FRAME and LS/CMI: Translating policy into practice Glasgow – 8th November 2012 Ian McIntosh Quality Assurance Lead Heather Irving Standards and Guidance Lead

“A consistent shared framework that promotes defensible and ethical risk assessment and management practice that is proportionate to risk, legitimate to role, appropriate for the task in hand, and is communicated meaningfully” What is FRAME?

Foundations Guiding Language Practice principles of risk Standards FRAME: Core Elements Proportionality Balancing Rights Rights based approach Individualised Integral to our work Transparent & inclusive Evidence-based practice Collaboration Definitions Interpretation Communication

FRAME: Practice Standards Practice Standards

FRAME: A tiered approach Aware Attentive Active & Alert RISK

STANDARD ONE – RISK ASSESSMENT The assessment of risk will follow a structured process through which key pieces of information are identified, analysed for their meaning in the current context, and evaluated against the appropriate criteria. Assessment will be evidence-based and will be communicated in terms that are meaningful and easily understood. COMMUNICATE Meaningfully and Appropriately EVALUATE What needs to be done?Who needs to know? ANALYSE What does this mean? Pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood IDENTIFY RiskStrength

Risk Assessment: the practice process COMMUNICATE Meaningfully and Appropriately EVALUATE What needs to be done?Who needs to know? ANALYSE What does this mean?Pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood IDENTIFY RiskStrength Gather, sort and weight information Identify information about past and current behaviour Identify information about personal, interpersonal and community issues Use an appropriate, validated instrument to gauge the presence of empirically relevant factors Understand the purpose of the instrument/s used and be aware of their limitations Taking to bits the components Looking at them more closely to better understand: - each component part and - the whole In light of: - the purpose of the assessment - your task and role - Your understanding of the person and their behaviour Evaluate against the decision making criteria - Degree of monitoring - Suitability of community disposals - Level and focus of case management - If, how and when may be manageable in the community - Need for further assessment - Risk of serious harm

Risk Assessment: a tiered approach Initial decisions based on an awareness of risk Case management with due attention to risk Risk management that is actively alert to risk

STANDARD TWO – PLANNING and RESPONDING to CHANGE Plans to manage risk will be based on robust and proportionate assessments, and in view of the uncertain nature of risk, the dynamic link between assessment and planning will be maintained by means of regular and ongoing review. The level and immediacy of any response to changes in risk levels will be proportionate, and will be supported and justified by suitable reassessments.

STANDARD THREE – RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES Risk management measures will be based upon and updated in response to current research evidence. Risk strategies, and the associated activities of monitoring, supervision, intervention and victim-safety planning will be tailored to the needs of the individual and should be proportionate to the level of risk, defensible, and congruent to the remit of the responsible agencies.

STANDARD FOUR – PARTNERSHIP WORKING The appropriate agencies will work together in the assessment and management of risk. The degree of communication, co-ordination and collaboration will be commensurate to the risk and complexities of the case. Information will be shared responsibly, timeously and in a way that is meaningful to all involved. Information sharing will be at a level which is mindful of each individuals’ rights to privacy and confidentiality.

STANDARD FIVE – QUALITY ASSURANCE Multi-agency Organisational Individual Those who have responsibility for the assessment and minimisation of risk will be appropriately qualified, skilled, knowledgeable and competent to fulfil their role and will be aware of the limits of their own expertise. They will be supported by appropriate training, supervision, policies and structures. Organisations will be responsible for ensuring the quality of assessment and management practice. Both self-evaluation and wider-scale evaluation will apply at practitioner, agency and multi-agency levels and will be used to inform the on-going revision of the evidence base regarding effective practice.

FRAME: Implementation Policy PracticeResearch

FRAME: Implementation Standards and GuidelinesResearch and EvaluationLearning and Development

Standards and Guidelines Risk Assessment Risk Management Risk Management Planning format MAPPA template Agency Guidance Quality Assurance Measures FRAME: Implementation

Learning and Development Risk Management Planning and Practice Course FRAME Risk Practice for CJSW Presenting in Court Enhancing Effective Practice in Community Supervision (EEPICS) Police Practice Process Forensic Network Tiered Approach Review of Risk Instruments in Scotland FRAME: Implementation

Research and Evaluation LS/CMI learning evaluation LS/CMI quality assurance SA07 implementation RSVP contribution to risk practice Risk Assessment Tools Evaluation Directory (RATED) FRAME: Implementation

Analysing the Data: Headlines ~ 5400 individuals ~ 1800 fuller assessments Minimum R/N level in 25% court report stage Screening R/N levels correspond with fuller R/N levels

Distribution of Risk/ Need Levels V Low – procriminal attitude (42.7%) Low – Family (26%) Medium - Antisocial Pattern (42.4%) High – Leisure (65.6%); Substance Problem (30.3%) V High – Education/ Employment (35.3%); Companions (34.9%) Highest Proportions

Overrides override requested in 3% of cases 96% override requests approved

Assessor Conclusions 52% routine case management 36% intensive case management 2% RoSH assessment indicated 10% custody based conclusions

Worth A Closer Look? Is ‘criminal attitude’ being assessed accurately?

Worth A Closer Look? Frequency of override well within acceptable level (3%) but… Large degree of override in a few cases Very Low to High (1) Medium to Very High (3) Very High to Medium (2)

Worth A Closer Look? Frequency of Assessments 152 individuals fully reassessed 33% within 3 months 14 reassessed on same day A case of assessors getting used to the system…or are local policies needing reviewed? Would expect need to fully reassess within first 12 months only where a ‘significant event’ occurs

LS/CMI System - Version 2 Headline Changes

V2 - Dashboard Enhanced Search Facility Surnames sorted alphabetically Library

V2 - Dashboard Ability to ‘reverse out’ of full assessment/ reassessment mistakes

V2 - Dashboard Reassigning records: improved drop down list

V2 – Offender History Form Local reference number now mandatory Ability to restrict access to sensitive records

V2 – Offender History Form Updated lists ‘Youth’ reason for assessment removed

V2 – Offender History Form Record destruction date if fuller assessment not required

V2 – Initial Assessment ‘Save’ function added on screens where a lot of free text may be required.

V2 – Fuller Assessment Ability to pull content through from previous screens ‘Save’ function

V2 – Fuller Assessment Ability to generate court report template at end of fuller assessment

V2 – Case Reporting Amended report descriptions within picklist

V2 – Case Reporting Plainer language No longer prints an empty table if no ‘strengths’ exist

V2 – Case Closure Record destruction date required to be set by Team Leader

V2 – System Reports Additional filtering e.g. age; sex; assigned worker

V2 – System Reports Reports on all items from LS/CMI Sections 1- 8 – provides fuller picture of assessed needs of the offending population

THANK-YOU RMA web-site Ian McIntosh Heather Irving