I. Policy Developments Regarding the Treatment of Women Offenders in the U.S.: The
Slow Process of Change

Patricia Van Voorhis, Ph.D.
University of Cincinnati
A. Introduction
In 1971, President Richard Nixon convened the National Conference on Corrections toaddress the topic of prison reform in the United States.The conference was a response to thedeadly 1971 Attica Prison riot, which had called attention to the neglected state of America’s
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 the fact that female offenders had been blatantly
ignored in policy developments and research. In her speech she also noted that prevailingtheories of criminal behavior were inapplicable to women and that the resulting lack of
information had adverse implications for managing and treating female offenders in
America’s correctional agencies. To support of her assertions, she referred to a recent
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967),statingthat“not a single paragraph or statistic on the female offender could be found in any of thematerial” (Flynn, 1971).
In the intervening years, research has put forward a clearer picture of how women
become involved in the justice system and what their treatment needs are when they get there.
However, there is clear reason to lament the arduously slow 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; Messina, Grella, Cartier, & Torres, 2010; Reisig,

1Holtfreter, & Morash, 2006; VanDieten, 2011;VanVoorhis, 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 includedsurveys ofcorrectional 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, thesestudies portrayed very different pictures of women’s and men’s 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 to mental health, trauma, and substance abuse. The need for educational andemployment programs to improve women’s socio-economic status was another implication of
the early studies. However, notwithstanding this research, very little attention was devoted toshowing how the identification ofwomen’s needs might impact correctional programs andservices for women. At that point, infact, very few state and federal policies favoredcorrectional 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 andemerging research that found that well-run rehabilitative psychological, educational, andsocial service programs could reduce the reoffending of 15 to 30% of convicted offender2

populations (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau & Cullen, 1990a; Lipsey, 1992).Evenso, the research fueling the policy transition was largely conducted on boys and men. For
example, two highly influential meta-analyses1 of correctional programsconcluded withwarnings 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 thePrinciples of Effective Interventionfueled the development of the now predominantcorrectional treatment paradigm, variously referred to as “the Canadian Model,” the Risk
Needs Responsivity Model (RNR), and the “What Works” Model. Through the remainder ofthis essay, I will refer to this approach as the Principles of Effective Intervention or “thePrinciples.”The Principles of Effective Intervention offered some clear and important guidelinesthat 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 thispaper, we focus on the three most important 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 high risk 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 a step further, the research typically finds that
directing intensive services to low risk clients makes them worse, and does so formany reasons;1

A meta-analysis is an empirical study which synthesizes findings of numerous experimental studies (Glass,
McGraw, and Smith, 1981). Meta analyses produce “effect sizes” for each of the modalities studied; the “effectsize” statistic is noted to produce more stable findings than former methods of summarizing findings acrossstudies.
3

ii.

The Needs Principlestates that in order to achieve success in changing offenders’behavior, it is essential to target the risk factors for future offending. As withmedical treatments, it makes little sense to target a factor which is not relevant to aparticular disease. The guidelines further give priority to the treatment of “the Big4”: criminal history, antisocial attitudes, antisocial personality, and antisocial
associates. Alternatively, sources sometime recommend the “Central 8” consistingof 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 than other psycho-therapeutic modalities such as psychodynamic
therapy, person-centered therapy and other models. Cognitive-behavioral
modalities target the criminal attitudes or thought processes that lead to andsupport antisocial behaviors.

Correctional research conducted over the past 25 years has also resulted in thedevelopment of dynamic risk/needs assessments to classify correctional offenders into low,
medium, and high levels of risk on the basis of needs known to significantly predict future
offending. Since the assessments identified an array of predictive needs, they also served asa valuable tool for triaging offenders into programs most likely to turn them away from livesof crime. The early construction validation studies for these assessments were also basedlargely 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; Manchak, Skeem, Douglas, & Siranosian,
2009; Smith, Cullen, & Latessa, 2009). For the most part, the revalidation studies found theseassessments to be valid for women. For our purposes, it is important to note that thefollowing needs are typical to most of these assessments:
Criminal history
Employment/education
Financial
Housing/neighborhood situation4

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, butrather the fact that the Principles, the programs, and the assessments are not the correctional
treatment paradigm that we would have if we had started with women at the time the models
were developed. For example, by the time researchers finally addressed the problem of theexternal validity of the assessments, by conducting research on women, it was too late toinclude the needs that researchers found most relevant to women 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). Withno assessments to identify these problems, women were less likely to be triaged to genderspecific services such as protection from abusive partners, childcare services, and access toreliable transportation, or programs targeted to low self-efficacy, trauma and abuse, parenting
programs, healthy relationships, or realistic employment opportunities that allowed for selfsupport (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 funded through the National Institute of Correction in the U.S.

5

Department of Justice.2 Still the new assessments and programs presented on Monday andTuesday of this week (Van Voorhis, 2013) have struggled 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 of female 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 improvetreatment 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
couldlament sexist, patriarchal policies, and male-dominated governments and funding
policies but this paper will examine the role of science, 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 agreementwith NIC to construct a public domain women’s risk/needs assessment (WRNA). Along withthe research, my staff and I operated in the role of embedded researchers (Petersilia, 2008), as2

Some maintain that even these advances would not have occurred without rather dramatic increases in
the number of women incarcerated (Buell et al, 2011). Largely resulting from policies promoting
mandatory sentencing for drug offenders and reductions in funding for mental health services (seeAustin et al., 2001; Mauer, Potler & Wolf, 1999), growth in the size of women’s prison populations far
outpaced growth in the size of men’s 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 theStates, 2010), however, the national imprisonment rate declined for men and remained unchanged for
women (Guerino et al., 2011).

6

research partners with the agencies participating in our research and adopting the assessments.
This vantage 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 of Effective Intervention, I was not prepared for my first-hand introduction to
the abysmal state of science as it accounts for, or more accurately, fails to account for, thelives of women. On reflection, how that science has unfolded in a culture where “male isnorm” (Tavris, 1992) was discouraging to 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 evidence of the day. There is a story tothat, 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 of correctional treatment itself. In the pages that follow, I discuss the challenges
impacting the gender-responsive movement in corrections. I will, however, conclude on amore optimistic note with an overview of emerging evidence, a body of research that, whilestill 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(VanDieten, 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 aconsequence, women served by the male model of corrections were not receiving appropriate
programs and services. The science needed to correct this situation emerged too slowly.
Moreover, new evidence-based treatment models for women are even now mostly in a7

dissemination stage, far from full implementation. True, some correctional and pretrial
agencies adoptedevidence-based,gender responsive assessments and programs, but many ofthese efforts have experienced fit-fullstarts 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 of science, including
medicine, education, and mental health, to name a few, have fallenfar short of formulating
scientifically representative samples. Many such studies then develop conclusions that
inappropriately generalize findings to women and minorities. As far as women andminorities are concerned, scientific problems with external validity (a concept taught earlyin 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 theirinvisibility. The perceived failure to produce the multitude of studies needed to support ameta-analysis of interventions for women offendersruns the strong risk of stifling
innovation and causing some to downplay the emerging evidence on women that isavailable;iii. An emerging body of evidence on women offenders is being ignored. This literature, while
probably not sufficient in numbers to supportmeta-analytic study, is remarkably consistentacross studies and linked to favorable outcomes for women. Taken as a whole theemerging 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 behalf of women offenders” sustain several identifiable “scientific” challenges.

B. First, the problem observed by Dr. Flynn four decades ago was not unique to corrections,but rather 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 was apparent in medical trials, validations of educational exams used todetermine college entrance and receipt of scholarships, and research on mental healthassessments, and practices.
The historical exclusion of women from vital clinical trials ultimately led to the
National Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-43, 103rd Congress)
which required the inclusion of women and members of minority groups in all NIH-supported
biomedical and behavioral research except in instances where a clear and compelling reason8

was established that to do so would be inappropriate (e.g., the study of a sex-specificillness).3The guidelines further stipulated that childbearing potential or the addedcost ofincluding women and minorities were no longer acceptable justifications for not including
women in equal numbers to men in clinical trials. Up until that point, exclusion of womenfrom medical research was, according to some, an unintended consequence of protecting
vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, and pre-menopausal women who werecapable of becoming pregnant (Goldenberg, 2003; Killien et al.,2000). For others, theexclusion was the outcome of a naive assumption that findings observed from studies on malesubjects could be generalized to women without modification, a startling “leap of faith: in anotherwise rigorous research enterprise” (NIH, 1999: 10, quoted in Bloom et al., 2003). So
strong was the “male is norm” filter that it 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 and publications demonstrated an ongoing failure torecruit sufficientnumbers of women in clinical trials. Even fewer studies disaggregated findings by gender,
where true gender-specific findings would be observed (NIH, 1999; Geller Goldstein, &Carnes, 2006: Ramasubbu, Gurm, & Litaker, 2001; Vidaver, Lafleur, Tong, Bradshaw &Marts, 2000).4Among the costsincurred by generalizing findings from male samples tofemales: a) a mistaken understanding of the role of aspirin in preventing women’s strokes and3

By 1995 the National Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 had been adopted by other federal
agencies, including the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC).

4

Evidence 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 thelater 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 thetrials failed to disaggregate findings by sex or include sex as a covariate. None of these acknowledged
concerns for generalizability (Geller et al., 2006).
9

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 ofissues with pharmaceutical dosages (Keiser, 2005; Vidaver et al., 2000).
Female college students also were not being adequately understood in earlyvalidations of U.S. college entrance examinations, including theScholastic 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 and1990swhich consistently found that educational tests used for vital college entrance decisions
tended to under-predict the ultimate performance of women and over predict the performanceof men, including on the National Merit Exam (NACAC, 2008), the SAT (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 to a number of lawsuits and changes to state policy [e.g., Sharif v New YorkState Education Department; 709 F. Supp. 345, 362 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)] and, in the case of the
National Merit Exam, a fairly large out of court settlement. A writing sample was added to
the SAT to correct the problem (NACAC,2008).Reportedly, the gender prediction gap onthese exams was known to insiders for over a quarter of a century (Leonard & Jiang, 1999).

10

I first learned of the external validity problems associated with some cognitive,
personality and mental health assessments from Carol Gilligan. I had the good fortune to besent to Harvard University by my dissertation advisor, Marguerite Warren, to learn how toclassify probationers according to Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Judgment (Kohlberg,
Colby, Gibbs, Speicher-Dubin, & Candee, 1979). Gilligan, a faculty member, addressed myfellow workshop participants and I after a long day of workshops on the Moral Development
scoring protocol. She explained to us and a group of Harvard researchers and instructors, whoclearly were less than happy with her, that the Stages of Moral Judgment had been formulatedon the study of the lives of boys and men and then erroneously generalized to girls andwomen. After the fact, females were assessed on the protocol, only to find that manyclustered around Stage 3 on the stage-based typology. Stage 3 is a stage reserved for humans
who base 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 theimportance of maintaining 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 function of the “male is norm” assumption and the failure toaccount for the fact that women are relational and factor relationships into most decisionmaking regardless of “maturity” (Gilligan, 1982; Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995).
There arestrong professional guidelines recommending the use of mental healthassessments 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 fromthese in cases where the author expresses appropriate reservations. Concerns have beenraised for the Mf (Masculinity-Femininity) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

11

Inventroy-2 (MMPI-2) (Lewin & Wild, 1991), the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)(Baker & Mason, 2010); tests of worker satisfaction (Hesse-Biber, Nagy, & Yaiser, 2004),
and intelligence (Hyde, 1990). The absence of females from psychological research is similar
tothat seen in medicine, education and criminal justice with concerns raised for psychotherapy
in general (APA Divisions 17 and 35, 2004: Levrant & Silverstein, 2005) as well as specificspecialty 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, women’s issues do not become the focus of policy and innovation, because thescience that would 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).

C. The second scientific challenge occurred within the past decade when public sector
funding placed a premium onthose practices and policies which showedempiricalevidence of achieving effective outcomes. The “evidence-based practice” mantra refers
to the use of research and science, particularly experimental studies, to identify the bestpractices 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 andminorities, who have been understudied,at a distinct disadvantage.

The movement to evidence based practice began in medicine in the early 1990s andthen moved to other fields such as psychotherapy (Task Force, 1995) and more slowly tocorrections (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. health12care law (Obamacare), and factors heavily into funding of social policy and research.Many,
myself included, believed that the evidence-based mandate was past due, especially in thefield of U.S. corrections with its less than professional tradition ofeclectic and creativeinterventions which could not possibly have produced favorable outcomes, e.g., cakedecorating, horseback riding, wagon trains, and plastic surgery (Van Voorhis, Cullen &Applegate, 1995).
Key to the “evidence-based” movement in corrections wereseveral influential metaanalyses,a methodologically rigorous strategy for synthesizing findings across numerous
controlled studies (Glass et al., 1981). Such studies produce “effect sizes” for each of themodalities 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 conductedduring 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 metaanalyses established treatment-relevant predictors of recidivism (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge,
1990b; Gendreau, Little, &Goggin, 1996). Meta-analyses also convincingly countered naïve
assumptions that the crime problem could be solved by such approaches as boot camps(MacKenzie, Wilson, & Kider, 2001) or other punitive ideas (Andrews et al., 1990a;
Gendreau et al, 1996; Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 1999; Langen & Leven, 2002).

13

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 ofwomen 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 waspretty much a fact of science.Indeed, only 2.4 percent of the experimental studies examined inMark Lipsey’s meta analysis sampled only girls, and 5.9 percent sampled primarily girls(Lipsey, 1992). The meta analysis conducted by Andrews and his associates concluded withthe admonition that gender effects required more detailed analysis. Even, Lipsey’s larger,
most recent analysis reported that only 4.0 percent of the studies sampled mostly female
studies versus 87 percent accounting forall male or mostly male samples (Lipsey, 2009). The
authors acknowledged their concerns for the limited research on women, but their findings
nevertheless formed the foundations of today’s approach to correctional treatment, treatment
models that are offeredto both males and females.
The founders of the meta-analysis technique warned of such problems when they
noted that findings are highly dependent upon the criteria for selecting studies from the total
universe of available 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, becausethe requisite studies on women were not available.
In areview of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatments, Lipsey and Wilson(1993) presented the problem in very thoughtful terms:
Meta analysis is only possible for treatment approaches that have generated a corpus
of research sufficient in quantity and comparability for systematic analysis within astatistical 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 orpractice, or for promising innovations. Thus the treatment approaches represented inmeta analysis and reviewed in this article represent rather mature instances that are14

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 to secure knowledgeof 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 Interventionsought 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; McConnell, 1996; Rettinger,
1998; Simourd & Andrews, 1994; Smith et al., 2009). However, evidence, in the case of
these studies, conformed to a pattern of repeated tests of topics relevant to the Principles ofEffective Interventionand proud assertions that the favorable findings refuted critics of themodel and the assessments. These criticsincluding feminist scholars and other proponents ofalternative gender-responsive approaches (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010).
Another scientific impediment was one that is typically overlooked in objections to thegender-responsive movement and its recommendations for women. The studies supporting thePrinciples of Effective Intervention for girls and women did not test the gender-responsivemodels. Instead their studies conformed to a pattern of repeated tests of the Principles ofEffective Intervention programs and assessments and proud assertions that their favorable
findings refuted their critics, including feminist scholars and other proponents of alternative,

15

gender-responsive approaches. As such, there was no basis for any conclusions that genderresponsive approaches were flawed.Only two of these authors (see Blanchette and Brown,
2006; Smith et al. 2009) acknowledged the logical error of refuting gender responsive
proponents without directly testing thegender-responsive treatment targets and programs.
Not everyone would say there is anything wrong with this state of science. For
example, in response to the well-established ethnic disparities in mental health research, theU.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 no evidence, or making medical and otherdecisions on the basis of guesswork alone. However, an over-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 the case thatthe “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 ofEffective Intervention note that, while evidence-based, they were nevertheless formulated on
the basis of research 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 thedismissal of qualitative studies which comprised most of the evidence supporting genderresponsive approaches to corrections (see Chesney-Lind, 1997, 2000; Hannah-Moffit & Shaw,
2000: Kendall, 2004). Still more scholars faulted the assessments for neglecting to include
gender-specific factors (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Funk, 1999; Holtfreter &Morash, 2003;
Reisig et al., 2006; Van Voorhis, et al., 2010). The consistent response of a least two of theCanadian authors underscores the point of this section(Andrews & Bonta, 2010):

16

With all due respect, it is time for those who feel they are entitled to offer programsinconsistent with (Principles of Effective Intervention) perspectives to show somesocial responsibility. They must begin to program and evaluate in a “smarter” manner.
To our knowledge, the evidence base 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 anafterthought and unfunded. In the context of limited research,state and federal evidencebased policies mandated evidence in order to secure funding and implementation. The
evidence for women, of course, was not available, and the “best available evidence,” volumesof it, consisted of studies on male offenders. Then scholars 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., the numbersgame).
D. 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
consistent across 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.

For this response, let us return to the Principles of Effective Intervention presented on
page 3. Many gender-responsive scholars stop far short of recommending that they beignored. The evidence on women appears to converge on a hybrid model which modifies theprevailing 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 a meaningful organizational structure forpresenting 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 and17

intensive treatment) has been found in evaluations of two intensive gender responsive
programs (Gehring, Van Voorhis & Bell,, 2010; Orbis Partners, 2010) and one evaluation ofgender-neutral halfway houses across the State of Ohio (Lovins, Lowenkamp, Latessa &Smith, 2009). That is, even with women, high risk offenders have better treatment outcomesin intensive programs than low risk offenders. Moreover, what too often gets ignored inpolicy formulations of the risk principle is the fate of low risk offenders who have worse
outcomes even in state of the art, “evidence-based,” programs than they might have had if we
had not intervened or brought them further into the justice system. By definition, low risk
offenders have many pro-social influences in their lives. These women may need lessintensive interventions for fewer needs, but they also will benefit, where possible, fromongoing contact with the prosocial influences in their lives (Salisbury, Van Voorhis, Wright &Bauman, 2009).
Furthermore, the evidence does not support the argument that risk management andrisk 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-Moffitt. 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 high risk groups these rates are much higher.
This is sufficient to support interventions for high risk women and accurate, assessment-based
indications of who they are.
Just the same, an appropriate risk management policy for women should
reconceptualize notions of maximum 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 seldom18reflected in correctional policy. Most validations of risk and custody assessments find thateven in high risk groups, women reoffend, commit serious misconducts,5and 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 and femaleson their rate of offense-related outcomes would, in most cases, reveal this distinction to policy
makers and administrators. Women’s rates are typically much lower than men’s. These
comparisons should perhaps be made before impractical investments are devoted to overly
secure 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 theprinciples of effective intervention under greatest scrutiny (Blanchette & Brown, 2006) andfinds it to be incomplete and in need 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 raise questions about whatshould be targeted (see Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Holsinger & Van Voorhis, 2005;
Holtfreter & Morash, 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 of5

In 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 to excessive issuance of misconducts in order to do so (Hardyman& Van Voorhis, 2004). A comparison of serious or aggressive misconducts, typically finds much
lower rates for women than men.

19gender-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 review of 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 (seeBlanchette & Brown, 2006; Hubbard & Pratt, 2002; Langan & Pelissier, 2001; Messina,
Grella, Burdon, & Prendergast, 2007; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). Another suggestionthat the picture of women’s risk factors might be qualitatively different than men’s 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 & Mills, 2001;
Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 2002; Manchek et al, 2009; Smith et al., 2009). However, acomparison 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; Mihailides, 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; Mihailides et al., 2005; Raynor, 2007). Womenscored significantly lower than men on criminal history (Heilbrun et al., 2008; Holsinger et al.,
2003; Manchak et al., 2009; Mihailides et al, 2005; Raynor, 2007 ), use of leisure time,
criminal thinking (Holsinger et al., 2003; Manchak et al., 2009), companions and substanceabuse (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

20

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 andsubstance abuse were predictive for men (Manchak et al., 2009).
In the U.S., research on the utility of a hybrid gender-responsive classification andrisk/needs assessments began in 2000 with a cooperative agreement awarded to the Universityof Cincinnati by the 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 ofassociations between needs such as trauma, depression, abuse, low self-efficacy, unhealthy
relationships 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 thegender-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, thepredictive merits of specific gender-responsive factors identified several important treatment
targets. These varied somewhat across types of correctional 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 tomental health and substance abuse problems in a pathway that ultimately led to recidivism(Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009), a pathway that is also seen in other studies (e.g., McClellan
et al., 1997; Messina et al., 2007). Risk factors predisposing women to more serious forms of21

misconduct in prison settings included mental health problems, child abuse, and dysfunctional
relationship dynamics. A revalidation study is currently underway with larger samples andwill be completed in the months ahead, however, 11 of 12 samples have been analyzed (SeeVan 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, and parental issues are important risk factors for women can also be gleaned
from the fact that programs designed to address these problems actually reduces women’srecidivism. They “work” in other words. For example, a key risk factor for women’srecidivism, especially in community settings, is parental stress exhibited by women who havelittle 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 thechildren and their mothers who had lower post program offense rates than mothers in acomparison group (Olds, Robinson, Pettitt, Luckey, Holmberg, Ng, Isacks, Sheff, &Henderson, 2004). Behavioral child management programs have long showed favorable
effects on at risk children, but we are beginning to learn that they have important outcomesfor parents as well (Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009). Anotherparenting program with promising outcomes is the Female Offender Treatment and
Employment Program (FOTEP), a residential re-entry program for women that offered22

intensive case management to women and focused on employment and substance abuse. The
parenting focus was on reunification with dependent children. Findings showed a reduction inrecidivism for FOTEP participants (Grella, 2009).
One of the gender-responsive principles noted in Gender Responsive Strategies:
Research, Practice and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders (Bloom et al., 2003)
advocated for wrap around services. Multimodal services are recommended for most offender
populations (see Lipsey, 2009), but two program models tailor the notion to women offenders.
Moving On (Van Dieten & MacKenna, 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 relationships, and target selfdefeating thoughts. The program uses a cognitive behavioral treatment modality. A matchedcomparison group study was recently completed among probationers in Iowa and foundsignificant reductions in recidivism (Gehring et al., 2010). A second program, Women
Offender Case Management Model (VanDieten, 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 WOCMM
program sites. The program also trains case managers to address gender responsive risk/needfactors and use strengths-based and relationship-focused approaches. This program was also
evaluated and found to have favorable reductions in recidivism (Orbis Partners, Inc, 2010).
Advocating for an approach to substance abuse that recognizes its co-occurrence withmental health and trauma, Stephanie Covington developed a women’s substance abuseprogram, Helping Women Recover: A Program for Treating Addiction (Covington, 2008).
The program builds from four perspectives on women’s addiction: these accommodate the23

importance of women’s pathways to crime, relationship issues, and addictions co-occurringwith mental health issues and trauma. Attention is given to self efficacy and the impact ofsexism 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.
Both programs use cognitive-behavioral approaches and exercises, along withpsychoeducation, 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 two gender-responsive programs than those in thestandard therapeutic model (Messina et al., 2010). Effects on intermediate outcomes
pertaining to psychological well-being have also been favorable (Covington, Burke, Keaton,& Norcott, 2008; Messina et al, 2010).
Two additional programs for addressing abuse and trauma, Seeking Safey (Najavits,
2002) and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (Linehan, 1993), were not developed specificallyfor 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 program’s 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.

24

The impact of DBT has been tested in a number of treatment settings and found to have anumber of positive intermediate outcomes (for a summary of evaluation findings, see Dimeff,
Koerner, & Linehan, 2002).
Another substance abuse program for women, Forever Free, targeted genderresponsive risk factors, such as self efficacy, healthy relationships, abuse and trauma, andparenting. Forever Free included a voluntary aftercare program. Services were multimodaland evaluation results showed that the 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.
Empirical observations of the influences of trauma, mental illness, parental stress, poverty andunhealthy relationships also suggest a merger of the criminogenic focus of correctional policy
with a public health focus (Butler & Engle, 2011). There is evidence to support this shift andthe shift advocates well for policies 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 are seen in a number of prison re-entry programs
and several pretrial, “pre-entry” programs (e.g., Buell et al.,2011).

E. Conclusion
In closing, most innovative approaches for women offenders have only been
implemented within the past decade. Moreover, these changes have occurred on a very small
scale. This is largely because the research needed to support such innovation was unavailable
in corrections and other fields. More startling, scientific enterprises habitually generalized
findings pertinent to men to women, and this practice resulted in substantial costs to women.

25

Additional costs were observed when evidence-based guidelines imposed “best available
practices” and faulted the critics of “male is norm” practices for the fact that women are
understudied.
It is not essential to refrain from issuing the frequent call for more research, but policy
makers mustgive credence to the evidence currently supporting innovative programming for
women. There is the ongoing risk that women’s invisibility to science could extend to adenial 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.

References
American Psychological Association. 2010. Amendments to the 2002 Ethical Principlesof Psychology and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist. 65: 493.
Andrews, Don A. and James Bonta. 1995. Level of Service Inventory-Revised. North
Tonawanda, NY: Multi-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/casemanagement inventory:LS/CMI manual.Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.

26

Andrews, Donald, Craig Dowden, and Paul Gendreau. 1999. Clinically relevant andpsychologically informed approaches to reduced re-offending: A metaanalytic study of human risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns injustice 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, andFrancis 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, Marino A. Bruce, Leo Carroll, Patricia L. McCall, and Stephen C.
Richards 2001. The use of incarceration in the United States. Critical
Crimonology: An International Journal 10: 17-41.
Baker, Nancy L. and Janelle L. Mason. 2010. Gender issues in psychological testingof personality and abilities. In (Joan C. Chrisler and Donald R. McCreary,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 fordelinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1:48-71.

27

Bell, Valerie. 2012. Gender-responsive risk/needs Assessment: A comparison of womenand men. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Cincinnati, OH; University ofCincinnati.
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 women’s
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 of Corrections, 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 andEffective Interventions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.
Bridgeman, Brent and Cathy Wendler. 1991. Gender differences in predictors ofcollege 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 the Community. Willan
Publishing: United Kingdom.

28

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. Special Report: Women Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of 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
associated with acute myocardial infarction: A review of the research. Heart
Lung, 34: 240-247.
Chesney-Lind, Meda. 1997. The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2000. What to do about girls? Thinking about programs foryoung women. In (Maeve W. McMahon, ed.), Assessment to Assistance:
Programs for Women in Community Corrections. Lanham, MD: 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

29offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 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. Facilitator’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 womenin drug treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement 5,
November 2008,387-398
Cullen, Francis T. 2005. The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How thescience 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. Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories oflawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of
Law and Women’s Studies, 2:11-52.
Daly, Kathleen. 1994. Gender, Crime and Punishment: Is Justice Blind or are Men and
Women Treated Differently by the Courts? New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Dimeff, L., K. Koerner, and M. Linehan. 2002. Summary of research on dialectical30

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 andoutcomes among patients with acute 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 ongender. 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” forfemale probationers? An evaluation of the Moving On Program. Women,
Girls, and Criminal Justice, 11:1, 6-10.
Geller, Stacie E., Marci Goldstein Adams, and Molly Carnes. 2006. Adherence to federal
guidelines for reporting of sex and race/ethnicity in clinical trials. Journalof Women’s 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 theDemand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Francis T. Cullen. 1999. The Effects of Prison

31

Sentences On Recidivism. Ottawa, Canada: Public Works and Government Services.
Gendreau, Paul, Tracey Little, and Claire Goggin. 1996. A meta-analysis of the predictors ofadult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34: 575-607.
Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Paula Smith. 2002. Is the PCL-R really the“unparalleled measure of offender risk? A lesson in knowledge cumulation.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29:397-426.
Gilfus, Mary E. 1992. From victims to survivors to offenders. Women’s routes ofentry and immersion into street crime. Women and Criminal Justice, 4:63-90.
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Glass, Gene V., Barry McGaw, Mary Lee Smith. 1981. Meta-Analysis in Social
Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Glick, Ruth and Virginia Neto. 1977. A national study of women’s correctional
programs. (Document ID: 027-000-00524-I). Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
Goldenberg, Marvin M. 2003. Politics and clinical trials: The inclusion of women.
Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 28:791-796.
Grella, Christine. 2009. Female Offender Treatment and Employment Project (FOTEP).
Summary of evaluation 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, Michael 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.
32

Hannah-Moffat, Kelly. 2004. Gendering risk: At what cost? Negotiations of gender andrisk in Canadian women’s prisons. Feminism and Psychology,14: 243-249.
Hannah-Moffat, Kelly. 2009. Gridlock or mutability: Reconsidering gender and risk
assessment. Criminology and Public Policy, 8:209-219.
Hannah-Moffat, Kelly and Margaret Shaw. 2000. Thinking about cognitive skills? Thinkagain! Criminal Justice Matters. 39: 8-9.
Hardyman, Patricia L. and Patricia Van Voorhis. 2004. Developing gender-specificclassification systems for women offenders. Washington DC: National
Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
Heilbrun, Kirk, David Dematteo, Ralph Fretz, Jacey Erickson, Kento Yasuhara andNatalie Anumba. 2008. How “specific” are gender-specific rehabilitation needs?
An empirical analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 35: 1382-1397.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy and Michelle L. Yaiser. 2004. Feminist approaches toresearch as a process: Reconceptualizing epistemology, methodology, andmethod. In (Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Michelle L. Yaiser, eds.), Feminist
Perspectives on Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Holsinger, Kristi. 2000. Feminist perspectives on female offending: Examining real
girls’ lives. Women and Criminal Justice, 12:23-51.
Holsinger, Kristi and Patricia Van Voorhis. 2005. Examining gender inequities inclassification system: Missouri’s development of a gender-responsive assessment
instrument. Women, Girls, and Criminal 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.

33

Holtfreter, Kristy and Merry Morash. 2003. The needs of women offenders:
Implications for correctional programming. Women and Criminal Justice, 14:137-160.
Holtfreter, Kristy, Michael D. Reisig, and Merry Morash. 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 four journals 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: 5373.
Hyde, Janet S. 2006. Half the human experience. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflen.
Jarema, Kimberly, Susan Snycerski, Susan Bagge, John Austin, and Alan Poling. 1999.
Participation of women as authors and participants in articles published in the
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 19:85-94.

34

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. Mair , ed.). What Matters in Probation. Cullomton, Devon:
Willan Publishing.
Killien, Marcia, Judy Ann Bigby, Victoria Champion, Emma Fernandex-Repollet,
Rebecca D. Jackson, Marjorie 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 Women’s Health.
Journal of Women’s 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 Mills. 2001. The accuracy of five risk appraisal instruments inpredicting institutional misconduct and new convictions. Criminal Justice andBehavior,28: 471-489.
Langan, Patrick A. and David J. Levin (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in
1994. 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 predictionsof the SATs: A cry of despair. Research in Higher Education, 40:375-407.
Levrant, Ronald and Louise Silverstein. 2005. Gender is neglected by both evidence-35

based practices and therapy 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, Miriam and Cheryl L. Wild. 1991. The impact of the feminist critique on tests,
assessment, and methodology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15:581-596.
Linehan, Marsha. 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 thevariability of effects. In (Thomas D. Cook, Harris Cooper, David J. Cordray,
Heidi Hartmann, Larry V. Hedges, Richard J. Light, Thomas A. Louis, andFredrick Mosteller, eds.), Meta-analysis for Explanation. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation
Lipsey, Mark W. 2009. The primary factors that characterize effective interventions
with juvenile offenders: A meta analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4:
124-147.
Lipsey, Mark, and David Wilson (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, andbehavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist,
48, 1189-1209.
Lovins, Lori Brusman, Christopher Lowenkamp, Edward Latessa, and Paula Smith.
2007. Application of the risk principle to female offenders. Journal ofContemporary Criminology, 23: 383-393.
Lowenkamp, Christopher T., Alexander M. Holsinger, and Edward J. Latessa. 2001.

36

Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood
Abuse. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28:543-563.
MacKenzie, Doris L. 2000. Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works.
Crime and Delinquency, 46:457-471.
MacKenzie, Doris L., David B. Wilson, and Suzanne B. Kider. 2001. Effects ofcorrectional boot camps on offending. The Annals of the American Academyof Political and Social Science, 578: 126-143.
Manchak, Sarah, Jennifer Skeem, Kevin Douglas, and Mario Siranosian. 2009. Does
Gender Moderate the Predictive Utility of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised(LSI-R) for Serious Violent Offenders? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36: 425442.
Mauer, Marc, Cathy Potler, and Richard. Wolf. 1999. Gender and justice: Women, drugs andsentencing policy. Washington, D.C.:The Sentencing Project.
McClellan, Dorothy, David Farabee, and Benjamin Crouch. 1997.. Early victimization, druguse, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justiceand Behavior, 24:455-476.
McConnel, Beth A. 1996. The prediction of female offender recidivism with theLevel of Supervision Inventory. Unpublished honor’s thesis, Queens
University, Kingston, Ontario.
Messina, Nina, Christine Grella, William Burdon, Michael Prendergast. 2007. Childhood
adverse events and current traumatic distress: A comparison of men and women
drug-dependent prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 34: 1385-1401.
Messina, Nina, Christine Grella, Jerry Cartier, and Stephanie Torres. 2010. A randomized

37

experimental study of gender-responsive stubstance abuse treatment for womenin prison. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38: 97-107.
Mihailides, Stephen, Belinda Jude, and Eric Van den Bosshe. 2005. The LSI-r in an
Austrailian setting: implications for risk/needs decision making in forensic
contexts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12: 207-217.
Morash, Merry, Timothy S. Bynum, and Barbara A. Koons. 1998. Women offenders:programming needs and promising approaches. Washington DC: National Instituteof Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
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 and Research, 33: 453-463.
Najavits, L., Weiss, R., Shaw, S. & Muenz, L. (1998) Seeking Safety: Outcomes of a new
cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy for women with posttraumatic stress disorderand substance dependence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 437-456.
National Association for College Admission Counseling. 2008. Report of the Commission on

the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission. Arlington, VA: NACAC.
National Institutes of Health. 1999. Agenda for research on women’s health in the 21st
century. Rockville, Md.: 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 and38

by Nurses: Age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114: 1560-1568.
Orbis Partners, Inc. 2010. Women Offender Case Management Model: The Connecticut
Project. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofCorrections.
Owen, Barbara. 1998. In the Mix: Struggle and Survival in a Women’s Prison.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Palmer, Emma and Clive. Hollin. 2007. The Level of Service Inventory-Revised withEnglish women prisoners: A needs and reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice andBehavior. 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 theStates.
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, Amy Durgin, Kelly P. Bradley, Lindsay K. Porter, Karen Van Wagner,
Marc Weeden, and John J. Panos. 2009. Female’s participation in
psychopharmacology research as authors, editors,and subjects. Experimental andclinical psychopharmacology, 17: 105-112.
Porter, Carl L., LeeAnn Christian, and A. Poling. 2003. Research brief: Some data
concerning the reporting of participant’s gender in the mental retardation literature.
Mental Retardation, 41:75-77.

39

Prendergast, Michael, Elizabeth Hall, and Jean Wellisch. 2002. Outcome Evaluation of the
Forever Free Substance Abuse Treatment Program: One-year Post-Release Outcomes.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967.
The challenge of crime in a free society. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice.
Ramasubbu, Kumudha, Hitinder Gurm, and David Litaker. 2001. Gender bias inclinical trials?: Do double standards still apply? Journal of Women’s Healthand Gender-Based Medicine, 10:757-764.
Rathore, S., Y. Wang, and H. Krumholtz., 2002. Sex-based differences in the effect ofdigoxin for the treatment 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, Michael D., Kristry Holtfreter, and Merry Morash. 2006. Assessing
recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23:384-405.
Rettinger, Jill L. 1998. A recidivism follow-up study investigating risk and needwithin a sample of provincially sentenced women. Unpublished doctoral
thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,
Richie, Beth E. 1996. Compelled to Crime: The Gendered Entrapment of BatteredBlack Women. New York: Routledge.
Ridker, P., N Cook, I. Lee, et al (2005). A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the40

primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. New England Journal of
Medicine. 352(13): 1293-1304.
Salisbury, Emily J. and Patricia Van Voorhis 2009. Gendered pathways: An empiricalinvestigation of women probationers’ path to incarceration. Criminal Justice andBehavior, 36:541-566.
Salisbury, Emily, Patricia Van Voorhis, Emily Wright, and Ashley Bauman. 2009.
Changing the probation experience for women offenders: Findings from the
Women’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 inhigher 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 and Kegan Paul.
Smart, Carol. 1982. The new female offender: Reality or myth? In (Barbara Price andNatalie 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.

41

Smith, Paula, Paul Gendreau and Clair Goggin. 2009. Correctional treatment:
Accomplishments and Realities. In (Patricia Van Voorhis, Michael Braswell andDavid Lester. eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (pp. 315-325).
Cincinnati, OH: Lexis/Nexis.
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 minority populations have been neglected byevidence-based practices. 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. 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 ofClinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association (1995). Training
and dissemination of empirically validated psychological treatment: Report andrecommendation. The Clinical Psychologist, 48: 3-23.
Taylor, Jill McClean, Carol Gilligan, and Amy Sullivan. (1995). Between voice andsilence: Women and girls, race and relationship.Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
U.S. Government and Accounting Office. 1979. Female offenders- Who are they andwhat are the problems confronting them? NCJ 060496
Van Dieten, Marilyn. 2008. Women Offender Case Management Model.

42

Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Van Dieten, Marilyn. 2011. From zero sum to win-win: How research on women
advances our work in corrections. Plenary address to the International Community
Corrections Association, September 12, 2011, Cincinnati, Oh.
Van Dieten, Marilyn and Patricia MacKenna. 2001. Moving On Facilitator’s Guide.
Toronto, Canada: Orbis Partners.
Van Voorhis, Patricia. 2009. Next steps in gender-responsive classification. Women,
Girls, and Criminal Justice, 10:81-88.
Van Voorhis, Patricia. 2013. Women’s Risk Factors and New Treatments/Interventions
For Addressing Them: Evidence-Based Interventions in the United States andCanada. Paper presented at the 153rd Senior Seminar of the United Nations Asia
And Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders, Tokyo, Japan, January 21 & January 22, 2013.
Van Voorhis, Patricia and Brittany Groot2010. Predictive Validity of Women’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 assessment of current practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Ashley Bauman, Emily M. Wright, and Emily Salisbury. 2009.
Implementing the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment (WRNAs): Early lessons
from the field. Women, Girls, and Criminal Justice, 10:81, 82, 89-91.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Ashley Bauman, and Rachel Brushette. 2012. Revalidation of the43

Women’s Supplemental 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 Women’s Supplemental Risk/Needs Assessment: Results for the Iowa Women
Offender Case Management Projects. Cincinnati OH: Center for Criminal Justice
Research.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Rachel Brushette, and Ashley Bauman, A., 2012. Revalidation of
the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment: Results for the Missouri Department ofCorrections, Probation, Prison, and Prerelease Samples. Cincinnati OH: Centerfor Criminal Justice Research.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Francis Cullen, F. and Brandon Applegate (1995). Evaluatinginterventions with violent 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.
Women’s risk factors 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 ofprogress in both representation and analysis by sex. Journal of Women’s Health andGender-Based Medicine, 9:495-504.
Wainer, Howard and Linda S. Steinberg. 1992. Sex differences in performance on

44

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
misconducts of 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, and Criminal Justice, 10: 85-87, 95-96.

45

Notes.

46