Predicting Women’s Recidivism Using the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry: Preliminary Evidence of Predictive Validity With Community-Sentenced Women Using a “Gender-Neutral” Risk Measure

Abstract

Although men and women share risk factors for offending, some scholars suggest these factors operate differently across gender and that women-specific risk factors are neglected in existing “gender-neutral” risk assessment tools. This article explored the predictive validity of one gender-neutral risk assessment tool—the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR)—with matched samples of women and men serving community supervision sentences. Total DRAOR scores had comparative predictive validity across gender. For women and men, the DRAOR predicted reconviction over a static risk measure. The findings support the general premise of gender neutrality, but do not necessarily suggest the DRAOR, or gender-neutral tools more broadly, are the best tools for use with women.

Keywords

risk assessment DRAOR gender recidivism women

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alam

Lee

V. V.

Elayda

M. A.

Shahzad

S. A.

Yang

E. Y.

Nambi

. . . Ramanathan

K. B.

(2013). Association of gender with morbidity and mortality after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: A propensity score matched analysis. International Journal of Cardiology, 167, 180–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.12.047

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Anderson Publishing.

Andrews

D. A.

Guzzo

Raynor

Rowe

R. C.

Rettinger

L. J.

Brews

Wormith

J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10395716

Austin

P. C.

(2011). An introduction to propensity score matching for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786

Baglivio

M. T.

Jackowski

(2013). Examining the validity of a juvenile offending risk assessment instrument across gender and race/ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012440107

Bakker

Riley

O’Malley

(1999). Risk of reconviction: Statistical models predicting four types of re-offending. Department of Corrections Psychological Service.

Belknap

Holsinger

(2006). The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1, 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105282897

Bell

V. R.

(2014). Gender-responsive risk assessment in corrections. LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Benda

B. B.

(2005). Gender differences in life-course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271194

10.

Blanchette

Brown

S. L.

(2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. John Wiley.

11.

Blanchette

Taylor

K. N.

(2007). Development and field test of a gender-informed security reclassification scale for female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 362–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806290162

12.

Bloom

Owen

B. A.

Covington

(2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.

14.

Brennan

Breitenbach

Dieterich

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1481–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456777

15.

Carson

E. A.

(2018). Prisoners in 2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

16.

Chadwick

(2014). Validating the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR) in a sample of U.S. probationers and parolees [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Carleton University.

17.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law & Women’s Studies, 2, 11–52.

18.

Davies

S. T.

(2019). An investigation of how change in dynamic risk and protective factors affects the prediction of imminent criminal recidivism (unpublished doctoral thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

19.

Department of Corrections. (2017a). Briefing to the incoming minister.

20.

Department of Corrections. (2017b). Prison facts and statistics—September 2017. https://doc-web.squiz.cloud/resources/research_and_statistics/quarterly_prison_statistics/previous_years_prison_statistics/prison_stats_september_2017

21.

de Vries Robbé

. (2014). Protective factors: Validation of the structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatry [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Radboud University Nijmegen.

22.

de Vries Robbé

de Vogel

de Spa

. (2011). Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients: A retrospective validation study for the SAPROF. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2011.600232

23.

de Vries Robbé

de Vogel

Douglas

K. S

. (2013). Risk factors and protective factors: A two-sided dynamic approach to violence risk assessment. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24, 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2013.818162

24.

Dickson

S. R.

Polaschek

D. L.

Casey

A. R.

(2013). Can the quality of high-risk violent prisoners’ release plans predict recidivism following intensive rehabilitation? A comparison with risk assessment instruments. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.640634

25.

Douglas

K. S.

Skeem

J. L.

(2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 347–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347

26.

Fortune

C.-A.

Ward

(2017). Problems in protective factor research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.008

27.

Geraghty

K. A.

Woodhams

(2015). The predictive validity of risk assessment tools for female offenders: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.002

28.

Grove

W. M.

Zald

D. H.

Lebow

B. S.

Snitz

B. E.

Nelson

(2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19

29.

Hanby

(2013). A longitudinal study of dynamic risk, protective factors, and criminal recidivism: Change overtime and the impact of assessment timing [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Carleton University.

30.

Hannah-Moffat

(2009). Gridlock or mutability: Reconsidering “gender” and risk assessment. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 209–219.

31.

Hanson

R. K.

Harris

A. J. R.

(2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027001002

32.

Jones

N. J.

Brown

S. L.

Robinson

Frey

(2015). Incorporating strengths into quantitative assessments of criminal risk for adult offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814547041

33.

Kubiak

S. P.

Kim

W. J.

Fedock

Bybee

(2012). Assessing short-term outcomes of an intervention for women convicted of violent crimes. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 3, 197–212. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2012.13

34.

Lloyd

C. D.

Hanson

R. K.

Richards

D. K.

Serin

R. C.

(2019). Reassessment improves prediction of criminal recidivism: A prospective study of 3,421 individuals in New Zealand. Manuscript under revision.

35.

Lösel

Farrington

D. P.

(2012). Direct protective and buffering protective factors in the development of youth violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43, S8–S23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.029

36.

Manchak

S. M.

Skeem

J. L.

Douglas

K. S.

Siranosian

(2009). Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333058

37.

McCoy

L. A.

Miller

H. A.

(2013). Comparing gender across risk and recidivism in nonviolent offenders. Women & Criminal Justice, 23, 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.759054

38.

Nadesu

(2007). Reconviction patterns of released prisoners: A 36-months follow-up analysis. Department of Corrections.

39.

Nicholls

T. L.

Ogloff

J. R.

Douglas

K. S.

(2004). Assessing risk for violence among male and female civil psychiatric patients: The HCR-20, PCL: SV, and VSC. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 127–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.579

40.

Olver

M. E.

Jung

(2017). Incremental prediction of intimate partner violence. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000251

41.

Olver

M. E.

Stockdale

K. C.

Wormith

J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080

42.

Olver

M. E.

Wong

S. C.

Nicholaichuk

Gordon

(2007). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychological Assessment, 19, 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.318

43.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

(2017). Protective factors, correctional treatment and desistance. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.005

44.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Yesberg

J. A.

(2018). High-risk violent prisoners’ patterns of change on parole on the DRAOR’s dynamic risk and protective factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817739928

45.

Pusch

Holtfreter

(2018). Gender and risk assessment in juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817721720

46.

Reisig

M. D.

Holtfreter

Morash

(2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600869152

47.

Rettinger

L. J.

Andrews

D. A.

(2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809349438

48.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7

49.

Roe-Sepowitz

D. E.

Bedard

L. E.

Pate

K. N.

Hedberg

E. C.

(2014). Esuba: A psychoeducational group for incarcerated survivors of abuse. International Journal of Offender and Comparative Criminology, 58, 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12465410

50.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516–524.

51.

Serin

R. C.

(2007). The Dynamic Risk Assessment of Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR) (Unpublished user manual).

52.

Serin

R. C.

Chadwick

Lloyd

C. D.

(2016). Dynamic risk and protective factors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22, 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1112013

53.

Serin

R. C.

Mailloux

D. L.

Wilson

N. J.

(2012). The Dynamic Risk Assessment of Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR) (Unpublished user manual).

54.

Smith

Cullen

Latessa

(2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 183–208.

55.

Spice

Viljoen

J. L.

Latzman

N. E.

Scalora

M. J.

Ullman

(2012). Risk and protective factors for recidivism among juveniles who have offended sexually. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212459086

56.

Statistics New Zealand. (2012). New Zealand’s prison population. http://www.stats.govt.nz

57.

Steffensmeier

Allan

(1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.459

58.

Tamatea

Wilson

(2009). Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR): A pilot study (Unpublished government report). Department of Corrections.

59.

Ullrich

Coid

(2011). Protective factors for violence among released prisoners: Effects over time and interactions with static risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023613

60.

van der Knaap

L. M.

Alberda

D. L.

Oosterveld

Born

M. P

. (2012). The predictive validity of criminogenic needs for male and female offenders: Comparing the relative impact of needs in predicting recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093932

61.

Van Voorhis

. (2012). On behalf of women offenders: Women’s place in the science of evidence-based practice. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 111–145.

62.

Van Voorhis

Wright

E. M.

Salisbury

Bauman

. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442

63.

Vitopoulos

N. A.

Peterson-Badali

Skilling

T. A.

(2012). The relationship between matching service to criminogenic need and recidivism in male and female youth: Examining the RNR principles in practice. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1025–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812442895

64.

Walker

Bowen

Brown

(2013). Psychological and criminological factors associated with desistance from violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.021

65.

Wattanaporn

K. A.

Holtfreter

(2014). The impact of feminist pathways research to gender-responsive policy and practice. Feminist Criminology, 9, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085113519491

66.

Wright

E. M.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2007). Predicting the prison misconducts of women offenders: The importance of gender-responsive needs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 310–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207309595

67.

Yesberg

J. A.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

(2015). Assessing dynamic risk and protective factors in the community: Examining the validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.935775

68.

Yesberg

J. A.

Scanlan

J. M.

Hanby

L. J.

Serin

R. C.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

(2015). Predicting women’s recidivism: Validating a dynamic community-based “gender-neutral” tool. Probation Journal, 62, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550514562851

69.

Zakaria

Allenby

Derkzen

D. M.

Jones

(2013). Preliminary development of a dynamic risk assessment tool for women offenders: An examination of gender neutral and gender specific variables. Correctional Service of Canada.