NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance

Transcription

1 NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance June 2009 Final Version

2 NOMS RISK OF SERIOUS HARM GUIDANCE INDEX Page 2 Introduction Page 3 Guidance Summary Page 4 10 Key Questions to ask yourself when assessing and managing risk of serious harm Page 5 7 Rationale Pages 8 12 Interpretation and Glossary of Terms Toolkit Pages Full Guidance: Very high/ high/ medium/ low risk of serious harm Pages Risk Factors: Static/ Dynamic (summary)/ Dynamic/ Comprehensive)/ Acute Page 26 Risk management plan considerations Page 27 Optional Checklist (aide memoir) Suggested Training Materials Pages Case studies x 2 including examples of Risk Management Plans 1

3 Risk of Serious Harm Guidance INTRODUCTION Aim The NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance is intended to inform the process of risk assessment and risk management. Its principles can be applied at each contact with an offender, whether in prison or in the community, and at each OASys review. Content The Guidance gives a more detailed account of the three types of factors which underpin risk assessment practice static, dynamic and acute - so that practitioners can give consideration to the relevance of each in the assessment and management of offenders across the range of risk of serious harm levels. It expands on the OASys definitions in relation to the four levels of risk of serious harm very high, high, medium and low and identifies the controls, both restrictive and rehabilitative, that should be considered in the management of such risk. Outcomes The Guidance will assist practitioners in making fair, defensible decisions in their assessment of risk of serious harm and in implementing risk management strategies accordingly. The Guidance Key documents:- 10 key principles/ questions A summary of the Guidance itself Supporting documentation:- Introduction/ Rationale/ Interpretation; Glossary of terms Toolkit: - Comprehensive Guidance very high, high, medium, low ROSH Factors static, dynamic (summary and comprehensive) and acute Controls Rehabilitative and Restrictive Optional checklist Suggested training materials:- Case studies including risk management plans Application The practical application of the Risk of Serious Harm Guidance involves the practitioner using the document set to structure the process of risk formulation for each individual offender i.e. identifying i) who is at risk of what ii) relevant risk factors iii) likely scenarios in which re- offending may occur and iv) protective factors - so that risk management strategies can be matched accordingly. This structured approach will assist practitioners in adhering to the 10 key principles in the assessment and management of risk of serious harm. 2

4 Risk Level NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance Summary Sheet Serious Harm An event which is life-threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible Risk of serious harm is the likelihood of this event happening. Definition of Risk Risk Factors Likelihood/Imminence Risk Management Level - COMMUNITY Risk Management Level - CUSTODY Maximum Maximum May 2009 Very High There is an imminent risk of serious harm. The potential event is more likely than not to happen imminently and the impact would be serious. High levels of static, dynamic and acute risk factors present. Serious harm is more than likely to happen imminently Tier 4 (Control) likely managed at MAPPA level 2 or 3. Multi-agency work and the maximum level of supervision compatible with the sentence are necessary to manage the risk level and offending related needs (particularly for PPO s) utilising restrictive and rehabilitative controls. Likely to be MAPPA eligible Through the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Planning (MARAP) or Inter Departmental Risk Management Team (IDRMT) meetings an action plan will be devised to manage the risks posed. Ongoing monitoring of risks and behaviour will be undertaken through the sentence planning process. Enhanced Enhanced High There are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. The potential event could happen at any time and the impact would be serious. Static and dynamic risk factors present. Several acute factors may be present. The offender has the potential to commit serious harm and is likely to do so but not in the immediate future. Tier 4 (Control) may be managed at MAPPA level 1 (if robust Risk Management Plan in place), 2 or 3. An enhanced level of supervision compatible with the sentence is necessary to manage the risk level and offending related needs (particularly for PPO s) utilising restrictive and rehabilitative controls. May be MAPPA eligible Ongoing monitoring following the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Planning (MARAP) if one has taken place through the Inter Departmental Risk Management Team (IDRMT) may include referral for specialist assessment/ treatment. Active Active Medium There are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. The offender has the potential to cause serious harm but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change in circumstances. Static risk factors present. Dynamic risk factors under control. Low level of acute factors present. On the balance of probability it is deemed unlikely that an offender will commit an act of serious harm. Tier 2/3 (help/ change) may be subject to MAPPA level 1 management Active work with the offender will be undertaken to manage and reduce their risk. Monitor May be MAPPA eligible Referral to the Inter Departmental Risk Management Team (IDRMT) may be appropriate as a result of concerns about this prisoner s changing behaviour or attitude. Monitor Low Current evidence does not indicate likelihood of causing serious harm. Static risk factors present. Dynamic risk under long term control. No evidence of acute factors present. An act of serious harm is deemed unlikely. Protective factors are well established and serve to keep risk at a minimal level Tier 1/2 (punish) may be subject to MAPPA level 1 management. As part of their standard contact with the Probation Service, monitoring of the offenders risk will take place including checks against dynamic and acute risk factors OR other information for evidence which may change the risk management level and require action. Tier 1/2 (punish) - No specific work is required to reduce or manage this risk. As part of their standard contact with prison staff any concerns about this prisoner s changing behaviour or attitude will be recorded. 3

5 10 key questions to ask yourself when assessing and managing risk of serious harm 1. Have you been alert to changes in risk of serious harm? Risk is dynamic and will fluctuate according to individual circumstances. 2. Have you identified and paid attention to behaviour or attitudes or changes in circumstance that might indicate that risk has escalated? 3. Have you considered information from a range of sources, and the potential impact, when refreshing each review of risk of serious harm? 4. Have you made attempts to validate information that indicates a reduction or increase in risk, either from the offender themselves or from other sources? 5. Are you clear about the purpose of the sentence plan how will objectives contribute to the effective management or reduction of risk? 6. Have you identified how you and the offender will develop and support protective factors? 7. Are you satisfied that the measures and controls in place will protect current or future victims and safeguard any children potentially at risk? 8. Have you actively monitored the effectiveness of restrictive/rehabilitative controls in managing risk? 9. Have you recorded all decisions that impact on the assessment or management of risk, including those made in conjunction with others such as higher managers or other agencies, and ensured that information is shared and acted upon? 10. Have you avoided the temptation to overestimate risk by balancing the motivation and engagement of the offender in reducing their risk, against their offending history? 4

6 The basis of the guidance NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance Rationale 1. The NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance is based upon three sources: a) The Risk Levels table from Kemshall, Mackenzie, Miller and Wilkinson (2008) The Risk of Harm Guidance and Training Resources Version 3. As such the table draws on the 2007 MAPPA Guidance, the OASys manual and current legislation. The table can be found in Module 1 Key Concepts and Definitions of the Training Resource; b) Don Grubin s risk model which draws analogies between medical risk assessments and offender risk assessments and which introduces the concept of acute risk factors; and c) The work of Philip Howard (NOMS ODEAT group) which endeavours to draw closer linkages between risk of serious harm levels and risk management. 2. It was devised as a result of discussions with members of the NOMS Public Protection Board and a subsequent Risk Workshop. The latter event drew together practitioners, managers and policy makers from across the country to identify strengths and weaknesses of current risk practice as well as providing suggestions for further developments. Key messages coming out of the workshop included:- i) Guidance utilising the terms Static, Dynamic and Acute factors (terms which have predominantly been associated with the assessment of sex offenders) was thought to be helpful ii) Information for practitioners on acute risk factors would enable more effective risk analyses to be undertaken iii) A recognised need to shift the emphasis from risk assessment to risk management iv) A need for risk assessment and risk management guidance to reflect the issues and concerns, in respect of risk practice, that occurs within a prison service setting. 3. These views were reflected in the 2008 NOMS Strategic Review of Public Protection: Risk assessment is not an end in itself. What matters is what we do with the assessment. We suggest progressing work to reframe the relationship between risk assessment and risk management with a focus on the acute factors that may trigger a further offence. The Review recognised that Offender Managers need to understand when risk of serious harm is escalating among those assessed to be at low or medium risk initially and to have a better understanding of acute risk factors. Review findings also highlighted that in prisons risk assessment is quite 5

7 narrowly focussed and much vital information on prisoner behaviours and attitudes which is gathered and recorded as part of routine observations is omitted from the risk of serious harm assessment process. 4. The lack of consistency in the quality of risk assessment and management also needs to be acknowledged. Whilst there is good evidence of some excellent innovative work, the results of HMI of Probations Risk of Harm Area Assessments indicate that such practice is not uniform. This guidance therefore seeks to enable practitioners to make defensible and accurate risk assessment and management decisions which are fully reflected within the OASys document. 5. The development of NOMS risk of serious harm guidance has taken place within an environment of limited resources. The Public Protection Review stated that: whilst some partners are concerned that we focus on serious rather than all harm we do not advocate changing this as scarce resources have to be targeted. The guidance can serve to ensure that resources are appropriately channelled in securing the best levels of public protection within our budgets and utilising current risk assessment tools. The purpose of the guidance 6. Against this background the purpose of this coherent risk of serious harm guidance is to address the above issues by devising a framework to underpin risk assessment and risk management practice that:- builds on current risk assessment and risk management best practice explains risk factors in more detail emphasises the connection between risk assessment and risk management introduces the concept of acute risk of serious harm factors that may indicate an escalation in the risk of serious harm posed by an offender is applicable from start to end of sentence in both community and custodial settings. The relationship to OASys 7. The NOMS risk of serious harm guidance is inextricably linked to OASys. OASys guides the practitioner into gathering evidence to inform a judgement on the level of risk of serious harm that an offender presents, including its likely impact and imminence. The guidance goes further in that it provides advice to practitioners on how to exercise their judgement of the risk of serious harm posed and the controls needed to manage that risk based on the information collated through the OASys process. Prison and Probation staff are well placed to gain an understanding of the offender's attitudes, beliefs and patterns of thinking as well as of their actions (The Risk of Harm 6

8 Guidance and Training Resources Version 3). Such knowledge underpins the clinical judgment that informs the assessment and management of risk of serious harm. The guidance also reflects new developments in risk assessment and management practice including OGRS 3, OASys Violence Predictor and OASys General Re-offending Predictor all of which have informed the content of the model. Links to legislation and policies 8. The legal framework within which prison and probation staff work and the differences in sentences which impact on the requirements that can be imposed on offenders is fully recognised and acknowledged. For example, the growing Indeterminate Sentenced Prisoner population will undoubtedly pose challenges for practitioners in their assessments of both risk of serious harm and also suitability of offenders to move through the prison system and into the community. The guidance aims to strengthen such decision making processes by outlining factors which may be relevant in reducing, increasing or managing the differing levels of risk of serious harm. Likewise, the Guidance will inform the practice of staff within prison Offender Management Units working with phase II and phase III in scope offenders, as well as those responsible for lifer management. 9. Equally, the guidance serves to support the ASPIRE process (Assess, Sentence Plan, Implement, Review, Evaluate) which underpins the offender management model. Redressing the balance between risk assessment and risk management practice should positively impact on the quality of risk management plans and sentence plan objectives, focussing practitioners on the purpose of such plans and what needs to be achieved. The guidance also supports the concept and principles of tiering in that tiering decisions are driven by the assessment of the offender s risks, needs and circumstances. Guidance to enhance the accuracy of risk assessments is important then in influencing tiers and the associated allocation of resources. Added value 10. It will provide NOMS practitioners and managers with up to date guidance and advice in the risk assessment and risk management of offenders across all levels of risk. It will consequently underpin the completion of OASys and other specialist risk assessment tools. The model will offer practitioners greater direction and confidence when making distinctions between the different levels of risk of serious harm as well as leading them to consider management requirements and introducing them to the concept of acute risk factors. 7

9 NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance Interpretation of the Guidance 1. Risk of serious harm is individual and needs to be assessed on an individual basis. The Guidance does not set out to provide an exhaustive list of risk factors nor is it universal. Some of the static/ dynamic/ acute risk factors cited are more predictive than others and do not apply to all offenders. Other factors - not specified - may be more relevant for other offenders such as those convicted of violent extremist offences (see paragraph 8). This reflects the complex nature of the risk assessment and risk management of offenders: One size does not fit all. 2. The Guidance appears by necessity to be mechanistic but it is intended to be fluid to reflect the dynamic nature of risk. It aims to highlight factors which may be indicative of an escalation in the risk of serious harm posed and provide advice to practitioners as to appropriate levels of risk management activity. The descriptions of levels of risk and likelihood/ imminence should assist practitioners in their clinical judgment of risk levels i.e. those risk assessment decisions made by prison and probation staff based upon an understanding of the offenders attitudes, beliefs and patterns of thinking as well as of their actions. The risk management sections draw together current processes and practices to manage the risks posed within a community or custodial setting. 3. The Guidance seeks to clarify and separate out static, dynamic and acute risk factors so that practitioners can give consideration to the relevance of each in their assessment and management of offenders across the range of risk of serious harm levels. In respect of acute risk factors practitioners need:- i) To have an awareness of the triggers that activates an acute factor ii) To be in a position to identify early warning signs of trigger situations so that urgent preventive action can be undertaken iii) To be alert to warning signs that factors have become acute and their indicativeness of imminence this may be as a result of information received from a partnership agency or through selfreport from the offender themselves iv) To have an agreed immediate contingency plan in place to manage the escalating risk of serious harm posed. 4. New terminology around risk management has been deliberately introduced maximum; enhanced; active; monitor - in order to reflect the level of activity which will be undertaken to manage the risks posed and to redress the balance between risk assessment and risk management practice. The monitor level is important. This aims to remove any reluctance to rate offenders as low risk if they have any sort of history of offending which could possibly cause harm. Instead, the monitor rating sets out a defensible stance that enables practitioners to move offenders risk of serious harm level to higher ratings with more restrictive or rehabilitate controls if necessary and if the sentence allows. 5. The Guidance is not concerned with impact, it focuses on likelihood. The impact of an offence is implicit in the model a distinction between high, medium and low impact is not drawn because the Guidance explicitly relates to actions that result in serious harm. Therefore the Guidance is primarily 8

10 concerned with the likelihood of an event occurring and the time span within which the event will occur. 6. Whilst the Guidance cites different types of risk factors, practitioners will need to consider each offenders particular circumstances and assess which factors are relevant for that individual as well as those which are indicative of risk and which act as protective factors. It is important that practitioners have a good understating of the specific features that contribute to the risk. For example, one of the dynamic risk factors for sexual offending is Distorted Attitudes : Whilst distorted attitudes in general are unlikely to increase risk of sexual reoffending, distorted attitudes about children being sexual beings may increase the risk of serious harm to children. Another example concerns accommodation which is identified as a dynamic risk factor for violent offending. An assessment of the relevance of the type of accommodation, its location, the influence of and relationship to other residents etc will need to be made to establish whether this factor is linked to the risk of serious harm and how it is linked. 7. It is important to be aware of the factors in an offender s behaviour which pose a risk to a child s safety and welfare, what the impact is likely to be upon the child and what agency procedures should be followed to protect the child from harm. Basic information about whether the offender has a significant relationship with any children, who these children are and whether they live/will live in the offender s household should be considered. It should also be considered as to whether the offender s lifestyle (substance abuse, employment status, financial situation, attitude, emotional well being, thinking and behaviour etc) has a negative impact on the child. In terms of risk assessment, practitioners specifically need to be aware of dynamic factors in relation to any potential risk to children of harm, abuse or neglect. Listed below are some, but by no means all, examples: Sex offenders who emotionally identify with children, groom other prisoners and their families, form relationships with vulnerable adults/single parents or watch children on visits. Domestic abuse perpetrators who coerce their victim or their family to bring in their children on prison visits or pressurise their victim to withdraw an injunction which may cover contact with their children. Violent offenders without permanent accommodation who misuse alcohol and stay with friends who have children and who continue to display a lack of temper control. The protection and well being of children should always be prioritised and policies for notifying local children s services of cases which give cause for concern must be followed. 8. With regard to extremist offenders, there is some emerging research tentatively to suggest static, dynamic and acute risk factors. This is very early work however which needs further validation before it can be used confidently and defensibly. Extremist offenders are often very different from each other and unlikely to fit a single profile or list of factors. In light of this, a structured framework has been developed to help offender managers and practitioners think through (i) the reasons why an offender committed an extremism related offence (ii) what factors may contribute to them re-offending and (iii) how best to manage these risks. 9

11 The framework offers guidance on the kind of information which you may want to ascertain from the individual and other sources. It focuses on offenders beliefs, intentions, their motivations and capability for action.. The framework was initially drawn together in May The framework and the guidance it provides are a work in progress and there will be limitations in its applicability. It will evolve over time with increased knowledge and will be updated periodically. It is available on the Extremism Page of Epic (Service Delivery - Public Protection - Extremism). Anyone intending to refer to or use the document is encouraged to check EPIC to ensure that they are using the latest version available. ISMG will also provide support and guidance around assessing psychological, social and faith related issues with extremist offenders (contact Al Reid: or al.reid@hmps.gsi.gov.uk). The Public Protection Unit can offer guidance on risk management issues (contact Frances Ablitt: or FrancesMary.Ablitt@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk ). 9. The term Offence Paralleling Behaviour is relatively new to the prison service and refers to any form of behaviour that is related to the behaviours that emerge at any point before or after an offence (L Jones: 1997, 2000). It is likely that behaviours and attitudes that were central to the commission of an offence (e.g. for sexual offenders, a belief that children entice others to engage in sexual activities with them) will remain evident in a secure setting for at least some period of time. As a result, a prisoner may display parallel behaviours. For example, an offender with a history of violence may engage in bullying behaviours or orchestrate situations where other people are involved in violence, which they then watch (N Gredecki: Forensic Update, date unknown). 10. All staff working in a custodial setting having direct contact with prisoners make a wealth of observations about prisoners attitudes and behaviour on a daily basis. Two current pilot projects are evaluating the contribution that such observations can make to the risk assessment process. Wing staff and offender supervisors have noted behaviours related to offending e.g. for sexual offenders, choosing to sit near children during visits, having photographs of children in their possession, exchanging depositions about their own and others offences, making contact outside the prison with women with children, seeking to join fan clubs, maintaining correspondence networks with released sex offenders, grooming of prisoners and/or staff, and sexual bartering and sexual favours. This is just a selection from a wide range of behaviours, some of which involve actual offences such as rape and physical intimidation (McDougal et al, 2008). Other examples may include letters from women which indicate their partners control of them, within a domestic abuse situation, from inside the prison e.g. they may have to detail their movements or activities to demonstrate that they have not socialised with other people or they may have to account for their expenditure. Early signs of the offence paralleling behaviour project are encouraging in providing a much wider range of evidence upon which risk assessment information is drawn other than relying on self report or learned responses to repetitive questions asked by a series of professionals. The model therefore aims to recognise these important developments whilst acknowledging that the findings continue to be evaluated. 10

12 11. In relation to rehabilitative controls, accredited programmes have the potential to act as a control only as long as the offender positively engages with the programme or treatment. Attendance alone does not secure a reduction in risk of serious harm. For example, Prison and Approved Premises staff are very well placed to make an assessment of the offender s level of engagement with such programmes or treatment i.e. whether the offender is utilising the thinking and behavioural skills, or strategies, for managing their offending within their living environment and in their interaction with others. 12. The combination of risk factors underpinning offending by female offenders can be different than those for men, with specific links between crime, substance use, mental illness and self-harm/suicide (S Kennedy, Gender Matters Extract from CARE Theory Manual, 2008). In addition, emotional well being has been identified to be a significant dynamic risk factor for some female offenders: OASys assessments record 64% of women in custody as having emotional/ personal difficulties. There are also strong links with childhood trauma, stemming from violence abuse and neglect, and early onset substance misuse, perpetration of violent acts and entry into the criminal justice system (S Kennedy: Gender Matters Extract from CARE Theory Manual, 2008). Whilst the Guidance identifies some of these risk factors, practitioners will need to pay attention to past experiences, their impact on current behaviour, as well as acute factors that may present themselves in the risk assessment and management of female offenders. 13. Release on Temporary Licence assessment is not addressed within this model framework. However the same principles apply in that the conclusion reached as a result of applying the Guidance directly plays into a ROTL risk assessment with clear links to a robust risk management plan. 14. The Glossary below defines the terms referred to within the Guidance document set:- Acute - Acute risk factors are those factors that change quickly perhaps over days or hours and whose emergence indicates a period of critical risk in which serious offending is more likely than not to occur. Examples are increased levels of substance misuse or destabilisation of socio economic factors such as loss of accommodation (Risk Management Authority May 2007 Standards and Guidelines in the risk management of offenders subject to an order for lifelong restriction.) While alcohol may be a dynamic risk indicator, intoxication would be the acute risk factor. Dynamic - Dynamic risk factors are those factors that contribute to further offending but are amenable to change i.e. substance misuse. Imminency - Implies immediacy i.e. the offender is showing clear indications in relation to their risk factors. It is not possible to give exact definitions for example through time scales of hours or days etc. Professional judgement will need to determine such timescales in each individual case. Kemshall, MacKenzie, Wilkinson and Miller 2008 The Risk of Harm Guidance and Training Resources Version 3 suggest consideration of:- a) Whether the offender is more likely to commit an offence than not b) Whether the offender will do so as soon as an opportunity and/or victim presents itself 11

13 c) The offender is actively grooming an opportunity and/or victim d) The offender will act as soon as any controls or limits on his/her behaviour are lifted or breakdown e) The offender is already failing to comply with controls and limits set f) The circumstances in which the offender has committed harmful acts in the past are now repeating. Monitoring this is not a passive term. It encompasses proactive work to identify early warning signs of potential offending and any indicators of a change in risk. It is closely linked to contingency planning work i.e. those actions to be taken to minimise and manage an escalation in risk of serious harm. Restrictive controls - are those conditions or requirements which restrict where an offender can go, live, what they can or cannot do, who they must not approach or contact. For example, a sex offender may have a restriction against using certain leisure facilities (e.g. swimming pools), approaching local schools, and may have to reside in a certain place (e.g. approved premises). Offenders can also be made the subject of a curfew to restrict their activities at certain times of the day or night when they are known to be more risky. These conditions restrict the opportunity to commit offences and to groom victims. Monitoring, surveillance and control procedures are those which provide a watching eye over the offender, usually used to monitor compliance with restrictive controls, to monitor grooming activities and to gain further information on networks and criminal activities. These procedures can include electronic, CCTV, and police observation (Kemshall, MacKenzie, Wilkinson and Miller 2008 The Risk of Harm Guidance and Training Resources Version 3). Rehabilitative controls are risk management strategies which provide the offender with opportunities to develop a variety of skills in relation to their risk factors in order to manage their own risk situations. Accredited programmes are included within these controls but can only be effective if the offender engages with the programmes attended. Static - Static risk factors are those elements of offenders past behaviour, and its consequences, that are historical and factual such as gender, number and type of previous convictions (Risk Management Authority May 2007). 12

14 NOMS Risk of Serious Harm Guidance Risk Classification Description of Risk Risk Factors Likelihood/Imminence Risk Management Level - COMMUNITY Risk Management Level - CUSTODY Maximum Maximum Very High Likely to commit an act of serious harm imminently. Heightened & persistent presence of risk and a lack of protective factors to mitigate that risk. Non-co-operation with risk management strategies. The identified reoffending scenarios involve imminent risk and there are no protective factors to mitigate the risk of serious harm likely to be caused. High levels of static, dynamic and acute risk factors present. Typical OVP score range of 80%+ likelihood of proven violenttype reoffending within 2 years; score of 73+ out of 100. An offence resulting in serious harm is more than likely to happen imminently (i.e. an offence will occur as soon as an opportunity and/or victim presents itself OR the offender is actively seeking victims OR the circumstances in which the offender has committed harmful acts in the past are now repeating) unless extensive external restrictions are put in place and are judged likely to be effective. Protective factors may have broken down or be none existent. Tier 4 (Control) Likely to be subject to MAPPA level 2 or 3 management Multi-agency work and the maximum level of supervision compatible with the sentence are necessary to manage the risk level utilising restrictive and rehabilitative controls. Adverse changes in response to supervision may need to be considered as part of the risk assessment process. The level of risk will be monitored as a priority and the risk management plan reviewed accordingly. Work to reduce the risk level will be undertaken wherever possible. The sentence planning process will ensure that risks and behaviour are actively monitored. If appropriate, the offender may be engaged in an Offending Behaviour Programme or other interventions. Active, regular communication must take place with key workers in other involved community agencies. Approved Premises will provide a greater level of restriction and residential supervision. Likely to be MAPPA eligible Through the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Planning (MARAP) or Inter Departmental Risk Management Team (IDRMT) meetings an action plan will be devised to manage the risks posed. This may include active monitoring of mail/ telephone/ visits; access to security information and observation of offence related behaviour i.e. acquaintances, behaviour with other prisoners (intimidating/ sexual) and staff (from a variety of all departments), reading/ photographic material; hobbies/ pastimes. All relevant information is shared in a timely manner with the offender supervisor and offender manager to inform the risk assessment. Appropriate offending behaviour programmes or other interventions will be identified with the aim of reducing risk wherever possible. Ongoing monitoring of risks and behaviour will be undertaken through the sentence planning process. Approved Premises will provide a greater level of restriction and supervision on release from custody. HIGHLY unlikely to be suitable for transfer to open conditions/or ROTL. Prompt action will need to be taken to manage the very high risk of serious harm posed. This may involve undertaking recall procedures or action by the Police. Early identification of psychopathy or a mental disorder (i.e. any disorder or disability of mind including personality disorder, mental illness and learning disability) which are related to risk of serious harm is crucial, supported by referrals for relevant assessment and treatment i.e. DSPD Unit/ Therapeutic community/ accredited programmes. Early identification of psychopathy or a mental disorder (i.e. any disorder or disability of mind including personality disorder, mental illness and learning disability) which are related to risk of serious harm is crucial, supported by referrals for relevant assessment and treatment i.e. DSPD Unit/ Therapeutic community/ accredited programmes. 13

15 Risk Classification Description of Risk Risk Factors Likelihood/Imminence Risk Management Level - COMMUNITY Risk Management Level - CUSTODY High Likely to cause serious harm but not imminently. This Offender presents an ongoing risk of committing an offence causing serious harm. Has limited capacity to manage their own risks OR has low or no motivation to manage them. The identified reoffending scenarios involve persistent risk and there are few if any protective factors to mitigate that risk. Static and dynamic risk factors present. Typical OVP score range of 60-79% likelihood of proven violent-type r-offending within 2 years; score of out of 100. If acute factors become apparent a further assessment of the risk of serious harm posed may need to be undertaken with consideration given to escalating the risk assessment and management level. The offender has the potential to commit serious harm and is likely to do so but not in the immediate future. Protective factors need to be clearly identified and supported which may reduce the perceived risk in likely future re-offending scenarios. Immediate action will be required if such identified protective factors are absent or diminish. The risk of serious harm level may increase if acute risk factors occur. Prompt action may mitigate any heightened risk. Tier 4 (Control) Enhanced Likely to be subject to MAPPA level 2 or 3 management An enhanced level of supervision compatible with the sentence is necessary to manage the risk level utilising restrictive and rehabilitative controls. This may include undertaking a multi agency approach. Adverse changes in response to supervision may need to be considered as part of the risk assessment process. The level of risk will be monitored appropriately and the Risk Management Plan reviewed accordingly. Work to reduce the risk level will be undertaken wherever possible. The sentence planning process will ensure that risks and behaviour are monitored. This may include engaging the offender in an Offending Behaviour Programme or other interventions as appropriate. Active, regular communication must take place with key workers in other involved community agencies. Approved Premises will provide an enhanced level of residential supervision if required. Early identification of psychopathy or a mental disorder (i.e. any disorder or disability of mind including personality disorder, mental illness and learning disability) which are related to risk of serious harm is crucial, supported by referrals for relevant assessment and treatment i.e. DSPD Unit/ Therapeutic community/ accredited programmes May be MAPPA eligible Enhanced Ongoing monitoring following the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Planning (MARAP) if one has taken place through the Inter Departmental Risk Management Team (IDRMT) may include referral for specialist assessment/ treatment. Ongoing exchange of information with the offender manager will take place particularly where changes in behaviour and attitude are noted for example through the monitoring of mail/ telephone/ visits; access to security information and observation of offence related behaviour i.e. acquaintances, behaviour with other prisoners (intimidating/ sexual) and staff (from a variety of all departments), reading/ photographic material; hobbies/ pastimes. All relevant information is shared in a timely manner with the offender supervisor and offender manager to inform the risk assessment. Appropriate offending behaviour programmes or other interventions will be identified with the aim of reducing risk wherever possible. Ongoing monitoring of risks and behaviour will be undertaken through the sentence planning process. Approved Premises will provide an enhanced level of residential supervision if required for ROTL purposes (enabling testing of risk, obtaining employment, rebuilding family ties etc) or release Following full risk assessment and development of a risk management plan consideration or direction by the parole board may be given for transfer to a lower security establishment (including open conditions) & ROTL Early identification of psychopathy or a mental disorder (i.e. any disorder or disability of mind including personality disorder, mental illness and learning disability) which are related to risk of serious harm is crucial, supported by referrals for relevant assessment and treatment i.e. DSPD Unit/ Therapeutic community/ accredited programmes. 14

16 Risk Classification Description of Risk Risk Factors Likelihood/Imminence Risk Management Level - COMMUNITY Risk Management Level - CUSTODY Active Active Medium Capable of causing serious harm based on past offending/ behaviour or index offence but not imminently. A change of circumstances could precipitate an act of serious harm. Co-operates with risk management strategies and/or complies with treatment. Some capacity to manage own risks with appropriate support. In the most probable future re-offending scenarios there are sufficient protective factors to moderate that risk. Static risk factors present. Dynamic risk factors under control. Typical OVP score range of 30-59% likelihood of proven violent-type reoffending within 2 years; score of out of 100. If acute factors become apparent a further assessment of the risk of serious harm posed may need to be undertaken with consideration given to escalating the risk assessment and management level. On the balance of probability it is deemed unlikely that an offender will commit an act of serious harm. Protective factors are in place and are contributing to maintaining or reducing risk levels. However, risk may increase in the absence or breakdown of the protective factors identified and/or acute factors occur. The passage of time, since the last serious offence, may not in itself mitigate against such an increase in the likelihood of an act of serious harm being committed. Tier 2/3 (help/ change) Likely to be subject to MAPPA level 1 management Active work with the offender will be undertaken to manage and reduce their risk. This may include an Offending Behaviour Programme or other interventions with similar levels of contact with the Offender Manager and/or other providers.. Adverse changes in response to supervision may need to be considered as part of the risk assessment process. Ongoing monitoring of risk will be undertaken with a proactive approach to reviewing the risk management plan should risk level increase. Work to reduce the risk level will be undertaken wherever possible. The sentence planning process will ensure that risks and behaviour are monitored. This may include engaging the offender in an Offending Behaviour Programme or other interventions as appropriate. Where required, communication with key workers in other involved community agencies will take place Approved Premises supervision unlikely to be required. Should acute risk factors emerge - for example in relation to substance misuse or mental disorder - referral, assessment and treatment/ intervention programmes will need to be sought. The Risk Management Plan and Sentence plan would need to be reviewed accordingly. May be MAPPA eligible Referral to the Inter Departmental Risk Management Team (IDRMT) may be appropriate as a result of concerns about this prisoner s changing behaviour or attitude. This may be as a result of monitoring of mail/ telephone/ visits; access to security information and observation of offence related behaviour i.e. acquaintances, behaviour with other prisoners (intimidating/ sexual) and staff (from a variety of all departments), reading/ photographic material; hobbies/ pastimes. Any such relevant information is shared in a timely manner with the offender management in the community to inform the risk assessment. Appropriate offending behaviour programmes or other interventions will be identified with the aim of reducing risk wherever possible. Ongoing monitoring of risks and behaviour will be undertaken through the sentence planning process. Approved Premises supervision unlikely to be required. Following full risk assessment and development of a risk management plan or direction by the parole board consideration may be given for transfer to a lower security establishment (including open conditions) & ROTL Should acute risk factors emerge - for example in relation to substance misuse or mental disorder - referral, assessment and treatment/ intervention programmes will need to be sought. The Risk Management Plan and Sentence plan will need to be reviewed accordingly. 15

17 Risk classification Description of risk Risk Factors Likelihood/Imminence Risk Management Level - COMMUNITY Risk Management Level - CUSTODY Monitor Monitor Low May have caused serious or less serious harm in the past, but has demonstrated prosocial behaviour over a significant period of time and a repeat of such behaviour is unlikely. The balance of protective factors now substantially outweighs any risk factors. Full co-operation and compliance with risk management strategies. In all probable future re-offending scenarios for this offender there are sufficient protective factors to support ongoing desistance from offending. There are no current indicators of risk of serious harm. Static risk factors present. Dynamic risk factors have been under long term control. Typical OVP score range of 0-29% likelihood of proven violent-type reoffending within 2 years; score of 0-41 out of 100. If acute factors become apparent a further assessment of the risk of serious harm posed may need to be undertaken with consideration given to escalating the risk assessment and management level. An act of serious harm is deemed unlikely. Protective factors are well established and serve to keep risk at a minimal level. However, risk may increase in the absence or breakdown of the protective factors identified and/or acute factors occur and a review of the risk assessment level will need to be undertaken. For a small number of offenders assessed as low risk, the absence of any previous convictions for violence or the passage of time since the last serious offence may not in itself mitigate against such an increase in the likelihood of an act of serious harm being committed. Tier 1/2 (punish) If the offender is a MAPPA nominal, the case is likely to be managed at level 1. No specific work is required to reduce or manage this risk. As part of their standard contact with the Probation Service, monitoring of the offenders risk will take place including checks against dynamic and acute risk factors OR other information for evidence which may change the risk management level and require action. Tier 1/2 (punish) May be MAPPA eligible No specific work is required to reduce or manage this risk. As part of their standard contact with prison staff any concerns about this prisoner s changing behaviour or attitude will be recorded. Following full risk assessment and development of a risk management plan or direction by the parole board consideration may be given to transfer to lower security establishment i.e. open conditions & ROTL. 16

18 RISK FACTORS Risk Factor Type - STATIC WHILST THESE ARE THE KEY STATIC FACTORS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE RESEARCH OF OASYS DATA, PRACTITIONERS MAY NEED TO CONSIDER OTHER STATIC FACTORS WHICH ARE SPECIFIC TO AN OFFENDER Current and Previous Offences Other Static Indicators VIOLENT Murder/manslaughter Robbery, aggravated burglary Domestic Abuse, harassment, stalking Assault inc. wounding, GBH Criminal damage (non-arson) SEXUAL Involving physical contact (adult victim) Involving physical contact (child victim) Non-contact sexual offences i.e. child abuse images & similar OTHER HARMFUL OFFENCES These offences are not proven to be predictive of serious reoffending but may indicate a propensity to commit such offences Details of offence e.g. use of excessive violence; use of a weapon; sadistic or bizarre features these factors can be predictive for the most serious of offences; animal cruelty which may be indicative of domestic and child abuse Number and frequency of sanctions Age at first sanction Age at time of actual or earliest possible release from custody or start of community order Gender (for violent offences, being male increases the risk in particular of further violent re-offending) Arson Child cruelty/neglect Drink driving Dangerous driving Offences that are intended to cause mass casualties or foment hatred 17

19 RISK FACTORS Risk Factor type Dynamic Summary sheet WHEN IDENTYFYING DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS PRACTITIONERS NEED TO ASSESS WHICH FACTORS ARE INDICATIVE OF RISK OF SERIOUS HARM AND WHICH ACT AS PROTECTIVE FACTORS AS WELL AS ANY IMPACT SUCH FACTORS MAY HAVE ON CHILDREN SOME OF THE BEHAVIOURS LISTED IN THE CUSTODIAL SECTION MAY ALSO BE RELEVANT TO OFFENDERS RESIDING IN APPROVED PREMISES Community dynamic risk indicators Custodial dynamic risk indicators Sexual offending Distorted attitudes MALE Intimacy Deficits General Selfregulation Sexual Selfregulation Substance misuse Co-operation with Supervision Mental disorder These dynamic risk factors are taken from the work of Hanson, Harris, Scott and Helmus: Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project 2007 FEMALE Low levels of insight into offending and/or little motivation to address offending behaviour Difficulties in emotional regulation Violent offending (not including domestic abuse) Accommodation Employment Alcohol misuse Psychiatric Treatment Temper control Attitudes Presence of an ideology or belief system that supports the use of physical/ psychological violence (in relation to acts of extremist based violence) PLEASE NOTE some of the custodial dynamic risk indicators for violent offending may also be relevant to an offender in the community, depending on their circumstances/ situation For more detailed information relating to these dynamic indicators please see comprehensive list Domestic Abuse Relationship Problems one partner wants to end the relationship; one partner wants to renew the relationship during a period of separation; a sudden and/or recent separation; dispute over child contact Employment problems Substance abuse/dependenc y Suicidal or homicidal ideation/intent Psychotic and/or manic symptoms Personality disorder with anger, impulsivity or behavioural instability Escalation in frequency or severity of assault Minimisation and/or denial Attitudes that support or Sexual Offending MALE Prison friendships Behaviour with other Prisoners General Behaviour including work/education Reading /photographic material Personal diaries and creative writing works of fiction by prisoners in long hand or Word Processor (in education) Hobbies /Pastimes Contacts with Outside World Visits Sexualised behaviours / behaviour with discipline and civilian staff Positive behaviours related to offending Violent Offending (not including domestic abuse) Prison friendships Behaviour with other Prisoners General Behaviour including work/education Hobbies /Pastimes Contacts with Outside World Visits Behaviour with Staff Positive Behaviours related to Offending Presence of an ideology or belief system that supports the use of violence (in relation to acts of extremist based violence) For more detailed information relating to these dynamic indicators please see comprehensive list Domestic Abuse Exercising Control Exercising Direction Exercising Intimidation or Collusion Exercising Manipulation Exercising Fear Exercising Threats Exercising Instructions 18