Indigenous people and the courts have emphasized that it is important to examine whether scores from violence risk assessment tools are valid and appropriate for Indigenous youth. However, studies are scarce. Therefore, we examined the predictive validity of youth probation officers’ Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) ratings for 744 Canadian youth, including 299 Indigenous youth (219 male, 80 female), and 445 Caucasian youth (357 male, 88 female) in a prospective field study. The SAVRY summary risk ratings and risk total scores significantly predicted violent and any reoffending for Indigenous female and male youth with medium effect sizes. Relatively few significant differences in the predictive validity emerged for Indigenous and Caucasian youth. However, Historical, Protective, and Risk Total scores predicted any recidivism better for Caucasian males than Indigenous males. Also, Indigenous youth scored significantly higher on all risk domains than Caucasian youth. Opposite to predictions, the rates of false positives were higher for Caucasian youth than for Indigenous youth. Based on the results, the SAVRY appears to be a reasonable tool to use for assessing risk in Indigenous youth. However, assessors should take steps to ensure that they use the SAVRY in a culturally appropriate manner, such as considering cultural factors in case formulations and treatment planning as the SAVRY does not ground assessments in an understanding of factors such as colonialism. In addition, future research should examine culturally salient risk factors (e.g., discrimination) and examine potential causes of higher risk scores in Indigenous youth, particularly the role of both past and present-day colonialism.

Even when probation officers use risk assessment tools, many of their clients' needs remain unaddressed. As such, we examined whether the implementation of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and a structured case planning form resulted in better case plans as compared to prior practices (i.e., a non-validated local tool and an unstructured plan). Our sample comprised 216 adolescents on probation who were matched via propensity scores. Adolescents in the SAVRY/Structured Plan condition had significantly better case plans than those in the pre-implementation condition. Specifically, following implementation, adolescents' high need domains were more likely to be targeted in plans. Plans also scored higher on other quality indicators (e.g., level of detail). These improvements appeared to be due primarily to the structured plan rather than the SAVRY. Overall, our findings highlight that, just as structure can improve risk assessments, so too might structure improve case plans.

Even though risk assessment tools are often intended to inform case planning, they do not provide much direct guidance. As such, we developed an intervention-planning tool called the Adolescent Risk Reduction and Resilient Outcomes Work-Plan (ARROW) to accompany the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. The ARROW includes a decision support system, guide, and training, and is one of the first tools of its kind. To evaluate the ARROW, we conducted two studies: (a) a vignette study with 178 professionals and (b) a field study with 320 propensity-score matched adolescents. Most professionals (>98%) rated the ARROW as useful. Moreover, compared with (a) unstructured plans and (b) a simple form, ARROW plans were more likely to include supported interventions, adhere to best practices, and integrate culturally tailored approaches for Indigenous adolescents. Formulations also showed improvements. However, further research is needed on strategies to bridge risk assessment and risk management.

No abstract

Objective: Although past studies suggest that the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2006) has moderate predictive validity, its predictive validity with Asian youth in Western countries is unknown. We therefore compared the SAVRY’s predictive validity in a sample of Asian Canadian versus White Canadian youth. Hypotheses: Given that the SAVRY is normed on samples comprising mostly youth who are White, we expected its predictive validity for recidivism would be lower for Asian Canadians than White Canadians. Method: We examined youth probation officers’ SAVRY assessments for 573 youth (445 White Canadians, 56 East/Southeast Asian Canadians, and 72 South Asian Canadians) on community supervision (i.e. probation) in a Canadian province. Youth were prospectively followed for an average of 1.97 years (SD = 0.56 years) to determine if they were subsequently charged with violent or nonviolent offenses. Results: Asian Canadians scored significantly lower on risk total scores compared to White Canadians. Predictive validity for violent and nonviolent recidivism fell in the medium to large range for East/Southeast Asian Canadians (AUCs = .69 to .89) and South Asian Canadians (AUCs = .64 to .83). In comparison, predictive validity for White Canadians was generally lower (AUCs = .63 to .77; small to large range). Risk total scores and nonviolent risk ratings significantly predicted nonviolent recidivism better for East/Southeast Asian Canadians (AUCs = .89 and .87, respectively) than White Canadians (AUCs = .77 and .71, respectively). Despite few significant differences between Asian subgroups, predictive validity for nonviolent risk ratings was significantly higher in East/Southeast Asian Canadians (AUC = .87) than South Asian Canadians (AUC = .64). Conclusions: The SAVRY may be a useful tool for predicting recidivism with Asian Canadians. However, future research should examine the SAVRY’s predictive validity for youth of Asian descent in different countries and contexts.