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

Abstract

Although the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) are among the most widely used adolescent risk assessment tools, they conceptualize and measure strengths differently. As such, in this study, we compared the predictive validity of SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total, and tested conceptual models of how these measures operate (i.e., risk vs. protective effects, direct vs. buffering effects, causal models). Research assistants conducted 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. They rated protective factors at baseline, and again at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-up periods. The SAVRY Protective Total and YLS/CMI Strength Total inversely predicted any charges in the subsequent 2 years (area under the curve scores = 0.61 and 0.60, respectively, p < .05). Furthermore, when adolescents' protective total scores increased, their self-reported violence decreased, thus providing evidence that these factors might play a causally relevant role in reducing violence. However, protective factors did not provide incremental validity over risk factors. In addition, because these measures are brief and use a dichotomous rating system, they primarily captured deficits in protective factors (i.e., low scores). This suggests a need for more comprehensive measures.

Assessing the Interactions between Strengths and Risk Factors of Recidivism through the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)

“…This result reinforces the importance of protective factors in reducing and preventing juvenile criminal behavior, so it was to be expected that protective factors would add incremental validity to the risk factors in the assessment instruments. Nevertheless, there are studies that do not find statistically significant results of increased incremental validity from protective factors [14,20,50], even though the same studies underscore their importance as principal factors in implementation of youth interventions [14]. Based on our study results, however, one must clearly differentiate the types of protective factors and the reoffender's type of profile.…”

“…In order to gain a better understanding of the protective factor, with more connection to its use in professional practice, the study sample was divided into three groups according to the young offenders' protective factor scores. The 25th and 75th percentiles were calculated, thereby dividing the sample into three groups: youths who showed a deficit in the protective factor (<P 25 ), youths with average scores in the protective factor (P 25 -P 75 ) and youths with high scores in the protective factor (>P 75 ) [20]. The group with average scores in the protective factor was compared to the group with deficient scores and the group with higher scores (Table 6).…”

“…The recent distinction between protective and promotive factors needs to be taken further, both in studies to identify which are the protective and the promotive factors in young offenders, and in the inclusion of these types of factors in risk assessment instruments. The scoring of protective factors should be done with caution, as a score of zero on an instrument's protective factor does not mean that the young offender has no strengths [20]. Protective and promotive factors should be studied in non-recurrent and non-offending young people with the aim of improving interventions for the prevention of offending behavior.…”

“…Results indicate a negative relationship between protective factors and recidivism in young offenders, and that protective factors are important in desisting from delinquent recidivism [19]. The specific role played by prediction factors in conjunction with risk factors is a topic of interest for present-day researchers, who focus on the incremental validity of both types [14,20,21].…”

The Role of Life Satisfaction in Predicting Youth Violence and Offending: A Prospective Examination

“…Several recent evaluations of such tools suggest that higher scores on protective factors are associated with decreased levels of violence and offending (e.g. Borum, Lodewijks, Bartel, & Forth, 2010;Desmarais, Wilson, Nicholls, & Brink, 2010), and that protective factors add significant incremental value above risk factors in explaining violent and criminal behavior (Lodewijks, de Ruiter, Doreleijers, 2010; but see Viljoen, Bhanwer, Shaffer, & Douglas, 2018).…”