The Predictive Validity of Savry Ratings for Assessing Youth Offenders in Singapore: A Comparison With YLS/CMI Ratings.

Chi Meng Chu,Dominic Chong,Mui Leng Goh

doi:10.1177/0093854815616842

Abstract

Empirical support for the usage of the SAVRY has been reported in studies conducted in many Western contexts, but not in a Singaporean context. This study compared the predictive validity of the SAVRY ratings for violent and general recidivism against the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) ratings within the Singaporean context. Using a sample of 165 male young offenders (Mfollow-up = 4.54 years), results showed that the SAVRY Total Score and Summary Risk Rating, as well as YLS/CMI Total Score and Overall Risk Rating, predicted violent and general recidivism. SAVRY Protective Total Score was only significantly predictive of desistance from general recidivism, and did not show incremental predictive validity for violent and general recidivism over the SAVRY Total Score. Overall, the results suggest that the SAVRY is suited (to varying degrees) for assessing the risk of violent and general recidivism in young offenders within the Singaporean context, but might not be better than the YLS/CMI.

Highlights

Youth violence leads to large costs to victims and government
The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) Total Score, SAVRY SRR, and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) Total Score were positively and significantly correlated with violent and general recidivism
Notwithstanding the limitations, the present findings suggest that there is value in using the SAVRY for assessing the risk of violent and general recidivism in youth offenders within the Singaporean context

Summary

Introduction

Youth violence leads to large costs to victims and government. The estimated cost of homicides and assault-related injuries among youth in the United States is $16.2 billion—in terms of lifetime combined medical and work loss costs (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Research studies have shown that structured risk assessment methods (i.e., actuarial and structured clinical judgment approaches) are more accurate than unstructured clinical judgment, but they are preferred because of their increased transparency and reliability (see Heilbrun, Yasuhara, & Shah, 2010, for a review) It is efficient, highly flexible, and allows clinicians to focus on case-specific information and violence prevention, unstructured clinical judgment has been criticized for being subjective, unreliable, poorly validated, and unable to detail the decision-making process (Monahan & Steadman, 1994; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 2006; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997).

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion