RISKY BUSINESS? A STUDY EXPLORING THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HARM AND RISK
INDICATORS IN MISSING ADULT INCIDENTS
SOME HIGHLIGHTS OF A PROFESSIONAL DOCTORAL THESIS
NAOMI EALES
16TH JUNE 2017
HARM FRAMEWORK
Outcome
Harm
No known
harm
Self
To others
Non-fatal
Intentional
Suicide
attempt
Other type
of self harm
Fatal
Non-intentional
Physical/
Accidental
Mental health
Emotional
Intentional
Suicide
From others
Non-fatal
Non-intentional
Criminal
Fatal
Non-criminal
Accidental
Criminal
Homicide
Non-fatal
Non-criminal
Accidental
Criminal
Accidental
Physical
Physical
Natural causes
Psychological
Psychological
Sexual
Sexual
Fatal
Non-criminal
Accidental
Criminal
Homicide
Non-criminal
Accidental
RISK
•
Difficult to define: ‘peril’ & ‘danger’ (Breakwell, 2014; Kemshall, 2003); ‘undesirable event’ (Hansson, 2010)
•
Environment – ‘non-technical’ and ‘technical’ (Hansson, 1999)
•
Non technical – possible but not certain
•
Technical – refers to something quantifiable
•
An adults’ risk [likelihood] of experiencing harm [effect] whilst missing [uncertainty/hazard]
•
5 common features of risk (Solberg and Nja, 2012)
•
•
•
•
Time (the future), events, consequences, uncertainty and something of human value related to the consequences
‘Dual risk thesis’ - Hansson 2010
•
Objective - facts
•
Subjective – values
Risk indicators - Characteristics
•
Measurable
•
Precedes and outcome of interest and that there is statistical significance between the two
•
Can be used to divide a population into risk groups
Protective Factors
DECISION MAKING
•
National Decision Model/APP on risk – 10 principles of risk
•
No 6 – “The standard expected and required of members of the police service is that their risk decisions should be consistent
with those a body of officers of similar rank, specialism or experience would have taken in the same circumstances.”
•
College of Policing – What Works Centre
•
3 components of decision making (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1988) – goals, alternatives and information
•
Decision under risk/decision under uncertainty (Hansson 1999)
•
Heuristic decision making
•
Representativeness
•
Availability
•
Adjustment and anchoring
• Structured Professional Judgement
MODEL FOR STRUCTURED PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENT
MISSING
• Risk approaches
•
Vulnerable/not vulnerable
•
Actuarial approach
•
Risk categories
•
Risk continuum (current)
• Risk assessment
•
Initial call – 4-10 questions
•
Full report – approx 20 questions
•
Nationwide – more than 80
HOW?
• 1712 closed missing adult cases
• CompactTM (mostly)
• Coded initially for iFIND
• Variables and outcomes
INDICATORS
• Demographic indicators
•
Gender
•
Age
•
Home/care
•
Previously missing
• Vulnerability indicators
• Schizophrenia, bipolar, personality disorder (MH1)
• Depression, PTSD, Anxiety (MH2)
• Suicidal (MH3)
• Previous self harm inc suicide attempt (MH4)
• Dementia
• Other condition – autistic spectrum, genetic, intellectual impairment
• Alcohol & Drugs – dependency; regular usage; heavy usage; in recovery
• Intoxicated – were intoxicated on alcohol and drugs when last seen
• Argued prior – missing person had an argument prior to going missing
• Financial problems
• Grief
• Partner problems
• Relationship split
• Alleged sex offender
DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL
NUMBER OF INDICATORS
•
•
Non-fatal harm
•
•
3, 4, 5 indicators
Fatal harm
•
•
3 indicators
•
Depression & suicidal & AlcD (MHH,PH,SF,AF,NCF,UK)
•
Depression & suicidal & financial (SH, SF)
•
Depression & suicidal & history of suicide (MHH, SH, SF)
•
Schiz etc & depression & suicidal (MHH & SF)
4 indicators
•
Zero indicators
•
Depression & suicidal & history of suicide & AlcD
(MHH)
5 indicators
•
Schiz etc & depression & suicidal & history of suicide &
health (SH)
ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT THE COMBINATIONS
Number of indicator combinations
Statistically significant factors
1
2
3
4
5+
MH2
4
20
40
36
33
MH3
9
25
46
38
33
MH4
1
23
36
25
28
50
10
11
0
0
0
2
1
3
7
MH3
19
31
26
10
6
Intoxicated
10
3
2
1
0
Grief
0
2
5
4
1
Relationship split
6
7
2
2
2
Alleged sex offender
5
1
2
0
0
Non-fatal harm – frequency greater than expected
Dementia
Relationship split
Fatal harm – frequency greater than expected
MENTAL HEALTH BY OUTCOME AND MH4 EFFECTS
MH1 – Schizophrenia, bipolar,
personality disorder
MH2 – Depression
MH3 – Suicidal
MH4 – History of self harm
MH1 & MH2 AND EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL/DRUGS
WHAT NEXT - POLICE
• Use of the harm framework
• Structured professional judgement for risk decisions – creation of ‘risk guide’
• Re-design of national reporting form/’Smart’ form
• Training programme for harm and risk
• Better recording – missing history; harm outcomes
• Improvements to the annual report
• Single system? Access to big data?
WHAT NEXT - RESEARCH
• Development of risk model based on demographic factors
• Use of the harm framework
• Focused study & modelling – relationship break ups; alleged sex offenders; autistic spectrum;
intellectual impairment
• Identification of protective factors
• Focused research - different types of missing & combinations & harm
• Qualitative approach – hearing the voice of the missing
• Third party incidents
REFERENCES
• Breakwell, G. M. (2014). The psychology of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kemshall, H. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Hansson, S. O. (1999). A philosophical perspective on risk. Ambio, 28(6), 539-542.
• Hansson, S. O. (2010). Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values. Journal of Risk Research, 13(2), 231238.
• Hansson, S. O., & Aven, T. (2014). Is risk analysis scientific?. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1173-1183.
• Solberg, Ø., & Njå, O. (2012) Reflections on the ontological status of risk. Journal of Risk Research. 15(9),
1201-1215.