The overt and covert definitions of sexual offending continue to evolve within communities due to the fact that definitions are culturally and legally informed. The definition of sexual offending in communities is informed by the deviation of accepted sexual scripts within that community. Accepted sexual scripts structure and inform discussions and beliefs about sexual behavior and influences the vocabulary of policies and the expectations of the interventions of practitioners. For example, while there is a well-established body of research highlighting the benefits of rehabilitative and strengths-based approaches [see 17] in the Western sphere, this is less well received in remote communities which can be polarized towards punishment [18•]. It is therefore not uncommon for people to act as “vigilantes,” taking matters into their own hands to exact what they view as appropriate justice in an effort to safeguard the community. In some Caribbean islands, public opinions to “chop it off” (colloquial reference to surgical castration) or “show their face” (make the offender’s identity publicly known) are rife and illustrate the strong emotional charge that sexual offending evokes at a societal level due to the harm it inflicts on both the victim and community. Such offences are seen as a marked deviation from the carefully and conscientiously developed bonds that create a sense of safety within communities, which are even more intimate within small and remote communities [19•].

Importantly, one intention of structured risk assessment is to reduce the risk of emotional and subjective charge from influencing the assessment and management of sexual offending [20•]. Risk assessments are also completed within the wider framework of government policy and the organizational frame of reference which informs how structured risk assessments are applied by practitioners. The balance of these elements in remote communities, including community definitions of sexual offending, a lack of appropriately normed structured risk assessments, and governmental policy, can be a challenge to practitioners. Therefore, managing sexual offending risk in small, remote, and non-normed communities requires a high level of clinical skill in risk assessment alongside a high level of cultural competence and clinically informed professional creativity.

To illustrate this, consider practicing as a clinician in 2014 in St. Helena Island, the British Overseas Territory, considered to be one of the most remote countries in the world. This period is known to be the time of the “Sasha Wass inquiry,” initiated by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office [21] following reports that the island was a “sanctuary for paedophiles” [22, p. 4]. A professional report by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation published that there were “problems relating to premature sexual activity with teenage girls…… some of which were clearly abusive and exploitative”; and that “the grooming of girls in their early teenage years by older men was a significant issue which needs comprehensive attention” [23, p. 2]. The island, though, has no known records of stranger rape. The culture of the community organizes and influences how sexual offending is defined and prosecuted.

The question arises, how does a practitioner assess the risk of sexual offending based on structured risk assessment? What are the risks, mitigating, and protective factors to be considered as a practitioner here? How would these be explored in such a political climate on an island with 5000 people where a disruption in relationships can directly impact on families’ livelihoods?

The on-going challenge is that practitioners are, at times, mandated or expected to use standardized risk assessment tools to protect organizational and professional integrity. This is also due to the fact that the practice of risk assessment is naturally integrated within mental health and forensic management policies, and this directly and indirectly influences how risk assessments are informed and processed. Generally, policies prefer standardized measures.

As is well known, standardized tests are normed to be considered “best practice,” but the process is facilitated within a sample of test-takers who are representative of the population for whom the test is intended [24]. Practitioners in remote, non-normed communities have to reflect on whether a measure that is normed in, say, a metropolitan London can be representative of an adult male sexual offender population in an island of about 5000 people of which 2000 are male and 1000 are adult men.

Even within comparisons between urban communities, due concern has been raised. Boccaccian et al. [25] conducted a field study of the Static-99R, the most widely used approach to sex offender risk assessment. The research was conducted in Texas with a sample of 37,687 convicted sexual offenders. The researchers concluded that the “Static-99R routine sample norms led to significant overestimation of risk.”

To manage this significant problem with structured risk assessments in remote communities, practitioners may have to adopt a social justice approach to risk assessments and management. This refers to a clinically informed, evidence-based, professional, and creative approach when considering “what keeps who safe.” This approach maintains clinical practice to avoid idiosyncrasies that do not work; an evidentiary basis and professionalism with expected standards; values and ethical boundaries that are inherent in best practice risk assessments; and creativity that is critical to maintaining safety in non-normed communities.

A clinically informed, evidence-based, professional, and creative approach requires that the practitioner has an awareness of the relevance of cultural norms and how these cultural norms inform sexual offending. The approach allows for the assessment of offending behavior and the identification of mitigating factors within that community. The responsibility of monitoring within this knowledge and practice maintains the capacity to implement the least restrictive strategies and rehabilitative practices. Moreover, practitioners must develop creative strategies to use or apply professional techniques in culturally sensitive ways. In many remote communities, one can observe highly trained practitioners practicing the true spirit of risk assessment but not the same letter of risk assessment carried out in urban jurisdictions.

More open discussion about this practice that aims at social justice rather than practice that is made to fit Westernized norms will decrease feelings of vulnerability and isolation among practitioners in remote contexts.