Assessing Dynamic Risk and Dynamic Strength Change Patterns and the Relationship to Reoffending Among Women on Community Supervision

AuthorShelley L. Brown,Kayla A. Wanamaker
Date01 January 2022
DOI10.1177/00938548211026706
Published date01 January 2022
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 1, January 2022, 37 –57.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211026706
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
37
ASSESSING DYNAMIC RISK AND DYNAMIC
STRENGTH CHANGE PATTERNS AND THE
RELATIONSHIP TO REOFFENDING AMONG
WOMEN ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
KAYLA A. WANAMAKER
SHELLEY L. BROWN
Carleton University
This study examines how dynamic risk and strength factors change over time and whether these changes are predictive of
reoffending outcomes. The sample includes 2,877 Canadian women under community supervision with Service Planning
Instrument reassessment data. Over a 30-month period, patterns of change in total dynamic risk and strength scores were
examined. Change parameters were entered into a series of logistic regression models, linking change to three reoffending
outcomes: technical violations, any new charges, and new violent charges. Overall, total dynamic risk scores decreased, and
total dynamic strength scores increased over time. Change in total dynamic risk scores predicted any new charges and techni-
cal violations, whereas change in total dynamic strength scores only predicted technical violations. Findings demonstrated
the utility of reassessing dynamic risk and strength scores over time and support the incorporation of strengths-based
approaches with women involved in the criminal justice system.
Keywords: risk assessment; women; dynamic risk; strength; community supervision; reoffending
Risk assessment is critical for informing case management plans for those involved in
the criminal justice system, which includes determining appropriate supervision inten-
sity and programming targets. Although an abundance of research has been conducted
focusing on risk assessment with justice-involved men, including more recent studies focus-
ing on reassessment and patterns of change (e.g., Lloyd et al., 2020), research focusing on
risk assessment with justice-involved women is in its infancy. Moreover, the research that
exists with justice-involved women have focused predominately on whether traditional,
gender-neutral risk assessment tools—that is, tools that use a one-size-fits-all approach to
assess risk, regardless of one’s gender—adequately predict reoffending outcomes for
women (e.g., Scanlan et al., 2020). In contrast, a small subset of risk assessment research
AUTHORS’ NOTE: This article is based on Kayla Wanamaker’s doctoral dissertation (2020) titled, “A Multi-
Wave Longitudinal Examination of How Strengths and Risks Inform Risk Assessment and Treatment Profiles
for Justice-Involved Men and Women Using the Service Planning Instrument (SPIn).” The authors would like
to thank Orbis Partners Inc. and Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for providing access to SPIn and reof-
fense data sets. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kayla A. Wanamaker,
Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6;
e-mail: kaylawanamaker@cmail.carleton.ca.
1026706CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211026706Criminal Justice and BehaviorWanamaker, Brown / Change in Dynamic Risk and Strength Among Women
research-article2021
38 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
has focused on tools developed specifically for women that include risk factors thought to
be women-specific, such as self-esteem and self-efficacy, mental health issues, intimate
partner violence, and childhood abuse (e.g., Women’s Risk Needs Assessment; Van Voorhis
et al., 2010). Regardless, studies examining the utility of assessment with women, both
gender-neutral and women-specific tools, have predominately used single-wave designs.
One exception is Greiner et al. (2015) who used a multiwave design to examine the use of
risk assessment with women overtime and whether change in scores predict reoffending
outcomes. Given the lack of research assessing change among women, the purpose of this
study is to examine how strength and risk factors change over time among women on com-
munity supervision and how change in scores predict reoffending outcomes.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Briefly, risk assessment tools have traditionally focused on examining factors that are
predictive of criminal behavior, typically classified as either static risk factors or dynamic
risk factors. Static risk factors, such as “age at first arrest,” are historical factors that are
unchangeable as a function of intervention (Zamble & Quinsey, 1997). Because these fac-
tors do not change, they cannot act as treatment targets. In comparison, dynamic risk fac-
tors, such as “criminogenic attitudes,” are changeable factors and therefore can be modified
by correctional treatment (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). These factors, used interchangeably
with the term criminogenic needs, measure an offender’s propensity to commit an offense
at a specific time and inform rehabilitation. An abundance of research has found support for
the use of assessment tools that combine static and dynamic risk variables, both practically
and in terms of predictability (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Research has also found that risk
to reoffend does change over time and that reassessment of dynamic factors improves pre-
diction of outcomes (Lloyd et al., 2020). However, understanding how risk changes over
time is limited.
Empirical findings have also demonstrated that strengths can inform rehabilitation efforts
(e.g., Brown et al., 2020). Within the context of criminal justice research, the concept of
strength has been used in different capacities. Some scholars have suggested that a strength
is merely the absence of a risk factor, proposing that a variable cannot be viewed as both a
risk and a strength (Ogloff & Davis, 2004). However, there is evidence to suggest that
strengths can occur simultaneously with risk factors and can account for the variability in
specific outcomes (e.g., Jones et al., 2015). Other researchers further contend that a strength
must add something positive to an individual’s life (Lodewijks et al., 2010). For the purpose
of this study, strengths are defined as positive internal resources (e.g., individual’s priori-
ties, goals, and values) or external resources (e.g., prosocial peers and supportive family)
that an individual has available to them (Laws & Ward, 2011). Despite some positive find-
ings associated with the use of strengths in risk assessment (e.g., Jones et al., 2015), there
remains considerable debate in the literature around the operationalization, measurement,
and utility of strengths (see Wanamaker et al., 2018, for a detailed discussion of incorporat-
ing strengths in risk assessment protocols). Further strengths-based research is required.
RISK ASSESSMENT RESEARCH WITH WOMEN
Risk assessment research focusing on justice-involved women is relatively limited in
comparison with research on justice-involved men. The majority of research with women

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT