Despite the growing number of women involved in the criminal justice system, most risk assessment tools used with this population were developed on male offenders, fuelling debate about whether these tools should be used with women. This study investigated the predictive validity of one such dynamic tool − the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR) − with a sample of female and male parolees. Unexpectedly, the DRAOR subscales predicted recidivism for women, but not for men, and the acute risk subscale independently contributed to recidivism prediction. Furthermore, the DRAOR incrementally predicted women’s recidivism above static risk. These results support the use of the DRAOR with women offenders, and more generally, a ‘gender-neutral’ approach to risk assessment tools for women.
AndrewsDABontaJ (2010) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th Edition. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender.
2.
AndrewsDAGuzzoLRaynorPRoweRCRettingerLJBrewsAWormithJS (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 Criminology56
(1): 113–133.
3.
BakkerLRileyDO’MalleyJ (1999) Risk of Reconviction: Statistical Models Predicting Four Types of Re-offending. Wellington, NZ: Department of Corrections Psychological Service.
4.
BlanchetteK (2002) Classifying female offenders for effective intervention: Application of the case-based principles of risk and need. Forum on Corrections Research14
(1): 31–35).
5.
BlanchetteKBrownSL (2006) The Assessment and Treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. Chichester: Wiley.
6.
BloomBOwenBCovingtonS (2003) Gender-responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
7.
BloomBOwenBCovingtonS (2004) Women offenders and the gendered effects of public policy. Review of Policy Research21
(1): 31–48.
8.
CaulfieldL (2010) Rethinking the assessment of female offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice49
(4): 315–327.
9.
Chesney-LindM (1997) The Female Offender: Girls, Women and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
CoulsonGIlacquaGNutbrownVGiulekasDCudjoeF (1996) Predictive utility of the LSI for incarcerated female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior23
(3): 427–439.
12.
DalyK (1992) Women's pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law & Women's Studies2: 11–52.
13.
DalyK (1994) Gender, Crime, and Punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
de RuiterCNichollsTL (2011) Protective factors in forensic mental health: A new frontier. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health10
(3): 160–170.
15.
de Vries RobbeMde VogelVde SpaE (2011) Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients: A retrospective validation study for the SAPROF. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health10
(3): 178–186.
16.
DouglasKSSkeemJL (2005) Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law11
(3): 347–383.
17.
FarringtonDP (2007) Advancing knowledge about desistance. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice23
(1): 125–134.
18.
FolsomJAtkinsonJL (2007) The generalizability of the LSI-R and the CAT to the prediction of recidivism in female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior34
(8): 1044–1056.
19.
GouldLAPateMSarverM (2011) Risk and revocation in community corrections: The role of gender. Probation Journal58
(3): 250–264.
20.
HanbyL. (2013) A longitudinal study of dynamic risk, protective factors and criminal recidivism: Change over time and the impact of assessment timing. PhD Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
21.
HansonRKHarrisAJR (2000) Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior27
(1): 6–35.
22.
HansonRKHarrisAJRScottTHelmusL (2007) Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project. Public Safety Canada.
23.
HolsingerAMLowenkampCTLatessaEJ (2003) Ethnicity, gender, and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Journal of Criminal Justice31
(4): 309–320.
LodewijksHPBde RuiterCDoreleijersTAH (2010) The impact of protective factors in desistance from violent reoffending: A study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence25
(3): 568–587.
26.
LöselF (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional programs: Bridging the gap between research and practice. In: BernfeldGAFarringtonDPLeschiedAW (eds), Offender Rehabiliation in Practice. Chichester: Wiley, 67–92.
27.
LowenkampTHolsingerAMLatessaEJ (2001) Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior28
(5): 543–563.
28.
McCoyLAMillerHA (2013) Comparing gender across risk and recidivism in nonviolent offenders. Women & Criminal Justice23
(3): 143–162.
29.
McKeownA (2010) Female offenders: Assessment of risk in forensic settings. Aggression and Violent Behavior15
(6): 422–429.
30.
McNeillFFarrallLightowler CMarunaS (2012) Reexamining evidence-based practice in community correactions: Beyond ‘a confined view’ of what works. Justice Research and Policy14
(1): 35–60.
31.
ManchakSMSkeemJLDouglasKSSiranosianM (2009) Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior36
(5): 425–442.
32.
MannREHansonRKThorntonD (2010) Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment22(2): 191–217.
33.
NadesuA (2007) Reconviction patterns of released prisoners: A 36-months follow-up analysis. Wellington, NZ: Department of Corrections.
34.
OlverMEWongSCPNicholaichukTGordonA (2007) The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale—Sexual Offender Version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic chance. Psychological Assessment19
(3): 318–329.
35.
PolaschekDLLYesbergJABellRKDicksonSRCaseyAR (2014) Comparing treated and untreated high-risk prisoners: Examining the effects of treatment at the point of release. Manuscript in preparation.
RettingerLJAndrewsDA (2010) General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior37
(1): 29–45.
38.
SalisburyEJVan VoorhisPSpiropoulosGV (2009) The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency55
(4): 550–585.
39.
SerinRC (2007) The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR). Unpublished user manual.
40.
SerinRCMaillouxDLWilsonNJ (2012) The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR). Unpublished user manual.
41.
SmithPCullenFLatessaE (2009) Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy8
(1): 183–208.
42.
SpiceAViljoenJLLatzmanNEScaloraMJUllmanD (2013) Risk and protective factors for recidivism among juveniles who have offended sexually. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment25
(4): 347–369.
43.
Statistics New Zealand (2012) New Zealand’s Prison Population. Available from: http://www.stats.govt.nz (available 16 June 2014).
44.
UllrichSCoidJ (2011) Protective factors for violence among released prisoners: Effects over time and interactions with static risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology79
(3): 381–390.
45.
van der KnaapLMAlberdaDLOosterveldPBornMP (2012) ‘The predictive validity of criminogenic needs for male and female offenders: Comparing the relative impact of needs in predicting recidivism. Law and Human Behavior36(5): 413–422.
46.
Van VoorhisPWrightEMSalisburyEBaumanA (2010) Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior37
(3): 261–288.
47.
YesbergJAPolaschekDLL (2014) Assessing dynamic risk and protective factors in the community: Examining the validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry. Psychology, Crime and Law. Advance online publication.
48.
ZakariaDAllenbyKDerkzenMDJonesN (2013) Preliminary development of a dynamic risk assessment tool for women offenders: An examination of gender neutral and gender specific variables. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
