SITUATIONAL RISK FACTORS AND PRISON VIOLENCE



[pic]

SITUATIONAL RISK FACTORS AND INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE

David J. Cooke, Lorraine Johnstone and Lisa Gadon

Scottish Prison Service

Occasional Paper No. 2

April 2008

VOLUME 2

A report of findings from a study designed to field-test PRISM (Promoting Risk Intervention by Situational Management)

CONTENTS PAGE NO

AUTHORS 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4

1.0 OVERVIEW OF REPORT 5

2.0 ABSTRACT 6

3.0 BACKGROUND 8

4.0 METHODOLOGY 11

5.0 RESULTS 15

6.0 DISCUSSION 26

7.0 REFERENCES 30

AUTHORS

Lorraine Johnstone is a Clinical Forensic Psychologist based at the Directorate of Forensic Mental Health, Douglas Inch Centre, 2 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow, G3 7UY. Tel no. 0141 211 8000, Fax no. 0141 211 8005 and Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Violence, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow - email: johnstone573@

David J. Cooke is Professor of Clinical Forensic Psychology based at the Directorate of Forensic Mental Health, Douglas Inch Centre, 2 Woodside Terrace, Glasgow, G3 7UY. Tel no 0141 211 8000, Fax no 0141 211 8005 and at the Violence Centre, Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow – email: djcooke@rgardens.vianw.co.uk

Lisa Gadon is a Clinical Psychology Trainee and Honorary Research Fellow based at the East of Scotland Clinical Psychology Training Course, University of Edinburgh - email: l.gadon@gcal.ac.uk

The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Scottish Prison Service.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express thanks to a range of people and agencies for their support and contribution to the current project and the other phases of research that laid the foundations for this study. In particular, we would like to express our gratitude to Dr James Carnie and Ed Wozniak from SPS Headquarters. In addition, our sincere thanks is extended to the many staff and prisoners from HMP Shotts, HMP & YOI Perth, HMYOI Polmont, HMYOI & HMP Cornton Vale and HMP Greenock who took part in the multi-disciplinary team evaluations, who completed questionnaires and/or interviews and who took part in focus groups. We would like to thank the SPS Advisory Group for their continued support throughout the present and past research studies.

1.0 OVERVIEW OF REPORT

This document describes findings from a study designed to field-test a new set of structured professional guidelines for assessing situational risk factors for violence. This tool is entitled Promoting Situational Risk Interventions by Situational Management – Scottish Prison Service Version (PRISM-SPS, Johnstone, Cooke and Gadon, 2006). The theoretical context to this study has been detailed at length, in reports previously submitted to SPS (Gadon et al., 2006a, 2006b, 2005a, 2005b, 2004). The current project involved the production of a manual, training materials and lengthy case reports, thus, this final report provides an overview of the project and its main findings alongside the aforementioned practical materials in appendices. In the following document, an abstract of the research is provided. This is followed by a description of the background and context to this study. In the next section, the methodology used to complete the research is described. This is followed by a summary of the results obtained and finally by a discussion of the main findings and implications for the future use of PRISM-SPS. For a fuller appreciation of the project, this report should be read in conjunction with the aforementioned SPS reports, the final reports for each prison evaluated for the purposes of the current study; and the PRISM-SPS manual.

2.0 ABSTRACT

Background. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) considers the problem of violence in its prisons to be a high priority. Violence is the outcome of a range of variables, some individual, some contextual. Much less is known about the role of the context than the role of the person. It is likely that situational factors may be powerful influencers on behaviour. Reflecting the commitment of SPS to gaining a better understanding of violence, a series of research projects has been completed: these have achieved important outcomes. First, a detailed description of what and how various situational risk factors may influence violence levels in prison has been obtained. Second, a set of guidelines for assessing these situational risk factors (i.e. PRISM-SPS: Promoting Situational Risk Intervention by Situational Management, Scottish Prison Service Version, Johnstone, Cooke & Gadon, 2006) has been developed. The purpose of the current study was to field-test the PRISM-SPS.

Methods. Case-study methodology was used to evaluate 5 prisons selected by SPS Research and Development. Questionnaire methodology was utilised to obtain a measure of user-satisfaction with the tool.

Results. PRISM-SPS facilitated comprehensive assessments of situational risk factors across the various prisons. Whilst risk factor ratings differed across settings some similarities were observed, in particular, on risk factors that were considered related to organisational factors such as staffing levels. Ratings on the user-satisfaction questionnaire were acceptable to good. Qualitative comments were positive.

Conclusions. PRISM-SPS is an effective and user-friendly method for assessing situational risk factors for violence. Where institutions comply with the model of assessment recommended in the guidelines, these assessments can be comprehensive and detailed and, of fundamental importance, the findings can be used to inform violence risk management plans.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 In this section, an overview of the context of this research and the main aims and objectives of the study are provided.

3.2 The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) considers the problem of violence in its prisons a high priority issue. In contemporary literatures on violence, it is widely recognised that violence is the outcome of a range of variables, some individual, some contextual (e.g., Webster, et al., 1997; Cooke, 1989; Violence Reduction Unit, 2006). From a research perspective, much less is known about the role of the situation than the role of the person. Given that prison environments are unique in many aspects (Goffman, 1961), it is likely that situational factors may be powerful influencers on behaviour. Reflecting the commitment of SPS to gaining a better understanding of violence, a series of research projects has been completed: These have achieved important outcomes. First, a systematic review and then a qualitative research study involving interviews with prisoners and prison staff (current and previous employees) produced a detailed analysis of situational risk factors that may influence violence levels in prison (see Gadon et al., 2006a, 2006b, 2005a, 2005b, 2004). Briefly, these situational risk factors for violence included staff features, organisational features, physical environment features and case management features; all of which could influence the level of institutional violence observed in a prison. Second, these findings were used to generate a comprehensive set of risk factors that corresponded to these different types of situational features.

3.3 Building on this previous work, the purpose of the current study was to field-test a set of guidelines for assessing these situational risk factors. These guidelines are entitled PRISM-SPS: Promoting Risk Intervention by Situational Management, Scottish Prison Service Version (Johnstone, Cooke & Gadon, 2006). PRISM-SPS was designed according to the principles of Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) approaches to risk assessment. SPJ approaches to risk assessment have been described as guidelines which assist the process of risk assessment and management by requiring the assessor to evaluate a minimum set of risk factors in order to reach a structured judgement about risk and risk management. The purpose, nature and content of PRISM-SPS are detailed in the manual (see appendix 1). An overview of risk domains and corresponding risk factors are provided in figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Overview of the content of PRISM-SPS

[pic]

3.4 To evaluate further PRISM-SPS, a study was designed with the following aims: to field-test empirically the PRISM-SPS within five SPS establishments; to train selected staff within establishments in the use of the tool; and finally, to obtain user-satisfaction concerning the content and use of PRISM-SPS.

4.0 METHODOLOGY

4.1 In the following section an overview of the methodologies employed to achieve the aims of the project are summarised.

4.2 To field-test PRISM-SPS, five prisons were identified by Analytical Services at SPS Headquarters. Two were described as having “low” violence problems and two were considered as having “high” violence problems. A female institution was also included to increase generalisability of results. A note of these settings is given in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Prisons

|Prison Setting |Security Level |Population |

|HMP Shotts |Closed mainstream |Adult male offenders |

| |high security |(long-term convicted) |

|HMYOI |Closed mainstream |Young male offenders |

|Polmont |High security |(remand and convicted) |

|HMP Greenock |Closed mainstream |Adult male offenders |

| |high security |Short-term Sentences |

|HMP Perth |Closed mainstream |Male Offenders (Adult and Young Offenders) |

| |high security |Remand, short-term and convicted adult offenders |

|HMYOI and HMP |Closed mainstream |Female Offenders (Adult and Young Offenders) |

|Cornton Vale |high security |Remand and Convicted |

4.3 Case Studies.

To conduct field-testing of the PRISM-SPS across settings case study methodology was employed. The materials used to conduct case-studies included a draft version of the PRISM-SPS manual (see appendix 1); training materials including copies of workshop slides and titles of research reports; a presentation for the Senior Management Teams at each site; (see appendix 3), and a 15 item user-satisfaction questionnaire (see appendix 2). The procedure for conducting the case-studies was complex and whilst there were some variations across sites (details are provided in each case report), generally the procedure followed the same format. This is detailed below.

1. Information Sheet. Each prison selected to take part was provided with an information sheet outlining the research and the content of PRISM-SPS (see appendix 4)

2. Preparatory Meeting. Lorraine Johnstone met with a liaison person at each establishment to discuss the purpose and design of the study and to identify a suitable team of staff to participate in the case-evaluation.

3. Management Presentation. Lorraine Johnstone delivered a 20-minute Microsoft PowerPoint presentation to the Senior Management Team (see appendix 3) outlining the research and requirements for the field-testing to take place.

4. Preparatory Reading. Each member of the multi-disciplinary team, at each setting, was provided with an electronic copy of the PRISM-SPS manual to read prior to attending for the training workshop. .

5. PRISM-SPS Training Workshop. The multi-disciplinary team members at each setting attended a didactic training session (one-day) on the PRISM-SPS.

6. Data Collection. All members of the prison multi-disciplinary team agreed to take responsibility for different aspects of the data collection for the evaluation.

7. Risk Ratings and Risk Interventions. A further full-day meeting took place where all of the team members were invited to attend. The purpose of this meeting was first, to present and discuss their data, and second, to engage in multi-disciplinary team ratings of each of the PRISM-SPS risk factors. The multi-disciplinary team also discussed possible approaches for managing the identified risks.

8. Final Data Entry, Analysis and Writing-up of Report(s). Following the multi-disciplinary risk rating meetings and receipt of all data, the research team entered all data onto a computer programme (Mindmap Pro). Lorraine Johnstone then used the information to prepare a full risk assessment report. Each report was approximately 9,000 to 10,000 words in length and included in-depth information corresponding to the following areas: 1) Process of Assessment and Sources of Information; 2) Relevant Background Information on the Institution; 3) Assessment of Situational Risk Factors defined in PRISM-SPS; 4) Risk Status and Scenarios; 5) Potentially Useful Risk Intervention Strategies; and 6) Summary and Conclusions.

9. Feedback to Prisons. In view of the operational nature of the information contained in each report, each participating prison received a copy of its own results, in confidence, for consideration and action by the local senior management team. The prisons were then asked to give feedback regarding the content and utility of the reports.

4.4 User-Satisfaction

The procedure for obtaining user-satisfaction data involved each staff member being asked to rate questions on a purposely designed PRISM-SPS User-satisfaction Questionnaire (see appendix 2). This questionnaire was concerned with the PRISM-SPS manual; however, space was provided for additional comments including those pertaining to the evaluation process and any other aspects of the field-testing that staff members wanted to comment upon.

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 The utility of PRISM-SPS was adjudged, first, according to its ability to produce consensus ratings for each of the risk factors based on a comprehensive assessment, and second, user-satisfaction ratings of the tool. In the following section, an overview of the risk factor ratings produced by PRISM-SPS and the user-satisfaction ratings obtained from participating staff, is provided. In addition, key information obtained via feedback from staff at the research sites at various key stages in the field-testing process is also summarised.

5.2 Risk Factor Ratings

The researchers were interested in whether ratings on PRISM-SPS risk factors differed across institutions. As indicated above, the aim of the study was to have multi-disciplinary teams make joint ratings with the chair and facilitator. To illustrate the risk rating outcomes of the PRISM-SPS, a summary of the ratings decided upon by the multi-disciplinary team is presented at Table 2[1].

Table 2: Risk Factor Ratings Across Settings

Risk Factor Ratings for each prison are coded either P=problematic, NI-Needs Improvement, S-Satisfactory, or NK=Not Known.

|Risk Factors |Institution |

| |S |Pol |Perth |Gre |C |

| | | | | | |

|A. History of Violence | | | | | |

|Previous Violence | | | | | |

|Diversity in Violence | | | | | |

|Escalation in Violence | | | | | |

|Increase/Change in Complaints | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|B. Physical Environment Factors | | | | | |

|Supervision and Control | | | | | |

|Physical Layout and Resources | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|C. Organisational Factors | | | | | |

|Organisational Ethos and Priorities | | | | | |

|Organisational Structure and Style | | | | | |

|Leadership and Management | | | | | |

|Effective Policies and Procedures | | | | | |

|Responsivity to Organisational Conflict | | | | | |

|Adaptability to Organisational Change | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|D. Staff Features | | | | | |

|Staff Recruitment and Retention | | | | | |

|Staff Training and Competencies | | | | | |

|Staff Approach | | | | | |

|Staff Levels and Mix | | | | | |

|Staff Morale | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|E. Case Management | | | | | |

|Case Formulation : Violence Risk/Needs | | | | | |

|Population Mix | | | | | |

|Programmes on Violence Reduction | | | | | |

|Quality of Life Experiences | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |P |P |NI |P-NI |P |

| |P |P |NI |P |P |

| |NI |S/NI |NI |S |P |

| |NK |NI |S |NK |NK |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |S-NI |P |NI |P |P |

| |S-NI |NI |NI |S |S |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |NI |NI |P-NI |P-NI |P-NI |

| |NI |S |NI-P |P |P |

| |NI |S |P |P |P |

| |NI |NI |S-NI |NI |NI |

| |P |S-NI |S |NI |NI |

| |S-NI |S |S |P-NI |P-NI |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |P |NI |S-NI |S |S |

| |S-NI |NI |? |S |S |

| |S-NI |NI |S |NI-S |NI-S |

| |P |P |S |P-NI |P-NI |

| |NI |NI |NI |P |P |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |P |P |NI-S |P |P |

| |S |P |S |P |P |

| |NI-P |NI |S-NI |P |P |

| |NI |NI |NK |S |S |

| | | | | | |

* Missing Data

5.3 User-Satisfaction

The questionnaire ratings were analysed to obtain the mean, modal and range of scores for each question. The available responses are summarised in Table 3 below. In interpreting the meaning of these results, it should be noted that many of the participants indicated that they had not, in fact, read the entire manual.

Table 3. User-Satisfaction Ratings

| |Max score |Min |Mean |Mode |Range |

| |possible |score possible | | | |

| |

|1: EASE OF USE |

|How easy was PRISM-SPS to follow? |5 |1 |3 |4 |1 to 4 |

| |

|2: LANGUAGE & TERMINOLOGY |

|2.1 Do you think the terminology and language used in PRISM-SPS | | | | | |

|is appropriate? |5 |1 |3 |2 |1 to 4 |

| |

|3: FUNCTIONALITY |

|3.1 How well do you think PRISM-SPS meets its purpose of | | | | | |

|providing a structured approach to assessing situational risk |5 |1 |2.1 |2 |1 to 4 |

|factors for violence | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.2 How appropriate is the methodological approach to developing|5 |1 |2.3 |2 |1 to 5 |

|PRISM-SPS? | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|3.3 How relevant is each risk factor to your understanding of |5 |1 |2.1 |3 |1 to 3 |

|institutional violence? | | | | | |

|3.4 Do you think the findings from an evaluation using PRISM-SPS| | | | | |

|would assist in the development and implementation of risk |5 |1 |2.2 |2 |1 to 4 |

|intervention strategies? | | | | | |

| |

|4: CLARITY OF GUIDELINES |

| | | | | | |

|4.1 How appropriate are the specified user qualifications and |5 |1 |2.6 |2 |1 to 5 |

|training for PRISM-SPS | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|4.2 How well defined are the risk domains? |5 |1 |2.3 |2 |1 to 5 |

| | | | | | |

|4.3 How well defined are the risk factors? |5 |1 |2.3 |3 |1 to 4 |

|4.4 Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for | | | | | |

|collecting relevant information about the institution? |5 |1 |2.3 |3 |1 to 4 |

| | | | | | |

|4.5 How easy was it to access the information required? |5 |1 |2.9 |3 |1 to 3 |

| | | | | | |

|4.6 Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance |5 |1 |2.5 |3 |1 to 4 |

|provided for rating each risk factor? | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|4.7 Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for |5 |1 |2.9 |3 |1 to 3 |

|generating risk scenarios? | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|4.8 Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for |5 |1 |2.9 |3 |1 to 5 |

|generating risk interventions? | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|4.9 Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for |5 |1 |2.7 |3 |1 to 3 |

|deciding on case prioritisation? | | | | | |

5.4 Qualitative Information on User-Satisfaction

In addition to obtaining quantitative user-satisfaction data, participants were asked to provide qualitative responses to the questions included in the user-satisfaction questionnaire. The results are presented below.

Table 3. Qualitative Responses to User-Satisfaction Questionnaire

|Section 1: Ease of Use |

|Q1: How easy was the PRISM to follow? |

|Responses from Staff |

| |

|“At first when I saw the document I was a bit concerned about the content involved but once I started to read and digest the |

|material I found it extremely easy to follow.” |

| |

|“At first read I though it was a bit too in-depth for the staff selected to read and work with the document”. |

| |

|“The manual and guidelines are clear and comprehensive and easy to follow. For those not experienced in risk assessment work, |

|more guidance and time spent explaining the reasons for allocating different ratings might have been beneficial” |

| |

|“I found PRISM very clear and easy to follow” |

|Section 2: Language & Terminology |

|Q1. Do you think the terminology and language used in the PRISM is appropriate? |

|Responses from Staff |

| |

|“Basic language and simple clear terminology again making it easy to follow” |

| |

|“Could have been more user-friendly” |

| |

|“Good use of prison terminology made this an easy document to follow” |

|Section 3: Functionality |

|3. How well do you think the PRISM meets its purpose of providing a structured approach to assessing situational risk factors |

|for institutional violence? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“I think there are two parts: the information gathering can be a chore however the risk fating is a very useful exercise” |

|“Once explained and broken down the document gave a clearer picture to assessing institutional violence” |

|“PRISM does offer a structured approach to measuring risk. It is important that it is seen as an aide to the assessment of |

|incidents of violence. It is equally important that it is recognised that even allowing for the best possible positive |

|approach used by staff violence may still occur” |

|“I found it to be well structured and covered all relevant areas” |

|“I believe PRISM looks at and measures the right processes, protocols, trends and influences” |

|“This tool provides a clear and structured approach to assessing the relevant risk factors in relation to situational |

|violence” |

|4. How appropriate is the methodological approach to developing the PRISM i.e., use of a systematic review and qualitative |

|research? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“The approach used was effective in providing a broad overview of the relevant issues based on both the theoretical research |

|and the experience of practitioners and prisoners” |

|5. How relevant is each risk factor to your understanding of institutional violence? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“Each of the risk factors are clearly relevant to the problem of institutional violence within a prison setting” |

|“I though to myself that prior to working on this group that we would add some risk factors to your list but was happy to |

|record that all relevant risk factors I would have looked at were already in PRISM” |

|“it appears to cover all relevant areas of collating information” |

|6. Do you think the findings from an evaluation using PRISM would assist in the development and implementation of risk |

|intervention strategies in institutions? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“It is not very often that we (SPS) look closely at ourselves in this context. I would like to think that we would use this |

|information and update it on an annual basis. This will be extremely helpful when major incidents do happen. Also, once data |

|is collected and updated the chances of us predicting violence would increase” |

|“I think the finding would highlight and reinforce existing beliefs about areas where there is a need to develop strategies to|

|target levels of institutional violence” |

|“I think it may be useful in the first PRISM can be updated” |

|“it can only help” |

|“Due to the decrease of staff over the years there has been an large increase in assaults. Unless there is an increase of |

|staff again prisoners and staff will continue to remain at high risk” |

|Section 4: Clarity of Guidelines |

|7. How appropriate are the specified user qualifications and training for PRISM? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“Very much need for support, awareness and confidence building….at first look the document was off-putting but once you got |

|your teeth into the material it was quite enjoyable” |

|“These are generally appropriate, however, for people with limited experience in risk assessment and interventions there may |

|be some benefits of providing additional time for training and discussion of relevant issues as well as further practice case |

|studies” |

|“In the time available they were adequate” |

|8. How well defined are the risk domains? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“Very clear relevant and detailed” |

|“The more I read it the easier it was, probably more difficult for others only dealing with it once” |

|“Good grouping and easy to follow. I would also suggest very relevant” |

|“The risk domains are clearly defined and provide a broad overview and guidance about the main areas included” |

|9.How well defined are the risk factors? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“The risk factors are well defined. However, I did not think that it was helpful to use headings such as problematic, needs |

|improvement and satisfactory. These headings (I feel) influence the scoring”. |

|“Clear, relevant and concise” |

|“The risk domains and factors are well defined with useful examples under the information sources to help guide the rater” |

|“Each of the risk factors provides a good definition of the area in question as well as the rationale for why it was included”|

|10. Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for collecting relevant information about the institution? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“The guidance has been delivered clearly and concisely” |

|“It was appropriate but as you found out, it was difficult to engage the enthusiasm of others” |

|“good examples under information sources to help collect relevant information to allow ratings to be made” |

|“there is clear guidance on the type of information that can be used to effectively rate each of the risk factors” |

|“I gained better insight with one-to-one session” |

|11. How easy is it to access the information required? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“Based on my own participation it was easy. But, in general terms access to information is difficult….electronic systems do |

|not get used to fullest capacity. If you know what to look for it’s fine” |

|“There is a real problem getting others to buy into the idea. Once others understood and had a brief understanding the easier |

|the information became available. You have to rely on so many people with this type of exercise and it did get a bit |

|frustrating at times waiting for others to return information” |

|“This varied depending on the time made available to access the information” |

|“The majority of information is readily accessed however at times there can be difficulties in staff being released to have |

|time to complete the questionnaires and interviews” |

|“It depended on the information: some was readily available and other information had to be researched” |

|12. Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance provided for rating each risk factor? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“Yes, no issue with the guidance given. In fairness, most of us should have a broad knowledge of the risk factors concerned” |

|“Guidance is clear and concise” |

|“There is clear guidance provided on how to allocate ratings for each of the individual risk factors. However, for those not |

|familiar with risk assessment instruments there may be a requirement for some further training and case studies to provide |

|practice in rating factors” |

|13. Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for generating risk scenarios? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“Guidance is clear and concise” |

|“At present, due to time constraints, this was only briefly covered, however, the guidelines provided were clear and concise” |

|14. Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for generating risk interventions? |

|“Guidance is clear for generating risk interventions” |

|“A fair bit of effort was required” |

|“Again, this has only briefly been covered at this time but the guidance provided regarding short and longer term |

|interventions was relevant and easily understandable” |

|15. Do you think there is an appropriate level of guidance for deciding on case prioritisation? |

|Responses from Staff |

|“Probably the part that there was most disagreement with” |

|“Yes, I belief we also used the relevant skills and knowledge within the team as well. I also found that when you were seeking|

|information in particular areas you also found some useful information for some other risk factors” |

|“This was briefly explained during the training and guidance provided was clear” |

5.5 Feedback from Prisons

As indicated above, all five sites received a lengthy written report based on the PRISM-SPS evaluation. Whilst feedback from the settings did not constitute an original part of the study design, the information gleaned is relevant to the study and any future use of PRISM-SPS. Thus, it is important to note the following key findings. First, two out of five of the reports met with a general acceptance by prison staff. One prison considered the report unsatisfactory: apparently, this report was viewed as incomplete as key data had not been included. It was further asserted by the prison staff that the report lacked objectivity. The fourth and fifth institution had not provided feedback at the time of preparing this report. Second, the lengthy report provided to each prison was considered too detailed and complex and with too much information being provided about the assessment process and risk ratings. In addition, one of the prisons indicated that the writing style was open to interpretation as an “inspection” or “audit” and this was viewed as unhelpful. It was suggested by prison staff that an alternative format be used. This was described as a report with two main sections, the first pertaining to an overview of the risk ratings and the second, detailed proposals about possible risk interventions.

6.0 DISCUSSION

6.1 In the following section, the findings are discussed in relation to the utility and future use of PRISM-SPS.

6.2 Risk Ratings

The use of PRISM-SPS across five SPS settings revealed a range of risk factors. Thus, PRISM-SPS appears to have functioned appropriately and effectively. Differences in risk factor ratings were observed across settings, however, a number of similarities in ratings also emerged e.g., staffing levels, individual violence risk assessment procedures, etc. When an explanation was sought for this pattern, it was considered possible that these similar ratings were due to organisational directives from SPS Headquarters as opposed to the PRISM-SPS not discriminating amongst settings.

6.3 User-Satisfaction

The quantitative findings from the user-satisfaction questionnaire were acceptable, however, the results should be interpreted with caution. The questionnaire was designed to address user-satisfaction with the manualised set of guidelines and many of the multi-disciplinary team members indicated to the researchers that they had not, in fact, read the entire manual. In addition, some of the questions may have assumed a prior knowledge base that did not exist amongst the prison staff, for example, respondents were asked to comment upon methodological procedures (i.e. question 3.2) and this may have affected the ratings. In addition, the quantitative findings are not entirely consistent with the qualitative responses concerning the utility of the tool. Overall, the qualitative responses indicated a much higher level of user-satisfaction.

6.4 Other Relevant Findings.

Although the aims of this study were to assess the utility of PRISM-SPS in identifying risk factors and user-satisfaction, other important findings emerged that inform the future application of this tool.

6.5 By administering the PRISM-SPS across the five different prisons it was concluded that the most appropriate model is, as specified in the manual, a multi-disciplinary team chaired and facilitated by a competent and experienced risk assessor. Where the assessment approach varied, difficulties were encountered. For example, at one site, following administration problems at the prison, a manager took responsibility for co-ordinating a team of staff whom he considered would be able to assist in the evaluation process. It was reported to the researchers that, for practical reasons, this group of staff should only be given a short overview of PRISM-SPS. (They did not participate in the one-day training workshop that was delivered in the other settings). The manager thereafter gave each staff member a data collection task to complete. At this prison, a range of difficulties were encountered including a lack of consistency in staff engaged in the evaluation process, difficulties obtaining data and the final multi-disciplinary team who participated in the risk ratings having no knowledge or involvement with the PRISM-SPS evaluation as it had taken place in the prison.

6.6 The field-testing phase of PRISM-SPS indicated that getting access to relevant information could be problematic. For example, some staff members reported being unable to get time away from duties to locate information; others indicated that they did not have a full awareness of what data was available to access. These observations emphasised the need for a range of staff to be available and for the host establishment to make a commitment in terms of its staffing resources to ensure that the evaluation can proceed effectively.

6.7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The PRISM-SPS was based on findings from previous research studies documenting a link between situational risk factors and violence in prisons. The PRISM-SPS provides a systematic approach to assessing these risk factors. The experience of field-testing PRISM-SPS using a case-study methodology indicated that the tool has good utility. Risk factors differed across settings and evaluations were sensitive to the idiosyncratic features of the setting as well as identifying common risk factors that appeared to be related to organisational factors determined by national directives. The user-satisfaction data suggested that, conceptually, PRISM-SPS had ecological validity and that it is acceptable in terms of its model of application. Quantitative and qualitative information confirmed a moderate to good level of user-satisfaction.

6.8 By conducting real-life field-testing of PRISM-SPS important lessons were learned that are relevant to the future application of the tool. It is recommended that future use would benefit from having a mechanism in place whereby data sources being used to formulate the PRISM-SPS ratings are checked for completeness by, for example, a senior manager. This would ensure that key data is not missed. In addition, the commitment from the host establishment must involve allowing the multi-disciplinary staff time away from their usual duties to ensure the risk evaluation is comprehensive and based on thorough data. Finally, it was also indicated that the feedback to prisons via a lengthy case report might not be the optimal method of communication. It was recommended that written reports would be more user-friendly if they were shorter and less descriptive and more focused on points for action.

7.0 REFERENCES

Cooke, D. J. (1989). Containing violent prisoners: An analysis of the Barlinnie Special Unit. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 129-143.

Gadon, L., Cooke, D.J., & Johnstone, L., (2006a). Situational Risk Factors and Institutional Violence. Clinical Psychology Review (26), 515-534.

Gadon, L., Johnstone, L., Cooke, D.J. (2006b) Situational Risk Factors and Institutional violence: A Qualitative Analysis of Staff Perceptions, Greater Glasgow Primary Care Trust NHS Research and Development Directorate.

Gadon, L., Cooke, D.J., and Johnstone, L. (2005a) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of situational factors on violence, Protocol, Campbell Collaboration. .

Gadon, L., Johnstone, L., Cooke, D.J. (2005b) Situational Risk Factors and Institutional Violence: A Qualitative Analysis of Staff and Prisoner Perceptions and Results of Preliminary Field-Testing of a Risk Assessment Tool Designed to Evaluate Situational Risk Factors for Institutional Violence, Scottish Prison Service.

Gadon, L., Cooke, D.J., Johnstone, L. (2004) Institutional Violence: A systematic review and quantitative analysis of the impact of situational factors in institutions. Greater Glasgow Primary Care Trust NHS Research and Development Directorate.

Johnstone, L., Cooke, D.J., & Gadon, L., (2006). Promoting Risk Intervention by Situational Management - Scottish Prison Service Version (PRISM-SPS). A set of structured professional guidelines for assessing situational risk factors for institutional violence in the Scottish Prison Service.

Goffman, E. (1961) cited in Campling, P., Davies, S. and Farquharson, G. (Ed) (2004). From toxic institutions to therapeutic environments residential settings in mental health services. Gaskell: UK.

Violence Reduction Unit (2006). Reducing Violence: An Alliance for a Safer Future. Astron.

-----------------------

[1] It should be noted that, for the purposes of preparing full risk assessment reports, the writer often had access to additional information and, in some instances, ratings were altered in light of this. It was not possible to confirm these ratings with the multi-disciplinary teams due to time restrictions on the research. It is however recommended that, for future use, prior to any reports being finalised, all members of the team have the opportunity to read the reports and indicate their level of agreement with final ratings etc.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download