What can we learn from Serious Incident Reports?

Abstract

This is an examination of 90 Serious Incident Reports (SIRs) which were generated in the London Probation Area between January 2002 and July 2003. The results showed that offenders assessed as high risk generated a disproportionately high number of SIRs, but equally serious incidents occurred across all risk bands.Interpretation of this is not straightforward; despite confirming considerable accuracy by Probation staff in identifying those most likely to inflict harm, it also demonstrates the limitations of risk prediction, and the need for considerable skill and knowledge among staff who work with offenders of all risk bands. Among other findings it emerged that nearly a third of alleged offences that triggered SIRs were of rape.Lastly, there was a clear contrast in the predictive power of previous convictions: over half of those triggering a serious incident report through violent behaviour had previous convictions of violence, whereas under a quarter of those accused of a sexual offence had previous sexual convictions. Superficially this confirms that past violent behaviour is a powerful predictor of future violence, but also reflects the considerable gap between offending and conviction for sexual offenders.

The Nuts and Bolts of Risk Assessment: When the Clinical and Actuarial Conflict

“…The evidence could be stacked up to show probation practitioners are really rather successful in this task. For instance, my own research (Ansbro 2006) found that although high-risk offenders occupied only 4% of the caseload at the time, offenders in that risk category produced a full quarter of a sample of serious further offences (SFOs). National probation service research (National Probation Service 2005) found a similar pattern, but as an example of the 'cup half empty, cup half full' principle, this is rarely reported as a ringing triumph for accuracy in risk prediction.…”

Risk assessment, the professional judgement model and organizational anxiety – a practitioner response to ‘In the eye of the storm: The implications of the Munro Child Protection Review for the future of probation’ by Wendy Fitzgibbon

“…I am not arguing that we concede to this environment by persevering on an unsustainable course of rule tightening, failing to acknowledge the truth that ‘serious re-offending whilst under supervision is inevitable’ (Ansbro, 2006: 65). But practitioners must be given time for reflection, supervision and consultation in recognition of the challenging nature of the work they undertake, and the responsibilities they face.…”

The conveyor belt of criminal justice: the Sonnex case, risk, and de-skilling in probation

“…This allocation of cases on the basis of tick-box risk assessments continues despite research by Ansbro (2006) and Craissati and Sindall (2009) showing that low/medium risk offenders can go on to commit serious further offences and that risk is a dynamic evolving phenomena. The predominance of 'tick-box' risk assessment tools such as OASys sustains management belief that risk assessment and the management of the majority of offenders on probation can be effectively undertaken by deskilled operatives.…”