Figure 5 - from "Using Standardised Assessment Tools: Asset in Scotland"

See full PDF downloadDownloadfigure

subdirectory_arrow_right

Figure source:

Table 1: Disposals/Outcomes received Information on offending behaviour obtained from the young person is included in the Scottish Asset, but is also absent from the YJB report. The information recorded in Table 2 has been summarised from an open text box in the ‘Offending Behaviour' section in accordance with the guidance for content of this text box provided in the Asset form. Various types of disposal/outcome that the young person may have received are recorded on the Scottish Asset but there is no comparable information noted in the YJB report. Also, in the original version of Asset used in Scotland, the English terms of ‘Final Warning’, ‘Reparation Order', ‘Attendance Order' and ‘Action Plan Order' were preserved, but as of September 2008 have been removed and replaced with terms more appropriate to the Scottish system. As such, information from this section is limited.

Table 2: Information on offending behaviour Also in the ‘Offending Behaviour' section of the Scottish Asset form, ‘offence summaries' (i.e. reasons for the offending behaviour) were recorded in 87 cases. The most common of these was peer pressure (15%), followed by the influence of alcohol/drugs (14%). Boredom (10%), provocation/self-defence (10%), ‘spur of the moment’ (9%), needed/wanted goods or money (8%) and ‘lost temper' (8%) were also cited as reasons for the offending behaviour.

+39+38+37

ee Tee While similar proportions of Scottish cases (16%) and YJB cases (18%) had been accommodated by voluntary agreement with parents, a much higher proportion of Scottish | The same was also true for Scottish cases admitted to LA accommodation (25% against 11% of YJB cases), being placed on the child protection register (25% against 10%) and where there was children services involvement with siblings (59% against 22%).

+39+38+37

Bill Whyte

Using Standardised Assessment Tools: Asset in Scotland

descriptionSee full PDF

Related Papers

Kerry Baker

Assessment in youth justice: Professional discretion and the use of Asset

Abstract: The introduction of Asset as a common assessment tool for all Youth Offending Teams in England and Wales has sometimes been viewed as part of a 'managerialist' agenda which replaces professional discretion with an uncritical routinised approach to practice. This paper explores the challenges inherent in introducing such a tool into the complex world of youth justice, recognising that there can be both positive and negative effects. It argues that, if used appropriately by practitioners, managers and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, it is possible to combine the benefits of Asset -greater structure, transparency and accountability in assessment practice -with professionalism and a focus on young people's individual needs.

descriptionSee full PDF

Michele Burman

Evaluation of the Whole System Approach to Young People who Offend in Scotland

Abstract: General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. The views expressed in this report are those of the researcher and do not necessarily represent those of the Scottish Government or Scottish Ministers.

descriptionSee full PDF

Cheryl Simmill-Binning

Evaluating Youth Justice in the UK

Abstract: In the UK, following the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) funded over 450 separate crime prevention schemes. The YJB in approving these various schemes stressed the importance of monitoring and evaluation. Local evaluators were appointed whose role was to report back to the funding agency and the national evaluators. We were commissioned to undertake the local evaluation of four separate schemes. This article attempts an overview of the evaluation process and identifies five crucial areas that raise questions about whether the Youth Offending Teams are the 'unqualified success' and such a fine example of 'joined-up government' that the Youth Justice Board claims . In this article, we examine the setting up process (and offer a case study of one particular scheme), issues of inter-agency work and the links between schemes and local communities; procedures and protocols and on what evidence policy was being based; the relationship between the national and local evaluators (and other stakeholders); and finally, the feasibility of achieving the scheme's ambitions given the duration of the funding and the resources available.

descriptionSee full PDF