Two instruments are available for use with women assigned to probation: (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.

Use of Assessments for Purposes of Risk Assessment:

Because research has found the gender responsive assessments to be predictive of new offenses, total scores from Parts I & II of the scoring guides (click here for more information on the different sections), may be used as a risk assessment score.

Scoring: Using the tools to obtain risk classifications involves adding all of the risk factors listed in Part I of the tool and subtracting the strengths listed in Part II.  The resulting scale is then collapsed into three levels using the cut-off scores established in Part III of the scoring form. Needs scales listed in Part IV are for treatment planning purposes and not for inclusion into the risk score. A slightly different process is used for the Supplement.  When scoring the supplement, Part I risk factors should be added to the total score for the gender-neutral risk scale (i.e., the LSI-R, the Northpointe COMPAS or some other validated dynamic risk/needs assessment tool), 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)

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., abuse, parental involvement) fall under the rubric of “responsivity.”  Attention to these needs is often needed to improve one’s chances of achieving successful outcomes. With the exception of educational challenges, they are not risk factors for women on probation.(2)

Implementation:   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 highly recommend that implementation of the new assessments include a two-year pilot study to fit the instrument to each unique probation system.  Cut-off scores for determining custody-levels tend to be sample-specific regardless of the assessment being used.  Although, the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment suggests cut-off scores in Part III of the assessment scoring guide, these cut-offs are from another sample, and should be considered only for a temporary start-up period of time.  Alternatively, officials may wish to continue to use the current risk assessment tool until the pilot study is completed.  Pilot studies should be conducted whenever an agency moves to a different risk/custody tool, regardless of the 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 as a needs assessment, even if it is not used as a risk 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 as a risk assessment to predict 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 more in-depth assessments leading to diagnoses from qualified clinical professionals.

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 future offending. 

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.

(2)Educational challenges could not be combined with educational strengths on the risk scale do to concerns about statistical redundancy.  It is, nevertheless, a risk factor.