Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining Gender-Responsive Risk Factors That Predict Recidivism for People Convicted of Cybercrimes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cybercrime in Context

Part of the book series: Crime and Justice in Digital Society ((CJDS,volume I))

  • 1067 Accesses

Abstract

This study sought to explore the role of gender-responsive approaches to reduce reoffending for women convicted of cybercrimes by comparing and contrasting the risk and needs assessment results among women and men convicted of cybercrimes in the United States. Assessments from 4457 individuals convicted of cybercrimes (both cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent) during 2005–2015 were included in this study. The domains from assessment results were used to examine the types of risk factors (or criminogenic needs) that predicted revocation by gender. Results demonstrated mixed support for gender-responsive risk factors. The criminal history domain was the strongest predictor for both genders, but the education and employment domain was not predictive for either gender. A measure related to mental health was found to predict risk reoffend among women and not men; however, findings provided support for other needs regardless of gender. Implications for gender-responsive policy and cybercrime are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The researcher requested approval from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to receive rearrrest information, but did not receive authorization in time for the study.

References

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baber, L. M. (2015). Inroads to reducing federal recidivism. Federal Probation, 79(3), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (2006). The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085105282897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, K. (2002). Classifying female offenders for effective intervention: Application of the case-based principles of risk and need. Forum on Corrections Research, 14, 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from https://info.nicic.gov/nicrp/system/files/018017.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2004). Women offenders and the gendered effects of public policy. Review of Policy Research, 21, 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(11), 1481–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812456777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brushett, R. A. (2013). Typologies of female offenders: A latent class analysis using the women’s risk needs assessment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from OhioLINK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. M. (2016). It’s not technically a crime: Investigating the relationship between technical violations and new crime. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27, 643–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T. H., & Bechtel, K. (2017). Removal of the non-scored items from the post-conviction risk assessment instrument: An evaluation of data-driven risk assessment research within the federal system. Federal Probation, 81, 37–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2, 11–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Justice. (2015). Prosecuting computer crimes: Computer crime and intellectual property section criminal division. Washington, DC: Office of Legal Education, Executive Office for United States Attorneys. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminalccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ccmanual.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulette, N. (2020). What are the gender differences in risk and needs of males and females sentenced for white-collar crimes? Criminal Justice Studies, 33(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2020.1709951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harbinson, E., & Selzer, N. (2019). The risk and needs of cyber-dependent offenders sentenced in the United States. Journal of Crime and Justice, 42, 582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtfreter, K. (2005). Is occupational fraud ‘typical’ white-collar crime? A comparison of individual and organizational characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtfreter, K., & Cupp, R. (2007). Gender and risk assessment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Morash, M. (2004). Poverty, state capital, and recidivism among women offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(2), 185–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., Lowenkamp, C. T., Van Benschoten, S. W., & Robinson, C. R. (2011). The construction and validation of the Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment. Federal Probation, 75(2), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latessa, E. (2012). Why work is important, and how to improve the effectiveness of correctional reentry programs that target employment. Criminology and Public Policy, 11, 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Cohen, T. H. (2015). PCRA revisited: Testing the validity of the Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA). Psychological Services, 12, 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Johnson, J. L., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S. W., & Robinson, C. R. (2013). The federal post conviction risk assessment (PCRA): A construction and validation study. Psychological Services, 10, 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2013a). “Cyber crime: A review of the evidence.” research report 75. Chapter 1: Cyberdependent crimes. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2013b). “Cyber crime: A review of the evidence.” research report 75. Chapter 2: Cyberdependent crimes. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D., Stalans, L., & Escobar, G. (2016). Comparing male and female prison releasees across risk factors and post prison recidivism. Women & Criminal Justice, 26, 122–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC, Cohen’s d and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Gendered pathways: Quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skeem, J. L., Monahan, J., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2016). Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: The cost of treating women like men. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 580–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., & Roche, M. (2013). Gender and twenty-first century corporate crime: Female involvement and the gender gap in Enron-era corporate frauds. American Sociological Review, 78(3), 448–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Knaap, L. M., Alberda, D. L., Oosterveld, P., & Born, M. P. (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, 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Voorhis, P. (2012). On behalf of women offenders: Women’s place in the science of evidence-based practice. Criminology and Public Policy, 11(2), 111–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardrop, K., Wanamaker, K. A., & Derkzen, D. (2019). Developing a risk/need assessment tool for women offenders: A gender-informed approach. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 5, 264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-03-2019-0017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weulen Kranenbarg, M., Ruiter, S., Gelder, v., & Bernasco, J. W. (2018). Cyber-offending and traditional offending over the life-course: An empirical comparison. Journal of Development and Life Course Criminology, 4, 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-018-0087-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Administrative Office of the US courts for making data available for this research. The views presented in this chapter are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the US courts or federal probation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Erin Harbinson

Authors
  1. Erin Harbinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Harbinson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marleen Weulen Kranenbarg

  2. Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rutger Leukfeldt

  3. Centre of Expertise Cyber Security, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Rutger Leukfeldt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Harbinson, E. (2021). Examining Gender-Responsive Risk Factors That Predict Recidivism for People Convicted of Cybercrimes. In: Weulen Kranenbarg, M., Leukfeldt, R. (eds) Cybercrime in Context. Crime and Justice in Digital Society, vol I. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60527-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60527-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60526-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60527-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation