ArticlePDF Available

Registered Sex Offenders' experiences of home visits in England & Wales: Are the Police expected to integrate 'desistance' with 'risk'?

August 2024

Authors:

Leona Mydlowski

University of Central Lancashire

Rhys Turner-Moore

Leeds Beckett University

…

Figures - uploaded by Leona Mydlowski

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Leona Mydlowski

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Leona Mydlowski

Content may be subject to copyright.

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Registered Sex Offenders’ experiences of home visits in

England & Wales: Are the police expected to integrate “risk”

with “desistance”

Journal:

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Manuscript ID

JCP-04-2024-0032.R1

Manuscript Type:

Research Paper

Keywords:

Sex offenders, Home visits, MAPPA, Risk assessment, MOSOVO,

Desistance

Journal of Criminal Psychology

MANUSCRIPT DETAILS

TITLE: Registered Sex Offendersâ€™ experiences of home visits in England & Wales: Are the police

expected to integrate â€œriskâ€� with â€œdesistanceâ€�

ABSTRACT:

In England and Wales, adult male registered sex offenders (RSOs) are risk assessed and managed

using a tool known as Active Risk Management System (ARMS) and this risk assessment is carried

out by a specialist group of police officers known as Management of Violent or Sexual Offenders

(MOSOVO) at the RSOâ€™s home, known as â€˜the home visitâ€™. The purpose of this paper is to

understand RSOs views of the home visit and risk assessment and to make recommendations to

MOSOVO as to improve future home visit and risk assessment practice.

This study aimed to examine a sample of RSOsâ€™ views of the risk assessment and home visit

process. Three police forces in England and Wales agreed to facilitate sampling of 10 RSOs who

varied in their level of risk - namely, low, medium, high and very high. Semi-structured interviews

were undertaken and thematically analysed using Braune & Clarke (2006).

Three themes were developed from the analysis: Anxiety and shame; Perceptions of the home visit;

and the property search and observations were non-invasive. We discuss these experiences in light

of the growing call for MOSOVOs to both manage risk and assist desistance and present

recommendations for improving both the home visit and risk assessment practice.

CUST_RESEARCH_LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS_(LIMIT_100_WORDS) :No data available.

CUST_PRACTICAL_IMPLICATIONS_(LIMIT_100_WORDS) :No data available.

CUST_SOCIAL_IMPLICATIONS_(LIMIT_100_WORDS) :No data available.

To the authors knowledge, this is the first study to understand and explore RSOs views of the home

visit and risk assessment process.

Page 1 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Registered Sex Offenders’ experiences of risk assessment and home visits in England &

Wales: How the police integrate “risk” with “desistance” practice

Authors details have been removed for peer review

Page 2 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Abstract

Purpose

In England and Wales, adult male registered sex offenders (RSOs) are risk assessed and

managed using a tool known as the Active Risk Management System (ARMS); a risk

assessment designed specifically for police management of RSOs and carried out by a

specialist group of police officers known as Management of Violent or Sexual Offenders

(MOSOVO) at the RSO’s home, known as ‘the home visit’. The purpose of this paper is to

explore RSOs views of the home visit and risk assessment and to make recommendations to

MOSOVO as to improve future home visit and risk assessment practice.

Methodology

This study aimed to examine a sample of adult male RSOs’ views of the risk assessment and

home visit process. Three police forces in England and Wales agreed to facilitate sampling

of 10 RSOs who varied in their level of risk - namely, low, medium, high and very high.

Findings

Three themes were developed from the analysis: Anxiety and shame; Perceptions of the

first home visit; and The property search and observations. We discuss these experiences in

light of the growing call for MOSOVOs to both manage risk and assist desistance and present

recommendations for improving both the home visit and risk assessment practice.

Originality

To the authors knowledge, this is the first study to understand and explore RSOs views of

the home visit and risk assessment process.

Key words

Sex Offenders, Home Visits; MOSOVO; Risk assessment; Desistance

Page 3 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Introduction

There are currently 68,357 persons that have been recorded as a registered sex offender

(RSO) in England and Wales (Ministry of Justice, 2023). RSOs are placed within the

constraints of the Sexual Offenders Act 1997, which provides a lawful obligation on certain

RSOs post-conviction, with a specific type of sexual offence, to register with the police

service in England and Wales, otherwise known as the ‘Sex Offenders Register’ (Thomas,

2008). Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA; Ministry of Justice, 2022a),

established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, places joint statutory duties on the Police,

Probation and Prison Service, with a primary function of protecting the public through the

management of RSOs. MAPPA deal with different categories of offenders: Registered Sexual

Offenders (Category 1); Violent Offenders (Category 2); and Other Dangerous Offenders

(Category 3), with MAPPA determining the level of management and resources required to

safely manage people within each sub-population. Those contained at Level 1 are managed

by a single lead agency, at Level 2 a multi-agency approach to support the risk management

plan is required, and Level 3 requires senior management oversight to authorise additional

resources when needed (Kewley & Brereton, 2022).

The majority, three quarters of MAPPA cases (68,357 as of March 2023), are grouped

under Category 1 (Ministry of Justice, 2022a) - this being RSOs, with nearly all (99.2%)

managed at the lowest level of risk (Ministry of Justice, 2022a). Allocating a case to the

lowest level of risk management means that single agency management has been deemed

sufficient to manage the identified risks and needs of the case; without the need for formal

multi-agency intervention (HM Prison and Probation Service, 2023). Of course, information

sharing, and multi-agency co-operation continues, particularly if risk or need changes, but

even cases assessed as ‘high risk’ of re-offending can be managed by a single agency

(Ministry of Justice, 2022a).

Within the police, the management of RSOs is carried out by specialist teams of

police officers and staff, also known as Offender Managers, generally located within Public

Protection Units (although unit structures vary across each force); Offender Managers are

tasked with the Management of Sexual or Violent Offenders (MOSOVO; College of Policing,

2020a). MOSOVO teams are a highly specialist and unique group within the police. They are

trained, experienced police officers and staff, whose role it is to assess risk and manage

Page 4 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

MAPPA cases. Despite the large number of people with a history of sexual offending being

managed by MOSOVO officers (‘MOSOVOs’) across the country, very little is known of this

unique group (Thomas & Marshall, 2021). This is perhaps surprising given their role is critical

in both public protection and helping support people convicted of sexual offending reduce

and manage their risk.

One of the key roles MOSOVOs undertake is the assessment of risk a person convicted

of a sexual offence may pose in relation to both the likelihood of future sexual re-offending

and the degree of harm future offending might cause (College of Policing, 2020a). Assessing

future risk of sexual re-offending is complex and a notoriously thorny problem for criminal

justice agents (Kewley et al., 2020a). Thus, to assist MOSOVOs to reach conclusions about

potential future behaviours, they have at their disposal a variety of actuarial and clinically

informed tools (including the Active Risk Management System: ARMS, Spousal Abuse Risk

Assessment: SARA, Offender Assessment System: OASys and Risk Matrix 2000: RM2000) the

results of which inform a person’s Risk Management Plan. It ought to be noted that whilst the

current risk assessment for adult male RSOs used by the police is ARMS, this risk assessment

incorporates risk factors from RM2K to be considered into the assessment.

We have previously and extensively discussed the development of these risk tools.

Kewley and Blandford (2017) examined the importance of incorporating both dynamic static

and protective factors into assessment, ensuring MOSOVOs assess current and past factors

related to sexual offending and desistance; the subsequent quality of risk assessment and risk

management plans (Kewley et al., 2015, 2020b) found ARMS assessments were not always

completed to satisfactory standards; and MOSOVOs’ views regarding the effectiveness of

ARMS (Kewley, 2017) found the role of the MOSOVO was incongruent with the traditional

policing role; finally, we examined the effectiveness of police training in relation to the risk

management of this population and the extent to which MOSOVOs implement this training

Page 5 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

in practice (Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023). Thus, we do not intend to repeat those

discussions here. Instead, we intend to extend the dialogue around the voices of the RSOs

and their experiences of the current risk assessment and home visit practice.

Before we consider this, we provide some context to the risk paradigm MOSOVOs

operate within. Risk assessment is not the same as risk prediction; no-one can guarantee

the future behaviours of others (Kewley et al, 2020a); however, this is to some extent an

expectation placed on MOSOVOs. In response to a number of high-profile cases such as

Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and subsequent media and public pressure, legislators

have sought to increase sentencing in ways that Thomas and Marshall (2021) have argued to

be punitive (e.g. longer prison sentences and rigid Sexual Harm Prevention Orders [SHPO]

for people with sexual convictions), rather than rehabilitative. Legitimising processes of

pervasive or mass punishment is not limited to people convicted of specific offences but is a

political approach and response to general crime and the criminal, evident across all facets

of Western criminal justice systems (McNeill, 2019). Yet, Thomas and Marshall (2021) have

argued that, for those with histories of sexual offending, strategies to punish and

perceptions of risk can be very harsh, or pervasive, so much so, that people with sexual

convictions often exist in a state of ‘civic purgatory’ (Henley, 2018), in which, arbitrary

timescales can be applied to legal sanctions, such as stringent registration and SHPO

requirements, despite this group having low reconviction rates compared to other groups of

offending populations (Falshaw et al, 2003). The introduction of registration requirements

in the 1997 Sex Offenders Act required people convicted of a sexual offence to provide

details, such as their name and address, to the police at a specified point in time following

conviction/release, now known as the Sex Offenders Register. Initially intended as a register

for the police to verify and identify suspects after a sexual crime was committed, also it is

increasingly claimed (usually by politicians) to be a tool that protects the public and deters

sexual violence (Levenson et al., 2016).

Pemberton et al., (2023) further outline the challenges in which MOSOVOs

themselves operate. On the one hand they work within cultures of containment (English,

1998) which require them to manage the RSOs’ restrictions that are imposed by the court,

issued as a result of both retrospective (past behaviours) and prospective (future potential

behaviours) risk. While some containment policing techniques show promise, including

Page 6 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

targeted management that prioritises the direction of resources to those deemed high risk,

and technology-assisted management (Christensen et al., 2021); using these approaches

alone, might serve to inhibit the desistance process. Albeit unintentionally, such approaches

are potentially stigmatizing due to the restrictions placed on the RSO and limit opportunities

for people to access social and psychological capital (Mann et al., 2019), which may inhibit

or facilitate desistance, respectively. Indeed, given the pervading perception by the media

and general public, it is unsurprising that professionals working in the field operate with an

overactive focus on risk and suppress opportunities or interactions to foster the desistance

process (Mullins & Kirkwood, 2022). Calls for practitioners to integrate both risk and

desistance practices into assessment and risk management approaches is now standard

across MAPPA agencies (Kemshall, 2021) because comprehensive approaches to risk

management are found to be more effective (The HMPPS Approach to the Management and

Rehabilitation of People Convicted of Sexual Offending, 2021; Maruna & Mann, 2019).

Despite limited empirical examination of the MOSOVO context, wider criminal

justice literature indicates that when formal relationships between those sanctioned by the

court and supervising officers are grounded in trust, respect, and a belief in change;

desistance can be fostered (Villeneuve et al., 2021). Indeed, the Four Pillars of Risk

Management, central to the work of all MAPPA agents (HM Prison and Probation Service,

2023), requires risk management plans to detail how both the risk and needs of people

subject to MAPPA sanctions will be met through a) Supervision, b) Monitoring and Controls,

c) Interventions and Treatment, and d) Victim Safety plans. Comprehensive and detailed risk

management plans ought to account for each of these four elements and be driven and

justified by the risk and needs as assessed by the Offender Manager. Risk management

plans must detail strategies to both mitigate potential future risk, as well as tactics that

strengthen the capacity and capability of the RSO to successfully reintegrate into society and

help identify and provide opportunities that encourage the desistance process (Kewley &

Brereton, 2022).

However, MOSOVOs walk a thin line between protecting the public and helping

support the rehabilitation process of those convicted of sexual offending, as one of the

traditional roles of policing is to protect the public, yet the Offender Manager role has a

focus on desistance and rehabilitation. This is perhaps most evident when we consider the

pillars of ‘supervision’ and ‘monitoring and control’ in which MOSOVOs use (usually

Page 7 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

unannounced) home visits (Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023) to: check compliance

(notification or court conditions); confirm the person lives at the address; fulfil a duty of

care to the public; monitor new/existing risk; gather information/intelligence; detect other

offences; and fulfil a duty of care to the person convicted of sexual offending (College of

Policing, 2020b). The frequency of home visits varies case to case but should be clearly

determined by the MOSOVOs risk assessment and outlined and reviewed in the subsequent

risk management plan (Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023).

Given that the role of MOSOVO is crucial to public protection, it is surprising that

there is little evaluative research in this area. To date, there has not been any study that has

gathered the experiences of RSOs in the UK who have been subject to the risk assessment

and home visit process. This paper addresses that gap in the literature because it is

important to understand RSOs’ experiences of both the risk assessment and home visit

process to enable MOSOVO further improve practice and discourage RSOs from re-

offending, thus, protecting the public. This paper therefore explores RSOs’ experiences of

risk assessments and home visits, and the implications of these findings for assisting

desistance.

Method

Sample and Recruitment

After negotiations and discussions with the first researcher and the managing police officer

of each MOSOVO unit, three police forces in England and Wales (one urban, one rural and

one semi-rural force) and this agreement was confirmed with the College of Policing. Each

MOSOVIO unit was asked to invite and recruit four male RSOs, one from each level of risk

(low, medium, high, and very high). Only male RSOs were selected as the risk assessment

that this paper refers to, known as ARMS, is specific to adult males only. Participants

deemed by the police to be a risk to staff/researcher were excluded and only RSOs deemed

compliant were then hand selected by each managing officer at each MOSOVO unit.

Although the aim was to recruit 12 RSOs in total (one for each level of risk at each force),

only one force had a willing RSO at the ‘very high’ risk level, therefore, 10 RSOs agreed to

take part. Table 1 provides the demographic characteristics of the participants, their

convictions, and how many home visits they had been subject to.

Page 8 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

[insert Table 1 here]

A qualitative approach allowed the research team to understand and explore RSOs views of

ARMS and the home visit process. Conducting semi-structured interviews enabled the team

to gain insight into RSOs views. Coding and analysing interview transcripts using a reflexive

thematic approach outlined in Braun and Clarke (2021) facilitated a close examination of a

range of sensitive and unique perspectives and experiences. This allowed researchers the

opportunity to highlight differences and similarities across the sample and platform new

insights. Prior to taking part in the study, the first author provided participants with a

participant information sheet and they were asked if they had read and understood the

purpose of the research. After being given the opportunity to ask questions, and on

agreeing to participate, participants signed a consent form, but were also advised they could

withdraw at any time, and their data be destroyed, without any cost to them. It was

explained that the research was independent to the police. Once participants agreed to take

part, a date, time, and location for the interviews was agreed.

Data Collection

For privacy and security, the interviews were conducted in a private room within the police

headquarters for each force. Only the first author was in the interview room with the

participant, although participants were made aware that police staff were available should

assistance be required. Interviews were audio recorded. Participants were informed they

were not required to answer all questions, and to ensure anonymity, no names of

participants were recorded in the researcher’s handwritten notes. If participants referred to

others by name, or provided a location, these were not added to the researcher’s notes or

the transcript of the recording. The audio recording was destroyed once the study had been

written up.

An interview schedule consisting of three parts was used to structure the interviews,

which was specifically designed to inform the development of this study. Part one invited

participants to share their views of the home visits, their expectations of the home visit and

their experiences of the first visit. Participants were asked to describe whether subsequent

visits were similar or different to the first, and whether their expectations of the home visits

had now changed. Participants were also asked how the home visit process might be

improved. Part two focused on whether the home visits were unannounced or if

Page 9 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

participants were notified in advance of the home visit and participants’ views and

experiences of these. Part three concerned questions around their understanding of the risk

assessment process. In particular, we asked if they understood terms like ‘priority rating’ or

if they were aware of their ‘risk category’ and how they felt about the police monitoring

them to conduct a risk assessment.

Upon completion of the interview, participants were debriefed, which further

explained the purpose of the research and contact details if they had any questions after the

interview or wished to withdraw their data. The debriefing also directed participants to

mental health and counselling services, should participants require these services post-

interview.

Data Analysis

All audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by the first author. The transcripts were

analysed using an inductive, semantic, realist thematic analysis, following the steps outlined

by Braun and Clarke (2021). The first author immersed themselves in the dataset to become

familiar with it and to record initial impressions and notes. Next, they coded the entire

dataset and then organised these codes into an initial set of candidate themes. These initial

themes were then discussed with the second author and refined further. Lastly, these

themes were then further refined by checking them back against the codes included in the

theme and then against the raw data (i.e., re-reading the dataset to check that the themes

were a good “fit” for the data) and through additional discussion with the second and third

authors.

Ethical Approval

The research adhered to the British Society of Criminology’s (2015) Statement of Ethics and

ethical approval for the study was granted by [REDACTED FOR PEER REVIEW].

Findings and Discussion

Through our analysis of the ten interviews, three themes were developed: Anxiety and

shame; Perceptions of the home visit, and; Property search and observations. We present a

brief narrative of these themes here, followed by our observations of how these

Page 10 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

experiences might assist (or otherwise) the desistance process. Where participant extracts

are used, we use pseudonyms (see Table 2) to protect identity.

[insert Table 2 approx. here]

Anxiety and Shame

Across the sample, participants were unclear and unsure of what to expect of their first

home visit. To some degree they assumed MOSOVOs would want to ensure they were

coping with everyday life, as stated by Arthur, ‘[I] didn’t know what to expect, I just thought

it would be to see how I was getting on’. It was interesting to note, participants who were

assessed at a higher level of risk felt the purpose of the visit was to specifically discuss their

sexual offence, as stated by Joshua, ‘I thought they would want to talk about the offence’,

and Cameron, that it was to do ‘some kind of checking up on me coz of what I had done’.

Thus, as participants were unsure what to expect of their first home visit, they recalled

feeling elevated levels of anxiety and apprehension; as Arthur reports, it was ‘the first time I

had ever been in trouble with the police, so I was really nervous, especially because of what

it was’. Their anxiety appeared to be driven by fear of the MOSOVO officers judging them

due to the nature of their offence, as reported by Ryan, who ‘felt embarrassed more than

anything about it all and thought they would judge me’. This anticipation and internalised

shame resulted in participants not being able to ‘sleep for thinking about it coz they [the

police officers doing the home visit] knew what I had done […] the wait was awful’ (Jamie).

Anticipating a first home visit from the police, following release from prison or after

receiving a community sentence for a sexual conviction, would understandably induce levels

of anxiety, and for some, even fear, given that the RSO may perceive the police as the

responsible body for placing them into prison or being subject to a community order. This

anxiety will be further heightened particularly given that officers attending home visits have

powers to breach or take action that enforce court orders should they find a RSO has not

complied with the orders of the court (Criminal Justice Act, 2003; Police & Criminal Evidence

Act, 1984). In addition, RSOs will be acutely aware of the perception society and others,

including criminal justice practitioners, have of them. It is likely their experience of the

criminal justice system by that point has been hostile and combative (Tewksbury & Lees,

2006) with the public and criminal justice practitioners holding negative perceptions of

them. In an earlier study, we found MOSOVOs held unfavourable views of this group

Page 11 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

(Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023; Kewley, 2017), echoed by others in the field (Mann et

al., 2019), and in their interviews with 84 men incarcerated for sexual offences, Levins and

Mjåland (2021) found the criminal justice system to be predominantly one that viewed this

group of people to be a risk to others.

While we found high levels of anticipation and anxiety prior to the home visit,

irrespective of the level of risk of the RSO, we were encouraged to hear that these feelings

soon dissipated, and participants (in the main) were made to feel at greater ease by the

MOSOVOs. Aiden recalled his ‘first visit was really frightening’ but went onto describe

MOSOVO officers putting him at ease and engaging with him in a non-judgemental way: ‘the

officers made me feel okay. They didn’t judge me or anything, so it was okay in the end’.

The participants did however continue to experience shame, as can be seen from this

extract from Nicholas: ‘I felt really embarrassed though, it did make me feel quite bad after

they had gone’, which is not unique to our sample. Stigmatisation and labelling (Lowe & Willis,

2020) is a social control mechanism by which one group of people deem the characteristics,

beliefs, or behaviours of another, as problematic and/or negative; this often results in feelings

of shame, and ought to play a role in deterring behaviours in the first place. When responding

to behaviours that are socially unacceptable and criminal, such as sexual abuse, the roles of

stigma and labelling (Snape & Fido, 2021) play an important part in the punishment and

rehabilitation of the person. When a message of condemnation regarding the behaviour is

delivered in a way that is respectful of the person, but disapproving of the behaviour, then

shaming is said to be reintegrative (Braithwaite, 1989), allowing the person to move on from

their transgression. But shame that causes the person or group to be outcast or demonized,

known as disintegrative shaming, has detrimental consequences for those RSOs who are

actively seeking to desist from future offending (Braithwaite, 1989). The consequences of

disintegrative shaming for people convicted of sexual offending, and those suspected of

sexual offending, range from “discrimination and exclusion from social participation to violent

victimization and murder” (Cubellis et al., 2019. p.225). Indeed, secondary stigma is

experienced by those associated with the person convicted, and family members are often

equally penalised, experiencing serious physical, psycho-social and economic harms

(Armitage et al., 2023; Evans et al., 2023). Our participants did not report examples of actions

by MOSOVOs in which their behaviours could be deemed disintegrative, despite the

participants’ ongoing feelings of shame but participants did report encouraging reintegrative

Page 12 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

behaviour from MOSOVO, as stated by Arthur ‘yeah they did try to help me, they kept

encouraging me to leave the house and told me what I can and can’t do despite those list of

things I can’t do’. This is encouraging, because working with shame in a reintegrative manner

can help promote the desistance process (Villeneuve et al., 2020) and as such, if MOSOVOs

continue to work in this way, they will be well-placed to serve as formal agents to change.

Perceptions of first home visit

All participants that were new to the notion of notification requirements (the Sex Offenders

home visits with MOSOVOs. Participants remembered the first home visit as one in which

MOSOVOs took time to explain the purpose of that home visit, outline the licence

conditions or notification requirements, and make observations of the property. Owen felt it

was ‘just a general chat really…about what I had been doing with my time’, and this was

further stated by Nicholas, that he didn’t ‘mind the visits, they are always good with me, no I

think they [the visits] are okay’. Lower risk participants felt MOSOVOs were trying to help

them and offer support during the visit, as stated by Arthur, ‘they are always really good

when they come to visit me. They do try and help you with stuff if they can’. Over time, a

positive relationship between MOSOVOs and participants developed. Participants reported

the building of good relationships and rapport during the home visits, as Jamie stated: ‘it’s

not like when you get arrested, they are okay with you, nice and down to earth’, and as visits

became more informal, Charles stated, ’I think I have quite a good relationship with them.

I’m on first names terms with them’. This was repeated by Arthur, who stated, while the

unannounced nature of the visit ‘keeps you on your toes, coz you never know when they

gonna turn up’, this was not perceived negatively, with participants stating that the visits

help them focus on what they should and should not be doing, which was reinforced by

Jamie, ‘without a doubt, it makes you think positively from when they have been to visit you

and you know what you should do and what not to do’.

However, participants assessed as high or very high risk described a hostile

experience during MOSOVOs’ visits to their home, as stated by Aiden ‘they were awful…they

told me they were there coz I was a sex offender and they just fired loads of questions at me

saying I was a risk…there was nothing nice about it, just them telling me what I had done,

being really aggressive and making me feel crap about it.’ From this, It appears as if

Page 13 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

MOSOVO do not use a ’general chat’ approach when visiting high risk RSOs. This was also

felt by Joshua who felt ‘they spent a long time on the notification thing and saying what I

can and can’t do’ and Aiden stated that ‘all the questions they ask, they[‘re] trying to trip

you up to say summat [sic] so they can send you back to prison… I hate it’. Unlike Jamie, one

low risk participant who reported how home visits left him reflecting positively on his life,

Aiden maintained a state of hostility and resistance to change: ‘Nothing the police will do

will help me, I can’t stand the police, they sent me to prison. I’m not gonna change now

anyway’. These findings show that there appears to be different interview techniques for

RSOs of different levels of risk but the findings do not explain why and interviewing RSOs

ought to be further researched.

The participants also varied in their experience of the types of questions posed to

them by MOSOVOs. For low and medium risk participants, these were not intrusive or

interrogatory, but appeared to be casual enquiries about their daily routine, as stated by

Jamie: ‘they asked what I had been up to with my day, was I drinking or doing drugs, stuff

like that or was l looking for work, that kind of thing’. This was not experienced as being part

of an assessment or investigation, but, instead, they described this more like ‘a general

chat’. Charles recalls that MOSOVOs ‘wanted to know who I was spending time with, if I had

a new girlfriend and who I was speaking to on the internet […] like a chat really’. These low

to medium risk participants appeared to have no concerns, or indeed knowledge, that in

providing answers to these questions a risk assessment was being developed, whereas, the

opposite was found for high risk participants, as can be seen by this quote from Cameron:

’I’m not stupid…I know they think I’m a risk and that’s why they keep coming and ask all

them questions’.

Despite low and medium risk RSOs viewing the home visits as a ‘general chat’ as

referred to by Charles in the previous quote, it is surprising that all participants reported

being asked quite in-depth questions at the first home visit and each subsequent visit. This

line of questioning was about what the RSO was thinking at the time they committed their

sexual offence, as well as questions about their current offence-related attitudes and

behaviours. This line of questioning does not appear to fit with what one may expect from a

’general chat’ and is experienced as a more intrusive and interrogatory style of questioning.

It was evident that some participants, particularly, the medium to higher risk

participants, lacked trust in MOSOVOs or had a sense that MOSOVOs perceived it inevitable

Page 14 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

that the RSO would commit a further offence, as Ryan stated, ‘all the checks they do, it’s

just to see what they can find, they think we are offending all the time innit [sic].’ This is

unsurprising, as in previous research, MOSOVOs appeared sceptical of RSOs’ ability to live a

life free from crime (Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023; Kewley 2017). Instead, MOSOVOs

often believe RSOs are deceitful, are playing other criminal justice agents off against each

other, and ultimately, if given the chance to sexually offend again, would do so (Kewley,

2017). This is a challenge, if we are to consider MOSOVOs as potential formal agents who

can promote desistance, as a greater level of trust, transparency and relationship building

would be required for RSOs at all levels of risk, but particularly high risk (Villeneuve et al.,

2020).

Building rapport and positive relationships is key to assisting the desistance process;

even within the confines of unannounced visits, these can provide valuable opportunities to

promote social and psychological change (King, 2014). Indeed, the length of time RSOs are

required to work with MOSOVOs, is not insignificant; many RSOs are subject to notification

requirements indefinitely (Sexual Offences Act, 2003), thus, we note the opportunity for

MOSOVOs to foster a meaningful social bond that has the potential to impact lifelong

change. The differing treatment experienced by those labelled as ‘high risk' is interesting

and it may be that MOSOVOs’ more challenging and accusatorial approach is less effective

than a ‘general chat’ approach when attempting to manage higher risk RSOs during the

home visit; further research is needed to determine this.

Property search and observations

Participants described how MOSOVOs would conduct observations of their property by

having a general look in all rooms within their home. Participants described this as non-

invasive (in that it was a quick visual check throughout the house), as more time was spent

looking through the electronic devices that participants disclosed they had, as Cameron

stated: ‘Yeah they had a look about, not a lot though, just put their head in each room, but

they spent a lot of time on my devices and checking my internet history’.

All participants described that the specific time/day of the home visits were

generally unannounced; they did not receive any prior notice from the MOSOVO officers

that a visit would take place, as stated by Arthur: ‘you don’t get any notice, they just turn

up’. If they were not at home when the police attended their property, the MOSOVO

Page 15 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

officers would telephone the RSO to ascertain their whereabouts, asking them to return

home for the visit to take place, as Charles stated: “Sometimes they will ring if I haven’t been

in to tell me they need to see me and they always ring me to tell me about my yearly

registration’. We acknowledge one purpose of the unannounced home visit is the element

of surprise. MOSOVOs are required to detect crime, thus, the strategy of attending

unannounced is to ‘catch’ the RSO off-guard, potentially engaging in offending behaviour or

to prevent them from disposing of evidence of offending behaviour. Yet, it is unclear how

effective this approach is and what rates of crime detection are actually made using this

strategy. Recidivism rates across RSO populations where unannounced home visits are not

undertaken remain low (Zgoba & Mitchell, 2023). While none of our participants considered

the unannounced home visit problematic, for those RSOs with family members in the

property, unannounced visits might create instability or have the potential to re-traumatise

non-offending citizens (Duncan et al, 2021).

Subsequent home visits were similar to the first home visit, as Nicholas stated: ‘they

asked the same stuff, what are you doing, has anything changed since last time. They check

your devices when they are there’. This process appears to get easier in time, as Ryan stated,

‘it’s easier each time, you know how they will start it and what questions they will ask, so it’s

okay now’. The more visits they receive, the more they become familiar with the types of

questions they will be asked, as Nicholas states: ‘you know what they are going to ask and

what’s going to happen’.

While MOSOVOs reportedly attempted to put the participants at ease during the

home visits, meaning that they then felt reassured about what to expect for future home

visits - as stated by Owen: ‘I felt a lot better after it as they were okay with me and made me

feel better about the whole thing’ - there was an inconsistency in terms of which MOSOVO

officers attended subsequent visits. This could result in a ‘new’ MOSOVO officer asking and

repeating questions that the participant had already answered at the first home visit

regarding their initial offence. This increased levels of anxiety as participants were required

to re-tell their experiences, as Nicholas stated, ‘that is the bad bit of it coz the new one

wants to start from the beginning when I’ve done that already and I don’t like that bit’. The

re-telling of past offending behaviour meant that the participants felt they were still being

judged on their past behaviours, despite wanting to focus on the future and move on with

Page 16 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

their life, as stated by Charles: ‘They ask…if I’m still thinking of doing it but I’m not and I

won’t do it again. That bit makes me feel awful and [as] if they are not letting me move on’.

Apart from one high risk participant, participants were unaware that one of the

purposes of the home visit was to undertake a risk assessment which would place them into

a risk category and inform a management plan that could involve changes to the conditions

on civil orders, as Nicholas stated, ‘they never told me it was a risk assessment, they just

asked lots of questions. This is the first I have heard of any kind of assessment’. Arthur was

told ‘it was coz I was on the register for 10 years, due to what I had done, so they will keep

coming and asking the questions until I am off the register’. Of course, not all participants

were naïve; Ryan states he ‘knew it was coz I was found guilty and because of the type of

offence it was. I thought they would be more checking up on me’ and that home visits would

be used as a form of monitoring ‘to make sure I was keeping in line with my notification

requirements, and I was keeping away from schools’ - although it was his ‘probation officer’

who informed Ryan of the ramifications of the home visit for his risk assessment.

Participants did not recall being explicitly informed by the police of the risk assessment

process and the implications this might have.

A lack of collaboration and shared goal development was noted, as the participants

reported that MOSOVOs did not appear to focus on the RSO’s future behaviours or provide

any details or copies of action plans. Joshua described that he would have welcomed this,

particularly when not coping or needing extra help or support: ‘they didn’t say anything

about an action plan. That would have helped me though coz I had just got out prison and

was all over the place’. From this, it is evident that RSOs would welcome an action plan to

work towards during the home visit and this is an area that ought to be developed further.

Discussion

This study aimed to understand a sample of RSOs views of the home visit and risk

assessment practice that adult male RSOs are subject to, due to their registration and

notification requirements. Overall, the findings suggested that despite MOSOVO attempting

to make them feel at ease and by using a general chat approach, RSOs do feel anxiety and

shame when the visit takes place, RSOs generally did not know what to expect from the first

home visit, with low risk RSOs then going on to describe the visit as a general chat whereas

Page 17 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

high risk RSOs described the visit process as ‘awful’ and that the property search that is

undertaken is non invasive but RSOs did not get told of the purpose of the visit, nor did they

have any kind of action plan to work towards.

This study found that RSOs have heightened feelings of anxiety and shame,

particularly for the first home visit, which is understandable considering the nature of the

offence and also due to the negative experiences that police have been reported to hold

towards this offending group (Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023; Kewley, 2017). This study

also demonstrated that these feelings of shame and anxiety could be further exacerbated as

they did not know what to expect from the home visit. As these feelings can lead to stigma

and anxiety (Snape & Fido 2021) which can result in detrimental consequences (Braithwaite,

1989), it was encouraging to note in this study that although these feelings were heightened

during the first home visit, these feelings disappeared once RSOs understood and became

familiar with the home visit process, in particular as MOSOVO employed the use of a general

chat rather than the traditional hostile police interview (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). We

suggest that prior to the first home visit, there could be contact between MOSOVO and the

RSO, to allow MOSOVO to briefly explain the purpose of the home visit and this may reduce

the feelings of anxiety RSOs hold towards the first home visit and MOSOVO generally.

It was also encouraging to note that MOSOVO made RSOs feel at ease during the

visit (Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023, Kewley, 2019) by incorporating the use of a ‘general

chat’ and posing the questions in a non-interrogatory manner. This will hopefully allow the

RSO to move away from the feelings of stigma and shame from the initial offence and would

encourage desistance to future offending (Villeneve et al, 2021; Kewley & Brereton,

Kemshall, 2021; Mullins & Kirkwood, 2022). MOSOVO also ought to bear in mind that the

visits may affect other family members in the home, which may result in secondary stigma

(Armitage et al, 2023; Evans et al, 2023) and great care should be taken to not promote any

further unnecessary stigma and shame. Subsequently, in order to promote the desistance

process further, we suggest that MOSOVO do not ask questions around the initial offence

on each visit and that this line of questioning should be for the first visit only, to allow the

RSO to ‘move on’ with their life, as supported by the Good Lives Model (Ward & Gannon,

2006). Also, home visits ought to include more welfare-orientated activities as RSOs are

reportedly far more positive and foster authentic desistance when the police provide

opportunities for support and help (Creswell, 2020; Farmer et al, 2015). Further, if there are

Page 18 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

family members present during the home visit, the family member should be asked if they

would like to leave the room whilst the interview is taking place to avoid secondary stigma

and/or shame.

Despite the support for the use of a ‘general chat’ approach, our study also showed

that MOSOVO appeared to change interview style, in particularly towards high risk RSOs,

whose perception of the visit was vastly different to that of low to medium risk RSOs. The

higher risk RSOs will undoubtedly lack trust (Kewley, 2020; Mydlowski & Turner-Moore,

2023) towards MOSOVO and whilst it is accepted that higher risk RSOs may have heightened

cognitive distortions (Ward & Casey, 2010) and hostile bias (Kebbell et al, 2008), towards

MOSOVO, this lack of consistency in interview style also shows that the home visit process is

not conducive to the principles of procedural justice, which further undermine the current

dilemma around legitimacy and public trust in policing (Schapp & Saarikkumaki, 2022). It is

therefore suggested that if MOSOVO are to encourage desistance during the home visit, the

same consistent positive interview approach where change is encouraged (King, 2014)

should be conducted with each level of RSO.

Finally, RSOs in this study described the property search that is conducted as ‘non

invasive’. Ensuring home visits include a balance of surveillance as well as

supportive/reintegrative practice, including checking devices (Christensen et al, 2021) is

without doubt a genuine tension for MOSOVOs (Pemberton et al., 2023) and it is therefore

encouraging to note that RSOs did not find this part of the visit overly intrusive.

We suggest that, for MOSOVOs to ensure each home visit provides an opportunity to

promote the desistance process, and serve as a formal agent of change, a focus on control

and management (Villeneuve et al., 2021), punitive sentencing (Thomas & Marshall, 2021)

and pervasive punishment (McNeill, 2019; Henley, 2018) should be avoided. Instead,

MOSOVOs ought to promote the principles of procedural justice during the home visit to

allow for a more fair and transparent offender management process by blending activities

of support and control and promoting a multi-agency approach (Kewley & Brereton,2022).

The purpose of home visits should be communicated with a greater degree of transparency.

Also, MOSOVOs ought to refrain from the view that RSOs are manipulative and pose a

continuous risk to society (Mydlowski & Turner-Moore, 2023) as this will simply allow for

the RSO to feel further levels of disintegrative shame. This can be achieved even with an aim

of detecting crime because, where the relationship between the person with sexual

Page 19 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

convictions and correctional officers are perceived as positive, increased disclosures are

actually made (Kras, 2019) resulting in improved prevention and detection rates.

Strengths and limitations of the research

There are of course some limitations to this work. Each RSO was ‘hand’ selected by each

police force that took part in this study and it may be perceived that RSOs selected were

deemed ‘compliant’ to report only positive views or experiences; given the diversity in

reports from RSOs in this study, this does not appear to have occurred. A further challenge

for participants that might have impacted their engagement was that they were invited to

attend for the interview at force headquarters, with a police officer outside of the interview

room. This set up might have hindered RSOs’ responses. This study provided a small sample

of participants, thus, a further larger scale study with a greater number of RSOs ought to be

undertaken, and held in a less correctional context that might be more conducive to

facilitating a more open dialogue.

There are also strengths to this study. It is the first to gain an insight into a sample of RSOs’

views in England and Wales of the risk assessment and home visit process, which will

undoubtedly assist MOSOVO in England & Wales improve their home visit practice. As the

offender management model, in particular the home visit process, is adopted by other

continents such as Australia (Napier, Dowling & Morgan, 2018), New Zealand (Vass, Day,

Powell & Graffam, 2014), United States (Harris & Cudmore, 2018) and Canada (Murphy &

Frederoff, 2013), international law enforcement agencies would benefit from adopting the

practices recommended in this paper.

Conclusion and recommendations

This study aimed to explore how RSOs experience risk assessments and home visits, and the

implications of these findings for assisting desistance. From the findings of this study, it is

evident that RSOs have a high level of anxiety prior to the first home visit and are not clear

about the purpose of the visit, which could be reduced by the RSO being advised as to the

purpose of the home visit in advance or being provided with a fact sheet as to what the

home visit by the police is for and what it will entail. It is also clear that MOSOVOs employ a

‘general chat’ approach during the home visit with low and medium risk RSOs, but a more

Page 20 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

challenging approach with high risk RSOs, who are often hostile towards MOSOVOs. Whilst

it is understandable that MOSOVOs will need to challenge hostile behaviour during the

home visit, it is proposed that a more consistent approach is trialled for RSOs of all levels of

risk, and the effectiveness of a ‘general chat’ approach with high risk RSOs is explored. RSOs

also feel anxiety when discussing their previous offence(s), which can be difficult to re-tell

and reinforces the label of ‘RSO’ and a reduced propensity for change. Relatedly, MOSOVOs

did not appear to focus on the RSOs’ future or support needs or provide details or copies of

action plans. We suggest that MOSOVOs should provide a blend of control and support and

apply a multi-agency approach. It is unclear whether MOSOVOs direct RSOs to organisations

such as the Lucy Faithfull Foundation or Safer Lives for further support. If not, we propose

that these sources of support should be discussed with the RSO either before or during the

home visit, particularly if the RSO is displaying high levels of anxiety.

Lastly, the priority of criminal justice practitioners remains one of public protection,

but the pressure to operate and adopt more desistance-focussed approaches appears to

detach from this priority. It would be useful for MOSOVO to be provided with desistance-

based approaches to utilise in their practice in order to assist in the role of public

protection, rather than detach from it. For example, the HMPPS Approach to the

Management and Rehabilitation of People Convicted of Sexual Offending (2021), outlines a

summary of 11 desistance-focussed approaches (see Figure 1) deemed useful for

practitioners in prison and probation when working with people convicted of sexual

offending.

[insert Fig 1. Approx. here]

Indeed, in a recent independent review of police-led sex offender management (Creedon,

2023), amongst the many recommendations to improve police-led practice, there were calls

for further training of police officers to develop greater desistance-focussed practice. This

report highlights that in order for people with sexual offence histories to safely reintegrate

back into the community, an approach that helps them rehabilitate must be one that is

prioritised alongside more traditional policing approaches. Our study supports the

recommendations made by Creedon (2023) and provides examples as to how MOSOVO may

Page 21 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

amend current practices to the risk assessment and home visit in order to promote

desistance focussed practice.

Page 22 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Routledge.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide Sage Publishing

Christensen, L., Rayment-McHugh, S., McKillop, N., Cairns, N., & Webster, J. (2022).

Understanding what works in the police management of child sex offenders in the

community. The Police Journal, 95(3), 508-536.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X211018791

College of Policing. (2020a). Major investigation and public protection. Introduction to

managing sexual offenders and violent offenders.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-

protection/managing-sexual-offenders-and-violent-offenders/introduction-

managing-sexual-offenders-and-violent-offenders

College of Policing. (2020b, May 19). Major investigation and public protection. Home visits.

https://www.college.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-

protection/managing-sexual-offenders-and-violent-offenders/home-visits

Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., & Beech, A. R. (2008). Assessing risk in sex offenders: A

practitioner’s guide. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Creedon, M. (2023). Independent Review into the Police-led Management of Registered Sex

Offenders in the Community: Executive Summary. Home Office.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-

sex-offender-management

Cresswell, C. (2020). ‘Why Would You Choose to Study Sex Offenders?’: Assisted Desistance

and Reintegration of Perpetrators of Sexual Harm. Irish Probation Journal, 17.

https://www.pbni.org.uk/files/pbni/2022-

06/Irish%20Probation%20Journal%20Volume%20seventeen%202020.pdf#page=65

Duncan, K., Wakeham, A., Winder, B., Blagden, N., & Armitage, R. (2022). “Grieving

someone who’s still alive, that’s hard”: The experiences of non-offending partners of

individuals who have sexually offended – an IPA study. Journal of Sexual Aggression,

28(3), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2021.2024611

English, K. (1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community

management of adult sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(1–2), 218–

235. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.4.1-2.218

Farmer, M., McAlinden, A.-M., & Maruna, S. (2015). Understanding desistance from sexual

offending A thematic review of research findings. Probation Journal, 62(4), 320–335.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550515600545

Halsey, M., Armstrong, R., & Wright, S. (2017). ‘F*ck It!’: Matza and the Mood of Fatalism in

the Desistance Process. The British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1041–1060.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw041

Harris, A. J., & Cudmore, R. (2018). Community Experience With Public Sex Offender

Registries in the United States: A National Survey. Criminal Justice Policy

Review, 29(3), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415627195

Heffernan, R., & Ward, T. (2020). Dynamic risk factors for sexual offending: Causal

considerations. Springer.

Henley, A. (2018). Mind the gap: Sentencing, rehabilitation and civic purgatory. Probation

Journal, 65(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550518776773

Page 23 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

HM Prison and Probation Service. (2021). The HMPPS approach to the management and

rehabilitation of people convicted of sexual offending

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-hmpps-approach-to-the-

management-and-rehabilitation-of-people-convicted-of-sexual-

offences#:~:text=The%20document%20sets%20out%20expectations,in%20both%20

probation%20and%20prisons.

HM Prison and Probation Service. (2023). MAPPA Guidance (updated March 2023). National

MAPPA Team HM Prison and Probation Services Public Protection Group.

https://mappa.justice.gov.uk/MAPPA/view?objectID=5682416

Kebbell, M., Alison, L., & Hurren, E. (2008). Sex offenders’ perceptions of the effectiveness

and fairness of humanity, dominance, and displaying an understanding of

cognitive distortions in police interviews: A vignette study. Psychology, crime &

law, 14(5), 435-449.

Kemshall, H. (2021). Risk and desistance: A blended approach to risk management. HM

Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights, 7.

https://golab.bsg.ox.ac.uk/documents/Academic-Insights-Kemshall.pdf

Kewley, S., Beech, A. R., Harkins, L., & Bonsall, H. (2015). Effective risk management

planning for those convicted of sexual offending. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and

Peace Research, 7(4), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/jacpr-05-2015-0171

Kewley, S., & Blandford, M. (2017). The development of the active risk management system.

Journal of Criminal Psychology, 7(3), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-10-2016-

0034

Kewley, S., & Brereton, S. (2022). Public Protection: Examining the impact of strengthened

public protection policy on probation practice. In L. Burke, N. Carr, E. Cluley, S.

Collett, & F. McNeill (Eds.), Reimagining Probation Practice. Routledge.

Kewley, S., Osman, S., & McGuinness, Á. (2020b). How well do police specialists risk assess

Registered Sexual Offenders? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 26(3), 302–315.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2019.1628315

Kewley, S., Pemberton, S., & Rahman, M. (2020a). Preventing Sexual Harm: Positive

Criminology and Sexual Abuse. Routledge.

King, S. (2014). Desistance Transitions and the Impact of Probation. Routledge.

Kras, K. R. (2019). Can Social Support Overcome the Individual and Structural Challenges of

Being a Sex Offender? Assessing the Social Support-Recidivism Link. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(1), 32–54.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x18784191

Levenson, J. S., Grady, M. D., & Leibowitz, G. (2016). Grand challenges: Social justice and the

need for evidence-based sex offender registry reform. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 43, 3.

Levins, A., & Mjåland, K. (2021). Authoritarian exclusion and laissez-faire inclusion:

Comparing the punishment of men convicted of sex offenses in England & Wales and

Norway*. Criminology, 59(3), 454–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12276

Lowe.G., & Willils,K. (2020) “Sex offender versus the person: the influence of labels on

willingness to volunteer with people who sexually offend” Journal of sexual abuse

32(5):591-613. doi: 10.1177/1079063219841904.

Page 24 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Mann, N., Devendran, P. N., & Lundrigan, S. (2021). ‘You’re never really free’: Understanding

the barriers to desistance for registered sexual offenders in the community.

Criminology & Criminal Justice, 21(2), 206-223.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819853861

Maruna, S., & Mann, R. (2019). Reconciling ‘Desistance’ and ‘What Works’. HM Inspectorate

of Probation Academic Insights 2019/1.

McNeill, F. (2019). Pervasive punishment: Making sense of mass supervision. Emerald Group

Publishing.

Ministry of Justice. (2022a). Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements—Annual Report

2021/22. [Statistics bulletin].

https://mappa.justice.gov.uk/MAPPA/view?objectID=39108432

Ministry of Justice. (2022b). Prison population 30 September 2022. Table 1.2a(i): Untried

prison population by offence group, age group and sex.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-

quarterly-april-to-june-2022

Ministry of Justice. (2022c). Prison population 30 September 2022. Table 1.2a(ii): Convicted

unsentenced prison population by offence group, age group and sex.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-

quarterly-april-to-june-2022

Ministry of Justice. (2022d). Probation: April to June 2022. Table 4.7: Offenders supervised

by the Probation Service, at end of period, under community orders and suspended

sentence orders, by offence group and sex, June 2021 to June 2022, England and

Wales. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-

quarterly-april-to-june-2022

Mullins, E., & Kirkwood, S. (2022). Co-authoring desistance narratives: Analysing interactions

in groupwork for addressing sexual offending. Criminology & Criminal Justice,

1748895819863101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819863101

Murphy, L., & Fedoroff, J. P. (2013). Sexual offenders’ views of Canadian sex offender

registries: A survey of a clinical sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,

45(3), 238-249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033251

Mydlowski, L., & Turner-Moore, R. (2023). Tensions between police training and practice for

the risk assessment of registered sex offenders in England and Wales. Journal of

Sexual Aggression, 1–14.

Napier, S., Dowling, C., Morgan, A., & Talbot, D. (2018). What impact do public sex offender

registries have on community safety?. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice,

(550), 1-20.

Nash, M. R. (2016). ‘Scum Cuddlers’: Police offender managers and the sex offenders’

https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.942855

Padfield, N. (2017). Preventive sentencing. In McCartan K & Kemshall H (Eds.),

Contemporary Sex Offender Risk Management, Volume I: Perceptions. Palgrave

Studies in Risk, Crime and Society. (pp. 89–114). Palgrave Macmillan.

Pemberton, S., Kewley, S., & Mydlowski, L. (2023). The police as formal agents of change:

Assisting desistance in individuals convicted of sexual offences. Journal of

Community Safety and Well-Being, 8(4)

Snape.N & Fido.D, (2021) Sex offender Vs people with sexual offences: putting the person

before the offence Journal of concurrent disorders doi.org/0000-0001-8454-3042

Page 25 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Thomas, T., & Marshall, D. J. (2021). The Sex Offender Register: Politics, Policy and Public

Opinion. Routledge.

Tewksbury.R & Lees.M (2006) ‘Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral

consequences & community experiences’ The Journal of Sociological Spectrum (26)

(3) 309-334

Vess, J., Day, A., Powell, M., & Graffam, J. (2011). International sex offender registration

laws: research and evaluation issues based on a review of current scientific

literature. Police Practice and Research, 15(4), 322–335.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2011.646744

Villeneuve, M.-P., F. -Dufour, I., & Farrall, S. (2021). Assisted desistance in formal settings:

scoping review. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60(1), 75–100.

https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12396

Ward, T., & Casey, A. (2010). Extending the mind into the world: A new theory of cognitive

distortions in sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(1), 49-58.

Ward.T & Gannon.T (2006) Rehabilitation, etiology, and self regulation: the comprehensive

good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders Journal of Aggression & violent

Behaviour 11 77-94

Wilson, R. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2021). What Works (or Does Not) in Community Risk

Management for Persons Convicted of Sexual Offenses? A Contemporary

Perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,

65(12), 1282–1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x18754764

Zgoba, K. M., & Mitchell, M. M. (2023). The effectiveness of sex offender registration and

notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings. Journal of Experimental

Criminology, 19, 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09480-z

Page 26 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Table 1. Participant Demographics

Force 1

Force 2

Force 3

Total

Gender

Male

Female

Age

18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

55+

Ethnicity

White British

Black

Asian

Other

Nationality

English

Scottish

Irish

Welsh

Multi-Nationality

Total number of convictions for sexual

offences*

1 conviction

2-5 convictions

6+ convictions

Total number of home visits by police**

1 home visit

2-5 home visits

6+ home visits

*relates to total number of convictions for sexual offences by all participants at the numbered force

**relates to total number of home visits by all participants at the numbered force

Page 27 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Table 2. Participant pseudonym, force, and risk level

Participant pseudonym

Force

Risk Level

Arthur

Low Risk

Jamie

Low Risk

Charles

Low Risk

Ryan

Medium Risk

Nicholas

Medium Risk

Owen

Medium Risk

Joshua

High Risk

Luca

High Risk

Cameron

High Risk

Aidan

Very High Risk

Page 28 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Figure 1

Figure. 1. The HMPPS Approach to the Management and Rehabilitation of

People Convicted of Sexual Offending (2021), Appendix 5: Promoting

Desistance (pp.53-53). *We have summarised the list of 11 items from this

guide.

11 practice factors to help promote desistance*

•Supervisors should perceive their role to be less “correctional” and

one that assists desistance

•The RSO should be recognised as a member of society, with rights

and responsibilities

•Agency and self-determination should be fostered

•Assessment should be a shared activity

•People have individual and diverse needs, supervisors should be

responsive and sensitive to these

•Agencies should facilitate the development of a positive future

self. Providing optimism and hope and supporting the

development of life plans

•Accredited programmes should be contextualised and relevant to

the individual, they must assist people’s motivation to live a life

free from crime

•Desistance must focus on increasing social capital by improving

and developing relationships with formal agents/agencies, family,

friends and the wider community

•Person centred and de-stigmatising language should be promoted

•Desistance approaches should be applied across all risk levels

•Strengths to overcome risk should be a central focus of work

Page 29 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for the time spent reading and reviewing our submitted manuscript. The feedback has

been extremely helpful, and we feel really shaped and improved the re-submission. To ease further

review, we list each reviewers’ comments in the table below along with our response to each of

these.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts and thank you again for the time taken to consider our re-

submission.

Reviewer 1

Need a stronger case for use of

qualitative approach & thematic

analysis approach.

Justify sample size and why was

sample restricted to male RSOs

Agree, we added a clearer rationale for

qualitative approach and TA has been

provided on p.8

Why sample size is restricted to adult males

is addressed on P1 under the purpose

section of the abstract and p.4 in that the

ARMS risk assessment is only for adult

males.

Justification for sample size has been added

to p.7 in that one participant for each level

of risk was selected.

In purpose section of the abstract –

be clearer that you are specifically

talking about the police role in risk

assessment of management of RSOs

Thank you, we amended this. A brief

comment has been added to the purpose

section explaining that ARMS was designed

specifically for police management of RSOs

No ‘e’ on Braun.

Methodology needs to be based on

more recent writing.

Describe TA using more recent

literature

P.8 The ‘e’ from Braun has been removed

and the methodology has now been written

based on the reflexive TA approach.

Themes have been reviewed based on the

reflexive approach.

In the introduction, the harsh

approach is outlined. Need to point

out this group have relatively low

reconviction rates compared to

other groups

Amended. Sentence has been added to

show this group have low reconviction rates

with supporting reference

It appears as if 4 principles of

procedural justice have not been

followed.

Look at research showing

detrimental impact when not

followed

Thank you for highlighting this, we have

added to P.17 to highlight this

Who in the 3 police forces agreed to

take part in the research

This has been added to sample and

recruitment to show that it was the

managing officer from each MOSOVO unit

who agreed to take part in the research.

How did the police select 10 men

(other than exclusion criteria)

A sentence has been provided to sample

and recruitment to show that the MOSOVO

manager selected RSOs that were deemed

compliant and then hand selection took

place of the compliant RSOs

Page 30 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Theme ‘but not for’ is problematic.

Theme should focus on the

perceptions of the men and clarify in

the text where there are similarities

and differences

Thank you, we reviewed our write up given

this feedback and using RTA we agreed with

the issue of all the titles, so changed them

to reflect this. This theme name has been

changed to ‘perceptions of first home visit’

on P.12 and the theme shows the

differences in level of risk of the first home

visit

Theme names – anxiety and shame

would be a good theme and

highlight when RSOs experienced

this

As above – thank you once again for

highlighting this! Theme has been changed

to ‘anxiety and shame’ and the theme

shows when the RSOs experience this.

‘Just a chat’ would be a good theme

title which focuses on interaction

between MOSOVO & RSO

focus of theme needs to be on RSOs

This is a useful suggestion but we opted for

‘perceptions of first home visit’ this keeps

the focus on RSOs perceptions of the home

visits and have highlighted RSOs quotes to

support this.

At end of findings there needs to be

a more traditional discussion that

outlines the smiliarities between

what you have found and the studies

mentioned in the intro before you

talk about strengths/limitations

Discussion has been added P.17-19

How might people outside of the UK

read this paper?

What implications might there be for

police forces and those who work

with RSOs more generally?

This is a good point, thank you for this, we

added a sentence regarding how

international countries would benefit from

this paper under strengths and limitations.

This has been highlighted – as this was a

small sample and only 3 police forces took

part.

This paper was written specifically for police

(MOSOVO) as they are the responsible

authority for carrying out ARMS and

therefore other agencies that work with

RSOs would not use ARMS and it is

therefore not necessary to make reference

to other agencies who work with RSOs.

Reviewer 2

Title – 2 parts seem separate from

each other. Rather than having a

question in the second part change

to ‘how the police integrate’

Thank you, yes we agree and the title has

now been changed. The second part reads

‘how the police integrate risk with

desistance practice’ P.1

Abstract – The specific analytical

strategy used is added to methods

rather than simply referring to Braun

& Clarke

The reference to Braun & Clarke has been

removed from the abstract and the

analytical strategy has been added to the

methods P.2

Page 31 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

Rationale – P6. Discuss more of the

research by Mydlowski & Turner

Moore and Kewley to show how this

research fills a gap in this area

Thank you for highlighting this, more detail

has been provided under the introduction in

relation to studies conducted by Kewley &

Mydlowski & Turner-Moore. P.4 & P.5

Method –

Sample and recruitment – why were

male RSOs requested specifically?

Demographic – was there any data

on sanction type?

Data collection – was the ssi

developed specifically for this study,

if so did it inform its development?

A sentence has been added under sample

and recruitment as to why only males were

selected i.e. as the ARMS assessment is

specially for adult male RSOs P.7

Unfortunately no data was collected in this

study in regards to sanction type, this would

have been really interesting. The only

demographic data that was deemed

necessary was how many visits each RSO

had been previously subjected to.

This has been added to the data collection

section to show that the SSI schedule was

developed for this study P.8

Findings & Discussion:

You say ‘we acknowledge RSOs may

have different experiences prior to

the first home visit’. Was there

anything in data to support this ie

did those in custody experience

things differently.

We made this statement in aa general

observation to reflect how it is

understandable that RSOs would view the

home visit as anxious due to the fact that

the police arrest the RSO prior to sentence

and a sentence has been added to this

effect at P.10

p.10 Line 6 – you state ‘participants

did not report examples of actions

that could be seemed disintegrative’

but did they report any specific

examples of actions that were

reintegrative

Yes, thank you for highlighting this, it gave

us the opportunity to add a quote showing

reintegration by MOSOVO which has been

placed at P.11

P12 Line 9 – high/very high

described hostile experience but the

quotes do not fully support this and

are more representative of the

attitudes of the participant as

highlighted on p.20 with Aiden.

Is there data that MOSOVO took a

more hostile approach or is this

RSO’s interpretation? If it is their

interpretation, more higher risk will

have cognitive distortions that

increase risk such as general and

social attitudes, hostile attribution

bias, dangerous world schemas and

anti authorative views which may

impact on the way they perceive visit

Thank you for this, on P.12 & P.13 a further

quote has been added to show hostility in

interview together with sentence as to how

high risk RSOs perception may be different.

Page 32 of 32Journal of Criminal Psychology

Journal of Criminal Psychology

P12. Line 53 – this is a short

standalone paragraph. Need to

make this more clearer and more

linked to the theme

Thank you, we amended this to link to the

previous paragraph and theme P.13

P4 Line 25 – Is RM2000 still used by

police?

P4.amended to confirm that RM2k is

incorporated into the ARMS assessment and

is used by police

P6 Line 32 – Use OM but elsewhere

offender manager. Be consistent

P.6 Amended to read offender manager

P3, line 51, P5 line 1 and 33 – too

long sentences and use of semi

colons.

Both of these sentences have been reduced

in order to be more concise at P.6 & P.7

Page 33 of 32 Journal of Criminal Psychology

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

Citation Title: The Police as Formal Agents of Change: Assisting Desistance in Individuals Convicted of Sexual Offences

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

Sex offender management requires more than a criminal justice response, it now requires a public health response

Tensions between police training and practice for the risk assessment of registered sex offenders in England and Wales

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023

In UK, police officers are specially trained to become Management of Sexual or Violent Offenders (MOSOVO) officers. MOSOVO officers risk assess Registered Sex Offenders during home visits. We aimed to examine the MOSOVO training and home visits, and determine whether there is an alignment between training and practice. Three police forces in UK participated. Firstly, the MOSOVO training course was observed at each force. Secondly, MOSOVO officers in each force recorded home visits over a two-week period; the authors randomly selected 12 recordings for analysis. Field notes and transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Four themes were developed: unspecialised trainers lead to distrust and disengagement; the training does not prepare officers for all types of home visit; tensions between standard police policies and MOSOVO role; police suspicion of RSOs influences home visit implementation. We provide recommendations to improve MOSOVO training and the home visit process.

“Grieving someone who’s still alive, that’s hard”: the experiences of non-offending partners of individuals who have sexually offended – an IPA study

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2022

The non-offending partners (NOPs) of individuals who have committed sexual offences face significant repercussions following the discovery of their partner’s crimes. However, NOPs support needs have typically been overlooked, with priority instead placed on equipping NOPs with the skills to monitor their partner’s behaviour and/or protect their children from sexual abuse. The present study used Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis to qualitatively explore the accounts of women whose partners had committed a sexual offence (n = 9). Results highlighted that NOPs experience multiple losses, trauma, and dramatic shifts in their identities and cognitions following the discovery of their partner’s crimes via a “knock on the door” from the police. The findings highlight NOPs post-discovery support needs and have implications for professionals and agencies working with NOPs.

The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2021
J Exp Criminol

Objectives Examine 25 years of Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) evaluations and their effects on recidivism. Methods We rely on methodology guidelines established by the Campbell Collaboration for meta-analyses to systematically synthesize results from 18 research articles including 474,640 formerly incarcerated individuals. We estimate the effect of SORN policies on recidivism from 42 effect sizes and determine if the effect of SORN varies by sexual or non-sexual recidivism when examining arrest or conviction as outcomes. Results The random-effects meta-analysis model demonstrated that SORN does not have a statistically significant impact on recidivism. This null effect exists when examining a combined model and when disaggregating studies by sexual or non-sexual offenses, or conceptualizing recidivism by arrest or conviction. Conclusions SORN policies demonstrate no effect on recidivism. This finding holds important policy implications given the extensive adoption and net-widening of penalties related to SORN.

Authoritarian exclusion and laissez‐faire inclusion: Comparing the punishment of men convicted of sex offenses in England & Wales and Norway*

Article

Full-text available

May 2021

Comparative penologists have described neoliberal and social democratic jurisdictions as though they exist at opposite ends of a continuum of inclusion and exclusion, and as though neoliberal states are inactive and social democratic states are invasive. This article, which is based on more than 129 interviews with men convicted of sex offenses in England & Wales and Norway, uses Cohen's work on inclusion and McNeill's typology of rehabilitative forms to complicate this simplistic binary. It argues that the punishment of men convicted of sex offenses in England & Wales was demanding but exclusionary; it imposed strict legal restrictions on these men during and after their imprisonment, blocking them from engaging in social and moral rehabilitation and providing a limited and treacherous route to change. In Norway, punishment operated in a way that was formally inclusionary but surprisingly laissez‐faire: Prisoners retained their legal rights during and after their incarceration, but the lack of opportunities to discuss their offending meant that their sentences were rarely experienced as meaningful, and their formal inclusion was not enough for them to feel substantially included after release.

Public Protection

Chapter

Aug 2022

What Works (or Does Not) in Community Risk Management for Persons Convicted of Sexual Offenses? A Contemporary Perspective

Article

Sep 2021

Contemporary data from the United States show that rates of sexual offending and reoffending have been in steady decline for decades. Nonetheless, nonprofessionals continue to view sexual violence as a community safety issue fraught with risk and uncertainty. The past 30 years have been witness to considerable research and practice in the assessment, treatment, and risk management of persons who have sexually offended. Gains have also been made in regard to prevention and citizen education. Modern day technologies include actuarial risk assessment instruments, measures of criminogenic need and treatment progress, refinements to treatment processes, and the establishment of evidence-based models. Legislative authorities in the United States and elsewhere have also attempted to affect risk in the community with, perhaps, lesser degrees of success. This article reviews current policies and practices, with a specific focus on what happens when offenders are released to the community (e.g., how public policies intended to track offenders and/or restrict their movements can negatively affect community reintegration). Comprehensive approaches to community sexual offender management are examined in addition to suggestions of unique approaches intended to ensure citizen buy-in and engagement.

Understanding what works in the police management of child sex offenders in the community

Article

May 2021

Police are becoming increasingly responsible for monitoring convicted child sex offenders in the community. A Rapid Evidence Assessment was undertaken to capture ‘what works’ and what ‘shows promise’ in existing and emerging, innovative policing practices. A total of 920 searches were performed across five databases, spanning the last 5 years. After removal of duplicates and those that did not meet inclusion criteria, 61 articles were analysed. Two key strategies, with sub-strategies, emerged: (1) formalised, targeted management and (2) technology-assisted management. An adapted ‘EMMIE’ framework presents the ‘effects’, the overarching ‘mechanisms’ and ‘moderators’ of success, and ‘implementation’ considerations for effective practice.

‘You’re never really free’: Understanding the barriers to desistance for registered sexual offenders in the community

Article

Apr 2021

This article explores the relationship between the current model of community sex offender management, which is underpinned by mechanism of control and enforcement, and desistance from sexual offending. Utilizing data from qualitative interviews with 20 men convicted of sexual offences, we found that while existing practices offer some reassurance to those managing the public protection arena, they do little to encourage the substantive processes of identity change which is necessary for long-term desistance. This raises important considerations for how current risk management practices may be improved to encourage desistance and community reintegration.

The Sex Offender Register

Book

Feb 2021

Registered Sex Offenders' experiences of home visits in England & Wales: Are the Police expected to integrate 'desistance' with 'risk'?

Figures

Recommended publications

‘Scum Cuddlers’: police offender managers and the sex offenders' register in England and Wales

Tensions between police training and practice for the risk assessment of registered sex offenders in...

The police as formal agents of change: Assisting desistance in individuals convicted of sexual offen...

How well do police specialists risk assess registered sexual offenders?

Policing Registered Sex Offenders