Risk of Re-Offending and Needs Assessments: The User's Perspective

Assessment in Youth Justice: Professional Discretion and the Use of Asset

“…: 32). This pattern of mixed responses has also been found in studies of users' views regarding assessment tools for adult offenders (Aye-Maung and Hammond, 2000).…”

“…(Robinson, 2003a: 593) Very broadly, the managerialism associated with 'new penology' (Feeley and Simon, 1992;) could be viewed as an attempt to introduce greater technicality in criminal justice services, in contrast to the more traditional but indeterminate methods associated with autonomous casework. For example, the imposition of National Standards (Home Office, 1992;2000;Youth Justice Board, 2000b; has been viewed as an attempt to impose control on practitioners and to limit the scope for professional discretion. Eadie and Canton (2002) criticise the way in which the Standards used in the Probation Service have been revised over time such that initial references to the use of 'professional judgement' have been removed and the language changed from 'should' to 'must'.…”

“…The seemingly obvious and direct link between increasing technicality and decreasing professionalism should be questioned not least because, although practitioners and managers often have reservations about some of the implications of initiatives such as the introduction of assessment tools, they have also identified advantages of their use. Specifically these include: their potential role in promoting consistency and quality; their use in providing information to inform resource planning; their scope for contributing to the evaluation of interventions and the way in which they are perceived as providing evidence to back-up decisions and demonstrate defensibility (Aye- Maung and Hammond, 2000;Robinson, 2003b).…”

Risk and need assessment in British probation: the contribution of LSI-R

“…OASys is a very comprehensive and strongly research-based assessment instrument, informed by detailed study of others including LSI-R and ACE. An internal Home Office study also collected information on practitioners' concerns about LSI-R and ACE to pave the way for the new instrument (Aye-Maung & Hammond, 2000), but no such study of the new instrument has been published yet. OASys has attracted criticism from probation practitioners for being overcomplex and too time-consuming at a time of increasing workloads, and was one factor in the industrial action in many probation areas over workloads in 2002 Á2003.…”

If ‘Something Works’ is the Answer, What is the Question?

“…Raynor et al (2000) argued that these assessment systems could help practitioners to record changes in criminogenic needs over time and target dynamic risk factors that, if changed, are known to be indicative of lower rates of recidivism. The assessment instruments could also play an important role in indicating offenders' progress over an order, and Aye- Maung and Hammond (2000) found that some probation officers were using them in that way.…”