This study examines whether changes over time in women’s criminogenic needs, particularly their financial needs, predict recidivism. In a 9-year longitudinal study, 304 women were interviewed repeatedly during 4.5 years after probation/parole began. Women provided data on both their gender-specific and gender-neutral criminogenic needs. Women’s average standing on each need and an index of their change in the need over time were computed and used to predict subsequent recidivism over the 3.4 years after the final interview. Women whose financial needs decreased were less likely to be rearrested and convicted relative to other women. The findings highlight the importance of considering a multifaceted and gender-specific definition of economic marginalization in both theory and practice. At the policy level, there is a need to reduce justice-involved women’s financial needs. In addition, further longitudinal research should be conducted to understand how different type of changes in women’s lives impact recidivism.
AllardS. W. (2009). Out of reach: Place, poverty, and the new American welfare state. Yale University Press.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). Psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). LexisNexis.
3.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X05282556
4.
AndrewsD. A.GuzzoL.RaynorP.RoweR. C.RettingerL. J.BrewsA.WormithJ. S. (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both male and female offending? A test with the eight domains of the level of service/case management inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10395716
BendaB. B. (2005). Gender differences in life-course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271194
9.
BlankR. M. (1997). It takes a nation: A new agenda for fighting poverty. Princeton University Press.
10.
BloomB.OwenB.CovingtonS. S.RaederM. S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections.
11.
BronsonJ.StroopJ.ZimmerS.BerzofskyM. (2017). Drug use, dependence, and abuse among state prisoners and jail inmates, 2007–2009. U.S. Department of Justice.
12.
BrownS. L.MotiukL. L. (2005). The dynamic factor identification and analysis (DFIA) component of the offender intake assessment (OLA) process: A meta-analytic psychometric and consultative review (Research Report R-164). Correctional Services of Canada. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a3ca/96d1d910ea97bdcd8cce25f442af6ee24000.pdf
13.
CarlenP. (1988). Women, crime and poverty. Open University Press.
14.
CobbinaJ. E.MorashM.KashyD. A.SmithS. W. (2014). Race, neighborhood danger, and coping strategies among female probationers and parolees. Race and Justice, 4(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368713517397
CohenT. H.LowenkampC. T.VanBenschotenS. W. (2016). Does change in risk matter? Examining whether changes in offender risk characteristics influence recidivism outcomes. Criminology and Public Policy, 15(2), 263–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12190
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(1), 11–52.
18.
DavidsonJ. T.Chesney-LindM. (2009). Discounting women: Context matters in risk and need assessment. Critical Criminology, 17, 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-009-9084-x
19.
DouglasK.OttoR.DesmaraisS. L.BorumR. (2013). Clinical forensic psychology. In WeinerI.SchinkaJ. A.VelicerW. F. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 213–244). John Wiley.
20.
DouglasK.SkeemJ. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(3), 347–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347
21.
EdinK.LeinL. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
FazelS.YoonI. A.HayesA. J. (2017). Substance use disorders in prisoners: An updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction, 112(10), 1725–1739. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13877
23.
GreenfeldL. A.SnellT. L. (1999). Women offenders. National Institute of Justice.
24.
GreinerL. E.LawM. A.BrownS. L. (2015). Using dynamic factors to predict recidivism among women: A four-wave prospective study. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 42(5), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814553222
25.
GuerinoP.HarrisonP. M.SabolW. J. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. National Institute of Justice.
26.
HeilbrunK.DematteoD.FretzR.EricksonJ.YashuraK.AnumbaN. (2008). How “specific” are gender-specific rehabilitation needs? An empirical analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(11), 1382–1397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808323678
27.
HeimerK. (2000). Changes in the gender gap in crime and women’s economic marginalization. In LaFreeG. (Ed.), The nature of crime: Continuity and change; Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 1, pp. 427–483). National Institute of Justice.
28.
HoganS. R.UnickG. J.SpeiglmanR.NorrisJ. C. (2008). Social welfare policy and public assistance for low-income substance abusers: The impact of 1996 welfare reform legislation on the economic security of former Supplemental Security Income drug addiction and alcoholism beneficiaries. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 35(1), 221–246. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854403/pdf/nihms124463.pdf
29.
HolsingerA. M.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2003). Ethnicity, gender, and the level of service inventory-revised. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00025-4
30.
HoltfreterK.CuppR. (2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207309436
HuebnerB. M.DeJongC.CobbinaJ. E. (2010). Women coming home: Long-term patterns of recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 27(2), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902870486
33.
KubrinC. E.StewartE. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00046.x
34.
KushelM.HahnJ.EvansD.BangsbergD.MossA. (2005). Revolving doors: Imprisonment amongst the homeless and marginally housed population. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1747–1752. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.065094
35.
LindquistC. H.LattimoreP. K.BarrickK.VisherC. A. (2010). Prisoner reentry experiences of adult females: Characteristics, service receipt, and outcomes of participants in the SVORI multi-site evaluation. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230420.pdf
36.
LovinsL. B.LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2007). Application of the risk principle to female offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207309437
37.
MaherL. (1997). Sexed work: Gender, race, and resistance in a Brooklyn drug market. Oxford University Press.
ManchakS. M.SkeemJ. L.DouglasK. S.SiranosianM. (2009). Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the level of services inventory-revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(5), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333058
40.
McCoyL. A.MillerH. A. (2013). Comparing gender across risk and recidivism in nonviolent offenders. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2012.759054
41.
MillerE. M. (1986). Street woman. Temple University Press.
42.
MishraS.LalumièreM. L. (2010). You can’t always get what you want: The motivational effect of need on risk-sensitive decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 605–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.009
43.
MonteL. M.LewisD. A. (2011). Desperate or deviant? Causes of criminal behavior among TANF recipients. Poverty and Public Policy, 3(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2858.1128
44.
NorrisJ. C.ScottR.SpeiglmanR.GreenR. (2003). Homelessness, hunger, and material hardship among those who lost SSI. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30(1–2), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509030301-210
45.
OlsonD. E.LurigioA. J.SengM. (2000). A comparison of female and male probationers: Characteristics and case outcomes. Women and Criminal Justice, 11(4), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1300/J012v11n04_05
46.
OpsalT. (2012). “Livin’ on the straights”: Identity, desistance, and work among women post-incarceration. Sociological Inquiry, 82(3), 378–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2012.00421.x
47.
OrwinR. G.CampbellB.CampbellK.KrupskiA. (2004). Welfare reform and addiction: A priori hypothesis, post hoc explorations, and assisted sensemaking in evaluating the effects of terminating benefits for chronic substance abusers. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(4), 409–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500402
48.
PetersonJ.SongX.Jones-DeWeeverA. (2002). Life after welfare reform: Low-income single parent families, pre- and post-TANF. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469527.pdf
49.
ReisigM. D.HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600869152
SalisburyE. J.BoppreB.KellyB. (2017). Gender-responsive risk and need assessment: Implications. In TaxmanF. (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 220–243). Routledge.
52.
SalisburyE. J.Van VoorhisP. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809334076
ScottC. K.GrellaC. E.DennisM. L.FunkR. R. (2014). Predictors of recidivism over 3 years among substance-using women released from jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(11), 1257–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814546894
55.
ShererM.MadduxJ. E.MercadanteB.Prentice-DunnS.JacobsB.RogersR. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663
56.
SommersI.BaskinD. R. (1993). The situational context of violent female offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 136–162. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030002002
57.
SwartzJ.MartinovichZ.GoldsteinP. (2003). An analysis of the criminogenic effects of terminating the supplemental security income impairment category for drug addiction and alcoholism. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30(1–2), 391–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509030301-215
58.
Van VoorhisP. (2012). On behalf of women offenders: Women’s place in the science of evidence-based practice. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 111–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00793.x
Van VoorhisP.SalisburyE.WrightE.BaumanA. (2008). Achieving accurate pictures of risk and identifying gender responsive needs: Two new assessments for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections. https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/022844.pdf
62.
Van VoorhisP.WrightE. M.SalisburyE.BaumanA. (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(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442
63.
ViaB.DezemberA.TaxmanF. S. (2017). Exploring how to measure criminogenic needs: Five instruments and no real answers. In TaxmanF. (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 312–330). Routledge.
64.
WikstromP. O. H. (2004). Crime as an alternative: Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In McCordJ. (Ed.), Beyond empiricism (pp. 1–37). Transaction Publishers.
65.
WilfongJ.GolderS.LoganT.HigginsG. (2021). Examining the influence of financial assistance and employment services on the criminal justice outcomes of women on probation. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 36(2), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109920919180
66.
WooditchA.TangL. L.TaxmanF. S. (2014). Which criminogenic need changes are most important in promoting desistance from crime and substance use?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503543
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
