Criminogenic Need and Women Offenders: A Critique of The Literature

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/229574405
Criminogenic Need and Women Offenders: A Critique of the Literature
Article · December 2010

DOI: 10.1348/135532505X57991
CITATIONS READS
119 5,735
2 authors:
Clive R Hollin Emma J Palmer

University of Leicester University of Leicester
279 PUBLICATIONS 5,370 CITATIONS 80 PUBLICATIONS 2,304 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
I've retired so I'm working on my garden. View project
Psychopathy in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Clive R Hollin on 11 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
179
The
British
Psychological
Legal and Criminological Psychology (2006), 11, 179–195
q 2006 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Criminogenic need and women offenders:

A critique of the literature
Clive R. Hollin* and Emma J. Palmer

Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, UK
Purpose. This paper considers the criminogenic needs of women offenders, raising
the question of whether there may be women-specific criminogenic needs.
Arguments. The risk-needs model of offending has become increasingly influential
in both research and practice. Simply, the risk–needs model holds that some aspects of
an individual’s functioning are risk factors for offending. The distinction can be drawn
between static and dynamic risk factors: the former are historical, the latter reflect
current functioning and are amenable to change. These dynamic attributes linked to
offending – such as financial status, emotional problems, and substance use – are
referred to as criminogenic needs. Needs assessment instruments, such as the Level of
Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995) have been developed to
assess criminogenic need and predict risk of offending. Much of the research informing
the risk–needs model has been carried out with male offenders, leading to questions
about the criminogenic needs of women offenders and whether there may be women-
specific criminogenic needs.
Conclusion. An overview of typical criminogenic needs, as assessed by the LSI-R,
suggests that there are probably common needs for male and female offenders.
A common need does not imply that aetiology or level of importance of that need is the
same for men and women, while some events, such as physical and sexual abuse, are
arguably criminogenic needs for women. The implications for practice and research of
understanding more about women-specific criminogenic needs are considered.
The risk–needs model of criminal behaviour as developed by Andrews and Bonta has
become highly influential in guiding research and practice in the criminal justice arena
(Andrews, 1989; Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2003; Bonta, 1996). While there
are other models of criminal behaviour, with the ‘good lives model’ receiving current
attention (Ward & Brown, 2004; Ward & Stewart, 2003a), and criticized by proponents
of the risk–needs approach (Bonta & Andrews, 2003; Ward & Stewart, 2003a, 2003b), it
is the risk needs model that informs a great deal of current thinking. The risk–needs
* Correspondence should be addressed to Clive R. Hollin, Clinical Division of Psychiatry, Department of Health Sciences,
The University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK (e-mail: crh9@le.ac.uk).
DOI:10.1348/135532505X57991
180 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer
model, closely allied to social learning theory, views criminal behaviour as the outcome
of an interaction between certain situational and personal factors (criminogenic needs)
which increase the likelihood (risk) of a crime. The concept of a criminogenic need has
been clarified by Andrews and Bonta (1994):
Many offenders, especially high-risk offenders, have a variety of needs. They need places to
live and work and/or they need to stop taking drugs. Some have poor self-esteem, chronic
headaches or cavities in their teeth. These are all ‘needs’. The need principle draws our
attention to the distinction between criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs.
Criminogenic needs are a subset of an offender’s risk level. They are the dynamic
attributes of an offender that, when changed, are associated with changes in the probability
of recidivism. (p. 176)
Thus, within the risk–needs model, the offender’s criminogenic needs are the individual
risk factors associated with the overall risk of their reoffending. The distinction can be
drawn between static needs and dynamic needs: a static need is an event in an
individual’s history that cannot be changed, say a history of physical abuse; a dynamic
need is an aspect of an individual’s current situation, say their current employment
status, which can be changed. As Andrews and Bonta (1995) explain, there are three
primary sources by which to identify criminogenic needs: (1) the empirical literature on
recidivism; (2) the professional opinions of experienced practitioners; and (3) from the
standpoint of a social learning theory analysis of criminal behaviour. Thus, using these
methods of analysis, a range of criminogenic needs can be identified that might involve
aspects of individual functioning such as attitudes to crime, moral values, drug use, and
family relationships. Another source of evidence lies in the study of offenders’ own
accounts of their history and their offending. In the current context, the work of Carlen
is of note in this regard (Carlen, 1998; Carlen & Worrell, 2004).
At the level of the individual offender the formal assessment of criminogenic need
and hence risk of offending relies on effective measurement of need. There are various
measures available which appear to perform accurately (Kroner & Mills, 2001).
However, the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R; Andrews & Bonta, 1995), itself
revised to form the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI; Andrews,
Bonta, & Wormith, 2004), has generated an extensive research literature. Indeed, the
LSI-R formed the conceptual basis for the offender assessment system (OASys; Home
Office, 2002a) now widely used in the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
Thus, given its pedigree the LSI-R provides an ideal medium through which to structure
discussion of the issues of current concern.
The LSI-R is a 54-item measure, completed through interview and file review,
composed of 10 subscales that assess domains of criminogenic need: these subscales are
criminal history, education/employment, finance, family/marital relationships, accom-
modation, use of leisure/recreation time, companions, alcohol/drug problems,
emotional/personal issues, and attitudes/orientation. The subscales are formed from a
combination of items that address both the static and dynamic dimensions of a need. For
example, the emotional/personal subscale contains items concerning both previous and
current treatment for mental health problems. The scoring produces 10 subcomponent
scores that give a total score; the total score can be translated into a risk score for
likelihood of future offending. Some needs domains within the LSI-R are deceptive
regarding their likelihood of change; for example, it might appear that criminal history is
a static need but it has a dynamic element in that it can change over time, even over the
course of a prison sentence (Hollin et al., 2003).
Criminogenic need and women offenders 181
There is a body of empirical work that points to the utility of the LSI-R in terms of
assessing need among offender populations (Hollin & Palmer, 2003; Hollin et al., 2003;
Loza & Simourd, 1994). Recent meta-analytic studies have suggested that the LSI-R has
strong predictive utility in terms of recidivism (Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2002;
Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996). It is not clear whether the static or dynamic items
contribute most to assessment of the risk reoffending, although Gendreau et al. suggest
that dynamic predictors perform at least as well as static predictors.
In practice, needs–risk assessment is used within the criminal justice system for a
range of tasks: for example, Andrews and Bonta (1995) state that the LSI-R identifies
treatment targets for intervention, assists in monitoring risk for offenders under
probation supervision, can be used for making decisions regarding placement into half-
way houses and for deciding appropriate security level classification within institutions,
and informs the assessment of likelihood of recidivism. Further, the association between
level of risk, delivery of appropriate services, and treatment outcome in terms of
reduced reoffending has become axiomatic within the literature (Hollin, 2002).
While the LSI-R has been used with women offenders (Coulson, 1993; Coulson,
Ilacqua, Nutbrown, Giulekas, & Codjoe, 1996; Ilacqua, Coulson, Lombrodo, &
Nutbrown, 1999), it is studies with male offenders that are mainly associated with
instruments such as the LSI-R. The use of needs–risk assessment measures with both
male and female offenders holds the implicit assumption that the criminogenic needs of
women offenders, and hence predictors of reoffending, are similar to those of male
offenders. Questioning this assumption, Blanchette (2002) points out that there may be
a distinction between criminogenic needs appropriate to male offenders that are also
relevant to women offenders and criminogenic needs that are specific to women. Thus,
Blanchette suggests that there may potentially be two classes of criminogenic need:
(1) criminogenic needs mutual to men and women; and (2) women-specific
criminogenic needs. The focus of this critique lies in the consideration of the evidence
relevant to this hypothesis.
Criminogenic needs of male and female offenders

The 10 criminogenic needs assessed by the LSI-R provide a useful way, informed by a
body of empirical evidence, to begin to organize the evidence, as also informed by
recent reviews (Blanchette, 2002; Hedderman, 2004; Howden-Windell & Clark, 1999;
Sorbello, Eccleston, Ward, & Jones, 2002). It should be emphasized that each domain, as
assessed by the LSI-R, is composed of a mixture of static and dynamic items, and all
the assessed domains can change over time, some more quickly than others. In terms of
the literature, given the differences in criminal justice populations across countries, and
the probable cultural differences in some areas of need such as substance use, the
country of origin of empirical studies has been noted. It should also be noted that most
studies, particularly those from the UK, have relatively small sample sizes.
Criminal history
An extensive criminal history is a high profile need among some male offender
populations. However, measured by criminal statistics, it is evident that women are less
likely than men to commit crime, to be involved with the criminal justice system, and to
serve a custodial sentence (Home Office, 2002). Further, there are differences in the
criminal careers of male and female offenders (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001), with
women more likely to be convicted only once and to have a shorter criminal career
(Home Office, 2002b). As a blunt measure of criminogenic need, it appears that an

extensive and rapidly changing criminal history is not a general characteristic of women
offenders on the scale it might be expected with male offenders.
However, this general point does not preclude the possibility of differences associated
with criminal history, such as seriousness and type of offence, being important within
female offender populations. In a Canadian study, Blanchette (1997a) compared the
needs of minimum-, medium- and maximum-security women prisoners, and found that
those women in maximum-security showed consistently higher levels of need across
several domains. Another Canadian study reported by Blanchette (1997b) compared the
needs of violent and non-violent female offenders using the Canadian Offender Intake
Assessment (OIA), an assessment instrument that attends to similar need domains as the
LSI-R. Blanchette reported that the violent women showed overall higher levels of need,
with variations in need such as violent women offenders being more likely to associate
with drug users, have financial problems, and have more personal and emotional
problems. In a similar vein, it is possible that female sex offenders have highly specific
criminogenic needs (Correctional Service of Canada, n.d.).
Education/employment
In the UK, a Home Office (2002) survey noted that the educational attainment of women
prisoners is lower than the general population (although women offenders show higher
levels of attainment than males; see also the data presented by Howden-Windell & Clark,
1999). The same Home Office report also noted that only one quarter of women
prisoners were in employment up to 9 months after leaving prison. Similarly, Blanchette
(2002) states that the women offenders in her Canadian study experienced significant
problems with education and employment. Given the strong theoretical and empirical
associations between education, employment, and offending, it would be a challenge to
show that education and employment were not criminogenic needs for both men and
women. While needs assessments typically combine education and employment, the
relative importance of education and employment as criminogenic needs, perhaps
particularly with adult offenders, is not at all certain. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to
conclude that education and employment are likely to be criminogenic needs for both
men and women offenders.
Financial difficulties
Sorbello et al. (2002) review a range of studies to reach the conclusion that after a period
in custody many women ‘[d]epend financially on family or partners, or quit menial jobs
to earn better money within the drug trade to support themselves and their dependent
children : : : many struggle with outstanding debts, unpaid fines and necessary utility
costs’ (p. 201). Similarly, a Home Office (2002) report notes that mothers in prison gave
‘having no money’ as the most common reason for offending. Thus, it seems that for
women, as for men, financial difficulties (including poverty) are a criminogenic need.
Family/marital
This section includes three potentially critical issues in understanding particularly the
criminogenic needs of women offenders: (1) adverse and abusive family experiences as
a child; (2) abusive relationships as an adolescent and adult; and (3) parenthood and
single parenthood.
Childhood adversity and abuse

There is an extensive literature that makes the association between adverse family
relationships in early life and later offending, including violent offending (Hawkins et al.,
1998) for both males and females. An American study reported by Smith and Thornberry
(1995) found a significant relationship between child maltreatment, including physical
and sexual abuse, and delinquency in adolescence. The experience of physical and
sexual abuse during childhood has been highlighted as being of particular importance in
understanding offending in women (Chesney-Lind, 1997; Richie, 2000). In support of
this position, there is evidence from surveys of women offenders of high levels of
experience of physical and sexual abuse (Gorsuch, 1998).
In an American study relating need and offending, Lowenkamp, Holsinger, and
Latessa (2001) compared the total LSI-R scores of male and female offenders and
considered the relationship between LSI-R score, childhood abuse, and recidivism.
Using only the total score from the LSI-R, Lowenkamp et al. found that the total LSI-R
scores were significantly predictive of recidivism for both male and female offenders.
However, Lowenkamp et al. found that the regression models to predict recidivism did
not include a history of abuse for either males or females. While female offenders were
more likely to report abusive experiences in childhood, this experience did not have a
predictive value with regard to future offending. Nonetheless, Lowenkamp et al. make
the important point that it is ‘[w]orthy of investigation that prior childhood abuse may
affect : : : dynamic domains as measured by the LSI-R’ (p. 560). The exact nature of the
relationship between needs as assessed by the LSI-R, as opposed to total needs score as
used by Lowenkamp et al., remains to be investigated. Thus, the question may be how, if
at all, childhood abuse interacts with criminogenic needs to affect current functioning
and lead to criminal behaviour.
Abuse in adolescence and adulthood

The continuation or onset of abuse after childhood has also been linked with offending
for both males and females. An American study reported by Browne, Miller, and Maguin
(1999) investigated levels of lifetime physical and sexual abuse among women serving
prison sentences. There were high levels of reported abuse: with a sample size of 150
women, 59% reported some type of sexual abuse during childhood or adolescence; 70%
reported being the recipients of severe physical violence during childhood or
adolescence; 25% reported experiencing severe physical violence during adulthood by
an intimate partner; 75% reported experiencing violence at the hands of a person with
whom they did not have an intimate relationship; and over one third of the sample had
experienced violent sexual assaults. Across the whole sample, only 6% of the women did
not report a physical or sexual attack at any time in their lives. Browne et al. also
reported evidence in support of cycles of abuse in that women assaulted (both physical
and sexual violence) in childhood and adolescence were more likely to report similar
victimization in adulthood.
Parenthood
Some women offenders are parents, including women with dependent children serving
prison sentences (Caddle & Crisp, 1997; Eljdupovic-Guzina, 1999). The figures
published by the Home Office (2002) indicate that 55% of women prisoners had at least
one child aged less than 16 years, with over one-third of mothers having one or more
children aged less than 5 years. When mothers serve a prison sentence, there are a
number of issues to consider. Unless the woman is in a mother and baby unit within
prison, the mother and child will be separated which will lead to the child having to be
placed either with relatives or in state care. The former arrangement may introduce
problems, as Sorbello et al. (2002) comment, ‘This is problematic for female prisoners
who leave dependent children with dysfunctional relatives’ (p. 201). Further, the
separation of mother and child is not conducive to the development of a strong parent–
child relationship, so that for the woman the period of imprisonment may ‘[p]erpetuate
dysfunctional family patterns with their own children upon release’ (Sorbello et al.,
p. 201). Further, there may be an impact of the separation on the woman’s psychological
health during imprisonment. For the imprisoned mother, the probable sequelae of the
separation from their child are guilt, shame, despair, frustration, and depression ( Jaffe,
Pons, & Wicky, 1997). (The potential of mental health as a criminogenic need is
discussed below.) Further, strong family ties, including parental ties, may be an essential
part of community integration and a protective factor against offending as well as a host
of other family and social problems (Sorbello et al., 2002).
Overall, it is probable that family factors and relationships are strongly associated
with offending. However, the exact nature and aetiology of the relationship is less than
clear.
Accommodation
A Home Office (2002) report notes an accumulation of evidence, which suggests that
the majority of women who receive a custodial sentence were, at that time, living in
rented accommodation. A minority of women were living in either temporary
accommodation or were homeless before a custodial sentence. Over half of the women
anticipated returning to the same accommodation after release from prison, but a
substantial proportion said they would struggle to find accommodation and expected to
be homeless on release. Among young people, some of whom will be young female
offenders, a British study by Wincup, Buckland, and Bayliss (2003) found high levels of
association between homelessness and drug and alcohol use. The young people’s
homelessness, in turn, was frequently brought about by family conflict and abuse.
Overall, given the vulnerability of women who are homeless or in temporary
accommodation it is likely that, as for men, accommodation may be a criminogenic
need.
Leisure/recreation
As Blanchette (2002) notes, the empirical evidence for this need is severely limited. The
Canadian data reported by Motiuk (1997) suggests that ‘community functioning’
(a composite variable that includes leisure and recreation) is not a need that is often
evident in women offenders.
Companions
As with leisure and recreation, the data are limited in respect of the influence of
companions on women offenders (Blanchette, 2002). Given that the behaviour of men
and women will be influenced to some extent by their social environment, it seems
unlikely that the influence of companions on offending will be restricted to males.
Alcohol/drug problems
The association between substance use and crime has been thoroughly documented,
which includes women offenders (e.g. Byrne & Howells, 2002; Gorsuch, 1998;
Henderson, 1998; Home Office, 2002; Maden, Swinton, & Gunn, 1994; Sorbello
et al., 2002) and substance use treatment programmes specifically aimed at women
offenders (e.g. Falkin & Strauss, 2002; Strauss & Falkin, 2001). Further, there is
strong agreement across the literature that substance abuse, particularly drug abuse,
is a robust predictor of offending in samples of women offenders (Blanchette, 2002;
Byrne & Howells, 2002; Clark & Howden-Windell, 2000; Peugh & Belenko, 1999).
Given that drug and alcohol use is a criminogenic factor for males, the issue lies in
the potential for qualitative differences between men and women in the role played
by drugs in the commission of crimes. An American study reported by Langan and
Pelissier (2001) compared male and female prisoners taking part in a drug treatment
programme on a range of personal, social, and criminological variables. They
reported that ‘[w]omen prisoners in treatment had more serious patterns of drug
use, were more likely to have grown up in homes where drug use was present,
were more likely to have experienced physical and sexual abuse as children, and
were more likely to have mental and physical health problems’ (p. 298). These
different life circumstances and patterns of drug use were linked to gender
differences in motivations for drug use, as Langan and Pelissier note, ‘The men in
the sample were more likely to report that they had used drugs for hedonistic
reasons, while the women were more likely to report that they had used drugs for
to alleviate physical or emotional pain’ (p. 299). The interaction between different
life events and their putative role in an explanation of offending by women is an
emerging theme.
Emotional/personal
As Blanchette (2002) notes, this heading encompasses an aggregate of needs that
includes ‘[s]elf-concept, cognitive problems, impulsivity, problem solving, empathy,
behavioral problems (hostility, assertion, neuroticism), mental ability and mental
health’ (p. 34). There is a weight of evidence to suggest that women offenders,
particularly incarcerated women offenders, display a range of needs with respect to
both their mental and physical health. A British study by O’Brien, Mortimer,
Singleton, and Meltzer (1997) reported high levels of a range of mental health
problems – including personality disorder, psychosis, neurotic disorders, and self-
harm – in women prisoners.
Salekin, Rogers, Ustad, and Sewell (1998) suggest that rates of psychopathy are lower
in imprisoned women than men, and that there are gender differences in the
backgrounds of those presenting with psychopathy. From an American sample, Salekin
et al. present data to show that compared with men, women offenders who reach the
criterion for psychopathy on the PCL-R are less likely to become recidivists, where most
recidivists in the sample of female offenders did not reach the criterion point for
psychopathy.
A British study by Smith and Borland (1999) used the General Health Questionnaire
(GHQ) to assess minor psychiatric disturbance in a sample of women prisoners. They
reported that over one half of the sample had a score on the GHQ that indicated short-
term psychiatric disorder. In another British study, Gorsuch (1998) found that
personality disorder followed by depression and psychotic illness were the most
prevalent mental health problems assessed in a sample of women on a prison
psychiatric wing. Gorsuch also reported high levels of deliberate self-harm in the
women prisoners. In a large sample of women on remand in British prisons, Parsons,
Walker, and Grubin (2001) reported high levels of mental disorder (59.4%) across the
whole sample. In descending order, the most frequently found conditions were
personality disorder, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and psychotic disorders. In a

sample of American women prisoners, Kane and DiBartolo (2002) reported a range of
serious health problems, including AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases; and high
levels of mental health problems that fell into the clinical range as assessed with the Brief
Symptom Inventory.
It is evident from the studies cited above that mental (and physical) health is a
concern for many women prisoners. However, whether this specific concern translates
into a criminogenic need may be a difficult argument to sustain; for example, Andrews
and Bonta (1994) suggest that ‘personal distress [is a] minor risk factor for criminality’
(p. 68). A meta-analysis of the prediction of recidivism among mentally disordered
offenders conducted by Bonta, Law, and Hanson (1998) concluded that the major
predictors of recidivism:
[a]ppear comparable for mentally disordered and nondisordered offenders : : : . Clinical or
psychopathological variables were either unrelated to recidivism or negatively related : : : .
In terms of risk assessment, these clinical factors are overshadowed by the more general
factors identified in the criminological research’. (p. 39)
However, reflecting the state of the literature, the majority of studies in Bonta et al.’s
meta-analysis were of male mentally disordered offenders and therefore how well the
findings generalize to female offenders remains unclear.
Attitudes/orientation
As Blanchette (2002) notes, many programmes designed to reduce reoffending routinely
include changing ‘criminal attitudes’ as an important target. However, the research in
this area specifically concerning women offenders is limited, again forcing the
conclusion that whilst this is a probable criminogenic need for women offenders its
exact nature and influence is undetermined. However, the growing awareness of the
association between gender differences in both social cognitive skills and crime
(Bennett, Farrington, & Huesmann, 2005) may provide a platform from which to
understand more fully the criminogenic role of attitudes for women offenders.
Surveys of need
In a Canadian study, Motiuk (1997) surveyed the criminogenic needs of male and female
offenders using the OIA. The OIA ranks need in order from an asset, no difficulty, some
difficulty, considerable difficulty. The assessed needs contrasting the categories of
assets and considerable difficulty are shown in Table 1. Motiuk’s (1997) data show a
generally higher level of need for the male offenders, particularly in the considerable
difficulty category. While there are differences between the males and females, as seen
in employment as the main asset for females compared with family and relationships for
males, it is evident that there is also overlap in need. This overlap is clearly seen with
substance abuse and personal and emotional ranking highest as considerable difficulties
for both men and women.
In a study conducted in British prisons, Clark and Howden-Windell (2000) used
multivariate statistics to identify the needs of groups of reconvicted and non-
reconvicted women prisoners and were able to highlight the variables predictive of
group membership. They reported that the predictors of recidivism for the women
offenders included criminal history, drug-related offending, educational attainment,
drug abuse, disrupted family life, and attitude and behaviour while in prison.
Table 1. Criminogenic needs of male and female offenders (Motiuk, 1997)
Male offenders (N ¼ 11; 541) Female offenders (N ¼ 182)
An asset
Employment 8.8 14.3
Marital/family 9.2 8.8
Associates 7.9 8.8
Substance abuse – –
Community functioning 6.3 13.7
Personal/emotional – –
Attitude 8.7 17.6
Considerable difficulty
Employment 38.3 24.7
Marital/family 31.3 23.1
Associates 34.5 17.0
Substance abuse 56.6 38.5
Community functioning 23.6 10.4
Personal/emotional 63.2 35.7
Attitude 37.6 8.8
Note. All figures are percentages.
Mutual criminogenic needs

Overall, the studies of criminogenic need in offender populations show high levels of
multiple need in offender populations, with some overlap between the needs of male
and female offenders. However, the presence of similar needs does not necessarily mean
that the needs are of equal magnitude. Reviews of need and risk classification systems
for women offenders, typically women prisoners, raise the concern that classification
systems based on male offenders may overestimate need in women offenders (Kemshall,
2004; Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001). This view suggests that some need assessment
instruments may need to be recalibrated for use with women offenders, but it does not
negate the fact that many female offenders face a considerable range of difficulties on
leaving prison (Maguire, Raynor, Vanstone, & Kynch, 2000).
It is also the case that a common need does not mean that the nature of the
association between the need and offending is the same for males and females. The
aetiology and nature of the needs for male and female offenders may be qualitatively
different in terms of development and the nature of their association with offending.
For example, Blanchette’s (1997b) findings comparing the needs of violent and non-
violent women prisoners support the view (Shaw & Dubois, 1995) that violence
perpetrated by women is likely to be qualitatively different to male violence. Similarly,
in an Australian study, Suter, Byrne, Byrne, Howells, and Day (2002) compared male
and female offenders with respect to their expression and experience of anger. Suter
et al. found that alongside gender differences in the overall levels of anger, there were
also gender differences seen, for example, in triggers for anger and levels of anger
control.
Alongside issues of aetiology and level of importance with mutual areas of need,
there is also concern that there are criminogenic needs that are distinctive of women
offenders. Such women-specific needs would not be reflected in measures developed
from a knowledge base developed primarily from research with male offenders.
Women-specific criminogenic needs

Van Voorhis and Presser (2001) conducted a survey of American correctional workers
asking about women offenders. They reported that almost all of the respondents said
that women offenders have unique needs that include dealing with issues of trauma and
abuse, self-esteem and assertiveness, medical care, mental health, parenting and child
care, and relationships. Similarly, Blanchette (2002) suggests that factors commonly
cited as women-specific criminogenic needs generally fall into the ‘personal/emotional’
domain, and include low self-esteem, childhood and adulthood personal victimization,
and self-injury/attempted suicide. A number of commentators maintain that the
assessment of need with women offenders should encompass diverse factors such as
relationships, depression, and abuse (Byrne & Howells, 2002; Phillips & Harm, 1997).
However, the central issue with regard to women-specific criminogenic needs is
highlighted by the apparent mismatch between the observations of professionals in the
field and the strength of the associated empirical evidence. It is clear that women
offenders experience physical and sexual abuse, drug use, parenthood, and mental
health problems. However, empirical studies struggle to show that experiences such as
abuse have any substantial predictive power with regard to offending (e.g. Lowenkamp
et al., 2001) and hence can be considered criminogenic. Fagan (2001) crystallizes the
issue: ‘While most retrospective studies find a majority of offenders reporting childhood
maltreatment, most prospective studies demonstrate that only one-third to one-half of
victims become criminal’ (p. 457).
Lowenkamp et al. (2001) addressed this point, as noted above, with the observation
that prior childhood abuse may affect or interact with other areas of criminogenic need.
Thus, it may be that a history of abuse in itself is not a powerful dynamic risk factor for
later offending, but if the abuse interacts with other psychological and social processes
then the risk of offending increases. Fagan (2001) again neatly summarizes the situation:
‘The findings suggest that intervening variables affect the progression from
maltreatment to offending, but such circumstances have yet to be fully identified’
(p. 457). Thus, the conceptual issue for women offenders lies in the question of how
adverse life events interact with each other and how, in turn, this interaction relates to
offending. There are studies that have looked at the interaction between putative
criminogenic needs with samples of women offenders that can be used to inform the
issue.
Interacting adverse life events

In an American study comparing male and female prisoners, McClellan, Farabee, and
Crouch (1997) pointed to the interplay between the experience of victimization, drug
use, and offending. They reported that significantly more women than men had suffered
childhood abuse, including emotional, physical and sexual abuse, and that for women
the abuse was more likely to persist into adulthood. McClellan et al. also found that the
women were more likely to be clinically depressed, with depression related to abuse for
both men and women. There were also high levels of drug use among the prisoners;
women used hard drugs more frequently than men, while men were more likely than
women to use alcohol and be alcohol dependent. McClellan et al. reported that
depressed woman were more likely to use drugs, and that childhood maltreatment and
drug use was more likely in women than in men. These themes of abuse, mental health,
and drug use are consistent across the literature.
In a qualitative study, Greene, Haney, and Hurtado (2000) interviewed a sample of
mothers serving prison sentences in America. The women reported histories of
disadvantage, including physical and sexual abuse, drug use and family dysfunction.
They also said that these patterns were being repeated in the lives of their children.
Martin and Hesselbrock (2001) reported high levels of psychiatric disorders, with
particularly high levels of depression, in a sample of women prisoners in America. The
psychiatric disorders were frequently accompanied by histories of substance abuse,
physical abuse, and sexual abuse, although Martin and Hesselbrock caution that the
interrelationships between these factors are complex. Martin and Hesselbrock’s findings
are consistent with studies of non-offender populations in which sexual assault during
childhood significantly predicts mental health problems in later life, including episodes
of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Saunders, Villeponteaux, Lipovsky,
Kilpatick, & Veronen, 1992). Gorsuch (1998) reported that women prisoners in British
prisons who committed self-harm were much more likely to have been sexually abused
in childhood.
Cotton-Oldenburg, Jordan, Martin, and Kupper (1999) found that a high proportion
of women prisoners in American prisons, but particularly drug-using women, placed
their physical health in jeopardy through involvement in risky sexual behaviours.
Another American study by Peugh and Belenko (1999) also reported elevated levels of
risk of sexually transmitted disease among substance-using women prisoners. Peugh and
Belenko note that the substance-involved women had histories of abuse, psychological
problems, and family difficulties. From their study of women serving prison sentences in
America, Browne et al. (1999) commented that their data led them to the view that
‘[t]here is an association between involvement in drug abuse and/or illegal activities and
an increased risk of physical and sexual victimization’ (p. 317).
Wilson-Cohn, Strauss, and Falkin (2002) looked at the relationship between partner
abuse and substance use in a large sample of women entering drug treatment
programmes through the criminal justice system in parts of America. They report that
the substance-involved women were ‘[f]requently and consistently abused by their
intimate partners at rates that are well over the national average’ (p. 103). Staton,
Leukefeld, and Webster (2003) conducted a study with women offenders serving
custodial sentences in America. A high proportion of the women reported drug and
alcohol problems prior to entering custody, the women also reported high levels of
problems associated with their mental and physical health.
While studies using descriptive and univariate statistics are informative, the use of
multivariate statistics has the advantage of allowing control of key variables and allowing
more complex interactions to emerge. The use of multivariate analysis represents an
important step in understanding the interplay between life events and their association
with criminal behaviour.
McClellan et al. (1997) carried out several multiple regression analyses, entering
demographic- and drug-use variables (but not abuse), to predict the frequency of
property and violent crime for both men and women prisoners. The analyses showed
that drug-related problems, alongside key demographic factors such as age, consistently
emerged as a predictor of both types of offending.
Spohn (2000) used multivariate analysis to examine the relationships between
gender, maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect) and offending in a sample
of American prisoners. Although childhood maltreatment was evident for male and
female offenders, Spohn arrived at the conclusion that there were significant gender
differences in the relationship between maltreatment and eventual adult offending, via
juvenile delinquency. In terms of overall effect of maltreatment, Spohn found
‘[m]oderate support for the assertion that child maltreatment exerts a stronger influence
on the criminality of female victims’ (p. 223). The multivariate analysis for males
suggested a model in which maltreatment was related to juvenile offending and then to
adult crime. Thus, for males, the association between maltreatment in childhood and
adult crime is mediated by involvement in crime as a juvenile. However, for females, the
variation emerged from the analysis in that, as with males, there was a path from
maltreatment to juvenile crime to adult offending, but there was also a path in which the
juvenile offending factor was absent. Thus, for females, adult offending is not just a
sequel to juvenile offending, it also appears that in terms of adult female crime, ‘The
psychological impact of maltreatment appears to maintain an influence on the victim’s
adult behaviour’ (p. 223). The exact theoretical explanation for these different pathways
for females from maltreatment to adult offending is open to debate, but the evidence
supporting the role of maltreatment is important to note.
Mullings, Marquart, and Diamond (2001) conducted a study primarily concerned
with injection drug use in imprisoned women in American jails. They reported that the
women prisoners who injected drugs were more likely to have been maltreated as
children, to have a greater involvement in criminal activity, and to live chaotic lives as
adults. Mullings et al. used multivariate analysis in order to test models of the pathway
from child maltreatment to injection drug use. They concluded that ‘[t]he path analyses
reveals that childhood maltreatment had direct effects on drug inundation, illegal work
involvement, and chaotic adult lifestyle. Our findings underscore the importance of
linking negative childhood experiences to deviance in adulthood’ (p. 233).
An American study reported by Walrath et al. (2003) considered the role of adverse
life events in female adolescents. They reported that young women with a criminal
conviction were significantly more likely to have experienced a high number of adverse
events. The multivariate analysis revealed that substance use and running away from
home were the strongest discriminating factors between the females with and without
conviction histories. The females were significantly more likely than the males to report
histories of being suicidal, psychiatric hospitalization, and sexual abuse. However,
sexual abuse did not significantly discriminate young women with and without
conviction records.
An American study reported by Anderson, Rosay, and Saum (2002) also looked at the
relationship between drug use and crime in the health problems of women drug users
who were also offenders. The key variables in this study were length and severity of
drug use, physical and mental health, and criminal history; in addition, seven variables
were included as control variables including age, ethnicity, homelessness, and
education. Anderson et al. used logistic regression to model the effects of the key
variables on the women’s health. They found that with respect to the woman’s health,
‘The length of criminal and drug careers often has a small but statistically significant
effect’ (p. 64). However, Anderson et al. then introduced the control variables into their
analysis and found that the previously significant findings disappeared: ‘The major
implications of our work are that basic demographic characteristics such as age, race,
education, and financial resources are better predictors of the health problems
commonly found among drug offenders, especially cocaine-dependent women, rather
than involvement in drugs and crime’ (p. 65). While not specifically concerned with
pathways to offending, Anderson et al.’s findings are methodologically important in
highlighting the need to control for critical variables when looking at the relationship
between other variables of direct interest. As Fagan (2001) notes, while research points
to many associations between factors related to offending by women, the role of
mediating factors needs to be clearly understood.
Conclusions
Informed by this overview of the literature, a number of conclusions can be drawn. It is
apparent that there is at least some overlap in the criminogenic needs of men and
women offenders. The evidence suggests that factors such as finance, accommodation,
education, employment, and substance use may be criminogenic needs for both men
and women. It remains uncertain whether these factors have the same aetiology and
level of importance for men and women. In applied work, the level of importance of an
assessed need with respect to its relationship with offending is important for two
reasons. First, if an assessment highlights a particular criminogenic need, then services
may be called upon to address that need. An over- or under-assessment of a particular
need may result in the delivery of an inappropriate level of intervention. Second, if
criminogenic needs are translated into risk estimates for further offending, then
inappropriate needs assessment may artificially reduce or elevate risk. The issue here
may be one of scale calibration for males and females.
There is an argument that some criminogenic needs are women-specific (or even
male-specific) and, indeed, the evidence shows that some adverse life events are more
characteristic of female than male offenders. If this is the case, then, as Blanchette (2002)
suggests, risk may be ‘gendered’ in that some of the criminogenic needs of women are
different to those of men. However, at a more fundamental level, there is the possibility of
the mistranslation of women-specific needs into criminogenic needs, and hence risk
factors for offending, which would artificially overestimate assessed risk. Alternatively,
inadequate understanding of what constitutes a criminogenic need specific to women
offenders will lead to inaccurate risk assessment with women offenders.
As intimated by the extant research, it is plausible that there are gender-specific
pathways to offending in which adverse life events, such as abuse, become antecedents
to a range of personal problems, which, in turn, lead to substance use, and so to
offending. There is the intriguing possibility that previous life-events (static) have social
and psychological sequelae that are significantly related to (dynamic) current
functioning. Thus, characteristics such as physical and sexual abuse and mental health
problems are not criminogenic in themselves, but for some women, they are a precursor
to established criminogenic risks. In order to develop an empirically valid risk–needs
assessment protocol for women offenders, it is clear that further research is necessary.
A combination of the longitudinal approach as used by Moffitt et al. (2001) and the fine-
grained analysis as reported by Suter et al. (2002), is required to construct gender-
specific models of pathways to offending and recidivism. Clarification of such pathways
for women would illuminate understanding of the critical interactions between adverse
life events and psychological variables, so informing understanding of their status as
criminogenic needs. Indeed, such research might additionally determine whether there
are male-specific criminogenic needs. This level of knowledge would be the foundation
from which the development of precise need and risk gender-specific measure to enable
better informed decision making could be built. Further, as Hedderman (2004) points
out, increased knowledge, understanding and precise measurement of the criminogenic
needs of women offenders will inform the planning of effective services.
Acknowledgements
This review was commissioned by The Women’s Policy Group, HM Prison Service, Home Office.
We are grateful to Caroline Stewart, Danny Clark and their colleagues for constructive comments
on earlier drafts. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not HM Prison
Service.
References
Anderson, T. L., Rosay, A. B., & Saum, C. (2002). The impact of drug use and crime involvement on
health problems among female drug offenders. Prison Journal, 82, 50–68.
Andrews, D. A. (1989). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessments to
reduce recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 1, 11–18.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. L., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). Level of Service/Case Management
Inventory (LS/CMI): An offender assessment system. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bennett, S., Farrington, D. P., & Huesmann, L. R. (2005). Explaining gender differences in crime
and violence: The importance of social cognitive skills. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10,
263–288.
Blanchette, K. (1997a). Risk and need among federally sentenced female offenders:
A comparison of minimum-, medium- and maximum-security inmates. Report R-58.
Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
Blanchette, K. (1997b). Comparing violent and non-violent female offenders on risk and need.
Forum on Correctional Research, 9, 31–35.
Blanchette, K. (2002). Classifying female offenders for effective intervention: Application of the
case-based principles of risk and need. Forum on Correctional Research, 14, 31–35.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing
correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply
(pp. 18–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). A commentary on Ward and Stewart’s model of human needs.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 215–218.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among
mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123–142.
Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual
victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22,
301–322.
Byrne, M. K., & Howells, K. (2002). The psychological needs of women prisoners: Implications for
rehabilitation and management. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 34–43.
Caddle, D., & Crisp, D. (1997). Imprisoned women and mothers. Home Office Research Study, No.
162. London: Home Office.
Carlen, P. (1998). Sledgehammer: Women’s imprisonment at the millennium. London:
Macmillan.
Carlen, P., & Worrall, A. (2004). Analysing women’s imprisonment. Cullompton:
Willan Publishing.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, D., & Howden-Windell, J. (2000). A retrospective study of criminogenic factors in the
female prison population. London: Home Office.
Correctional Service of Canada. (n. d.). Case studies of female sex offenders in the Correctional
Service of Canada. Ottawa: Author.
Cotton-Oldenburg, N., Jordan, B. K., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. (1999). Women inmates’ risky sex
and drug behaviours: Are they related? American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25,
129–149.
Coulson, G. (1993). Using the Level of Service Inventory in placing female offenders in
rehabilitation programs or halfway houses. IARCA Journal, 5, 12–13.
Coulson, G., Ilacqua, G., Nutbrown, V., Giulekas, D., & Codjoe, F. (1996). Predictive utility of the
LSI for incarcerated female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 427–439.
Eljdupovic-Guzina, G. (1999). Parenting roles and experiences of abuse in women offenders:
Review of the offender intake assessments. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
Fagan, A. A. (2001). The gender cycle of violence: Comparing the effects of child abuse and
neglect on criminal offending for males and females. Violence and Victims, 16, 457–474.
Falkin, G. P., & Strauss, S. M. (2002). Social supporters and drug use enablers: A dilemma for
women in recovery. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 141–155.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the unparalleled measure of
offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29,
397–426.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of predictors of adult offender
recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 401–433.
Gorsuch, N. (1998). Unmet need among disturbed female offenders. Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry, 9, 556–570.
Greene, S., Haney, C., & Hurtado, A. (2000). Cycles of pain: Risk factors in the lives of incarcerated
mothers and their children. Prison Journal, 80, 3–23.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., & Harachi, T. W. (1998).
A review of predictors of youth violence. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds), Serious and
violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 106–146).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hedderman, C. (2004). The criminogenic needs of women offenders. In G. McIvor (Ed.), Women
who offend (pp. 227–244). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Henderson, D. J. (1998). Drug abuse and incarcerated women: A research review. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 579–587.
Hollin, C. R. (2002). Risk–needs assessment and allocation to offender programmes. In J. McGuire
(Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce
re-offending (pp. 309–332). Chichester: Wiley.
Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2003). Level of Service Inventory-Revised profiles of violent and non-
violent prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1075–1086.
Hollin, C. R., Palmer, E. J., & Clark, D. (2003). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised profile of
British prisoners: A needs analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 422–440.
Home Office. (2002a). Offender Assessment System OASys: User manual, V.2. London: Author.
Home Office. (2002b). Statistics on women and the criminal justice system. London: Author.
Howden-Windell, J., & Clark, D. (1999). Criminogenic needs of female offenders: A literature
review. London: HM Prison Service.
Ilacqua, G. E., Coulson, G. E., Lombrodo, D., & Nutbrown, V. (1999). Predictive validity of the
Young Offender Level of Service Inventory for criminal recidivism of male and female young
offenders. Psychological Reports, 84, 1214–1218.
Jaffe, P., Pons, F., & Wicky, H. R. (1997). Children imprisoned with their mothers: Psychological
implications. In S. Redendo, V. Garrido, J. Perez & R. Barberet (Eds), Advances in psychology
and law: International contributions (pp. 399–407). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kane, M., & DiBartolo, M. (2002). Complex physical and mental health needs of rural incarcerated
women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 23, 209–229.
Kemshall, H. (2004). Risk, dangerousness and female offenders. In G. McIvor (Ed.), Women who
offend (pp. 209–226). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Kroner, D. G., & Mills, J. F. (2001). The accuracy of five risk appraisal instruments in predicting
institutional misconduct and new convictions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 471–489.
Langan, N. P., & Pelissier, B. M. M. (2001). Gender differences among prisoners in drug treatment.
Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 291–301.
Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender
classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 543–563.
Loza, W., & Simourd, D. J. (1994). Psychometric evaluation of the Level of Supervision Inventory
(LSI) among male Canadian federal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 468–480.
Maden, A., Swinton, M., & Gunn, J. (1994). A criminological and psychiatric survey of women
serving a prison sentence. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 172–190.
Maguire, M., Raynor, P., Vanstone, M., & Kynch, J. (2000). Voluntary after-care and the probation
service: A case of diminishing responsibility. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 39,
234–248.
Martin, M. E., & Hesselbrock, M. N. (2001). Women prisoners’ mental health: Vulnerabilities, risks
and resilience. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 25–44.
McClellan, D. S., Farabee, D., & Crouch, B. M. (1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality:
A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 455–477.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour:
Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Motiuk, L. (1997). Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment
(OIA) process. Forum on Correctional Research, 9, 1–5.
Mullings, J. L., Marquart, J. W., & Diamond, P. M. (2001). Cumulative continuity and injection drug
use among women: A test of the downward spiral framework. Deviant Behavior: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 211–238.
O’Brien, M., Mortimer, L., Singleton, N., & Meltzer, H. (1997). Psychiatric morbidity among
women prisoners in England and Wales. London: Office of National Statistics.
Parsons, S., Walker, L., & Grubin, D. (2001). Prevalence of mental disorder in female remand
prisoners. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 12, 194–202.
Peugh, J., & Belenko, S. (1999). Substance-involved women inmates: Challenges to providing
effective treatment. Prison Journal, 79, 23–44.
Phillips, S. D., & Harm, N. J. (1997). Women prisoners: A contextual framework. Women and
Therapy, 20, 1–9.
Richie, B. E. (2000). Exploring the link between violence against women and women’s
involvement in illegal activity. Research on women and girls in the justice system: Plenary
papers of the 1999 conference on criminal justice research and evaluation – Enhancing
policy and practice through research, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., Ustad, K. L., & Sewell, K. W. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism among
female inmates. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 109–128.
Saunders, B. E., Villeponteaux, L. A., Lipovsky, J. A., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Veronen, L. J. (1992).
Child sexual assault as a risk factor for mental disorders among women: A community survey.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 189–204.
Shaw, M., & Dubois, S. (1995). Understanding violence by women: A review of the literature.
(FSW No-23). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.
Smith, C., & Borland, J. (1999). Minor psychiatric disturbance in women serving a prison sentence:
The use of the General Health Questionnaire in the estimation of the prevalence on non-
psychotic disturbance in women prisoners. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4,
273–284.
Smith, C., & Thornberry, T. P. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and
adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451–481.
Sorbello, L., Eccleston, L., Ward, T., & Jones, R. (2002). Treatment needs of female offenders:
A review. Australian Psychologist, 37, 198–205.
Spohn, R. E. (2000). Gender differences in the effect of child maltreatment on criminal activity
over the life course. In G. L. Fox & M. L. Benson (Eds), Families, crime and criminal justice,
(Vol. 2, pp. 207–231). Amsterdam: JAI.
Staton, M., Leukefeld, C., & Webster, J. M. (2003). Substance use, health, and mental health:
Problems and service utilization among incarcerated women. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 224–339.
Strauss, S. M., & Falkin, G. P. (2001). The first week after drug treatment: The influence of
treatment on drug use among women offenders. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol
Abuse, 27, 241–264.
Suter, J. M., Byrne, M. K., Byrne, S., Howells, K., & Day, A. (2002). Anger in prisoners: Women are
different from men. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1087–1100.
Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of
current practices. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Walrath, C., Ybarra, M., Holden, E. W., Manteuffel, B., Santiago, R., & Leaf, P. (2003).
Female offenders referred for community-based mental health service as compared with other
service-referred youth: Correlates of conviction. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 45–61.
Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender
rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 243–257.
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. (2003a). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model.
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. (2003b). The relationship between human needs and criminogenic needs.
Wilson-Cohn, C., Strauss, S. M., & Falkin, G. P. (2002). The relationship between partner abuse and
substance abuse among women mandated to drug treatment. Journal of Family Violence, 17,
91–105.
Wincup, E., Buckland, G., & Bayliss, R. (2003). Youth homelessness and substance abuse: Report
to the drugs and alcohol research unit. Findings No. 191. London: Home Office.
Received 18 February 2005; revised version received 13 June 2005
View publication stats

Criminogenic Need and Women Offenders: A Critique of The Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminogenic Need and Women Offenders: A Critique of The Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Criminogenic Need and Women Offenders: A Critique of the Literature

Article · December 2010

Clive R Hollin Emma J Palmer

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

I've retired so I'm working on my garden. View project

Psychopathy in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Criminogenic need and women offenders:

Clive R. Hollin* and Emma J. Palmer

180 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

Criminogenic need and women offenders 181

Criminogenic needs of male and female offenders

182 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

(Home Office, 2002b). As a blunt measure of criminogenic need, it appears that an

Criminogenic need and women offenders 183

Childhood adversity and abuse

Abuse in adolescence and adulthood

184 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

Criminogenic need and women offenders 185

186 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

personality disorder, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and psychotic disorders. In a

Criminogenic need and women offenders 187

Table 1. Criminogenic needs of male and female offenders (Motiuk, 1997)

Male offenders (N ¼ 11; 541) Female offenders (N ¼ 182)

Note. All figures are percentages.

Mutual criminogenic needs

188 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

Women-specific criminogenic needs

Interacting adverse life events

Criminogenic need and women offenders 189

190 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

Criminogenic need and women offenders 191

192 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

Criminogenic need and women offenders 193

194 Clive R. Hollin and Emma J. Palmer

Criminogenic need and women offenders 195

Received 18 February 2005; revised version received 13 June 2005

View publication stats

You might also like