Mentally disordered offenders' views of ‘their’ risk assessment and management plans

Abstract

In Britain, there has been an increased emphasis on the use of risk assessments in mental health services over the past 20 years. Mentally disordered offenders subject to Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (England and Wales) are defined as posing a serious risk of harm to others. They are thus dealt with by forensic mental health services, which are often seen as specialists in risk assessments. This paper is based on original research in three mental health trusts in the South of England which was carried out between March 2009 and September 2011. The paper examines mentally disordered offenders’ awareness and attitude to formal risk assessments in relation to theories of governmentality. Service users subject to Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were aware that their level of risk was being assessed by professionals caring for them but were commonly unaware of the content of these assessments. These risk assessments were viewed by participants as a means through which professionals measured and monitored behaviour. Although participants often referred to levels of risk, they did not view risk screening schedules as objective, but rather emphasised the need to persuade staff that their risk had reduced. Despite showing a limited awareness of the content of these risk assessments, participants generally identified more risks, in relation to their vulnerability, than did the professional assessments. However, participants generally identified fewer risks in relation to the dangers they posed to others than did professional staff.

Keywords:

• risk
• risk assessment
• risk perception
• risk communication
• risk management: forensic mental health

Acknowledgements

The material in this paper is taken from a doctoral research project at Cardiff University. I would like to thank Professor Jonathan Scourfield and Mr Trevor Jones for their invaluable advice and support throughout and for their comments on this paper. I would also like to thank Dr Nikki Coghill from Bristol University and Mr Matthew Jones at UWE for their comments on the paper. I would also like to thank Dr. Jon Pollock at UWE for his helpful advice. I received grants towards this research from the Edward Rhys Scholarship Fund at Cardiff University and from the Social Workers Educational Trust. I would like to thank both organisations for their support.