Previous research has supported the significance of the principles of effective intervention in correctional treatment. The risk principle suggests that intensive correctional interventions be reserved for higher risk offenders. Increasingly, there is discussion about the application of the risk principle to specialized populations, such as female offenders. The purpose of this article is to test the risk principle on a sizeable sample of female offenders involved in community corrections in a midwestern state. Findings suggest that the risk principle is applicable to women as higher risk female offenders who participated in residential treatment showed lower probability of recidivism than a risk-controlled comparison group, while lower-risk women increased in likelihood of re-arrest after exposure to the same treatment. Results contribute to the growing literature on effective treatment interventions for female offenders.
Andrews, D., & Dowden, C. (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.
2.
Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology , 28(3), 369-404.
3.
Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
Bloom, B. (2000). Beyond recidivism: Perspectives on evaluation of programs for female offenders in community corrections. In M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections (pp. 107-138). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
5.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
6.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Prison and jail inmates at midyear, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
7.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Probation and parole in the United States, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs .
8.
Chesney-Lind, M. (2000). What to do about girls? Thinking about programs for young women. In M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections (pp. 139-170). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
9.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 18-21.
11.
Funk, S. (1999). Risk assessment for juveniles on probation: A focus on gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(1), 44-68.
12.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principle of effective intervention with offenders . In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Gendreau, P.C., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2003). Is the PCL:R really the “unparalleled” measure of offender risk?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.
14.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works?Criminology, 34, 575-607.
15.
Hoffman, P. (1994). Twenty years of operation use of a risk prediction instrument: The United States Parole Commission's Salient Factor Score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 477-494.
16.
Koons, F., Burrow, J., Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1997). Expert and offender perceptions of program elements linked to successful outcomes for incarcerated women. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 512-532.
17.
Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of the research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Lowenkamp, C., Holsinger, A., & Latessa, E. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 28(5), 543-563.
19.
Lowenkamp, C., & Latessa, E. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio's community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati, Division ofCriminal Justice.
20.
Lowenkamp, C., & Latessa, E. (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement . Criminology and Public Policy, 4(1), 501-528.
21.
Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 51(1), 1-17.
22.
Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., & Smith, P. (2007). [Meta-analytic review of the relationship between the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders]. Unpublished data.
23.
Reisig, M., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384-405.
24.
Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
