Prior learning in the area of risk assessment and risk management is to say the least minimal. The voluntary work conducted with youth aged between 12-16 obviously posed some form of risk to the volunteer, but the procedures and guidelines minimized the risk to the volunteer to such an extent that my experiences in working with risk did not develop until my traineeship commenced. I found the idea of working with offenders who posed risk to initially be quite daunting, but as the traineeship has progressed I have become accustomed to the procedures, requirements and expectations that the Probation service demand of its employees. 

Before dealing with offenders who might fit this category I found it useful to review the existing policies within the service. The ‘Violence To Staff Policy’ works under the umbrella of the Health and Safety Act (1974) and exists to enable staff to carry out their duties with minimum risk. The policies surrounding public protection and child protection also identify risk assessment and risk management to be ‘key processes that underpin work with offenders at all stages.’ Through the use of the CRAMS database cases that are high risk, schedule 1 or child protection cases are identified by the use of flags, but as trainees we have little exposure to cases considered ‘high risk.’ Other resources that provided information on the nature of risk includes the New Choreography (2001 Pp. 9) which states…..

“Probation staff must therefore be able to differentiate individual offenders, their crimes and their victims in order to take the steps necessary for greater public protection and to identify and target offenders into the programmes most likely to reduce the risk of re-offending.”

Essentially these sources of information laid the foundations for the development of my understanding of the nature of risk assessment and risk management, yet the continuance of the traineeship has provided me with the knowledge and skills needed to produce the risk assessments and management of cases that vary in degrees of risks posed.

It is my belief that at this stage of the traineeship I have little experience in terms of risk assessment and risk management as we are allocated cases that predict/pose the minimal amount of risk. However I have been able to utilise various tools specifically designed to assess and predict risk-which are key elements for the modern day Probation Service. The tools available combine the two methods of clinical and actuarial approaches, which although polarised in terms of their methodology, are used in tandem to produce a more comprehensive assessment of risk. According to Kemshall (1996) actuarial tools can be.

“..dehumanising, extremely positivistic and subject to the biases of developers.”

In the Probation Service such tools are used to predict the chance of re-offending through statistical based methods. Indeed other writers who support the use of such an approach, such as Nash (1999), believe ‘previous behaviour’ to be a ‘powerful indicator’ in terms of predicting risk in the future.

The OGRS system (Offender Group Reconviction Scale) is a tool that predicts an offender’s probability of reconviction based on actuarial factors. I have produced such scores in all of my cases, and the tool is a key assessment and consequent predictor of risk. The tool relies on actuarial information of an offender, including the number of court appearances, their age at the time of conviction, the type of crime and the frequency of their criminal activity. These scores are used to help direct the types of interventions that will be utilised within supervision, yet they are not used primarily as an individual pointer. As well as the ‘negatives’ illustrated by Kemshall (above) its use could also incite issues of discrimination in that it classifies an individual, and subsequent risks posed, solely on information that cannot be changed. Upon using the tool myself I found it to be simple to use, but wondered how it calculated such scores and whether such scores were a true indicator of risk. Although I am in the early stages of training there have been instances where I have disagreed with the predictor, and that it treats people like machines whose paths are set/chosen by statistics and probabilities.

The other main approach utilised by the Service is that of the clinical method, which is an identifier of the dynamic factors of risk posed by an offender. Again drawing on the work of Nash (1999) he sees this type of model to consist of…..

“combining professional and personal experience, education, training and gut feeling.”

However criticism of this type of method include the strong element of subjectivity and the possible bias that may rear its ugly head. The tool that falls under the umbrella of clinical approaches is that of the OASys forms, which offer the practitioner the chance to measure changes over time and assess the impact of ones work with each offender. The tool was described at my in house training event as a tool that would help practitioners to make ‘sound and defensible decisions about offender needs and risk. The system has been developed and designed to run in tandem between the 42 probation areas in England and Wales and the fact that the same risk/dangerousness classifications are used nationally is crucial to its effectiveness…..

“it will improve both the identification of the most dangerous offenders and the ability to communicate more effectively between services and areas”

                                (A New Choreography 2001 Pp.10)

Primarily I found the use of the tool to be somewhat laborious, particularly due to its sheer size and quantitative nature-yet through experience and reflection I now see how useful and effective it can be. This view has been enhanced by the recent introduction of e-OASys, which speeds up the process of completion. The OASys document includes a risk screen section which is aimed specifically at identifying factors of risk and identifying the levels of risk posed by offenders, high, medium or low. Unlike the actuarial model this type of approach is based on factors that can change over time, including accommodation, employment and substance misuse-which can all contribute to an overall risk assessment. The tool also looks at risk posed to themselves and others more comprehensively than simply a rate of possible reconviction.

In terms of completing the production of a cross section of the two types of approaches one of my colleagues asked if I would mind completing a risk assessment and OGRS score for one of her offenders, SS, who is a female in her 20s. The information consisted of three separate probation files and the offence was ‘Cruelty to a child.’ Upon examining the information I discovered that the specifics of the crime included physical and sexual abuse towards her two children, and on further reading doctors reports on the extent of the injuries and their probable causes shocked me. After reading the evidence I felt horrified that individuals could actually carry out such attacks on children, and furthermore that the Probation Service had to deal with such offenders. Again I held the belief that individuals convicted of such crimes would be incarcerated rather than subjected to Probation orders, yet the case file information suggested that crimes of this nature are by no means simple. Whilst completing the full risk assessment I felt that there were three main areas that came to light…

1. The risk of recommitting similar offences
2. The risk to her children
3. The risk she poses to herself

Completing the risk assessment required careful analysis of the information available, and due to the risk of the case the recording of such details needed to be clear and concise. The full assessment had to be completed due to the risks SS posed to children, and the involvement of her children in the crime committed. The OGRS score for SS, drawing on static information was that of 33%, that is SS has a 33% of being reconvicted for a criminal offence within 2 years. What I learnt throughout this exercise is that essentially a static tool used on its own indicates the risks presented are not too high, yet when used in conjunction with a dynamic tool (the risk assessment) one can see a fuller, broader picture of the offender and the risks posed. This is summed up neatly in the New Choreography (2001 Pp. 9)…..

“A unique offender profile, gained from both actuarial and dynamic risk and needs assessment, must become the expectation in every probation report and supervision case and established as the basis for all case management decisions.”

When reflecting on the information gathered with the case manager we discussed the possibilities surrounding issues of self harm and vulnerability posed by SS. It was my belief that an individual who had no access to her children, had previously lost one and had been convicted of cruelty to children (as well as her partner, whom on reading evidence felt he may have been the main instigator) SS must have been extremely distressed and possibly unable to cope emotionally. I felt that this case would have been a difficult one to manage for an inexperienced officer such as myself, but I found the experience of dealing with all forms of possible risk to be informative and knowledgeable.

As well as looking at risk purely from information I have also shadowed a colleague on an interview with a sex offender, PP, and completed the risk assessment and IAPS (Interim Accredited Programme System) application for the Sex Offender Programme. The risk presented by this individual has been unique throughout my traineeship thus far, and is one I have felt most uncomfortable with.

The offender had been previously incarcerated and was currently on an order. Sex offenders provoke strong emotions within society, and I have grown up in an environment that at the very least sees sex offenders to be one of the lowest forms of criminals. However probation work is all about being professional and I acknowledged that negative attitudes/opinions are not acceptable and there was a fundamental need to avoid bias and discrimination against the offender. During the interview I observed how my colleague conducted herself, took my own notes and afterwards recorded a reflective log. I followed this up by filling out an OASys form, risk assessment and IAPS under the watchful eye of my colleague. In this instant I learned just how important the assessment and management of risk was, and how important it was for the practitioner to record information concisely and accurately, which in turn lead to the production of a precise risk analysis.

The risks posed by sex offenders released into the community are not just posed by that offender (public protection); there were also safety issues for that individual from members of the public who may find out where he lives and/or what he has been convicted of. PP also asked my colleague if he could resume contact with his daughter whom he abused, who now has children of her own. This again poses questions of risk posed to his grandchildren should he be allowed access to them.

These cases highlight the assessment of risk at a given time, yet I have discovered that as probation officers the assessment of risk is continuous, and runs under the guise of national standards. In the case of AA after missing numerous appointments and recommitting an offence whilst on his CRO it is my job to breach the individual and send him back to court, which I duly did. His non-attendance and re-offending increases the risk he poses to society.

This KLO has thus far covered the risks posed by offenders to the public and to themselves, but it has not identified the procedures and guidelines in place to reduce/maintain the levels of risk experienced by the practitioner. A typical example of the risks posed to the Probation Officer would be through the use of violence/abuse/threats posed by an offender. However given the fact that trainees are only given low/medium risk cases the opportunities to deal with this type of risk are greatly reduced, and such issues are discussed in KLO 4. I have however had to assess the element of risk posed by BB, who has HIV. When allocated the case I was a little dubious at first due to my pre-conceptions of HIV-which is essentially a form of discrimination. However a discussion with my line manager soon rectified such a one dimensional attitude and I took up the case and assessed the possible risk to myself. This was achieved through gathering information on the illness and reading the policies laid out by the Probation Service’s Health and safety Policy (2000), whose aims included…..

1. The protection and the health of all employees, service users and consequently the public.

2. That no individual is denied, or receives a lesser service because s(he) is either HIV, or has a HIV related illness.

Although BB presented an element of risk within the probation setting, to both myself and others, common sense and procedural boundaries ensured he received the same treatment of others and risks posed were minimized.

When dealing with offenders who are perceived as high risk I feel that I have to be extremely careful in terms of assigning any stereo-typical views to an offender. Due to the number of Afro-Caribbean prisoners within the western world (most notably America and Britain), particularly related to violent crimes, it would be unprofessional and bad practice to assign such risk tags to all Afro-Caribbean offenders who attend the Probation office. Such stereotypes are enforced through media amplification and its exposure to the public merely enforces such stereotypical views. In the case of HH, a black male, on my first meeting with him I felt a little more wary of him, and thus uneasy, than my other cases, and on reflection I think this may have been due to the labels attached to black offenders. If such views emanate into practice it can have an adverse effect on the offender/client relationship and effect the assessment and management of the risk posed. These pre-conceptions were quickly alleviated and it is only through reflecting on my thoughts and feelings that I was able to rectify such views, which in turn will make future practice more effective and eliminate any discriminatory views that exist.

The issue of ADP (anti-discriminator practice) has ran consistently throughout this KLO, and in terms of assessing and managing risk there are no exceptions. According to Miller and O’Byrne (1998) ‘when working with an individual we should bear in mind how they may have been discriminated against in the past and how they may again in the future.’ When completing assessments, risk or otherwise, I find that although I may have thoughts or feelings towards an individual I make sure that such feelings do not, in any way, impact on my conduct with that client in an interview setting. Two of the Probation Service’s main directives is to reduce the risk of re-offending and to protect the public, yet allowing discriminatory attitudes to attitude the outcomes of risk assessments may drastically alter the true nature of an individuals risk to themselves and/or others.

Understanding the elements of risk is an extremely complex, difficult task to ask a trainee to fulfil, and of all the KLO’s this is the hardest to complete fully and accurately. However the concept of ‘risk assessment and management’ is a central feature to the modern day Probation Service, and grasping the context and procedures surrounding risk are fundamental to the success of a trainee.

Copyright(C) 2007 - 2020. All rights reserved.

 PROBATION HOME