”If the police don’t conduct a risk assessment, how do they identify an offender’s risk factors and determine their supervision?” During my research stay in the UK, I was often asked this question when explaining how the Danish police supervise sex offenders.

In Denmark, police supervision of sex offenders is a relatively recent practice. Since 2020, the police have been tasked with ensuring that sex offenders comply with restraining orders imposed following convictions for child sexual abuse. Before its implementation, the National Police emphasized that this was an entirely new responsibility—distinct from traditional law enforcement duties—and recognized the need to develop experience and specialized expertise in supervising sex offenders.

In contrast, in the UK, specialized police units, known as Sex Offender Management Units, have managed sex offenders since the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, giving them decades more experience than their Danish counterparts. During my research stay, I had the privilege of gaining invaluable firsthand insight into their practice by shadowing DCI Katie Allen of the Sex Offender Management Unit at Cheshire Police and her colleagues as they delivered specialized training for new sex offender managers. In February 2025, the unit was graded as outstanding by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services for its work in protecting vulnerable people and managing offenders, solidifying its status as a model of best practice.

A key focus of this training is risk assessment and management, and DCI Katie Allen explains why this is fundamental to her unit:

“Comprehensive training in risk assessment and management is essential for our sex offender managers, ensuring they are fully equipped to identify and respond to threats within the community. A thorough risk assessment enables them to pinpoint individuals most likely to cause significant harm and take effective action. […] Our training also provides the managers with specialized skills to address and disrupt offending behavior. This ensures they not only assess and prioritize risk accurately but also intervene strategically to mitigate potential harm.”

Assessing a sex offender’s risk involves evaluating factors such as sexual preoccupation, deviant interests, emotional congruence with children, self-management, and hostility, alongside protective factors like intimate relationships, stable employment, and structured routines.

Based on this assessment, the sex offender manager develops an individualized risk management plan, integrating targeted strategies to mitigate risk. These strategies combine overt and covert policing tactics, ensuring a proactive and adaptable approach.

This highlights a fundamental difference between the Danish and UK models. In Denmark, supervision is primarily—though not solely—about controlling whether convicted sex offenders comply with an imposed restraining order, making it reactive in nature. Meanwhile, sex offender management in the UK takes a more proactive approach, employing individualized, risk-based strategies to anticipate and mitigate potential risks before they cause harm.

Although the Sex Offender Management Unit in the UK has access to a broader range of strategies and tools—some of which may not fully align with Danish rule-of-law principles—there is still much to learn from its highly experienced and specialized sex offender managers. I return from my research stay in the UK with valuable insights from their approach.

I am deeply grateful to the Nordic Council of Criminology, among others, for their generous support of my research stay in the UK. I also extend my special thanks to DCI Katie Allen and her colleagues for providing me with invaluable and unique insight into their work.

---

About the author