Identifying and treating the problems or factors related to criminal and violent behavior are important for both prevention and intervention. Likewise, identifying and increasing protective factors—those factors that make it less likely that an individual will engage in criminal or violent behaviors—are developing strengths in significance. This article reviews the rationale for considering protective factors in risk assessments and then discusses the conceptualization of protective factors and the application of protective factors in risk assessments.
Protective Factors and Risk Assessment
Historically, forensic and correctional psychologists have attempted to reduce recidivism by utilizing a deficit-based model that prioritizes the identification of risk factors. Risk factors have been defined as factors that provide information about who is likely to engage in criminal and violent behaviors. There have been numerous prospective longitudinal studies aimed at identifying risk factors associated with violence. Risk assessment researchers have demonstrated that the cause and continuation of violence are determined by a combination or interaction of individual, historical, and environmental factors. Certain personality factors (e.g., risk-taking, low self-control), historical factors (e.g., family of origin violence, age at first offense), and environmental factors (e.g., antisocial peers) increase the likelihood of violence. The higher the level of risk factor (e.g., high levels of hostility), or the greater number of risk factors one exhibits (e.g., high levels of hostility, young, and antisocial peers), the greater the likelihood that the individual will engage in criminal or violent behavior.
Since the 1980s, research has focused on risk variables, allowing for the development of several risk assessment instruments, as well as target areas for offender treatment and management. Risk prediction has been helpful, allowing forensic examiners to assign risk levels to violent and sexual offenders and providing experts with key testimony artifacts for court proceedings. However, the success has been moderate. Although the best risk assessment instruments account for significant prediction (better than chance) for criminal and violent behavior, there remains a significant portion of explanation left to understand and increase the accuracy in predicting who will exhibit violent behavior. For example, if risk variables account for approximately 70% of the pie of prediction, 30% remains unexplained. If one applies this deficit-only model to finances, focusing only on debt would provide a bleak and hopeless economic future. Similarly, in understanding an individual’s likelihood to engage in violent behavior, examining only their deficits eliminates important information from the equation.
Hence, researchers have developed a greater understanding of the importance of protective factors or strengths that may either serve to prevent an individual from engaging in criminal or violent behavior initially or serve to reduce the likelihood of an offender continuing to commit criminal or violent offenses. Protective factors are environmental and individual factors that protect people from committing criminal and violent behaviors. Positive social influence represents one of these factors. Researchers have consistently found that having friends and family who are a prosocial, supportive influence serves to prevent criminal behavior as well as buffer high-risk offenders against reoffending.
There are several important reasons as to why it is essential to consider protective strengths in the assessment process. First, as stated earlier, including strengths serves to increase prediction accuracy. Researchers report that utilizing the combination of risk and strengths together is a better predictor than risk, or deficits, alone.
Second, examining only an individual’s deficits (risk factors) will most likely lead to overprediction of risk. Without examining strengths, the deficit model will predict higher levels of criminal or violent behavior compared to when strengths are similarly accounted for. Researchers have demonstrated that there is such a thing as too much treatment. Some individuals may actually be worse off if mandated to engage in a treatment dose that is above what is actually needed. This overprediction is costly for both the offender and the society.
Third, overprediction of risk may be stigmatizing for individuals in the criminal justice system; clients have reported that the constant focus on their deficits increases negative self-evaluation. In addition, if risk levels are inaccurately overpredicting, offenders labeled as high-risk level may be required to engage in further stigmatizing actions that can diminish their chances of success in the community. For example, sexual offenders who are deemed high risk on the public registry may be required to send a postcard to all of their neighbors informing them that they are sexual offenders. While this may be helpful in reducing recidivism for truly high-risk sexual offenders, it may be harmful to the success for the sexual offender who is not actually high risk.
Finally, the identification and assessment of protective strengths afford treatment providers and offender managers (e.g., parole and probation officers) with important areas to address in efforts to reduce future criminal and violent behavior. This allows for an increased number of areas to treat or build in order to decrease the likelihood of further criminal and violent behaviors as well as providing offenders positive areas of focus rather than solely on negative or deficit issues. This is consistent with several newer offender treatment approaches focusing on the enhancement of well-being and aimed at building motivation and rapport.
Conceptualizing Protective Strengths
If protective strength factors are defined similarly to risk factors, protective strengths are individual, historical, and environmental factors that decrease the likelihood of a person engaging, or continuing to engage, in criminal or violent behavior. Researchers have proposed that there may be protective factors that are static and dynamic, similar to risk factors. For example, the development of secure attachment style in childhood and having prosocial parents are protective strengths that remain constant, whereas current peers and levels of self-control are dynamic. Criminologists would contend that external or environmental factors are more important than internal or individual factors, and forensic psychologists would argue that internal factors, such as personality factors, are more predictive. Historically, criminologists have examined variables as they relate to crime desistance, and forensic psychologists have focused on factors that serve to protect an individual from recidivism. Although termed differently, these protective variables identified in the two fields are similar, if not identical.
Research in both criminology and forensic psychology has suggested that protective strength factors may act in a few different ways. First, protective factors may simply be opposite of risk factors, variables on the same continuum or scale. An example would be peer influence, where one end is antisocial influence and the other end is prosocial influence. Second, a protective factor may reduce risk but not be related to specific risk factors. For example, religiosity is a protective strength for some people but being nonreligious is not a risk factor. Third, risk factors may only serve to protect from further criminal and violent behavior if the individual is at high risk, having little influence for lower risk individuals. Researchers have also distinguished differences by name, terming helpful factors promotive if they are related to reducing reoffending irrespective of risk level and protective if they reduce reoffending in more high-risk offenders versus lower risk offenders. Research has not been able to effectively assess whether these are true distinctions in how protective factors may vary in effect. Thus, factors that reduce the likelihood of engaging in criminal and violent behavior, regardless of risk and past convictions, are termed protective factors.
There is agreement in the field that protective factors are definable factors, propensities, or manifestations thereof in their own right, not just an absence of risk factors. In addition, protective factors that are related to a specific risk factor may coexist, not exclusively exist on one side of a continuum or the other. For example, an individual could have negative or antisocial influencing peers and prosocial peers at the same time.
Protective Strengths in Juveniles
The relationship between protective factors and desistance from crime and violence in juvenile populations has been documented long before assessment of these factors in adults. Hence, the literature for protective factors of juvenile offenders is superiorly developed and has served to inform research with adults. This advancement stands true for adolescent risk assessment as well. As adult assessment instruments have recently begun to include protective strength assessment, juvenile assessment measures have included protective factors for some time. Protective strengths in juvenile assessments include variables that have demonstrated some significant relationship with criminal, violent, and/or sexual offending desistance of adolescent offenders. These factors include prosocial involvement (e.g., team sports, organization membership), social support (i.e., people who the adolescent may turn to when in distress or crisis), attachment to prosocial adults, motivation for treatment or change, strong commitment to learning or school, and the traits of resilience and capacity for emotional intimacy. Having a resilient personality seems to be one of the most important factors in crime and violence desistance in juveniles.
Research conducted during the 21st century suggests that certain protective strengths found in juvenile populations may be related differentially to outcome. For example, the ability to attach to others, express feelings, show concern for others, and understand feelings may be more related to desistance in sexual offending compared to other protective factors. In addition, school involvement may have a greater relation to the desistance of general and violent offending behavior.
Protective Strengths in Adults
Similar to research on adolescent offenders, similar categories of protective strengths seem to be related to criminal and violence desistance in adults. For example, attachment and commitment to prosocial people (e.g., peers, spouse) have been related to reductions in recidivism for all violent offender types. Another similar protective concept is employment (instead of school commitment). Offenders who are committed to their job and are successful at obtaining consistent employment are significantly less likely to reoffend. Researchers on adult desistance from crime and violence have reported that aging, marriage or long-term committed relationships, stable environment, stress-coping skills, sobriety, and good mental health have been associated with the reduction in recidivism. Similar to the construct of resilience in juvenile samples, adult offenders who keep a positive attitude and feel like they have control over their own futures fare better once released from prison.
Of the few measures that include protective factors for adult risk assessment, there are consistent protective factors related to criminal and violence desistance. These include the ability to regulate thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (self-control); prosocial support and attachment; education or training for employment; and stress coping. All of these variables are related to forms of criminal, violent, and sexual offending desistance. Similar to the juvenile literature, research examining protective strengths in adult offenders indicates the potential of protective strengths related to differential outcomes. For example, research has indicated that prosocial attachment, understanding of personal responsibility for behavior, treatment attachment, and a feeling of belonging to a support group were all related to the desistance of sexual offending.
Applying the Protective Strength Approach
Research on protective factors has demonstrated the importance of the inclusion of strengths in risk assessment. Including protective strengths adds incremental validity to the prediction of offending behavior, recidivism, and the desistance of criminal and violent offending with individuals who have previously committed these behaviors. Moreover, the focus and building of protective strengths in treatment opposed to solely focusing on reducing risk factors benefits treatment outcome and allows for increased positive focus in therapy. This in turn benefits therapeutic alliance, which has consistent support in improving outcomes for all clients. The inclusion of protective strengths in risk assessment not only increases predictive accuracy but also serves to inform treatment and management of offenders, increasing effectiveness and desistance.
References:
- Farrall, S., Hunter, B., Sharpe, G., & Calverley, A. (2014). Criminal careers in transition: The social context of desistance from crime. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Farrington, D. P. (2007). Advancing knowledge about desistance. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 125–134. doi:10.1177/1043986206298954
- Langton, C. M., & Worling, J. R. (2015). Introduction to the special issue on factors positively associated with desistance for adolescents and adults who have sexually offended. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(1), 3–15. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214568423
- Laws, D. R., & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Lodewijks, H. P. B., de Ruiter, C., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2016). The impact of protective factors in desistance from violent reoffending: A study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 568–587. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334403
- Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
- Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12–45. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205280075