Examining the Validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) for Predicting Probation Outcomes Among Adjudicated Juvenile Offenders

Abstract

The current study examined the ability of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth (SAVRY), a standardized risk assessment instrument, to predict probation outcomes among a sample of 158 adjudicated juvenile offenders placed on probation. Traditionally, the SAVRY has been used to measure violence risk among adolescents after release from custody. More recently, a delinquency risk measure based on SAVRY responses was developed, which could be useful for other types of outcome. This study examined the predictive validity of both summary risk ratings (SRR) for probation outcomes, including the reason for terminating probation and length of time on probation. A number of bivariate analyses and Cox regression models provided preliminary support for the ability of the nonviolent delinquency SRR, and modest support for the violence SRR, to predict probation outcomes. The implications for use of the SAVRY SRRs during juvenile justice system decision-making and recommendations for future research are discussed.

The Role of Protective Factors in the Predictive Accuracy of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

“…Meta-analyses of the SAVRY's predictive accuracy indicate that it significantly predicts general, nonviolent, and violent recidivism (Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2009). Several other studies support the predictive validity of the SAVRY for both violent and nonviolent offending across varying populations (Childs et al, 2013;Lodewijks, Doreleijers, de Ruiter, & Borum, 2008;Viljoen et al, 2008;Vincent et al, 2011).…”

Professional Discretion and the Predictive Validity of a Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument

“…To help identify risk, justice officials should rely on assessments that can validly predict recidivism (Bonta, 2002). Fortunately, there are many tools available for use by practitioners that have been empirically supported by past research (see, e.g., Baglivio & Jackowski, 2013; Barnoski, 2004; Bechtel, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2007; Childs et al, 2013; Gretton, McBride, Hare, O’Shaughnessy, & Kumka, 2001; McGrath & Thompson, 2012; Onifade, Davidson, & Campbell, 2009; Schwalbe, 2009; Schwalbe, Fraser, Day, & Cooley, 2006). While these individual studies shed light on the effectiveness of these tools, the overall strength of the predictive validity of juvenile risk assessments is best illustrated by meta-analyses on the topic.…”

The Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth for Young Spanish Offenders

“…It represents another step forward in the study of instruments for predicting risk of recidivism. In particular, this study of the SAVRY supplies information that can be compared to other studies performed in this country and internationally (McEachran, 2001; Catchpole and Gretton, 2003; Borum et al, 2006; Dolan and Rennie, 2008; Duits et al, 2008; Gammelgard et al, 2008; Lodewijks et al, 2010; Vincent et al, 2011; Klein et al, 2012; Childs et al, 2013, 2014; Hilterman et al, 2014, 2016; Shepherd et al, 2014a; Chu et al, 2016), as well as information for carrying out systematic, meta-analysis reviews (Schwalbe, 2007, 2008; Olver et al, 2009; Fazel et al, 2012; Singh et al, 2013), and for future generalization studies focusing on the instrument’s reliability and validity.…”

“…The aim of such risk instruments is to help with decisions about what measures should be taken with each juvenile offender (Vincent et al, 2011; Childs et al, 2013). Interventions based on the criminogenic needs of the juvenile offender are more effective than general interventions (Andrews and Bonta, 2010).…”