Identifying protective factors

Hanson’s (2009) recent review of risk assessment for crime and violence notes that one of the most important additions for the next generation of risk assessment tools is the

incorporation of protective factors as well as risk factors. Although the adoption of protective factors into risk assessment has been slow, a variety of promising protective factors have been identified. For the purpose of identifying these protective factors, the SAPROF definition was assumed. The SAPROF defines protective factors as “any characteristic of a person, his/her environment or situation which reduces the risk of future violent behaviour” (de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de Vries Robbé, 2009, p. 25). Below a select few with the greatest empirical and conceptual support are reviewed.

1.3.4.1.1 Social support. A strong prosocial support network has been identified as a protective factor in both adolescent and adult populations. The SAVRY contains social support as one of its six protective factors. Lodewijks and colleagues (2010) demonstrated that strong social support item of the SAVRY is associated with protective effects on youth violent

reoffending in three separate adolescent populations. Additionally, Hoge, Andrews, and Lescheid (1996) demonstrated that positive peer relations in youth (an item similar to positive social support) were associated with positive outcomes regardless of risk. More recently, Ullrich and Coid (2011) identified that perceived social support plays an important protective role on violent reoffending in adult offenders regardless of an offender’s level of risk in a sample of 800 male prisoners released into the community.

1.3.4.1.2 Emotional support. A strong emotional support network has also been identified as a protective factor in both adolescents and adults. Research using the SAVRY has identified that strong emotional attachments and bonds play an important protective role in youth

reoffending (Lodewijks et al., 2010; Rennie & Dolan, 2010). Similarly, Ullrich and Coid (2011) demonstrated that perceived emotional support (i.e., “my family or friends can be relied upon, no matter what happens….would take care of me if I needed it”) is a strong protective factor in adult violent reoffending. Additionally, the authors found that closeness to others (defined as the presence of at least one person in their life that the offender considered himself particularly close to) demonstrated protective effects on violent reoffending.

1.3.4.1.3 Leisure time. Appropriate use of leisure time has been demonstrated to be an important protective factor. Hoge and colleagues (1996) identified that effective use of leisure time as an important protective factor in youth reoffending. Similarly, Rae-Grant, Thomas, Offord, and Boyle (1989) noted that spending time with prosocial peers at least two or three times a week also had a protective role in adolescents with behavioural problems. Bouman, de Ruiter, and Schene (2010) demonstrated that involvement in structured leisure activities (i.e., clubs) had protective effects in adult high-risk forensic patients. Finally, Ullrich and Coid (2011) demonstrated that spending spare time with prosocial friends and family including organized activities acted as a protective factor in adult violent offenders.

1.3.4.1.4 Religious activity. The role of religious affiliation and activity is a lesser

examined potential protective factor. Both Plutchik (1995) and Pearce, Jones, Schwab-Stone, and Ruchkin (2003) demonstrated that religious beliefs in youth have a protective effect on future violent behaviour and conduct problems. Rogers (2000) also identifies that religious affiliation deserves further examination as a potential protective factor. In this direction, Ullrich and Coid (2011) attempted to examine the protective nature of “involvement in religious activities” in 800 offenders. Unfortunately, the authors were unable to draw any conclusions regarding religious involvement as a protective factor, as base rates of religious involvement in their sample was too low for statistical consideration.

In the largest examination of the relationship between religion and crime, Baier and Wright (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 60 studies. The authors note that there was great inconsistency in both methodology and strength of relationship in these studies. Collapsing across all studies, a small but significant deterrent effect was observed between crime and religious behaviour and belief (mean weighted r = -.12, SD = 0.9). However, the authors noted a number of important covariates. Studies using samples that were high in religious selectivity (i.e. samples drawn from communities with high mean religious identification and behaviour such as church members and certain geographic areas) demonstrated a stronger deterrent relationship between religiosity and crime. Another important covariate was type of crime in that the deterrent relationship was stronger for nonvictim crimes (i.e., gambling, alcohol/drug use, and other forms of delinquency) than for victim crimes (i.e., theft and murder). Further,

predominantly white samples showed a weaker deterrent relationship than mixed ethnicity samples. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the research included in this meta-analysis was

conducted using nonincarcerated high school and college samples.

Some authors have specifically examined whether faith-based programming is beneficial in correctional treatment. For example, Duwe and King (2012), using a retrospective design, examined recidivism rates in a sample of 366 male offenders who completed a faith-based correctional program in Minnesota prisons between 2003 and 2009. Participants were matched to nonparticipant controls. The authors concluded that participation in faith-based correctional programs can reduce recidivism, but only if evidence-based behavioural interventions targeting criminogenic needs (i.e., dynamic risk variables) were a focus of the treatment. Unfortunately, without a stronger control condition, the authors were unable answer whether the faith-specific components of the program added incrementally over the behavioural interventions. Thus, it remains unclear what direct role religious involvement may have in an incarcerated sample of adult violent offenders.

1.3.4.1.5 Attitude toward intervention. Of particular importance to youth violence is the protective factor “positive attitude toward intervention”. Having a positive attitude toward intervention has largely been examined in the context of the SAVRY. Lodewijks and colleagues (2010) demonstrated that positive attitude toward intervention as measured by the SAVRY was an important protective factor in pre-trial, residential treatment, and juvenile justice populations as well as playing an important role in the desistance from violent reoffending. Similarly, Rennie and Dolan (2010) also found support for positive attitude toward intervention as a protective factor using a prospective design with 12 months follow-up. Unfortunately, the importance of attitude toward intervention has largely been unexamined as a potential protective factor in adult violent offenders.

1.3.4.1.6 Accommodation/Housing upon release. Given the nature of the youth correctional justice system, the potential protective factor of having confirmed housing upon release from an institution has not been examined in adolescent offenders. However, recent research suggests this protective factor may play an important role in adult violent offenders. Ullrich and Coid (2011) examined the importance of an adult offender having a confirmed place to live after release. The authors found that having confirmed housing upon release was a protective factor for violent reoffending within the first year following release. This provocative finding clearly deserves further empirical attention.

1.3.4.1.7 Adaptive Coping/Prosocial Problem Solving. In youth violent offenders, adaptive coping and prosocial problem solving has been identified as an important protective factor (see Lodewijks et al., 2010; Rennie & Dolan, 2010). The SAVRY incorporates these abilities under it protective factor “resilient personality traits” which includes (but is not limited to) the ability to develop thoughtful solutions to conflicts and problems meanwhile maintaining calm and healthy mood states. Similarly, the SAPROF has also identified adaptive coping as a potentially important protective factor in adult violent offenders.

1.4 The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model and its Relation to Treatment-related Change