Recidivism and predictors of recidivism among female high level persistent offenders after a special court order for persistent offenders in the Netherlands

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 68 (2020) 101538

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlawpsy

Recidivism and predictors of recidivism among female high level persistent offenders after a special court order for persistent offenders in the Netherlands

T

⁎

Eric Blaauwa, , Bertine Doddemab, Vivienne de Vogelc, Stefan Bogaertsd a

Verslavingszorg Noord Nederland and Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Verslavingszorg Noord Nederland, P.O. Box 1024, 9701 BA Groningen, the Netherlands Bertine Doddema, Transfore, the Netherlands c Research Department, De Forensische Zorgspecialisten and University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Padualaan, 101 3584 CS Utrecht, the Netherlands d Tilburg University, Department of Developmental Psychology and Fivoor Science & Treatment Innovation, Department of Developmental Psychology, Simon Building Room S319, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Females Persistent offenders Recidivism Predictors

Previous research has shown that female persistent offenders have multiple psychiatric and psychosocial problems, such as substance use disorders, other mental disorders, financial problems and housing problems. The present study examined recidivism and predictors of recidivism in a sample of 74 Dutch female high level persistent offenders who had been subjected to a special court order for persistent offenders, called ISD [Inrichting Stelselmatige Daders]. The criminal records were studied to gain insight in the criminal charges against women after release from the ISD. Results showed that 43% of the persistent female offenders had registered justice contacts within one year after release, of which the majority concerned non-violent property offences. However, the number of offences was found to be significantly reduced after their release. No offencerelated, demographic, substance-related, psychiatric or personal history characteristics were found to be predictive for general recidivism.

1. Introduction High-level life-course persistent offenders form a small group of the total criminal population who are highly resistant to behavioral interventions and who are at high risk of reoffending (e.g., see Haapanen, Britton, & Croisdale, 2007). Studies have shown that a small number of persistent offenders commit a large proportion of all crime; approximately 10% of all offenders are responsible for about 50% of all crimes (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986; Hopkins & Wickson, 2013). Thus, a small group of persistent offenders is therefore responsible for serious human suffering and high social and economic costs (Kunst, Bogaerts, & Winkel, 2011; Kunst, Winkel, & Bogaerts, 2011; Soothill, Ackerley, & Francis, 2003). Hence, it is important to gain more insight into persistent offenders to be able to develop risk management strategies to prevent reoffending and thus high costs to society. Although knowledge about this group has increased, it should be noted that almost all the research has been conducted in male populations. Knowledge about female persistent offenders is sorely lacking.

⁎

This is not surprising, because most (95%) persistent offenders are men (Tollenaar, Beerthuizen, & Van der Laan, 2016).Although female persistent offenders form only a small group within this already small population, it is important to gain more understanding about this specific group of women in order to offer the best possible treatment and to prevent recidivism. This is not only important for society and these women themselves, but also crucial for their offspring. Research has shown an intergenerational transfer of the risk of antisocial and violent behavior between mothers and children. Children of mothers with a history of offences are more likely to display disruptive, aggressive behavior in the future (Kim, Capaldi, Pears, Kerr, & Owen, 2009). In the present study, we aim to add to the existing literature by focusing on recidivism of high-level persistent female offenders and on risk factors for such recidivism. First, we will define and describe the group of persistent offenders and discuss the current knowledge about risk factors for (re-)offending in female populations.

Corresponding author at: Verslavingszorg Noord Nederland, P.O. Box 1024, 9701 BA Groningen, the Netherlands. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Blaauw), [email protected] (V. de Vogel), [email protected] (S. Bogaerts).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101538 Received 4 June 2019; Received in revised form 15 December 2019; Accepted 19 December 2019 0160-2527/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 68 (2020) 101538

E. Blaauw, et al.

2. High-level persistent offenders

developmental pathways to offending, nature of offending, predictive accuracy of risk factors and treatment needs (for an overview see de Vogel & Nicholls, 2016). To illustrate this, previous research has shown gender differences in violence, and has shown that women use relational or social aggression more often, while men use physical aggression more often (Van Bommel, Uzieblo, Bogaerts, & Garofalo, 2018). Overall, female violence is compared to male violence, more indirectly, more reactively and within social relationships and less instrumental or sexual (Nicholls, Greaves, Greig, & Moretti, 2015). In general, we see that women commit more non-violent drug offences and property crimes compared to male perpetrators (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003). Many researchers state that high rates of offending often go hand in hand with a multifaceted criminal repertoire, underlined by a lack of self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), neurological disorders and negative environmental influences (Moffitt, 1993), poor impulse control, strain, and negative events in life (Amemiya et al., 2017; Farrington, 2003). For a long time, the majority of the research into predictors of recidivism has focused exclusively on male (persistent) antisocial individuals (e.g., Bogaerts, Spreen, Ter Horst, & Gerlsma, 2018; Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998). Over the past decade, major progress has been made in the field of research investigating female offenders (see for example a double special issue on gender of the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health in 2016), but still, the knowledge about predictors and recidivism of female offenders is scarce, especially for persistent female offenders. There is an ongoing debate about whether the worldwide accepted central eight factors for recidivism (i.e., history of antisocial behavior, antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognitions, antisocial associates, substance abuse, family/marital relationships, school/work, prosocial recreational activities; see Andrews et al., 2012) apply both to male and female criminals, and whether the development of gender specific risk assessment tools should be considered (see for discussions Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2014; Salisbury, Boppre, & Kelly, 2016). Some scholars have taken the position that there is no reason to believe that male-based factors and instruments would not apply to women (e.g., Rettinger & Andrews, 2010), while others argue for the recognition of unique risk factors and pathways to offending for females, for example, relating to traumatic experiences and mental health issues (Brennan, Breitenbach, Dieterich, Salisbury, & van Voorhis, 2012; Caulfield, 2010; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). In general, it appears that most risk factors are valid for both sexes, but some risk factors seem to have a stronger or different impact on women compared to men. A distinction can be made between factors to which women are more often exposed (e.g., sexual victimization) and factors for which women are more sensitive (e.g., disruptions in social relationships; see for a discussion de Vogel & Nicholls, 2016; GarciaMansilla, Rosenfeld, & Nicholls, 2009). One of the strongest risk factors for recidivism is antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy (Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008), but there are important gender differences with regard to these disorders. A meta-analysis by Bonta et al. (1998) showed that an antisocial personality disorder occurs significantly more often in male offenders than in female offenders. Moreover, female offenders generally score lower on psychopathy than male offenders, as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 2003), and there are indications that psychopathy is manifested differently in women than men, especially in a more subtle way (de Vogel & Lancel, 2016; Nicholls & Petrila, 2005). There are also indications for different pathways of developing psychopathy. Recently, Thomson et al. (2019) found in a large community sample that interaction between lifetime physical abuse and psychopathy differentiated the risk of aggression forms for men and women. Although affective psychopathic traits were significant in both men and women in this study, they had very different effects. In men, there was a strong link between physical abuse and physical aggression, but only in those with lower levels of affective psychopathic traits. In women, high-levels of physical

Recently, it became clear that within the group of persistent offenders, a distinction must be made between high- and moderate persistent offenders (Amemiya, Vanderhei, & Monahan, 2017; Monahan, Steinberg, Cauffman, & Mulvey, 2009, 2013). With regard to criminal careers, moderate-level persistent offenders have shown moderate antisocial behavior from ages 14 to 25 years on average committed around three different types of criminal acts (e.g., drug offences, property offences, violent offences). The high-level persistent group has displayed high-levels of antisocial behavior consistently from ages 14 to 25 years and has committed an average of six to seven different types of criminal acts during this period. In the study of Amemiya et al. (2017), only male offenders were included, gender differences were not studied because of insufficient numbers of females to effectively control for gender or to perform separate analyses. In the Netherlands, an adult high-level persistent offender is: 1) an offender with more than 10 official police reports in the past five years, of which one in the previous year, and 2) the offender has been sentenced to imprisonment at least three times in the five years prior to the current offence because of a crime, and these sentences have been implemented. Since 2004, persistent offenders can be subjected to a special court order in the Netherlands, in which they can be placed in prisons that are called Institutions for Systematic Offenders (in Dutch Inrichting Stelselmatige Daders: ISD). Persistent offenders can be placed in such a prison for a maximum period of two years when they have committed a crime that allows protective custody (i.e., offences with a prison sentence of four years and more, and in specific cases of stalking, assault, threats, severe destruction of property) and when they have been convicted three times or more for offences in the past five years (article 38 m Criminal Code, 2016). The first purpose of the court order is to incarcerate persistent offenders to prevent reoffending by incarcerating them. The second purpose is to reduce the risk of recidivism by offering treatment and counseling programs. Under the court order, all offenders can receive individually tailored care based on their criminal record, life-pattern and personal history. This care is individually tailored, to some extent provided to all women, and may consist of psychotherapy, Goldstein training, cognitive behavioral therapy, placement in protective housing, assistance with finances and finding suitable housing. This care can be extended until after the end of the court order and can also include inpatient treatment in a psychiatric institution (Goderie & Lünnemann, 2008). Research in the Netherlands on recidivism of mainly male persistent offenders has shown that recidivism rates are high for persistent male offenders with and without an ISD court order. Tollenaar and Laan (2012) found that approximately 72% of a group of ISD court order offenders and about 88% of persistent offenders with a regular prison sentence reoffended within two years after their release, which percentages were considerably higher than in the general prison population. Although other factors may have influenced the results, the authors noted that the ISD court order appears to have a greater reduction in recidivism than a normal prison sentence. Another study among persistent offenders who were subjected to either a normal prison sentence or to an ISD court order yielded reasonably comparable recidivism rates (Tollenaar, Laan, & Beijersbergen, 2014). However, both studies did not specifically address the recidivism rate of female persistent offenders due to the small number of women in these samples. 3. Risk factors for reoffending in women Although women represent only a minority of criminal justice populations, studies worldwide have shown that the number of women convicted of committing crimes has steadily increased (Heilbrun et al., 2008; Walmsley, 2015). Studies on female offender populations have increased over the last two decades and demonstrated that there are important differences between men and women in terms of 2

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 68 (2020) 101538

E. Blaauw, et al.

release of the ISD court order in the Netherlands from 2004 to 2013. In accordance with previous findings among male prisoners (Tollenaar et al., 2014), we hypothesize that the recidivism rate for persistent female offenders would be high compared to the recidivism rate in the general prison population. Following the findings of Boonmann, Wartna, Bregman, Schapers, and Beijersbergen (2015), who found younger age at the time of the first offence and non-Dutch origin to be associated with recidivism in a sample of 96 predominantly male offenders after release of the ISD, we expect that the age of the women is positively associated with recidivism at the time of their first offence and that recidivism is higher among non-Dutch ISD women than among Dutch ISD women. We also expect the use of multiple substances (Scott et al., 2014), a history of physical abuse (Benda, 2005; Bonta et al., 1995), sexual abuse (Benda, 2005; Loucks & Zamble, 2000), and the presence of a psychiatric disorder (Benda, 2005; Brennan, Mednick, & Hodgins, 2000) are significant risk factors for recidivism.

aggression were associated with high affective psychopathic traits, but only in those with a lifetime history of physical abuse. More evidence for gender-specific risk factors of recidivism comes from a study of recidivism in a large Dutch sample of male and female offenders (N = 16.293), which showed that housing problems, low education, working problems and antisocial peers were stronger related to general recidivism in men, while difficulties in emotional well-being were stronger associated with general and violent recidivism in women (Van der Knaap, Alberda, Oosterveld, & Born, 2012). In addition, Benda (2005) found in a group of 300 women and 300 men who graduated in boot camps that urban residence, childhood abuse, cohabitation with a criminal partner, selling drugs, stress, depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts were stronger predictors of female recidivism than for men. Furthermore, studies on female recidivism have shown that some additional risk factors are indicative of the risk of recidivism, such as young age, loss of child custody, high frequency of substance abuse and the use of multiple substances (Scott, Grella, Dennis, & Funk, 2014), a history of physical abuse as an adult (Benda, 2005; Bonta, Pang, & Wallace-Capretta, 1995) or pre-adolescent sexual abuse as an indicator of previous violent offences (Loucks & Zamble, 2000). These findings demonstrate the relevance of making a distinction between men and women with regard to risk factors for recidivism in scientific research. Various additional risk assessment instruments have been developed for female offenders, aiming to find further evidence for gender-specific risk factors (see de Vogel & Nicholls, 2016). A recent multicenter study in the Netherlands (de Vogel, Bruggeman, & Lancel, 2019) showed that various risk assessment tools, including a gender-specific tool, had moderate predictive validity for general recidivism, but low predictive validity for violence in a small sample of discharged female forensic psychiatric patients. The gender-specific tool performed adequately, but did not provide any additional predictive value for gender-neutral tools. More research is needed into the value of possible gender-specific risk factors. Equally important is the distinction between the entire group of female offenders and the subgroup of female persistent offenders, because persistent female offenders may have different risk factors for recidivism than the general group of female offenders. We underline two important differences. Firstly, persistent offenders are more characterized by a history of crime than other female offenders. As already mentioned, a persistent offender is an offender who has more than 10 police reports in the past five years and one police report in the previous year. Secondly, studies have shown that this special category of female offenders compared to other prison samples are characterized by an extremely high prevalence of problematic substance use disorders and other mental disorders, personality disorders and borderline intellectual functioning, problematic psychosocial functioning and histories of mental health care prior to their arrest (Blaauw et al., 2016). Many have also experienced traumatic events in the past, such as the death of a child, sexual abuse and physical abuse (Goderie & Lünnemann, 2008). Although these studies do not pay attention to recidivism in female persistent offenders, the differences can influence the recidivism rate of female persistent offenders and should therefore be tackled as much as possible.

5. Method 5.1. Data sources Information about demographic characteristics, psychiatric disorders and past negative experiences was collected from the personal prison files of all 102 women who had been subject to the special court order of ISD in the period 2004–2013. In a previous study (see for more details, Blaauw et al., 2016), we collected 61 personal prison files consisting of the criminal history records, at least one report of the probation service (with information on the use of alcohol and drugs, prior treatment, education and work, contacts with intimates and other people, prior offences and criminal proceedings and indications for mental disorders and interaction problems), eventual psychiatric reports or the report of a psychological examination by the first author of the current manuscript, including DSM-IV-tr (APA, 2000) diagnoses of 61 women and extensive descriptions of the histories of all 61 women. In addition to extensive information about these 61 women, information about the demographic characteristics and some psychiatric information was available for another 13 women. Recidivism data has been obtained with the approval of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. The Research and Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security provided and processed the registered criminal justice contacts for criminal offences until 2 July 2015 of all 102 women who had received to the special judicial order of ISD in the period 2004–2013. In the Netherlands, criminal justice contacts may include appearances before criminal justice courts and judgment of the Crown Council. Police contacts are not considered criminal justice contacts. 5.2. Participants Of all 102 women who had been subject to the special court order of ISD during the period 2004–2013, 21 women were not included in the study because there was insufficient information available in the personal files about their psychosocial functioning and psychiatric problems. A further seven cases were excluded because they had not been released prior to 2013 or died within two years of their release from ISD, making it impossible to study recidivism data for at least two years. The final sample consisted of 74 women who had been sentenced to ISD and released before 2013. These 74 women were between 24 and 64 years old at the time of conviction to the ISD court order and were on average 40.8 years old (SD = 6.9 years), which seems quite similar to the general female prisoner population (M = 40.7 years; Central Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Unlike the general female prisoner population in the Netherlands, where a minority is born in the Netherlands (49%) and a relatively large number (20%) are born in one of the former Dutch colonies (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2016), the majority of the women in the

4. The present study In the present observational study, we aim to contribute to the scarce literature on predictors and recidivism of female offenders, and in particular female persistent offenders. We focus on recidivism of high-level female persistent offenders and on risk factors for such recidivism. With regard to recidivism, we investigate not only the recidivism rate after one year, but also whether there are reductions in the number of criminal charges and the seriousness of the offences before and after the ISD court order. In addition, we examine associations between different demographic, offence-related and psychiatric characteristics and recidivism of persistent female offenders after 3

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 68 (2020) 101538

E. Blaauw, et al.

under the influence and destruction of property, 2. Serious recidivism: a new criminal justice contact in response to an offence with a maximum sentence of at least four years, such as vandalism, theft or assault, and 3. Very serious recidivism: a new criminal justice contact in response to a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of at least eight years, such as arson with danger to people, rape, manslaughter, aggravated assault and fabrication of drugs. For the survival curve, we have plotted the five-year survival for all three types of recidivism for all women for whom the ISD court order was ended at least two years ago. In addition to the recidivism rate as an indicator of criminal persistence, we also looked at the number of criminal charges that resulted in a conviction in the year following the ISD court order. We looked at the seriousness of recidivism by classifying the seriousness of the most serious offence on the basis of the Standard Classification Crimes of 2010 (Tollenaar & Laan, 2013). In this classification, offences are classified into different categories and classified according to their seriousness: other offences, property offences without violent components, property offences with violent components, violent offences.

study (76%) were born in the Netherlands and fewer women (11%) were born in one of the former Dutch colonies. In addition, 8% was born in one of the neighboring countries Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom. The women were mostly convicted of non-violent property crimes, such as theft, burglary or shoplifting (79.8%) or violent theft (13.5%), all of which were considered serious crimes. In the general Dutch population of female prisoners, about 51% of all female prisoners are detained for these offences (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2016). The women had between 12 and 181 judicial contacts in the past, with an average of 56.0 judicial contacts (SD = 40.2 contacts). The age at which the first offence was committed was on average 23.8 years (SD = 7.8 years), with a starting age between 10 and 46 years. Apart from one woman who did not have a substance use disorder (1.5%), all women were diagnosed with a substance use disorder of which cocaine dependence (44%) was the most common, followed by opiate dependence (31.5%), alcohol dependence (19%) and cannabis dependence (4%). Of the women with a substance use disorder, 16% had been diagnosed with one substance use disorder and 84% had been diagnosed as poly-substance users, since they had two (40%) or three (44%) comorbid substance use disorders. In addition, 17 women (38%) were diagnosed with an DSM-IV-tr (APA, 2000) antisocial personality disorder, 24 women (32%) with a borderline personality disorder and 31 women (42%) with an Axis 1 psychiatric disorder (APA, 2000) in addition to their substance use disorder. Furthermore, 69% had stated that they had been physically abused in the past and 32% had stated that they had been sexually abused in the past.

5.4. Statistical analyses For the survival curve, we used the percentage of women without a new criminal justice contact with a criminal court and/or the Crown Council due to one or more offences in the five years following the release of the ISD. For the further analyses, we chose to remove the percentages of serious recidivism, because these were found to be almost identical to those of general recidivism (see Results section). In addition, we have removed the percentages of very serious recidivism, because in the current sample, the rate of very serious recidivism turned out to be low. A t-test was used to analyze whether the number of justice contacts (for any offence) in the year after the release of the ISD differed from the number of justice contacts (for any offence) in the year prior to the ISD. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to analyze whether the classification of the most serious offence in the year after the ISD differed in seriousness from the classification of the offence that had led to the ISD court order. For the analysis of which predictors were related to general recidivism after one year, we chose to not analyze the predictive variables separately, because different variables were probably related to each other (e.g., the presence of a borderline personality disorder is usually closely related to cases of sexual or physical abuse in the past). To ensure that all relationships between predictive variables and the binominal variable general recidivism (yes, no) were analyzed, we chose for a logistic regression analysis with the enter method.

5.3. Measurements Demographic and offence-related characteristics: From criminal history records, the age at the time of the first offence and the age at the start of the special court order ISD were collected as interval variables. Whether or not the woman was of Dutch origin was coded dichotomously (yes, no). The number of criminal charges that led to a conviction in the year prior to the ISD court order was counted from the criminal records and treated as interval variables. Psychiatric and substance-related characteristics: Information about the DSM-IV-tr classification was obtained from the psychiatric report or from the report of a psychological examination by the first author of the present manuscript. The type of DSM-IV-tr substance use disorder was subdivided into four categories, according to what the women themselves identified as their most important substance: alcohol, cannabis, cocaine and heroin. In addition, the number of these DSM-IV-tr substance use disorders was counted based on these same four categories, with additional substances being considered as one category. In addition, a dichotomous coding was used to distinguish between DSM-IV-tr classifications of antisocial (yes, no) and/or borderline (yes, no) personality disorder, because these personality disorders were classified enough to be studied as predictive variables. These classifications were not mutually exclusive, because women could have an antisocial personality disorder and a borderline personality disorder. Historical characteristics: Information about sexual and/or physical abuse in the past was collected and dichotomously coded (yes, no) by the first authors of the Blaauw et al. (2016) study after reading the personal files of the women. Recidivism: Recidivism was defined as a new criminal contact with a criminal justice court and/or the Crown Council for one or more offences after release from the ISD (not necessary leading to a conviction), and registered as such by the Crown Council (Tollenaar et al., 2014). For the survival curve we followed the definitions of the Research and Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (Wartna, Blom, & Tollenaar, 2011) of three types of recidivism: 1. General recidivism: a new criminal justice contact in response to any crime, regardless of the nature and seriousness of the offence committed, such as resistance to arrest, insulting a police officer, driving

6. Results 6.1. Recidivism Regarding whether or not reductions occurred in the recidivism rate, 43% of the 74 women had new judicial contacts for any offence within one year after the ISD and 58% had new judicial contacts for any offence within two years after the release from the ISD. The vast majority of these offences involved serious offences, such as shoplifting, theft and burglary. As such, the survival curves were approximately the same for general recidivism and serious recidivism (see Fig. 1). Only a few women (7%) had judicial contacts for a very serious offence after one year or in the following years (not further analyzed due to this low percentage), with 62% survival after five years for very serious offences. Regarding whether or not reductions were found in the number of criminal charges, paired t-test analysis showed that the 31 women who had a judicial contact in the first year after the ISD had a higher number of criminal charges that led to a conviction in the year before the ISD (M = 3.50 charges, SD = 2.37) compared to the year after the release 4

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 68 (2020) 101538

E. Blaauw, et al.

1 0.9

Proportion of survival

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number of years All offences

Serious offences

Very serious offences

Fig. 1. Survival curve of general recidivism and serious and very serious recidivism in five years.

reoffended within one year of the release of the ISD court order and more than half of them reoffended within two years. This is consistent with the findings in male samples that high-level life-course persistent offenders have a high risk of reoffending (e.g., see Haapanen et al., 2007). However, the recidivism rate within one year (43%) and even after five years (76%) is less than 100%, indicating that at least some of the women broke with their persistence of offending, and the recidivism proportion is lower than the corresponding proportion in the entire (predominantly male) population of prisoners with the ISD court order (Tollenaar et al., 2014; Tollenaar & Laan, 2012). In addition, the present study found that the women who reoffended in the first year had a lower number of offences compared to the year before the ISD. Because most of these women persist in committing property crimes, we found no changes in the seriousness of the offences. This finding is comparable to the finding in the entire population of persistent offenders (see Tollenaar et al., 2014). Nevertheless, due to the found differences in proportion and the reduction in the number of offences, the findings suggest that at least some female persistent offenders can make a change in their criminal careers after the ISD court order. The current study found no associations between recidivism after one year and demographic, offence-related, psychiatric, substance-related and historical characteristics. In other words, none of the variables was related to recidivism in our sample. Regarding the history of sexual and physical abuse, this is in line with recent findings in forensic psychiatric female offenders (de Vogel et al., 2019) but at odds with previous findings in a federal female prison sample (Bonta et al., 1995). With regard to the other characteristics, the findings also differ from the findings from studies in other samples of female offenders. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that persistent female offenders often have serious problems and that in such a case, specific indicators lose their value for predicting recidivism. Only one woman did not have a substance use disorder and the vast majority of women were addicted to multiple substances. In addition, three-quarters were diagnosed with an additional DSM-IV-tr personality disorder and/or Axis 1 psychiatric disorder (APA, 2000), the majority had a history of physically abuse and a third had a history of sexual abuse in addition to their generally long en extensive histories of offending. With regard to age and ethnicity, the findings are also at odds with the findings in male persistent offenders, where these characteristics were indicative of recidivism (Boonmann et al., 2015). Because male persistent offenders are also characterized by substance use disorders, comorbid personality disorders, psychiatric disorders, and a long and extensive history of

of the ISD (M = 2.16 charges, SD = 1.82), t(31) = 2.45, p = .020. Whether or not the seriousness of recidivism decreased, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test showed no significant difference between the seriousness of the recorded offences in the year prior to the ISD and the year after the release of the ISD, Z = −1.58, p = .11. 6.2. Predictors of general recidivism after one year A logistic regression analysis in which all variables were entered into the equation with general recidivism after one year (no, yes) as dependent variable, revealed no associations with general recidivism after one year, χ2(10) = 9.36, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.17, p = 50 for the model (see Table 1). Although investigation of the variables in Table 1 suggests that having an antisocial personality disorder was related to general recidivism after one year, an additional Chi-square analysis showed that this relationship was not statistically significant, X2(1) = 3.50, p = .06. 7. Discussion The current study found that many persistent female offenders Table 1 Logistic Regression Analysis of offence-related, demographic and psychiatric indicators for general recidivism after one year (no, yes). Independent variable Offence-related No of criminal charges in the year prior to ISD Age at first offence Demographic Age Dutch origin Substance-related No of substance use disorders Primary substance Psychiatric Diagnosed antisocial PD Diagnosed borderline PD Historical Lifetime physical abuse Lifetime sexual abuse

B

SE

Wald

p

Odds

0.00

0.00

0.13

0.72

1.00

−0.06

0.05

1.2

0.27

0.95

0.048 0.05

0.06 0.66

0.75 0.01

0.39 0.95

1.05 1.05

−0.24 −0.13

0.38 0.26

0.41 0.25

0.52 0.62

0.78 0.88

−1.38 −0.16

0.66 0.64

4.33 0.06

0.04 0.80

0.25 0.85

1.12 −0.28

0.63 0.63

3.14 0.19

0.08 0.66

3.05 0.76

χ2(10) = 9.36, Nagelkerke R2 = 0.17, p = .50 for the model. 5

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 68 (2020) 101538

E. Blaauw, et al.

demographic, offence-related and psychiatric characteristics were not associated with recidivism contributes to the growing notion that specific risk assessment tools are needed for specific populations and that gender-specific risk assessment tools should be developed for female offenders. Given the high prevalence of problems in the population of female persistent offenders and the high burden that they cause for society, recidivism of adult persistent women or prolific offenders should receive attention from further research.

offending, differences in the severity of problems are unlikely to explain the different findings. Further research into the reasons for the differences is therefore required. 7.1. Implications for clinical practice The positive news regarding the absence of any association between offender characteristics and recidivism, is that an early start of a criminal career, a high persistency in offending, the presence of severe personality disorders and/or serious psychiatric disorders do not predispose female persistent offenders for reoffending. Women with a long and extensive history of substance use disorders, comorbid psychiatric disorders, history of physical and sexual abuse, and extensive crime records also seem to be well able to stop reoffending, just like their counterparts without such antecedents. Conversely, however, this study shows that it is difficult to predict recidivism in this group of offenders. As such, the current study contributes to the growing debate about whether the central eight risk factors for recidivism (Andrews et al., 2012) also apply to female offenders and whether gender-specific risk assessment tools must be developed due to different risk factors for general and violent recidivism among female criminals (Caulfield, 2010; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013; Salisbury et al., 2016).

References Amemiya, J., Vanderhei, S., & Monahan, K. C. (2017). Parsing apart the persisters: Etiological mechanism sand criminal offense patterns of moderate- and high-level persistent offenders. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 819–835. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S095457941600050X. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349 text rev. Andrews, D. A., Guzzo, L., Raynor, P., Rowe, R. C., Rettinger, L. J., Brews, A., & Wormith, J. S. (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both female and male reoffending? A test with the eight domains of the level of service/case management inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 111–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10395716. Benda, B. B. (2005). Gender differences in life-course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X04271194. Blaauw, E., Strijker, G., Boerema, Y., Veersma, E., van der Meer-Jansma, M., & Anthonio, G. (2016). Dual diagnoses among detained female systematic offenders. Advances In Dual Diagnosis, 9(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/ADD-08-2015-0020. Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies. Research; practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., & Visher, C. A. (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals”. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bogaerts, S., Spreen, M., Ter Horst, P., & Gerlsma, C. (2018). Predictive validity of the HKT-R risk assessment for two and five-year recidivism in a cohort of Dutch forensic psychiatric patients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 2259–2270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17717128. Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violence recidivism among mentally disordered offenders. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.123.2.123. Bonta, J., Pang, B., & Wallace-Capretta, S. (1995). Predictors of recidivism among incarcerated female offenders. Prison Journal, 75, 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 003285559075003002. Boonmann, C., Wartna, B. S. J., Bregman, I. M., Schapers, C. E., & Beijersbergen, K. A. (2015). Recidive na forensische zorg. Een eerste stap in de ontwikkeling van een recidivemonitor voor de sector Forensische Zorg. Cahier 2015–3. [Recidivism after forensic care: A first step in the development of a recidivism monitor for the sector of forensic care.]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: WODC. Brennan, P. A., Mednick, S. A., & Hodgins, S. (2000). Major mental disorders and criminal violence in a Danish birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(5), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.57.5.494. Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., Dieterich, W., Salisbury, E. J., & van Voorhis, P. (2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1481–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456777. Caulfield, L. (2010). Rethinking the assessment of female offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2010. 00625.x. Central Bureau of Statistics (2016). Statline. https://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/. Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues—The Sutherland award address. Criminology, 41, 221–225. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.x. Garcia-Mansilla, A., Rosenfeld, B., & Nicholls, T. L. (2009). Risk assessment: Are current methods applicable to women? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 8, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999010903014747. Goderie, M., & Lünnemann, K. D. (2008). De maatregel Inrichting voor Stelselmatige Daders: Procesevaluatie [the order ISD, process evaluation]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: VerweyJonker Instituut. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Haapanen, R., Britton, L., & Croisdale, T. (2007). Persistent criminality and career length. Crime & Delinquency, 53(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706294443. Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Hare psychopathy checklist-revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi- Health Systems. Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Fretz, R., Erickson, J., Yasuhara, K., & Anumba, N. (2008). How “specific’’ are gender-specific rehabilitation needs? An empirical analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1382–1397. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093854808323678. Hopkins, M., & Wickson, J. (2013). Targeting prolific and other priority offenders and promoting pathways to desistance: Some reflections on the PPO programme using a

7.2. Limitations of the study The present study has limitations that that require conclusions to be taken with caution. Firstly, although the current study consisted of all women who had been convicted to the ISD court order over a nine-year period, the sample is still too small for analyses with a high statistical power. The logistic regression analysis was computed with quite a lot of variables, all of which were entered simultaneously in the equation, and several of these variables were dichotomous, impeding statistical power. However, an additional Chi-squared analysis of the only variable that appeared to be associated with recidivism (i.e., antisocial personality disorder), also demonstrated the non-existence of a significant association between the variables. Secondly, the present study did not use a comparison group of persistent female offenders who have not been sentenced to the ISD court order, making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effect of the ISD court order or possible effects of maturing from the women. Thirdly, the present study did not study all eight central risk factors for recidivism or made use of established risk assessment tools. It cannot be concluded that these are less useful in a population of female persistent offenders. Fourthly, with regard to the number of offences in the first year before and after the ISD, the analyses did not fully take into account the time at risk, as it was not possible to know the exact number of days in police custody or prison so that could be controlled for this (although this applied to both time periods). Fifthly, the information on women's psychiatric diagnoses was collected from their personal files and not from systematic psychiatric assessments by the researchers at the start of the ISD. Moreover, the information did not address the psychiatric problems at the time of the release from the ISD. Finally, the study does not shed light on potential useful components of the ISD court order. 7.3. Suggestions for future research Despite the methodological limitations, the research shows that not all persistent female offenders persist in offending after the ISD court order and that the proportion of recidivism appears to be lower than their male counterparts, and that the number of offences appears to be lower than before. These positive findings require further research into active aspects of the ISD and/or specific programs for reducing recidivism. Because the present study found no predictors of recidivism in this sample of persistent female offenders and did not address protective factors for reoffending, further research is needed on risk factors and protective factors in this population. The finding that different 6

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 68 (2020) 101538

E. Blaauw, et al.

Behavior, 41(11), 1257–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814546894. Soothill, K., Ackerley, E., & Francis, B. (2003). The persistent offenders debate: A focus on temporal changes. Criminal Justice, 3(4), 389–412. Thomson, N. D., Bozgunov, K., Psederska, E., Aboutanos, M., Vasilev, G., & Vassileva, J. (2019). Physical abuse explains sex differences in the link between psychopathy and aggression. Journal of interpersonal violence.. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260519865956. Tollenaar, N., Beerthuizen, M. G. C. J., & Van der Laan, A. M. (2016). Monitor Veelplegers: Transitie van de oude naar de nieuwe definitie van zeer actieve veelpleger [frequent offender monitor: Transition from the old definition to the new definition of the very frequent offender]. Den Haag: WODC. Cahier 2016–4. Tollenaar, N., & van der Laan, A. M. (2012). Effecten van de ISD-maatregel: Technische rapportage [effects of the ISD court order: Technical report]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: WODC. Tollenaar, N., & van der Laan, A. M. (2013). Veelplegers: specialisten of niet? Factsheet 2013–1 [frequent offenders: Specialists or not? Factsheet 2013–1]. Den Haag: WODC. Tollenaar, N., Laan, A. M., & Beijersbergen, K. A. (2014). Korte- en langetermijneffecten van de ISD-maatregel [short and long-term effects of the ISD court order]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: WODC. Van Bommel, R., Uzieblo, K., Bogaerts, S., & Garofalo, C. (2018). Psychopathic traits and deviant sexual fantasies: The moderating role of gender. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 17, 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018. 1499684. Van der Knaap, L., Alberda, D., Oosterveld, P., & Born, M. (2012). The predictive validity of criminogenic needs for male and female offenders: Comparing the relative impact of needs in predicting recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 413–422. https:// doi.org/10.1037/h0093932. de Vogel, V., Bruggeman, M., & Lancel, M. (2019). Gender-sensitive violence risk assessment. Predictive validity of six tools in female forensic psychiatric patients. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(4), 528–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093854818824135. de Vogel, V., & Lancel, M. (2016). Gender differences in the manifestation of psychopathy: Results from a multicentre study in forensic psychiatry. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016. 1138173. de Vogel, V., & Nicholls, T. L. (2016). Gender matters: An introduction to the special issue on women and girls. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15, 1–25. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016.1141439. Walmsley, R. (2015). World female imprisonment list. Women and girls in penal institutions, including pre-trial detainees / remand prisoners. (3rd ed). . Retrieved on 14 July 2016 from www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_female_ imprisonment_list_third_edition_0.pdf. Wartna, B. S. J., Blom, M., & Tollenaar, N. (2011). De WODC-Recidivemonitor: 4e herziene versie The WODC recidivism monitor (4th revised ed.). Den Haag, the Netherlands: WODC.

theory of change framework. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 13, 594–614. https://doi. org/10.1177/1748895812462595. Kim, H. K., Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Kerr, D. C. R., & Owen, L. D. (2009). Intergenerational transmission of internalising and externalising behaviours across three generations: Gender-specific pathways. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.708. Kunst, M. J. J., Bogaerts, S., & Winkel, E. W. (2011). Type D personality and posttraumatic stress disorder in victims of violence: A cross-sectional exploration. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.698. Kunst, M. J. J., Winkel, F. W., & Bogaerts, S. (2011). Posttraumatic anger, recalled Peritraumatic emotions, and PTSD in victims of violent crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(17), 3561–3579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511403753. Leistico, A. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J., & Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9096-6. Loucks, A., & Zamble, E. (2000). Predictors of criminal behavior and prison misconduct in serious female offenders. Ontario: Université Queen’s, Kingston. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. https://doi.org/10. 1037//0033-295X.100.4.674. Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Mulvey, E. P. (2009). Trajectories of antisocial behavior and psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1654–1668. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015862. Monahan, K. C., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & Mulvey, E. P. (2013). Psychosocial (im) maturity from adolescence to early adulthood: Distinguishing between adolescencelimited and persisting antisocial behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1093–1105. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000394. Nicholls, T. L., Greaves, C., Greig, D., & Moretti, M. (2015). Aggression: Gender Differences in. In A. Jamieson, & A. Moenssens (Eds.). Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science (pp. 1–26). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Sons. Nicholls, T. L., & Petrila, J. (2005). Gender and psychopathy: An overview of important issues and introduction to the special issue. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.677. Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the level of service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26, 156. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0035080. Rettinger, L. J., & Andrews, D. A. (2010). General risk and need, gender specificity, and the recidivism of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 29–46. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0093854809349438. Salisbury, E. J., Boppre, B., & Kelly, B. (2016). Implications for the treatment of justiceinvolved women. In F. S. Taxman (Ed.). Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 220–243). New York: Routledge. Scott, C. K., Grella, C. E., Dennis, M. L., & Funk, R. R. (2014). Predictors of recidivism over 3 years among substance-using women released from jail. Criminal Justice and

7