The Cognitive Centre Foundation-UK

Click News headings below for expanded articles
	ROBERT ROSS INTRODUCES THE NEW 'REASONING & REHABILITATION' PROGRAMME
	THE INTRODUCTION AND PILOT STUDY OF THE YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE/CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTRY IN SCOTLAND
	TOM AITKEN JOINS THE COGNITIVE CENTRE
	LOW COST AIRFARES FROM CARDIFF AND BRISTOL
	ROBERT ROSS IN THE UK
	DEVELOPMENTS IN GLASGOW
	SUCCESS FOR THE AIRBORNE INITIATIVE
	TROTTER'S TOUR
	ROBIN IN TASMANIA
	BOOK REVIEW: WHERE IS SHE TONIGHT - WOMEN, STREET PROSTITUTION AND HOMELESSNESS IN GLASGOW

ROBERT ROSS INTRODUCES THE NEW 'REASONING & REHABILITATION' PROGRAMME

Professor Robert Ross and his colleague Jim Hilborn. Director of the Cognitive Centre of Estonia have developed a new programme to replace his original 'Reasoning and Rehabilitation'. Named 'Reasoning & Rehabilitation 2' (R&R2) the programme is designed to be far less time consuming, much more economical and far less demanding of staff and participants than current versions of R&R. Moreover, R&R2 is based on much more recent research, research on both the cognitive and the emotional factors associated with antisocial behaviour, and research on effective techniques for improving prosocial competence.

THE INTRODUCTION AND PILOT STUDY OF THE YOUTH INTRODUCTION AND PILOT STUDY OF THE YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE / CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY IN SCOTLAND

By Yvonne McLchlan

Yvonne McLachlan

This web-page aims to provide information to current and prospective users of the YLS/CMI about the process of implementation currently underway in a number of Scottish authorities. It is largely anecdotal and some may say indulgent. But so what?

The Scottish Executive's 'Youth Crime Review' has heralded a time of rapid change in the field of youth justice in Scotland, with local authorities and voluntary organisations instituting a variety of measures to meet the challenges and expectations of the policy. It has also been influential in the life and work of CCF - due to the understandable emphasis in the document on the assessment of risk and needs, great demand was generated in 2001 for the introduction of the YLS. Since 1995 many authorities have committed themselves to the use of LSI-R and naturally requested that the youth version of that tool be made available in Scotland in order to promote a seamless method of assessment between the fields of criminal justice and youth justice.

The YLS however, is in an earlier stage of development and negotiation for its use required commitment on our part and on the part of users, that we undertake a study of its use and usefulness in Scotland.

The agencies who have to date, implemented the YLS have all agreed to participate in this study by collecting data on the young people assessed by the tool. This data when available will facilitate a number of research studies. Primarily the study is intended to explore the predictive ability of the YLS in Scotland by comparing risk scores to outcomes measures - further referrals for offence related grounds or further convictions, and further referrals for non-offence related grounds e.g. school attendance. However, the data will further enhance our knowledge about risk and need in relation to young people in Scotland by allowing an examination of levels of risk of reoffending, and by providing a profile of criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs. The potential of this data to inform service developments and guide strategy has been reflected in the willingness of agencies to co-operate in this endeavour.

Since January 2001, 17 Scottish local authorities and one voluntary organisation 'Includem' have begun to implement the YLS as a potential means of assessing risk and need, enhancing effective interventions and case management, and promoting evaluation and service planning. The extent to which they achieve these potential benefits is dependent on the management commitment to implementation and systematic use of the tool. Therefore, as with
LSI-R, we are offering those agencies involved in the implementation of YLS pre- and post-training support and consultation on the process. This support can take place as and when is convenient to agencies, but also is provided through 3-monthly Focus Group meetings which are convened to allow service managers to discuss implementation issues as well as the range of issues related to the youth crime agenda.

It is with great interest that I have been involved in this project since January 2001. Having practised in the fields of working with young people and criminal justice for 20 years, I have been acutely aware of the challenges inherent in formulating an approach to young people who offend. With varying degrees of success individuals, agencies and authorities have attempted to bridge the gap between two systems. The fact that a major political initiative has resulted is possibly a refection of both the commitment of such people to the cause of young people and to the major difficulties they confronted in attempting to achieve the quality of service delivery that they sought. The launch of a political initiative is both overdue and necessary.

From my now frequent contact through training events and meetings with practitioners and managers around the country, a number of themes are emerging.

Risk assessment inevitably and rightly begs the question of what to do with the assessed risk. Agencies embarking on the process of a youth justice strategy are to be commended for recognising the centrality of risk assessment in the process of effective intervention, and yet it is an uncomfortable and vulnerable position for staff to be able to assess risk without having the resources to manage that risk.

And resources appear to be a key issue in this field. Children and Families teams in Scotland are under phenomenal pressure almost without exception, the demands of workloads and staff vacancies often precluding the opportunity to prioritise less 'critical' cases. And yet practitioners are not unaware of the importance of early intervention and prevention, simply at a loss as to how to accommodate these concepts in caseloads dominated by pressing care and protection concerns.

An understandable tendency is to 'refer on' cases where offending is a primary concern. A number of authorities have invested in programmes and projects geared to working with high-risk offenders. With subsequent use of the YLS a number of such projects have reported that they are now finding that many referrals do not reach their criteria of high-risk. This is not surprising as it is generally acknowledged that serious and persistent young offenders are a small percentage of the young people receiving a service from social work departments. This raises the question of whether a 'high-risk' youngster is one who is likely to continue offending frequently, or also one with the potential to develop a pattern of offending frequently. The latter may be a young person whose vulnerability is more apparent at present than their offending behaviour. While both may be assessed at high risk of reoffending, quite distinct methods of intervention may be indicated. Nevertheless it is vital that an appropriate response is developed for the latter group, as young people's behaviour can escalate rapidly in terms of risk, seriousness and consequences. It is also necessary to develop appropriate and effective responses to young people whose offending is less entrenched, or whose needs are less critical, those who may be assessed as being of moderate risk of further offending. Practitioners are particularly conscious of the hazards of inappropriate interventions that may indeed escalate risk. A distinctive intervention is also required for those young people who present low risk of reoffending but whose first offence has been serious. Confusion is evident on occasions about how to respond in such cases in order to avert the possibility of a custodial or secure outcome. A lack of alternatives may lead to such young people being dealt with in resources geared to high risk offenders. Recognising the interplay of static and dynamic risk factors, as well as considering the seriousness of the offences committed, is crucial in distinguishing between groups of young people and in responding appropriately. Section 2 of the YLS provides a simple risk/need profile which focuses practitioners on just this issue.

It is however no mean task for authorities to then develop the range of interventions needed. The table below offers a possible range of interventions taking account of the likelihood of re-offending and the degree of harm posed by the behaviour, recognising that certain behaviours pose a risk of harm to the young person as well as to the victim. It is evident that services ranging from minimal intervention, early intervention, appropriate and focussed modules, to intensive programmes and risk management plans are indicated.

Collation of data for the pilot study will assist service providers in identifying the prevalence of the various groups of young people, allocating resources and developing interventions accordingly.

Despite, the considerable funding provided by the Scottish Executive to promote just such developments, there is concern among those in the field that real progress will be hindered unless a resolution to the current staffing crisis is achieved. The critical and pressured environment within which Children and Families teams are currently operating, must inevitably lead to issues of stress and morale. I am, however, continually inspired by the widespread enthusiasm, empathy and commitment which Scottish social workers display in relation to young people.

Risk of Re-offending / Harm	Low Risk of Re-offending	Moderate Risk of Re-offending	High Risk of Re-offending
Low level of harm (Minor nuisance offences)	NFA at IAR stage if possible. Minimal voluntary intervention to ameliorate impact and address needs if any	No antisocial attitudes? Address need areas, increase resilence by promoting protective factors. Avoid escalating risk if antisocial peer group evident. Problem solving and prosocial approach. Do not include in mod-high risk groups.Antisocial attitudes? As high with less intensity.	Intensive programme addressing behaviour and attitude change. Tackle need areas in systems, promote protective factors. Possibly combining group work, one-one and family work, with common prosocial approach.
Moderate level of harm (More serious property offences or those with potential for harm. Risk-taking re substance, sex, RTA )	NFA / minimal intervention to ameliorate impact and address needs if any.Less likely to be achieved at IAR stage and SBR likely outlining low risk and evidencing protective factors.	As above including specific module in relation to offences in question. For example, driving, aggression, fire-raising.Attend to harm to self issues as appropriate	As above including specific module in relation to offences in question. For example, driving, aggression, fire-raising.Attend to harm to self issues as appropriate.Endeavour to stabilize to remain in community
High level of harm (Overtly violent towards self or others, or sexually aggressive)	Probability that intervention will not be avoided. Unlikely to be offence-focussed and should endeavour to minimize impact on young person i.e community rather than secure, secure rather than prison, alerting decision makers to risk of last two.Offer risk management - monitoring changes in rIsk and protective factors.	Comprehensive risk management plan	Comprehensive risk management plan

One aspect of this project that I am finding rewarding and invaluable is the necessity that each training course involves a detailed case study of a young person currently known to a participant. This is a fascinating endeavour in each course. There are always people eager to offer their cases despite the awareness that they will spend a day being 'interrogated' by their peers, indeed often there is competition about who's case will be used. Without exception this fades away into an experience which each time reinforces what I love about social work and social workers. Two or three times a week I meet a group of people who will happily spend their day committed to,
exclusively focussed on understanding the risk and needs of one young person. For me one of the most valuable parts of this process is gathering an increasing number of stories about young people and their experiences.

In each of these case studies a picture emerges of an individual and the hazards they confront. We all think of the many young people we know, our own children, ourselves. And so it should be. Questions are asked, challenges are raised until we commonly grasp the concept of the various risk factors. Generally participants welcome the opportunity to apply an evidence-based structure to often complex situations, while I find it fascinating to experience the 'structure' and the research brought to life by real examples.

Not so long ago in Falkirk, a case study was given of a young boy assessed to be of high-moderate risk. There was low risk in the domains of family and education, but high risk in peers and attitudes. This boy had in the previous 3 months started to mix with a delinquent crowd, and his offending had escalated quickly and dramatically. This case study demonstrated very clearly the link between antisocial peers, antisocial attitudes and reoffending, and brought to life for all involved the strength of those risk factors. Considering the risk profile in this case left us to ponder whether the strengths in the family and education domains would overpower the influence of peers and the development of antisocial attitudes, or whether the peers and attitudes would prevail and begin to erode the strengths at home and at school. It certainly gave a strong indication of the primary targets for change.

The YLS explicitly encourages us to look out for strength factors. A considerable literature exists about protective factors and their contribution to the development of resilience. Opinion is divided still about the extent to which protective factors mitigate risk, and while they may not as yet contribute to risk assessment, their value as a focus for intervention is worth highlighting. Research on effective intervention, such as that conducted by Don Andrews and Craig Dowden for example, clearly demonstrates the merits of focussing on the major risk factors as primary targets for change. This, 'the needs principle' is one of the main tenets of the 'What Works?' research. However, how to bring about change in such a needs area is another question. Chris Trotter's research demonstrates that effective workers use a problem-solving approach that emphasises the client's point of view and starts with practical achievable goals. Again case studies have illuminated these points.

Recently a social worker described a young person whose peers and attitudes were evidently high risk factors. However, this social worker also observed the young boy's interest and skill in art, encouraged and rewarded this, and directed him towards an art class. The boy began to attend the class, and therefore his leisure time and peer associations changed quite quickly, and over a period of time his attitudes also began to change. Risk of reoffending would be impacted upon. Thus, demonstrating the relevance and the relationship between several bodies of research in one young man's life.

A powerful example was recently given by a case study from a criminal justice social worker from Argyll and Bute. During this training session the young man's situation was examined as it is now and as it was a year ago. A year ago he amassed a risk score of 30 (high risk) and today his risk score is 6 (low and largely derived from static factors or past behaviour). The significant factor instigating change in this young man's life over the past year was an emerging interest in his future, ambition for a career in the army, and a realisation that his achievement of this goal depended on a change in his behaviour. This impacted on family, education, leisure, peers and substance use. This story was modestly told by a social worker who attributed the change exclusively to the young man's emerging resilience traits. Interestingly, this reduction in risk has occurred without the young man's goal being attained as yet. Without doubt the social worker's has!

Such case studies and participants grasping the theoretical rationale of the tool dominate Day 1 of training. Day 2, which takes place some 6-8 weeks later, requires participants to demonstrate that they have made responsible use of the tool. Unfortunately this necessitates considerable 'homework'.

In recent weeks I have been more than impressed by the creative and imaginative use that front-line practitioners have made of the tool. Recently, a NCH worker from Inverclyde and a Joint Support worker from South Ayrshire returned to their respective Day 2s and gave an account of their efforts to use the tool to assess the appropriateness and focus in working with a particular group of young people. This is an advanced use of the tool which services may easily accomplish after considerable data collection. It was inspiring to see practitioners aspire to such use independently.

For some unfathomable reason, the 'What Works?' research has for the last 10 years remained largely in the domain of criminal justice despite the fact that some of the contributing research involved studies of young people. Some commentators express concern about the readiness of child-care personnel to embrace the youth justice agenda due to their lack of exposure to this research. On occasions I have witnessed attitudes and responses that support this concern - and generally this is related to the resource issue with social workers wondering how to meet this agenda in the face of already demanding workloads.

On other occasions I hear ' why did nobody tell us this before?'

TOM AITKEN JOINS THE COGNITIVE CENTRE

Tom Aitken

Tom Aitken joined the Cognitive Centre on October 1st. For the previous nine years he had been a senior manager in Fife Criminal Justice Services where he had strategic and operational responsibility for 'alternative to custody' social work provision in Fife. Prior to that he had worked in a range of different settings in social work in the UK in both adult and youth services. He has also worked in the private sector and most strikingly for a year as a Lifeguard at the Glenogle Baths, Edinburgh. This was in his younger days.

Tom brings a vast range of knowledge and expertise to the company. We look forward to working with him.

LOW COST AIRFARES FROM CARDIFF AND BRISTOL

Cognitive Centre customers in the UK stand to benefit from the introduction of low cost airfares from Cardiff and Bristol. As a result of bmibaby starting to operate from Cardiff, and GO/EasyJet from Bristol, the cost of flights have reduced dramatically. Previously a return flight to Glasgow from Bristol could cost in excess of £400. Now return flights can cost less than £70.00.

ROBERT ROSS IN THE UK

Bob Ross & Jim Hilborn (Cognitive Centre, Estonia) in Cardiff

'Professor Robert Ross, author of the "Reasoning &
Rehabilitation" programme has continues to visit these shores as often as possible. In addition to his visit last May he recently returned to Scotland, his birthplace, where he ran a training course for staff at the State Hospital, Carstairs before travelling to Cardiff to meet members of the Cognitive Centre and finalise the development of his new R & R 2 short programme for young offenders (see 'Programmimg - New Developments').

The visit to Carstairs Hospital was one of a continuing series of visits arranged by the Cognitive Centre Foundation to enable organizations to receive training in R&R by Dr.Ross. These visits also enable organizations to have Dr. Ross conduct one-day seminars on the development of effective treatment of antisocial behaviour in adolescents.

DEVELOPMENTS IN GLASGOW

A long term project developed with Glasgow City Council is coming to fruition following the completion of a training programme to introduce effective practice properties and cognitive skills techniques to all members of staff in the Children and Family/Youth Justice sector.

Further specific training in relation to Clinical Supervision will enable staff and managers to implement a revised version of Offending Is Not The Only Choice in a number of settings. There is a version for males and females and for community and residential applications. There will be 5 sites and specific events were tailored to meet the unique situation at Kerelaw School.

All staff, somewhere in the region of 150, will have a call back day where updates of the pilots will take place. An evaluation framework is in place and a management team to oversee the project meets regularly to deal with any arising issues.

Completing the overall strategy is a training process in the use of the LSI - Youth Risk/Need Assessment and all staff delivering programmes will also be trained in the use of pro-social modelling, reinforcement problem solving and feedback techniques.

SUCCESS FOR THE AIRBORNE INITIATIVE

On a recent visit to the Airborne Initiative in Scotland Robin Morris-Jones learned that the Scottish Executive Research Department has completed an evaluation of the Airborne Initiative (Scotland) Programme which is based on the Cognitive Centre's "Offending is Not The Only Choice".

The research showed that reconviction rates were significantly lower among those who completed Airborne than among programme non-completers and among comparison group cases who received alternative disposals. Overall it appeared that participating in Airborne reduced reconviction rates by 21 per cent in comparison with rates for offenders who received alternative disposals. Airborne participants were slower to reconvict and participation in Airborne significantly increased an offender's likelihood of remaining free of further convictions. The differences in reconviction may have partly reflected differences in the characteristics and motivation of Airborne completers but could not be solely attributable to these factors.
The majority of interviewed trainees who had completed Airborne indicated that they had not been reconvicted and all but one considered it unlikely that they would re-offend. Most former participants suggested that taking part in the Airborne programme had had a positive influence upon their attitudes and behaviour.

Social workers and sentencers believed that successful participation in the Airborne programme provided trainees with a considerable sense of achievement and enhanced their self-esteem.

Robin's impression was that whilst Offending is Not The Only Choice formed the core of the overall programme, the consistent positive reinforcement offered and enthusiasm demonstrated by all members of staff must be a critical factor.

TROTTER'S TOUR AGAIN

Chris Trotter

The autumn of 2002 saw Chris Trotter returning to this country to introduce the Family Problem Solving Programme in partnership with the Cognitive Centre. Chris worked with the Jersey Probation Service and the Central and North Wales Youth Offending Team.

Both organisations will be involved in an ongoing evaluation of the approach which will be carried out by the Cognitive Centre and co-ordinated by Chris.

ROBIN IN TASMANIA

During late March Robin travelled to Tasmania to undertake a number of training courses for Tasmania Corrections. This included a five day residential course with staff to enable them to deliver the Cognitive Centre's new "Offending is Not the Only Choice - Revised" cognitive behavioural programme. This was followed by a further course for five of the group who trained as clinical supervisors in order to prepare the organisation for the delivery of four pilot programmes in various centres throughout Tasmania.

In addition to the training Robin met with the whole staff group, senior managers and representatives from the Judiciary, Prison Service, Department of Justice and other key organisations.

Left to right - Sandi Tradjos, State Manager, Community Corrections, Robin, Richard Bingham Secretary of Justice, Department of Justice and Industrial Relations

Robin was impressed with preparation and organisation that went on prior to his arrival. This ensured that staff were well prepared for the training and that the organisation itself was geared up to address the implementation issues. Tasmania Corrections had established a programme committee where the State Manager, Sandi Tradjos, was involved and one of their remits was to keep the whole staff group informed. One of the results of this was a highly enthusiastic, motivated and committed group of staff and management. This lead to highly successful and enjoyable training events, and an earlier start to the pilot phase than was originally planned.

Robin with Peter Hoult, Deputy Secretary, Department of Justice and Industrial Relations

Staff from Tasmania Corrections during the training course

Book Review:
Where is she tonight? - Women, Street Prostitution and Homelessness In Glasgow
Written by Audrey Stewart

Where is she tonight Glasgow is a city of over 600,00 people of whom 42% live in deprived areas and has the highest unemployment rate in Scotland with 44% of households living on Income Support. Homelessness presentations in Glasgow have averaged 11,000 a year over the ` four years including approximately 1655 women. These are just some of the figures that Audrey Stewart, a research worker at the BASE 75 drop-in centre for women involved in prostitution in Glasgow uses to introduce her impressive report into the homelessness and street prostitution in Glasgow.

The report uses the words of the women themselves, and they provide powerful testimony to Audrey's assertion that :

".....prostitution and homelessness in Glasgow could not be studied in isolation. That is, that they are part of a cycle, a combination of factors; forces, events emotions and behaviours which interact with and impact on each other. Factors such as poverty, unemployment, addiction, involvement in the criminal justice system, violence, abuse, bereavement, illness and family/relationship breakdown can combine to result in homelessness and/or prostitution."

The womens' accounts tell stories of personal tragedy and despair, but also show that with support, advice and access to healthcare and childcare at critical times the women can begin to address and overcome their problems.

The report advocates a holistic approach to the provision of services for women involved in prostitution in Glasgow and offers a range of recommendations for practitioner, managers and legislators.

The report is a 'must read' for those involved in the provision of services for the homeless and can be obtained from BASE 75 telephone number 0141 2043712, fax number 0141 221 3498 or email: audreybase75@aol.com

	About us
	New and in Development
	Assessment
	Programmes
	Prosocial Modelling
	Training Courses and Conferences
	Contact Us
	Newsletter