Application of the risk principle to female offenders

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 383-398

  Lovins, Lori Brusman ^a   Lowenkamp, Christopher T ^a   Latessa, Edward J ^a   Smith, Paula ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

Corrections; Effective interventions; Female offender; Female risk; Risk principle; Women offenders

Indexed keywords

EID: 35449004901     PISSN: 10439862     EISSN: 15525406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1043986207309437     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 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 (2 nd 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 of Criminal 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.