« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
SERIOUS VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENDERS: THE USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN SCOTLAND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND METHODS
The report of the MacLean Committee on serious violent and sexual offenders (Scottish Executive, 2000) identified a need for further research into risk assessment and recidivism in relation to this group. In response to the MacLean Committee recommendations the Scottish Executive commissioned research on risk assessment tools in use in Scotland. The aim of this research is to provide an audit of risk assessment instruments currently in use with serious violent and sexual offenders, to describe how they are used and to assess progress with the validation of risk assessment instruments for use in Scotland.
Two principle methods of data collection were employed in this study. This first consisted of a postal survey (audit) of tools and approaches being employed to assess risk among serious violent and sexual offenders in Scotland. This was supplemented by interviews with a range of professionals involved in risk assessment to explore in greater depth the issues associated with risk assessment and management in practice.
TOOLS IN USE IN SCOTLAND
Various different approaches to risk assessments were being adopted by different professional groups working in different settings across Scotland. Social workers were most likely to use tools developed to assess risk of recidivism amongst general offender populations while the police did not make use of standardised instruments in the risk assessments they undertook.
Psychologists - in prisons and in forensic health settings - were most likely to employ tools that had been developed to assess risk of sexual or violent offending (or close correlates thereof) that had been validated, though only three of the tools used had been validated against Scottish populations.
Tools in use had mostly been validated against or based on research evidence derived from male populations. Particular populations for whom existing tools were considered mostly inappropriate included young offenders (under 18 year of age), women and offenders with mental health problems.
RISK ASSESSMENT IN PRACTICE
Risk assessments were undertaken in a variety of contexts, including prisons community justice settings, secure and medium secure units and mental health in-patient and out-patient facilities. Risk assessments variously informed risk management plans, helped inform multi-agency risk management strategies, assisted in the matching of offenders to interventions and aided recommendations regarding release/discharge/ sentencing in court.
Various professionals were involved in the completion and interpretation of risk assessments. They had, in most cases received training appropriate to this task and mechanisms appeared to be in place to quality assess the work. Risk assessments usually were time-consuming and resource demanding and sometimes constrained by external time frames. Respondents also identified important gaps in the availability of information to inform risk assessments, including witness statements and court records.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO RISK ASSESSMENT
Tools had most often been adopted for use in risk assessments on account of the ease with which they could be administered and/or scored, their ability to identify risk of harm and their ability to identify the risk of sexual offending. Social workers were more likely to use tools that were relatively easy to administer while psychologists were attracted to tools that had been validated, particularly if normative data for Scotland were available. One specialist project had developed its own tools which, although it had not been validated, was being considered for national adoption by the police.
A primary consideration for all professional groups in their approach to risk assessment was the ability to make defensible decisions backed up by appropriate tools. Different tools and approaches were perceived to have different strengths, however their ability to inform risk management plans was considered critical. Weakness associated with different tools included their complexity, their lack of objectivity, their lack of validation and their inability to measure the specific risks associated with the types of offenders who are the subject of this report.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Tools had most often been adopted for use in risk assessments on account of the ease with which they could be administered and/or scored, their ability to identify risk of harm and their ability to identify the risk of sexual offending. Social workers were more likely to use tools that were relatively easy to administer while psychologists were attracted to tools that had been validated, particularly if normative data for Scotland were available. One specialist project had developed its own tools which, although it had not been validated, was being considered for national adoption by the police.
A primary consideration for all professional groups in their approach to risk assessment was the ability to make defensible decisions backed up by appropriate tools. Different tools and approaches were perceived to have different strengths, however their ability to inform risk management plans was considered critical. Weakness associated with different tools included their complexity, their lack of objectivity, their lack of validation and their inability to measure the specific risks associated with the types of offenders who are the subject of this report.
MULTI-AGENCY RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
There was a general recognition, among those who participated in the research, of the value of a multi-agency approach to risk assessment and, in particular, to risk management, though the extent to which this occurred was somewhat variable. Opinions were divided as to whether it was feasible or desirable to implement a common approach to risk assessment across different disciplinary groups, though a greater degree of consistency would be welcomed.
Multi-agency risk management operated in different ways and at different levels within various settings. The strengths of multi-agency approaches to risk management included the increased ability to tailor responses to the risks presented by an individual and the avoidance of a single agency being accountable for any adverse outcomes. Effective multi-agency approaches could, however, be undermined by issues such as the failure to share relevant information and the varied approaches adopted by different agencies towards risk assessments and their interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS
The study revealed wide variations in the approaches adopted to assessing risk among serious violent and sexual offenders by different professional groups. Even within agencies or professional groups different methods of risk assessment were evident, though there was evidence of a movement towards greater consistency within prisons and across Scottish police forces. Little use was being made of validated risk assessment tools outwith prison and health settings and concerns were expressed about the absence of tools for use with young people, women and mentally disordered offenders. The current situation undoubtedly detracts from the effectiveness of multi-agency risk assessments and may have adverse consequences for the effective management of offender risk.
« Previous | Contents | Next »