Relational Risk Factors for Reoffending in Women: A Systematic Review

REFERENCES

• Adviesbureau Van Montfoort, & Reclassering Nederland (2004). RISc versie 1.0. Recidive Inschattings Schalen Handleiding (Recidivism Risk Assessment Scales Manual Version 1.0). Harderwijk, the Netherlands: Flevodruk.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2004). The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Guzzo, L., Raynor, P., Rowe, R. C., Rettinger, L. J., Brews, A., & Wormith, J. S. (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both female and male reoffending? A test with the eight domains of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 113–133. doi: 10.1177/0306624X10395716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benda, B. B. (2005). Gender differences in life-course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 325–342. doi: 10.1177/0306624X04271194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, G. (2012). Prison population statistics (standard note: SN/SG/4334). London: House of Commons Library, Social and General Statistics Section.
   Google Scholar
• Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
   Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation (Report no. 2007-06). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, E. A., & Sabol, W. J. (2012). Prisoners in 2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2008). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD, University of York.
   Google Scholar
• Cobbina, J. E., Huebner, B. M., & Berg, M. T. (2012). Men, women, and postrelease offending: An examination of the nature of the link between relational ties and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 331–361. doi: 10.1177/0011128710382348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission on Women Offenders (2012). Final report 2012. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Review/commissiononwomenoffenders/finalreport-2012.
   Google Scholar
• Corston, J. (2007). The Corston report. London: Home Office. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/corston-report-march-2007.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Crombie, I. K. (1996). The pocket guide to critical appraisal. London: BMJ Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• de Vogel, V., & de Vries Robbé, M. (2013). Working with women: Towards a more gender-sensitive violence risk assessment. In C. Logan & L. Johnstone (Eds.), Managing clinical risk: a guide to effective practice (pp. 224–241). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438–452. doi: 10.1177/0011128799045004002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Mansilla, A., Rosenfeld, B., & Nicholls, T. L. (2009). Risk assessment: Are current methods applicable to women? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 8, 50–61. doi: 10.1080/14999010903014747
   Google Scholar
• Hannah-Moffat, K. (2009). Gridlock or mutability: Reconsidering “gender” and risk assessment. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 209–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00549.x
   Google Scholar
• Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2006). Criminogenic need and women offenders: A critique of the literature. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 179–195. doi: 10.1348/135532505X57991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, W. W. (1990). The MPSI technical manual. Tempe, AZ: Walmer.
   Google Scholar
• Huebner, B. M., DeJong, C., & Cobbina, J. (2010). Women coming home: Long-term patterns of recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 27, 225–254. doi: 10.1080/07418820902870486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, D. S., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2003). The gendered effects of adult social bonds on the criminal activities of probationers. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 278–298. doi: 10.1177/073401680302800205
   Google Scholar
• Logan, C., Nathan, R. & Brown, A. (2011). Formulation in clinical risk assessment and management. In R. Whittington & C. Logan (Eds.), Self-harm and violence: Best practice in managing risk (pp. 187–204). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Mallett, S., & Clarke, M. (2003). How many Cochrane reviews are needed to cover existing evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions? Evidence-Based Medicine, July-August, 8, 100–101. doi: 10.1136/ebm.8.4.100
   Google Scholar
• McIvor, G. (2007). The nature of female offending. In R. Sheehan, G. McIvor, & C. Trotter (Eds.), What works with women offenders (pp. 1–22). Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
   Google Scholar
• Morash, M. (2009). A great debate over using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) with women offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 173–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00552.x
   Google Scholar
• Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Eisner, M. P. (2009). Drawing conclusions about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: The Cambridge quality checklists. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s11292-008-9066-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384–405. doi: 10.1080/07418820600869152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rettinger, L. J., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 29–46. doi: 10.1177/0093854809349438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 541–566. doi: 10.1177/0093854809334076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2008). SIGN 50: A guideline developer's handbook. Edinburgh: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Sheehan, R., McIvor, G., & Trotter, C. (Eds.) (2007). What works with women offenders. Cullompton, Devon: Willan.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, P., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Can 14, 737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8, 183–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00551.x
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. J. (2012). Family support and the successful reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• van der Knaap, L. M., Alberda, D. L., Oosterveld, P., & Born, M. Ph. (2012). The predictive validity of criminogenic needs for male and female offenders: Comparing the relative impact of needs in predicting recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 413–422. doi: 10.1037/h0093932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women's risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261–288. doi: 10.1177/0093854809357442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar