Lost your Password?
Click Here
Don't have an account?
Register Here
Welcome to the EuroPris Knowledge Management System. The table below shows questions and responses from European National Agencies. Select a question for more information or use the filters on the left to narrow down questions based on Agency or Category.
Want to ask a question? Please read our guidance information found here: Submitting a KMS Question
← Back Search KMSThis content is only available to registered members of EuroPris.
Introduction: In an attempt to improve risk evaluation practice in the prison system in The Netherlands, recently a collaborative research and implementation project was initiated by the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency and the Netherlands Institute of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (NIFP). Goal of this project is to develop a risk screening tool which gives an initial indication of the risk level of a detainee with a dynamic risk-strength focused tool following the structured professional judgment approach. The risk screener will be implemented nationally across all Dutch prisons in order to facilitate the periodic evaluation of risk for all adult detainees. The goal is for the screener to include static as well as dynamic factors, and risk as well as protective factors. The risk screener is intended as a ‘quick and dirty’ easy to use method for periodic risk analysis and will be something explicitly different from comprehensive risk assessment. The aim of the screener will be to inform consideration of the necessity to carry out more in-depth comprehensive risk assessment, offer a source of information to assist decision-making regarding liberties of detainees and offer a means of documenting change over time. In order to prevent re-inventing the wheel, we are performing literature searches and inquiries regarding the existence of risk screening tools for this specific purpose. In this respect we have a few questions we would like to ask you regarding risk screening in the prison setting in your country.
yes
If yes, please explain.(a)What tool is being used?; Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) b)For what purpose is this tool applied?; To determine the level of risk of re-offending and to identify risks and needs. c)How often is the tool re-assed?; biyearly d)Does the tool contain static as well as dynamic factors? Yes e)Does the tool contain risk as well as protective factors?It is more oriented towards the identification of needs; f)Is the tool used for all the detainees or for a specific group only? It is mostly used for sentenced inmates
If not, please explain.N/A
yes
If yes, please explain.a) The screening tool is based in SIR-R1vol2 –method and customized to Finnish population. Risk assessed does not give individual, but group –level risk of reoffending. b)The screening tool is applied to assess general risk of reoffending. It is used to ensure identifying the (male) convicts who are in the need of in-depth risk- and needs assessment in the beginning of the sentence. c)The tool has not been re-assessed d)The tool is actuaric and contains solely static factors e)The tool does contain 14 items, out of 6 can scored either negative (-) or positive (+), 4 positive or 0 and 4 negative or 0 f) The screening tool is applied to assess only convicted clients who are sentenced to imprisonment.
If not, please explain.-
yes
If yes, please explain.Historically, a number of different risk assessment tools have been used by Criminal Justice Agencies to identify the risk of re-offending/risk of harm. The introduction of LS/CMI is intended to standardise the approach to offender risk/needs assessment and management planning and will allow for a consistent method of assessment and a common language of risk and needs to be used in both the community and custody setting. The use of LS/CMI is supported by the introduction of a new IT system, which enables sharing of information across local authorities and SPS. As such as an offender moves between authorities and in and out of custody, risk and needs assessments (together with the case management planning information and progress records) can be shared, so that successive pieces of risk and needs assessment and management are based on and provide a continuation from what has gone before. As working together and sharing the assessment and management of cases is a key feature of working with offenders, an important aspect of this new tool is that there can only be one live LS/CMI record for each offender. This means that PBSW and CBSW will need to work more closely together in sharing their assessments. While the offender is in prison the LS/CMI is the responsibility of PBSW. The LS/CMI is then transferred to the CBSW on release. In the event of recall, the LS/CMI record is transferred back to PBSW when the recall has been confirmed by the Parole Board. LS/CMI is a replacement for tools like RAGF 1 to 4 and LSIR, and provides the baseline method for risk and needs assessment for all offenders. It does not replace or preclude the use of other specialist assessment tools and methods, e.g. SA07 and RM2000(s) which will continue to be used with sex offenders where appropriate. In such instances LS/CMI should be used to compliment specialist assessment tools. OVERVIEW OF LS/CMI Essentially, LS/CMI is an offending risk/ needs assessment and case management tool designed to share and record information in a standardised format which will be consistent across all of Scotland. The tool is essentially broken down into a number of parts with specific outcomes resulting from their application. The initial parts of the tool enable the assessor to determine the risks and needs relating to the offender’s offending; wider risks and needs that impact on the offender’s likelihood to respond, as well as any particular strengths. This is the information that forms the basis of case management planning. If a risk of serious harm is identified then a more involved assessment takes place. The later parts of the tool enable the assessor to consider what case management planning is required to help the individual address their needs whilst also enabling the assessor to consider the range of actions required to case manage any anticipated risk of serious harm. LS/CMI is broken down into 4 key elements outlined below: 1) Offender History – background on offending history; rationale for assessment and the information and source that form part of the assessment evidence. Reason for assessment General criminal history and offence information Current and prior offences Disposals 2) Initial Analysis of Offending – short form assessment used to inform Court Reports prior to disposal (intended only for use in the Community setting) LSiR:SV – initial 8 item risk/ needs tool Analysis of Offending – Pattern; Nature; Seriousness and Likelihood of Offending Evaluation and Conclusion 3) LS/CMI Section 1 to 8 – fuller risk and needs assessment (intended for use in Community and Custodial settings as appropriate) Analysis of Criminogenic Risk and Need Factors – Including: Criminal History; Education/Employment; Family/Marital; Leisure/Recreation; Companions; Alcohol/Drug Problems; Procriminal Attitude/Orientation; Anti Social Pattern Analysis of Wider Risk and Needs Factors – Including: Personal Problems with Criminogenic Potential; History of Perpetration (Sexual and Non Sexual Assault and Other Forms of Violence); History of Imprisonment (Past and Current); Other Issues (Social, Health, Mental Health); Responsivity Considerations Risk/Needs Profile – Providing a risk and needs score for the offender; an overall risk needs band; and where appropriate the ability to override the level (NB Overrides are subject to Line Manager Approval) Analysis of Offending – Including: Pattern; Nature; Seriousness and Likelihood of Offending Evaluation and Conclusions – Including Summary of Findings; and Level of Intervention Required 4) Case Management Planning Sections 9 to 11 – The case management planning content in LS/CMI is provided to demonstrate a causal link and defensibility between the Risk and Needs Assessment and the resultant Case Management Plan that is put in place. Section 9 Case Management Plan – Definition of key actions and timescales to address prioritised Criminogenic Needs; Non Criminogenic Needs; Responsivity Issues; and Strengths Section 10 Progress Record – Tracking progress on those elements identified for action in section 9 Section 11 Discharge – Confirmation of the discharge of the offender record, either because an order; custody; or license period has concluded OR the offender is transferring (from one local authority to another or from a custodial to non custodial setting to continue sentence or license condition) Section 9 Risk of Serious Harm – Where a risk of serious harm assessment is identified for an offender, during Sections 1 to 8, section 9 also includes significant extra content on risk of serious harm assessment and where needed development of a Risk Management Plan PROCESS FOR USE OF LS/CMI All risk assessments using LS/CMI will be conducted by social work staff. However, as the information contained within LS/CMI will be highly relevant to the existing ICM process it is appropriate that SPS ICM staff should have an awareness of the tool and should have access to read the information contained within the LSCMI system that will be used to inform the Integrated Case Management of individual prisoners. The use and application of the tool will be the responsibility of Prison Based Social Work (PBSW) and as such they will have sole responsibility for creating and updating LS/CMI. So, whilst relevant SPS staff will have access to LS/CMI it will be on a read only basis with no input facility. To avoid duplication and twin tracking/monitoring using 2 systems i.e. LS/CMI and PR2 while the offender is in the custodial setting, the LS/CMI will be used to assess and inform case management plans and risk management plans (RMP) when a risk of serious harm is indicated. PR2 will continue to be the live system used to track, monitor and record updates of actions which will continue to be updated by ICM staff. However, when the offender is near to his/her Parole qualifying dates and/or progression is being considered which means the offender may have access to the community, the LS/CMI will be completed in full by PBSW staff including progress reporting (Section 10) and where needed RMP (9.4-9.6) until the offender is released into the community and the LS/CMI record is transferred to CBSW. The following key steps are envisaged for use of LS/CMI in the Custodial and Throughcare context: 1) LS/CMI will be applied to all offenders subject to statutory post release supervision (Enhanced ICM) 2) Where an LS/CMI is required, PBSW will either continue on from where CBSW have left off (where an LS/CMI record exists within the community) or where no community LS/CMI exists create a new LS/CMI record from the beginning. PBSW will request any existing community LS/CMI from the local authority which will be received by PBSW via secure e-mail. 3) PBSW will complete/update the LS/CMI Offender History, Fuller risk and needs assessment (Section 1 to 8) and a draft case management plan (sections 9.2), in preparation for the pre-case conference meeting between the social worker and the ICM Case Coordinator for all cases. Risk of serious harm assessment (section 9.3) will also be completed where indicated. The social worker will record in section 9.2.6 that the case management plan is for information purposes only as the plan is taken forward via the multi-agency ICM process and monitored by SPS. 4) The pre-case conference meeting will focus on the LSCMI risk/needs assessment and the draft case management plan (section 9.2). The social worker will also discuss the risk of serious harm assessment where required. In the vast majority of instances the risk management plan will not be completed by PBSW until the prisoner reaches parole/progression stage in his/her sentence as the risk planning/management within the custodial sentence is the primary role for SPS. Subject to agreement between PBSW and SPS there maybe some limited instances, where the case requires complex management arrangements, when a RMP will be required to be documented using LS/CMI prior to parole/progression and as part of management within custody. Moreover, professional judgement will need to be exercised to identify and agree these instances, as well as using the current escalation processes already in place within SPS for referral to RMT. However the following is indicative of when an RMP will need to be completed as part of management within Custody: Where a multi-agency approach is required to manage a specific risk out with the custodial setting, i.e. cannot be managed by staff within the Prison. e.g. the offender is able to control or put at risk vulnerable individuals in the community. The output from the pre-case conference meeting will form the basis of discussion at the ICM case conference. 5) The LS/CMI assessment and draft case management plan will be used for discussion at the Case Conference to refine and agree the case management plan which will be recorded on the ICM ‘Record of Outcomes in case conference ‘document. As outlined in the ICM guidance manual the prisoner will be present during discussions regarding his/her case management plan. However when the prisoner reaches the point in sentence where the risk management plan is being discussed during the ICM case conference, the Chair of the ICM may decide that the prisoner should be excluded when victim safety planning, intelligence and surveillance is discussed. 6) The agreed outcomes of the ICM Case Conference will then be used to update the PR2 record by the ICM case co-ordinator. 7) As per current processes, PR2 will remain the live system for ongoing tracking and update of the agreed plan. 8) At subsequent annual ICM case conferences, discussions will focus on the ICM ‘Record of Outcomes’. The ICM case co-ordinator will update PR2 following each meeting. If a significant event is presented at the ICM which would impact on the risk assessment PBSW will update the LS/CMI case management plan. LS/CMI reassessment is triggered by the ICM which immediately preceded the pre-release ICM or the parole qualifying date. 9) When progression is being considered (e.g. transfer to a national top end, the open estate or prior to release) LS/CMI will be triggered by the ICM taking place prior to the prisoner reaching qualification for consideration of progress to community access (unless an assessment has been done within the last 12 months and there has not been a significant event*). The updated assessment, case management plan and risk management plan where indicated will be used as the basis for RMT discussion. 10) Where an enhanced ICM offender is to be considered for release, the following process is envisaged for CBSW Throughcare: Home Leave: SPS request Home Leave Report from CBSW on the agreed template. PBSW will liaise with and e-mail CBSW the up-to-date LS/CMI to inform the Home Leave report. Parole Reports: PBSW e-mail CBSW the up-to-date LS/CMI assessment, case management plan and risk management plan where indicated on a word document so that CBSW can contribute to the assessment and planning while preparing their report. The Pre-Release Case Conference is used as the basis for completing the LS/CMI record from a PBSW perspective. At the point of release the LS/CMI record is discharged (LS/CMI Section 11) from the SPS LS/CMI IT system and then sent on to the relevant local authority for the record to be taken on by CBSW. NB Reassessment using LS/CMI – the LS/CMI method allows for reassessment of offenders where necessary. It is envisaged that reassessments within the custodial setting will predominantly be performed at transition points only. However per usage in the community setting, the option to reassess can/should be considered where a significant event occurs. A significant event is defined as an occurrence that could alter the management pathway of an offender (for prisoners this might be, for example, a relapse into substance misuse)
If not, please explain.yes
If yes, please explain.Yes. A standardised Governor’s Committal Interview is conducted with all prisoners on committal and transfer to all prisons. The Governor’s Committal Interview collects data for the purposes of conducting a cell-share/cell placement risk assessment by the Governor at the point of committal. The Governor’s Committal Interview is also used to inform the need for any priority referrals to the prison-based multi-disciplinary services based on the prisoner presentation at the time of conducting the interview. The standardised interview is recorded on a centralised electronic platform which collects information identifying prisoner risks and needs using information divulged by the prisoner, the offence records, and historic information stored from previous periods of incarceration. The centralised platform allows for the real-time sharing of risk and need information identified in the course of the committal interview with all relevant staff involved in the management of the prisoner. The Governor’s Committal Interview is a set of standard questions posed to the prisoner on committal with certain actions associated for follow-up based on whether the prisoner answers in the affirmative or negative. The centralised electronic platform also displays all pertinent risk information from previous periods of incarceration, including prisoner behaviour during prior period in custody, previous offences, and known linked prisoners for reference by the Governor adjudicating upon the most appropriate cell placement for the prisoner on committal or transfer to their prison. (b) For what purpose is this tool applied?; The Governor’s Committal Interview is used to ascertain immediate prisoner risk and needs at the point of committal in order to inform the professional judgement approach to cell allocation and the requirement or otherwise of early intervention from the prison-based multi-disciplinary team. (c)How often is the tool re-assessed?; The Governor’s Committal Interview is used for all newly committed prisoners and all transferred prisoners. d)Does the tool contain static as well as dynamic factors?; Yes. The standardised interview and central information platform collects information regarding previous offences and current circumstances such as healthcare issues, and disputes with other prisoners. (e)Does the tool contain risk as well as protective factors?; No. (f)Is the tool used for all the detainees or for a specific group only? No. The Governor’s Committal Interview is used for all prisoners 3. If not, please explain: a)Why do you think risk screening tools are not in use in the prison setting?; b)Do you feel implementing a risk screening tool could be useful in the prison setting in your country and why?; c)Are there other methods currently in use to evaluate the risk level of a detainee?
If not, please explain.PLEASE NOTE In addition to assessments made at committal stage, the full list of Risk Assessments used by our Psychology Service has been sent in a separate email to EUROPRIS.
This content is only available to registered members of EuroPris.
yes
If yes, please explain.a) Currently the Lithuanian penitentiary institutions have 5 risk screening tools: • OASys – Offender Assessment System, designed to assess how likely an offender is to be re-convicted, link the assessment to the supervision or sentence plan, measure change during the period of supervision / sentence. • HCR-20 – violence risk assessment scheme. • PCL:SV – Hare Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version, which is an effective screener for psychopathic personality disorders, that can be used with general, forensic, or psychiatric populations. • SVR-20 – characterizing an individual's risk of committing sexual violence. • SARA – spousal assault risk assessment. b) OASys as the main tool is used to decipher static and dynamic criminogenic needs, which serves as basis for creating personal sentence plan. Based on this tool a pre-sentence report for conditional release is made. c) In case of a short-term sentence (up to 3 years) risk screening is carried out twice (upon arrival to prison and before conditional release). In case of a longer sentence risk screening is carried out once a year. In both cases changes in an inmate’s behavior and in his/her personal life are recorded on a regular basis provided they have influence upon an inmate’s risk. d) OASys covers both static and dynamic factors. e) OASys allows the assessment of 12 risk factors (static and dynamic) as well as protective factors reducing the risk of re-offending. f) to all inmates
If not, please explain.yes
If yes, please explain.If yes, please explain: (a)What tool is being used?; We use the RNR-A (originally, RBM-B), for risk, needs and responsivity assessment in the Swedish Prison & Probation Service (SPPS). The RNR-A is used with all clients both in prison and probation as a part of the sentence planning process. The RNR is a bit more comprehensive than a traditional screening tool. In most cases, RNR-A is expected to be a sufficient basis for assessing a client's risk and needs. Nevertheless there is a need for using structured professionell judgement instruments, as HCR-20 and SARA, in complex and difficult cases in the pre-sentence process and in the sentence planning. Also, some treatment program includes an internal risk and need assessment with a comprehensive approach. The RNR-A is developed by the SPPS and is based on the principles of risk, need and responsivity from the research of Don Andrews and James Bonta. The RNR-A is an empirically-based, 87-item standardized screening tool. A computerized decision-aid suggests re-offending risks (low-medium-high) in general criminality and violence, intimate partner violence and sexual offending. The RNR-A also provides a computerized summary of client needs and guides manual assessment of client responsivity to available treatments and interventions. A study of the predictive validity of the RNR-A (2019) shows that the instrument accurately can differentiate between clients with low, medium, and high recidivism risk. The study is so far only available in Swedish (https://www.kriminalvarden.se/om-kriminalvarden/publikationer/forskningsrapporter/utvarderingav-den-prediktiva-validiteten-for-rbm-b/ ) but an English version will come later on. The summary of the study follows: “Since 2014, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service has gradually introduced the proprietary instrument RNR-A (Risk, Needs and Responsivity Assessment) to form the basis of structured client case management plans. Recidivism risk is assessed to determine the intensity of rehabilitative services with high risk offenders prioritized for intensive services while minimal or no services should be offered to low risk offenders. The RNR-A assesses also the offender’s crime-driving factors (i.e., criminogenic needs) as well as individual learning styles and abilities (i.e., responsivity) to inform treatment decisions. The instrument has its theoretical foundation in Bonta and Andrews’ (2017) conceptualization of moderate-to-strong risk factors for criminal behavior, called the "Central Eight". The development of RNR-A has been part of a wide-scale effort to implement the Risk-Need-Responsivity model with the overall aim of strengthening evidence-based practice in the Swedish Prison and Probation Service. The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive accuracy of the RNR-A’s risk levels (low, medium, high) with regards to clients’ recidivism rates. The study is the first to evaluate RNR-A's predictive validity. A total of 2,446 clients were followed for 24 months with the target outcome defined as any reconviction resulting in a prison or probation sentence. Reconviction rates were measured after 12 and 24 months. The RNR-A’s risk measure based on criminal history registry data (part A) and the risk measure with client interview data added (part A + B) were used in the analyses. Both measures categorize risk levels as low, medium or high. The predictive validity of RNR-A was tested for subgroups of men and women, younger (up to 24 years) and older (25 years and older) age groups, as well as violent and non-violent offenders. Overall, the results support a differentiation of the risk levels in RNR-A with regards to reconviction rates. Clients with a high recidivism risk were reconvicted more often and more quickly compared to clients with medium or low risk. Clients with medium recidivism risk, in turn, were reconvicted more often and more quickly than low risk clients. The results were largely consistent for the two risk measures (part A and part A + B). The RNR-A's predictive validity was not affected by the clients' sex, indicating that the instrument can be used to assess recidivism risks for both men and women. When comparing client age groups, the risk measures showed greater predictive validity for older clients (25 years and older) at 12 months for both risk measures and at 24 months (part A only) follow-up. Further, the risk measure based on criminal history (part A) showed greater predictive accuracy at 24 months follow-up for non-violent compared to violent offenders. The results of this study support the use of RNR-A to accurately differentiate between clients with low, medium, and high recidivism risk. As such, clients with a heightened recidivism risk – and, thus, a need for intensive rehabilitative services – can be identified to enable effective treatment and supervision with the aim of risk mitigation, while unwarranted treatment of low risk clients can be avoided. Through a medium or high risk categorization, RNR-A identified over 90 % of those clients who were subsequently reconvicted of a crime. However, only 32 % of all medium and high risk offenders were reconvicted. It is common for screening instruments to effectively identify recidivists at the expense of also classifying many non-recidivists in high risk categories, presenting various dilemmas. However, RNR-A provides an accurate assessment of low recidivism risk, given that over 90 % of low risk clients were not reconvicted. Risk assessment using the RNR-A enables the effective use of the risk principle based solely on criminal history data (part A); in addition, valid needs and responsivity assessments are needed also to comprehensively apply the Risk-Need-Responsivity model.” b)For what purpose is this tool applied?; The RNR-A is used within the sentence planning process and the purpose is to assess static and dynamic risk factors, needs and responsivity in a simple but yet structured way with the objective of well targeted client interventions to reduce the risk of reoffending. c)How often is the tool re-assed? As often as needed to keep the risk assessment up to date. As soon as there is new information about the client that can affect the risk assessment the assessor can make a new assessment. Such information can be a new conviction or further knowledge about the client's procriminal attitudes or antisocial personality pattern. d)Does the tool contain static as well as dynamic factors?; Yes, it does. The instrument consists of a Part A and a Part B. Part A consists of 15 items, mostly static, and is collected from records of the National Police and SPPS files and contains the persons history of antisocial behaviors. Part B consists of 72 interview-based items regarding dynamic risk factor domains such as antisocial personality pattern and procriminal attitudes. Part B also contains a few static factors. e)Does the tool contain risk as well as protective factors? The RNR-A contains risk factors only. f)Is the tool used for all the detainees or for a specific group only? The RNR-A is used with almost all clients both in prison and probation.
If not, please explain.-
yes
If yes, please explain.Within the framework of Latvian sentence execution Risk and needs assessment tool is used since 1st April 2012 when amendments to the Sentence Execution Code of Latvia came into force that stated that within two months after placing a convicted person in a deprivation of liberty institution in order to commence the serving of the sentence the head of the institution shall ensure an assessment of the risks and needs of the convicted person. A re-assessment of the risks and needs of the convicted person shall be performed not less than once a year throughout the term of serving the sentence. The resocialisation plan of the convicted person shall be amended according to the results of the assessment of the risks and needs. With the opening of the Olaine prison Addiction centre in 2016, where there is implemented addiction reduction programme for 200 inmates, there was developed an in-depth risk and needs assessment tool for inmates suffering from addiction. Risk and needs assessment tool is developed and approved by the Director General of the Latvian Prison Administration. The Risk and needs assessment of the convicted person determines: 1) the resocialisation needs of the convicted person, the degree of risk of anti-social behaviour and committing a repeated criminal offence in the deprivation of liberty institution; 2) the most appropriate social behaviour correction or social rehabilitation measures and other measures to be implemented during execution of the sentence and to be included in the resocialisation plan of the convicted person. Risks and needs of the convicted person shall be performed not less than once a year. Yes, the tool uses static as well as dynamic factors, as well as risk and protective factors. This tool is used for work with all inmates.
If not, please explain.N/A
no
If yes, please explain. If not, please explain.In Belgian Prison Service, no risk screening is performed by means of a risk screening tool, with the exception of the STATIC-99 (if this instrument is considered as a ‘screening tool’) as part of a more comprehensive risk assessment (see next question). In cases where there is no comprehensive assessment conducted, the ‘central eight’ factors of the work of Andrews and Bonta are assessed (see question 3). Cf. answer : STATIC-99 is used as part of a more comprehensive risk assessment with sex offenders in the context of conditional release (and other modes of the execution of sentences). This instrument contains only static risk factors and is (therefore) only scored once during detention. Protective factors are assessed with the Saprof in these cases. In the context of conditional release (and other modes of the execution of sentences), a comprehensive risk assessment with specialised instruments is conducted with some categories of offenders, depending on the nature of the crime(s) (e.g. SVR-20 with sex offenders and VERA-2R in case of terrorism) and/or severity of the offences (e.g. HCR-20 or SARA in case of ‘severe’ violence resp. partner violence). in the other cases, the ‘central eight’ criminogenetic needs of Andrews and Bonta are assessed. This is not done via an instrument as such (like the LSI) for several reasons (one of them that an instrument like the LSI is not examined, standardized and validated in our prison population); is it done in a structured way though (so this resembles a lot the SPJ-approach).
This content is only available to registered members of EuroPris.
yes
If yes, please explain.Yes, there are a variety of screening tools completed within the custodial environment for various purposes. a) Risk of serious harm (RoSH) screening is contained within the Offender Assessment System (OASys). This tool integrates risk screening and risk assessment. The risk screening will initially be undertaken when the individual is convicted or sentenced in court. This includes a general risk screening via professional assessment based on details of previous offending and the circumstances of the index offence and the offender. This is additionally informed through the use of the risk of serious recidivism calculator (RSR); an actuarial tool that takes account of static and dynamic factors to provide an estimate of the likelihood of the offender committing offences likely to result in serious harm. This assessment is then available to the prison for those cases received in custody following sentence. The RoSH screening informs the extent of further assessment, using OASys, based on a set of criteria including further actuarial tools, offence and sentence type. Further tools are also completed to screen other more specific risks to identify and manage risks to the individual, staff and other incarcerated offenders. Risk assessments include; cell sharing risk assessment (CSRA), which addresses risks the individual presents to other prisoners, a Challenge Support and Intervention Plan (CSIP) providing a framework to identify and manage a small cohort of offenders whom present with a raised risk of harming to others through the use of violence, Assessment Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT assessment) which is designed to identify, manage and support offenders who present a raised risk of harm to themselves. Individual establishments are responsible for local arrangements to ensure compliance with national public protection policies to ensure the wider public are protected from the offender who is incarcerated in areas such as safeguarding children, vulnerable adults, and past/current/potential future victims through restrictions on contact with members of the public. b) The purpose of the RoSH screening is to identify factors requiring further assessment and subsequently identify a plan to manage the risk presented by the offender both in custody and following release, to plan activities to support rehabilitation and safe reintegration. c) The RoSH screening is only re-assessed when there is a significant event that might change the outcome; i.e. further offending, poor behaviour in custody, release or a major change in personal circumstances. d) The RoSH screening contains mostly static factors based on evidenced behaviours, however it also requires assessors to consider presenting dynamic factors in relation to risk to children and risk to self for example. e) The RoSH screening only contains risk factors, however the more detailed assessment contains both risk and protective factors. More specific custody tools including CSIP and ACCT provide a balance of both risk and protective factors, with an offender centred approach around supporting individuals to manage and reduce associated risks. f) The tools used depend on the initial case details and circumstances. All cases will receive a RoSH screening and assessment at some point during the journey through custody. For a specific cohort of offenders with short sentences, and offences of limited seriousness this may only be the risk assessment at court. For others this will be formalised into an OASys assessment in custody alongside other more specific risk assessments where there are indications of risks to other prisoners or to self.
If not, please explain.n/a