A comparison of how community learning disability practitioners currently assess the risk of people with a learning disa

1. A comparison of how community learning disability practitioners currently assess the risk of people with a learning disability who have sexually offended or display sexually abusive behaviour John Hutchinson Asst. Director New Focus

2. Method Literature review Structured interview with practitioners - Covered 6 Health Districts - Mixture of inner urban and rural - Included various professional groups

3. Context Risk assessments undertaken by practitioners despite there being - A lack of meaningful empirical base - Problems with various key definitions - A lack of direction from national level

4. Highlights from the Literature Typology of deviant and counterfeit deviant Lindsay 2000 The wrong end of the elephant! Laws 2003 Most LD offenders live in their community Hutchinson 2000 Validation work Bass 2002

5. Risk assessment �Theoretical models and assessments have been abstracted and adapted but not validates for those with a learning disability� (Johnson 2002) �It is reasonable to make use of risk assessments that have been validated on the general population.� (Harris & Tough 2004) Other recent papers have supported the use of assessments that use static and dynamic variables as their base (Boer et al. 2004, Lindsay et al 2004)

6. Findings 1 The practitioners - Experienced and qualified - 42% not in receipt of specialist sex offender training Their caseload - 83% of respondents were the main or specialist worker - ? Sub specialisation - issue of cross labelling - 34% have a legal mandate

7. Findings 2 Risk assessments Primary purpose to identify risk, frequency, severity and aid development of risk strategies Only 1 response indicated for identifying treatment options. Most people use the �trinity� of document analysis, client interview and interview of others

8. Findings 3 Risk assessments (cont.) No formal static actuarial or dynamic assessments used 50% used published clinical assessments on occasions Length to complete 0.5 - 90 days Reliance on experience and feelings

9. Reflections on risk assessment most common issue training, staff support and supervision followed by Subjectivity, empirical base and history sharing information joint working engaging service users community v. inpatient services funding and support

10. Thoughts��... For Practice Accessing specialist training -What? Good & Multiple support networks Better community & Inpatient collaboration Engaging the person Using Legal mandates Use of formal risk assessment tools. When to share information Add to the evidence base

11. Thoughts��... For commissioning - Differing eligibility criteria - Funding the wrong end of the elephant

12. And finally��.. There is much to be done; getting it wrong has real consequences for all involved. There is a need to harness the energy and innovative practice that abound - evaluate what really works and share this. Developing lives positively and proactively can reduce risks for everyone