POVERTY, STATE CAPITAL, AND RECIDIVISM AMONG WOMEN OFFENDERS*

Abstract

Research Summary:This research investigates the effects of poverty and state capital (i.e., state‐sponsored support) on recidivism among women offenders. We seek also to determine whether criticisms directed at actuarial risk tools, such as the failure to take into account gender‐related factors (e.g., poverty status), have merit. A community corrections sample of 134 female felony offenders from one county in the State of Oregon and in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota is used to examine self‐reports of rearrest and probation or parole violations over a six‐month time period. Results from the logistic regression analyses show poverty status increases the odds of rearrest by a factor of 4.6, and it increases the odds of supervision violation by a factor of 12.7. In contrast, risk scores failed to predict recidivism once poverty status was taken into account. Among poor women offenders specifically, we find providing state‐sponsored support to address short‐term needs (e.g., housing) reduces the odds of recidivism by 83%. Not only do community corrections officers who make available state capital promote women's empowerment, they are also less likely to have clients who reoffend.Policy Implications:Our findings suggest that a commonly used actuarial risk assessment tool (i.e., the LSI‐R) does not sufficiently take into account the economic marginality of women offenders. At a minimum, existing tools should be refined or supplemented with other sources of information. During the early stages of supervision, community corrections agencies should encourage their officers to refer and advocate for poor women to receive available sources of state capital (e.g., subsidized housing) to address critical short‐term needs, which can improve their economic circumstances, help move them out of poverty, and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. More broadly, recent changes in welfare policy, such as “Working Toward Independence,” will experience (at best) limited success because the impetus behind these reforms is narrow (i.e., assigning personal responsibility for poverty). Welfare policy reforms can be improved by providing state‐sponsored resources in the areas of childcare, education, health care, and job training, which address the causes of economic marginalization (e.g., deficient reserves of social and human capital) among women in general.