« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
SERIOUS VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENDERS: THE USE OF RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS IN SCOTLAND
ANNEX TWO
SUMMARY OF MAIN RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR USE WITH SERIOUS VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENDERS
GENERIC TOOLS
LSI-R is an actuarial predictive scale which combines risk of re-offending and needs assessment (Andrews and Bonta, 1995). It uses static factors such as age and previous convictions and dynamic factors such as alcohol or accommodation problems. It was developed in Canada with the purpose of matching offenders to probation interventions. The assessment is completed with the offender and recorded on a form. Problem areas are scored and the total number of problem 'points' indicates the level of risk of re-offending.
Guidance is given about appropriate levels of supervision or containment according to the level of risk an offender poses and problem areas such as employment or drug misuse are identified for appropriate programmes or intervention. A number of local authority social work departments in Scotland now use LSI-R. Its applicability to Scottish offenders has recently been assessed. This analysis suggested that it may be less well suited to certain groups of offenders, including women (McIvor et al., 2001).
The RAGF (sometimes referred to as RA1-4) is a structured professional judgement tool combining actuarial indicators with clinical or professional judgements (Social Work Services Inspectorate, 2000). It was developed by the Scottish Executive in consultation with the Association of Directors of Social Work. It incorporates risk of re-offending (RA1), criminogenic need (RA2) and risk of harm (RA3) schedules with a full risk of harm schedule (RA4) for high-risk offenders requiring risk management action plans. It is still in evolving form and has been piloted in 17 local authorities across Scotland. The RA1 uses the same predictive factors as the Offender Group Reconviction Score (OGRS) used widely in England and Wales, but there is no algorithm to determine precise levels of risk and judgements are made using 'high', 'medium', or 'low' descriptions. The assessment is completed with the offender and recorded on the schedule and it may take a number of sessions to complete. The predictive capacity of the RAGF is currently being assessed by the Social Work Research Centre at the University of Stirling.
TOOLS FOR ASSESSING RISK OF SEXUAL OFFENDING
The SORAG is an adaptation of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and is principally designed for use with men convicted (or committed to psychiatric institutions) for offences of rape or child molestation (Quinsey et al., 1998). It comprises a fourteen-item multi-variate assessment guide that includes a psychopathy score and which draws upon a range of static and dynamic factors. It is the subject of ongoing evaluation.
Sexual Violence Risk-20 - SVR-20 - is a 20-item instrument that covers a range of static and dynamic factors and includes items aimed at informing risk management plans (Boer et al., 1997). Some of the items in the tool are drawn directly from the HCR-20 (see below). SVR-20 is being used by the Scottish Prison Service to provide a more detailed assessment of risk of sexual violence among offenders initially assessed using HCR-20.
The Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (RRASOR) is essentially an actuarially based tool that weights a number of key variables in terms of their predictive utility (Hanson, 1997). The initial seven items were based upon a meta-analysis and four were subsequently substantiated as having predictive accuracy for sex offence recidivism. The variables that comprise the tool can be scored to produce an overall risk weighting. The ability of the tool to distinguish between high and low risk has been validated and it has been extensively tested both on both developmental and validation samples.
The Structured Anchored Clinical Judgement (SACJ) attempts to avoid over-dependence upon static predictors (e.g. age, gender) and archival data (e.g. previous convictions) by including a more dynamic component to allow for changes in risk status over time (Hanson and Thornton, 2000). It operates as a three-stage 'step-wise' system rather than a simple summative process based on weighted items as is the case with RRASOR. Stage One involves an initial actuarial screening based on five items. Stage Two consists of a more in-depth analysis of aggravating factors, including the addition of dynamic factors. Stage Three consists of the careful monitoring of offender performance over time to note the impact of treatment on risky dispositions, and is heavily reliant upon the availability of clinical data and information on dynamic factors. A shortened version of the SACJ using stage 1 and the first four variables of stage 2 and known as SACJ -MIN is also available although it has yet to be extensively tested outside the United Kingdom prison population.
RRASOR and the SACJ-Min have been combined to produce STATIC 99 (Hanson and Thornton, 1999). Research found that STATIC 99 outperformed both the RRASOR and SACJ-MIN though the improved prediction achieved was relatively small. STATIC 99 is a developing tool to which further dynamic risk factors are likely to be added to improve its predictive accuracy.
The SACJ has subsequently been updated into MATRIX 2000 (Hanson and Thornton, 2000). MATRIX 2000 represents an important improvement on the SACJ as it provides for greater accuracy and refinement in the identification of high risk offenders, and offers two versions, one for sex offenders and one for violent offenders. Whilst the tool has not yet been subject to extensive published evaluations, it has been validated retrospectively. Development and validation of both versions have however been undertaken with male offenders (and often male prisoners) and they may have a limited transferability to other groups. Furthermore, these tools are also designed to predict recidivism and not levels of harm: the latter is a key concern for staff tasked with decisions about release, community location, treatment interventions and victim safety.
TOOLS FOR ASSESSING RISK OF VIOLENT OFFENDING
The Violence Risk Assessment Guide (VRAG) is the most widely used actuarial tool for violence offence recidivism (Quinsey et al., 1998). It was developed in Canada, based upon patients detained in secure hospitals between 1965 and 1980, and has been the subject of extensive evaluation which has confirmed its predictive utility. The VRAG contains twelve items, with weighted factors used to assign individuals to one of nine risk categories. The limitations of the VRAG include its inability to predict the nature, severity, imminence, and frequency of future violence and its tendency to encourage those who use it to ignore other risk factors that might be strongly associated with violence. VRAG also does not provide a basis upon which risk management plans can be developed.
The Violence Prediction Scheme (VPS) is designed for the assessment of dangerousness in high-risk men (Webster et al., 1994). The scheme utilises the twelve items of the VRAG (called RAG) to produce an actuarial score, combined with structured assessment of ten, largely dynamic items: antecedent history, self presentation, social and psychological adjustment, expectations and plans, symptoms, supervision, life factors, institutional management, sexual adjustment, and treatment progress. While the addition of the dynamic factors adds very little to the accuracy of the actuarial (V)RAG score, the structured clinical assessment is importance for the establishment of treatability and formulation of appropriate risk management plans.
The HCR-20 is a systematic model for assessing the risk of violence (Webster et al., 1997). The assessment combines historical factors that have a track record in predicting risk, with clinical variables such as respondent insight, attitude, motivation to change and for treatment, stability, and general symptomology. In addition, the assessment tool has the 'value-added' component of structuring the assessor's attention towards case management plans, motivation to change and individual coping mechanisms. The HCR-20 is divided into 3 sub-scales: a historical scale, a clinical scale and a risk management scale. Whilst initially formulated as an 'aide memoire' in order to make decisions transparent, the predictive validity of the HCR-20 has been evaluated and its applicability to the Scottish context has been assessed (Cooke et al., 2001).
The Psychopathy Check List-Revised (PCL-R) and its derivatives (the PCL:YV for adolescents and the PCL:SV 'screening version' ) is a clinical construct rating scale used in semi-structured interview (Hare, 1991). It involves rating 20 items on a 3 point scale divided into three broad categories: interpersonal/affective, social deviance and 'additional items'. As Kemshall (2002) observes, whilst initially developed from research on male forensic patients and offenders, various studies have confirmed the applicability of the PCL-R to other offender and patient populations. It has also been shown to be a highly reliable tool when used by well-trained assessors. Although not designed as a measurement of violence risk, it may measure the most important factor in the risk of predatory violence, that is, psychopathy.
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) is a 20-item checklist that has been designed to screen for risk factors for spousal or family-related assault (Kropp et al. 1999). It covers a range of static, dynamic and risk management factors, drawing in part upon items included in the HCR-20. Like the SVR-20 it is being employed by the Scottish Prison Service to provide a more detailed assessment of risk of spousal assault among offenders initially assessed using HCR-20.
« Previous | Contents | Next »