Document Sample

  Using the Risk Assessment Guidance
  and Framework
RISK – The probability of a
future event

   Re-offending
   Offending of a specific type – e.g. sexual,
   Self harm
for defensible decisions
   Information collection and evaluation
   Reliable assessment method
   Recording – information sources,
    evaluation and decisions
   Collaborative approaches and
    communication with partners
   Staff trained and accountable
Risk Assessment – Why?
   Assist sentencing (and tackle re-offending)
    through estimation of risk, and proposals
    for risk management or reduction
   Promote community safety through
    reduction in offending and management of
    risk behaviours
   Give focus to intervention and monitor
    effectiveness of programmes
Risk of Re-offending Assessment
   Actuarial (or static) factors

   Dynamic factors (criminogenic needs)

   Environmental/situational factors

   Response to intervention factors
Factors - actuarial
   Supervision failure         Major mental illness
   Age                         Drug/alcohol misuse
   Gender                      Relationship
   Offence seriousness          instability / isolation
   No.of previous              Limited education /
    convictions                  work / social skills
   Number - custodials
    pre 21                      Job problems
   Age - first conviction      Personality Disorder
Factors - clinical
   Impulsiveness
   Problem resolution deficits
   Active major mental disorder
   Active major substance misuse
   Anti-social attitudes
   Lack of insight / lack of victim awareness
Factors - situational
   Heavy drinking culture / environment

   Exposure to culture of violence

   Access to sexual victims

   Partner / domestic violence
Factors – response to intervention
   Lack of feasible risk management plan
   Exposure to destabilisers
   Lack of personal support
   Stress factors
   Poor compliance with remediation attempts
   Mental Ill health
   Predictors of violent behaviour
   Sex offending
   Self harm
   ‘Opportunity’and situation
An example! 1. The friends view
   ‘..never had any reason to worry about his
    character.. I thought he was sound..’
   ‘..was always great, I can’t believe he
    might be involved in something like this.’
2. The down side…
   ‘..had been in trouble before..had a fight
    outside partners house..’
   ‘..could change for the worse after
    drinking.. Would drink up to 20 cans of
    lager a day..’
   ‘..never a violent man, apart from having
    fights when they had been drinking..she
    would go back to parents bearing bruises..’
3. Other factors…
   In February at court he admitted stealing to
    pay for alcohol addiction. He was given 50
    hours community service.

   The police said he is clearly dangerous and
    we need to find him. He should not be
    approached by the public under any
The Assessment Process
   Assessment progression; risk of offending,
    risk of specific offences, risk of violent /
    dangerous offending, risk of self harm
   Gather and verify information
   Give due weight to actuarial factors
   Structured approach to clinical assessment
   Plan for interventions & risk management
Recommended Approach
   LSI-R linked to SER assessment as initial
    screen of risk of re-offending and identifier
    of intervention requirements to address
    criminogenic need.
   Trigger through LSI-R score to RA3
   Trigger through offence type straight to
   Trigger to RA4 through RA3 conclusions
The ‘structured clinical’ approach
   How to measure ‘insight’, ‘attitude’ and
    ‘response to intervention’?
   Structured basis to professional judgement
    – e.g. Hogue goal attainment scaling.
   Support scale structure with framework of
    questions designed to elicit relevant
Errors and Bias
   Subjective ‘clinical’ judgement –
    especially towards optimism
   Antipathy to actuarial approaches
   False correlation of factors to outcomes
   Inadvertent collusion
   Lack of data
   Weak or untested methodology
A Good Assessment - 1
   Defines what is being assessed / predicted
   Differentiates probability from seriousness
   Is aware of sources of error and bias
   Uses data which is comprehensive and
   Involves other agencies as required
   Uses actuarial, clinical and response tools
A Good Assessment - 2
   Applies structure to clinical judgement
   Is fully recorded as to sources of
    information, conclusions and reasons
   Informs an effective plan of intervention
    and risk management
   Is kept under regular review
   Can be defended & withstand challenge
Risk Management - 1
   Establish case management framework
   Define target behaviour thro’ assessment
   Supervision, surveillance contact and
    controls at sufficient level
   Fit response (type/level) to defined need
   Use known effective methodologies to
    address offending behaviour
Risk Management - 2
   Engage other relevant services with clear
    role definition
   Establish clear function and accountability
    lines. Maintain good communications.
   Secure necessary resources
   Review and adapt
   Act promptly and effectively on default
Case Management
   Sound assessment / plan / review
   Proactive work to address risks and needs
   Engage and co-ordinate partner working
   Recording
   Involve management lines in decision
    making and resource deployment
   Decisive and prompt response to problems
Criminal Justice Act 2003
   Section 1 (High Court)
   - Risk Assessment Order
    - Risk Assessment Report
    - Order for Lifelong Restriction
   Section 3 – 13
   Risk Management Authority
   Section 21- limited access to data for sex offender
Risk Management Authority
   Research and pilot work
   Guidelines and Standards
   Risk Management Plan (OLR); specify
    form and approve individual plans
   Maintain overview of implementation
   Accredit methods and assessors
   Annual report
Future Questions
   OASYS in the age of single agency!
   Court scrutiny of risk assessment and
    management plans
   Accreditation through RMA
   Continuous development of methodologies
    – evaluation of effectiveness?
   ECHR (Human Rights) dimension

Shared By: