The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER THREE: RISK ASSESSMENT IN ACTION

INTRODUCTION

3.1 Having reviewed in Chapter Two the approaches to risk assessment being adopted by different professional groups in Scotland, this chapter describes the manner in which risk assessments are carried out. For example, who is responsible for undertaking and interpreting risk assessments, what training have they received to do so and what systems are in place to encourage consistency in the administration of risk assessment tools and their interpretation? This chapter concludes by considering a number of issues that have been identified as impacting upon the completion of risk assessments in practice.

CONTEXTS IN WHICH RISK ASSESSMENTS WERE UNDERTAKEN

3.2 The tools included in the audit were being used in a wide range of settings. This included prisons, community justice settings (social work and the police), secure and medium secure units, specialist projects for sexual offenders, mental health in-patient and out-patient settings, hostels and supported accommodation. In only 15 instances were the tools included in the audit employed alone. More usually, tools were employed alongside other tools in the assessment of offender risk. In just over one third of returns (36) the tools were always used in combination with other tools, in 16 returns they were said usually to be used in combination with other tools and in 32 returns they were reportedly sometimes combined with other tools (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Frequency of combined use of audit tool with other tools

3.3 Social workers were most likely to combine the use of the LSI-R and the RAGF, while staff in prison and health settings were more likely to use a battery of psychological risk assessment tools. Police were least likely to employ other tools, however they observed that the risk assessment procedures that had been developed drew upon a range of information from other relevant agencies:

"Police risk assessments will, however, include reference to any relevant information supplied by external agencies (e.g. social work) who use various assessment tools."

"As part of the Police Risk Assessment with other agencies, sometimes an outside agency may bring into the forum another method of risk assessment and that may be incorporated into the overall assessment."

The issue of multi-agency risk assessments will be considered in more detail in Chapter Six of this report.

3.4 The purpose to which risk assessments were put clearly varied from agency to agency, depending upon the setting and the respondent's role (Table 3.2). The role of risk assessments in informing risk management was emphasised by all professional groups whereas the use of risk assessments to inform the development and review of intervention or treatment plans was a prominent concern of social workers, psychologists and other health service personnel, but not of the police. In general, social workers, prison psychologists and health service personnel tended to use risk assessments for a wider range of purposes than did the police who, interviews suggested, undertook risk assessments mainly to inform their strategies for monitoring offenders in the community.

Table 3.2: Purposes to which the tools included in the audit were put

3.5 Social workers indicated that risk assessments were sometimes put to other uses. This included informing recommendations to the children's panel and decision-making about children who offend. As one social worker explained, risk assessments could be drawn upon to inform "decision-making around a child. Deciding what management strategies we need to put into place in the short term."

RISK ASSESSMENT IN PRACTICE

Who undertakes risk assessments?

3.6 The questionnaires sought information about the designation of staff involved in the administration of the risk assessment tool. The resultant data are summarised in Table 3.3. Consistent with the emphasis placed by the police on 'holistic' assessments, risk assessments conducted by the police were most likely to involve the input of other professional groups.

Table 3.3: Personnel involved in the administration of the tools used by different groups

3.7 Social work risk assessments were conducted and interpreted by criminal justice social workers or by social workers in specialist projects or units (for example in the medium secure unit). Police risk assessments were carried out by dedicated officers, though one police respondent indicated that child protection officers - who had received the national training on sex offender assessment and monitoring - would undertake this task if workloads became excessively high. In the areas with a social work sex offender liaison officer (SOLO) all initial assessments undertaken by dedicated police officers would be discussed between the crime manager for the area and the SOLO. In health and prison settings, specialist risk assessments of serious violent or sexual offenders were undertaken and interpreted by chartered forensic or clinical psychologists.

Training received by staff undertaking risk assessments

3.8 Respondents to the audit were unaware in ten returns what type of training staff had received in the use of the tools. However in most instances it appeared that some form of training had been provided. In 48 returns staff were said to have received the initial training as specified by the person or persons who had developed the tool to which the return referred. This had been supplemented in 18 returns by locally developed training and in eight returns by more in-depth specialist training. In 18 returns locally developed training alone had been provided in the use of the tool to which they referred.

3.9 The police officers who took part in the survey had participated in a five-day residential course on the risk assessment and monitoring of sex offenders provided by the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan, supplemented in some cases by additional training provided locally. However, one police respondent indicated that s/he had received no training in this area and was "very much left … to get on with it".

3.10 Psychologists and other professionals using more specialised, standardised tools had received training in their use, usually by the person responsible for developing the tool. Interviewees emphasised that psychologists would not be permitted to undertake risk assessments using these tools unless they had been trained in and had had some supervised experience in their use. In prisons, all risk assessments had to be undertaken by or supervised by an accredited, chartered clinical or forensic psychologist.

How are the risk assessments carried out?

3.11 In most instances (82 returns) tools were said to be administered through a combination of interviews with the offender and the use of information contained in agency records. In 12 returns administration of the tool was said by audit respondents to be based solely on an interview with the offender and in four cases administration of the tool was reported to require only information derived from existing documentary sources ¹⁵. In a few returns (4) respondents reported that administration of the tool also drew upon information from other relevant third parties.

What mechanisms are in place to ensure a consistent approach?

3.12 In four cases no mechanisms were said by audit respondents to have been put into place to ensure that the tool was being used appropriately. In most cases (85) staff supervision was used as a quality control mechanism, usually supplemented by the sampling of cases in which the tool was administered (51 cases) and/or observation or video recording of the use of the tool in practice (21 cases and 3 cases respectively). Other mechanisms that were in place to ensure that tools were being used appropriately included scrutiny of assessments by line managers, assessment meetings, co-working, review by an external consultant and external audit by the organisation responsible for developing the tool. For example:

"All risk assessments are submitted to and approved by Head of Department (Detective Chief Inspector) and Divisional Commander (Chief Superintendent) and countersigned with any appropriate comment."

"All risk assessments checked by senior social worker."

"RAGF 1-3 is much less monitored. RAGF 4 is always scrutinised by the line manager."

"Some co-working is done. Senior social worker reviews all risk assessments and makes comments before countersigning."

"The developing company took a range of samples from the authority and audited them."

3.13 Mechanisms for ensuring consistency in the use and scoring/interpretation of risk assessment tools varied across professional groups. In social work departments this usually involved a combination of monitoring of Social Enquiry Reports by team leaders and staff supervision. Police risk assessments were subject to scrutiny by more senior officers and were, in some areas, either conducted jointly with or discussed with social workers.

3.14 In some forensic settings risk assessments were viewed as a joint responsibility between team members and therefore discussed as a team before being "signed off". Psychologists in prisons and in the State Hospital periodically engaged in exercises aimed at checking the consistency of scoring and interpretation of 'practice' cases.

How are risk assessments interpreted and by whom?

3.15 Risk assessment tools were reported by audit respondents to be scored or interpreted through the use of professional or clinical judgement (37 returns), with reference to a scoring manual (33 returns) or through a combination of both (22 returns). Social workers were most likely to use professional judgement and a scoring manual (either in combination or separately). Prison based psychologists and health professionals always used a scoring manual, supplemented in some cases by the use of professional judgement ¹⁶, while the tools used by police officers relied mostly upon the exercising of professional judgement. Other methods of interpreting or scoring the risk assessment tools included the use of locally developed normative data against which scores could be compared, discussion with line managers, reference to research and through the use of a computerised programme.

3.16 According to most returns (95) risk assessment tools were interpreted or scored by the person who administered them, in some cases in conjunction with others (13 returns). In only two returns was it indicated that the person who undertook the risk assessment was not directly involved in interpreting the results ¹⁷. The 'others' involved in scoring/interpretation were usually line managers or other members of multi-disciplinary risk assessment fora:

"It is interpreted jointly by police and social worker who administer it. The findings are then submitted via a supervisory structure." (Police respondent)

"Multi-disciplinary team, predominantly psychologist and psychiatrist." (Health respondent)

"Scored/assessed by social worker, checked by manager, risk management plan drawn up by team manager/senior using multi-agency case conference if necessary." (Social work respondent)

PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH UNDERTAKING RISK ASSESSMENTS

3.17 The interviews revealed a number of issues associated with the practical implementation of risk assessments. Broadly speaking, however, these can be grouped under two headings: limitations imposed by various resource constraints and limitations imposed by the difficulties associated with accessing particular types of information.

Resource constraints

3.18 One social work respondent indicated that s/he would prefer to complete a full Matrix 2000 assessment for all offenders convicted of a sexual offence for whom a Social Enquiry Report (SER) was being prepared. In practice, however, this was not possible within the timescales for preparation of an SER. As a compromise, the static element of Matrix 2000 was applied to all sex offender referrals, and a full assessment completed for those subsequently placed on statutory orders. The static element alone was acknowledged, however, not to be especially helpful in determining the overall level of risk. In particular, it was argued that it tended to identify people as lower risk than would be the case if a full risk assessment were carried out.

3.19 In general, risk assessments were acknowledged to be time-consuming, regardless of where they were conducted and the types of tools employed. As one social worker observed in relation to the RA1-4:

"Normally risk assessments are not just a one-off thing where you might interview me and tick a few boxes and say 'he's obviously a scary guy'…Certainly I did it over several interviews when I was doing them."

3.20 Time constraints were also experienced by prison psychologists when preparing risk assessments for prisoner tribunals at the request of the Parole Board. Whilst in principle the Parole Board had agreed to request risk assessments three months prior to the date of a tribunal, in practice requests often came as little as six weeks in advance.

3.21 In the prison setting other time constraints were imposed by the lengths of sentences prisoners had received. It was suggested, for example, that there sometimes appeared to be a discrepancy between the level of risk presented by an offender and the length of custodial sentence imposed. As a result, there was insufficient time during the custodial portion of the sentence for risks to be identified and risk factors addressed.

3.22 The resources provided for risk assessment and management were said by some respondents not to have matched the amount of work involved is assessing and managing risk among serious violent and sexual offenders. Much of the activity around risk assessment and management by social work and the police was, it was suggested, undertaken on a goodwill basis, though, in reality, these agencies - unlike some others - did not have the option of declining to become involved in a case.

3.23 Finally, structured clinical assessments undertaken in forensic mental health settings were often supplemented by detailed file reviews. Since professionals working in one setting were usually reluctant to forward their files to professionals working in other settings, this meant that staff who were involved in conducting detailed and comprehensive documentation reviews had to travel to where the files were located. As a result, the process of conducting risk assessments based on information of this types was extremely time-consuming and, accordingly, demanding of resources.

Difficulties obtaining information

3.24 Social workers reported that they had well developed protocols for the sharing of information between them and the police. However information from other agencies was sometimes more difficult to access. For example, health professionals - such as GPs and psychiatrists - were said to be reluctant to give access to information that might be of value in informing assessments of risk.

3.25 Neither witness statements nor the original court records were routinely available to inform risk assessments undertaken by different professionals, even though they could, if provided, supply important information about the circumstances of the offence and the demeanour of the offender at the time of its commission and could, therefore, make a vital contribution to the accurate assessment of risk. In the case of forensic psychologists, whether or not witness statements were made available appeared to depend upon an individual's link with Crown Office. However, as one psychologist observed, "…it shouldn't be on a personal level. If you are working in the forensic service where you are doing a risk assessment on somebody it should be automatically available."

3.26 Social work respondents indicated that they sometimes received the indictment and the trial judge's notes - both of which were extremely useful - but that this did not occur on a consistent basis. Social workers therefore reported that they would also welcome having access to witness statements, like their colleagues in the probation service in England and Wales. When considering whether there were any limitations imposed upon risk management strategies by the risk assessment tools employed, one social work respondent observed that " there's not been consistent areas that have proved problematic to us, apart from available information." Another respondent working in a forensic setting identified the lack of information about offending by young people under 16 years of age to be a problem ¹⁸.

3.27 Police respondents observed that the exchange of information on sex offenders who moved within Scotland was good - the entire file would be passed on to the police force in which the offender now resided - but that some English forces were reluctant to share full information about offenders who moved north of the border. This they attributed to court cases in England and Wales in which local authorities had been criticised for passing on information to another local authority when an offender moved address. The result was that the type of information provided was " down to each individual force or person".

SUMMARY

3.28 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 informed risk management plans, helped inform multi-agency risk management strategies, assisted in the matching of offenders to interventions and aided recommendations regarding release from prison, discharge from hospital or sentencing in court.

3.29 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. However, risk assessments usually were time-consuming and resource demanding and were sometimes constrained by external time frames. Moreover, respondents also identified important gaps in the availability of information to inform risk assessments, including witness statements and court records.

« Previous | Contents | Next »