{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014729299363057325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035828025477707007, 'mean_word_length': 5.3944020356234095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The management of sexual offenders in the community

Given the significant impact many sexual offences have on the victims of such crimes, there is much concern amongst the general public over the risks presented by individuals convicted of sexual offences. HMI Probation and HMI Constabulary have carried out a joint inspection into the way such individuals are managed in the community, arguing that it is important for the agencies involved to strike a balance between the restrictive and rehabilitative options. Restriction and Rehabilitation: Getting the Right Mix (HMI Probation and HMI Constabulary, 2010) reports on the inspection which considered 74 probation records and 62 of the corresponding police records across six probation trusts and police forces. The report summary notes that many examples of good practice by both police and probation were identified during the inspection, particularly in relation to the use of restrictive interventions. However, a number of areas for improvement were identified that fell broadly into the three areas of engagement, communication and the management of Multi-agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Level 1 cases. With regards to engagement, concerns were expressed over the long waiting times experienced by individuals before commencing Sex Offender Treatment Programmes (SOTPs), and the fact that in nearly half of the suitable cases the necessary pre-programme work had not been completed. The report notes that whilst all supervising officers are expected to be able to manage individuals convicted of sexual offences, it appeared that allocations did not take into account the confidence and competence of individual practitioners, with over half of probation staff interviewed feeling ill equipped to do the work. The inspectors recommend that further guidance be provided to staff in this regard, particularly in relation to working with individuals not required to attend an SOTP. Concerns were also raised over the high caseload levels in some probation areas that undermined any hope of effective work given the complexities involved in working with such cases. Communication between police and probation was generally adequate, but the restrictions placed on probation staff’s ability to access the Violent and Sexual Offender Register (ViSOR) made this more difficult than was necessary. The inspection identified a lack of clarity in relation to the use of the term ‘risk’, with a general The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice