Medidas correctoras y de prevención

7.3.1 How does Expert Discourse Assemble Risk

Within the pre-sentence report probation officers discuss risk in several different ways, yet no clear conventional definition of what risk is has been offered, subsequently probation officers largely discuss risk as a narrative within the PSRs. The probation officer takes on the role as the narrator, listening to the young offender who describes

their lifestyle within the remit of a set of prescribed questions drawn from an OASys assessment. The probation officer then retells or interprets the story in a language that is familiar with criminal justice practice, for example ‘[Tyler] states he has…’ (PSR document 22b), ‘[Noah] himself informed me that he…’ (PSR document 11a), ‘although [Luke] has disclosed he…’ (PSR document 16a). The narrator uses the information gathered from an interview with the young offender to describe the level of risk an offender may present, to describe the severity of punishment to be considered by the courts, and to describe the decisions to be made about the rehabilitation and reform of the individual offender in question. In essence, the narrator is required to assess and determine the future actions of an individual based on past information that they have gathered together. This raises questions about the extent to which meaning is lost during a process through which information is translated from one language (lay discourse) to another (expert discourse), from one context (the experiences of offenders) to another (the punishment and sentencing of offenders).

An assessment-based risk-focused interview with an offender makes-up one aspect of the information gathering process, probation officers are also required to gather what is termed ‘collateral information’ (OASys manual 2002, p21) which is gathered together to assist in the completion of an OASys assessment and finally the production of a pre- sentence report (PSR). Collateral information is drawn from a variety of sources including the police, the courts, social services, and other multi-agency partners and in variety of formats, including ‘interviews with’, ‘discussions with’, ‘sight of’, ‘personal knowledge of’, ‘enquires to’ and ‘correspondence from’. This is in order to ‘help evaluate the credibility of the information gained during the interview’ with the offender, to ‘help to determine whether the interactional style of the offender during the interview was representative of their usual behaviour’, and to ‘provide primary information for scoring33 the items’ of the OASys assessment (OASys manual 2002,

33

Scoring the items refers to the OASys scoring schedule. Points are assigned to predetermining factors highlighted in the OASys assessment which are then calculated to determine the risk of reconviction of the individual being assessed. This score is used to determine the level of risk an offender may pose from which offender management and supervision can be organised around this score. In addition, the OASys score is used to measure change in risk of reconviction. This is achieved by comparing a current OASys score and profile with a previous OASys assessment (OASys manual 2002, p119-124).

146

p21). When analysing the PSR data the results indicated that the most commonly sourced information stemmed from (See appendix, Table A5: Sources of Information):

 an offender’s antecedent history (a list of previous convictions compiled by the police),

 an offender’s crown prosecution service documents,

 one face-to-face interview between the probation officer and the offender,  an offender self-assessment and risk assessment (this includes an OASys

assessment and access to previous OASys documents),  discussions with other Northern probation trust practitioners,  and contact with the fines department at the magistrates courts.

The least commonly sourced information was drawn from two face-to-face interviews between the probation officer and the offender, contact with assailant’s family member, and contact with other multi-agency partners such as healthcare professionals, housing professionals, and employment professionals.

The sources of information suggest that a probation officer has access to a wealth of information, drawn from what appears to be a wide-ranging variety of sources. However, upon closer inspection what becomes apparent is the extent to which the majority of sources of information appear to be drawn from other criminal justice agencies, indicating that the most frequently accessed sources of information were accessible via internal sources. For example, information gathered about an offender’s antecedent history is primarily drawn from police records. This assists probation officers in determining the severity of the offender’s current conviction in relation to their overall offending behaviour, to establish patterns of offending that may be emerging, as well as the extent to which an offender may be at risk of reoffending. Similarly, information gathered from the fines department at the magistrates’ court assists probation officers in determining a recommended sentencing conclusion34.

34

It has become general practice within magistrates’ courts to take into consideration any out- standing fines that an individual may have, so as to avoid imposing additional fines on-top of

Other less visible sources of information, such as contact with professionals based outside of the criminal justice system, were the least consulted, for example housing professionals or health care professionals. This may indicate that some information formats take precedent over other types of information, possibly indicating that some forms of expert knowledge are valued over others. In part, this may be because the design of the OASys assessment tool and the reporting process partly determines the information needed to formulate the report, producing a structure that requires some documents or forms of knowledge as essential to the process, whereas other forms of knowledge or information become considered as complimentary information.

It could also be suggested that the legality and professional accountability of multi- agency information sharing protocol restricts or complicates the information gathering process. This may suggest why probation officers are more likely to seek the information they need from internal sources that are more readily available and easily accessible, as opposed to external sources of information. A process that values some forms of information over others potentially introduces bias into the decision-making process. This is because it would be difficult for a probation officer to present an accurate and unbiased OASys assessment and pre-sentence report by drawing from familiar and well-used information. Equally so, acquiring information and knowledge from internal sources potentially produces insular ways of thinking about offending. For example, when a probation officers draws upon previous records of offending and previous OASys assessment reports what firm conclusions can be drawn in relation to an offenders current circumstances? Further investigation is clearly needed before any significant conclusions can be drawn from the suggestions outlined here, however, one conclusion that can be firmly asserted is the extent to which the sources of information that are gathered by the probation service for the completion of an OASys assessment can and do determine the contents of the pre-sentence report and the sentencing conclusion.

The OASys user manual (2002) clearly recognises the need for validity and professional accuracy of the information it includes and produces when it states, ‘a completed OASys

already outstanding fines, the common thinking here is to avoid “setting the offender up to fail”. In this sense, information gathered from fines records assists in determining the sentencing conclusion.

148

assessment is only as good as the quality of the information on which it is based’ (OASys Manual v2, 2002, p21). While there may be some validity in this statement it may appear presumptuous on the basis that it overlooks other equally as valid characteristics and functions of the OASys assessment process that bring the accuracy of the assessment process into question. For example, an important structural aspect within the assessment process is the way in which the narrator (in this case the probation officer) interacts with the information that is presented to them. Although the sources of information that are gathered together to compile an OASys assessment and a pre-sentence report do not necessarily offer a description of what is risk, it is fair to suggest that these processes offer an understanding of the structures used, or even needed, to assemble and construct risk within criminal justice practices. The conditions of risk are discussed at length but no clear definition of the term risk can be located within the PSR documents or within the OASys user manual, leaving the term open to interpretation by those who complete the OASys assessment and by those who consult the corresponding documents.