Risk and Protective Factors for Probation Success Among Youth Offenders in Singapore

• Author: Xuexin Xu,Gerald Zeng,Chi Meng Chu,Dongdong Li,Kala Ruby
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204018778887
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• Date: 01 April 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2019, Vol. 17(2) 194-213
Risk and Protective Factors
ª The Author(s) 2018
for Probation Success Among
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Youth Offenders in Singapore
DOI: 10.1177/1541204018778887
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
Dongdong Li1, Chi Meng Chu1, Xuexin Xu1,
Gerald Zeng1, and Kala Ruby2
Abstract
The study examined the risk and protective factors for the successful completion of probation
orders among youth offenders in Singapore. Specifically, we proposed a typology whereby a pre-
dictor can be labeled as a promotive factor, hazard factor, or mixed factor in a direct relationship; or
a booster factor or buffering factor in an interactive relationship. This study included 701 youth
offenders. Retrospective case file coding was conducted to score the Youth Level of Service/Case
Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) and Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence
Risk–Youth Version (SAPROF-YV). Most SAPROF factors were shown to be mixed protective
factors, whereas most YLS/CMI domains were either mixed risk factors or hazard factors. An
absence of a supportive external pedagogical climate (PC) was the strongest mixed factor. For youth
with high PC, significant booster factors included high levels of attitudes toward agreements and
conditions, motivation for treatment, perseverance, and bonding to school/work, as well as low
levels of risk in peer relations and education/employment. For youth with limited PC, buffering
factors with the strongest effects include self-control, future orientation, and school/work. Impli-
cations for practice and future research were discussed.
Keywords
youth offender, protective factor, risk factor, YLS/CMI, SAPROF
Youth offending and reoffending is a costly societal problem. Though in a decreasing trend, the
number of youth arrested and convicted each year is still high worldwide. According to the World
Health Organization (WHO), an estimated 200,000 homicides occur among youth each year globally
(WHO, 2016). Risk and protective factors associated with youth crime have received extensive
attention from scholars. However, different terminologies have been used to describe risk and
protective factors in existing literature (Ttofi, Farrington, Piquero, & DeLisi, 2016), and studies
1 Centre for Research on Rehabilitation and Protection, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore, Singapore
2 Probation and Community Rehabilitation Service, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore, Singapore
Corresponding Author:
Dongdong Li, Centre for Research on Rehabilitation and Protection, Ministry of Social and Family Development,
512 Thomson Road, #12-00 MSF Building, Singapore 298136, Singapore.
Email: li_dongdong@msf.gov.sg

---

Li et al.
195
have shown considerable variations in the crime and recidivism rates. A recent systematic review of
prospective longitudinal studies showed that the prevalence of life-course–persistent offenders
varied vastly between 1.3% and 29.1% due to the differences in the study population and the
definition of key constructs (Jolliffe, Farrington, Piquero, MacLeod, & van de Weijer, 2017).
Therefore, research using shared definitions of variables examining the mechanisms of youth crime
are critically needed in criminology research. Establishment of a typology of risk and protective
factors is necessary to inform prevention and intervention programs for better offender rehabilitation
outcomes in different cultures.
Standardizing the Definitions of Risk and Protective Factors
In the forensic risk assessment literature, risk factors are found to be consistently defined as vari-
ables that increase the likelihood of negative outcomes (Farrington, Ttofi, & Piquero, 2016; Vagi
et al., 2013). In addition, risk factors should precede the outcomes and can be used to classify a
population into high-risk and low-risk groups (Kraemer et al., 1997). In forensic risk assessment,
risk factors can be categorized as “static” and “dynamic” depending on their relative variability over
time. Specifically, static risk factors refer to variables that are usually not amenable to change over
time, for instance, history of violence. On the other hand, dynamic risk factors refer to variables that
can fluctuate with time and circumstances and can be changed through planned intervention, such as
family relationship and antisocial attitudes (e.g., Chu, Thomas, Ogloff, & Daffern, 2013; Douglas &
Skeem, 2005). These terms have been used consistently across studies (Andrews, Bonta, & Wor-
mith, 2006; Monahan & Skeem, 2016).
In contrast, the definition of protective factors and how the protective factors impact youth
offending and reoffending have caused some confusion. Some researchers conceptualized protective
factors as the absence of or opposite to risk factors (e.g., McAra & McVie, 2016; White, Moffitt, &
Silva, 1989), whereas others defined protective factors as distinct and stand-alone entities separated
from the presence of risk factors (e.g., Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2006; de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman,
& de Vries Robbe´, 2009). Researchers conducting resilience studies used “compensatory model”
and “protective model” to differentiate protective factors that can have direct effects on an outcome
as compared to interactive effects with a risk factor (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Similarly,
promotive factors (that predict a low probability of offending in a direct relationship) and interactive
protective factors (that interact with risk factors to nullify the negative effects) were used in the
offending literature (Farrington et al., 2016). However, the term “promotive factor” (as compared to
mixed factor) was also used in some studies to describe a nonlinear relationship between a protective
factor and a negative outcome (Farrington et al., 2016). All these different definitions of protective
factors lead to confusion in terms of understanding and synthesizing the research results. In this
article, we built on the previous studies and proposed a more comprehensive typology of risk and
protective factors. As shown in Table 1, the grouping of terms is based on whether a factor is directly
or indirectly influencing an outcome variable.
Promotive, Hazard, and Mixed Factors: Direct Relationship With Outcome
According to Farrington et al. (2016), a protective factor can be classified as a promotive factor
(nonlinearly related to an outcome) and a mixed factor (linearly related to an outcome) in a direct
relationship. To understand the direct relationships, each factor is trichotomized into three cate-
gories, and the differences were compared across the three categories in relation to the outcome. In
this way, both linear and nonlinear relationship can be identified. We propose that a similar defi-
nition for risk factors could be included in the typology, indicating that a risk factor can also be
nonlinearly related to an outcome. In Farrington’s work, the three categories were referred to as

---

196
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 17(2)
Table 1. A Typology of Risk and Protective Factors.
Relationship
Term Definition
Direct relationship Mixed factor
Linearly related to the probability of risky behavior
Promotive factor Relationship with outcome is nonlinear. High level of promotive factor
is negatively related to low probability of risk behavior
Hazard factor
Relationship with outcome is nonlinear. High level of hazard factor is
positively related to high probability of risk behavior
Interactive
Booster factor
A protective factor that boosts the effect of another protective factor
relationship
(cumulative protective factor) or a risk factor that boosts the effect
of another risk factor (cumulative risk factor)
Buffering factor
A protective factor that buffers the effect of a risk factor (risk-based
protective factor)
promotive category, middle category, and risk category. He also used the “best” and the “worst”
categories to describe the promotive and the risk category. In this article, we used the following
terms to describe the three categories: (1) a promotive category which refers to the protective end of
the factor, (2) a hazard category which refers to the risk end of the factor, and (3) an intermediate
category in between the promotive and hazard category.
As shown in Figure 1, a factor is labeled as a promotive factor when the protective effect is
highest only at the promotive category. Similarly, a factor is labeled as a hazard factor if the risk
effect is highest only at the hazard category. For instance, low neuroticism was found to be a
promotive factor, in that low neuroticism is associated with lower likelihood of offending, whereas
high neuroticism was not related to higher likelihood of offending as compared to medium neuroti-
cism (Farrington et al., 2016). Similarly, Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, and White (2008)
identified school achievement as a promotive factor (high school achievement related to better
outcomes while low school achievement not related to worse outcomes) and peer delinquency as
a hazard factor (high peer delinquency related to worse outcomes while low peer delinquency not
related to better outcomes).
When a factor is linearly related to the outcome, it is labeled as a mixed factor following the
work of Farrington et al. (2016). A mixed factor can be further split into a mixed protective factor
and a mixed risk factor based on the conceptualization. Due to the linear relationship, a mixed
protective factor and a mixed risk factor are arguably...