Working With Female Offenders What Does Science Tell Us?

Working With Female Offenders
What Does Science Tell Us?
Kimberly Gentry Sperber, Ph.D.
Setting the Stage


Growing number of women under correctional
supervision
Increases in correctional supervision greater
for women than for men


Number of women under correctional supervision
increased 81% from 1990-2000; number of men
increased 45%.
85% of women under correctional supervision
are in the community.
Setting the Stage


Major factor in prison growth for
women = drug offenses
Major factor in prison growth for men =
violent offenses
What Does This Mean for Practitioners?





More women entering into the system.
Women entering into the system faster
than men.
More research being done on women.
Push to implement evidence-based
approaches for all offenders
More pressure to implement genderresponsive approaches with females.
So Where Do We Start?
Getting to Know the Women
Characteristics of Female Offenders

More likely to have experienced physical and
sexual abuse




Estimates range from less than 40% to over 80%
depending on the study and the setting.
Depression, anxiety, self-harm more prevalent
in women
Dual diagnoses more prevalent
More likely to be primary caregiver of a minor
child
Characteristics of Female Offenders

Less likely to have been convicted of a violent offense


More likely to have been convicted of property or drug
offense.


Girls more likely to be charged with status offenses.
Women more likely to abuse drugs; men more likely to
abuse alcohol (BJS data).


When they do commit violent offenses, more likely to involve
an intimate or family member (true of girls as well)
Women’s substance abuse has been shown to be correlated to
trauma and mental health issues.
Often more likely to be unemployed.

If they are employed, low-skill, low-pay jobs.
Characteristics of Female Offenders

Women often have different physical
health issues



For example, female inmates more likely to
be HIV positive.
Women more likely to have certain types of
cancer (implications for residential settings)
Women have higher rates of STD’s
Characteristics of Female Offenders

Setting Matters




Women on probation more likely to have
committed a property offense.
Women in prison more likely to have
committed a drug or violent offense.
Incarcerated women more likely than men
to have had a family member incarcerated.
Incarcerated women typically have shorter
criminal histories than incarcerated men.
Pathways Into Crime




Runaways
Substance Abuse
Poverty
Relationships
Applying the Traditional Model to Females
Risk, Need, Responsivity, Treatment
Risk Principle



Predicting future criminal behavior
Matching levels of treatment/services to
the risk level of the offender
Tells us who to target
Factors Correlated to Risk
Factor
Male
Female
Lower class origins
.04 (58)
.03 (12)
Personal distress/Psychopathology
.09 (157)
.08 (19)
Personal education/Vocational achievement
.11 (96)
.13 (7)
Parental/family factors
.16 (180)
.16 (43)
Temperament/Misconduct/ Personality
.18 (461)
.23 (38)
Antisocial attitudes/associates
.21 (113)
.23 (12)
Overall
.16 (1065)
.16 (131)
Factors Correlated to Risk
Factor
Female
Male
Lower Class Origins
.07
.06
Personal Distress/Psychopathology
.10
.09
Family Structure/Parent Problems
.07
.09
Minor Personality Variables
.18
.22
Poor Parent-Child Relations
.20
.22
Personal Educ/Vocational Achievement
.24
.23
Temperament/Misconduct/Self-Control
.35
.36
Antisocial Attitudes/Associates
.39
.40
The LSI-R and Women


Does it work?
At least 6 studies demonstrating that the
LSI/LSI-R predicts re-offending in women:


Coulson et al. (1996) found the tool predicted
recidivism for women with sentences of less than
2 years.
McConnell (1996) found the tool predicted
recidivism for women with sentences of more than
2 years.

Retrospective study
The LSI-R and Women


Lowenkamp et al. (2001) found that the
tool predicted reincarceration for both
males and females.
Palmer and Hollin (2007) found that the
tool predicted reconviction for a sample
of English prisoners.

Women scored higher on 5 subscales –
accommodations, companions,
family/marital, substance abuse, and
emotional/personal.
The LSI-R and Women

Folsom and Atkinson (2007) found that
the tool predicted recidivism for women
with sentences of more than 2 years.


Age at 1st arrest and # prior convictions
were strongest predictors.
Hubbard (2007) found that the LSI-R
predicted recidivism for both men and
women (arrest and incarceration).
The LSI-R and Women
At Talbert House:
 One study demonstrating that LSI-R scores
positively correlated with recidivism.
 Sample comprised of adult women from 3
treatment settings:




Residential drug court program
Halfway house
Jail-based treatment program
Second study demonstrating that higher LSIR scores predict AWOL’s in halfway house
sample.
LSI-R and Women

One study that found the LSI-R did not
perform well for women (Reisig et al.,
2006):



LSI-R misclassified a significant number of
women who were economically marginalized
Misclassified a significant number of drugconnected women
More likely to correctly classify women who
looked “male” in terms of offending (behaviors
and context)
Comparing the LSI-R to Gender-Responsive Tools





Study comparing traditional risk tools to genderresponsive risk tools (Van Voorhis et al., 2008).
Most of the traditional risk variables were predictive
across most of the samples
Criminal attitudes was the least consistent predictor
across the samples
Many of the gender-responsive risk variables were
also predictive, although there was some variation
depending on setting (e.g., community versus
institution).
Adding the gender-responsive items to the traditional
tools increased predictive power.
Conclusions About the Risk Principle
With Women




Women differ in terms of risk to reoffend (as do
men)
Service delivery is aided when we can classify
women into smaller more homogeneous groups
based on shared characteristics (as with men)
The LSI-R does appear to predict re-offending in
women (as it does for men)
The LSI-R (and tools like it) are likely NOT
capturing all of the variables predictive of
reoffending for women;

Therefore, supplemental assessments are likely
warranted.
Need Principle






Distinguishes between criminogenic needs and
non-criminogenic needs
Dynamic risk factors become the criminogenic
needs
By definition, these are factors that can change
Since they are criminogenic, changing them
changes the probability of re-offending
Criminogenic needs become the treatment
targets
Tells us what to target
Traditional Criminogenic Needs

Criminogenic




Antisocial Attitudes
Antisocial Peers
Substance Abuse
Employment

Non-Criminogenic





Anxiety
Low Self-esteem
Medical Needs
Creative Abilities
Physical Conditioning
Traditional Criminogenic Needs

Antisocial Attitudes




Sperber and Smith (forthcoming) – 9 of the 11 subscales of
the How I Think Questionnaire positively correlated with the
LSI-R score in a sample of halfway house women.
Current clinical norms for the tool not relevant for women,
however.
Van Voorhis et al. (2008) – antisocial attitudes not
consistently correlated with recidivism (varied by sample).
Antisocial Peers


For men, peers often provide a learning opportunity. For
women, antisocial peers are often intimate partners, or a
reflection of unhealthy relationships (Van Voorhis).
Regardless of the manifestation, relationships with antisocial
others puts both men and women at risk.
Traditional Criminogenic Needs

Substance Abuse



Employment


Research tends to demonstrate that this is a
strong correlate of offending for women.
Often commit crimes to support habit.
Focus is on ability to secure jobs that pay a decent
wage and allow the woman to support herself, and
often her minor children.
Housing

Additional consideration of housing safety
Criminogenic Need or Responsivity?

Depression



Hubbard (2007) – depression was not
correlated with recidivism for both males
and females.
Van Voorhis et al. (2008) – depression
correlated to recidivism in both community
and institutional settings for females.
Benda (2005) – depression correlated to
recidivism for women but not for men.
Criminogenic Need or Responsivity?

Self-Esteem



Lariviere (1999) found relationship between low
self-esteem and antisocial behavior in women.
Hubbard (2007) – low self-esteem was not
correlated to recidivism for both males and
females.
Sperber and Carter (forthcoming) – self-esteem
was not correlated to recidivism in a sample of
adult women.


Self-esteem was correlated to LSI-R score, however
(lower self-esteem, higher LSI-R score).
Self-efficacy was correlated to recidivism (higher selfefficacy, lower recidivism)
Self-Esteem vs. Self-Efficacy


GRT contains scales for both selfesteem and self-efficacy
Research question was about the
relative importance of self-esteem
versus self-efficacy as a predictor of
recidivism for women.
Defining Self-Esteem


An individual's sense of his or her value
or worth.
The most broad and frequently cited
definition of self-esteem within
psychology is Rosenberg's (1965), who
described it as a favorable or
unfavorable attitude toward the self.
Defining Self-Efficacy


The concept of self-efficacy lies at the
center of Bandura’s social cognitive
theory.
Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his or
her ability to succeed in a particular
situation.
GRT at Talbert House


Participated in validation study
Sample comprised of 147 women
residing in 4 community-based
correctional programs




Halfway House
Residential Drug Court Program
Jail-Based Assessment Program
Jail-Based Treatment Program
Measures



LSI-R
Demographics/Clinical Attributes
GRT






Self-Esteem
Self-Efficacy
Relationships
Abuse
Parenting
Recidivism


New charge
New conviction
Bivariate Results



Significant positive correlation between
self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Both self-esteem and self-efficacy
positively significantly correlated with
relationships.
Both self-esteem and self-efficacy
negatively correlated with abuse.
Bivariate Results

Both self-esteem and self-efficacy were
significantly negatively correlated with a
number of LSI domains:





Education/Employment
Leisure/Recreation
Alcohol/Drugs
Emotional/Personal
Both also negatively correlated with
overall LSI composite risk score.
Bivariate Results

Self-Efficacy also significantly negatively
correlated with 2 additional LSI
domains:


Companions
Accommodations
Bivariate Correlations With Outcomes



Self-esteem was not significantly
correlated to new charge or new
conviction post-discharge.
Self-efficacy was significantly correlated
with both new charge and new
conviction post-discharge.
Women with higher self-efficacy were
less likely to recidivate.
Conclusions

Self-esteem was significantly correlated with
a number of criminogenic risk domains but
not with actual offending.


Appears that self-esteem may impact recidivism
indirectly through its impact on these domains.
Self-efficacy was significantly correlated with
a larger number of criminogenic risk domains
and actual offending.

Appears that there is a direct relationship between
self-efficacy and offending in women.
Implications for Practitioners


Study offers some support for idea that selfesteem operates as a responsivity factor,
while self-efficacy may be a criminogenic
need.
Self-esteem versus self-efficacy:


Self-efficacy is easier to target for change through
traditional CBT programs which focus on
increasing skills (i.e., increased skills likely lead to
improved confidence in one’s ability).
Improvements in self-efficacy are likely to net
gains in self-esteem as well given they are
positively correlated.
Criminogenic Need or Responsivity?



Lowenkamp et al. (2001) – abuse not related
to recidivism for males or females.
UC study examining relationship between
child abuse and recidivism for adolescent
sample also found no relationship.
Other studies have found a correlation
between prior abuse and recidivism for
women, however.
Talbert House Abuse Data

GRT validation sample

Abuse correlated with:



New Charge
New Conviction
Days to Re-Conviction
Conclusions About Criminogenic Needs



Focusing on traditional criminogenic needs is
still warranted.
Need to understand that they may manifest
or originate differently in women than in men.
Need to widen pool of treatment targets to
include items that have traditionally been
characterized as responsivity issues.
Approaches to Working With Females

CBT




Promoted as most effective method for
reducing recidivism.
Teaches people to change antisocial
attitudes, to make more responsible
choices, how to problem-solve, etc.
Uses skill-based exercises
Some have questioned utility for women
Approaches to Working With Females


Meta-Analysis by Andrews and Dowden
(1999) on the principles of effective
interventions and females.
Found that programs that followed these
principles had greater recidivism reductions.



Targeted higher risk offenders for services
Focused on traditional criminogenic needs
Utilized approaches based on CBT and structured
social learning
Approaches to Working With Females

Study of 4 residential programs using CBT by
Hubbard (2007)


2 male, 2 female (Talbert House programs)
After controlling for risk, women performed better
than men in terms of recidivism


Possible conclusion is that women responded more
favorably to CBT than men
Other variables were not predictive of recidivism:



Depression
Self-Esteem
IQ
Approaches to Working With Females

Relational Approaches




Premise that women’s maturity is built on
motivation to build a sense of connection
with others.
Self-worth is based on connections to
others.
Growth occurs when these relationships
are mutual, empathetic, and empowering
Growth is stunted when relationships are
abusive or nonmutual.
Approaches to Working With Females

Relational Approaches



Significant for women due to amount of
disconnection and violations in their
relationships.
Need healthy relationships to change and
grow.
Relational context is seen as important in
understanding why women offend, their
motivations for change, and their needs for
reintegration.
Conclusions About Approaches



CBT and relational approaches are not
mutually exclusive
Relationships can be a focus of CBT
programming (focus on how women choose
friends and intimates and consequences of
those choices so they can make better
choices)
Programs can help foster healthy
relationships for women
Examples From the Field

Passages Program for Girls







Residential Substance Abuse Program
Primary modality is CBT (Corrective Thinking)
Milieu management model is Teaching Family
Model (TFM) – social learning theory
Recently adopted VOICES curriculum - relational
Provides MH counseling
Used to provide groups specific to relationships
and self-esteem; re-examining these services.
Provides some family therapy and case
management
Relationship Between Intermediate
Outcomes and Recidivism

Preliminary Results for Successful Completers

Increased self-esteem = 62.5%


Increased self-efficacy = 61.4%


Change from pre to post statistically significant
Reduced antisocial attitudes = 82.5%


Change from pre to post statistically significant
Change from pre to post statistically significant
Significant changes in family functioning:





Cohesion
Conflict
Intellectual-Cultural Orientation,
Moral-Religious Emphasis
Organization
Examples From the Field

Hamilton County Probation GEMS Unit



Girls only caseload
Caseloads capped at 25





Girls Empowered and Motivated to Succeed
Staff trained in gender responsivity
Provide more intensive interaction with PO
and for longer periods of time
Provide girls-only groups (Girls Circle)
Focus is on relationship building
Specialized risk assessment (HRAF)
Examples From the Field








MCC Women’s Center CHANGE Program
Offer traditional CBT groups (T4C)
Offer Moving On curriculum (Van Dieten); developed
specifically for women
DSAT program for women substance abusers
Offer Seeking Safety groups for trauma
Offer parenting classes
Offer college classes
Work programs are breaking gender stereotypes and
training women in professions that have higher
chance of earning a good wage
Examples From the Field

Unique aspects of the unit








Women housed separately from the men.
Women were involved in the design of the new unit
from the beginning
Women were given tours of the new unit as it was
being built/designed
Women were on committees to help structure the new
unit and still run these committees for ongoing
operations
Weekly town hall meetings with residents and staff
Residents provide tours to visitors to the unit.
All of these give a voice to the women and represent a
relational method of operation.
They also help build self-efficacy and self-esteem of
the women.
Operational Issues for Discussion

Negative stereotypes of women



Staff gender
Risk management issues








Often perceived as more difficult to work with
Vulnerability to sexual misconduct of staff
Vulnerability to being triggered by staff conduct
Some needed services may be outside scope of practice
Training requirements
How to choose curricula
Resource allocation for traditional model versus genderresponsive model
Resource allocation for services for men and women (does
equitable mean equal?)
Reentry considerations
Conclusions




There is support for use of the traditional RNRT
model with female offenders.
There is a growing body of research that also
recognizes that certain responsivity variables may
actually be criminogenic needs for females and
therefore warrant more attention.
The application of specific treatment models or
curricula is still under-studied for females.
Agencies need to build a strong base of service
delivery drawing from both the traditional approach
and a gender-responsive approach.