Effective risk management planning for those convicted of sexual offending

Published date12 October 2015
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-05-2015-0171
Pages237-257
Date12 October 2015
AuthorStephanie Kewley,Anthony Beech,Leigh Harkins,Helen Bonsall
Subject MatterHealth & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression, conflict & peace
Effective risk management planning for
those convicted of sexual offending
Stephanie Kewley, Anthony Beech, Leigh Harkins and Helen Bonsall
Stephanie Kewley is Lecturer in
Criminology at Department of
Criminology, Birmingham City
University, Birmingham, UK.
Anthony Beech is Professor in
Criminological Psychology at
School of Psychology,
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK.
Dr Leigh Harkins is Assistant
Professor at Faculty of Social
Sciences and Humanities,
University of Ontario Institute of
Technology, Oshawa, Canada.
Helen Bonsall is based at
Cheshire Probation Trust, UK.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which risk is addressed in the risk
management planning process of those convicted of sexual offending.
Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from a risk assessment and management system
called the Offender Assessment System (OASys), used by the National Offender Management Service,
in England and Wales. The records of 216 clients were accessed and each risk management plan analysed.
The study aimed to understand if first, general and sexual risk factors identified by assessors were recorded
and detailed in subsequent plans; second, if specialist sexual offending risk assessment tools were used to
inform risk management strategies; and third, if both a balance of control and support mechanisms were in
place to tackle identified risk and needs of clients.
Findings Inconsistencies were found in relation to practitioners transposing risks identified, into the
subsequentrisk management plans. Strategieswere therefore deemed, inadequateas there was a significant
omission of the use of specialist sexual risk assessment tools to inform and ensure risk assessment to be
robust. In addition risk management plans were often overbearing in nature, as assessors tended to utilise
control strategies to assist the reintegration process, in contrastto a combination of both controland support.
Research limitations/implications This sample was taken from only one probation trust in England and
Wales. The findings might therefore be unique to this organisation rather than be representative of national
practice. This study should therefore, be replicated in a number of other probation areas. In addition, it is
important to note that this study only reviewed one electronic tool used by practitioners. Therefore, while it
might appear for example that the RM2000 tool was not routinely completed; this cannot be assumed as
practitioners might have adopted local custom and practice, recording RM2000 scores elsewhere.
Practical implications These findings highlight the need for some understanding as to why there is a lack
of consistency throughout the risk management planning process. Practitioners should receive ongoing risk
management training, development and supportive supervision. In particular, practitionersrequire supervision
that supportsand develops their skills when applying RM2000classifications to their clientsriskmanagement
plans. Likewise initiatives which develop practitioners awareness and application of strengths based approaches
such as the Good Lives Model should be encouraged. These will help practitioners develop plans that address
both the risks while supporting their development of the strengths a client presents.
Originality/value To the authorsknowledge, this is the first study of its kind, which examines the risk
management plans of those convicted of sexual offending, completed by practitioners in England and Wales
using the OASys tool.
Keywords Risk assessment, RM2000, Risk management, OASys, Riskmanagement plan, Sexual offender
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The effective risk assessment and management of people convicted of sexual offending is an
essential role for correctional practitioners. In recent years, the field of risk assessment and
management has seen the development of several systematic and comprehensive case
management tools. Bonta and Andrews (2007) provide an excellent review of the chronological
Received 14 May 2015
Revised 15 July 2015
Accepted 16 July 2015
DOI 10.1108/JACPR-05-2015-0171 VOL. 7 NO. 4 2015, pp.237- 257,© Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599
j
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICTAND PEACERESEARCH
j
PAG E 23 7
developmentof these tools detailing four distinct generations of risk assessmentand management
approaches over recent decades (Andrews et al., 2006; Bonta and Andrews, 2007). Early risk
management approaches saw practitioners draw on their professional judgment, knowledge and
experience toassess the risk an individual might presentand to determine what security measures
were needed. This approach dominated early correctional practice, but was superseded in the
1970s by a second generational approach; one which embraced evidence-based practice.
Evidence-based practice at this time incorporated items statistically linked with offending
behaviour into risk assessment tools with much less importance placed on professional
judgment. Indeed, actuarial tools demonstrated a greater accuracy in predicting offending
behaviour than approaches reliant solely on unstructured professional opinion (Craig and Beech,
2010; Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2004). Not without their limitations (Andrews and Bonta,
2010) actuarial tools provided good predictive validity (Bonta and Wormith, 2007) but tended to
focus only on static items linked to risk.
Factors which are static tend to be historical and unchangeable such as: age at first offence or
number of previous sexual offences but they are important for predicting longer term recidivism
(Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Hanson and Bussiere, 1998). Dynamic factors on the other
hand, are changeable, can be influencedby intervention or personalchoice and can be subdivided
into: acute dynamic risk factors andstable dynamic risk factors (Craiget al.,2009).Stabledynamic
risk factors are enduring characteristics, although subject to change, they pervadethe individuals
life, theyare also known as criminogenic needs(Andrews and Bonta, 2010) or causal psychological
risk factors (Beech and Ward, 2004). Examples of stable dynamic risk factors linked to sexual
offending include items such as: cognitions supportive of sexual offending; intimacy deficits; poor
cooperationwith supervision; and sexualself-regulation (Hanson andHarris, 2000). Acute dynamic
risk factors on the otherhand, tend to be observed during periods of greatestrisk and are often an
expression of stable dynamic risk factors; these are alsoknown as triggering or situational events
(Beech and Ward, 2004). Acute dynamic sexual risk factors include items such as: substance
misuse, sexual pre-occupation and social collapse (Cortoni, 2009).
In response to the limitations of using only static factors to assess risk, the importance of acute/
stable dynamic factors influenced the emergence of third generation risk assessment tools.
These offered a blend of static and dynamic measures, which were theoretically and empirically
linked to offending behaviour. Tools such as the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (Andrews and
Bonta, 1995) and Level of Service/Risk-Need-Responsivity (Andrews et al., 2008) began to
include factors known as the central eight, these included items such as: antisocial association,
antisocial cognitions, antisocial personality patterns, history of antisocial behaviour, substance
use and circumstances in the domains of family marital, school work and leisure-recreation
(Andrews et al., 2008). All of which, apart from the static item of history of antisocial behaviour,
were dynamic and therefore, changeable (Mann et al., 2010). The benefit of blending both static
and dynamic factors meant that practitioners could have confidence in predicting the likelihood of
future risk, but when used in conjunction with dynamic factors, were able to reflect the positive or
negative changes in their clientslife.
The final and most recent shift in risk assessment and risk management is the development of
systematic and comprehensive tools (Bonta and Andrews, 2007). These help practitioners utilise
their clients risk and need assessments directly into their supervision plans; making strategies to
help people rehabilitate more meaningful and relevant (Andrews and Bonta, 2010). Practitioners
cannot only assess individualslikelihood of future offending but they can plan, measure and
respond to clientschanging needs, strengths and protective factors throughout the duration of
their sentence. One example of a fourth generation tool is the Offender Assessment System
(OASys) used in England and Wales to assess all adult offenders (Howard and Dixon, 2012).
In light of this well-established body of research (Craig et al., 2009) correctional practitioners should
be equipped to first, identify the factors linked to a persons likelihood of future offending and
desistance from crime and, second, plan, measure and respond to clients changing risk, need,
strengths and protective factors. How effective, practitioners are at interpreting and implementing
results of these tools in a real worldcontext, and for those convicted of sexual offending is however,
somewhat unclear (Bonta and Andrews, 2007), and to some extent ignored (Gendreau et al., 1999).
PAG E 23 8
j
JOURNALOF AGGRESSION, CONFLICTAND PEACE RESEARCH
j
VOL.7NO.42015

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT