Policy Developments Regarding the Treatment of Women Offenders in
the U.S.:The Slow Process of Change
Patricia Van Voorhis, Ph.D.

I. INTRODUCTION
In 1971,President Richard Nixon convened the National Conference on Corrections to address the
topic of prison reform in the United States. The conference was a response to the deadly 1971 Attica
Prison riot,which had called attention to the neglected state of Americaʼs prisons. It brought together
many experts on the topic. Among many speakers, Dr. Edith Flynn delivered the only address on
women offenders. In “The Special Problems of Female Prisoners”, Dr. Flynn called attention to thefact that female offenders had been blatantly ignored in policy developments and research. In her
speech she also noted that prevailing theories of criminal behavior were inapplicable to women andthat the resulting lack of information had adverse implications for managing and treating female
offenders in Americaʼ
s correctional agencies. To support of her assertions, she referred to a recent
Presidentʼs Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967),stating that “
not asingle paragraph or statistic on the female offender could be found in any of the material”(Flynn,1971).
In the intervening years,research has put forward a clearer picture of how women become involvedin the justice system and what their treatment needs are when they get there. However,there is clear
reason to lament the arduouslyslow pace in which emerging evidence is impacting policies and services
for women (Belknap, 2007;Belknap & Holsinger, 2006;Blanchette & Brown, 2006;Bloom, Owen &Covington, 2003; Chesney-Lind, 2000;Holtfreder, Reisig, & Morash, 2004;M essina, Grella, Cartier, &Torres,2010;Reisig,Holtfreter,& Morash,2006;Van Dieten,2011;Van Voorhis,2009). Over 40 years
have passed since Dr.Flynn delivered her address,and we in the U.S.are still struggling to bring about
meaningful reform for women.
Early attempts to fill the knowledge gap observed by Dr. Flynn included surveys of correctional
programs (Glick & Neto,1977)and women offenders (U.S.GAO,1979). A number of classic qualitative
studies followed over the ensuing decades (Arnold,1990;Bloom,1996;Chesney-Lind & Rodriguez 1983;
Chesney-Lind & Shelden,1992;Daly,1992,1994;Gilfus,1992;Holsinger,2000,Owen,1998;Richie,1996;
Smart, 1976). Over time, these studies portrayed very different pictures of womenʼ
s and menʼs entry(pathways) to crime, one that, for women, called attention to abuse and trauma, poverty, unhealthy
relationships, mental illness, substance abuse, and parental stress.
These few studies appeared to call attention to the need for psychological programs targeted tomental health, trauma, and substance abuse. The need for educational and employment programs to
improve womenʼ
s socio-economic status was another implication of the early studies. However,notwithstanding this research, very little attention was devoted to showing how the identification of
womenʼ
s needs might impact correctional programs and services for women. At that point,in fact,very
few state and federal policies favored correctional rehabilitation for females or males. Until the 1990s
correctional priorities favored policies of incapacitation and punishment
not attempts to change
offender behavior or improve their circumstances (see Cullen, 2005).
This began to change in the 1990s with a more favorable political climate and emerging researchthat found that well-run rehabilitative psychological, educational, and social service programs could
reduce the reoffending of 15 to 30% of convicted offender populations (Andrews,Zinger,Hoge,Bonta,
Professor Emerita, University of Cincinnati. Authorʼs Note:Please address correspondence to Patricia Van Voorhis.
Email:Patricia.VanVoorhis＠uc.edu.

60

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Gendreau & Cullen,1990a;Lipsey,1992). Even so,the research fueling the policy transition was largely
conducted on boys and men. For example, two highly influential meta-analyses1 of correctional
programs concluded with warnings that women and girls were under-represented in the research(Andrews et al., 1990a;Lipsey, 1992). Just the same,the meta-analysis conducted by Donald Andrews
and his associates at Carlton University (Andrews et al., 1990a), generated a series of “Principles ofEffective Intervention”(see also Gendreau, 1996; Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and the Principles ofEffective Intervention fueled the development of the now predominant correctional treatment paradigm,variously referred to as “the Canadian M odel,”the Risk Needs Responsivity M odel (RNR),and
the “What Works”Model. Through the remainder of this essay, I will refer to this approach as the
Principles of Effective Intervention or “
the Principles.”The Principles of Effective Intervention offered some clear and important guidelines that have been
well supported by subsequent research. These guidelines are fundamental to the way that effective
correctional treatment programs are operated in the U.S. and Canada. There are several principles(see Smith, Gendreau, & Goggin, 2009). For purposes of this paper, we focus on the three mostimportant principles, the risk principle, the needs principle, and the guideline to utilize cognitive
behavioral treatment modalities:i.

The Risk Principle maintains that intensive correctional programs are appropriate for highrisk but not low risk populations. In order to achieve meaningful reductions in recidivism, it
is necessary to confine intensive services to medium and high risk offenders. Taking this astep further, the research typically finds that directing intensive services to low risk clientsmakes them worse, and does so for many reasons.

ii. The Needs Principle states that in order to achieve success in changing offendersʼbehavior,itis essential to target the risk factors for future offending. As with medical treatments, it
makes little sense to target a factor which is not relevant to a particular disease. The
guidelines further give priority to the treatment of “the Big 4”:criminal history, antisocial
attitudes, antisocial personality, and antisocial associates. Alternatively, sources sometimes
recommend the“Central 8”consisting of the“the big 4”plus substance abuse, family/marital,
education/employment, and use of leisure/recreation time (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010).
iii. The cognitive behavioral therapeutic modality is more likely to reduce offender recidivism thanother psycho-therapeutic modalities such as psychodynamic therapy,person-centered therapy
and other models. Cognitive-behavioral modalities target the criminal attitudes or thoughtprocesses that lead to and support antisocial behaviors.
Correctional research conducted over the past 25 years has also resulted in the development ofdynamic risk/needs assessments to classify correctional offenders into low,medium,and high levels ofrisk on the basis of needs known to significantly predict future offending. Since the assessments
identified an array of predictive needs, they also served as a valuable tool for triaging offenders into
programs most likely to turn them away from lives of crime. The early construction validation studies
for these assessments were also based largely on male offender samples (e.g., see Brennan, 1998;
Blanchette& Brown,2006;Holtfreder et al.,2004;Van Voorhis,Wright,Salisbury,& Bauman 2010)and
validated on women much later than their initial construction (e.g.,see Andrews,Dowden,& Rettinger,
2001;Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2001;M anchak, Skeem, Douglas, & Siranosian, 2009;Smith,
Cullen,& Latessa,2009). For the most part,the revalidation studies found these assessments to be valid
for women. For our purposes, it is important to note that the following needs are typical to most ofthese assessments:
Criminal history
Employment/education
Financial
1A metaanalysis is an empirical study which synthesizes findings of numerous experimental studies (Glass,M cGraw,andSmith, 1981). Meta analyses produce “effect sizes”for each of the modalities studied;the “effect size”statistic is noted
to produce more stable findings than former methods of summarizing findings across studies.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
Housing/neighborhood situation
Alcohol/drug use
Family/marital
Emotional stability (mental health)Use of leisure time
Antisocial friends
Antisocial thinking
The critics of the Principals of Effective Intervention and the risk/needs assessments, feminist
scholars for the most part, do not so much fault their validity among women,but rather the fact that
the Principles,the programs,and the assessments are not the correctional treatment paradigm that wewould have if we had started with women at the time the models were developed. For example,by thetime researchers finally addressed the problem of the external validity of the assessments,by conducting research on women, it was too late to include the needs that researchers found most relevant towomen offenders. Thus,programs were not targeted to many of the problems that brought women into
crime (Belknap & Holsinger,2006;Bloom et al.,2003;Hannah-Moffat,2009;Van Voorhis et al.,2010).
With no assessments to identify these problems,women were less likely to be triaged to gender-specificservices such as protection from abusive partners,childcare services,and access to reliable transportation, or programs targeted to low self-efficacy, trauma and abuse, parenting programs, healthy
relationships,or realistic employment opportunities that allowed for self-support (Bloom et al.,2003).
This is the state of correctional treatment in the U.S. today. Generally, programs, strategies,
policies,even prisons,are designed for men and applied to women with little thought or research. The
U.S. federal government did much to try to change this situation, mostly through projects fundedthrough the National Institute of Correction in the U.S. Department of Justice.2 Still the new assessments and programs presented on Monday and Tuesday of this week (Van Voorhis, 2013) havestruggled for funding or broad-scale implementation. Although there are some very progressive U.S.
states which are implementing the gender-responsive models,progress is slow. The gender-responsive
work has been faulted for lacking evidence (Andrews & Bonta, 2010), not because the work has notpassed empirical scrutiny,but because it will be decades before the volume of experimental studies offemale programs approaches the number of male-based studies included in the large meta-analyses.
Thus,it is not the “lack of evidence”per se,but rather the loss of a “
numbers game.” And the failure
to win that numbers game is adversely impacting efforts to improve treatment programs for women
offenders.
The intent of the paper is not to overly lament this situation but rather to take a studies look at how
this happens. Why is it so difficult to advocate for women? The paper could lament sexist,patriarchal
policies,and male-dominated governments and funding policies but this paper will examine the role ofscience, instead. I was privileged to work on several of these projects along with teams of extremely
talented and committed graduate students, government officials, scholars, administrators, practitioners, and activists. Beginning in the late 1990s, the University of Cincinnati secured a cooperative
agreement with NIC to construct a public domain womenʼ
s risk/needs assessment (WRNA). Alongwith the research, my staff and I operated in the role of embedded researchers (Petersilia, 2008), as
research partners with the agencies participating in our research and adopting the assessments. Thisvantage point offered a discouraging view of the barriers that science posed to progress.Having spent
most of my career studying male offenders, including a good deal of research on the Principles ofEffective Intervention, I was not prepared for my first-hand introduction to the abysmal state ofscience as it accounts for,or more accurately,fails to account for,the lives of women. On reflection,
how that science has unfolded in a culture where “male is norm”(Tavris, 1992) was discouraging to2Some maintain that even these advances would not have occurred without rather dramatic increases in the number ofwomen incarcerated (Buell et al., 2011). Largely resulting from policies promoting mandatory sentencing for drug
offenders and reductions in funding for mental health services(see Austin et al.,2001;M auer,Potler& Wolf,1999),growthin the size of womenʼs prison populations far outpaced growth in the size of menʼs prison populations (Bureau of Justice
Statistics,1999). Most recent figures show a decline in state and prison populations (Guerino et al.,2011;Pew Center on
the States,2010),however,the national imprisonment rate declined for men and remained unchanged for women (Guerino
et al., 2011).

62

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
observe, and the costs of the “male is norm”scientific model are substantial. Thus, I was also
embedded in the process of an emerging body of evidence that ran contrary to the prevailing evidenceof the day. There is a story to that, and I believe that it is important to tell it.
As will be seen, a number of these scientific issues were not unique to corrections but rather
reflected the scientific culture of our times. Other challenges emerged from the recent science ofcorrectional treatment itself. In the pages that follow, I discuss the challenges impacting the genderresponsive movement in corrections. I will, however, conclude on a more optimistic note with an
overview of emerging evidence, a body of research that, while still not as plentiful as that regarding
male offenders, is nevertheless achieving consistency across studies and showing a rather promising
path to improving approaches for women (Van Dieten, 2011).
It is now almost 40 years since Professor Flynn reminded the National Conference on Corrections
that the field had produced no research on women offenders,and that,as a consequence,women servedby the male model of corrections were not receiving appropriate programs and services. The scienceneeded to correct this situation emerged too slowly. Moreover, new evidence-based treatment models
for women are even now mostly in a dissemination stage, far from full implementation. True, somecorrectional and pretrial agencies adopted evidence-based, gender responsive assessments and programs,but many of these efforts have experienced fit-full starts and stops. I continue to agree with Dr.
Flynn. As an overview, science was a factor in the following key ways:i.

As far as women and minorities are concerned,many endeavors ofscience,including medicine,
education,and mental health,to name a few,have fallen far short of formulating scientifically
representative samples. Many such studies then develop conclusions that inappropriately
generalize findings to women and minorities. As far as women and minorities are concerned,
scientific problems with external validity (a concept taught early in most research methods
courses)are pervasive.

ii. The recent policy mandates for evidence-based practice and the commensurate elevation ofmeta-analysis as the “gold standard”have had the effect of blaming women for their invisibility. The perceived failure to produce the multitude of studies needed to support a metaanalysis of interventions for women offenders runs the strong risk of stifling innovation andcausing some to downplay the emerging evidence on women that is available.
iii. An emerging body of evidence on women offenders is being ignored. This literature, while
probably not sufficient in numbers to support meta-analytic study, is remarkably consistentacross studies and linked to favorable outcomes for women. Taken as a whole the emerging
science also forms a coherent model for women offenders which modifies some but not all of
the above Principles of Effective Intervention.
But getting to the current stage of progress (number iii above),required that arguments “on behalfof women offenders”sustain several identifiable “scientific”challenges.
A. First, the problem observed by Dr. Flynn four decades ago was not unique to corrections, butrather was embedded in the wider scientific culture, impacting women in the general population
as well as those encountering the criminal justice system. Sadly, inattention to women wasapparent in medical trials, validations of educational exams used to determine college entrance
and receipt of scholarships, and research on mental health assessments, and practices.
The historical exclusion of women from vital clinical trials ultimately led to the National Instituteof Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-43, 103rd Congress)which required the inclusionof women and members of minority groups in all NIH-supported biomedical and behavioral research
except in instances where a clear and compelling reason was established that to do so would beinappropriate (e.g., the study of a sex-specific illness).3 The guidelines further stipulated that childbearing potential or the added cost of including women and minorities were no longer acceptablejustifications for not including women in equal numbers to men in clinical trials. Up until that point,
exclusion of women from medical research was, according to some, an unintended consequence of63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
protecting vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, and pre-menopausal women who werecapable of becoming pregnant (Goldenberg,2003;Killien et al.,2000). For others,the exclusion was theoutcome of a naive assumption that findings observed from studies on male subjects could be generalized to women without modification, a startling “leap of faith: in an otherwise rigorous researchenterprise”(NIH,1999:10,quoted in Bloom et al.,2003). So strong was the “male is norm”filter thatit successfully trumped one of the core lessons in any graduate research methods class ― external
validity.
Notwithstanding the 1993 guidelines,which had no enforcement provisions,subsequent forums andpublications demonstrated an ongoing failure to recruit sufficient numbers of women in clinical trials.
Even fewer studies disaggregated findings by gender, where true gender-specific findings would beobserved (NIH, 1999;Geller Goldstein, & Carnes, 2006:Ramasubbu, Gurm, & Litaker, 2001;Vidaver,
Lafleur, Tong, Bradshaw & Marts, 2000).4 Among the costs incurred by generalizing findings frommale samples to females:a) a mistaken understanding of the role of aspirin in preventing womenʼsstrokes and heart attacks (Ridker, Cook, & Lee, 2005);b)a limited understanding of heart disease in
women (Chen, Woods, & Puntillow, 2005;Dey, Flather, Devlin, Brieger, Gurfinkel, Steg, Fitzgerls,
Jackson,& Eagle,2007;Rathore,Wang & Krumholtz,2002);and c)a host of issues with pharmaceutical
dosages (Keiser, 2005;Vidaver et al., 2000).
Female college students also were not being adequately understood in early validations of U.S.
college entrance examinations, including the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the National Merit
Examination, and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). Later,higher education was resistant to
replicated studies conducted during the 1980s and 1990s which consistently found that educational tests
used for vital college entrance decisions tended to under-predict the ultimate performance of womenand over predict the performance of men, including on the National Merit Exam (NACAC, 2008), theSAT (Bridgeman & Wendler, 1991; Clark & Gandy, 1984; Leonard & Jiang, 1999; Silverstein, 2000;
Wainer & Steinberg, 1992) and the GRE (House, Gupta, & Xiao, 1997;Sternberg & Williams, 1997).
Therefore, in large competitive schools which placed primary reliance on the exam results, women
applicants were observed to have lower entrance rates than men (Leonard & Jiang, 1999).
Use of the disparate tests in awarding scholarships and making college entrance decisions led toa number of lawsuits and changes to state policy［e.g.,Sharif v New York State Education Department,
709 F. Supp. 345, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)］and, in the case of the National M erit Exam, a fairly large outof court settlement. A writing sample was added to the SAT to correct the problem (NACAC,2008).
Reportedly, the gender prediction gap on these exams was known to insiders for over a quarter of acentury (Leonard & Jiang, 1999).
I first learned of the external validity problems associated with some cognitive, personality andmental health assessments from Carol Gilligan. I had the good fortune to be sent to Harvard University
by my dissertation advisor, Marguerite Warren, to learn how to classify probationers according toLawrence Kohlbergʼ
s Stages of Moral Judgment (Kohlberg, Colby, Gibbs, Speicher-Dubin, & Candee,1979). Gilligan, a faculty member, addressed my fellow workshop participants and I after a long day
of workshops on the M oral Development scoring protocol. She explained to us and a group ofHarvard
researchers and instructors, who clearly were less than happy with her, that the Stages of M oral
Judgment had been formulated on the study of the lives of boys and men and then erroneously
generalized to girls and women. After the fact,females were assessed on the protocol,only to find thatmany clustered around Stage 3 on the stage-based typology.Stage 3 is a stage reserved for humans whobase moral decisions on a concern for reciprocity in close relationships. One could develop to higher
stages of moral development, stages reserved for those who valued the importance of maintaining
3By 1995 the National Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 had been adopted byother federal agencies,including

the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ)and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
4Evidence of this problem emerged in a study accounting for only those federally funded trials that could have been
started after the NIH 1993 guidelines took effect. The authors found 30 percent of the later studies failed to assemble
samples that were comprised of at least 30 percent or more women. This figure increased to 44 percent when drug trials
were examined. Furthermore,87 percent of the trials failed to disaggregate findings by sex or include sex as a covariate.
None of these acknowledged concerns for generalizability (Geller et al., 2006).

64

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
social systems or universal principles of moral action,but women seldom did. Gilligan later rectified
the problem by studying samples of women and observing that “the Stage 3 problem”was a functionof the “male is norm”assumption and the failure to account for the fact that women are relational andfactor relationships into most decision-making regardless of “maturity” (Gilligan, 1982; Taylor,
Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995).
There are strong professional guidelines recommending the use of mental health assessments only
on populations “whose validity and reliability has been established for use with members of the
population tested”(APA, 2010). However, one can now deviate from these in cases where the author
expresses appropriate reservations. Concerns have been raised for the M f (Masculinity-Femininity)
scale of the M innesota M ultiphasic Personality Inventroy-2 (MMPI-2) (Lewin & Wild, 1991), thePsychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Baker & M ason, 2010);tests of worker satisfaction (HesseBiber,Nagy,& Yaiser,2004),and intelligence(Hyde,1990).The absence of females from psychologicalresearch is similar to that seen in medicine, education and criminal justice with concerns raised forpsychotherapy in general (APA Divisions 17 and 35, 2004: Levrant & Silverstein, 2005) as well as
specific specialty areas such as school psychology (Holverstott, Ehrhardt, Parish, Ervin, Jennings, &Poling, 2002), mental retardation (Porter, Christian & Poling, 2003), psychopharmacology (Poling,
Durgin,Bradley,Porter,Van Wagner,Weeden & Panos,2009),and organizational psychology(Jarema,
Snycerski, Bagge, Austin, & Poling, 1999).
In sum,womenʼ
s issues do not become the focus of policy and innovation,because the science thatwould foster such change devotes limited attention to them, and what is not seen is not attended to.
This rather obvious knowledge gap underscores the poignant titles chosen for some recent scholarship,e.g.,The Mismeasure of Woman (Tavris,1992);2)The Invisible Woman (Belknap,2007);and 3)Half the
Human Experience (Hyde, 2007).
B. The second scientific challenge occurred within the past decade when public sector funding
placed a premium on those practices and policies which showed empirical evidence of achieving
effective outcomes. The “
evidence-based practice”mantra refers to the use of research andscience, particularly experimental studies, to identify the best practices in a field. It has been
voiced by policy makers ranging from agency heads to Presidents of the United States.
However, the evidence-based mandate places women and minorities, who have been understudied, at a distinct disadvantage.
The movement to evidence based practice began in medicine in the early 1990s and then moved toother fields such as psychotherapy (Task Force, 1995) and more slowly to corrections (Cullen &Gendreau, 2001; MacKenzie, 2000). It forms the foundation for many public, performance-based
budgeting systems,holds a prominent place in the new U.S.health care law (Obamacare),and factors
heavily into funding of social policy and research. M any, myself included,believed that the evidencebased mandate was past due,especially in the field of U.S.corrections with its less than professional
tradition of eclectic and creative interventions which could not possibly have produced favorable
outcomes, e.g., cake decorating, horseback riding, wagon trains, and plastic surgery (Van Voorhis,
Cullen & Applegate, 1995).
Key to the “evidence-based”movement in corrections were several influential meta-analyses, amethodologically rigorous strategy for synthesizing findings across numerous controlled studies (Glasset al.,1981). Such studies produce“effect sizes”for each of the modalities studied and the“effect size”
statistic was noted to produce far more stable findings than former methods of synthesizing research(e.g. vote-counting).
A number of meta-analyses of correctional treatment programs were conducted during the 1990s,
but two have been exemplified throughout this essay (Andrews et al.,1990a;Lipsey,1992). One was a
study of 154 evaluations of correctional programs (Andrews et al.,1990a)which generated the Principles of Effective Intervention (see also Andrews, Dowden & Gendreau, 1999;Gendreau, 1996). The
second reviewed 443 delinquency prevention and intervention programs (Lipsey, 1992). Both showed
policy makers that rehabilitation models substantially reduced future offending. Other meta-analyses
established treatment-relevant predictors of recidivism (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990b;Gendreau,

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
Little, & Goggin, 1996). Meta-analyses also convincingly countered naı
ve assumptions that the crime
problem could be solved by such approaches as boot camps (MacKenzie, Wilson, & Kider, 2001) orother punitive ideas (Andrews et al., 1990a;Gendreau et al, 1996;Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 1999;
Langen & Leven, 2002).
Even so, the power of evidence, especially evidence put forward by the meta-analyses, looped
around full circle to fault the gender-responsive movement for the invisibility of women in key policy
and programmatic research. Evidence came to drive policy,but for women,there was no evidence; as
noted above,the invisibility of women in key research was pretty much a fact of science.Indeed,only
2.4 percent of the experimental studies examined in Mark Lipseyʼ
s meta analysis sampled only girls,
and 5.9 percent sampled primarily girls (Lipsey, 1992). The meta analysis conducted by Andrews andhis associates concluded with the admonition that gender effects required more detailed analysis. Even,
Lipseyʼs larger, most recent analysis reported that only 4.0 percent of the studies sampled mostly
female studies versus 87 percent accounting for all male or mostly male samples (Lipsey, 2009). The
authors acknowledged their concerns for the limited research on women,but their findings neverthelessformed the foundations of todayʼs approach to correctional treatment, treatment models that are
offered to both males and females.
The founders of the meta-analysis technique warned of such problems when they noted thatfindings are highly dependent upon the criteria for selecting studies from the total universe ofavailable
studies (i.e., selection bias)(Glass et al., 1981;Smith, 1980). Although the authors of the correctional
meta analyses certainly did not appear to commit selection bias, their results had the same effect,
because the requisite studies on women were not available. In a review of psychological,educational,
and behavioral treatments, Lipsey and Wilson (1993)presented the problem in very thoughtful terms:
M eta analysis is onlypossible for treatment approaches that have generated a corpus ofresearchsufficient in quantity and comparability for systematic analysis within a statistical framework.
Such a body of studies,in turn,is only likely to be produced for widely used and well-developed
approaches growing out of established theory or practice, or for promising innovations. Thus
the treatment approaches represented in meta analysis and reviewed in this article represent
rather mature instances that are sufficiently well developed and credible to attract practitioners
and sufficiently promising (or controversial) to attract a critical mass of research. (Lipsey &Wilson, 1993:1200).
Simply put, meta-analysis and EBP is not the friend of under-represented groups attempting tosecure knowledge of optimal medical,therapeutic or other treatments (Sue & Zane,2005)and it should
not purport to be. For their part, the Canadian authors of the Principles of Effective Intervention
sought to rectify the under-representation of women by conducting meta-analyses on necessarily
smaller programmatic data bases of women offenders (e.g.,Dowden & Andrews,1999). Later,validations of the risk/needs assessment accompanying the Principles of Effective Intervention (Andrews &Bonta,1995),were also conducted on samples of women offenders,and the sample sizes of these studies
increased over time(e.g.,Andrews & Bonta,1995; Andrews,Bonta,& Wormith,2004;Coulson,Ilacqua,
Nutbrown, Giulekas, & Cudjoe, 1996;Lowenkamp 2001;M cConnell, 1996;Rettinger, 1998; Simourd &Andrews, 1994;Smith et al., 2009). However, evidence, in the case of these studies, conformed to apattern of repeated tests of topics relevant to the Principles of Effective Intervention and proud
assertions that the favorable findings refuted critics of the model and the assessments. These critics
including feminist scholars and other proponents of alternative gender-responsive approaches (seeAndrews & Bonta, 2010).
Another scientific impediment was one that is typically overlooked in objections to the genderresponsive movement and its recommendations for women. The studies supporting the Principles ofEffective Intervention for girls and women did not test the gender-responsive models. Instead theirstudies conformed to a pattern of repeated tests of the Principles of Effective Intervention programs
and assessments and proud assertions that their favorable findings refuted their critics, including
feminist scholars and other proponents of alternative, gender-responsive approaches. As such, there
was no basis for any conclusions that gender-responsive approaches were flawed. Only two of theseauthors (see Blanchette and Brown,2006;Smith et al.,2009)acknowledged the logical error of refuting

66

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
gender-responsive proponents without directly testing the gender-responsive treatment targets andprograms.
Not everyone would saythere is anything wrong with this state ofscience. For example,in responseto the well-established ethnic disparities in mental health research, the U.S. Surgeon General (2001)
issued the guideline that minority mental health clients should be given treatments supported by the“best available evidence.” Of course,“
best available evidence”is a favorable alternative to using noevidence, or making medical and other decisions on the basis of guesswork alone. However, anover-reliance on best available evidence can minimizes the urgency to conduct more appropriate
research and risks inattention to emerging research. For purposes of women offenders,it is likely thecase that the “best available evidence”is not a picture of the assessment and treatment models wewould have if we had started with girls and women. Therefore, critics of the Principles of Effective
Intervention note that, while evidence-based, they were nevertheless formulated on the basis ofresearch on male populations and only later found to be effective with women (Bloom et al., 2003).
Several feminist critics faulted the over-reliance on meta-analysis to the dismissal ofqualitative studies
which comprised most of the evidence supporting gender-responsive approaches to corrections (seeChesney-Lind,1997,2000;Hannah-M offit & Shaw,2000:Kendall,2004). Still more scholars faulted theassessments for neglecting to include gender-specific factors (Blanchette & Brown, 2006;Funk, 1999;
Holtfreter & M orash, 2003;Reisig et al., 2006;Van Voorhis, et al., 2010). The consistent response ofa least two of the Canadian authors underscores the point of this section (Andrews & Bonta, 2010):
With all due respect,it is time for those who feel they are entitled to offer programs inconsistent
with (Principles of Effective Intervention)perspectives to show some social responsibility.They
must begin to program and evaluate in a “smarter”manner. To our knowledge, the evidencebase in support of their approaches flirts with nil. (Andrews & Bonta, 2010:514).
In sum, the sequence of events was as follows:research on women offenders was an afterthought
and unfunded. In the context of limited research, state and federal evidence-based policies mandated
evidence in order to secure funding and implementation. The evidence for women,of course,was notavailable,and the“best available evidence,”volumes ofit,consisted ofstudies on male offenders. Thenscholars and policy makers alike, continued to use the evidence-based argument to counter emerging
evidence with simple comparisons of the huge volume of studies on males compared to females (i.e.,thenumbers game).
C. An emerging body of evidence on women offenders is being ignored. This literature, while
probably not sufficient in numbers to support meta-analytic study, is remarkably consistentacross studies and linked to favorable outcomes for women. Taken as a whole the emerging
science also forms a coherent model for women offenders which modifies some but not all of theabove Principles of Effective Intervention.
For this response, let us return to the Principles of Effective Intervention presented above. Many
gender-responsive scholars stop far short of recommending that they be ignored. The evidence on
women appears to converge on a hybrid model which modifies the prevailing Principles of Effective
Intervention for women. However, in the case of some of the Principles, such as the needs principle(defined above), extensive modification appears to be warranted. The Principles continue to form ameaningful organizational structure for presenting an evidence-based model for women,but that model
differs in several key ways.
First,the evidence suggests that the risk principle should continue to apply to women but do so with
important qualifications.The risk effect (an interaction between risk and intensive treatment)has beenfound in evaluations of two intensive gender responsive programs (Gehring,Van Voorhis & Bell,2010;
Orbis Partners, 2010) and one evaluation of gender-neutral halfway houses across the State of Ohio
(Lovins, Lowenkamp, Latessa & Smith, 2009). That is, even with women, high risk offenders havebetter treatment outcomes in intensive programs than low risk offenders. M oreover, what too often
gets ignored in policy formulations ofthe risk principle is the fate oflow risk offenders who have worse
outcomes even in state of the art,“
evidence-based,”programs than they might have had if we had notintervened or brought them further into the justice system.By definition,low risk offenders have many

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
pro-social influences in their lives. These women may need less intensive interventions for fewer needs,
but they also will benefit, where possible, from ongoing contact with the prosocial influences in theirlives (Salisbury, Van Voorhis, Wright & Bauman, 2009).
Furthermore, the evidence does not support the argument that risk management and risk assessment is inappropriate for women offenders (Blanchette & Brown, 2006). Underlying this argument is
the assertion that women are not dangerous and therefore should not be classified by levels of risk
(Hannah-M offitt,2004,2009;Smart,1982). In our research,however,12-month recidivism in community
samples ranged from 21 percent in a probation sample to 44 percent in a parole sample. Among highrisk groups these rates are much higher.This is sufficient to support interventions for high risk womenand accurate, assessment-based indications of who they are.
Just the same,an appropriate risk management policy for women should reconceptualize notions ofmaximum custody and high risk. The high risk/high custody woman is not the same as the high risk/
high custody male offender,and this is seldom reflected in correctional policy. M ost validations ofrisk
and custody assessments find that even in high risk groups, women reoffend, commit serious misconducts,5 and return to prison at considerably lower rates than high risk men (Hardyman & Van Voorhis,
2004;Wright,Van Voorhis,Salisbury,& Bauman,2009). A simple comparison of high risk males andfemales on their rate of offense-related outcomes would,in most cases,reveal this distinction to policy
makers and administrators. Womenʼs rates are typically much lower than menʼs. These comparisonsshould perhaps be made before impractical investments are devoted to overlysecure and austere prison
structures located far from children and other supportive family members (Wright et al., 2009).
Supervision policies for high risk females in the community also should reflect differences between
males and female (Salisbury et al., 2009).
The scholarship specific to women offenders places the needs principle of the principles of effective
intervention under greatest scrutiny (Blanchette & Brown, 2006) and finds it to be incomplete and inneed of considerable modification (Buell et al.,2011;Blanchette,2009;Salisbury & Van Voorhis,2009;
Van Voorhis et al.,2010;Wright et al.,2009). The commonsense notion that in order to reduce criminal
behavior, we must address the risk factors for criminal behavior still holds. However,scholars raisequestions about what should be targeted (see Blanchette & Brown, 2006;Holsinger & Van Voorhis,
2005;Holtfreter & M orash, 2003;Reisig et al., 2006;Salisbury et al., 2009;Van Voorhis et al., 2010;
Wright,Salisbury,& Van Voorhis,2007). Recent research has identified a new set ofgender-responsive
risk/need factors. It also appears that the priority given to the “Big 4”(history,attitudes,personality,
and associates)should be reconsidered for women.
In support,a number of studies compared the needs of male and female offenders.A lengthy reviewof these studies is beyond the scope of the present essay. However the studies generally noted higher
rates of mental illness, abuse, and trauma among women than men (see Blanchette & Brown, 2006;
Hubbard & Pratt, 2002; Langan & Pelissier, 2001; Messina, Grella, Burdon, & Prendergast, 2007;
Salisbury& Van Voorhis,2009). Another suggestion that the picture of womenʼ
s risk factors might bequalitatively different than menʼs risk factors appeared on the gender-neutral risk needs assessments,
themselves. For example, several authors have found the LSI-r predictive for males and females(Kroner & M ills, 2001; Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2002; Manchek et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2009).
However,a comparison of needs scores showed differences between males and females. For example,
women scored significantly higher than men on the emotional personal (mental health) (Holsinger,
Lowenkamp,& Latessa,2003:Manchak et al.,2009; M ihailides,Jude,&Van den Bosshe,2005;Palmer& Hollin,2007;Raynor,2007),family/marital (Holsinger et al,2003)and financial domains (Heilbrun,
Dematteo, Fretx, Erickson, Yasuhara, & Anumba, 2008;Holsinger et al., 2003;Manchak et al., 2009;
M ihailides et al.,2005;Raynor,2007). Women scored significantly lower than men on criminal history(Heilbrun et al.,2008;Holsinger et al.,2003;Manchak et al.,2009;M ihailides et al.,2005; Raynor,2007),use of leisure time, criminal thinking (Holsinger et al., 2003;Manchak et al., 2009), companions and5In prison settings,this comparison should be not include minor infractions,such as insubordination.These actually tend

to be higher for women than men, reflecting poor staff skills in managing women offenders and a tendency to revert toexcessive issuance of misconducts in order to do so (Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). A comparison of serious oraggressive misconducts, typically finds much lower rates for women than men.

68

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
substance abuse (Holsinger et al., 2003). Male female comparisons on other measures of the samegender-neutral risk/need factors as those noted on the LSI-r show a similar pattern of findings (e.g.,see
Bell, 2012;Gehring, 2011). Most of these studies did not compare the predictive merits of each of the
LSI-r (Andrews & Bonta, 1995) need domains. However, in one study financial issues were potent
predictors for women while criminal history financial needs and substance abuse were predictive formen (M anchak et al., 2009).
In the U.S., research on the utility of a hybrid gender-responsive classification and risk/needs
assessments began in 2000 with a cooperative agreement awarded to the UniversityofCincinnati bythe
National Institute of Corrections. The UC/NIC research took this inquiry a step further to determine
whether gender-responsive needs noted in the qualitative,feminist literature were predictive of future
offending and serious prison misconducts. The findings of associations between needs such as trauma,depression,abuse,low self-efficacy,unhealthyrelationships and offense-related outcomes,would afford
their placement within the needs principle, thereby suggesting new treatment priorities for women.
The research generally found the traditional gender neutral dynamic risk/need factors and assessments to be predictive of recidivism and prison misconducts,but the addition of the gender-responsive
risk/need factors improved the overall predictive validity of the gender neutral risk/needs assessments
for women offenders (Van Voorhis et al., 2010). In addition to the significant incremental validity of
the additional block of gender-responsive factors, the predictive merits of specific gender-responsive
factors identified several important treatment targets. These varied somewhat across types ofcorrectional settings (probation,prerelease,and prison),but generally implicated mental health issues,
financial problems, parental stress, unsafe housing, and self-efficacy in community settings. Abuse
variables appeared to lead to mental health and substance abuse problems in a pathwaythat ultimately
led to recidivism (Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009), a pathway that is also seen in other studies (e.g.,
M cClellan et al.,1997;Messina et al.,2007).Risk factors predisposing women to more serious forms of
misconduct in prison settings included mental health problems,child abuse,and dysfunctional relationship dynamics. A revalidation study is currently underway with larger samples and will be completed
in the months ahead;however, 11 of 12 samples have been analyzed (See Van Voorhis & Groot,2010;
Van Voorhis,Bauman,& Bruschette,2012a;Van Voorhis,Bauman,& Brushette,2012b;Van Voorhis,
Brushette, & Bauman, 2012;Van Voorhis, Bauman, & Brushette, 2013) and the results are consistent
with the earlier construction validation research.
Evidence that issues such as trauma, substance abuse, mental health, healthy relationships, andparental issues are important risk factors for women can also be gleaned from the fact that programs
designed to address these problems actually reduces womenʼ
s recidivism. They“work”in other words.
For example, a key risk factor for womenʼ
s recidivism, especially in community settings, is parental
stress exhibited by women who have little financial and emotional support in raising their children and
who also experience difficulties with child management (Van Voorhis et al.,2010). The Visiting Nurses
Program,a fairly well know intervention for at risk mothers,provides support addressing child healthand child management. Experimental research found favorable outcomes for both the children andtheir mothers who had lower post-program offense rates than mothers in a comparison group (Olds,
Robinson, Pettitt, Luckey, Holmberg, Ng, Isacks, Sheff, & Henderson, 2004). Behavioral childmanagement programs have long showed favorable effects on at risk children,but we are beginning tolearn that they have important outcomes for parents as well (Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay,& Jennings, 2009). Another parenting program with promising outcomes is the Female Offender
Treatment and Employment Program (FOTEP),a residential re-entry program for women that offeredintensive case management to women and focused on employment and substance abuse. The parenting
focus was on reunification with dependent children. Findings showed a reduction in recidivism for
FOTEP participants (Grella, 2009).
One of the gender-responsive principles noted in Gender Responsive Strategies: Research, Practiceand Guiding Principles for Women Offenders (Bloom et al.,2003)advocated for wrap around services.
M ultimodal services are recommended for most offender populations (see Lipsey, 2009), but two
program models tailor the notion to women offenders. Moving On (Van Dieten & M acKenna, 2001)
teaches women to access and mobilize varied community resources. Consistent with the emerging
profiles of women offenders Moving On also works with women to enhance strengths, build healthy

69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
relationships, and target self-defeating thoughts. The program uses a cognitive behavioral treatment
modality. A matched comparison group studywas recentlycompleted among probationers in Iowa andfound significant reductions in recidivism (Gehring et al., 2010). A second program, Women Offender
Case Management Model (Van Dieten,2008)works with correctional practitioners to develop comprehensive case management strategies for women. The development of a network of community services
and partnerships is one of the requirements of WOCM M program sites. The program also trains casemanagers to address gender responsive risk/need factors and use strengths-based and relationshipfocused approaches. This program was also evaluated and found to have favorable reductions inrecidivism (Orbis Partners, Inc., 2010).
Advocating for an approach to substance abuse that recognizes its co-occurrence with mental healthand trauma, Stephanie Covington developed a womenʼ
s substance abuse program, Helping Women
Recover: A Program for Treating Addiction (Covington,2008).The program builds from four perspectives on womenʼ
s addiction: these accommodate the importance of womenʼs pathways to crime,
relationship issues, and addictions co-occurring with mental health issues and trauma. Attention is
given to self-efficacy and the impact of sexism and trauma upon perceptions of the self and the self in
relationship with others. Program modules also discuss families of origin, healthy support systems,
sexuality,body image,and spirituality. A second program Beyond Trauma (Covington,2003)provides
information on trauma and its effects and then moves to the development of coping skills. Bothprograms use cognitive-behavioral approaches and exercises, along with psychoeducation, guided
imagery, and expressive art techniques. A recent randomized experimental study of both programs
administered sequentially found significantly lower return to prison rates for women in the twogender-responsive programs than those in the standard therapeutic model(M essina et al.,2010). Effects
on intermediate outcomes pertaining to psychological well-being have also been favorable (Covington,
Burke, Keaton, & Norcott, 2008;M essina et al., 2010).
Two additional programs for addressing abuse and trauma, Seeking Safety (Najavits, 2002) andDialectical Behavioral Therapy (Linehan, 1993), were not developed specifically for offender populations. As such there are numerous studies, but all speak to favorable intermediate outcomes,such as
reductions in suicide attempts and drug use and improvements in treatment retention, mental health,and PTSD systems. Seeking Safety is a cognitive behavioral program for co-occurring disorders of
trauma/PTSD and substance abuse. Evaluation research shows favorable intermediate outcomes,but
it was not possible to locate any evaluations of the programʼs impact on offense-related outcomes(Najavits,Weiss,R.,Shaw,& Muenz,1998;Najavits,Gallop,& Weiss,2006). DBT is also a cognitivebehavioral approach involving skills training, motivational enhancement and coping skills. The
impact of DBT has been tested in a number of treatment settings and found to have a number of
positive intermediate outcomes (for a summary of evaluation findings,see Dimeff,Koerner,& Linehan,2002).
Another substance abuse program for women, Forever Free, targeted gender-responsive risk factors, such as self-efficacy, healthy relationships, abuse and trauma, and parenting. Forever Free
included a voluntary aftercare program. Services were multimodal and evaluation results showed thatthe program significantly reduced drug use and recidivism (Prendergast et al.,2002;Hall,Prendergast,
Wellish, Patten, & Cao, 2004).
Programs designed to address these gender-responsive needs appear to be working. Empiricalobservations of the influences of trauma, mental illness, parental stress, poverty and unhealthy
relationships also suggest a merger ofthe criminogenic focus ofcorrectional policywith a public healthfocus (Butler & Engle, 2011). There is evidence to support this shift and the shift advocates well forpolicies and approaches that bring other social service agencies (e.g.,substance abuse,labor,education,
mental health,child services,and welfare)to the table. In fact,partnerships among such agencies areseen in a number of prison re-entry programs and several pretrial,“pre-entry”programs (e.g.,Buell etal., 2011).

II. CONCLUSION
In closing,most innovative approaches for women offenders have only been implemented within the70

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
past decade. Moreover,these changes have occurred on a very small scale. This is largely because theresearch needed to support such innovation was unavailable in corrections and other fields. M ore
startling, scientific enterprises habitually generalized findings pertinent to men to women, and thispractice resulted in substantial costs to women. Additional costs were observed when evidence-based
guidelines imposed “
best available practices”and faulted the critics of“
male is norm”practices for thefact that women are understudied.
It is not essential to refrain from issuing the frequent call for more research,but policymakers must
give credence to the evidence currently supporting innovative programming for women. There is theongoing risk that womenʼ
s invisibility to science could extend to a denial of the evidence that is
beginning to amass. The evidence on behalf of women offenders is not nil,and policy makers should
not be encouraged to ignore it.

III. REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. 2010. Amendments to the 2002 Ethical Principles of Psychology
and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist. 65:493.
Andrews,Don A.and James Bonta. 1995. Level of Service Inventory-Revised. North Tonawanda,NY:
M ulti-Health Systems.
Andrews,Don A.and James Bonta. 2010. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct,5th Edition. Cincinnati,
OH:LexisNexis.
Andrews,Don A.,James Bonta,and Robert D.Hoge. 1990b. Classification for effective rehabilitation:
Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17:19-52.
Andrews, Donald, James Bonta, and Steven Wormith. 2004. Level of service/case management inventory: LS/CMI manual. Toronto, Ontario:Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, Donald, Craig Dowden, and Paul Gendreau. 1999. Clinically relevant and psychologicallyinformed approaches to reduced re-offending: A meta-analytic study of human risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns in justice contexts. Unpublished manuscript, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Andrews, Donald, Craig Dowden, and Jill L. Rettinger. 2001. Special populations within corrections.
In (John A. Winterdyck, ed.), Corrections in Canada: Social Reactions to Crime. Toronto,
Canada:Prentice Hall.
Andrews, Donald, Ivan Zinger, Robert D. Hoge, James Bonta, Paul Gendreau, and Francis T. Cullen.
1990a. Does correctional treatment work? A psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28:419-429.
Arnold, Regina A. 1990. Processes of victimization and criminalization of Black women. Social
Justice, 17:156-166.
James Austin,M arino A.Bruce,Leo Carroll,Patricia L.McCall,and Stephen C.Richards 2001.The useof incarceration in the United States. Critical Criminology: An International Journal 10:17-41.
Baker,Nancy L.and Janelle L.M ason. 2010. Gender issues in psychological testing of personality andabilities. In (Joan C.Chrisler and Donald R.M cCreary,eds.),Handbook of Gender Research in
Psychology, Volume 2. New York:Springer.
Belknap, Joanne. 2007. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice, 3rd Edition. Belmont,CA:
Thompson Wadsworth.
Belknap, Joanne and Kristi Holsinger. 2006. The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency.

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
Feminist Criminology, 1:48-71.
Bell, Valerie. 2012. Gender-responsive risk/needs Assessment: A comparison of women and men.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Cincinnati, OH;University of Cincinnati.
Blanchette,Kelly.2009.Consensus Knowledge Statement and Relevant Research,Technical Assistance
Report. Washington, D.C.:National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
Blanchette, Kelly and Shelley L. Brown. 2006. The Assessment and Treatment of Women Offenders:
An Integrated Perspective. Chichester:Wiley.
Bloom, Barbara. 1996. Triple jeopardy: Race, class and gender as factors in womenʼs imprisonment.
Riverside, CA;University of California, Riverside.
Bloom,Barbara,Barbara Owen,and Stephanie Covington. 2003. Gender-responsive strategies: Research
practice and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute ofCorrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
Brennan,Tim. 1998. Institutional classification of females:Problems and some proposals for reform.
In (Ruth T. Zaplin, ed.), Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions.
Gaithersburg, MD:Aspen Publishers.
Bridgeman,Brent and Cathy Wendler. 1991. Gender differences in predictors of college mathematics
performance and in college mathematics course grades. Journal of Educational Psychology,83:275-284.
Buell,Maureen,Phyllis Modley,and Patricia Van Voorhis. 2011. Policy developments in the U.S. In(Rosemary Sheehan,Gill McIvor,and Chris Trotter,eds.), Working with Women Offenders in theCommunity. Willan Publishing:United Kingdom.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.1999.Special Report: Women Offenders.Washington,D.C.:U.S.Departmentof Justice.
Butler, Burke and Rebecca Engle (2011). ABA Corrections Committee:Report on Gender Responsive
Classification Committee. New Haven, CT:Yale University.
Chen, Wan, Susan Woods, and Kathleen Puntillo. 2005. Gender differences in symptoms associatedwith acute myocardial infarction:A review of the research. Heart Lung, 34:240-247.
Chesney-Lind, M eda. 1997. The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2000. What to do about girls? Thinking about programs for young women. In(M aeve W. McM ahon, ed.), Assessment to Assistance: Programs for Women in Community
Corrections. Lanham, M D:American Correctional Association.
Chesney-Lind,Meda and Noelie Rodrigues. 1983. Women under lock and key. Prison Journal,63:47-65.
Chesney-Lind,Meda and Randall G.Shelden. 1992. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Belmont,
CA:Thompson Wadsworth.
Clark, Mary Jo and Jerilee Gandy. 1984. Sex differences in the academic performance of scholastic
aptitude test takers. (College Board Rep.No.84-8 Educational Testing Science Research Rep.No.
84-43). New York College Entrance Examination Board.
Coulson, Grant, Giorgio Ilacqua, Verna Nutbrown, Diana Giulekas, and Francis Cudjoe. 1996.
Predictive utility of the LSI for incarcerated female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

72

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
23:427-439.
Covington,Stephanie. 2003. Beyond Trauma:A Healing Journey for Women. Center City,MN:Change
Companies.
Covington, Stephanie. 2008. Helping Women Recover: A Program for Treating Substance Abuse.
Facilitatorʼ
s Guide-Revised Edition for Use in the Criminal Justice System. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Covington, Stephanie, Cynthia Burke, Sandy Keaton, and Candice Norcott. 2008. Evaluation of a
trauma-informed and gender-responsive intervention for women in drug treatment. Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement 5, November 2008, 387-398.
Cullen,Francis T. 2005. The twelve people who saved rehabilitation:How the science of criminology
made a difference:The American Society of Criminology 2004 presidential address. Criminology, 43:1-42.
Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreau. 2001. From nothing works to what works:Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. Crime and Delinquency, 81:313-338.
Daly, Kathleen. 1992. Womenʼs pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking andproblems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Womenʼ
s Studies,2:11-52.
Daly,Kathleen. 1994. Gender, Crime and Punishment:Is Justice Blind or are Men and Women TreatedDifferently by the Courts? New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
Dimeff, L., K. Koerner, and M. Linehan. 2002. Summary of research on dialectical behavior therapy.
Seattle, WA:Behavioral Tech., LLC.
Dowden,Craig and Don A.Andrews. 1999. What works for female offenders. A meta-analytic review.
Crime and Delinquency, 45:435-452.
Dey,S.,M.Flather,G.Devlin,D.Brieger,E.Gurfinkel,P.Steg,G.Fitzgerls,E.Jackson,and K.Eagle.
(2007).Sex-related differences in the presentation,treatment and outcomes among patients withacute coronary syndromes:The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Heart, 95:20-26.
Flynn, Edith E. 1971. The special problems of female prisoners. Paper presented at the National
Conference on Corrections, Williamsburg, VA.
Funk, Stephanie J. 1999. Risk assessment for juveniles on probation:A focus on gender. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 26:44-68.
Gehring, Krista. 2011. Are Needs Related to Pretrial Outcomes? Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.
Cincinnati, OH;University of Cincinnati.
Gehring, Krista S., Patricia Van Voorhis, and Valerie R. Bell. 2010. “What Works”for female
probationers? An evaluation of the Moving On Program. Women, Girls, and Criminal Justice,
11:1, 6-10.
Geller,Stacie E.,M arci Goldstein Adams,and M olly Carnes.2006. Adherence to federal guidelines forreporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials. Journal of Womenʼs Health,15:1123-1131.
Gendreau, Paul. 1996. The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In (Alan T. Harland,ed.),Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply.
Thousand Oaks:CA:Sage.
Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Francis T. Cullen. 1999. The Effects of Prison Sentences On

73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
Recidivism. Ottawa, Canada:Public Works and Government Services.
Gendreau, Paul, Tracey Little, and Claire Goggin. 1996. A meta-analysis of the predictors of adultoffender recidivism:What works. Criminology, 34:575-607.
Gendreau,Paul,Claire Goggin,and Paula Smith. 2002.Is the PCL-R really the “
unparalleled measureof offender risk?A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior,29:397-426.
Gilfus,M ary E. 1992. From victims to survivors to offenders. Womenʼs routes of entry and immersion
into street crime. Women and Criminal Justice, 4:63-90.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, M A:Harvard Press.
Glass,Gene V.,Barry M cGaw,M ary Lee Smith. 1981. Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills,
CA:Sage Publications.
Glick,Ruth and Virginia Neto. 1977. A national study of womenʼs correctional programs. (Document
ID:027-000-00524-I). Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.
Goldenberg, M arvin M . 2003. Politics and clinical trials:The inclusion of women. Pharmacy andTherapeutics, 28:791-796.
Grella, Christine. 2009. Female Offender Treatment and Employment Project (FOTEP). Summary ofevaluation findings. Los Angeles, CA:UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.
Guerino, Paul,Paige Harrison,,and William Sabol. 2011.Prisoners in 2010. Washington,D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hall,Elizabeth,M ichael Prendergast,Jean Wellish,Meredith Patten and Yan Cao.2004.Treating drug
abusing women prisoners:An Outcomes Evaluation of the Forever Free Program. The Prison
Journal, 84:81-105.
Hannah-M offat, Kelly. 2004. Gendering risk: At what cost? Negotiations of gender and risk in
Canadian womenʼs prisons. Feminism and Psychology,14:243-249.
Hannah-M offat, Kelly. 2009. Gridlock or mutability: Reconsidering gender and risk assessment.
Criminology and Public Policy, 8:209-219.
Hannah-M offat, Kelly and Margaret Shaw. 2000. Thinking about cognitive skills? Think again!
Criminal Justice Matters. 39:8-9.
Hardyman,Patricia L.and Patricia Van Voorhis. 2004. Developing gender-specific classification systems
for women offenders. Washington DC:National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department ofJustice.
Heilbrun,Kirk,David Dematteo,Ralph Fretz,Jacey Erickson,Kento Yasuhara and Natalie Anumba.
2008. How “specific”are gender-specific rehabilitation needs? An empirical analysis.Criminal
Justice and Behavior. 35:1382-1397.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy and M ichelle L. Yaiser. 2004. Feminist approaches to research as aprocess:Reconceptualizing epistemology,methodology,and method. In (Sharlene Nagy HesseBiber and M ichelle L.Yaiser,eds.),Feminist Perspectives on Social Research. New York:Oxford
University Press.
Holsinger,Kristi. 2000. Feminist perspectives on female offending:Examining real girlsʼ
lives. Womenand Criminal Justice, 12:23-51.

74

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Holsinger,Kristi and Patricia Van Voorhis.2005.Examining gender inequities in classification system:
M issouriʼ
s development of a gender-responsive assessment instrument. Women, Girls, andCriminal Justice, 6:33-34, 44-47.
Holsinger, Alexander, Christopher Lowenkamp and Edward Latessa. 2003. Ethnicity, gender and the
LSI-r. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31:309-320.
Holtfreter, Kristy and M erry M orash. 2003. The needs of women offenders: Implications for correctional programming. Women and Criminal Justice, 14:137-160.
Holtfreter,Kristy,Michael D.Reisig,and Merry M orash. 2004. Poverty,state capital,and recidivism
among women offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 3:185-208.
Holverstott, Katherine M., Kristal E. Ehrhardt, Trisha Parish, Ruth Ervin, Lanai Jennings, and Alan
Poling. 2002. Females and males as participants in school psychology research:Data from fourjournals over 15 years. School Psychology International, 23:449-457.
House, J. Daniel, Suman Gupta, and Beiling Xiao. 1997. Gender differences in Prediction of grade
performance from graduate record examination scores. Paper presented at the Illinois Association
for Institutional Research Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.
Hubbard, Dana and Travis Pratt.2002.A meta analysis of the predictors of delinquency among girls.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34:1-13.
Hyde, Janet S. 1990. Analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs, 16:53-73.
Hyde, Janet S. 2006. Half the human experience. Boston, M A:Houghton Mifflen.
Jarema,Kimberly,Susan Snycerski,Susan Bagge,John Austin,and Alan Poling. 1999. Participationof women as authors and participants in articles published in the Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19:85-94.
Keiser, Jocelyn. 2005. Gender in the pharmacy:Does it matter?Science, 308:1572.
Kendall,P.(2004).Dangerous thinking:A critical history of correctional cognitive behaviorism.In (G.
M air, ed.). What Matters in Probation. Cullomton, Devon: Willan Publishing.
Killien,Marcia,Judy Ann Bigby,Victoria Champion,Emma Fernandex-Repollet,Rebecca D.Jackson,
M arjorie Kagawa-Singer, Kristin Kidd, Michelle J. Naughton, and Marianna Prout. 2000.
Involving minority and underrepresented women in clinical trials: The National Centers of
Excellence in Womenʼs Health. Journal of Womenʼs Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 9:1061-1070.
Kohlberg,Lawrence,Ann Colby,John Gibbs,Betsy Speicher-Dubin,and Dan Candee.(1979).Standard
form scoring manual. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Kroner, Daryl and Jeremy M ills. 2001. The accuracy of five risk appraisal instruments in predicting
institutional misconduct and new convictions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28:471-489.
Langan,Patrick A.and David J.Levin (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 19 9 4. Washington
DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Langan, Patrick A. and Bernadette Pelissier. 2001. Gender differences among prisoners in drug treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13:291-301
Leonard,David K.and Jiming Jiang. 1999. Gender bias and the college predictions of the SATs:A cryof despair. Research in Higher Education, 40:375-407.

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
Levrant,Ronald and Louise Silverstein.2005.Gender is neglected by both evidence-based practices andtherapy as usual. In (John Norcross, Larry Beutler and Ronald Levant, eds.), Evidence based
practices in mental health: Debate and dialogue on fundamental questions (pp. 338-345). Washington, D.C.:American Psychological Association.
Lewin,M iriam and Cheryl L.Wild. 1991. The impact of the feminist critique on tests,assessment,and
methodology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15:581-596.
Linehan, M arsha. 1993. Cognitive behavioral therapy for borderline personality disorder. New York,
NY:Guilford Press.
Lipsey,Mark W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treatment:A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability ofeffects. In (Thomas D. Cook, Harris Cooper, David J. Cordray, Heidi Hartmann, Larry V.
Hedges, Richard J. Light, Thomas A. Louis, and Fredrick M osteller, eds.), Meta-analysis for
Explanation. New York:Russell Sage Foundation
Lipsey, M ark W. 2009. The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile
offenders:A meta analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4:124-147.
Lipsey, M ark, and David Wilson (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral
treatment:Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1189-1209.
Lovins,Lori Brusman,Christopher Lowenkamp,Edward Latessa,and Paula Smith. 2007.Applicationof the risk principle to female offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminology, 23:383-393.
Lowenkamp, Christopher T., Alexander M . Holsinger, and Edward J. Latessa. 2001. Risk/needassessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood Abuse. Criminal Justice andBehavior, 28:543-563.
M acKenzie, Doris L. 2000. Evidence-based corrections:Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46:457-471.
M acKenzie,Doris L.,David B.Wilson,and Suzanne B.Kider. 2001. Effects of correctional boot camps
on offending. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,578:126-143.
M anchak,Sarah,Jennifer Skeem,Kevin Douglas,and M ario Siranosian.2009.Does Gender M oderate
the Predictive Utility of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) for Serious Violent
Offenders?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36:425-442.
M auer,M arc,Cathy Potler,and Richard.Wolf.1999.Gender and justice: Women, drugs and sentencing
policy. Washington, D.C.:The Sentencing Project.
M cClellan, Dorothy, David Farabee, and Benjamin Crouch. 1997. Early victimization, drug use, andcriminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24:
455-476.
M cConnel, Beth A. 1996. The prediction of female offender recidivism with the Level of Supervision
Inventory. Unpublished honorʼ
s thesis, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario.
M essina,Nina,Christine Grella,William Burdon,M ichael Prendergast.2007.Childhood adverse eventsand current traumatic distress: A comparison of men and women drug-dependent prisoners.
Criminal Justice and Behavior. 34:1385-1401.
M essina,Nina,Christine Grella,Jerry Cartier,and Stephanie Torres.2010.A randomized experimental
study of gender-responsive substance abuse treatment for women in prison. Journal of Substance
Abuse Treatment, 38:97-107.

76

153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
M ihailides,Stephen,Belinda Jude,and Eric Van den Bosshe.2005. The LSI-r in an Australian setting:
implications for risk/needs decision making in forensic contexts.Psychiatry, Psychology and Law,
12:207-217.
M orash,M erry,Timothy S.Bynum,and Barbara A.Koons.1998. Women offenders:programming needs
and promising approaches. Washington DC:National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department ofJustice.
Najavits, Lisa M. 2002. Seeking Safety: A Treatment Manual for PTSD and Substance Abuse. New
York:Guilford Press.
Najavits, Lisa, Gallop, R.& Weiss,R.(2006).Seeking Safety therapy for adolescent girls with PTSD
and substance abuse:A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Health Services andResearch, 33:453-463.
Najavits, L., Weiss, R., Shaw, S. & M uenz, L. (1998) Seeking Safety:Outcomes of a new cognitivebehavioral psychotherapy for women with posttraumatic stress disorder and substance dependence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 437-456.
National Association for College Admission Counseling.2008.Report of the Commission on the Use ofStandardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission. Arlington, VA:NACAC.
National Institutes of Health. 1999. Agenda for research on womenʼs health in the 21st century.
Rockville, M d.:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Olds,David.,Joanne Robinson,L. Pettitt,D.Luckey,J.Holmberg,R.Ng,K.,Isacks,K.Sheff, and C.
Henderson,C.(2004).Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by Nurses:Age 4 follow-up
results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114:1560-1568.
Orbis Partners, Inc. 2010. Women Offender Case M anagement Model: The Connecticut Project.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
Owen, Barbara. 1998. In the Mix: Struggle and Survival in a Womenʼ
s Prison. Albany, NY:State
University of New York Press.
Palmer, Emma and Clive. Hollin. 2007. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised with English women
prisoners:A needs and reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34:1385-1401.
Petersilia, Joan. 2008. Influencing public policy: An embedded criminologist reflects on California
prison reform. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4:335-356.
Pew Center on the States. 2010. Prison count 2010. Washington, D.C. Pew Center on the States.
Piquero, Alex., David Farrington, Brandon Welsh, Richard Tremblay, R., & Wesley Jennings. 2009.
Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 83-120.
Poling,Alan,AmyDurgin,KellyP.Bradley,LindsayK.Porter,Karen Van Wagner,M arc Weeden,andJohn J.Panos. 2009.Femaleʼs participation in psychopharmacology research as authors,editors,
and subjects. Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 17:105-112.
Porter, Carl L., LeeAnn Christian, and A. Poling. 2003. Research brief:Some data concerning thereporting of participantʼs gender in the mental retardation literature. Mental Retardation, 41:
75-77.
Prendergast,M ichael,Elizabeth Hall,and Jean Wellisch.2002.Outcome Evaluation of the Forever Free
Substance Abuse Treatment Program: One-year Post-Release Outcomes. Washington, D.C.:

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Presidentʼs Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967. The challenge ofcrime in a free society. Washington D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice.
Ramasubbu, Kumudha, Hitinder Gurm, and David Litaker. 2001. Gender bias in clinical trials?:Dodouble standards still apply? Journal of Womenʼs Health and Gender-Based Medicine,10:757-764.
Rathore, S., Y. Wang, and H. Krumholtz., 2002. Sex-based differences in the effect of digoxin for thetreatment of heart failure. New England Journal of Medicine, 347 (18):1403-1411.
Raynor, P. 2007. Risk and need assessment in British probation: The contribution of the LSI-R.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 13:125-138.
Reisig, M ichael D., Kristry Holtfreter, and M erry Morash. 2006. Assessing recidivism risk acrossfemale pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23:384-405.
Rettinger, Jill L. 1998. A recidivism follow-up study investigating risk and need within a sample ofprovincially sentenced women. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Ontario.
Richie,Beth E. 1996. Compelled to Crime: The Gendered Entrapment of Battered Black Women. New
York:Routledge.
Ridker,P.,N Cook,I.Lee,et al(2005).A randomized trial oflow-dose aspirin in the primarypreventionof cardiovascular disease in women. New England Journal of Medicine. 352(13):1293-1304.
Salisbury, Emily J. and Patricia Van Voorhis 2009. Gendered pathways:An empirical investigationof women probationersʼpath to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36:541-566.
Salisbury, Emily, Patricia Van Voorhis, Emily Wright, and Ashley Bauman. 2009. Changing theprobation experience for women offenders: Findings from the Womenʼ
s Needs and Risk
Assessment Project. Women, Girls, and Criminal Justice. 10:83-84, 92-95.
Sharif v. New York State Education Department, 709 F. Supp. 345, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Silverstein,Andrea L. 2000. Standardized tests:The continuation of gender bias in higher education.
Hofstra Law Review, 29:669-700.
Simourd, Linda and Donald Andrews. 1994. Correlates of delinquency:A look at gender differences.
Forum on Corrections Research, 6:26-31.
Smart, Carol. 1976. Women, crime, and criminology: A feminist critique. London, UK:Routledge andKegan Paul.
Smart,Carol.1982.The new female offender:Reality or myth?In (Barbara Price and Natalie Sokoloff,eds), The criminal justice system and women. (pp 105-116). New York, NY:Clark Boardman.
Smith, M . 1980. Publication bias and meta analysis. Evaluation and Education, 4:22-24.
Smith,Paula,Francis T.Cullen,and Edward J.Latessa. 2009. Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta
analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 8:183-208.
Smith, Paula, Paul Gendreau and Clair Goggin. 2009. Correctional treatment:Accomplishments andRealities. In (Patricia Van Voorhis, Michael Braswell and David Lester. eds.), Correctionalcounseling and rehabilitation (pp. 315-325). Cincinnati, OH:Lexis/Nexis.

78153RD INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTSʼPAPERS
Sternberg,Robert and Wendy Williams,1997.Does the Graduate Record Examination predict meaningful success in the graduate training of psychologists. American Psychologist, 52:630-641.
Sue,Stanley and Nolan Zane.2005.Ethnic minoritypopulations have been neglected byevidence-based
practices.In (John Norcross,Larry Beutler and Ronald Levant,eds.),Evidence based practices inmental health: Debate and dialogue on fundamental questions (pp. 338-345). Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association. Prison count 2010.
Tarvis, Carol. 1992. The mismeasure of woman. New York:Simon and Schuster.
Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, Division of ClinicalPsychology of the American Psychological Association (1995). Training and dissemination of
empirically validated psychological treatment: Report and recommendation. The ClinicalPsychologist, 48:3-23.
Taylor,Jill M cClean,Carol Gilligan,and Amy Sullivan.(1995).Between voice and silence: Women andgirls, race and relationship.Cambridge, M A:Harvard University Press.
U.S. Government and Accounting Office. 1979. Female offenders- Who are they and what are theproblems confronting them? NCJ 060496.
Van Dieten, M arilyn. 2008. Women Offender Case Management Model. Washington DC:National
Institute of Corrections.
Van Dieten,M arilyn.2011.From zero sum to win-win:How research on women advances our work incorrections. Plenary address to the International Community Corrections Association, September 12, 2011, Cincinnati, OH.
Van Dieten,M arilyn and Patricia MacKenna. 2001. Moving On Facilitatorʼ
s Guide. Toronto,Canada:
Orbis Partners.
Van Voorhis, Patricia. 2009. Next steps in gender-responsive classification. Women, Girls, andCriminal Justice, 10:81-88.
Van Voorhis, Patricia. 2013. Womenʼs Risk Factors and New Treatments/Interventions For Addressing Them:Evidence-Based Interventions in the United States and Canada. Paper presented at
the 153rd Senior Seminar of the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Preventionof Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Tokyo, Japan, January 21 & January 22, 2013.
Van Voorhis, Patricia and Brittany Groot 2010. Predictive Validity of Womenʼ
s COMPAS Scales
Among Incarcerated Women in California―Final Report. Cincinnati, OH:Center for Criminal
Justice Research.
Van Voorhis,Patricia and Lois Presser. 2001. Classification of women offenders: A national assessmentof current practices. Washington,DC:U.S.Department of Justice,National Institute of Corrections.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Ashley Bauman, Emily M. Wright, and Emily Salisbury. 2009. Implementing
the Womenʼs Risk/Needs Assessment (WRNAs):Earlylessons from the field. Women, Girls, andCriminal Justice, 10:81, 82, 89-91.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Ashley Bauman, and Rachel Brushette. 2012. Revalidation of the WomenʼsSupplemental Risk/Needs Assessment: Results for the Rhode Island Department of Corrections,Prison and Pre-release Samples. Cincinnati OH:Center for Criminal Justice Research.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Ashley Bauman, and Rachel Brushette. 2012. Revalidation of the WomenʼsSupplemental Risk/Needs Assessment: Results for the Iowa Women Offender Case Management

79

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 90
Projects. Cincinnati OH:Center for Criminal Justice Research.
Van Voorhis,Patricia,Rachel Brushette, and Ashley Bauman,A.,2012. Revalidation of the WomenʼsRisk/Needs Assessment: Results for the Missouri Department of Corrections, Probation, Prison,and Prerelease Samples. Cincinnati, OH:Center for Criminal Justice Research.
Van Voorhis,Patricia,Francis Cullen,F.and Brandon Applegate(1995).Evaluating interventions withviolent offenders:A guide for practitioners and policy makers. Federal Probation, 59:1-11.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Emily M. Wright, Emily Salisbury, and Ashley Bauman. 2010. Womenʼ
s riskfactors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment:The current status of gender
responsive assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34:261-288.
Vidaver, Regina M., Bonnie Lafleur, Cynthia Tong, Robynne Bradshaw, and Sherry A. Marts. 2000.
Women subjects in NIH-funded clinical research literature:Lack of progress in both representation and analysis by sex. Journal of Womenʼs Health and Gender-Based Medicine, 9:495-504.
Wainer, Howard and Linda S. Steinberg. 1992. Sex differences in performance on the mathematics
section of the scholastic aptitude test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational
Review, 62:323-336.
Wright,Emily,Emily Salisbury,and Patricia Van Voorhis,P.2007.Predicting the prison misconductsof women offenders: The Importance of gender responsive needs. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice. 23:310-340.
Wright,Emily,Patricia Van Voorhis,Emily Salisbury,and Ashley Bauman. 2009. Gender-responsive
prisons:Lessons from the NIC/UC Gender-Responsive Classification Project. Women, Girls, andCriminal Justice, 10:85-87, 95-96.

80