Gridlock or mutability: Reconsidering “gender” and risk assessment†

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Examining the Validity of a Juvenile Offending Risk Assessment Instrument Across Gender and Race/Ethnicity (2013, background): “Still, while generic risk factors are predictive for both men and women, some argue it is the contextual experience of those risk factors that is essential to understanding female criminality (Hannah-Moffat, 2009; see also Morash & Chesney-Lind, 1991; Resnick, Ireland, & Borowsky, 2004).”
Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled” Proposition (2013, background): “Risk instruments such as the LSI-R are not universally applicable and even when their “reliability” and “validity” is demonstrated, they may not be the most appropriate tools for identifying and responding to the therapeutic needs of female offenders (Hannah-Moffat, 2009).”
Sacrosanct or Flawed: Risk, Accountability and Gender- Responsive Penal Politics (2010, background): “A number of well documented operational and systemic problems remain in Canadian women’s prisons (Parkes and Pate 2006; OCI 2008, Hannah-Moffat 2009; Dell et al. 2009)”
General Risk and Need, Gender Specificity, and the Recidivism of Female Offenders (2010, background): “…the application of the GPCSL theory and its related assessment instruments to girls and women is that the approach is based on the assumption that the main processes and risk factors underlying criminal behavior are the same for both genders (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Hannah-Moffat, 2009).”