National Study of Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders, 1994-1995

The purpose of this study was to conduct a national-scale
 evaluation of correctional facilities housing female offenders in
 order to assess the effectiveness of current programs, including
 alternative sanctions and treatment programs, and management
 practices. The goal was to gather information on "what works for
 which women" with respect to the program characteristics most related
 to positive outcomes. The first stage of the study consisted of
 gathering the opinions of administrators in state departments of
 corrections, including state-level administrators and administrators
 in institutions for women (Part 1). Administrators from jails that
 housed women were also interviewed (Part 2). Data collected for Parts
 1 and 2 focused on attitudes toward the influx of women into jails and
 prisons, the needs of incarcerated women, and management and program
 approaches for meeting those needs. Respondents were asked to identify
 programs that in their view stood out as especially effective in
 meeting the needs of incarcerated women. From this list of nominated
 programs, researchers conducted 62 in-depth telephone interviews with
 administrators of programs located in jails, prisons, and the
 community (Part 3). A supplement to this study consisted of telephone
 interviews with 11 program directors who headed mental health programs
 that appeared to be "state of the art" for incarcerated women (Part
 4). Variables in Parts 1-4 that concern the nominated programs include
 the underlying principles guiding the programs, whom the programs
 targeted, what types of staff were employed by the programs, the most
 positive effects of the programs, and whether program evaluations had
 been completed. Program effort variables found in Parts 1-4 cover
 whether the programs focused on trying to treat substance abuse, stop
 child abuse, provide women with nontraditional job skills, parenting
 skills, HIV/AIDS education, and life skills, change cognitive
 thinking, and/or promote self-esteem. Several variables common to
 Parts 1-3 include whether the programs provided women with
 follow-up/transitional help, helped to stimulate pre-release planning,
 allowed visits between women and children, or used ex-offenders,
 ex-substance users, volunteers, or outside community groups to work
 with the women. Variables focusing on the types of assessment tools
 used cover medical assessments, VD screening, reading/math ability
 screening, mental health screening, substance abuse screening, needs
 regarding children screening, and victim-spouse abuse
 screening. Variables pertaining to institution management include
 background knowledge needed to manage a facility, the types of
 management styles used for managing female offenders, security and
 other operational issues, problems with cross-sex supervision, and
 handling complaints. Similar variables across Parts 1, 2, and 4 deal
 with the impact of private or state funding, such as respondents'
 views on the positive and negative outcomes of privatization and of
 using state services. Both Parts 1 and 2 contain information on
 respondents' views regarding the unique needs of women offenders,
 which programs were especially for women, and which program needs were
 more serious than others. Planning variables in Parts 1 and 2 include
 whether there were plans to have institutions link with other state
 agencies, and which programs were most in need of expansion. Further
 common variables concerned the influx of women in prison, including
 how administrators were dealing with the increasing number of women
 offenders, whether the facilities were originally designed for women,
 how the facilities adapted for women, and the number of women
 currently in the facilities. In addition, Part 1 contains unique
 variables on alternative, intermediate sanction options for women,
 such as the percentage of women sent to day supervision/treatment and
 sent to work release centers, why it was possible to use intermediate
 sanctions, and how decisions were made to use intermediate
 sanctions. Variables dealing with funding and the provision of
 services to women include the type of private contractor or government
 agency that provided drug treatment, academic services, and vocational
 services to women, and the nature of the medical and food services
 provided to women. Variables unique to Part 2 pertain to the type of
 offender the jail housed, including whether the jurisdiction had a
 separate facility for pretrial or sentenced offenders, the total rated
 capacity of the jail, the average daily population of pretrial
 females, whether the jail was currently housing state inmates, and the
 impact on local inmates of being housed with state inmates. Variables
 concerning classification and assessment focused on the purpose of the
 classification process for female offenders, whether the
 classification process was different for male and female offenders,
 and a description of the process used. Variables specific to Part 3
 deal with characteristics of the participants, such as whether program
 participants were involved in a case management system, the
 approximate number of women and men participating in the programs,
 whether offenders were tried and awaiting sentence or were on
 probation, and the number of hours a week that individuals
 participated in the program. Program structure variables include
 whether the program was culture- or gender-specific, restrictions on
 program participants, and who established the
 restrictions. Programming strategy variables cover identifying
 strategies used for meeting the needs of women offenders with short
 sentences, strategies for women with long sentences, and what stood in
 the way of greater use of intermediate sanctions. Part 4 contains
 variables on the size of the mental health program/unit, including the
 number of beds in the mental health unit, the number of beds set aside
 for different types of diagnoses, and the number of women served
 annually. Diagnosis variables provide information on who was
 responsible for screening women for mental health needs, whether women
 were re-evaluated at any time other than at intake, and the most
 common mental health problems of women in the unit. Variables on
 running the program include whether the program/unit worked with
 private or public hospitals, the factors that hindered coordination of
 services among local or state facilities, the types of services
 affected by budget constraints, and the strategies used to prevent
 women from harming themselves and others. Staffing variables cover the
 number of psychologists, social workers, nurses, and correctional
 officers that worked in the mental health unit. Demographic variables
 were similar for all four data files. These include the institution
 level, the type of respondent interviewed, respondents' gender and
 educational background, and the number of years they had been in their
 positions, were employed in corrections, and had worked in women's
facilities.