Asset Training: Rationale, Design and Use

1
Asset Training Rationale, Design and Use

• Stewart Simpson
• Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ)

2
Aims of the day

• To introduce practitioners to the ASSET Risk of
  Re-offending assessment tool.
• To outline the history of ASSETs 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.

3
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)

4
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 persons
  situation and the reasons for his/her behaviour.
• Evaluation Inform decision-making and planning
  in a tangible and measurable fashion.

5
Risk Assessment explained
6
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.

7
Actuarial (Prediction)
Structured Clinical Judgement
Unstructured Clinical Judgement
8
Predicting the future A rich tradition

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

9
The criminal career
Persistence An active focus for intervention
Onset Understanding the Origins
Desistance Tackling Social Inclusion
10
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.

11
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)

12
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.

13
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.

14
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.

15
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 peoples views into the
  assessment process.

16
Design Process

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

17
Rationale for ASSET Individual Practice

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

18
Rationale for Asset Aggregate Benefits

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

19
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.

20
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?

21
Scepticism about value of Asset

• We cover all these issues anyway so whats the
  point of doing an ASSET?
• Workload we havent got the time to do ASSET
  properly?
• Its unhelpful because it labels young people
  e.g. high risk.
• Young people have complex lives this cant be
  reduced to a number.

22
ASSET and GIRFEC

• National 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.

23
ASSET and SHANARRI
Wellbeing Indicators ASSET Core
Profile Safe Living arrangements Healthy S
ubstance use Physical Health Emotional
Mental Health Achieving Education, training
and employment Nurtured Family and personal
relationships Neighbourhood Active Educati
on, training and employment Lifestyle
24
ASSET and SHANARRI
Wellbeing Indicators ASSET Core
Profile Responsible Thinking and
behaviour Attitudes to offending Motivatio
n to change Respected Perception of self and
others Included Lifestyle
25
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.

26
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
  Childrens 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.

27
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.

28
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)

29
Process of Assessment and Planning
30
Best practice principles SPJ
Scenarios
Formulation
Risk Factors
Management
Management
Document
Background
31
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.

32
Balancing Risks and Needs The assessors
challenge
Public Protection
Best Interests
Proportionality
33
Offending Care History
34
Stage 1- Obtaining Recording information
Offending Career
Persistent Offending behaviour
35
Important factors to remember

• Family and Personal
• Bereavement and Loss
• Substance Use
• New Psychoactive Substances (NPS)
• Physical Health
• Speech, Language and Communication Needs
• Emotional and Mental Health
• Trauma
• Attachment

36
Stage 2 Analysing the information
Offending Career
Evidence of link to offending
Persistent Offending behaviour
Linked areas of need
37
Statistical data Indicators of level of risk
Stage 3 Planning
Offending Career
P R I O R I T I E S
T A R G E T s
Evidence of link to offending
Persistent Offending behaviour
Linked areas of need
38
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.

39
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.

40
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.

41
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.

42
The Therapeutic Relationship
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

• 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

Intervention and Planning with Young People who
Sexually Harm 2011
42
43
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.

44
Kemshalls 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).

45
(No Transcript)
46
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?

47
Further assessment tools

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

48
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.

49
Accuracy across the score range
50
Score Bands
Score band Percent Reconvicted
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
51
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.

52
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.

53
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-ju
  stice-practice-guidance-2
• Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (CYCJ)
  (2015) Info Sheet 33 Legal doesnt mean safe new
  drugs, new challenges, http//www.cycj.org.uk/wp-c
  ontent/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

54
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

55
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-im
  pact-practitioners-guide/
• YJB (2003) Asset Research Summary, London YJB