Development of Protective Factors for Reducing Juvenile Reoffending: A Strengths-Based Approach to Risk Assessment

• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Author: Ashlee R. Barnes-Lee
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820949601
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 11, November 2020, 1371 –1389.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820949601

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1371

DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTIVE FACTORS

FOR REDUCING JUVENILE REOFFENDING

A Strengths-Based Approach to Risk Assessment

ASHLEE R. BARNES-LEE

Michigan State University

This study described the development of the Protective Factors for Reducing Juvenile Reoffending (PFRJR), a strengths-

based measure to assess responsivity, guide case management, and potentially predict desistance. The study employed two

diverse independent samples: a construction sample (N = 278) and a validation sample (N = 265) of juveniles under court

supervision in a Midwestern juvenile court. Factor analyses revealed two factors—the Individual/Community domain

includes items that measure prosocial attitudes and perceived access to resources in the community; the Family domain

includes items that measure prosocial involvement with family and peers. The PFRJR had good model fit, strong internal

consistency, and is related to risk in the theoretically appropriate direction. This research highlights the practicability of

incorporating a strengths-based measure into traditional risk assessment procedures within an applied setting and contributes

to the paucity of risk assessment research that examines strengths-based theoretical models and assessment protocols.

Keywords: risk assessment; protective factors; juvenile offenders; responsivity; risk-need-responsivity

INTRODUCTION

Juvenile justice correctional practices have historically operated within a deficits frame-

work (i.e., medical model) to address the treatment needs of youth (Wanamaker et al.,

2018). The medical model has been criticized for its focus on ameliorating problems or

deficits exhibited by at-risk and in-risk youth. A major shortcoming of a deficits-focused

approach is that it does not fully capture the scope of a youth’s internal and external charac-

teristics and experiences. In other words, by failing to comprehensively inventory both risks

and strengths to guide judicial treatment, this approach perpetuates the notion that juvenile

offenders lack assets that could aid in promoting rehabilitation and desistance. Theoretical

and empirical research on strengths-based approaches to assessment and treatment are rela-

tively established in disciplines with a developmental focus (e.g., psychology and social

AUTHOR’S NOTE: I would like to acknowledge the individuals in the court of interest who agreed to adopt

this measure into their risk assessment process, who had the goal to better support the youth they serve. Ashlee

R. Barnes-Lee is now at the School of Social Work, Michigan State University. Correspondence concerning this

article should be addressed to Ashlee R. Barnes-Lee, School of Social Work, Michigan State University, 655

Auditorium Road #254, East Lansing, MI 48824; e-mail: barnes75@msu.edu.

949601CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820949601Criminal Justice and BehaviorBarnes-Lee /

research-article2020

1372 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

work; Royer-Gagnier et al., 2016); however, there is a lack of understanding of how it

should be applied in juvenile justice settings.

In juvenile justice settings, strengths are arguably most understood as a component of the

risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model—the dominant framework of offender rehabilitation

(Andrews et al., 1990). The risk principle asserts that the level of risk of engaging in crime

should match the intensity and dosage of judicial services (Andrews et al., 1990). The need

principle asserts that to effectively reduce future recidivism risk, judicial treatment should

focus on areas of highest need (e.g., family circumstances, substance abuse; Andrews et al.,

1990). The responsivity principle highlights the general and specific ways in which services

should be delivered to reduce barriers to treatment success (e.g., strengths, motivation for

change, cognitive-behavior approaches; Andrews et al., 1990). Notwithstanding its popu-

larity and merit, the RNR model has been criticized for its prime emphasis on attenuating

risk (Ward & Brown, 2004) and for the conceptual ambiguity of the responsivity principal

(i.e., strengths; Bourgon & Bonta, 2014). Limited clarity on the role of strengths in correc-

tional contexts has led to the development of tools that measure strengths differently across

studies or fail to measure strengths altogether.

A practical solution is to develop a strengths-based instrument to balance the tradition-

ally deficits-focused risk assessment and rehabilitation process (Royer-Gagnier et al.,

2016). Given the value of interdisciplinary scholarship, correctional researchers and practi-

tioners could benefit from integrating the relatively established theoretical understanding of

strengths from other disciplines to identify ways it can be applied in correctional contexts

(Walker et al., 2013). This study aims to build a foundation for the investigation of the

empirical and practical relevance of strengths in assessment, rehabilitation, and desistance.

Herein the author described the construction of a strengths-based assessment—exclusively

comprised of protective factors—designed to provide a structured protocol for evaluating

strengths as responsivity factors and/or targets for judicial treatment within juvenile court

jurisdictions that implement risk-based assessment tools.

THE ROLE OF STRENGTHS IN RISK ASSESSMENT

RNR MODEL: A CORRECTIONS THEORY

Both the risk and need principles have been lauded as effective strategies to reduce reof-

fending as demonstrated by multiple studies and meta-analytic reviews investigating the

implementation of risk and needs (see Bourgon & Bonta, 2014). Although there is a strong

body of evidence in support of using these principles, there is limited knowledge on how the

responsivity principle contributes to correctional rehabilitation (e.g., Andrews et al., 2006;

Bourgon & Bonta, 2014; Taxman, 2014). The responsivity principle describes how inter-

ventions should be carried out and recommends that juvenile justice system practitioners

provide services that incorporates cognitive behavioral approaches as well as recognizes

learning style, ability, and barriers (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The responsivity principle

was conceptualized to have both general and specific factors.

General Responsivity

General responsivity primarily emphasizes the importance of using structured cognitive

social learning techniques to positively influence behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).