The use of risk assessment instruments has become standard procedure in the juvenile justice system. Most empirical assessments of the predictive validity of these instruments concentrate on the ability of a total risk score, individual risk factors, or risk domains to predict negative juvenile outcomes but fail to consider the utility of the protective factors in influencing or moderating those risks. This study utilizes the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth to analyze the impact of protective factors on reoffending using a sample (n = 460) of postadjudication juveniles in a southern state. The overall protective domain and two specific protective factors were related to reoffending in bivariate analyses. However, protective factors did not predict reoffending when controlling for risk domains. Rather, further analyses suggest that certain protective factors buffer the effects of some of the risk domains.
AalenO. O.BorganO.GjessingH. K. (2008). Survival and event history analysis: A process point of view. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
2.
AllisonP. D. (2014). Event history and survival analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
American Correctional Association. (2008). 2008 directory: Adult and juvenile correctional departments, institutions, agencies, and probation and parole authorities. Alexandria, VA: Author.
4.
AndershedA.GibsonC. L.AndershedH. (2016). The role of cumulative risk and protection for violent offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 78–84.
5.
BaglivioM. T.WolffK. T.PiqueroA. R.HowellJ. C.GreenwaldM. A. (2017). Risk assessment trajectories of youth during juvenile justice residential placement: Examining risk, promotive, and “buffer” scores. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 360–394.
BairdC.HealyT.JohnsonK.BogieA.DankertE. W.ScharenbrochC. (2013). A comparison of risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf
8.
BishopD. M.LeiberM.JohnsonJ. (2010). Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 213–233.
9.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. (2003). Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth Version 1.1. Tampa: Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.
10.
BridgesG. S.SteenS. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.
11.
ChapmanJ. F.DesaiR. A.FalzerP. R.BorumR. (2006). Violence risk and race in a sample of youth in juvenile detention: The potential to reduce disproportionate minority confinement. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 170–184.
12.
ChildsK. K.FrickP. J.GottliebK. (2016). Sex differences in the measurement invariance and factors that influence structured judgments of risk using the Structured Assessment of Violence in Youth (SAVRY). Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14, 76–92.
13.
ChildsK. K.RyalsJ.JrFrickP. J.LawingK.PhillippiS.DepratoD. K. (2013). Examining the validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) for predicting probation outcomes among adjudicated juvenile offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31, 256–270.
14.
CoxD. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series, B34, 187–202.
15.
DolanM. C.RennieC. E. (2008). The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth as a predictor of recidivism in a United Kingdom cohort of adolescent offenders with conduct disorder. Psychological Assessment, 20, 35–46.
16.
DouglasK. S.YeomansM.BoerD. P. (2005). Comparative validity analysis of multiple measures of violence risk in a sample of criminal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 479–510.
17.
EmersonR. M. (1969). Judging delinquents: Context and process in juvenile court. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
18.
FortuneC. A. (2018). The good lives model: A strength-based approach for youth offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 21–30.
19.
FurdellaJ.PuzzancheraC. (2015). Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2013. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
20.
GammelgårdM.KoivistoA.EronenM.Kaltiala-HeinoR. (2015). Predictive validity of the structured assessment on violence risk in youth: A 4-year follow-up. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 25, 192–206.
21.
GottfredsonS. D.MoriartyL. J. (2006). Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 178–200.
22.
GreenlandS.MansourniaM. A.AltmanD. G. (2016). Sparse data bias: A problem hiding in plain sight. BMJ, 352, i1981.
23.
HawkinsJ.CatalanoR.MillerJ. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64–105.
24.
HawkinsJ. D.HerrenkohlT. I.FarringtonD. P.BrewerD.CatalanoR. F.HarachiT. W. (1998). A review of predictors of youth violence. In LoeberR.FarringtonD. (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 106–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
HawkinsJ. D.HerrenkohlT. I.FarringtonD. P.BrewerD.CatalanoR. F.HarachiT. W. (2000). Predictors of youth violence. Juvenile justice bulleting. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
26.
HerrenkohlT.MaguinE.HillK.HawkinsJ.AbbottR.CatalanoR. (2000). Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 176–186.
27.
HiltermanE. L. B.NichollsT. L.van NieuwenhuizenC. (2014). Predictive validity of risk assessments in juvenile offenders: Comparing the SAVRY, PCL: YV, and YLS/CMI with unstructured clinical assessments. Assessment, 21, 324–339.
28.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A.LeschiedA. W. (1996). An investigation of risk and protective factors in a sample of youthful offenders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 419–424.
29.
HowellJ. C.LipseyM. W.WilsonJ. L. (2014). A handbook for evidence based juvenile justice systems. London, England: Lexington Books.
JenningsW. G.GonzalezJ. R.PiqueroA. R.BirdH.CaninoG.Maldonado-MolinaM. (2016). The nature and relevance of risk and protective factors for violence among Hispanic children and adolescents: Results from the Boricua Youth Study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 41–47.
32.
JolliffeD.FarringtonD. P.LoeberR.PardiniD. (2016). Protective factors for violence: Results from the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 32–40.
33.
KleinV.RettenbergerM.YoonD.KöhlerN.BrikenP. (2015). Protective factors and recidivism in accused juveniles who sexually offended. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 71–90.
34.
LodewijksH. P. B.de RuiterC.DoreleijersT. A. H. (2010). The impact of protective factors in desistance from violent reoffending: A study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 568–587.
35.
LodewijksH. P. B.DoreleijersT. A. H.de RuiterC. (2008). SAVRY risk assessment in violent Dutch adolescents: Relation to sentencing and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 696–709.
36.
LodewijksH. P. B.DoreleijersT. A. H.de RuiterC.BorumR. (2008). Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) during residential treatment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 263–271.
37.
McGrathA.ThompsonA. P. (2012). The relative predictive validity of the static and dynamic domain scores in risk-need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 250–263.
38.
MulveyE. P. (2005). Risk assessment in juvenile justice policy and practice. In HeilbrunK.Sevin GoldsteinN.ReddingR. (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assessment, and intervention (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329–353.
40.
PeckJ. H.JenningsW. G. (2016). A critical examination of “being Black” in the juvenile justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 219.
41.
PenneyS. R.LeeZ.MorettiM. M. (2010). Gender differences in risk factors for violence: An examination of the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 390–404.
42.
Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT.HaqaneeZ. (2015). Examining implementation of risk assessment in case management for youth in the justice system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 304–320.
43.
RappC. A.SullivanW. P. (2014). The strengths model: Birth to toddlerhood. Advances in Social Work, 15, 129–142.
44.
RennieC. E.DolanM. C. (2010). The significance of protective factors in the assessment of risk. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20, 8–22.
45.
SchwalbeC. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449.
46.
SerinR. C.ChadwickN.LloydC. D. (2016). Dynamic risk and protective factors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22, 151–170.
47.
ShepherdS. M.LuebbersS.OgloffJ. R. (2016). The role of protective factors and the relationship with recidivism for high-risk young people in detention. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 863–878.
48.
SiegalH. A.LiL.RappR. C. (2002). Case management as a therapeutic enhancement: Impact on post-treatment criminality. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 21, 37–46.
49.
SimonsK.PaterniteC.ShoreC. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent attachment and aggression in young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 182–203.
50.
SinghJ. P.GrannM.FazelS. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 499–513.
TseS.TsoiE. W.HamiltonB.O’HaganM.ShepherdG.SladeM.WhitleyR.PetrakisM. (2016). Uses of strength-based interventions for people with serious mental illness: A critical review. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 62, 281–291.
53.
TtofiM. M.FarringtonD. P.PiqueroA. R.LöselF.DeLisiM.MurrayJ. (2016). Intelligence as a protective factor against offending: A meta-analytic review of prospective longitudinal studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 4–18.
54.
UrquhartT. A.ViljoenJ. L. (2014). The use of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in adolescent court proceedings: A case law review. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 47–61.
55.
ViljoenJ. L.ScaloraM.CuadraL.BaderS.ChavezV.UllmanD.LawrenceL. (2008). Assessing risk for violence in adolescents who have sexually offended: A comparison of the J-SOAP-II, J-SORRAT-II, and SAVRY. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 5–23.
56.
VincentG. M.ChapmanJ.CookN. E. (2011). Risk-needs assessment in juvenile justice: Predictive validity of the SAVRY, racial differences, and the contribution of needs factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 42–62.
57.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.FuscoS. L.GershensonB. G. (2012). Field reliability of the SAVRY with juvenile probation officers: Implications for training. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 225–236.
58.
VincentG. M.GuyL.S.GershensonB. G.McCabeP. (2012). Does risk assessment make a difference? Results of implementing the SAVRY in juvenile probation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 384–405.
59.
VitopoulosN. A.Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT. A. (2012). The relationship between matching service to criminogenic need in male and female youth: Examining the RNR principles in practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1025–1041.
60.
WachterA. (2014). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation. JJGPS StateScan. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
61.
WelshJ. L.SchmidtF.McKinnonL.ChatthaH. K.MeyersJ. R. (2008). A comparative study of adolescent risk assessment instruments: Predictive and incremental validity. Assessment, 15, 104–115.
62.
WernerE. (2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In ShonkoffJ.MeiselsS. (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
