REINTEGRATION OF FEM ALE OFFENDERS
Dr. Kelley Blanchette

I. INTRODUCTION
Female offenders are a minority in the criminal justice system. In corrections, operational
approaches, protocol and policy are developed and implemented based on the findings from the
majority,that is,men. A number of authors have acknowledged that existing reintegration paradigms
for offenders hinge on male models of change and fail to respect arguments that women and men
transform differently (e.g., Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Herrschaft, Veysey, Tubman-Carbone, &Christian, 2009). Accordingly, they maintain that there is a need for gender-specific reintegration
efforts to facilitate womenʼs reentry into their home communities.
Todayʼ
s conceptualization of ʻ
effective rehabilitationʼis based primarily on the principles ofclassification first articulated over twenty years ago by Canadian researchers Andrews, Bonta and
Hoge (1990). Although there are several principles posited in the model by Andrews and colleagues,
those most fundamental (and most commonly cited)includeʻ
Riskʼ
,ʻ
Needʼ
,and ʻ
Responsivityʼ. As such,the paradigm is often referred to as the RNR model.
In brief, the risk principle suggests that:1)with appropriate assessment, risk of recidivism can bepredicted, and 2) level of risk should be matched with the level of service provided. Specifically,
Andrews and colleagues posit that higher levels of service should be provided to higher risk offenders,
while those assessed as lower risk derive better outcomes from less intensive intervention.
The need principle contends that, to reduce criminal recidivism, intervention must focus on theʻcriminogenic needsʼof the offenders. Criminogenic needs are characteristics of the offender (or his or
her social situation)that relate directly to his or her risk of reoffending. Accordingly,changes in levelsof criminogenic needs are associated with changes in risk to reoffend. Importantly,the need principle
distinguishes ʻcriminogenicʼfrom ʻ
non-criminogenicʼneeds;while offenders might have multiple needs,
only some will be criminogenic in nature. For instance,Andrews and colleagues suggest that attributesof the offender such as psychological distress, low self-esteem, or poor physical health are ʻ
noncriminogenicʼin nature. While the need principle does not necessarily denounce the provision ofservices for non-criminogenic needs,it clearly states that the focus and priority for intervention shouldbe those areas that are criminogenic (e.g., substance abuse, pro-criminal attitudes, anger/hostility).
The responsivity principle posits that treatment services should be delivered in a style and modethat match the learning style and ability of the offender. The responsivity principle subsumes twogeneral types of considerations. The first,commonly called ʻbroadʼor ʻ
generalʼresponsivity states thatfor most offenders, optimal treatment response will be achieved when treatment providers deliver
structured interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural strategies)in a warm and empathic manner, andusing a firm but fair approach. Thus, the general responsivity principle describes attributes of theintervention that are external to the offender. The second type of responsivity pertains to internal
characteristics of the individual being assessed. These are referred to as ʻ
specificʼresponsivity
considerations, and examples include: gender, ethnicity, motivation to change, literacy level, andintelligence. The specific responsivity principle also recognizes the need to match individual therapist
characteristics with those of the client in order to maximize treatment gain.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Correctional Servicesof Canada. Direct correspondence to Kelley Blanchette (e-mail:Kelley.Blanchette＠csc-scc.gc.ca).

153

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
In the years that followed, a very large body of correctional research mounted to support the
principles articulated by Andrews and colleagues. Although these principles have been framed asʻgender neutral,ʼthe majority of the supporting research was either focused exclusively on maleoffenders or failed to disaggregate the results by gender.
Research on reintegration suggests that family separation and community isolation (Dodge &Pogrebin, 2001), poor quality of life conditions (Shinkfield & Graffam,2009),mental illness (Hartwell,2001),and lack of secure,stable,legal employment (Blitz,2006)are all significant factors in addressing
the reintegration needs of women. Superficially,these constructs appear similar to those identified as
relevant for men,thereby strengthening arguments for gender-neutral approaches. While some authors
question the need for gender-based distinctions in reintegration efforts, I suggest that the evidence
supports a gendered approach to correctional services.

II. INTEGRATION OF “WHAT WORKS”WITH GENDER
The state of research and program development for women lags far behind that for men. Specificchallenges include, though are not limited to:low base rates of crime and re-offending, little genderspecific program theory,and a lack of research pertaining to female offenders overall. However,basedon the available evidence,it is argued here that integrating the (gender-neutral)principles of effective
correctional intervention with gender-informed approaches will yield optimal results in reintegration
efforts.
This article advocates for the integration of a number of gender-informed theories and methodologies in contemporary correctional services. Specifically,it is suggested that gendered pathway(e.g.,
Belknap,2007),relational theory (M iller,1986),strengths-based perspectives (e.g.,Van Wormer,2001),
positive psychology (Gillham & Seligman, 1999),and good lives models (Ward & Brown,2004)are all
relevant frameworks for intervention with female offenders. Additionally, it is essential that correctional programs and services for women are trauma-informed (M essina & Grella,2007)and incorporate multiple needs into a comprehensive and holistic treatment approach.
Gendered pathways research, first introduced about 30 years ago, provided a novel feminist
approach in its attempt to explain female criminality. Using primarily qualitative interview techniques, researchers have identified pathways into crime that are ʻ
gendered.ʼ The ʻ
typicalʼfemale
trajectory into the criminal justice system begins with an abusive (or otherwise aversive) homeenvironment. For self-preservation,the young female then quits school and leaves home to live on thestreets. This,in turn,may lead to further victimization,and to cope,the individual may begin to abuse
substances. The woman is likely to resort to behaviours such as prostitution, fraud or robbery tosurvive. These survival strategies are ʻ
criminalizedʼand the individual ends up caught in the criminal
justice system.
In a unique and empirically strong 2009 study examining gendered pathways, Salisbury and Van
Voorhis used interview and survey data to assess various gender-responsive needs with an intake
cohort of more than 300 female probationers. Results of their study, which used a path analytic
approach,supported three gendered pathways to womenʼ
s incarceration:1)a pathway beginning withchildhood victimization as a precursor to mental illness and substance abuse;2)a relational pathway
in which womenʼ
s dysfunctional intimate relationships enabled adult victimization, reduced selfefficacy,and mental illness and substance abuse;and 3)a social and human capital pathway in which
womenʼ
s needs in the areas of education, family support and self-efficacy, as well as relationshipdysfunction, contributed to employment/financial difficulties and, ultimately, imprisonment. The
authors concluded that their findings supporting gendered pathways have implications for correctional
interventions for women.
Relational theory (M iller, 1986) is a highly salient perspective for incorporation into correctional
services for women. Briefly, relational theory suggests that connection to other human beings isnecessary for healthy human development in both genders but is particularly important for women.
Further, relational theorists note that healthy relationships are characterized by empathy, empowerment and mutuality. It is argued that these criteria promote zest and vitality, empowerment to act,154

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
knowledge of self and others, self-worth, and a desire for increased connection (Bloom, Owen, &Covington,2003). The emphasis on healthy relationships,connectedness,empowerment and self-worth
makes relational theory very compatible with the pathways perspective described earlier.
Research provides support for the relevance and influence of a variety of relationships in womenʼsoffending behaviour,or their decision to desist from crime. A critical component of womenʼ
s relationships is that related to their children and parenting responsibilities and research continues to suggestthat childcare services, confidence and capacity in parenting skills, and support in parenting, isimportant to the successful reintegration of women (e.g., Brown, 2010; Cobbina, 2010; Spjeldnes &Goodkind, 2009;Stalans, 2009;Thompson, 2008;Van Voorhis, Wright, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2010).
Strengths-based approaches, such as those proposed by Van Wormer (2001), indicate that theoffenderʼs strengths need to be recognized and integrated into her service provision. M ore specifically,
service providers should capitalize on the offenderʼ
s strengths in order to help the client heal andre-integrate into the community. Van Wormer emphasizes the goals of restorative justice as ʻ
gearedtowards the needs of the victim, the offender, and the community.ʼ Proponents of strengths-based
approaches argue that intervention with incarcerated females is complicated by the oppressive patriarchal structure of the jail/prison system, clientsʼvictimization histories and the various psychosocial
problems frequently presented by female clients (M ahoney & Daniel, 2006). Consequently, it issuggested that traditional(gender-neutral)ways ofworking with female inmatesʻ
often fail to challenge
the profound effects of self-destructive behaviours, the internalized pathologizing self-discourse, andthe oppressive societal ideologies that frequently characterize the lives of incarcerated women.ʼThus,
the strengths-based intervention paradigm is viewed by some (current author included)as particularly
important for female offenders.
It is noted that psychological frameworks have not always effectively highlighted the relevance ofstrengths-based perspectives. Gillham and Seligman (1999) discuss the origins, benefits and costs ofʻnegative psychologyʼand highlight that prominent psychological theories have often failed to focus on
peopleʼs capacity to demonstrate resilience and underestimated the relevance and power of general
well-being. Gillham and Seligman argued for the development of a science of ʻ
positive psychology,ʼapsychology capable of providing individuals with knowledge on ʻ
how to build virtues like creativity,
hope, future-mindedness, interpersonal skill, moral judgment, forgiveness, humor, and courage, andhow to enhance happiness and life satisfaction.ʼPositive psychology has been defined as the study ofpositive emotions, positive character traits and enabling institutions (Seligman,Steen,Park,& Peterson,2005)and has flourished during the past decade. There have been increasing levels of progress inthis area in both therapeutic and research undertakings;nevertheless,the present author maintains thatreintegration efforts for women have been slow to incorporate aspects of positive psychology within
existing models of intervention.
The capacity for offender change and the personal decision to desist from crime speak,at least inpart, to the strength of an offender. Simpson, Yahner, and Dugan (2008)highlight the importance ofoffender change as they suggest that just as criminal behaviour emerges at different times,changes incriminal behaviour are anticipated as bonds to social institutions develop and persist. However,thesebonds represent only one component of a complex process. Roberts (2010)defines a model of change
specific to women that considers the complexity of change for women by incorporating ʻ
person/functioningʼfactors, ʻsituation/demandʼconstraints, and ʻ
resources/environmentʼconsiderations.
Taken together,this model demonstrates the change process for women as a product of their capacity
to ʻ
hold in balanceʼ1)the demands upon them, 2)the external resources and legitimate opportunities
available to them; and 3) their overall capacity/functioning. The fact that so many women are
successful upon release provides support for the strength these women hold in maintaining the requiredʻbalanceʼin this complex change process.
The research of Bui and Morash (2010)acknowledged ʻ
self-determinationʼas a factor in the change
process. Specifically, several of the women who took part in this research indicated that selfdetermination made it possible for them to stop drug-use without any treatment. Furthermore,Gobeilʼsresearch (2008)found that one of the largest protective factors was the womanʼs personal decision tobe ʻ
crime-freeʼ(ranked first) or a personal commitment to remain ʻ
crime-freeʼ(ranked third, after

155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
employment). All in all,research on the change process and self-determination highlights the strengthof individual women and their capacity to change as a result of their individual decision-making
process.
An effective method of conceptualizing components of positive psychology is the good lives modelfor offender rehabilitation. Ward (2002) suggests that typical rehabilitation efforts presuppose theconception ofpossibleʻ
good livesʼfor offenders;in turn,the understanding ofthe necessaryinternal andexternal conditions for living such lives are not always implicit. Ward (2002)refers to ʻ
good livesʼasmethods of living that are beneficial and fulfilling for individuals, arguing that any conception of a
possible ʻgood lifeʼrequires an understanding of an offenderʼs capabilities, temperament, interests,
skills, values and support networks. Ward argues that ʻ
a necessary condition for the reduction of
offending is the instillation of ways of living that are more fulfilling and coherent.ʼ Accordingly,
effective reintegration efforts should integrate perspectives that will contribute to the good lives offemale offenders.
Ward and Stewart (2003)maintain that traditional correctional intervention efforts are concernedwith risk reduction (i.e.,reducing crime and poor/disruptive behaviour)and propose that correctional
intervention efforts need to consider the enhancement of an offenderʼs well-being and capabilities.
Stated simply, the authors suggest an enhancement model of rehabilitation rather than a strictly
harm-avoidance model of rehabilitation. They adeptly suggest that a strictly criminogenic needperspective fails to offer a theoretically integrated view of the rehabilitation process. Accordingly,
they argue that there is a requirement for ʻ
additional substantive theories about the need in question.ʼ
Andrews and Bonta (2003)contend that arguments supporting theʻGood Lives Modelʼ(GLM )are basedlargely on theory, with little empirical evidence to support the value of the model.
In an effort to contribute to the substantive knowledge of the employment needs of offenders,whileat the same time providing empirical evidence to support the GLM,Taylor (2008)conducted researchwhich operationalized the model by considering the vocational interests of male and female offenders.
M ore specifically, she examined rates of concordance between vocational interests and institutionaland community employment and the respective impact of vocational interest concordance on correctional outcomes such as institutional adjustment and recidivism. Although quite exploratory andpreliminary,results revealed minimal support for the statistical significance of vocational congruence
as a whole. Nevertheless,post-hoc analyses revealed interesting differences for Aboriginal and women
offenders, as well as offenders over 30 years of age. Additionally,vocational congruence emerged asa significant factor in predicting time to recidivism. When considering the results for women, they
provide preliminary evidence to suggest that women who were engaged in employment that wascongruent with their vocational interests had more positive outcomes (e.g.,decreases in security level)
then those women who were engaged in employment that was incongruent with their vocational
interest. As increasing research is conducted to operationalize the Good Lives Model,we will have amore concrete demonstration and understanding of what is important to the ʻgood lifeʼof an offender.
In oneʼs efforts to understand the contribution of gender-specific variables, gendered pathways,
relational theory, positive psychology, and other constructs and theories outlined thus far, it will be
critical to recognize that measuring change and outcomes related to these areas is prudent. For some
this mayrequire a systematic paradigm shift with acknowledgement that understanding womenʼs crimerequires awareness of much more than an understanding of outcomes related to institutional adjustment and recidivism. Often, and for obvious and respected reasons, these long term and ultimate
outcomes are treated as the ʻgold standardʼin outcome research with limited recognition of the impact
of interim outcomes. Hedderman, Palmer, and Hollin (2008) provide one framework/model formeasuring change/outcomes related to gendered pathways. Ultimately this provides recognition of thecontribution of these gender sensitive variables to the crime process. Such a framework may contribute to consistency in measurement;thereby strengthening related research outcomes both nationallyand internationally.
Importantly, as this knowledge base grows, researchers and administrators alike will continue tostruggle with carefully distinguishing between 1) gender-specific needs that directly predict criminal
behaviour, 2) those that are in essence precursors to established criminogenic needs but are not

156

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
criminogenic in and of themselves, and 3) those that should be treated as responsivity factors. As
highlighted by Hollin and Palmer (2006), in dealing with women, we are dealing with ʻinteracting
adverse life eventsʼand need to ensure that assessments do not artificially,or inadvertently,reduce orelevate risk while at the same time avoiding a mistranslation of women-specific needs into
criminogenic needs.
Our capacity to move beyond an unrelenting,yet pioneering,focus on criminogenic needs and a purerisk reduction framework toward the enhancement of female offendersʼwell-being will inevitably befacilitated by:1) the consideration of gendered pathways;2) the recognition of the critical nature ofhealthy relationships for women;and 3)the incorporation of strengths-based perspectives and positive
psychology. Accounting for all of these components in an integrated model of intervention for female
offenders will pave the road toward ʻ
good livesʼto optimize successful reintegration into the community.
To be clear, the current article is not suggesting dismissal of traditional gender neutral principles
of effective rehabilitation. On the contrary, there is tremendous and well-substantiated value in therisk/needs/responsivity paradigm. Nonetheless, it is argued that a gender-informed perspective thatincorporates elements from both gender-neutral and female-centered approaches provides the opportunity to capitalize on what we know works in offender rehabilitation,and what we can learn by placing
gender at the forefront.
References
Andrews, D.,A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct, 3rd edition. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing Co.
Andrews,D.A.,Bonta,J.,& Hoge,R.D.(1990).Classification for effective rehabilitation:Rediscovering
psychology. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 17 (1), 19-52.
Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice, 3rd edition. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Blanchette,K.& Brown,S.L.(2006).The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative
perspective. West Sussex, U.K.:John Wiley & Sons.
Blitz,C.L.(2006).Predictors of stable employment among female inmates in New Jersey:Implications
for successful reintegration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(1):1-22.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S.S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, andguiding principles. Retrieved from http://www.nicic.org>.
Brown, S. (2010). Female Offenders. In R. Serin, A. Forth, K. Nunes, C. Bennell, & J. Pozzulo,
Psychology of Criminal Behaviour: A Canadian Perspective (pp. 369-401). Toronto:Pearson Education Canada.
Bui,H.N.,& M orash,M .(2010).The impact of network relationships,prison experiences,and internaltransformation on womenʼ
s success after prison release. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49 ,1-22.
Cobbina, J.E. (2010). Reintegration success and failure:Factors impacting reintegration among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49 , 210-232.
Dodge, M. & Pogrebin, M.F. (2001). Collateral costs of imprisonment for women: Complications ofreintegration. The Prison Journal, 81(1):42-54.
Gillham, J.E. & Seligman, M.E. (1999). Footsteps on the road to a positive psychology. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 37 (Supplement 1):S163-S173.

157

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 94
Gobeil, R. (2008). Staying out: Womenʼs perceptions of challenges and protective factors in community
reintegration. Research Report R-201. Ottawa:Correctional Services Canada.
Gobeil, R. & Barrett, M . (2008). Rates of recidivism for women offenders. Research Report R-192.
Ottawa:Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.
Hartwell, S. (2001). Female mentally ill offenders and their community reintegration needs:An initial
examination. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24(1):1-11.
Hedderman,C.,Palmer,E.,& Hollin,C.(2008).Implementing Services for Women Offenders and thoseʻat riskʼof Offending:Action Research with Together Women. M inistry of Justice Research Series
12/08. Accessed September 14, 2010: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research.htm>.
Herrschaft,B.A.,Veysey,B.M.,Tubman-Carbone,H.R.& Christian,J (2009).Gender differences in thetransformation narrative:Implications for revised reentry strategies for female offenders. Journalof Offender Rehabilitation, 48(6), 463-482.
Hollin,C.R.,& Palmer,E.J.(2006).Criminogenic need and women offenders:A critique ofthe literature.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 179-195.
M ahoney, A.M ., Daniel, C.A., (2006). Bridging the power gap: Narrative therapy with incarcerated
women. The Prison Journal, 86(1):75-88.
M essina,N.& Grella,C.(2006).Childhood trauma and womenʼs health outcomes in a California prison
population. American Journal of Public Health, 96(10):1842-1848.
M iller, J.B., (1986). What do we mean by relationships? Work in Progress No. 33. Wellesley, M ass.:
Stone Center, Working Paper Series.
Roberts, J. (2010). Women offenders:more troubled than troublesome? In J. Brayford, F. Cowe & J.
Deering. What Else Works? Creative work with offenders (pp.91-116). Portland:Willan Publishing.
Salisbury, E. & Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Gendered pathways:A quantitiative investigation of women
probationerʼs paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6):541-566.
Seligman,M .E.P.,Steen,T.A.,Park,N.,& Peterson,C.(2005).Positive psychology progress:Empiricalvalidation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421.
Shinkfield, A.J. & Graffam, J. (2009). Community reintegration of ex-prisoners:Type and degree ofchange in variables influencing successful reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 53(1):29-42.
Simpson,S.S.,Yahner,J.L.,& Dugan,L.(2008).Understanding womenʼs pathways to jail:Analyzing the
lives of incarcerated women. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41,84-108.
Spjeldnes,S.,& Goodkind,S.(2009).Gender differences in offender reentry:A review of the literature.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 314-335.
Stalans, L.J. (2009). Womenʼ
s offending behavior: Evidence-based review of gender differences andgender responsive programs. Victims & Offenders, 4, 405-411.
Taylor, K. (2008). Operationalizing the Good Lives M odel: An Examination of Hollandʼ
s RIASEC
Theory and Vocational Congruence with Offenders. Doctoral thesis. UniversityofOttawa,Ottawa,
ON.
Thompson,A.C.(2008).Releasing Prisoners, Redeeming Communities: Reentry, Race, and Politics. New
York:New York University Press.

158

157TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E.M ., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Womenʼ
s risk factors and theircontributions to existing risk/needs assessment:The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 37 , 261-288.
Van Wormer, K. (2001). Counseling female offenders and victims: A strengths-based approach. New
York:Springer.
Ward,T.(2002).Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders:Promises and problems. Aggression andViolent Behavior, 7(5), 513-528.
Ward, T. & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3):243-257.
Ward,T.& Stewart,C.(2003).Criminogenic needs and human needs:A theoretical model. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 9(2):125-143.

159