ABSTRACT
This chapter critically explores the challenges inherent to the assessment of risks and needs in youth justice internationally. Focusing on the body of risk factor research that underpins risk assessment in youth justice, we evaluate this hegemonic approach to practice as pseudo-psychological, adult-centric, reductionist, partial, methodologically inadequate, and perpetuating negative views of children who offend. We identify and explore the key challenges that result from this critique as threefold:
Evidence – the imperative that assessment-intervention practice with children who offend is informed by a comprehensive, valid (meaningful, accurate, representative), and ethical evidence base;
Extrication – the assertion that contemporary youth justice policy and practice must extricate itself from its obsession with actuarial risk management, which is based on a partial evidence base and has led to problems of invalidity, reductionism, negativity, practice prescription, and adult centrism – bad science (mis)informing bad practice;
Evolution – embracing progressive alternative approaches that address embedded problems with practice and evolving assessment-intervention in evidenced, ethical, and child-centred ways.
The chapter concludes with discussion of child-centric assessments as a progressive alternative to risk assessment, drawing on the contemporary examples of AssetPlus and Surrey Youth Support Service to evidence this approach.