Aboriginality and violence: gender and cultural differences on the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) and Violence Risk Scale (VRS).

There is an over-representation of Aboriginal/Indigenous people in the criminal justice systems of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, with offences committed by male and female Aboriginal prisoners predominantly involving physical violence against a person. Risk assessment tools used have not been developed for Aboriginal people, and validations have produced varied results. The current study focused on violent offenders and investigated the differences between four demographic groups - Aboriginal females (AF), non-Aboriginal females (NAF), Aboriginal males (AM) and non-Aboriginal males (NAM) - on the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) and Violence Risk Scale (VRS; including Screening Version, VRS-SV). Significant differences were evident between all groups; however, there were limited differences between AF and NAF with differences on the VRS-SV primarily due to static factors. Aboriginality did not appear to elevate risk for violent females. The limitations of the study are discussed plus the recommendations for future research.

The criminogenic profile of violent female offenders incarcerated in Western Australian prisons as per the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) and Violence Risk Scale (VRS).

Female offender risk assessment is predominantly based on criminogenic factors that predict reoffending in males. Research indicates there are criminogenic factors specific to female offenders, and certain factors linked to offending for both sexes have greater impact on female offenders. This paper extends current research using a Western Australian sample to determine whether findings are replicated with an Australian cohort. Gender differences in the criminogenic profile of 1704 violent offenders (9% female), assessed using the Level of Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity (LS/RNR) and Violence Risk Scale (VRS), were analysed using a matched sample study design. There were significant gender differences on all components of the LS/RNR, except criminal history. In the subsequent matched study, these differences varied, and females scored significantly lower on all VRS-SV items, except age. Gender differences in violence risk scores were clear, providing support for gender-responsive assessment and treatment of violent female offenders, with further validation needed.