El método de solución de argumentos en SE 18

It is important to compare the content of the different risk assessment tools, when considering the different factors relating to sexual offending Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Need and Wards (2004) Good Lives Models seem to offer some useful guidance as to some of the core factors that might be useful for assessments to cover. The key areas that emerge from literature as important when considering sexual risk were as follows: behaviour; development; relationships; engagement; environment and attitude factors. In taking these in turn, firstly behavioural which can be split into two distinct areas, non-sexual behaviour such as substance misuse, non-sexual offences, aggression and anti-social behaviour (Righthand et al., 2005) and secondly sexual behaviour such as sexual deviation, victim information, pre- occupation, threat and harm(Worling & Langstrom 2003, Robinson, Rouleau & Madrigano, 1997; Seto, Lalumiere & Blanchard, 2000). The area of developmental factors includes factors such as victims of abuse, domestic violence, mental illness, psychopathy and cognitive distortions (Cantor, Blanchard, Robichaud & Christensen 2005, Johnson & Knight, 2000; Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003; Koba- yashi, Sales, Becker, Figueredo & Kaplan, 1995; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990). The fourth area identified was relational; this included the relationships held by the person including family, partners and peers (Marshall & Barbaree 1990; Righthand & Welch 2001; Ryan 1999; Smallbone, 2006; Marshall, Hudson & Hodkinson, 1993; Altschuler & Brash, 2004). The fifth area was environmental factors; this

sexual offending violent offending general criminality drug related offending breaches of legal mandate don’t know Series1 0.5 2 13.5 2.5 4.5 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 n o. o f p rofess ion al s

130 includes housing, employment and educational issues (Manocha and Mezey, 1998; Hickey et al, 2006; Timms & Goreczny, 2002; Cicchetti, Toth & Maughan, 2000). The sixth area identified was attitudinal factors, the individual’s attitudes towards supervision, offending and intervention (de Vogel et al., 2012). The final area identified was aspirational factors, that the person has a degree of positivity for their future, that they want to change and have plans for their future (de Vogel et al., 2012). An individual’s behaviour is a fundamental part of any assessment of risk but considering this together with other factors may give professionals a more detailed picture. It is clear that understanding someone’s developmental history may be important as it can aid the focus of intervention in terms of relationships and environmental factors. The individual’s engagement with services and their attitudes to both their offending and their future appears to be crucial in understanding someone’s ability to change.

To ascertain whether the assessment tools were looking at the same information each risk assessment question was analysed, assigning them to the key areas highlighted above. This allowed the risk assessments to be compared in respect of content as well as risk rating. The information was coded by the researcher and was then inputted into pie charts, see Fig. 40. This provided information about how the different tools look at key assessment areas; this is most evident when looking at the RM2000 which compared with the other risk assessment tools has a narrower focus, only focusing on four key areas, it also has a significantly higher focus on sexual behaviour compared with the others tools. The RM2000 assessment did not appear to be rooted in a strengths-based approach, like that suggested in Ward’s Good Lives model.

In considering the other risk assessment tools, there appears to be similarities in the information that they are covering. The three adolescent tools (ASSET, AIM 2 and J-SOAP) all have a similar focus on developmental factors. This is different to the SVR-20 and OASys adult assessment tools which have a lesser degree of focus on developmental factors or the RM2000 which does not include developmental factors as part of its analysis of risk. Another finding from the tool comparison is the difference in focus on environmental factors with ASSET and OASys giving this factor greater emphasis than the other risk assessments. Whilst JSOAP, ASSET, AIM 2 and SVR-20 all give attention to attitudinal factors SVR-20 places greater emphasis on this area.

131

Figure 40- The percentage of question type for each tool

132 In summarising it would appear that considering the risk assessments in terms of content is beneficial. It has shown that there are some consistencies between what the different assessments cover however the RM2000 is an outlier with a narrower focus. When the professionals were asked about what they focused on when they undertook a risk assessment, the majority of the professionals (76%) stated that they focused on sexual, violent and criminal behaviours together with reintegration difficulties. When considering the composition of the different risk assessment tools this appears to be contradictory. In combining the behavioural elements of the risk assessments then it would appear that those sexual, violent and criminal behaviours being assessed carry very different weighting across the different tools, see Fig. 41.

Figure 41- The behaviour factors with the tools Juvenile Tools Percentage of behaviour factors considered Adult Tools Percentage of behaviour factors considered ASSET 20% SVR-20 47% AIM 26% OASys 30% J-SOAP 46% RM2000 72%

Most noticeably is that there is a higher weighting located within the adult assessment tools, with the two adolescent assessments (AIM 2 and ASSET) placing significantly less weighting on these behavioural factors. When looking further at the similarities and differences between the tools then there appears to be many areas where they differ, see Fig.42.

Whilst the adolescent assessments seem to place similar weight on developmental factors, adult assessment tools either place less significance or no significance on these areas. Attitudinal and environmental factors seem to be significant for the adult and adolescent assessment tools, with RM2000 being an exception.

There are implications for practice if professionals do not fully understand the way the assessments differ in relation to what and how they assess risk; this may cause difficulties when multiple agencies are involved in assessing individual’s using different tools. The differences between these tools are likely to have an impact on the transition process from adolescent to adult services, whilst they may assess risk at the same level, it may be for very different reasons.

133

Figure 42- The developmental, environmental and attitudinal factors within the tools Tools Developmental factors Environmental factors Attitudinal factors

AIM 2 32% 8% 12% ASSET 30% 23% 10% J-SOAP 29% 7% 7% SVR-20 19% 5% 14% OASys 11% 15% 21% RM2000 0% 0% 0%

There were differences in the language used in the assessment tools, the RM2000 focuses on offending behaviour and therefore the questions are specific to offending, for example ‘stranger victim of sex offence’. The J-SOAP, SVR-20 and OASys tended to focus on problems rather than strengths, whereas the AIM 2 assessment and ASSET assessment tools have specific sections within their assessment where they are considering strengths. This suggests that the approach the Youth Offending Service adopts may differ from the other professions. What is apparent with all of the assessment tools is that many questions were constructed in a way that was looking for evidence of a concern rather than the presence of strength. Therefore, this raises questions as to how strengths and needs are identified and addressed within the assessment process and how responsive the assessment tools are to change.