Policing registered sex offenders
| Pages | 296-300 |
| Date | 13 November 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-03-2017-0006 |
| Published date | 13 November 2017 |
| Author | Stephanie Kewley |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Law enforcement/correctional,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice |
Policing registered sex offenders
Stephanie Kewley
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to outline current police risk assessment and management practice
when workingwith those convictedof sexual offences.The paper introducesthe newly implemented ActiveRisk
ManagementSystem (ARMS), a risk-and strengths-basedtool used by the policeacross England and Wales.
Design/methodology/approach –A brief review of the literature and current practice is discussed.
Findings –The papernotes that in order for practitionersto work in a context of rehabilitationand reintegration,
particularlyone that supports clients convictedof sexual offending, thereis a real need for practitioners to have
the skillsand experiences to work with this group. Theyalso need to hold core values that support the notionof
change and they ought to be fullysupported through formal supervisionand training.
Practical implications –Following are the practical implications of this paper: ∙training ought to be regular
and ongoing; formal supervision sessions should be made available for all ARMS assessors; assessors ought
to be assessed and observed in practice; and performance measures must be related to the quality and
effectiveness of the design and implementation of risk management plans rather than the quantity of plans or
home visits.
Originality/value –Very little has been written about this unique group of police practitioners who work to
assess and manage people with sexual convictions. Even less is known of the effectiveness and applicability
of the ARMS tool. Thus, this review is of value to academic and practitioner audiences.
Keywords Risk assessment, Risk management, Police, Strengths, Sex offender, Practitioner skills
Paper type Viewpoint
The number of registered sexual offenders (RSOs) across England and Wales has risen steadily
over the last decade. In April 200,7 the Ministry of Justice (2016) recorded a total of 30,416, yet
by March 2016, this figure had grown to 52,770. The rise in RSOs is due in part to an increase in
criminal convictions. For example, improved technology has assisted policing in terms of
detecting online crime (Byrne and Marx, 2011). Likewise, with an ageing population ( Bows and
Westmarland, 2016), and a steady rise in the length of time people remain on the register for
(Lieb et al., 2011), it is perhaps unsurprising that there has been an increase in the number of
RSOs over the last decade.
The management of this group falls under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(MAPPA) as established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Legislation requires RSOs to be jointly
managed between prison, probation and the police. These are identified as the responsible
authorities with mandatory statutory responsibility to assess and manage RSOs across England
and Wales. Under MAPPA arrangements, RSOs are categorised into three levels, each level
determining the degree of resources needed to manage their assessed risk. RSOs assessed at
level 1 require ordinary agency management; those at Level 2 require an active multi-agency
management; and those at Level 3, an active enhanced multi-agency management
(National Offender Management Service Offender Management and Public Protection Group,
2012, p. 43). These classifications are of course dynamic and where risk changes, RSOs can
move between levels of management. While RSOs assessed as needing to be managed at levels
2 or 3 require a multi-agency approach, the number of cases falling within these levels is relatively
small. For example, between 2015 and 2016, only 4 per cent (n¼2,059) of the population were
managed at these intense levels. The large majority (n¼50,711) were assessed as needing
management at an ordinary level (Ministry of Justice, 2016). It is also worth noting that even at an
ordinary level of management, agencies continue to work together; although the responsibly for
the management of risk sits with a single agency. It is likely that during the RSOs’sentence,
Stephanie Kewley is a Lecturer
in Criminology at the Centre for
Applied Criminology,
Birmingham City University,
Birmingham, UK.
PAGE296
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
VOL. 19 NO. 4 2017, pp. 296-300, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794 DOI 10.1108/JFP-03-2017-0006
To continue reading
Request your trial