Fit for purpose? OASys assessments and parole decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550507085677 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Author | Diana Wendy Fitzgibbon |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2008 NAPO Vol 55(1): 55–69
DOI: 10.1177/0264550507085677
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Fit for purpose? OASys assessments and
parole decisions
Diana Wendy Fitzgibbon, University of Hertfordshire
Abstract This article arose out of the increased focus by the public, government
and professions on whether parole board decisions, and the risk assessments that
inform those decisions, protect the public sufficiently in the light of recent high
profile inquiries into serious further offences (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2006a,
2006b) and the Joint Thematic Inspection Report Promoting Public Protection (HM
Inspectorate of Probation, 2006c). The purpose of this study was to examine
whether home probation officer and seconded probation officer parole reports
were helpful in terms of assessment of risk and consistent with the OASys risk
assessment present in the parole dossiers. The research study revealed a number
of interesting findings in terms of quality of reports, and supported other evidence
noted in recent publications (Harding, 2006; HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2006c).
Keywords OASys, parole, prediction, probation, risk assessment
Introduction
The probation service has been in a state of transition for a number of years (Farrant,
2006; Horsefield, 2003; Oldfield, 2002). There has been a greater concentration
on risk assessment and the introduction of ‘relative actuarial technologies’ which
utilize static factors to calculate an offender’s future risk probabilities (Maurutto
and Hannah-Moffat, 2006) such as OGRS (Offender Group Reconviction Scale).
The key risk/need assessment tool, the Offender Assessment System (OASys),
combines actuarial and dynamic factors to assess risk across a number of domains.
It has been described as:
a risk assessment and sentence planning tool for identifying and classifying
offender related needs, such as lack of accommodation, poor educational and
employment skills, substance misuse . . . problems with thinking and attitudes and
the risk they pose to the public, and for making plans to address these needs.
(Home Office, 2004: 4)
55
56 Probation Journal 55(1)
These assessment tools have proved popular with government departments, as
they provide a measurable means of recording and monitoring risk. As Maurutto
and Hannah-Moffatt state, such risk technologies, ‘far from being monolithic are
constantly being reinvented, retro-fitted and reassembled in response to govern-
mental/institutional agendas’ (Maurutto and Hannah-Moffatt, 2006: 440). Thus
assessment tools provide new forms of governing which are often more pervasive
and intrusive. They structure and limit penal reform by restricting and streamlining
the choices and programmes available for offenders and thus constrain the prac-
titioners undertaking the assessments (Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006: 451).
However these tools have also proved popular with staff who feel vulnerable when
making judgements concerning risk of harm. They believe that such tools place them
in ‘defensible positions’ when being made accountable for risk-based decisions.
(Hannah-Moffat, 2005; Kemshall, 2003; Mair et al., 2006).
In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile murders committed
by dangerous offenders, whilst being supervised by the probation service on parole
licence (Harding, 2006; HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2006a, 2006b). There is
growing disquiet that these instances will be used by the government to push for
even more radical changes in the management of offenders, e.g. privatization and
alteration of training (Harding, 2006; Priestley and Vanstone, 2006; Treadwell,
2006).
The remainder of this article reports on a small-scale research study that inves-
tigated a number of parole dossiers to examine whether probation officers’ risk
assessments were indeed ‘fit for purpose’ and whether these risk assessments
enabled practitioners to identify and prepare robust and effective release manage-
ment strategies to minimize risk. The research also explored criticism of probation
officers’ risk assessments made by the parole board.
Methodology
Three parole board panels, each consisting of three members, were observed in
July and September 2006. Each panel considered 24 prisoner dossiers from
probation areas across England and Wales where the parole eligibility date had
been reached. The cases of 72 prisoners were examined with a range of demo-
graphic characteristics and offences. Most attention focused on the OASys full risk
assessment, the OASys full risk of harm assessment, the seconded probation
officer’s parole report and the home probation officer’s parole report. The OASys
risk of harm assessment categories and scores were used when examining the
OASys assessments and then, in order to collect consistent and comparable data,
these same criteria were applied when analysing the content of the home and
seconded officers’ parole reports. The researcher then observed the parole panel
whilst they discussed these documents in detail, and was given the opportunity to
seek clarification of information/decisions. The information was later coded and
tabulated in order for statistical analysis to take place.
The parole reports were examined in order to ascertain their quality and thor-
oughness. As indicated previously, in order to ensure the content analysis of each
Fitzgibbon ● Fit for purpose? OASys assessments and parole decisions 57
report was consistent a series of criteria were used. These included the following:
identification of situational and circumstantial trigger factors for the current and
previous offences; classification of the offender’s background and personal charac-
teristics including motivational issues; thoroughness of risk assessment in terms of
serious harm to others, children and to self; liaison with other agencies/prison;
previous knowledge of the offender and use of additional reports, e.g. pre-sentence
reports, psychiatric reports. It was hoped that by using detailed criteria, the quality
of the seconded probation officer’s report and the home officer’s report could be
compared to that of the OASys assessment document.
Quality in this instance can be defined as the depth of information and analysis
contained within the OASys. A good quality assessment will consider all parts of
the assessment, the information having been cross-checked via other sources such
as other officers, agencies and previous case records. The source of this data will
be transparent and the officer will then use this information, utilizing the script boxes
to enhance the evidence contained within the tick boxed sections of the assessment.
Poorer assessments have omissions; the analysis is simplistic and may contain stereo-
typical assumptions. There is often a lack of thoroughness in terms of liaison and
reading case file materials.
The age profile of the sample studied was slightly older than the normal age
range of offenders, identified as between 18 and 25 years old (Maguire, 2007).
This could be because the prisoners eligible for parole are serving sentences of
four years and above.
Women formed 5.5 per cent of the total of this sample of offenders coming up
for consideration for parole. This differs from general statistics which state that
women commit 20 per cent of crime (National Statistics Online, 2006). Women
are likely to be under-represented as they predominately commit trivial offences
not requiring long-term prison custody and parole (Carlen and Worrall, 2004).
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the sample
%
N =
Age
Under 21
5.5
4
21–40
68.0
49
Over 40
26.5
19
Sex
Male
94.5
68
Female
5.5
4
Ethnicity
White
62.5
45
Black/ethnic minority
22.5
16
Missing
15.0
11
58 Probation Journal 55(1)
The racial profile of the sample is significant, in that 15 per cent had this infor-
mation missing from the parole dossier. This finding supports other research, which
notes an absence of ethnic monitoring data (Bhui, 2006; HM Inspectorate of
Probation, 2006c), and also the way those assessing black and ethnic minorities
often omit or distort criminogenic needs (Bhui, 1999; Hudson and Bramhall, 2005).
Nevertheless some findings were evident from this BME sub-group. Certain ethnic
groups, such as South Asian prisoners, had a positive outcome to their application
(see also Hood and Shute, 2000). However this could be because the offences
being considered were drug related. The study by Moorthy et al. (2004) supports
the fact that certain offences have a more positive parole outcome (see the offence
profile section to follow).
It was also the case that many reports prepared by home and seconded officers
contained omissions or errors particularly relating to immigration status. The most
stark example of this was a report prepared on a Pakistani Muslim prisoner (case
36) who was removed twice from a category ‘D’ prison due to a query about his
status as an illegal immigrant. The home probation officer report stated this issue
was unresolved at the time of the application. Despite stating he was a British
citizen this prisoner was in a ‘C’ prison due to the confusion, and the parole board
felt unable to award parole. This again would support findings by other research
(Moorthy et al., 2004), that parole is less likely to be awarded to those prisoners
not in category ‘D’ prisons. Thus this prisoner faced double discrimination in his
application...
To continue reading
Request your trial