The Assessment of Young Offenders within the Juvenile Justice Services - English

Ministero della Giustizia
Dipartimento Giustizia Minorile Istituto Centrale
Centro per la Giustizia Minorile di Formazione
per la Lombardia - Milano del Personale

The Assessment of Young Offenders within the
Juvenile Justice Services

Italian Network for Young
Offenders’ Assessment and
Treatment
INYOAT
With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight Against Crime Programme. European

Commission – Directorate-General Justice, Freedom And Security GU L 58, 24.2.2007

I

The assessment of young offenders in juvenile justice
1 dicembre 2010 services

September 2010 – Milan, ITALY

II

Preface

This report documents the results of a project carried out by the Minotauro,

in cooperation with “Istituto Centrale di Formazione” ICF (the national staff

training office of the Juvenile Justice Department) and Lombardy Juvenile

Justice Centre.

The primary objective of the project was to establish an exchange between

psychologists, social workers and educators working within the Italian

juvenile justice services, paving the way for an exchange at European level

concerning the assessment of young offenders.

The project was focused in particular on the psychologists working within a

juvenile justice services, with the aim of assessing the objectives and

methods of their work.

The project examined the following questions:

• How does psycho-social assessment guide the court’s decisions?

• What are the objectives of the psycho-social assessment (e.g.

screening, diagnosis, liability to prosecution, social dangerousness,

re-offending risk)?

III

In order to answer such questions, the following activities were carried

out:

• A review of the literature on the psycho-social assessment carried

out in other European justice settings;

• Interviews with psychologists working in the Italian juvenile justice

services;

• National meetings between the managers of the Juvenile Justice

Services or other representatives of the services involved;

• Analysis of the reports provided by the juvenile justice services to

the court. The reports contain information about the young

person’s circumstances and aim to help the court to deliver a

suitable criminal response;

• The promote an exchange of practices and methods during

meetings between the psychologists working within the Italian

juvenile justice services;

• An international conference on assessment attended by

managers of the Juvenile Justice Services and representatives of

the services involved;

• The establishment of a mailing list for psychologists working

within the Juvenile Justice Systems, through with they can

exchanging information.

IV

The results of this project are presented in this report. A book detailing

the assessment of young offenders will be published in Italy and is

currently in press.

The report is addressed to professionals working in the field and judges

delive

V

Content

Document Development Gruop VII

1. Introduction 1

2. The Juvenile Justice System in Italy 11

3. Recent trends in criminal policies in Europe 19

4. The assessment carried out within the Juvenile
Justice Services in Italy 25

5. The psychological work within the Juvenile Justice
services 33

6. The assessment of antisocial behaviour within a
developmental frame 65

7. Conclusions and perspectives 139

Bibliography 145

VI

Document development group

Alfio Maggiolini

Alessandra Ciceri

Cristina Colli

Mauro Di Lorenzo

Giovanna Kluzer

Carlo Trionfi

Cristina Saottini

Veronica Scuffi

Virginia Suigo

Minotauro is a social cooperative of psychologists, researchers and trainers. Minotauro was

founded in 1984. The president is Gustavo Pietropolli Charmet; its members are

psychologists, psychotherapists, researchers and trainers, sharing their research and

intervention experiences in institutional contexts and in clinical activity, in a common

framework highlighting the importance of affective symbolisation processes, and the

developmental dimension of psychological uneasiness. Theoretical approaches and

experienced interventions are listed and presented in different publications

(www.minotauro.it).

VII

Istituto Centrale di Formazione

Cira Stefanelli

Maria Grazia Castorina

Bruno Costa

Elvira Narducci,

Giuseppe Mandalari

Antonella Zanfei

The “Istituto Centrale di Formazione (ICF) (the national staff training office of the Juvenile

Justice Department) plans, organizes, carries out and evaluates training activities involving the

staff under the Ministry of Juvenile Justice

The Juvenile Justice Centre of Lombardy

Flavia Croce

Juvenile justice centres are administrative decentralized agencies whose jurisdiction usually

covers the territory of several regions and appellate courts districts. Their functions are: technical

and financial planning, follow-up and supervision of juvenile justice services such as the offices of

youth social service, juvenile classification homes, juvenile detention detention centres and

residential communities.

VIII

1. Introduction

Italian Network for Young Offenders Assessment and Treatment
There has been a widespread pessimism about the treatment of young

offenders. The criminal response was considered to be largely ineffective.

Recently, the results of meta-analytic studies have shown that it is possible

to reduce re-offending. It has also been found that many antisocial

disorders can be treated and, contrary to all expectations, sufficiently

intensive and long treatment may also change psychopathic traits of

personality (McGuire, 1995; Salekin, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, 1998).

Early intervention with young offenders may prevent the development of a

criminal career. In order to deliver a programme effective in reducing the

risk of re- offending it is essential to assess the young person, his

environment and his deviant behaviour.

A psychological assessment of young people involved in criminal

proceedings may:

- address a psychological issue and highlight a possible psychopathology,

from a treatment-oriented perspective;

- include the family and the environment, in order to assess the risk and

protective factors

- focus on the risk of re-offending;

1


- respond to specific questions delivered by the court, such as issues

concerning maturity/immaturity and social dangerousness

An assessments many focus on particular aspects depending on the

offence, the characteristics of the youth, the criminal context, the stage of

the trial and, the theoretical framework and the methods employed by the

professionals carrying out the assessment.

The most recent trends show that age and gender (male adolescence) are

risk factors for rule-breaking behaviours. From a developmental viewpoint,

they may represent a physiologic rule-breaking attitude. They may also

underpin behavioural disorders, antisocial personality disorders or other

psycho-pathologies. However, in some cases, they may also reveal a failure

of the family, the environment and/or the school to understand the youths'

developmental needs.

One developmental psychopathology approach (Cicchetti, Cohen, 1995;

Achenbach, 2001; Rutter, 1988) attributes importance to the environment,

and overcomes the idea that the adolescence “carries” a disorder. This

approach finds that antisocial behaviours start as the result of a negative

interaction between an individual’s developmental needs and the

environmental’s responses, where the representations of the individual

2

Prevention and Fight Against Crime 2007
With financial support from the Prevention of and
Fight Against Crime Programme
European Commission – Directorate-General Justice, Freedom And Security

1. Introduction

concerning his needs and the responses from others to those needs,

become of paramount importance. This developmental psychopathology

approach found that antisocial behaviours may be the result of various

developmental paths which are open, at any time, to different

developmental paths.

As one of the main objectives of the criminal response, is to reduce re-

offending, it is necessary to understand which features of the young person

and his environment lead to a favourable prognosis. It is also necessary to

understand the relation between psychological objectives (e.g taking

responsibility, changing their developmental path) and objectives more

strictly related to a change in the antisocial behaviours. By conducting

individual assessments the juvenile justice services may prevent the

delivery of an unspecified provision to all young offenders.

Some offences may be related to specific mental health disorders, but

generally it is conduct disorder or antisocial personality disorder (DSM-IVR,

2000 that young offenders suffer from. However, within the juvenile justice

services, a diagnosis of a conduct disorder or antisocial personality

disorder, as specified by the DSM-IV R (a condition characterized by

persistent disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in

childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood) does not

seem sufficiently specific.

3


A systematic survey of young offenders’ mental health issues paves the way

for an understanding of effective practice within the Italian juvenile justice

services.

The criminal response does not only pursue punishment and the

preservation of social security, it also aims to promote a change in the

young person, and is therefore seen as a form of treatment.

In order to assess and address the young person and his environment,

psychological, educational and/or social support workers perform various

types of interventions within a detention setting or via diversion measures.

The complexity of the work makes it difficult to evaluate its efficacy. The

criterion usually employed is a reduction in the re-offending rates, which is

necessary, but not sufficient, because adolescents may well cease criminal

activities while still being antisocial or becoming asocial, e.g. with issues of

substance abuse, social marginalization and so on.

The insufficient attention paid to providing evidence-based practice may

partly be due to the widespread pessimism about the outcome of both

criminal provisions and the psychotherapy of antisocial disorders. However,

even though antisocial behaviour still seems persistent, it is widely thought

that it may change. Moreover, a change often occurs spontaneously: some

4


1. Introduction

studies have shown that about half of even the most persistent offenders

actually stop their antisocial behaviours, managing to gain a positive social

identity, i.e. work and engage in a couple relationship. As the family and the

social environment where such behaviours take place are often crucial to

such change, experts question whether the involvement with the criminal

justice system may end up being a risk rather than a protective factor. The

criminal context, and detention in particular, may indeed have an iatrogenic

effect (McGuire, 1995).

A conceivable approach of the Juvenile Justice Services is to regard

criminal response as a form of care. Such an approach may eventually

evaluate its efficacy, in terms of both re-offending rates, and the

adolescents’ development. In order to pursue such an approach a survey

and an analysis of the data concerning young people involved in the

criminal justice system is of paramount importance. To tailor an effective

programme, it would also be essential to understanding the features of the

young person to thereby avoid the provision responding to institutional

demands, rather than the young person’s needs.

Assessment between the mental health objectives and the demands

from the juvenile justice service

To guide the criminal response, the assessment of young offenders should

include the risk of re-offending, and psychological and social issues, which

5


are the criminogenic needs that underpin the individual’s involvement in

crime.

Amongst young offenders, re-offending rates are usually high. Data is

difficult to compare, due to the diversity of the samples in terms of age,

severity, follow up and criteria employed to define re-offending (e.g. further

charge, further arrest, further conviction). Generally speaking, it is estimated

that up to two thirds of the non occasional young offenders re-offend within

three years. “Chronic” delinquents (about 5% of all young offenders) show

the following rates: at a 5 year follow up, 77% of the 15-20 age group, 50%

of the 20-25 group and 35% of the 25-30 group re-offended, with a mean of

4.6 offences for those who committed more than one (Rutter, Giller, Hagell,

1998). The results of a study carried out in 15 US States found that more

than 80% of the14-17 years old prisoners were re-arrested within three

years of their release. (Langan, Levin, 2002). A study carried out in the UK,

reported that 88% of the 14-16 years old prisoners re-offended within two

years of their release. (Hagell, 2002). Another study found re-arresting rates

to be: 49.2% at a one year follow up, 70.8% at a two years follow up, and

76.7% at a three years follow up (Mc Guire et al., 1995). Vermeiren, De

6


1. Introduction

Clippele and Deboutte (2000) reported a 46.2% rate of recidivism at an 8

months follow up.

In Italy, a study was carried out with a sample of 103 young male offenders

(Italians, nomads and foreigners), with the use of a form assessing

recidivism risk at intake within the Juvenile Justice Services. The results

show that a little more than half of the sample (54.1%) was at high risk of

re-offending; one out of four (25.1%) were at a medium risk, one out of five

(20.8) at a low risk. At their two year follow up, 32% of the sample had been

charged with another offence; none of the low and medium risk group re-

offended while within the high risk group 44% of the sample re-offended and

were reported to be mainly nomads or Italians showing severe mental

health issues. (Maggiolini, Ciceri, Macchi, Marchesi, Pisa, 2009).

This study shows that the assessment of re-offending risk to be accurate.

The pre-trial measures ordered by the court at intake were broadly coherent

with the level of risk. The follow up of the high risk group stresses the

importance of providing treatment to nomads and Italians living in highly

dysfunctional families or environments, and developing even more severe

mental health issues. The study conclusively showed that recidivism risk is

significantly related to risk factors within the cultural-family environment.

Mental health disorders and criminogenic needs are also important to

assess.

7


Antisocial behaviours may be the result of a conduct disorder or an

antisocial personality disorder or some other severe psychopathology.

Whatever is the case, they are also all the signs of an adjustment issue, in

the relation between adolescence needs, age-related developmental tasks,

family and environment.

To better understand psychological issues in delinquency, various studies

have been carried out in the past few years on the relationship between

mental health issues and juvenile delinquency. These studies aim to

understand underlying risk factors and precursors in childhood,

distinguishing profiles of antisocial adolescents as well as the prevalence of

psychological disorders amongst young people getting involved with the

criminal justice system (Dazzi, Madeddu, 2009; Grisso, Schwartz, 2000;

Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer- Loeber, Van Kammen, 1998; Vreugdenihl,

Doreleijers, Wermeiren, Wouters, Van Den Brink, 2004; Wasserman,

McReynolds, Lucas, Fisher, Santos, 2002; Wasserman, Ko, McReynolds,

2004).

A number of studies have confirmed that young people undergoing criminal

proceedings, and prisoners in particular, have between three and five times

8


1. Introduction

more risk of developing a mental disorder (Teplin, Abram, McClelland,

Dulcan, Mericle, 2002; Wasserman, McReynolds, Lucas, Fisher, Santos,

2002; Vermerein, 2003; Boesky, 2002). Conduct disorder is the most

frequent diagnosis amongst juvenile delinquents, followed by oppositional-

defiant disorder (Moffit et al., 2003; Boesky, 2002). Substance abusers are

also at a higher risk of offending (Moffit et al., 2000).

In Italy in 2005, a sample of 66 young males (with a mean age mean of

16.3, 35% Italians, 65% foreigners or nomads) were interviewed at intake

within the Juvenile Justice Services, using the Youth Self Report

(Achenbach, 2001). The professionals involved were asked to complete the

Teacher Report Form (Achenbach, 2001). The professionals reported

internalized and externalized problems in 72%, while only 38% of the young

people reported externalized problems and 29% internalized problems..

Crossing psycho pathological issues and a re-offending risk index showed

that 91.2% of the adolescents at high risk of re-offending had clinically

significant mental health issues. The study confirms that mental health

disorders are widespread amongst the young people involved with the

criminal justice service. The fact that psychopathology is mostly related to

high re-offending risk emphasises that psychological work may be helpful in

reducing recidivism.

9


Criminogenic needs are at the core of the assessment and discriminative of

evidence-based practice (Dowden, 1999). The programmes, which are the

most effective in reducing re-offending, are those which combine

psychological support with vocational and social work (McGuire, 2004). A

correct assessment at intake may guide the work within the juvenile justice

services (Vermerein, 2003).

The objective of the assessment is not the provision of a diagnosis of a

psychopathology, but rather the involvement of the young person in a

programme informed by an understanding of his personality and psychic

functioning. The programme’s primarily aim is to help the adolescent

resume his development and gain a new social identity.

The psycho-social assessment also represents the first opportunity for the

adolescent to see himself as someone having emotions, desires and

intentions, and express his point of view on the offence and think about its

subjective meaning.

10


2. The Juvenile Justice System in Italy

The Juvenile Court

The Juvenile Court was set up in 1934, under Royal Decree (n° 1404) and

exercises its jurisdiction upon civil, criminal and administrative matters. The

Juvenile Courts are tasked with proceedings related to juveniles between

14- 18 years of age, who have been accused of criminal offences.

The 1934 Decree has been amended on a number of occasions, , most

notably by a special law created in 1988, to the “rules about criminal

proceedings against minors” (D.P.R. 448/88). The Decree followed the U.N.

“Minimum rules on “social reactions to juvenile delinquency” and the so

called “Bejing rules” (Recommendation 40/33 of the 29th of November 1985)

which were a point of reference for the reform of a criminal process for

juveniles which lead to a highly innovative model.

The Juvenile Criminal Procedure Code enforces criminal provisions such as

stay of proceedings while the juvenile is placed under supervision (similar to

11


probation) and various alternative non-custodial measures are taken. The

aim is to prevent juveniles from entering the criminal justice system and to

reduce the potential harm of the criminal proceedings on juveniles;

detention is used as a last resort. Under the code, juveniles are placed

under the care of social services, with the direct involvement of the youth,

his family, his school, his peer group and his environment and indirectly

though the work carried out with agencies in the community.

In this frame, the discipline of the probation (“stay of proceedings and

placement under supervision”) is of paramount importance. According to

such an institution, the young offender’s proceedings are deterred until the

outcome of a supervision period; if the supervision is successful and the

youth is reintegrated to society, the offence is discarded. It can be ordered

for any kind of crime, and it is not restricted to the first offence; it lasts up to

three years. A probation programme is prescribed in the early stages of the

proceedings. It may be suggested by the prosecutor, the defence counsel,

the young person, his parents, or the social worker. Probation requires the

young offender’s cooperation, it cannot be imposed on someone who is

unwilling to undertake it. The law does not specify whether the defendant’s

guilt is to be ascertained; however, it is a commonly thought that it

represents an unexpressed pre-requisite for a probation order. The order

12



delivered by the court is based on the assessment of the young person and

environmental issues and resources, provided by the Juvenile Justice

Services or the local social services.

Generally speaking, the ratio of the response to juvenile delinquency is to

promote the young offender’s awareness of the meaning of the offence and

encourage him to take responsibility for his behaviour. It tends to be

programme-oriented, meaning that a rehabilitation aim is favoured, and the

punishment of the young offender is of secondary importance.

The Italian juvenile justice services

1. Offices of Youth Social Service (USSM thereof)

2. Juvenile Detention Centres (IPM thereof)

3. Juvenile Classification Homes (CPA thereof)

4. Residential facilities

Offices for Youth Social Service (USSM) provide young offenders with

assistance at every stage of the criminal proceeding, starting from the

enforcement of pre-trial measures. The USSM plays a supporting and

monitoring role during the enforcement of non custodial pre-trial and post-
13


trial measures and the stay of proceedings with placement under

supervision. When requested, the USSM provides the court, with

information concerning the assessment of young person and his family.

Juvenile Classification Homes (CPA) admit juveniles under provisional

arrest and grant them residence for up to 96 hours until the validation

hearing, without being actual prison facilities. The CPA teams make a first

psycho-social assessment on the juvenile’s situation and the local

resources available, with the aim of providing the judicial authority with

information that is helpful in identifying the most suitable measure for the

young offender.

Juvenile Detention Centres (IPM) secure the enforcement of orders (such

as pre-trial detention and conviction sentences) made against juvenile

offenders under 18 years of age (or up to 21 years of age, provided that the

offence was committed when under 18) by judicial authorities. In this

context, the young offender is granted the right not to interrupt his

educational, physical and psychological development. IPMs provide young

offenders with school, vocational training, cultural, sport, recreational and

theatre activities. The IPMs operate according to the principle of the Italian

law, D.P.R. 448/88, which specifies the minimum intervention by criminal

14



justice and the principle of reducing imprisonment, lead to a decrease in the

number of detainees.

Residential facilities act by law both to secure the enforcement of non-

custodial measures and help integrate young offenders in their social

environment. In Italy, only a few residential communities are directly

managed by the juvenile justice service; most of them are private and have

an agreement with the Ministry of Justice. Placements in socio-educational

residential communities, either in terms of serving a pre-trial measures or

carrying out a probation measure, are common within the juvenile justice

provisions.

Personality assessment

When delivering an order, the young person’s personality is always taken

into account by the court,; In accordance with the principles of the Italian

law D.P.R. n.448/1988, every Italian court’s must take into account the

young person’s needs, circumstances and resources. Consequently,

personality assessments take place at various stages of the criminal

proceedings.

Quoting art. 9 of the D.P.R. n.448/1988:

15


“The State Attorney and the judge shall gather information about the child’s

situation and personal, familiar, social and environmental resources, in view

of establishing his criminal responsibility and degree of liability as well as

considering the social relevance of the offence and ordering adequate

penalties and possibly taking the appropriate civil measures”.

It should be emphasised that, differently from other countries, in Italy the

personality assessment is not aimed at identifying competence to stand trial

but instead focuses on the process itself to shape and become accessible

to a developing and changing young person.

Taking responsibility

According to Italian law, the criminal procedure for juvenile offenders,

(D.P.R.. 448/1988) does not consider the young offender as either someone

to be punished or someone to be protected, but as an interlocutor, someone

who can hold a dialogue with the adult magistrate and take decisions

regarding his own future within the criminal justice system.

16



In addition to safeguarding the educational needs of the young offender, the

criminal juvenile process strives to help young offenders to to take

responsibility for their actions. Assessing the truth of an event or punishing

the young offender is of secondary importance. The primary goal is to

rehabilitate the young person by promoting his capacity to engage and

repair the damage he has done.

The trial provides educational value through both safeguard the young

person's educational needs and in the fact that the trial itself may deliver a

developmental-oriented function. The various professionals involved with

the young person during the criminal proceedings (e.g. psychologist,

educator, social worker, judge, lawyer) perform such a function.

The juvenile criminal process must not interrupt the developmental process

by disrupting vocational training or school but it may actually also be the

chance for educational relationships to start, : such an aim is pursued both

within the process, as it involves the youth’s parents, whenever possible,

and outside, in the liaison with the community.

The juvenile criminal process adapts itself to the youth’s personality,

circumstances, developmental needs and degree of maturity.

17


The personality assessment carried out by social workers, psychologists

and educators is thus not aimed at providing a diagnosis, or assessing the

competence to stand trial, but rather at adapting the process to the young

person’s needs, capacities, degree of development and maturity.

18


3. Recent trends in criminal policies in Europe

In recent years the policies of the Juvenile Justice Service have shown

different trends within the countries of the European Union. On the one

hand, the repression of criminally relevant behaviours has increased, while

a remarkable opening to “restorative justice” has also emerged; on the

other, some offences, previously under the competence of the juvenile

criminal justice have been transferred to the competence of administrative

justice (Padovani, Ciappi, 2010).

In some countries of the European Union the criminal justice has become

harsher, with a parallel debate about the lowering of the age for criminal

liability to prosecution; this trend may be due in the first place to the failure

of the rehabilitation model in Anglo-Saxon countries, and the prevalence of

emerging social defence issues and the need for social control. In the past,

instead of focusing on the young offender’s rehabilitation pessimism about

the welfare rehabilitation-oriented model lead to a focus on the offence and

the victim, with primary aim of social security.

19


A new approach referred to as ‘Restorative justice’ as provided an

alternative to the traditional model of criminal response . Within this new

model, the restorative feature of criminal justice is paramount, i.e. the focus

is on the resolution of the conflict created by the offence, and the repair of

the consequent damage rather than behaviour-controls,retribution or the

pursuit of the punishment of the youth. Unlike the traditional model of

criminal response where the victim was excluded, the restorative model

frequently involves the victim through a process of mediation (such as the

Victim-Offender Mediation programme).

Regarding the increased importance of administrative justice in countries

such as Great Britain, Holland, Belgium and Germany, the most recent

criminal policies address administrative measures (such as diversion,

restorative justice, youth panel conferencing), with the involvement of local

authorities, while the criminal justice withdraws and its role becomes the

formal control of provisions managed by administrative bodies. As an

example, in Great Britain, the criminal provision is diversified, with the aim

of avoiding as far as possible the involvement of the young person with the

juvenile justice system.

20



Within this “diversion” frame the Great British police force has a number of

options as alternatives to prosecution,. Similarly, in Germany an exception

to the “legality principle” is given through the discretionary power granted to

the prosecutor to request, in alternative to prosecution, the dismissal of the

case with the simultaneous provision of educative measures. The aim is to

avoid an inappropriate involvement of the young person in the criminal

justice system and, most importantly, to favour the rehabilitation and the re-

integration of the young offender in civil society, responding to an

“opportuneness principle”, underpinned by empirical research on the

reduction of recidivism.

Within the so-called “what works” policy, i.e. the focus on promoting

evidence-based practice as a guide to crime prevention policies, the

identification of risk management factors and actuarial measures is the

ground of the orders delivered by the court. Today, at a European level,

interventions and programmes cannot set aside an in-depth evaluation of

their efficacy in reducing recidivism. The recent trends in criminal policies

have therefore lead to a decline in the treatment and socialization

philosophy, in favour of aims of risk-management and prevention-oriented

social control.

21


Such trends affect the methods employed for the assessment of the young

person. Following a broad request to the services in Europe, to carry out an

assessment of personality, maturity and personal, familiar, social and

environmental circumstances of the young offender, the most innovative

procedures and methodologies tend to be precise and standardized (see

“ASSET”, the form employed within the juvenile justice services in Great

Britain or “BARO”, a similar form used in Holland and in Switzerland), based

on actuarial predictive models.

In comparison with other European countries, the rehabilitation function is

still at the core of the Italian juvenile justice system, even though such

intervention philosophy are traditionally less focused on providing evidence

of its efficacy. The Italian criminal system is less agile and the proceedings

and the criminal provision are both poorly differentiated in relation to the

severity of the offence put in place and to the risk of re-offending.

Very few Countries in Europe have published, as well as Great Britain and

the US, specific guidelines for the assessment and the treatment of young

offenders, so that the procedures and the methods put in practice are less

formalized. There is a gap in the regulations that results in inconsistency

22



and uncertainty about prescribing when a personality assessment may be

requested, by whom, and who is in charge of providing it and the methods

actually employed in the work.

In countries such as Croatia, social services in the community are in charge

of the assessment while in other countries, such as Belgium, Portugal and

Spain, social services within the juvenile justice system are appointed. In

most European countries there is a clear-cut distinction between civil and

criminal juvenile justice: Italy in an exception, as a juvenile judge is

competent both in civil and in criminal matters.

In Greece the request for an assessment of the young offender tends to

address mental health-psychiatric issues, or to involve the assessment of

drug abuse. Personality assessment are not compulsorily requested (as

they are in Holland, Slovenia, and Italy), and may only be requested in the

most severe cases.

In Germany, if the youth is attending school or has employment, the

personality assessment of the young offender includes the direct

involvement of teachers or employers, , in all cases except when the

assessment may jeopardize the position.

23


In conclusion, the lack of guidelines shared at European level, regarding the

assessment of young offenders leads to a variety in the procedures, making

them quite difficult to compare.

24


4. The assessment carried out
within the Juvenile Justice Services in Italy

The staff training centre (Istituto Centrale di Formazione) of the Italian

Juvenile Justice Department have studied the way that the personality

assessment of the young offender is carried out within a Juvenile Justice

setting.

Personality assessment is at the core of the work, in the interaction with the

court. The reports made by the juvenile justice services testify in the daily

practice the assumptions and methodologies of the work, where

psychological, social and educational knowledge is combined. Not only are

the reports an expression of the understanding of the circumstances of the

youth, his family and his environment, they also express what is deemed

useful for the court to know.

There may be a considerable gap between the knowledge that the juvenile

justice services has and what is communication to the court. It is sometimes

necessary for the reports to omit some information concerning the crime,

so that the trust relationship between the young person and his family is not

25


jeopardised. This relationship is crucial to an effective intervention.

Omission may also be made in order to leave the court in a position to

make an unbiased assessment of the circumstances strictly related to the

offence.

Such reports, carried out both at the initial stages and throughout the

criminal provision, were analysed.

The sample included representatives of all services (CPA, USSM, IPM) and

locations (in the North, Centre and South of Italy)

A total of one-hundred and sixty-eight reports were collected, distributed as

follows:

• 29 from Rome and Sassari CPAs; 75 from Bolzano, Naples, Rome, Lecce

and Turin USSMs; 64 from Milan, Catania and Catanzaro IPMs.

• Gender: 85% males 15% female

• Age: aged 14-16: 9.4%, aged 16-18: 40%, aged 18-21: 12.5%.

• Nationality: Italians: 68.8%; foreigners (31,2%) mostly come from Romania

(8.8%) and Morocco (5%).

• Offence: 37.5% against property, 20.6% against the person, 16.9% drug-

related and 4.4% other.
26



Half of the reports combine assessments undertaken by more than one

professional (social worker, psychologist, educator). Otherwise, it is either

the social worker (33%) or the educator (17%) writing the report, rather than

the psychologist.

The reports were analysed in terms of both the structure (opening, central

part, conclusions) and its main contents (description of the young person,

the offence, the family, the environment, the intervention, the probation

programme).

The reports are mostly between 2 to 4 pages. They tend to start with a

reference to the offence ascribed (88%). The central part describes the

young person and his attitudes and behaviours and the conclusions may

include general remarks, with no specific suggestions to the court (46%),

suggestions to the court (24.4%) or the description of a detailed programme

(17%).

Information is collected through interviewing the young person and

observing his behaviour in relation to the service or to his family (54%).

There is very little reference to tests or questionnaires (5%). A mayor source

of information is provided by agencies in the community (89%), residential

communities (24,.4%) and schools (18.2%). In the description of the young

27


person information on his family, school performance or employment are

frequently mentioned, together with a reference to the way the young

person behaves in relation to the juvenile justice process.

Maturity and fixed traits of behaviours or attitudes (personality) are

mentioned in a little less than half of the reports (46%) as is information

about the story of the young person, with particular reference to the

important events which have occurred in his life. Relationships with peers

(38%), liaise time (30%), sexual and friend relationships (15%) are less

frequently mentioned. Explicit diagnoses of psychopathologies can be found

in only 13% of the reports.

The usual style is to report data and information, with no explicit

assessment or processing from the professionals’ side, as if the aim is to

present the information as objectively as possible. The opinions from the

assessing team only become more frequent in cases of references to

attitudes of the youth in the relationship to the professionals themselves or

the work carried out..

The reports usually start with a reference to the charge. However, within the

reports there are no comments about the subjective meaning of the offence,

28



or the assessment of re-offending risk factors(mentioned in 32% of the

reports). The reports contain little reference to judicial precedents or to the

assessment of social dangerousness.

In 67% of the reports there is an explicit reference to whether the young

person acknowledges the offence he is charged with . There is little

information about his understanding of the social consequences of the

offence, the damage suffered by the victim, the perceived severity of the

offence or, the capacity to understand the meaning of the criminal

proceedings.

Family circumstances and relationships are frequently mentioned (90%),

usually describing family members and the socio-economic circumstances

of the family, but references to the environment, and the multi-cultural

dimension in case of a foreign youth, are rare. Educational styles and the

attitudes towards criminal justice can be found in half of the reports; such

information is usually just presented and not commented upon.

Previous intervention carried out by local social services or juvenile justice

services are described in 83% of reports. Information regarding reactions

and attitudes of the young person in relation to the criminal proceedings are

29


frequently mentioned, but when a probation programme is presented, its

objectives are usually not discussed.

In conclusion, the reports show a prudence in providing information and

interpretations about the personal features of the young persons, which

may be in an attempt to avoid interfering with the right to defence.

The attention to providing information, without expressing interpretations or

evaluations, may also express an implicit trend to appreciate and protect a

call for help from the young person, in view of granting in the first place a

working alliance with the young person, which is a fundamental pre-

requisite for the programme that may follow the assessment phase.

The attention to the offence is quite clearly the “social motive” of the

intervention carried out within the juvenile justice services. The

professionals writing the reports seem very careful not to provide

interpretations of the offence and its social and personal meaning. Such

attitude probably comes from a culture aimed at protecting the young

person from possible stigmatization and exploitation by other professionals.

However, research in the field shows that a wider understanding is more

useful, aimed at promoting a methodological use of such approaches as a

30



psyco-socio-pedagogical reading, while avoiding the risk of overlapping with

the court.

The analysis undertaken opens questions about the way the juvenile justice

services interpret the questions posed by the court, how they respond to

them, the relationship between information and interpretation and the use of

tests and the possible integration between social, educational and

psychological knowledge in understanding the young person in relation to

his environment.

31


32


5. The psychological work within the

The role of the psychologist

The Juvenile Criminal Procedure Code (dating back to 1988) does not

determine set roles and tasks that have to be performed by the

psychologists working within the juvenile justice services. The importance of

the psychologist is indirectly emphasised in the personality assessment

requested by the court, to be carried out in collaboration with other

professionals, both in terms of personal resources and shortcomings and of

environmental, family and social resources.

The current tasks performed by the psychologist within the juvenile justice

service may be divided in two areas of intervention, related to different

judicial/institutional objectives:

1. Assessment, during the course of the proceedings, of liability to

prosecution, social dangerousness and circumstances related to the

youth and his environment.

33


2. Support to the young person, both during the criminal proceeding

and while serving the sentence.

The assessment not only provides information concerning individual, family,

environmental and social circumstances, it also specifically addresses

circumstances and resources in relation to the actual criminal responses

and provisions available. The law seeks professional advise via the

assessment of which criminal provisions may be harmful, detrimental or

suitable for which personality conditions; which measures, provisions,

allocations, decisions may better suit which youths; which levels of

containment, detention and control should apply to youths at high risk of

fleeing or re-offend etc. . The law requests the psychologist addresses both

circumstances and resources of the young youth and circumstances and

resources within the environment and the criminal provision. From this

perspective, features and shortcomings of the young person are not “data”

but rather direct questions, challenges and risks for the judge and the

services to consider.

From a psychological viewpoint, the assessment may concern:

• Risk factors screening e.g. risk for self harming behaviours;

34



• Clinical diagnosis, on the basis of a category (e.g. DSM-IV-TR

oriented) or dimensional (e.g. personality-oriented) assessment

• Risk and needs from a developmental psychology and

psychopathology framework;

• The degree of maturity and social dangerousness

How psychological work is carried out within the juvenile justice

services.

In 2009 a law transferred health care functions performed within the juvenile

justice services to the National Health Service (NHS), affecting the

psychologists’ role and assigned tasks. The NHS is in charge of the

psychological intervention, while social workers and educators, and police

officers, report into the Ministry of Justice.

Within assessments, psychologists may consequently focus on a

diagnosis, from a “mental health” perspective, leaving the other

professionals with the task of addressing risks and concerns such as the

environment and development of the young offender. No guidelines have

been created to exactly determine how the Juvenile Criminal Procedure

Code should be applied.

35


A study involving the psychologists working within the juvenile justice

services

Objectives

The purpose of the study was to understand if the psychologists work within

the juvenile justice services are satisfied or dissatisfied with the objectives,

methods, and tests employed in their work. Collate the knowledge and

sentiments of psychologists working within the Italian juvenile justice service

could also pave the way for an exchange with colleagues at a European

level.

A sample of psychologists, either consultant or employed by the NHS,

working within the juvenile justice services (CPA, IPM, USSM), from the

North, the Centre or the South of Italy were questioned in semi-structured

interviews. The interviews included questions about: objectives, methods

and tests employed, representations of the task and the professional role,

the relationship with the young people and the other professionals. The aim

was to gain an understanding of the theoretical backgrounds, difficulties and

36



dissatisfactions faced by psychologists working within the juvenile justice

services,.

Method

Thirty psychologists working within the Italian juvenile justice services (CPA,

IPM, USSM) were interviewed. Even though the sampling was not random,

there was a distribution per work experience, location, type of service,

contract (consultant-employee).

When the study took place 43 psychologists were employed by the Ministry

of Justice (32 directly involved with the young offenders, 11 with other tasks,

such as training) and 68 psychologists worked within the Juvenile Justice

services as consultants.

Table 1. Sample

Psychologists 30 (23 F, 7 M)

Age 16 (<45 years)
14 (>45 years)
Professional 9 psychologists (including 3 specialized in
qualification Criminology)
21 psychotherapists
Contract 14 employed
16 consultant
Service 15 (IPM)
14 (USSM)

37


1 (CPA only, however, some psychologist
working in USSM and IPM also work in CPA)
Location 14 (North: Milan, Turin, Genoa, Venice,
Treviso)
6 (Centre: Bologna, Florence, Rome)
6 (South: Teramo, Naples, Bari, Catanzaro)
4 (Islands: Cagliari, Sassari, Catania)
Number of 18 (<10)
years in the 12 (>10)
Service
Number of 16 (<20)
working hours 14 (>20)
per week

The first part of the interview collected information on the professional role

(i.e. anagraphic data, professional qualification, contract, number of working

hours per month, service they worked in).

The second part of the interview focused on the role of the psychologist

within the service, with particular regard to personality,risks and need

assessment (i.e. areas of assessment, theoretical framework, use of tests,

profiles of the young offenders and their problems, perceived efficacy of the

work) within the context of a team work (i.e. relationship with other

professionals involved, type of collaboration set up and level of integration,

possible conflicts).

38



Activities

The psychologists reported the following three activities:

• Personality assessment of the young person and psychological

support;

• Interviews with the youth's parents and meetings with social workers

and/or educators working in residential communities;

• Team meetings and report drawing.

The interviewed psychologists were asked to estimate the percentage of

time they dedicated to each activity, to broadly understand how the work is

divided. There are no differences in the sample according to the type of

service, apart from the higher involvement of the parents in USSM.

Table 3. Time per activity (broad estimate)

Activity

Personality assessment and 60%
psychological support

Team meetings, report drawing 30%

Interviews with parents, meetings with 10%
social services/educators

Most psychologists reported that the main activity they carry out is

personality assessments. The psychological support provided during the

39


criminal provision is also highly valued, even though counselling and

psychotherapy are not generally considered the focus of the work.

All the psychologists interviewed value teamwork and view team meetings

as a valuable exchange with the other professionals, during which they aim

to gain a shared assessment of the situation and consider a tailored

programme. Following team involvement, all psychologists said that they

spend a considerable amount of their time within the service writing

assessment reports.

Psychologists tend not to attend hearings; the relation with the court is often

indirect, mediated by the reports and other professionals.

The environment-related activities mentioned include interviews with

parents and other professionals, mainly those working in the local health

services, drug and alcohol provisions and in residential communities. The

interviews with the parents are aimed at better assessing the situation.

Initially to collecting information about the young person and later to find

resources available in the environment. Rarely are parents provided with

psychological support.

40



The psychologists working in USSM tend to carry out more environment-

related work (e.g. Interviews with parents or educators) than those working

in IPM and CPA (who tend to split their time between team meetings and

clinical work).

The clinical work with the young person in general, and the assessment in

particular, even though it may be seen as the main activity undertaken, is

actually carried out for little more than half of the working time.

Only a third of the psychologists interviewed thought that the amount of

shared time was adequate and satisfactory. Most thought that it would be

advisable to extend the amount of time spent in direct clinical work with the

young person, especially providing psychological support (“It would be so

much better to have time to support the young person all throughout the

criminal provision”), but not to the detriment of teamwork and environment-

related work, which were deemed to be equally important.

To conclude, the main problem appears to be a lack of time, due to the few

human resources available and the inadequate number of working hours.

Under such circumstances, some bureaucratic duties are regarded as a

41


nuisance, as they steal time from the clinical work (“Bureaucratic duties are

an irritation! They steal time from the work with the young people”).

The primary task

The psychologists reported that their primary task should concern clinical

work, i.e. the assessment and the psychological support of the juvenile,

combined with the work carried out within the service by the other

professionals. The importance of providing an integrated intervention is

confirmed by the amount of time reserved for meetings.

Some emphasised that the psychologist brings together the professionals

within the team (“The psychologist is like a bonding agent for the team”).

This is because the psychologist provides a reading of the situation that is

different from the social or the educational and is useful for a shared

assessment and a tailored programme.

Differences can be found in the role of the psychologists, depending on the

service they work in. In CPA the psychologists tend to provide assessment,

in IPM they tend to assist the young person to deal with the restriction of his

or her freedom and promote the proposal for substitutive measures; while

42



the psychologists in USSM tend to pursue a treatment aim, by gradually

motivating the juvenile who is undertake a probation order.

There is a shared opinion that it is possible to combine the objectives of the

psychological work with those of the criminal institution, even though it is

not always easy. The young offends lack of motivation towards the

psychological support may hamper combined work, as it interferes with the

construction of a basic trust relationship. Also, the objectives of

psychological work may be different from those pursued by the criminal

system.

The assigned task to provide the court with useful information, in order to

deliver a suitable order, may require an in-depth assessment of the youth's

personality, his developmental needs and resources, possible psycho-

pathologies, level of maturity, recidivism risk, availability of treatment and

the provision/programme best suiting to the youth's circumstances.

From a strictly clinical perspective, the psychologist may limit himself to

providing information on needs and resources, general elements

concerning the youth's personality and a sustainable provision, in order to

help the judge deliver an order. The psychologist may also define a clinical

43


diagnosis, the risk of re-offending and how the programme could be best

carried out.

A specific issue concerns the difficulty in combining the time of the

psychological intervention with that of the criminal provision. The prevailing

idea is that the time needed for psychotherapeutic and developmental

changes to occur is usually longer than the criminal provision. Only in rare

cases is the opposite found i.e. that a prolonged criminal provision may

interfere with the developmental needs of the young person.

Another issue is the general lack of human resources and time available,

preventing the professional from undertaking a sufficiently long and deep

assessment and treatment. In some cases the court orders a widening of

the assessment, or the young offender is provided with extensive treatment,

regardless of the actual shortage of resources available.

In the background and , not always explicitly mentioned, is the issue of how

definitive the assessment should be, in terms of the diagnosis provided and

the recommended programme; and, for its part, to which extend the court

should order a specific intervention to be provided (e.g. tests to be

44



administered, frequency of treatment sessions), entailing the risk of each

part exceeding its competences.

Another challenge born out of combining clinical objectives and the tasks

assigned by the criminal institution is preserving public security. Public

security may necessitate control duties and lead to the extension of pre-trial

measures, possibly little syntonic with the youth's developmental need for

autonomy.

On the other hand, the psychologists are only too aware that the

compulsory frame of the interventionis actually very helpful, as it provides a

framework and a setting, essential to the understanding of the meaning of

the offence put in place and, more generally, to increasing the juvenile's

self-awareness.

No significant differences emerged between psychologists working in CPA,

USSM or IPM. They all agree, as a general principle, that the psychological

work is compatible with the task assigned by the institution, even though a

lack of time and a certain effort in liaising with the court’s “language” and

demands were emphasised.

45


Theoretical frame

The psychologists working within the juvenile justice services have different

theoretical backgrounds. The study found the psycho-dynamic model was

the most popular, while the systemic and the cognitive-behavioural

frameworks were also well represented:

Table 4. Theoretical frameworks

Psycho-dynamic 13

Cognitive- 7
Behavioural

Systemic 6

Other 4

It is important to emphasise that beyond the general theoretical

background, many psychologists did not mention a specific training in

criminology, legal psychology, or developmental psychology.

46



Personality assessment

The psychologists value both a comprehensive personality assessment of

the young offender and an assessment of specific areas related to the

criminal setting.

For instance, the assessment of the resources available (e.g. In affective,

cognitive and relational terms) needs to be considered along with an

assessment of impulsiveness and aggression features, the youth’s

availability to understanding the meaning of the offence, his motivation to

engage in a programme and the psycho pathological risk.

While the areas more specifically related to the criminal setting depend

upon the service the psychologist works in, the personality assessment in

general terms is a shared task.

Table 5. Areas of personality assessment

Cognitive aspects (e.g. intelligence, cognitive impairment, capacity for self
reflection)

Affective development

Social identity

Psycho-pathological risk

47


Social background and family

Impulsiveness / aggression

Self harm

Availability for working on the offence

Competence to stand trial and to cope with detention

Motivation to change and to engage in a programme

Availability to treatment

Tests

The psychologists interviewed tend to rely on the clinical interview; two

thirds also use tests. The tests commonly used are listed in table 6.

Table. Tests more widely used

Semi-structured interviews (SCID II)

Questionnaires (Achenbach's YSR e TRF, MMPI)

Cognitive tests (WAIS, WISC, Raven Matrixes)

Graphic test (D.A.P. Test, F.D.T. test)

Projective tests (Rorschach, TAT, Blacky Pictures)

48



Other tests mentioned are graphic tests, the Moral Disengagement Test, a

test on object relationships, a self report questionnaire named “OSQR”, the

Multidimensional Self Concept Scale, a test focusing on anxiety, phobia,

depression and hysteria such as the “MQR”, the Facial Action Coding

System, the SCL-90-R. While the use of some tests, such as Rorschach is

widespread, there appears to be a local culture on the other tests,

regardless of the general location or type of service.

There was no relationship found between the psychologists’ theoretical

backgrounds and tests. Most psychologists tend to use both projective and

cognitive tests, regardless of their theoretical background, even though

projective tests in general, and the Rorschach test in particular, tend to be

used by psychologists with a psycho-dynamic approach.

Team work

Assessment teams include psychologists, social workers and educators.

Some differences emerge in relation to the type of service that takes place.

Psychologists working in USSM tend to cooperate most frequently with

social workers (sometimes with educators), while psychologists working in

IPM and CPA tend to cooperate primarily with educators, and then with

49


social workers. The study also found that psychologists work with a range of

other professionals including: police officers, cultural mediators, teachers

and professionals working in the community.

Most interviews reported a general feeling of satisfaction in relation to

teamwork, even though difficulties concerning communication, language,

reciprocal competences and competitive objectives were mentioned. The

interviewed psychologists commonly complained about: the lack of

appreciation their role attains from other professionals, excessive discretion

in the referrals, and, above all, lack of time and inadequate resources.

In this respect, no differences emerge in relation to the type of service and

all the issues are equally mentioned.

Table 7. Issues involving team work

Inadequate resources 13

Little appreciation of the role of the psychologist (no 11
acknowledgement, little team work, discretion in the
referrals)
Troublesome integration (different language, competences 6
and objectives, role competition)

50



Having adequate time available was considered a requirement for an

effective integration of the work undertaken. Even though combining

competences is highly valued, as it provides a wider understanding of the

young person, setting boundaries in competences and roles may result in

overlapping and confusion, which is detrimental to the work.

Some of the psychologists’ interviewed explained that they perceive a lack

of appreciation of their role and function makes it difficult to work with other

professionals. The psychologists who expressed this view tend to display

more frustration than the rest of the sample.

The young offenders

The profiles of the young offenders vary according to the type of service the

psychologists work in and their location in Italy.

While in big cities, such as Milan, psychologists equally work with Italian

and foreign young offenders. In smaller cities and in the South of Italy,

Italian young offenders tend to be referred, especially in Sardinia, where the

work almost exclusively involves Italians.

51


In IPM, psychologists tend to work mainly with foreign young offenders,

while in USSM and CPA psychologists worked with Italians proportionally to

the prevalence of foreigners and Italians within the services. In USSM social

workers make referrals to the psychologists for only some of the juveniles

undergoing criminal proceedings, those willing to undergo a probation

measure. In CPA the psychologist is called by the educator in case of need,

mainly for the assessment of Italian young offenders displaying severe

issues requiring further and qualified attention.

According to the psychologists interviewed, the main problems amongst

Italian young offenders are: developmental issues, social privation and

mental health disorders. The main problem of foreign young offenders is

social privation, relating to the process of immigration and integration within

Italy.

The study found that commonly identified developmental problems in Italian

young offenders were: personality disorders, behavioural problems, poor

impulse control, poor tolerance to frustration and substance abuse. The

social problems mentioned, common to both Italian and foreign young

offenders, were the presence of a multi-problematic social and family

52



background (i.e. organized crime, severe economic problems, deviant

family culture). The prevalent representation is that getting involved in the

criminal system may be the only choice for a foreign young person, given

the lack of resources and alternatives available.

Crime is seen as a more deliberate choice for Italian young offenders, the

outcome of interacting psychological and environmental factors. The Italian

young offender is indeed described as more severely disturbed from a

psychological and psycho-pathological point of view than the foreign young

offender, thus more difficult to treat (a number of such Italian young

offenders had undergo various programmes, and failed them all).

Dissatisfactions and possible improvements

All the psychologists interviewed indicate that the most satisfactory aspect

of their work is the relationship with the young people.

The clinical relationship with the young offenders seems reassuring in

comparison to the wider intervention within the juvenile justice services,

which seen at times to be wasteful and undefined.

The main problems reported by the psychologists revolve around the

institutional setting and include specific issues such as the difficulty in

53


teamwork, the fragmented nature of the work, the lack of cohesion in the

psychologists' group and the shortage of adequate time and resources.

The difficulty in combining work taking place in prison with community work,

both in terms of the limited availability of the family and the environment,

and a shortage in the resources available, is emphasised by IPM

professionals. The psychologists commonly feel unsatisfied or ineffective in

relation with the environment, rather than in objectives and methods

involving the clinical work. The relation with the young offenders himself is

not an issue either.

Possible improvements are usually related to the organization area. Most

psychologists think that the organization of the service may be improved by

providing a more systematic coordination in teamwork, within the service

(within psychologists, between psychologists, social workers and educators)

and external to the service (coordination with the local social services).

They also emphasized the importance of having their role appreciated,

when sometimes it is perceived as accessory (e.g. the excessive discretion

in the referrals, the waste of useful information, the lack of adequate spaces

for clinical interviews and the lack of data processing systems). The

54



psychologists also requested an increase in the number of working hours,

as currently the hours do not adequately cover the various level of

intervention.

A sense of non belonging to the service appeared to be widespread; the

feeling that one's function is deemed accessory, rather than essential. This

was in stark contrast to the involvement and the satisfaction the

psychologist attained through the assessment and treatment of the young

people themselves.

Other suggestions for possible improvements entailed the involvement of

the family of the young offender and the liaison with the local social

services; the provision of group work and more diversified psychological

and educational support paths.

The perceived efficacy of the psychological work

Most psychologists think that their intervention is largely effective. Various

meanings may be attached to the word “effective”, falling in two categories:

clinical work with the young offenders/team work and rehabilitation in the

community. Most psychologists report that an intervention is effective when

changes are achieved, even though they may be quite difficult to define.

55


The efficacy of the clinical work is rooted in the trust relationship that is

established between the psychologist and the young offender in which the

young person's needs are addressed. Motivating the young person is

reported by many psychologists as proof of the efficacy of the work, as if the

acknowledgement of one's problems and need for help were an outcome in

themselves, almost regardless of the expected changes to follow.

The psychological work should be focused on improving the adolescent's

self-awareness, his representations, strengths and developmental needs.

Another shared view is that the criminal provision stops the young

offender's tendency to act out, thus becoming a chance for the young

person and his family to pursue both an understanding and to improve

individual and social resources, so that developmental impasses may be

overcome.

Consequently, the encounter with the court is not only seen as a provision

of a personality diagnostically oriented assessment but also the chance for

the young person to think about himself and becoming more self-aware,

which may promote a change in itself, both for the adolescent and for his

family.

56



During the interviews, the psychologists emphasised the importance of the

assessment, in improving the young person’s awareness. The psychologists

perceived this function to be more important than providing the court with an

extensive personality assessment of the youth, for the court to deliver an

order in line with the developmental needs of the young person.

A general sense of efficacy was reported through having been able to work

in a team, i.e. having come to a shared understanding of the young person

and formulated a tailored programme, such as a probation programme.

However, it is important to emphasise that not all the psychologists

interviewed linked the perceived efficacy of the intervention with a positive

outcome on a practical and external level. Many psychologists mention the

importance of a personality change, regardless of a positive outcome of the

criminal provision, because they think that external and uncontrollable

variables, environment-related may affect its outcome. (“The young offender

may have done very well therapeutically, even though the outcome of the

probation was negative).

Sometimes the positive outcome, from a psychological perspective, is not

related to recidivism risk. Other psychologists emphasise that the efficacy of

57


the psychological intervention depends upon the criminal setting, and

consequently has to be related to a reduction in re-offending rates.

Generally speaking, a psychological intervention is deemed effective when

it produces a change, either internal or involving the environment.

IPM and CPA feedback received from the community is positively valued,

when the young offender, after the experience in prison, seems more able

to modify his lifestyle and to engage in a different future. In USSM the

psychologists undertake long-term work with the young offenders, by

supporting them throughout the criminal provision; consequently, a

psychological outcome is considered positive when it enables the youth to

overcome the impasse in his developmental path, by promoting his

understanding of his own circumstances and the improvement of his

competences.

Generally speaking, the psychologists working within the juvenile justice

services think that working in a well-coordinated team, both on the “internal

world” and on the resources of the environment, is of paramount

importance.

58



In contrast, the psychologists think that a negative outcome is related to the

lack of a motivation on the young person's side, when a probation measure

is accepted only on an exploitable basis.

Further issues that lead to a negative outcome are the shortages within the

service or the community, so that it becomes impossible to set up a tailored

provision and to carry it out. When integrated team work is not available, it

leads to dissatisfaction on the psychologist’s side.

Beyond the obstacles related to the juvenile justice setting, the

psychologists interviewed mentioned difficulties related to the severity of the

situation, either to severe psycho-pathological problems on the youth's side,

or to issues involving the family and the social background.

Rarely is the poor outcome traced back to a mistake in the psychologist's

assessment.

In conclusion, the psychologists think that their work is effective when it is

well integrated with that of the other professionals, either working in the

service (i.e. team work with the social worker and the educator) or in the

59

The Assessment of Young Offenders within the Juvenile Justice Services - English

The Assessment of Young Offenders within the Juvenile Justice Services - English

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to The Assessment of Young Offenders within the Juvenile Justice Services - English

Similar to The Assessment of Young Offenders within the Juvenile Justice Services - English (20)

More from IstitutoMinotauro

More from IstitutoMinotauro (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Assessment of Young Offenders within the Juvenile Justice Services - English