Asset: An assessment tool that safeguards or stigmatizes young offenders?

Introduction

'What matters is what works.' In the past decade this has been the overriding message from the Government to the public sector, thereby shaping and defining how we assess and intervene in the lives of children and their families (Stephenson et al., 2007). For the purposes of this article the particular agency in focus is the youth justice service (YJS). Whilst there are statutory assessment frameworks in place in the YJS (for example, Multi Agency Public Protections Arrangements under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000) and, in some regions, reference to external assessment tools (such as AIM2 or G-MAP in the case of sexually harmful behaviours), this article concentrates specifically on the use of two aspects of the Asset assessment tool; the Core Asset and the Risk of Serious Harm Asset. This article explores whether Asset really does 'work', what this means in practice and what it says about how children and families are perceived by criminal justice professionals. To what extent does the Asset tool place children at the heart of best practice and prioritize their welfare? Does Asset really help professionals to speak ‘a common language’ (Horwath, 2010: 35) and aid partnership working? What can we learn from other approaches about the assessment of young offenders?

For the purposes of this article I use the terms 'child' and 'young people' interchangeably to represent all under 18 year-olds.

The concept of assessment

The word 'assessment' has different meanings for the range of professionals that work with children and families. In a health setting it relates to the physical well-being of a child, in education it relates to their educational attainment and in youth justice it relates primarily to the risk of reoffending. In social work the concept of assessment relates specifically to the safeguarding and welfare of the child (Department of Children, School and Families, 2009; Department of Health et al., 2000; HM Government, 2006a) as defined by the s17 Children Act 1989 (CA) and, from Lord Laming's perspective, this entails an understanding of ‘the world of the child’ (Horwath, 2010: 18). In the wake of a number of serious case reviews resulting from child deaths (for example, see Ofsted Healthcare Commission and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, 2008) the importance of safeguarding and partnership working cannot be underestimated; indeed, S27 of the CA (later reinforced by s10 of the Children Act 2004) places a statutory duty upon all partner agencies (including the YJS) to co-operate with the local authority's children's services safeguarding responsibilities.

These principles are now enshrined in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (otherwise referred to as the 'Assessment Framework'; DoH et al., 2000) and have been strengthened by subsequent policy and practice developments such as Every Child Matters (HM Treasury, 2003) Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM Government, 2006c) and the Common Assessment Framework (HM Government, 2006a). Despite some criticism of the Assessment Framework (Calder and Hackett, 2003) and concerns about the differing priorities of the Every Child Matters and YJS agendas (Muncie and Goldson, 2006) assessment is now synonymous with multi-agency working and forming a ‘team around the child’ (Children's Workforce Development Council, 2009). Rose (in Horwath, 2010: 35) goes as far as to suggest the existence of ‘a set of common values, a common language and consistency of approach’ that underpins the assessment of children today. In view of the Government’s policy of encouraging a wider range of providers in public services, including youth justice, there is strong argument in favour of the need for a shared common assessment tool. Surely this includes Asset then?

What is Asset?

Asset, created by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 1999, is a structured risk assessment tool used by all YJS teams in England and Wales with young people in the criminal justice system. It examines a young person's offending and identifies associated risk factors, criminogenic needs and protective areas in their life. In addition to the offence, the Core Asset Profile includes 13 sections which research identifies as being linked to criminality (for example, Chapman and Hough, 1998). The Risk of Serious Harm form is a more in-depth assessment undertaken with young people who have committed serious violent or sexual offences as defined by s224 Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The context of Asset

The introduction of Asset into the newly created youth justice service was a ‘new and significant development’ (Baker et al., 2002: 9) and considered to be ‘the central framework’ (YJB, 2008: 9) for effective assessment practice. It is designed to aid consistency of practice in multi-disciplinary YJS teams and target interventions to the factors of a child's life most closely associated with offending. The theoretical basis for Asset was obtained from a comprehensive review of research literature and, since then, a substantial amount has been written about Asset; the design of the tool (for example, Curtis, 2001) its validity and reliability (Baker et at., 2002, 2005), the interface with other child welfare policies (such as HM Government 2006a, 2009; Home Office, 2004), the predictive power of Asset (Webster et al., 2006) and its role in the all-important arena of safeguarding (HM Government, 2006a). In order to fully understand these issues a fuller account of the origins, history and political context of Asset is necessary.

The current YJS approach to assessment is no accident; it did not ‘simply fall out of the skies’ (Stephenson et al., 2007: 2) but is the culmination of significant changes in criminal justice during the 1990s. The growth of evidence based practice (EBP) in the public sector as a whole gradually led to the 'What Works' movement and was initially pioneered in the probation service by prominent researchers such as McGuire and Priestley (1985) and Ross and Fabiano (1985). The creation and development of Asset has close comparisons to that of the probation OASys assessment tool (Merrington and Baker, in Burnett and Roberts, 2004). It is based upon an adult system which no longer relates to 'advising, assisting and befriending' (Hansard, 2007) but focuses on the reduction of risk. An obvious manifestation of this in the YJS, according to Smith (in Muncie and Goldson, 2006), is the growth of an actuarial approach to crime which ‘dispenses with concerns about the meaning or motives behind offending and replaces these with an emphasis on “technologies” of “risk minimization” and the elimination of potential threats to social order’ (in Muncie and Goldson, 2006: 93).

So, in the context of Asset, children are viewed as a 'threat' to society and are being perceived and assessed in a similar way to adults. Indeed, the recent abolition of the YJB means that young people and youth justice policy will now be managed alongside adults by the Ministry of Justice. This, in turn, operates to justify the proliferation of control measures for 'young offenders' that has been apparent in recent years (Goldson, 2000) and is influenced and sustained by misleading crime statistics (Bateman, in Goldson and Muncie, 2006) and media scaremongering about lawless youth (Goldson, 2000). In accordance to the Children Act 1989 the safety and welfare of the child is paramount in social work; in youth justice the principal aims, as determined by the Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) 1998, are the reduction of reoffending and protection of the public. This ‘responsibilisation’ of young people (Bandalli, in Goldson, 2000: 81) is a radical move away from the underpinning philosophy of the Assessment Framework. The five outcomes of the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda – stay safe, be healthy, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being – stress that all children have positive potential, individual needs and are deserving of better life chances. However, the only 'needs' of relevance to Asset are 'criminogenic' needs; the ones related to offending and harm. The behaviour and risk management of children is the primary focus of Asset, not their developmental or welfare needs; nor, in fact, is safeguarding an explicit purpose of the tool. This speaks cogently about how we view young offenders; primarily as law breakers, and secondly as children (Goldson, 2000; Muncie, 1999). The child friendly spirit, inclusive language and more progressive elements of the Assessment Framework and ECM policy are replaced in Asset with more judgemental language and negative connotations such as ‘offender’, ‘victim’, ‘serious harm’ and ‘displaying discriminatory attitudes’ (YJB, 2003). Indeed the language of ‘What Works’ in general talks not about opportunities and inclusivity for children but about 'dosage' and 'treatment' of their behaviour. This direct reference to the medical model is, at best, an oversimplification of children's needs and, at worst, a dangerous presumption on which to base safeguarding practice.

The major attraction to actuarialism has been consummately summed up by Stephenson and colleagues; that it is ‘an ostensibly neat and coherent approach to the messy and ill-defined complexities of practice’ (Stephenson et al., 2007: 3). However appealing, this should not blind us to the more damaging aspects of the approach in the context of child welfare. In particular, Smith (in Goldson and Muncie, 2006) speaks critically about attempts to scientifically quantify the potential for the commission of further offences. Although research reports a relatively high degree of predictive accuracy in Asset (67 per cent in Baker et al.'s study, 2005) Kemshall and Pritchard (1997) astutely reminds us of the subjective nature of risk assessment and that such tools cannot accurately predict risk. McVie alerts us to be wary of ‘the false promise of prediction’ (in McNeill and Barry, 2009: 52) and, as Stephenson et al, (2007) point out, tossing a coin has a predictive accuracy of 50 per cent. A ‘feeling of scepticism’ towards Asset was reported by Phoenix (in McNeill and Barry, 2009: 121) in her research of YOT workers. They felt that the tool was marginal to decision making, often distorting professional judgements and that client/worker relationships provided more helpful information in terms decisions about risk. For any practitioner the use of Asset also has important ethical implications; what kind of society are we to assess and target interventions on the basis of what children might do? What if we get it wrong? What does this say about the nature of childhood and the significance of development? Assessment is never value free and has immense power in determining change (Dalrymple and Burke, 2003) so what does Asset say about the capacity and prognosis for change in children? Let's consider this question in more detail.

An Asset or a problem?

A major problem with Asset is its starting point; the labelling of children as 'offender' or 'deviant' and the presumption that all are 'a risk'. In this context, therefore, Asset is a useful tool of social control, designed not primarily for effective safeguarding purposes but to legitimize institutional discrimination (Goldson, 2000; Smith in Muncie and Goldson, 2006) and to monitor and manage their perceived risk to others. Young people are no longer viewed as unique individuals but merely as representatives of bad behaviour and associated social problems. The potentially harmful consequences of negative labelling are well documented in literature (for example Becker, 1963) particularly in respect of children who have committed sexually harmful behaviours (for example Print, 2009; Vosmer et al., 2009) and Hackett warns of the dangers and injustices that can result from viewing children as ‘mini versions’ (Hackett, in Calder, 2007: 14) of adult offenders. Indeed, Prescott (in Calder, 2007) specifically addresses this issue with the question as to whether we are assessing the 'young sex offender' or the 'youth who has sexually abused'?

Can it really be true then, that young people are being treated as a homogeneous group within contemporary politics of youth justice? From an entirely cynical perspective Asset could be viewed as the tool which writes children off altogether. The learning from 'desistance' studies portrays a more realistic and less deterministic, judgemental picture of young people to acknowledge that they can, and often do, change “quickly, dramatically and unpredictably” (Prescott, in Calder, 2007, p137). They focus on the significance of development and explore how criminal careers can become truncated or stop altogether (for example, Hackett and Masson, 2009). They offer a more optimistic assessment of young people and provide a more ethical framework on which to base safeguarding practice. McVie’s work in particular warns that Government responses to crime run the risk of “irreversibly stigmatizing and criminalizing” all young people (McVie, in McNeill and Barry, 2009: 39) and that anti-social behaviours in childhood do not inevitably lead to criminality in adulthood. She warns against the dangers of targeting young people and cites evidence showing greater levels of desistance amongst those who had avoided intervention from social control agencies during childhood. Desistance studies recognise the influence of important demographics such as race, gender, class, culture, disability and sexuality which, unbelievably, are given no explicit mention in Asset. The tool somehow seems to ignore the inequities and discrimination faced by certain groups in society (for example, see YJB, 2004 in respect of minority ethnic young people) and also their coping strategies, strengths and resiliences in the face of adversity (such as those identified by Dominelli, 1988). In her research about female criminality Heidensohn (1985) provides a wealth of understanding about the gendered nature of crime, societal expectations of women, power relationships and female delinquent subcultures. Given the reported rise of young females entering the YJS (Salman, 2009) this research still has relevance today. Where is there reference to such research in Asset to underpin practitioner awareness and assessment practice? Nowhere that is apparent. Even the Asset guidance literature makes no specific mention of issues of power and discrimination and the nearest reference to important variables such race, gender or sexuality is via a tick box which does no more than categorise young people purely for statistical purposes.

Kerry Baker boldly asks the question 'Is Asset Really an Asset?' (Baker, in Burnett and Roberts, 2004: 70). On the whole, the literature so far (excluding, ironically, government publications) is mixed. Admittedly, the tool provides a vast amount of quantitative data about young people which influences the provision of resources and can measure change over time. Some may also consider it to be a reliable source of information on which to base interventions and justify decision making. However, the term 'Asset' is something of a misnomer for such a deficit based tool. This was identified during the pilot study by the University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research. They drew attention to the over-focus on the negative aspects of young people and their lives (in Curtis, 2001). This is a prevailing criticism of the tool from both a research perspective (such as Baker, 2002) and practitioner experience, thus leading Smith (in Goldson and Muncie, 2006) to conclude that the tool actually sees the worst in young people. Bearing in mind that the Assessment and ECM Frameworks concern the improvement of children's lives, Asset is in stark philosophical contrast. Prescott (in Calder, 2007) rightfully comments that the word 'risk' does not readily lend itself to an exploration of a young person's individual strengths, resilience or protective factors. However, instead of addressing these issues, there is a woefully short section towards the end of the Core Asset form and neither resilience nor vulnerability is integrated in to the main assessment itself. Similarly, the Risk of Serious Harm form focuses entirely on negative risk indicators and likelihood of future harm to the complete exclusion of protective factors.

In some ways it is hardly surprising that many young people present with unmotivated or 'ambivalent' behaviour (Miller and Rollnick, 2002). The court mandated nature of contact is not readily conducive to enthusiastic and willing participation. Trotter details at length the challenges faced by professionals in working with the ‘involuntary’ client (2006). Assessment procedures should therefore be responsive to their uniqueness and needs, adopt child friendly approaches and appreciate that the development of a positive relationship takes time and needs to be underpinned by respect and choice (Calder, 2007; Dalrymple and Burke, 2003; Kadushin and Kadushin, 1997; Print, 2009). It is no revelation that levels of motivation and engagement are considered to be a crucial aspect of assessment with young people (Collie et al., in Calder, 2007; Print, 2009). It therefore follows that tools should take these factors into account. To what degree does Asset allow us to adapt practice to meet children's diverse needs and effectively assess their welfare?

Automation or autonomy?

Herein lies another problem of the actuarial approach; the increase in bureaucracy, managerialism and the audit culture (Stephenson et al., 2007) that is now endemic in the public sector. YJS professionals don't have time to ‘roll with resistance’ (Miller and Rollnick, 2002) in the fifteen working days that an Asset has to be completed. Nor do they have sufficient autonomy to make assessment decisions that are truly in the best interests of the child after working through the battery of guidelines and procedures that exist. In practice, if a child's need does not relate to reoffending, they are simply signposted or referred on to an agency that can accommodate that particular need. National Standards (YJB, 2000) mandates practitioners to enforce two unacceptable failed appointments with a return to court which could result in a custodial sentence. Life affecting issues identified by an Asset assessment seem to have little relevance or applicability when it comes to making enforcement decisions – they are simply done, quite literally, by the book. Little wonder that Kemshall laments the pressures of working in a climate of ‘public blame and anxiety’ (Kemshall, 2009: 331) and stresses the importance of defensible, rather than defensive, decision making.

In the course of my research for this article I have lamented how little social work training and professional judgement is used in day-to-day practice. The use of structured risk assessment tools was originally designed to aid, but not replace, practitioners’ professional judgements (Baker et al., 2005). Curtis' prediction that ‘… skills will be fully challenged when they (practitioners) complete the Asset forms’ (Curtis, 2001) seems to have been replaced by a skills atrophy. It is very unsettling to read that the standardization of assessment and the creation of an audit culture has led to a “zombification of youth justice professionals’ (Pitts, in Stephenson et al., 2007: 5) resulting in some Asset assessments amounting to little more than a form of ‘korrectional karaoke’ (Pitts, 2003, in Case, 2007: 99). On some days I, too, feel like a victim in the ‘statistical shuffle’ (Bateman and Pitts, in Case, 2007: 94) and wonder how much young people have a genuine say in their supervision instead of being ‘passive recipients of adult-prescribed interventions’ (Case, 2007: 100). Even the poorly designed and poorly completed 'What do you Think' self assessment forms are not being used to their full potential and may even serve to alienate some young people further away from the process of YJS supervision (YJB, no date). This seems incongruent with how service user voices in other public service areas (such as health, mental health and the care industry) are increasingly viewed as fundamental to effective delivery.

The content of Asset

This article is not a detailed critique of the content of Asset though three main themes are worthy of brief mention. Firstly, the word ‘assessment’ generates many connotations; to many practitioners in the YJS it now seems more synonymous with the application of a 'tool' rather than a process. Asset barely acknowledges assessment as a dynamic process and conjures up notions of 'doing to' a young person as opposed to using professional skills to 'work with' them to understand their needs. The content of the tool has not changed since1999 to reflect developments in research which, in relation to assessment of children, have been significant (Horwath, 2010). Therefore, how relevant and valid is it today as an effective and accurate means of assessment?

Secondly, the quality of questions have considerable impact on how assessment tools are used; indeed, Dr Sue Smith’s research of telephone assessment (2009) found that poorly/insensitively worded questions elicited feelings of embarrassment, discomfort and lower confidence levels amongst practitioners and could result in questions being re-worded, avoided or even omitted altogether. Given similar problems in relation to Asset identified by Baker and colleagues alongside inadequate levels of staff training (Baker et al., 2002, 2005) and the fact that there have been no substantial changes to the form, one could ask the question as to how confidently and competently the tool is currently being applied.

Thirdly, the wealth of research concerning the protective influence of positive parenting (DoH et al,, 2000; Jones in Horwath, 2010) underpins one third of the Assessment Framework triangle. Even the message from parents is that professionals should keep involving families wherever possible (Hackett et al., 2005), yet, despite the introduction of statutory Parenting Orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, parental capacity is only given scant attention in Asset. This issue is particularly high profile in view of the sentencing of two young brothers in Edlington in 2009 for a sustained attack against two other boys and the considerable concerns raised in respect of their parenting and upbringing.

Alternative perspectives

A decade after the introduction of Asset the rate of incarceration of children remains astonishingly high (2091 young people were in the secure estate in December 2010 according to the YJB), even higher for youngsters from minority ethnic backgrounds (Parke, 2009), and it is still unclear as to exactly how the tool fits in with the Assessment Framework. Some question whether the government's approach to youth justice actually hinders the progress made in safeguarding practice and that there now exists a conflict between the Every Child Matters and 'No More Excuses' agendas (Goldson and Muncie, 2006). So perhaps it is time to look beyond the limited YJS assessment procedures and consider the learning from different approaches.

The benefits of 'desistance' studies have already been highlighted; in particular they are extremely useful in their focus as to how and why children stop, rather than continue, on offence pathways. Hackett and Masson's (2009) work is in the process of offering more insight in this respect. They stress the importance of addressing resilience and desistance factors in a young person's life over the longer term. This raises important questions about the inadequacies of current YJS assessment; that it focuses on limited treatment goals to the exclusion of longer term developmental processes and turning points in young people's lives. There is a substantial amount of learning to be gained from this 'alternative perspective' and it could be a useful opportunity to reframe how YJS assessment is approached.

'Strength based' or restorative approaches are not new in principle, but their acceptance and incorporation into the YJS assessment framework has a long journey ahead. Asset could be greatly enhanced and safeguarding practice improved with a more full integration of these principles. Even the incorporation of strengths focused tools such as the International Resilience Project Checklist (Grotberg, 1997) would help to rediscover the importance of strengths and their role in the safeguarding process. Perhaps the best example of this type of approach gradually gaining credibility in this country is the Good Lives Model (Ward and Marshall, 2004) which has a ‘dual focus on risk management and psychological well-being’ (Collie et al., in Calder, 2007: 53). In brief, this 'alternative perspective' addresses aspects of young people's lives that promote positive engagement and motivation; focusing away from dynamic risk to pose the question as to how a young person's life can become more purposeful. The primary aims link directly to the safeguarding needs of the child; they involve the provision of safety, building resilience and attachment, involving families/carers, developing emotional coping strategies and support (Ward and Marshall, 2004). No mention of some of the destructive language and demotivating assumptions that underpin Asset in this approach to assessment but rather it allows young people to be treated as ‘subjects rather than objects… (and to)… appreciate their complexity, treat them with respect and demand reciprocity’ (Duguid, 2000: 18). The inclusion of parents/carers and wider community support networks enables an assessment of the child's world as a whole as well as addressing areas to reduce the potential for harm. The Good Lives approach underpins assessment tools particularly in relation to young people with harmful sexual behaviours (such as J-SOAP-II, G-MAP and AIM2) ¹ and, as Print et al. (2009) testify from their own experience in the field, this 'alternative perspective' ‘combines efficiently’ (in Horwath, 2010: 277) with the Assessment Framework. This approach to assessment has more positive prognostic implications and, equally as important, provides a framework via which risk management and safeguarding priorities are complementary, not competing, aims.

Unfortunately there is insufficient space in this article to detail the variety of innovative 'alternative perspectives' that exist. That said, even in the YJS there has been an increased recognition of the value of preventative measures such as 'diversionary' schemes and inclusion projects which provide a welcome relief from the actuarial model and its over emphasis on risks and deficits. The final 'alternative perspective' I would like to mention is the role of 'resilience' in assessment. Hackett (in Erooga and Masson, 2006) explains that resilience models operate on three levels. On an individual level it ensures that children are listened to and their achievements are celebrated, a sense of hope is fostered, appropriate choices and control is given and that meaningful participatory evaluation is an integral part of the process. On a social or familial level, the provision of feedback to parents/carers, being sensitive to their needs and conveying a sense of optimism are important. Finally, on an environmental level, supporting educational participation is crucial to achieving positive outcomes. These are all creative and useful strategies to improve current YJS assessment practice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, therefore, Asset is simply not enough. It fails to incorporate Lord Laming's vision of the 'child's world' and could arguably be viewed as detrimental to children's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989). The case of the aforementioned brothers in Edlington, aged 10 and 12, is a stark reminder that changes need to be made:

…child protection departments up and down the land are staring into the mirror trying to understand why all their assessment frameworks… seem unable to prevent… children suffering… every year. The conclusion is that the systems themselves can be the problem, that the protocols can create a fixed view of a situation… and that…(what is needed)… is a fresh pair of eyes. (Easton, 2010)

A truly 'alternative perspective' to assessment should operate on a more preventative level (for example, see Prison Reform Trust 2008, in relation to children in custody). It should perceive, treat and view children with respect, dignity and understanding to maximize both potential and capacity for positive change. It should challenge populist ideas about 'young offenders' and assumptions as to how best to safeguard their welfare as well as manage any risk they may pose. To use Hackett's words, it involves a ‘paradigm shift… from deficit and risk to positive adaptation and competence’ (in Erooga and Masson, 2006: 103). This is an important ideological shift and highlights the potential for a more progressive approach to YJS assessment practice. Having an 'alternative perspective' does not necessarily equate to a radical overhaul of existing theory or practice; it relates to viewing children more positively, having the appropriate tools and making assessment a more meaningful experience which safeguards their well-being and uses innovative methods to help them achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes.