Stacey:

Emma, you do research on risk assessments. What is a “risk assessment”?

‍

Emma:

When an individual is assigned a risk classification of low, medium, or high risk by corrections, they have been given this classification through a risk assessment. Some people describe a risk assessment as a kind of “tick box” exercise, based on a series of questions and factors. These factors typically include: their attitude (to their offending), their relationships and their criminal history.

‍

Stacey:

What made you interested in risk assessments?

‍

Emma:

I started out researching how risk is being understood in bail applications. I was speaking to people working in the community sector supporting people in prison and people exiting prison. I quickly learnt that “risk” doesn’t only dominate discussions about whether someone should get bail or be remanded, but risk is increasingly dominating discussions about whether someone should be able to leave prison on parole and whether someone is entitled to structured support post-release. Those I spoke to were very concerned about risk assessments being used to determine eligibility for post-release support programs, so I decided to look into
this further.

‍

‍

‍

Stacey:

Is this focus on risk a problem?

‍

Emma:

Yes. Firstly, the focus on “risk” is taking away a person’s agency to decide what support they want and need and what might benefit them as they’re returning to the community from prison. Secondly, when a risk assessment tool is being used to decide whether or not someone has the chance to access post-release support, then the nature and quality of the tool and the evidence underpinning it needs to be looked at more closely. This was reiterated by everyone we spoke to.  

‍

Stacey:

I talk to many people in custody, and one of the issues that comes up is risk assessments and access to support services versus actually getting parole. Is that something that you found?

‍

Emma:

For this research, I worked in a team with Nina Storey and Gabriela Franich, and together we interviewed workers who are supporting people in prison to prepare for their release into the community.

We asked:

“What issues are risk assessments creating for you in your work to try and support people exiting prison? What issues do you see that risk assessments are creating for people in prison?” And they raised a lot of issues. For example, people in prison will be put in these impossible positions where in one setting – such as a parole application – being assessed to be low risk will be beneficial. But in another setting, such as seeking access to a post-release support program, being seen as low risk is disadvantageous, because many people won’t be eligible unless they are assessed as high risk.

‍

This creates a real bind for people. You might want to get out of prison as soon as possible on parole, but you also want access to support. And so this creates all these kinds of contradictions.

‍

Originally, these tools were designed to determine what kinds of programs people should complete in prison.

‍

But now we’re seeing these tools being used to make other decisions, such as whether someone is eligible for post-release support – and this is giving rise to unintended consequences.

‍

‍

‍

Stacey:

Why do you think that is?

‍

Emma:

Most people believe it’s because of funding constraints. There is limited budget available for post-release support services, and the small budget means that they can’t offer support services to everyone who wants them, and so justice departments are using risk assessments as a way to limit access. Using risk assessments for this purpose, rather than individual discretion, might seem “objective” or “neutral”, but, as our research participants explained, the results can differ according to the person conducting them. And there are a lot of critiques of these tools in the research literature.

‍

Stacey:

Can you explain the criticisms of the risk assessment tools?

‍

Emma:

One of the biggest criticisms is that these risk assessment tools assume that the criminal legal system is neutral and that nobody would ever be treated differently because of their race or gender or sexuality or class background. This is also the criticism internationally – these tools are also used in Canada and to different degrees in the US, the UK et cetera. So, instead, these tools focus on the psyches and histories of individuals as if they live in societies that are free of racism, sexism or homophobia, which is not the case. In reality we have a lot of evidence of the ways that the criminal legal system is applied very differently to different populations.

‍

Stacey:

Instead of using risk assessments to determine who is eligible for post-release support, what should we do instead?

‍

Emma:

Almost unanimously those we interviewed say that it should be simply a self-identified needs approach, where an incarcerated person has access to information about what programs and supports are available post-release and what they entail. This will allow them to make an informed decision about whether or not that would be of use to them.

‍

Ultimately, more resources are needed to ensure people thrive and flourish after prison. It isn’t just about whether someone is going to reoffend or not – there’s so much more to it than that.