Suchergebnisse

This study aimed to examine the presence and impact of dynamic protective factors for delinquency in male adolescents with a history of sexual and/or violent offending. Bipolar factors (factors with risk and protective factors being the ends of the same continuum) were examined in male adolescents with a history of sexual offenses against younger children (CSOs; n = 341), a history of sexual offenses against peers and/or adult victims (PSOs; n = 207), and a history of nonsexual violent offenses (VOs; n = 1,356). We conducted secondary analyses on data collected with the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment and on general recidivism data. ANOVA, correlations, Fisher's z tests, and logistic regression analyses were applied. Results showed that, in VOs, the number of risk factors was greater than the number of protective factors, whereas in PSOs, and especially CSOs, the number of protective factors was greater than the number of risk factors. Protective factors appeared to be especially important for juveniles with a history of sexual offenses for two reasons. First, the impact of most protective factors on recidivism was larger among juveniles with a history of sexual offenses than among those with a history of violent offenses. Second, protective factors added to the predictive accuracy over and above risk factors in juveniles with a history of sexual offenses, but not in those with a history of violent offenses.

Abstract
Purpose
Home visitation program effects are generally small, which may be caused by flexible intervention content leading to inconsistent outcomes. In this study we therefore examined whether the effectiveness of a Dutch home visitation program (i.e., Supportive Parenting) can be improved by adding structured intervention components targeting key risk factors for child maltreatment: parental sense of competence, perceived stress, parental anger, and PTSD symptoms.

Method
Participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 74) that received four additional intervention components in two home visits, or a control group (n = 60) that received regular Supportive Parenting. Outcomes were assessed before (T1) and after (T2) the first, and before (T3) and after (T4) the second home visit. Effects were examined using ANCOVA for primary outcomes: parental sense of competence, perceived stress, parental anger, and PTSD symptoms, and secondary outcomes: risk of child maltreatment, parental warmth, and negative parenting. Moderation effects were examined for T1 scores, child temperament and life events.

Results
Mothers who received the intervention components showed less stress compared to the control group at T3 and T4. There were no differences between groups on other outcomes and no moderation effects, although parental sense of competence reduced and anger increased within the experimental group specifically.

Conclusion
The structured components may enhance the effectiveness of Supportive Parenting to reduce parenting stress. Future research into how other outcomes can be improved is needed.

To date, there is surprisingly little research on differences in the prevalence and impact of risk factors for general recidivism between juveniles who have committed sexual offenses (JSO) and juveniles who have committed nonsexual offenses (NSO). Therefore, we examined differences in the prevalence and impact of dynamic risk factors for general delinquency between youth with nonsexual offenses (NSO, n = 504), youth with misdemeanor sexual offenders (MSO, n = 136), youth with felony sexual offenders (FSO, n = 116) and youth with offenses against much younger children (CSO, n = 373). The sample consisted of boys with a mean age of 15.3 years ( SD = 1.5). The prevalence of dynamic risk factors for general delinquency was significantly lower in JSOs than in NSOs. More serious sexual offenses were associated with a lower prevalence of dynamic risk factors. In contrast, the impact of most dynamic risk factors on general recidivism proved to be significantly larger among JSOs compared to NSOs. The relative importance of the dynamic risk factors varied for each type of JSO, resulting in differences in the dynamic risk profiles of the various types of JSOs.