asset training: rationale, design and use stewart simpson centre for youth and criminal justice...

Asset Training: Rationale,

Design and UseStewart Simpson

Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ)

Aims of the day • To introduce practitioners to the ASSET Risk of Re-

offending assessment tool.• To outline the history of ASSET’s use and

development in Scotland.• To examine some of the theory which underpins

risk, risk assessment and the ASSET tool.• To enable practitioners to develop skills in the use

of ASSET in a robust and defensible fashion in their work with young people involved in offending behaviour.

What is risk?

• ‘Risk is the potential for an adverse event to lead to a negative outcome, and by assessing risk we seek to estimate how likely the event is to occur and the nature and seriousness of its impact. In this context the ‘adverse event’ is offending behaviour and the negative outcome is the degree and nature of harm that it causes.’ (RMA, 2011)

What is risk assessment?

• Assessments of children and young people need to recognise that offending behaviour is a response to unmet need and should take place within the context of a detailed assessment of social, developmental and psychological needs as set out in the GIRFEC approach and Child and Adult Protection contexts (SG, 2014a: 6 & 7).

• Risk assessment in the youth justice context is a process that encompasses three steps:

• Identification – Identify the key risk and protective factors that are present in the case.

• Analysis – Move beyond merely describing facts towards an understanding of a young person’s situation and the reasons for his/her behaviour.

• Evaluation – Inform decision-making and planning in a tangible and measurable fashion.

Risk Assessment explained…

Risk Assessment Approaches: The

Generations Game• First generation – Clinical – “Gut instinct”.• Second Generation – Actuarial.• Third Generation – Actuarial including

dynamic risk factors.• Fourth Generation – Informing case

management.

Uns

truc

ture

d Cl

inic

al

Judg

emen

t

Actu

aria

l(P

redi

ction

)

Stru

ctur

edCl

inic

al

Judg

emen

t

Predicting the future: A rich tradition

• Astrology• Palm-reading• Tarot cards• Crystal Balls• Phrenology• Tea-leaves• Minority Report and the Pre-Cogs?

The criminal career

OnsetUnderstanding the Origins

DesistanceTackling Social

Inclusion

PersistenceAn active focus for intervention

The criminal career• Onset • Persistence - An active focus for intervention.• Desistance • The vast majority of young people engage in offending/anti-

social behaviour during adolescence.• The majority of young people do not become “life course

persistent” offenders.• Early onset chronic, Early onset desisters, Later onset decliners –

Typologies from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (ESYTC) (SG, 2014b).

• Maturation, social bonds and natural burnout help to explain the path to desistance for many.

Why bother?

• “The way in which Asset is presented to practitioners has a significant impact on the way in which it is used. Where practitioners are confused or misinformed about its purpose they tend to be suspicious of its relevance.” (Roberts et. al, 2001)

ASSET History I

•Commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for England and Wales in 1998.•Devised and piloted by University of Oxford in 1999.•Used by all Youth Offending Teams in England & Wales from April 2000.

ASSET History II• Agreement reached between the Youth Justice Board (YJB)

for England and Wales and the former Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre (CJSWDC).

• Asset Users’ Group formed and the Scottish version of ASSET was developed by the group and introduced in 2001.

• The Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ) is now the license holder.

• Training of trainers previously delivered by Dr. Kerry Baker (University of Oxford), one of the original developers of the ASSET tool.

ASSET design: key issues

• ASSET was designed as a practical tool for use in working with young people who offend.

• Youth justice practitioners have been consulted and involved throughout the design and development process.

• ASSET is based on theory and research evidence (Baker et. al, 2002, YJB, 2003).

• It can be used for research and management purposes but this is not its primary focus.

Design Objectives• Appropriate for young people involved in offending behaviour

aged 10-17.• For use at different stages in YJ system.• Provide a “score” to forecast reconviction.• Identify key offending related factors.• Measure change in a young person over time.• Assess risk of serious harm to self and others.• Highlight issues for further assessment.• Take account of positive factors.• Incorporate young people’s views into the assessment process.

Design Process

• Review of research literature.• Advisory Panel.• Piloting.• Revisions and completions of guidance

notes.

Rationale for ASSET: Individual Practice

• Comprehensive coverage of risk factors.• Quality of assessments.• Tracking change over time.• ‘Defensible decisions’.

Rationale for Asset: Aggregate Benefits

• Greater consistency.• Openness and accountability.• Resource allocation.• Develop evidence base.

ASSET+

• Work is currently underway to introduce an updated ASSET risk assessment tool named ASSET+

• Underpinned by principles of Structured Professional Judgement (SPJ).

• Seeks to incorporate some of the new developments in the risk literature over the last 15 years.

Criminological Brainstorm

• What are the key factors which contribute to offending behaviour by children and young people?

• Emphasis on CONTRIBUTE as opposed to CAUSE

• What about protective factors?

Scepticism about value of Asset

• We cover all these issues anyway – so what’s the point of doing an ASSET?

• Workload – we haven’t got the time to do ASSET properly?

• It’s unhelpful because it labels young people e.g. “high risk”.

• Young people have complex lives – this can’t be reduced to a number.

ASSET and GIRFECNational Risk Framework•Aims to support and assist practitioners to; identify, assess,analyse and manage risk

Similar to that of Asset:•Information gathering;•Analysis;•Risk management

But ASSET is designed for the specific purpose of evaluating risk of re-offending. NRF was designed to encompass broader welfare and CP issues.

ASSET and SHANARRIWellbeing Indicators ASSET Core Profile

Safe Living arrangements

Healthy Substance usePhysical HealthEmotional Mental Health

Achieving Education, training and employment

Nurtured Family and personal relationshipsNeighbourhood

Active Education, training and employmentLifestyle

ASSET and SHANARRIWellbeing Indicators ASSET Core Profile

Responsible Thinking and behaviourAttitudes to offendingMotivation to change

Respected Perception of self and others

Included Lifestyle

RATED• RATED is the Risk Assessment Tools

Evaluation Directory (RATED), a resource produced by the Risk Management Authority (RMA, 2013a).

• Browse RATED online to review the different risk assessment tools available and used in Scotland and elsewhere.

• ASSET is identified in RATED as a validated tool for assessing risk of re-offending in young people.

National Youth Justice Practice Guidance

• The Appendix to the National Youth Justice Practice Guidance contains National Standards.

• The National Standards (Objective 1: Improving the quality of the youth justice process) indicate that the content of any report to a Children’s Hearing or Court in which offending behaviour is a pertinent/core issue, ought to be informed by an appropriate risk assessment tool, either ASSET of YLS/CMI.

Key resource

• Framework for Risk Assessment, Management and Evaluation (FRAME) for Local Authorities and partners: For Children and Young People under 18 (Scottish Government, 2014a).

• This document contains key information concerning the assessment and management of risk in relation to children and young people which is developmentally sensitive and defensible.

5 FRAME Standards

• Standard 1: Risk Assessment• Standard 2: Planning and Responding to

Change• Standard 3: Risk Management Measures• Standard 4: Partnership Working• Standard 5: Quality Assurance (RMA, 2006;

2013b)

Process of Assessment and Planning

Assessment

Planning

Action

Review

Closure

Best practice principles: SPJ

Background

Formulation

Formulation Scenarios

Document

Document

Management

Management

Risk Factors

Risk Factors

Management

Management

Bottom Line

• Across time, place and culture, adults have difficulty understanding and predicting the behaviour of young people.

• Risk assessments are not predictive – they forecast.

• To limit the debate as being about their predictive validity misses the question of utility.

• A richer conceptualisation of risk assessment is needed which comes in the form of Structured Professional Judgement.

Balancing Risks and Needs: The assessor’s

challenge

Public Protection “Best Interests”

Proportionality

Offending & Care History

LivingArrange-

ments

Neigh-bourhood

Family &personal

EducationEmploy-

ment

Motivation

Attitudes tooffending

ThinkingBehaviour

Perceptionself /

others

Emotional/MentalHealth Physical

health

Lifestyle

SubstanceUse

Persistent Offending Behaviour

Offending Career

LivingArrange-

ments

Neigh-bourhood

Family &personal

EducationEmploy-

ment

Motivation

Attitudes tooffending

ThinkingBehaviour

Perceptionself /

others

Emotional/MentalHealth Physical

health

Lifestyle

SubstanceUse

Persistent Offending behaviour

Stage 1- Obtaining & Recording information

Important factors to remember

Family and Personal•Bereavement and LossSubstance Use•New Psychoactive Substances (NPS)Physical Health•Speech, Language and Communication NeedsEmotional and Mental Health•Trauma •Attachment

Offending Career

LivingArrange-

ments

Neigh-bourhood

Family &personal

EducationEmploy-

ment

Motivation

Attitudes tooffending

ThinkingBehaviour

Perceptionself /

others

Emotional/MentalHealth Physical

health

Lifestyle

SubstanceUse

Persistent Offending behaviour

Evidence of link tooffending

Linked areas of need

Stage 2 – Analysing

the information

Offending Career

LivingArrange-

ments

Neigh-bourhood

Family &personal

EducationEmploy-

ment

Motivation

Attitudes tooffending

ThinkingBehaviour

Perceptionself /

others

Emotional/MentalHealth Physical

health

Lifestyle

SubstanceUse

Persistent Offending behaviour

TARGETs

PRIORITIES

Evidence of link tooffending

Statistical dataIndicators of level of risk

Linked areas of need

Stage 3 – Planning

www.cycj.org.uk developing, supporting & understanding youth justice

The Purpose of CARM

• To provide a consistent national framework for the assessment, management and evaluation of young people aged 12-18 years ,who pose a serious risk of harm to others

• Guidance sets out agreement nationally to adopt the term Care and Risk Management

• Referrals to CARM will likely be young people involved in violent or harmful sexual behaviour, although referrals for other concerning behaviours may also be appropriate

• Risk Management meetings should be multi-agency and local processes should be “signed off” by local child protection committees.

www.cycj.org.uk developing, supporting & understanding youth justice

What should a CARM meeting consider?

• highlight to appropriate agencies those who present a risk of serious harm to others;

• ensure relevant risk assessments are undertaken;• share information in a multi-agency forum about

risk of harm;• clarify the nature of the harm and to whom; • undertake scenario planning;• identify safety factors which can reduce risk;• Ensure robust, but age and stage appropriate risk

management plans are in place.

www.cycj.org.uk developing, supporting & understanding youth justice

Making Decisions under

CARM• Decision making should be grounded with evidence

based practice and where a risk assessment has been undertaken, the meeting should scrutinise this in terms of the content and if further information is required.

• The meeting should consider risks associated with the young person, their family and the community

• Additionally, what levels of supervision or monitoring are required and whether community disclosure is required.

Appropriate use of ASSET

• Asset needs to be used carefully with good inter personal skills as relationships with young people and their carers can be damaged if Asset is used as a pro-forma.

• Asset should not be used as an interview schedule.

The Therapeutic The Therapeutic RelationshipRelationship

• Empathic

• Respectful

• Warm/Friendly

• Sincere/Genuine

• Rewarding

• Encouraging

• Confident

• Interested

• Deals with frustration & difficulties

• Spends appropriate time on issues

• Non –confrontational challenge

• Appropriately self-disclosing

• Appropriate use of humour

• Communicates clearly

• Encourages active participation

• Encourages pro-social attitudes

• Asks open ended-questions

W. L. Marshall; G. A. Serran; Y. M. Fernandez; R. Mulloy; R. E. Mann; D. Thornton (2003)Therapist characteristics in the treatment of sexual offenders: Journal of Sexual Aggression , Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 25 – 30

42

Intervention and Planning with Young People who Sexually Harm 2011

ASSET – The tool

• Takes into account static (unchangeable) factors and dynamic factors which help identify targets for intervention.

• Includes offending related and welfare factors.• Identifies problems and positive factors.• Combines numeric element with emphasis on

evidence for decisions.• Is a tool to use NOT a substitute for

professional judgement.

Kemshall’s caution

• There are potential dangers to workers “inferring greater certainty about reoffending calculations than actually exists” but also the opposite situation in which they respond “to uncertainty of prediction by becoming more cautious”(Kemshall, 1996).

Not associated at all

Slight, occasional, limited, indirect

Moderate but definite

Quite a strongly associated, normallya direct link, relevant to most types /occasions of offending

Very strongly associated. Clear direct link, dominant factor

Ratings: Key considerations

• 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?

Further assessment tools

• Mini ASSET • What do you think?• ASSET Risk of Serious Harm• The Mental Health Screening Questionnaire• The Mental Health Comprehensive

Assessment

Validity and Reliability

• Predictive accuracy as good as – or better than – other similar tools.

• Predictive accuracy maintained for female, ethnic minority and younger offenders.

• Reasonably good inter-rater reliability.

Accuracy across the score range

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-2 3-4 5-7 8-9 10-12 13-16 17-19 20-24 25-30 31 p lus

% r

eco

nv

icte

d

ASSET score decile

Score Bands

Score band Percent Reconvicte

d

Low (0-4) 26.6%

Low- Medium (5-9)

33.8%

Medium (10-16) 49.2%

Medium-high (17-24)

64.6%

High (25-48) 75.8%

Some Key Points• The “evidence boxes” are crucial.• The assessment is only as good as the information

and analysis at a point in time.• Asset has continued to develop – influenced by

practitioners.• Use the guidance material whether experienced

or new to the tool.• Implement appropriate local protocols and

procedures (e.g. Care and Risk Management procedures) to complement ASSET use.

Theory to practice

• Review case study and chronology.• Work in pairs/small groups on completion of

an ASSET assessment relating to the case example.

• Refer to ASSET Guidance throughout.• Group plenary – Working through the

exercise together to review understanding and learning.

References• Andrews, D., Guzzo, L. Raynor, P., Rowe, R., Rettinger, J., Brews, A. and Wormith, S. (2012) Are the Major Risk/Need

Factors Predictive of Both Female and Male Reoffending? A Test With the Eight Domains of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1): 113-133

• Baker, K., Jones, S., Roberts, C. and Merrington, S. (2002) Validity and Reliability of Asset: Findings from the Frist Two Years of Its Use, London: YJB

• Calder, M. McKinnon, M. and Sneddon, R. (2012) National Risk Framework to Support the Assessment of Children and Young People, http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0040/00408604.pdf

• Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ) (2014) National Youth Justice Practice Guidance, http://www.cycj.org.uk/resources/national-youth-justice-practice-guidance-2

• Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ) (2015) Info Sheet 33 Legal doesn’t mean safe: new drugs, new challenges, http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Info-sheet-33.pdf

• Daniel, B. and Wassell, S. (2002) Assessing and Promoting Resilience in Vulnerable Children, volumes 1, 2 and 3, London and Philadelphia, Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.

• Green, J. (2014) Speech, Language and Communication Needs in Youth Justice Glasgow: CYCJ

• Kemshall H (1996) Reviewing risk: a review of research on the assessment and management of risk and dangerousness, implications for policy and practice in the Probation Service, London: Home Office

• McAra, L. and McVie, S. (2010) “Youth Crime and Justice: Key Messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime”, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10: 211-230

References• Ofsted (2011) Edging away from care – how services successfully prevent young people entering care,

Manchester: Ofsted

• Ofsted (2011) Edging away from care – how services successfully prevent young people entering care, Manchester: Ofsted

• Risk Management Authority (RMA) (2006) Standards and Guidelines for Risk Assessment, Paisely: RMA

• RMA (2011) Framework for Risk Assessment, Management and Evaluation, Paisley: RMA

• RMA (2013a) Risk Assessment Tools Evaluation Directory (RATED), http://rated.rmascotland.gov.uk

• RMA (2013b) Standards and Guidelines for Risk Management, Paisley: RMA

• Roberts, C., Baker, K., Merrington, S and Jones, S (2001) The validity and reliability of ASSET: interim report to the Youth Justice Board, Oxford: University of Oxford

• Scottish Government (2008) Getting It Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/238985/0065813.pdf

• Scottish Government (SG) (2014a) Framework for Risk Assessment, Management and Evaluation for Local Authorities and partners: For Children and Young People under 18, Edinburgh: SG

• SG (2014b) What Works to Reduce Crime? A Summary of the Evidence, Edinburgh: SG

References

• Smith, M.; Gallagher, M,; Wosu, W.; Stewart, J.; Cree, V.; Hunter, S.; Evans, S.; Montgomery, C.; Holiday, S.; and, Wilkinson, H. (2011) “Engaging with Involuntary Service Users in Social Work: Findings from a Knowledge Exchange Project”, British Journal of Social Work, 1-18

• Trotter (2006) Working with involuntary clients, 2nd edition, London: sage

• Vaswani, N. (2014) “The Ripples of Death: Exploring the Bereavement Experiences and Mental Health of Young Men in Custody”, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 53(4), 341-359

• Ward, T. and Maruna, S. (2007) Rehabilitation, Oxford: Routledge

• Wright, S. and Liddle, M. (2014) Young Offenders and Trauma: Experience and Impact a Practitioners Guide, http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/resources/publications/young-offenders-trauma-experience-impact-practitioners-guide/

• YJB (2003) Asset: Research Summary, London: YJB