Within the United Kingdom initially work with offenders took the form of social casework with the focus on the relationship and the overarching aim of rehabilitation (Fitzgibbon 2007). However the 1907 Probation of Offenders Act enshrined in legislation the function of a Probation Officer to ‘advise assist and befriend’ (Canton 2011:5). This is incorporated into the Probation Order (NI) 1982 under article 14 (White 2004). Over the years the assessment of the issues to be focused on was based on the individual workers judgement and could be criticised as being subjective (Merrington & Stanley 2004).
Over the years there have been tools employed to make assessments of offenders. The initial method of assessment was referred to as ‘first generation’ (Bonta & Andrews 2007) and relied on professional judgement. Second generation tools were developed in the 1970’s and introduced actuarial methods of assessment concentrating on static risk factors such as age and offending history. In the 1990’s a body of literature began to emerge focusing on ‘What Works’ and it postulated that intervention should focus on the principles of risk, need and responsivity (Andrews et al 1990). Use of these principles indicates that the level of intervention should be in line with the assessment of risk levels. For example, offenders who are assessed as a higher risk should receive more intense supervision. Furthermore, the supervision should be matched with the offenders ability to engage and meet their needs as identified. Thus risk assessment is central to the application of the risk, need and responsivity model (Bonta & Andrews 2007).
The development of more structured assessment tools were also contributed to by the identification of a number of significant dynamic factors to be considered which can change throughout an individual’s life. Dynamic factors may include employment status, financial income, emotional wellbeing, substance misuse and attitudes. This began the development of third generation assessment tools which combined both static and dynamic risk factors. Within the UK a variety of tools are used such as the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R), Assessment case Management and Evaluation (ACE) and the Offender Assessment System (OASys). The ACE tool is the method of assessment which has been used by PBNI since 2000.
ACE was designed by Colin Roberts in a partnership between Warwickshire Probation trust and the Centre for Criminological Research at Oxford University (Best 2007). It features a dual scoring system which identifies and scores across 3 domains, personal, social and offending. The dual scores are allocated for personal problems and offending related issues and range from 0-3. A score of 30 or above indicates a high likelihood of reoffending within two years. This score in combination with professional judgement will contribute to the completion of the Significant Risk of Serious Harm filter (SROSH). The filter determines if a Risk Assessment Inventory (RA1) should be completed. PBNI’s criteria for meeting the threshold to be considered as a Significant Risk of Serious Harm is “There is a high likelihood that the offender will commit a further offence, causing serious harm.”(Significant Risk Of Serious Harm To Others Procedures May 2017:5). Serious Harm is considered to be ‘death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological’ within Article 3(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (ibid:25, Lamont & Glenn 2015:49).
The Criminal Justice Act (NI) 1996 (www.legislation.co.uk) represented a shift in the function of PBNI from assisting, advising and befriending to that of Public Protection. This development was consolidated by the Criminal Justice Order 2008 (www.legislation.co.uk). PBNI’s purpose is designated as ‘changing lives for safer communities’ (REF PBNI) which meshes the needs of the offender with public protection. A criticism of this shift to consider risk as a higher priority than before is that it begins to focus on the potential harm the client may pose rather than focusing on the client’s needs and strengths that can be built on. Simplified, the needs of the client can be superseded by the duty to protect the public.
Assessment within PBNI combines the social work process alongside the protection of the public and it’s obligation to the Courts acknowledging that assessment is “an ongoing process in which the service user participates, the purpose of which is to understand people in relation to their environment”(Coulshed & Orme 2012 in Cowburn & Mayers 2016:94). This is completed in the form of an initial assessment when a request is received from the Court for a Pre-Sentence Report. A Pre-Sentence report’s purpose is to give the Court an insight into the individual, their lifestyle, areas of risk/need and their attitude to their offending. “There is a presumption that a court should request a PSR when considering a defendant’s suitability for the range of available community sentences” (Carr & Maguire 2017:57). Furthermore, the report will make an assessment on the likelihood of offending and the potential for intervention (and possible sentencing options) based on the risks, needs and strengths of the client following assessment. The assessment must be accurate, legally defensible, and proportional with the author being accountable for their work and committed to ethical practice as a social worker.
In 2017 a pilot was launched to test the feasibility of a shortened Pre-Sentence Report in the form of a Magistrates Court Report (MCR). The Magistrates Court Report focuses the assessment on brevity and encourages the inclusion of relevant details only, to enable the Court to make decisions as to the most appropriate sentence for the individual (PBNI MCR Guidance 2018).
Within my practice I regularly complete reports for the Court and I identified a client who was willing to allow me to use his anonymised information for the purposes of education. Respect was demonstrated to the client by explaining fully the purpose of the work, how his information would be used and the role of an assessor in the interview. This enabled him to consider the options and make informed choices before giving his written consent with the reassurance he could withdraw his consent at any time. This aided in creating a positive level of partnership working while empowering him to make his own decisions. NISCC Standards and Conduct of Practice (2015) state that the underpinning values for social workers include working in a respectful, person centred way while promoting their rights, equality and inclusion. Service users should expect their best interests to be at the heart of work and that their autonomy and independence is promoted through receiving a safe and effective service. These operating values are supported by the work of Beistek (1961 in Thompson 2009) and Rodgers (1961). As a Probation Officer I am mindful that many of our clients are not voluntary which can impact on the relationship and therefore the assessments we make.
To prepare for my assessment of Mr M I completed a tuning in which gave me time to consider the knowledge, skills and values applicable to the case. In this case I had access to previous PBNI records, previous reports completed, PSNI information and access to Mr M’s criminal record. This information allowed me to consider the potential theories that may be relevant to Mr M alongside the relevant legislation/policies which gives me a mandate to complete the assessment. In preparation for the assessment I considered a number of theories and subsequently have reflected further on following my contact with Mr M.
1) Systems theory (Pincus & Minahan 1973)
Systems theory includes biological systems and focuses on how an individual interacts with their environment. It postulates that people are continually transacting with their environment and that the system consists of interrelated parts of the whole. Each sub-system can impact other and thus the whole. The system can have open or closed boundaries. This theory is useful for developing a holistic view of an individual in their environment and gives context for their behaviours by looking at micro-meso–macro levels.
2) The Transtheoretical Model – Cycle of Change (Prochaska & Diclemente 1998)
The model is an integrative, biopsychosocial model which conceptualises the process of intentional behaviour change. It states that people move through a series of stages when changing behaviours. The model can be both cyclical and linear and is considered a process rather than an event. While it was initially developed in relation to smoking it can be applied to a range of areas. It integrates self-efficacy (Bandura 1977 in Ingleby 2010) to increase an individual’s confidence in the control of their lives and decision making.
3) Desistance Theory (McNeill & Weaver 2007, Maruna 2001)
The basic definition of desistance is the ‘discontinuance of action’ (OED 2014); in other words, to stop a particular course of action. It is recognised that there are two types of desistance in offending behaviour. Primary desistance is explained as ‘any lull or crime free gap in the course of a career criminal’ (Weaver & Mc Neill 2007:2). Secondary desistance defined by Weaver & McNeill (2007) is ‘the movement from the behaviour of non-offending to the assumption of a role or identity of a non-offender or ‘changed person’ (Weaver &McNeill 2007:2).
4) Theories of Power and Social Exclusion (Foucault 1984, Becker 1963, Merton 1968, Murray 1996, McAlister et al 2009)
When working with offenders, many of whom may have already been labelled (Becker 1963) as career criminals or persistent offenders, the concept of secondary desistence is crucial. At times, offenders may find themselves relegated to being considered second class citizens or even an ‘underclass’ (Murray 1996). This way of thinking, if it becomes normalised, can lead to society deciding that the offenders have become ‘undeserving’ through their own choice. A further potential impact of this may be what Merton (1968) calls self-fulfilling prophecy. Where individuals do exactly what is expected from them in a negative way. This can especially be seen when dealing with young people and can result in a ‘master status’ (McAlister et al 2009). A quote from a young person illustrates the thought processes; “It just makes us do more…if they have a name, they may as well live up to it.” (ibid 2009:42). Labelling can lead to ‘forced choices, to unnecessary competition, and to unequal relationships in which one half of the pair is viewed as inferior and the other as superior’ (Kolb-Morris 1993).
The use of theory in the social work process is critical to effective practice; it gives a working knowledge of the underpinning theory and the theory to intervene. Indeed, the very definition of social work is “a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing” (www.ifsw.org).
Application to Practice
Before the initial face to face contact with Mr M I began utilising my skills to build a rapport. Telephone calls were made to encourage and reassure Mr M that attending was in his best interests. He was reluctant to have the Court report completed and attributed this to his emotional wellbeing. I used motivational interviewing techniques alongside reassuring him around the process and potential benefits to attending. This preparation was critical for the assessment process to be a success. Woodcock-Ross (2011) tells us that effective communication skills are vital to establishing the beginnings of purposeful work. I used this opportunity to also reassure Mr M that the assessor in the room would not be concentrating on him but observing my way of working.
When considering the possible theory that would be applicable to Mr M the 4 illustrated above were very relevant. When speaking to Mr M it was clear that his place within his family system was important to him and his acknowledgment of his family caring for him was evident by him. Within the body of the MCR this was conveyed in a number of references;
“He indicates that the incident was simply his brother attempting to stop him from taking the drugs.” (MCR 2017:2)
“Mr M is currently residing at XXX in Belfast. He tells me he moved to the hostel to ease the situation at home and hopefully to speed the process of securing his own accommodation. However, he continues to benefit from family support.” (MCR 2017:3)
Through open questioning using the PSNI Statement of Fact as referenced Mr M shared his perception of the offence incident and gave this author an indication of how he perceives himself as cared for by his family while also acknowledging that his behaviours can cause stress and pressure in the household. This recognises that he is at times pulled in opposite directions by the closed boundaries of his family’s expectations on behaviour and his more open boundaries in terms of substance misuse, which is a feature of using Systems theory to understand the individual in their environment. This identified a need in terms of housing (he had recently moved to a hostel) and also a risk in that Mr M struggled to conform within the family environment and was prepared to use physical force to obtain drugs. It evidences poor self-control, propensity to take risks and poor decision making. Mr M was able to identify substance misuse as the trigger for his offending behaviours underpinned by past trauma which has negatively affected his mental health. Mr M has been targeted by paramilitaries/drug dealers over the years and would consider himself to be under threat from same.
The risk taking that is evidenced by the index offences was further supported by Mr M’s Criminal Record which showed 11 previous assaults, 2 of which were serious and 7 Assault on Police. Mr M clearly struggles with authority and confirming to social standards. Furthermore his breaches of sentences in the past give concern for the future of interventions and attempts to divert him from negative patterns of behaviours.
Within desistance theory and social exclusion theories we can see that community and socioeconomic factors are relevant to a prosocial lifestyle. Mr M’s home community and the hostel where he moved to would be considered to be deprived urban areas. This level of deprivation can contribute to feelings of never being able to achieve in life or maintain any positive progress made. Mr M’s presentation in the assessment was somewhat resigned to his perception of his place in the community and the negative associations. I ensured that I used affirmations to encourage confidence and trust, focusing not only on the risks but the strengths of Mr M. An example of this is where I acknowledged and reflected back what he was saying about having confidence to change but pointing out the positive in the fact that he attended the appointment for the assessment rather than avoiding a difficult situation for him.
Mr M presented as open to intervention while acknowledging the at times he is unmotivated to change. My assessment through using motivational interviewing techniques (Curran & Drummond 2005) and applying the theory of Prochaska and Diclemente (1998) clarified that Mr M had the desire to change his lifestyle but did not have the confidence or tools to achieve this. His admission that he “would spend most of his time indoors avoiding negative associates” (MCR 2017:3) was his attempt to avoid misuse of substances, negative attention from paramilitaries/dealers and offending behaviours.
At the end of the session I summarised the information, explained the sentencing options to Mr M and discussed the potential for his participation with PBNI. I indicated that I had assessed Probation supervision would be of benefit to him should he consent to its imposition. I also indicated that a Combination Order may also be useful, completing community service having the added impact of giving him a constructive routine while making reparation. Mr M gave consent however expressed doubts as to his ability to complete this and he was advised to discuss this further with his legal representation given he had no grounds for being assessed as unsuitable. Verification of health issues needs to be provided to exclude a client from participating in community service. It was agreed in partnership that an additional requirement to address his addiction issues would support his move towards a more prosocial lifestyle and place the onus on him to commit to a comprehensive caseplan to address his offending behaviours and increase victim awareness especially in relation to his family/direct victims.
While a myriad of risk factors were present in relation to Mr M, his attendance and engagement in the assessment alongside his stated motivation for change we considered strengths. The family support that was evidenced by Mr M and this authors contact with Mr M’s mother were further protective factors considered in the assessment.
An area that had not previously been considered in preparation for the assessment was that of psychodynamic theories around previous trauma. It was evident that Mr M had deep seated trauma related to a number of areas in his life that may be the root of his substance misuse and poor mental health. These areas are referred to in the MCR in a number of domains;
“Mr M tells me he would suffer from poor emotional wellbeing and physical health issues. He is currently prescribed Sertraline (antidepressant), Propranolol (anxiety reducing) and Naproxen (anti-inflammatory for back pain) by his General Practitioner (GP). He tells me his poor emotional wellbeing stems from being threatened with a gun and being at his mother’s property when it was pipe bombed in 2001 and an incident where he was threatened with baseball bats in the waterworks in addition to his substance misuse problems” (MCR 2017:3).
“Mr M began misusing substances from the age of 12, namely Cannabis. He has gone through various periods using different drugs such as Cocaine and prescription medication. This escalated to injecting Heroin more recently however he tells me he has not used any substances in three months and is very motivated to remain in this positive pattern of behaviour. He welcomes any support offered” (MCR 2017:3).
Mr M may benefit from longer term trauma work to address the issues evidenced here. Crisis intervention (Thompson 2011) may also be useful to manage the more immediate needs identified such as housing. The psychodynamic work would delve into the past to find answers for present issues and crisis intervention would lend itself to a more practical and direct alleviation of problems. It is worthwhile bearing in mind that crisis intervention and psychodynamic approaches cannot address structural oppression or inequalities Mr M may face (Hanvey & Philpot (1994), Lindsay (2010)). Furthermore crisis intervention is a directive way of working, focusing on solutions but can be oppressive to the client and this can impact partnership working.
Partnership working is a fundamental component of social work practice however the very nature of the criminal justice system does not always lend itself to choice for the service user. PBNI are committed to creating opportunities for service users to have a say in the provision of service that directly affect their lives (Carr & Montgomery 2016). A Service User Forum has been created and has begun to gather the views of the clients involved with PBNI to inform future practice while promoting desistence.
The ACE assessment tool has been in use by PBNI since 2000 and is used to inform decision making via a combination of actuarial methods and professional judgement. It does not replace the need for a sound use of knowledge, skills and values from the assessor who must make defensible decisions and be accountable for their practice. A criticism levelled at the ACE is that is can be lengthy to complete however its comprehensive nature provides a good basis for a holistic perspective that outweighs the time that it takes to complete. Furthermore, it is proven to be accurate in predicting the likelihood of reoffending over a 2 year period.
2018-4-9-1523276441