Slide 1

Policy Developments Regarding theTreatment of Women Offenders in theU.S.: The Slow Pace of Change

Patricia Van Voorhis
www.uc.edu/womenoffenders

Slide 2

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank UNAFEI for this opportunity
and their hospitality.
- Patricia Van Voorhis
Professor Emerita
University of Cincinnati

Slide 3

Changing Correctional Programs
and Services for Women in the U.S.
•

Government-funded research and development
has produced new treatment models for women.
1. Women’s Risk Needs Assessment (WRNA)
2. Guidelines for Prisons
3. Gender-responsive Programs:•Substance abuse•Parenting•Empowerment•Healthy relationships•Abuse and trauma.

Slide 4

Changing Correctional Programs
and Services for Women in the U.S.
•Gender-Responsive: Programs and services
designed to be responsive to womens’ needs.

•New Programs are evidence-based: supported byresearch, especially experimental research.

•Although the new programs and services areavailable they are very slow to be adopted. The
pace of actual change is very slow.

•Why is this the case?

Slide 5

Current State of Correctional Treatmentin the U.S.

Slide 6

Correctional Treatment in the U.S.
•Gender-Neutral: Programs and services are similar
for men and women.

•They are evidence-based: based on research.
Most of the research was conducted on maleoffenders.

•Programs and services developed for males andapplied to women with little thought or research.

Slide 7

Evidence-based..this works
60
50
40
30
20
100
Experimental

Comparison

Slide 8

The Most Important Evidence Comes
From Meta-Analyses•

Meta analyses: Study of the studies. Creation ofsummary “effect size”
Examples:•Lipsey, 1992: 443 studies----2.4% studies of girls•Andrews et al., 1990: 154 studies: -- >4% females

Slide 9

Andrews et al., 1990
Principles of Effective Intervention• Risk principle: Programs work better for high risk
individuals than low risk. Low risk individuals can beharmed by intensive correctional programs;• Need principle: Must treat risk factors for future
offending;• Use Cognitive-Behavioral or Behavioral Programs• Programs following these principles can reduce
recidivism by 15-30%

Slide 10

Dynamic Risk/Needs Assessment
Criminal history
Education/employment
Financial
Family/marital
Accommodation
Leisure/recreation
Companions
Alcohol/drug problems
Emotional/personal
Attitude/orientation

Identify high, med., low risk
Identify treatment needs

Slide 11

Dynamic Risk/Needs Assessment:
Two Purposes:
I.Identify High, Med, & Low Risk
II.Identify Risk Factors Associated with Risk:
Criminal history
Education/employment
Financial
Family/marital
Accommodation
Leisure/recreation
Companions
Alcohol/drug problems
Emotional/personal
Attitude/orientation

Slide 12

Big 4••••

Criminal History (not a treatment target)
Antisocial attitudes
Antisocial personality
Antisocial associates

Slide 13

Objections from Gender-ResponsiveScholars

Slide 14

Gender-Responsive Scholars• Most of the research supporting the “Principles” wasconducted on men;
• Correctional practices were designed for men andapplied to women with little thought or research.
• Women are very different from men in terms of risk
factors and programmatic needs.

Slide 15

Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment
••
•
•
•
•
•
•

Criminal history
Criminal thinking (sample variations)
Antisocial associates
Vocational/educational
Financial problems
Low family support
Housing problems
Substance abuse•
•
••
••
••

Mental health history
Depression/anxiety (symptoms)
Psychosis/suicidal (symptoms)
Child abuse (institutions)
Adult victimizations (community)
Relationship dysfunction
Parental stress (community)
Housing safety (community)•And strengths (self-efficacy, family support,
parental involvement, and educational assets)

Slide 16

Gender-Responsive Programs•

Substance abuse is related to mental health andtrauma. Substance abuse should also address trauma
and depression;•Programs should also address trauma, parenting,poverty, healthy relationships, community support;•Programs should be relational;•Use other program models besides cognitivebehavioral, e.g., guided imagery, relaxation, art
therapy, etc.:•Corrections should not re-traumatize.

Slide 17

Objections to Gender-Responsive
Programs, Services and Policies

Slide 18

Response to Gender-Responsive Models• There is not enough evidence to support genderresponsive;• The Principles are supported by massive amounts ofevidence…hundreds of program evaluations;• Mental health, abuse, trauma, relationships, parental
issues, and low self-efficacy do not cause criminal
behavior and therefore their treatment should not be apriority.

Slide 19

AnalysisSlide 20

1. Women are Under-Studied in Many Areas• A fact of science;• For example, women are under-studied in:- Medicine- Education:- Mental healthSlide 21

Women are Under-Studied in Medicine• Historical absence from medical trials
Costs:• Limited understanding of heart disease inwomen;• Problems with drug dosages;• Absence from longitudinal studies cannot becorrected quickly.

Slide 22

Women are Under-Studied in Medicine• Historical absence from medical trials
Reasons•Risks to pregnant women•Assumption that findings for men can begeneralized to women.
• National Institute of Health Revitalization Act of1993;

Slide 23

Exams for College Entrance and MeritScholarships•Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)•Graduate Record Examination (GRE).
•National Merit Examination-Tests over predicted the performance of men;
-Tests under predicted the performance of women.
• Resolved after decades, through legal actions andchanges to the structure of the tests.

Slide 24

Mental Health Assessments andPsychotherapy•MMPI-2 (Lewin & Wild, 1991)•Psychopathy Checklist (Baker & Mason, 2010)•Intelligence tests (Hyde, 1990)•Worker satisfaction (Hesse-Biber et al., 2004)•Evaluations of psychotherapy (APA Div 17 & 35)•Specialty areas: school psychology, mental
retardation, psychophamacology; organizationalpsychology.

Slide 25

Correctional Research on Women•

Nearly non-existent until the late 1980s.

•

Tests of male models and designs found later towork with women (late 1990s):•••

Not designed specifically for women;
Too late to include gender-responsivecomponents.

Test of gender-responsive models underfunded
but some experimental and prediction studies
conducted after 2005.

Slide 26

2. Evidence-Based Mandates• A good policy• Experimental evidence required for funding• Performance-based budgeting,• U.S. Health Care Law (“Obamacare”)

Slide 27

Problems with Meta Analysis• Meta analyses allowed to override other studies,e.g., single experiments;•Meta analysis requires many studies;• Worked against under-studied groups;• Worked against the study of innovations;• The evidence-based mandate became a numbers
game.
•Gender-responsive research is available, replicatedstudies, but fails the number game.

Slide 28

Problems with “best available evidence”• U.S. Surgeon General (2001)•When evidence is not available, use “best availableevidence”• “best available evidence” can prevent uniformed
guessing;• “best available evidence” can minimize theimportance of conducting more appropriate
research.
• In the case of U.S. corrections, “best availableevidence” is research on males.

Slide 29

4. Ignoring Evidence on Gender-ResponsivePrograms•Comparative studies: risk factors for males and•females;•Validation studies of the WRNA;•Experimental studies of gender responsive programs.

Slide 30

Gender-Responsive Risk/Needs Instrument•••••••

Criminal history
Criminal thinking
Antisocial associates
Vocational/educational
Financial problems
Low family support
Substance abuse•
•••
••••

Housing safety
Mental health history
Depression/anxiety (symptoms)
Psychosis (symptoms)
Child abuse (institutions)
Adult victimizations (sample variations)
Unhealthy relationships
Parental stress (community)

And strengths (self-efficacy, family support,parental involvement, and educational assets)

Slide 31
Slide 31

No chart provided.
Women Offenders

Institutions
COMN

Probation
MN
Maui

Traditional (male model).16.23***.31***.36***

Gender Responsive (alone).32***.24***.34***.29****Traditional+Gender Responsive.21***.33***.35***.38****Gender responsive part.

.31***.17***.25***.15*

Play Audio:

Slide 32

Gender Responsive Models: Moving OnGehring, 2007

Slide 33

Does it matter that low risk offenders were admitted?
Evaluation of Moving On, Gehring & Van Voorhis, 2009

Slide 34

Evidence, continued:-Van Voorhis et al., 2010, Criminal Justice and Behavior(Assessments).www.uc.edu/womenoffenders.

-Gehring & Van Voorhis, 2011, Women, Girls and Criminal Justice(Moving On). www.uc.edu/womenoffenders.

-Najavits, (Seeking Safety) (www.seekingsafety.org)-Messina et al., 2010. Journal of Substance abuse Treatment (HelpingWomen Recover & Beyond Trauma). See also SAMSHA National
Registry of Evidence Based Programs (www.nrepp.samha.gov).

-Millson, Robinson, & Vandieten (2010). WOCMM: The Connecticutt
Project. See www.cjinvolvedwomen.org.

Slide 35

Important Websites:-Assessments: www.uc.edu/womenoffenders.

-Many Resources: www.cjinvolvedwomen.org.

-Individual Program Evals: www.nrepp.samha.gov.

-Individual Program Evals: www.crimesolutions.gov.