The Introduction and Implementation of a system of Sex Offender Risk Assessment / Management in the Probation Service Pauline Downey Mary McDonald

Initial Steps - Timeline 2007 High Risk offender management team was established in the Probation Service 2008 Report submitted – recommending a model of sex offender assessment Probation Service decided to develop an implementation plan for the risk assessment of sex offenders High Risk Offender Management Team trained in use of RM2000 & SA2007 Staff trained in RM2000 in partnership with AGS

Initial Steps 2009 Dept. of Justice ‘Discussion Document on the Management of Sex Offender’ published Probation Service Steering Group established, utilising a partnership model, to oversee the implementation of the Static & Dynamic Models Target for all-island approach to sex offender assessment All-Island and UK committee established

Implementation 2010 Probation Service decided to pilot the RM2000 and SA2007 risk assessment tool on a national basis for 12 months, in partnership with staff representative group Training of staff implemented Guidance Document Prepared Mentor Groups Established

Purpose of Mentor Structure Supporting & retaining the Integrity of the Stable and Acute 2007 Instrument In order to safeguard best practice a structure needed to be applied that adhered to the recommendations as set out by the author of the Stable and Acute 2007. He highlights the importance of two terms in the implementation of these instruments: Inter-rater Reliability Calibration

Inter-rater Reliability involves checking “the extent to which differences in assessment scores may reflect difference is assessors, rather than in those being assessed” (Raynor et.al. 2000). Calibration is a related concept. There is a level to which some aspects of the language and concepts in the Stable and Acute 2007 assessments may be subject to individual interpretation. To ensure instrument reliability therefore, it is important that there is a system of cross checking between individual assessors, to ensure consistent and correct interpretations in relation to the specific questions which may be problematic. *(Raynor Peter, Jocelyn Kynch, Colin Roberts and Simon Merrigan: Risk and needs assessment in probation services: an evaluation. Home Office Research Study 211)

Assessment Process Co urt Assessment Supervision Prison Release Complete RM2000 Assessment on all sex offenders Score: Low, Medium, High & Very High If RM2000 Score of Medium, High or Very High or the Probation Officer has concerns Certified Probation Officer completes SA2007 Assessment is Co-rated Attend Mentor Group Agree score and sign-off

Composition of Mentor Groups 5 Operational Regions 6 Mentor Groups (1 per Adult Community Region) Each Mentor Group SPO – Shadow –Vice Chair PO in Community - 20 SPO- Chair Lead Mentor PO Prison (Arbour Hill, Wheatfield, Midlands)

Role of Lead Mentor Schedule and communicate to region dates for Mentor Group Meetings Schedule cases for each meeting on a priority scale Assign a co-rater for each assessment Chair mentor group meetings, facilitate discussion, seek guidance and make final decision on a score if in dispute Ensure SA 2007 Score Sheet Returns sent to headquarters Feedback to Regional Meetings

Priority scheduling of assessments at each mentor group meeting. Pre – sanction Reports by court date (at least 4 days before the report is due in court) Prison release by release date (reassess after 6 months) Supervision Orders as soon as possible after they are made Within this ranking priority should be given to those with the highest RM 2000 score

Steps in Mentor Process Assessor Narrative Independent Co-Rating Monthly Meetings – 3/4 cases Group Discussion Final Score agreed and signed off

Learning from the Mentor Group Process Stable Risk Factors Scoring Issues Practice Issues

Stable Risk Factors 118 stables completed during the pilot timeframe The most commonly identified risk factors (Scoring 2) were – Capacity for Relationship Stability Deviant Sexual Interests Poor Problem Solving Skills

Significant Social Influences Need for collateral checking - Over reliance on self-report – for significant social influence and other risk factors. Informed assessment needs to call on varied reliable sources. Mentor Group encourages and promotes a climate of proactive and positive engagement of family members and significant others in the process of risk assessment and risk management.

Intimacy Deficits 5 Risk Factors in this section Capacity for relationship stability – -Proved relatively straightforward for assessors. - Practice Issues - underlines the importance of interventions to engage with families and significant others. - Circles of Support and Accountability

Intimacy Deficits Emotional identification with children Some officers had difficulty in distinguishing between emotional congruence with children and a sexual interest in children. Hostility towards women Some officers initially failed to assess this risk in terms of attitudes and beliefs supportive of hostility focussing only on the offence or on the offenders relationship with professionals.

Intimacy Deficits General Social Rejection No problem in scoring this area with Probation Officers This is an area where many offenders receive a score Lack of Concern for Others On occasion initially assessed in relation to victim awareness and victim empathy alone rather than general empathy.

General Self Regulation The 3 risk factors in this section: - Impulsive Acts - Poor Problem Solving & - Negative Emotionality present little difficulty for assessors. Poor problem solving was identified for a significant number of offenders.

Sexual Self Regulation 3 Risk Factors – Sex Drive, Deviant Sexual Interests and Sex as Coping proved the most challenging areas of assessment for most assessors. Co-operation with Supervision Present little difficulty for assessors.

Value of Mentor Process Enhances the validity and integrity of the Stable process Contributes to skills development Forum for professional discussion around assessment of S.O – tease out issues. Supportive framework in a challenging area of work. Accountability and defensibility of practice Shared learning and expertise of value to staff