U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

The Youth Protective Factors Study: A Strategy for Promoting Success Based on Risks, Strengths, and Development

NCJ Number
310521
Date Published
March 2025
Length
168 pages
Abstract

The Youth Protective Factors Study is an unprecedented multistate, multiyear examination of the risk-need-responsivity and positive youth justice approaches, that also examined whether the effectiveness of these approaches differed by youths’ age among 10- to 23-year-olds. This was a collaboration between the research labs at UMass Chan Medical and UC-Berkeley, the Council of State Governments Justice Center, and juvenile justice agencies in three states. The project examined violent recidivism after youths’ juvenile justice involvement via two studies: 1) a retrospective study (N = > 30,000) to lengthen follow-up periods, and 2) a prospective study of youth referred to the juvenile justice systems (N = 3,380) to obtain novel measures of protective factors and service participation. The prospective study involved unparalleled tracking of all services (risk-reduction and strengths-based services), results of risk /needs assessments and protective factors. A slight majority of these youth referred to the system were low risk (43.1%). The risk factors most strongly predictive of violent recidivism post-supervision were disruptive behaviors (e.g., aggression), family (e.g., poor supervision), negative peers, school-related behavioral problems, and attitudes supporting crime. Substance misuse was only predictive for younger youth. Protective factors most consistently protective against violent recidivism were self-control and self-efficacy, both of which had incremental validity over youths’ risk level. Other protective factors were strongly predictive in only the most well-powered state—prosocial engagements and social supports. School connectedness was strongly protective for younger youth. In robust, well-controlled analyses, participation in any strengths-based services increased the likelihood of violent recidivism, while risk-reduction services had no effect. However, the most common services youth received were mental health and very few services were evidence-based. More research is needed to develop guidance for effective implementation of positive youth justice.

Date Published: March 1, 2025