Two instruments are available for use with incarcerated women offenders: (1) a stand alone assessment, the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment, and (2) a Supplemental Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment.  The latter was developed for use with a gender neutral risk/needs assessment such as the Northpointe Compas or the LSI-R.  Regardless, of whether the full or the supplemental instrument is used, the assessment may be used as either a risk prediction tool, a needs assessment, or both. 

Use of Assessments for Purposes of Risk Assessment:

Because research has found the gender responsive assessments to be predictive of institutional misconducts, they may take the place of existing static custody tools.  From the standpoint of prediction, the gender-responsive assessments have been found in our research to be more predictive of prison misconducts than variables that appear on most static custody assessment.  Using the tools to obtain risk or custody classifications involves adding all of the risk factors listed in Part I of the tool and subtracting strengths listed in Part II (click here for more information on the different sections).  The resulting scale is then broken down into 3 levels using the cut points established in Part III of the scoring form. A similar process is used for the Supplement.  Part I risk factors should be added to the total score for the gender-neutral risk scale, and Part II strengths are then subtracted from the scale.  Needs scales listed in Part IV are for treatment planning purposes and not for inclusion into the risk score.

Agencies using the assessments to inform housing and custody decisions should do so with full awareness that doing so fits a different paradigm than that served by standard custody classification assessments.  In this new paradigm, custody/risk scores increase according to needs (e.g., mental health, trauma, anger control).  In contrast, most custody classification systems increase custody scores according to one’s past behavior (e.g., prior violence, past escapes, prior felonies, seriousness of the current offense). 

One could say that the woman who is placed in maximum custody on the basis of prior behavior deserves to be there.  But the woman who is placed in maximum custody because she has current symptoms of mental illness, substance abuse, anger, or a history of child abuse doesn’t deserve to be in maximum custody if maximum custody is considered to be a punishment.  This same woman, however, does need to receive treatment and programs designed to stabilize mental health, and treat trauma, substance abuse or anger.  Moreover, the treatment of risk factors is relevant to safety/security but not to punishment.  Successfully treated offenders are at reduced risk for recidivism or dysfunctional prison behaviors.

Following is a list of the types of correctional facilities that are most appropriate to using the gender responsive assessments as risk/custody assessments:

Treatment-intensive settings with programs to address the risk factors identified by the gender-responsive assessments;

Agencies that recognize that women pose considerably less risk for assaultive misconducts than men.  Architecture, movement, housing and other conditions of confinement fit this realization and are not unnecessarily oppressive;

Settings using gender-responsive case management approaches, where case managers are trained for good listening, relational, and case planning skills and have time to review case plans on a regular basis;

Facilities that are working hard to prepare women for re-entry by targeting needs that are community risk factors as well as prison adjustment considerations;

Agencies that fully understand that addressing needs translates into safer institutions.

Following is a list of inappropriate uses of the gender-responsive risk/needs assessments: 

Maximum custody is viewed as a punishment with poor conditions of confinement.  Traditional, static, custody assessments would better fit such purposes if they have been validated for women.

Programming and case management resources are limited.

Facilities where case management resources cannot provide regular review of cases.

Facilities that offer no prisoner/re-entry services.

It is also important to note that the gender-responsive risk needs assessments cannot be simply “plugged in” with no planning or provisions for pilot research.  We recommend that agencies review all of the needs included in Part I and II to assure that each need is defensible as a factor that helps to determine custody.  Mental health, for example, is predictive of prison adjustment difficulties, but some states are not legally permitted to include mental health in a custody scale.  Other states do include mental health is the custody determination.  We would also anticipate that some agencies would not want to have child abuse included in the custody scale. In any case, officials should carefully consider each factors included in the custody scale.  It is possible for University of Cincinnati researchers to simulate a number of different combinations of risk factors (using samples from other states) to estimate the likely predictive validity of different combinations of factors.

We highly recommend that implementation of the new assessments include a two-year pilot study to fit the instrument to each unique correctional system.  Cut-off scores for determining custody-levels tend to be sample-specific regardless of the assessment being used.  In fact, the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment suggests cut-off scores in Part III of the assessment scoring guide.  These cut-offs are from other samples, however, and may be different for other agencies.  In addition, institutional variations sometimes affect whether or not a need factor is predictive.  Institutions that have successfully managed substance abuse may find that substance abuse is not related to misconducts.  Mediation of inmate disagreements may also render the relationship dysfunction variable non predictive.  A pilot study helps to sort through these situations and allows researchers to tailor instruments to agencies.  Pilot studies should be conducted whenever and agency moves to a different risk/custody tool, regardless of the tool.  While the pilot study is underway, officials may wish to continue to use the current custody assessment tool.

Use of the Assessments to Assess Needs: 

The Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment and the Supplemental Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment may be used for purposes of a needs assessment, regardless of whether or not it serves as a risk/custody assessment.  Additionally, the assessments can be used as needs assessments immediately following implementation.   The need for pilot research is not as pressing as when the tool is being used to predict misconducts or recidivism.

The risk needs assessment is best considered a series of screens.  In some cases, such as education, substance abuse, and mental health, high scores alert practitioners to the need for additional assessments.  As such the assessment domains should never be considered a sufficient substitute for a solid mental health, substance abuse, or educational assessment by a clinician trained to offer such an assessment.

Even if the assessment is only to be used as a needs assessment, case planners should be sensitive to the needs listed in Parts I and II.  These should be given a higher priority when planning programs and services, because they are noted to be related to prison adjustment problems.  Additionally, needs listed with * in Part IV are community risk factors.  They are not in Parts I and II of the assessment, because they are not risk factors for prison adjustment.  They are, however, extremely relevant to inmates upon release, and are likely to lead to recidivism if not properly addressed in prison transition/re-entry programming.