YOUTH JUSTICE: The Scaled Approach

2009Post-consultationversion two

A framework for assessment and interventions

Foreword 3

Introduction 5

Aims and objectives 6

How the Scaled Approach works 6

Assessment for intervention 7

Assessment 7Intervention framework 7Factors affecting intervention level 9

Proposing interventions for court orders 10

Sentencing context 10Tailoring court and youth offender panel reports to assessments 11

Managing an order post-sentence 15

Ongoing case management 15Intervention levels, contact types and breach 16Prolific and Other Priority Offenders 17

Appendix A: Assessing the likelihood of reoffending 18

Sample form 19

CO

NTEN

TS

CONTENTS

© YJB 2009

www.yjb.gov.uk

SECOND

DRAFT

3

FOR

EWO

RD

FOREWORD

1. www.yjb.gov.uk/scaledapproach

2. Expected to be Autumn 2009,as outlined in the Youth CrimeAction Plan.

As a result of the Criminal Justice andImmigration Act 2008, when sentencing,courts will be required to have regard to:

• (a) the principal aim of the youthjustice system, which is to preventoffending or reoffending by youngpeople aged under 18 (s 37(1) of theCrime and Disorder Act 1998)

• (b) the welfare of the young offender(in accordance with s 44 of theChildren and Young Persons Act 1933)

• (c) the purposes of sentencing, whichinclude:

– the punishment of offenders

– the reform and rehabilitation ofoffenders

– the protection of the public

– the making of reparation by offendersto persons affected by their offences.

When determining the particularsentence for an offence under theCriminal Justice Act 2003, the court willtake an initial view of seriousness,consider any aggravating and mitigatingfactors and then consider any personalmitigation. In assisting the court througha pre-sentence report (PSR) to determine

the most suitable method of dealing witha young person who has offended, it isessential that the youth offending team(YOT) also takes as its starting point thecourt’s view as to the seriousness of theoffence, as well as the purposes ofsentencing.

The Scaled Approach represents a modelfor interventions delivered by YOTs with children and young people whohave offended, and as a result appearbefore the courts for sentence. It reflectsthe statutory aim of the youth justicesystem to prevent offending, includingreoffending, by children and youngpeople and is designed to help YOTsbecome more effective in delivering thisrequirement in their local communities. It is anticipated that SentencingGuidelines Council advice will bedeveloped and this will assist sentencersin their management of the new YouthRehabilitation Order (YRO). The resultingPSR should include an assessment of thechild or young person and describe theproposed interventions designed toreduce the likelihood of reoffendingand/or risk of serious harm to others, inline with National Standards for Youth

SECOND

DRAFT

Justice Services and Case ManagementGuidance.

The Scaled Approach is not intended torepresent detailed practice guidance forYOT practitioners in relation to PSRpreparation. However, this will form partof the YJB’s Case Management Guidance

which will be issued in advance of theimplementation of these changes. TheScaled Approach will underpinassessment by YOTs and PSR preparationand is also designed to inform theongoing case management of childrenand young people subject to YOTinterventions.

FOR

EWO

RD

4

SECOND

DRAFT

5

INTRODUCTION

1. www.yjb.gov.uk/scaledapproach

2. Expected to be Autumn 2009,as outlined in the Youth CrimeAction Plan.

INTR

OD

UC

TION

This document updates and replaces boththe brochure entitled Youth Justice: TheScaled Approach, which was published bythe Youth Justice Board for England andWales (YJB) as a consultation document inNovember 2007, and Youth Justice: TheScaled Approach – Post-consultation versionpublished on the YJB website inSeptember 2008.

This document does not outline details ofthe YRO and its requirements, includingIntensive Supervision and Surveillance, (ISS) on which further information will beprovided.

The revised framework outlined in thisdocument has taken into account theconsultation responses provided on theinitial proposal and recent work to furtherrefine the Scaled Approach model. Aseparate document containing theconsultation feedback and YJB responsecan be found on the YJB website.1

The framework presented here representswhat we expect to be the YJB’s finalmodel for interventions and is due to berolled out in England and Wales during20092, in conjunction with the majoryouth justice provisions of the CriminalJustice and Immigration Act 2008. Untilthe sentencing guidelines to support theAct (in particular the YRO) are complete,this document remains a draft.

More detail about the operation of theScaled Approach will be providedthrough the National Standards for YouthJustice Services and Case ManagementGuidance due for publication in summer2009.

Additional materials will also beprovided to YOTs to support theirpreparation for the implementation ofthe Scaled Approach.

6

SECOND

DRAFT

The Scaled Approach aims to ensure thatinterventions are tailored to the individualand based on an assessment of their risksand needs. The intended outcomes are toreduce the likelihood of reoffending foreach young person by:

• tailoring the intensity of interventionto the assessment

• more effectively managing risk ofserious harm to others.

This concept already applies to youngpeople at risk of anti-social or offendingbehaviour, where prevention services aretargeted at those at highest risk ofoffending. It also relates to pre-courtwork, where interventions given to youngpeople subject to a Final Warning arefocused on those most at risk ofreoffending.

We wish to see this targeted and tailoredapproach applied to young peoplesubject to court orders; therefore, thisdocument sets out expectations forworking with those young people.

How the Scaled Approach works

The Scaled Approach should be used bythe YOT to determine the level ofintervention required when a child oryoung person is subject to YOTintervention through a Referral Ordercontract, a YRO or during the communityelement of a custodial sentence.3

The level of intervention is informed bythe assessment process, and should beused to guide:

• sentence proposals made to the court

• reports to youth offender panels

• the intervention provided during theYOT’s subsequent management of theorder.

It is important that the Scaled Approach isviewed within the context of the widerchildren’s agenda, as successfulimplementation cannot be achievedwithout support from mainstreamchildren’s services and strong localpartnerships with YOTs.

AIM

S AN

D O

BJEC

TIVES

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3. The Scaled Approach isrelevant to young people incustody in that interventionsshould be tailored to theindividual and based on anassessment of their risks andneeds. However, it will not beused to determine theintensity of supervision whilethey are in custody; this appliesonce they are released.

7

SECOND

DRAFT

Assessment

The Scaled Approach is underpinned bygood quality assessment, which shouldform the basis of all subsequentinterventions with young people whohave offended. When a PSR or youthoffender panel report has been requested,practitioners should first complete Asset –Core Profile to ensure they have a goodunderstanding of the young person’s risksand needs. The Asset – Core Profile shouldbe used to assess the likelihood ofreoffending, and, if applicable, the Asset –Risk of Serious Harm form should also beused to assess the risk of serious harm toothers. Where a Common AssessmentFramework (CAF) is available, it should beused to inform the Asset assessment; thiswill reduce the need for a young personto repeat the same information todifferent practitioners.

This information will be used as the basisof the report to court or youth offenderpanel, and will help to determine theappropriate level of YOT intervention,both at the start and throughout thecourse of the order as a result of ongoingassessment.

Intervention framework

Where it is determined that some form ofYOT intervention will be needed, e.g.through a supervision requirement of aYRO, supervision as part of a ReferralOrder contract or supervision/licencewhen a young person has been releasedfrom custody, the Scaled Approachframework will be used to determine theoverall intervention level.

Determining the appropriate level of YOTintervention is based primarily on twofactors:

• likelihood of reoffending

• risk of serious harm.

This is supported by professionaljudgement.

Assessing likelihood of reoffending

To assess the likelihood of the youngperson reoffending, practitioners shouldadd the scores from the 12 main sectionsof Asset – Core Profile (which relate todynamic factors affecting offendingbehaviour) and score four ‘static’ factors, toarrive at a total score between 0 and 64.

ASSESSM

ENT FO

R IN

TERV

ENTIO

N

ASSESSMENT FOR INTERVENTION

‘The ScaledApproach isunderpinned bygood qualityassessment,which shouldform the basis ofall subsequentinterventions.’

8

SECOND

DRAFT

The inclusion of static criminal historydata helps to improve predictive accuracyrelating to likelihood of reconviction andalso improves the differentiation betweenlevels. Appendix A contains a sampleform to show how this should be done.4

Assessing risk of serious harm

A full Asset – Risk of Serious Harm formshould be completed if there is a ‘Yes’response to any of the questions in the

‘Indicators of serious harm to others’section of the Asset – Core Profile.

Assessing intervention level

Following the assessment, practitionersshould use the framework below todetermine the most suitable level ofintervention for managing the youngperson. This will form the basis of theproposal to the court or the informationfor the youth offender panel.

ASSESSM

ENT FO

R IN

TERV

ENTIO

N

4. We are working with the YOTsoftware suppliers to enablethis process to be completedelectronically through YOTcase management systems.

Child/young person profile

Low likelihood of reoffending (as indicated by Asset score[dynamic and static factors] between 0 and 14 inclusive)

AND

Low risk of serious harm (as indicated by no risk of seriousharm assessment being required, or low risk of serious harmassessment)

Medium likelihood of reoffending (as indicated by Assetscore [dynamic and static factors] between 15 and 32inclusive)

OR

Medium risk of serious harm (as indicated by risk of seriousharm assessment)

High likelihood of reoffending (as indicated by Asset score[dynamic and static factors] between 33 and 64 inclusive)

OR

High or very high risk of serious harm (as indicated by riskof serious harm assessment)

Intervention level

STANDARD

ENHANCED

INTENSIVE

9

SECOND

DRAFT

Factors affecting interventionlevel

The initial assessment provides thestarting point for considering theintervention level. The following issuesmust be considered after the initialindication of the most suitableintervention level.

Professional judgement

Practitioners should review theintervention level in the context of allother available information and considerwhether there are any factors that indicatethe intervention level may need to beincreased or decreased. An example ofthis might be where a young person hadcommitted a particularly serious offencebut was assessed by the YOT as lowlikelihood of reoffending or low risk ofserious harm. Any proposed changes tothe initial intervention level, by the YOT asresponsible officer, should be defensible,discussed and agreed with a manager,and the reasons clearly recorded.

Vulnerability and welfareconsiderations

YOT practitioners have ongoingresponsibilities in relation to addressingvulnerability and welfare issues as

part of wider children’s services partnerships/Children and Young People’sPartnerships, and should therefore ensurevulnerability is also assessed at this stage,identifying what action will be taken if thechild or young person is assessed asbeing particularly vulnerable. This will notaffect the Scaled Approach interventionlevels, but should form part of the overallintervention plan, and vulnerability planwhere one is needed.

The final judgement should be used toinform the proposal made to the court orreport to the youth offender panel.

ASSESSM

ENT FO

R IN

TERV

ENTIO

N

‘Any proposedchanges to the initialintervention level,by the YOT asresponsibleofficer, should bedefensible,discussed andagreed with amanager, and the reasonsclearly recorded.’

10

SECOND

DRAFTFollowing the assessment, the YOT willneed to propose a suitable order whenwriting a PSR, or indicate the appropriatelevel of intervention when completing areport for a youth offender panel. Whilethe primary aim of the Scaled Approach isto prevent reoffending, it must also beviewed within the context of the statutorysentencing framework and take accountof the range of sentencing principles inplace.

Sentencing context

As stated in the Crime and Disorder Act19985, the principal aim of the youthjustice system is to prevent offending,including reoffending, by children andyoung people. When a court isconsidering the sentence to impose on ayoung person who has offended,legislation6 also provides that the courtmust have regard to this principal aim,the welfare of the offender7 and the‘purposes of sentencing’. These are:

• punishment of offenders

• reform and rehabilitation of offenders

• protection of the public

• making of reparation by offenders topersons affected by their offences.

When determining the particularsentence for an offence, under theCriminal Justice Act 2003, the court willtake an initial view of seriousness,consider any aggravating and mitigatingfactors and then consider any personalmitigation.

Scaled Approach and sentencingpurposes

It is the court’s responsibility to sentencea young person, and proportionality inrelation to the seriousness of the offenceis, and will remain, a critical principlegoverning the court’s sentencingdecision. This will influence the length oforder and the type of requirementsincluded within the YRO.

It is the YOT’s responsibility to assist thecourt, by means of a PSR, to determinethe most suitable method of dealing witha young person who has offended.8

PR

OP

OSIN

G IN

TERV

ENTIO

NS FO

R C

OU

RT O

RD

ERS

PROPOSING INTERVENTIONS FOR COURT ORDERS

5. Section 37(1).

6. Section 142A of the CriminalJustice Act 2003, as inserted bys 9 of the Criminal Justice andImmigration Act 2008.

7. Where the word ‘offender’ isused, this is because thelegislation referred to uses thiswording. In all other instances,‘young person’ or ‘youngperson who offends’ is used.

8. As defined under s 158 of theCriminal Justice Act 2003.

SECOND

DRAFT

11

In discharging this responsibility, the YOTmust also consider the seriousness of theoffence/s, taking into account mitigatingand aggravating factors, and any issuesthat may go towards personal mitigation.In addition, the YOT must have regard tothe purposes of sentencing listed above.The interventions proposed should aimto reduce further offending, includingfuture risk of serious harm to others.Proposing interventions based onindividual assessments of likelihood ofreoffending and risk of serious harm willinvariably address most, if not all, of theseprinciples. In this way the YOT makes animportant contribution to the sentencingprocess while the court has the ultimateresponsibility for determining thesentence.

Tailoring court and youthoffender panel reports toassessments

The assessments completed using Assetto arrive at an overall ‘intervention level’will guide the proposal made to court orthe type of intervention the youthoffender panel may consider whenagreeing a contract. There aregeographical variations in local YOT andpartner agency service provision, as wellas offending patterns, so it is not

appropriate for the YJB to formally linklikelihood of reoffending, risk of seriousharm or Scaled Approach interventionlevels to detailed proposals for individualcases. However, it is possible to providean indication of the types of sentence orcontract components that may besuitable for those needing standard,enhanced or intensive levels ofintervention. This can be used as astarting point for YOTs to considersentence structure for the purpose ofsentence proposals, or the types ofintervention that could be providedwithin Referral Orders. As a guidingprinciple, the assessed intervention levelwill affect frequency of supervision (whereproposed), but can also be used to informactivity, programme or attendance centrerequirements.

PR

OP

OSIN

G IN

TERV

ENTIO

NS FO

R C

OU

RT O

RD

ERS

‘The interventionsproposed shouldaim to reducefurther offending,including futurerisk of seriousharm to others.’

12

SECOND

DRAFT

Table 1: Possible sentence structures by intervention level

PR

OP

OSIN

G IN

TERV

ENTIO

NS FO

R C

OU

RT O

RD

ERS

Interventionlevel

Function

Enabling complianceand repairing harm

Enabling complianceand repairing harm AND Enabling help/change

Enabling complianceand repairing harm AND Enabling help/changeAND Ensuring control

Typical case managementapproach

• Organising interventions to meetbasic requirements of order

• Engaging parents in interventionsand/or to support young person

• Monitoring compliance• Enforcement

• Brokering access to externalinterventions

• Co-ordinating interventions withspecialists in YOT

• Providing supervision• Engaging parents in interventions

and/or supporting young person• Providing motivation to

encourage compliance• Proactively addressing reasons

for non-compliance • Enforcement

• Extensive9

• Help/change function plusadditional controls, restrictions and monitoring

Possible sentence requirement/component (not exclusive)

• Reparation• Stand-alone unpaid work• Supervision • Stand-alone attendance centre

• Supervision • Reparation • Requirement/component to help

young person or changebehaviour, e.g. drug treatment,offending behaviour programme,education programme

• Combination of the above

• Supervision • Reparation• PLUS • Requirement/component to help

young person or change behaviour• Requirement/component to

monitor or restrict movement, e.g. prohibited activity, curfew,exclusion or electronic monitoring

• Combination of the above

STANDARD

ENHANCED

INTENSIVE

SECOND

DRAFT

13

In general terms:

• More requirements will tend to equateto the intensive intervention level –BUT if the risks and needs of a child oryoung person assessed as requiringthe enhanced or intensive level can beadequately dealt with through asupervision requirement, then multiplerequirements will not be necessary.

• Where issues such as mental healthdifficulties or substance misuse arepresent, it is preferable to engage theyoung person in interventions toaddress these needs on a voluntarybasis; statutory requirements toaddress these types of issues shouldonly be proposed where voluntaryengagement has previously failed.

Supervision levels

When the YOT is proposing supervision asan element of the order, the practitioner

should make clear in the PSR (or stand-down report, where appropriate) that thiswill be in accordance with theirassessment of the appropriate interventionlevel. They should make clear that thefrequency of supervision will be deliveredin accordance with the minimumstandards10 set out in Table 2 below.

In the event that a young person is beingsentenced for a relatively minor offence,but the YOT has assessed them as needingan intensive level of supervision becausethe young person is highly likely toreoffend or presents a high or very highrisk of serious harm to the public, it isimportant that this is highlighted at thecourt hearing. This will allow the court anddefendant’s legal representative toconsider the information. In this instance,the court may make a shorter order that isproportionate to the offence, and maylimit the number of requirements to takeaccount of the fact that the YOT will see

PR

OP

OSIN

G IN

TERV

ENTIO

NS FO

R C

OU

RT O

RD

ERS

09. This is distinct from the mostintensive forms ofintervention: the IntensiveSupervision and Surveillance(ISS) and Intensive Fosteringrequirements of the YRO,which must be used only asdirect alternatives to custody.However, it would beexpected that those suitablefor ISS and IntensiveFostering would have beenassessed as needing a highlevel of intervention.

10. These will be containedwithin the revised NationalStandards for Youth JusticeServices, which are subject toministerial approval in 2009.

Interventionlevel

Minimum no. of contacts per monthfor first three months of order

2

4

12

Minimum no. of contacts permonth for remainder of order

1

2

4

STANDARD

ENHANCED

INTENSIVE

Table 2: Supervision levels

14

SECOND

DRAFT

the young person more frequently in orderto address the likelihood of reoffending orrisk of serious harm to others.

Equally, there will be situations where ayoung person is being sentenced for aparticularly serious offence but is assessedby the YOT as requiring a standardintervention because of low likelihood ofreoffending and low risk of serious harm.In such cases, the court is likely to give alonger order in proportion with theoffence, and it may also wish to includespecific requirements to address theseriousness of the offence, e.g. those thatmonitor or restrict movement, such as acurfew or electronic monitoring, inaddition to the proposed level of YOTsupervision.

Whichever Scaled Approach interventionlevel a young person is assessed at, thequality of interventions should be of keyimportance and informed by the YJB’s KeyElements of Effective Practice. The contactlevels set out in Table 2 on page 13 arethe minimum requirements for eachintervention level.

Packages of intervention

In the context of the YRO and for ReferralOrder ‘cusp of custody’ cases, it is

important that a range of ‘packages ofintervention’ are available to courts thatgive them confidence in sentencingyoung people, who have varyinglikelihoods of reoffending or risks ofserious harm, to a suitable order. It willalso be important for court confidence tobe able to use the YRO for the sameyoung person on multiple occasions.

YOTs should work with sentencers todetermine how the ‘packages ofintervention’ will operate on a local level,and develop different ‘packages’ for YROsand Referral Orders that can be tailoredfor individual cases to take into accountlevel and type of offending. It isrecognised that packages of interventionfor Referral Orders are likely to beindicative only, as the youth offenderpanel determines the specific content ofthe Referral Order contract. However, incases where custody is being considered,it is good practice for the YOT to arrangean informal preparatory meetinginvolving panel volunteers to consider thelikely content of a Referral Order contractand inform the PSR recommendation.

PR

OP

OSIN

G IN

TERV

ENTIO

NS FO

R C

OU

RT O

RD

ERS

‘It is good practicefor the YOT toarrange aninformalpreparatorymeeting involvingpanel volunteersto consider thelikely content of aReferral Ordercontract andinform the PSRrecommendation.’

15

SECOND

DRAFT

Ongoing case management

After sentencing, the Scaled Approachframework should inform the ongoingmanagement of cases. Within the contextof the sentence passed in court, or in thecase of Referral Orders, the contractagreed at the panel meeting, interventionand risk management plans should bedrawn up in more detail, with a carefulmatching of intervention intensity to theassessed likelihood of reoffending and riskof serious harm to others (if applicable).

Where the proposal for sentence has beenfollowed (i.e. for non-Referral Order cases),this is likely to require minimal additionalwork, but it will provide an opportunity toensure that a high quality interventionplan is put in place and delivered. In caseswhere the YOT’s sentence proposal wasnot followed by the court, the YOT mustimplement the sentence passed and drawup an intervention plan in accordancewith it.

Review

In accordance with National Standardsrequirements, reviews should take place

at least every three months – or soonerwhere there has been a significantchange in circumstances. At this stage,the YOT practitioner as responsible officerhas the discretion to amend the level ofsupervision where there is clear evidenceof a change in circumstances that wouldlead to an amended risk assessment. Anyproposed changes to the initialintervention level in place at the start ofthe sentence must be based on anupdated assessment of the likelihood ofreoffending and risk of serious harm toothers using Asset. The outcome of theassessment must be clearly recorded.Where it is proposed to increase theintervention level, this should bediscussed with the young person andwhere appropriate their parents/carers,before it is implemented, to facilitate theirengagement.

In particular circumstances, there may bea need to amend the level of interventionbefore the formal review stage, forexample, where there is intelligence thata young person has become involved indangerous behaviour that would presenta high risk of serious harm to the public,and this information was not available to

MA

NA

GIN

G A

N O

RD

ER P

OST SEN

TENC

E

MANAGING AN ORDER POST-SENTENCE

‘The YOTpractitioner asresponsible officerhas the discretionto amend the levelof supervisionwhere there isclear evidence of achange incircumstances thatwould lead to anamended riskassessment.’

16

SECOND

DRAFT

the court at the time of sentencing.Again, any changes to intervention levelsmust be supported by defensibleevidence-based decisions that are clearlyrecorded. In the event of a substantialchange occuring in assessment andresulting intervention levels within days ofsentence, it may be appropriate to advisethe court accordingly.

Vulnerability and welfare need

As part of ongoing case management,welfare needs should be addressed in ascaled manner, initially through targetedyouth support and other voluntaryengagement, for example, through accessto positive leisure activities. Significantissues of vulnerability and welfare shouldbe addressed in line with localsafeguarding, CAF and Lead Professionalprocedures in England, or in line withChildren and Young People’s Partnershiparrangements in Wales. A referral shouldalso be made to children’s services inEngland or social services in Wales for a s 17 assessment.11

Intervention levels, contact typesand breach

Given the range of YRO, Referral Ordercontract and DTO community supervisionrequirements that children and young

people may be subject to, it is importantthat consideration is given to thesequencing of these to ensure that theinterventions are manageable. Wherechildren and young people are subject tosupervision, the amount of contact theyshould receive is determined by theScaled Approach intervention levels, asset out on page 13 of this booklet inTable 2.

Further guidance will be provided onwhat constitutes a contact in relation tothe Scaled Approach and the YRO.

Breach

In encouraging and enabling compliancewith the order and scaled approachsupervision levels, YOT staff should seek toengage the young person in theirintervention. They should be aware of theKey Elements of Effective Practice – EngagingYoung People who Offend, as well as theNational Standards for Youth JusticeServices. As per existing NationalStandards, where a young person hasfailed to attend a scheduled contact theyshould determine whether the failure toattend was reasonable by ascertaining the stated reasons for the failure to attend and then applying their professionaljudgement to take into account, inaddition to the explanation given,

MA

NA

GIN

G A

N O

RD

ER P

OST SEN

TENC

E

11. An assessment carried out bychildren’s services under s 17of the Children Act 1989 todetermine whether youngpeople are ‘children in need’and therefore eligible for awide range of services.

17

SECOND

DRAFT

the following factors:

• the overall level of contact required

• overall compliance with the order andits requirements

• the maturity of the young person

• Asset and Asset – Risk of Serious Harmassessments

• any other relevant factors, such aswhether there are chaoticcircumstances in the young person’slife.

If a failure to attend is deemedunacceptable then a warning must beissued to the young person in writing.Where three unreasonable failures tocomply occur, the YOT should issuebreach proceedings in accordance withrelevant legislation12 and NationalStandards for Youth Justice Services. Breachaction can only be stayed in exceptionalcircumstances with the authorisation ofthe YOT manager.

Prolific and Other PriorityOffenders

The Scaled Approach offers anopportunity for alignment with theprocess for identifying young peopleeligible for the ‘Deter’ cohort within theProlific and Other Priority Offender

Strategy. Within the Scaled Approachframework, those who are assessed asrequiring intensive intervention willautomatically be eligible for the ‘Deter’cohort. This will enable targeting ofservices from the partners within theCrime and Disorder ReductionPartnerships in England and CommunitySafety Partnerships in Wales to onepriority group through a single process.However, local adaptation may beneeded to suit local circumstances; forexample, if the numbers in the intensiveintervention level category are very small,the cohort may need to be expanded.These variations should be agreed at alocal level.13

MA

NA

GIN

G A

N O

RD

ER P

OST SEN

TENC

E

12. Section 2 of the CriminalJustice and Immigration Act2008 includes requirements inrelation to breach of a YRO.Full explanatory guidance willbe provided by Governmentprior to the commencementof the provisions of this Act.

13. Guidance on selecting thoseeligible for the ‘Deter’ cohortis available on the YJB websiteat www.yjb.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5EDD1469-D5FD-4A55-9124-79C311617704/0/PreventandDeterforYOTs.pdf

‘Within the ScaledApproachframework, thosewho are assessedas requiring a highintervention levelwill automaticallybe eligible for the‘Deter’ cohort.’

18

SECOND

DRAFT

The information used to make theassessment of a young person’s likelihoodof reoffending is taken from Asset. The‘static’ factors listed opposite arecontained within Asset – Core Profile, andthe dynamic factors are taken from the 12 sections normally scored within Asset.Testing has shown that including these‘static’ factors with the dynamic factors hasincreased the predictive accuracy of Asset.

The scoring associated with the burglaryand motoring offences listed alongsidereflects the fact that these were the twooffence types most closely associated withreconviction, using a representativesample of young people at the time of

Asset being validated. For more details, see the full research report on the YJBwebsite.14

The static factors should be scoredindividually in accordance with the tableopposite, and should total no more than16. However, it is also possible to score 0;for example, a young person with noprevious convictions, reprimands orwarnings whose primary index offence istheft would score 0.

The total static factors score should beadded to the total dynamic factors score,with the final total being no more than 64.

APPEN

DIX

A:A

SSESSING

THE LIK

ELIHO

OD

OF R

EOFFEN

DIN

G

APPENDIX A:ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OFREOFFENDING

14. www.yjb.gov.uk/Publications/Resources/Downloads/ASSETReport2003.pdf

15. For the full list of relevantmotoring, vehicle theft,unauthorised taking andburglary offences, please seeAppendix B of Assetdocumentation, availableonline at www.yjb.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4548066B-1849-4E21-BC10-4B5303AEEDA9/0/14Appendices.pdf

SECOND

DRAFT

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

19

APPEN

DIX

A:

ASSESSIN

G TH

E LIKELIH

OO

D O

F REO

FFEND

ING

Likelihood of reoffending

Total static factors score (0–16) 0

Static factors

Offence type15

Age at first Reprimand/Caution/Warning

Age at first conviction

Number of previous convictions

Scoring

• Motoring offences/vehicle theft/unauthorised taking = 4

• Burglary (domestic and non-domestic) = 3• Other offence = 0

10 to 12 = 413 to 17 = 2No previous Reprimand/Caution/Warning = 0

10 to 13 = 414 to 17 = 3No previous convictions = 0

4 or more = 41 to 3 = 3No previous convictions = 0

Initial score

Sample form

SECOND

DRAFT

Initial score

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

Click here

APPEN

DIX

A:

ASSESSIN

G TH

E LIKELIH

OO

D O

F REO

FFEND

ING

Total dynamic factors score (0–48) 0

TOTAL SCORE (0–64)

Dynamic factors/Asset section

Living arrangements

Family and personal relationships

Education, training and employment

Neighbourhood

Lifestyle

Substance use

Physical health

Emotional and mental health

Perception of self and others

Thinking and behaviour

Attitudes to offending

Motivation to change

Scoring

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

0, 1, 2, 3, 4

Overall assessed likelihood of reoffending

Rating

Low (score 0–14 inclusive)

Medium (score 15–32 inclusive)

High (score 33–64 inclusive)

20