The `Scaled Approach' in Youth Justice: Fools Rush In…
| Author | Alex Sutherland |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225408101431 |
| Published date | 01 April 2009 |
| Date | 01 April 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
ARTICLE
Copyright © 2009 The National Association for Youth Justice
Published by SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1473–2254, Vol 9(1): 44–60
DOI: 10.1177/1473225408101431
The ‘Scaled Approach’ in Youth Justice:
Fools Rush In…
Alex Sutherland
Correspondence: Alex Sutherland, Nuffi eld College, University of Oxford, Oxford,
OX1 1NF, UK. Email: alex.sutherland@nuffi eld.ox.ac.uk
Abstract
There are few studies which examine the relationship between assessment, intervention plan-
ning and supervision (APIS) in detail, and none within the context of youth justice in the UK.
One such study in probation which looked at risk assessment and intervention planning was
Merrington (2001). The study upon which this article is based (Sutherland et al., 2005) aimed
to replicate Merrington’s research to allow refl ection on current practice in a small sample of
Youth Offending Teams (YOTs). The rationale for the original study was to inform changes
to the youth justice system related to the introduction of an explicit risk-led (‘scaled’) model of
practice (YJB, 2006a, 2007a). This article reports fi ndings relating to the basic practice model
suggested by this framework and refl ects on the implications for YOTs and young people of the
‘scaled approach’.
Keywords: assessment, policy, risk-led, ‘scaled approach’, youth justice practice
Context
A change which has been gathering momentum over the last two years is the introduction of an
explicit ‘risk-led’ model of practice (referred to as the ‘scaled approach’ by the YJB – see YJB,
2007a). The basis of this ‘new’ system will be the existing framework of ‘Assessment, Planning
Interventions and Supervision’ (APIS) (see YJB, 2004b). APIS forms the basis for youth justice
practice and all elements of this have minimum National Standards (YJB, 2004a) for practi-
tioners to adhere to in order to ensure fair, equitable and consistent practice across the system.
Figure 1 shows the framework for this model, where each element informs a continuous cycle of
(re)assessment, (re)formulation of sentence planning, and supervision approaches.
The thinking behind the introduction of the risk-led approach is that interventions1 will be
intentionally differentiated according to the risks2 and needs of young people, by putting in place
a scaled approach to intervention that is based on the assessed level of risk…[and improved]
practice in Asset completion, pre-sentence report (PSR) writing and intervention planning’ (YJB,
2007a: 3). This is intended to allow YOTs to more effectively target resources, but also means
that the accountability and ‘defensibility’ of decisions (Kemshall, 1998) will be paramount.
Arguably, this is the approach which is already being presented to YOTs (as per Figure 1) –
Sutherland – The ‘Scaled Approach’ in Youth Justice 45
assessments inform plans, plans focus interventions, interventions (whether successful or not)
inform reassessment and so on. It seems that the ‘scaled approach’ will make this more explicit –
and make the links between these elements much more prescribed (see YJB, 2007a).
There have been, to date, no studies which look at the adequacy of this current operation of
APIS: that is, whether assessment does inform planning and intervention. As a result, there is
nothing against which the changes proposed by the introduction of an overt risk-led model of
practice can be compared. This article explores the adequacy of APIS as currently implemented.
Methodology
The methodology from Merrington’s (2001) study into the introduction of ACE (Assessment,
Case management and Evaluation – a precursor to the adult assessment tool OASys) was used
as the model for this research. In this study, Merrington (and others) looked at the ability of
ACE to identify ‘criminogenic needs and [at] its value as a tool for prioritising and addressing
such needs in supervision plans’ (Haslewood-Pócsik and Skinns, 2000: 1). The research team
collected assessments, intervention plans, records of actual interventions and case fi les and
then explored the extent to which the original assessment informed both the planning of inter-
ventions and the actual work that took place. The study addressed the following questions:
1 What is the profi le of assessed risks and needs? (Merrington and Skinns, 2000);
2. Do intervention plan targets refl ect the assessment undertaken by the practitioner?
(Haslewood-Pócsik and Skinns, 2000);
3. Do actual interventions refl ect planned interventions? (Merrington, 2001);
4. Do actual interventions refl ect assessments? (Merrington, 2001).3
These questions formed the basis for the research this article is based on, as the ACE and APIS
models are very similar.
Four YOTs were chosen in the South-East of England, all within urban locales: two inner-
London YOTs and two city-centre YOTs outside London.4 A two-stage sampling frame was
used to select young people for inclusion in this research. First, the four YOTs were selected
based upon data returns to the YJB relating to performance indicators on Asset5 and inter-
vention plan completion, and the throughput of cases. Projections from data-returns suggested
Figure 1. APIS framework
To continue reading
Request your trial