Scottish Government

SERIOUS VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENDERS: THE USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN SCOTLAND

CHAPTER FIVE: RISK MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

5.1 As the discussion towards the end of Chapter Four indicated, risk assessment is not and end it itself but should, rather, be a means for informing strategies for managing offender risk. In this Chapter audit responses and interviews are drawn upon to examine how risk assessments undertaken by different professional groups are used to inform risk management plans and strategies. This analysis identifies issues associated with the management of risk in the transition from one setting to another and concludes, in particular, by considering some of the issues raised in respect of the management of mentally disordered offenders in their transition from prison/hospital to the community.

RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT

5.2 Whilst at one level risk assessment was viewed by some social work respondents as a mechanism for assisting in resource allocation, there was universal agreement across the various professional groups who where interviewed that the most important purpose of the risk assessment was the development of a risk management plan:

"Largely speaking it is so we can manage risk appropriately both in terms of what kind of services people get should they get on statutory orders and also to look at the general risk management strategy that we would need to undertake." (Social work respondent)

"Assessment is also used to plan risk management strategies - identifying what we can do now and also to make plans for the future." (Health respondent)

"…the most important reasons from my point of view would be to generate a risk management plan. I see risk assessment as a way of developing a course of action rather than a risk assessment as such." (Prison respondent)

5.3 As was indicated previously, each of the professional groups who participated in the audit regarded their contribution to risk management as the most prominent purpose of the risk assessment tools. Given the importance of managing the risk presented by serious violent and sexual offenders, the audit questionnaire also sought information about the manner in which risk assessment tools inform risk management strategies within organisations. The resulting data are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. How the tools referred to in the audit were used to inform risk management strategies

5.4 The risk assessment tools included in the audit were said in most returns (94) to inform risk management strategies. In only four returns (each of which pertained to tools used by social workers) were the resulting risk assessments said not to contribute to risk management ²⁴. As Table 5.1 indicates, risk assessment tools were most often said to contribute to risk management by identifying risk factors to be reduced through the provision of appropriate programmes of intervention and by identifying the level of monitoring or supervision of the offender that was required.

5.5 The manner in which the results of risk assessments informed risk management strategies varied from agency to agency. For instance, risk assessments conducted by the police were most commonly used to identify the level of monitoring or surveillance required or the likely impact of the risk (i.e. the likely harm that would be caused) should it occur.

5.6 The police risk assessments categorised sexual offenders as high, medium or low risk. This risk classification, in turn, determined how frequently offenders were visited by the police as part of their risk management plan. As one police respondent explained:

"If it is a low risk offender, then we would only visit them once a year. A medium risk offender, then a couple of times a year. High risk, then a minimum of every three months. If they are really high risk when we do it then we will visit them daily or weekly. That doesn't go on forever as it's very resource intensive. But initially, if we have got problems with someone or if they are just out they might get daily or weekly visits."

5.7 Police risk assessments were essentially used, therefore, to determine the intensity of monitoring of sex offenders. As one officer explained, even though they had been given statutory responsibility for managing the risk presented by sex offenders in the community, the police had, in practice, limited powers under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and were therefore constrained in terms of how they might implement risk management strategies:

"The level of risk when it is eventually arrived at will determine how often we will visit offenders at their home to try and monitor them, to make sure they are still staying at the address they have told us they are at. In effect that is the only thing we can really do by law. As I say, they are not even required to comply with the risk assessment process under the Sex Offenders Act."

5.8 Risk assessments undertaken by prison psychologists most often aided decisions about the level of monitoring required, identified factors to be addressed through participation in prisoner programmes and informed decisions about whether and what conditions should be attached to parole or non-parole licences. As one prison psychologist explained, the purpose of risk assessments was:

"To look at what interventions you can put in place in terms of programmes and things but also how much support and where they can get support from on their release."

5.9 Risk assessments conducted on offenders with mental health problems usually contributed to decisions about monitoring and the enforcement of any conditions attached to orders or licences, identified an appropriate focus for programmes of intervention and provided information about the likely impact of the risk. In the prison and hospital settings, risk assessments were also used to inform decisions about progression and release. For example:

"… [if] their last assault on a member of staff … [was] premeditated that makes a big difference to how we might look to place that person in the community or whether or not they leave here."

5.10 The risk assessment tools used by social workers most often were employed to provide information about the nature of risk factors to be addressed through structured intervention with the offender and to identify the level of monitoring or surveillance required. They were also said to be drawn upon to inform decisions about whether and what conditions should be attached to court orders or licences and to provide information about the risk of harm. Each of the professional groups also regarded the risk assessment tools they used as informing the role of different professionals in the risk management process, with social workers and the police most likely to utilise them in this way.

OTHER INFORMATION INFORMING RISK MANAGEMENT

5.11 The audit of risk tools indicated that other information was also drawn upon in the development of risk management plans. Information derived from the tools would usually be supplemented by information from existing agency records (96 returns), by interviews with the offender (90 returns) and by information provided by other agencies, such as criminal records or offence details (87 returns).

5.12 Most interviewees indicated that they would draw upon information other than that derived from risk assessment tools when developing risk management plans. These included local knowledge about offenders and information derived from case conferences involving a range of relevant agencies, such as social work (criminal justice and child protection), police, housing etc. Police officers emphasised that they were willing to share information with all agencies involved in the management of sex offenders, whether in prison or in the community, but that they did so strictly on a need to know basis even among the police force itself.

5.13 Psychologists in the State Hospital drew upon a wide variety of information including hospital and medical files, school reports, information from educational psychologists and social work files. It was, however, said sometimes to be difficult to get access to certain types of information and the process of doing so could be very time consuming.

5.14 Prison psychologists were able to talk to other professionals who had contact with prisoners on a regular basis (such as personal officers, work party officers or social workers) to garner further information about a prisoner's behaviour and demeanour and to verify statements made by the prisoner. As one respondent noted, " the principle I'd work on is don't necessarily believe what they tell you until you can check it out for yourself."

5.15 Prison psychologists also undertook collateral file reviews to inform risk assessments and risk management plans for individual prisoners, but in doing so were able to draw only upon information that was in the public domain. Information included in the prisoner's warrant file alone could be included in the risk assessment report, though potentially relevant information - for example the fact that a prisoner was taking psychotropic medicine - was not always placed in the warrant file. It was also suggested that prisoners' files might contain conflicting accounts of offences or events from different professionals, making it difficult to establish the true version of what occurred.

5.16 In addition to the information routinely made available in warrant files, prison psychologists suggested that a range of other information would be of value in informing risk assessments. This included witness statements, social work records, medical files and psychiatric notes, though it was recognised that some of these sources could have their limitations by being based primarily upon information provided by the prisoner

5.17 Some social workers highlighted problems regarding access to information held by other agencies, especially detailed information about the offence. For example:

"There is the ongoing difficulty about obtaining 'full' offence details from the PF."

"It is important to obtain as much information as possible. However as you will be aware we receive very little information re the actual offence. This is required for good risk assessments."

5.18 Another social worker highlighted how a range of information was drawn together in the context of multi-agency risk management:

"Most risk management planning is carried out in multi-agency case conferences involving criminal justice and child protection social work, police, housing, education (if appropriate), vol. orgs. (if appropriate)."

5.19 In the Scottish Prison Service, multi-disciplinary risk management groups - consisting of prison managers, social workers ands psychologists - were being established in long-term prisons. Their purpose will be to consider initial needs/risk assessments, to decide whether a more detailed psychological risk assessment is required and to agree a risk management plan for the prisoner while in custody and in the transition to the community.

5.20 Prison psychologists suggested that there was a tendency for the recommendations that flowed from risk assessments to be influenced by the availability of existing programmes and interventions rather than directly reflecting individual risks. An ongoing debate centred on the validity of recommending an intervention that was not available or, similarly, of assessing a condition - such as psychopathy - for which no treatment was available.

5.21 Prison psychologists identified the transition from prison to the community as the main weakness in terms of risk management, particularly because the models of intervention employed by social workers in local authorities were different from those that underpinned prison based programmes. This made a seamless transition very difficult to achieve.

MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

5.22 According to interviewees from forensic health settings, disagreement tended to occur between psychologists and psychiatrists with respect to the contribution that mental illness made to risk. One psychologist suggested that psychiatrists tended to adopt the view that if the person was no longer ill, they no longer presented a risk. On the other hand, psychologists were more concerned to look beyond the presenting mental health problems to determine why behaviour may have become manifest in particular ways.

5.23 Another difficulty pertaining to the transition of mentally disordered offenders from secure settings to the community concerned a lack of clarity with respect to who was responsible for their supervision. It was suggested that social work departments were reluctant to assume responsibility for the supervision of offenders returned to the community who subject to forensic risk management orders. This meant that forensic social workers were expected to continue working with these offenders, and this had implications for the time they were able to devote to this and to other tasks.

5.24 A forensic psychologist who was interviewed explained that the ability to manage mentally disordered offenders who presented a risk of serious violent or sexual offending was sometimes constrained by the legislative basis of treatment. For example, offenders transferred from the State Hospital were subject to Section 58 of the Criminal Procedures Act (a hospital order with restrictions) which meant that any restrictions imposed upon them were guided by risk assessments. In the cases of offenders referred for treatment under Section 18 of the Mental Health Act, on the other hand, when the compulsory element expired any contact with forensic or other services was on an informal basis, regardless of whether or not they continued to present a risk. As s/he explained:

"The difficulty comes in with a Section 18, when you can only pull them back in for two periods of six months and thereafter they become informal and often people say they don't want to see you anymore. Now we might think they are still at risk, but if they haven't got the appropriate Section there is not a thing we can do about it."

5.25 Forensic psychologists also indicated that there were limited powers to recall serious violent or sexual offenders who were no longer mentally ill but who refused to engage with interventions aimed at addressing their offending behaviour. Offenders who became ill again or who were not taking their medication could be re-hospitalised, but those who were not ill yet who still evidently posed a significant risk could not.

SUMMARY

5.26 Risk assessment was considered not as an end in itself, but as a means of informing risk management strategies and plans. Risk assessments did this in various ways, but most often by identifying risk factors to be reduced through programme provision and, particularly in the case of the police, helping determine the level of monitoring or surveillance required.

5.27 Those engaged in managing the risk presented by serious violent and sexual offenders usually drew upon a range of information from various sources, in addition to formal risk assessments, to develop and implement risk management plans.

5.28 Particular difficulties were identified regarding the transition of prisoners from prison to the community and in respect of the management of mentally disordered offenders in the community. The latter, it was suggested, was constrained by legislative provision that prevented appropriate steps from being taken in some circumstances in which an offender was assessed as presenting a significant risk