Practice Developments

The number of registered sexual offenders has been significantly increasing; this has been a direct result of a societal drive for the disclosure of high profile and historic abuse (Kemshall & McCartan, 2014). The rise in disclosures has led to a number of prosecutions. There has also been the introduction of new legislation pertaining to new offences relating to new technologies and stalking. This has led to a drive for the Police to develop more responsive and effective risk assessment and risk management strategies, strategies that will allow Police Officers to target their responses more efficiently (McCartan, Kemshall & Tabachnick, 2015).

In recent years there have been significant developments in relation to the risk assessment and management of sexual offenders, including the development of ARMs and J-ARMS risk management tools (Kewley & Blandford, 2017, Blandford & Parish, 2017) and a review and redesign of the AIM assessment Model (Leonard & Hackett, 2019), whilst these tools were not available at the time of data collection, it is important that these assessment tools are explored as part of this research. As identified through this study the RM2000 static risk assessment used by the Police is quite a blunt tool, not able to respond to changing needs and risk. The Police recognised the need to have a dynamic means of assessment, an approach that could respond to changes in risk and allow them to prioritise responses. This led to the National Police College and NOMS to develop new risk management systems; ARMS (Active Risk Management System) and the J-ARMS (juvenile version).

ARMS

The Ministry of Justice Multi Agency Risk Assessment Advisory Group (MARAAG) undertook an evaluation of the effectiveness of the different risk assessments used by the Police and National Offender Management Service (NOMS). There were a number of limitations found in the assessment process; this was predominantly a reliance on actuarial risk assessment tools. In response to this the National Police College decided to develop a

137 dynamic based risk management framework, to help the Police to direct their resources more effectively and aid them to more accurately predict risk. Another aim of the framework was that it would hopefully move away from just predicting risk and would also provide a framework within which a response to those risk factors could be considered and ameliorated. Kewley & Blandford (2017) were tasked with designing the assessment framework; this was achieved by reviewing the literature to identify dynamic factors that were evidence based in respect of recidivism and with aiding an offender to desist from further offending. The final design was a framework that not only assessed risk but also aided risk management, intervention, supervision and most importantly priority of resources. The focus of the assessment was on present rather than historical factors and was designed to help the professional to develop a comprehensive case formulation.

The first pilot of the ARMS framework took place in 2012, evaluation studies have suggested that the ARMS framework gives a greater degree of professional confidence and has improved outcomes for the offenders with more targeted responses to risk (Kewley 2017 in print). The ARMS framework has now been extended and is used by both the Police and Probation service nationally. In 2020 Mann & Lundrigan undertook a national evaluation of ARMs this highlighted how the tool is now embedded for the Police however its implementation with the National Probation Service has not been straightforward. There have been concerns raised in relation to workloads of professionals and variations in training.

ARMS Risk Management Framework

The framework focuses on 10 key factors; each factor is measured in respect of the priority of need. A rating of high, medium or low is given for each factor, these ratings then direct specific actions to address or ameliorate the risks within this area. These actions are then formulated into a structured risk management plan, which is reviewed regularly in respect of progress and effectiveness. The ten factors identified are listed below, these factors are supported by the research of Hanson and Bussiere (1998), Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2005) and Mann, Thornton and Hanson (2010):

138

Figure 45- ARMS Framework

J-ARMS

The success of the ARMS framework led to the focus shifting to assessment methods for adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviour. The Police were concerned that they had no framework in place to assess and manage the sexual risk of adolescents. The aim was to provide the Police with an evidence-based framework that would be able to assess the risk associated with adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviours.

No Factor Description

1 Opportunity The offender’s access to opportunities to offend.

2 Sexual Preoccupation The individual’s thoughts and behaviours being predominantly focused on sex

3 Offence Related Sexual Interests-

Sexual interests that are met through offending rather than through consensual legal sexual activities.

4 Emotional Congruence with Children

The offender finding it easier to relate to children rather than adults.

5 Hostile Orientation Negative attitudes displayed towards others.

6 Poor Self-Management The offender having a chaotic or impulsive lifestyle, or an inability to regulate feelings and cope with life’s difficulties

7 Social Influences A protective and a risk factor depending on whether the social influences are pro or anti-social.

8 Commitment to Desist The offender has a sense of purpose in their life and making positive change

9 Intimate Relationship The social influences factor this relates to both a protective and a risk factor depending on whether the relationship is meaningful and supportive or unhelpful in nature

10 Employment or Positive Routine

The offender having productive and meaningful routine and activity that provides purpose and agency.

139

J-ARMS Risk Management Framework

Following on from the ARMS framework Blandford and Parish (2017) developed the Juvenile Risk Management System (J-ARMS). Mann & Lundrigan (2020) highlight how the J-ARMS needs to undergo a comprehensive pilot. The J-ARMS assessment drew upon an evaluation of the empirical research available in respect of risk and desistance associated with adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviours. There was an analysis of the factors highlighted within the literature in relation to ‘risk’ and ‘protective’ indicators of adolescent sexual offending. The resultant items were not an exhaustive list but were those with the most supportive evidence.

The J-ARMS assessment framework uses terminology that is more strength based rather than problem focused. The J-ARMS framework has ten key factors, divided into five risk and five protective factors. The following information was taken from the J-ARMS manual (Blandford and Parish, 2017).

Figure 46- J-ARMS Framework

No. Factor Description

Risk Factors

1 Problematic

Sexual Arousal

Problematic sexual arousal that may be displayed or acknowledged. This was supported by Worling (2002) and Seto and Lalumiere’s (2010).

2 Cognitive

Distortions-

Thoughts that justify offending behaviour, includes cold or callous attitudes. This supported by Worling (2002) and also Kahn & Chambers (1991).

3 Emotional

Regulation Difficulties

The ability to respond to everyday demands. These responses are likely to be socially maladaptive, impulsive, disproportionate, impulsive and harmful in nature. This was supported by Ward and Siegert (2002).

4 Intimacy and

Social Skills

Deficits

Experiencing difficulties forming and maintaining relationships with others. This factor was supported by Beckett (1999), Langstrom & Grann (2000), and Kenny et al (2001).

5 External Factors

Supporting Offending-

Factors external to the adolescent that increase the likelihood of offending. This factor may include access to victims or to technology if considering an online offender. This factor is supported by Worling (2002).

140

Protective factors

6 Supportive

Family Factors

Having a secure and stable home environment, with the family having an awareness of the offending behaviour and having an understanding of the need for appropriate boundaries. This is supported by the work of Marshall and Barbaree (1990), Righthand & Welch (2001), Ryan 1999, Smallbone, (2006).

7 Healthy Age

Appropriate Intimate Relationships

Having access to peer relationships that are supportive and positive, this including friendships and partners. This factor was supported by Altschuler & Brash, 2004 and Barlow et al (1977).

8 Pro-Social

Attitudes and

Aspirations

Demonstrating a positive attitude and having a clear understanding of what constitutes socially acceptable behaviour. Having a positive outlook is recognized as important in the DASH-13 and AIM 2 assessment tools as a factor associated with desistance from future offending.

9 Pro-Social

Engagement in

Activities

The engagement in pro-social activities. This can include the adolescent attending and engages in education or employment. AIM 2 framework as a desistance factor. Engagement in Pro-social activities is recognized by SAVRY, DASH-13 and AIM 2 as a strong factor in promoting future desistance from offending. This factor is also supported by Saraw (2009).

10 Positive Support

Networks, including Professional Involvement

Having positive relationships with wider support networks and professionals. This may include intervention and professional support. Positive response to professional engagement is sited by a range of frameworks such as SAVRY, DASH-13 and AIM 2 as predictive of future desistance from offending.

AIM 3

The AIM model was first introduced in 2002; the second version of the model was introduced in 2012. The model has been widely adopted by Social Care and Youth Offending Services for the assessment of young people who display harmful sexual behaviours. In 2019 the AIM 3 model was launched following developments in the work with harmful sexual behaviour.

AIM 3 Risk Assessment Model

The AIM 3 Model was developed by Leonard & Hackett (2019), the model has been designed to assess young people aged 12- 18 years. The AIM 3 Framework has 5 key

141 domains, each domain focusing on 5 key factors. The following information was taken from the AIM 3 Manual (Leonard & Hackett, 2019).

Figure 47- AIM 3 Framework

No. Domain Factors

1 Sexual

Behaviour

Nature of the Harmful Sexual Behaviour /Extent of Harmful Sexual Behaviour/ Victim Characteristics / Sexual Aggression an Violence /Sexual Knowledge, Attitudes and Interests

2 Non- Sexual

Behaviour

Non-Sexual Criminality/ Non-Sexual Aggression and Anti-Social Behaviour/ Alcohol and Drugs /General Behaviour /Mental Health and Well-being

3 Development

al

Trauma and Victimisation/ Childhood and Adolescent Adversity/ Attachment/ Family Functioning /Health, Intellectual and Emotional Functioning

4 Environmen

tal/ Family

Stability and Safety/ Parental/ Carer Supervision/ Relationships/ Peer Group/ Education, Employment and Leisure

5 Self-

Regulation

Responsibility/ Motivation and Engagement/ Future Perspective/ Problem Solving/ Social Competence