News

Mike George finds out how Rona Fraser calculated the risk of re-offending when a sex offender with learning difficulties cam before the court.

Many long-overdue changes have been made by governments to improve policies and procedures for dealing with sex offenders. However, many would argue that factors such as easy access to pornography continue to bolster the anti-women and other attitudes that encourage offending behaviour. So social workers who work with sex offenders might have better policies and procedures through which to work, but are also having to deal with societal pressures which makes this difficult area of work even harder.

Rona Fraser, a senior social worker in a criminal justice team in Edinburgh, faces these difficulties frequently, but she had additional problems with Robert Bishop (not his real name), because he is a sex offender who also has learning difficulties.

She first came into contact with him a few ears ago, when she and a colleague were asked by a High Court to prepare a social inquiry report. "We assessed him and concluded that because of his lack of insight into the offence, his lack of control, and his aggressive attitudes towards women, he presented a significant risk to the community, although we were also aware that his own vulnerability could put him at risk in prison," she says.

The court sentenced Bishop to a prison term, after which he would be subject to a one-year supervised release order. "We had strongly recommended that such an order should be used," she adds.

Fraser, and a male social worker allocated to him in prison, started a supervision regime, during which they got him to work on his offending behaviour, his attitudes, and the situations (such as his use of pornography and fantasies) which heightened the risks. "His anger towards women was extreme, and that, allied to his impulsive and non-reflective behaviour, represented a major risk that we tried very hard to address through our collaborative work."

Towards the end of the custodial sentence, they put extra work into arrangements for Bishop's release. They felt it would be safer if he went to live in a specialist housing resource for sex offenders, but Bishop wished to return to his parents' home, and neither social worker had the legal powers to prevent him doing so.

"This meant that I had to inform the parents, and begin to get them involved in the risk management process, though it was difficult for them to properly understand the risks he posed. Good practice dictated that I had to get Bishop's permission to inform them, which I did, although I feel I would have told them anyway, because I also have a clear duty to protect the community," she says.

Fraser and the original male co-worker form the team continued to work with Bishop during the post release year.

They had frequent sessions with him, and visits to the parents' home, and Fraser also managed to persuade him to attend a unit specialising in sex offenders with learning difficulties. "This was not a condition of the order, but I felt it could be helpful." She also worked with a community psychiatric nurse, who provided additional community contact and support.

"By the end of the year we felt that he had responded quite well, and had developed a degree of understanding of the situations that led to increased risk, such as moods of extreme depression or anger, or use of alcohol.

"However, Bishop's ability to understand why he had offended and how he could change was obviously affected by his learning difficulties, and there had been little change in his impulsiveness or attitudes towards women," says Fraser.

She and her co-worker were also faced with the fact that Bishop had developed a relationship with a very vulnerable young woman. "We tried to get him to bring her along to our sessions with him, but that proved very hard, and we were very limited in what we could do to protect her.

"For example, we have no legal right to inform her of his conviction."

They also tried to encourage him to take up some sort of useful activity, but without success. She says they had to be realistic about the extent to which they could reduce the potential risks posed by Bishop.

"I also have to say that, as a woman, this case has been quite uncomfortable, and I've felt distressed after some of our sessions with him." But she adds that co-working has been invaluable, giving them both the opportunity to reflect on and discuss the case and their own feelings.

Supportive management has also been a must, she says; the legal and policy structures have provided important powers and boundaries, and the theoretical and other knowledge-based work on which their practice is based has been crucial.

Nevertheless, the feelings Bishop engendered in the social workers made the work hard, and Fraser continues to find it difficult to know how much to disclose or withhold from the parents. Also, she and her co-worker have had to take seriously the fact that they may be at personal risk.

On the other hand, she says, Bishop has some rights as an individual. "But how do you balance his rights with the risks he presents to others?"

CASE NOTES

• Social worker: Rona Fraser
• Field: Senior social worker in a criminal justice team
• Client: Robert Bishop (not his real name) is in his 20s, has learning difficulties and lives at home with his parents. He exhibits offensive and violent attitudes towards women, and was convicted of the attempted rape of a woman, which was witnessed by a child.
• Case History: After the High Court convicted Bishop of this offence, Fraser and a colleague assessed him and prepared a social inquiry report. They did not feel probation offered enough community protection and felt intensive work would be needed while he was in prison, followed by a supervised release order. She and the prison social worker saw Bishop regularly in prison, to work with him to reduce the risk of re-offending. They also met his parents towards the end of his sentence, to offer support and advice. After release, Fraser continued to try to get Bishop to understand why his behaviour and attitudes should change, and to help him gain some insight into the consequences of his actions. The family became involved in risk management, and it was arranged for Bishop to attend an NHS unit specialising in people with learning difficulties who are sex offenders. Fraser also involved a community psychiatric nurse. Bishop is on the sex offenders register, and is formally monitored by the police.
• Dilemma: Although Fraser had legal duties and powers to work with Bishop when he was in prison and during the year after his release, she no longer has such powers.
• Risk factor: Bishop still represents a significant potential risk to others in the community.
• Outcome: There have been no further reports of him offending.

Arguments for Risk

• Bishop is not know to be a serial sex offender; if he was there would be much stronger arguments for an extended custodial period.
• There have been no reported instances of re-offending.
• He has begun to gain some insight into his attitudes and behaviour. He is in contact with the community psychiatric nurse, the specialist unit for sex offenders with learning difficulties, and with the police - he is on the sex offenders register.
• There is no indication that he is likely to move elsewhere in the country, and therefore cease to be monitored.
• He continues to live in the parental home, and the parents can contact Fraser if necessary.
• As a known sex offender, any future instances of inappropriate behaviour are likely to be picked up very quickly by local agencies.

Arguments Against Risk

• He continues to fail to understand why his anti-women attitudes are not acceptable, and present significant potential risks to others.
• His learning difficulties have made it harder for him to address his impulsive and violent behaviour.
• It is not clear how much understanding he has of how certain situations increase the likelihood of his engaging risky behaviour.
• His parents might find it very difficult to report any concerning behaviour.
• He is in a relationship with a vulnerable woman, in which his desires to dominate and control could be expressed through offending behaviour.
• He has shown no true remorse for his offence.
• He continues to have no other meaningful activities in his life.

INDEPENDENT COMMENT

The work of Rona Fraser and her colleagues with this sex offender highlights the complexity of social work which aims for the combined goals of personal change by the offender and the protection of the community, writes Donald Dickie.

While reducing the risk of re-offending is in itself a contribution to community safety, support and opportunities for change which respect the individual's rights do not always sit easily with monitoring and supervision.

Statutory orders can provide the authority to intervene. But, as in Bishop's case, a degree of risk will almost certainly remain beyond the expiry of the order. Fraser shows that good through-care can make a significant contribution to community safety before the offender shuts the door on positive influences.

Bishop's learning difficulties would limit the prospects of major change through a cognitive-behavioural approach, although he did become more alert to potential risk situations and therefore more capable of taking avoiding action. The family involvement must also have enhanced the chances of effective risk management. The collaboration between the prison, health workers, police and social workers illustrates the benefits of the multi-agency approach.

How much information should be shared with others in the pursuit of public safety? Scottish Office guidance following on the Sex Offenders Act 1997 has encouraged social workers to focus on community protection as the primary objective and doubtless more information is now shared. But Article 8 of the Human Rights Act should make us pause. Before interfering with the rights to private and family life, public authorities will have to make a clear case that their actions are indeed in the interests of public safety or for the prevention of crime.

Since many sex offenders will always present significant risks, perhaps the time has arrived for their supervision to be complemented by awareness-raising local community safety initiatives.

Donald Dickie is a development officer with the Scottish rehabilitation agency, Sarco.