Contradicción y transitividad

In exploring the assessment process, it was important to understand the profiles of the different risk assessment tools being considered. This was to explore whether the tools are considering the same information. Each of the tools is outlined below.

ASSET Plus- This risk assessment tool is designed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), it is designed to be used with young people aged 10-18 years of age and is a general offending assessment tool.The assessment consists of 12 domains; the structure of this risk assessment tool is that each section is equally weighted. The domains are listed below together with the weighting for each section:

118

Figure 28- Asset Framework

Domain No of questions Score range

Living arrangements 7 0-4

Family and personal relationships 10 0-4

Education, training and employment 14 0-4

Neighbourhood 6 0-4

Lifestyle 7 0-4

Substance use 5 0-4

Physical health 6 0-4

Emotional and mental health 8 0-4

Perception of self and others 6 0-4

Thinking and behaviour 10 0-4

Attitudes to offending 8 0-4

Motivation to change 7 0-4

AIM 2- This risk assessment tool is designed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), it is designed to be used with young people aged 12-18 years of age and is a sexual offending assessment tool. The assessment consists of 4 broad domains and 15 topics. The topics are listed below together with the weighting for each section:

It is important to note that at the time of undertaking the data collection and analysis for this research the AIM 2 model was a leading assessment tool for assessing harmful sexual behaviour in adolescence; however at the point of submission the AIM 3 had been introduced. The AIM 3 model is discussed later in this chapter.

119

Figure 29- AIM 2 Framework

Domain No. of Questions Score range

Sexually and Non-Sexually Harmful Behaviours- Static Concerns

13 Mixed Scoring

Methods Sexually and Non-Sexually Harmful

Behaviours- Dynamic Concerns

5 Mixed Scoring

Methods

Developmental Issues- Static Concerns 8 Mixed Scoring

Methods

Developmental Issues- Dynamic Concerns 12 Mixed Scoring

Methods

Family Issues- Static Concerns 2 0-2 and unknown

Family Issues- Dynamic Concerns 4 0-2 and unknown

Environmental Issues- Static Concern 3 Mixed Scoring

Methods

Environmental Issues- Dynamic Concerns 4 0-2 and unknown

Sexually and Non-Sexually Harmful Behaviours- Static Strengths

3 0-2 and unknown

Sexually and Non-Sexually Harmful Behaviours- Dynamic Strengths

3 0-2 and unknown

Developmental Issues- Static Strengths 2 0-2 and unknown

Developmental Issues- Dynamic Strengths 5 Mixed Scoring

Methods

Family Issues- Static Strengths 1 0-2 and unknown

Family Issues- Dynamic Strengths 4 0-2 and unknown

Environmental Issues 6 Mixed Scoring

Methods

J-SOAP II- This risk assessment tool is designed by Prentky & Righthand (2003) and was

designed to be used with male adolescents aged 12-18 years old who have harmful sexual behaviour. The assessment consists of 4 domains; these four domains are considered in respect of strengths and concerns. The structure of the assessment tool is that it weights the sections fairly similarly with sexual drive and impulsivity sections receiving only a slightly higher weighting option, the sections are weighted as follows:

120

Figure 30- J-SOAP II Framework

Domain No. of Questions Score range

Sexual drive/ preoccupation scale 8 0-16

Impulsive/ antisocial behaviour scale 8 0-16

Intervention scale 7 0-14

Community stability/ adjustment scale 5 0-10

RM2000- This risk assessment tool is designed by Hanson & Thornton (2000) and is

designed to be used with adults, 18 years plus who have a conviction for a sexual offence. The risk assessment has a different approach to the previous two, with two distinct steps. It is important to note that this assessment tool should not be used on an adult whose offending occurred under the age of 18. The weighing for each step is similar and are weighted as follows:

Figure 31- RM2000 Framework

Domains No of questions Score range

Step one 3 0-6

Step two 4 0-4

OASys- This risk assessment tool was developed by the Home Office (NOMS) and is

designed to be used with adults, 18 years plus, who have a conviction. The assessment is a layered computer-based assessment the information below relates to the specific questions listed on the OASys full assessment template.

121

Figure 32- OASys Framework

Domains No of questions Score range

Offending history 7 Mixed scoring methods

Offence analysis 14 Mixed scoring methods

Accommodation 4 No/ Some/significant

Education 9 No/ Some/significant

Financial Management and Income 5 No/ Some/significant

Relationships 8 No/ Some/significant

Lifestyle and Associates 4 No/ Some/significant

Drugs, ever misused 6 Mixed scoring methods

Alcohol misuse 5 No/ Some/significant

Emotional Wellbeing 8 No/ Some/significant

Thinking and Behaviours 10 No/ Some/significant

Attitudes 6 No/ Some/significant

Health and other considerations 4 Y/N

SVR-20- This risk assessment tool is designed by Boer, Hart, Kropp & Webster (1998) and

was designed to be used with adults who have displayed harmful sexual behaviour. The structure of this risk assessment is that there is equal weighting across the four domains; however, the assessment does not opt for a numerical weighting system, the sections are weighted as follows:

122

Figure 33- SVR-20 Framework

Domain No of Questions Score range

Psychological Adjustment 11 Presence- Yes/no/unknown

Sexual Offences 7 Presence- Yes/no/unknown

Future Plans 2 Presence- Yes/no/unknown

Other considerations N/A Presence- Yes/no/unknown

From the information presented above it is clear that the assessments are structured very differently and that the risk ratings that are derived are focusing on different factors. It is also clear that the target group for these assessment tools appears to be either adolescent or adult and that cross over from adolescent to adult services is not accounted for. Knowledge about the structure and profile of the different assessment tools is important in order for professionals to make informed decisions about which tool to use. The information initially presented indicates that professionals are not that clear about what assessments are considering and how different the various assessments are.