Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Implementing The LS/CMI in ScotlandQuality 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 Factors4. Other Client Issues
5. Special Responsivity Considerations
6. Risk/Need Summary & Override
7. Risk/Need Profile & Analysis of Offending8. Programme/Placement Decision9. 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 training Pre-course reading & online knowledge test
Post course Online course evaluation
3 months post training Online learning questionnaire
6 months post implementation Focus 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
