Sufficient evidence exists that gender should and does matter in offender management. This study examined the predictive validity of risk and strength factors extracted from the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in a sample of 254 justice-involved youth (148 males, 106 females) from Ontario, Canada. Overall, total risk scores from both measures predicted recidivism (area under receiver operator characteristic curve [AUCs] = .62-.70). Domain-level analyses illustrated that criminal attitudes and associates (scored as risks or protective/strengths) were among the strongest predictors of recidivism in both genders. The YASI demonstrated strong convergent validity with the YLS/CMI. The results support the YASI and the YLS/CMI as viable risk assessment measures for justice-involved male and female youth. Given that the YASI includes both gender neutral and gender responsive items, it may be a particularly good choice for use with justice-involved females.
AkersR. L.JensenG. F. (2003). Advances in Criminological Theory: Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: A guide for the new century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
2.
AndrewsD. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
3.
AndrewsD. A.GuzzoL.RaynorP.RoweR. C.RettingerL. J.BrewsA.WormithJ. S. (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both female and male reoffending? A test with the eight domains of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 113-133. doi:10.1177/0306624X10395716
4.
BaglivioM. T.WolffK. T.PiqueroA. R.HowellJ. C.GreenwaldM. A. (2017). Risk assessment trajectories of youth during juvenile justice residential placement: Examining risk, promotive, and “buffer” scores. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 360-394. doi:10.1177/0093854816668918
5.
BanduraA. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
BeckerS.McCorkelJ. A. (2011). The gender of criminal opportunity: The impact of male co-offenders on women’s crime. Feminist Criminology, 6, 79-110. doi:10.1177/1557085110396501
7.
BelknapJ. (2015). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (4th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
8.
BlanchetteK. D.BrownS. L. (2006). Wiley Series in Forensic Clinical Psychology: The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
9.
BloomB.OwenB.CovingtonS. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. (2006). Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
12.
BrownS. L.WanamakerK.A.GreinerL.ScottT.SkillingT.A. (2019). Complex Trauma: One Path to the Youth Justice System—A Gender-informed Latent Profile Analysis. Manuscript in Preparation.
13.
BurgessR. L.AkersR. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 128-147. doi:10.2307/798612
14.
Chesney-LindM.SheldenR. G. (2004). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
15.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
CovingtonS.BloomB. E. (2006). Gender-responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. In LeederE. (Ed.), Inside and out: Women, prison, and therapy (pp. 9-34). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
17.
DalyK. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2, 11-52.
18.
FarringtonD.TtofiM. M.PiqueroA. R. (2016). Risk, promotive, and protective factors in youth offending: Results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 63-70. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.014
19.
GilfusM. E. (1993). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4, 63-90. doi:10.1300/J012v04n01_04
20.
Hannah-MoffatK. (2010). Sacrosanct or flawed: Risk, accountability and gender-responsive penal politics. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22, 193-215.
21.
HansonR. K. (2017). Assessing the calibration of actuarial risk scales: A primer on the E/O index. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 26-39. doi:10.1177/0093854816683956
22.
HelmusL. M.BabchishinK. (2017). Primer on risk assessment and the statistics used to evaluate its accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 8-25. doi:10.1177/0093854816683956
23.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2011). The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
24.
HubbardD. J.PrattT. C. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency among girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 1-13. doi:10.1300/J076v34n03_01
25.
JonesN. J.BrownS. L.RobinsonD.FreyD. (2015). Incorporating strengths into quantitative assessments of criminal risk for adult offenders: The service planning instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 321-338. doi:10.1177/0093854814547041
26.
JonesN. J.BrownS. L.RobinsonD.FreyD. (2016). Validity of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument: A juvenile justice tool incorporating risks, needs, and strengths. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 182-194. doi:10.1037/lhb0000170
27.
LodewijksH. P. B.de RuiterC.DoreleijersT. A. H. (2010). The impact of protective factors in desistance from violent offending: A study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 568-587. doi:10.1177/0886260509334403
28.
MorashM. (1999). A consideration of gender in relation to social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Theoretical Criminology, 3, 451-462. doi:10.1177/1362480699003004005
29.
NichollsT. L.CruiseK. R.GreigD.HinzH. (2016). Female offenders. In CutlerB. L.ZapfP. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology: Vol. 2: Criminal investigation, adjudication, and sentencing outcomes (pp. 79-122). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the level of service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26, 156-176. doi:10.1037/a0035080
31.
Orbis Partners. (2000). General Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Available from https://orbispartners.com
32.
Orbis Partners. (2003). Service Planning Instrument (SPI). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Available from https://orbispartners.com
33.
Orbis Partners. (2007). YASI: Brief report. Unpublished manuscript, Ottawa, Canada. Available from https://orbispartners.com
34.
Orbis Partners. (2008). Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument: Scoring guide. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author. Available from https://orbispartners.com
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-960. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x
37.
PuschN.HoltfreterK. (2018). Gender and risk assessment in juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 56-81. doi:10.1177/0093854817721720
38.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
39.
RitchieB. E. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered Black women. New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 541-566. doi:10.1177/0093854809334076
41.
SchwalbeC. S. (2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367-1381. doi:10.1177/0093854808324377
42.
SutherlandE. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.
43.
Van VoorhisP. (2012). On behalf of women offenders: Women’s place in the science of evidence-based practice. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 111-145. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00793.x
44.
Van VoorhisP.BaumanA.BrushettR. (2013). Revalidation of the women’s risk needs assessment: Institutional final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
45.
Van VoorhisP.SalisburyE.WrightE.BaumanA. (2008). Achieving accurate pictures of risk and identifying gender responsive needs: Two new assessments for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
46.
Van VoorhisP.SalisburyE.WrightE.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261-288. doi:10.1177/0093854809357442
WanamakerK. A.JonesN. J.BrownS. L. (2018). Strengths-based assessments for use with forensic populations: A critical review. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 17, 202-221. doi:10.1080/14999013.2018.1451414
