Policing people with sexual convictions using strengths-based approaches

Abstract

The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

How well do police specialists risk assess registered sexual offenders?

“…In addition, this present study was able to reach beyond the scope of the Nicholls and Webster pilot study, as we also examined subsequent risk management plans. It is perhaps unsurprising we found problems in the quality of ARMS assessments, as in our earlier study, exploring police practitioners' experiences of completing ARMS assessments (Kewley, 2017); practitioners reported several issues with both the tool, and their own capacity to complete the assessment. Practitioners felt their training and supervision was insufficient to such a degree they did not feel fully equipped with the appropriate skills and knowledge needed to carry out assessments.…”

“…For example, this may be a result of assessor override (Wormith, Hogg, & Guzzo, 2010), noncompliance as a result of unmotivated practitioners, high stress levels or resourcing issues (Schafer & Williamson, 2018), a lack of assessor knowledge or poor training (Luong & Wormith, 2011), or a poorly constructed risk assessment tool etc. It was reported in an earlier study (Kewley, 2017) practitioners felt unskilled and undertrained when completing these assessments; this is likely to impact their motivation and ability to complete quality assessments. However, further exploration is required.…”

“…This present study is part of a larger research project, examining the effectiveness of the implementation of the ARMS tool across police areas in England and Wales. The project consists of three studies, including a) The assessment of the quality of ARMS assessment tools (current study), b) An analysis of practitioners' experiences of the implementation of the roll out of the tool (Kewley, 2017), and c) The experiences of clients being assessed by the police (in progress). This present study aims to assess the quality of ARMS assessments by examining its four key areas: The 12 risk and protective factors; the use of RM2000; the Risk Management Plan; and the Supervisor Review.…”

Risk, discretion, accountability and control: Police perceptions of sex offender risk management policy in England and Wales

“…Similar to the work of Nicholls and Webster (2014) our research identified that ARMS was perceived to be a better classification tool than those used previously such as the RM2000. Supporting aspects of the work of Kewley (2017a) it is suggested that this was because ARMS enabled greater input into assessment, therefore a greater sense of control over the process and a feeling of protection from associated job troubles. Utilizing professional knowledge and being able to draw on their own experience and practice of working with sexual offenders enabled officers to make more professionally informed judgement calls in terms of classifying risk.…”

“…Recent evaluative research identified that practitioners viewed the tool positively because it did not rely solely of static factors and therefore enabled professional judgement and greater flexibility in identifying and changing offender risk (Kewley, 2017a; Nicholls and Webster, 2014). It could be argued that the use of ARMS appears more widely supported by practitioners as it affords them greater input in the classification process, thereby increasing a sense of control over the offender management process and reducing concerns about vulnerability to on-the-job and in-the-job troubles.…”