Transcript Slide 1

Assessing,
Reducing and
Managing Risk in
HM Prison Service
Ruth Mann & Gill Attrill
History and Background
Range of accredited programmes, addressing
various risk factors
•
Offending
Behaviour
Programmes Unit
Rolling Programme
Core Programme
Booster Programme
Adapted Programme
Extended Programme
Healthy Sexual
Functioning
Chromis
Sexual Offenders
Cognitive Skills
Booster
Enhanced Thinking
Skills
FOR Resettlement
C.A.L.M.
Violent
Offenders
Cognitive Self-change
Programme
Personality
Disordered
Offenders
Programme
Domestically
Violent Offenders
Healthy Relationships Programmes
(High and Moderate Intensity)
History and Background
Increased focus on responsivity and recognition of
offenders’ complexity
•
Balancing need to individualise assessment and
treatment with the need to maintain treatment
integrity
•
Consideration of how treatment and assessment,
and management fit together
•
•
Running programmes to scale
19
92
19 /93
93
19 /94
94
19 /95
95
19 /96
96
19 /97
97
19 /98
98
19 /99
99
20 /00
00
20 /01
01
20 /02
02
20 /03
03
20 /04
04
20 /05
05
/0
6
12000
4000
Number of prisoners completing programmes
10000
9638
8000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Some Issues
1. Maintaining focus on what you are really trying
to achieve
Chromis
• View of offenders
• Treatment aims
Risk reduction
External risk management
New ways of pro-social living
• Do you change the psychopathic offender so that they
can meet the needs of the programme or change the
programme so that it meets the needs of the psychopathic
offender?
Chromis
• Clearly defined treatment needs and goals
• Common language
• Developing the role of all staff
• Realistic expectations
Some Issues
2. Finding meaningful ways of monitoring what you
are trying to achieve
Monitoring and evaluation
Chromis:
•
Collaborative and transparent
Motivation and engagement work, prior to assessment of
treatment need
•
Assessment of risk related needs, responsivity needs, and
strengths
•
•
Recognition of the importance of context
•
Staff training and development
Chromis
• Multiple measures, developing evidence base
• Individual behaviour monitoring – linked to risk and
responsivity
• Long term, and across different contexts
• Communication across services
• Multi-methods and triangulation of assessment
Self-report
Structured assessment
Behavioural Monitoring
(development of task based
assessments)
Chromis - generalisation
• Proactively providing opportunities for skills practise,
development and feedback
• Complementary generalisation exercises to support group and
individual sessions.
• Ensuring all staff understand the skills, techniques and
approaches covered in treatment components
• Viewing treatment and risk reduction as everyone’s role and
responsibility
• A long term strategy
Some Issues
3. Limitations of available assessments
4. Having confidence that we are monitoring the
right things
5. Assessment fatigue
6. Recording and reporting
SARN
The Structured Assessment of Risk
& Need for Sexual Offenders
Implementation & Development
• SARN was introduced in 2000 and is
continuously developed.
• It assesses static risk and treatment need as
separate concepts.
• It has been peer reviewed by 2 independent
reviewers.
• Strict procedures ensure reliability.
• Validity depends on purpose of use.
SARN - overview
• Stage 1: Risk Matrix 2000 (Static risk algorithm.
Can predict risk of sexual offending, violent
offending, or combined risk).
• Stage 2: Treatment Need Analysis. Considers
relevance of 15 dynamic risk factors for sexual
offending. Presented as a grid.
• Stage 3. Risk Report. Considers progress in
treatment along other risk-related issues.
Apply with caution to…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Men who have murdered
Older offenders
Offenders currently under the age of 18
Female sexual offenders
Forensic mental patients
Alleged but not convicted sexual offenders.
Internet offenders (or other offences from 2003
Act)
Reasons for new risk report
format
•
•
•
•
Efficiency
Stakeholder Feedback
Rice Inquiry
Analysis of psychometrics
New SARN risk report
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The offender’s story
Static risk assessment
Change on dynamic risk factors
Factors influencing current risk*
Adjustment of static risk
How risk might change
Risk Management recommendation
Conclusion in light of current question
Current Risk Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Change on Dynamic Risk Factors
Effect of age on risk
Other offending risk
Mental health
Psychopathy
Offence paralleling behaviours
Relationship with supervising officer
Protective factors
Effect of treatment
Who should conduct risk
assessment?
• At the decision-making points in a
prisoner’s sentence, there should be a
separate assessment of the prisoner that
is independent of the treatment and which
takes into account all available evidence.
Key Recommendation 2, p. 5, HMIP Review of
Serious Further Offence (Anthony Rice)
Risk report principles
•
•
•
•
•
Keep writing brief and concise
Try to keep report to ten pages
Ensure you consult with others
Ensure you see the prisoner at least once.
Within all this structure, try to retain a sense of
the person and his story, so report is not too
“reductionist and impersonal”.
Risk Report training
• 2 day course
• Competencies targeted are:
– Knowledge of scientific and ethical issues in risk
assessment (esp. influence of age, treatment, validity,
psychometric interpretation)
– Understanding of stakeholder needs
– Concise and confident writing skills
– Oral defence skills
– Analysis of complex information
– Forming ethical professional judgements
The SOTPs
How SOTP is designed
• SOTP consists of six accredited programmes.
• Programme dose (length) and content are
designed to fit the needs of particular risk groups.
• Each programme relates to specific (combinations
of) criminogenic needs
• Programmes can be combined according to need
as identified by SARN.
The SOTPs
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rolling Programme
Core Programme
Adapted Core Programme
Extended Programme
Healthy Sexual Functioning Programme
Better Lives Booster Programme
SOTP allocation by risk/need
Dynamic
Low
Medium
High
Low
Rolling
Rolling
Medium
Core
High
Rolling/
Core
Core
Rolling/
Core
Core
Very high
Core +Ext
Core + Ext
HSFP, BLB
Core + Ext
HSFP, BLB
Core + Ext
HSFP, BLB
Core + Ext
HSFP, BLB
Static
Does SOTP reduce
risk?
Efficacy of sex offender
treatment generally
• Five key meta-analytic reviews in last ten
years.
• All find a small but robust treatment effect
for cognitive-behavioural programmes,
particularly “modern” programmes.
Does SOTP reduce risk?
• Friendship, C., Mann, R.E., & Beech, A. (2003).
Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment
program for sexual offenders in England and
Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,
744-759.
• Examined impact on recidivism of the preaccredited Core Programme (1992-1996).
• Looked at impact by static risk (Static-99)
Reconviction rates (2 years)
Treated
Untreated
Low
1.9%
2.6%
Medium low
2.7%
12.7%
Medium high
5.5%
13.5%
High
26%
28.1%
Non-reconviction benefits of
SOTP
• Participation in treatment gives a much
clearer idea of the personally relevant
dynamic risk factors for an individual.
• This can aid risk management and
monitoring – supervising officers are
clearer about what might indicate acute
risk.
Treatment and risk reduction.
• SOTP Core Programme reduces risk for
some sexual offenders.
• More extensive treatment (I.e. Core +
Extended + HSFP) probably is effective for
higher risk offenders but this has not yet
been demonstrated.
• The SOTP is unlikely to make offenders
higher risk, unless they drop out.
Final thought on risk reporting
• “The challenge of routinely constructing
collaborative, sophisticated narratives in such a
highly pressurised context and within a
framework of excessive workloads, strict time
limits and increasing standardisation, regulation
and automation, is not underestimated.
However, the most adept and committed…
authors may yet continue, against all the odds,
to produce reports which engage and persuade
the reader”. (Gorman, 2006).
Take Home Point:
Assessing, Reducing
and Managing Risk …
is really hard