1. Executive summary
1.1 This Instruction introduces the arrangements for implementing the Active Risk Management System (ARMS), including the arrangements required for training. ARMS provides a framework for working with all male sexual offenders who are subject to statutory supervision. It is not in itself a risk assessment tool but will aid the assessment of dynamic risk and protective factors. For low risk of re offending sexual offenders, the use of ARMS will assist in identifying work that should be carried out using the ‘Maps for Change’ tool-kit. It should be noted however, that Maps for Change is not in any way intended to take the place of an accredited programme. In addition, where it is used with an offender whose risk is assessed as either medium, high or very high then the offender manager should liaise with the Sex Offender Programme Treatment Manager in order to make sure that there is no repetition of work and that sequencing of work is taken into consideration.
Background
1.2 There is currently no approved structured framework for working with male sexual offenders within the National Probation Service, where most sexual offenders are managed. In addition, there is no approved provision for low risk of reoffending sexual offenders and those who are deemed to be unsuitable for accredited treatment programmes for other reasons. ARMS will therefore provide the means for offender managers to structure the work they do with this group of offenders and this will enhance the completion of OASys risk management plans and sentence plans.
1.3 ARMS will not replace any other nationally recognised risk assessment tool. It will however, assist in the assessment of dynamic risk.
1.4 There has been a pilot of ARMS in two (former) Probation Trusts and within two police areas - Lancashire and Cheshire Probation Trusts; and Staffordshire and West Midlands and Humberside Constabularies. The Probation pilot involved approximately 40 sexual offenders. The results of the pilot were positive, and offender managers who were involved have stated that they found it useful in terms of providing structure to supervision and aiding the identification of dynamic risk factors and protective factors that could then be addressed and included in risk management plans. As a result of the positive results of the pilot within police areas, all police forces are now implementing ARMS.
Desired outcomes
1.5 The desired outcome is that ARMS will be used with all male sexual offenders who are subject to statutory supervision by the National Probation Service.
1.6 For low risk of reoffending offenders it will aid the identification of “protective factors” that can be addressed utilising the ‘Maps for Change’ tool kit that is provided as an annex to this PI.
1.7 There are currently 3 National Trainers who are approved to deliver ‘train the trainer’ events for ARMS. The intention is for the National Trainers to train (in train the trainer) a number of staff from the NOMS training unit and a sufficient number of offender managers who are experienced in working with sexual offenders from within the NPS, to train all NPS suitably experienced offender managers.
1.8 Within 6 months of the NPS offender managers having completed their training, it will be mandatory to use ARMS as the framework for supervision on all new sex offender licence and community order cases and those that have commenced supervision in the last 6 months. More specifically, at commencement of a Community Order and at the point ofrelease for a licence. It can also be used on cases where the offence had a sexual element, but where the offender was not actually charged with a sexual offence. For all other cases, it is best practice and encouraged, but not mandatory to use ARMS. The National Trainers and trainers from NOMS will support the suitably experienced offender managers in cascading the training within each Probation Division.
Application
1.9 Deputy Directors in the NPS should be familiar with the implementation arrangements for ARMS and so will ensure that a suitable number of suitably experienced offender managers are made available to attend the train the trainer events and that all offender managers within each NPS Division attend an ARMS training event.
1.10 Local Delivery Unit (LDU) Heads should familiarise themselves with the contents of this PI to make sure that they identify suitably experienced staff for train the trainer training at the direction of the Deputy Directors within the required time frames.
1.11 NPS Senior Probation Officers supervising suitably experienced offender managers, supervising sexual offenders should be familiar with this PI so that they are aware of the requirement for them to attend ARMS training and use the framework when supervising all new sexual offender cases. Senior Probation Officers and suitably experienced managers should also make themselves familiar with the operational guidance notes and the Maps for Change – a tool kit for working with low risk of re offending sexual offenders (see Appendix 2 at the end of this document).
Mandatory actions
1.12 Managers in the National Probation Service must ensure that their staff are aware of, and comply with the following mandatory requirements below:
- Deputy Directors in each of the Probation Divisions must identify and make available 2 suitably experienced offender managers who will attend the two day ARMS training followed by the two day train the trainer event.
- Each Probation Division must plan a schedule of training events in collaboration with the NOMS training unit to ensure that ARMS is rolled out to all suitably experienced offender managers in the NPS by the end of February 2016 All suitably experienced offender managers in NPS Divisions must attend and complete ARMS training.
- Once trained in the use of ARMS all suitably experienced offender managers must use the framework in supervision with all new community order cases of male sexual offenders and those who have commenced supervision within the 6 months from when the offender manager is trained. Regarding those sexual offenders on licence, it must be used on all new cases and on existing cases that have commenced within the last six months of the offender manager completing the training and where the licence lasts for more than 12 months.
- Suitably experienced offender managers must complete the training within 6 months of the train the trainer event having taken place.
Resource Impact
1.13 There are no capital costs associated with the implementation of ARMS. It will provide structure to the supervision that is currently undertaken with sexual offenders. Although it may take longer to complete ARMS in the early stages, over time it will not. Evidence from the pilot provides evidence for this assertion. The only human resource impact is that of releasing staff to complete the training.
Digby Griffith
Director National Operational Services, NOMS
--oo00oo--
That last point certainly doesn't seem to be conceded by Pat Waterman, London Napo branch Chair. This from Facebook:-
"Meanwhile its business as usual in the NPS. Too much work and not enough staff to do it. I understand that Sara Robinson is making a Business Case to NOMS for extra resources and yesterday at the NPS JCC we brought to Senior Management's attention the extra work that will be required of members as a result of the introduction of ARMS. The E3 project rumbles on and it is expected that they will be issuing a “Blueprint” within the next couple of months. We await this with interest!"
Digby Griffith
Director National Operational Services, NOMS
--oo00oo--
That last point certainly doesn't seem to be conceded by Pat Waterman, London Napo branch Chair. This from Facebook:-
"Meanwhile its business as usual in the NPS. Too much work and not enough staff to do it. I understand that Sara Robinson is making a Business Case to NOMS for extra resources and yesterday at the NPS JCC we brought to Senior Management's attention the extra work that will be required of members as a result of the introduction of ARMS. The E3 project rumbles on and it is expected that they will be issuing a “Blueprint” within the next couple of months. We await this with interest!"
"1.13 There are no capital costs associated with the implementation of ARMS. It will provide structure to the supervision that is currently undertaken with sexual offenders. Although it may take longer to complete ARMS in the early stages, over time it will not. Evidence from the pilot provides evidence for this assertion."
ReplyDeleteNo capital costs? So which magnanimous soul devised, accredited & donated ARMS?
Provide structure? Obviously there was no structure there before.
It will get quicker over time? That was the lie with which they sold Oasys.
As per a post in yesterday's blog comments, "Risk" is a lucrative business. Who came up with ARMS? How much has it cost NPS to buy in? How much is it REALLY costing in software, paperwork, training? Presumably all hidden behind the curtain of "commercial sensitivity"?
Oasys; Sarn; Ogrs; Ovp; Ogp; Rm2000; Arms; Legs; & Bumpsadaisy.
Just when we thought we might finally reveal the Great Oz, the curtain is held firmly shut. A FoI request earlier this year was refused on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. Link here:
Deletehttps://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/active_risk_management_system
For those with time to spare, here's some published research by the ARMS team:
Deletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/308159/sex-offender-management-and-dynamic-risk.pdf
The only human resource impact is the training !!!!! No it's not it's duplication and will not get quicker over time
DeleteDear Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx
DeleteThank you for your email of 26th February 2015, in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
‘Documents and publications, (in digital format via email, or web-links to) training manuals, forms etc. that concern the following:
Sex Offender Management and Dynamic Risk:
Active Risk Management System (ARMS)’
Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
I am unable to confirm that the department holds the information you require as it is not clear from your request which specific ARMS related documents you are referring to. In the first instance I would therefore ask that you provide clarification as to what information you require. Secondly, I need to inform you that it is the intention of NOMS and the police, who have jointly developed ARMS, to withhold un-published information relating to ARMS on commercial grounds
We are not obliged to provide information relating to commercial interests. In this case, we believe that the information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of the department who holds it (section 43(2) of the Act).
In line with the terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, we have also considered whether it would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information, despite the exemption being applicable. In this case, we have concluded that the public interest favours withholding the information.
You can find out more about Section 43 by reading the extract from the Act and some guidance points we consider when applying this exemption, attached at the end of this letter.
You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act, available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/43
When assessing whether or not it was in the public interest to disclose the information to you, we took into account the following factors:
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
• It would provide reassurance to the public by explaining what systems and evidence base are used to support effective management of sex offenders.
• It would assist other organisations in their development and research of sex offender risk management tools.
• It would support the underlying intentions within ARMS to be used as an open assessment process with sex offenders
Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information
• Releasing information that would enable other organisations to use ARMS would undermine the future commercial interests of the department
• Releasing information could enable other organisations to use a version of ARMS that is not recommended or supported by the developers and therefore less effective.
• Releasing information about ARMS, (i.e. assessment tools), outside of the recommended training process and framework could undermine the effectiveness of ARMS training and therefore undermine the effectiveness of the ARMS tool.
We reached the view that, on balance, the public interest is better served by withholding this information under Section 43 (2) of the Act at this time.
It would be helpful therefore if you could clarify what specific information relating to ARMS you request access to. This will enable the department to consider whether any of this information falls outside of our stated commercial interest concerns and can be shared.
You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details can be found in the ‘How to Appeal’ section attached at the end of this letter.
Disclosure Log
You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/series/freedom-of-information-disclosure-log
Yours sincerely
Phil Jarvis
Dear Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx,
DeleteThank you for your response in respect to our reply for FoI Case Number 96258.
Section 43(2) exempts information, disclosure of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person. Section 43(2) is a prejudice-based exemption, so the test for exemption is whether or not the commercial interests referred to in the section would, or would be likely to, be prejudiced by disclosure.
'Commercial' can be taken to mean relating to an activity in the way of a business, trade or profession. Again, the exemption is (expressly) capable of applying not only to the commercial interests of outside organisations, but also to a public authority's own commercial interests. When it comes to considering a public authority's own interests, a range of circumstances may be relevant, including the authority's position in the market place both as a purchaser and as a supplier. However, the prejudice to the commercial interests of a public authority must be contrasted with prejudice to other interests such as the body's political or other non-commercial reputational interests, which are not protected by this exemption.
Your request was considered and advice was taken from our Data Access and Compliance Unit colleagues. However, in this case it was deemed after thorough consideration that the information being requested as per the reasons outlined in my letter was exempt from disclosure under Section 43(2).
In line with the terms of this exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, we have also considered whether it would be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information, despite the exemption being applicable. In this case, we have concluded that the public interest favours withholding the information. The Public Interest Test reasons are outlined in my letter.
As my letter illustrated, if you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to an internal review. The handling of your request will be looked at by someone who was not responsible for the original case, and they will make a decision as to whether we answered your request correctly.
If you would like to request a review, please write or send an email within two months of the date of this e mail to the Data Access and Compliance Unit at the
following address:
Data Access and Compliance Unit (10.34),
Information & Communications Directorate,
Ministry of Justice,
102 Petty France,
London
SW1H 9AJ
Kind regards,
Phil Jarvis
Senior Probation Officer - Sex Offender Team
From an appended sheet to the ARMS directive:
ReplyDelete"ARMS = Active Risk Management System. ‘Active’ in the sense that it focuses on information that is currently evident in an ‘offenders life’, and a ‘Risk Management System’ in the sense that it enables the assessor to recognise, prioritise and organise information into a framework that assists risk management planning.
ARMS is based on evidence based, contemporary thinking and the 11 factors under which information is gathered have been carefully selected by a team of experts using cross validated research based findings. We have deliberately avoided using terms like ‘risk assessment tool’ or ‘ARMS risk level’ when referring to ARMS, as the research evidence is still awaited to help us ‘weight’ certain factors against others."
Oasys has 13 cumbersome 'factors', whereas ARMS is slimmed down to just 11 (but you have to do oasys, sarn, sara, etc as well). And ARMS is contemporary... so contemporary, indeed, that the research evidence isn't available yet.
Good to see the snake oil sales team have saddled up & are back on the road peddling their wares. "YeeHah!! There's gold in that thar Noms."
Arms - -Another Retrograde Machiavelian Setup!
ReplyDeleteNO PREVIOUS STRUCTURED SYSTEM?? DTV had Accredited Citizenship Programme specifically for working with sex offenders ...truth? It's how you tell it...everything gets rephrased/reframed and someone keeps getting PAID for reinventing the wheel. Shhh here's my prediction for NOMS next pronouncement I think someone is going to invent a service and call it PROBATION!!!
ReplyDeleteSome police officers in Lancashire have commented on the amount of time required to complete one of these.......it's not the magic bullet they're trying to sell it as...........
ReplyDeleteIt was obviously invented for the Police SOM's.
Deletewe get a mention on Corrie tonight! Norris Cole said 'I don't know what's the matter with the Criminal Justice system these days, it's not fit for purpose'.!!!!
ReplyDeleteBritain has paid in full a £1.7billion European Union surcharge that David Cameron described as ‘appalling’ and that he was ‘downright angry’ about and said the British public would find the ‘vast sum ‘totally unacceptable’ when the EU revised membership contributions last October.
ReplyDeleteBut the European Commission has revealed that Britain has now ‘paid the amount due’ and all done nice and quietly so as to cause the least amount of embarrassment as possible.
The EU made the massive demand after recalculating the income of member states dating back almost 20 years in a desperate attempt to garner more cash in their ailing collective economies.
A fortnight after the bill was revealed, Chancellor George Osborne even claimed to have halved it at negotiations in Brussels. He declared Britain would pay just £850 million, telling reporters: ‘We have halved the bill … it’s a result for Britain’ – but hadn’t.
Just to prove how carefully Noms/MoJ are listening to advice from their own experts, this from the pilot evaluation document: "Officers suggested that trainers should continue to be external experts in ARMS, rather than cascading training delivery to local officers. Officers appreciated that the expert trainers were able to answer all their questions, and perceived external experts as more credible than non-expert trainers. They also felt that ensuring delivery of a consistent message across different implementation areas was important, and that the use of external experts would make this more likely."
ReplyDeleteThis from the Noms directive: "1.10 Local Delivery Unit (LDU) Heads should familiarise themselves with the contents of this PI to make sure that they identify suitably experienced staff for train the trainer training... 1.12 Deputy Directors in each of the Probation Divisions must identify and make available 2 suitably experienced offender managers who will attend the two day ARMS training followed by the two day train the trainer event."
My question when I go to the training next week will be...if the police are already doing these on the same offenders, and I know they are, won't we be duplicating this work? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteRead the PI
DeleteWhen do you propose I find the time to do so? I'm a bit busy. And, if you have then why didn't you enlighten me instead of being so rude?
Delete07:44 brace yourself, I hear ARM's are hanging off after doing the long hand written exam at the end......
ReplyDeleteRegarding the various comments written about ARMS and it's implementation on this blog; the following comments are made in attempt to correct the various misconceptions and inaccuracies.
ReplyDeleteAnon 21.9 15 no capital costs
There are no capital costs because ARMS was developed and is owned by NOMS and the police
ARMS provides structure
There was previously no formal structure for supervision for sexual offenders. ARMS does provide structure that is based on evidence based risk and protective factors.
It will get quicker over time.
ARMS was piloted in the NPS and feedback from those involved was positive. Those using ARMS in the pilot stated that it did get quicker over time.
Cost
There is no specific software for ARMS other than a WOrd to late. Information from the template can be copied and pasted into OASys
There is a cost in terms of training but this is human resource and not additional cash cost
Misconceptions continued
ReplyDeleteARMS is intended to provide structure to the supervision of sexual offenders. In part ARMS has been implemented in response to the requests from Probation staff for more guidance on how to supervise sexual offenders, particularly those not attending programs
Refusal of NOMS to an FOI on grounds of commercial sensitivity
NOMS jointly developed and owns ARMS with the police. As such it has a responsibility to handle its own intellectual materials in a commercially sensitive manner
The only ham resource impact is training 'no it's not'
ARMS is a dynamic risk management system that also considers protective factors. It does not replace or duplicate any other structure for working with sexual offenders.it aids risk assessment and management and covers the factors that should be addressed based on evidence. The information can be copied and pasted onto OASys. ARMS was piloted by Probation staff prior to implementation and those involved said it does get quicker over time. ARMS can be completed at the pace of the offender
ARMS is based on evidence
ARMS is based on the evidence and research on desistance. There are a number of published papers;
Protective Factors. Robbe M a preview of Protective Factors supporting disks trance from sexual offending
An Exploration of Protextive Factors supporting dis instance from Offending Mann R. Robbe M . Thornton D. Marianna S.
Understanding Desistance from Offending. A thematic review of Research findings. farmer M. Marunma S. McAlinden A M
There is also a paper published on EPIC the Probation website
ARMS is a framework for supervision and does not duplicate OASys or SARN
No previous structures system
There was preciously no structured and approved framework
For supervision for working with sexual offenders prior to ARMS
Police Officers in Cumbria coents about the time ARMS takes to complete
The NPS will use ARMS differently to the police in that it will be used as the framework for supervision. It can be completed at the pace of the offender. It will not replace any other risk assessment tool for this group of offenders but will enhance risk assessment and management
It was obviously invented for the police SOMs
aRMS was jointly developed by NOMS and the police. The development team included Probation staff experienced in sex offender work, police officers and a psychologist. It has been approved by the Sex Offender Board that is made up of Probation staff, Probation staff seconded to NOMS, psychologists and other civil servants including those fr interventions.
Just to prove how carefully NOM/MoJ are listening to advice from their own experts (regarding training)
The national training team have trained suitably experienced Probation staff to deliver ARMS training. The national team is available to those who it trained for ongoing issues and consultation
If the police are already doing these assessments on the same offenders ( which I know they are) won't we be duplicating work
The NPS will be responsible for completing ARMS on those offenders for which it has statutory responsibility for and the police will not be completing ARMS on those cases going forward.