is no onus on them to even engage with TUSLA.” As stated by Webber et al (2013) positive experiences and effective communication is essential in inter-agency work. According to O’Rourke & Hammond (2000) the collection and communication of information is essential in any risk assessment and management strategy.

When asked how the information is shared about potential child protection concerns in the local SORAM participants expressed opinions that it is shared “openly” and “without boundaries” and that there is “trust” among agencies and “that needs to be the case” to protect children. Research by Lips et al (2011) highlighted the importance of trust in cross-agency information sharing.

Although most participants had a good knowledge of the role of each agency engaged in the SORAM process the commitment of certain agencies was questioned. Referring to TUSLA and the local authority participant (1) stated “There isn’t a sense that these agencies are committed” and suggested TUSLA play a more active role by talking at and attending meetings and being “clear about what they are going to do…with the child protection concern.” They were also unaware of the local SOLO and stated that “They seem to attend less than the HSE.” Participant (8) expresses the importance of “personal buy in from each agency…someone who takes ownership of it.” Participant (2) expressed frustration at a different representative from TUSLA attending each meeting and the lack of consistency “they appear more visitors than central to the procedures. At this stage, they should be central to the procedures.” Participant (1) stated “get the impression TUSLA is very overloaded with work but in fact by coming and being more of a presence at the meetings…things wouldn’t be duplicated.” Participant (7) admitted that they had only been to one meeting and “only attend meetings that are relevant to me.” Participant (3) acknowledged SOLO’s were “slow to come on board” however stated since November 2016 because of a directive issued by the DHPCLG15 each local authority has appointed a SOLO, compared previously to 9 nationally, explaining the possible lack of engagement. As indicated by McKeown (2012) if one agency fails to participate fully in the process the fear can be that a similar response will be received from other agencies.

All participants agreed child protection is given a “very high priority” in the local SORAM and is placed “first and foremost” and “overrules other issues”. Participant (6) remarking on a case discussed at SORAM

“the safety of children informed the decision about what everybody else had to do and I knew they weren’t happy about it, it was going to be a headache for the other organisations but it still stood as you have to put the safety of children first.”

As reinforced by Children First (2011) policy, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance.

15 Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government

The multi-agency approach to managing sex offender provides a more holistic view of potential risks as participant (5) highlighted

“We can point out aspects of a person’s situation that are potentially threatening to children which may not have been observed by others…we bring the child’s position to SORAM. I think in a much more real way”

Participant (1) stated “very useful to liaise with another agency and for them to provide their view on the picture. It just re-enforces what needs to be done to protect children.” The shared responsibility in decision making in a multi-agency approach provides support “Sometimes we can feel very, as if we are on our own out here but SORAM lets us know that the guards are involved, probation is involved.” According to Kemshall (2014) successful inter-agency co-operation creates shared risk and allows a complete view of the offender’s risks and behaviours which delivers a joint risk management strategy. Due to the dearth of research and lack of re-offending statistics in the Irish context, a comparison must be made to the multi-agency approach to the management of sex offenders in the U.K, MAPPA16. According to Bryant et al (2015) the overall re-offending rates have reduced by 4% as a result of eligible offenders being included in MAPPA. This illustrates that a multi-agency approach to the management of sex offenders works.

5.2 Legislation

When participants were asked what they believed could improve the protection of children within the SORAM process and the challenges or key issues faced to protect children, many participants (7 out of 8) identified the lack of legislation as a major factor that needed to be addressed.

Participant (4) expressed frustration at the current gap in Irish law and how it influenced his ability to effectively monitor and manage sex offenders and prevented him from protecting children as he was unaware of the location of sex offenders.

“it’s important that we know where sex offenders are at all times. There is a gap in the law…they can live somewhere for 7 days and not tell us until 6 days

16 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

later, that’s a problem…they are still keeping within the law but the problem is we don’t know where they are for a period, that’s a risk…basically they can be off the radar for 14 days and still within the law.”

In the U.K sex offenders must notify within 3 days of any change in their address, participant (4) suggested similar legislation is enacted in Ireland to rectify this situation “we could bring in a slightly shorter period than 7 days…change the law.”

Participant (2) suggested “more powers in relation to informing places of work, where they are residing of the offences that they have committed…it would make our job easier.” This was also recognised by the Ferns Report (Murphy et al, 2005. p 260).

Participants (7) expressed a view that “legislation is needed to place SORAM on a statutory footing as it is only a pilot at present” and this was shared by other participants. Participant (6) felt that the local SORAM did not protect children because of the lack of statutory powers. Participant (6) acknowledged SORAM was a great “information sharing process” but emphasised the inequalities that existed

“TUSLA as the statutory agency responsible for protecting children doesn’t have a statutory responsibility in terms of monitoring those sex offenders and they don’t see us as the agency that has any influence...it is not on a statutory footing…so SORAM is limited in what it can do in protecting children.”

Research in the U.K context by Bellamy et al (2008) of multi-agency arrangements shows that informal practices were used to address gaps associated with legislation. It would appear that SORAM developed as a response to the inadequacies in Irish law in this area.

SORAM was established as a multi-agency approach to the management and monitoring of risk posed by convicted sex offenders. It mirrored a practice already established in other countries however, they had the legislative back up to successfully implement the process. The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 originally outlined provisions for Assessment Teams, and would have placed SORAM on a statutory footing but were removed and not enacted with the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. Minister Frances Fitzgerald (2015) has vowed that amendments to the Sex Offenders Act 2001 are an “absolute priority”. To date, not

even a bill has been drafted and the necessary reform needed in Irish Law to manage sex offenders and protect children is still outstanding.

5.3 Risk Assessments:

Another theme to emerge from the data was risk assessment within SORAM. Participants emphasised the importance of risk assessing offenders for re-offending and creating effective individual management plans. As stated by Payne & DeMichele (2011) for most sex offenders using “One size fits all” management policy fails to deal with the primary causes and social conditions of sex offending.

However, 4 out of 5 participants admitted that their assessment differs for sex offenders whose victims were adults with some participants admitting that their agencies only risk assess sex offenders with offences against child victims. Participant (5) stated “If somebody offends against an adult we don’t equate that with potential danger to children...I’m not saying whether that’s right or wrong we just don’t do it.” They further go onto emphasis that is what they have been instructed by management within their agency “That’s just what we are told here, if it’s an adult offender we are not to get involved.” Participant (6) asserted that if they are notified of an offender with an adult victim a child protection assessment would more than likely not be carried out “They don’t pose a risk to children right now. We would only get involved when there’s a risk to children.”

There is inconsistency between agencies as to whether a sex offender with an adult victim poses a child protection risk. Participant (7) explained that sex offenders with adult victims would also be assessed to determine if there is any child protection risk but admitted that assessment was different for child offenders “It differs because it has to be.” However, they also acknowledged that sex offenders regardless of victim type would be asked not to have unsupervised access with children

“As a protective measure for the offender but also for the general community. I don’t think you can say with certainty that just because the victim was adult that the person doesn’t pose a risk to children, I don’t think so. I think you have to adopt a very cautious approach.”

Just because a sex offender’s victim is an adult should not remove the necessity to assess for potential child protection risks. Research studies (Heil et al., 2003), (Bradford, Poulet & Paulak., 1992) (O Connell., 1998) supports this. A study by Cann et al (2007) showed that victim age polymorphism is the most common type of variation in polymorphic sex offenders. According to research by Heil et al (2003) of imprisoned sex offenders, the majority admitted to committing offences against children and adults from multiple relationship types17 and multiple genders18. The study indicated that many sexual offenders do not exclusively offend against a preferred victim type.

The use of typology to assess risk and the assumption that offenders who offend against children only offend against children is not conclusive with current research (Heil et al., 2003). Every sex offender regardless of their victim type needs to be assessed in SORAM for any potential risks they may pose to children.

5.4 Joint Training

It was acknowledged by participants that each agency engaged in SORAM has a responsibility and must “play their part” for the protection of children and not one sole agency. As asserted by O’Rourke & Hammond (2000) no agency can work in isolation when managing risk and to effectively manage dangerous individuals for the protection of the public it must be the concern of all agencies, at every level.

Training was seen by participants as a key aspect of the SORAM process necessary to assess risk and protect children. Since 2009, joint training between AGS and TPS has been carried out to risk assess offenders (Wilson et al. 2013). However, this training does not include the agencies of TUSLA CFA or the local authority and participants within these agencies felt they were at a disadvantage because of this. Participants asserted they were not “qualified to do an assessment” and that increased training would assist their understanding of the risk level and classifications and allow them to “fully understand what would escalate risk.” Participant (6) suggested that if a sex offender is not engaging with TUSLA CFA that this information should “change their assessment” and reflect the risk. They expressed that currently TUSLA did not have

17 Both relative and non-relative relationships 18 There was a substantial increase in offenders admitting to offending against male and female children.

the same equal power as the other agencies in risk assessment and management of sex offenders. This is evident in the beliefs of other agencies with participant (1) stating “The strongest parties in SORAM are the guards and probation.” According to a study by Carpenter et al (2010) of Local Safeguarding Children Boards in England joint training was seen as a vital component of the safeguarding children process. Research by Palusci and McHugh (1995) tested factual knowledge of participants before and after joint training and demonstrated conclusive improvement following joint training.

5.5 Policy and Practice

The theme of policy versus practice of agencies engaged in the local SORAM was raised by several participants. Most participants stated that the child protection and welfare policy in SORAM was effective in protecting children (2=V.E, 4=E, 1=I.E, 1=N)19 and described it as “robust” and “a step in the right direction” with a “strong emphasis on child protection”.

However, when asked to describe the child protection policy20 that guides the local SORAM team it was evident not all participants were fully aware of the policy. Participant (1) believed the child protection policy was governed “according to legislation” while participant (3) and (7) believed it was “from Children First.” When prompted about the “Manual of practice” (NSO, 2016) participants referred to it as “a new pack” stating they had “looked at it” with one participant (2) stating they “don’t know much about the policy” and some not mentioning it at all. Only half of participants referred to Risk Assessment and Management Plans (RAMP) the documentation used to highlight potential child protection concerns in the local SORAM teams.

The “Manual of practice” was launched in November 2016 by the National SORAM Office but the knowledge of the guidelines is varied among the local SORAM participants. Participant (1) suggested the emphasis on oversight by the National SORAM office is a “misuse of their time and talents” and more time should be spent on “National policies and training.” Participant (3) proposed that child protection

19 V.E= Very Effective, E= Effective, I.E= In Effective, N= did not know 20 The manual of practice (NSO, 2016) guides each local SORAM in the practices and procedures of SORAM.

could be improved within SORAM through education of other agencies as “child protection perhaps isn’t the first thing they have knowledge of.”

Participants were asked about their role within the local SORAM team and each participant demonstrated a clear understanding of that role. However, the need for further education was reiterated, when participants were asked about the role of other agencies within the local SORAM as the knowledge level varied.

5.6 Lack of Housing

All participants interviewed in this research study identified the lack of housing as a major concern when managing the risk posed by convicted sex offenders to children. Each participant acknowledged the current homeless crisis that exists in Ireland is at “crisis proportions” with a local housing representative asserting that there were 5000 people in homeless accommodation every night in Dublin. Research by Levenson and Cotter (2005b) found that if appropriate housing is not secured for sex offenders it may result in increased difficulties in the management of risk posed by offenders and escalated risk of recidivism.

Participants emphasised the general lack of suitable accommodation for convicted sex offenders as a significant issue. Participants voiced concern that “people are not taking the issue seriously” and that “nobody is taking the bull by the horns” and dealing with the issue or providing a solution. The issue of lack of accommodation arises again and again with the participants during the research interviews. Participants highlighted that because of homeless issues or the attention the media give to the locations of convicted sex offenders a lot of them are “leaving the country” or “going underground” resulting in them being “more of a risk” to children as their whereabouts are unknown thus creating “quite a scary situation”. Participants outlined that increased media attention resulted in sex offenders being “hunted around the country” if the public discover where they are residing and it creates a new element of risk and the problem of “transient offenders”. As asserted by Farkas and Stichman (2002) the incarceration of sex offenders and their subsequent return to society causes media and legislative frenzy.

Participant (5) asserts that a solution is urgently needed for transient offenders that “maximises the protection of children” and stops agencies from “chasing each other and these guys around the country”. Participant (1) voiced that sex offenders had a “right” to accommodation and as they have “done their time” and that different organisation may not appreciate the need to give a sex offender a “chance” and that by doing so it “lessens the risk”. Participants indicated that having sex offenders who are homeless is “not where you want to be” as it is more difficult for Gardaí and Probation to manage risk effectively and “keep communities safe”. Levenson and Cotter (2005b) reported that housing restrictions increased triggers among sex offender potentially resulting in reoffending.

Participants acknowledged it was problematic for SOLO’s in local authorities not only because of the homeless crisis but also because they are trying to accommodate individuals who society “isn’t happy to have anywhere near them” and placing them in the “least risk place.” The local authority outlined that they have provisions for large family schemes for the homeless but they are “reluctant” to place a sex offender in such a scheme but acknowledged that “it isn’t always possible to adhere to.” Placing convicted sex offenders in inappropriate accommodation is creating huge risks for children.

Several participants expressed a need for “protected hostel” and “step down or half way house” accommodation for sex offenders upon release from prison and who continue to present as high risk to children. Participant (1) discussed offenders who had “no control over their sexual impulses and need something way beyond what is on offer at the moment…in terms of supervised accommodation” Participants outlined that currently sex offenders are housed en-masse in hostels in Dublin city centre as very few local authorities outside Dublin have hostel accommodation. The sex offenders who are homeless upon release are all presenting to local authorities in Dublin. The substantial number of offenders living in one area creates its own problems. Participants highlighted it can be “difficult” to monitor and manage risk due to the large numbers condensed into one area while simultaneously “allowing the sex offender to carry on with their lives and be supported going forward”. The placement of sex offenders in stable accommodation is key in minimising the risk

posed and preventing recidivism. Stable accommodation supports risk management by all agencies involved and facilitates the exchange of information. (NASSO., 2012)

The problem of lack of suitable accommodation for sex offenders is exasperated by a recent instruction by TUSLA CFA that sex offenders who are homeless will not be eligible for rent allowance if they self-accommodate in B&B’s and hotels due the presence of large numbers of homeless families and the risk they pose to children that could be present for “residential or visiting purposes”. Participant (7) explained that sex offenders often find themselves in “no man’s land” as they don’t know where they can reside. While participants acknowledged the necessity for this restriction and that it is “understandable why it has happened” it is leading to “problems that could be exasperating peoples risk level”. Research by Beck and Travis (2004) has shown that residency restrictions create anxiety in communities and issues for sex offenders requiring housing. According to Koenig (1997) the primary concern when residency notifications were imposed is child protection and public safety.

It was acknowledged by participants that the problem requires a “National response” and cannot be “solved by housing authorities alone”. Participants indicated this should be a task undertaken by the National SORAM Office in collaboration with the government. Participants voiced that they felt that there is currently a “hands off approach” or a response of “this isn’t our responsibility” when there is a problem and guidance is sought from the National SORAM office. Participant (3) recognized that policy changes have been made in the form of advanced notification by IPS to SOLO’s in local authorities of sex offenders who have declared they will be homeless upon release and this will allow for “forward planning and thinking”. However there remained an underlying feeling of frustration that “nobody wants to take responsibility”

There is a dearth in research on the housing of sex offenders in the Irish context so international practice must be explored. The example provided in Scotland by NASSO (2012)21 sets out housing arrangements for sex offenders subject to requirements under Sex Offenders (Scotland) Act 2005. The strategy is securely integrated as part of MAPPA. MAPPA encompassed wider reforms to strengthen

21 National Accommodation Strategy for Sex Offenders (NASSO) was first published in 2007 and revised in 2012.

provisions for managing sex offenders in Scotland and aims to improve multi-agency management of sex offenders and reduce recidivism. The NASSO policy sets out specific objectives and provides for accommodation for sex offenders. The Irish model of sex offender management (SORAM) needs integrated housing provisions but to date does not have enough legislation to support the management of offenders or place it on a necessary statutory footing so how is it supposed to protect children and communities.

Chapter 6 Conclusion & Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion

The aim of this research study was to examine how one local SORAM team works to protect children. By drawing on the views and experience of interviewees from each agency engaged in this process, this study explored the effectiveness of the local SORAM teams to protect children from sex offenders in society.

It investigated the procedures, such as, risk assessment tools22, management plans23 and the policy24 that guides the local SORAM teams and how they contribute to protecting children. However, this research also highlighted inconsistencies among agencies operating within the local SORAM team such as, the lack of knowledge and understanding of policy and the role of each agency in the protection of children. This study identified the strengths of the local SORAM team that impact on the protection of children, for example, enhanced communication, information sharing, supported decision making and shared responsibility whilst also examining the limitations that exist and prevent the protection of children such as, the lack of legislation, inadequate housing provisions and lack of commitment from certain agencies.

Having critically analysed the data of this research study and evaluated the findings the following recommendations have been made;

6.2 Recommendations

6.2.1 Inter-Agency Co-Operation

The attendance of the designated Sex Offender Liaison Officers (SOLO) from the Local Housing Authority at every local SORAM meeting is a priority. It ensures multi-Agency Management of Sex Offenders. However, as one SOLO validly pointed

22 Risk Matrix 2000 and Stable & Acute 2007 23 RAMP – Risk Assessment and Management Plans 24 Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management (SORAM) Manual of Practice: A User’s Guide to the Operation of SORAM.

out the inclusion of sex offenders of all levels of risk in SORAM, not just medium and high risk would improve in the protection of children.

Recommendations: That the designated Sex Offender Liaison Officers for each local authority attend every local SORAM Meeting.

That that National SORAM Office consider changing the inclusion criteria for SORAM that will allow the multi-agency approach to the management of convicted sex offenders, regardless of their risk level SORAM practice.

6.2.2 Legislation

SORAM mirrored a practice in other countries that had the legislative backup to successfully implement the process. At present, SORAM is a pilot scheme and is not on a statutory footing. SORAM has been implemented as a pre-cursor to the new legislation not yet enacted. The Sex Offenders Act (SOA2001) remains the key piece of legislation for the supervision and monitoring of sex offenders in Ireland. There is very little power provided to effectively monitor convicted sex offenders when compared to the U.K legislation.

Recommendation: That new legislation promised by Minister Francis Fitzgerald is drafted as a Bill and enacted into Irish Law as a matter of urgency to bring Ireland in line with other jurisdictions to effectively manage and monitor convicted sex offenders and protect children.

6.2.3 Risk Assessments

TUSLA Child & Family Agency only carry out a child protection assessment on a convicted sex offender if the victim is a child. Similarly, the Local Housing Authority currently only carry out an additional housing assessment piece which assess Child Protection on a convicted sex offender if the victim was a child. The comprehensive literature review has shown evidence through previous research studies carried out

(Guay et al, 2001), (Heil et al., 2003), (Cann et al 2007) and (Stephens et al 2016) that convicted sex offenders commit cross over offending or are polymorphic offenders.

Recommendations: That risk assessments are carried out by all agencies on every sex offender, regardless of their victim type to ensure protection of children.

6.2.4 Joint Training

Inter-agency co-operation, information sharing and multi-agency management of convicted offenders through SORAM was seen as by all agencies as key to protecting children. However, some agencies, specifically TUSLA Child & Family Agency and the Housing Authority spoke of lack of understanding of the assessment tools used to assess offenders and often being lost a local SORAM meetings when the results of assessments were being discussed.

The attendance of the designated Sex Offender Liaison Officers (SOLO) from the Local Housing Authority at every local SORAM meeting is a priority. It ensures Multi-Agency Management of Sex Offenders. However, as one SOLO validly pointed out the inclusion of sex offenders of all levels of risk in SORAM, not just medium and high risk would improve in the protection of children.

Recommendation: That the joint training being utilised by An Garda Síochana and The Probation Service in RM2000 and Stable & Acute 2007 be extended to include TUSLA Child & Family Agency and Local Housing Authorities to better develop inclusion and understanding among all agencies.

6.2.5 Policy and Practice

The National SORAM office was established with representatives from all invested agencies working together. It launched its guidance document “The manual of practice of SORAM” on 10th November 2016 at the National SORAM Conference. However, this research study has found that not all agencies are aware of the Child Protection Policy contained within this guidance document.

Recommendation: That joint inter-agency training be given by the National SORAM office to each local SORAM Team on the policies and guidelines contained in the manual of practice.

6.2.6 Housing

We are currently in a housing crisis in Ireland and the lack of suitable accommodation for convicted sex offenders means the majority are being housed in hostels in the city centre or are resorting to living homeless on the streets. A sex offender with stable accommodation is easier to monitor and manage and protect from children than one who is consistently moving from one unsuitable accommodation to another. TUSLA Child & Family Agency has now issued a directive to all local housing authorities stating that convicted sex offenders are not to be housed in B&B accommodation due to the increase in families being accommodated in these locations. This is a positive step in protecting children but creates an additional challenge to stabilise and effectively manage sex offenders and identify child protection concerns of offenders that are constantly moving.

Recommendation: The shortage of suitable housing for convicted sex offenders is not something a local SORAM team can address. A solution to this challenge needs to be discussed at a National level. It is recommended that the National Steering Group make the suitable housing of convicted sex offenders a priority and identify a solution.

6.2.7 Recommendation for Future Research

 Future research into the provision of suitable housing for sex offenders and how that could be achieved in the Irish context. Research exists internationally on policy and best practice for sex offender housing provisions which could be explored and developed to address the issue in Ireland.

BIBLEOGRAPHY Abel, G.G., Becker, J.V., Mittelman, M., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Rouleau, J.L. and Murphy, W.D., 1987. Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), pp.3-25. Abel, G.G., Becker, J.V., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Mittelman, M. and Rouleau, J.L., (1988). Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16(2), pp.153-168. Abel, G.G. and Osborn, C., 1992. The paraphilias: the extent and nature of sexually deviant and criminal behavior. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. pp.675- 687 An Garda Síochana Policy on the Investigation of Sexual Crime, Crime against Children and Child Welfare, 2nd Edition (2013) (HQ Directive 48/13) Available At: http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Policy%20on%20the%20Investigation%20of% 20Sexual%20Crime,%20Crimes%20Against%20Children%20and%20Child%20Welf are%202014%2002%2024%20HQ%20Dir%2048%2013.pdf Accessed on: 07/10/16 Beck, V.S. and Travis, L.F., (2004) Sex offender notification and fear of victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(5), pp.455-463. Bell, J., (2010) Doing your Research Project Doing Your Research Project. A Guide for first-time researchers in Education, Health and Social Science.4th Edition. Berkshire, England: Open University Press Bellamy, C., 6, P., Raab, C., Warren, A., & Heeney, C. (2008). Information sharing and conﬁdentiality in social policy: Regulating multi-agency working. Public Administration, 86(3), 737–759. Bender, L. and Blau, A., (1937). The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 7(4), p.500. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Das, S. and Moitra, S.D., (1988). Specialization and seriousness during adult criminal careers. Journal of quantitative criminology, 4(4), pp.303-345. Bradford, J. M. W., Boulet, J., & Pawlak, A. (1992). The paraphilias: A multiplicity of deviant behaviours. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 104-108. Bruton, M. (1998) West of Ireland Farmer Case: Report of Review Group, presented to North Western Health Board, July 1998. Manor hamilton: North Western Health Board. Bryant, Stephanie, Peck, Mark, Lovbakke, Jorgen (2015) “Reoffending Analysis of MAPPA Eligible Offenders” Ministry of Justice Available at; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 407139/reoffending-analysis-of-mappa-eligible-offenders.pdf Accessed 24/11/2016

Boutin, S. (1999). La carriere criminelle des agresseurs sexuels `, Master dissertation, University of Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Cann, J., Friendship, C. and Gozna, L. (2007), Assessing crossover in a sample of sexual offenders with multiple victims. Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol.12: 149–163. Canton, R., (2011). Probation: Working with offenders. Routledge. p.129 Carpenter, J., Hackett, S., Patsios, D. and Szilassy, E., (2010). Outcomes of interagency training to safeguard children: final report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health. Charles, M. and Horwath, J., (2009). Investing in interagency training to safeguard children: an act of faith or an act of reason?. Children & society, 23(5), pp.364-376. Churchill, W., (1916) Speech to House of Commons by Winston Churchill, 7th March 1916, House of Commons Cumming, G. & McGrath, R. (2005). Supervision of the Sex Offender: Community Management, Risk Assessment and Treatment. Second Edition. Safer Society Press. Brandon Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2009) “The Management of Sex Offenders - A Discussion Document, 2009 Available at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf/Files/FINAL%20RE PORT.pdf Accessed: 06/10/2016 Department of Children and Youth Affairs, (2011) Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children (2nd edition), Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Dublin: Government Publication. Available at: http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/Publications/ChildrenFirst.pdf Accessed 1/10/16 Denscombe, M., 2007. The Good Research Guide. Berkshire. England: McGraw-Hill Education. Draucker, C.B., Martsolf, D.S. and Poole, C., (2009). Developing distress protocols for research on sensitive topics. Archives of psychiatric nursing, 23(5), pp.343-350. Duffy, J., 2006. The Need for Policy Development for the Risk Management of Sex Offenders in Ireland. Irish Probation Journal, 3(1), pp.5-16. Farrington, D.P. and Welsh, B.C., 2008. Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford University Press. Farkas, M.A. and Stichman, A., (2002). Sex offender laws: Can treatment, punishment, incapacitation, and public safety be reconciled? Criminal Justice Review, 27(2), pp.256-283.

Finkelhor, D., (1984). Child Sex Abuse: New Theory and Research. New York. Free Press Fitzgerald, Frances (2015) Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 Second Stage Speech – Seanad Éireann - Minister for Justice and Equality, Frances Fitzgerald, TD. 6th October 2015. Available at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/SP15000512 Accessed: 12/04/17 Flowers, R.B., (1986). Children and criminality: The child as victim and perpetrator (Vol. 13). Greenwood Publishing Group. Ferguson, H. (2004) Protecting children in time: Child abuse, child protection and the consequences of modernity. Springer.

Gibbons, N. (2010) Roscommon Child Care Case, Report of the Inquiry Team to the Health Service Executive, 27 October 2010. Dublin: Health Service Executive. Available at: http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/Children/RoscommonChi ldCareCase.html

Gray, D.E., 2013. Doing research in the real world. Sage. Guay, J.P., Proulx, J., Cusson, M. and Ouimet, M., (2001). Victim-choice polymorphia among serious sex offenders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(5), pp.521-533. Hall, G.C.N. & Hirschman, R. (1992). Sexual aggression against children: A conceptual perspective on etiology. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 19, 8-23 Hanson, K., Harris, A., Scott, T. and Helmus, L. (2007) “Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project”. Public Safety Canada. Available at: http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/hansonharrisscottandhelmus2007.pdf Accessed 25.01.17

Hanson, R.K., Scott, H. and Steffy, R.A., (1995). A comparison of child molesters and nonsexual criminals: Risk predictors and long-term recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(3), pp.325-337. Hanson, R.K. and Bussiere, M.T., (1998). Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 66(2), p.348. Harris, D. A., Mazerolle, P., & Knight, R. A. (2009). Understanding male sexual offending: A comparison of general and specialist theories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 10511069. doi: 10.1177/0093854809342242 Harris, D.A., Knight, R.A., Smallbone, S. and Dennison, S., (2011). Postrelease specialization and versatility in sexual offenders referred for civil commitment. Sexual Abuse, 23(2), pp.243-259.

Heil, P., Ahlmeyer, S. and Simons, D., 2003. Crossover sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse, 15(4), pp.221-236. Home Office. (2007) “Keeping Children Safe from Sex Offenders” How Sex Offenders are Managed. Howe, G. (1999) ‘The Management of Public Inquiries’, Political Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 294-304.

Kvale, S. and Brinkman, S., (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative interviewing. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Kemshall, H., (2014) Public Protection: What works in the safe management of sexual offenders. Irish Probation Journal, Vol 11, Oct 2014 Klein, M.W., (1984). Offence specialisation and versatility among juveniles. British Journal of Criminology, 24(2), pp.185-194. Koenig, W.P., (1997). Does Congress abuse its spending clause power by attaching conditions on the receipt of federal law enforcement funds to a state's compliance with Megan's Law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88(2), 721 – 765. Lacey, N., (2008). The prisoners' dilemma: political economy and punishment in contemporary democracies (pp. 58-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. La Fond, J.Q., (1998). The costs of enacting a sexual predator law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(1-2), p.468. Laming, H. (2003) The Victoria Climbié Inquiry. (Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6086/2/climbiereport.pdf Accessed 18/11/16 Laws, D.R., (1994). How dangerous are rapists to children? Journal of Sexual Aggression, Vol (1), pp.1-14. Levenson, J.S. and Cotter, L.P., (2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), pp.49-66. Levenson, J.S. and Cotter, L.P., (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(2), pp.168- 178. Lips, A. Miriam B., O’Neill, Rose R., Eppel, Elizabeth A. (2011) “Cross- Agency Collaboration in New Zealand: An Empirical Study of Information Sharing Practices, Enablers and Barriers in Managing for Shared Social Outcomes”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 34 (4):255- 266 Lussier, P., Leclerc, B., Healey, J. and Proulx, J., 2008. Generality of deviance and predation: Crime-switching and specialization patterns in persistent sexual

offenders. In DeLisi, M. and Conis, P.J., 2008. Violent offenders: Theory, research, public policy, and practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Machura, S., (2016). Inter-and Intra-Agency Co-Operation in Safeguarding Children: A Staff Survey. British Journal of Social Work, 46(3), pp.652-668. Malamuth, N. M. (1996). The confluence model of sexual aggression: feminist and evolutionary and evolutionary perspectives. In D.M. Buss & N.M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex Power Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives (pp.269295). New York: Oxford University Press. Malinosky-Rummell, R. & Hansen, D. J. (1993) Long-term consequences of childhood 56 physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 68-79. Marshall, W.L. & Barbaree, H.E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws and H.E. Barbaree (Eds.). Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories and treatment of the offender (pp.257-275). New York: Plenum Press. Matson, S. and Lieb, R., (1996). Community notification in Washington State: 1996 survey of law enforcement. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Moran, P., Jacobs, C., Bunn, A. & Bifulco, A. (2007) Multiagency working: implications for an early-intervention social work team. Child and Family SocialWork, 12, 143–151. Morrison, T., Erooga, M. and Beckett, C. (1994). Sexual offending against children: assessment and treatment of male abusers. London: Routledge. Murphy, F.D., Buckley, H. and Joyce, L. (2005) The Ferns Report: Presented to the Minister for Health and Children. Dublin: Government Publications. Available at: http://www.lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/560434/2/thefernsreportoctober2005. pdf Accessed on 10/10/2016

McAlinden, A.M., (2007). The shaming of sexual offenders: Risk, retribution and reintegration. Bloomsbury Publishing. McGuinness, C. (1993) Kilkenny Incest Investigation. Report present to Mr. Brendan Howlin, TD, Minister for Health by South Eastern Health Board, May 1993. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Available at: http://lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/46278/4/zkilkennyincestinvestigation.pdf McKeown, Kieran. (2012) “Inter-Agency cooperation between services for children and families in Ireland: does it improve outcomes? Journal of Children’s Services. Emerald Article (pp. 190 -200) National Accommodation Strategy for Sex Offenders in Scotland., (2012). The Scottish Government. Available at: www.gov.scot Accessed 30.03.2017

National SORAM Office, (2016). Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management (SORAM) Manual of Practice: A User’s Guide to the Operation of SORAM. National SORAM Office: Dublin. O’Connell, MA., (1998). Using polygraph testing to assess deviant sexual history of sex offenders. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 58, 8-A, PsycINFO EBSCOhost. Viewed 14th April 2017 O'Rourke, M. and Hammond, S., (2000). Risk Management: Towards safe sound and supportive service. Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust. Palusci, V.J. and McHugh, M.T., (1995). Interdisciplinary training in the evaluation of child sexual abuse. Child abuse & neglect, 19(9), pp.1031-1038. Parton, N. (1985). The Politics of Child Abuse. Macmillan.

Payne, B.K. and DeMichele, M., (2011). Sex offender policies: considering unanticipated consequences of GPS sex offender monitoring. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), pp.177-187. Robson, C. and McCartan, K., 2016. Real world research. John Wiley & Sons. Ryan Commission, 2009. Final Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Dublin, Ireland: Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Seemann, A., (2009). Joint agency: intersubjectivity, sense of control, and the feeling of trust. Inquiry, Vol. 52. Issue 5., pp.500-515. EBSCOhost, viewed 29/04/2017 Selltiz, D., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. and Cook, S.W. (1962) Research Methods in Social Relations, pp.583. 2nd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stanley, N., Penhale, B., Riordan, D., Barbour, R.S. and Holden, S., (2003). Child Protection and Mental Health Services: Responding Effectively to the Needs of Families. Stephens, S., Seto, M.C., Goodwill, A.M. and Cantor, J.M., (2016). The relationships between victim age, gender, and relationship polymorphism and sexual recidivism. Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment, p.1079063216630983 Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2010) “Reflection in the shadow of blame: When do politicians appoint commissions of inquiry?” British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, p. 613-34.

Thornton, D., Mann, R., Webster, S., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C. and Erikson, M., (2003) “Distinguishing and Combining Risks for Sexual and Violent Recidivism”. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989(1), pp.225-235.

Tuckett, A.G., 2005. Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: a researcher’s experience. Contemporary Nurse, 19(1-2), pp.75-87. Walker, Mary., (2014) Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management in Ireland. Doctoral Thesis. National University of Ireland, Cork. Ward, T. & Siegert, R.J. (2002). Towards a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 319 – 351. Webber, M., McCree, C. and Angeli, P., (2013). Inter‐ agency joint protocols for safeguarding children in social care and adult mental‐ health agencies: a cross‐ sectional survey of practitioner experiences. Child & Family Social Work, 18(2), pp.149-158. Wilson, M., McCann, J. and Templeton, R., (2013) SORAM: Towards a Multi-Agency Model of Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management. Irish Probation Journal, Vol. 10. (pp. 177-192) Whittier, N., (2009). The politics of child sexual abuse: Emotion, social movements, and the state. Oxford University Press. Wood, J. (2008) Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW: Executive Summary and Recommendations. Available at: http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/publications/news/stories/?a=33794 Accessed 03/11/16

Zevitz, R.G. and Farkas, M.A., (2000). The impact of sex-offender community notification on probation/parole in Wisconsin. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), pp.8-21.

Legislation

Statutes of the United Kingdom (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk) Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Criminal Justice Order (Northern Ireland) 2008

Statutes of Scotland (available at www.gov.scot.) Management of Sex Offenders (Scotland) Act 2005

Statutes of the United States of America (available at www.gpo.gov) H.R 3355 - Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (The Wetterling Act) 1994 H.R 2137 – Megan’s Law amendment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 H.R. 4472 — Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

Acts of the Oireachtas (available at www.irishstatutebook.ie) Sex Offender Act 2001 (Number 18 of 2001) Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 Seanad (Number 29 of 2015) Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 (Number 2 of 2017)

APPENDICES

Appendix I

Information Sheet for Participants in Research

Dear ______(Garda/social workers/probation officers)

I am carrying out a Development Practice Project in part fulfilment of my Postgraduate Diploma in Child Protection and Welfare, Trinity College Dublin. The title of my project is “An examination of how one Local SORAM Team works to protect children”.

You are invited to take part in this study because you are a member of an agency currently engaged in a local SORAM Team and your opinion will assist in this research study. I am contacting you as I am particularly interested in ascertaining the views and experiences of practitioners, such as Gardaí, probation officers, Social Workers and Housing Officers engaged in the SORAM process.

Participation is completely voluntary and you have the right to refuse participation, refuse any question and withdraw at any time during interview without any consequence whatsoever. The participant can withdraw his/her permission to use data gathered 10 days following interview.

Should you consent to take part in the study you will be required to take part in an audio taped interview. The interview is expected to last between sixty to ninety minutes during working hours and at a time that will be most convenient to you. The location of the interview will be in accordance with Trinity College Dublin Interview safety procedures.

Confidentiality is an important factor that I will discuss with each participant before each interview. All the information that you provide will be treated as confidential unless I believe that there is a serious risk of harm or danger to either you or another individual (e.g. physical, emotional or sexual abuse, concerns for child protection, rape, self-harm, suicidal intent or criminal activity) or if a serious crime has been committed. Should this occur, I may need to talk to someone else. Prior to doing so, I will talk to you first. However, disclosure of this information does not depend on your agreement.

Regarding anonymity, the source of individual commentary will not be identified in the final text and while every effort will be made to maintain your anonymity, this cannot be absolutely guaranteed as participants may be identifiable by their expressed opinions or experience. The researcher is guided by the ethical principles for research connected to Trinity College.

The data gathered will later be audio recorded and transcribed and participants who decline to consent to audio recording will not be able to participate in the study. The data will be safely held on a password protected desk top computer locked in a locked office. The non-anonymised data in the form of signed consent forms and audio recordings are collected and retained as part of the research process. The signed consent forms will be stored in a locked drawer that only the researcher has access to by key. Participants who decline to consent to audio recording will not be able to participate in the study. The research supervisor can also access the data gathered. Please be advised that to protect confidentiality, responses will not be shared with employers.

The data will be destroyed in accordance with the TCD Guidelines on Good Research Practice, which states that ‘Primary research data (and where possible, relevant specimens, samples, questionnaires, audiotapes, etc.) must be retained in their original form within the College for a minimum of two years from completion of the project where this is practical.

The research data will be used for the purpose of submission of my dissertation. This project will not be published and will only be made available to students of Trinity College, Dublin.

Should you have any queries regarding this research project please do not hesitate to contact me. Phone: 086 407 03 29. Email: [email protected] I look forward to your response.

Yours Sincerely,

______Jennifer Bell

iii

Appendix II Consent Form for Participants in Research

Title of Research Study: An examination of how one Local SORAM Team works to protect children.

Consent to take part in research

 I……………………………………… voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

 I understand that even if I agree to participate now, I can withdraw at any time or refuse to answer any question during interview without any consequences of any kind.

 I understand that I can withdraw my permission to use data gathered 10 days following interview.

 I have had the purpose and nature of the study explained to me in writing and I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the study.

 I understand that participation involves complete an audio recorded interview.

 I understand that all information I provide for this study will be treated confidentially. I understand that if I inform the researcher that myself or someone else is at risk of harm they may have to report this to the relevant authorities - they will discuss this with me first but may be required to report with or without my permission.

 I understand that in any report on the results of this research my identity will remain anonymous. This will be done by changing my name and disguising any details of my interview which may reveal my identity or the identity of people I speak about.

 I understand that signed consent forms will be stored in a locked drawer that only the researcher has access to by key. The information gathered from research participants in this study will be audio recorded with their and transcribed verbatim. The original recordings will be securely stored on a password protected, encrypted desk top PC located in a locked office of the researcher.

 I understand that the research supervisor can also access the data gathered.

 I understand that under freedom of information legalisation I am entitled to access the information I have provided at any time while it is in storage as specified above.

 I understand that I am free to contact any of the people involved in the research to seek further clarification and information.

Researcher: Jennifer Bell Email: [email protected] Supervisor: Paul Sargent Email: [email protected]

______Date: ______Signature of research participant

I believe the participant is giving informed consent to participate in this study

______Date: ______Signature of researcher

Appendix III

Information Sheet For Agency/Gatekeeper

Request for permission to conduct an interview with Gardai/Probation Officers/Social Workers/Sex Offender Liaison Officer- delete line manager as appropriate.

Superintendent An Garda Síochana /Principal Social Worker /Senior Probation Officer /Housing Officer

Address

Dear Superintendent An Garda Síochana/Principle Social Worker/Senior Probation Officer/Housing Officer

I am conducting a research study to examine how one local (Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management) SORAM Team works to protect children. I am interested in ascertaining frontline practitioners’ perspectives. This includes Gardai/Probation Officers/Social Workers/Sex Offender Liaison Officer.

I am writing to kindly invite you to act as a gatekeeper within your agency to facilitate this research study. The role of gatekeeper will involve solely facilitating access to interested participants and distributing information. The gatekeeper will provide information of the researcher’s contact details to interested participants. The gatekeeper within each agency will select participants from the chosen local SORAM Team. Participants should be invited to contact the researcher directly and not the gatekeeper.

I am writing to you requesting your permission to interview Gardaí/Probation Officers/Social Workers/Sex Offender Liaison Officer on your team. This will involve their participation in a semi structured qualitative interview at a location and time convenient for the participants.

The interview is expected to last between sixty to ninety minutes during working hours and at a time that will least interrupt front line work. I am particularly interested in talking to Gardaí/Probation Officers/Social Workers/Sex Offender Liaison Officer because of their engagement in a local SORAM team since its initiation.

Confidentiality is an important factor that I will discuss with the participant before commencing the interview. All the information that they provide will be treated as confidential unless they disclose any information that causes concern for them or anyone else. Should this occur, I may need to talk to someone else. Prior to doing so, I will talk to the participant first. Regarding anonymity, the source of individual commentary will not be identified in the final text. It is important to point out however that an individual may be recognised unintentionally in the text through opinion or experience.

The data gathered will later be audio recorded and transcribed and will be safely held on a password protected desk top computer locked in the researchers locked office. The signed consent forms will be stored in a locked drawer that only the researcher has access to by key.

The data will be destroyed In accordance with the TCD Guidelines on Good Research Practice, which states that ‘Primary research data (and where possible, relevant specimens, samples, questionnaires, audiotapes, etc.) must be retained in their original form within the College for a minimum of two years from completion of the project where this is practical.

The research data will be used for the purpose of submission of my dissertation. This project will not be published and will only be made available to students of Trinity College, Dublin. Participants have the right to refuse to participate, the right to refuse to answer particular questions and the right to withdraw from the research process at any time, without penalty.

Should you have any queries regarding this research project please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Jennifer Bell

Contact details: [email protected] 086 407 03 29

Supervisor: Paul Sargent [email protected]

iii

Appendix IV

Consent Form for Agency/Gatekeeper

An examination of how one Local SORAM (Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management) Team works to protect children.

I ______give permission for my staff to take part in a semi structured interview conducted with Jennifer Bell, as student from Trinity College Dublin as part of a research study An examination of how one Local SORAM (Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management) Team works to protect children.

I understand that the role of gatekeeper will involve solely facilitating access to interested participants and distributing information of the researcher’s contact details to interested participants. I consent to act as gatekeeper for my agency.

I understand that a number of other professionals from various organisations (such as Gardai/Tusla social workers/probation officers/local housing authority officers) engaged in this area of work are also being interviewed. I understand that as part of this discussion, participants will be invited to draw on their experience but that in order to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of the persons they work with, that they will not use any identifying information, such as names or addresses or other identifiable details.

The information that participants give will be treated as confidential, within the boundaries explained to me, and names will not appear in the study. I understand that anonymity cannot be guaranteed, as my staff may be identifiable from their comments or opinions.

With participants consent, the interview will be tape recorded for accuracy of transcription and no other purpose. I understand that the recordings and any related transcripts will be stored securely in the researchers locked office and that interview

swill be destroyed in accordance with the TCD Guidelines on Good Research Practice, which states that ‘Primary research data (and where possible, relevant specimens, samples, questionnaires, audiotapes, etc.) must be retained in their original form within the College for a minimum of two years from completion of the project where this is practical. Where this is not possible the nearest practical alternative to retaining the original evidence must be employed (e.g. an image or data set from the original)’.

Finally I am aware that participants are not obliged to answer any questions they do not want to and they can terminate the interview at any time, without fear of penalty.

______Date: ______Signature of professional

I believe the participant is giving informed consent to participate in this study

______Date: ______Signature of researcher

Researcher: Jennifer Bell Email: [email protected] Supervisor: Paul Sargent Email: [email protected]

Appendix V.

Interview Schedule / Proposed Topic Outline

In order to minimise disruption to the practitioners’ working day, the interview will be scheduled at a date/time/location convenient to them.

The interview will commence with a general discussion involving the following:

 The researcher will introduce herself and explain the purpose of the interview / research.  The participant will be reminded about confidentiality, that they will not be named in the interview and their interview transcript will remain anonymous.  Contents of information sheet read over again and consent sought to record interview  Participants offered an opportunity to ask any questions or seek clarity on any issue.  General background, role and experience of participant  Experience of management of transient sex offenders discussed  Their experience of interagency cooperation as part of this process  Strengths and weakness of national Garda policy / procedure / legislation  The key issues raised discussed further and any implications  Suggestions for consideration / improvement  Thank participant and close

Appendix VI (a)

Pilot Semi Structured Interview Questionnaire

1. In your own words, describe the function of the local SORAM Team?

2. What is your awareness of the Child Protection & Welfare Policy of SORAM

3. Is the child protection and welfare policy in SORAM effective in protecting children?

Very Effective ⃝ Effective ⃝ Not Very Effective ⃝ Ineffective ⃝

4. Examine attitudes and understanding of agencies engaged in SORAM towards TUSLA Child and Family Agency and their role.

5. What is the role of the TUSLA Child and Family Agency in SORAM

6. What do you see as your role in the protection of children, within SORAM?

7. How do you think child protection could be improved?

8. What are the issues or challenges faced to protect children from sex offenders?

9. The knowledge of each member of their individual role in protecting children within SORAM.

10. Assessing member’s opinions regarding how child protection and welfare should be addressed, problems and challenges encountered and potential solutions or future implications of the issues.

Appendix VI (b)

Semi Structured Interview Questionnaire

1. In your own words, In terms of CPW how does the local SORAM Team protect children? ______

2. How would you describe the child protection policy that guides the local SORAM Team ______

3. 4. Is the child protection and welfare policy in SORAM effective in protecting children? Explain.

Very Effective Effective Not Very Effective Ineffective

Why? ______

5. What is the role of the TUSLA Child and Family Agency in your local SORAM (Gardai/Probation/Housing it might be interesting to get each interviewee to reflect on the role of each of the agencies)

______

6. Do you feel one agency in particular have responsibility for protecting children or does each agency play a role in the protection of children? ______

7. What do you see as your role in the protection of children, within SORAM?

______

8. How is information of possible child protection concerns shared in SORAM?

______

9. What happens following the highlighting of a possible child protection concern?

______

10. Within your agency, does the assessment carried out on convicted sex offenders defer for those who commit offences against children or adults?

______

11. How is child protection information shared in your local SORAM?

______

12. How would you describe communication between agencies engaged in SORAM? ______

iii

13. Does each agency attend SORAM at every meeting?

______

14. Within the context of the SORAM process how do you think child protection could be improved? ______

15. What are the key issues or challenges faced to protect children from sex offenders? ______

Appendix VII

School of Social Work and Social Policy

Research Ethical Approval Form

Section A

Project Title An examination of how one Local SORAM (Sex Offender Risk Assessment and Management) Team works to protect children.

Name of Lead Researcher: Jennifer Bell

Supervisor: Paul Sargent Email: [email protected]

TCD Email [email protected] Contact Tel No 086 407 03 29

Course Name (if applicable) Post Graduate Diploma in Child Protection and Welfare

Estimated Start Date of Project 10th October 2016 Estimated End Date of Project 15th May 2017

Estimated Start Date of Fieldwork 9th January 2017 Estimated End Date of Fieldwork 3rd April 2017

SWSP Office Use Only:

REAC Ref No ______Date Received ______

I confirm that I will (where relevant):

 Familiarise myself fully and consider the implications of the Data Protection Act and guidelines http://www.tcd.ie/info_compliance/dp/legislation.php;  Tell participants that any recordings, e.g. audio/video/photographs, will not be identifiable unless prior written permission has been given. I will obtain permission for specific reuse (in papers, talks, etc.);  Provide participants with an information sheet (or web-page for web-based studies) that describes the main procedures (a copy of the information sheet must be included with this application);  Obtain informed consent for participation (a copy of the informed consent form must be included with this application);  Should the research be observational and not in a public place, ask participants for their consent to be observed;  Tell participants that their participation is voluntary;  Tell participants that they may withdraw at any time and for any reason without penalty;  Give participants the option of omitting questions they do not wish to answer if a questionnaire is used;  Tell participants that their data will be treated with care to confidentiality, retained in an anonymised form and that, if published, it will not be identified as theirs;  Inform participants of the relevant safe storage, retention and destruction policy of data to be followed;

 On request, debrief participants at the end of their participation (i.e. give them a brief explanation of the study);  Verify that participants are 18 years or older and competent to supply consent or in the case of child/vulnerable group participant, obtain consent of both child and parent / guardian;  Ensure that the duty of care towards vulnerable participants or when dealing with sensitive topics includes the provision of appropriate information and referral to aftercare supports;  Declare any potential conflict of interest to participants.

Signed: ______

Jennifer Bell, Lead Researcher Date

______

Paul Sargent, Supervisor Date

Section B

Please answer the following questions (Y/N) (Y/N) 1. Will any non-anonymised and / or personalised data be generated and / or stored? Y Photographing Participants N 2. Will your project involve any of Audio Recordings Y the following? Video Recordings N 3. Does this research pose any risk of physical danger to the researcher? N 4. Does this research pose any risk of mental harm to the researcher? N 5. Will you give the potential participants a reasonable period of time to consider Y participation? People who are, have been, or are likely to become your clients, students, or clients of the School Y

Patients N Children (under 18 years of age) N People with intellectual or communication N 6. Does your study involve any of difficulties the following? People in custody N People involved in illegal activities N People belonging to a vulnerable group, other than N those listed above People for whom English / Irish is not their first N language 7. Is there any realistic risk of any participants experiencing a detriment to their interests as N a result of participation? 8. Will you have access to documents containing sensitive data about living individuals? If N yes, will you gain the consent of the individuals concerned? 9. Has this research application or any application of a similar nature connected to this research project been refused ethical approval by another review committee of the N College or any external organisation?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions please explain with reference to the number of each question, how the identified potential research ethics issue will be handled. If there are any other potential ethical issues that you think the Committee should consider please explain them here. There is an obligation on the lead researcher / supervisor to consider here any issues with ethical implications not clearly covered above.

Q1. The anonymised transcripts from the semi structured interviews will be stored in a password, encrypted desk top computer in the researcher’s locked office. Participants will be informed that while every effort will be made to maintain their anonymity, this cannot be absolutely guaranteed as participants may be identifiable by their expressed opinions. The

vii

researcher is guided by the ethical principles for research connected to Trinity College. The storage of data will comply with the Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003 and all data files will be password protected. Files will be deleted in line with the TCD data retention policy which states that ‘Primary research data (and where possible, relevant specimens, samples, questionnaires, audiotapes, etc.) must be retained in their original form within the College for a minimum of two years from completion of the project where this is practical.

Q2 (b). The research participants interviewed will be audio recorded with their consent and the interviews will be transcribed verbatim. The original recordings will be securely stored on a password protected, encrypted desk top PC located in a locked office of the researcher. The signed consent forms will be stored in a locked drawer that only the researcher has access to by key.

Q5. Participants will be invited to participate approximately two weeks prior to commencing the data collection. The researcher will forward an information sheet to all participants and it will provide an overview of the research study, what is hoped to be achieved and how it will be conducted. Participants who agree to take part in the study will be furnished with a consent form, prior to commencing the interview. At the start of the interview the interviewer will read through the documentation and answer any questions that the participant may ask. The interview will only commence when the relevant consent documentation is completed. Participants will be informed that their contribution to the research is voluntary and that they are free to disengage from the study at any stage of the process, without penalty.

Q6 (a). It is possible that a participant(s) may in the future become a student in the School of Social Work and Social Policy. The researcher does not envisage any conflict of interest in this regard and any possibility of this occurring will be treated professionally, ensuring the participant’s privacy and confidentiality is respected.

Section C

Research Proposal Template Project Title Word Limits

List of any sources of An examination of how one Local (Sex Offender funding or other Risk Assessment and Management) SORAM Team n/a research partners involved works to protect children.

viii

Is this proposal No associated with another n/a research study? Expected dates of Start:10th October 2016 commencement and Completion: 15th May 2017 n/a completion

Child Protection and Welfare is not a new concept in Ireland but the establishment of SORAM and the launch of the manual of practice on 10/11/2016 has standardised the monitoring and management of sex offenders. An integral part of this is the protection of children. This research is aimed at examining how one local SORAM team works to protect children by exploring how issues of child protection are dealt with, the problems encountered, the experiences of agencies involved of the child protection and welfare Abstract of the role and potential solutions or future implications of 150 proposal the issues. This research will draw on qualitative semi-structured interviews with various professionals actively engaged in the SORAM process. The agencies currently engaged are An Garda Siochana, The Probation Service, Tusla Child & Family Agency and local authorities. This research aims to explore how child protection and welfare issues are dealt with, the problems that are encountered and the experiences of agencies involved with a view to informing best practice.

The researcher is a member of An Garda Siochana and is currently working for the past number of years in the area of Child Protection and the management and monitoring of convicted sex offenders subject to the Sex Offenders Act, 2001. The researcher was working in one of the five policing divisions that the (Sex Offender Risk Assessment Management) Rationale and SORAM pilot scheme was first introduced. The background of the SORAM manual of practice was launched by the 120 proposed study National SORAM Office and SORAM is now operational nationwide.

As the researcher was involved in the pilot process of SORAM she has a strong interest in the area. This research study hopes to explore each agencies experiences of the role of child protection and welfare in SORAM. The result of this study could influence the child protection policy of SORAM and could

potentially influence how offenders and potential child protection risks are assessed.

This research study aims to examine how one SORAM team within Dublin works to protect children. The agencies now engaged in every local SORAM Team consist of representatives of An Garda Siochana, The Probation Service, TUSLA Child & Family Agency and local authorities. Drawing on the views, experience and expertise of the members of each agency engaged in a local SORAM team it is hoped to gather a variety of perspectives from various sources. The research study aims to;

1. Examine the current policy of child protection and welfare in SORAM.

2. Explore the experience of individuals and Research question, aims agencies of the policy of child protection and 200 and objectives welfare in SORAM.

3. Explore how SORAM has contributed to the protection of children.

4. Identify what are the limitations and strengths of SORAM

5. Examine the understanding of agencies engaged in SORAM of the TUSLA Child and Family Agency role within SORAM.

6. Explore each professional’s experience of inter-agency co-operation within SORAM.

The Ferns Report recommended that organisations whose employees work unsupervised with children, took responsibility for protecting children from abuse (Murphy et al, 2005. p 260). The Ferns report Summary of relevant recognised the need for an ongoing method of 500 literature and research management, monitoring and control which would avoid abuse from occurring. SORAM is a multi- agency approach to the management and monitoring of risk posed by convicted sex offenders in society, with specific reference and focus on the protection of children. SORAM is comprised of statutory agencies,

namely An Garda Siochana, The Probation Service, TUSLA Child & Family Agency and local authorities. A national SORAM office is established with representatives from all invested agencies working together.

The management of sex offenders in society is not a new concept. Ireland has examined models from around the world before implementing SORAM. The SORAM model was established following ongoing consultation culminating in the publication of the (The Management of Sex Offenders - A Discussion Document, 2009).

SORAM mirrored a practice in other countries that had the legislative backup to successfully implement the process. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) was implemented in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which placed MAPPA on a statutory footing and provided legislative powers to put it into practice. It was further reinforced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003. At present, SORAM is a pilot scheme and is not on a statutory footing. However, the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 outlines the provision for Assessment Teams, and will place SORAM on a statutory footing and ensure agency engagement. SORAM has been implemented as a pre-cursor to the new legislation not yet enacted. The Sex Offenders Act (SOA2001) remains the key piece of legislation for the supervision and monitoring of sex offenders in Ireland. There is very little power provided to effectively monitor convicted sex offenders when compared to the U.K legislation. The Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 upon its enactment will assist with the provision of new legislation to effectively monitor convicted sex offenders both under SORAM and those subject to Part 2 of the Sex Offenders Act (SOA2001). It will provide AGS with much needed powers that are currently lacking when compared to U.K legislation and models that SORAM replicate.

Since 2009, joint training between AGS and TPS has been carried out to risk assess offenders (Wilson et al. 2013). All agencies engaged in SORAM are

continuously monitoring an offender’s behaviour to assess any potential increase in risk or identify new child protection concerns. The researcher has experienced situations where an offender self discloses inappropriate behaviour which does not constitute an offence under law but has the potential to be a child protection concern.

SORAM is a relatively new multi-agency initiative. An integral part of this policy is to enhance the protection of the public, including children. Each agency has a responsibility in the protection of children. When assessing potential child protection risk posed by offenders SORAM focuses on offenders who have committed offences against children and they are categorised by their “victim type”. Research (Heil, P et al 2003.) has shown that offenders can commit crossover sexual offences and is defined as those in which victims are from multiple age, gender and relationship categories.

The involvement of all agencies in the process is fundamental and must be supported by management. As (McKeown, 2012) stated if one agency fails to participate fully in the process there is a fear that a similar response will be received from other agencies. In the researcher’s experience of the local SORAM, if one agency does not engage other agencies soon follow suit. Initially, there was reluctance from the CFA and Housing Authority to engage with SORAM and attend meetings. This posed a challenge for other agencies when a child protection risk was highlighted as appropriate action was delayed. Successful inter- agency cooperation in SORAM allows for information sharing, prevention of recidivism and the protection of potential future victims.

This research study will utilise a qualitative research design involving audio recorded interviews.

Data Collection Methods Outline of the research 500 design In-depth semi-structured interviews have been identified as the most appropriate way to collect the data from the various sample groups. “Interviews are a flexible and adaptive way of finding out things” (Robson, C. 2002). Interviewing participants face to

xii

face allows the opportunity to change the line of enquiry and follow up on responses in a way that other self-administered questionnaires do not (Robson, C. 2002). Interviews will be audio recorded.

Sampling and Recruitment

Informed by a comprehensive review of the literature, research participants will be purposively recruited from a local SORAM Team engaged in SORAM since its initiation. The inclusion criteria for the research study is that all participants will be selected by the gatekeepers in each agency for their professional work experience working in the SORAM process and currently actively working within a local SORAM team. The local SORAM team has been selected taking a number of factors into consideration. The researcher has chosen a local SORAM team that was part of the initial pilot scheme and therefore this SORAM has more experience in dealing with these issues than other SORAM teams. The geographical location of this local SORAM team logistically allows the researcher convenient access.

Two participants from each agency will be interviewed.

1. An Garda Siochana 2. The Probation Services 3. TUSLA Child and Family Agency 4. Local Authority

The Detective Superintendent, Garda National Protective Services Bureau/ Principal Social Worker / Senior Probation Officer/ Housing Officer will act as a gatekeeper and will facilitate the interview with the members of the relevant agencies.

The gatekeeper will act as a facilitator within each agency in this research study. The role of gatekeeper will involve solely facilitating access to interested participants and distributing information. The gatekeeper will provide information of the researcher’s contact details to interested participants. The gatekeeper within each agency will select participants from the chosen local SORAM Team. Participants should be invited to contact the

xiii

researcher directly and not the gatekeeper.

Ethical Consideration

Comprehensive attention will be given to the ethical considerations involved in this research. With a stated and acknowledged responsibility towards the ‘researched’, whose dignity and well-being is paramount to the integrity of the research, the researchers’ responsibility is to conduct ethical research that protects the research participants and respects their rights. Ethically sound research is said to reflect three fundamental core features: ensuring voluntary informed consent; doing no harm; and the guaranteeing of confidentiality and anonymity.

There is a possibility that the researcher could be familiar with some participants that consent to be interviewed however, she is not in a senior role or hold a senior supervisory position in the local SORAM team, therefore participants will be under no obligation to participate. To avoid any conflict of interest the researcher has engaged gatekeepers to act as facilitators for this reason.

Analysis & dissemination With permission from the research participants, all the interviews will be digitally recorded and fully transcribed. Thematic analysis of the interviews will be undertaken. The research findings will be disseminated and be used for the purpose of submission of dissertation, in class presentations and presentation within An Garda Siochana.

Informed by a comprehensive review of the literature, research participants will be purposively recruited When research involves from a local SORAM Team and have been engaged access to human in SORAM since its initiation. The inclusion criteria participants outline fully for the research study is that all participants will be where and how they will 200 be recruited, inclusion select by the gatekeepers in each agency for their and exclusion criteria and professional work experience working in the SORAM the exact role of any gate process and currently actively working within a local keepers involved SORAM team.

The role of gatekeeper will involve solely facilitating access to interested participants and distributing

xiv

information. The gatekeeper will provide information of the researcher’s contact details to interested participants. The gatekeeper within each agency will select participants from the chosen local SORAM Team. Two participants from each agency will be interviewed.

1. An Garda Siochana - Participants in this sample will be recruited through one division in the Dublin Metropolitan Region and the National SORAM Office. 2. The Probation Services - Participants in this sample will be recruited through their involvement in the local SORAM team. 3. TUSLA Child and Family Agency - Participants in this sample will be recruited through one social work team in the Dublin. 4. Local Authority - Participants in this sample will be recruited through the local authority of Dublin City Council.

Any additional information

Appendices In this section you must provide:

1. Sample information sheets for participants

2. Consent form for participants

3. A list of interview / focus group topics

4. Where relevant, confirmation of ethical approval granted by any external research ethics body

If you are using a gate keeper or agency to gain access to participants you will also require:

5. Sample information sheets for agencies / gate keepers

6. Consent form for agencies / gate keepers

SEE THE RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE WEBSITE (http://socialwork- socialpolicy.tcd.ie/research/ethics.php) FOR THE CORRECT CONTENT AND FORMAT OF INFORMATION SHEETS AND CONSENT FORMS.

NOTE THAT ALL APPENDICES MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT, NOT AS A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT.

LABEL EACH ITEM IN THE APPENDICES FULLY AND CORRECTLY.

Section D

I confirm that this application provides a complete and accurate account of the research I propose to conduct in this context, including my assessment of the ethical ramifications. I undertake to return for additional ethical approval should any design changes warrant it.

Signed: ______Date: ______Jennifer Bell Lead Researcher / Student

Supervisor’s Declaration (where applicable)

As the supervisor for this project, I confirm that I believe that all research ethical issues have been dealt with in accordance with School policy and the research ethics guidelines of the relevant professional organisation. I undertake to continue to review this project and ensure that ethical principles are upheld at every stage.

Signed: ______Date: ______Supervisor

There is an obligation on the lead researcher / supervisor to bring to the attention of the REAC any issues with ethical implications not clearly covered above.

Section E

If external ethical approval has been received, please complete below. External ethical approval has been received and no further ethical approval is required from the School’s Research Ethical Committee. I have attached a copy of the external ethical approval for the School’s records.

Signed: ______Date: ______Jennifer Bell Lead Researcher / Student

Completed application forms should be submitted in hardcopy to the Ethics Applications mailbox which is located between Rooms 3077 and 3080 on the 3rd Floor of the Arts Building and it should be marked for the attention of Noreen O’Sullivan. An electronic copy should be emailed to [email protected]. Please use TCD email addresses only.

xvi