Youth Violence and At-Risk Behaviour Introduction Youth violence and other types of at risk behaviours are caused

and perpetuated by multivariate factors. It is often difficult to determine the difference between the cause and the effect in such instances because of the interrelations between the causal factors. This paper will address at risk behaviour in light of the at risk continuum. The manifestation of youth violence will be examined within the context of the disruptive behaviour disorders category of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). There will be a brief examination of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder and child and adolescent antisocial behaviour as they apply to at risk behaviour. Furthermore, the protective, resilience and physical and social environmental factors that apply to youth violence and other types of at risk behaviours will be explored in order to further understand this phenomenon. This will be done by an exploration of key concepts and a critical discussion of the ecological model as it pertains to delinquent and at-risk behaviour. Glassers Reality Therapy as a therapeutic intervention will be explored within the context of youth violence. Finally, some community based intervention and prevention strategies applied to at risk behaviour will be explored. An overarching theme in this paper is the notion of personal responsibility for ones actions. Within the context of protective and resilient factors, it becomes apparent that fostering feelings of self worth in an individual is an effective means of abating delinquent behaviour. Particularly if we address the South African context, an understanding of basic human rights together with a concerted effort to instil the ability to honour human life can change a considerable amount of things, particularly in light of the culture of violence in South Africa (Independent Projects Trust (IPT), 2011; Kaldine, 2007). Throughout the paper as intra and interpersonal dynamics relating to violence are addressed, this idea of taking responsibility seems to underline each section in a significant way.

At Risk Behaviour An ecological understanding of antisocial behaviour holds that it is any activity that conflicts with social norms (McWhirter, McWhirter, McWhirter and McWhirter, 2004). Antisocial 1

behaviour often manifests as: Expression of aggression within family and school, often leading to conduct disorder Problems such as fighting and vandalism Substance abuse, running away, theft, robbery and larceny School shootings

Evidently, violence is an inherent part of antisocial behaviours and delinquency. The phrase at risk can be understood to mean a set of presumed cause and effect variables that place a child or adolescent in danger of future negative outcomes (McWhirter et al., 2004). Furthermore, the context of the use of this term may not necessarily be current and an intervention may not necessarily be put in place. The at risk continuum therefore is understood to be ranging from minimal to imminent risk with regards to person and situation (McWhirter et al., 2004). In order to contextualise the broader scope of an at risk youth, a brief description of key stages along the continuum will be given. The Continuum A child at minimal risk would be one who lives in affluence, has caring relationships, a stimulating environment, attends a well funded institution; essentially, subject to few psychosocial stressors (McWhirter et al., 2004). This gives the impression of a child who is sheltered and faces less possibility of at risk behaviour. However, this does not imply that there is a no risk state; moreover, favourable demographics and limited environmental stressors do not imply invulnerability (Mitchell, as cited in McWhirter et al., 2004). A child at remote risk would constitute one where markers of future trouble begin to appear, demographic factors such as low socio-economic status, poor economic opportunity, lack of access to good education and membership in an ethnic minority are considered (McWhirter et al., 2004). In such a case, it is not a question of assuming that one is at risk because of membership in a particular ethnic group, but rather, understanding that membership in ethnic minority group carries with it experiences of oppression, marginalization and racism that have a negative influence on the child (McWhirter et al., 2004). Application of this to the South African context would entail acknowledging the legacy of apartheid which has left the post-apartheid South Africa to confront the history of marginalization and oppression of black, coloured and Indians in the nation. Thus, membership in these minority groups carries memories of oppression and thus perpetuates the stigma associated with being a member in these groups. These issues will be examined

in detail further in the paper. It is important to note that at this stage, these factors are markers of future problem behaviour, although not necessarily predictors of risk for an individual child, particularly considering how multiplicative risk factors are in nature, and how protective factors exist in light of them (McWhirter et al., 2004). A child at high risk is marked not only by the dysfunctional family, negative school and social interaction; or negative demographics, psychosocial and environmental stressors, but by the intrapersonal processes within the person (McWhirter et al., 2004). For example if this person has a negative attitude, behaviour, and emotions it perpetuates the level of risk along the continuum. This is when affective disorders begin to manifest; depression, bipolar disorder, and defiant behaviour such as aggression and conduct problems (McWhirter et al, 2004). In line with contemporary personality and social psychological theories, it is important to continue to consider that these factors influence one another, the person, and the context interact in order to influence behaviour (McWhirter et al, 2004; Funder, 2006). The next level of risk along the continuum is imminent risk and it is marked by what are termed gateway behaviours. These behaviours are mildly and moderately stressing activities, frequently self-destructive, which often progress to increasingly deviant behaviours (McWhirter et al., 2004, p.9). In line with this argument, a child who is given to aggression to both adults and children, gives way to increasingly deviant behaviour as development progresses, however, once again, such a progression is neither certain nor predictable (McWhirter et al., 2004) . Ultimately the final stage in the continuum is the at risk category activity which is attained when the young person partakes in those activities which define the at-risk categories; this is beyond the term at risk because they will have superseded the term and gone beyond risk, into maximization within the problem area (McWhirter et al., 2004). Thus, a youth who exhibits at risk behaviour to the point of routine delinquency, is now engaging in at risk category activities and may continue to endanger self and others in the process. A brief consideration of the DSM-IV classification of the disruptive behaviour disorders will be explored in order to give a clinical context of at risk behavioural manifestations. Youth Violence in the DSM-IV: Disruptive Behaviour Disorders Children diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (313.81) are often hostile; they constantly argue with adults, exhibit extreme rage and generally are resentful (Comer, 2010). The DSM-IV criterion for such children requires that they exhibit defiant, hostile negativistic behaviour for at least six months (Morrison, 2006). They lose their temper, 3

argue with adults, actively defy requests/rules of adults, deliberately annoy others, blame others their own mistakes, easily annoyed by others, anger or resentment and being spiteful or vindictive (Morrison, 2006). At least four or more of these symptoms should be present for a diagnosis; moreover, they should cause important distress and impairment in functioning at school, work and socially (Morrison, 2006). Finally, the symptoms must not fulfil criteria for conduct disorder, if older than 18, the patient must not meet the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (Morrison, 2006). Children diagnosed with Conduct Disorder (312.8x), which is more in severity; repeatedly violate the basic rights of others (Comer, 2010). This disorder is linked to the incidence of youth violence, affecting children who are at high risk along the at risk continuum. The DSMIV criteria for conduct disorder state that for twelve months or more, the patient has repeatedly violated rules, age appropriate social norms, and the rights of others with one of these symptoms occurring within the first six months of that period (Morrison, 2006). The four main categories of behaviour are: Aggression against people or animals, property destruction, lying or theft and serious rule violation (Morrison, 2006). With regards to aggression, the patient may engage in frequent bullying or threatening, start fights, used a weapon that can injure, has shown cruelty to people, physical cruelty to animals, theft with confrontation and forced sex upon someone (Morrison, 2006). Within this category of symptoms, incidences such as armed robbery, mugging, physical assault, rape are behaviours that are strongly tied to the criminal violence. Property destruction is marked by deliberate setting of fires to cause serious harm and deliberate destruction of peoples property (Morrison, 2006). Lying or theft constitutes breaking into a car or house belonging to someone, frequent lying or breaking of promises to ensure personal gain or to avoid obligations, and theft of valuables without confrontation (Morrison, 2006). Finally, serious rule violation is marked by frequent overnight staying out against parental authority by the age of thirteen, running away from parents overnight more than twice, or once if for an extended period, and engaging in truancy (Being absent from school) by the age of thirteen (Morrison, 2006). The childhood onset type occurs before age 10, and the adolescent onset type manifests during adolescence (Morrison, 2006). The DSM-IV criterion for Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7) is an elaboration of conduct disorder symptoms. It is not unlikely that a person entrenched in a culture of violence be not privy to this disorder. This is not to be confused with antisocial behaviour which is separately coded on the DSM-IV. Child and Adolescent Antisocial Behaviour (V71.02) is a cause for clinical attention when it is not part of a pattern, for example the activities of career criminals

who do not have antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder or a disorder of impulsivity (Morrison, 2006). Protective and Resiliency factors In light of the above psychological disorders which are routed in at risk behaviour, there are some protective and resiliency factors to be considered. Protective factors would be predictors of positive outcomes among children at risk of developing problems as a result of adverse circumstances (Independent Projects Trust, 2011). This is an indicator that resiliency in turn implies a good outcome in spite of high risk , sustained competence under stress, and recovery from trauma (McGloin & Widom, as cited in, McWhirter et al., 2004). Resiliency can result out of three main categories of protective factors, namely the social environment, the family milieu and the individual characteristics of the child (McWhirter et al., 2004). The social environment of the resilient child, made up of the microsystems outside family such as the school, peers, teachers, religious institutions, counsellors; their community and kinship network (McWhirter et al., 2004). Caring relationships, joining community programs, which work mostly to aid the child within the dominant subculture. Children of colour are largely marginalized within the dominant culture; as such their means to thrive within their community differs greatly from a middle class youth (McWhirter et al., 2004). Family milieu is important in the place of securing the child; this is done by healthy communication patterns, exemplary modelling by parents, parental monitoring and finally, exposure to support networks such as church programs (McWhirter et al., 2004). With regard to individual characteristics, resilient children have an active approach to lifes problems, an optimistic tendency in light of pain and negative unexpected turns, the ability to gain positive attention from others, a strong sense of faith and hope that instils and maintains purpose and meaning, the ability to exercise autonomy and competence in school, social and cognitive domains (McWhirter et al., 2004). Competency Skills In addition, McWhirter et al. (2004) categorised five areas of competency (The five Cs of competency) which function as protective factors as their presence in a child determines whether they are high or low risk. Concept of self, level of self esteem and self efficacy are a major category. Knowledge of self is tied strongly to the self concept, which is our belief 5

about who we are. This knowledge is related to awareness of basic human rights in order that children have an ability to respect other people as well as themselves. Self esteem relates to how one feels about oneself, or the value we place on ourselves. Finally, self efficacy expectations are beliefs about our capabilities in performance of tasks. We can so readily identify how all these aspects come together to contribute towards whether a child is at high or low risk. These last remaining Cs are more to do with how a child functions in the environment based on how they perceive themselves. Critical school competency comprises basic academic skills and academic survival skills. Connectedness is essentially a sense of belonging amongst others, it involves an ability to connect and relate with others. It comprises good communication, an ability to take different perspectives and the ability to solve relationship problems. Fourthly, coping ability are important as they influence a childs response to stressors. Finally, control is important in the areas of decision-making skills, delay of gratification, and living a purpose driven life. When a child is able to make meaning out of life, such a child will live with deliberation and exercise control as a result. A therapeutic model of intervening with an at-risk youth in a way that can foster competencies is explored below. Glasser and Harringtons Reality Therapy During the 1950s Harrington served at the psychiatric hospital where he begun to go against traditional psychotherapy by chiding patients when their behaviour was unacceptable and supporting them when it improved (McWhirter et al., 2004). Glasser adopted this model to an institution for delinquent girls with much success (McWhirter et al., 2004). The basic premise of reality therapy is that communication is an integral part of the thriving of the human child; this is tied to the competence skill of connectedness (McWhirter et al., 2004). Essentially people must balance these drives; belonging, power, fun or enjoyment, freedom and survival (Wubbolding, as cited in McWhirter et al., 2004). Thus humanity has a basic need to be loved and to love, when this is satisfied they attain personal self worth, while high risk young people are unable to satisfy these two basic needs (McWhirter et al., 2004). They turn to ignoring or denying this reality, as they develop a failure identity, thats when they are defined as antisocial, violent, criminal , sociopathic or delinquent(McWhirter et al., 2004). Ultimately the goals of reality therapy are teaching at risk children satisfactory standards of behaviour. This is achieved by praising their good conduct and correcting their bad conduct, with the understanding that self-respect comes through self-discipline and closeness to others.

Seven principles These seven principles as outlined by Glasser are an implementation of a three stage framework that forms his intervention (McWhirter et al., 2004). 1. Involvement- development and maintenance of a close, emotional relationship between client and helper (empathy) 2. Current behaviour- an emphasis on the here and now, to bring awareness of behaviour and ramifications thereof. 3. Evaluating behaviour- the client is made to assess his/her own behaviour in order to discern whether it acts in his/her own interest 4. Planning responsible behaviour- a practical and realistic plan for behavioural change is worked through by therapist and client 5. Commitment- when the plan has been agreed upon, the client and therapist commit to follow it 6. Accept no excuses- thus the behaviour must become satisfying and reinforcing in order that the therapist accepts no excuses for failure to keep a commitment 7. No punishment- a therapist will not implement sanctions that have not been agreed on in the commitment

Ultimately, the theoretical application of Reality Therapy comprises three basic components, which are involvement, rejection of irresponsible behaviour and relearning. Involvement is the most demanding phase of therapy as it requires the therapist to be unconditionally accepting and uncritical. Furthermore, demonstrations of interest, warmth and sensitivity must be balanced with encouraging the client to act responsibly. The next phase of treatment involves rejection of irresponsible behaviour; the therapist rejects these behaviours, noting not to focus on feelings and attitudes. With the focus on the here and now, questions such as, are you taking the responsible course of action? or are you doing right or wrong? are used so that the client will begin to reject the behaviours as well. The last procedure is relearning, where clients are taught more realistic ways to fulfil their needs, thus the therapist must model consistently responsible behaviour in order to give the client alternatives for behaviour.

The Ecological Model In South Africa, a statistical model of an at risk youth who commits violent acts may be a poor young black male from a low socioeconomic status who has a dysfunctional family, a history of victimization, performs poorly academically and abuses substances (IPT, 2011). The problems associated with at risk behaviour usually affect a whole community, and also are intergenerational in nature, as such; it is often faulty to study these issues separately (McWhirter et al., 2004). For a long time the biomedical model of understanding health and overall wellbeing has studied factors such as school dropout rates, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency as linear aspects (Gurung, 2006). Therefore, research in that area has been limited to correlational studies; however, understanding correlations does not answer the question of causality (McWhirter et al., 2004). Overtime, critical perspectives in research have resolved that there is a circular relationship between these factors; as such the interrelationships should be examined in terms of context (McWhirter et al., 2004; Gurung, 2006). According to McWhirter et al. (2004), the overarching understanding of the dynamics of causality of at risk behaviour can best be understood by the metaphor of a tree. The soil is made up of the political climate, socioeconomic status, economic state, cultural heritage, and other aspects of the environment (McWhirter et al., 2004). The roots are primarily the family, the school and the peers who interact to socialize the growing child (McWhirter et al., 2004). The trunk of the tree is the behaviour, attitude and competencies of the child; these function as either what will evoke resiliency or will perpetuate the at risk behaviour (McWhirter et al., 2004). The branches of the tree are representative of the youths adaptation to society; they are not part of the five risk categories which are school dropout, substance abuse, risky sexual behaviour, delinquency and violence and suicide (McWhirter et al., 2004). The blossoms or fruits are the individuals and finally the gardener is representative of all those involved in reparative and preventative work (McWhirter et al., 2004). The Ecological Model Applied to Youth Violence The simplified metaphor of the tree can be extended to the more sophisticated ecological systems theory of human development by Bronfenbrenner. Essentially, this theory recognises the complexity between interpersonal, social, political and ideological systems on a child who is entrenched in several environmental systems (micro, meso, exo, macro and chronosystem), with each sphere these systems determining, to differing degrees, the manner in which a child learns to adapt to their environment (Shaffer & Kipp, 2007). The

microsystem is that which the individual comes into direct contact, for example the family, the school teachers, peers; whereas the meso system is the interconnectedness of the different Microsystems (Mc Whirter et al., 2004). A consistent and positive mesosystem ensures positive developmental growth. The exosystem is made up of interconnections between settings that do not directly involve the individual such as a public policy as it impacts an individuals microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, as cited in McWhirter et al., 2004). The macrosystemic aspect is a reflection of society with respect to culture, politics, beliefs, stratification, race, resources and gender roles (Bronfenbrenner, as cited in McWhirter et al., 2004). Finally, the chronosystem is the interaction of the individual and their interaction with the different levels of their environment across time (McWhirter et al., 2004). This model assumes that the individual and the environment are in constant interaction, thus changes to both the individual and the environment is inevitable (McWhirter et al., 2004). Secondly the individual is an active agent of personal development process and finally, bi-directionality is assumed, this is when change in one system may influence ecological systems that affect the individual whether distant or close (McWhirter et al., 2004). With these aspects in mind, examination of violence in the South African context will show the need for an ecological model of intervention. Violence in the South African Context Violent crime in South Africa is among the highest in the world; furthermore, crime does not affect all citizens in the same way, race, class and gender (Kaldine, 2007). According to Wakerley (2005), the disparity of income and living conditions created by the apartheid system is one of the main causative factors of the high violence levels in South Africa.The ecological model can be applied to delinquency. This is essentially because the ecological theory views the social context and conditions of a community as predictors of violent criminal behavior (Tolan & Guerra as cited in, Kaldine, 2007). In such a case, factors such as history, societal and cultural norms of a community are important considerations. The legacy of apartheid has left a trail of destructive social and economical conditions. These all come together to contribute to crime rate in South Africa. Apartheid policy prevented black South Africans from meaningful contributions to state affairs; moreover, these policies were enforced through violence (Kaldine, 2007). By the time various organizations mobilized to revolt against the white supremacy government, violence had already been entrenched in the people, through police brutality on the part of the regime, and uprisings on the part of the marginalized communities (Kaldine, 2007). 9

Essentially, victims of apartheid were not subjected to beatings, random arrests and assassinations, but they also underwent structural and systematic torture, which has had implications for the social climate of historically marginalized people of South Africa (Kaldine, 2007). This has resulted in poverty, poor healthcare and education, economic hardship in families, the environment in which violence flourishes. These factors are pervasive from a microsystemic to a macrosystemic scale, locating how an individual within such a chronosystem emerges. This can be taken into consideration in the context of the recession in the 1980s which led to a further perpetuation of these conditions; an increase in unemployment resulting in poorer black people, who in turn internalised frustration and rage at a regime that oppressed them and kept job opportunities for white people (Kaldine, 2007).Essentially, at present South Africa is confronted with the reality of division between races as a result of multivariate factors all related to apartheid, and post apartheid legacy, of which the 1994 elections play a pivotal role. The Nature and Scope of Violence in South Africa: Risk factors Some physical and environmental factors govern the origins and development of at risk behaviour. According to the Independent Projects Trust (2011) the following factors are determinants of delinquent behaviour; poverty, age, race, sex and gender, location, victimization, families, school performance and substance abuse. Poverty is related to lack of access to resources, an increase in aggravation and frustration. The developmental age that is most at risk in terms of perpetration is adolescence (SAPS, 2010). Black people and homosexual people are most at risk with regards to victimisation (McWhirter et al., 2004). The demographic location of a home determines the nature of child rearing and the variation in delinquency; much as the location of the school determines the quality of education. For instance, youth in middle class homes are more likely to be involved in a school shoot out, than confrontational robbery (McWhirter et al., 2004). Academic performance is a key determinant of whether a youth is at risk, as delinquency is closely correlated to poor academic performance (Independent Projects Trust, 2011). Finally, a youth at risk is more likely to abuse substances than a resilient youth (Matthews, Griggs & Caine, 1999; McWhirter et al., 2004). The emphasis is that these factors do not cause delinquency, but they provide a platform through which delinquency can occur. Thus an ecological and developmental understanding of these factors demands intervention at the level of community, with the overall target of crime prevention. By the late 90s the state of

violence in the nation was disconcerting; a review adapted from Mathew et al., (1999) in an undertaking to intervene and prevent youth violence revealed the following: School based violence, crime, and behavioural problems tend to affect males more frequently than females. The individual most likely to commit crimes of violence and to die from crimes of violence is a black male youth. Child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual violence tend to affect black female youth more frequently and directly than any other group. In most cases the violence affecting school-age children is not random, the perpetrator and victim usually know each other. Interventions at a Community level According to Kaldine (2007) there are several interventions that can be appropriated at a community level under three main themes. Firstly, an eradication of the culture of violence that haunts South Africa is pivotal. This can be enacted by creating a culture of consultation and conflict resolution as opposed to violent demonstrations as a means to achieve ends. Furthermore, this implies educating people on the peaceable alternatives to attaining their collective goals. For example they would be taught on their rights to influence policy by participating in national events such as voting. This will in turn set the ground for a culture of the understanding and exercising of human rights. Self identity is pivotal, but it is impossible to know personal responsibility if the basic human rights of an individual are not known. For example, it is much more difficult to inflict harm on another person if there is an ingrained respect for human dignity. This human life in turn cannot be valued if the perpetrator has no understanding of their right to play an active role in societal change. Thus major violent acts such as vigilantism, police assault, and insensitive treatment to victims will be displaced by educational empowerment (Kaldine, 2007). Secondly, the alleviation of poverty and Social upliftment; which is intervention with the aims of an express focus on previously disadvantaged groups. This had been put in place by legislative acts such as the Economic Equity Act (EEA). This has resulted in Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). BEE and Affirmative Action have focused on marginalized groups such as blacks, women and disabled people. The grievance against such actions is that they generate resentment in the white male group who miss out on 11

career opportunities; this further perpetuates the division between groups. On the other hand, with regard to crime alleviation, the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) was put in place in 1995. This has been a step towards common purpose and unity between racial groups. The long term goals of the NCPS are indicative of the fact that the approach to understanding and alleviating crime is on a sociological level as opposed to a matter of national security (Kaldine, 2007). Essentially, the socioeconomic contributions to criminal behaviour are targeted. Thirdly, policing plays a major role in preventing and intervening on criminal activity. The South African Police Service (SAPS) is an important consideration within the context of violence in South Africa in light of the perceived view of the police by the public. The police are notorious for brutality in apartheid and corruption in post-apartheid South Africa; which is a reflection of the sociological problems associated with the transition from an apartheid regime to a democratic political system. Thus, in order for restoration of faith toward the police service to begin, the police have to accord themselves appropriately in this regard. Thus the Policing Priorities Objectives (PPO) which was established in 1997/8 proposed an increase in effectuality and efficiency of criminal investigation, increasing visible policing, and targeting specific crimes as well as fear of crime (Kaldine, 2007; SAPS, 2010). An important aspect is improving quality of service to the victims of crime, community alliances with police and victim empowerment through PPO and NCPS with procedures that ensure that the victim heals and moves on from crime with least harm. One of the major priorities of PPO at this time was to identify and neutralize criminal organizations in order to target, armed robbery, political violence, vehicle related crimes, taxi-related violence, sabotage and acts of terrorism South African Police Service (SAPS), 2010). Since then, there has been a marked reduction in three categories of contact crime namely, murder, attempted murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances (SAPS, 2010). Statistically, the decrease from 26 877 to 16 834 cases between 1995/1996 and 2009/2010 represents a 50% reduction in the murder ratio, moreover, the decreases of the occurrence of murder and attempted murder respectively can be attributed to reductions of 10,4% in street/public robbery and 6,8% in carjacking (SAPS, 2010). This shows that although interventions may seem futile in the face of the incidences of violence the average South African is exposed to, there is progress made by intervention and preventative measures over time. Ultimately, violence prevention is concerned with identifying common aspects of violence and intervening to maximize protective factors and minimize risk factors (McWhirther et al.,

2004). This means that it is a progressive, long term effort that is the work of multiple bodies working together in collaboration. It also underscores the importance of the individual who is located within the context of these risk factors. Perpetrators are often in a state of emotional pain and confusion; they harbour aggressive hatred towards themselves and others and in some cases particularly involving school shooting they plan and have a vigilante motivation as a drive (McWhirter et al., 2004). Thus any preventative measure on the part of youth violence should consider these four major areas that concern the individual. Conclusion In the end, by understanding the at risk continuum in light of the South African context, this paper has addressed youth violence and at risk behaviour. The key findings of this review are that correlation does not mean causality, and causality is not linear but a circular or dynamic process. Youth violence and at risk behaviour is a result of the interaction between systems that affect the individual. Particularly in South Africa, intervention at a macrosystemic level requires the involvement of the justice system as violence is a reflection of the political and social cultural norms of the nation. Of particular consideration is the idea that the child is not a passive receptor of influence by the environment, but that a child is an active agent in the shaping of his/her development. The DSM-IV criterion for disruptive disorders in which youth violence and at risk behaviour manifests assists in identifying and categorising manifestations of antisocial behaviour in a systematic way. However, a considerable amount of responsibility is placed on the individual hence the study of protective and resilient factors. The implication is that individuals have the ability to exercise responsibility in their areas of influence. However, it is acknowledged that societal and physical factors such as harsh socioeconomic environments can exacerbate at risk behaviour.

13