The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND AND METHODS

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

1.1 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 was 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.

1.2 The specific objectives of the research were to:

• Conduct an audit of the risk assessment instruments and techniques currently used with serious offenders in Scotland by different professional groups;
• Identify the range of risks assessed by different instruments and by different professional groups in determining which offenders pose a high risk to public safety;
• Describe how the instruments are used, including an examination of their administration;
• Examine the use made of risk assessment information in different contexts, including if and how this information is translated into risk management for different groups of offenders by the range of professionals and how different professional groups work together and communicate in respect of risk assessment and risk management; and
• Assess progress with the validation of different instruments for use with different groups of offenders in Scotland and review any existing evidence on their predictive efficacy.

1.3 The research takes account of the wide range of professional groups using risk assessment tools, the differing tools and differing views of risk subsequently generated, and issues for inter-agency risk assessments and multi-agency responses to risk management. The main methods used are (a) a literature review; (b) an audit of risk assessment tools via a survey; (c) interviews with managers and staff involved in the use of risk assessment tools across a range of agencies and professional groups; (d) observation, where appropriate, of the use of tools 'on the ground' ¹; (e) exploration of implementation issues, including the interface between the secure establishment and the community, and mental health services and the community.; and (e) exploration of the role of multi-agency fora in the assessment and management of offender risk. The literature review (including the assessment of the predictive efficacy of tools) is published as a separate report (Kemshall, 2002). A review of the statistics and literature on recidivism among serious violent and sexual offenders constitutes the third report in this inter-related series. (Loucks, 2002). The present report presents the findings from the audit of risk tools (a national survey of risk assessment tools utilised by different professional groups involved in assessing risk among serious violent and sexual offenders) and in-depth interviews with a range of professionals involved in risk assessment and risk management in Scotland.

METHODS

1.4 Two principle methods of data collection were employed in this study, with the resulting findings integrated throughout this report. In essence the research involved a broad, largely quantitative audit of tools in use across Scotland combined with a more detailed qualitative analysis of approaches to risk assessment and management among different professional groups.

Audit of risk assessment instruments in use

1.5 In order to determine the range of tools employed in Scotland, and their validation status, a survey of relevant agencies was conducted. The survey aimed to gather, via completion of a relatively structured questionnaire, the following information:

• Type of tools in use.
• The reasons for their adoption.
• Their validation status and proposals for any future validation.
• Offender group and risks covered by the tool.
• Grade and type of staff involved in their use.
• How they are administered and quality assured.
• Type of setting used in.
• Scale of multi-agency use and significant inter-agency issues.

1.6 A two-stage approach was adopted in the survey. Relevant organisations were first contacted by letter to establish whether they were willing to participate in the survey and to obtain details of individuals to whom questionnaires should be sent for completion. Two questionnaires were then sent to those individuals identified by their organisation as having responsibility for completing them. The first sought information about the range of risk assessment tools employed by the organisation ². The second questionnaire sought information about specific risk assessment tools, with a questionnaire being completed for each type of tool employed. A covering letter provided guidance on the completion of the questionnaires. Copies of both questionnaires and the accompanying guidance are provided as an Annex to this report.

1.7 Initial contact letters were sent to each of the Scottish Police Forces, all local authority social work departments, the Scottish Prison Service, Secure Units for Children, Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Units, Secure and Medium Secure Hospitals, Forensic Psychological/Psychiatric Services, Intensive Psychiatric Care Units and a range of voluntary organisations involved in providing services to offenders. The letters requested that where more than one group of professionals or area of service might be involved in risk assessments, each be asked to complete a questionnaire relating to their area of responsibility.

Response

1.8 Sixty summary audit responses were returned. The organisations that responded to the audit were as follows:

• 35 summaries were received from 24 (of the 32) local authority social work departments. This included separate returns from four prison social work units and two specialist projects involved in work with sex offenders. Whilst most local authorities completed a single form covering criminal justice social work services - usually completed by the service manger - two submitted summaries completed at an area level. One local authority response pertained to addiction services and one summary was returned by a manager of children and families services.
• 15 summaries were obtained from seven police forces. This included nine separate responses from the divisions in Strathclyde police. The forms were completed by officers with a variety of ranks: Detective Sergeant (5); Detective Inspector (3); Constable (3); Sergeant (1); Detective Constable (1); and sex offender registrar (1). In one case the designation of the person who completed a summary form was not provided.
• Seven summaries were completed by staff in health service settings, though in one case the organisation was not identified and three respondents indicated that they did not employ risk assessment tools with these groups of offenders. Three respondents were psychologists (in two cases chartered forensic psychologists), one was a consultant psychiatrist, one was a nurse and one was a risk management advisor. In one case the designation of the person completing the form was not provided.
• Two summaries were completed by prison psychologists (one on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service and one on behalf of HMP Kilmarnock). The Scottish prison Service has recently developed a uniform risk assessment procedure for use with long-term prisoners (that is, those serving sentences of four years or more). It was therefore agreed that a single set of forms would be completed on behalf of the agency, rather than separate forms being completed by each establishment in which serious violent and sexual offenders may be detained. The private prison at Kilmarnock adopted a similar approach to risk assessment as the Scottish Prison Service.
• One summary was submitted by a voluntary organisation involved in the provision of services to young offenders as an alternative to custody. For the purpose of comparative analysis by professional group or setting, the response from this organisation is included with the social work responses.

1.9 Respondents were asked to complete an individual questionnaire for each tool in use in their organisation. Since organisations often made use of more than one tool, the total number of completed questionnaires was higher - at 99 - than the number of organisations that responded. The numbers of individual questionnaires completed by the respective professional groups were: social work ³ (67); police (15); prison psychologists (12); and health (5). It should be noted that no information was available about the extent of usage of each tool within an organisation, nor can it be assumed that the failure of an organisation to respond to the audit implied that they were not involved in risk assessments or the use of risk assessment tools.

Interviews with professionals involved in risk assessment

1.10 Interviews were conducted with a range of professionals involved in the assessment of risk among serious violent and sexual offenders. The majority of respondents were identified through the audit responses, with additional agencies approached to widen the range of, in particular, health settings included in the study. The information provided by these latter respondents about the types of risk assessment tools employed supplemented the data obtained through the audit of risk tools.

1.11 Twenty-two individuals were interviewed from a range of settings. One respondent, who had a split post, was able to offer comment on approaches to risk assessment in two different settings (prison and health). The number of interviews conducted with respondents from different settings was as follows: prison, including the private prison at HMP Kilmarnock (7); police (3); health (4) ⁴; social work (8) ⁵; and the voluntary sector (1) ⁶.

1.12 All of the interviews were tape recorded and fully transcribed for analysis. They explored similar issues covered in the audit, but in greater depth and with a view to identifying issues associated with risk assessment and risk management in practice. The broad areas covered in the interviews were: the types of tools or approaches employed and the reasons for their adoption; the advantages and disadvantages of different tools and approaches to risk assessment; how the tools were administered, including 'quality control' measures; the relationship between risk assessment and risk management; and issues arising from multi-agency involvement in risk assessment and risk management.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

1.13 The remainder or this report is organised into six chapters. In Chapter Two the range of approaches to risk assessment by different professional groups is discussed and the progress of validation in respect of the different risk assessment tools in use is examined. Chapter Three focuses upon risk assessment in action: who carries out risk assessments, how they are carried out and the mechanisms that are in place to ensure a consistent approach to risk assessment within organisations. In Chapter Four the perceived advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to risk assessment are considered while Chapter Five explores how risk assessments inform risk management and Chapter Six examines issues associated with multi-agency involvement in risk assessment and management. In Chapter Seven the conclusions are presented along with a classification of risk assessment tools and approaches in use in Scotland against a number of essential and desirable criteria for risk assessment tools derived from previous research.

« Previous | Contents | Next »