Offender Management Community Scoping of London Gang ...

4.2.3 Health and Safety
a. Staff
Probation practitioners generally did not feel at risk of violence from serious
group offenders, any more than any other type of offender. They were aware
that some offenders might attend probation premises carrying weapons, but felt
that generally health and safety precautions in offices were adequate to protect
staff. There was concern expressed about the vulnerability of reception staff if
rival group members had a confrontation in the waiting area and this was a
good reason to ensure that information about local “gangs” was kept up to date
and made available to all staff. Particular reference was made to graffiti “tags”
on waiting room walls, colours, tattoos, brands of clothing etc which were
identifiers. Only one office thought that a security arch (airport style) might be
worth considering, although several expressed concern about the effectiveness
of uniformed security officers who had no means of summoning back-up if
needed.
The Health and Safety Incident Forms, which were intended to monitor risky
situations as well as actual incidents, were not considered to be relevant to
these situations because they were not well designed. It might be worth
considering a specific form to highlight indicators of potential risks.
It was felt that staff in approved premises might be at greater risk of harm, due
to the working environment. However, following some discussion the risk was
considered to be no greater than that from other residents who were frequently
in conflict with each other.
b. Offenders
Practitioners were particularly concerned about the safety of the offenders they
were supervising in all aspects of their work. Lack of good and current
intelligence made it more difficult to ensure the safety of offenders, but also
communication between colleagues was seen as critical. Referral to
groupwork programmes, ETE specialist advisors, external service providers or
Unpaid Work, was considered to create the greatest potential for high risk
situations. It was felt that known serious group offenders should have some
form of identifier on their case file to ensure this information was passed on to
other colleagues when relevant and appropriate. The biggest problem was
when an offender was not known to be a member of a “gang” and therefore
potentially at risk, or a risk to others.
The rationalisation of probation premises created the risk of requiring offenders
to report to premises in rival areas and waiting areas were also considered to
be potential “hotspots”. Similarly, approved premises could be considered to be
at high risk of confrontation between rival groups, either between residents or
because of the location of the premises.
There was some question about whether Unpaid Work was appropriate for
known serious group offenders, particularly in highly visible projects and the risk
40