Archive

For those in criminal justice, working with persistent offenders is a priority. It can be argued, particularly for non-violent offenders, that efforts made to reduce the risks of reoffending are best spent in the community. It was from this standpoint that social worker Pamela Connor (pictured, left) began, in April 2001, working with Robert Gray - a young man with a history of non-violent offences that had been committed to fund his drug use. Connor's first task was to prepare, for the court, the social enquiry report that assesses the potential for reoffending.

Gray was sentenced to 18 months' probation. However, following a recent relapse, his heroin use had made him drug-dependent again. He renewed his acquaintance with the old ways. He was, in the space of two days, charged twice with shoplifting - breaching his probation. This required Connor to submit breach reports to the court. "Given the situation, it was unusual," she says, "to be recommending no further action and saying probation is the right way forward." But she was clear: "He's a non-violent drug-user whose needs are not going to be addressed in prison." The court agreed.

Connor was also swayed by Gray's honesty in owning up to the breaches. "He felt comfortable enough to come in and tell us," she says. "We say to people: 'If you are charged with another offence, come in, speak to us, we'll look at what's happened and try and work through it'. That message obviously got across."

Connor set about targeting factors linked to offending behaviour - including drug use, family problems, housing and employment. "I made a referral to an addiction liaison nurse," she says. "Within four weeks he had been assessed as suitable for methadone, had the motivation to enter treatment, and we identified a local GP to start the treatment." Connor concedes that this "was pretty quick". It can take a lot longer, during which time a lot of motivation can be lost.

"I was also getting Gray to fill in a drug diary," Connor continues. "He wasn't going to get the equivalent of what he was using in street heroin. So, I wanted to see that while his methadone was increasing, he was decreasing his heroin use." From the start of the methadone treatment Gray claimed he was no longer involved in offending behaviour. The small amount of heroin that he was using, he said, was funded through his benefits.

Gray had been living with his father. Theirs had been a turbulent relationship from early on. As both boy and adult Gray had felt undermined by his father. He needed his own place. "He was made an offer in a hard-to-let area," says Connor. "Although the area has a high level of drug use, it was close to his father's house. Despite their relationship he was still a source of support. The offer was made within a week - which again was pretty quick. He agreed to take it."

Connor continues: "It's not very often the Benefits Agency gets praise, but they gave him enough of a grant to furnish and decorate his flat to a level where he was able to say 'Yeah, I'm OK with this' rather than try to live somewhere where he wouldn't be happy." This sense of ownership meant that Gray could say, "This flat, it's mine, not somewhere where I'm just staying today - but home."

Undoubtedly, a degree of good fortune with the speed of services helped Gray's situation. "But, importantly," observes Connor, "he was motivated to change." As more stability entered Gray's life so the reduction in risk of reoffending decreased - a score of 31 on his initial assessment, using the risk and needs assessment framework Level of Service Inventory - Revised, had reduced in time to 19 and then 11. Gray's family relationships had also improved. "His dad was happy that he was doing well," says Connor. "He had stayed at his dad's while his flat was being decorated and he helped with that." Gray has a partner now - "which is a positive step for him" - and is back in employment.

Such is his improvement that social work contact is now only monthly. "But I've told him," says Connor, "that if you want to talk, or feel you're struggling, and need to see me, then that's OK." The hugely positive impact on Gray's confidence and self-esteem is marked. "He feels more comfortable being drug-free. And his dad telling him, in front of me, that he's proud of him - that was really big for him. He's feeling pretty chuffed with how life is going."

Case notes

All names of users have been changed.

Practitioner: Pamela Connor

Field: Criminal justice social work

Location: South Lanarkshire, Scotland

Client: Robert Gray, a 25-year-old white male with a history of drug-related offending behaviour, including around 15 previous convictions.

Case history: Gray is a non-violent persistent offender. His offences have been committed in direct relation to his drug use. In June 2001, after being convicted of several dishonesty offences he was placed on an 18-month probation order with standard conditions - which require the probationer to be display good behaviour, conform to the directions of the supervising officer and advise the supervising officer if there are changes in employment or place of residence. Also during the initial probation period, Gray was twice convicted of further similar dishonesty offences, thus breaching the terms of his probation. Connor, convinced that remaining in the community was Gray’s best chance of success, prepared two breach reports for the courts, recommending no further action and a continuation of the probation order. The courts agreed.

Dilemma: Pressure existed about the way forward - why recommend a continuation of probation order when Gray had failed to comply with community-based disposal?

Risk factor: A custodial sentence could damage Gray’s need to be socially included to minimise risks of reoffending.

Outcome: Gray’s social and mental health have gradually and consistently improved, bringing much-needed order to his life.

Arguments for risk

• As a non-violent drug-user, Gray's needs might not be best addressed in prison. Work with his offending behaviour needed to be done in the community. He had previous experience of residential rehabilitation, and chances are that this would be merely replicated in prison. He would come out - possibly drug-free - but be unable to sustain a drug-free life. He would need regular treatment to achieve and sustain stability.
• There would be no guarantee that he would leave prison drug-free - as drug availability could even draw him into a wider criminal fraternity.
• "Prison would not be an environment to promote pro-social modelling," Connor argues with a smile. Indeed, he might become involved with others who could lead him into a world of violent crime.
• The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, suggests that people in employment have a 50 per cent lower chance of reoffending. However, with a custodial sentence Gray's future employability would be severely restricted.

Arguments against risk

• The June 2001 probationary sentence was Gray's second such sentence. The first occurred when he was a young adult and was again related to dishonesty offences in attempts to fund his illicit drug use. In this case, too, he breached the conditions of this probation. There was no evidence that he would change. His behaviour simply showed that he could not be trusted to conform to a community-based disposal.
• Gray's history also showed that programmed work towards rehabilitation had failed. His drug use, the main impetus for his offending, had been recently treated, but within a couple of months he had relapsed and succumbed to heroin dependency again. Neither was heroin his only drug of choice.
• Gray's repeated offending and relapse point toward a lack of motivation. At the time of his probation breaches he had no permanent, settled address, he was unemployed and single, and had no social network to underpin work with him. It was socially inevitable that he would fail.

Independent comment

This is a good example of a social worker using a structured assessment instrument not only to measure the risk that Gray would be reconvicted and thus inform the preparation of the social enquiry report, but also to identify the dynamic risk factors, or criminogenic needs, that required addressing to reduce the risk, writes Peter Davies.

A problem in working with offenders such as Gray, whose offending is related to drug dependence, is that the use of drugs affects the individual’s ability to function in key criminogenic areas such as education, work, family and interpersonal relationships. It can exacerbate existing problems or create new ones. In the case of Gray, the social worker was able to address the drug use at an early stage, which meant motivation was not lost, and she could then work with Gray on family, employment and housing.

The Level of Service Inventory - Revised was used by the social worker as part of the initial assessment process, and retests were carried out periodically during supervision. During that period Gray scored 31, then 19 and finally 11. The maximum score on the LSI-R is 54. A score of 31 is categorised as high risk, 19 as moderate risk and 11 as very nearly low risk. Home Office Research Study 211 reported that changes in LSI-R scores are associated with changes in risk in the expected direction. In Gray’s case the social worker could be confident he was at low risk of reoffending and was right to reduce contact levels.

Peter Davies is managing director of training organisation the Cognitive Centre.