Building a Holistic Typology to Inform Service Delivery for Women on Community Supervision

• Author: Shelley L. Brown,Kayla A. Wanamaker
• DOI: 10.1177/15570851211035717
• Date: 01 January 2022
• Published date: 01 January 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Feminist Criminology

2022, Vol. 17(1) 50–74

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15570851211035717

journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

Building a Holistic Typology

to Inform Service Delivery for

Women on Community

Supervision

Kayla A. Wanamaker

1

and Shelley L. Brown

1

Abstract

This study examines how risk and strength factors inform treatment typologi es over

time and how these typologies relate to reoffending outcomes for 1,684 women on

community supervision in Alberta, Canada. Latent transition analysis was conducted

using three assessment timepoints. Three profiles consistently emerged across

timepoints: a Low need/low strength profile, a Low need/high strength profile with

adversity and mental health concerns, and an Aggressive, high need/low strength

profile, which had the highest rate of reoffending. Results underscore the utility of

incorporating gender-neutral and gender-responsive needs and strengths in typological

development. Treatment typologies help inform effective service delivery, program-

ming, and supervision practices.

Keywords

typologies, women, strengths, latent transition analysis, community supervision

Typology research conducted on justice-involved populations has been prominent in

gender-responsive and traditional correctional research, whereby individuals are cat-

egorized based on similar characteristics, often risk factors. The use of typologies can

1

Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Kayla A. Wanamaker, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON

K1S 5B6, Canada.

Email: kaylawanamaker@cmail.carleton.ca

help build our understanding of why people engage in criminal activity, it can help

inform treatment approaches and intervention protocols, it can help guide case

management practices, and it can help determine which individuals are more likely to

reoffend (Jones & Harris, 1999). Studies have used numerous statistical techniques to

develop these typologies including multidimensional scaling, path analysis, latent class

analysis, and cluster analysis. Given the various techniques used to classify individuals,

there has been variability in the number of identified subtypes that have emerged. There

is also variability in terms of how typologies are derived based on theories of criminal

behavior. Mainstream correctional researchers (e.g., gender-neutral researchers) have

typically derived typologies using reoffense rates, risk/need factors, and characteristics

rather than theory and tend to fall into one of two categories—trajectory-based ty-

pologies and risk/need based typologies. In contrast, gender-responsive researchers

have typically relied upon theoretically derived pathways to crime, including factors

that have little quantitative empirical support (due to lack of research) in predicting

offending—such as child abuse and victimization.

Although typologyresearch has been prominent in the criminaljustice field, there are

several areasthat have not yet been explored,or that are missing from typological studies.

First, whilegender-neutral and gender-responsive researchershave examined typologies,

few studies haveincorporated both gender-neutraland gender-responsivevariables in the

typology buildingprocess. Second, virtually notypology or strengths-based studieshave

examined how strengths may aid in the development of typologies. Third, studies fo-

cusing on typologiesof women have typicallyused small samples. Finally,most typology

studies have been cross-sectional in design and do not examine how profiles change,

which can be useful for informing treatment protocols and understanding how dynamic

risk and strength factors that cluster together change over time. The current study

combines tenets of gender-neutral, gender-responsive, and strengths-based theoretical

perspectives to examine typologies of women on community supervision over time.

1

Justice-Involved Female Typology Research

Upon review of the literature, only one dynamic risk typology study operating through

a gender-informed lens has been completed (Dembo et al., 2008) that includes both

traditional, gender-neutral risk factors—that is, risk factors that operate to explain

criminal behavior for both genders (e.g., peer relationships and education), as well as

gender-responsive risk factors—that is, factors that are thought to explain criminal

behavior more so for girls and women than boys and men (i.e., mental health issues and

maltreatment). A latent transition analysis (LTA) was conducted on a sample of 137

youth (52% male) from Florida, USA. Latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted at

baseline and one year later. Then an LTA was conducted to examine if the typologies

were stable over time and whether there were changes in typological membership.

Overall, four risk areas were examined: family relationships, peer relationships, mental

health experiences, and education. Two typologies emerged at both timepoints—one

scoring high on all risk categories and one scoring low on all risk categories.

Wanamaker and Brown 51