The Study

The present study focused on the change in criminogenic needs for 497 federally sentenced women in the community and their relationship to future adjustment. The seven criminogenic need domains from the Community Intervention Scale — associates, attitudes, community functioning, employment, marital/family, personal/emotional, and substance abuse — served as the dynamic risk predictors for this investigation. Measures of community adjustment were coded from Canadian Police Information Center (CPIC) files providing official recidivism data. Non-violent reconvictions were defined as a conviction for any new general offence, e.g., theft, or fraud. Violent reconvictions were defined as any new conviction for an offence involving crimes against persons, e.g., assault and robbery.

The Women

The average age of the sample at the time of the study was 36.8 years (n = 497, SD = 8.7) with a range of 20.6 to 68.9 years. Well over half the sample (61%) were single/separated/divorced while 33% were living common-law or were married (n = 497). The sample (n = 497) was predominantly Caucasian (57%), with 19% Aboriginal, and the remaining 8% belonging to other minority groups. The majority of women had been convicted for property offences such as theft (60.6%) and fraud (39.8%), followed by drug convictions (46.7 %). The most common violent convictions were for weapons 30.6%, arson 20.7% and kidnapping 13.9%; with only the proverbial handful of women in this sample having ever been convicted for assaults (4.8%) or murder (3%).

The Results

The average time of follow-up of the women in the community was 29 months (SD = 16.6) and ranged from 5 days to 6 years. Not surprisingly, the majority of reconvicted offenders were non-violent offenders (85.1%). This sample generally engaged in relatively little violent post-release behaviour (<5%) ⁸ the results of this study demonstrate the CIS to be a relevant and valuable tool for the assessment of female offenders in the community. All seven variables were predictive of future behaviour. Four of these variables were capable of significantly anticipating violent behaviour. Ultimately, this study directly addressed the “debatable” issue whether and which dynamic risk predictors are relevant for the female offender and addressed the contentious issue that the “genesis of” and “interventions for” female criminality is completely different from their male counterparts. Obviously, this study does not exclude the empirically validated contribution that other variables may eventually contribute to the understanding of female criminality. However, it does provide pragmatic power to the notion that there are dynamic risk predictors for community adjustment that are relevant for both men and women. Echoing Brown’s⁹ sentiments, “priority should be given to securing employment and maintaining steady employment as well as building (healthy) support networks” for offenders as they re-enter the community.

---

¹ P.O. Box 5050 Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, Hazen Hall 16. University of New Brunswick, Saint John, NB E2L 4A5

² Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. Also see, Brown, S. (2002). The Dynamic Prediction of Criminal Recidivism: A Three-Wave Prospective Study 1995-2002. Doctoral Dissertation. Queen’s University, Kingston, ON. See also, Hanson, K., & Harris, A. (2000). Where do we intervene? Dynamic risk predictors of sexual offence recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 27, 6-35. Also see, Motiuk, L. (1998). Profiling federal offenders on conditional release. Forum on Corrections Research, 1(2), 11-14. See also, Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M. & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association. Also see, Zamble, E. & Quinsey, V. (1997). The process of criminal recidivism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

³ Andrews, D. & Wormith, S. (1984). Criminal Sentiments and criminal behaviour. Programs Branch User Report. Ottawa, ON: Solicitor General Canada.

⁴ Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (1999). What Works for Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review. Crime and Delinquency, 45(4), 438-452. Also see, Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Paparozzi, M. (1996). Principles for effective assessment for community corrections. Federal Probation, 60(3), 64-70. See also, Simourd, L., & Andrews, D. (1994). Correlates of Delinquency: A look at gender differences. Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 26-31.

⁵ Op.Cit., Andrews & Bonta (1994). Also see, Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. See also, Op.Cit., Gendreau et al. (1996). Also see, Losel, F. (1995). What do we learn from 400 Research Studies on the Effectiveness s of Treatment with Juvenile Delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What Works: Reducing Reoffending (pp.63-78). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.

⁶ Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (2000). Gendered Justice: Programming for Women in Correctional Settings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Criminology, San Francisco, CA. See also, Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girls’ Crime and Women’s Place: Towards a Feminist Model of Female delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 5-29. Also see, Koons, B., Burrow, J., Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1997). Expert and Offender Perceptions of Program Elements Linked to Successful Outcomes for Incarcerated Women. Crime and Delinquency, 43(4), 512-532.

⁷ Op.Cit., Dowden & Andrews (1999); and Simourd & Andres (1994).

⁸ Shaw, M. (1991). Survey of Federally Sentenced Women: Report to the Task force on Federally Sentenced Women. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.

⁹ Op.Cit., Brown (2002).

---

New Research Briefs recently published

B-30 Selected Annotated Bibliography: Aboriginal justice and Corrections Research
Date of Publication: 06-2004 By: S. Trevethan, Nancy Stelle and Lil Kristic