Jill D. Sharkey
| Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology
| HOME |
Dr. Sharkey's Site
Santa Barbara Assets and Risks Assessment
(SBARA)
A collaboration between University of California, Santa Barbara & Santa Barbara County Probation Department
Overview
Santa Barbara County Probation Department (SBPD) adopted the Santa Barbara Assets and Risks Assessment (SBARA) in 2003 after an extensive development period in collaboration with our research team in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology (CCSP) at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
The SBARA is an innovative strategy of the NEW VISTAS evaluation (Principal Investigators Jimerson, Furlong, & Casas). The Neighborhood Enrichment With Vision Involving Services, Treatment And Supervision (NEW VISTAS) was a comprehensive service delivery model implemented in Santa Barbara County from 1999-2003. NEW VISTAS employed a family-focused, neighborhood-based supervision team to provide services to criminally involved families with identified substance abuse problems. Link to NEW VISTAS Project Evaluation Final Report and Executive Summary
Probation Risk Assessments are used widely to predict future reoffending. The SBARA was developed to improve prediction and treatment planning by considering potential assets and a breadth of variables relevant for both males and females. Female delinquency has largely been neglected until recently. Preliminary studies and several years of practical use have demonstrated the utility of the SBARA as a prediction tool for both males and females.
A recent study (Schwalbe, 2008) provides comparison data for a variety of probation risk assessments including the SBARA.
Currently, SBPD and my research team are collaborating to update the psychometric data regarding the SBARA. Analyses are designed to re-examine the ability of the screener to predict recidivism and thus accurately assign levels of supervision and treatment. In addition, SBPD would like to investigate the possibility of using a screener to identify youth who require the full version of the SBARA. Treatment planning is another possible benefit of the SBARA.
Published Studies
2004 CSP Article about the SBARA
2004 ETC Article about the SBARA
Terms of Use
The Santa Barbara Assets and Risks Assessment and accompanying resources are copyrighted documents that may not be modified in any way. We encourage researchers and juvenile justice officals to consider implementing the SBARA. We provide the SBARA and training resources free of charge on this website and are available for consultation. Please email me if you are planning to implement the SBARA. We can discuss considerations for an updated version of the SBARA. I would like to keep up a contact list to email updates, opportunities for collaboration, and discuss ideas.
Original citation:
O’Brien, K. M., Jimerson, S. J., Saxton, J. D., Furlong, M. J., & Sia, A. B. (2001). Santa Barbara Assets and Risks Assessment (SBARA). Santa Barbara, CA: Authors.
Description of the SBARA
Information about Version 2 is forthcoming. The description below is for the original version.
An excerpt from the original SBARA study is copied here - readers are encouraged to access published studies for additional information. Citation: Sharkey, J. D. (2003). Examining the relationship between risk and protective factors and juvenile recidivism for male and female probationers (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06), 1976).
The SBARA (O’Brien, Jimerson, Saxton, Furlong, Sia, 2001) is a semi–structured interview conducted with youths and their family members targeting 56 indicators selected to provide information about important assets (i.e., indicators that promote positive developmental outcomes) and risks (i.e., indicators that promote negative developmental outcomes). This assessment was designed to include indicators that reflect the unique developmental experiences of both males and females. For the current study, the SBARA was used by the probation department in order to better understand assets and risks associated with repeat offending with the goal of preventing reoffense among juvenile offenders (O’Brien, Jimerson, Saxton, Furlong, & Sia, 2001).
Description. The SBARA consists of 56 indicators within 12 domains: Parent–Child Relationships, Family Criminality, Family Substance Abuse, Family Mental Health, Individual Factors, Individual Criminality, Individual Substance Use, Community Factors, Peer Factors, School Factors, Sexual Activity, and History of Trauma.
Derivation of indicators. Indicators were derived through several steps designed to capture those variables that have been theoretically developed to explain criminal activity and empirically associated with repeat offending. Reviewing theories related to developmental pathways towards increasing levels of delinquency was a specific focus. Literature describing empirical investigations of the relationship between theoretically derived variables and criminal activity was reviewed for significant relationships relevant to male and female patterns of offending. In addition, ethnographic interviews were conducted in order to gain insight into those influences relevant to the population under study. These interviews were especially important because the literature is particularly sparse regarding offending patterns of Mexican American males and females, a significant portion of the juvenile justice population in Central California. Finally, probation officers provided input regarding their experiences with youths on probation and feedback regarding the face validity of various indicators. This process derived a list of 56 indicators.
Operationalizing the relationship between risks and assets. Once indicators were derived, the relationships between each indicator and recidivism were operationalized to reflect the theoretical orientation of the authors. Masten (2001) has argued that the influence of indicators on a developmental outcome lie on a continuum. That is, risk factors can be inverted to create protective factors. The literature supported this theory, as evidence exists for both the negative and positive influences of many indicators. For example, healthy family cohesion has been demonstrated to be a protective factor whereas unhealthy family cohesion has been demonstrated to be a risk factor (Olson et al., 1979). According to this theory, each indicator has a continuum of conditions, ranging from those risks considered to be associated with recidivism to those assets considered to protect against recidivism. In cases where the literature did not provide direct evidence for both the protective and risk influences of a particular indicator, Masten’s theory of a continuum of influence was used to logically balance the indicator. For example, though individual substance use has been found to be a risk factor for juvenile delinquency (Kandel, 1975), the absence of substance has not been examined as a protective factor against delinquency for youths at–risk for repeat offending. Nonetheless, the absence of substance use was included as a protective influence given the theoretical orientation of the measure. However, not all items cover the full range of asset to risk. For example, physical abuse ranges from neutral to high risk because no evidence or logical argument supported the absence of physical abuse as a protective factor against recidivism.
Implementation of the assessment. The SBARA protocol is completed by a professional trained in its use, such as a probation officer, based on data compiled from a variety of available sources. The main source of information is a semi–structured interview with youths and parents, conducted using a glossary of terms and sample probes that has been developed by the authors. In addition, professionals are encouraged to seek information from schools, community centers, other family members, and other professionals involved with the youth.
Psychometric properties–reliability. Using the larger data set from which participants for the current study were selected, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .84 for the total score, .85 for the Asset subscale and .84 for the Risk subscale, indicating high internal consistency for the scale. Determining the accuracy of information reported by interviewers on the SBARA is an important aspect of determining its reliability as a measure. In addition, demonstrating that a measure is scored consistently between two different raters given the same information is an important aspect of demonstrating its reliability. See links to published articles for results of these reliability analyses.
Links to Forms
Scoring the SBARA Version 2
Males
Add up the following 45 items:
1-11, 15-24, 26-46, 49-51
Divide the total by 45 and multiply by 10
Females
Add up the following 37 items:
1-5, 7, 11, 15-24, 26-36, 39, 42-46, 49-51
Divide the total by 37 and multiply by 10
The optimal cut point for services should be determined on local needs and socio-political factors. A cut-score of 30 would cut out youth whose total score represents more assets than risks.
Psychometric Properties
The psychometric properties published here are for the original SBARA. The psychometric properties of Version 2 have been established and are being prepared for submission to a journal outlet.
Psychometric properties–validity. In order to examine construct validity, the SBARA was compared with several other measures of assets and risks. Results of the correlations between the Santa Barbara Assets and Risks scales and these measures are reported in Table 2. The Assets component was positively correlated with the Behavior and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS; youth r = .483, parent r = .461, p < .01), and negatively correlated with the Orange County Risk Assessment (r = -.628, p < .01), and the Ohio Youth Problem Severity Scale (youth r = -.424, parent r = -.441, p < .01). These correlations are in the expected directions. It did not, however, correlate significantly with the Ohio Youth Functioning Scale3 (youth r = .054, parent r = .067). The Risks subscale was negatively correlated with the BERS (youth r = -.482, parent r = -.502, p < .01), and positively correlated with the Orange County Risk Assessment (r = .750), and the Ohio Youth Problem Severity Scale (youth r = .477, parent r = .535, p < .01). The Risk subscale correlated weakly with the youth version of the Ohio Functioning Scale (r = -.093, p < .05) and not with the parent version of the Ohio Functioning Scale (r = -.088). These data indicate convergent validity through strong correlations with a variety of scales measuring similar constructs. Further examination with different samples is necessary in order to understand the relationship between the Ohio Functioning Scale and the other measures used for the validity analyses. The Ohio Functioning Scale was not correlated with any of the other measures (e.g., for parent versions BERS r = .072) including the Ohio Problem Severity Scale (for parent versions r = -.065).
The Behavior and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS; Epstein & Sharma, 1998) is a standardized, norm–referenced scale completed by parents that measures five aspects of the behavioral and emotional strengths of children and adolescents.
The Orange County Risk Assessment (Orange County Probation Department, 1988) is an assessment used by probation officials to evaluate which juvenile delinquents are most at–risk to reoffend. For each item, answers are assigned a weighted score, and these item scores are added together to yield a total risk score.
The Ohio Youth Problem and Ohio Youth Functioning Scales are components of The Ohio Mental Health Scales. (Ogles, Melendez, Davis, Lunnen, 2001). The Youth Problem scale measures how often in the last 30 days youths have experienced a variety of problems. The Functioning scale measures level of functioning in a variety of daily activities.
SBARA links
NEW
SBARA-2 Screener
Current SBARA Research