Pilot Implementation and Preliminary Evaluation of START:AV Assessments in Secure Juvenile Correctional Facilities

Abstract

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a new structured professional judgment guide for assessing short-term risks in adolescents. The scheme may be distinguished from other youth risk assessment and treatment planning instruments by its inclusion of 23 dynamic factors that are each rated for both vulnerability and strength. In addition, START:AV is also unique in that it focuses on multiple adverse outcomes—namely, violence, self-harm, suicide, unauthorized leave, substance abuse, self-neglect, victimization, and general offending—over the short-term (i.e., weeks to months) rather than long-term (i.e., years). This paper describes a pilot implementation and preliminary evaluation of START:AV in three secure juvenile correctional facilities in the southern United States. Specifically, we examined the descriptive characteristics and psychometric properties of START:AV assessments completed by 21 case managers on 291 adolescent offenders (250 boys and 41 girls) at the time of admission. Results provide preliminary support for the feasibility of completing START:AV assessments as part of routine practice. Findings also highlight differences in the characteristics of START:AV assessments for boys and girls and differential associations between the eight START:AV risk domains. Though results are promising, further research is needed to establish the reliability and validity of START:AV assessments completed in the field.

Examination of convergent validity of START: AV ratings among male juveniles on probation

“…The studies support the reliability and validity of START: AV based risk assessments completed in adolescent samples on probation (Viljoen et al, 2012b), correctional facilities (Desmarais et al, 2012), and clinical setting (Sher, Warner, McLean, Rowe, & Gralton, 2017). However, these studies are few and mostly conducted with abbreviated manual of the START: AV.…”

Measurement of Change in Dynamic Factors Using the START: AV

“…There are now several validated risk assessment instruments for youth that include dynamic risk and protective factors, including but not limited to the START:AV, that may enable assessors to better tailor and modify interventions to reduce risk of adverse outcomes. While there have been efforts to examine the predictive validity of the START:AV (Desmarais et al, 2012; Singh et al, 2014; Viljoen et al, 2012; Wilson, Desmarias, Nicholls, Hart, & Brink, 2013), future research should continue these efforts in order to further develop and validate these measures with dynamic predictive validity, which was beyond the scope of the current study. Additionally, there is a need for continued efforts examining how changes in dynamic risk and protective factors are associated with changes in risk for adverse outcomes among justice-involved youth and, perhaps even more importantly, whether interventions targeting these factors contribute to reductions in risk.…”

“…All training was conducted using the START:AV abbreviated manual (Nicholls, Viljoen, Cruise, Desmarais, & Webster; 2010). Further details on the training are provided elsewhere (Desmarais et al, 2012). …”

“…Case managers completed START:AV assessments based on all obtainable information, such as interviews with the youths, collaterals and clinical-legal records, at four different times: 1) within 21 days of admission (with the exception of new admissions to an intensive treatment unit); 2) every three months at the youth’s quarterly case management review to assess progress; 3) when there was a request for or anticipated change in restriction level (e.g., in preparation for release or transfer to a different unit); and 4) whenever an important change in the youth’s well-being or circumstances (e.g., death in family) (Desmarais et al, 2012). …”

“…While there are well-validated adolescent risk assessment instruments that include dynamic factors, such as the SAVRY and YLS/CMI, few focus on short-term risk while also providing a balanced emphasis on both risk factors and protective factors (Desmarais, et al, 2012; Singh et al, 2014; Viljoen et al, 2012). Protective factors have been described as strengths, buffers, resources, or the mirror images of risk (de Vries Robbe, de Vogel, & de Spa, 2011; Lodewijks et al, 2010; Spice, Viljoen, Latzman, Scalora, & Ullman, 2013; Ullrich & Coid, 2011; Ward, 2015).…”