When Prevention Works, But Society and Politicians Look Away
The BBC recently reported on the closing of the Safer Living Foundation in Nottingham, England—a program that, for more than a decade, quietly and effectively worked with men convicted of sexual offenses to prevent them from reoffending. Despite its proven success, the project shut its doors earlier this year due to lack of funding.
Why does this matter? Because the Foundation’s outcomes were remarkable. Only 2% of the men who participated in its programs went on to reoffend, compared to a national average of more than 15% in England and Wales. By any measure, that is a massive reduction in harm. Yet in a political climate where “tough on crime” soundbites dominate the headlines, a program rooted in evidence, compassion, and prevention could not survive.
The Foundation’s approach was simple but groundbreaking: provide a safe, structured environment where people with sexual convictions could receive counseling, peer support, and accountability. The men it served often described feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and shame — the very conditions that can increase the risk of reoffending. By addressing these issues head-on, the Foundation helped individuals rebuild their lives in ways that made communities safer. Or, as its director Dave Potter put it, “Everything we do underpins the idea of no more victims.”
Victim advocacy groups recognized the value of this work. The Survivors Trust pointed out that if society truly wants to reduce the rates of sexual abuse we must be willing to engage with those who cause the harm, not simply punish them after the fact.
The tragedy is that just as the UK government’s own sentencing review called for more community-based alternatives and greater involvement of charities, the one program uniquely suited to that mission was shuttered. It closed not because it failed, but because funders and politicians lacked the courage to support something that is both unpopular and misunderstood.
Here in the United States, we face the same contradiction. Legislators cling to punitive measures that look tough on paper but do little to protect anyone. Registries, residency restrictions, and public shaming have not reduced sexual offending. What does work? Programs rooted in treatment, prevention, and reintegration. Those programs are ignored or starved of resources.
If we refuse to invest in evidence-based solutions simply because they are politically uncomfortable, we will guarantee more victims, not fewer. True public safety requires the courage to fund what works, not just what polls well.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s terrible that the Safer Living Foundation was shuttered, and heartbreaking that (unless hell freezes over or pigs fly), no such organization will ever exist in the U.S. Those who commit sexual offenses need help and politicians who claim to be “tough on crime” should be called out for their b.s. If they were so tough on crime, would an elderly couple have been burned to death by a criminal with a rap sheet a mile long? Would Iryna Zarutska have been slaughtered by a lunatic with 14 prior arrests? No, they wouldn’t have been. The system is broken and our politicians are full of it.
To me, it seems that many people want an easy way out, and who doesn’t. Therefore, the sad myth that the registry is the way to keep children safe is an easy way for parents to believe that there is a safety feature available that works and that requires little or no pro-activeness of the parent;just know who is on the registry in the area and that is good enough for them.
If the registry were ever abolished, i believe the public outcry woud be worse than the reversal of roe vs. wade.
the entire system is deliberately designed to foster and create new offenses.. Any program that prevents offenses would have to be closed. how can you instill fear and righteous panic to a population with cures and solutions that work??
Thought FAC was against the “victim industry” so this should be good news?
FAC is not against victims. FAC is in favor of measures that are proven by empirical evidence to reduce reoffense and prevent victimization.
John, what does that even mean?
It means some sex offenders are angry and vocal about victims advocating and/or operating prevention programs for children.
Who are you talking about, John?
FAC has not allowed me to even hint of any members who have been critical of victims who created and operated programs teaching children to avoid predators. FAC protects who?
Maybe I misunderstood your previous comments then. Do you mean people like Lauren Book?
FAC members have openly opposed legislation to, for example, require fluorescent green license plates. That was once proposed by Sen. Book.
But that sort of measure is not the same thing as prevention.
John, I think you need to re-read the article. We advocate for putting the wasted resources of the registry into things that work and one of those is education of vulnerable people. Teaching people the warning signs of grooming, that you should never keep a secret from your parents, teaching young adults what consent is and looks like, teaching about the dangers of pornography addition. Dollar for dollar we are going to get much better results from that than imprisoning someone for years because they didn’t register their old boat trailer or Linked In profile.
Looking at the current polarized climate, it’s hard to ignore that fear pays better than faith.
Politicians can monetize fear—selling “tough on crime” as a brand that reassures the public, even when it doesn’t make anyone safer. Faith—in the sense of believing that prevention, treatment, and reintegration actually work—demands more courage. It doesn’t come with applause lines or quick wins.
Yet history keeps proving that investing in faith-based prevention delivers real safety, while fear-based policies only deliver more victims. Until we shift our priorities, society will keep rewarding fear, even as faith holds the answers we desperately need.