One of the overall aims of the National Probation Service is to protect the public from harm. In A new Choreography (2001) there are many ‘stretch Objectives’ laid out for the service. One of these objectives (Pp. 9) enforces the fact that it is a strategic imperative to address the issue of risk assessment and risks management:
“To be effective 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.”
However it is extremely important in acknowledging the fact that identifying risk is not simply about identifying the risks of re-offending. As Probation Officers, assessing risk includes….
“….risks of serious harm to others, children, individuals (including suicide, self harm, vulnerability, coping in custody/hostel settings), other risks (escape/abscond, breach of trust, control issues)” (OASys 2002 Pp. 127)
This reflective log will look specifically at risk with regards to abuse, self harm and the harm presented to others. Having completed a KLO in the first year of my traineeship devoted specifically to risk, I feel that 14 months later I have become increasingly aware of the importance to assess risk fully, carefully, accurately and concisely. Within a probation context risk assessment and prediction is a serious task given the increasing accountability of the Services actions. Essentially the purpose of risk prediction is to ‘seek control, and if possible prevent the future occurrence of harmful behaviours too self and others.’ (Kemshall 2001 Pp. 134). However the very nature of prediction can be misleading – if the risk event has not occurred can this be portrayed as successful or incorrect risk management?
According to Moore incorrect outcomes can be regarded as ‘false positives and false negatives’ and their relation to defensive practice or over caution, which results in over intervention. An example would be the case of the child abuse allegations which took place in Cleveland in the late 1980s. This is a prime example of social workers over responding to a situation and consequently creating a damaging situation for those who were accused. This is something the practitioner must be aware of when assessing elements of risk. We are not only in danger of under or over involvement, but issues of professional values, ADP and AOP also present themselves within this melee. If for example I brought a value to the service that all sex offenders present a high risk to the public then all of my subsequent risk assessments would forward them to being high risk. In actual fact that are various levels of potential risk – low, medium, high and very high. An individual who accesses children’s pictures from the Internet will pose an altogether different type of risk to an abuser caught having a relationship with a child. By classifying all sex offenders as high risk I am essentially stereotyping them as one homogenous group – when in fact every case must be assessed individually.
In the case of SS she was a female charged with cruelty and neglect towards her children. This was a case that I co-worked with a colleague, and it was my role to complete a full and accurate risk assessment based on the multitude of information available. Having discussed the case in depth with my colleague and accessed the numerous doctors, probation and social services reports I felt that I had enough information to complete a risk assessment. The offence itself was based around the mistreatment of two children by SS and her partner.
Upon reviewing this information I found such actions to be disturbing and upsetting – questioning why individuals felt the need to behave in such ways. Of course I am aware that offences like this are a worldwide phenomenon, but to be involved in a case such as this is something that really ‘hits home’ the magnitude of probation work. Of course ultimately I am a professional and I will be involved regularly in such cases upon qualification. As mentioned earlier I bring my own values to the service and my own personal views about sex offenders are that these are very serious offences that must be dealt with stringently. However it is not for me to decide how they are punished, that is for the courts, my role is to exercise their punishments within a probation setting. Pre-judicial attitudes can lead to inaccurate risk assessments, and so it is important that I deal with each case on its own merits and within the boundaries of the NPS framework. I found the completion of the risk assessment to be fairly difficult, afterall I wanted to make sure all of the information entered was accurate and valid. Having previously been through a MAPPP which assessed her as being a high risk to her children but low risk of harm to others - I found it difficult to assess her overall risk. Upon discussion with the case manager it was decided that she posed a medium risk of harm to children ‘at present.’ The risk assessment was influenced by the fact that she no longer had contact with her children, no contact with her ex-partner and no longer exhibits total denial of the abuse.
In the case of MM the abuse and subsequent risks posed was not so clear cut. MM was given a 1 year CRO for offences of racially aggravated threats to others. He displayed racist attitudes in his first supervision session with me, and so this type of abuse was an immediate concern. Given the fact that he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been sectioned on two previous occasions under the Mental Health Act (1983) this further complicated the situation. The 2002 Mental Health Bill has strong links with how risk is managed in that it will allow ‘someone with a mental disorder to be detained for as long as they pose a significant risk of serious harm to others’ (DOH 2002. Pp. 23) The supervision plan incorporated an assessment of his racist attitudes, the impact that his attitudes would have ion others and how we could develop strategies and an understanding of the multi-cultural society in which we live. Again my own values which I brought to the service are that racist attitudes are born out of ignorance. However my experiences to date inform me that this is not always the case. In the case of MM the racist phrases he used were emanated from his family, and so identifying why such attitudes were ‘misinformed’ and how MM could shape his future attitudes became paramount to the supervision plan.
In the case of PP the risks posed to others was through potential violence rather than the sexual elements covered in the above risks assessments. This individual was convicted of racially aggravated threats to kill which occurred within a probation hostel environment. PP admitted frequently in supervision that when he consumed alcohol he became aggressive and subsequently violent towards others if they upset him. Upon his arrest for this offence it was decided that I would complete an additional risk assessment based on the nature of the offence. PP was imprisoned for the offence and upon his release on licence work was conducted in the areas of anger management and alcohol use to counteract the risks he posed.
Despite the plans formulated for PP’s licence he re-offended, committing a similar offence to that of his original conviction, threatening behaviour whilst intoxicated with alcohol. He appeared before Magistrates and was sentenced to four months imprisonment within the space of 24 hours. My first priority was to gather information on the offence as it occurred in a different area to the one I was working in. I contacted their local court and they faxed me the relevant information. Due to this new offence it was good practice to complete a new risk assessment, and after including the new offence I assessed PP to have progressed from a medium to high risk. Given the fact that upon his release from prison accommodation would again be a big problem. I discussed this with my line manager and looked at his risk assessment, and we both agreed that a MAPPP (Multi Agency Public Protection Panel) meeting would have to be called. My first step was to speak to the public protection team. They forwarded me a pack to complete and send back. This would be screened and assessed as to whether it should indeed progress to a MAPPP, and whether the level of intervention (level 2 in the case of PP) was appropriate. A week later I was contacted by the public protection team and informed that the meeting would go ahead. On discussion with my PDA I identified accommodation as the critical issue to managing his risk within the community, and that Housing and a hostel would be invited to the MAPPP.
Risk assessments are one way of assessing and predicting risks within the Probation Service. OGRS (Offender Group Reconviction Scale) is a further assessment tool that assesses risk based on static information, including age, gender and offence types. This tool is used frequently within case management and has been discussed more in-depth in previous NVQ units.
The production of Pre Sentence Reports (HH), parole reports (RR) and HDC reports (QQ) all have areas that require the risks posed by individuals to be assessed and recorded. I have completed all of the above and have found the completion of the risk assessments to be quite different within each of the reports. This is covered more comprehensively in the NVQ unit D103.
Upon production of a PSR on MM for his offence of harassment I proposed a CRO with an attachment of the Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) programme. However the hearing lasted for over 2 months due to the awaiting of an up to date psychiatric report for the defendant. When the court reviewed this report they requested an addendum to specifically address MM’s mental health and alcohol misuse. I therefore produced a report that proposed MM would attend ASRO and be referred to the local Addiction Unit to address his alcohol use. With regard to mental health I informed the court that he would continue to visit his psychiatrist on a regular basis and he would also be referred to Leeds MIND services, which would offer him counseling and support for his schizophrenia. My report persuaded the court that proper implementations of the suggested interventions would significantly decrease the risk posed to others and therefore he could be managed within the community. The court also administered a restraining order against the woman whom he had harassed.
PSR’s form one aspect of report writing and risk assessment. In the case of HH I had to produce a parole report, which in terms of risks identifies potential risks, assesses how an individual can be managed within the community and how potential risks can be decreased. Prior to attending the prison for the parole interview I made sure that I re-read the CPS documents and witness statements, and familiarised myself with the case. On discussing the differences between PSR and Parole type interviews I formulated a set of guidelines which I would follow in order to gain the relevant type of information for the report. Throughout the interview I noticed that I questioned him more about his future plans, the risks he felt he may present, the effect of his release on the victims of his offence, the plans he had upon release and the direction his life would take upon release. The interview went very well and I felt that I conducted it in a professional, anti-discriminatory and appropriate manner.
Having completed the interview with RR I felt it was then necessary to...
- Discuss the type of proposal and the direction of the report with TT’s case manager (CC) and the seconded Probation Officer at the prison (II). This is essentially the following of the format for the production of a parole report.
- Investigate any areas of concern or related to his release into the community, which in this instance was his release address and the possibility that he may have guaranteed employment upon his release.
CC proved to be quite familiar with the case given the fact that he had only inherited it a few months ago. With CC we discussed all aspects of the case, including victim issues, the attitude of RR and the goals and objectives we would set him should he be given parole. CC and myself went into great detail about the issue of the victims within his offences, although RR claimed he did not target his victims the pattern of his offending suggests that there was a strong element of targeting as the victims were all elderly, vulnerable people. This is a major concern in weighing up the pros and cons of recommending parole. Following our conversation it was my assessment that CC was largely against the idea of parole, citing the possible targeting of his victims and his previous convictions as two areas that could increase his risk of re-offending/risk to others when released into the community.
Having discussed various issues with his home probation officer my next step in the information gathering process was to discuss related issues and explore the views and assessment of the seconded Probation Officer located at the prison.
Throughout the interview RR provided me with two key pieces of information that needed to be followed up on my return to the office. The first was his proposed release address, which is where he said he would reside upon release. The address was the home of his current partner and I had to assess his suitability in terms of his partners accommodation, her attitude towards his release, the location of any victims to the address and whether there were any potential problems. After telephoning her I decided that a home visit would be conducted for such an assessment, and I invited MC (the case manager) along as he would be able to gather any information he felt to be relevant to his case. However the home visit resulted in a nil assessment as she was not available. I therefore had to decide on the impact of a hostel place as an intervention and whether these consequences would create new risks (i.e. contact with drug users in hostels/ exposure to pro-criminal attitudes of others. There would also be the issue of the impact of this upon his current relationship – afterall the proposed address was that of his partners and his not living their may put a strain upon the relationship.
The second part of the investigation involved contact being made between myself and CC, whom RR identified as being a potential employer upon his release. After failing to make contact via telephone I decided to write to the employer, which was a building contractor.
After the process of gathering information, reviewing case files and discussing the case with parties whom were heavily involved I had to bring this information together and formulate my assessments on risk issues he presents and his suitability for being released on parole. I decided that as the release address could not be effectively assessed I would propose a hostel release that would provide support, monitoring and a drug free environment for RR. The prospects of employment and his own motivations towards avoiding re-offending combined to give the impression that the risk posed could be managed within the community. Upon completion of my investigation a letter was written to RR stating that I could not propose his preferred release address for the above stated reasons.
The format of the Parole report is significantly different from PSR’s in that its primary focus is potential risks posed to the community by the parolee. I found writing this report to be much more straightforward and to an extent more enjoyable in that the writer has more of a licence to include information that he or she feels is relevant to the parole application.
To conclude it is evident from this RPJ that assessing and predicting risk is a key aspect of Probation work. I feel that it is important to assess each case on its merits, to take the correct steps in producing risk assessments and not allowing any personal biases to impact on any type of risk assessment.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2020. All rights reserved.