Fit for purpose: OASys assessments and parole decisions — a practitioner's view
| Published date | 01 June 2008 |
| Date | 01 June 2008 |
| Author | Anisha Mehta |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550507092158 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Practitioner
Response
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2008 NAPO Vol 55(2): 189–194
DOI: 10.1177/0264550507092158
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Fit for purpose: OASys assessments and parole
decisions – a practitioner’s view
Anisha Mehta, London Probation Area
Abstract This article is a practitioner’s response to Wendy Fitzgibbon’s article ‘Fit
for Purpose: OASys Assessments and Parole Decisions’ published in the March
2008 edition of Probation Journal. Fitzgibbon undertook a small research study
of 72 cases before the parole board. The majority of these cases fell into four
main categories of offences: violent offences, sexual offences, robbery and drug
offences. The focus of Fitzgibbon’s article is whether parole board decisions and
the risk assessments that inform them adequately protect the public from the risk
of serious harm.
Keywords OASys, offender management, public protection, parole, risk
Introduction
I work as an Offender Manager in a Public Protection Unit in London. The focus
of my work is Tier 4 (high/very high risk of serious harm) offenders. I understand
that this is not a system that operates nationally and that most probation areas
outside of London recruit Offender Managers to work with Tier 3 (medium risk)
and Tier 4 offenders in Offender Management Units. Working in a Public Protec-
tion Unit means that the focus of my work is with sexual and violent offenders,
and in recent months this has extended to working with those convicted of offences
under the Terrorism Act. I write Parole Assessment Reports (PARs) for determinate
sentence prisoners deemed high risk and serving 12 months or more in custody
(that is, those subject to Phase II arrangements of the Offender Management
Model [OMM] and those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment). I also
anticipate an increase in parole assessments for Phase III offenders, that is, those
convicted of an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP). Clearly, the
‘fitness for purpose’ of assessments of risk of serious harm is an issue of profound
interest to me, probation practitioners generally and indeed to the people whose
lives it affects.
189
190 Probation Journal 55(2)
Wendy Fitzgibbon asks whether the parole assessment reports of Home Proba-
tion Officers and Seconded Probation Officers were ‘helpful in terms of assess-
ment of risk and consistent with the OASys risk assessment present in the parole
dossier’ (p. 55). This two-pronged assessment process means that the Home PO
essentially investigates and comments on the offender’s home circumstances while
the Seconded PO will focus on the offender’s behaviour and progress in prison.
In reality the reports often converge on aspects of risk such as the nature and
seriousness of the index offence and the extent to which the offender has been
motivated to complete risk reduction accredited programme work while in prison.
For offenders who fall under Phase III arrangements, the Home PO (Offender
Manager) will now be responsible for writing an ‘overview’ Parole Assessment
Report, thus obviating the need for a Seconded PO report.
Fitzgibbon makes some interesting observations about the quality of the Offender
Assessment System (the Ministry of Justice-approved key assessment tool that
assesses risk and need), or OASys as it is more widely known, and PARs completed
by Home POs and Seconded POs. She asks whether or not they are ‘fit for purpose’
(p. 56), the identified purpose being ‘robust and effective release management
strategies to minimize risk’ (p. 56). Her major criticisms concern a lack of analysis
and information in OASys risk assessments and a failure to cross check or...
To continue reading
Request your trial