Poverty, State Capital, and Recidivism Among Women Offenders*

Abstract

Research Summary: This research investigates the effects of poverty and state capital (i.e., state‐sponsored support) on recidivism among women offenders. We seek also to determine whether criticisms directed at actuarial risk tools, such as the failure to take into account gender‐related factors (e.g., poverty status), have merit. A community corrections sample of 134 female felony offenders from one county in the State of Oregon and in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota is used to examine self‐reports of rearrest and probation or parole violations over a six‐month time period. Results from the logistic regression analyses show poverty status increases the odds of rearrest by a factor of 4.6, and it increases the odds of supervision violation by a factor of 12.7. In contrast, risk scores failed to predict recidivism once poverty status was taken into account. Among poor women offenders specifically, we find providing state‐sponsored support to address short‐term needs (e.g., housing) reduces the odds of recidivism by 83%. Not only do community corrections officers who make available state capital promote women's empowerment, they are also less likely to have clients who reoffend. Policy Implications: Our findings suggest that a commonly used actuarial risk assessment tool (i.e., the LSI‐R) does not sufficiently take into account the economic marginality of women offenders. At a minimum, existing tools should be refined or supplemented with other sources of information. During the early stages of supervision, community corrections agencies should encourage their officers to refer and advocate for poor women to receive available sources of state capital (e.g., subsidized housing) to address critical short‐term needs, which can improve their economic circumstances, help move them out of poverty, and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. More broadly, recent changes in welfare policy, such as “Working Toward Independence,” will experience (at best) limited success because the impetus behind these reforms is narrow (i.e., assigning personal responsibility for poverty). Welfare policy reforms can be improved by providing state‐sponsored resources in the areas of childcare, education, health care, and job training, which address the causes of economic marginalization (e.g., deficient reserves of social and human capital) among women in general.

Gender and Risk Assessment in Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analysis

“…While empirical evidence suggests that adult females would benefit from a gender-specific risk assessment tool (Holtfreter & Cupp, 2007;Holtfreter & Morash, 2003;Holtfreter, Reisig, & Morash, 2004;Van Voorhis, Wright, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2010), the topic has not been as extensively studied for juveniles, and findings are mixed. Some studies have found that gender-neutral tools do not accurately predict risks for juvenile females, and suggest that they may benefit from a gender-specific risk assessment tool (Baird et al, 2013;Schmidt, Campbell & Houlding, 2011).…”

“…Indeed, a more likely explanation is that gender differences in offending are more pronounced in adult offenders than their juvenile counterparts. Since there have been more significant findings on gender differences with studies using the adult versions of the LSI (Holtfreter & Cupp, 2007;Holtfreter & Morash, 2003;Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash, 2006;Holtfreter, Reisig, & Morash, 2004) than in youth versions, it could be that gendered experiences in adulthood (i.e.. violent victimization and substance abuse) may lead to differences in offending, rather than assuming that these experiences occur in childhood or adolescence.…”

Women Coming Home: Long‐Term Patterns of Recidivism

“…Similarly, measures of the quality and nature of women's social relationships were not available. Although this problem is common in this type of research (Holtfreter et al, 2004), mixed-method research may best describe the intra-individual changes in recidivism while capturing more subtle elements of social relationships and offender change.…”

“…Lack of childcare, discrimination, and conflict with employers have been identified as central to women's reduced employment rate upon release (Golden, 2005;Harm & Phillips, 2001;Richie, 2001;Schram, KoonsWitt, Williams, & McShane, 2006). Moreover, poor inner-city women often travel in isolated, small social circles that preclude them from developing strong social networks that may provide opportunities for employment and social and economic advancement prior to and post-release (Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash, 2002); thus, making reentry more challenging and recidivism more likely (Holtfreter, Reisig, & Morash, 2004). Although there is evidence that attachment to work can facilitate desistance from criminal behavior among women (Simons, Stewart, Gordon, Conger, & Elder, 2002;Uggen & Kruttschnitt, 1998), these findings have not been replicated with a sample of female parolees.…”

Gender-Responsive Lessons Learned and Policy Implications for Women in Prison

“…Female prisoners have also largely been characterized as socially and economically marginalized offenders who demonstrate unique needs pertaining to their histories of victimization or abuse, substance use, mental health problems, and traumatic relationships (Bloom et al, 2003(Bloom et al, , 2004Heilbrun et al, 2008;Holtfreter, Reisig, & Morash, 2004;Koons-Witt & Schram, 2003;McDaniels-Wilson & Belknap, 2008;Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash, 2002;Reisig et al, 2006). Women often have low levels of education and poor job skills that tend to keep them employed at low-paying and low-skilled jobs (e.g., as clerks).…”