In correctional settings, risk assessment serves to classify offenders by their likelihood of future offense-related behavior and misconduct by identifying predictive factors. These risk factors are often also referred to as criminogenic needs and can be static (i.e., stable over time) or dynamic (i.e., change over time). Dynamic criminogenic needs present an opportunity for treatment to reduce the risk of reoffending. A large body of literature has identified a number of valid predictive factors based largely on research with male offender samples; however, research also shows that women’s criminogenic needs are different than those of male offenders and require variation of priority in treatment. Using gender-responsive risk assessments that address risk factors and criminogenic needs that are particularly crucial among female populations is key to developing appropriate treatment targets for women offenders and ultimately to reduce recidivism (reoffending). Risk factors particularly relevant to women offenders and the policy implications of women’s criminogenic needs and risk levels are discussed in this article, along with the theoretical background leading to the emergence of this research and the development of a gender-responsive risk assessment tool.
Risk Factors and Policy Implications
As suggested by the well-known Risk-Need-Responsivity model of correctional intervention put forth by D. A. Andrews and James Bonta, once dynamic need factors (e.g., antisocial personality, attitudes, and associates) become recognized as measures of risk, and they can become targets of criminal justice or mental health treatment interventions in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. However, critics argue that existing gender-neutral (those based on male samples but applied to women as well) risk–need assessment tools such as the Level of Service–Revised and Level of Service/Case Management Inventory that were developed by using gender-neutral social learning, behavioral, and personality theories, and primarily male samples do not adequately account for women’s distinct criminogenic risk and needs. Consequently, factors that can actually enhance efforts to predict recidivism among female offenders were overlooked or categorized as lower priority–specific responsivity-related needs.
In contrast to the big four predictive factors (criminal history, antisocial attitudes, personality, and associates) well-known in risk assessment research using largely male samples, research focused on women offenders identifies the most important criminogenic needs as substance abuse, mental health, housing, education, employment, and financial issues (in terms of more traditional gender-neutral factors). Furthermore, this research has not found criminal attitudes to be a consistent predictor of offense-related outcomes for women. This suggests a different set of priority areas to be targeted for the reduction of further offending.
Some widely known criminogenic needs have been found to affect women differently than men and, thus, must be identified and targeted for intervention through modified methods. Additionally, gender-responsive criminogenic needs vary slightly by setting. For instance, factors predictive of institutional misconduct include family and relationship factors, childhood victimization, and mental health. On the other hand, factors predictive of outcomes in community settings while including similar factors extended to adult victimization and issues of safe housing, self-esteem, and self-efficacy.
Similar to changes in prioritization of criminogenic needs among female offenders, a shift in the prioritization of treatment targets must also occur. Treatment of women offenders should focus on unhealthy relationships, relevant services for substance abuse, mental health (including trauma), and improving socioeconomic status and should facilitate community connections to services. This requires well-coordinated provision of wraparound services, which involves case management with multiple resources at all stages of correctional processing (incarceration, prerelease, and in the community).
Another important revelation brought about by recent advances in the development of gender-responsive assessment is that women’s risk of institutional misconduct and reoffending is lower than that of men in general, commonly referred to as the gender-ratio problem. Furthermore, the seriousness of misconduct and offenses committed by women is lower as well. Consideration of these differences in women’s correctional environments and treatment plans would thus be appropriate under the Risk-Need-Responsivity model of correctional intervention.
Theoretical Background
In addition to the Risk-Need-Responsivity model, the foundation of gender-responsive assessments lies in the theoretical and empirical implications within the gendered pathways perspective. Stemming from the work of feminist scholars and criminologists, such as Joanne Belknap, Meda Chesney-Lind, Kathleen Daly, Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen, and Stephanie Covington, the pathways perspective stresses the importance of focusing on female offenders’ distinct pathways to crime, which are not accounted for by mainstream criminological theories. Thus, the foundation of the pathways’ perspective lies in theories addressing social and psychological issues distinctive to female offenders including trauma theory, relational theory, holistic addiction theory, and social capital theory. Gendered pathways research highlights life histories of female offenders that often entail physical and sexual abuse, trauma, mental illness (e.g., depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder), self-medication through substance abuse, unhealthy relationships, parental stress, economic marginality, and low levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Women’s Risk–Need Assessment (WRNA)
With compiled evidence of differential needs for women offenders, the National Institute of Corrections partnered with University of Cincinnati to develop a gender-informed risk and need assessment tool, the WRNA, to advance treatment of dynamic risk factors for women with a gender-responsive model of service provision. In addition to producing a trailer version (WRNA-T) to function as an adjunct to existing risk–need assessment tools such as the Level of Service–Revised and Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions, a full stand-alone version was also developed with options for institutional and community settings.
The WRNA instrument measures criminogenic needs that are more prevalent among women offenders, in addition to gender-neutral items framed upon women’s experiences. The instrument focuses on abuse and related trauma, parental stress, unhealthy relationships, anxiety and depression, personal safety, and personal strengths. Gender-neutral items include substance abuse, housing (including personal safety at home), mental health (including mood disorders), and family relationships (including parental stress, family background, and intimate relationships). Antisocial attitudes and cognitions were reframed as measures that include self-esteem and self- efficacy. Several factors (self-esteem, self-efficacy, educational assets, and support from others) are also measured as strengths to indicate sources of leverage to be utilized in treatment plans.
The WRNA is a reflection of a growing body of evidence that demonstrates that the nature of offending behavior and rehabilitation is different between women and men. This knowledge can better inform research and practices within the criminal justice system and improve behavioral outcomes for justice involved women and girls.
References:
- Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
- Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research practice and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: USDOJ, National Institute of Corrections.
- Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E., Salisbury, E. J., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261–288.