Transcript FRAME and LS/CMI:Translating policy into practiceGlasgow

FRAME and LS/CMI:
Translating policy into practice
Glasgow – 8th November 2012
Ian McIntosh
Quality Assurance Lead
Heather Irving
Standards and Guidance Lead
What is FRAME?
“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”
FRAME: Core Elements
Definitions
Interpretation
Communication
Balancing Rights
Proportionality
Collaboration
Evidence-based practice
Rights based approach
Individualised
Integral to our work
Transparent & inclusive
FRAME: Practice Standards
Practice
Standards
FRAME: A tiered approach
Active
& Alert
Attentive
Aware
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.
IDENTIFY
Risk
Strength
ANALYSE
What does this mean?
Pattern, nature, seriousness
and likelihood
EVALUATE
What needs to be done?
Who needs to know?
COMMUNICATE
Meaningfully and Appropriately
Risk
In
light of:Assessment: the practice process
- the purpose of the assessment
- your task and role
- Your understanding of the person and their behaviour
IDENTIFY
Evaluate against the decision making criteria
Risk
Strength
- Degree of monitoring
- Suitability of community disposals
•Gather, sort and weight
- Levelinformation
and focus of case management
•Identify information- If,
about
current
behaviour
howpast
and and
when
may be
manageable in the community
ANALYSE
•Identify information- Need
about for
personal,
interpersonal
further assessment and community
issues What does this
mean?
Pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood
- Risk
of serious harm
•Use an appropriate, validated instrument to gauge the presence of
empirically relevant factors
•Understand
purpose of the instrument/s used and be aware of
• Taking
to bits the components
EVALUATE
their limitations
• Looking
at them more closely to better
understand:
- each component part and
What needs to be done?
Who needs to know?
- the whole
COMMUNICATE
Meaningfully and Appropriately
Risk Assessment: a tiered approach
Risk management that is actively alert to risk
Scrutinise
Case management with due attention to risk
Examine
Initial decisions based on an awareness of risk
Scan
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.
Multiagency
Activity &
Alertness
Co-ordinated
attention
Routine Awareness
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.
Intensive
measures
Heightened
measures
Limited
measures
STANDARD FOUR – PARTNERSHIP WORKING
The appropriate agencies will
work together in the assessment
and management of risk.
Collaboration
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.
Co-ordination
Communication
STANDARD FIVE – QUALITY ASSURANCE
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.
Multi-agency
Organisational
Individual
FRAME: Implementation
Policy
Research
Practice
FRAME: Implementation
Standards and Guidelines
Research and Evaluation
Learning and Development
FRAME: Implementation
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)
Analysing the Data: Headlines
• ~ 5400 individuals
• ~ 1800 fuller
assessments
• Minimum R/N level in
25% cases @ court
report stage
• Screening R/N levels
correspond with fuller
R/N levels
Distribution of Risk/ Need Levels
Highest Proportions
• 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%)
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…
• Very Low to High (1)
• Large degree of
override in a few
cases
• Very High to Medium
(2)
• Medium to Very High
(3)
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
LS/CMI System - Version 2
Headline Changes
V2 - Dashboard
Library
Enhanced Search Facility
Surnames sorted alphabetically
V2 - Dashboard
Ability to ‘reverse out’ of full assessment/
reassessment mistakes
V2 - Dashboard
Reassigning
records:
improved
drop down
list
V2 – Offender History Form
Ability to
restrict
access to
sensitive
records
Local reference number now mandatory
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
‘Save’ function
Ability to pull content through from previous screens
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
http://www.rmascotland.gov.uk/
Ian McIntosh
[email protected]
Heather Irving
[email protected]