Two instruments are available for use with women offenders who are about to be released from prison: (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 validated 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.

The pre-release assessments are appropriate as hand-off tools to parole case managers.  Parolees should be reassessed after being in the community for at least two months.  We have not tested the pre-release tool among paroled women.  Our research involved assessing women while they were still incarcerated and collecting follow-up data pertaining to recidivism upon release.  We anticipate that many of the dynamic risk factors change from prison to community (e.g., substance abuse).  As such, we predict that a parole community risk assessment may look much like the probation tool, but we have not tested that.

Use of Assessments for Purposes of Risk Assessment:

 Because research has found the pre-release gender responsive assessments to be predictive of recidivism upon release, they may take the place of existing risk assessment tools.

Scoring:   Using the tools to obtain a risk classification 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 three levels using the cut points established in Part III of the scoring form.

This process is slightly different for the Supplement.  When using 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.  It is important to understand that the weights or total scores for each domain of the women’s assessment need to be recalibrated for consistency with the gender-neutral domains of the main, gender-neutral assessment.  This research is underway at the present time (1).  The Supplement should not be added to a static risk assessment, but rather to a risk/needs assessment that has been validated for women. Needs scales listed in Part IV are for treatment planning purposes and not for inclusion into the risk score.

The Definition of High Risk:  Like other dynamic risk/needs assessments, the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment and Supplemental Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment conceptualize high risk offenders as having multiple needs for intensive treatment.  Even though the women classified as high risk on these assessments have been found to be more likely to recidivate than medium risk or low risk offenders, they should also be given highest priority for receiving programs and services targeted to the needs identified in Parts I and II (as well as those noted in the gender-neutral assessment).  The Principles of Effective Intervention (Andrews & Bonta, 2007), which have become a mainstay of evidence-based practice in corrections, apply to the gender-responsive assessments as well.  For example:

Highest priority for services and programs should be given to women classified as medium or high risk;

Women classified as low risk, should receive services related to employment, mental health, safety, and substance abuse if any of those domains receive a high score. However, this tends only to be seen in about 5% of all low risk women;

Case managers should target needs listed in Parts I and strengths listed in Part II, because these are the issues that predispose women to future offending;

Care should be taken to avoid further introduction of low risk women to criminogenic elements of the justice system, e.g., antisocial others and antisocial thinking.  Such practices interrupt the very attributes that make these women low risk, e.g., healthy friendships, employment, prosocial thinking;

Needs identified in Part IV (e.g., housing safety, parental involvement) fall under the rubric of “responsivity.”  Attention to these needs is often needed to improve one’s chances of achieving successful outcomes.  It may be the case, however, that factors such as housing safety, dynamic substance abuse, self-efficacy, relationship dysfunction and others may change once women have been living in the community for several months.

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 assessment.  Additionally, the assessments can be used as a needs assessment 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 recidivism.  Additionally, many of the needs listed in Part IV may become risk factors with future research, particularly studies of parolees.
 
The Principles of Effective Intervention (Andrews & Bonta, 2007), which have become a mainstay of evidence-based practice in corrections, apply to the gender-responsive assessments as well.  For example:

Highest priority for services and programs should be given to women classified as medium or high risk;

Women classified as low risk, should receive services related to employment, mental health, safety, and substance abuse if any of those domains receive a high score. However, this tends only to be seen in about 5% of all low risk women;

Case managers should target needs listed in Parts I and strengths listed in Part II, because these are the issues that predispose women to future offending;

Care should be taken to avoid further introduction of low risk women to criminogenic elements of the justice system, e.g., antisocial others and antisocial thinking.  Such practices interrupt the very attributes that make these women low risk, e.g., healthy friendships, employment, pro-social thinking;

The needs identified in Part IV should be considered for purposes of responsivity.  That is, attention to these needs may enhance treatment in other areas, e.g., parental support (childcare) may improve a woman’s chances of successful substance abuse treatment.  As per suggestions above, many of these may be found to be risk factors in future research among released offenders.

We are also sensitive to needs that may be misinterpreted or mistreated by case managers.  Precautions are noted on the scoring sheets.  The most critical ones are as follows:

(1) For example, research is currently underway in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to link Supplement domains with the Northpointe COMPAS.