Predicting Reoffending Using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY): A 5-Year Follow-Up Study of Male Juvenile Offenders in Hunan Province, China

Abstract

BackgroundJuvenile violent offending is a serious worldwide public health issue.ObjectiveThe study examined whether the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) can be used to predict violent reoffending in Chinese male juvenile offenders, and to determine which risk/protective domains (items) are associated with violent recidivism.MethodsA total of 246 male juvenile offenders were recruited. SAVRY domains were scored by trained raters based on file review and interviews with participants and their legal guardians. Information on further arrests, charges, or convictions for violent offences were collected from police records over a five year follow-up.ResultsOver the course of the five year follow-up periods, 63 (25.6%) juvenile offenders were re-arrested for a further violent reoffence. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses showed Areas Under the Curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.60 to 0.68 for the SAVRY total, risk and protective score domains. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that 7 of the 30 SAVRY items were significantly associated with reoffending; explaining 36.2% of the variance. Backward stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis showed the independently predictive items were items 2 (‘history of non-violent offending’), 17 (‘negative attitudes’), 18 (‘risk-taking/impulsivity’), and 20 (‘anger management problems’). Together these four items explained 25.0% of the variance in reoffending.ConclusionsThe results suggested that the SAVRY can be meaningfully used to inform the development and evaluation of effective violence risk assessment and management approaches for male juvenile offenders detained in a Youth Detention Center in Hunan province, China.

Examination of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk - Youth Version (SAPROF-YV) in Canadian Adolescents

“…The predictive validity of the SAVRY Protective factors has yielded some positive findings [15,17], such as inversely predicting general reoffending [18], violence [17], and violent and general reoffending [19,20]. Some studies have shown mixed findings, such as predictive validity for only general reoffending [21], nonviolent reoffending [22], or only violent reoffending [14,23]. Further, a recent systematic review found that SAVRY Protective factors were not significantly related to violence or offending (k = 14 studies) [24].…”

The Predictive Validity of Three Youth Violence Assessment Instruments: The SAVRY, VRS-YV, and SAPROF-YV

“…Results from various studies suggest that the SAVRY has a small to large effect size for the prediction of violent reoffending (Chu et al, 2016; Dolan & Rennie, 2008; Hilterman et al, 2014; Lodewijks et al, 2008; McGowan et al, 2011; Zhou et al, 2017). However, most of the studies reporting large effect sizes were conducted in Europe and North America (AUC = 0.69–0.86); with the Singaporean (Chu et al, 2016) and Chinese (Zhou et al, 2017) studies reporting smaller effect sizes (AUC = 0.63–0.65 and AUC = 0.68 respectively). The authors of the Singapore study observed that the SAVRY Total Score was lower than that of Western studies, and the SAVRY Protective Total Score was higher.…”

Assessing Protective Factors for Adolescent Offending: A Conceptually Informed Examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI

“…Many of these studies have indicated that SAVRY protective factors are associated with reduced likelihood of reoffending (i.e., Gammelgård, Koivisto, Eronen, & Kaltiala-Heino, 2015;Guy, 2008;Lodewijks, de Ruiter, & Doreleijers, 2010;McGowan, Horn, & Mellott, 2011;Ortega-Campos, García-García, & Zaldívar-Basurto, 2017;Rennie & Dolan, 2010;Schmidt, Campbell, & Houlding, 2011;Shepherd, Luebbers, Ogloff, Fullam, & Dolan, 2014;Vincent, Guy, Gershenson, & McCabe, 2012). However, other studies have failed to find significant associations (i.e., Hilterman, Nicholls, & van Nieuwenhuizen, 2014;Klein, Rettenberger, Yoon, Köhler, & Briken, 2015;Penney, Lee, & Moretti, 2010;Perrault, Vincent, & Guy, 2017;Viljoen et al, 2008), or have yielded mixed results (i.e., Chu, Goh, & Chong, 2016;Dolan & Rennie, 2008;Vincent, Chapman, & Cook, 2011;Zhou, Witt, Cao, Chen, & Wang, 2017). Recently, a systematic review aggregated these findings (Dickens & O'Shea, 2017).…”