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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 He highlights the importance of two terms in the implementation of these instruments:
Inter-rater Reliability
Calibration

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

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

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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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