1. Assessing, Reducing and Managing Risk in HM Prison Service Ruth Mann & Gill Attrill

2. History and Background Range of accredited programmes, addressing various risk factors Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit

3. Cognitive Self-change Programme Sexual Offenders Violent Offenders Domestically Violent Offenders Personality Disordered Offenders Healthy Relationships Programmes (High and Moderate Intensity) Chromis C.A.L.M. Enhanced Thinking Skills FOR Resettlement Programme Cognitive Skills Booster Core Programme Adapted Programme Extended Programme Rolling Programme Healthy Sexual Functioning Booster Programme

4. History and Background Increased focus on responsivity and recognition of offenders’ complexity Balancing need to individualise assessment and treatment with the need to maintain treatment integrity Consideration of how treatment and assessment, and management fit together Running programmes to scale

5. 4000 8000 9638

6. Some Issues 1. Maintaining focus on what you are really trying to achieve

7. Chromis View of offenders Treatment aims Risk reduction New ways of pro-social livingExternal risk management Do you change the psychopathic offender so that they can meet the needs of the programme or change the programme so that it meets the needs of the psychopathic offender?

8. Chromis Clearly defined treatment needs and goals Common language Developing the role of all staff Realistic expectations

10. Some Issues 2. Finding meaningful ways of monitoring what you are trying to achieve

11. Monitoring and evaluation Chromis: Collaborative and transparent Motivation and engagement work, prior to assessment of treatment need Assessment of risk related needs, responsivity needs, and strengths Recognition of the importance of context Staff training and development

12. Chromis Multiple measures, developing evidence base Individual behaviour monitoring – linked to risk and responsivity Long term, and across different contexts Communication across services Multi-methods and triangulation of assessment Self-report Structured assessmentBehavioural Monitoring (development of task based assessments)

13. Chromis - generalisation Proactively providing opportunities for skills practise, development and feedback Complementary generalisation exercises to support group and individual sessions. Ensuring all staff understand the skills, techniques and approaches covered in treatment components Viewing treatment and risk reduction as everyone’s role and responsibility A long term strategy

14. Some Issues 3. Limitations of available assessments 4. Having confidence that we are monitoring the right things 5. Assessment fatigue 6. Recording and reporting

15. SARN The Structured Assessment of Risk & Need for Sexual Offenders

16. Implementation & Development SARN was introduced in 2000 and is continuously developed. It assesses static risk and treatment need as separate concepts. It has been peer reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Strict procedures ensure reliability. Validity depends on purpose of use.

17. SARN - overview Stage 1: Risk Matrix 2000 (Static risk algorithm. Can predict risk of sexual offending, violent offending, or combined risk). Stage 2: Treatment Need Analysis. Considers relevance of 15 dynamic risk factors for sexual offending. Presented as a grid. Stage 3. Risk Report. Considers progress in treatment along other risk-related issues.

18. Apply with caution to… Men who have murdered Older offenders Offenders currently under the age of 18 Female sexual offenders Forensic mental patients Alleged but not convicted sexual offenders. Internet offenders (or other offences from 2003 Act)

19. Reasons for new risk report format Efficiency Stakeholder Feedback Rice Inquiry Analysis of psychometrics

20. New SARN risk report The offender’s story Static risk assessment Change on dynamic risk factors Factors influencing current risk* Adjustment of static risk How risk might change Risk Management recommendation Conclusion in light of current question

21. Current Risk Assessment Change on Dynamic Risk Factors Effect of age on risk Other offending risk Mental health Psychopathy Offence paralleling behaviours Relationship with supervising officer Protective factors Effect of treatment

22. Who should conduct risk assessment? At the decision-making points in a prisoner’s sentence, there should be a separate assessment of the prisoner that is independent of the treatment and which takes into account all available evidence. Key Recommendation 2, p. 5, HMIP Review of Serious Further Offence (Anthony Rice)

23. Risk report principles Keep writing brief and concise Try to keep report to ten pages Ensure you consult with others Ensure you see the prisoner at least once. Within all this structure, try to retain a sense of the person and his story, so report is not too “reductionist and impersonal”.

24. Risk Report training 2 day course Competencies targeted are: –Knowledge of scientific and ethical issues in risk assessment (esp. influence of age, treatment, validity, psychometric interpretation) –Understanding of stakeholder needs –Concise and confident writing skills –Oral defence skills –Analysis of complex information –Forming ethical professional judgements

25. The SOTPs

26. How SOTP is designed SOTP consists of six accredited programmes. Programme dose (length) and content are designed to fit the needs of particular risk groups. Each programme relates to specific (combinations of) criminogenic needs Programmes can be combined according to need as identified by SARN.

27. The SOTPs Rolling Programme Core Programme Adapted Core Programme Extended Programme Healthy Sexual Functioning Programme Better Lives Booster Programme

28. SOTP allocation by risk/need Dynamic Static LowMediumHigh LowRolling Rolling/ Core MediumRolling/ Core HighCoreCore + Ext HSFP, BLB Core + Ext HSFP, BLB Very highCore +Ext HSFP, BLB Core + Ext HSFP, BLB

29. Does SOTP reduce risk?

30. Efficacy of sex offender treatment generally Five key meta-analytic reviews in last ten years. All find a small but robust treatment effect for cognitive-behavioural programmes, particularly “modern” programmes.

31. Does SOTP reduce risk? Friendship, C., Mann, R.E., & Beech, A. (2003). Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment program for sexual offenders in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 744-759. Examined impact on recidivism of the pre- accredited Core Programme (1992-1996). Looked at impact by static risk (Static-99)

32. Reconviction rates (2 years) TreatedUntreated Low1.9%2.6% Medium low2.7%12.7% Medium high5.5%13.5% High26%28.1%

33. Non-reconviction benefits of SOTP Participation in treatment gives a much clearer idea of the personally relevant dynamic risk factors for an individual. This can aid risk management and monitoring – supervising officers are clearer about what might indicate acute risk.

34. Treatment and risk reduction. SOTP Core Programme reduces risk for some sexual offenders. More extensive treatment (I.e. Core + Extended + HSFP) probably is effective for higher risk offenders but this has not yet been demonstrated. The SOTP is unlikely to make offenders higher risk, unless they drop out.

35. Final thought on risk reporting “The challenge of routinely constructing collaborative, sophisticated narratives in such a highly pressurised context and within a framework of excessive workloads, strict time limits and increasing standardisation, regulation and automation, is not underestimated. However, the most adept and committed… authors may yet continue, against all the odds, to produce reports which engage and persuade the reader”. (Gorman, 2006).

36. Assessing, Reducing and Managing Risk … Take Home Point: is really hard