Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism
2. MEGA – Multiplex Empirically Guided inventory of ecological Aggregates for assessing sexually abusive children and adolescents
3. G-MAP Framework
4. AIM2 Model of Initial Assessment
Empirically guided checklist designed to assist practitioners to estimate the short –term risk of sexual offending
MEGA is a risk assessment tool which attempts to define sexually abusive youth, assess and estimate risk for sexually abusive behaviour, guide treatment planning and make evaluations of the young person over time for improvement. MEGA is in the process of being cross validated.
A guide for comprehensive assessment and individual work with a young person who has sexually harmed based on the “good lives model” by Tony Ward.
An initial evidenced based tool that considers both the level of supervision that is required for an individual and their developmental and intervention needs.
For individuals aged 12 -18 who have previously committed a sexual offence
For all individuals under the age of 19 irrespective of gender or developmental ability. Caution should be used when using this tool to assess the under 12’s, making sure to be mindful of age and stage of development.
When there are concerns about the young person’s (age up to 18) sexual behaviour. Can be used with females but might need to be adapted slightly. Young person does not have to have been charged with a sexual offence.
AIM2 should be used only after it has been established that the young person has sexually harmed. It is only for young men of mainstream educational ability aged between 12 and 18 years.
ERASOR provides a detailed manual of coding instructions for 25 risk factors (16 dynamic and 9 static) falling into five categories.
1. Sexual Interests, attitudes and behaviours
2. Historical sexual assaults.
3. Psychosocial functioning
MEGA uses 7 ecological domains measuring risk and protective factors and their relationship to sexual risk of recidivism. It attempts to consider the interaction between each of the 7 domains in order to formulate an understanding of sexual risk.
GMAP provides a framework in which practitioners can construct an individual programme to suit the young person’s needs. Requires 16 weeks for a comprehensive assessment in order to build a broad based understanding of the young person. The four assessment domains are
1. Offence Specific
The AIM2 model uses “level of supervision” in order to differentiate those who scores indicate they are (based on research) most likely to commit further abuse from those who are less likely. This model seeks to identify an individuals needs through a number of static and dynamic factors. A focus of intervention based around the dynamic factors scored will seek to lower the young persons presenting risk.
Assessment relies largely on dynamic factors that are amenable to change. The level of risk should be assessed either with the passage of time (No more than a year) or the emergence of a significant development in the adolescents’ life.
This assessment tool can be used when the young person is first convicted of an offence in order to quickly establish the level of risk. After more information becomes available about the young person the tool can be used again to re-assess.
Ongoing review of progress throughout the assessment
Depending on the young persons circumstances the assessment can be redone after 6 months. If there are no significant developments then re assessment is recommended after 12 months.
The ERASOR identifies factors that make it more likely that a young person will commit a sexual offence. These factors should then become a target for interventions in order to reduce this likelihood.
The authors of this tool consider it important to arrive at a definition of harmful sexual behaviour. Comprehensive assessment of sexually abusive youth is dependant on having specific inclusive definitional criteria to identify what is being assessed. It is important to have a protocol that does not assume that characteristics of adult sex offenders will be reflective of sexually abusive youth.
After 16 weeks the assessment should provide the practitioner with a guide for future areas of work. Strengths in each of the domains should also be considered.
A particular benefit of this model is its scope to identify an individuals needs. Targeting those areas which have scored highly ensures that any intervention undertaken is getting to the root of the problem. Whilst it is recognised that this model is an “initial assessment” it should be noted that interventions with young people can take some considerable time, in some cases up to 2 years.