In order to assess Craig and whether the primary concern for him should be associated with risk factors for the future, or strengths and aspirations, it is clear that assessment should be the main focus and why it is done. The OASys Manual (2002) states that ‘the assessment of risk by an offender and the identification of the factors which have contributed to the offending, are the starting points for all work with offenders.’ The reason why assessment is done is determine the approach to work, the nature and the intensity of intervention in order to make recommendations to judge the process in order to help the offender make their own judgements. It has become extremely important for probation services to assess offenders in order to effectively identify their needs, their risk of re-offending and any changes in the risk they pose to themselves or to others (Raynor. P., et al 2000). These different purposes of assessment lay emphasis on the risks and strengths for Craig which help make a decision on which the primary concern for assessment should be on.
The history is risk assessment in criminal justice has been written on several occasions in relation to the principles of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) framework, which bases terms of risk and need and transforms them into principles which address the key major issues of those of higher risk, targets that are set and what strategies of treatment are employed (Bonta, J., et al 2006). The three core principles of this framework have been designed to strengthen and enhance the implementation of effective interventions. The first principle, risk, matches the level of service to the offenders risk to re-offend. The need principle, assesses the criminogenic needs in order to target them in treatment. Finally the responsivity principle maximises the offenders abilities to learn from an intervention, which is rehabilitative, by giving cognitive behavioural treatment by tailoring the intervention to the abilities and strengths of the offender (Bonta, J. and Andrews, D.A., 2007). For the responsivity principle, it comes in two parts which include, general and specific responsivity. General responsivity uses cognitive social learning methods in order to influence behaviour, which is seen as one of the most effective strategies to influence the offenders behaviour. Specific responsivity however, takes into account the individuals learning style, strengths, motivation and other characteristics such as race and gender. This RNR model has been seen to be highly influential to the development of offender risk assessment instruments and offender rehabilitation programmes.
The first generation of assessment consists of the probability of offending behaviour. It is known as a clinical judgement which is the unstructured gathering of information about the offender by a professional that is trained in understanding human behaviour. It is highly tailored to the individuals approach to assessment and is open to considerable personal bias (Craig, L.A., et al 2013). Its advantages include the fact that it is convenient, flexible and inexpensive which made it widely accepted and made it able to inform treatment and management. However, there are a few disadvantages of this first generation assessment such as there being a lack of transparency and consistency as well as being highly susceptible to biases. This generation was discredited for being subjective and for its poor predictive accuracy (Department of Justice 2015).
On the other hand however, the second generation of assessment refers to an actuarial based assessment which is highly structured compared to the clinical based approach as all the clients are asked the same questions and organises information into a quantitative mode. It is known as a statistical assessment which is based on statistical data which has proved to be more effective than the clinal approach of the first generation because it is more evidence based. For the actuarial approach, the individual scores are related to future criminal behaviour however, for the clinical judgement it is more unstructured and non quantitative which leaves the results more to chance. The second generation of assessment is empirically based and composed of static risk factors. Its advantages include having good reliability and predictive accuracy making it relatively quick and easy. However, this generation of assessment is known to be atheoretical and does not allow for change over time which can lead to limited identification of treatment targets, making it a disadvantage.
The third generation risk instruments were referred to as ‘risk need’ instruments and a few of these were theoretically based (McNeill, F., et al 2010). It starts to then include a wider variety of factors and considers dynamic factors and criminogenic needs and goes beyond the measurement of static factors to include the assessment of offender needs (Craig, L.A., et al 2013). These third generation tools are said to be more effective clinical assessment tools and predictive devices than the first and second generation. Furthermore, because dynamic risk factors are embedded in third generation instruments, by successfully addressing these dynamic risk factors it would contribute to an offenders reduction in risk (Bonta 2002). Advantages to this system include it being sensitive to change over time and theoretically sound. However, using this third generation assessment tool could potentially shorter the shelf life as it is more time consuming and its decisions are based off group norms which limits the integration of intervention.
Finally, the fourth generation guides and follows service and supervision from intake through case closures and includes integration of case planning and intervention. This system also recognises the criminogenic/non criminogenic distinction which may be compared in relation to recidivism and with the measures of well being. A goal of this instrument therefore is to strengthen adherence with effective treatment and to facilitate clinical supervision devoted to enhance public protection from recidivistic crime (Bonta, J., 2006). This fourth generation highlights an integration of risk management, treatment targets and modalities as well as assessment of progress. This system also has advantages which include having good reliability and predictive accuracy and helping to incorporate intervention, however, also still has disadvantages such as requiring repeated administration to detect change. With it being the most recent generation, more training and expertise is required.
OASys (offender assessment system) is set to classify the risk of offending and focus the attention of pre defined criminogenic needs. It also provides a consistent framework which makes assessments more comparable. It is designed to help practitioners make sound and defensible decisions (Home Office 2002). More specifically OASys is designed to assess the likelihood of an offender to reoffend as well as identifying and classifying offending related needs (Moore. R., 2015). Furthermore, AssetPlus is a new assessment and framework which has been developed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and designed to provide an end to end assessment and intervention plan. It focuses on professional judgement of practitioners and being able to improve plans and outcomes for young people. It goes through certain steps to ensure the best possible outcome for the person, such as gathering information and analysing it in order to consider potential future behaviour. This is done by highlighting areas where there is a need for referral and focuses more on risk and safety management (GOV 2014).
The ‘What Works’ principle is a movement which demonstrates that different programmes that contain certain conditions can reduce recidivism rates for offenders. It is an effective evidence based practice used to prevent reoffending. The key ‘what works’ principles also consist of key elements which include; risk classification (which includes the risk of re-offending and risk of harm); criminogenic needs (static and dynamic); and responsivity (general and specific). It is seen as an effective evidence based practice used to prevent re-offending. Research has shows that providing intervention that correspond to risk levels and focus on criminogenic needs may actually fail to produce sustainable changes in criminal behaviour due to responsivity receiving inadequate attention (Braucht, G., 2009).
It can be seen as effective in some ways as it is seen as logical and consistent and a good framework for good practice. It is now impossible to ignore evidence which highlights the possibilities for reducing reoffending (Mcgurie, J.E., 1995).
In addition to this, it has also shown some reductions in re-offending. In relation to Craig it is clear that he fulfils the requirements of the principles within the ‘what works’ system. High-risk refers to those people with a higher probability of reoffending. Looking at risk classification, it can be argued that he is of high risk because he is a repeat offender which means that there is need of more intervention.
The need principle states that correctional treatment should be focused on criminogenic factors, those needs that are directly linked to crime-producing behaviour.
Extensive research on recidivism among the general criminal population has identified a set of factors that are most associated with criminal behaviour one including substance abuse. He fulfils the criminogenic need principle as there are some individual factors that contribute to offending such as, the amount of alcohol he drinks and how often he goes out to the pub.
The responsivity principle refers to the delivery of treatment programs in a manner that is consistent with the ability and learning style of the client.Treatment should be delivered in a manner tailored to each offender’s abilities and interventions should be based on behavioural strategies, including cognitive-behavioural, skill building, or social learning. This focuses more on the learning styles which allows a more tailored approach to the abilities and strengths of Craig.
On the other hand, there are some criticisms for this approach including that they have different evidence base which leads to different conclusions. There is also criticism that ‘what works’ ruins the reputation of practitioners and they have to follow set programmes and so are not given the chance to be creative. However, it is effective because it uses structured and validated instruments to assess risk, need and responsivity. As well as this it assesses personal strengths and integrates them in interventions. It is clear it has been influential within offender assessment and management.
As well as looking at the different risk based approaches, it is clear that the more strength based approaches such as desistance should be discussed. Desistance can be defined as ‘the long term abstinence from crime among individuals who had previously engaged in persistent patterns of criminal offending (Maruna 2001). There are two types of desistance which are primary and secondary. Primary desistance is seen to be more of an achievement of an offence free period. However, secondary desistance highlights a change in self identity and refers to how the ex offender labels himself, in this case Craig. There are different types of offenders such as hedonists, who commit crime purely for the thrill of it and earners who make a living through offending. There are also different types of desisters such as avoiders, who are people who do anything they can to avoid the consequences of going to prison and converts, who are people that are trying to do good and recognise their old life as discarded. Overall It is clear that the use of desistance would be useful as it recognises strengths within the offender instead of purely focusing on risk.
Furthermore, there are many different factors which might promote desistance including, age, people earning money legitimately at work, motivation by believing in themselves and any changes that may occur in regards with their behaviour or having children which stems from relationships. There are also obstacles to desistance which include problems regarding their accommodation, employment or any addictions they may have. This would be relevant to Craig and be a favour within this strength based approach because he does have some factors which promote desistance, such as motivation. His motivation in this case would be his daughter because although he has already been to prison, he is determined not to go back in order to look after his daughter.
Theories of desistance tend to focus on the significance of aging, on related life events and social bonds, or on related narrative changes in the offender and his or her sense of self (Maruna, 2001). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) point towards self control as a factor in offending and say that those with low self control are most likely to offend. They also believe that those with low self control were found to be risk takers, impulsive, and seek immediate gratification.
There are different aspects of Social Control Theory that may be relevant to Craig's assessment such as attachment and commitment. Attachment means that if an individual has weak attachment then they are less likely to be concerned about the outcomes of going against the social norms or offending friends, family or wider society (Hearn, N., 2010). This can be seen in relation to Craig because by being in the army from such a young age at 16, this meant he was unable to form strong attachments with society as he had no-one else to care for and decided to detach himself from society meaning that he would have weak attachment. Commitment refers to the amount of time and energy put into a particular thing, for example, a career. By Craig having no other commitments it means that he would not feel the same level of loss if he was excluded. This is because he has not put in a lot of time in anything in particular excluding the army.
Another reason that a strength based approach should be the primary concern for Craig is because of the Good Lives Model (GLM). This model is one example of an approach which emphasises the importance of identifying strengths (Ward and Brown, 2004). There are many debates over the extent to which using strengths improves the assessment process who suggest that if used in balance with information regarding difficulties or risks, it can provide an importing motivating element (Gov 2014). McNeill (2009) argues that too strong of a focus on the strength based approaches may produce a happy but dangerous offender, however too strong of a focus on risk may produce a dangerous defiant offender (McNeill, 2009: 85). The GLM claims that RNR ignores the roles of the alliance and non criminogenic needs in the process of the client change. Ward (2007) and his colleagues said that the major difference between RNR and the Good Life Model (GLM) is in orientation. The RNR framework clearly emphasises deficits (i.e criminogenic needs) and the Good Life Model highlights strengths (i.e primary goods).
Both risks and strengths should be looked at during assessment for Craig. This is because as well as looking at the risks of Craig, looking at the strengths would be useful as it more information is gathered in order to assess Craig in different ways and by looking at his reasons for change.
Different risks emerge from the interview of Craig such as the fact he is a repeat offender and seems to rely on alcohol. This is clearly an issue of public safety as he cannot seem to control his actions which is clear from him working as a doorman for a club and punching a man in the face and the fact that there is a substantial amount of alcohol misuse with the amount Craig goes to the pub due to his drinking habits he developed in the army in order to stay ‘caught up’ to them.
Another reason he can be seen as a risk is because he is army trained. This is dangerous for people who might get into a fight with him because he knows how to fight and could cause ham to another person. Craigs attitude in general highlighted no responsibility for his actions as he always tried to push the blame onto someone else by trying to rationalise and minimise everything. Regarding Craig’s relationship with his most current girlfriend Steph, there is an issue that could be seen portraying Craig to be threatening and controlling or the complete opposite. When Craig was questioned about his relationship with Steph, he says to the interviewer that ‘Steph KNOWS not to bring up things from his past.’ This was seen by the interviewer and instantly regarded as aspects of domestic violence. When questioned Craig was adamant that there was no domestic violence going on. However, a strength that could work in Craig’s favour is that Steph might have known not to bring up anything from his past because she recognises that Craig has trouble thinking about the army which can be seen as good for their future because he is able to open up to Steph about his past but no-one else.
On the other hand, there are many different strengths for Craig which may be more effective for finding out more information about him. It is clear that he has motivation to help him stop re-offending which is because of his daughter. He also has motivation from knowing what life was like in prison and knows he does not want to go back. As well as having motivation there is a certain caring element to Craig as he is also the carer for his disabled father. By showing remorse and by apologising for what he had done it is clear that this is a strength because it shows signs of the Good Life Model by his daughter being his motivating element (Gov 2014). By showing the GLM it creates more of a chance with desistance. Although Craig struggled to find work after being in prison, he managed to find one as a doorman which shows him working as a factor which might promote desistance. However, an obstacle to desistance which could be relevant to Craig is that he may have an addiction with alcohol misuse as that it what he results in after every argument with his girlfriend and when he just goes casually to watch the football.
Looking at what the primary concern for Craig should be overall, it is difficult to establish whether a more risk based approach or strength based approach because there are many unanswered questions which make it difficult to know Craig a lot better. For example, his unrestored army issues make it difficult for Craig to cope in certain stressful situations. However, by being a caring father and being a carer for his disabled father, shows Craig to have more strengths in his favour.
By focusing primarily on risk, it looks at Craig with a more static and negative view and it does no allow Craig any chance to improve and grow. Risk assessment is a reliable and feasible method for use in the UK probation services (Raynor, P., 2000) which can be seen as useful in assessing the risk of reconviction. It is clear that risk based assessments are needed as they are built around the risk of re-offending and are designed to classify risk and criminogenic needs as well as also being built to trigger the risk of harm assessment where indicated. However although the concern for risk factors being the primary concern is high, it is clear that more focus is needed on strengths and aspirations in order to allow for a more holistic, individualised approach which helps build on strengths within intervention. This is done by using desistance and the Good Lives Model in order to incorporate more strengths in order to help Craig stop re-offending. Desistance can be provoked by someone believing in the offender and carries hope for the offender when he cannot do so for himself (McNeill, F. and Weaver, B., 2010).