level of service / case management inventory in practice ...€¦ · 5 scottish government (2010)...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Level of Service / Case Management Inventory in practice: Custodial Report Prison Based Social Work Services
2
Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
LS/CMI in Scotland ............................................................................................................ 3
Business process in custody ............................................................................................. 4
LS/CMI Research Findings on custodial populations ......................................................... 5
Purpose of this report ........................................................................................................ 5
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 6
Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 7
Case Materials ................................................................................................................... 10
Data set demographics ..................................................................................................... 12
Reason for assessment ................................................................................................... 12
Court Disposal ................................................................................................................. 13
LS/CMI Risk/Need Distribution ........................................................................................ 14
Distributions of general risk/need factors ....................................................................... 15
Section 1: General Risk/Need Factors ............................................................................. 18
Section 2: Specific Risk / Need factors ............................................................................ 20
Section 3: Prison Experience – Institutional Factors ........................................................ 23
Section 4 - Other Client Issues ........................................................................................ 24
Section 5 - Special Responsivity Considerations ............................................................. 25
Strengths ........................................................................................................................... 26
Overrides ........................................................................................................................... 29
Assessment conclusions ................................................................................................. 30
Fuller risk of serious harm assessment ............................................................................ 31
Using data to inform practice and service planning ....................................................... 33
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 34
Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 35
3
Introduction
LS/CMI in Scotland
The Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)1 is a comprehensive, fourth
generation general offending risk/need assessment and management planning method.
The Scottish LS/CMI approach has been developed to combine the robustness of the
‘conceptual actuarial approach’ (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2007)2 and the track record of
the LSI system (Campbell et al, 2008)3 with an evaluation of the pattern, nature, seriousness
and likelihood of offending and so structure professional decision making in a manner that is
consistent and comprehensible regardless of the nature or complexity of the case in hand.
To this end, a number of additional components have been built-in to the process of
administering the LS/CMI in Scotland. This process conforms to the broad approach of the
Risk Management Authority’s Standards and Guidelines and, in particular, FRAME4.
The process for administering the LS/CMI follows a triage approach, which enables three
levels of consideration of risk in terms of likelihood and impact. Essentially a process of risk
scanning, and proportionately greater levels of assessment and intervention are applied
dependent on the features of the individual case.
Within custody, prison based social work services are required to complete the second tier of
assessment for all statutory individuals, this involves a detailed examination of risk, needs
and responsivity. During completion of this level of assessment the practitioner will conduct a
thorough exploration of the pattern, nature, and seriousness of previous and current
offending to then consider the likelihood and impact of further offending to inform decisions
on the appropriate next steps to reduce the risk of future offending.
A scrutiny of the risk will only be completed for those where there are indicators of a risk of
serious harm, following the completion of an LS/CMI 1-8 assessment. For those individuals
where further assessment is indicated this will involve a review of the analysis within the full
assessment based on further information to provide a detailed offence analysis. Where risk
management planning is deemed necessary the risk formulation will be the link to risk
management. Risk management is the collection of preventative and contingency measures
identified as necessary to minimise the risk of serious harm.
1 Andrews, D.S., Bonta, J.L., & Wormith, S.J. (2004). LS/CMI: The Level of Service/ Case Management Inventory. Toronto:
Multi-Health Systems. 2 Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2007). The Accuracy of Recidivism Risk Assessments for Sexual Offenders. Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 3 Campbell, M.A., French, S. & Gendreau, P. (2007). Assessing the utility of risk assessment tools and personality measures in
the prediction of violent recidivism for adult offenders (User Report 2007-04. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada). 4 Risk Management Authority. (2011, 2013, 2016). Standards and Guidelines for Risk Assessment. Standards and Guidelines
for Risk Management. Framework for Risk Assessment and Evaluation. Scotland.
4
Business process in custody
Overarching guidance on social work practices is outlined within the National Outcomes and
Standards for Social Work Services in Criminal Justice System (2010)5 however, specific
guidance also exists on the business process for LS/CMI use in prison and throughcare. The
primary aim of that guidance is to align the use of the LS/CMI approach with the Integrated
Case Management Process developed in 2007.
Within the specific custodial guidance it is proposed that a full LS/CMI 1-8 assessment is
completed by Prison Based Social Work (PBSW) for all individuals who will be managed
under enhanced Integrated Case Management6 processes whilst in custody and subject to
statutory post release supervision. Where a previous LS/CMI record for that individual exists
within the community PBSW will continue with this record to complete a full assessment
(which may include a further risk of serious harm assessment if required) or create a new
record if one does not exist within the community. A draft management plan will also be
completed for information purposes to be taken forward via the multi-agency ICM process to
then be monitored by the Scottish Prison Service.
At points within the individual’s sentence management (such as consideration for
progression to less secure conditions, parole or release at end of sentence), where access
to the community is being considered, PBSW are expected to complete a reassessment and
provide an appropriate management plan based on the outcome from the assessment. The
completed reassessment and proposed management plan will be used to inform decisions
within the relevant forums (such as Parole Board hearings and Risk Management Team
meetings7) related to manageability of the individual in less secure/community settings.
Collaboration between community and prison based social work throughout the individual’s
sentence management includes the sharing of information by social work within custody to
the relevant community based social worker to contribute to the assessment and
management of the individual whilst in custody. At the point of release from custody PBSW
are then expected to send the electronic LS/CMI file to Community Based Social Work
(CBSW) to continue with the statutory throughcare arrangements.
In 2016, further guidance was issued by Chief Social Work Officers to practitioners
undertaking LS/CMI assessments to support the co-production of Risk Management Plans
and to aid decisions in relation to Multi-Agency Public Protection referrals8.
5 Scottish Government (2010) National Outcomes and Standards for Social Work Services in Criminal Justice System.
6 Scottish Prison Service (2007) Integrated Case Management Practice Guidance Manual.
7 Scottish Prison Service (2011) Risk Management and Progression Guidance.
8 There has been recognition that the business process in custody and the associated guidance related to the use of the LS/CM
in custody requires to be reviewed by the appropriate agencies.
5
LS/CMI Research Findings on custodial populations
As Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2008)9 highlight, normative data on the LS/CMI has been
produced in both community and custodial offender populations (in US, Canada and North
American samples). Within the Canadian federally imprisoned sample (sentenced 2 years or
more) it was found that scores for overall risk/needs were higher than for community based
and that predictive validity coefficients were strong. Similarly Manchak, Skeem and Douglas
(2008)10 found that scores on the LSI-R were predictive of recidivism for long term prisoners
(over 10 years) thereby demonstrating that the utility of the tool was not moderated by the
length of sentence within custody. Dahle (2006)11 also found support for the Level of Service
Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) in assessing risk of re-offending over other risk assessment tools
(e.g. HCR-20/PCL-R) when applied to a German prison sample.
When overall LSI-R and domain scores were compared across age groups for predicting
prison misconduct within the Ellison et al (2016)12 study they discovered that LSI-R scores
were significantly able to predict the prevalence of violent misconduct across all age groups
however incidence rates were varied. Further studies have compared community and prison
based offender populations to determine whether there are differences in the risk/need
factors present such as Giguere and Lussier (2016)13 study which looked at 17000 male
offenders to compare those with a short term prison sentence to those on probation. They
found the prison sample to be more likely to present static risk factors related to the Criminal
History risk/need domain and to have associates/acquaintances that are criminal. Orsini,
Haas and Spence (2015)14 suggested that within the prison and parole sample used for
LS/CMI assessments conducted that Procriminal Attitudes risk/need scores were low and
were not found to be significantly correlated with recidivism. They postulate that this could be
attributed to scoring errors which may lead to underassessment. They recommend that
practitioners adopt additional attitudinal measures (e.g. Criminal Sentiments Scale –
Modified) to address this.
Purpose of this report
Following publication of the LS/CMI in Practice reports for each local authority and the
National Report in 201415 a number of topics for further examination were identified by the
Risk Management Authority and Social Work Scotland. This included a report on the use of
the LS/CMI method in custody similar to the National Report which drew upon community
based Social Work use of the LS/CMI.
9 Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J.L., and Wormith, J.S. (2008) LS/CMI: An Offender Assessment System (Scotland Edition) User’s
Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. 10
Manchak, S.M., Skeem, J.L. & Douglas, K.S. (2008) Utility of the Revised Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R) in predicting recidivism after long-term incarceration. Law and Human Behavior. 32(6), p477-88. 11
Dahle, K.P. (2006) Strengths and limitations of actuarial prediction of criminal reoffence in a German prison sample: a comparative study of LSI-R, HCR-20 and PCL-R. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 29(5), p431-42. 12
Ellison, J.M., Steiner, B., Brennan, P., Chenane, J.L. (2016) Age Group Differences in the Predictive Validity of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised. The Prison Journal. 96(6), p828-853. 13
Giguere, G. & Lussier, P. (2016) Debunking the psychometric properties of the LS\CMI: An application of item response theory with a risk assessment instrument. Journal of Criminal Justice. 46(C), p207-218. 14
Orsini, M.M., Haas, S.M & Spence, D.H. (2015) Predicting Recidivism of Offenders Released from the West Virginia Division of Corrections: Validation of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Charleston, WV: Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Division of Justice and Community Services, Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety. 15
Risk Management Authority (2014) LS/CMI in Practice National Report: Criminal Justice Social Work Services. Scotland.
6
This report explores the use of the LS/CMI risk assessment method within a Scottish
custodial context.
The analysis within this report is based on 4865 custodial based assessments (after
exclusion process applied on original dataset of 7779 records) received in October 2016
using Version 3.2 of the LS/CMI system16.
The purpose of the report is to provide a broad analysis of information from the use of the
LS/CMI method within custody in Scotland to support development of self-evaluation, quality
assurance measures and service planning.
Acknowledgements
The RMA would like to thank all local authority Criminal Justice Social Work Services, Social
Work Scotland and Scottish Prison Service for allowing access and analysis of the custodial
dataset. We would also like to recognise the contribution of LS/CMI Working Group
members to the custodial evaluation proposal.
The RMA would also like to recognise the contribution of RMA staff to this evaluation,
including Julie McDonald, Rachel Webb and Ian McIntosh.
Risk Management Authority August 2018
16
The LS/CMI system does not allow identification by prison establishment within a custodial environment as the system is hosted on a central server within SPS HQ.
7
Executive summary The Scottish Prison Service provided a data set from prison based social work’s use of the
LS/CMI method in October 2016. This dataset contained 7779 records which related to 6347
different individuals.
After applying exclusion criteria, to obtain the first full LS/CMI assessment applied for each
individual within a custodial setting, 4865 records remained which formed the focus of the
analysis within this report.
Gender Of the 4865 LS/CMI assessments which have been completed, the gender distribution is:
96% male
(n= 4663)
4% female
(n= 202)
LS/CMI Risk/ Need Distribution The distribution of risk/needs levels by male (4663) and female (202) are:
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
93 6 588 21 1474 76 1743 71 765 28 2% 3% 13% 10% 32% 38% 37% 35% 16% 14%
8
Strengths As the number of strengths increases the frequency of cases where this number has been
identified decreases with only three cases where all eight criminogenic need domains were
identified as strengths. It is notable that the mean risk/need score decreases as the number
of identified strengths increases which highlights the importance of a structured approach to
identifying strengths.
Evaluation and conclusion At the evaluation and conclusion stage of the assessment, the assessor decides whether the
individual can be managed through the enhanced ICM process or whether a fuller risk of
serious harm assessment is warranted.
From the 4865 assessments where a decision was made:
566
(11%)
Merit fuller
risk of serious harm
assessment
4299
(88%)
Managed through
Enhanced Integrated
Case Management
process
Number of Strengths Identified
Frequency (n) Percent Section 1
Mean Score
1 297 6 16.8
2 153 3 12.4
3 75 2 9.3
4 39 1 7.9
5 16 0 6.1
6 13 0 6.6
7 6 0 4
8 3 0 3
9
Fuller Risk of Serious Harm Assessments A fuller risk of serious harm assessment was completed in 654 cases. Of these the majority
(53%) were assessed as presenting a medium risk of serious harm:
Risk of Serious Harm Levels
The scope of this paper only allowed for the presentation of broad analyses. However, the utility of the data can be maximised by more fully exploring sections 1-5 in relation to specific groups of interest for policy and planning purposes. This report concludes with some examples that could be explored further along with 4 recommendations to support those who have a quality assurance role within a custodial setting.
101
15%
Very High
155
26%
High
100
15%
Very High
165
25%
High
344
53%
Medium
45
7%
Low
10
Case Materials
A system report containing data from Prison Based Social Work use of the LS/CMI method
was received from the Scottish Prison Service in October 2016.
The system report provided data on 7779 records which related to 6347 individuals. 461
(8%) of these records were initial assessments (used in the community to inform court
reports) awaiting a full LS/CMI assessment to be applied within the custodial setting. 5828
full LS/CMI assessments had been started, of which 5148 had been completed – see figure
1.
A total of 796 cases had at least one prison based, full LS/CMI reassessment completed.
Figure 1. Breakdown of custodial dataset
11
The entire data set was subjected to a range of exclusion criteria. The aim was to generate a
data set which comprised the first full LS/CMI 1-8 assessment applied for each individual
within a custodial setting.
The exclusion criteria are detailed within table 1.
Table 1. Breakdown of exclusion criteria
Exclusion Criteria Frequency (n)
Removed
Frequency (n)
Remaining
Full LS/CMI assessment not yet started
(No LS/CMI interview date) 691 7088
Full LS/CMI assessments not yet
completed beyond Section 1
(No LS/CMI risk/ needs band)
42 7046
Full LS/CMI assessment not yet
completed beyond Section 3
(No prison based items)
1144 5902
Cases with system generated URN’s17 26 5876
Reassessments
(Cases with duplicate URNs) 734 5142
Cases with a community based
evaluation & conclusion at Section
7.3.2
11 5131
Full LS/CMI assessments not yet
completed beyond Section 7
(No evaluation & conclusion recorded
at Section 7.3.2)
260 4871
Cases with “suspect” URN’s
(e.g. S000000/00X) 6 4865
Total Remaining 4865
After applying the exclusion criteria to the 7779 records, 4865 cases remained from which
analysis of the prison based LS/CMI assessments was conducted. The recorded start date
of these assessments ranged from November 2010 to December 2016.18
17
System generated URN’s are those with $ symbol at the end e.g. S000000/00$. Their removal ensures individuals were not counted twice if/when a genuine URN was used to create an assessment within the LS/CMI system. 18
The start date for 1 assessment was recorded as being November 2016 whilst the other was December 2016 – both of which are after the data set was submitted to the RMA (October 2016). On further investigation the dates these assessments were completed were May and June 2017 respectively. This situation is likely to have arisen because the LS/CMI system allows an assessor to specify an assessment start date in the future whilst the completion date is automatically made by the system. A request to develop the LS/CMI system to prevent the assessor from recording dates in the future was logged in 2017 and is expected to be included within a future release of the system.
12
Data set demographics Of the 4865 cases analysed, there were 4663 (96%) males and 202 (4%) females19. The
age of the sample at the time of assessment ranged from 16 to 86 years of age with a mean
age of 37 (SD=12.6).
Figure 2. Age Group Distribution
16/17yrs 18-20yrs 21-25yrs 26-30yrs 31-40yrs 40+yrs
47 287 676 850 1365 1640 1% 6% 14% 18% 28% 34% As can be seen from figure 2 there is a gradual increase in the proportion of assessments as
age increases, with the highest proportion of cases for the 40 years and above category
which could be a reflection of an ageing prison population.
When the over 40 years age category is broken down further the largest proportion of
assessments have been completed for those within the 41-50 age group. Those in the 61
years and above age range make up 5% of the overall frequency of assessments
completed.
Reason for assessment
At the start of the assessment process assessors are required to record the reason for
undertaking an assessment.
Table 2. Reason for assessment
Assessment Reason Frequency (n) Percent
Integrated Case Management Case Conference 2550 52
Parole Hearing 1098 23
Community Release 560 12
Other 377 8
Prison Transfer 138 3
Reassessment 22 1
Induction Assessment 14 0
Youth: Integrated Case Management (ICM)20 1 0
No reason for assessment recorded 105 2
19
Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, this will be reflected throughout the report. 20
The one youth assessment was conducted when the individual was 18 years old and dates from 2012. The separate ‘youth’ reasons for assessment were removed when the LS/CMI system was redeveloped following the initial release (Version 1) in 2010.
13
The most frequently recorded reason for assessment was for Integrated Case Management
purposes which would be expected for a prison based population where statutory prisoners
are managed through the enhanced ICM process.
As indicated in the table above there are 105 cases where reason for assessment was not
recorded which is unexpected given the reason for assessment field is mandatory within the
LS/CMI system.
Court Disposal
Table 3. Court disposals
Disposal Option Frequency (n) Percent
Custody with Supervision 3120 64
Custody with Extended Sentence 726 15
Custody with Supervised Release
Order 422 9
Custody without Supervision 406 8
Order for Lifelong Restriction21 79 2
Other 59 1
Disposal not recorded 11 0
There are 11 cases where a court disposal was not recorded – see table 3. A further 42
cases have a community based disposal recorded. It would be expected that all disposals for
assessments applied for individuals within a custodial setting would include some form of
post release supervision. Cases with a community based disposal are likely to be
assessments which have been transferred to the custodial setting but have yet to be
updated to account for this change in circumstances.
21
There were 147 live OLR cases at the point in time the data was received.
14
LS/CMI Risk/Need Distribution The distribution of risk/needs levels by male (4663) and female (202) are provided within
figure 3.
Figure 3. Distribution of LS/CMI risk/need bands by gender
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
93 6 588 21 1474 76 1743 71 765 28 2% 3% 13% 10% 32% 38% 37% 35% 16% 14%
It should be noted that the distribution of risk/needs levels for the overall prison based
sample (4865) was the same as the male sample with regards to percentages across all
levels22.
The largest proportion of cases were assessed as medium and high risk/needs level. The
number assessed as being within the very low or low risk/needs level (n=702) is interesting
given these individuals are serving a custodial sentence of a length/ type that also requires
post release supervision. Further analysis would be required to obtain a profile of these
individuals, to more clearly ascertain the extent of previous offending and/ or the nature of
offending of this group.
22
Samples between each gender are not proportionate (4663 males, 202 females) therefore limiting the conclusions that can be drawn from these statistics and, without further analysis, cannot infer statistical significance.
15
Fre
qu
en
cy
Section 1 Total Score
Distributions of general risk/need factors
The LS/CMI provides a risk/need profile for the individual being assessed which helps to
identify relevant offending related needs in order to guide management planning decisions.
The frequency distributions for LS/CMI Section 1 scores for the overall custodial sample are
presented in figure 4.
Figure 4. Distribution of LS/CMI Section 1 Scores
As can be seen from the figure above the frequency of scores appear to be normally
distributed which is similar to previous findings on Canadian and US prison samples23. In the
current sample24 the most frequently recorded score was 19 which is lower than that
reported for the Canadian and US samples (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2004).
The mean scores for each of the eight criminogenic needs identified in Section 1 are
provided in table 4. The median score is the middle of all the scores recorded so half of all
cases will be above or below the median score.
23
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J.L., and Wormith, J.S. (2008) LS/CMI: An Offender Assessment System (Scotland Edition) User’s Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. 24
It should be noted that the current sample was comprised of only statutory social work cases within custody.
16
Table 4. Average and median scores for risk/need domains
The Criminal History domain has the highest mean and median score of the eight
criminogenic needs. When considering the relative scoring ranges across domains,
Companions has the highest mean score relative to the highest scoring range (maximum
score of 4). These two domains may be expected to be higher within a custodial population
whereby the imposition of a custodial sentence may be related to a pattern of previous
offending and by the nature of being within a prison environment, the presence of criminal
acquaintances/associates is a certainty.
The mean scores for each of the eight criminogenic needs identified in Section 1 for males
and females are provided in table 5.
Table 5. Mean scores for risk/need domains by gender
As table 5 indicates the mean scores for males and females are similar across most of the
criminogenic needs with the exception of Alcohol/Drug Problem whereby females scored as
medium risk/needs for this domain whereas males scored as low risk/needs. Also for Pro-
criminal Attitude/Orientation females scored as low risk/needs whereas males scored as
medium risk/needs based on mean score.
Table 6 provides the distribution of risk/need levels across the central eight criminogenic
domains in percentages.
Section 1 Domains Risk/Need
Scoring Range Mean Score Median Score
Criminal History 0-8 5.3 6.0
Education / Employment 0-9 4.0 3.0
Family / Marital 0-4 1.5 1.0
Leisure / Recreation 0-2 1.1 1.0
Companions 0-4 2.8 3.0
Alcohol / Drugs 0-8 2.4 2.0
Pro-criminal Attitude 0-4 1.5 1.0
Antisocial Pattern 0-4 1.7 2.0
Section 1 Domains Risk/Need
Scoring Range
Female Mean
Score
Male Mean
Score
Criminal History 0-8 5 5.4
Education / Employment 0-9 3.5 3.9
Family / Marital 0-4 1.9 1.5
Leisure / Recreation 0-2 0.9 1.1
Companions 0-4 2.9 2.8
Alcohol / Drugs 0-8 3 2.4
Pro-criminal Attitude 0-4 0.9 1.5
Antisocial Pattern 0-4 1.5 1.7
Total Section 1 Score 0-43 19.5 20.3
17
Table 6. Distribution (%) of risk/needs levels according to Central Eight Factors
As can be seen from the risk/need profile outlined above, the largest proportion of cases
scored Companions, Criminal History, Leisure/Recreation and Antisocial Pattern within the
high to very high risk/need levels. Of the three dynamic risk/need domains it appears
Companions has been scored as very high risk/need level along with Leisure/Recreation and
Antisocial Pattern. It is also of interest to note that for Procriminal Attitudes the highest
proportion of cases were in the very low risk/need level category, which might be lower than
some would expect for a custodial population. Similarly with Alcohol/Drug Problem in 68% of
cases this was not identified as being problematic at the time of the assessment.
Every item within Sections 1 to 5 were examined for the frequency they were endorsed
within the 4865 LS/CMI assessments (see Tables 7 – 15).26 Where items were scored on the
0 to 3 scale, 0 and 1 were combined to create instances where a problem had been
identified.
25
CH = Criminal History; EE = Education/Employment; FM = Family / Marital; LR = Leisure / Recreation; Co = Companions; ADP = Alcohol / Drug Problem; PA = Procriminal Attitude/Orientation; AP = Antisocial Pattern. 26
There were instances within the dataset where blank responses were present for Section 1 items, this represents omissions being marked within scored items. According to the authors there are up to four omissions allowed before the assessment is deemed invalid for more information to be obtained.
Risk/Need CH25 EE FM LR CO ADP PA AP
Very High 10 13 5 - 45 6 12 5
High 49 14 17 45 15 15 13 28
Medium 22 23 22 23 21 10 20 23
Low 12 31 30 - 17 50 20 24
Very Low 7 20 25 32 2 18 35 21
18
Section 1: General Risk/Need Factors
Table 7. Frequency of Risk/Need Factors identified
Frequency (n) Percent
Criminal History
Any prior documented episodes of offending 4264 88
Two or more prior documented episodes of offending 3987 82
Three or more prior documented episodes of offending 3710 76
Three or more present offences 1628 33
Arrested or charged under age of 16 1724 35
Ever imprisoned upon conviction? 4418 91
Ever punished for institutional misconduct/behaviour
report 3354 69
Charge laid/probation breached/parole suspended 2845 59
Education/Employment
Currently unemployed? 1476 30
Frequently unemployed? 2343 48
Never employed for a full year? 1639 34
School or when in school:
Left school at minimum age 3430 71
Left school without any qualifications 2716 56
Suspended or expelled at least once 2488 51
Participation/Performance 1647 35
Peer interactions 1613 33
Authority interaction 1601 33
Family/Marital
Dissatisfaction with marital or equivalent situation 1645 34
Nonrewarding, parental 2122 44
Nonrewarding, other relatives 1617 33
Criminal - family/spouse 1769 36
Leisure/Recreation
Absence of participation in organised activity 2983 61
Could make better use of time 2515 52
Companions
Some criminal acquaintances 4734 97
Some criminal friends 3358 69
Few anti-criminal acquaintances 2636 54
Few anti-criminal friends 3043 63
19
Some of the most prominent issues identified with the 4865 individuals assessed include:
88% have previously been involved in offending (76% on 3 or more occasions), 81% have
been involved in violent behaviour and 59% have breached the requirements of previous
periods of community supervision.
Alcohol use has been a concern for 65% of those assessed and the same proportion have
had problems with drug use.
The “ever imprisoned upon conviction” and “some criminal acquaintances” items would be
expected to be scored for all who are serving a custodial sentence, yet these have been
scored in 91% and 97% of assessments respectively, rather than the expected 100%. This
may indicate some misunderstanding of the guidance for scoring these particular items.
27
For the associated sub items related to current problem percentages have been taken from only those who had scored as having a current alcohol and/or drug problem (using valid percent). 28
A number of items in Antisocial Pattern domain have been excluded as these are drawn from items already scored across the other risk/need domains. Rather than duplicate findings they have been excluded within the table above.
Frequency (n) Percent
Alcohol/Drug Problem
Alcohol problem, ever 3167 65
Drug problem, ever 3170 65
Alcohol problem, currently 720 15
Drug problem, currently 1170 24
Where substance problem is current:27
Law violations 1407 92
Marital/family situation affected 1000 66
Education/work affected 848 56
Medical or other clinical indicators 380 2
Procriminal Attitude/Orientation
Supportive of crime 2376 49
Unfavourable toward convention 1628 33
Poor, toward sentence/offence 1730 36
Poor, toward supervision/intervention 1425 29
Antisocial Pattern28
Specialised assessment for antisocial pattern 361 7
Early and diverse antisocial behaviour: 2453 50
Severe problems of adjustment in childhood, or
arrested/charged under age 16 2514 52
Official record of assault/violence 3957 81
Escape history from a correctional facility 344 7
Criminal Attitude 2947 61
Pattern of generalised trouble: 2582 53
Financial problems 1542 32
3 or more address changes last year 261 5
20
Section 2: Specific Risk / Need factors Section 2 consists of two subsections. Section 2.1 (Personal Problems with Criminogenic
Potential) focuses on personal characteristics that may be indicative of specific criminogenic
needs. Section 2.2 (History of Perpetration) includes historical items related to types of
offending behaviour, which could constitute specific static risk factors. The items within
Section 2.2 relate to an individual’s history of offending – both past and present. However,
the current type of offence is not available from the LS/CMI system report. Therefore, without
access to each case within the system, it is not possible to ascertain whether the issues
identified below relate to current offending, past offending or both.
The most frequently identified treatment needs include problem solving skills, poor
compliance and anger management - see table 8.
Table 8. Personal Problems with Criminogenic Potential
Item Frequency (n) Percent
Problem solving/self-management deficits 3164 65
Clear problems of compliance 1978 41
Underachievement 1963 40
Anger management deficits 1907 39
Inappropriate sexual activity 1308 27
Intimidating/controlling 1031 21
Poor social skills 700 14
Racist/sexist/sectarian behaviour 553 11
Other 537 11
Threat from third party 468 10
Outstanding charges 422 9
Peers outside of age range 332 7
Assessed evidence of other personality disorder 258 5
Assessed evidence of psychopathy 57 1
7% of those assessed have been involved in sexually assaultive behaviour against a female
child from outwith the family and a similar number have been involved in internet offending
with a slightly smaller proportion (6%) having sexually assaulted female children from within
the family – see table 9.
21
Table 9. History of Perpetration (Sexual Assault)
Item Frequency (n) Percent
Sexual assault, extrafamilial, child/adolescent –female
victim 359 7
Internet/mobile offences (Grooming: indecent images) 327 7
Sexual assault, intrafamilial, child/adolescent – female
victim 283 6
Sexual assault, extrafamilial, adult stranger – female
victim 207 4
Non-Contact, other 168 4
Sexual assault, extrafamilial, adult non-stranger –
female victim 163 3
Sexual assault, extrafamilial, child/adolescent – male
victim 106 2
Sexual assault, intrafamilial, adult – spouse/partner
victim 96 2
Non-contact, indecent exposure, child/adolescent-
female victim 69 1
Sexual assault, intrafamilial, child/adolescent – male
victim 57 1
Non-contact, indecent exposure, adult – female victim 54 1
Non-contact, indecent exposure, child/adolescent-
male victim 32 1
Sexual assault, extrafamilial, adult non-stranger –
male victim 20 0
Sexual assault, extrafamilial, adult stranger – male
victim 13 0
Non-contact, indecent exposure, adult – male victim 11 0
Physical assault is most common against extrafamilial males and almost half of the
individuals assessed have a history of knife use. Just under 1/5th of the individuals assessed
have been involved in intimate partner violence – see table 10.
22
Table 10. History of Perpetration (Nonsexual Physical Assault and other Forms of Violence)
Item Frequency (n) Percent
Physical assault, extrafamilial, adult – male
victim 3183 65
Knife use 2175 45
Other weapon use 1489 31
Assault on an authority figure 1287 27
Physical assault, intrafamilial –
adult/partner victim 942 19
Physical assault, extrafamilial, adult –
female victim 738 15
Firearm use 439 9
Fire raising 366 8
Physical assault, extrafamilial –
child/adolescent – male victim 335 7
Stalking/harassment 187 4
Physical assault, extrafamilial -
child/adolescent – female victim 100 2
Physical assault, intrafamilial -
child/adolescent victim – male victim 97 2
Physical assault, intrafamilial -
child/adolescent victim – female victim 83 2
Other forms of anti-social behaviour that those assessed have been involved in concentrate around acquisitive types of offending – see table 11. Whilst theft/ housebreaking and shoplifting are the most prevalent, there are a number who have a history of involvement in other, likely more serious, types of offending such as organised crime (9%) and kidnapping/ abduction (4%). Again, however, it is not currently possible to ascertain within the dataset whether this involvement is historical or relates to current offending.
Table 11. History of Perpetration (Other Forms of Antisocial Behaviour)
Item Frequency
(n) Percent
Theft/house-breaking 2213 46
Shoplifting 1435 30
Other 1306 27
Driving a stolen car 846 17
Driving under influence of alcohol or drugs 781 16
Gang participation 625 13
Organised crime 453 9
Kidnapping/abduction 194 4
Hate crime 192 4
White collar crime 83 2
Terrorist activity 6 0
23
Section 3: Prison Experience – Institutional Factors
Section 3 of the LS/CMI assessment relates to an individual’s past and present experience
of custody. Over half of the individuals assessed have previously served short term prison
sentences (no post-release supervision) but have committed further offences resulting in
their current, longer period of imprisonment – see table 12.
Table 12. History of Imprisonment (Past)
Item Frequency (n) Percent
Prison without Post Release Supervision 2647 54
Prison with Post Release Supervision 1662 34
Any history of detention as a child 608 13
Indeterminate sentence 215 4
Abscond 176 4
Past detention in a psychiatric unit (for
forensic reason) 112 2
Escape 100 2
Table 13. History of Imprisonment (Present)
Item Frequency (n) Percent
Misconduct/behaviour report during
current imprisonment 2926 60
Protection 1408 29
Treatment for mental/physical wellbeing
recommended/ordered 686 14
Serious conduct problems 382 8
Abscond 103 2
Escape 44 1
24 *Due to dataset being generated from an earlier version of the LS/CMI system (V3.2) information as to whether this item was
related to past/current situation cannot be ascertained.
Section 4 - Other Client Issues Items within this section are not necessarily risk factors but may require consideration in
management planning. Victimisation issues, accommodation and financial problems were
the most commonly identified – see table 14.
Table 14. Social, Health and Mental Health
Item Frequency (n) Percent
Victim of physical assault* 1918 39
Accommodation problems 1858 38
Homeless or transient 1720 35
Financial problems 1547 32
Victim of family violence: 1400 29
Past – Physical 906 19
Past – Emotional 853 18
Past – Neglect 653 13
Past – Sexual 217 5
Current – Physical 32 1
Current – Emotional 28 1
Current – Neglect 18 0
Current – Sexual 2 0
Victim of emotional abuse* 1063 22
Other evidence of emotional distress 1002 21
Physical health problems 954 20
Low self-esteem 950 20
Suicide attempts/threat 848 17
Parenting concerns 738 15
Victim of neglect 619 13
Self-harm 604 12
Other 572 12
Victim of sexual assault* 456 9
Specific literacy difficulties 387 8
Shy/withdrawn 374 8
Diagnosis of serious mental illness 237 5
Physical disability 200 4
Other cognitive impairments 195 4
Learning disability 161 3
Immigration issues 93 2
25
Section 5 - Special Responsivity Considerations
Section 5 items relate to specific issues that influence the style/manner of interventions.
Denial/minimisation of problems and a lack of motivation to change were the most commonly
identified responsivity issues. Over half of all women were assessed as having issues
specific to their gender - see table 15.
Table 15. Special Responsivity Considerations
Item Frequency (n) Percent
Engages in denial/minimisation 2607 54
Motivation as a barrier 1499 31
Other 541 11
Interpersonally anxious 535 11
Mental disorder 252 5
Low intelligence 220 5
Antisocial personality/psychopathy 210 4
Communication barriers 171 4
Cultural issues 111 2
Woman, gender-specific issues29 109 54
Ethnicity issues 80 2
29
As this item would only be scored for female offenders percentages for this item have been taken from overall female sample (n=202) using valid percent.
26
Strengths
The LS/CMI method provides an opportunity for assessors to identify client strengths that
may promote desistance when evaluating each of the central eight risk/need factors within
Section 1 of the assessment. The LS/CMI User’s Manual30 indicates that exceptionally
positive circumstances may indicate where a strength applies.
The table below indicates the proportion of identified strengths across the risk/need
domains.
Table 16. Identification of strengths across the Risk/Need domains
The risk/need domains most frequently identified as a strength were Education/Employment,
Family/Marital and Alcohol Drug/Problem.
The area which was least scored as a strength was Companions which may be expected
due to the associations within a custodial environment.
There were some cases where there appears to have been some misunderstanding of the
scoring rules relating to the identification of client strengths. For example, for Antisocial
Pattern to be considered as a strength, this domain must be scored as Very Low or Low (0
or 1) and no more than one other subcomponent within Section 1 can be scored as Medium
or above. However, there were 11 cases where a strength was identified yet Antisocial
Pattern overall was scored as Medium and 27 cases where multiple other subcomponents
were scored as Medium or above.
30
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J.L. & Wormith, S.J. (2004) LS/CMI User’s Manual. Multi-Health Systems. Toronto. 31
Conditions attached to the identification of strengths for Companions and Procriminal Attitude are built into the LS/CMI system which prevents scoring errors for these items.
Section 1 Domains Frequency (n) Percent
Criminal History
113 2
Education/Employment 227 5
Family/Marital 237 5
Leisure/Recreation 149 3
Companions31 45 1
Alcohol/Drug Problem 195 4
Procriminal Attitude 182 4
Antisocial Pattern 60 1
27
The table below shows the number of cases where a strength was identified across the age
groups.
Table 17. Identification of strengths across the Risk/Need domains by age groups
Section 1 16/17
yrs
18-20
yrs
21-25
yrs
26-30
yrs
31-40
yrs
40+
yrs
Criminal History
0 4 17 18 18 56
Education/Employment 0 8 23 47 71 78
Family/Marital 4 22 37 40 59 75
Leisure/Recreation 0 4 27 22 48 48
Companions 0 3 3 4 11 24
Alcohol/Drug Problem 1 6 16 31 58 83
Procriminal Attitude 1 7 26 24 53 71
Antisocial Pattern 0 5 6 9 13 27
There are differences in the strengths most frequently identified across age groups.
Family/Marital is most frequently scored as a strength in the younger age groups however,
for those aged 26-40 years Education/Employment is recorded as a strength most
frequently. For those aged 40 years and above this changes to Alcohol/Drug Problem.
A total strength score can be calculated from the summation of strengths across the central
eight domains (Andrews et al., 2004)32. The outcome of this analysis is found in table 18.
Table 18. Number of strengths identified across cases
As the number of strengths increases the frequency of cases where this number has been
identified decreases with only three cases where all eight criminogenic need domains were
identified as strengths. It is notable that the mean risk/need score decreases as the number
of identified strengths increases. This highlights the importance of a structured approach to
identifying strengths.
32
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Toronto,
Canada:Multi-Health Systems.
Number of Strengths Identified
Frequency (n) Percent Section 1
Mean Score
1 297 6 16.8
2 153 3 12.4
3 75 2 9.3
4 39 1 7.9
5 16 0 6.1
6 13 0 6.6
7 6 0 4
8 3 0 3
28
The impact of the presence of strengths on the overall risk/need level is demonstrated in
figure 5:
Figure 5. Distribution of overall risk/need level by number of strengths
As can be seen from figure 5, those cases where four or more strengths were identified did
not include high/very high risk/need level cases, which would support the definition of a
strength as a “positive characteristic, relationship or circumstance that buffers risk/need
factors”(RMA, 2016)33. For the three cases where eight strengths were identified these
individuals scored as very low/low risk/needs levels. The absence of a risk factor is not
sufficient for the identification of a strength; however, it would be expected that those with
multiple strengths would have less areas of risk/need identified.
33
Risk Management Authority (2016) Standards and Guidelines for Risk Management. Paisley: RMA.
29
6
cases
Raised two levels
19
cases
Raised one level
2
cases
Lowered one level
Overrides
After completing the first 5 sections of the LS/CMI, assessors consider whether to override
the risk/ need level which is driven by the score from Section 1 of the method. The authors of
the method advise overrides of the risk/need level should be supported by logical argument
and reasonable evidence and expect overrides to be used in less than 10% of cases34.
As the use of the clinical override is said to “decrease the LS/CMI’s predictive validity for the
prediction of both new arrests and new convictions” (Guay and Parent, 2018) it is
encouraging that the frequency of override within a Scottish custodial population is extremely
low.
Of the 4865 full LS/CMI assessments, an override had been applied in 27 cases35 (0.6%). A
further 33 cases were awaiting a decision on approval for an override by a team
leader/manager.
Figure 6 illustrates the nature of changes in risk/need level once an override had been
applied:
Figure 6. Direction and degree of override applied
The majority of overrides resulted in changing the risk/need level by one category. There
were 6 cases (21% of all approved overrides) where the risk/need level was overridden by
more than one category. To change a risk/need category by more than one level is
considerable. This is not to say that this degree of override is wrong, but it might be worth a
closer look to ascertain why such a large change was required.
As the system report does not contain free text, the reasons for applying overrides cannot be
ascertained for the purposes of this report. 34
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J.L. & Wormith, S.J. (2004) LS/CMI User’s Manual. Multi-Health Systems. Toronto. 35
There were two cases where an override had been applied but the risk/need level had not changed it is suggested this could be due to a historical decision to override that has subsequently been changed however the system report has held onto the previous decision. This situation is unlikely to arise following the release of Version 5.1 of the system in 2018 whereby assessments ‘lock down’ and cannot be amended once completed.
30
Assessment conclusions
After completing Section 6 of the LS/CMI to produce a risk/needs profile the assessor
analyses the pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood of offending. A decision is then
made on the most appropriate course of action after reviewing the analysis of offending
against the criteria for risk of serious harm36.
There are two options for custodial based assessors to consider:
1. There may or may not be indicators of risk of harm to others. The risk – whether
historical or current – can be managed through the Enhanced Integrated Case
Management process.
2. There are significant current indicators of harm that merit a fuller assessment,
following which referral to Risk Management Team and formulation of a Risk
Management Strategy may be required.
From the 4865 assessments where a decision was recorded at the Evaluation and
Conclusion stage, the distributions were as follows:
Figure 7. Distribution of decisions at Evaluation and Conclusion stage
The following section focuses on those cases where a fuller risk of serious harm assessment
had been started.
36
Current definition of risk of serious harm taken from Standards and Guidelines for Risk Management (RMA, 2016).
566
(11%)
Merit fuller
risk of serious harm
assessment
4299
(88%)
Managed through
Enhanced Integrated
Case Management
process
31
Fuller risk of serious harm assessment In the ‘Analysis of Offending: Risk of Serious Harm’ stage of the assessment process, the
assessor further analyses the pattern, nature and seriousness of offending to determine
whether the case meets the criteria for risk of serious harm (Section 9.3.3)37.
There are 804 cases where a decision on whether the case met the criteria for risk of serious
harm was made. Of those, 695 cases (86%) were judged to have met the criteria and 106
cases did not (14%).
Following this, assessors consider likelihood and imminence and conclude on an evaluation
of the risk of serious harm (Section 9.3.6). The risk of serious harm levels38 are:
Very high: there is an imminent risk of serious harm. The potential event is more likely than not to happen imminently and the impact would be serious;
High: there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. The potential event could happen at any time, and the impact would be serious;
Medium: there are identifiable indicators of serious harm. The offender has the potential to cause such harm, but is unlikely to do so unless there is a change in circumstances, for example failure to take medication, loss of accommodation, relationship breakdown, drug or alcohol misuse; and
Low: current evidence does not indicate likelihood of causing serious harm.
From the 695 cases identified as posing a risk of serious harm a conclusion had been
reached for 655 (94%) of those. One case was found with two decisions recorded regarding
imminence39. This case was deemed to be an outlier and was removed, leaving 654 cases
with a single imminence decision recorded. A judgement on imminence had still to be
reached within the remaining 40 cases (6% of those deemed to pose a risk of serious harm).
37
Data for this report taken from Version 3.2 of the LS/CMI system. Developments within Version 5 resulted in the fuller Risk of Serious Harm assessment content being relocated from Section 9 into Section 7. In addition the current decision point at 9.3.3 has been removed and replaced with new considerations at the conclusion of the fuller Risk of Serious Harm assessment. 38
See MAPPA Guidance (2016). Available from https://beta.gov.scot/publications/multi-agency-public-protection-arrangements-mappa-national-guidance-2016/ 39
Early versions of the LS/CMI system allowed assessors to record multiple responses when concluding on imminence. This was rectified with the release of Version 3 of the system in 2014.
32
Of the 654 cases, the assessed levels of risk of serious harm were distributed as follows:
Figure 8. Risk of Serious Harm Levels
When the distribution of risk of serious harm levels was explored further to consider the
types of violent offending individuals have been involved in (sexually violent, physically
violent or both) the following was found:
Type of violent offending (from Section 2.2: History of perpetration)
RoSH Levels Sexual violence
only Physical
violence only Both sexual &
physical violence
No sexual or physical violence
Very High 4% (n=4) 75% (n=75) 21% (n=21) 0% (n=0)
High 7% (n=11) 76% (n=126) 16% (n=26) 1% (n=2)
Medium 2% (n=8) 81% (n=281) 16% (n=55) 0% (n=0)
Low 4% (n=2) 67% (n=30) 27% (n=12) 2% (n=1)
Across the levels, the largest proportion of those assessed as presenting a risk of serious
harm have been involved in physically violent behaviour only. The next largest proportion
has a history of involvement in both physical and sexual violence.
Despite being assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm, two individuals appear to
have no history of involvement in physical or sexual violence although involvement in
organised crime and/ or gangs were identified within each of these individual’s history of
perpetration.
101
15%
Very High
155
26%
High
100
15%
Very High
165
25%
High
344
53%
Medium
45
7%
Low
33
Using data to inform practice and service planning
The accumulation of substantial datasets allows for the practitioner to understand the
risk/need profile of a case relative to a group. Data available now allows the production of
‘norms’ for a Scottish population which allows comparison with other jurisdictions and
between groups. Table 20 shows the norms for LS/CMI section 1 scores in a custodial
setting for males and females in Scotland40.
Table 20. Cumulative Frequency for Section 1 Score by gender
40
It should be noted that norms for the Scottish population in a community setting for males and females have been previously generated.
Towards blue
indicates
higher
risk/needs
Towards white
indicates lower
risk/needs
34
Conclusion The scope of this paper only allowed for the presentation of broad analyses; however, the
utility of the data can be maximised by exploring sections 1-5 in relation to specific groups of
interest for policy and planning purposes. For example, understanding the needs of women
in prison, the challenges posed to services by the needs of older prisoners, the intervention
targets for serious violent and sexual offenders, to name a few. The last of these was
recently explored by the unpublished RMA paper entitled “Practitioners’ evaluations in cases
where a risk of serious harm assessment was undertaken” which was provided to the
LS/CMI working group.
Future Research/Exploration
Some examples of the value of such exploration are as follows: while it may be unsurprising
that 53% of those over 60 have health problems, 18% a physical disability and 10%
cognitive impairments, this data enables quantification of needs within the older longer term
prisoner population.
Also, considering the treatment needs of 974 cases who have a history of perpetrating
sexual assault and/or non-sexual physical assault may help to quantify the demand for and
inform the development of interventions. Of those cases, 64% are assessed as high or very
high risk/needs and 93% as presenting a risk of serious harm (medium to very high). Some
treatment needs that are identified frequently are poor compliance (49%), problem solving
(73%) and anger management (64%) skills deficits, 51% are intimidating/controlling, 18%
have poor inter-personal skills. Further analysis of this would be useful to explore different
groups within this to refine interventions, for example those with and without anger
management problems, and those with or without intimidating/controlling behaviour.
35
Recommendations A number of recommendations have been identified to support those who have a quality assurance role and/ or have a role in managing practitioners within a custodial setting:
Reason for assessment The most frequently recorded reason for assessment was for Integrated Case Management
purposes which would be expected for a prison based population where statutory prisoners
are managed through the enhanced ICM process. However, in 2% of cases (n=105) the
reason for assessment was not recorded which is unexpected given the reason for
assessment field is mandatory within the LS/CMI system.
Recommendation 1: Services establish a method for ensuring the reason for assessment
is recorded in all cases.
Section 1: General Risk/Need Factors The “ever imprisoned upon conviction” and “some criminal acquaintances” items would be
expected to be scored for all who are serving a custodial sentence, yet these have been
scored in 91% and 97% of assessments respectively, rather than the expected 100%. This
may indicate some misunderstanding of the guidance for scoring these particular items.
Recommendation 2: Services ensure assessors are aware of and follow the guidance for
scoring these items.
Strengths There were a small number of cases where there appears to have been some misunderstanding of the scoring rules relating to the identification of client strengths.
Recommendation 3: Services monitor how assessors evaluate the presence of strengths.
Overrides The majority of overrides resulted in changing the risk/need level by one category. There were 6 cases (21% of all approved overrides) where the risk/need level was overridden by more than one category. To change a risk/need category by more than one level is considerable. This is not to say that this degree of override is wrong, but it might be worth a closer look to ascertain why such a large change was required.
Recommendation 4: Services monitor the level of adjustment being applied in cases
where an override is being approved to ensure the degree of override is warranted.
36