Working With Female Offenders

1. Working With Female Offenders What Does Science Tell Us? Kimberly Gentry Sperber, Ph.D.

2. 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.

3. Setting the Stage • Major factor in prison growth for women = drug offenses • Major factor in prison growth for men = violent offenses

4. 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 gender-responsive approaches with females.

5. So Where Do We Start? Getting to Know the Women

6. 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

7. Characteristics of Female Offenders • Less likely to have been convicted of a violent offense • When they do commit violent offenses, more likely to involve an intimate or family member (true of girls as well) • 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). • 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. Pathways Into Crime • Runaways • Substance Abuse • Poverty • Relationships

11. Applying the Traditional Model to Females Risk, Need, Responsivity, Treatment

12. Risk Principle • Predicting future criminal behavior • Matching levels of treatment/services to the risk level of the offender • Tells us who to target

13. Factors Correlated to Risk

14. Factors Correlated to Risk

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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).

18. 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 LSI-R scores predict AWOL’s in halfway house sample.

19. 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 drug-connected women • More likely to correctly classify women who looked “male” in terms of offending (behaviors and context)

20. Comparing the LSI-R to Gender-Responsive Tools • Study comparing traditional risk tools to gender-responsive 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

23. Criminogenic Antisocial Attitudes Antisocial Peers Substance Abuse Employment Non-Criminogenic Anxiety Low Self-esteem Medical Needs Creative Abilities Physical Conditioning Traditional Criminogenic Needs

24. 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.

25. Traditional Criminogenic Needs • Substance Abuse • Research tends to demonstrate that this is a strong correlate of offending for women. • Often commit crimes to support habit. • Employment • 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

26. 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.

27. 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 self-efficacy, lower recidivism)

28. Self-Esteem vs. Self-Efficacy • GRT contains scales for both self-esteem and self-efficacy • Research question was about the relative importance of self-esteem versus self-efficacy as a predictor of recidivism for women.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

32. Measures • LSI-R • Demographics/Clinical Attributes • GRT • Self-Esteem • Self-Efficacy • Relationships • Abuse • Parenting • Recidivism • New charge • New conviction

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. Bivariate Results • Self-Efficacy also significantly negatively correlated with 2 additional LSI domains: • Companions • Accommodations

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Implications for Practitioners • Study offers some support for idea that self-esteem 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.

39. 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.

40. Talbert House Abuse Data • GRT validation sample • Abuse correlated with: • New Charge • New Conviction • Days to Re-Conviction

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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

48. 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

49. Relationship Between Intermediate Outcomes and Recidivism • Preliminary Results for Successful Completers • Increased self-esteem = 62.5% • Change from pre to post statistically significant • Increased self-efficacy = 61.4% • Change from pre to post statistically significant • Reduced antisocial attitudes = 82.5% • Change from pre to post statistically significant • Significant changes in family functioning: • Cohesion • Conflict • Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, • Moral-Religious Emphasis • Organization

50. Examples From the Field • Hamilton County Probation GEMS Unit • Girls Empowered and Motivated to Succeed • Girls only caseload • Caseloads capped at 25 • 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)