 of three to four volunteers are selected and trained to become 'friends' of sex-offenders - what one tabloid newspaper has crudely called 'paedo-pals'.
A circle of volunteers meets a high-risk offender weekly. He has served his sentence and is on the sex offender register. Often, he is isolated, having forfeited his family and job because of his actions.
The circle requires him to account for what he has been doing and how he is spending his time on a weekly basis. In addition, individual members of the circle meet offenders informally for a coffee and a chat or a visit to a cinema, encouraging them to establish new interests and goals.
Around 30,000 sex offenders are in the community at any one time, of whom 1,300 are deemed high-risk. They are monitored by multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPAs), involving police, probation officers and housing support staff working together. However, in practice a sex offender may only receive one visit from the police every three months - the national minimum guideline. |
|
 |
 |
 |
| The Home Office is reluctant to provide funds for a national network |
|
|
In contrast, a circle meets weekly with an offender for a year or more. So far, 30 high-risk offenders have gone through the scheme, and none has re-offended. Four have been returned to prison because of the circle's concern that they might offend again, for instance by beginning a relationship with a woman who has a child.
The circle's first duty is to prevent future crimes. In that respect, volunteers are more watch-dogs and guardians than friends.
The scheme works, it is relatively cheap (£9,000 per offender) and it could function in every town in Britain if it had enough money. But the Home Office is proving reluctant to provide the scale of investment that would pay for a national network of circles to deal with the 1,300 high-risk offenders. Frustrated, the Quakers are investigating setting up an independent charity, but resources are difficult to find - it is not a popular issue.
'Losing' 322 convicted sex offenders is a disgrace; failing to guarantee funding for a scheme that may be a child's only safeguard is surely madness. 
FIRST POSTED FEBRUARY 1, 2007
|
