Social work theory · Volume C: Ecological & Contextual

Risk and protective factor frameworks

Risk and protective factor frameworks explain the likelihood of adverse outcomes as the product of interacting vulnerabilities and buffers across individual, family, school, peer and community levels.

1. What it is

Risk and protective factor frameworks explain the likelihood of adverse outcomes as the product of interacting vulnerabilities and buffers across individual, family, school, peer and community levels. A risk factor is a characteristic or condition associated with a higher probability of a negative outcome, such as substance misuse, offending, child maltreatment or mental illness. A protective factor is one associated with a lower probability, or one that reduces the effect of risk (Fraser, 2004). The frameworks are probabilistic: they identify groups at greater risk and do not predict outcomes for any one person. They underpin much prevention science, public health policy and child and family services. For social work, they provide an evidence base for assessment and for targeting early intervention.

Vulnerabilities and buffers. Vulnerabilities are factors that increase susceptibility to harm, such as a difficult temperament, a learning disability or early trauma. Buffers are factors that moderate the effect of risk, such as a supportive adult, school connectedness or community safety. Rutter (1987) distinguished protective factors, which interact with risk to change its effect, from general assets that benefit everyone regardless of risk. Resilience research examines how buffers operate under adversity (see Resilience theory).

Cumulative risk. Cumulative risk refers to the finding that the number of risk factors predicts outcomes better than any single factor. In the Isle of Wight studies, children with one family risk factor were no more likely to develop disorder than those with none, but the likelihood rose sharply with two or more (Rutter, 1979). Sameroff et al. (1987) found that children’s intellectual scores declined as the number of social and family risks increased. The Adverse Childhood Experiences study found a graded relationship between the number of childhood adversities and adult health problems (Felitti et al., 1998). Evans et al. (2013) concluded that cumulative risk consistently predicts poorer child development.

Public health prevention models. Public health frameworks organise prevention by level and population. Caplan (1964) distinguished primary prevention (preventing problems arising), secondary prevention (early identification and intervention) and tertiary prevention (reducing the impact of established problems). Gordon (1983) proposed a population-based classification of universal, selective and indicated prevention, which was adopted in the Institute of Medicine report on mental health prevention (Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994). Universal programs reach whole populations, selective programs reach groups at elevated risk, and indicated programs reach individuals showing early signs of a problem. Australia’s National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009–2020 applied this public health model to child protection (Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2009).

Hawkins and Catalano and Communities That Care. Hawkins et al. (1992) reviewed research on adolescent alcohol and drug problems and identified risk factors in four domains: community (such as availability of drugs, low neighbourhood attachment and economic deprivation), family (such as poor family management and conflict), school (such as academic failure and low commitment) and individual and peer (such as early initiation and friends who use drugs). Their social development model proposed that bonding to prosocial family, school and community, together with opportunities, skills and recognition, protects young people (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). Communities That Care (CTC) is a community-led prevention system based on this work. Local coalitions survey young people, identify priority risk and protective factors, select tested programs and evaluate outcomes. A community-randomised trial in the United States found lower rates of youth problem behaviours eight years after CTC was implemented (Hawkins et al., 2014). Evaluation of CTC in Australia found faster declines in adolescent alcohol, tobacco and cannabis use and antisocial behaviour in participating communities (Toumbourou et al., 2019).

2. Historical development

Risk factor thinking originated in epidemiology, where studies of heart disease identified smoking, blood pressure and cholesterol as predictors of illness. Developmental and criminological researchers applied the same logic to child development, delinquency and substance use. Prevention science emerged as a distinct field when researchers combined risk factor evidence with protective factor research and controlled trials of prevention programs (Hawkins et al., 1992).

The frameworks became independent of general epidemiology through their focus on multiple, interacting social and developmental factors and on community prevention. Social work engaged with them in child welfare, youth justice and AOD services, where they support assessment and early intervention (Fraser, 2004). In Australia, the public health model has shaped child and family policy and the expansion of family support services, and CTC has been implemented in communities in Victoria and other states (Toumbourou et al., 2019).

3. Practical guidance

Risk and protective factor frameworks help practitioners assess need, plan interventions and design prevention programs.

• Assess across domains. Consider individual, family, peer, school and community factors. A young person’s risk often lies in community and family conditions as much as in personal characteristics (Hawkins et al., 1992).
• Count and weigh risks. Pay attention to the accumulation of risk. Several moderate risks together, such as poverty, parental mental illness and housing instability, may justify more intensive support than one serious risk (Evans et al., 2013).
• Strengthen protective factors. Build bonding to family, school and community through opportunities, skill development and recognition (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
• Match intervention to prevention level. Use universal, selective and indicated approaches appropriately. In child and family services, this means supporting all families while offering more intensive help to those with greater need (COAG, 2009).
• Use tested programs. Where possible, select programs with evidence of effectiveness, and monitor outcomes locally.
• Support community-led prevention. Coalitions such as CTC give local communities ownership of data and decisions (Hawkins et al., 2014).
• Use risk information carefully. Risk factors describe probabilities for groups. Avoid labelling individuals or families as “high risk” in ways that stigmatise or justify surveillance.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Risk and protective factor frameworks rest on large longitudinal studies and support prevention programs with demonstrated effects. They direct attention to modifiable factors at several levels and support early intervention before problems become entrenched. Cumulative risk findings help explain why disadvantage compounds over time. Community models such as CTC combine evidence with local participation.

Limitations. Risk factors are correlates and do not explain causal processes. Lists of factors can become checklists that ignore context, meaning and strengths. In child protection, risk-focused practice has been criticised for encouraging defensive, surveillance-oriented work and for contributing to the over-representation of poor and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in statutory systems. Factors such as poverty and racism are often treated as individual risk characteristics when they are structural conditions. Prediction at the individual level is weak.

Overall importance. Risk and protective factor frameworks provide much of the evidence base for prevention in child welfare, youth justice, health and AOD services. They connect individual assessment with public health planning and community development. Used with attention to structural conditions and resilience processes (C6), they help social workers target support where it is most needed.

5. References

• Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. Basic Books.
• Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149–197). Cambridge University Press.
• Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Protecting children is everyone’s business: National framework for protecting Australia’s children 2009–2020. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Evans, G. W., Li, D., & Whipple, S. S. (2013). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1342–1396. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031808
• Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
• Fraser, M. W. (Ed.). (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (2nd ed.). NASW Press.
• Gordon, R. S., Jr. (1983). An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Reports, 98(2), 107–109.
• Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64
• Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2014). Youth problem behaviors 8 years after implementing the Communities That Care prevention system: A community-randomized trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4009
• Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. National Academy Press.
• Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent & J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology: Vol. 3. Social competence in children (pp. 49–74). University Press of New England.
• Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x
• Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., & Greenspan, S. (1987). Intelligence quotient scores of 4-year-old children: Social-environmental risk factors. Pediatrics, 79(3), 343–350.
• Toumbourou, J. W., Rowland, B., Williams, J., Smith, R., & Patton, G. C. (2019). Community intervention to prevent adolescent health behavior problems: Evaluation of Communities That Care in Australia. Health Psychology, 38(6), 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000735