Written evidence submitted by Circles UK (RAR0013)

This is the response of Circles UK with supporting evidence provided by Emma Tuschick (An Exploration of the Barriers and Facilitators to the Release, Desistance, and Reintegration of Sexual Offenders and the impacts on Recidivism, unpublished PhD thesis, fieldwork conducted in 2024 and publication due in 2025). Circles UK is also making this response on behalf of the Circles Provider network, those organisations that are approved members of Circles UK and whose membership authorises them to deliver Circles of Support & Accountability (Circles) - see www.circles-uk.org.uk.

Circles UK’s vision is of ‘no more victims of sexual abuse’. Through Circles which are provided by a network of accredited Providers, we enhance community safety by working with individuals who have sexually abused others and are at risk of doing so again. This work takes place in partnership with the statutory agencies (Police, Probation, Social Services etc.). A Circle is a group of Volunteers from a local community which form a Circle around a person with a conviction for a sexual offence or who has engaged in harmful sexual behaviour (called a ‘Core Member’). Each Circle consists of four to six Volunteers and a Core Member. The Circle aims to provide a supportive social network that also requires the Core Member to take responsibility (be ‘accountable’) for their ongoing risk management. Circles have a well-proven evaluation evidence base.

Our response focuses on people who commit sexual offences or pose a risk of committing such offences. All sexual offending is serious and involves victims upon whom the impact is far reaching. The priority must be to protect victims and reduce offending. Our response covers Section 3, questions 11 to 14.

Question 11: How effective is support provided to ex-offenders on release?

21% of people in prison are currently serving sentences for sexual offences (MOJ Offender Management Statistics Quarterly to March 2024). However, this only represents the tip of the iceberg as sexual crime is still very much a ‘hidden’ crime. There are few accredited programmes provided for them in custody due to lack of availability of suitable programmes and prison overcrowding. After release from prison, they struggle to find employment, accommodation and healthy relationships due to the high public stigma attached to sexual offending in the UK (in our experience more so than for other types of offences).

High rates of suicide and self-harm (Favril, Indig, et al., 2020) are common among men with convictions for sexual offences. Men in Ireland investigated for a sexual offence against a child were estimated to be 210 times more likely to die by suicide while in the community (1 person in 24) than their non-offending peers (1 in 5524); and men investigated for a sexual offence against an adult were estimated to be 3 times more likely (1 in 1644; Brophy, 2003). The Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Police Custody found in 2023, 56 people took their own lives within 2 days of leaving police custody; three quarters were people who had allegedly committed sexual offences.

During the initial period following the release of high-risk sexual offenders into the community, the risk of reoffending is at its highest (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014) but the rate of sexual recidivism decreases substantially the longer an offender remains offence free in the community. Research shows that sexual offenders who receive support during this time are less likely to reoffend (Willis & Grace, 2009). Despite punitive public attitudes and the high level of stigma around people with sexual offence convictions, the proven reoffending rates for them are significantly lower than for people with non-sexual convictions. Between October and December 2022, the reoffending rate for adults with sexual convictions was 12.9% and 11.9% for juveniles. In comparison violence against the person offences accounted for 23.1% for adults and 22% for juveniles (MOJ Proven Reoffending Statistics, October to December 2022).

Public concerns are real, and Circles UK shares the priority of protecting the public and preventing further victims of sexual abuse. However, we believe that there are ways of releasing those who are eligible safely within a structured environment in the community where controls can be applied and modelling of appropriate lifestyles encouraged.

This view is strongly supported by research. Tuschick points out (supported by Circles UK):

Evidence from interviews conducted with over 90 people with convictions for sexual offences and professionals working with them indicates concerns about disproportionate punishments for men convicted of sexual offences, who often face stigma and public backlash beyond their sentences. The lack of tailored conditions may lead to restrictions unrelated to the individual's risk profile.
Sentences focusing on rehabilitation and structured support post-release, such as participating in Circles, demonstrate better outcomes in reducing reoffending.
Once released from prison, overly restrictive policies, can isolate offenders, leading to counterproductive outcomes like homelessness and recidivism. Balancing risk management with privacy considerations, ensures a more effective approach to public protection.

Question 13: What role should non-custodial sentences have in promoting rehabilitation?

By focusing on community-based alternatives (for appropriate types of sexual harm causers), reducing systemic barriers, and enhancing public understanding, the justice system can become fairer, safer, and more sustainable, effectively balancing accountability with rehabilitation to benefit individuals and society in the long term (and preventing further victims). There is no doubt that when community initiatives are managed appropriately they are an excellent option and can lead to development of work and social skills, rehabilitation and even some restoration. We recognise the seriousness of sexual offending and the devastating impact on victims. To maintain public confidence and trust, if the eligibility threshold for suspended sentences were to increase to three years we would recommend ensuring increased public awareness of the punitive nature of this outcome compared to a fine or community sentence for example. We would also recommend the delivery of an intervention alongside the suspended sentence delivered by charities who have the expertise to deliver such programmes. It also goes without saying that resources should be improved for Probation to be able to support community initiatives more fully.

Question 14: What examples of best practice are there for effective resettlement?

A primary concern with people with convictions for sexual offences in the community is the facility to monitor their activities and whereabouts. Building upon existing technological solutions, further innovations can enhance the management of people who have offended in the community. Tuschick’ s research shows that while electronic monitoring and software installations on devices are valuable tools, a more holistic approach to technology use could yield better outcomes. For instance, the development of secure smartphone applications could provide reminders for appointments, court dates, and other obligations, potentially improving compliance with registration requirements and licence conditions. Additionally, digital platforms offering access to rehabilitation resources, CBT therapy modules, and educational content could support ongoing treatment and skill development.

However, it is crucial to note that the research also revealed a strong preference among men with convictions for sexual offences for face-to-face interactions. This suggests that while technology can augment existing practices, it should not replace human interaction in the rehabilitation process. Furthermore, the study highlighted concerns about privacy and stigma, particularly regarding the visibility of monitoring devices and the registration process. This necessitates the need for discreet technological solutions that balance effective monitoring with successful community reintegration.

We encourage investment in further research and development of technical resources. The Polygraph pilots have shown promising results. However, they are currently mainly available for high risk people on release but due to resource constraints their use is not as effective as it can be. It can take up to 6 months for the first Polygraph test to take place and thereafter testing is often intermittent due to resource issues. This is a clear area where additional resources can yield positive results. A further example is the Medication to Manage Sexual Arousal (MMSA) Pathway. This approach showed positive results in Germany and the UK but needs additional resources for maximised effectiveness. It requires access to a prescribing medical practitioner and there is often a requirement for it to be delivered alongside individualised psychological treatment which needs appropriate funding and qualified staff.

Tuschick’s research highlights the following key priorities:

Community sentences should prioritise proportionality and individualisation, ensuring that the punishment fits both the offence and the offender’s circumstances. Tailored interventions, such as suspended sentences for low-risk people who have committed sexual offences, have been shown to improve outcomes. Participants in her research highlighted that such alternatives help offenders rebuild their lives while addressing their underlying issues, avoiding the long-term detriments of imprisonment, such as stigmatisation and disrupted family or employment connections.
Expanding access to proven community-based programmes like Circles would provide structured support for offenders while maintaining accountability to the community. Programmes should include intensive therapy, vocational training, and education to address the root causes of offending behaviour, thus promoting desistance.
The current system disproportionately penalises minor breaches of license conditions or community orders, contributing to unnecessary recalls to prison. A more flexible approach, including warnings and support for compliance, would maintain the integrity of community sentences while reducing the burden on the prison system. Such reforms would also prevent the disruption of offenders’ progress in reintegration and rehabilitation.

Effective community sentences require robust multi-agency collaboration. Formalising these partnerships can create a holistic support network for offenders, ensuring that their needs are met while managing risks to the community. Reforms should incorporate restorative justice practices that allow victims/survivors and communities to engage meaningfully. Restorative approaches give victims/survivors a voice and provide opportunities for people with convictions for sexual offences to make amends, fostering understanding and reconciliation. Such practices can strengthen trust in the justice system and ensure that victims’ needs are met while promoting offender accountability.

Our proposal:

For those who commit serious sexual crimes which warrant a lengthy prison sentence but who will be released back into the community on licence:

Based on research and our extensive experience through Circles we recommend the following:

Amend legislation to provide more flexibility for a greater proportion of prison sentences to be served in the community to maximise opportunity to rebuild the person’s lifestyle with appropriate input to ensure accountability and support. For instance, permitting release of prisoners on shorter, determinate sentences at the 40% or 50% stage, subject to tight controls and support, and likewise for at least some of those on longer sentences (of four years or more) subject to current Parole Board processes and risk assessments.

Reassure the public that policy and practice will focus on what works to protect victims and minimise risk and by ensuring that there are sufficient accountability and support mechanisms in place when people are released (including a mixture of statutory and charity programme delivery mechanisms). Circles Providers are currently commissioned by the MOJ to deliver just such an intervention for this cohort of people.

Ensure the appropriate use of suspended sentences in cases of sexual offending. We recognise the seriousness of sexual offending and the devastating impact on victims. To maintain public confidence and trust, if the eligibility threshold for suspended sentences were to increase to three years, we would recommend ensuring increased public awareness of the punitive nature of this outcome compared to a fine or community sentence for example. We would also recommend the delivery of an intervention alongside the suspended sentence delivered by charities who have the expertise to deliver such programmes.

We support the introduction of a presumption against short sentences of no less than 12 months. The Sentencing Council wrote in a review of the effectiveness of sentencing options (2022): ‘The evidence strongly suggests that short custodial sentences under 12 months are less effective than other disposals at reducing reoffending…Indeed, there is a reasonable body of evidence to suggest short custodial sentences can make negative outcomes (such as reoffending) worse.’

There should be a change to the use of recalls when people are recalled to prison not because they have reoffended but have not met an administrative requirement such as a probation appointment. Alternatively, any recall for administrative breach should be fixed term, as opposed to a standard recall which requires review by the Parole Board prior to release.

Introduce deferred sentences with reviews overseen by a magistrate, similar to DRRs for drug offences in line with the current Problem-Solving Courts pilots. Again, link such an approach to attendance of a treatment intervention provided by the charity sector.

For those who commit lower level sexual offences that may be best rehabilitated in the community.

The best example is the viewing of Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation Material (CSAEM). The scale of the problem is so vast that law enforcement approaches cannot keep pace. The NCA indicated that the police at present arrest about 1,000 people per month yet lack the resources to manage these people safely in the community. Our concern is that when such sexual harm causers are in the community whether as part of a sentence or prior to conviction, interventions are put in place as soon as possible to minimise ongoing risk and support diversion from further offending. There is significant evidence that early intervention can stop escalation to further higher level sexual harm.

The design of such an approach needs to focus on:

Victim-centred justice through robust accountability and a focus on public safety.
Rehabilitation to reduce reoffending and therefore protect victims.
Use of technology for monitoring in a cost-effective and efficient way.

Emerging evidence from our Circles ReBoot programme for people who access CSAEM shows that most people who are suited to Circles ReBoot, would be willing to consider an early intervention approach to which they can sign up voluntarily. Once a person has been identified by the police, in cases where initial evidence indicates viewing of CSAEM material with no suggestion of distribution or contact or attempted contact offences, the offer of immediate participation, pre-charge, should be made in a voluntary scheme. This should be appropriately named to reflect the gravity of the offending such as “protection order”. The perpetrator would be offered the option of compliance with a range of controls to include eg:

Compliance with the usual requirements of sex offender registration.
Hardware would be seized by the police and:

 cloned for basic screening of offending pattern.

 returned to the suspect with monitoring software installed if appropriate.

Cooperation with police monitoring of use of online access

 Engaging in support and therapeutical interventions such as Circles Reboot.

 Agreement to Mappa awareness and operation of Sarah’s law regime if appropriate.

 Working with Social Services and employers where relevant to minimise disruption and damage to family life and employment.

 Limited data sharing and limited to those who need to be aware.

 Risk of self-harm and other negative impacts on the person would be minimised.

After 12 months compliance - an order:

 To remain on the offender’s criminal record for a proportionate period (possibly equivalent to a community order).

 To stay on the sex offender register for a proportionate period (possibly 5 years).

 Including other orders as may be appropriate in the circumstances.

The suspect would have the option to decline this option but would then lose the expectation of an out of court disposal. Failure to comply with the scheme would result in court proceedings.

Advantages of such a scheme would include substantial reduction in demand on police and court resources, improved monitoring and management of lower risk people and less disruption for the sexual harm causer and their families in terms of finances, employment and stability.

The legal framework would be the provision for such conditional approaches (such as Conditional Cautions included in part 3 of the CJA 2003). The code of practice for these orders would need to be updated.

If policy makers are uneasy about this and believe that a conviction is always required for such offences an alternative protocol could be:

Early admission of offending.
Rapid charge process using proforma file.
Expectation of sentence deferral for fixed period of 12- 18 months to comply with requirements above.
Presumption that compliance with the protocol will result in a Community Order

Fast track prosecution following a standard proforma and resulting in Community Order with the usual orders attached.

In each of these models the suspect would have the option of declining the option. In so doing the expectation of the protocol outcome will be lost.

Our proposals require an effective and well-resourced infrastructure for enforcement and maintenance of community outcomes which are partly or wholly served in the community. The current paucity of such infrastructure needs to be addressed, however in the short term there is scope for greater involvement of the charity sector, where there are organisations with experience and expertise in working with people with convictions in the community.

Evidence from other countries that support this approach:

In Sweden, participation in treatment programmes is voluntary for prison inmates, but community sentences may be combined with a treatment requirement. If the person fails to do so, the sentence may be converted to prison by the court.

Norway has a long tradition of facilitating reintegration for convicted people. Recidivism numbers in Norway are lower than in most countries, both generally and for sexual crimes. Sandbukt et al. (2020) found that only 3.4% of persons serving prison sentences for sexual offences released between 2010-2014 recidivated to a new sexual offence conviction within a 6-year observation period. Norway’s penal control system aims to reinforce membership in civil society by not creating any systemic barriers after release and several measures are put in place to make reintegration more likely. One example is that people’s criminal history and prior sexual convictions are confidential and inaccessible to the public, including potential employers. Only for jobs that involve law and order, security, or the safety of vulnerable people, is a clean/restricted record required. It is the applicant, however, who will have to provide the employer with this information by obtaining the necessary Police documentation. Such privacy protective measures are to ensure that persons with a criminal record have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else who lives in Norway. The culture of a rehabilitation-oriented foundation is so strong that Norway has so far resisted all proposals of introducing registers and more punitive control measures (Sandbukt, 2021).

The approach in the Netherlands has been to reduce the number of people in prison and some prisons have closed. The De Waag clinics are outpatient treatment facilities for people who have committed domestic violence, aggression outside the family, sexual offences or other criminal behaviour. Attendance at a De Waag outpatient clinic can be voluntary, but people can also be referred by the police or judiciary as part of a conditional or suspended sentence. Progress reports are provided to the referring agency in such instances.

January 2025