Visiting Elliot

Launched in November 2014, ‘Visiting Elliot’ is for all agencies involved in the supervision and management of offenders and is a key training tool for assessing risk.

Based on a partnership between University of Kent, Kent Police and Kent Probation Service ‘Visiting Elliot’ is set around a home visit to a sex offender just released on licence.  It provides opportunity to identify and then analyse risk factors in Elliot’s life.  Official documents are studied during the simulation and can be used individually or discussed  in groups. At the end of the session, detailed answers are provided to promote reflective learning.

Specific outcomes for participants from law enforcement:

• Learn about notification requirements and civil orders
• Develop an understanding of the importance of multi-agency working in relation to managing risk in the community
• Gain an overview about child safeguarding
• Learn about how and when to make a disclosure as well as what to disclose
• Learn about powers of entry
• Develop an understanding about rapport building and the risk of grooming
• Learn about risk assessment tools

Specific outcomes for participants from probation services:

• Gain an understanding of how to undertake an initial home visit on a sexual offender following release from prison
• Develop an awareness of how to identify potential risk issues during a home visit
• Learn appropriate strategies for discussion and managing licence conditions, SOPO conditions and other restrictive requirements
• Gain an overview of strategies to engage with and manage sexual offenders in the community
• Gain an overview of the motivation of sexual offenders

Other useful sources of information:

Sex offender typologies:

• Miller, L. (2013). Sexual offenses against children: Patterns and motives. Aggression and Violent Behavior,18(5), 506-519.
  • Differentiates between paedophilia, ephebophilia and hebephilia. Lists typologies of paedophiles based on Holmes and Holmes (1996): situational child molester (subsets regressed, morally indiscriminate, sexually indiscriminate and naïve/inadequate) and preferential child molester (subsets seductive, fixated, and sadistic paedophile). Lists typologies of those who collect child pornography: those who seek out child pornography out of curiosity but are unlikely to contact offend; those who do contact offend and use child pornography for sexual gratification; and those who distribute child pornography for profit and may create their own to distribute. Discusses link between possession of pornography and likelihood of contact offending and briefly talks about online grooming. Lists typologies of female paedophiles. Discusses some institutionalised offending (e.g. in the clergy). Discusses causes of paedophilia in terms of psychodynamics, neuropsychology, and evolutionary psychology. Finally discusses what should be done with paedophiles and offenders in terms of the law.
• Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508-518.
  • More generic list of typologies including many other types of sex offenders. Includes sections of child molesters and ‘cyber offenders’. Differentiates between fixed and regressed child sex offenders in terms of motivation, victim preference and risk of reoffending, but also discusses other possible typologies. Cyber offenders are defined as those who: use the internet to access child pornography, solicit children online, and/or send sexually explicit material to children. They may be: collectors, travellers, manufacturers or Travellers and chatters are most likely to groom potential victims online for a real-life meeting.
• Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2013). A criminal careers typology of child sexual abusers.Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment, 1079063213503689.
  • An alternative typology of sex offenders in terms of persistence (frequency of offending over time) and versatility (how many kind of offences they commit) of offenders, created from the results of a study of 213 adult male offenders. The resulting categories are discussed in terms of the characteristics each group generally displayed and the percentage of participants who fit them.

Role of the police and managing sex offenders:

• Hudson, K., Taylor, C., & Henley, A. (2014). Trends in the management of registered sexual offenders across England and Wales: a geographical approach to the study of sexual offending.Journal of Sexual Aggression, (ahead-of-print), 1-15.
  • Describes the multi-agency approach to managing RSOs in the UK and the level of agency involvement at different ‘risk levels’ of RSOs. Contains graphs showing the distribution of RSOs at different risk levels in the UK and how this has changed over time.
• Kemshall, H., & Maguire, M. (2001). Public Protection, Partnership and Risk Penality The Multi-Agency Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders. Punishment & society,3(2), 237-264.
  • Describes the multi-agency approach and also discusses the findings of 147 interviews with police officers, probationary staff, social workers, prison workers and psychiatrists, amongst others, about the effectiveness of the current system.
• Lieb, R., Kemshall, H., & Thomas, T. (2011). Post-release controls for sex offenders in the US and UK.International journal of law and psychiatry, 34(3), 226-232.
  • A comparison of the management of sex offenders in the UK and the US and the consequences for recidivism and other factors, particularly in terms of the effectiveness and risk of public disclosure laws like Megan’s Law.
• Nash, M. R. (2014). ‘Scum Cuddlers’: police offender managers and the sex offenders’ register in England and Wales.Policing and Society, (ahead-of-print), 1-17.
  • The results of several interviews with police officers who manage offenders regarding their experiences and their roles in relation to the RSOs they manage, information about home visits also.

Sex offenders in the community:

• Brown, S., Deakin, J., & Spencer, J. (2008). What people think about the management of sex offenders in the community.The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(3), 259-274.
  • A study gauging the public attitude towards reintegration of sex offenders into the community, with statistics and qualitative comments.
• Burchfield, K. B., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in My Neighborhood Assessing Registered Sex Offenders’ Experiences With Local Social Capital and Social Control.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 356-374.
  • A US-based study consisting of interviews with sex offenders to find out what difficulties notification laws like Megan’s Law and other restrictions have had on reintegration.
• Lasher, M. P., & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notification on sex offender reintegration: a quantitative review of the research literature. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology,56(1), 6-28.
  • A literature review looking at the effect that notification laws have on reintegration – both positive and negative.
• Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration.Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193-208.
  • A study looking at the effect that notification laws have on recidivism – no relationship either way found.