Disentangling Promotive and Buffering Protection: Exploring the Interface Between Risk and Protective Factors in Recidivism of Adult Convicted Males

• Author: Geneviève Parent,Massil Benbouriche,Jean-Pierre Guay
• Date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820945745
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 11, November 2020, 1468 –1486.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820945745

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1468

DISENTANGLING PROMOTIVE AND BUFFERING

PROTECTION

Exploring the Interface Between Risk and Protective

Factors in Recidivism of Adult Convicted Males

JEAN-PIERRE GUAY

Université of Montréal

GENEVIÈVE PARENT

Université du Québec en Outaouais

MASSIL BENBOURICHE

Université de Lille

The quality of risk assessment instruments has improved greatly during the last 40 years. While assessing protective factors

has become common practice, with some instruments now devoted entirely to such assessments, little is known about the

effect of risk and protective factors on recidivism. The present study investigates the effects (promotive or buffering protec-

tive) of protective factors captured by the LS/CMI for a sample of 18,031 convicted adult males under the supervision of

provincial services in Canada. Effects of protective factors and possible interactions between risk and protective factors were

investigated using moderation analyses. Results indicate that protective factors can be both promotive and buffering protec-

tive for risk and that the benefits of protective factors are related to the risk to which people are exposed. Patterns of protec-

tive effects appear to differ for general and violent recidivism. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.

Keywords: protective factors; risk assessment; recidivism; moderation analysis; LS/CMI

Risk assessment gathers and organizes information to assess the risk that an individual

will re-exhibit violent (or criminal) behavior and to identify the best available options

to prevent such recidivism (Hart, 2009). Numerous methods and strategies to assess risk are

available. While the primary goal of early structured methods was to quantify the level of

risk, newer methods, such as structured professional judgment tools or actuarial assess-

ments of risk and need based on the assessment of dynamic risk factors, are also aimed at

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank Greg Wright, Michael Kirk, and Paula Davis from the

Program Effectiveness Statistics and Applied Research Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional

Services. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry

of Community Safety and Correctional Services of Ontario. Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Jean-Pierre Guay, School of Criminology, University of Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-

ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7; e-mail: Jean-Pierre.Guay@umontreal.ca.

945745CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820945745Criminal Justice and BehaviorGuay et al. / Disentangling Promotive and Buffering Protection

research-article2020

Guay et al. / DISENTANGLING PROMOTIVE AND BUFFERING PROTECTION 1469

assessing intervention needs and guiding rehabilitative practices. First-generation actuarial

instruments were focused on predicting recidivism, while newer methods are increasingly

aimed at understanding and focusing intervention on the factors potentially causing people

to reoffend. Currently available tools cover a wide variety of risk domains, ranging from the

generic, such as substance abuse or impulsivity, to risks specific to certain types of offenses,

such as dynamic risk factors related to sexual recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,

2005). While the use of structured risk and needs assessments is now common practice

among professionals in westernized countries, many of them also rely on a determination of

the protective factors when specifying risk levels, designing intervention plans, and pro-

moting change.

PROTECTIVE FACTORS: DEFINITIONS AND ASSESSMENT

Protective factors can be defined as the personal, social, and institutional resources that

foster competence and promote successful development, decreasing the likelihood of

engagement in problematic behavior (Deković, 1999). It is now common practice to divide

protective factors into two broad categories according to their effect on recidivism (Lösel &

Farrington, 2012). Promotive factors have a direct inverse effect on the likelihood of recidi-

vism, regardless of the risk factors to which the individual is exposed. For example, expo-

sure to prosocial friends is potentially beneficial for most people. Buffering protective

factors act indirectly on the probability of reoffending through mitigation of the negative

impact of risk factors (Cording & Beggs Christofferson, 2017). They have a moderating

effect in that they alter the direction or strength of the relationship between a predictor (risk)

and an outcome (Hayes, 2017), in this case, recidivism: the effect of one variable depends

on the presence and strength of another, creating a conditional relationship or a buffering

protective effect (Lösel & Farrington, 2012). Buffering protective factors could, for exam-

ple, affect the likelihood of recidivism only among people with certain characteristics or a

certain risk level or profile. For example, the benefits associated with structured prosocial

activities could be greater for people with fewer prosocial contacts, such as those who live

alone or are unemployed.

Only a few tools formally consider protective factors. The most frequently referenced

include the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum et al., 2002),

the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START; Webster et al., 2004), the

Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strength (IORNS; Miller, 2006), the Dynamic Risk

Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR; Serin et al., 2007), and, more recently, the

Service Planning Instrument (SPIN; Jones et al., 2015). However, the instrument that has

generated the most interest is unquestionably the Structured Assessment of Protective

Factors (SAPROF; de Vogel et al., 2009). SAPROF is a structured guide for professional

judgment that makes it possible to evaluate 17 protective factors, two of which are static,

while 15 are dynamic.

While instruments formally devoted to measuring protective factors are not the norm,

different assessment tools draw on protective factors without explicitly referring to them as

such. This is the case, for example, with instruments in the LS (Level of Service) family

(Andrews et al., 2004), which make use of a number of protective factors, coding them as

inverse risk factors (prosocial friends, productive integration at work, prosocial leisure

activities, familial relationships, etc.). In the coding scheme of such instruments, the absence

of a protective factor is considered a risk and increases the total risk score.