Prediction of Adolescent Sexual Reoffending: A Meta-Analysis of the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II, and Static-99

Several risk assessment tools, including the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (Prentky & Righthand, 2003), the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (Worling & Curwen, 2001), the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (Epperson, ralston, Fowers, DeWitt, & Gore, 2006), and the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999), have been used to assess reoffense risk among adolescents who have committed sexual offenses. Given that research on these tools has yielded somewhat mixed results, we empirically synthesized 33 published and unpublished studies involving 6,196 male adolescents who had committed a sexual offense. We conducted two separate meta-analyses, first with correlations and then with AUCs. Total scores on each of the tools significantly predicted sexual reoffending, with aggregated correlations ranging from .12 - .20 and aggregated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) scores ranging from .64 - .67. In many cases, however, heterogeneity across studies was moderate to high. There were no significant differences between tools, and although the Static-99 was developed for adults, it achieved similar results as the adolescent tools. To help interpret these findings, results are compared to other meta-analyses of risk tools used in the area of violence risk assessment and in other fields

Risk Assessments for Violence and Reoffending: Implementation and Impact on Risk Management

Risk assessment instruments for violence and reoffending are widely used throughout the world. According to researchers, there are many different reasons to use these instruments; for instance, they are thought to reduce violence, save money, and improve treatment-planning. In this paper, we create a taxonomy to classify these risk management outcomes into agency, professional practice, and examinee domains. Through a review of research, we show that instruments do not always achieve their goals. First, agencies encounter problems in successfully implementing instruments. Second, a lack of follow through can occur between risk assessments and the subsequent phases of risk management, such as case planning and intervention delivery. By drawing from the field of implementation science, we create an agenda for research

What Are Judges’ Views of Risk Assessments, and How Do Tools Affect Adolescent Dispositions?

Despite the increased presence of risk assessment tools in pre-sentence hearings, their role has been contentious, and the extent to which they influence dispositions is unclear. This study uses a self-report questionnaire to examine judges’ opinions about risk assessment tools, as well as an experimental vignette design to evaluate whether judges’ placement and program recommendations for a high- and low-risk adolescent are affected by the presence of an empirically supported tool and accompanying risk rating. It also assesses the influence of tool presence on judges’ impressions of the adolescent’s treatability and culpability. Participants included 170 judges from 34 American states and two Canadian provinces. The most common advantage of tools highlighted by judges was the additional information they provide, while the most common concern was their potential to obscure bias. Judges’ placement recommendations and impressions of the adolescent were not significantly influenced by tool presence, but their program recommendations were more intensive and consistent for the high-risk adolescent when a tool was present than when it was absent

Are Adolescent Risk Assessment Tools Sensitive to Change? A Framework and Examination of the SAVRY and the YLS/CMI

Although many adolescent risk assessment tools include an emphasis on dynamic factors, little research has examined the extent to which these tools are capable of measuring change. In this article, we outline a framework to evaluate a tool’s capacity to measure change. This framework includes: (1) measurement error and reliable change, and (2) sensitivity (i.e., internal, external, and relative sensitivity). We then used this framework to evaluate the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Research assistants conducted 509 risk assessments with 146 adolescents on probation (101 male, 45 female), who were assessed every 3 months over a 1-year period. Internal sensitivity was partially supported, as a modest proportion of youth showed changes over time. External sensitivity (i.e., the association between change scores and reoffending) was also partially supported. In particular, 22% of the associations between change scores and any and violent reoffending were significant at a 6-month follow-up. However, only one change score (i.e., Peer Associations) remained significant after the Bonferroni correction was applied. Finally, relative sensitivity was not supported, as the SAVRY and YLS/CMI was not more dynamic than the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). Specifically, the 1-year rank-order stability coefficients for the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV Total Scores were .78, .75, and .76, respectively. Although the SAVRY and YLS/CMI hold promise, further efforts may help to enhance sensitivity to short-term changes in risk

Improving Case Plans and Interventions for Adolescents on Probation: The Implementation of the SAVRY and a Structured Case Planning Form

Even when probation officers use risk assessment tools, many of their clients’ needs remain unaddressed. As such, we examined whether the implementation of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and a structured case planning form resulted in better case plans as compared to prior practices (i.e., a non-validated local tool and an unstructured plan). Our sample comprised 216 adolescents on probation who were matched via propensity scores. Adolescents in the SAVRY/Structured Plan condition had significantly better case plans than those in the pre-implementation condition. Specifically, following implementation, adolescents’ high need domains were more likely to be targeted in plans. Plans also scored higher on other quality indicators (e.g., level of detail). These improvements appeared to be due primarily to the structured plan rather than the SAVRY. Overall, our findings highlight that, just as structure can improve risk assessments, so too might structure improve case plans

The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits: Reliability, Convergent Validity, and Predictive Validity for Reoffending in Adolescents on Probation

This prospective study assessed the reliability and validity of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) in a sample of 70 adolescent offenders. With the exception of the Unemotional subscale, ICU scores showed acceptable reliability. ICU total and Callousness scores demonstrated moderate associations with the Antisocial Process Screening Device and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. The ICU also demonstrated moderate predictive accuracy for violent reoffending over an 18-month follow-up period. While these findings provide some support for the ICU’s validity, more research is needed to determine if it is appropriate for use in applied settings with adolescent offenders

Risk and Protective Factors for Recidivism Among Juveniles Who Have Offended Sexually

Literature on risk factors for recidivism among juveniles who have sexually offended (JSOs) is limited. In addition, there have been no studies published concerning protective factors among this population. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of risk and protective factors to sexual and nonsexual recidivism among a sample of 193 male JSOs (mean age = 15.26). Youths were followed for an average of 7.24 years following discharge from a residential sex offender treatment program. The risk factor opportunities to reoffend, as coded based on the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism, was associated with sexual recidivism. Several risk factors (e.g., prior offending; peer delinquency) were associated with nonsexual recidivism. No protective factors examined were associated with sexual recidivism, although strong attachments and bonds as measured by the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth was negatively related to nonsexual recidivism. These findings indicate that risk factors for nonsexual recidivism may be consistent across both general adolescent offender populations and JSOs, but that there may be distinct protective factors that apply to sexual recidivism among JSOs. Results also indicate important needs for further research on risk factors, protective factors, and risk management strategies for JSOs

Does Reassessment of Risk Improve Predictions? A Framework and Examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents\u27 risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, we tested three hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every three months over a one-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. We then examined charges for violence and any offence over a two-year follow-up period, and youths\u27 self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth\u27s risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs\u27 increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes

Changes in J-SOAP-II and SAVRY Scores Over the Course of Residential, Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Adolescent Sexual Offending

Although the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) include an emphasis on dynamic, or modifiable factors, there has been little research on dynamic changes on these tools. To help address this gap, we compared admission and discharge scores of 163 adolescents who attended a residential, cognitive-behavioral treatment program for sexual offending. Based on reliable change indices, one-half of youth showed a reliable decrease on the J-SOAP-II Dynamic Risk Total Score and one-third of youth showed a reliable decrease on the SAVRY Dynamic Risk Total Score. Contrary to expectations, decreases in risk factors and increases in protective factors did not predict reduced sexual, violent nonsexual, or any reoffending. In addition, no associations were found between scores on the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version and levels of change. Overall, the J-SOAP-II and the SAVRY hold promise in measuring change, but further research is needed

Changes in J-SOAP-II and SAVRY Scores Over the Course of Residential, Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Adolescent Sexual Offending

Although the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) include an emphasis on dynamic, or modifiable factors, there has been little research on dynamic changes on these tools. To help address this gap, we compared admission and discharge scores of 163 adolescents who attended a residential, cognitive-behavioral treatment program for sexual offending. Based on reliable change indices, one half of youth showed a reliable decrease on the J-SOAP-II Dynamic Risk Total Score and one third of youth showed a reliable decrease on the SAVRY Dynamic Risk Total Score. Contrary to expectations, decreases in risk factors and increases in protective factors did not predict reduced sexual, violent nonsexual, or any reoffending. In addition, no associations were found between scores on the Psychopathy Checklist:Youth Version and levels of change. Overall, the J-SOAP-II and the SAVRY hold promise in measuring change, but further research is needed