Assessment with young offenders: the Asset tool Dr Kerry Baker Centre For Criminology, University of Oxford Youth Justice Board
Purpose of assessment..the matter of trying to make sense of a particular person s problems or behaviour. (Davies, 1993: 156) The aim of assessment should be to guide action. (Reder et al, 1993: 83)
Rationale for Asset Comprehensiveness Consistency (in multi-disciplinary teams) Quality Openness and transparency Resource allocation Develop evidence base
Overview of Asset Designed for the 10-17 age range Identify key risk and protective factors Provide a score to predict reconviction Measure change over time Assess risk of serious harm to others and young person s own vulnerability Highlight issues for further assessment
Key Asset components Core Asset profile Risk of serious harm form What do YOU think? self assessment Intervention plan, risk management plan & vulnerability management plan http://www.yjb.gov.uk
Asset design Research base Individual factors Psychosocial factors Population wide factors Resilience/protective factors Theoretical perspectives Life course / developmental perspectives Interactional theory Consultation and piloting
Components of Asset Core Profile Motivation Attitudes to offending Thinking Behaviour Perception Self/others Offending Career Offending behaviour Family & personal Neighbourhood Education Employment Living Arrangements Emotional /Mental Health Physical health Substance Use Lifestyle
Content of core Asset profile Key factual/demographic information Static factors Analysis of offending behaviour 12 domains Dynamic factors Positive factors Indicators of vulnerability and risk of serious harm to others
Using evidence boxes To explain why some answers are don t know and explain what action will be taken to obtain required information. To explain how problems identified do or don t link with offending behaviour To explain the basis for scores and show how judgements were reached
Not associated at all Slight, occasional, limited, indirect Moderate but definite Quite a strongly associated, normally a direct link, relevant to most types / occasions of offending Very strongly associated. Clear direct link, dominant factor
Basis for scoring Were these factors linked to past offending - are they more or less relevant now? Direct or indirect link? Always relevant to offending or only on certain occasions? Is the effect on offending behaviour immediate or over a longer period? Will it lead to offending by itself or only in association?
Completing Asset What problems have been identified? How are these linked to the young person s offending behaviour (evidence)? What is the strength of the link with offending behaviour (rating)?
Features of Asset takes into account static (unchangeable) factors and dynamic factors which help identify targets for intervention includes offending-related and welfare needs identifies problems and positive factors combines numeric element with emphasis on evidence for decisions
Using Asset in practice Not an interview schedule Engaging with young people and their parents/carers is critical Gathering and verifying information from a range of sources Analysing information Explaining basis for decisions Not limited to index offence assessment should look at wide range of behaviour, circumstances, needs and risks
Asset Research Studies Two key studies (2002, 2005) Predictive validity Inter-rater reliability testing Score change over time Design of possible revised scores http://www.yjb.gov.uk
Data integrity/completion Section Evidence Rating Substance Use 70% 91% Living Arrangements 61% 93% Lifestyle 73% 93% Neighbourhood 53% 92% Mental Health 53% 91% Thinking/behaviour 72% 92%
Summary of research findings Reasonably good predictive accuracy for reconviction Less good at prediction of very serious offences Increased scores over time are associated with increased likelihood and frequency of reconviction Reasonably good consistency of use
Accuracy across the score range Score band 12 months 24 months Low 26.6% 36% Low- Medium 33.8% 52% Medium 49.2% 66% Medium-high 64.6% 76% High 75.8% 91%
Inter-rater reliability Tested through use of video case studies Reasonably good level of agreement between raters But, one case (female offender, vulnerable, But, one case (female offender, vulnerable, welfare needs) highlighted differences between practitioners ratings and normative scores
Implementation (1) Mixed views about Asset although over time practitioners seem to accept it as useful Role of operational managers is critical Difficulties in getting people to review and update assessments Assessments often contain analysis rather than description need to improve staff skills
Implementation (2) Improved quality and range of information collected Greater awareness of need to explain reasons behind judgements But still not good on analysis. Need to update the research Policy and practice have changed so the tool needs to adapt also.
Possible future developments Less deficit focused and more on positive factors / desistance New sections of questions on relevant topics (gangs, serious violence etc) More participation by young people/ families Additional research on predictive accuracy Better alignment with assessments in other agencies More user-friendly IT versions.
Transferring use of Asset The Youth Justice Board owns the copyright of Asset Happy to discuss local variations No fees attached to using it Need agreement that: Changes will be agreed with Youth Justice Board Not to sell on / profit from the adapted tool.