Issuu

SAFE HOMES, SECOND CHANCES

September 2024

Lauren Baldwin - Changing Futures

Jason Snape – Combined Health

Peter Dartford – MaRG Independent Chair

Lee Dale – Expert Citizens

Richard Walley – Changing Futures

Matthew White – Staffordshire Fire & Rescue

A GUIDE TO EQUITABLE HOUSING PRACTICES FOR PEOPLE WITH FIRE-HISTORIES

Article I. Contents

Section 1.01 Guide Contents

1. Introduction

1. Preface and Introduction

2. Legal Literacy

3. GDPR and Data Management

4. Arson Flowchart

3. GDPR and Data Management

5. Presenting Case to Insurance Providers

6. Case Studies

4. Arson Flowchart

7. Fire Mitigation Measures

5. Case Studies

8. Recommendations

9. References and Resources

6. Fire Mitigation Measures

7. Recommendations

8. References

9. Appendix

Created in collaboration by the agencies of Stoke-on-Trent, with special thanks to:

• Concrete

• Brighter Futures

• Police

• Fire Services

• Probation

• Rampton High Security Hospital

1. Preface and Introduction

A key part of the Changing Futures programme in Stoke on Trent is the Multi-agency Resolution Group (MaRG). The role of the Group is to find solutions for cases where barriers to the provision of the support needed by an individual experiencing multiple disadvantage have arisen. When such situations arise, the Group, which comprises senior representatives from a range of statutory, community and voluntary sector organisations, work collectively, collaboratively, and innovatively to design and deliver bespoke support packages to help people continue their recovery journeys.

While the cases presented to the Group are unique and reflect the specific circumstances and challenges being experienced by an individual, there are some issues that are common to several cases. When these issues are identified, a ‘Community of Practice’ is established in which the issue is explored in greater depth and approaches to successfully address them are developed.

An issue that arose at the MaRG on a number of occasions was the problems some people had in accessing accommodation and other services as a consequence of an Arson conviction or fire setting behaviour in their past. A Community of Practice was held to discuss the challenges that this issue created and to explore potential solutions. This guidance provides details of the outcome of those discussions, and it is hoped that it is helpful to those who meeting similar challenges.

Peter Dartford QFSM MA BEng (Hons) FIFireE DUniv Independent Chair, Multi-agency Resolution Group

1.2 Introduction

If the management of fire is a measure of civilised society, then we live at the edge of a mystery. Fire burns throughout our history, a helper and companion to humankind since civilisations began and yet the misuse of fire remains an extraordinary and frightening behaviour. Fire safety stands beside law and medicine as an emergency service, a perpetual concern for guardians of public safety. Fire is a mystery in that there are no confident risk assessments for fire-setting, nor any absolute direction on the management of fire-setters. This practice guide focuses primarily on arson, however in the sense that large fires are often small fires left unchecked, we consider all forms of fire-setting in both nature and degree.

Arson is a legal title for purposed fires that are dangerous and destructive, where fire-setting is more nuanced and includes accident and the absence of malice. Arson convictions make reference not only to culpability, but to dangerousness and recklessness, character judgments that tend to survive well beyond the event. The conversational use of the word arson to cover all forms of fire-setting gives rise to prejudice in that most fire-setters are described as arsonists and their character is fearfully and perpetually stained.

Safety is paramount, but context is vital. Without an effort to understand and nuance the setting of fires, society is limited to outcomes of confinement or rejection, remaining anxious and impotent. Fires caused by hapless individuals involving accident, desperation or personal limitation are viewed with doubt and suspicion and their access to common welfare and human needs is unhelpfully impaired. Prejudice precludes understanding, ignorance precludes meaning and the absence of meaning precludes progress. Past, present and future are referenced through a single unhappy event from which no-one is afforded release.

Fire-setting is a complex matter, whose attempts at classification have found little success. Little is known of the character of fire-setters and it is hard to draw enlightenment from the ashes. There is no precise measure of risk or model of management and the endless variety of personal factors involved in fire-setting events have yet to produce a dedicated expert. Fire-setting is a problem across public services and little is achieved when each service limits its vision to a single jurisdiction or address. This has typically resulted in either a one size fits all approach or too much focus on a single factor, which may inform but not answer the wider mystery. While some progress has been evidenced in the rehabilitation of fire-setters, no similar progress has been made in the successful formulation of triggering causes.

Fire is difficult to predict, difficult to control and dwells forever on the cusp of harm. Likewise, those who set fires are deemed uncertain, uncontrolled and unsafe and even experienced professionals may be anxious as advocates. Prevention is our best defense, for prevention we must understand causes and to understand causes we must find meaning. The needs of fire-setters appear similar to other offenders; low economic status, poor education and employment histories. Male fire-setters are lacking in social skills and harbour grievances. Female fire-setters have histories of trauma, rejection and emotional distress. Both sexes may misuse substances and feel powerless. Generic elements are clear, what is unclear is how these elements constellate into patterns particular to fire-setting. We see in part and thus is the mirror darkened.

It is easy to see why custodial settings have chosen to treat most fire-setters via general intervention programs with specific programs for persistent offenders. From this work, much has been learned around motive and deterrent, far less on social causes and producing change. This approach is further complicated in that these settings are dedicated environments, quite different from ordinary society in their physical, procedural and relational structures. Finally, these are post-offence approaches, with little to say on early prevention, positive fire use, personal strengths or improved social capital.

Thankfully, some work has been done that considers common social environments and personal experience. In addition to considering Gannon’s Fire Intervention for Prisoners (FIPP) & Mentally Disordered Offenders (FIP-MO) and the Northgate Fire Setters Programme, we have been fortunate to learn from experts at Rampton High Security Hospital. Their excellent work on trauma, systems theory and fire-setting greatly informs our confidence in the philosophy and methodology of this guide.

Our philosophy is premised on the recognition that an offence-specific focus will be at best ineffective and at worst, exacerbate the problem. Instead, we focus on the examination of social influences and the ability of the fire-setter to learn trust, efficacy and adaptive strategies. Through developing alternative and successful means of attaining self-control and social contact, the fire-setter is more confident and capable of healthy function and ordinary goals that direct their efforts away from more dissocial and risky behaviours.

Possible areas to promote include:

1. The encouragement of purposeful activities (social, academic, vocational), which support:

2. The development of rewarding relationships.

3. Perceived self-effectiveness.

4. Autonomy and improved self-esteem.

5. Resources and support that focus on minimising the possibility of failure in these domains.

This rehabilitative approach locates fire-setting within a social, clinical and academic framework. While core risk factors are measured within the assessment matrix, we consider it more immediately important to address the client’s needs around social upheaval, emotional instability and self-worth. Strategic attention should be given to underlying functional criteria such as substance misuse, selfharm, mental ill-health and ostracism. Essential safety and security needs are general concerns, while especially disadvantaged subgroups have their more nuanced needs highlighted through referral to the panel.

The panel thus endeavours to support public welfare and safety concerns, while viewing fire setting as a symptom of complex problems, rather than a typology of behaviour or character. In doing so, we hope to offer not only guidance on management, but also confidence in rehabilitation and resolution. Successful management best rests on a multi-faceted approach; intersecting safety, social support, offending and mental health needs. Our assessments include both candour and compassion and we value both optimism and pragmatism in producing recommendations that are helpful and robust.

The reconceptualization of fire use from categorical to dimensional frees us to consider a range of recovery processes in addition to dangerous events. If progress is to be made, changes in perspective must lead to changes in policy, the inclusion of interpersonal and life-enhancing interventions and greater confidence in engagement. Fire is a common resource among human beings and the client’s fire use may be largely safe and legitimate. Fire-setting may be an isolated event or set of circumstances whose lack of qualification bars attempts at rehabilitation and their making good on a personal history fraught with difficulties.

The best-case formulations are collaborative. The client should have the opportunity to comment on whether they believe the completed assessment is a fair representation of their character and circumstances, with the panel as their compassionate witnesses. Wherever possible, fixed judgments need to be broken down and reformulated through dynamic appraisal. Some issues may need closer attention, others to be scaled back and still others to be brought into play. A multi-disciplinary

approach frees the client, the caseworker and the professional to consider new means to prevention, safety and confidence.

In summary, the authors of this document do not profess to be a body of experts and our guidance can be neither perfect nor complete. For us, this only heightens the need for an assertive approach. We are a group of professionals who combine their agency, seniority and experience, to formulate best practice from working knowledge and available resources. In short, we aspire to be useful rather than perfect. In seeking to apply what we can reasonably know to what can reasonably be done, we seek to create a space where meaning and opportunity can be transformed and tested through fair appraisal and confident action.

1.3 Overview

Jason Snape, MSc, BSc, BSc, BA, RMN, Adv. Dip, Adv. Dip. Consultant Nurse, Mental Health

Changing Futures is part of a larger initiative, jointly shared by the Department of Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC) and The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF). The aim of the programme is to support local people experiencing multiple disadvantage, which can include a combination of homelessness, mental ill health, substance misuse, domestic abuse, and offending behaviour. As well as supporting clients, a focus of the programme is to address local or national system barriers with the aim of improving a person’s journey through the sector.

1.4 Who Produced the Guidance

Stoke-on-Trent host a local Communities of Practice (COP) group for all local services to come together and discuss local barriers in the sector or review good practice. The topics brought to the COP for discussion are significant themes escalated at the MaRG. The COP membership is comprised of workers from a wide range of services including third sector organisations (support and housing), NHS (Health and Mental Health), Police, Probation, Citizens Advice Bureau, Stoke-on-Trent City Council (Housing, Commissioning, Public Health), Expert Citizens (lived experience group), Integrated Care Board, alongside many others working in the sector. The COP highlighted the difficulties that are encountered when people accessing accommodation have an Arson conviction, or a history of fire setting within their risk assessment.

1.5 What Is the Guidance For

Following the COP, we agreed to create a guide to support housing providers and practitioners with decision making when assessing for accommodation and supporting clients with an arson or fire setting conviction or behaviours contained within their risk assessment. It will also include guidance on what to do when a conviction has been spent and where agencies stand lawfully when sharing historic risk information. At the COP it was identified that prudent areas for inclusion in the guide

related to; Legal Literacy, GDPR, identification and management of presenting risk factors, referral process, and interaction with the insurance provider. The guide aims to address these issues in depth with recommendations, and case study examples to demonstrate areas of good practice. The ambition is for the engagement and commitment to the sector to integrate this approach within their respective departments and roles enabling a more inclusive approach to supporting and accommodating people with historic behaviours of this nature.

2 Legal Literacy

2.1 Definition

“Arson refers to a crime in which an individual willfully or recklessly sets fire to property, putting people or the property itself at risk.”

Arson is charged under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which is the primary source of offences which involve damage to property, including arson. Offences of damage to property can vary in seriousness; from destruction by fire, which causes damage of great value and danger to life, to minor incidents of damage where replacement costs are minimal. Where property is destroyed or damaged by fire, arson is committed if a person without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property by fire, intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged.

For offences involving "simple arson" the property of another must be damaged. Aggravated arson offence requires proof of an intent to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged AND intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered.

For the aggravated offence it can be any property, including the defendant's own.

Section 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, sets out a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for aggravated arson. The offences are only triable on indictment.

2.2 Intention Vs Recklessness Vs Negligence

Intention

Intentional arson is where the person acts with the purpose or knowledge of causing a particular result. For example, if a person lights a fire in a property with the aim to cause a death, the person can be charged with murder.

Recklessness

Recklessness is a higher degree of negligence and involves a conscious disregard for the consequences of one's actions. It refers to the state of mind where a person is aware of the risks associated with

their actions but decides to proceed with those actions regardless. For example, if a person sets a fire in a communal building, the person can be charged with reckless arson.

Negligence

Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care in one's actions or omissions. It involves a lack of foresight or carelessness, which results in harm or injury to another person. For example, if a person causes a fire due to falling asleep with a lit cigarette, this would be considered negligence.

In short, intention involves the purpose or knowledge of deliberately causing harm or commit a crime, recklessness involves being aware of the potential for harm but taking the risk anyway, and negligence involves failing to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm.

2.3 Types Of Fire Setting

ARSON

Arson is a criminal act by which an individual intentionally and maliciously sets fire to or aids setting a fire to a structure, dwelling, or property. An act can still be considered as an arson offence even if it was negligent or the person was unaware of the circumstances surrounding the fire. Fire-setting can be classified as any similar act of harm or damage by fire that does not meet the legal threshold for an arson conviction. Typologies of motive include:

1. Profitable arson: the destruction of property for financial gain, rehousing, the removal of potential criminal evidence, or the enforcement of protection/extortion crimes.

2. Political arson: as a means to provoke or aggravate distrust, hostility, or harm between social, political or cultural parties and to reduce the victim’s confidence and material resource.

3. Accidental fire-setting: in legal terms, a truly accidental fire is not a criminal act, but the difference between accident and recklessness may require criminal or professional inquiry.

4. Revenge fire-setting: relating to society, employers or personal relationships.

5. Fire-setting for pleasure, thrills and excitement: with three sub-categories:

a. Heroic fire-setting: Setting fires then providing support and rescue, to enhance status.

b. Fire-bugs: Individuals who set fires as acts of relief, satisfaction or fascination.

c. Erotic fire-setters: Persons setting fires to relieve underlying sexual difficulties.

6. Psychotic and organic fire-setters: typically in response to pathological delusions and compulsions of a persecutory nature, often co-morbid with personality disorder.

7. Pyromania: pyromania is a psychotic diagnosis and is the uncontrollable impulse to set fires for the satisfaction of setting the fire only, and not for any other purpose or intention other than the gratification of the fire itself.

8. Self-immolation and voluntary death by fire: variously a means to rapid death by suicide, a contingent threat to force submission or a statement of political protest. The fatality of outcome often frustrates the determinations of cause and motive.

9. Child fire-setters: associated with other forms of delinquency, intense anxiety and the perceived withholding of parental love and affection. Also recognized as a phase of experimentation in groups of adolescents, which may be compromised by recklessness, immaturity and dissocial group dynamics.

3 GDPR And Data Management

Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 customers and workers only need to disclose unspent convictions in areas such as employment, housing and acquiring insurance. Typically, customers are open to over disclosing convictions due to not knowing their rights. Even more so questions on job application forms and housing application forms can often be misleading and cause customers to over-disclose. Unfortunately, the lack of workforce knowledge can also lead to over-disclosure on the customer's behalf with sharing of historic convictions amongst organisations and statutory bodies. Referral forms that are filled in using conviction data and case notes held on customers by the workforce often create a barrier for customers trying to access housing or support if not factually correct.

If customers are unsure of what is on their criminal record they can utilize a SAR (Subject Access Request). This is for their eyes only and shouldn’t be asked for by anyone – it is a criminal offence to do so under s.184 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (previously s.56 DPA 1998 since 10 March 2015).

Requests can be made via ACRO (Criminal Records Office). using the downloadable form to make a subject access request. Home (acro.police.uk)

This information will help customers to calculate what convictions are spent/unspent.

• Under the Data Protection Act, a person can ask the police for a copy of their criminal record using a Subject Access Request (SAR).

• There is no cost for this.

• ACRO have 1 calendar month to supply this although many do it quite quickly.

• It will show all convictions and doesn’t separate between spent/unspent.

Based on the information on their criminal record they can use a spent/unspent conviction calculator to give the customer confidence on what they must disclose and what they can treat as irrelevant.

Here are a couple of links to this:

Disclosure Calculator - Unlock

Caution or conviction - Check when to disclose cautions or convictions - GOV.UK (check-when-todisclose-caution-conviction.service.gov.uk)

“Earlier this year, Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council were found to have acted unlawfully by basing its decision not to add an individual to its housing register on the fact that the claimant (YA) had a spent conviction”

“The court have made it very clear that if you have spent convictions and are asked to disclose them, then you can treat the question as not being relevant to you.”

“In preventing themselves from future legal action, housing providers should make sure that if they’re asking applicants to disclose criminal records, they make it clear that spent criminal records do not need to be disclosed”.

Court makes it clear - spent convictions shouldn't be taken into account for housing applicationsUnlock

What if the data held isn’t accurate?

Customers can request to see the data held by them at any time through a SAR (Subject Access Request), and this data is usually presented within 30 days. If the data is not accurate, customers have the right to change it.

What is the right of access?

Customers have the right to ask an organisation whether or not they are using or storing their personal information. Customers can also ask services for copies of their personal information, verbally or in writing.

This is called the right of access, and is commonly known as making a Subject Access Request (SAR).

Why make a Subject Access Request?

Customers can make a subject access request to find out:

• What personal information an organisation holds about them

• How they are using it

• Who they are sharing it with

• Where they got their data from This information can also help them to exercise their other information rights effectively.

Customers can also request their personal records from the following organisations:

• HM Prison Service

• HM Courts and Tribunals Service

• Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

To summarise for the individual:

• Where the conviction is unspent, by law they should disclose this information to housing providers or other relevant authorities. This will then help services to make informed decisions. Information around the context of the offence are important factors to consider to

help them assess risk. Failure to disclose could be considered fraud and may result in further action, such as eviction or implications through court.

• If the conviction is spent, the individual is not required to disclose the offence (under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act), and can legally tick “no” for arson on any applications for housing.

To summarise for an organisation:

• For that organisation to share that information with a third party, they would need the explicit consent of the individual concerned. If the information is shared without consent (and the individual is treated less favourably as a result), then that could be a breach of GDPR and, although liability would most likely fall to their organisation, in some circumstances the individual employee may be liable for the breach.

Customers must be led by workers to understand their rights so that they can respond appropriately. Further training for staff around GDPR would be recommended, to support them in understanding clients rights and the legal responsibilities of them when disclosing information.

4. Arson Flowchart

4.1 Flowchart Guide

1. Referral Criteria: Outlines the primary evidence and criteria for customer referral.

2. Risk and Safety Domains: Lists the environmental, welfare, interpersonal, mental health and criminal risk domains. These domains inform the case referral proforma and any associated documents.

3. Referral Process: The Formulation Process and Pathway contains four elements:

a) Satisfactory information and completion of referral criteria.

b) A narrative outline of the case, adding biographical detail and additional domain data.

c) The Expert Model informs both the presenter and the panel of standard process.

d) The Panel reviews, discusses and formulates their inter-related expert domains.

e) A concluding statement on Categories, Recommendations and Reviews.

4. Formulation of Risk and Safety Factors: The assurance panel consists of four experts from associated public sector services (Tier I), who identify role-related risks and needs. The panel then discusses the interaction of these risk domains and any interactions which aggravate or mitigate risk and safety (Tier II). The panel then considers the physical (property), procedural (service delivery) and relational (professional staff) resources that best support and provide assurances to the case (Tier III).

5. Assurance Panel Formulation: The collective findings are formulated into an action plan by supplementing the Best Practice Model with any extraordinary elements. The risks are then weighted through collective discussion, leading to a final formulation of findings (Tier I). The client-centred outcome is informed and supported by a set of objective safety factors and assurance issues for ongoing monitoring (Tier II).

6. Customer Safety Category: A provisional safety category is assigned to each case, offering guidance on both immediate risks and long-term management needs. The four categories are governed by broad thresholds for intervention and individually formulated by their respective elements. The four categories are:

a. Persons with immediate and active risks of setting fires.

b. High risk individuals not currently setting fires, but whose risks are present, relevant and urgent.

c. Persons with a Fire Setting history which is inactive but who require long-term support.

d. Persons deemed to be autonomous, responsible and responsive to safety interventions.

Formulation Elements for Individual Categories

Category I: High risk/unstable and hazardous, requiring immediate and assertive address.

1. There is immediate risk of harm to the customer, third parties and associated properties.

2. Identified risks may be active and / or the customer evidences a high degree of instability across their individual risk domains.

3. Fire setting history relates to persons / has multiple events; either chaotic or patterned.

4. There is a history of criminal / purposeful fire setting and /or disregard to fire safety.

5. There is a history of imprisonment relating to fire setting, with additional governance.

6. Fire has a fascination for the customer, fire setting is mentioned in their conversation.

7. The customer does not demonstrate remorse, concern or accountability for fire-setting.

8. Reported intelligence is of immediate concern, whether consistent or inconsistent.

9. Known fire risk factors are active or easily activated.

10. Coping strategies are limited and insufficient.

11. Substance misuse is intensive, compulsive and hazardous to stable mental health.

12. Early warning signs for mental disorder are rapid, high-risk and ignored by the customer.

13. Vulnerability / exploitation / coercion are active, destabilizing risks.

14. Professional support is refused, justice direction is not complied with.

15. Mental capacity is globally or specifically compromised / in reasonable doubt.

16. The referring professional requires urgent safety or support resources.

17. Executive powers may be necessary for global risk management.

Category II: Complex / High Dependency, for close management and additional resource.

1. There is likely risk of harm to the customer, third parties and associated properties.

2. Identified risks may not be immediately active, however unmet needs may be a concern.

3. The customer has a known history of fire setting that may include lesser criminal offences.

4. The customer has a history of unstable behaviour and poor response to past interventions.

5. Known fire risk factors are not active, but are identified, doubtful, require close monitoring.

6. Reported intelligence is a potential concern, whether consistent or inconsistent.

7. Coping strategies are chronically limited and require professional support.

8. Substance misuse is active or chronic, unsupported and likely to impair mental health.

9. Early warning signs for mental disorder are poorly understood or supported and fail quickly.

10. Vulnerability / exploitation / coercion are long-term risks.

11. Mental capacity is chronically or periodically compromised relating to personal safety.

12. A sense of responsibility / accountability is present, but limited or open to influence.

13. The referring professional requires further safety or support resources.

14. A long-term residential setting / enhanced care package is / has been recommended.

15. Executive powers may be required and agreed with regard to crisis planning.

Category III: Long-term needs with regard to safety, stability and crisis.

1. Fire-setting history is occasional / incidental / circumstantial, at least to some degree.

2. Fire risks are objectively present but not evidenced in the customer’s history or narrative.

3. Reported intelligence is only a historic concern, whether consistent or inconsistent.

4. Any history of unstable or reckless behaviour is currently mitigated by coping skills.

5. Any history of unstable or reckless behaviour is currently mitigated by a support package.

6. Substance misuse is occasional, low-level or supported and does not impair mental health.

7. Early warning signs for mental disorder are understood, accepted and planned for.

8. The customer is independent in their attachments and has positive personal relationships.

9. Mental capacity function is consistently reported not a cause for concern.

10. A sense of responsibility is present and actively addressed, but may require support.

11. The referring professional requires additional care resources.

12. A low-level support package has been beneficial for some time.

13. Supported accommodation and plans for independent living are reasonably foreseeable.

Category IV: Evidenced safety with comprehensive features of risk management:

1. Fire setting history is occasional, incidental, circumstantial and historic.

2. Fire risks appear to be accidental, exceptional, and /or largely stigmatised.

3. Any history of unstable or reckless behaviour is reliably and robustly addressed.

4. The facts relevant to the case appear to be singular, spurious and /or exaggerated.

5. Substance misuse is an incidental factor.

6. Early warning signs for low level, respond to intervention and include active self-care.

7. Mental capacity is established as present and reliable.

8. The customer is independent, with positive social capital and self-awareness.

9. A crisis plan is evidenced as effective and reliable or has no exceptional elements.

Conclusions

1. The panel completes their formulation and sets a review date for the case.

2. The panel identifies any additional resources of value for future reviews and / or learning from the case.

3. Internal auditing and review of best practice and evidence-based practice.

Fire Setting Calculus

Formulation Elements to be considered by the Assurance Panel

Arson and Fire Setting identified as serious crimes

1. Difficult to anticipate, detect, control.

2. Mass victims and casualties, lethal outcomes.

3. Common, simple, low-cost resources.

4. Harmful at one remove.

Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act

Arson is not identified or formulated as a specific offence, it is linked to intent or consequence; recklessness, degrees of harm or damage, endangering life. Disposal is up to and including a life sentence. Sentencing also includes references to character, e.g. “With malice.”

Threat Based Factors

This section considers persons with a significant history of setting or threatening to set fires. Where a threat is communicated or a fire history is present,– to what extent are the following statements valid:

a. The individual is angry, upset or holds grievances over their beliefs. They reach out to others or engage in personal searches for evidence that their beliefs are factual and correct. This contrast with persons who are not angry, upset or grievanced and who seek a life with positive personal relationships and interests.

b. The individual describes a state of persecution in which their perception of threat is used to justify preemptive action. This sense of threat overrides any personal or lawful prohibition against fire setting.

Warning Behaviours

Items 1,2 and 3 are the most frequently validated warning behaviours for discriminating between attackers and non-attackers. They relate to all forms of violence and are relevant to expressed threats of fire setting.

Item 4 is the least frequently communicated and must always be investigated.

Item 8 is typically the first indicator to be communicated and while often a false positive by itself, always warrants investigation.

1. Pathway warning behaviour – any behaviour that is part of research, planning, preparation, or implementation to set fires.

2. Identification warning behaviour – any behaviour that indicates a psychological desire to be a “pseudocommando”, have a “warrior mentality”, closely associate with weapons or other military or law enforcement paraphernalia, identify with notorious public figures, or identify oneself as an agent to advance a particular cause or belief system.

3. Last resort warning behaviour – evidence of a violent “action imperative”, increasing desperation or distress through declaration in word or deed, forcing the individual into a position of last resort. There is no alternative other than violence, and the consequences are justified. Relationships are positioned around homicide-suicide (e.g. he goes or I go, if I don’t kill her, she will kill me, my life is in danger while they live…)

4. Directly communicated threat warning behaviour – prior communication of direct threat to a target or to law enforcement. Communication that implicitly or explicitly states a wish or intent to cause harm by fire.

5. Fixation warning behaviour – any behaviour that indicates an increasingly pathological preoccupation with a person or a cause. It is measured by:

(a) increasing perseverance in following or identifying with a person or cause

(b) increasingly strident opinion and fixation

(d) impact on the family or other associates of the object of fixation, if present and aware.

(e) angry emotional undertone, typically accompanied by social or occupational deterioration.

6. Novel warning behaviour – a minor act of fire setting which does not appear to be targeted and which is committed for the first time. Such behaviours may be utilized to test the ability of the subject to set larger fires, measure the response of authorities or assess the material impact of fire.

7. Energy burst warning behaviour – an increase in the frequency or variety of activities related to the target, even if the activities themselves are relatively innocuous, usually in the days or weeks before the attack.

8. Leakage warning behaviour – the communication to third parties of the intent to attack and harm a target.

1. Instrumental.

a. Fire setting for criminal gain and profit.

Classification, Motivation and Management

b. The principal social antecedents are personal and environmental disadvantage, dissatisfaction with oneself and one’s life and actual or perceived ineffective social interaction and these should be given close consideration in any case.

2. Fascination and gratification.

Compulsion, fascination and fetish elements underlying a gross relapse of mental state. Affective – the release of tension and stimulation of pleasure and retribution. Cognitive –intense states of paranoia and persecution often involving feelings of powerlessness and anger. This bimodal framework has immediate limitations;

a. Mental states may influence motivation, while not being actual motives.

b. It does not identify clear typologies or sub-domains.

c. It gives no direction to interventions, boundaries or degrees of dangerousness.

3. Consideration has been given to a thematic model, with four typologies for motive and action.

a. Self-expression relating to personal feelings and rationalisations

b. Self-expression through symbolic acts of Fire Setting.

c. Personal motivation relating to the self; revenge, grievance, hostility.

d. Personal motivation relating to others; the destruction of evidence, monetary gains.

Demographic Risk Factors for Fire Setting

1. Young age at first criminal conviction.

2. Multiple arsons per index offence.

3. A history of vandalism.

4. Having an intellectual disability.

5. Poor adjustment and function at school.

6. Feelings of tension or excitement associated with Fire Setting.

7. Lower levels of violence and aggression.

8. The absence of psychosis or a delusional motive.

Functional Risk Factors

1. Low economic status.

2. Poor education and employment histories.

3. Poor social skills.

4. Expressions or reports of persistent grievance (higher risk in males).

5. Histories of trauma, rejection and emotional distress (higher risk in females).

6. Persistent misuse of alcohol.

7. Expressed feelings of powerlessness.

Primary Risk Factors for Repeat Fire Setting and Recidivism

1. Young age at first Fire Setting incident or conviction.

2. A number of previous arson offences.

3. Being single/never married.

4. Young age at time of index offence or subsequent assessment.

5. The presence of personality disorder.

Personality Disorder Factors

Goldberg’s Five Factor Model uses the acronym OCEAN to measure personality traits which negatively impact an individual’s life. This model has value in mapping attitudes and behaviours to risk assessment and management.

1. Openness: Measures of curiosity, trust and investment in new experiences.

2. Conscientiousness: Evidence of self-discipline, careful planning, strategic thinking.

3. Extraversion: The extent to which a person is outgoing, sociable and seeks the company of others.

4. Agreeableness: Friendliness and concern for others, vs. suspiciousness and antagonism.

5. Neuroticism: Being prone to unhappy emotions; anxiety, anger and depression.

Social and Interpersonal Risk Factors

1. Young adult males.

2. Relationship difficulties.

3. Alcohol misuse.

4. Misuse of accelerants.

5. Limited education, thinking skills or intelligence.

6. Personal feelings of grievance, social rejection, helplessness and economic disparity.

7. Revenge motives are an indicator of higher severity and recidivism.

8. Some grievances may be maintained or aggravated through beliefs rather than clear evidence.

9. Childhood abuse, instability and disturbance, particularly in women.

10. Female fire-setters are more likely to be given a psychiatric disposal (which may be misleading).

11. Sexual abuse is a precipitating factor, however fire setting is rarely undertaken for sexual motives.

12. Sexual dysfunction in relationships is an influence, though rarely a discreet cause.

Causal Factors

1. Financial or personal reward, consider also economic disadvantage and personal debt.

2. To conceal the evidence of other crimes.

3. Political injury, loss or sabotage.

4. Self-immolation for self-punishment, relief of overwhelming distress or to draw attention from others.

5. Serious mental disorder – psychosis and affective disorders with compulsive and grandiose elements.

6. Organic disorders: dementia, toxic confusion, TBIs that affect frustration and anger.

7. Revenge related to personal injury, grievance, humiliation, whether real or self-determined.

8. Sexual fetishism (rare).

9. Youthful vandalism; boredom, resentment, aggression, social standing, substance misuse.

10. Childhood arsonists; early disturbance, conduct disorders, hyperactivity, developmental impairments.

11. Adjustment reactions (shock), lack of safety planning, impulsiveness, no single clear motive.

12. Consider the pyromania model found in DSM-V.

Multi-Agency Management of Fire- Setting

1. No single form of management is likely to be effective, multi-agency frameworks are recommended.

2. Fire Setting behaviour should be viewed as symptomatic in terms of mood, mental state and motive.

3. Give close scrutiny to fire-setters who engage for incidental, selfish or fraudulent purposes.

4. Include both psychiatric and psychodynamic formulations of the fire-setter.

5. Formulate early warning signs, risk markers and destabilizing influences, especially substance misuse.

6. Consider a perfect storm situation for risk management and risk taking.

7. Planning should include solution-focused, problem-solving, goal-setting and personal satisfaction elements.

8. Find ways to improve social capital and inclusion.

9. Be clear with the offender over issues of mental capacity, risk-markers and criminal responsibility.

10. Provide an education, formulation and resource package for co-workers and organisations.

11. Design simple and responsive forms of communication between agencies and teams.

Fire Use Continuum

1. Functional: Cooking, welding, fuel, heat.

2. Recreational: Candles, bonfires, fireworks.

3. Vocational: Signalling, propulsion, smelting, entertainment.

4. Spiritual: Rituals, cleansing, purity.

5. Religious: Natural light for communal events.

6. Experimental Play: Children burning ordinary objects.

7. Reckless Play: Covert / provocative fire setting, running through fires, throwing burning objects.

8. Self-harm: Immolation and burning.

9. Vandalism of Public Spaces: Setting fires in parks, fields, waste ground.

10. Destruction of Personal Property: Burning cars, houses, possessions.

11. Burning of Commercial Buildings: With intent for malice, profit.

12. Burning of Residential Buildings: Hazards to human life.

Parallel Risk Elements

1. Dysfunctional experiments and misuse of non-flammable heat sources (kettles, heaters).

2. Significant use of fire related language in conversation, particularly emotional discourse.

3. Verbal threats with elements or mentions of fire.

4. Interest, reminiscence and preoccupation with news of fire and fire-related media.

5. Evidence of physiological arousal around fire stimuli.

6. Evidence of institutional Fire Setting.

7. Reliable reports of excitement in relation to ordinary interactions with fire (smoking, cooking).

8. Reliable reports of responses to the present of fire services and active fires.

9. Presence, attention and excitement around public fire displays and celebrations.

10. The presence of fire and fire related motifs in creative writing and art.

Typologies of Fire- Setting