This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Holtfreter, K. Articles by Cupp, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Gender and Risk Assessment

The Empirical Status of the LSI-R for Women

Florida State University, Tallahassee, kholtfre{at}fsu.edu

Rhonda Cupp

Florida State University, Tallahassee

The developers of the Level of Service Inventory—Revised (LSI-R) argue that actuarial risk instruments, and the theoretical framework on which they are based, are "gender neutral" and apply to all offenders in a variety of correctional settings. Although there is empirical support for this perspective, recent research using more representative female offender samples suggests that the LSI-R "works" differently for various offender groups (e.g., women who follow "gendered" pathways to crime). The bulk of research used to support claims of gender neutrality is based on males. This research evaluates these claims by reviewing the empirical research on the LSI-R for female offenders published over a 20-year period (1986 — 2006). Based on the evidence, the authors identify directions for future research on gender and risk assessment and also discuss implications for correctional classification and treatment.

Key Words: gender • LSI-R • risk assessment • women offenders

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. M. Veysey and Z. Hamilton Girls Will Be Girls: Gender Differences in Predictors of Success for Diverted Youth With Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, November 1, 2007; 23(4): 341 - 362. [Abstract] [PDF]