Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Procedures
Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Procedures Sussex Child Protection and Safeguarding Procedures

7.2.16 Risk of Serious Harm

SCOPE OF THIS CHAPTER

The Youth Justice Board has determined three types of risk:

  • risk of re-offending;
  • risk of vulnerability;
  • risk of serious harm to others.

This document deals with risk of serious harm only but recognises an overlap in all three types. It is evident that the numbers meeting the criteria are small but nevertheless present a significant and disproportionate risk to others. The challenge, firstly, is to identify YOT clients who meet the criteria and, secondly, how to manage the risk in an accountable way.


Contents

  1. Definition
  2. Criteria - Static and Dynamic Indicators
  3. Managing ROSH
  4. Principles of a Good Risk Management Plan
  5. Operational Procedure

1. Definition

The definition of serious harm (from Asset):

Serious harm means death or injury (either physical or psychological) which is life threatening and/or traumatic and from which recovery is expected to be difficult, incomplete or impossible.

The first part of the definition is clear, although the second is more ambiguous and susceptible to subjective interpretation.


2. Criteria – Static and Dynamic Indicators

Static Indicators

The Criminal Justice Act 2003, with its dangerousness provision, assists in that it lists specified sexual and violent offences that will trigger a risk of serious harm (ROSH) assessment. There are 153 of these offences (the full list is contained in Schedule 15 of the Act which is an appendix to the Sussex MAPPA guidance) but relevant to juvenile offenders are the following:

  • Offences Against the Person Act (making threats to kill, GBH, malicious wounding, assault with intent to resist arrest, ABH)
  • Certain firearms offences (including possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence)
  • Robbery 
  • Aggravated burglary
  • Burglary with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on a person, or do unlawful damage to a building or anything in it.
  • Arson (reckless or with intent)
  • Violent Disorder and Affray
  • Harassment (by putting people in fear of violence)
  • Racially or religiously aggravated assaults or section 4 Public Order Act
  • Any sexual offence

Another consideration in assessing risk of serious harm is the static factor of a history of a specified offence or offences. It is necessary, even if the presenting offence is of a minor nature, to incorporate past specified offending and any pertinent dynamic indicators in measuring present risk. Therefore, if there has been a specified offence in the past, a ROSH still needs to be completed.

Dynamic Indicators 

The guidance from the Youth Justice Board states:

In addition, young people who appear to have little or no history of harmful behaviour may present a serious risk to others because of their current attitudes or circumstances. Therefore it is also very important to consider dynamic and contextual factors.

These factors could include:

  • Family difficulties (in particular abuse, neglect, rejection, discontinuity of care and parental mental illness and/or criminality)
  • Low levels of academic attainment
  • Individual characteristics such as impulsivity or anger
  • Neighbourhood (e.g. lack of community resources)
  • Negative attitudes, peers, networks, disconcerting interests/fascinations/behaviour
  • Deviant sexual interest/behaviour

Many of the young people subject to YOT supervision would have elements, indeed, if not a combination, of the listed factors and so it is crucial that young people are not needlessly identified as constituting a serious risk to others when they do not. The way to resolve this potential problem is through use of Asset. A high score (25-48) or a medium to high score (17-24) should serve as a point of reference.

Any ROSH requires a counter signature from a supervisor and approval of a risk management plan, if the criteria is met. If in any doubt as to suitability, practitioners should discuss the case with their supervisor or a manager.


3. Managing ROSH

The assessment will be informed by the core Asset, the self-assessment form (What do YOU think?) and any other professional assessment (e.g. mental health, substance misuse). If the criteria for serious harm is met and the young persons risk of harm to others is medium, high or very high, the next step is a risk management plan which is assimilated into the planning section of interventions.

A misconception is that a ROSH inevitably leads to a MAPPA referral. In order to comply with the Sussex MAPPA guidance, a referral can only be made if the minimum requirement of a registered sex offender or of an offender who has been convicted of a specific violent offence and has been given a sentence of twelve months or more applies. Therefore the majority of ROSHs will not have a MAPPA category selected.


4. Principles of a Good Risk Management Plan

  • It is completed by the caseworker or report author at the assessment stage
  • It should adhere to SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Accurate, Realistic and Timed)
  • Be Asset led
  • Use appropriate external controls (e.g. limiting access to potential victims)
  • Promote use of internal controls (e.g. anger management)
  • Strengthen protective factors (e.g. ETE)
  • Increase frequency of contact in excess of National Standards requirements if warranted
  • Contingency planning (what if? Scenario)
  • Practitioner safety and support
  • Reflective practice (making full use of supervision)

The key element is public protection through defensible decision-making.


5. Operational Procedure

  • ROSHs to be reviewed quarterly
  • All high to very high ROSHs to be brought to the monthly MOSH (Management of Risk of Serious Harm) meetings. Risk management to be discussed and amended as necessary
  • If a MAPPA case, referral to be made in accordance with the Sussex MAPPA – Operational Guidance (2006)

End