Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment

Abstract

A growing body of scholarship faults existing risk/needs assessment models for neglecting the risk factors most relevant to women offenders. In response, a series of gender-responsive assessment models were tested for their contributions to widely used genderneutral risk needs assessments. In six of eight samples studied, subsets of the gender-responsive scales achieved statistically significant contributions to gender-neutral models. Promising results were found for the following: (a) parental stress, family support, self-efficacy, educational assets, housing safety, anger/hostility, and current mental health factors in probation samples; (b) child abuse, anger/hostility, relationship dysfunction, family support, and current mental health factors among prisoners; and (c) adult victimization, anger/hostility, educational assets, and family support among released inmates. The predictive validity of genderneutral assessments was strong in seven of eight samples studied. However, findings for both gender-neutral and gender-responsive domains suggested different treatment priorities for women from those currently put forward in correctional theory and policy.

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

“…Across all four project sites, women in prison (in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri), on probation (in Maui, Minnesota, and Missouri), and in prerelease settings (in Colorado and Missouri) were examined with regard to various genderneutral and "gender-responsive" (e.g., victimization, mental health problems, marginalization, relationship difficulties, and substance abuse) risk and need factors. In accordance with the NIC research objectives, the research endeavors to date have examined whether genderresponsive factors are risk factors for institutional misconduct and community recidivism, as well as whether these factors improve the classification of women when they are considered in classification assessment tools (Salisbury, Van Voorhis, & Spiropoulos, 2009;Van Voorhis et al, 2010;Wright et al, 2007). Overall, the results of these studies support the use of various gender-responsive risk factors in correctional classification systems Van Voorhis et al, 2008;Van Voorhis et al, 2010;Wright et al, 2007).…”

“…Van Voorhis and colleagues reported that relatively few women, whether they were incarcerated, on probation, or in prerelease centers, reported being married at the time of intake, although large percentages reported having at least one child under the age of 18 (Van Voorhis et al, 2010;Wright et al, 2007). Likewise, Heilbrun et al (2008) reported that women scored significantly higher on the family and marital status domain of the Level of Service Inventory than did men, indicating that this was a particularly salient area of risk for women as opposed to men.…”

“…Female offenders are also uniquely affected by victimization (Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999;Green, Miranda, Daroowalla, & Siddique, 2005;McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997;Van Voorhis et al, 2010), substance abuse (Grella, Stein, & Greenwell, 2005;Henderson, 1998;McClellan et al, 1997;Mumola & Karberg, 2006;Neff & Waite, 2007;Van Voorhis et al, 2010;Wright et al, 2007), and physical and mental health problems (Houser, Belenko, & Brennan, in press;James & Glaze, 2006;Messina & Grella, 2006;Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009) compared with male offenders (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006;Bloom et al, 2003;Greenfeld & Snell, 1999;Messina, Grella, Burdon, & Prendergast, 2007). These "gender-responsive" factors are not typically seen among men, are typically seen among men but occur at a greater frequency among women, or occur in equal frequency among men and women but affect women in uniquely personal and social ways (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004;Farr, 2000;Funk, 1999;Gavazzi, Yarcheck, & Chesney-Lind, 2006;Holtfreter & Morash, 2003;Reisig et al, 2006;).…”

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).…”

Understanding Women in Prison: A Review of Gender Specific Needs and Risk Assessments and their Policy and Research Implications

“…These needs are either "not typically seen in men, seen in men but occur at greater frequency in women, or occur in equal frequency among men and women but affect women in uniquely personal and social ways that should be reflect in current correctional assessment." (Voorhis et al 2010). In this section, each need will be identified and explained.…”