See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249713844

Application of the Risk Principle to Female Offenders

Article  in  Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice · November 2007

DOI: 10.1177/1043986207309437

CITATIONS READS

59 727

4 authors:

Lori Lovins Christopher T. Lowenkamp

University of Houston - Downtown Administrative Office US Courts
10 PUBLICATIONS   219 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   3,980 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Edward J. Latessa Paula Smith

University of Cincinnati University of Sussex
137 PUBLICATIONS   5,258 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   2,051 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ohio CBCF and HWH Study View project

Study of Drug Courts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edward J. Latessa on 15 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice
Volume 23 Number 4
November 2007 383-398
© 2007 Sage Publications
Application of the Risk 10.1177/1043986207309437
http://ccj.sagepub.com
Principle to Female Offenders hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Lori Brusman Lovins
Christopher T. Lowenkamp
Edward J. Latessa
Paula Smith
University of Cincinnati, Ohio

Previous research has supported the significance of the principles of effective interven-
tion 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 litera-
ture on effective treatment interventions for female offenders.

Keywords: corrections; effective interventions; female offender; female risk; risk

principle; women offenders

The Risk Principle

There is abundant research in the field of corrections suggesting that certain prin-
ciples must be adhered to for programming to be effective. The principles of effec-
tive interventions (Gendreau, 1996) were developed as a guide for evidence-based
correctional practices. One key principle from this literature is the risk principle.
Simply stated, the risk principle suggests that treatment is most effective when inten-
sive services are reserved for higher risk offenders (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey &
Wilson, 1998). In fact, evidence suggests that intensive correctional interventions
applied to lower risk offenders can actually increase their likelihood of recidivism
(Andrews et al., 1990; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002; Lowenkamp, Latessa, &
Holsinger, 2006). One question that has been posed is whether such principles apply
to specialized populations, such as female offenders (see Dowden & Andrews, 1999;
Koons, Burrow, Morash, & Bynum, 1997).

383
384 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Female offenders. One of the fastest growing criminal justice populations is the
female offender. Since 1995, female prisoners have increased by a rate of 5% per
year, compared to 3% for male prisoners (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2004).
Moreover, female parole and probation populations have increased steadily since
1995; in 2004, one in eight parolees and one in four probationers were women
(BJS, 2005).
Feminist scholars argue that strategies used to treat male offenders should not
be blindly applied to female offender populations (Bloom, Owen, & Covington,
2003; Chesney-Lind, 2000). Such scholars reject the notion that propositions
about the etiology of criminal behavior, which are based on the study of male
criminality, can be used to explain female offending (Belknap, 2001). Daly (1994)
argued that some pathways to criminal behavior differ between men and women,
and that female criminality often tends to stem from the need to flee abusive situ-
ations, which then result in drug abuse and the need to resort to criminal behavior
to survive.
With regard to risk, many feminist scholars question the validity of actuarial tools
used to classify women (Bloom, 2000; Funk, 1999; Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash,
2006). Such scholars are concerned with misclassification of female offenders
because most actuarial tools are created based on a male population and then simply
applied to women offenders (Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001). Despite such concerns,
Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and Latessa (2001) found that the Level of Service
Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) accurately predicted recidivism for males and females.
Likewise, a recent meta-analysis on the relationship between the LSI-R and reof-
fending with female offenders (Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2007) yielded an
average correlation of .30 with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of .28 to .32 (k = 21,
N = 10,710), which is similar to average effect sizes reported in other research
(Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2003; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996).
In contrast, Reisig et al. (2006) found evidence of misclassification using the
same tool for females that follow gendered pathways to crime. In light of this find-
ing, Reisig et al. expressed concern about the implication of adhering to the risk
principle by targeting high-risk offenders and withholding correctional resources for
low-risk women. Andrews and Dowden (2006), however, found via meta-analysis
that the risk principle was especially pertinent to female offenders. This study
showed that in samples where females were the predominant group, programs that
delivered treatment to higher risk cases yielded significantly higher mean effect sizes
(.30) than those that targeted lower risk women (–.18). Yet meta-analyses are limited
in their ability to fully investigate the relationship between risk level and recidivism
because of poor reporting practices of level of risk in the primary studies (Andrews &
Dowden, 2006). Thus, the current study looks specifically at women who enter res-
idential treatment to determine whether higher risk women benefit more so from
intensive treatment than do lower risk women.
 Lovins et al. / Risk Principle and Female Offenders 385

Method

Participants
The sample for the current study was derived from research conducted by
Lowenkamp and Latessa (2002) of male and female offenders served by halfway
house (HWH) or community-based correctional facilities (CBCF) across the state of
Ohio.1 The current study uses only the women from the original sample to determine
the applicability of the risk principle to female offenders. Thus, the new sample
includes 1,340 female offenders, 906 of which were in the experimental group, and
434 in the comparison group.
Women in the experimental group were released from a state institution to a HWH
and were placed on parole, postrelease control, or transitional control.2 The sample
also consisted of probationers who were sentenced to a CBCF in lieu of prison. All
offenders served time in these residential facilities and were released during fiscal
year 1999. The comparison group comprised offenders who were placed on parole
or postrelease control during the same time period but were not sent to a HWH or
CBCF. The comparison group cases were released to the same counties as the treatment
group cases.
Women in the sample include those who successfully completed the HWH or
CBCF placements as well as those who unsuccessfully completed the residential
programs. An argument can be made that the program should not be expected to have
effects unless the offender is exposed to all treatment. Conversely, in practice,
programs are not able to retain all offenders for the entire length of programming.
Thus, others argue that because this is a reflection of actual practice, the entire sam-
ple of offenders that entered the program, regardless of termination status, should be
used to evaluate effectiveness. Based on these competing viewpoints, we conducted
intent-to-treat analyses and analyses that included only successful terminations.

Measures
Individual-level data on women in the treatment group were extracted from an
electronic database called the Community Corrections Information System (CCIS),
maintained by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Missing data
was then collected from offender files located at program sites. Data for the com-
parison group were collected from inmate files, including pre- and postsentence
investigations, classification instruments, and file notes.
Data were collected on several individual-level predictors. The predictors include
demographic variables and variables commonly related to male and female crimi-
nality. Predictors for the treatment and comparison groups include age, race, educa-
tion, marital status, mental health problems, employment status at arrest, drug and
386 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

alcohol abuse history, and criminal history. Most are coded as dichotomous variables:
Race is coded as White or Black; education is coded as high school graduate or less
than high school graduate; marital status is coded as married or single/separated/
divorced/widowed; and employed at arrest is coded as a yes/no dummy variable.
Other dichotomous variables are coded according to whether a condition exists or
does not exist including psychological problems, drug abuse history, and past alco-
hol abuse.3 Criminal history is also coded according to whether the predictor applies
to the offender or not, including previous violent conviction, prior incarcerations,
community control violations, and prior sex offense. Age is measured as actual age
in years.
Given that the purpose of this article is to determine if the risk principle applies to
female offenders, measurement of risk is a notable concern. Because a single risk
assessment was not used consistently across the state by agencies, risk level in the orig-
inal study was generated by researchers using a modified version of the Salient Factor
Score (Hoffman, 1994; see Table 1).4 Aside from race, all of the aforementioned vari-
ables are incorporated into this measure of risk. This risk scale breaks risk into four
categories: low, low/moderate, moderate, and high. The original study found that this
risk measure had a correlation of .25 between aggregate risk score and reincarceration,
which is similar to that of other risk tools (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004).5
Table 2 shows the breakdown of how the female offenders in the current study fall
into each risk category by group membership (experimental vs. comparison group).
Most women in the treatment and comparison group were moderate risk (51.1% and
42.4%, respectively). Nearly 22% of the treatment cases and 27% of the comparison
cases fell into the high-risk category. Twenty-three percent of women in treatment
and 18.7% of comparison cases were low/moderate risk. Finally, fewer women were
low risk to recidivate in the treatment group than the comparison group (4.4% and
11.8%, respectively). With the aggregate risk score ranging from 0 to 115, the aver-
age total score for the treatment group was 63.43, and the average score for the com-
parison group was 62.40. An independent samples t test detected no significant
difference between the average risk score for the treatment and comparison group.
Finally, outcome data for both groups was extracted from the Bureau of Criminal
Identification and Investigation (BCI&I) record checks and data records maintained
by Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC). Outcome measures
included incarceration for a new offense, incarceration for a technical violation, incar-
ceration for any reason, and arrest following program completion. All of these mea-
sures were coded as dichotomous variables. The follow-up period was 2 years after
program completion or, for the comparison group, 2 years after release from prison.

Design and Analysis

Multivariate logistic regression models were calculated for the overall group of
female offenders. These models controlled for race and gender. Group membership,
risk level, and interaction between Group Membership and Risk Level were entered
 Lovins et al. / Risk Principle and Female Offenders 387

Table 1
Risk Assessment Factors and Weights
Factor Weight Factor Weight

Age Prior arrests

17-22 16.9 2+ 12.3
23-36 7.2 1 2.9
37+ 0 0 0
Less than high school graduate Prior incarcerations
Yes 7.6 2+ 22.8
No 0 1 6.6
0 0
Marital status
Single 7.5 Prior conviction for violent offense
Married 0 Yes 3.5
No 0
Psychological problem indicated
Yes 1.9 Prior conviction for sex offense
No 0 Yes 5.8
No 0
Alcohol problem ever
Yes 4.7 Previous community control violation
No 0 Yes 6.9
No 0
Drug problem ever
Yes 9.0 Current felony degree
No 0 3rd, 4th, 5th 15.6
2nd 6.7
Unemployed at arrest 1st 0
Yes 6.5
No 0 Current offense type
Drug, property, sex 5
Person or other 0

as the main variables of interest in the study. The effects of treatment, holding all
other factors constant, was examined. Likewise, to determine if the risk principle
was met, the model examined the effects of treatment among levels of risk. Results
from the multivariate logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted pre-
dicted probabilities of recidivism.

Results

Table 3 presents information on referrals to the residential facilities, demograph-

ics, and criminal history. With regard to referrals, just more than one half of the
women (55.7%) were referred to a CBCF, with the remaining (44.3%) served by
388 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Table 2
Risk Classification
Treatment Comparison

N % N %

Low (0-37) 38 4.2 51 11.8

Low/moderate (38-54) 208 23.0 81 18.7
Moderate (55-75) 463 51.1 185 42.6
High (76-115) 197 21.7 117 27.0
Mean risk scorea 63.43 62.40

a. There is no significant difference in mean risk score between the treatment and comparison group at a
.05 significance level.

Table 3
Referral Data, Demographics, and Criminal History
Treatment Comparison

N % N %

CBCF placement 505 55.7 — —

HWH placement 401 44.3 — —
Reason for referral to HWH
Condition of parole 228 56.9 — —
Transitional control 88 21.9 — —
Parole violation 85 21.2 — —
White race*** 430 47.8 157 36.2
High school graduate 304 33.6 152 35.0
Married 393 43.4 185 42.6
Psychological problems indicated* 470 51.9 196 45.2
Employed at arrest*** 306 33.8 94 21.7
Drug abuse history 749 82.7 353 81.3
Alcohol abuse history*** 514 56.7 290 66.8
Criminal history
At least one prior arrest*** 835 92.2 345 79.5
Previous violent conviction*** 178 19.6 226 52.1
At least one prior incarceration 269 29.7 123 28.3
At least one community control violation*** 283 31.2 235 54.1
Prior sex offense** 39 4.3 35 8.1
Average age*** 33.22 36.25

Note: CBCF = community-based correctional facilities; HWH = halfway house.

*Significant difference (p < .05) between treatment and comparison group.
**Significant difference (p < .01) between treatment and comparison group.
***Significant difference (p < .001) between treatment and comparison group.
 Lovins et al. / Risk Principle and Female Offenders 389

HWH facilities. All women in CBCFs were referred by the court. Women were most
commonly referred to HWH facilities as a condition of parole (56.9%). Other HWH
residents were referred as transitional control offenders (21.9%) or because of a
parole violation (21.2%).
Demographics and criminal history are presented separately for the treatment and
comparison group to determine if significant differences exist between the popula-
tions. With regard to age, the mean age for women in the experimental group is 33
whereas the mean age for those in the control group is 36. Just under one half of the
women in the treatment facilities were White (47.8%), with fewer Whites in the
comparison group (36.2%). About one third of the women graduated high school,
and just more than 40% were married. More than one half of the women in the treat-
ment group (51.9%) had an indication of psychological problems in their file,
although fewer (45.2%) comparison cases did. About one third of the treatment cases
were employed at arrest; however, just more than 20% of the comparison cases were.
Finally, more than 80% of women in the study had a history of drug abuse; fewer of
the treatment and comparison cases abused alcohol (56.7% and 66.8%, respec-
tively). A series of independent samples t tests indicate a significant difference
between the treatment and comparison group with regard to age, race, psychological
problems, employment at arrest, and alcohol issues.
In terms of criminal history, the overwhelming majority of women in treatment
had at least one prior arrest (92.2%) with fewer (79.5%) comparison cases arrested
previously. Only 19.6% of women in the treatment group had a previous violent con-
viction whereas more than one half of the comparison cases did. Nearly 30% of all
women were previously incarcerated, and 31.2% of women in treatment and 54.1%
of comparison cases had prior probation or parole violations. Few women in the
treatment and comparison groups (4.3% and 8.1%, respectively) had a prior sex
offense. Based on the independent samples t tests, there were significant differences
in all of the criminal history variables except prior incarcerations.
Tables 4 and 5 present the results of the logistic regression models predicting the
outcomes for women who participated in residential treatment. Table 4 represents all
women who participated in treatment whereas Table 5 includes only those who suc-
cessfully completed treatment. The estimated models predicted incarceration for a
new offense, incarceration for a technical violation, incarceration for any reason, and
misdemeanor or felony arrest.
Table 4 shows that members of the comparison group were significantly more
likely than members of the treatment group to be arrested, but not incarcerated.
Furthermore, the interaction term between Group Membership and Risk was signif-
icant and positive in predicting arrest, suggesting that treatment was more effective
for high-risk offenders than low-risk offenders, but again only when recidivism is
measured via misdemeanor or felony arrest. This finding suggests that exposure to treat-
ment decreases the likelihood of arrest, but not incarceration or technical violations.
390 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Table 4
Logistic Regression Models Predicting Outcomes With All Treatment Cases
Incarceration/ Incarceration/ Misdemeanor
New Technical Incarceration/ or Felony
Offense Violation Any Arrest

Variable β p β p β p β p

Race –.08 .77 .55 .02 .29 .16 –.09 .65

Group membership –1.24 .28 –.89 .42 –1.21 .18 –1.97 .01
Risk category .69 .00 .76 .00 .80 .00 .50 .00
Group by risk
interaction .41 .23 .17 .61 .36 .19 .64 .01
Constant –3.94 .00 –4.15 .00 –3.54 .00 –1.91 .00

However, most would maintain that the primary goal of correctional treatment is
to prevent future criminal behavior. Arrest is arguably the most untainted measure
of new criminal conduct as there is the least amount of system response with this
measure.6 Of note, Table 4 also shows that Whites were more likely to be incarcer-
ated, but only because of a technical violation. Likewise, as expected, high-risk cases
had higher rates of incarceration and arrest.
Table 5 presents the regression models predicting incarceration and arrest for only
the successful treatment completers. Again, there was a negative relationship between
group membership and recidivism in all of the models, suggesting successful treat-
ment completers reoffend at lower rates; however, the only significant difference was
in the prediction of misdemeanor or felony arrest. Yet the interaction term between
Group Membership and Risk for successful completers was significant and positive
in predicting arrest and any incarceration, indicating that high-risk treatment com-
pleters had significantly lower rates of arrest and incarceration for any reason.
Tables 6 and 7 report the adjusted probabilities of failure by risk level. These
tables are particularly useful in determining the applicability of the risk principle to
female offenders. Again, the data is analyzed separately for all treatment cases
(Table 6) and successful terminations only (Table 7). Outcome is also measured via
incarceration for a new offense, incarceration for a technical violation, any incarcer-
ation, and misdemeanor or felony arrest.
Table 6 shows no substantive differences in reincarceration rates between low-
risk women who participated in treatment and those who did not. However, there
were significant differences when the outcome is measured as a new misdemeanor
or felony arrest. The last two columns of Table 6 shows that low-risk women who
participated in residential treatment had a 19% likelihood of rearrest versus low-risk
comparison cases who had only a 6% probability of a misdemeanor or felony arrest.
Hence, low-risk women who participated in treatment were 3 times more likely to
 Lovins et al. / Risk Principle and Female Offenders 391

Table 5
Logistic Regression Models Predicting Outcomes With Successful
Terminations Only
Incarceration/ Incarceration/ Misdemeanor
New Technical Incarceration/ or Felony
Offense Violation Any Arrest

Variable β p β p β p β p

Race .08 .78 .43 .16 .19 .43 –.08 .70

Group membership –1.73 .16 –.68 .59 –1.58 .10 –2.00 .02
Risk category .45 .09 .63 .02 .49 .02 .44 .01
Group by risk
interaction .68 .07 .28 .46 .66 .03 .71 .01
Constant –3.57 .00 –4.26 .00 –3.10 .00 –1.89 .00

Table 6
Adjusted Probabilities of Failure Using All Treatment Cases
Incarceration/ Incarceration/ Misdemeanor
New Offense Technical Violation Incarceration/Any or Felony Arrest

Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison

Low 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.19 0.06

Low/Moderate 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.09 0.28 0.16
Moderate 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.11 0.26 0.23 0.39 0.38
High 0.23 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.43 0.49 0.52 0.66

be rearrested than low-risk women who were not placed in residential treatment.
Similar effects were seen with low/moderate risk offenders: There was a 12 per-
centage point difference between treatment and comparison cases for rearrest, indi-
cating that lower risk women who received residential treatment were getting
arrested at much higher rates than women in the comparison group.
Table 6 further demonstrates that moderate-risk female offenders appeared to
have fairly similar recidivism rates regardless of group membership, except for a
slightly higher rate of reincarceration for a technical violation among the women in
the treatment group. Finally, with the exception of incarceration because of a tech-
nical violation, high-risk women exposed to treatment were less likely to be incar-
cerated or arrested than women in the comparison group. Rearrest rates among
high-risk women differed by 14 percentage points, again supporting the risk princi-
ple. Figure 1 displays the adjusted probabilities of only rearrests for all treatment
cases. This figure clearly demonstrates that women who were classified as low or
392 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Figure 1
Adjusted Probabilities of Misdemeanor and Felony Arrest
Using All Treatment Cases

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Lo Lo Mo Hig
w w/M de h
od rat
era e
te

Treatment
Comparison

low/moderate risk and exposed to treatment were rearrested at higher rates than con-
trol cases, whereas high-risk treatment cases showed the opposite effect of decreased
rates of rearrest.
Table 7 reports the adjusted probabilities of failure for only those women who
successfully completed treatment. Results are similar to those found in Table 6.
Again, low- and low/moderate–risk women were significantly more likely to be rear-
rested when they successfully completed treatment. Moderate-risk successful treat-
ment completers were slightly less likely to recidivate than comparison cases.
Finally, high-risk treatment completers had substantially lower probabilities of
recidivism than comparison cases. Here, there was a 24 percentage point difference
between the treatment and comparison group for incarceration for any reason, which
 Lovins et al. / Risk Principle and Female Offenders 393

Figure 2
Adjusted Probabilities of Misdemeanor or Felony Arrest Using
Successful Terminations Only

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Lo Lo Mo Hig
w w/M de h
od rat
era e
te

Treatment
Comparison

amounts to a 96% relative risk increase in likelihood to recidivate for comparison

cases over treatment completers. Figure 2 further displays the adjusted probabili-
ties of rearrests for only the successful treatment completers. Like Figure 1, this
figure suggests that the risk principle is applicable to female offenders as low- or
low/moderate–risk women who successfully completed treatment were more likely
to be rearrested than control cases, whereas high-risk treatment completers were
re-arrested at lower rates than comparison women.
When findings for successful treatment completers (Table 7) are compared
to findings for all treatment cases (Table 6), one can see that likelihood of recidi-
vism for moderate- and high-risk offenders is lower in each model for successful
394 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Table 7
Adjusted Probabilities of Failure Using Successful Terminations Only
Incarceration/ Incarceration/ Misdemeanor
New Offense Technical Violation Incarceration/Any or Felony Arrest

Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison

Low 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.18 0.06

Low/Moderate 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.09 0.26 0.16
Moderate 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.24 0.35 0.38
High 0.15 0.32 0.16 0.23 0.25 0.49 0.46 0.66

completers of treatment. This simply suggests that higher risk women who success-
fully complete treatment have lower recidivism rates than a group that includes suc-
cessful and unsuccessful treatment completers. It is interesting to note that the
likelihood of recidivism for low- and low/moderate–risk offenders was relatively
similar regardless of completion status. This again supports the risk principle as suc-
cessful completion of a treatment program has no apparent benefit for lower risk
women. These findings are also evident when Figure 1 and Figure 2 are compared.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to test the applicability of the risk principle
to women using a sample of 1,340 female offenders. The study compared female
offenders who received intensive residential services with women paroled to the
community with limited supervision and treatment options. Assuming that the risk
principle does apply to female offenders, the hypotheses of the study were (a) higher
risk women exposed to residential treatment will experience a decrease in likelihood
of recidivism whereas (b) lower risk women exposed to residential placement will
have no change in recidivism rates or demonstrate an increase in the likelihood to
recidivate. The findings of the current study support both hypotheses, suggesting that
the risk principle is in fact relevant to female offenders.
The study results found that on average, despite termination status, those women
who were exposed to intensive treatment experienced lower rates of rearrest than
those in the comparison group. Hence, by and large, residential treatment appears
effective at decreasing the likelihood of committing a new offense for the female
offenders sampled. However, when the probability of recidivism is examined by risk
category, it becomes apparent that some women benefit from residential placement
whereas others do not. Specifically, higher risk women who are exposed to intensive
interventions experience significant benefits from treatment. The probability of
recidivism for high-risk women who were successfully terminated from treatment
was one half that of the comparison cases in two of the four models. This implies that
 Lovins et al. / Risk Principle and Female Offenders 395

higher risk female offenders should be the target population for intensive treatment
and supervision programs, including placement in a residential correctional facility.
The results for lower risk women are equally clear. Lower risk women increase
their likelihood of recidivism, particularly rearrest, when exposed to residential
treatment. Low-risk women who participated in residential treatment were 3 times
more likely to be rearrested than low-risk women not exposed to residential services.
Clearly the implication is that lower risk females should be diverted from intensive
correctional interventions when possible. Such findings are consistent with the sug-
gestion of feminist scholars such as Chesney-Lind (2000) who argued that many of
the females involved in the criminal justice system do not belong, and exposure to
the system leads to additional problems for the women and the community. Findings
from the current study support the need to consider risk classification when deter-
mining a woman’s level of involvement in the criminal justice system.
As expected, findings are less clear-cut for moderate-risk women. Moderate-risk
females who successfully completed treatment appeared to fair slightly better than com-
parison cases. However, for all moderate-risk treatment cases (successful and unsuc-
cessful terminations), the probability of recidivism between the treatment and
comparison group were either the same or slightly higher for the treatment cases. This
suggests that though some moderate-risk females do not appear to reap the benefits of
intensive treatment, others do (particularly those who successfully complete treatment).
Limitations of this research include the fact that all offenders were sampled from
the state of Ohio. Hence, findings may not be applicable to female offenders from
other places. Likewise, the sample size was limited to 1,340 women. Although this size
is fairly impressive for a sample of female offenders, there were only 89 women who
were classified as low risk, making findings for this category of offenders less stable.
Nonetheless, there were nearly 300 women who were classified as low/moderate,
thus the sample of “lower” risk females appears adequate. Finally, the follow-up
period was limited to 2 years. Although this is fairly standard in recidivism studies,
a longer follow-up period could have yielded different results.
An additional limitation of the current and other studies that test application of
the risk principle is determining why lower risk individuals fail to benefit from inten-
sive correctional interventions. Data presented here fails to answer whether this risk
effect was caused by applying too much treatment to lower risk women who have
few criminogenic needs, or perhaps by exposing lower risk offenders to their higher
risk counterparts, thereby increasing antisocial attitudes and peer networks. Future
studies should explore the question of why the criminal justice system at best seems
to have no effect on lower risk individuals. Moreover, future studies should deter-
mine what correctional interventions, if any, are helpful to lower risk women.
Findings from the current study suggest that correctional interventions should be
limited for lower risk women with few criminogenic needs. However, that is not to
say that lower risk women with multiple noncriminogenic needs, such as mental
health problems, housing, and victimization issues, are not in need of treatment or
assistance, just that providing assistance via the criminal justice system appears to
396 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

be increasing their likelihood of recidivism. Hence, future studies should further

explore this risk effect and help determine what to do with low-risk, high-need
women who get introduced to the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, the original study found that overall female offenders were less
likely to recidivate than the male offenders (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004). Yet the
difference in recidivism base rates between men and women does not discount the
importance of considering risk when making decisions about appropriate interven-
tions for female offenders. Overall, findings from the current study support the appli-
cation of the risk principle to women involved in the criminal justice system.

Notes
1. Ohio community-based correctional facilities (CBCF) differ from halfway houses in that offenders are
typically referred directly from the court, serving a term of probation rather than being paroled from a state
or federal institution. CBCF programs tend to be lengthier (4 to 6 months as opposed to 1 to 3 months) and
were designed as a way to rehabilitate higher risk probationers who would otherwise be sentenced to prison.
2. Parole and postrelease control are community supervision periods following a period of incarcera-
tion in a state institution. Parole was replaced with postrelease control in July of 1996 as a result of Truth
in Sentencing legislation. Transitional control offenders are released early from the institution and there-
fore tend to have more restrictive terms of supervision.
3. A risk point was applied to “psychological problems indicated” if an offender was diagnosed with
a psychotic disorder, had suicidal or homicidal ideation, or experienced moderate depression, with or
without a diagnosis. This information was ascertained via file review.
4. See Lowenkamp and Latessa (2004) for a detailed description of how the risk scale was created and
original data on predictive validity of the scale.
5. The instrument used in Lowenkamp and Latessa (2002) has been used in subsequent studies and
has maintained its validity with very little statistical shrinkage. In fact, data from this study found the cor-
relation was .30 between the modified Salient Factor Score risk score and rearrest, .28 between risk score
and reincarceration for any offense, .24 between risk score and incarcerated for a new offense, and .15 for
risk score and technical violation. Hence, this tool appears to predict recidivism for female offenders at a
rate similar to other risk tools.
6. For instance, technical violations require action from the parole officer and the court, which may or
may not be related to a new criminal behavior. Likewise, incarceration requires action from a court system
and may also not be related to new criminal behavior if incarceration is related to a technical violation.

References
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.
Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treat-
ment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3),
369-404.
Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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.
 Lovins et al. / Risk Principle and Female Offenders 397

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.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Prison and jail inmates at midyear, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Probation and parole in the United States, 2004. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
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.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Forum on
Corrections Research, 11, 18-21.
Funk, S. (1999). Risk assessment for juveniles on probation: A focus on gender. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 26(1), 44-68.
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.
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.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidi-
vism: what works? Criminology, 34, 575-607.
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.
Koons, F., Burrow, J., Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1997). Expert and offender perceptions of program ele-
ments linked to successful outcomes for incarcerated women. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 512-532.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., & Smith, P. (2007). [Meta-analytic review of the relationship between the
LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders]. Unpublished data.
Reisig, M., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to
crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384-405.
Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of cur-
rent practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

Lori Brusman Lovins received her BA in psychology in 1993 and her MSW degree in 1996 from the
University of Cincinnati. Currently, she is a doctoral candidate for the University of Cincinnati’s Criminal
Justice Program, specializing in correctional rehabilitation. She is a research associate for the University
of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research and has been project manager for several correctional
398 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

projects. Examples include evaluation of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s com-
munity correctional facilities, several countywide correctional system evaluations, a gender responsive
risk assessment project, and consultation with juvenile sex offender programs. She also conducts nation-
wide training on effective correctional treatment.

Christopher T. Lowenkamp received his doctorate in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati.
He is currently an assistant research professor at the University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice
and the director of the Center for Criminal Justice Research. Prior to his appointment at the university, he
was an adult probation officer and the emergency jail release coordinator in Akron, Ohio. Over the past
several years, he has provided consultation and research services to multiple agencies and jurisdictions in
more than 25 states. He is the coauthor of an integrated risk/need assessment process and cognitive-
behavioral intervention that addresses the major criminogenic risk factors and is currently authoring a
cognitive–behavioral curriculum that targets domestic violence. His research interests in risk and need
assessment, the evaluation of correctional interventions, and criminological theory have led to publica-
tions in some of the field’s top journals. Past research projects have substantially affected the policies and
procedures of correctional programming in the several jurisdictions.

Edward J. Latessa is a professor and head of the Division of Criminal Justice at the University of
Cincinnati. He has published more than 110 works in the area of criminal justice, is coauthor of seven
books, and has directed more than 100 funded research projects. He served as president of the Academy
of Criminal Justice Sciences (1989-1990). He has also received several awards including the Outstanding
Achievement Award by the National Juvenile Justice Court Services Association (2007), the August
Vollmer Award from the American Society of Criminology (2004), the Simon Dinitz Criminal Justice
Research Award from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2002), the Margaret Mead
Award from the International Community Corrections Association (2001), and the Peter P. Lejins Award
for Research from the American Correctional Association (1999).

Paula Smith is the associate director of the Corrections Institute and an assistant professor in the Division
of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. She was previously a research associate with the
Center for Criminal Justice Studies at the University of New Brunswick in Saint John, New Brunswick,
Canada. Her research interests include meta-analysis, the assessment of offender treatment and deterrence
programs, the development of actuarial assessments for clinicians and managers in prisons and commu-
nity corrections, the effects of prison life, and the transfer of knowledge to practitioners and policy mak-
ers. She has published numerous articles, book chapters, and conference presentations on the above topics.
She has also been involved in the development and delivery of treatment programs to federal parolees
with the Correctional Service of Canada. At the present time, she provides workshops, training, and tech-
nical assistance to correctional agencies throughout the United States.

View publication stats