"Square Roots and Algebra": Understanding Perceptions of Combined Risk/Needs Assessment Measures

Abstract

The Home Office's emphasis on a new risk-based agenda for the Probation Service has been the hallmark of both legislation and a large number of policy documents. Yet very little is currently known about how probation officers view these changes. Here, Anthony Colombo and Mike Neary use their initial research findings to gain a clearer understanding of the practical concerns probation officers have about combined risk/needs measures, and assess the implications for future progress in the assessment and management of offender risk.

Implementing OASys: Lessons from Research into LSI-R and ACE

“…The most extreme caricature of practitioners' insecurity was expressed by the LSI-R training provider, who commented that 'there's a fantasy around that eventually they'll be replaced by sort of electrodes and computers and that sort of thing'. Reflecting the findings of Colombo & Neary (1998), professional insecurity was also commonly attributed to a small minority of 'old guard' officers. For example, I suspect .…”

“…Although existing research has only hinted at the possible negative implications of an increasingly 'technical' approach to offender assessment (e.g. Aubrey & Hough, 1997;Roberts et al, 1996;Colombo & Neary, 1998;Gibbs, 1999), NAPO's defensive stance in respect of the Home Office-developed Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) was, in the mid-1990s, indicative of a growing sense of professional insecurity around reduced levels of indeterminacy, particularly in the wake of revised National Standards (see Fletcher, 1995;Home Office, 1995). At that time NAPO's concerns were expressed as follows:…”

“…Whilst it is too soon to evaluate OASys, it would appear to be a good time to reflect on the findings of the small number of research studies which have addressed the implementation of such instruments (e.g. Roberts et al, 1996;Aubrey & Hough, 1997;Colombo & Neary, 1998;Roberts & Robinson, 1998;Gibbs, 1999;Aye-Maung & Hammond, 2000;Raynor et al, 2000). This article draws in particular on my own detailed study of LSI-R implementation and practice in two probation areas (Robinson, 2001).…”

Practitioner assessments in the probation service: action research on a local, regional and national basis?

“…The probation service in the United Kingdom (UK), not unlike other carebased organisations, is undergoing many transitions, particularly in the area of practitioner assessments (Colombo & Neary, 1998;Gibbs, 1999a), but also in other areas like risk management (Home Office, 1997), the development of evidence-based practice (Macdonald, 1994;Roberts et al, 1996) and the incorporation of research findings back into everyday practice (McGuire, 1995;Underdown, 1998). The action research project undertaken by members from the Probation Studies Unit at Oxford University and staff from a number of UK probation services was seen as a way forward in addressing the pressures of, and opportunities afforded by, such changes.…”