Gender Differences in the Prevalence and Predictive Validity of Protective Factors in a Sample of Justice-Involved Youth

• Author: Shelley L. Brown,Tracey A. Skilling,Julie Goodwin
• DOI: 10.1177/15412040221089235
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Date: 01 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2022, Vol. 20(3) 231–249

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040221089235

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Gender Differences in the

Prevalence and Predictive

Validity of Protective Factors in

a Sample of Justice-Involved

Youth

Julie Goodwin, MA

1

, Shelley L. Brown, PhD

1

, and

Tracey A. Skilling, PhD

2,3

Abstract

Research on strengths and violent behavior in justice-involved youth suggests that the prevalence

and predictive validity of strength factors vary as a function of gender. Interviews conducte d

between 2009 and 2012 with 185 justice-involved Canadian youth (N

female

=84, N

male

= 101; 67%

violent index offence) were coded retrospectively using two strength measures for violence

prediction: the protective domain of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth

(SAVRY), and the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors-Youth Version (SAPROF-YV).

Males exhibited more protective factors than females across measures. Both tools were strong

predictors of general recidivism in males but not females. The SAVRY protective domain was

predictive of violent recidivism in males, but the SAPROF-YV was not; neither was predictive of

violent recidivism in females. This study demonstrates gender differences in the prevalence and

predictive validity of strengths in justice-involved youth and highlights the need for more female-

focused research and measures.

Keywords

Protective factors, sex differences, gender differences, violence risk, assessment, strengths

Identifying who is most likely to engage in future criminal conduct, particularly violence, is a key

objective in youth justice settings. As such, risk factors associated with general and violent

reoffending have been examined among justice-involved people as a function of age and gender

1

Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

2

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada

3

Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Shelley L. Brown, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6,

Canada.

Email: shelley.brown@carleton.ca

(Bonta & Andrews, 2017;Dowden & Andrews, 1999;Lipsey, 2009). The parallel study of

strengths

1

, which are hypothesized to predict decreases in recidivism, has increased over the past

several decades (Brown et al., 2020;Scott & Brown, 2018;Ward, 2002). Despite the increase in

academic attention, this area of research has not yet fully examined all sub-groups of justice-

involved people or more specif‌ic outcomes. In particular, there is a dearth of research which

addresses the relationship between risk, strengths, and violent criminal behavior in youth and

whether gender

2

differences exist. The goal of this paper is to address this gap and to inform future

strength-based assessment for both male and female justice-involved youth.

Risks, Gender, and Assessment

Historically, the criminal behavior of female youth and adults has been under-studied (Belknap,

2015). In particular, violent behavior in female youth has been overlooked, in part due to the

signif‌icantly lower rates of violence among females compared to males (Murdoch et al., 2012). In

2019, about 25% of all youth crime in Canada was perpetrated by females. Male youth were twice

as likely to be charged with a violent crime (30%) in comparison to their female counterparts

(15%) (National Crime Prevention Centre, 2012;Savage, 2019). While these lower rates of

violence may help to explain the relative lack of academic attention afforded to justice-involved

female youth, it is nonetheless surprising that few studies have explicitly explored the correlates or

predictors of violent female crime. This topic is important because the research that exists in-

dicates that those female youth who do engage in violent behavior often become entrenched in the

justice system and are at high risk for a variety of other negative healt h and social outcomes, such

as psychiatric disorders, and exposure to violence in their homes and communities (Odgers et al.,

2007). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that violence can be transmitted intergenera-

tionally; females who are exposed to violence at a young age are more likely to go on to exhibit

violent behaviors themselves, reinforcing cycles of violence (e.g., Black et al., 2010;Moretti et al.,

2014). Even fewer studies have considered how the relationship between strengths and violent

behavior may be different—or the same—for female youth in comparison to males.

The importance of gender in violence risk assessment is a divisive issue. Many scholars and

justice professionals support a gender neutral approach to risk assessment and intervention. This

approach focuses on the central eight risk factors outlined in the general personality and cognitive

social learning theory (GPCSL) and underscores using interventions and assessment approaches

that are similar for all genders (Bonta & Andrews, 2017;Schwalbe, 2008). In contrast, feminist

scholars assert the pathways to crime for girls and women differ substantially from those of boys

and men. Histories of victimization and abuse, a lack of safety in their families of origin, and

poverty with subsequent involvement in criminal behavior as a means of survival, are hy-

pothesized to be more important in understanding and predicting females’justice-involvement

(Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). As a result, this perspective posits that risk assessments and

interventions for girls and women should prioritize hypothesized female-specif‌ic risk factors and

approaches; albeit certain aspects of gender neutral assessment and intervention are not entirely

discounted. Historically this paradigm has been coined gender responsive (i.e., female responsive)

(Belknap, 2015;Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). A review of the existing literature suggests that

both positions have merit and evidence exists to support both views, at least in part.

In support of a gender neutral approach, Schwalbe’s 2008 meta-analysis compared the pre-

dictive accuracy of three risk assessments for male and female youth evaluated across 19 studies.

The results indicated that there were no signif‌icant gender differences in the predictive accuracy of

tools. Schwalbe asserted that the results of the meta-analysis were accurate, and that earlier

f‌indings of gender differences in predictive accuracy (i.e., Schwalbe et al., 2004), may be at-

tributed to gender-based bias in the justice decision-making process. In contrast, the results of a

232 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 20(3)