Implementing The LS/CMI in Scotland Quality Assurance & The Learning Evaluation Ian McIntosh; Quality Assurance Lead

The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) in Scotland The LS/CMI project: Implementation of a consistent offender risk/ needs assessment, case management & risk management planning method across agencies

The LS/CMI (Scotland) content 1. General Risk/Need Factors 2. Specific Risk/Need Factors 3. Prison Experience – Institutional Factors 4. Other Client Issues 5. Special Responsivity Considerations 6. Risk/Need Summary & Override 7. Risk/Need Profile & Analysis of Offending 8. Programme/Placement Decision 9. Case Planning 10. Progress Record 11. Discharge Summary LSI-R:SV & Initial Analysis of Offending Offender History Form RoSH/ Analysis of Offending Risk Management Planning Scan Examine Scrutiny

Piloted in 1 community Criminal Justice Social Work area & 1 prison Informed development of national training & evaluation strategy Pilot

 Electronic version – allows information sharing  Introduced across all CJSW services and prisons in Scotland  National training & implementation completed March 2012 (1000+ staff) The LS/CMI system in Scotland

Evaluation & other QA Measures Matter Considerable investment (££ & time) Need to ensure the method implemented well & used effectively Need for ongoing evaluation & other QA measures

LS/CMI Training: Learning Objectives To have a working knowledge of the application of the of the LS/CMI approach in Scotland (appropriate & proportionate assessment and communicating it meaningfully) To have a working knowledge of the underpinning research & theoretical rationale of the LS/CMI To have a working knowledge of the implications of the RNR model for the assessment & management of offending behaviour To understand and be able to make responsible use of the LSI:SV and the analysis of offending To understand and be able to make responsible use of the LS/CMI including analysis of offending and case management planning To gain awareness of the assessment of risk of serious harm To gain awareness of the elements of risk management planning

Meeting these objectives/ how is quality assured? Complete training course (!) Knowledge & skills tested: pre & immediate post training Immediate post-training questionnaire BUT Does the learning transfer into the ‘real world’…?

Learning Evaluation 2 weeks before trainingPre-course reading & online knowledge test Post courseOnline course evaluation 3 months post trainingOnline learning questionnaire 6 months post implementationFocus Group (1/2 day)

Learning Evaluation - Interim Findings Final report: September 2012 Comparison of prior experience vs new users of the LS method pre-course briefing is a resource that could be better delivered Course too long/ too short…? Learning Gain all shifted in a positive direction but least confident = If/ then rules

Learning Evaluation – Focus Groups Retention of learning? 6 months after started using: focus groups Scoring exercise Main issue: inconsistent identification/ use of strengths

Learning Evaluation – Focus Groups Need for ‘refresher training’ & ongoing support, but… Refresher ‘training’ – not necessarily a need for additional external training events A role for local champions/ mentors, but… Need to provide ongoing support and guidance for champions/ mentors.

Next Steps… Learning from the evaluation to inform further development of training Users Forum to develop role of and to support locally identified champions/ mentors

Next Steps… Further evaluation of transfer of learning into practice -data on all assessments to be analysed (monthly) -samples of case management plans (6 monthly) -samples of risk management plans (12 months) …to consider

Next Steps… What are the identified risk/needs – locally & nationally? Does assessed risk/ need level correspond with decisions regarding level of intervention? Are higher needs reflected within case plans?..and more

Quality!

Thank you Further information available: