The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 2
Assessing risk

Summary

Assessment of the risk of serious harm was poor or absent in many files for sex offenders and violent offenders. However, there had been good progress in rolling out nationally agreed tools for assessing the reconviction risk for sex offenders, and agencies used these routinely. Risk assessment of violent offenders was less well developed.

There were variations across the country in how the agencies worked together to assess risk and use the frameworks provided. We concluded that practitioners were sometimes confused about what risk of serious harm meant as compared to risk of reconviction. There was a need for national standards and guidelines to set out very clearly for staff the minimum expectations for risk assessment, including the risk of serious harm.

National policy requires police to conduct detailed risk assessments on registered sex offenders who were not subject to social work supervision in the community, even when they had already screened them as low risk of reconviction using an appropriate screening tool. We considered that Scottish Ministers and agencies should review this practice.

The need to assess risk

2.1 Risk assessment is a vital part of the risk management process. By applying judgement, and using relevant structured risk assessment tools, practitioners and clinicians arrive at an analysis of the likelihood of reconviction, and assess the potential impact that the offending behaviour might have. More sophisticated risk assessments also examine the scenarios in which risk increases, and those in which it reduces.

2.2 Risk assessment is inherently a less than exact process. With even the best risk assessment practice, there will still be occasions when an offender behaves unpredictably, or where risk proves to be more or less severe than predicted. When assessing risk, it is critical that agencies use approaches that are defensible, evidence based and that stand up to scrutiny.

2.3 The table overleaf sets out the risk assessment tools that were in widespread use at the time of the inspection, and about which we make comment throughout this chapter.

Current policies and practice for risk assessment

2.4 The Social Work Services Inspectorate ( SWSI) published a 'risk assessment guidance framework' ( RAGF) in 2000 ¹⁰. There was no requirement to use the framework although two of the tools included in the RAGF, the RA3 and RA4, were still in regular use to screen for and assess risk of harm. More recently, the Scottish Government had initiated a national policy group to oversee developments in risk assessment practice and how all of the different tools in use connected together ¹¹.

2.5 Another national policy initiative sought to introduce a new risk assessment approach for all offenders, which included a section for full risk of harm assessment ¹². Scottish Ministers and partners from local authorities, prisons and police services had been working on this project for a number of years, but had encountered challenges in finding an acceptable and secure means to make the system available electronically. In early 2009, the Government constituted a new multi-agency project group with a remit to progress this project to completion. This risk assessment approach has the capacity to improve the assessment of risk of serious harm for sex offenders and for violent offenders, and it is very important that this project reaches a successful conclusion as soon as possible.

Sex offenders

2.6 Recommendation 16 of the Cosgrove Report stated that 'all agencies involved in work with sex offenders should adopt the structured clinical approach to risk assessment and should recognise structured tools as part of this approach'. A structured clinical approach means that assessors should use evidence-based risk assessment tools to inform their professional judgement about risk.

2.7 The Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland ( ACPOS), the Scottish Prison Service ( SPS), and the Association of Directors of Social Work ( ADSW) agreed on a national framework for the risk assessment of sex offenders. This framework involved two stages:

i) An initial screening using the Risk Matrix 2000 ( RM2000)

ii) The application of a two-part assessment tool called the Stable and Acute 2007 ( SA07).

2.8 The intended function of the RM2000 was to screen a larger group of offenders to identify who needed further assessment. The policy of assessing every registered sex offender with the much more time-demanding SA07 appeared to contradict the RM2000 screening role. This requires review.

2.9 To assess properly overall risk, we considered that it was necessary to bring together both the risk of reconviction and the risk of serious harm. Neither the RM2000 nor the SA07 had the function of assessing the risk of serious harm. At the time of the inspection, the only applicable assessment tools for recording an assessment of the risk of serious harm were the RA3 and RA4. There were wide variations across the country in whether and how social workers used the RA3 and RA4, and police had not received training to use these tools.

2.10 We considered that independent academic verification and testing of risk assessment tools is necessary to establish confidence that they are as accurate as claimed. At the time of the inspection, there were no such validation studies to support the SA07, although it was evidence-based and came from a well-known academic source. We heard that a number of other international jurisdictions had also adopted the SA07. The RM2000 had a number of validation studies supporting it, including a Scottish validation, and the process to evaluate and validate the SA07 in Scotland has commenced.

2.11 Police, social work, and prisons had agreed with the Scottish Government to produce an SA07 assessment on all registered sex offenders by the end of October 2008. Inspection evidence confirmed that this work was in progress, although the police in particular expressed that the tight deadline involved had resulted in some of the SA07 assessments undertaken being of diminished quality.

Violent offenders

2.12 There were no risk assessment tools available to social workers and police to assess the reconviction risk of violent offending. Such tools did exist ¹³, but they required specific expertise and training not routinely held by social work practitioners and police officers. At the time of the inspection, the RMA was working to advise the Scottish Government on a framework suitable to assess risk in violent offenders. Assessment of the risk of serious harm is equally as important for violent offenders as for sex offenders.

Findings

Practitioner views about using risk assessment tools

2.13 Practitioner views varied considerably across all of the agencies about the usefulness of risk of reconviction tools such as the RM2000 and the SA07.

2.14 As set out in 'Registering the Risk' ¹⁴, the RM2000 did not provide full assessment coverage of all sex offender types ¹⁵ but is still being used to assess these groups. Practitioners and managers considered this a serious limitation in their ability to assess and manage risk.

2.15 Some practitioners appreciated the depth of assessment that the SA07 provided, particularly its ability to help inform a coherent treatment plan. Others thought that SA07 and RM2000 often gave contradictory results, which they found unhelpful. Some found it helpful that SA07 could highlight when an offender's risk level had reduced as well as increased, providing useful evidence about the level of supervision required at different points in time.

2.16 Many police officers commented that applying the 'stable' part of SA07 with MAPPA level 1 offenders not subject to social work supervision was time consuming and did not yield obvious benefits. It generated information about the individual offence-related needs of the offender, but police alone were in no position to arrange treatment programmes.

2.17 Police officers said they applied the 'acute' part of SA07 with offenders not under social work supervision and managed at MAPPA level 1. Many such offenders had very infrequent contact with the police, in some instances six monthly or annually. We think that requiring police to apply the 'acute' tool with this population at this level of frequency is problematic.

2.18 There was evidence that the introduction of the SA07 had led to the end of risk of harm assessments for sex offenders in some local authority social work areas. We considered it likely that this was symptomatic of widespread confusion between assessing risk of harm and risk of reconviction. While agencies might wish to limit the amount of paperwork and assessment tools in use, we considered that every sex offender subject to social work supervision should always have an up to date assessment of risk of harm.

Quality of risk assessment practice in prison

2.19 Prison-based social workers assessed the risk of serious harm using the RA3 and RA4. Sex offenders typically had an assessment of their reconviction risk with the RM2000. In files that were more recent, there was evidence (for sex offenders) that the SA07 assessment informed how prisons managed offenders during their sentences.

2.20 In about one-half of files, there was evidence of good risk assessment practice. In these, there was evidence of detailed consideration of risk of harm as well as risk of reconviction and good analysis leading to a well-structured assessment. This supported the creation of coherent risk management plans. However, in some files there was a lack of quality information about a prisoner upon their arrival in prison, which made the compilation of an initial risk assessment more difficult.

2.21 It was the Parole Board's view that prison-based social work reports containing analysis and coherent risk assessments were much more useful to them than those that were overly descriptive with little analysis.

2.22 The prison-based social work reports to the Parole Board we reviewed were generally of a high standard. Paperwork notifying local areas about the possible or planned release of a schedule 1 ¹⁶ offender was effective in the majority of files. Although there were some strong examples of good home background reports prepared by community-based social workers, others were poor and sometimes not based on recent visits. They often failed to address risk issues. We consider that social workers preparing home background reports for the Parole Board on sex offenders or serious violent offenders must interview the prisoner and visit the proposed release address, with a clear focus on risk assessment.

Quality of risk assessment practice in the community

2.23 Police were using the RM2000 consistently, and completing the SA07 on all registered sex offenders. Practitioners from police and social work told us that in some areas police and social workers carried out the SA07 assessments together, even when social workers did not have statutory responsibility for supervising the offender. In other areas, we heard that police would carry out the SA07 on their own. We were aware that the authors of the SA07 had suggested that agencies should use it in partnership, so this latter practice contradicted that guidance.

2.24 Most social work files had risk of reconviction assessments. For sex offenders, these were most often tools specific to sex offender risk, typically the RM2000 and SA07. Many of the files we reviewed had no evidence or poor evidence of risk of harm assessment. MAPPA meetings routinely incorporated the risk of serious harm in their decision-making. We considered that such discussions should rest on prior full written analysis of the risk of serious harm, and that practice in this required urgent improvement.

2.25 Social work practitioners thought that risk of serious harm assessment remained a poorly understood concept. Some staff carried out full risk of serious harm assessments only on sex offenders. Some did them for both sex and violent offenders. Others did not do such assessments for either violent or sex offenders. We considered that this level of variation was unacceptable.

2.26 Given the severity of the offences perpetrated by the offenders in our sample, all of whom were subject to statutory supervision, we considered that every one should have had an assessment of risk of serious harm using an appropriate tool such as the RA4. Only a minority of sex offenders, and a slightly higher proportion of violent offenders, had such
an assessment on file. In many instances, the prison-based social worker had carried out an RA4 assessment that the community-based worker had not updated after release.

Appropriateness of risk assessment tools

2.27 Some social work practitioners thought that general reconviction assessment tools were inappropriate for sex offenders. The RMA advised us that applying a general reconviction tool with sex offenders, along with tools that specifically predicted sexual reconviction, could add further depth to the risk assessment.

Staff training and support in risk assessment

2.28 Police, social work and prison staff had received training in using the RM2000 and the SA07. Staff had mixed views about the appropriateness of these tools and the quality of the training they received having gained subsequent experience in applying them with offenders. These attitudes ranged from confidence in the tools through to scepticism and anxiety. Some were concerned that the SA07 was susceptible to offender deception as it relied on self-disclosure. We considered that training for risk assessors should enable them to understand the strengths and limits of the tools, and to reinforce that their function is to assist them in making judgements about risk.

Recommendations for Scottish Ministers

• That Scottish Ministers amend the MAPPA guidance quickly to ensure that MAPPA meetings always consider a full analysis of risk of serious harm to support defensible decision-making.
• That Scottish Ministers publish national standards and guidelines for risk assessment practice. These should make clear that fully assessing risk of serious harm is necessary for both sex offenders and serious violent offenders.

Recommendations for Scottish Ministers and agencies

• That Scottish Ministers and responsible MAPPA authorities reassess whether it is necessary for police to carry out a full SA07 assessment with every offender assessed as low risk of reconviction using RM2000 and managed at MAPPA level 1.

Recommendations for agencies

• That Chief Social Work Officers ensure that social workers preparing home background reports interview the prisoner and visit the prospective release address. Reports must always specifically address risk issues.
• That Chief Social Work Officers ensure that every sex offender and serious violent offender on supervision has a full and current risk of harm assessment. This must be available to all those tasked with the responsibility for risk management.

« Previous | Contents | Next »