A response to Steve Myers’ article Entitled ‘(De)Constructing the Risk Categories in the AIM Assessment Model for Children with Sexually Harmful Behaviours

Abstract

As two of the constructors (B.P. and J.H.) and the evaluators (A.B. and H.G.) of the original Adolescent Intervention Model (AIM) model (Print and others, 2001), we are pleased to have this opportunity given to us by the editors of Children & Society to comment upon Steve Myers' critique of the AIM assessment model in issue 21.5 of the journal (Myers, 2007). Myers takes issue with the AIM model at a number of levels, and we welcome the opportunity to take part in an open debate about the importance of assessment of young sexual abusers, given the potentially harmful effects upon victims and the wider society if assessment is not as good as it should be. We have limited our response to the following areas: (1) where we feel we have common ground with Myers; (2) where we acknowledge that his comments on the model are useful; and (3) where he makes comments about the model with which we fundamentally disagree.First we will briefly sketch out what the AIM assessment is, the history of its development, the work that has been carried out examining its usefulness (Griffin and Beech, 2004;Myers, 2002) and the revision of the model (AIM2) published earlier this year (Print and others, 2007). Aim backgroundThe AIM assessment model was introduced in 2001 across Greater Manchester, as a response to the fact that professionals in relevant agencies needed an assessment tool guided by research and based on clinical judgement, to inform decisions they were making about young people who displayed sexually harmful behaviour. It was the first attempt in the UK to provide an inter-disciplinary and holistic model for the initial assessment of young people