Forensic psychology: Part 3: Chapter 5: Gender and cultural issues

Psychological Assessment of Women Offenders

by Heather McLean, Ph. D. (C.Psych.)^{Footnote 1}

The most significant feature of women offenders also creates the greatest obstacle to informed psychological practice - that is, their comparatively small numbers. Only 7% of provincially sentenced and 2% of federally sentenced offenders are women (Adelberg & Currie, 1987; Hatch & Faith, 1989; Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, 1990). This has dictated smaller resources for research and program development, and has resulted in a very small base of academic and applied expertise. An informal review of some major journals (e.g. the Canadian Journal of Criminology) found 2% of published articles included female offenders, with most of these being on delinquent male and female youth, and with many neglecting any separate consideration or analysis by gender (Kendall & McLean, 1992).

The second most limiting factor with profound implications for correctional psychologists working with female offenders lies in the ethical guidelines and standards of practice for psychology. That is, the application or generalization of the research literature, assessment instruments, procedures and therapeutic programs developed for male offenders to female offenders is untenable from a scientific perspective and is considered sexist and unethical (Adelberg & Currie, 1987; Berzins & Cooper, 1982; Currie, 1986; Kendall, 1993; Ross & Fabiano, 1985; Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, 1990). There is a significant literature in law, criminology, sociology and corrections substantiating this principle, documenting that the most significant gender differences occur with respect to violence and criminal behaviour. This literature also critiques much of the traditional general theory/literature as sexist and not reflective of the reality of women offenders and their offences. Arising from these comments (predominantly spurred by feminist researchers/writers) has been a boom of literature on women offenders during the past decade. A review of this literature is beyond the scope of this discussion, but some relevant references are included.

Despite this recent increase in awareness and research on female offenders, there is a striking absence of development in psychology. As a result, there has been little development of appropriate psychological assessment methods and instruments. Progress in this area has been limited to a general call for more appropriate tools and methodology (Currie, 1986; Scarth & McLean, 1994) and the occasional example of an assessment instrument replicated in research with incarcerated women (e.g. Lightfoot & Lambert, 1991; Loucks, 1995). Rarer still is an instrument that has been normed for use with incarcerated women (e.g. Carlson, 1982; Spielberger, 1988). More importantly, the few that can be found rarely have information concerning validity, particularly in predicting risk of reoffending.

There is a need for broad sampling of content in the psychological assessment of women offenders, particularly for the reception or intake assessment. This involves a fuller assessment of needs that may or may not be directly criminogenic, but that will be important to women's adjustment and stability while incarcerated, and after release to the community. These include the assessment of psychological difficulties and disorders, suicide and self-injury propensity, social, parenting and familial problems, racial and cultural needs, addictions, eating disorders, etc. The current clinical practice at the Psychology Department at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario, is to assess comprehensively at intake, in that most identified "need areas" are likely closely related to the base criminogenic factors. Blanchette and Motiuk (1995), for instance, found that a history of attempted suicide was the strongest predictor of violent recidivism in a sample of female offenders, and Bonta et al. (1995) found higher rates of self injury in women recidivists (78%) than nonrecidivists (25%). In addition, the high rates of psychological disorder (Brownstone & Swaminath, 1989; Daniel, Robins, Reid & Wilfley, 1988; Hurley & Dunne, 1991; Strick, 1989), incidence of self injury (Heney, 1990), depression and suicide attempts (Loucks & Zamble, 1994) in this population ethically and legally warrant proper assessment during incarceration — even if future research indicates they are not directly criminogenic. Examples of suggested psychometric tools for assessing women offenders are provided in Appendix A, some of which are more clearly intended for needs or intake assessments.

The second type of assessment done with federally sentenced women is a psychological risk assessment, designed to provide information to the National Parole Board concerning a woman's risk to re-offend in a violent manner and program or community release recommendations which, if instituted, should lower the risk level. All offenders convicted of crimes involving violence require such an assessment. Nonviolent offenders may also be referred for such an assessment by their case management officers. In completing such an assessment for the female offender, the psychologist is at a crucial disadvantage for, as stated, there is even less empirically confirmed knowledge than for male offenders which might be drawn upon to make informed judgements regarding level of risk.

The sorriest exclusion of all concerning women offenders (from a psychological assessment perspective) has been the lack of their inclusion and analysis in basic recidivism research. Some recent efforts have been underway, with Grant Coulson and Verna Nutbrown of the Vanier Correctional Centre for Women attempting to develop a provincial database for women offenders, and Jim Bonta and associates (Bonta, 1994) worldng on a database for federally sentenced women. Bonta, Lipinsld & Martin (1994) report an overall recidivism rate of 36% during a three year follow-up on 81 federally sentenced women, compared to 49% for male inmates in the same study and follow-up period.

Belcourt, Nouwens and Lefebvre (1993) examined release outcome in 968 women serving their first federal sentence. The women were released between 1978 and 1988, and the follow-up period continued until mid-1993. The study found that 22% were returned to federal custody, with about half of these for technical violation of parole conditions. Ten percent had parole revoked with the commission of a new offence, or had committed a new offence after their original sentence had ended. Factors associated with a return to federal custody included younger age, Native heritage, a mandatory supervision release, and offence status. Women with drug-related offences and murder convictions were under-represented, while women with robbery, property-related and manslaughter offences were over-represented in the recidivist group.

There has been exploratory research on release risk prediction using the Nuffield Scoring system for female inmates (Hann & Harman, 1989), but a small sample size precluded any definitive conclusions. In a sample of 81 federally sentenced women, Blanchette and Motiuk (1995) found that women classified as "high risk" on the Case Management Strategies (CMS) instrument were more likely to reoffend, and reoffend in a violent manner.

The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI; Andrews, Diessling & Kominar, 1992) has demonstrated predictive validity for recidivism, parole and halfway house failure in provincially sentenced women (Coulson, 1993; and Coulson, Nutbrown, Guilekas, Cudjoe, & Ilacqua, 1995). In a sample of 526 women who had been discharged at least one year, the lowest scorers on the LSI had a recidivism rate of 7%, compared to 77% for the high est scorers (Coulson, et al., 1995).

There is limited literature as to the use of the Psychopathy Checklist — Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991) with female offenders (Loucks, 1995; Neary, 1990; Strachan, Williamson & Hare, 1990). Rates of psych opathy in women offenders appear to be lower, at about half that of male offenders, or 11%-12% of the female federally sentenced population. There is tentative evidence that the predictive validity of the PCL-R differs by gender, with the personality factor in women emerging as more important than other factors in predicting general criminal behaviour, when compared to male offenders (Loucks, 1995).

In completing psychological assessments, then, psychologists can use some of these instruments with caution, but must still rely heavily on assessing factors that are "likely" related to the woman's individual offence cycle or offence profile, relying on available sources of research to inform the assessment content. A thorough needs assessment is a central component of this process, since many of the needs identified in such an assessment will be criminogenic. Additionally, if these are identified early in the woman's incarceration, the psychologist will be able to make appropriate interventions or program recommendations to address such needs. If this is done, the psychologist will then be able to assess the woman's response to such interventions and, therefore, will be able to more accurately comment on whether risk may have changed as a result of program or therapeutic involvement, and the probability that risk will change as a result of involvement in similar programs in the community.

Some evidence suggests that programming can successfully reduce women offenders' likelihood to reoffend (Coulson, 1993), while Blanchette and Motiuk (1995) and Bonta, Pang and Wallace-Capretta (1995) found no relationship between group programs and recidivism. Blanchette and Motiuk (1995) acknowledge that their results were limited by a small sample size (N=40) and missing information on program participation. Atkinson (1995a) critiques Bonta et al.'s (1995) conclusion that addressing mental health needs, particularly healing from childhood abuse may not reduce recidivism, noting their study did not consider participation in individual therapy, the most requested and common intervention in federally sentenced women (Kendall, 1993).

Thus psychologists have only restricted ability to make predictive statements about reoffence in women and what will lower risk. Psychological reports need to be cautious in their language and clear in their limitations. This is also advisable when using the instruments with some demonstrated validity (e.g. the LSI and the PCL-R), in assessment of women from varying racial and cultural backgrounds.

As stated, one area of contention in the expansion of knowledge concerning female offenders has been whether to carefully "borrow" from what is known and used with male offenders, despite the ethical and scientific generalizability issue noted above, and do validation research with female offenders. Some examples of this include Coulson's (1993) and Coulson et al.'s (1995) validation work on the [SI, and Loucks' (1995) inclusion of some instruments such as the PCL-R (Hare, 1991) in research on the (retrospective) prediction of criminal and violent behaviour in women.

This area of development is an exciting and promising one, provided the following cautions are noted for psychologists providing assessments while the research field is developing:

1. That instruments with male only, or male inmate only, norms should not be used for individual female offender assessment until some basic psychometric norms and validation research is completed.
2. That psychometric and validation research is completed in a scientifically acceptable manner. Even if sample sizes are small, conclusions based on limited research are an improvement over conclusions based on a generalization from male-only research. An error that occurs all too commonly in programming is to indude female offenders in male programs, and have the program deliverers attempt to "tailor" their program and instruments to female offenders, based on their impressions and feedback from participants. Although this practice may be the lesser of two evils when resources are sparse and programs are much needed by female offenders, it is still ethically and scientifically questionable, and should not be considered acceptable practice for psychological treatment or assessments. Rather, psychological instruments or treatment outcome measures developed for male populations can (and arguably should) be used, examined and reported on in aggregate form as part of an effort to validate them, so long as their use in individual psychological reports is not done until their use can be demonstrated as having some validity.
3. The use of instruments that have some demonstrated validity on female offenders needs to be used and interpreted in the full context of the offender's environment, with awareness that the larger universe of criminogenic factors for women's offending has not yet been fully delineated. That is, there is a substantial history of research that has narrowed the focus to the most relevant factors in male offending and recidivism, but such is not the case for female offenders. For example, if a criminogenic attitudes or lifestyle scale shows similar validity in male and female offenders, it may be a useful part of an assessment battery, but other femalespecific factors discussed in the nonpsychological literature on female offenders, such as stressors from single parenting in poverty (Baunach, 1985; Wine, 1992), should also be considered as having a potential role in female offending, release recommendations and recidivism. Since such factors have not been developed as an area of research and assessment in male offenders, research concerning the larger universe of potential factors (including more femalespecific factors) is needed and psychological assessments need to bear this "larger universe" potential in mind.
4. The assessment and interpretation of a similar risk factor known to be relevant to male and female offending, such as antisocial peers or attitudes in delinquent boys and girls (see Simourd & Andrews, 1994) or substance abuse, (Lightfoot & Lambert, 1991) needs to incorporate knowledge of the gender differences surrounding or within that risk factor. There is some evidence that rates of alcohol and drug abuse problems, and their use on the day of the offence(s), is similar in male and female offenders (Lightfoot & Lambert, 1991), while other evidence shows different incidence rates by gender (Loucks & Zamble, 1994). What we know of women and addictions in general is that women are much more likely to develop substance abuse problems if they are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, to be more likely to keep their addictions secret, to drink or use drugs while alone and less in social contexts, to use in order to mitigate the effects of domestic battery or to numb the effects of engaging in some survival strategies such as prostitution (Reed, 1985, 1987). Hence, it is not surprising that the nature of substance abuse problems and associated treatment needs in incarcerated women are, again, found to be different from those of incarcerated men and most similar to the those of women in general (Blount, Danner & Vegas, 1991; Darke & McLean, 1991; Lightfoot & Lambert, 1991).

As previously stated, there has been a growth of general, sociological, criminological, corrections and legal research literature on women offenders in the past decade. A recent literature review had 394 references pertinent to programs and therapy for female offenders (Kendall, 1993). It is important to make use of such information on women's offences, and their needs as incarcerated women, to inform the practice of psychological assessment, particularly when psychological research in this area is in its infancy.

One development in research with women in prison, that of the use of qualitative methodology, has been influenced by its development in feminist academia and psychology of women research in the broader realm of all the social sciences. Although this may be a frustrating source for correctional psychologists who would prefer to use actuarial and empirical research to guide their practice, an understanding of its value and an appreciation of how it can build our knowledge base can be developed. Good explanations and reviews of this methodology are available, some in topic areas specific to women in prison (e.g., Currie, 1986; Kendall, 1993; Pollock, 1993). An implication for the profession of psychology in working with women in prison is that much valuable information can be lost if one rejects a growing literature because it is not in the tradition of empiricism in psychology. A second implication is that qualitative methodology may itself be useful and highly appropriate in some of our own research and practice, including some aspects of psychological assessment methodology. An example of using this methodology in psychological assessment for incarcerated women is available in the form of the "Skills and Needs Inventory" (Scarth & McLean, 1994).

As despairing as the paucity of psychological assessment and risk prediction research on women offenders is, there is a fair base of research and assessment development in the areas of psychology of women, violence against women, and effects of victimization, sexual abuse and mental health, etc. that is now ending its second decade, and has become increasingly sophisticated and informative for use in correctional practice. Recalling that the basic tenet for use with female offenders is that any literature (or psychological assessment tools) on women in general is more valid for use with women in prison, than is literature on male offenders (Adelburg & Currie, 1987; Berzins & Cooper, 1982; Currie, 1986; Kendall, 1993; Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, 1990). What, then, should psychologists investigate and use from the "women in general" literature? Are there specific factors that the literature (qualitative and quantitative) has thus far deemed as relevant to female offending? The answer is yes, which will be illustrated by a few examples.

i) Domestic violence
One fairly well-known example is the literature on the psychological damage of being battered and its relation to battered women who kill their partners (Browne, 1987; Dutton, 1992; Walker, 1989), including the "learned helplessness" and cognitive problem solving impairment model by Walker (1989) as well as others. Aside from the actual situational potential and real world barriers, one of the psychological difficulties that is a result of being battered, is being unable to perceive (regardless of ability to actualize) alternative courses of escape from the battery, other than striking back violently at her partner, or accepting the inevitability of being killed herself. Though one can speculate on her actual risk of death by battery, severe battery and threats can convince a victim that her own death is inevitable (Browne, 1987; Walker, 1989). Since many of the women serving life sentences committed their offence in the context of domestic violence, their psychological assessments should be informed by this literature. Dutton (1992) provides instruments for use with battered women, including assessment of cognitive features, such as acceptance of violence as inevitable. Ideally, a psychological report on such an offender would first be able to provide actuarial recidivism information on women serving sentences for domestic manslaughter or murder and, secondly, assess and comment on the current status of relevant features, such as cognitive problem-solving of alternative escape behaviours, acceptance of domestic violence, etc. as potential risk/recidivism issues.

Dutton (1992) is a recommended sourcebook on psychological assessment for battered women. Its model for assessment content, method and issues is highly relevant for many incarcerated women, and includes strategies for assessment, discussion of impact of assessment procedures, normative and questionnaire data, and an outline for psychological evaluation reports.

ii) Childhood abuse sequelae
Another area of relevant research is on the adult psychological sequelae to severe child sexual abuse, which can lead to a variety of forms of adult dysfunction, potentially including women's offending, although the mechanism is not well understood. Although there is evidence that substantiated childhood abuse and neglect prospectively predicts higher adult criminality in both women and men (Widom, 1989), it is dear that simply being a childhood victim of sexual abuse does not simply cause criminal or violent offending, or one would see a much higher rate of women than men in conflict with the law, and the exact opposite is true. Thus, there are likely mediating factors, particularly gender. However, we do know that federally sentenced women are distinguished from women in general and male offenders by extremely high rates of childhood sexual abuse, and the abuse is more commonly incestuous, violent, extended over time, with multiple adult perpetrators. The rates of revictimization and domestic battery as an adult are much higher than rates found in any community sample of women (Heney, 1990; Lightfoot & Lambert, 1991; Loucks, 1995; Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, 1990). Native women, over-represented in prison populations and with higher recidivism rates (Belcourt, Nouwens & Lefebvre, 1993), evidence even higher rates of childhood abuse history than their white counterparts (Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, 1991).

Given there is a possible risk that some women offenders may feign or distort histories of abuse, it is important to consider the potential for malingering and deception (see Rodgers, 1988) and seek collaborative information if confirmation of abuse is central to assessing her offence. Most survivors of childhood abuse derive no positive consequences for acknowledging abuse, face negative self and other evaluations, and have their reports supported where collaboratory evidence is available (Kluft, 1990). How a woman relates her history to her criminal behaviour can reveal the presence or absence of rationalizations and responsibility-taking for offending. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse more commonly exhibit a propensity to blame oneself for childhood victimization, and as adults are more likely to exhibit a tendency for extensive self-blame. However, this in itself is not confirmatory of abuse history, for as Fine (1990) describes, incestuous sexual abuse causes the development of cognitive distortions that are evident in later adult cognition, with both excessive responsibility- taking and irresponsibility common in the same individual, as well errors in attribution of causality of events.

For many federally sentenced women, it is the ((untreated" psychological and behavioural sequelae to this violence, as well as adult domestic violence, that is thought to contribute to their offending, their substance abuse, their adjustment while incarcerated and relatedly, to their risk factors and needs upon release (Darke & McLean, 1990; Heney, 1990; Kendall, 1993; Lightfoot & Lambert, 1991; Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, 1991; Travin, Cullen & Potter, 1990). As previously stated, childhood abuse and neglect is predictively linked to adult offending (e.g. Widom, 1989). Recent findings by Loucks (1995) on federally sentenced women indicate strong correlational evidence of the relationship between pre-adolescent sexual abuse and physical abuse, and women's general and violent offending. However, in regressional analysis, much of the predictive ability was lost when the PCL-R (Hare, 1991) emerged as the stronger predictor. Clearly more research is necessary, and it may be some time before the relationships between severity of prior victimization, substance abuse, high risk behaviours such as prostitution, revictimization in adulthood, and related variables in women offenders are well understood.

The general literature on childhood sexual abuse in women indicates common adult sequelae that can be quite striking when conducting psychological assessments on incarcerated women. An example of one such sequelae is passive acceptance of sexual exploitation in relationships. This, if unmitigated, can contribute to continued risk of adult revictimization, and acceptance of prostitution or familial sexual abuse. Female sex offenders are most notable in the vastly disparate numbers from male sex offenders, with between 2% and 5% of sex offenders being women (Atkinson, 1995a; Wakefield & Underwager, 1991). Further, there is evidence that their backgrounds, offence features such as level of violence used, and victimization histories are marked with significant gender differences as well (Atkinson, 1995a; Travin, Cullen & Protter, 1990; Wakefield & Underwager, 1991). Many female sex offenders have extensive incest histories, have committed their offences in an auxiliary, submissive role with a male sex offender, and display this passive acceptance of sexual victimization within their family or in respect to children in their care. An assessment protocol for female sexual offenders has been recently developed, based on such available literature (Atkinson, 1995a).

Countless clinical examples can be cited on how sexual abuse/victimization history play a part in female offences. Women with a history of severe sexual abuse may suffer chronic, elevated fears of sexual assault in adulthood, which can result in violent reactions to attempted sexual seduction or assault, distorted perceptions of danger, and the habit of carrying a knife or weapon to protect herself and reduce anxiety Related substance abuse problems may combine with a particular situation in which she is at some potential risk of sexual assault, and the result may be a tragic death, and a manslaughter conviction for the woman. Again, a psychological assessment on such an offence profile should use any available actuarial evidence in predicting re-offence risk, as well as assessment of the current status of addiction problems, sexual assault fears, propensity to carrying weapons as a coping strategy to mitigate fears and manage anxiety, etc.

There is a small percentage of federally sentenced female offenders who do not have this characteristic abuse history background. One such group with lower apparent abuse history rates, appears to be women with international drug importation offences. Belcourt, Nouwens and Lefebvre's (1990) finding that women with drug-related offences at the federal level have lower rates of readmission to prison may reflect lower actual reoffence potential, consistent with lower rates of abuse history/psychological needs, or it may be in part artifactual given many such women are released back to countries of origin and reoffence information is not available. As a group, women serving drug-related offences at the provincial level may differ in offence type and recidivism rates, for as Coulson (1993) found, heroin addicts had a high reoffence rate despite low LSI scores.

A second group of women offenders with lower rates of childhood sexual and physical abuse history than other federally sentenced women are fraud offenders (Atkinson & McLean, 1994). When compared to other female offenders, these women appear to be better psychologically adjusted, more educated, with less substance abuse, employed, with average to above average intelligence (Atkinson & McLean, 1994; Zietz, 1981). Despite scoring low on the LSI, Coulson (1993) found this subgroup to have surprisingly high reoffence rates. Some distinctive background features, including high ratings of parental control and low ratings of warmth/love on the Parental Bonding Instrument have been found in this group (Atkinson & McLean, 1994). Further research on this group, including gender comparisons of fraud supportive rationalizations in male and female fraud offenders is underway (Atkinson, 1995b).

Although further examples and a discussion of the literature that can inform us in assessment of women's offences is beyond the scope of this discussion, there is a rich base of relevant knowledge to be found for psychological assessment and intervention in these now more sophisticated areas of research on women in general, and the effects of domestic battery and childhood abuse. In summary, psychological assessment on women in prison should draw from tools and methods devised for women, with norms and validity data on women, and in areas delineated by available literature as relevant to women's offences. Finally, researchers must increase the attention paid to issues surrounding the valid assessment of women offenders.

Bias in psychological assessments of women offenders

For psychologists who are new to the practice of working with incarcerated women, there may be some initial confusion regarding the dual presentation of these women as both victims and offenders, which is more prevalent and pronounced than in male offender populations. Where do the lines and limits of responsibility for offending lie? Many of their cases are typified by extensive histories of horrific abuse. Some women clearly played a submissive, auxiliary role to an abusive male offender in robbery or sexual abuse offences, or were being battered by a male partner who was the victim in her offence. In areas that are commonly sensationalized by popular media as "excuses" for female crime, it is crucial to carefully delineate the role of psychology in this field; that is, to provide assessment and explanation of, and assistance with the remediation of factors that led to a women's offending. It is not the role of a psychologist to provide opinion on how understandable her actions were in light of her victimization, for that includes a moral evaluation. A good psychological report will focus on the explanation of how these and other relevant factors contributed to the offence, the current status of these factors, and what factors need to be further addressed in reducing the risk of reoffending. For the previous example of a manslaughter offence, the factors that the woman would be responsible for might include obtaining treatment for elevated fears of sexual assault, elimination of related behaviours such as carrying a knife or other object for self defence, and reduction of situational risks under her control, such as going to bars or involvement with an abusive partner. She cannot be held responsible for a past rape or the potential of sexual assault by males in her community, since these are not under her control as the victim or potential victim. So, "revictimization potential" is often a sensitive but necessary part of examining recidivism potential in many women offenders.

To conduct valid assessments of women offenders, two directions of bias need to be avoided: 1) the still pervasive societal bias of blaming the victim on one hand ("she must have been sexually seductive as a teenager", "she was a prostitute, therefore she's responsible for being raped" or "why didn't she just leave the batterer?"); as well as 2) the more sympathetic tendency to infantalize the woman, and continue to see her as a passive victim with no current ability or responsibility for rectifying her vulnerabilities and potential risk factors (see Shaw, 1991). The first tendency need not be overt in a psychological report, but can be inadvertently endorsed if the larger interpersonal, relationship and contextual features of a woman's offence are not examined or reported on, and the assessment is simply focused on her intrapersonal psychopathology and testing scores.

Even with the use of appropriate psychometric tools and a working knowledge of the features of women's offences, there have been a number of critiques of the role of psychology in assessing female offenders that bear attending to. Shaw (1991) criticizes the whole idea of focusing on women's helpless victimization as antithetical to feminist goals of empowering women in prison, as well as inappropriate for reasons already noted.

Secondly, many researchers and authors warn psychologists and other workers involved with incarcerated women to be aware of the bias to "pathologize" or evaluate women in prison as deviant, abnormal or mentally ill because their behaviour has violated gender-role norms (Burnes, 1982; Carlen, 1983; Edwards, 1986; Walker, 1986). Attention to these possible sources of bias must be coupled with the recognition that women in prison do show much higher levels of mental health problems than women in general, or incarcerated men, including higher levels of depression, suicidal and self-injurious behaviour (Brownstone & Swaminath, 1989; Daniel et a1,1988; Heney, 1990; Hurley & Dunne, 1991; Loucks & Zamble, 1994; Strick, 1989).

Notwithstanding the broader social forces that require acknowledgment and change, a responsible role for psychology includes the recognition that social factors do have personal impact, which still need to be assessed and treated on an individual basis.

A last arena of potential bias is whether psychologists who have been involved in the treatment of an offender should participate in assessment, where impartiality is important. Given the small numbers of female offenders and the length of sentence time they spend in one (sometimes only) institution, the probability of this occurring is much higher than with male offenders. Hence practice guideline #15 (see Practice Guidelines on p. 6 of this document) that the "psychologist evaluate their ability to provide neutral assessments of risk and, where necessary, request review of the treatment report by an independent psychologist or request an independent psychological assessment of risk" needs frequent consideration with this population.

A cautionary note on assessment and parenting

Because two-thirds of women in prison are mothers and most of them are single parents, they are much more likely to have custody and access problems with their children, and more likely to have their children placed in care, particularly at the time of arrest or sentencing, than are male offenders (Baunach, 1985; Wine, 1992). Often this is the most central problem to their adjustment while in prison, and a readjustment problem that will face them and their children after release. Thus, a potential problem that emerges occasionally with psychological reports is their inadvertent use for child custody/access court purposes. Certainly, correctional psychologists are operating outside of their realm of professional expertise if they make comments on parenting suitability or the risk a mother poses towards her children. Statements regarding parenting capacity should not be made and any requests by a woman, lawyer or outside agency to do so should be declined. If the woman's offence involves harm to a child/her children, the National Parole Board will rightly want comments on her assessed risk of reoffence, including risk of reoffence to a child in her care. In such a case, the report should address risk as specifically as possible, but include statements that clarify the report's purpose and disclaim their use in any family court or custody and access proceedings as a proper assessment of parenting suitability. Such a disclaimer is a prudent inclusion for assessments on women who have, or are likely to have, involvement with the Children's Aid Society or are expecting custody or access difficulties.

The assessment process: Some dynamic problems

There are some dynamic problems that can arise in conducting psychological assessment with women offenders. When the psychologist is presenting (his)herself in the "expert" role with a fair degree of control over the women, issues of trust and authority become paramount. Th.at is, assessment conditions can tend to replicate the dynamics of past childhood and domestic abuse relationships that are the likely primary source of her problems, through coercive participation, and lack of consent or control over her personal history and future. This is likely to occur more so under the conditions of conducting assessments for the National Parole Board. This can certainly elicit noncompliance and dramatically negative reactions. Such a process, therefore, may not provide valid results, as well as cause untoward problems in the woman's adjustment and behaviour during the assessment process.

Some methodological strategies can be used to alleviate or avoid these pitfalls, such as the inclusion of strengths rather than just focusing on her deficits and risk issues. The conceptualization of how dysfunctional behaviours arose as coping strategies in response to abuse is a valid one within this population (e.g., Heney, 1991). The direct use of the woman's words or written responses to questions within the report has numerous advantages, as outlined by Scarth and McI.£an (1994). Malcing sure that the assessment addresses links between social, racial, cultural, economic, familial and relationship factors and the woman's life experience is also recommended. Practices such as giving her greater control over the release of personalized information, (such as details of sexual abuse) as long as it is not related to her level of risk, are also suggested. Although the woman may disagree with the psychologist's opinion, she can be given the opportunity to make sure her view of her past and current reality is presented, and make changes that do not alter the meaning or integrity of a clinical report. The most common issue is about disclosure of having being sexually abused, particularly by a specific family member, and the effects this has had on her. Details can be edited in such a way as to provide a comfortable level of disclosure for the woman without compromising the integrity of the clinician's evaluation, and still include the level of detail needed to support the clinician's conclusions. Stating these process features at the onset of assessment results in greater cooperation, disclosure and validity of findings.

This issue of disclosure of past abuse warrants caution for another reason. Disclosing or discussing traumatic material may elicit psychological responses of fear, intrusive memories, nightmares etc. in many women. Process suggestions for managing this are provided by Dutton (1992). For many women convicted of a violent offence, discussing the offence can be similarly overwhelming and traumatic, particularly at the beginning of their sentence. Even the simple, undetailed disclosure that she was sexually abused by her father or raped by a male partner may be problematic if he used extensive threats and violence to maintain her silence, and this is the first time she has discussed it. Some women have a resurgence of fears of impending death, and/or suicidal or self-injurious feelings after disclosure.

It should be noted that many female offenders do not have such adverse reactions to discussing their history or offence(s). The degree of current distress of emotionality displayed, although clinically relevant to adjustment in prison, is not necessarily relevant to assessment of how well she is acknowledging and addressing her criminogenic factors that she is appropriately responsible for. Psychologists doing assessments (or research) should be well versed in the issues of abuse disclosure, be respectful of a woman's decision to postpone the assessment if she does not feel stable or have good supports at the time, and be able to provide or refer the woman to follow-up crisis services. This concern is another reason why enhancing the woman's control over what she can have, especially specific details of abuse history information, is imperative.

In summary, doing psychological assessments on women in prison includes following all the professional standards and guidelines for assessment in general, but must also include awareness of some of the very profound differences between this population and male offenders. Some of the most obvious areas that impact both the content and process of assessment have been described in this discussion. Guidelines for "borrowing" from the male-inmate dominated literature have also been provided and, although psychological research specific to female offenders is limited, clinicians do have a wealth of related literature to draw from that informs an ethical and professional approach in assessment, treatment and further research on women offenders. Clinicians who do psychological assessments need to be aware of the value of collating any psychometric results, even with small samples, in a field with so little published data. Policy makers and researchers need to be continually cognizant that there are women offenders that deserve their proportion of attention, even more so if we consider the lost ground with this population of "correctional afterthoughts" (Ross & Fabiano, 1985). If only 2% of federal research dollars and 7% of provincial research dollars were allotted to women offenders, (which reflect the actual proportions of women offenders), we could expect remarkable advancement in our knowledge and our ability to provide informed psychological assessments in the future.

Chapter 5 Appendix

Adelberg, E. & Currie, C., Eds. (1987). Too Few to Count: Canadian Women in Conflict with the Law. Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers.

Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory - Revised. Toronto, Ont.: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Andrews, D., Kiessling, J. & Kominar, S. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI-VI): Interview and Scoring. Toronto: Ministry of Correctional Services (Ontario).

Atkinson, J. (1995a). Assessment of Female Sex Offenders. Report prepared for Correctional Service of Canada, available from Prison for Women, Box 515, Kingston, Ont, K7L 3N6.

Atkinson, J. (1995b). Neutralizations Among Male and Female Fraud Offenders. Doctoral dissertation in progress, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.

Atkinson, J. (Si. McLean, H. (1994). "Women and fraud: Results of a program at the Prison for Women," Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 39-41.

Baunach, P. (1985). Mothers in Prison. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.

Beck, A. T. & Steer, R .A. (1987). Manual for the Revised Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Beck, A.T., Weismann, A., Lester, D. & Trexler, L (1974). "The measurement of pessimism: The hopelessness Scale," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861-865.

Belcourt, R., Nouwens, T., & Lefebvre, L (1990). "Examining the unexamined: Recidivism among female offenders," Forum on Corrections Research, 5(3), 10-14.

Bernstein, E.M. & Putnam, F.W. (1986). "Development, reliability, and validation of a dissociation scale," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 727-735.

Berzins, L & Currie, C. (1982). "The political economy of correctional planning for women: The case of the bankrupt bureaucracy," Canadian Journal of Criminology, 24(4), 399-416.

Blanchette, K. & Motiuk, L. (1995). Female Offender Risk Assessment: The Case Management Strategies Approach. Paper presented to the Canadian Psychological Association Annual Conference, Charlottetown, P.E.I.

Blount, W.A., Danner, T.A., & Vega, M. (1991). "The influence of substance use among adult female offenders," Journal of Drug Issues, 21(2), 449-467.

Bonta, J. (1994). Database for Federally Sentenced Women. Personal Communication. Ottawa: Policy Branch, Public Security of Canada.

Bouta, J., Lipinski, S. & Martin, M. (1993). "Recidivists tend to be...," Forum on Corrections Research, 5(3), 14-16.

Bouta, J., Pang, D. & Wallace-Capretta, S. (1995). "Predictors of recidivism among incarcerated female offenders," The Prison Journal, in press.

Briere, J. & Runtz, M. (1989). "The Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33): Early data on a new scale," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(2), 151-163.

Browne, A. (1987). When Battered Women Kill. New York: The Free Press.

Brownstone, D. & Swaminath, R. (1989). "Violent behaviour and psychiatric diagnosis in female offenders," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 190-194.

Butcher, J. Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J.R., Tell egen, A. & Kraemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the Restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory(MMPI-2): An Administrative and Interpretive Guide. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Carlson, K. (1982). Carlson Psychological Survey. London, Ont.: Research Psychologists Press.

Coulson, G. (1993). "Using the Level of Supervision Inventory in placing female offenders in rehabilitation programs or halfway houses," International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives, 5(4), 12-13.

Coulson, G., Nutbrown, V., Giulekas, D., Cudjoe, F. & Ilacqua, G. (1995). Predictive Utility of the LSI for Incarcerated Female Offenders. Available from Vanier Centre for Women, Box 1150, Brampton, Ont., L6V 2M5.

Currie, C. (1986). Developing Tools for the Study of the Female Offender: A Review of the Literature. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Daniel, A., Robins, A., Reid, J. & Wilfley, D. (1988). "Lifetime and six-month prevalence of psychiatric disorders among sentenced female offenders," Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16, 333-342.

Darke, J. & McLean, H. (1990). Invisible Women: The Treatment and Research Needs of Female Offenders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa.

Dutton, M. (1992). Empowering and Healing the Battered Woman: A Model for Assessment & Intervention. New York: Springer Publishing.

Elliot, D. & Briere, J. (1992). "Sexual abuse trauma among professional women: Validating the Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-4SC)," Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 391-398.

Fine, C. (1990). "Cognitive sequelae of incest," in R Kluft (Ed.) Incest Related Syndromes of Adult Psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Gardner, D.M. (1991). Eating Disorder-2 Professional Inventory Manual. Toronto, Ont.: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Hann, R. G. & Harman, W. G. (1989). Testing the Nuffield Scoring System for Native and Female Inmates. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada, Ministry of the Secretariat.

Hare, R. (1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist - Revised. Toronto, Ont.: Multi-Health Systems.

Hatch, K. & Faith, K. (1989). "The female offender in Canada: A statistical profile," Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 3(2), 432- 456.

Heney, J. ( 1990). Report on Self-injurious Behaviour in the Kingston Prison for Women. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Hurley, W. & Dunne, M. "Psychological distress and morbidity in women prisoners," Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 25, 461-470.

Jackson, D. (1984). Manual for the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Port Huron, Michigan: Research Psychologists Press, Inc.

Kendall, K. (1993). Program Evaluation of the Therapeutic Services at Prison for Women. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Kendall, K. & McLean, H. (1992). New Horizons: Research on Female Offenders. Presentation at the 4th Annual Research Forum, Research and Statistics Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, Kingston.

Kluft, R(1990). Incest Related Syndromes of Adult Psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Lightfoot, L. & Lambert, L. (1991). Substance Abuse Treatment Needs of Federally Sentenced Women - Technical Report 2. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Loucks, A. (1995). Criminal and Violent Behaviour in Adult Female Offenders. Doctoral Dissertation, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.

Loucks, A. & Zamble, E. (1994). "Some comparisons of female and male serious offenders," Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 22-25. Mauger, P. & Adkinson, D. (1987). Manual for the Interpersonal Behaviour Survey. Los Angeles, Calif.: Western Psychological Services.

Moos, R. & Moos, B. (1986). Family Environment Scale Manual - Second Edition. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Neary, A. (1990). DSM-III and Psychopathy Checklist Assessment of Antisocial Personality Disorder in Black and White Female Felons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri.

Parker, G., Tipling, H. & Brown, L.B. (1979). "A parental bonding instrument," British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.

Pollack, S. (1994). Opening the Window on a Very Dark Day: A Program Evaluation of the Peer Support Team at the Kingston Prison for Women. Master's of Social Work Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa.

Raven, J., Court, J. & Raven, J. (1983). Manual for Standard Progressive Matrices. Los Angeles, Calif.: Western Psychological Services.

Reed, B. (1985). "Drug misuse and dependency in women: The meaning and implications of being considered a special population or minority group," The International Journal of the Addictions, 20(1), 13- 62.

Reed, B. (1987). "Developing women-sensitive drug dependence treatment services: Why so difficult?" Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 19(2), 151-164.

Rodgers, R(1988). The Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception. New York: Guilford.

Ross, C., Heber, S., Norton, G.R., & Anderson, G. (1989). "Differences between multiple personality disorder and other diagnostic groups on structured interview," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 179(8), 487491.

Ross, R. & Fabiano, L. (1985). Correctional Afterthoughts: Programs for Female Offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Scarth, K. & McLean, H. (1994). "Psychological assessment of women in prison," Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 32-35.

Shaw, M. (1991). Issues of Power and Control: Women in Prison and their Defenders. Paper presented at the Workshop on Gender, Crime and Social Control, British Criminology Conference, York, England.

Simourd, L & Andrews, D. (1994). "Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences," Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 26- 31.

Skinner, H.A. (1982). "The Drug Abuse Screening Test," Addictive Behaviors, 7, 363-371.

Skinner, H.A. & Homs, L. (1984). The Alcohol Dependency Scale User's Guide. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation.

Spielberger, C. (1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Strachan, K, Williamson, S. & Hare, R.D. (1990). Psychopathy and Female Offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

Steinberg, M. (1993). Interviewer's Guide to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders, Washington, D.C. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

Strauss, M.A. & Geller, R.J. (1986). "Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys," Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 465479.

Strick, S. (1989). "A demographic study of 100 admissions to a female forensic center: Incidences of multiple charges and multiple diagnoses," Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 17, 435-448.

Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women. (1990). Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Travin, S., Cullen, K. & Protter, B. (1990). "Female sex offenders: Severe victims and victimizers," Journal of Forensic Science, 35(1), 140- 150.

Wakefield, H. 61. Underwager, R. (1991). "Female dfild sexual abusers: A critical review of the literature," American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 9(4), 43-69.

Walker, L (1989). Terrifying Love: Why Battered Women Kill and How Society Responds. New York: Harper and Row.

Washington, P. & Diamond, RJ. (1985). "Prevalence of mental illness among women incarcerated in five Califo rnia county jails," Research in Community and Mental Health, 5, 33-41.

Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale — Revised. San Antonio, Texas: The Psychological Corporation.

Widom, C. S. (1989). "Child abuse, neglect and violent criminal behaviour," Criminology, 27(2), 251-271.

Wine, S. (1992). A Motherhood Issue: The Impact of the Criminal Justice System Involvement on Women and their Children. Solicitor General of Canada: User Report No. 1992-03.

Zietz, D. (1981). Women who Embezzle or Defraud: A Study of Convicted Felons. New York: Praeger Publishers.