Management Risks - Coursework Example

Criminology: Risk Management Introduction A popular and respected management website defines risk management as “the process of planning, organizing,leading, and controlling the activities of an organization in order to minimize the effects of risk on an organizations capital and earnings.”1 In the business sense the term risk management has been commonly used for decades to refer to efforts to quantify and minimize risk, as well as develop appropriate strategies to respond to, and reduce, risk. Depending on the nature of the business the specifics of risk management vary. An oil company operating in a dangerous environment such as Nigeria will also invest in safer, less profitable regions to balance the risk (and potential profits) of operations in Nigeria. When a bank makes a mortgage loan it is balancing risk with probability of repayment in an attempt to maximize profits. Firms engaged in international trade may hold reserves in a variety of currencies to minimize the risk of currency fluctuations. In each of these examples the company in question is trying to minimize risk. The following discussion will focus on the emerging term of risk management and risk minimization in the context of criminology. Initially, the term will be defined. Then the development of the concept will be outlined. Subsequently, the implications of the emergence of the risk minimization paradigm will be explored. Finally, a concluding section will examine the broadest implications of risk minimization for criminology and the future of the view of criminology as the art and science of reducing risk. Risk Management Defined More recently, the term has been adopted by the criminology field. In criminology risk management focuses on assessing the risk to society a given-offender presents and allowing that assessment to define the response of the criminal justice system. For example, offenders identified as the greatest risk to re-offend are treated more harshly and incarcerated or most closely supervised. Those presenting less of a risk are less closely supervised. The idea is to target the majority of resources and interventions at those most likely to act anti-socially in the future. Risk management is deemed to be a useful tool for determining the allocation of resources in the criminal justice system and a useful tool for determining the level of intervention (incarceration, length of incarceration, supervision, and level of supervision) necessary for a given offender. According to Kropp and Kropp (2002) risk management is prevention oriented approach as it attempts to match interventions with the level of risk (of recidivism) that individuals present.2 They define risk assessment as “the process of speculating in an informed way about the aggressive acts a person might commit and to determine the steps that should be taken to prevent those acts and minimize their negative consequences.”3 In criminological terms seeks to match resources to needs in an effort to minimize risk to society by matching intervention to the likelihood of an individual to commit future anti-social, violent or criminal acts. Robert S Cormier provides a useful summary of the range of contemporary risk assessment:4 Risk assessment has been commonly used to classify offenders in order to place them in suitable levels of institutional security.... Assessments are also done to assist in decisions regarding when and under what conditions an offender might be released from prison into the community, and are used to determine the appropriate treatment interventions and the level of supervision required to maintain an offender safely in the community. Risk assessment is the measurement tool, risk management is the act of pairing intervention to level of need, and risk minimization is the objective of the risk management school of criminology. The Origins of Risk Management Kropp and Kropp acknowledge that risk management in criminology was initially crude, impoverished and inaccurate.5 Historically, “recommendations for management strategies—if they are made at all—might be based more on the training, preferences, and biases of the evaluator rather than on (a) a well-reasoned consideration of dynamic and criminogenic (i.e., crime relevant) risk factors and (b) intervention strategies that are either empirically valid or well accepted in the field.” Simply put, the field initially lacked objective measurement tools and a systematic repertoire of interventions.6 Cormier describes this as first stage or clinical stage of risk assessment and notes that clinical risk assessment involved a “ clinician [who] uses information available on the offender, with no attempt to structure the information, and makes a subjective judgement about risk.”7 However, Kropp and Kropp note that this situation had improved by 1998. They also assert that as risk assessment has become a more refined science it has developed three key theoretical themes. “These themes—reduction of adverse outcomes, identification of risk factors, focus on modifiable risk, targeting of high-risk populations and persons—are integral to notions of primary prevention.”8 Risk assessment is the measurement tool, risk management is the act of pairing intervention to level of need, and risk minimization is the objective of the risk management school of criminology. Punishment oriented paradigms of the criminal justice system focus on deterring the offender. Rehabilitation oriented paradigms of the criminal justice system focus on reducing the likelihood of the offender re-offending by addressing the causes of crime. Prevention models of criminal behaviour, as the name implies, focus on protection of society through prevention of crime. Prevention oriented risk management focuses on the most effective interventions for protecting society. Risk management focuses on the security of society rather than the offender as an individual per se. According to Cormier the second-stage of risk assessment is the actuarial approach. “The key feature of this approach is structured, uniformed collection of information, where the information items have been demonstrated through empirical research to be related to criminal behaviour.”9 The actuarial approach predominates in current criminology and risk assessment. Clinicians, criminologists and therapists engaged in risk minimization attempt to apply statistical evidence to determine level of risk and the most appropriate interventions for a given offender. The objective is to efficaciously and accurately match resources to need. Cormier identifies two key themes that underlie all criminological work linked to risk assessment and management:10 Criminal behaviour can be predicted, i.e., offenders can be distinguished according to their level of risk. Further, high-risk offenders require intensive services and treatment whereas low-risk offenders should receive minimal or no intervention.... Interventions intended to reduce criminal behaviour should target criminogenic needs (i.e., those needs related to criminal behaviour) such as associates, antisocial cognitions, social achievement (school, employment) and substance abuse. Risk assessment involves the assessment of risk (predictions of future criminal behaviour) and the deployment of appropriate interventions that address criminogenic needs. The Implications of Risk Management Mark M Lanier quotes personal correspondence with University of Indiana criminologist, David Polizzi with regard to the potential problems of an over-emphasis on risk management, “If we construct this group of individuals [those involved in the criminal justice system] as dangerous but damaged, our strategies of intervention can become overly focused on the assessment of risk and less on the humanity of the individual”.11 Traditional criminology debated the role of incarceration in terms of rehabilitation versus punishment: Was incarceration designed to punish the individual for past misdeeds or was it directed to rehabilitation in an effort to discourage recidivism? The concept of risk management places the priority on the protection of society, the management of risk, rather than the rehabilitation of the individual offender. The introduction of the concept of risk management also implies a procedural change in the criminal justice system. The concepts of justice and rehabilitation both take a backseat to quantitative calculation of risk. This paradigm shift encourages a broader perception of the criminal justice system as a profitable system that can be managed for public benefit (safety) through risk management. This introduction of a quantitative paradigm encourages thinking of the criminal justice system in similarly quantifiable terms. If risk management is the process and reduced risk the objective it is easy to segue into the stance that cost-effective risk management is the key to efficacious management of offenders. The key issue for incarceration then becomes economic efficiency not rehabilitation or realistic, long-term risk management. This is a dangerously shortsighted view of the situation. Risk management may successfully identify those presenting the greatest risk to society and insure that they are incarcerated. However, if cost-effectiveness of the penal system is the priority, risk, in the long run actually increases, as the individual incarcerated for presenting a risk may receive little or no treatment and upon their eventual release they may present as great a risk to society as they did when they were initially incarcerated. In other words, risk management may satisfy short-term needs, and even be justified by a short-term reduction in crime (as those presenting the highest risk are incarcerated or closely supervised) while it is actually having little or no positive impact on reducing risk in the long-term. There is a differing perspective on this issue. According to Franca Cortoni effective correctional rehabilitation can be an effective tool for minimizing risk.12 In her approach risk assessment is employed to determine the level of risk incarcerated individuals present and then prescribes appropriate interventions to minimize that risk. This is certainly a justified assertion. However, in practice, risk minimization is more likely to focus on prevention of risk directly than it is to focus on rehabilitation and long-term recidivism risk reduction. Haw also highlights this point, as it relates to counsellors and therapists involved in treatment of offenders. She argues that the chimera of objective, statistical predictors of criminal behaviour removes the emphasis from “professional values and forging effective relationships” that ultimately determine the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of any intervention.13 The harshest criticism of the risk minimization model comes from criminologists who argue that “the notions of risk factor research and pathways into and out of crime have attained the status of professional myth.”14 Kaye Haw argues that the concepts at the basis of predicting criminality (and, therefore, at the basis of risk assessment) are simply not accurate predictors and have been adopted by professionals and policymakers because they are ideologically attractive not because they are accurate. She quotes Farrington approvingly:15 The risk factor paradigm has brought enormous benefits to criminology in the late 1990s. This approach has fostered linkages between explanation and prevention.... Since the choice of interventions is based on empirically established risk factors, the approach is research based but easily understandable and attractive to policy makers and practitioners. In other words, according to Haw, the risk management paradigm has proven widely acceptable because it is useful to policy makers and justifies the existence of criminologists by seeming to link research and practice. The risk management paradigm is popular because it is useful not because it is accurate. Conclusions Risk management has been a business term for a long period. In the last thirty years it has become a popular paradigm in the field of criminology. Risk assessment, risk management and risk minimization are all predicated on the ability to quantify the risk of violent behaviour or recidivism and predict its likelihood. On the basis of this assessment correctional resources are deployed to provide the level of intervention the individual offender needs and the suite of interventions that is statistically most likely to have a positive impact. Theoretically, it would seem to present an efficacious and cost-effective way of intervening in the behaviour of individual offenders. That said it is not without its critics. It has the potential to place the emphasis on short-term risk reduction with significant long-term costs for society and for offenders who find the paradigm shifting from interventions oriented toward rehabilitation to interventions emphasizing protection of society and minimization of risk. More importantly, some critics, such as Haw and Farrington argue that risk-management is less effective than its proponents claim and actually a useful myth rather than a valuable paradigm for criminology. References BECK, ULRICH, “ From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment ”. Theory, Culture and Society, V. 9, 1992. CORMIER, ROBERT S., “Offender Risk Assessments: An Overview of Developments in Canada” in Risk Assessment & Risk Management: A Canadian Criminal Justice Perspective International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (International Centre), Vancouver: Canada. http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/files/books/Risk%20Management_English.pdf. CORTONI, FRANCA, “Managing Risk through Effective Correctional Rehabilitation” in Risk Assessment & Risk Management: A Canadian Criminal Justice Perspective International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (International Centre), Vancouver: Canada. http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/files/books/Risk%20Management_English.pdf. DOREN. DENNIS M, “Recidivism Risk Assessments: Making Sense of Controversies”, in W. L. MARSHALL, Y. M. FERNANDEZ and G. A. SERRAN, Sexual Offenders Treatment: Controversial Issues, 2006. DOUGLAS, KEVIN S. and P. RANDALL KROPP, “A Prevention-Based Paradigm for Violence Risk Assessment: Clinical and Research Applications” Criminal Justice and Behavior V. 29, 2002. “Enterprise risk management”. http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/enterprise-risk-management. FEELEY, M. and J. SIMON, “ The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Implications ”. Criminology, V. 30 (4), 1992. GARLAND, DAVID, “ The Rise of Risk ”. in R. V. ERICSON and A DOYLE, Risk and Morality, 2002. HAW, KAYE, “Risk Factors and Pathways into and out of Crime, Misleading, Misinterpreted or M? From Generative Metaphor to Professional Myth” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology V. 39(3), 2006. KROPP, KEVIN S. and C. RANDALL KROPP, “A Prevention-based paradigm for violence risk assessment” Criminal Justice and Behaviour, V. 29(5), 2002. LANIER, MARK. M, “Epidemiological Criminology (EpiCrim): Definition and Application” Journal of Theoretical and philosophical Criminology, V. 2 (1), 2010. O’MALLEY, PAT, “ Risk Societies and the Government of Crime ” in M. BROWN and J. PRATT Dangerous Offenders: Punishment and Social Order, 2000. Read More