Working towards a Safer Scotland

Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory

in Practice

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Criminal Justice Social Work

2

Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 3 2. Summary ........................................................................................................... … 4 3. Case materials provided ………………………………………………………. ……. 5 4. Case prioritisation ……………………………………………….…………………….. 8 5. Distributions of general risk/need factors……………..………………….............. 11 6. Overrides ……………………………………………………………………………. 15 7. Assessment conclusions…………………………….…………………………….. 16 8. Resulting supervision levels ……………………………………………………… 18 9. Frequency of assessments ……………………………………………………… 19 10. Data integrity ………………………………………………………………........... 20 11. Conclusion……………………………………………..……………………….…. 21

3

Introduction This report contains the analysis of aggregate data provided by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Criminal Justice Social Work Services at the end of February 2013. The analysis is based on 80 records for 80 individuals and drawn from Version 2 of the LS/CMI electronic system. The purpose of the report is to provide an initial evaluation of information from the use of the LS/CMI system in Na h-Eileanan Siar to support the development of local evaluation and quality assurance measures. A caveat to the distributions provided is that they are based on small numbers which can have the effect of inflating percentage proportions. Within the report some initial comparisons of Na h-Eileanan Siar Isles with the national data is provided for demonstration purposes. This will be more fully developed at a National level in the next stage of the study later in 2013 to support service planning and performance management. Additional feedback will be provided on case samples provided to inform local practice development and the objectives of the LS/CMI National Mentors Forum. The Risk Management Authority would like to thank Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Criminal Justice Social Work Services for their continued collaboration in providing data for this study. Risk Management Authority September 20131

1 This replaces the original (April 2013) report to reflect that the information labelled as ‘disposals’ within the

system report actually relates to ‘preferred options for disposal’.

4

Summary

Number of individuals on the system: 80

Offender History records: 80

Number initial assessments/screening version assessments: 76

Full LS/CMI assessments started: 18

Full LS/CMI assessments completed to a risk/need band: 18

Of the 18 full LS/CMI assessments Females2 account for 1 of the assessments; Males account for 17 assessments.

Where gender is known, the one female was aged 31; the average age for the 17 males was 34.

Court Report is recorded as the reason for 97% of assessments.

Out of 70 cases where a preferred option for disposal is recorded the majority (56%) suggested a Community Payback Order. This followed by recommendations for a deferred sentence (14%) and fine/ compensation order (14%).

Where the Initial assessment/LSI-R:SV has progressed to a full LS/CMI the bulk of Minimum LSI-R:SV outcomes are also in the lower LS/CMI bands.

The majority of the Maximum LSI-R:SV outcomes were also in the higher LS/CMI bands.

Within the Na h-Eileanan Siar data, 7 full LS/CMI assessments had reached the evaluation & conclusion stage. The management recommendations were distributed as follows:

Routine case management: 71% (n= 5) More intensive case management: 29% (n= 2)

2 Where assessments stopped at a Screening Version and did not progress to a full LS/CMI there is no indication

of gender in the data. Therefore all references to male/female are based on completed LS/CMI assessments. At

a local level the system reporting function can filter by gender and the next IT version of the LS/CMI will report on

the sex of all being assessed, including screening version assessments, without having to apply a filter.

5

Case materials provided The dataset provided information on 80 cases relating to 80 individuals recorded at end of February 20133. The broad practice process involves the application of the LSI-R:SV and an analysis of offending at the Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW) court report stage to assist in the formulation of advice on sentencing. The LSI-R:SV is used as an aide-memoire or checklist to ensure that the assessment is grounded in a brief identification of the main risk/need factors and to provide an indication of the need for further intervention. This is followed by an analysis of the pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood of offending and concludes with the need for supervision, and any identified child/adult/public protection issues.

Figure 1. Cases on system

While age and gender are not determinants of the scoring they may have an influence on case management planning and interventions. Based on 80 records the following table displays the age distribution:

Table 1. Age groups

Age Group Frequency Percent4

16 and 17 yr olds 2 2

18 to 21 years old 16 20

22 to 25 years old 13 16

26 to 30 years old 9 11

31 years plus 40 50

3 Unlike some other local authorities the Na h-Eileanan Siar data does not indicate multiple assessments for

the same individual. 4 Throughout the report, where percentages are provided, there will be occasions where the total will not equal

100% due to the rounding up/ down of figures

0 20 40 60 80

LS/CMI completed

LS/CMI started

LSI-R:SV completed

individuals

records on the sysetm

18

18

76

80

80

number

Na h-Eileanan Siar system cases

6

It can be seen from table 1 that the majority of clients are within the 31 plus age group. However, as stated earlier there is no indication of gender in cases where only the initial assessment was applied. Therefore, while it is reasonable to quote distributions and evaluations in percentage terms for males, to do so comparatively with so few females has the potential to distort the findings. LSI-R:SV and Initial Analysis For the majority of the 80 records, within 76 (95%) cases an initial assessment comprising the LSI-R:SV and an initial analysis of offending has been undertaken. It is expected that this should correspond broadly to the number of CJSW court reports prepared in the reporting period. The system allows for a more in-depth assessment to be undertaken when it is clear to the user that this is merited by the nature or seriousness of the case. Aside from this, a fuller assessment comprising the LS/CMI and a further analysis of offending should be undertaken at the beginning of any period of supervision. LS/CMI The number of full LS/CMI assessments would be expected to broadly correspond with the number of individuals being made subject to statutory supervision in the area. Out of the 80 cases entered on to the Na h-Eileanan Siar system 18 (23%) have completed a full LS/CMI assessment. This currently compares with an emerging national average of around 32%. Of these 18 cases 3 started without conducting a screening evaluation (LSI-R:SV & Initial Analysis of Offending). There are a number of possibilities as to why assessors might go straight to the full LS/CMI: Reason for assessment At the start of the assessment process users provide an indication of the reason for the assessment. These details provide a reference point for the distribution of workloads and also, if the reason for assessment is accurately recorded, offers a point from which the supervision outcomes for offenders can be compared.

Table 2. Reason given for assessment

Assessment reason Frequency Percent

Youth: Social Enquiry Report 1 1

Community: Supervision Intake 1 1

Court Report 78 97

As indicated in table 2 above, of the 80 records, only 1 has indicated ‘Supervision Intake’ as the reason for assessment. However, it is highly likely that most, if not all of the 18 full

1. Assessor may have judged that a full Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) assessment was

necessary at court report stage;

2. First assessment may have been for supervision intake i.e. not to inform court report;

3. Assessor may have moved onto conduct full RNR assessment at court report stage by

mistake (likely to reduce once users become familiar with the system).

7

LS/CMI assessments within Na h-Eileanan Siar will have been applied in cases where a period of supervision has been imposed by the court. This mismatch suggests that not all the users are aware of the need to change the reason for assessment within the system at certain stages in the process.

8

Case prioritisation Initial Assessments There have been 76 Initial Assessments incorporating the LSI-R:SV that have been completed to the point of providing an assessment outcome. The LSI-R:SV briefly reviews the major risk/needs factors to give a broad indication of the need for and focus of further assessment /intervention. This is relevant to the advice given in a report on the suitability of community based disposals. It is acknowledged that at the time of data analysis not all of the cases submitted will have the assessment process completed. The snapshot for the end of February is as follows;

Figure 2. LSI-R:SV outcome distributions

The data suggests that where an initial assessment has been undertaken to inform a court report a medium or maximum risk/needs level is indicated in 81% of cases. This information may be useful to those involved in service planning and resource allocation. Furthermore, it is to be expected that the likelihood of offending based on the risk/needs level is reflected in the advice given to the court. Out of 76 initial assessments started, a total of 70 have been completed to the evaluation and conclusion stage. At that stage the assessor considers whether a community based disposal is feasible and, if so, specifies their preferred option for disposal. A breakdown of the disposal recommendations recorded on the system is provided below:

Table 3. Preferred options for disposals

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Maximum

Medium

Minimum

22

59

18

percent

LSI-R:SV risk band distribution

Preferred Option Number %

Probation with conditions 1 1

Community Service 1 1

Structured Deferred Sentence 2 3

Restriction Liberty Order 2 3

Drug Treatment & Testing Order 5 7

Fine/Compensation Order 10 14

Deferred Sentence 10 14

Community Payback Order 39 56

9

As indicated within table 3, a Community Payback Order was the preferred option for disposal in most cases (56%) followed by a deferred sentence or a financial penalty (14%). Further assessment on case allocation The second stage of assessment provides information that allows for more detailed analysis that is of interest to the service planner/practitioner/researcher: how do assessments undertaken on LSI-R:SV correspond to those later undertaken using the LS/CMI? To understand this, the risk bands obtained from the LSI-R:SV were compared to the risk bands obtained from the LS/CMI. It should be noted that this analysis can only use the information from cases in which both the initial assessment and the full LS/CMI assessment stage has been completed. In the Na h-Eileanan Siar data, of the 76 screening version assessments 15 also went on to complete full LS/CMI assessment: The data in tables 4 to 6 indicate how the 2 variables compare:

Table 4. The LSI-R:SV Minimum group (n= 3)

LS/CMI risk/need band Percent

Very Low (n=1) 33

Low (n=0) -

Medium (n=2) 66

High (n=0) -

Very High (n=0) -

There were 11 cases within the ‘minimum’ group that did not go on to have a full LS/CMI assessment applied.

Table 5. The LSI-R:SV Medium group (n= 9)

LS/CMI risk/need band Percent

Very Low (n=0) -

Low (n=1) 11

Medium (n=2) 22

High (n=5) 55

Very High (n=1) 11

There were 36 cases within the ‘medium’ group that did not go on to have a full LS/CMI assessment applied.

Table 6. The LSI-R:SV Maximum group (n= 3)

LS/CMI risk/need band Percent

Very Low (n=0) -

Low (n=0) -

Medium (n=0) -

High (n=1) 33

Very High (n=2) 66

There were 14 cases within the ‘maximum’ group that did not go on to have a full LS/CMI assessment applied. The general distribution appears to confirm the utility of the screening version in that none of the cases within the ‘minimum’ screening version group fell within the high risk/need band. Equally within the ‘maximum’ screening version group, none fell within the very low or low LS/CMI categories.

10

Overall, 23% of the assessments undertaken within Na h-Eileanan Siar have proceeded to a full LS/CMI. The distributions of the assessed risk levels are displayed below:

Figure 3. Distribution of LS/CMI Bands

It would be of interest to managers to consider the proportion of those cases assessed as minimum/low risk needs who end up on statutory supervision, the reasons for that and at what level of supervision intensity. It would be expected that minimum/low cases would be unlikely to attract intensive reporting requirements. The use of a clinical override, or the nature/seriousness of index offences that add to intervention decisions would provide context to local offender management decisions.

0 10 20 30 40

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very Low

17

33

33

11

6

percent

LS/CMI risk band distribution

11

Distributions of general risk/need factors The LS/CMI provides a risk/ need profile for the individual being assessed. This helps identify what the greater offending related needs are to guide case management planning. The same profile can be used with the aggregate data to show profiles for the caseload in a particular area or nationally. This will be of interest to Service Managers, Team Leaders and practitioners from a quality assurance, performance management and service planning perspective. In table 7 the average score for each of the subsections of Section 1, for the 18 LS/CMI assessments that were undertaken, are provided.

Table 7. Central 8 Risk Factors - average scores

Section 1 Risk/Need Scoring

Range Average score in

Scotland

Na h-Eileanan Siar average

score

Criminal History 0-8 3.6 3.7

Education / Employment 0-9 5.3 4.9

Family / Marital 0-4 1.4 1.3

Leisure / Recreation 0-2 1.4 1.3

Companions 0-4 1.9 2.2

Alcohol / Drugs 0-8 3.5 3.8

Procriminal Attitudes 0-4 1.0 0.9

Antisocial Pattern 0-4 1.4 1.3

Table 7 provides an early indication of the average score for each risk/need factor. As shown the averages within Na h-Eileanan Siar are close to the national average scores for the Section 1 items. The data can also be used to show the risk/need profile for the different risk/need levels as shown below in table 8. This can be a useful guide to service planners in establishing the likely targets for intervention in the area.

Table 8. Distribution (in percentages) of risk/needs according to the Central 8 Factors.

Risk/Need Level CH EE FM LR CO ADP PA AP

Very High 6 11 6 - 28 22 6 11

High 11 39 11 44 17 22 11 6

Medium 39 17 22 39 22 11 6 22

Low 28 22 33 - 11 33 22 28

Very Low 17 11 28 18 22 11 56 33

CH= Criminal History Co= Companions

EE= Education/Employment ADP= Alcohol/Drug Problem

FM= Family/Marital PA= Procriminal Attitude/Orientation

LR= Leisure/Recreation AP= Antisocial Pattern

Reading down each column through very high to very low this table produces a profile of the individuals being assessed as a group. The largest percentages are highlighted indicating where the highest proportion of needs are for each risk/need level.

12

Strengths The instrument provides an opportunity to divert from an entirely ‘problem focussed’ approach through the inclusion of identified client strengths that may assist with desistance from offending. The identification of strengths had arisen as an issue in the learning evaluation research that followed the national LS/CMI training. The data from Na h-Eileanan Siar was examined to evaluate the presence of strengths in the assessment process. Table 9 indicates how many strengths were indicated according to the age group of the client.

Table 9. Number of cases where a strength was present according to risk factor and age

The trend for identifying strengths appears to indicate they are more likely to be found in the 26 to 30 age group. This group represents 11% of the client population and 50% of the strengths were attributed to this cluster. However, given the small sample size, any conclusions about these distributions have to be regarded with some caution. The risk/needs factors where most strengths have been identified is family/marital and education/employment. Having checked the scores for the 3 education/employment cases which requires an involvement and commitment to pro-social activities, there were no indications to challenge the application of a strength5. Looking at the three family/marital cases which were indicated as strengths again there are no scoring requirements. One of the three did indicate an issue with the parental situation but as indicated the assessor is not reliant upon scores to determine strengths for the family situation. The more general advice from the scoring manual emphasises exceptional positive circumstances should be present to regard the situation as being a strength. Looking at the risk/needs sub categories by item a number of points of interest were found. The proportions are taken from the 18 completed full LS/CMI assessments. Section 1 - General Risk/Need factors Criminal History

72% (n= 13) of all individuals had two or more episodes of offending

72% (n= 13) had three or more documented episodes of offending

39% (n= 7) had previously been imprisoned upon conviction

5 LS/CMI Scotland Edition User’s Manual 2010. pages 16/17.

16-17

years

18-21

years

22-25

years

26-30

years

31 plus Total

Criminal History - - - 1 - 1

Education/Employment - 1 - 1 1 3

Family/Marital - 1 - 1 1 3

Leisure/Recreation - 1 - - - 1

Companions - 1 - 1 - 2

Alcohol/Drug Problem - - - 1 - 1

Procriminal Attitude - - - 1 - 1

Antisocial Pattern - 1 - 1 - 2

13

Education/Employment

78% (n=14) are currently unemployed

67% (n=12) left school at minimum leaving age

47% (n= 8) frequently unemployed Family/ Marital

44% (n= 8) have unsatisfactory parental relationships

39% (n= 7) have criminal family/spouse relationships

29% (n= 5) have unsatisfactory relationships with other relatives

22% (n= 4) have an unsatisfactory marital or equivalent situation Leisure/Recreation

67% (n= 12) indicated a better use of time was warranted

61% (n= 11) have an absence of organised activity Companions

71% (n= 12) have some criminal acquaintances

44% (n= 8) have few anticriminal acquaintances In terms of friends rather than acquaintances:

44% (n= 8) have some criminal friends

33% (n= 6) have few anticriminal friends Alcohol/Drug Problem

89% (n= 16) had an alcohol problem at some point

50% (n= 9) recorded a current alcohol problem

50% (n= 9) had a drug problem at some point

22% (n= 4) indicated a current drug problem

Where a current alcohol/drug problem exists;

100% (n=10) involved law violations

90% (n= 9) the problem had affected the marital/family situation

70% (n= 7) education/work had been affected

Procriminal Attitude

72% (n= 13) have a poor attitude toward their sentence

28% (n= 5) have an unsatisfactory attitude toward being supportive of crime

17% (n= 3) have an unsatisfactory attitude toward convention

17% (n= 3) have a poor attitude toward their supervision Antisocial Pattern

78% (n= 14) had an official record of assault/violence

50% (n= 9) identified as having a pattern of generalised trouble

39% (n= 7) indicated early and diverse antisocial behaviour

33% (n= 6) indicated a criminal attitude

12% (n= 2) indicated a specialised assessment for antisocial pattern

14

The same 18 full LS/CMI assessments were examined for the non-scored sections 2 to 5. Section 2 – Specific Risk/ Need Factors The most frequently identified personal problems with criminogenic potential are:

Problem solving deficits 67% (n= 12)

Underachievement 55% (n= 10)

Anger management deficits 50% (n= 9) Section 2 – History of Perpetration Sexual Assault With regard to the items for sexual assault, the numbers were very small therefore no percentages were compiled. The most frequently identified items were:

Sexual assault, extrafamilial, child, female victim (n= 5)

Non Contact, indecent exposure, child adolescent, female victim (n= 2) Other Forms of violence

Physical assault, extrafamilial male adult victim 53% (n= 9)

Assault on an authority figure 53% (n= 9)

Knife use 29% (n= 5)

Physical assault, intrafamilial partner victim 18% (n= 3)

Other forms of antisocial behaviour

Driving under the influence 35% (n= 6)

Theft/housebreaking 29% (n= 5)

Driving stolen car 18% (n= 3) Section 4 - Other client issues

Evidence of emotional distress 55% (n= 10)

Low self-esteem 53% (n= 9)

Accommodation problems 47% (n= 8)

Financial problems 41% (n= 7)

Victim of family violence 41% (n= 7)

Section 5 - Special responsivity consideration

Denial / minimisation 55% (n= 10)

Motivation as a barrier 41% (n= 7)

Interpersonally anxious 18% (n= 3)

Communication barriers 18% (n= 3) To summarise, outwith the scored section of the tool, the Na h-Eileanan Siar data has indicated:

Over two thirds of the sample indicated problem-solving/self-management skill deficits

In terms of violence, physical assault is most commonly perpetrated against extrafamilial males and authority figures

Client issues indicate emotional distress and low self esteem are commonly present

Denial, minimisation and motivation as a barrier are common responsivity issues.

15

Overrides According to the LS/CMI authors, if the frequency of overrides exceed 10%, this would trigger a need to have a closer to look to ascertain why6. The extent of override within Na h-Eileanan Siar is not an issue as none of the 18 full LS/CMI assessments had an override applied.

6 D.A. Andrews, J.L. Bonta, J.S. Wormith. (2004) LS/CMI User’s Manual. Multi-Health Systems. Toronto

16

Assessment conclusions After completing the first 6 sections of the LS/CMI and producing a risk/needs profile and suggested risk/needs level for offending generally, the assessor is led through an analysis of the pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood of offending (Section 7.3.1) to consider the relevance to the risk of harm to others posed by offending before evaluating this against criteria for further action. The conclusion criteria are:

routine case management;

intensive case management with close supervision, intervention and monitoring; or

fuller assessment for risk of serious harm.

There are a slightly different range of options for prison based assessments. These conclusions were compared with the supervision intensity levels indicated in Section 9.1.4 Reporting Requirement to consider how consistent the conclusions and supervision outcomes were. LS/CMI screenshot – Evaluations & Conclusions

Within the Na h-Eileanan Siar data the indications were that the 7 Evaluations & Conclusions for management were distributed as follows:

Routine Case Management 71% (n= 5) More intensive case management 29% (n= 2) RoSH assessment indicated 0% (n= 0)

17

For the 5 cases where routine case management focussing on desistance is indicated the recommendation of supervision intensity distribution is shown below7: For the 2 cases that merit more intensive case management involving close supervision: The indications are that the distribution for case management is close to a national data set that is being established. This local authority’s 29% ‘more intensive case management’ compares to a current estimate of 33% in the national distribution. The national proportion for routine case management is 65% in comparison to 71% in Na h-Eileanan Siar. The full national perspective will be established later in 2013.

7 It is presumed that the numbers that have no indication of supervision intensity are instances where, following a

conclusion in Section 7.3.2, the cases have not as yet progressed to Section 9 case management planning.

Level of supervision for the 5 cases:

Low 20% (n= 1)

Medium 20% (n= 1)

High 20% (n= 1)

Very High 0

No recommendation 40% (n= 2)

Level of supervision for the 2 cases:

Low 0

Medium 0

High 100% (n= 2)

Very High 0

No recommendation 0

18

Resulting supervision levels Where an individual is subject to supervision and a case management plan is being devised, the case manager specifies the supervision intensity level that is required within Section 9.1.4 of the LS/CMI. The previous section of this report compared the management planning conclusions with the supervision intensity decisions. Here, the LS/CMI final risk/needs level is compared with the supervision intensity decision, which provides an indication of where resources are likely to be targeted. There were 5 records with a supervision intensity recorded. The majority of which were recommended for a high intensity level. Of these, all 5 included both supervision intensity level and a final risk/need category. The association between the assessed risk/need level and the supervision intensity rating is presented in table 10.

Table 10. Comparison of supervision intensity ratings with LS/CMI risk/need categories

<< Supervision Intensity rating >>

Final LS/CMI Risk/Need Category

Low intensity Medium intensity

High

intensity

Very High intensity

Very Low 0 0 0 0

Low 0 0 0 0

Medium 100% (n= 1) 0 33% (n= 1) 0

High 0 100% (n= 1) 33% (n= 1) 0

Very High 0 0 33% (n= 1) 0

There distribution of supervision decisions in the Na h-Eileanan Siar data is as would be hoped for. None of the low intensity supervision cases have indicated high or very high risk/needs. Conversely none of the high intensity supervision cases have low or very low risk/needs. This sort of distribution is worth monitoring over time as more clients are included in the supervision requirement data.

Supervision Intensity ratings:

Low Intensity 20% (n= 1)

Medium Intensity 20% (n= 1)

High Intensity 60% (n= 3)

Very High - (n= 0)

19

Frequency of assessments In other areas there were a number of instances where more than one assessment on the same individual has been applied. There are a range of possible reasons why multiple assessments are being applied - some of which will be appropriate and are to be expected whilst others may be due to misunderstanding/users becoming familiar with the IT system. The reasons include: A further initial assessment on the same individual with a different case number.

This situation would arise where the first assessment has been completed and closed then a new case created some time later. This would be expected and appropriate where: - Initial assessment #1 applied to inform a court report and the record was closed

because the outcome from court did not involve community supervision at that stage; - Initial assessment #2 applied some time later to inform a new court report.

A further full assessment on the same individual with the same case number. Applying a further, full LS/CMI on the same case could occur for a couple of reasons: - a further full assessment is warranted because a ‘significant event’ has occurred or a significant period of time has elapsed which could result in significant changes to the original risk/ need level or management plan; - the assessor has selected to ‘re-assess’ in error.

However, there are no multiple assessments in the Na h-Eileanan Siar data and the guidance above is included just for reference.

20

Data integrity In some of the data received from across Scotland there are a number of holding SCRO numbers where an assessor has not had access to a Unique Reference Number (URN) or one has not been available. This will occur when the individual has never been involved in offending in Scotland, but the service is required to assess and/or manage the individual on behalf another offender management jurisdiction. In the Na h-Eileanan Siar data there were no examples of an apparent holding URN. In addition, there are no evident anomalies with the recorded local reference numbers within this dataset.

21

Conclusion The screening version of the assessment process has shown consistency with the full LS/CMI outcomes. There were 3 full LS/CMI assessments undertaken that had not begun with an initial assessment/LSI-R:SV. While one of these was for supervision intake, which is an appropriate reason for conducting a full LS/CMI without an initial assessment, it would be expected that for most court reports an initial assessment would suffice. The data has the potential to contribute to service planning using the distribution and prevalence of risk/need factors and responsivity issues identified across the client population. Given the functionality of Version 2 of the IT system a more robust analysis with regard to gender will be possible with the implementation of Version 3. A more complete and representative national use of the LS/CMI is planned for later in 2013. This will provide a fuller comparison point for local authorities. A summary of the issues identified in the data from Na h-Eileanan Siar which may be useful for managers and/ or those with a quality assurance role are:

Maintain oversight of reasons for assessment to ensure it is accurately recorded.

22

Risk Management Authority

St James House

25 St James Street

Paisley

PA3 2HQ

tel 0141 567 3112

fax 0141 567 3111

email info@rmascotland.gsi.gov.uk

www.rmascotland.gov.uk