A Survey of the Views of Catholic Safeguarding Coordinators about the Inclusion of the Polygraph in Psychological Risk Assessments of Clerics

This survey study examined Catholic safeguarding coordinators' perceptions of polygraph inclusion in forensic psychological risk assessments of fifteen priests across eight English dioceses from 2019-2021. While coordinators generally valued comprehensive psychological assessments, their views on polygraph specifically were more varied, with experience and familiarity appearing to correlate with clearer, more positive perspectives on the technology's utility.

Post-assessment survey of Catholic safeguarding coordinators from seven dioceses in England who commissioned psychological risk assessments for twelve priests between January 2019 and December 2021, examining perceptions of polygraph inclusion in comprehensive forensic evaluations.

This 2022 study examined Catholic safeguarding coordinators' perspectives on polygraph testing within clergy psychological risk assessments in England. Using a post-assessment survey design, researchers collected feedback from coordinators who had commissioned independent evaluations of 15 priests across 8 dioceses over three years. Results showed mixed views on polygraph utility, contrasting with generally positive attitudes toward comprehensive psychological evaluations. Coordinators with direct polygraph experience held more definitive opinions, and many expressed needs for structured training about forensic assessment components including polygraph capabilities and limitations.

Findings highlight the importance of stakeholder education and training in polygraph applications within institutional safeguarding contexts, particularly for decision-makers who must balance organizational concerns with child protection objectives.

Background & Context

This 2022 study addresses a critical gap in understanding how polygraph testing is perceived within Catholic Church safeguarding operations. Following a three-year period from January 2019 to December 2021, Catholic safeguarding coordinators in England commissioned forensic psychological risk assessments for fifteen priests from eight different Catholic dioceses, and researchers sought their feedback on these evaluations. The work emerged against a backdrop of ongoing clergy abuse scandals and increasing recognition that traditional assessment methods may be insufficient when evaluating sexual risk in religious contexts.

The research fills an important void in polygraph literature by examining stakeholder perspectives rather than technical validity alone. While overall survey results reflected that a significant majority of respondents positively viewed independent secularly organized forensic psychological risk assessments, their expressed views about the polygraph in this context were more varied, prompting the authors to produce this separate analysis. This represents one of the first systematic attempts to capture the experiences of institutional decision-makers who must balance ecclesiastical concerns with child protection imperatives.

Research Design & Methodology

The study employed a post-assessment survey design targeting Catholic safeguarding coordinators who had commissioned independent psychological evaluations of clergy. The sample comprised fifteen priests referred for assessment by safeguarding coordinators from eight different Catholic dioceses in England, with feedback obtained for twelve of the clerics after two coordinators left their positions and one failed to respond. Replies were received from safeguarding coordinators representing seven of the twenty-two Catholic dioceses in England.

The assessments examined were conducted by Wilcox Psychological Associates and included comprehensive forensic psychological evaluations with polygraph examinations as one component. The feedback forms contained a range of questions concerning coordinators' perceptions of the utility of these independent, secularly organized assessments. Key methodological features included:

• Survey administration following completion of psychological risk assessments over a three-year period
• Focus on safeguarding coordinators' institutional perspectives rather than clinical outcomes
• Examination of views specifically regarding polygraph inclusion within broader assessment protocols
• Qualitative feedback supplementing structured survey responses

Results & Key Findings

Views on polygraph utility were mixed among safeguarding coordinators, contrasting with their generally positive assessment of comprehensive psychological evaluations. Safeguarding coordinators suggested that structured training around the various elements of forensic psychological assessment would be of assistance to them and other key individuals in the diocese, including Church advisors, and individuals who had experience of the polygraph seemed clearer in their views. This pattern suggests that familiarity and education play crucial roles in acceptance of the technology.

The research revealed important contextual factors influencing coordinator perspectives:

• Coordinators with direct experience of polygraph-assisted assessments demonstrated more definitive opinions about the technology's value
• Concerns centered on understanding how polygraph results integrated into overall risk formulation
• Some coordinators expressed need for better education about polygraph capabilities and limitations
• Feedback touched on safeguarding coordinators' ability to work collaboratively with the cleric at the end of the process

The overall survey results reflected that a significant majority of respondents positively connoted the value of independent secularly organized forensic psychological risk assessments overall, though polygraph-specific views remained more varied. This disconnect highlights the complexity of introducing specialized assessment technologies into institutional safeguarding frameworks.

Discussion & Significance

This study represents pioneering work in examining institutional stakeholder perspectives on polygraph use in clergy assessment contexts. The finding that experience correlates with clearer viewpoints suggests that initial hesitancy may reflect unfamiliarity rather than principled objection. The authors note an important requirement to enable safeguarding coordinators to work 'on a level playing field' with regard to achieving a similar level of understanding about the forensic psychological assessment process and polygraph's often helpful role in this effort.

The research illuminates tensions between traditional ecclesiastical authority structures and modern evidence-based risk assessment practices. Safeguarding coordinators occupy a unique position—responsible for protecting vulnerable populations while navigating complex Church hierarchies and canon law frameworks. Their varied responses to polygraph inclusion likely reflect broader institutional ambivalence about embracing technologies that may reveal uncomfortable truths about clergy members.

The study's significance extends beyond the Catholic context to any institutional setting where power dynamics, reputation concerns, and genuine protection imperatives intersect. The call for structured training reflects a mature recognition that effective safeguarding requires technical competence, not just good intentions.

Limitations & Considerations

The study acknowledges several methodological constraints. Feedback was obtained for only twelve of fifteen cases, with two safeguarding coordinators having left their positions during the study period and one not responding to the feedback request. This 80% response rate, while reasonable, may introduce selection bias if non-respondents held systematically different views. The geographic restriction to England limits generalizability to Catholic dioceses in other countries with different legal frameworks and safeguarding cultures.

Additional limitations include the study's reliance on assessments conducted by a single provider (Wilcox Psychological Associates), which may conflate views about polygraph technology generally with perceptions of specific practitioners. The absence of quantitative scoring of coordinator responses limits statistical analysis of predictors of positive versus negative polygraph attitudes. Finally, the study cannot determine whether coordinator views translated into changed institutional practices or improved child protection outcomes.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners working with religious institutions, this research underscores the critical importance of stakeholder education. Examiners should anticipate that institutional clients may harbor uncertainties about polygraph utility and should proactively offer training opportunities for safeguarding personnel. Clear communication about how polygraph results integrate with other assessment data—rather than standing alone—appears essential for institutional acceptance.

The findings suggest that phased implementation with early adopters may prove more effective than system-wide mandates. Safeguarding coordinators who gain direct experience with polygraph-assisted assessments can serve as informal educators within diocesan networks. For Church administrators and policymakers, the research indicates that investment in comprehensive training about modern forensic assessment methods—including but not limited to polygraph—represents a prerequisite for effective safeguarding rather than an optional enhancement.