News

Social worker Mark Owers has the difficult job of balancing the duties of care and control in the case of a young sex offender. Mike George reports.

Social workers in the youth offending field invariably work with some extremely challenging clients, but those in youth offending teams in particular can find it difficult to marry their role as officers of the court with the duty of care they have as social work professionals.

These professional dilemmas and difficulties have certainly exercised Mark Owers during his work with Peter Hill (not his real name). Owers, who is a social worker in a youth offending team in Haringey, first became involved 14 months ago when he was required to prepare a pre-sentence report for the youth court. A few months earlier Hill had been charged and convicted of non-violent but serious sexual assaults on a number of adult women in the area in which he lived.

Before sentencing, one of the bail conditions imposed by the youth court required Hill to be remanded into local authority accommodation. The local children and families team placed him in a therapeutic residential home outside London, which specialised in working with young sex offenders. After reading the Crown Prosecution papers, interviewing Hill, his adoptive mother, teachers, home staff, and the therapist who was assessing him, Owers concluded that he presented a great risk of reoffending at that time, and believed he needed to be placed in secure, but therapeutic accommodation.

However, he adds that at that time, since the youth court had accepted jurisdiction, a custodial sentence could not be imposed, and instead decided on a two-year supervision order with the dual conditions of residence and therapy, both of which would be directed by the local authority. Although there were considerable financial implications of him remaining at his existing place of residence, these were eventually overcome as the children and families placement panel "finally put his needs, good practice, and common sense before budgetary requirements".

Owers admits that he was initially concerned that Hill had not been made the subject of an appropriate custodial sentence, because he felt that he continued to pose a significant risk to the public, particularly since Hill was warning professionals of his own fears about reoffending. Owers stresses that he is not an advocate of the frequent use of such sentences, but accepts that in certain cases they "are regrettably necessary for the protection of the public".

However, his concerns were quickly overcome by the secure nature of the regime offered by the residential unit and the high standards of therapy on offer provided by a respected therapist from a well known organisation. Hill was surprisingly open and honest about his desires and urges to offend from the very beginning, and the staff immediately encouraged this. "Right from the start I made sure that he was very clear about the terms of the order and the likely outcome to him if he breached it or chose to reoffend," says Owers.

Since the locality of the home made it impossible for Owers to visit him once a week (in accordance with the 1995 national standards), his team engaged an independent social worker to carry out the day-to-day running of the order. But Owers maintained regular contact and monitoring via the appointed worker, and through weekly phone calls and monthly reports. He also chaired some monthly planning meetings with the core group of staff. Through this contact he quickly became aware that Hill had started to target certain female staff.

In general, the home did not operate a "no touch" policy, in order to help young people to learn appropriate physical contact. Although it was not obvious at first, it became apparent that he was using the regime to employ subtle techniques to inappropriately touch some staff members. While this behaviour was effectively challenged and stopped, he employed the same behaviour later in order to remain in the home; that is, he would commit these acts every time he'd agreed to a non-offending conduct programme aimed at helping him to move on.

"Naturally this was discussed by us all and it appeared to me that while he remained frightened by his inability to control his urges, he seemed to be developing more sophisticated means of securing his own wants and needs," Owers says. Nevertheless, he continues to feel confident about the therapist's work, which includes getting Hill to understand the triggers, cycles and mechanisms involved in his offending behaviour, and life history work, which suggests that he was abused before being adopted.

Owers is clear about the prime importance of the therapy, but he is now having to consider what he can and should do to try to ensure that when Hill leaves the home he presents the lowest possible risk to women in the community. This has presented him with a further set of difficulties.

Attempts to involve Hill's mother in the therapeutic programme have been, understandably, hindered as she struggled with re-establishing a healthy mother-son relationship within an alien and somewhat staged environment.

This would normally take place in the young person's home, but there have been considerable delays in rehousing her, away from the area in which he offended. Additionally, there are major issues around returning a young person on the sex offender register to a mother who is also a foster carer.

Owers is also facing the problem of how to get him back into mainstream education, and more broadly into a situation where he can develop normal peer relationships.

"As an officer of the court I feel that he continues to represent a risk to women, but I also have a broad duty of care towards him. I feel that this is a huge responsibility, trying to balance care and control," he concludes.

Social worker: Mark Owers

Field: Youth offending social worker

Location: London Borough of Haringey

Client: Peter Hill (not his real name) is in his early teens and has been convicted of non-violent, but serious sexual assaults on a number of adult women. He had previously resided with his adoptive mother, who is also a foster carer for a younger child.

Case history: On arrest he was bailed to reside in a residential home out of London, which provides a therapeutic environment for young sex offenders. He was subsequently convicted before the youth court, and Owers prepared a pre-sentence report.

At that time (around 14 months ago) the court was unable to impose a custodial sentence even though Owers concluded that Hill represented a serious risk to the public.

The court imposed a two-year supervision order, with both a condition of residence and therapy as directed by the local authority. Effectively this required Hill to remain in specialist residential care for a minimum period of six months, with Owers, aided by an independent social worker, monitoring his progress and having ultimate responsibility for the proper discharge of the order.

While Hill made progress, such as identifying the nature of his offending, and becoming more aware of the triggers involved, he also began exhibiting improper sexualised behaviour targeted at the female staff at the home.

Dilemma: Hill is at a stage where he understands the nature of his offending, can recognise the triggers and is beginning to develop the skills required to refrain from offending. However, Owers and his colleagues accept that he continues to represent a risk at a time when his reintegration into the community is upon them.

Risk factor: While the danger is reduced, he clearly continues to represent a risk to the public.

Outcome: Owers continues to grapple with the many issues surrounding Hill's return to the community.

Independent comment

The client described by Owers is potentially a danger to the public, writes Anthony Goodman.

Hill can be rehabilitated in the community as long as the appropriate support networks and controls are in place. The worry was that treatment could have been in a young offenders institution. In the words of the chief inspector of prisons, this would have been taking place in conditions "unacceptable in a civilised society." Community care is not a cheap option and this has been responsibly recognised by the local authority.

In terms of risk, there are a number of factors that exacerbate the danger of reoffending. The nature of this type of offence is often seen as a predictor for further offending, as is the young age of onset of offending. In this case, Hill is demonstrating worrying symptoms that he is touching staff in the residential unit, but this might be because he appears to be anxious at the prospect of leaving and this might be triggering the abusive behaviour. It is sufficient to alert staff, but not so serious as to lead to thoughts of long-term secure accommodation.

I am optimistic at the potential for a positive outcome in this case because Hill is receiving skilled, professional contact, which is multi-disciplinary in nature. The concept of joined up thinking is essential here. Also, Hill has insight into his behaviour. A cognitive behavioural approach is likely to help him recognise the triggers that create the behaviour and thoughts. More work is needed to enable him to understand the consequences of his actions.

It will be inappropriate for him to return to his foster mother's address, to protect other youngsters in the house, unless he is the sole young person present and she is able to co-operate with his treatment plan. Contact should not cease in 10 months' time, when the supervision order ends.

Anthony Goodman is senior lecturer in social science at Middlesex University. He was previously a probation officer and is involved in training probation officers and social workers at the university

Arguments for risk

• Hill is bright and is willing to discuss his offending behaviour, its consequences for him and others, and the triggers and mechanisms involved. He has fully accepted the need for therapeutic work. Similarly, he is genuinely frightened about his inability to control his urges, and not just because he understands that if he offends again he is likely to receive a custodial sentence.
• He has developed and maintained honest and trustworthy relationships with adults, including the therapist and Owers.
• His mother is willing to try to help him to live normally in the community.
• He continues to be monitored closely, through both statutory reviews and close staff supervision.
• He has recently started talking to people other than his therapist about his offending history, which is vital for the success of his "keeping safe" programme; this includes his mother, who will be his first port of call in the community.

Arguments against risk

• Despite Hill's insights into and knowledge of his offending behaviour he still has the urge to offend.
• He has learned quickly how to exploit the social dynamics of an essentially closed institution in order the gratify his urges, and at the same time has not suffered any major sanctions as a result. This suggests that he may be learning new offending behaviours.
• Owers, who is in full possession of the facts, and who has a clear public safety duty, still regards him as a major risk.
• There are several very practical barriers to be faced before he could live in the community again, many of which are outside the direct control of Owers.