Identidad y transitividad

Earlier in this chapter six assessment tools were evaluated against eight key areas, the factors in the ARMS, J-ARMS and AIM 3 assessments were also evaluated against the same criteria. It can be seen from the information in Fig 48-50 that the three assessment frameworks covered seven of the eight areas highlighted, the design of the assessment tools means that the focus is on presenting behaviours rather than historic concerns.

It can be seen from the pie charts in Fig. 48-50 that there is a fairly even spread across the eight areas, although there are differences in the areas that are given priority. For example, within the adult ARMS tool the focus is on sexual behaviours, whereas within the adolescent J-ARMS tool the focus is on relational aspects. This would support research (Altschuler & Brash, 2004) which suggested that for adolescents, relationships play a significant role in intervention and desistance from offending. The AIM 3 Model is fairly evenly spread across all highlighted areas.

142

Figure 48- Percentage of question type- ARMS Figure 49- Percentage of question type- J-ARMS

Figure 50- Percentage of question type- AIM 3

In exploring the risk assessment structure of the assessments considered within the main body of this study (AIM 2, ASSET, OASys, J-SOAP and SVR), all conclude by providing an overarching risk rating. The majority of the assessment tools structures allow there to be some exploration of where the risk sits, for example with the J-SOAP there are four broader headings within the framework; sexual drive/ pre-occupation scale, impulsive/ anti- social behaviour scale, intervention scale and community stability/ adjustment scale. The ARMS and J-ARMS assessment provides priority ratings for each of the ten factors identified, allowing professionals to easily identify the priority areas for intervention and risk management. The AIM 3 model opts for identifying the level of concern either as no concern, some concern or significant concern.

There was an analysis of how the six different assessment tools assessed developmental, environmental and attitudinal factors. It was suggested that the adolescent assessments seem to place similar weight on developmental factors whereas the adult assessment tools either place less significance or no significance on these areas. The ARMS, J-ARMS and AIM 3 assessment tools were assessed to see whether they too continued to support this trend (see Fig 51). The J-ARMS and AIM 3 did not correlate with the other adolescent assessment

143 tools having less of a focus on developmental factors, with the AIM 3 having a greater focus on environmental factors than the previous AIM 2. The ARMS assessment was however in line with the other adult assessment tools. A further analysis was undertaken to explore how the different risk assessments considered and responded to issues of vulnerability. Fig. 52 looks at the areas of vulnerability that the tools cover, with the inclusion of the ARMS and J- ARMS assessments.

Figure 51- The developmental, environmental and attitudinal factors within the tools Tools Developmental factors Environmental factors Attitudinal factors

AIM 2 32% 8% 12% ASSET 30% 23% 10% J-SOAP 29% 7% 7% SVR-20 19% 5% 14% OASys 11% 15% 21% RM2000 0% 0% 0% ARMS 18% 9% 18% J-ARMS 18% 14% 14% AIM 3 20% 12% 12%

The ASSET, OASys and AIM 3 assessments have the widest focus on need and the RM2000 the narrowest. The J-ARMS assessment focuses more on vulnerabilities than its adult counterpart, however less than the other adolescent tools. The dynamic structure of the ARMS and J-ARMS frameworks mean that vulnerability factors should be able to be incorporated into the other domain areas. The degree of focus on vulnerability may not impact on the risk rating attributed however is likely to have a significant impact when considering the management of risk and therefore would be crucial for inclusion within the ARMS and J-ARMS frameworks.

It would appear that whilst the ARMS and J-ARMS assessment frameworks may be beneficial, there has not been enough consideration in relation to the implications of shifting from a static risk assessment tool to a dynamic risk assessment tool. For the police the static risk assessment relies of clear information that lacks ambiguity, therefore making the decisions easier to reach. However, with a dynamic risk assessment there is more of a reliance on professional judgement and training to provide professionals with the confidence

144 to analyse more ambiguous information. Mann and Lundrigan’s (2020) evaluation of ARMS and J-ARMS highlighted how there needed to be improvements in the training of ARMS and that there was inconsistency in how the tool was being used, the evaluation also highlighted role and goal confusion between Police and Probation. The evaluation of J-ARMS highlighted how it was a useful tool for identifying harmful sexual behaviour and cognitive distortions, however the highlighted how practitioners needed more specialist training. It appears that undertaking a dynamic risk assessment was a new experience for the Police and they questioned whether they had the theoretical knowledge necessary to assess and analyse some of the key factors.

Figure 52- The focus on vulnerability factors within the tools

Tools VICTIM

EXPERIENCE

LIVING SITUATION

EDUCATION SUPPORT FAMILY HEALTH SUBSTANCE

MISSUSE SOCIAL AIM ASSET J-SOAP SVR-20 OASys RM2000 ARMS J- ARMS AIM 3

One of the significant differences with ARMS, J-ARMS and AIM 3 models compared with their counterparts is these frameworks aim to derive actions through identifying areas of risk and need. This is a significant difference with the other assessment tools offering no or little link between the assessment of risk and the interventions needed. The only other assessment tool to attempt to offer any guidance is the AIM 2, which offers direction about the level of intervention rather than the content of that intervention.

145

13. Summary of Findings

There were several findings presented within this chapter, which explored the challenge of assessment, focusing on the different risk assessment tools and professionals understanding of them. The following findings were highlighted:

 The professionals have limited understanding of the assessment tools they use, what the tools are assessing and how the tools relate to each other.

 The risk assessments used by the professionals differ in their content, focus and in how they assess risk

 The assessment tools varied in respect of the vulnerability factors they assessed

 There is a significant change in the focus of assessments used to assess adolescents and adults.

 The Police’s RM2000 assesses risk significantly differently from the other risk assessment tools

146

Chapter 7

Findings: Relationship between assessment and management

1. Introduction

This chapter explores the relationship between risk assessment and risk management. The chapter focuses on the following research questions:

 What is the relationship between the risk assessment and risk management when assessing harmful sexual behaviour?

 How useful are restrictions for effective risk management?

 What are the potential elements of effective risk management for adults who offend in adolescence?

These questions are addressed through an analysis of interviews with professionals who work with harmful sexual behaviour and young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviour.

The aims of the data collection and analysis were:

a) To explore the link between risk assessment and risk management.

b) To explore the restrictions placed on adolescents who display harmful behaviour, in terms of appropriateness and consistency.

c) To understand the experience of having restrictions. d) To consider what factors influence risk management. e) To explore the experience of multi-agency working.

f) To understand the organisational difficulties of risk management.

The review of literature explored the management of risk and how the relationship between the risk assessment process and the risk management process differs depending on the field of work. The literature review indicates that the link between the assessment process and the subsequent implemented risk management strategies is not as robust as within other fields. This chapter presents the findings from interviews with professionals and young people, considering the different aspects of risk management and how they link to the risk assessment process.

147 Within the interviews, the issue of restrictions is explored, including whether professionals believe that placing restrictions on those individuals who display harmful sexual behaviour is important and whether the restrictions are appropriate. The chapter also includes findings from young people about the restrictions they have experienced and their views on their appropriateness and usefulness. The chapter considers findings in relation to the broader risk management issues. It explores what experiences professionals have of multi-agency meetings and the factors professionals believe impact on their ability to risk manage effectively.

These findings are considered in relation to wider research and literature, exploring the importance of the findings, analysing their limitations and considering alternative explanations. There are also recommendations for further areas of study. The chapter concludes by considering how to improve the relationship between risk assessment and risk management for adolescents who display harmful sexual behaviours.