Does AssetPlus facilitate effective assessment of children in the youth justice system? A critical evaluation
| Study type Evidence review |
| Methodology Narrative evidence review |
| Population Children aged 10-17 (both youth justice involved children as well as child victims of crime) |
| Area or stage of YJS Early intervention; Targeted prevention; Diversion; Arrest; Court; Remand and sentencing; Custody; Resettlement; Youth Justice Service workforce (including statutory partners); Youth Justice Service leadership and governance |
| Organisation University of Nottingham |
| Authors Dr Hannah Smith (University of Nottingham); Dr Elizabeth Paddock (University of Nottingham). |
| Published February 2025 |
Summary
AssetPlus is the YJB’s assessment and planning framework that youth justice services across England and Wales use. This research article aims to collate existing information about AssetPlus and its effectiveness. It aims to critically evaluate the framework and consider how it could be improved. It provides recommendations to support the development of AssetPlus and directions for further research.
Approach
- This review considers the strengths and limitations of AssetPlus for practitioners working with children involved with the youth justice system. Though AssetPlus is also used within the children’s secure estate, this review focused on its use in the community, where case management responsibility lies (YJB, 2018).
Key findings
Assessment is a key part of youth justice work and forms the foundations of effective intervention. Assessment quality is ultimately influenced by the tool used, and therefore it is important that assessment tools, such as AssetPlus, are regularly reviewed, evaluated and improved.
The introduction of AssetPlus in 2014 provided a welcome shift in assessment practices away from risk-focus and towards a more holistic and dynamic assessment and intervention planning framework (Case, 2021). The authors of this article argue, however, that AssetPlus has many limitations including its unnecessary length and complexity, its child-unfriendliness and its lack of empirical validation. Ten years on, the authors argue a full review and redesign is overdue (Drew, 2023) and resource should be allocated to developing a framework that is easier to use and better aligned to the Child First framework.