Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which risk is addressed in the risk management planning process of those convicted of sexual offending.

Data were collected from a risk assessment and management system called the Offender Assessment System (OASys), used by the National Offender Management Service, in England and Wales. The records of 216 clients were accessed and each risk management plan analysed. The study aimed to understand if first, general and sexual risk factors identified by assessors were recorded and detailed in subsequent plans; second, if specialist sexual offending risk assessment tools were used to inform risk management strategies; and third, if both a balance of control and support mechanisms were in place to tackle identified risk and needs of clients.

Inconsistencies were found in relation to practitioners transposing risks identified, into the subsequent risk management plans. Strategies were therefore deemed, inadequate as there was a significant omission of the use of specialist sexual risk assessment tools to inform and ensure risk assessment to be robust. In addition risk management plans were often overbearing in nature, as assessors tended to utilise control strategies to assist the reintegration process, in contrast to a combination of both control and support.

This sample was taken from only one probation trust in England and Wales. The findings might therefore be unique to this organisation rather than be representative of national practice. This study should therefore, be replicated in a number of other probation areas. In addition, it is important to note that this study only reviewed one electronic tool used by practitioners. Therefore, while it might appear for example that the RM2000 tool was not routinely completed; this cannot be assumed as practitioners might have adopted local custom and practice, recording RM2000 scores elsewhere.

These findings highlight the need for some understanding as to why there is a lack of consistency throughout the risk management planning process. Practitioners should receive ongoing risk management training, development and supportive supervision. In particular, practitioners require supervision that supports and develops their skills when applying RM2000 classifications to their clients’ risk management plans. Likewise initiatives which develop practitioner’s awareness and application of strengths based approaches such as the Good Lives Model should be encouraged. These will help practitioners develop plans that address both the risks while supporting their development of the strengths a client presents.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind, which examines the risk management plans of those convicted of sexual offending, completed by practitioners in England and Wales using the OASys tool.

The decision of the Wolverhampton Stipendiary in the case of “Skim‐milk Cheese” is, at any rate, clearly put. It is a trial case, and, like most trial cases, the reasons for the judgment have to be based upon first principles of common‐sense, occasionally aided, but more often complicated, by already existing laws, which apply more or less to the case under discussion. The weak point in this particular case is the law which has just come into force, in which cheese is defined as the substance “usually known as cheese” by the public and any others interested in cheese. This reliance upon the popular fancy reads almost like our Government's war policy and “the man in the street,” and is a shining example of a trustful belief in the average common‐sense. Unfortunately, the general public have no direct voice in a police court, and so the “usually known as cheese” phrase is translated according to the fancy and taste of the officials and defending solicitors who may happen to be concerned with any particular case. Not having the general public to consult, the officials in this case had a war of dictionaries which would have gladdened the heart of Dr. JOHNSON; and the outcome of much travail was the following definition: cheese is “ coagulated milk or curd pressed into a solid mass.” So far so good, but immediately a second definition question cropped up—namely, What is “milk?”—and it is at this point that the mistake occurred. There is no legal definition of new milk, but it has been decided, and is accepted without dispute, that the single word “milk” means an article of well‐recognised general properties, and which has a lower limit of composition below which it ceases to be correctly described by the one word “milk,” and has to be called “skim‐milk,” “separated milk,” “ milk and water,” or other distinguishing names. The lower limits of fat and solids‐not‐fat are recognised universally by reputable public analysts, but there has been no upper limit of fat fixed. Therefore, by the very definition quoted by the stipendiary, an article made from “skim‐milk” is not cheese, for “skim‐milk” is not “milk.” The argument that Stilton cheese is not cheese because there is too much fat would not hold, for there is no legal upper limit for fat; but if it did hold, it does not matter, for it can be, and is, sold as “Stilton” cheese, without any hardship to anyone. The last suggestion made by the stipendiary would, if carried out, afford some protection to the general public against their being cheated when they buy cheese. This suggestion is that the Board of Agriculture, who by the Act of 1899 have the legal power, should determine a lower limit of fat which can be present in cheese made from milk; but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it is by the adoption of the Control system that such questions can alone be settled to the advantage of the producer of genuine articles and to that of the public.