Simone Ullrich1, Jeremy Coid. 1. Forensic Psychiatry Research Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, 61 Bartholomew Close, London, England. s.ullrich@qmul.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial body of research on risk factors for violent behavior in adulthood but little empirical study of protective factors and desistance. METHOD: This study aimed to investigate the protective effects of factors hypothesized to reduce violent reoffending among a sample of 800 male prisoners following release into the community. RESULTS: Five out of 15 hypothesized protective factors significantly reduced the likelihood of a violent reconviction. Protection was primarily related to social network factors that appeared to have long-term effects. Circumstances following release (finances and nature of accommodation) did not prove to be relevant, apart from immediate provision of accommodation, which had a substantial influence on reduction of risk shortly after release into the community, and being employed, in training or education, which was relevant for the 3rd year and subsequently. Our findings support the notion of independent effects of protective factors on outcome. No effect modification was found to indicate that protective factors have different effects at different levels of risk. CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the relationship between risk and protection should be considered in the assessment of risk for violence. Furthermore, risk factors focus on pathology and hazards, whereas protective factors emphasize positivism and hope for change. Future interventions may benefit from this positive approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial body of research on risk factors for violent behavior in adulthood but little empirical study of protective factors and desistance. METHOD: This study aimed to investigate the protective effects of factors hypothesized to reduce violent reoffending among a sample of 800 male prisoners following release into the community. RESULTS: Five out of 15 hypothesized protective factors significantly reduced the likelihood of a violent reconviction. Protection was primarily related to social network factors that appeared to have long-term effects. Circumstances following release (finances and nature of accommodation) did not prove to be relevant, apart from immediate provision of accommodation, which had a substantial influence on reduction of risk shortly after release into the community, and being employed, in training or education, which was relevant for the 3rd year and subsequently. Our findings support the notion of independent effects of protective factors on outcome. No effect modification was found to indicate that protective factors have different effects at different levels of risk. CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the relationship between risk and protection should be considered in the assessment of risk for violence. Furthermore, risk factors focus on pathology and hazards, whereas protective factors emphasize positivism and hope for change. Future interventions may benefit from this positive approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Eric B Elbogen; Sally C Johnson; Virginia M Newton; Christine Timko; Jennifer J Vasterling; Lynn M Van Male; H Ryan Wagner; Jean C Beckham Journal: Psychol Serv Date: 2014-02-10
Authors: Eric B Elbogen; Sally C Johnson; H Ryan Wagner; Virginia M Newton; Christine Timko; Jennifer J Vasterling; Jean C Beckham Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.384