The SAVRY Improves Prediction of Reoffending

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the utility of the risk assessment ''Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth'' (SAVRY) within the social services in Stockholm County, Sweden. Method: SAVRY assessments of 56 adolescents were compared to assessments guided by another instrument (Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis [ADAD]; n ¼ 38) and assessments without support of a structured method (n ¼ 38). Results: The results showed that social workers conducting SAVRY assessments documented a significantly larger number of risk and protective factors compared to the other assessments, and these factors predicted, with a few exceptions, reoffending to a larger extent. SAVRY summary risk rating significantly predicted the occurrence of serious violent crimes (area under the curve [AUC] ¼ .80, p < .01) and less serious violence (AUC ¼ .70, p < .05). Conclusions: SAVRY performed at least as well in naturalistic settings as in previous studies conducted in more controlled environments. Furthermore, the SAVRY performed better than the other structured instrument (ADAD).

Risk and responsibilization: resistance and compliance in Swedish treatment for youth cannabis use

“…Despite this, it is officially emphasized that cannabis use is particularly risky for young people and is a high-profile problem requiring attention and resources (Månsson, 2017;T€ ornqvist, 2009). Sweden's management of young cannabis users is based politically on zero tolerance (Tham, 2012), professionally on assessments of risk and protective factors (Åstr€ om, Gumpert, Andershed, & Forster, 2017;Åstr€ om, Jergeby, Andershed, & Tengstr€ om, 2013), and on supportive family services rather than forceful child protection (Gilbert, Parton, & Skivenes, 2011;Healy, Lundstr€ om, & Salln€ as, 2011).…”

Risk assessments for violence and reoffending: Implementation and impact on risk management.

“…Research on instruments’ impact on transparency and staff accountability is limited. In one study, social workers were more likely to document empirically supported risk factors in their reports when they used a risk instrument rather than unstructured clinical judgment (Åström, Gumpert, Andershed, & Forster, 2017). In another study, only 22% of judges and 36% of probation officers believed instruments increased staff accountability (Shook & Sarri, 2007).…”

Development of a Risk Assessment Tool for Social Services Using a Modified Delphi Technique

“…Different approaches and methodologies are being developed for study and intervention in the face of new complex realities (migratory flows, refugee and asylum processes arising from war and environmental situations, technologization of society, pandemics); however, no research have been located that use the HVCRA methodology applied to the field of social services as it shown in this article. Moreover, these studies that assess risk in social services do not implement the HVCRA model and are focused on specific objects of study such as domestic violence (Skillmark et al, 2019), psychosocial risk in families (Rodrı´guez et al, 2006), risk in adolescents and minors (A ˚stro¨m et al, 2017;Bastian, 2017), homelessness (Mullen et al, 2022), among others. On the other hand, there are research addressing vulnerability, resilience and hazards (Flanagan et al, 2011) but not in a joint way applied to social services.…”