U.S. Department of Justice

National Institute of Corrections

Gender-Responsive Strategies

Research,

Practice, and

Guiding 

Principles 

for Women

Offenders
National Institute of Corrections

Gender-Responsive

Strategies

Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles

for Women Offenders

by

Barbara Bloom, Ph.D., Barbara Owen, Ph.D.,

and Stephanie Covington, Ph.D.

Myrna Raeder, J.D.

Legal Consultant

www.nicic.org

June 2003
This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement 

Numbers 99D03GIL4 – 00D03GIL4 (Supplement No. 1) – 01D03GIL4 (Supplement No. 2) 

from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated 

in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NIC Accession Number 018017
iii foreword

foreword

In September 1999, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) began a 3-year

project to create a foundational body of work on gender-relevant approaches

to managing and intervening effectively with women offenders in adult corrections. An NIC-wide team on women offenders saw the need to summarize current evidence regarding what is known and not known about gender-responsive

policy and practice. This project was timely for several reasons, including the

following:

➤ The sheer growth in the number of women in all sectors of corrections and

their faster rate of growth compared with that of men.

➤ The increased demand on correctional resources generated by the increased

number of women in corrections, including the demand for expanded professional training. In prisons, women’s services have traditionally been the

domain of a limited number of dedicated professionals. The era of a small

number of specialists in women’s services is over.

➤ Frequent requests for summary information in brief and readable formats

from policymakers and managers attending NIC seminars. These managers

were convinced that gender made a critical difference to their operations

and programs, but they lacked the grounding or evidence needed both to

define and to make a case for gender-responsive management, operations,

and programs.

➤ A recognition that the 1990s saw enormous growth in research on women

offenders, and particularly on their pathways into criminal behavior and their

prior histories of sexual and physical abuse.

➤ Recent research conducted in the fields of health, mental health, substance

abuse, and violence against women. The interests of health and human services systems overlap significantly with those of the criminal justice system

in a search for effective approaches with regard to women offenders and

their children.

➤ Public policy interest in the potential of effective programming for women

offenders that will improve the life circumstances and prospects of their children and disrupt intergenerational cycles of criminality.

The NIC team anticipated that the grounding would emanate both from the

available literature of diverse disciplines (including many traditionally outside

corrections) and, in a significant way, from consultation with practitioners who

have worked with women offenders for many years and whose expertise and

insights are invaluable. Thus, in addition to an exhaustive search of published
iv Gender-Responsive Strategies

and unpublished literature, the authors conducted focus groups with practitioners in all

sectors of corrections and worked with a

Practitioner Advisory Group throughout the

project.

Eventually, the project’s goals expanded from

a summary of research and practice to include

the development of guiding principles to

inform correctional policy and practice for the

next decade.

In undertaking this large effort, the NIC team

wishes to clarify a few important philosophical

points:

➤ The purpose of the document is not to

argue that everything about women and

men is different but, rather, to identify

critical differences and to define their

implications for improving correctional

management and services for women

offenders.

➤ The perception exists that working with

women offenders is difficult, with the

women said to be incredibly needy. It is our

hope that this document will shed light on

women offenders’ real needs and that those

needs will be better understood from the

perspectives of women’s criminal pathways

and the realities of their lives.

➤ This is a developmental body of knowledge; it is not the last word on this topic. It

is NIC’s hope that it will serve as a significant grounding for the present and as the

basis for a continuing dialog on effective

policy and practice. In fact, NIC looks to

important projects in other Federal agencies—on women offenders and their children and on the convergence of substance

abuse, mental health problems, and violence in women’s lives—for additional evidence on effective intervention approaches.

Finally, the NIC team extends heartfelt thanks

to Barbara Bloom, Barbara Owen, Stephanie

Covington, and all the practitioner advisers for

their courage in undertaking this project and

their commitment to seeing it through.

Morris L. Thigpen

Director

National Institute of Corrections
preface v

preface

Women now represent a significant proportion of all offenders under criminal

justice supervision. Numbering more than 1 million in 2001, female offenders

make up 17 percent of all offenders under some form of correctional sanction.

This report summarizes current knowledge on the characteristics of women in

correctional settings, the ways in which gender makes a difference in current

criminal justice practice, and multidisciplinary research and theory on women’s

lives that have implications for managing women in the criminal justice system.

It concludes by offering guiding principles and strategies for improving the system’s response to women offenders.

The report offers guidance to those throughout the criminal justice system who

seek a more effective way to respond to the behavior and circumstances of

female offenders. The intended audience ranges from policy- and decisionmakers

at the legislative, agency, and system levels to those who manage or serve

offenders on a daily basis.

Bloom and Covington define gender responsiveness as “creating an environment . . . that reflects an understanding of the realities of women’s lives and

addresses the issues of the women.”1 As the criminal justice system becomes

more responsive to the issues of managing women offenders, it will become

more effective in targeting the pathways to offending that both propel women

into the criminal justice system and return them to it. This report indicates that

gender-responsive practice can improve outcomes for women offenders by considering their histories, behaviors, and life circumstances. It also suggests that

investments in gender-responsive policy and procedures will likely produce

long-term dividends for the criminal justice system and the community as well

as for women offenders and their families.

Approach

To construct a knowledge base that provides a foundation for gender-appropriate

policy and practice, project staff reviewed multidisciplinary research literature

in such areas as health, family violence, substance abuse, mental health, trauma,

employment, and education. They then analyzed this literature to determine its

application to gender responsiveness in criminal justice.

Additional data pertinent to managing the female offender within the criminal

justice framework were collected through national focus groups and interviews

with experts representing various criminal justice agencies. Project staff conducted more than 40 individual and group interviews with policymakers, managers,

line staff, and women offenders in all phases of the criminal justice system

throughout the country.
vi Gender-Responsive Strategies

Project staff then collected and analyzed written documents, including official and technical

reports concerning women offenders, policies

and procedures, and existing academic research and other materials relevant to these

topics. Finally, the Practitioner Advisory

Group, which represents community corrections, jail, prison, and parole professionals at

all levels of the criminal justice system,

reviewed multiple drafts of these findings.

Findings

Study findings indicate that consideration of

the differences in male and female pathways

into criminality, their differential response to

custody and supervision, and other differing

realities of the two genders can lead to better

outcomes for both men and women offenders

in institutional and community settings. Policies, programs, and procedures that reflect

these empirical, gender-based differences can

accomplish the following:

➤ Make the management of women offenders

more effective.

➤ Enable correctional facilities to be more

suitably staffed and funded.

➤ Decrease staff turnover and sexual misconduct.

➤ Improve program and service delivery.

➤ Decrease the likelihood of litigation against

the criminal justice system.

➤ Increase the gender-appropriateness of

services and programs.

Organization

This report is organized into the following

chapters that present the basis for a genderrelevant and culturally appropriate approach.

Legal considerations are addressed in appendix

A; a reading list is presented in appendix B.

Chapter 1. Characteristics of

Women in the Criminal Justice

System

This chapter provides a general description of

women in the criminal justice system, including

their numbers and the specific characteristics

of women under community and institutional

supervision. The first aspect of gender-responsive

planning involves understanding the profile of

women offenders in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and the patterns of

experience and personal history that shape

their behavior as offenders and as probationers,

inmates, and parolees. This chapter also provides information regarding the racial and ethnic disparities found in the criminal justice

system, the differences in criminality and background between women and men, and genderspecific issues that contribute to the realities of

women offenders’ lives.

Chapter 2. Women Offenders and

Criminal Justice Practice

This chapter examines the ways in which gender makes a difference in current criminal justice practice. This review identifies the impact

of these gender-based differences on the supervision and management of women in community correctional and institutional settings.

Two key findings emerged from this examination. First, the overwhelming number of male

offenders often overshadows the issues relevant to women offenders. Second, the criminal

justice system often has difficulty applying

to women offenders policies and procedures

that have been designed for male offenders.

Differences in women’s pathways to crime,

their behavior while under supervision or in

custody, and the realities of women’s lives in

the community have significant bearing on
preface vii

programs, and services. It incorporates the following key findings:

➤ An effective system for female offenders

is structured differently from a system for

male offenders.

➤ Gender-responsive policy and practice

target women’s pathways to criminality

by providing effective interventions that

address the intersecting issues of substance

abuse, trauma, mental health, and economic

marginality.

➤ Criminal justice sanctions and interventions

recognize the low risk to public safety created by the typical offenses committed by

female offenders.

➤ When delivering both sanctions and interventions, gender-responsive policy considers

women’s relationships, especially those

with their children, and women’s roles in

the community.

The chapter presents a set of guiding principles that are intended to serve as a cornerstone

for improving the ways in which the criminal

justice system manages and supervises the

woman offender. These principles are fundamental building blocks for correctional policy

and provide a blueprint for the development of

a gender-responsive approach.

The guiding principles include the following

categories:

➤ Gender.

➤ Environment.

➤ Relationships.

➤ Services and supervision.

➤ Socioeconomic status.

➤ Community.

criminal justice system practices. Legal issues

regarding women offenders are also summarized in this chapter.

Chapter 3. The Context of Women’s

Lives: A Multidisciplinary Review

of Research and Theory

This chapter reviews the concepts of gender

and gender differences within society and

associated implications for the criminal justice

system. The sections review multidisciplinary

research on gender, including such areas as

health, family violence, substance abuse, mental health, and trauma; theoretical perspectives

specific to women; and the gendered effects of

policies.

The criminal justice system has until recently

lacked a specific focus on the female offender

for a variety of reasons. Often by default, practices designed for male offenders have been

viewed as the norm. To provide a foundation

for identifying gender-relevant and culturally

responsive options, this chapter summarizes the

current research and theory on women, with

specific emphasis on issues involving women

offenders. The chapter suggests that understanding the contexts of women’s lives, both in

the general population and in the criminal justice system, is an important first step in developing gender-responsive policy and practice.

Chapter 4. A New Vision: Guiding

Principles for a Gender-Responsive

Criminal Justice System

This chapter documents the need for a new

vision for the criminal justice system—a vision

that recognizes the behavioral and social differences between female and male offenders that

have specific implications for gender-responsive

policy and practice. This chapter delineates

guiding principles and strategies, steps for

implementing the principles, and the development of gender-responsive policies, practices,
viii Gender-Responsive Strategies

Legal Considerations With Regard

to Women Offenders

As summarized in chapter 2 and described in

detail in appendix A, a number of legal issues

should be considered when managing women

offenders. The current legal environment for

prison officials is favorable to the development

of gender-appropriate policy and criminal justice practice, due both to judicial interpretation

and to congressional legislation. This legal environment appears to support opportunities for

creative administrators to adopt innovative programs that are more likely to ensure better outcomes for women offenders and their children.

Administrators who believe that genderresponsive programming will better serve

the needs of the female inmate population

have great leeway to experiment with creative

approaches that will allow them to solve previously intractable problems. Appendix A

describes the major areas in which gender has

an impact by discussing the following legal

issues concerning women offenders:

➤ Equal protection and access.

➤ Staffing and supervision.

➤ Sexual misconduct.

➤ Challenges to due process.

➤ Pregnancy and child-related questions.

The report concludes that it is the commitment

of policymakers and practitioners that will

make the difference in creating the vision of a

gender-responsive criminal justice system and

implementing its principles and strategies.

Managing women offenders more effectively

in correctional settings and providing more

effective programs and services will benefit

the women, increase community safety, and

help build a more effective criminal justice

system. It also will positively affect the generations of children to come.

Note

1. Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (2000, November). Gendered justice: Programming for

women in correctional settings. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA, p. 11.
acknowledgments ix

acknowledgments

The Gender-Responsive Strategies Project was a collaborative effort that benefited significantly from the contributions of many individuals. We are indebted

to the colleagues who assisted us in this evolutionary process. First, we thank

our National Institute of Corrections partners who created the vision for the

Gender-Responsive Strategies Project. Phyllis Modley, Community Corrections

Division, and Andie Moss, Prisons Division, guided this project from its inception and provided input and support. Allen Ault and Mary Whitaker, Special

Projects Division, assisted us in the second year of our work. Larry Solomon,

Deputy Director, and Sammie Brown, Prisons Division, also provided guidance.

We thank our core consultants, Teena Farmon, M. Kay Harris, Ann Jacobs, and

Anne McDiarmid, who provided invaluable feedback throughout the process.

Myrna Raeder, our legal consultant, took on the challenge of writing a section

on legal issues for policymakers and practitioners.

This project was also strengthened by the assistance of practitioner advisers representing various criminal justice agencies and organizations: Lt. Kris Anderson,

Beth Belzer, Judy Berman, Patricia Hardyman, Julie Harmeyer, John Hartner,

Daphane Hicks, Robin Hoskins, Sgt. Joan Johnson, Merrie Koshell, Teri Martin, Terrie McDermott, Marcia Morgan, Dave Roberts, Marian Tsuji, and Ilene

Weinreb.

We appreciate the assistance of the individuals who participated in focus groups

conducted in jails, prisons, and community corrections programs across the

country. We wish to thank the individuals who reviewed our draft report and

provided feedback. We also thank our research assistants: Robin Button, Joyce

Yosukochi, Renee Campbell, Linda Cepeda, Crystal Falconer, and Sarah Young.

Finally, we are grateful to the women under criminal justice supervision who

have shared their perspectives and life circumstances with us and for whom this

project is intended.
contents xi

contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................iii

Preface ..................................................................................................................v 

Approach........................................................................................................v

Findings ........................................................................................................vi

Organization ................................................................................................vi

Note ............................................................................................................viii

Acknowledgments ..............................................................................................ix

Chapter 1. Characteristics of Women in the Criminal Justice System ........1

Profiles of Women in the Criminal Justice System......................................2

Offense Profiles ............................................................................................4

Family Background ......................................................................................5

Physical and Sexual Abuse............................................................................5

Substance Abuse............................................................................................6

Physical Health..............................................................................................6

Mental Health ................................................................................................7

Children and Marital Status ..........................................................................7

Education and Employment ..........................................................................8

Conclusion: Improving Outcomes for Women Offenders............................8

Notes ..............................................................................................................9

Chapter 2. Women Offenders and Criminal Justice Practice ....................11

Existing Policy ............................................................................................12

The Effects of Gender on Criminal Justice Practice ..................................12

Legal Aspects of Criminal Justice Practice Concerning 

Women Offenders ..................................................................................27

Conclusion: The Importance of a Coordinated Response 

to Gender-Specific Needs ......................................................................29

Notes ............................................................................................................29

Chapter 3. The Context of Women’s Lives: A Multidisciplinary Review 

of Research and Theory ..................................................................................35

Acknowledging Gender: Differences Between Women and Men ............35

Violence Against Women and Children......................................................40

Substance Abuse, Mental Health, and Trauma ..........................................42

Socioeconomic Status ................................................................................46
xii Gender-Responsive Strategies

Theoretical Perspectives on Women in the Criminal Justice System ........49

The Gendered Effects of Current Policy ....................................................62

Conclusion: Contemporary Perspectives Provide a Solid Foundation ......64

Notes ............................................................................................................64

Chapter 4. A New Vision: Guiding Principles for a Gender-Responsive

Criminal Justice System ..................................................................................75

Principles and Strategies ............................................................................76

Developing Gender-Responsive Policy and Practice ................................83

Conclusion: The Importance of Understanding Women Offenders ..........90

Notes ............................................................................................................90

Bibliography ......................................................................................................93

Appendix A: Legal Considerations With Regard 

to Women Offenders ......................................................................................107

Appendix B: Recommended Reading ..........................................................131
chapter one 1

chapter one

Characteristics of Women in the

Criminal Justice System 

Female offenders represent a growing percentage of correctional populations

nationwide. More than 1 million women are currently under criminal justice

supervision in the United States. Women now make up 17 percent of the total

number of offenders under criminal justice supervision, or one in every six

offenders; the vast majority (85 percent) are under community supervision and

are typically on probation.

The numbers of females and males under correctional supervision and the percent increase in each category from 1990 to 2000 are shown in table 1. The

total number of women under correctional control increased 81 percent over

this 10-year period, while the number of men increased 45 percent.

The significant increase in the number of women under correctional supervision

has called attention to the status of women in the criminal justice system and to

the particular circumstances they encounter. The increasing numbers have also

made evident the lack of appropriate policies and procedures for women offenders and the need for gender-responsive policy and practice in correctional planning. The first step in developing gender-responsive criminal justice policy and

practice is to understand gender-based characteristics. In addition to offense and

demographic characteristics, the specific life factors that shape women’s patterns of offending should be included in gender-responsive planning.

Recent research has established that women offenders differ from their male

counterparts regarding personal histories and pathways to crime.1 For example,

a female offender is more likely to have been the primary caretaker of young

children at the time of arrest, more likely to have experienced physical and/or

sexual abuse, and more likely to have distinctive physical and mental health

needs. Additionally, women are far less likely to be convicted of violent

offenses, and they pose less danger to the community (see “National Profile

of Women Offenders” on page 8).
2 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Women face life circumstances that tend to be

specific to their gender, such as sexual abuse,

sexual assault, domestic violence, and the

responsibility of being the primary caregiver

for dependent children. Approximately 1.3

million minor children have a mother who is

under criminal justice supervision, and approximately 65 percent of women in state prisons

and 59 percent of women in federal prisons

have an average of two minor children. Women

involved in the criminal justice system thus

represent a population marginalized by race,

class, and gender.2 For example, AfricanAmerican women are overrepresented in correctional populations. While they constitute

only 13 percent of women in the United

States, nearly 50 percent of women in prison

are African American. Black women are eight

times more likely than white women to be

incarcerated. The characteristics of women

under correctional supervision (community

supervision, prison, or jail) are summarized

in table 2.

Community Supervision

As previously noted, the majority of women

in the criminal justice system are on probation

or parole; 85 percent of women offenders are

under community supervision. In 2000, more

than 900,000 women were on probation

(844,697) or parole (87,063). Women represented an increasing percentage of the probation

Profiles of Women in the

Criminal Justice System

Women offenders are disproportionately lowincome women of color who are undereducated and unskilled, with sporadic employment

histories. They are less likely than men to have

committed violent offenses and more likely to

have been convicted of crimes involving drugs

or property. Often, their property offenses are

economically driven, motivated by poverty

and by the abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

Table 1 Offenders Under Correctional Control,

by Gender, 1990 and 2000

Percent

1990 2000 Increase

Probation

Females 480,642 844,697 76

Males 2,189,592 2,994,835 37

Jail

Females 37,198 70,414 89

Males 365,821 543,120 48

Prison (state and federal)

Females 44,065 91,612 108

Males 729,840 1,290,280 77

Parole

Females 42,513 87,063 105

Males 488,894 638,464 31

Total

Females 604,418 1,093,786 81

Males 3,774,147 5,466,699 45

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001d). Prison and jail inmates at

midyear 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; Bureau of

Justice Statistics. (2001c). Prisoners in 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice; Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001b). National

correctional population. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 2 Characteristics of Women Under Correctional Supervision

% Under

Characteristic Community Supervision % in Jail % in State Prison % in Federal Prison

Race/ethnicity

White 62 48 33 29

African American 27 44 48 35

Hispanic 10 15 15 32

Median age 32 31 33 36

High school diploma/GED 60 55 56 73

Single 42 48 47 34

Unemployed Unknown 60 62 Unknown

Mother of minor children 72 70 65 59
chapter one 3

and parole populations in 2000 compared with

1990. They represented 22 percent of all probationers in 2000 (up from 18 percent in 1990)

and 12 percent of those on parole (up from 8

percent in 1990).3

In contrast to women in jail or prison or on

parole, nearly two-thirds of women on probation are white. Women under institutional

supervision are more likely to be women of

color. Nearly two-thirds of those confined

in jails and prisons are African American,

Hispanic, or other (nonwhite) ethnic groups.

About 60 percent of women on probation have

completed high school, and 72 percent have

children under 18 years of age. Although the

greatest number of women offenders are under

community supervision, far less information is

available about their characteristics than about

those of women in custodial settings.

Prisons

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimates

that 11 of every 1,000 women will be incarcerated at the federal or state level at some point

in their lives. This probability is mediated by

racial and ethnic membership. Approximately

5 of every 1,000 white women, 15 of every

1,000 Hispanic women, and 36 of every 1,000

African-American women will be incarcerated

at some point during their lifetime.4

The number of women incarcerated in state

and federal prisons has increased dramatically

in recent decades, rising nearly eightfold

between 1980 and 2000, from 12,000 to more

than 90,000 (representing 6.6 percent of the

U.S. prison population). The increase in

women’s rate of imprisonment has outpaced

the increase for men each year since the mid1980s. While the total number of male prisoners since 1990 grew 77 percent, the number of

female prisoners increased 108 percent during

the same period.5

In 2000, Texas led the nation in the number

of women in prison (12,245), followed closely

by California (11,161). Oklahoma (138 sentenced female prisoners per 100,000 women

residents), Mississippi (105), Texas (100), and

Louisiana (100) had the highest incarceration

rates in the nation. The average incarceration

rate for women in the United States in 2000

was 59 per 100,000 female residents.6

Jails

In 2000, 70,414 women were in local jails, representing 11 percent of the jail population. A

study of women incarcerated in jails exclusively for women showed that race and ethnic composition of jail populations differed by region.7

In major urban settings, minority women make

up the bulk of the jail population. Stohr and

Mays suggest that the profile of women in jail

is quite similar in several respects to that of

women in prison. Women in jail typically lack

educational and vocational training, the majority are single or divorced, and more than twothirds were unemployed at the time of arrest.

Of those who were employed, their earnings

“placed many women in the lowest economic

strata of their communities.”8 About one-third

of these women had no history of previous

incarceration, and others had experienced multiple periods of incarceration. More than 70

percent of the women were mothers.

According to a recent study in California, threequarters of the women in jail were incarcerated

for property, drug, or public-order offenses.9

The majority are under the age of 30 and are

addicted to drugs or alcohol. More than threequarters report having had a first child by the

age of 18. The women in this study were characterized as being mentally ill or seriously drug

dependent, homeless prior to incarceration, and

indigent.10 The two most common offenses in

this sample were for drug offenses (about onethird) and petty theft with a prior petty theft
4 Gender-Responsive Strategies

conviction. Sexual assault histories were also

comparable with those of women in the prison

population. More than 60 percent of women in

jail reported having been sexually assaulted

before the age of 18.

Offense Profiles

Accompanying this increase in population are

several questions about women offenders. Why

has women’s involvement with the criminal

justice system increased so dramatically? Are

women committing more crimes? Are these

crimes becoming more violent? The data on

arrests demonstrate that the number of women

under criminal justice supervision has risen

disproportionately compared with women’s

arrest rates. For example, the total number of

arrests of adult women increased by 38.2 percent between 1989 and 1998, while the number of women under correctional supervision

increased by 71.8 percent. Overall, women

have not become more violent as a group. In

2000, women accounted for only 17 percent of

all arrests for violent crime. About 71 percent

of all arrests of women were for larceny/theft

or drug-related offenses.

Women on probation have offense profiles that

differ somewhat from those of incarcerated

women. Nationwide, the majority of women

on probation have been convicted of property

crimes (44 percent). Of female probationers,

27 percent have committed public-order

offenses and 19 percent have committed drug

offenses. Only 9 percent have committed violent crimes.

BJS data indicate that violent offenses are the

major factor in the growth of the male prison

population; however, this is not the case for

women.11 For women, drug offenses represent

the largest source of growth. In 1998, approximately 20 percent of women in jails or prisons

had been detained for, or convicted of, violent

offenses.12 The majority of offenses committed

by women in prisons and jails are nonviolent

drug and property crimes. Offenses committed

by women in jails and prisons during 1998 are

detailed in table 3.

Additional offense data indicate the following:

➤ Women in prison are less likely than men to

have long criminal histories. Approximately

51 percent of incarcerated women have one

or no prior offenses. Among males, only 39

percent have one or no prior offenses.

➤ The per capita rate of murder committed

by women in 1998 was the lowest recorded

since 1976; the rate of murder by women

has been declining since 1980.

➤ Three of four women offenders serving

time for a violent offense committed simple

assault.

➤ An estimated 62 percent of women offenders serving time for a violent offense had

Table 3 Offenses of Women in Jail or Prison, 1998

Jail State Prison Federal Prison

Offense No. % No. % No. %

Violent 7,655 12 21,056 28 644 7

Property 21,689 34 20,304 27 1,104 12

Drug 19,137 30 25,568 34 6,624 72

Public order 15,310 24 8,272 11 736 8

Total 63,791 100 75,200 100 9,108 100

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999b). Special report: Women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
chapter one 5

a prior relationship with the victim as an

intimate, relative, or acquaintance; of the

60,000 murders committed by women

between 1976 and 1997, more than 60

percent were against an intimate or family

member.

➤ According to Mauer, Potler, and Wolf, the

number of women in state prisons for drug

offenses rose by 888 percent from 1986

to 1996.13

Family Background

Women in the criminal justice system are more

likely than women in the general population to

have grown up in a single-parent home. Nearly

6 of 10 women under all forms of criminal justice supervision grew up in a household where

at least 1 parent was absent. According to BJS,

42 percent of women in prison grew up in

homes with only one parent, usually the mother.14 Almost 17 percent of women offenders

lived in foster care or in a group home at some

point during childhood.

Incarcerated women are more likely than are

men to have at least one family member who

has been incarcerated. About 50 percent of

women and 37 percent of men had an immediate family member who had been incarcerated.

Women often grew up in families where drugs

or alcohol were abused. Approximately onequarter of imprisoned women report prior physical and/or sexual abuse by a family member.

Physical and Sexual Abuse

The prevalence of physical and sexual abuse

in the childhoods and adult backgrounds of

women under correctional supervision has

been supported by the research literature;

abuse within this segment of the population is

more likely than in the general population.15

In examining the abuse backgrounds of male

and female probationers, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics found a dramatic gender difference:

More than 40 percent of the women reported

having been abused at some time in their lives

compared with 9 percent of the men.16

BJS reported that about half (48 percent) of

women in jail (but only 13 percent of men)

and half (48 percent) of women in state and

federal prisons (but only 12 percent of men)

had been physically or sexually abused before

incarceration.17 Women in prison are three

times more likely to have a history of abuse

than men in prison.18 Approximately 37 percent of women in state prison, 23 percent of

women in federal prison, 37 percent of women

in jail, and 28 percent of women on probation

reported physical or sexual abuse before the

age of 18.19 Of the women incarcerated in state

prisons, those who had been abused were considerably more likely than those who had not

been abused to be incarcerated for a violent

offense (34 versus 21 percent).

Other studies of abuse history reveal a much

higher rate than the BJS data. For example,

Owen and Bloom found that 80 percent of

their sample of incarcerated women in California had been physically and/or sexually

abused prior to incarceration.20 A later study

found that more than 80 percent of the women

incarcerated in North Carolina’s state prisons

had been physically and/or sexually abused.21

Browne, Miller, and Maguin found that 70 percent of incarcerated women interviewed in a

New York maximum security prison reported

physical violence, and nearly 60 percent

reported sexual abuse.22 Women’s substance

abuse has been shown to be highly correlated

with physical and sexual abuse.23 Women in

state prisons who had experienced abuse prior

to their arrests reported higher levels of alcohol and drug abuse.24
6 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Substance Abuse

The link between female criminality and

drug use is very strong. Research consistently

indicates that women are more likely to be

involved in crime if they are drug users.25

Substance abuse is also linked to issues of

trauma and mental health. Approximately 80

percent of women in state prisons have substance abuse problems.26 About half of women

offenders in state prisons had been using alcohol, drugs, or both at the time of their offense.

Nearly one in three women serving time in

state prisons reported committing the offense

to obtain money to support a drug habit. About

half described themselves as daily users.27

To put these statistics into perspective, it is

helpful to compare them to statistics on substance abuse among women in the general

population. The Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration reports that 2.1

percent of females in the United States age 12

and older had engaged in heavy alcohol use

within the 30 days preceding the survey, 4.1

percent had used an illicit drug, and 1.2 percent

had used a psychotherapeutic drug for a nonmedical purpose.28 By contrast, the National

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse

found that 54 percent of women offenders in

state prisons had used an illicit drug during the

month before they committed their crimes, and

48 percent were under the influence of either

alcohol or another drug when they committed

their crimes.29 Among women offenders in

federal prisons, 27 percent had used an illicit

drug in the month before they committed their

crimes, and 20 percent were under the influence

when they committed their crimes. Among jail

inmates, 54 percent had used an illicit drug

in the previous month, and 48 percent were

under the influence when they committed

their crimes.

On every measure of drug use, women offenders in state prisons reported higher usage than

did their male counterparts—40 percent of

women offenders and 32 percent of male

offenders had been under the influence of

drugs when the crime occurred. According to

BJS, 89 percent of women report using drugs

on a regular basis compared with 76 percent of

men.30 By contrast, every measure of alcohol

use was higher for male offenders than for

female offenders. At the time of the offense,

29 percent of female offenders and 38 percent

of male offenders had been under the influence

of alcohol. An estimated 25 percent of women

on probation, 29 percent of women in local

jails, 29 percent of women in state prisons, and

15 percent of women in federal prisons were

under the influence of alcohol at the time of

the offense.

Physical Health

Women frequently enter jails and prisons in

poor health, and they experience more serious

health problems than do their male counterparts. This poor health is often due to poverty,

poor nutrition, inadequate health care, and

substance abuse.31 It is estimated that 20 to 35

percent of women go to prison sick call daily

compared with 7 to 10 percent of men. Women

also have more medical problems related to

their reproductive systems than do men. About

5 percent of women enter prison while pregnant, and 6 percent enter jails while pregnant.

Most of these pregnancies are considered high

risk due to a history of inadequate medical

care, abuse, and substance abuse. Studies have

found that women who were abused during

pregnancy are more likely to abuse alcohol

and other drugs and to be more depressed than

women who were not abused.32 While the

specific health consequences of long-term

substance abuse are significant for all women,

they are particularly so for pregnant women.

Sexually transmitted diseases are also a problem among women offenders. Approximately
chapter one 7

3.5 percent of women in prison are HIV positive. Women prisoners are 50 percent more

likely than male prisoners to be HIV positive.

The number of women infected with HIV has

increased 69 percent since 1991, while the

number of infected male offenders decreased

by 22 percent.33 Women offenders are also at

greater risk for breast, lung, and cervical cancer. A study by Coker, Patel, Krishnaswami,

Schmidt, and Richter found that incarcerated

women who reported sexual abuse before the

age of 17 were six times more likely than

those who did not experience this abuse to

exhibit cervical dysplasia (precancerous cervical lesions).34 Approximately 22 percent of

women in jails had received a gynecological

exam since admission compared with 90 percent of women in state prisons.

Mental Health

Many women who enter the criminal justice

system have had prior contact with the mental

health system. Women in prison have a higher

incidence of mental disorders than women in

the community. One-quarter of women in state

prisons have been identified as having a mental illness.35 The major diagnoses of mental

illness are depression, post-traumatic stress

disorder (PTSD), and substance abuse. Women

offenders have histories of abuse that are associated with psychological trauma. PTSD is a

psychiatric condition often seen in women

who have experienced sexual abuse and other

trauma. Symptoms of PTSD include depression, low self-esteem, insomnia, panic, nightmares, and flashbacks.

Approximately 75 percent of women who have

serious mental illness also have co-occurring

substance abuse disorders; about one in four

(23 percent) of all women in state prisons are

receiving medication for psychological disorders. A total of 22.3 percent of women in jail

have been diagnosed with PTSD, 13.7 percent

have been diagnosed with a current episode

of depression, and about 17 percent are receiving medication for psychological disorders.

Approximately 18.5 percent of females admitted to a large urban jail had serious diagnosable mental illnesses.36

Women with serious mental illness and cooccurring disorders experience significant

difficulties in jail and prison settings. Lack of

appropriate assessment and treatment of women

with mental health issues is a problem.37

Children and Marital Status

Approximately 70 percent of all women under

correctional supervision have at least one child

younger than age 18. Two-thirds of incarcerated women have minor children; about twothirds of women in state prisons and half of

women in federal prisons had lived with their

young children before entering prison. It is

estimated that 1.3 million minor children have

a mother who is under correctional supervision

and more than 250,000 minor children have

mothers in jail or prison.38

Of children whose fathers are incarcerated,

approximately 90 percent live with their mothers; only 25 percent of the children of women

offenders live with their fathers. Grandparents

are most likely to be the caregivers of the children of female offenders. Approximately 10

percent of these children are in foster care or

group homes.

More than half of the children of women

prisoners never visit their mothers during the

period of incarceration.39 The lack of visits is

due primarily to the remote location of prisons, a lack of transportation, and the inability

of caregivers to arrange visitation.

Women under criminal justice supervision are

more likely than the general population never

to have been married. In 1998, nearly half of
8 Gender-Responsive Strategies

the women in jail and prison reported that they

had never been married.40 Forty-two percent of

women on probation reported that they had

never been married. About 31 percent of women

in prison reported that they were either separated or divorced.

Education and Employment

In 1998, an estimated 55 percent of women

in local jails, 56 percent of women in state

prisons, and 73 percent of women in federal

prisons had a high school diploma.41 Approximately 40 percent of the women in state prisons reported they were employed full time at

the time of their arrest. This compares with

almost 60 percent of males.42 About 37 percent

of women and 28 percent of men had incomes

of less than $600 per month prior to arrest.

Most of the jobs held by women were lowskill, entry-level jobs with low pay. Two-thirds

of the women reported they had never held a

job that paid more than $6.50 per hour.

Women are less likely than men to have

engaged in vocational training before incarceration. Those who have received vocational

training in the community have tended to

focus on traditional women’s jobs, such as

cosmetology, clerical work, and food service.

Conclusion: Improving

Outcomes for Women

Offenders

An understanding of gender-based life experiences and the consequences of these experiences

must inform and shape appropriate policy, operational, and programmatic responses to women

offenders. Most women offenders are nonviolent, and their crimes are typically less threatening to community safety than those of male

offenders. Women’s most common pathways to

crime involve survival efforts that result from

abuse, poverty, and substance abuse. Research

suggests that all of these factors are interconnected.

While this chapter summarizes national data,

criminal justice administrators are encouraged

to develop data-informed profiles of women

offenders specific to their jurisdictions. The

experiences of agencies and jurisdictions in

several NIC-sponsored initiatives have demonstrated that understanding the unique characteristics of the female offender population is

crucial to the development of gender-appropriate

policy and practice and to improving outcomes

for women offenders.

NATIONAL PROFILE OF

WOMEN OFFENDERS

A profile based on national data for women offenders

reveals the following characteristics:

➢ Disproportionately women of color.

➢ In their early to mid-30s.

➢ Most likely to have been convicted of a drugrelated offense.

➢ From fragmented families that include other

family members who also have been involved

with the criminal justice system.

➢ Survivors of physical and/or sexual abuse as

children and adults.

➢ Individuals with significant substance abuse

problems.

➢ Individuals with multiple physical and mental

health problems.

➢ Unmarried mothers of minor children.

➢ Individuals with a high school or general equivalency diploma (GED) but limited vocational

training and sporadic work histories.
chapter one 9

Notes

1. Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman:

Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

2. Bloom, B. (1996). Triple jeopardy: Race,

class and gender as factors in women’s imprisonment. Riverside, CA: UC Riverside.

3. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001b).

National correctional population. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999b). Special

report: Women offenders. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice.

5. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001c). Prisoners in 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

6. Ibid.

7. Stohr, M.K., & Mays, G.L. (1993).

Women’s jails: An investigation of offenders,

staff, administration and programming. Las

Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University,

Department of Criminal Justice.

8. Stohr & Mays, 1993, p. 41.

9. Johnston, D. (2001, November). Jailed

mothers. Testimony to the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, Dana Point, CA.

10. Ibid.

11. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999b.

12. Ibid.

13. Mauer, M., Potler, C., & Wolf, R. (1999).

Gender & justice: Women, drugs and sentencing policy. Washington, DC: The Sentencing

Project.

14. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). Women

in prison. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice.

15. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999c). Prior

abuse reported by inmates and probationers.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Owen, B., & Bloom, B. (1995). Profiling

women prisoners: Findings from national

survey and California sample. The Prison

Journal, 75(2), 165-185.

21. Jordan, B.K., Schlenger, W.E., Fairbank,

J.A., & Cadell, J.M. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women.

Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(6), 513-519.

22. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E.

(1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime

physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law

and Psychiatry, 22(3-4), 301-322.

23. Bremmer, J.D., Southwick, S., Darnell, A.,

& Charney, D.S. (1996). Chronic PTSD in

Vietnam combat veterans: Course of illness

and substance abuse. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 153(3), 369-375.

24. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999b.

25. Merlo, A., & Pollock, J. (1995). Women,

law, and social control. Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

26. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

(1997). Substance abuse treatment for incarcerated offenders: Guide to promising practices. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

27. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999b.
10 Gender-Responsive Strategies

28. Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration. (1993). National

household survey on drug abuse: Population

estimates 1992. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

29. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1998). Behind bars: Substance

abuse and America’s prison population. New

York, NY: Columbia University.

30. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999c.

31. Acoca, L. (1998). Defusing the time bomb:

Understanding and meeting the growing health

care needs of incarcerated women in America.

Crime & Delinquency, 44(1), 49-70; Young,

D.S. (1996). Contributing factors to poor

health among incarcerated women: A conceptual model. Affilia, 11(4), 440-461.

32. Campbell, J.C., Poland, M.L., Waller, J.B.,

& Ager, J. (1992). Correlates to battering

during pregnancy. Research in Nursing and

Health, 15(3), 219-226.

33. Acoca, 1998.

34. Coker, A.L., Patel, N.J., Krishnaswami, S.,

Schmidt, W., & Richter, D. (1998). Childhood

forced sex and cervical dysplasia among

women prison inmates. Violence Against

Women, 4(5), 595-608.

35. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001a). Mental health treatment in state prisons, 2000.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

36. Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., & McClelland,

G.M. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 53(6), 505-512.

37. Ibid.; Veysey, B.M. (1997). Specific needs

of women diagnosed with mental illnesses in

U.S. jails. Delmar, NY: National GAINS Center, Policy Research Inc.; Singer, M., Bussey,

J., Song, L., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). The psychosocial issues of women serving time in jail.

Social Work, 40(1), 103-113.

38. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999b.

39. Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why

punish the children? A reappraisal of the children of incarcerated mothers in America. San

Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.

40. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994; Bureau

of Justice Statistics, 1999b.

41. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999b.

42. Ibid.
chapter two 11

chapter two

Women Offenders and Criminal

Justice Practice

This chapter examines the effects of gender on current criminal justice practice

and the impact of gender-based differences on the supervision and management

of women in community correctional and institutional settings. For this report,

national focus groups were conducted and research reports and other written

materials were examined to determine the state of criminal justice practice

regarding women.

Two key findings emerged from this examination. First, because of the overwhelming number of male offenders, the issues relevant to women are often

overshadowed. In a discussion of legal issues concerning women in jail,

Thigpen suggests: “[I]gnoring problems relating to female inmates on the basis

of comparative numbers, or pushing those issues to the back burner in order

to focus on issues involving male inmates, increases exposure to litigation and

liability.”1

Second, the criminal justice system often has difficulty applying to women

offenders policies and procedures that have been designed for male offenders.

Differences in women’s pathways to the criminal justice system, women’s

behavior while under supervision or in custody, and the realities of women’s

lives in the community have significant bearing on the practices of the criminal

justice system. There is significant evidence that the responses of women to

community supervision, incarceration, treatment, and rehabilitation differ from

those of men. These differences between men and women under community

supervision and in custody have been documented in terms of the following:

➤ Levels of violence and threats to community safety in their offense patterns.

➤ Responsibilities for children and other family members.

➤ Relationships with staff and other women offenders.

➤ Vulnerability to staff sexual misconduct.

➤ Programming and service needs, especially in terms of health, mental health,

substance abuse, recovery from trauma, and economic/vocational skills.

➤ Reentry into the community and community integration.
12 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Existing Policy

Many systems lack a written policy on the

management and supervision of female defendants, probationers, inmates, or parolees.* In a

1998 survey of current issues related to the

operation of women’s prisons, NIC identified

the following policy areas that may affect

female and male inmates differently:

➤ Pat-search and strip-search procedures.

➤ Commissary items, particularly health and

beauty items.

➤ Allowable personal property.

➤ Transportation and restraint policies for

pregnant women.

In focus group interviews, many managers and

line staff reported that they were expected to

manage women offenders using policies and

procedures developed for the male offender

population. They also reported difficulties in

modifying these policies to develop a more

appropriate and effective response to women’s

behaviors within the correctional environment.

The American Correctional Association policy on female offenders also raises this issue,

stating:

Departments of corrections should ensure

that their written policies and procedures

address both female and male offenders.

Historically, manuals or policies and procedures have been written from the point

of view of the male offenders. For example, official lists of “clothing to be issued,”

“permissible personal items,” and “rules of

probation” have overlooked the needs of

the female offender; policies on hygiene,

recreation, paid employment, and visitation with children are often inappropriate

for female offenders or else do not exist.2

Morash and Bynum have found that at the policy and system levels, the reality of managing

a women’s institution is often ignored or dismissed. They report that institutional-level

managers often feel that their superiors fail to

recognize gender distinctions, as noted in the

following statement: “The higher administration in this state does not understand us. When

we try to bring up issues related to women

offenders, they don’t want to be bothered by

us.”3 A commitment to improving operations

and procedures for women offenders acknowledges these important distinctions and devotes

resources to addressing them.

The lack of written policy addressing gender

differences between male and female offenders

often puts managers and line staff in a quandary,

as illustrated by this quotation from a community corrections focus group participant:

We need to develop policy and guidelines

to deal with the differences women present

in supervising them on probation. Instead,

we don’t have policy dealing with women’s

issues so we sit by passively and wait till

she gets arrested. Then we call her a failure

when it is the system that failed her.

The Effects of Gender on

Criminal Justice Practice

Gender differences in behavior, life circumstance, and parental responsibilities have broad

implications for almost every aspect of criminal justice practice. The project’s analysis of

written materials and focus groups results

identifies numerous areas in which day-to-day

practice in probation, jail, prison, and parole

becomes problematic because behavioral and

situational differences between female and

male offenders are ignored. The discussion in

*A variety of existing policies developed by the National Institute of Corrections Intermediate Sanctions for Women Offender Project,

the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the American Correctional Association, the Minnesota Task Force on the Female Offender, and the Florida

Department of Corrections contain crucial elements of a gender-appropriate approach. These elements are discussed in chapter 4.
chapter two 13

this section offers a starting point for examining the ways in which agencies in community

and institutional settings respond to female

offenders. Issues related to gender differences

and their effects are described with regard to

the following:

➤ Criminal justice processing.

➤ Assessment procedures and classification.

➤ Women’s services and programs.

➤ Staffing and training.

➤ Staff sexual misconduct.

Criminal Justice Processing

To begin the examination of the effect of gender on criminal justice processing, consider

this: If gender played no role in criminal

behavior and criminal justice processing, then

51.1 percent of those arrested, convicted, and

incarcerated could be expected to be women,

as that figure represents the proportion of

women in the general population. Instead, men

are overrepresented in most classes of criminal

behavior and under all forms of correctional

supervision in relationship to their proportion

of the general population.

Although the information presented here is not

a comprehensive discussion of these implications, it provides a basis for considering some

of the ways in which gender differences in the

behavior and life circumstances of female and

male offenders affect criminal justice processing. With some cited exceptions, the bulk of

the information in this section has been taken

from Harris’s work in this area.4 Harris discusses the general effects of differences

between women and men in selected areas;

she notes that the extent and nature of these

differences across time and across different

jurisdictions vary greatly. Many additional

areas require empirical investigation, particularly research into the effects of gender in jails

and community corrections.

Crime Definition

The law defines the specific aspects of behavior that are considered a crime. Gender, as a

primary determinant of behavior, often plays a

role in this definition. Some differences place

men at a disadvantage, such as the traditional

definition of rape victims as being only

female. Some differences place women at a

disadvantage, such as the historical reluctance

to treat violence against women as a crime

when it occurs at the hands of husbands and

other intimates. Many of these gender differences are found in prostitution-related and

other sexual offenses. In the juvenile justice

system, juvenile status offenses such as running away and being ungovernable play out in

gendered ways: Girls’ behavior is subject to a

double standard and a greater focus on sexual

activity than is the behavior of boys.

Crime Reporting and Counting. Gender differences can be found in the objective reporting and counting of crime. Traditionally, many

measures of crime have ignored gender and

have thus been the basis for gender-blind data

collection. In earlier versions of the National

Crime Victimization Survey, the survey questions resulted in underreporting of victimization related to domestic violence and sexual

assault. This survey has since been redesigned

to measure these gender-based events. In

another example from the Uniform Crime

Reports (UCR), incidents of forcible rape are

limited to those involving female victims.

UCR offense categories are broad, lumping

together a wide range of behaviors of varying

levels of seriousness and thus often masking

gender-based differences.

Types of Crime and Levels of Harm. The

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that,

according to victim accounts, only one of

seven violent offenders is female. Women

accounted for 1 in 50 violent sex offenders,

1 in 14 robbers, 1 in 9 offenders committing
14 Gender-Responsive Strategies

aggravated assaults, and 1 in 6 offenders committing simple assault.5

The levels of harm produced by many criminal

behaviors are closely related to gender. One

example is the general crime category fraud,

which includes both passing bad checks for

small amounts and engaging in stock frauds

involving large sums of money. Women are

more likely to be involved in lower level badcheck writing, whereas men are more likely to

be involved in higher level stock fraud. Both

offenses are typically included in a general

fraud category. Another example of a gender

difference is found in the larceny/theft category. Although larceny/theft is considered a serious Index crime in the UCR, most larceny

crimes women commit are less serious (e.g.,

shoplifting, passing bad checks, credit card

fraud, and welfare fraud) than the larceny

crimes men commit.

This lesser degree of harm in crimes committed by women is also found in victims’

reports of violent crime. In general, the level

of injury associated with female-committed

crime is significantly less than that associated

with male-committed crime.6 BJS found that

the consequences of male violence were generally more serious for the victim in terms of

weapon use, injury, and out-of-pocket losses

to the victim. Robbery provides another illustration. Although men and women report similar motivations to commit robbery, the ways

in which they commit robbery are strikingly

different, with men more likely than women

to use physical violence or a weapon.

Female gang members, like their male counterparts, are disproportionately involved in

delinquency, but young men in gangs still are

involved more extensively in the most serious

forms of gang crime. Wald summarizes research on the gender differences in circumstances that surround the committing of a

crime.7 Characteristics associated with women

as compared with men include the following:

➤ Less aggressive and less likely to use physical force in committing a crime.

➤ Less likely to use a gun or another weapon.

➤ Less apt to have played a major role in

planning the crime.

➤ More often in a coerced or submissive role

to a male codefendant.

➤ Most likely to play a minor role in the

actual commission of a variety of crimes.

➤ In a lower status overall in criminal

enterprises.

Arrest

There are also significant differences by gender in the arrest stage. Men are harmed by

being members of the more crime-prone sex,

with men (especially minority men) more likely to be stopped and suspected. Overall, men

are overrepresented as arrestees in terms of

their proportion in the general population.

They make up nearly 80 percent of all persons

arrested and 90 percent or more of those

arrested for the violent offenses of forcible

rape, weapons offenses, sex offenses, and robbery, although men represent just under 49

percent of the general population. In contrast,

women, who make up just more than 51 percent of the general population, represent just

more than 20 percent of all arrestees.

Of all females arrested, more than 30 percent

are charged with prostitution and commercialized vice, embezzlement, fraud, forgery,

counterfeiting, and larceny/theft. In only

two categories of offenses—commercial sex

crimes and running away—do females account

for more than 50 percent of all arrestees.
chapter two 15

Bail

Bloom and Covington argue that the task of

making bail is quite different for men and

women.8 Most female offenders are economically disadvantaged and experience more

difficulty in making bail. Because bail and

own-recognizance procedures are based on

such stability measures as employment and

income, women become disadvantaged as a

result of their overall lower socioeconomic

status. Unlike men, few women have partners

that might post bail. In a study of female pretrial jail detainees, the majority of subjects

were nonviolent offenders who had been

jailed because they could not pay bail for

misdemeanors.9 Counties participating in the

Intermediate Sanctions for Women Offenders

Project also found that women were less likely

to make even low levels of bond.

Sentencing

In part because men are more likely than

women to be convicted of a violent felony and

to have prior convictions, men are also more

likely to be incarcerated and to serve longer

sentences. Men have substantially higher lifetime probabilities of going to prison; a man has

a 1 in 11 chance of going to prison in his lifetime, while a woman’s chances are 1 in 91.10

These probabilities, of course, differ within

racial and ethnic groups. Of all men convicted

of felonies in 1996, about 40 percent were

sentenced to prison, 33 percent to jail, and 25

percent to probation. Among women felons

convicted in 1996, roughly 25 percent were

sentenced to prison, 33 percent to jail, and 40

percent to probation or some other nonincarcerative sanction.11

Community Supervision

Focus groups conducted for this project with

probation and parole officers across the United

States highlighted some of the gender differences in the supervision of women and men in

the community. Among the points made were

these:

➤ Men in community supervision have

“learned to keep their mouths shut” and

withhold information from their agents.

With men, it is “yes/no answers; get in and

get out.” Women, in contrast, provide us

much more information and detail in office

interaction. This takes much more time and

places more demands on the officer.

➤ Women also appear to have the expectation

that agents will provide help, in terms of

concrete assistance, in navigating the system and providing other aid. One manager

said: “Women believe it when they are told

at orientation that the officer is there to

help them. The men don’t. A woman will

tell you ‘this is what is happening with me’

and look to you for help. Many times this

help is not available.”

➤ Another supervisor observed that when you

become the focal point for someone who

has so many needs, “you can’t do it all.”

Often staff will burn out because of these

additional demands. This extra work is not

typically acknowledged, and there is no

incentive or system of rewards for this work.

➤ The need women have for connection is

played out in the relationships they develop

with probation and parole agents. Women

want to talk individually with the agent,

and they go into more detail and specifics

with their agent than men do. This relationship endures even when the woman is

transferred to another agent; the woman

will still come to the original agent, and

this can create conflict.
16 Gender-Responsive Strategies

➤ Sometimes, one participant noted, “We

cause women problems in ways we don’t

cause men problems by requiring them to

do so many things in the name of treatment

or helping them.”

➤ A probation manager stated that “Probation

staff (for women offenders) often do what

is ‘normal’—by that, I mean what they do

with male offenders. They do this because

they don’t know any better.”

Incarceration

Gender differences between male and female

prisoners have been documented in several

studies of prison populations.12 These differences are summarized below:

➤ There are far fewer women than men in

jails and prisons.

➤ Women, as a group, commit crimes that are

less violent, and they are also less violent

in custody.

➤ Drug offenses account for a greater proportion of the imprisonment of women than

that of men.

➤ Children play a more significant role in

the lives of incarcerated women than in

the lives of incarcerated men.

➤ Trauma and victimization histories, substance abuse histories, and mental and

physical health profiles are different for

female and male prisoners.

➤ Educational, vocational, and treatment programs are typically less available to female

prisoners than to male prisoners.

➤ Staff training traditionally ignores female

offender issues.

Transition to the Community

Like men, women who are returning to their

communities from correctional facilities must

comply with conditions of supervised release,

achieve financial stability, access health care,

locate housing, and try to reunite with their

families. These tasks are often complicated

by gender. The majority of women in the correctional system are mothers, and a major

consideration for these women is reunification

with their children. This adds what Brown,

Melchior, and Huba refer to as an additional

“level of burden” for these women, as their

requirements for safe housing, economic support, medical services, and other needs include

the ability to take care of their children.13

Important points concerning these women

include the following:

➤ A majority of incarcerated mothers expect

to take responsibility for their children once

they are released and rarely receive any

financial or emotional support from their

children’s fathers.

➤ Families who have taken care of the children of imprisoned women often expect the

released woman to take custody of her children immediately following release.

➤ Reunification with children is an important

but often elusive goal of released mothers.

➤ If a child has been placed in foster care or

state custody while the mother has been

incarcerated, it is especially difficult for the

released mother to demonstrate to state

agencies that she is able to take care of and

provide for her child adequately.

➤ Many women released from prison have

lost touch with their families and thus face

greater adjustment problems in reintegrating into the community.
chapter two 17

Assessment and Classification

Procedures

Research on community corrections and prison

assessment and classification suggests that

gender-based behavior and characteristics

complicate this aspect of criminal justice practice. Traditionally and statistically based on

experiences with male offenders, community

and prison classification systems are often

unable to accurately assess either the risks or

the needs of women. The discussion in this

section strongly suggests that the purposes of

assessment and classification systems for

women offenders need further investigation in

the form of both empirical exploration and

work with jurisdictions concerned with more

closely matching gender characteristics to

criminal justice practice.

Current classification and assessment mechanisms, calculations of community risk, or 

custodial placement are based on individual

offender characteristics. These actuarial

approaches assign various weights (usually

through a point system) to arrive at a score

that, theoretically, represents the type or level

of community supervision or institutional

placement that an individual requires.

Most of the evidence provided here is drawn

from empirical research on prison classification. However, this discussion illustrates the

influence of gender on decisionmaking processes throughout the criminal justice system. Van

Voorhis and Presser found that gender differences were often ignored in this process, as

with previous studies of assessment and classification procedures for women:14

Although many respondents discussed

differences between men and women

offenders in terms of needs and risks to

institutional and public safety, few states

have incorporated these differences in

objective classification instruments.15

In a national survey of women’s programs

in the criminal justice system conducted by

Morash and Bynum, classification, screening,

and assessment were mentioned as critical

management problems because they did not

provide needed information, were not adapted

to women, and were not useful in matching

women’s needs for programming.16

Additional concerns have been raised, particularly by Canadian scholars, regarding the reliability

and validity of risk assessment and classification

instruments as they relate to women and to people of color.17 Most risk-assessment instruments

are developed and validated for white males, and

the use of these tools with women and nonwhite

offender populations raises empirical and theoretical questions about their utility.18 Bloom asks

a similar question:

Does women’s offending relate to criminogenic risks and needs, or is it a factor

of the complex interconnection of race,

class, gender, abuse, trauma, addiction, or

a combination?19

Managing Risk in the Community

At the community level, assessment and classification involve assessing the degree of risk an

offender represents and, increasingly, determining service and program needs as well

(this approach is often referred to as “risk and

needs” assessment). In the community, these

calculations are designed to assess the level of

threat, again typically related to reoffending

but also including cases of failure to appear or

absconding from supervision. The following

problems have been identified in existing

screening and assessment procedures:

➤ Assessment instruments that have not been

normed or validated on women offenders.

➤ Exclusion of specific variables that materially affect women’s offenses, including
18 Gender-Responsive Strategies

abuse and victimization histories, parental

responsibilities, and cultural issues.

➤ Narrow definitions of risk in terms of violence and community safety.

Few studies have examined women’s risk and

needs separately from those of men.20 Existing

instruments were designed to measure the

behavior of men under community supervision, with particular attention to the degree of

harm or danger their offenses represent to the

community. These standardized instruments

were normed and validated or statistically tested on samples of male offenders. They typically have been applied to female probationers

without being tested on samples of women.

Bloom states:

Compared to male offenders, female

offenders have received little attention in

the area of prediction of the risk for reoffending. In fact there are only a few prediction studies on adult female offenders.

For example, in a meta-analysis of the risk

prediction literature, Gendreau, Andrews,

Goggin and Chanteloupe (1992) identified

nearly 400 studies on the prediction of

criminal behavior that produced 1,734

individual correlations between a predictor

and outcome. Only 46 of the correlations

were based on female offender samples.21

Whitaker notes that addressing issues of culture and gender in risk assessments has sometimes been seen as “superfluous, expensive,

excessive, and unnecessary.”22 In discussing

the predictive power of community risk assessment instruments, Van Voorhis suggests that

“high risk” can mean different things for

women and men.23 For example, for men, the

factor “anti-social peers” often translates into

“dysfunctional learning situations,” whereas

for women this variable often translates into

“relationship difficulties.” These results might

indicate a need for men to learn how to avoid

high-risk situations and a need for women to

develop healthy relationships and self-efficacy.

A second example involves the variable measuring family factors, which often indicates

aggression on the part of the men and victimization on the part of the women.*

One result of excluding samples of women in

these validation studies is that specific variables that materially affect women’s offenses—

including abuse and victimization histories,

parental responsibilities, and cultural issues—

are thus ignored in these calculations. Most

instruments do not assess the specific needs

of women that are tied to their pathways to

offending and, specifically, the intersecting

problems of substance abuse and victimization.

There is also evidence that community correction agencies often respond to the high-level

needs of female offenders by creating treatment obligations (such as unrealistic reporting

requirements or burdensome treatment conditions) that are unmanageable and thus result in

participants’ failure to conform to conditions

of supervision. In both of the above cases,

instruments and approaches do not measure

the facts of women’s lives and the elements

that contribute to success or failure while

women are under community supervision.24

Urging caution in terms of variables’ predictive

power with regard to female offenders,

Chapple suggests the addition of more variables relevant to female offenders, such as

abuse and parental responsibilities.25

Williams, McShane, and Dolny ask whether

standard parole prediction instruments, also

*Discussion is ongoing regarding the application to women offenders of popular risk-assessment instruments such as the Level of

Service Inventory and Salient Factor Score. As of this writing, little published research was available for inclusion in this section.

Some of those interviewed for this project noted that critical measures used in the “what works” literature, such as “antisocial peers,”

“antisocial associates,” and “criminal history,” did not fully consider additional gender-responsive variables suggested by the pathways

perspective. The debate continues, as does the need for empirical research to validate the predictive power of a range of variables.
chapter two 19

based on actuarial calculations, accurately predict female parolee recidivism.26 Their review

of the literature shows that women have higher

overall rates of parole success and that female

recidivists typically do not commit violent

crimes. In analyzing data from a large western

state, they found that existing male-based

instruments “do no harm” to women on parole,

but they suggest caution in using instruments

that do not take female-specific variables into

consideration.

Prison Classification Studies

In correctional institutions, classification systems are designed to make housing and programming assignments within the available

range of options. The research on prison

classification systems has identified concerns

similar to those associated with community

assessment procedures. To assess the current

state of women’s prison classification systems,

Van Voorhis and Presser conducted a national

assessment of state and federal classification

practices for female offenders. Respondents

in some states voiced a desire for classification

models that would better support genderresponsive programming and move less serious

offenders through the system more quickly.27

Central findings from this study include the

following:

➤ Most policymakers recognize that, as a

group, women offenders are less dangerous

than male offenders.

➤ Women’s needs differ from those of men,

but these needs are seldom considered by

institutional needs-assessment systems.

➤ Existing classification systems in many

states overclassify women offenders.

➤ Many states do not use the classification

system to assign women offenders to institutional or housing areas.

➤ Only about 20 states have validated their

systems on samples of women.

Current debate in this area centers on the question of appropriate classification systems for

women and the lack of empirically validated

classification instruments for them.28 In smaller

systems, the lack of multiple facilities often

makes the question of housing assignments

moot. Morash and Bynum note that states

with only one women’s facility were challenged to “manage women who span all custody levels and address their needs whether

it is aging, mental health, medical issues, or

lengthy sentences.”29

The problem of overclassification of female

offenders is also significant.30 With riskassignment scores based on male behavior,

women are often given scores that do not

match their actual levels of violence or

escape potential. This overprediction (or

overclassification) problem results in useless

scores that are often overridden in actual

practice. Overclassification can result in

unwarranted assignment to higher security

levels and to exclusion from community corrections placements.31

As Nancy Stableforth, Deputy Commissioner

for Women, Correctional Service of Canada,

asserts:

There are respected and well-known

researchers who believe that criminogenic

needs of women offenders is a concept

that requires further investigation; that

the parameters of effective programs for

women offenders have yet to receive basic

validation; that women’s pathways to

crime have not received sufficient research

attention; and that methodologies appropriate for women offender research must

be specifically developed and selected to

be responsible not only to gender issues,

but also to the reality of the small number

of women.32
20 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Additionally, most classification systems tend

to use a woman’s offense as a primary predictor of risk. Research indicates, however, that a

woman’s offense often has little relationship

to her adjustment to prison and is also a weak

predictor of success following release to the

community.33 Instead of criminogenic factors,

women’s risk for reoffending may be tied to a

lack of transitional programs and support systems that could help them reintegrate into their

communities.

Since classification calculations consider institutional behavior, differences between men and

women also play a role in how disciplinary procedures are used. McClellan examined disciplinary practices at two Texas prisons housing

female inmates and compared the practices

to those found in the male prisons. She found

gender-related differences in treatment between

the sexes: Women were cited more frequently

for disciplinary infractions and punished more

severely than male inmates. McClellan also

found higher levels of surveillance at the institutions for women, which suggests that gender

bias may influence the number of infractions

for which women are cited, especially for less

serious infractions such as “violation of a written or posted rule” or “refusing to obey an

order.”34 Van Voorhis and Presser found that

overcitation may lead to overclassification

because most reclassification instruments place

a heavy weight on institutional misconduct.35

Van Voorhis and Presser state that “it is noteworthy that few states have designed systems

that started with women in mind. Most map

existing male-based assumptions regarding

goals and purposes of corrections onto women

and the systems that classify them.”36 In their

national assessment, respondents in 15 states

indicated that the following correctional goals

were as central to women offenders as traditional custody concerns:

➤ Habilitation and rehabilitation, particularly

the establishment of programs targeted to

meet needs unique to women.

➤ Transitional programming pertinent to

parenting and family issues.

➤ Transferring women who commit minor

offenses to lower custody levels and out

of the system as soon as possible with the

intention to serve more women in community facilities rather than institutions.37

Van Voorhis and Presser conclude by suggesting: “If we started with women, we might

expect to see classification systems which

focused more attention on factors that seem

key to women’s reintegration—their children,

relationships, abuse, earlier trauma, mental illness, and job skills.”38 Subsequent research has

found these variables to be as predictive of

prison misconduct as the traditional variables

of prior record and current offense, especially

variables pertaining to child abuse, relationships, and mental illness.39

Women’s Services and Programs

The salient features that propel women into

crime include family violence and battering,

substance abuse, and their struggle to support

themselves and their children.40 As discussed

in chapter 1, there are strong similarities

between the profiles of women under community and institutional sanctions. In discussing

the program needs of women in community

corrections settings, Chesney-Lind has stated:

“[W]omen offenders, then, have different personal histories than their counterparts and less

serious offense backgrounds. In particular,

women’s long histories of repeated victimization have to be considered in crafting any

response to their criminal conduct.”41 She continues that women offenders in the community

must have safe and affordable housing, access
chapter two 21

to reliable transportation, and realistic employment opportunities. There is corresponding

evidence that these issues are essential to successful community reintegration following

incarceration in jails and prisons.

Richie found that women have a great need for

comprehensive, wraparound services in the

community.42 A case-management approach

that addresses women’s multiple treatment

needs in a comprehensive, gender-responsive

way has been found to work effectively. Richie

argues that child care, transportation, safety

from abusive partners, and access to staff

beyond business hours are critical elements

of successful reintegration. She suggests that

policy should address community needs as

well as individual needs to improve outcomes

for women. In concluding her series of indepth

interviews with women, Richie states:

[Women] need families that are not divided by public policy, streets and homes

that are safe from violence and abuse, and

health and mental health services that are

accessible. The challenges women face

must be met with expanded opportunity

and a more thoughtful criminal justice policy. This would require a plan for reinvestment in low-income communities in this

country that centers around women’s

needs for safety and self-sufficiency.43

Harris indicates there is significant evidence

that rehabilitative programs for women offenders are often based on generic programs that

make no gender distinctions.44 For example:

➤ Program staff may have little knowledge of

gender differences in behavioral, cognitive,

moral, and emotional development.

➤ Most correctional interventions do not address the effects of early physical, sexual,

and emotional abuse and the resulting

trauma.

➤ A common perception still exists that nothing works with women offenders because

they are an intractable population.

➤ Placement of women in lower risk groups

may result in the belief that they are inappropriate targets of intervention.

➤ Various agencies of the criminal justice

system, the social services system, and the

treatment community continue to operate as

independent entities; full integration of the

planning and delivery of treatment services

seldom occurs.

Community Corrections

Wellisch, Anglin, and Prendergast found that

women have special requirements in community treatment settings, including a means to

maintain or reestablish contact with children,

training in work that allows for self-support,

and adequate health care.45 Other problems

include the lack of a coordinated system of

support within communities that can provide a

comprehensive range of assistance to women

(e.g., in such areas as housing, job training,

employment, transportation, family reunification, child care, drug and alcohol treatment,

peer support, and aftercare).

Women who are on probation or under other

forms of community supervision or who are

transitioning from jail or prison to the community must navigate myriad systems that often

provide fragmented services. Many of those

interviewed in the national focus groups noted

that little coordination exists among the systems assigned to address substance abuse,

criminal justice, public health, employment,

housing, and child welfare. Hoskins also notes

the danger in conflicting expectations when

community treatment services are not integrated within community correctional obligations.46

She asserts that a coordinated case-management
22 Gender-Responsive Strategies

approach, developed in partnership with community corrections and treatment staff, can

minimize these conflicts.

Jails

In their study of jails operated exclusively for

women, Stohr and Mays suggest that women

are often denied the same recreational, social,

and programming opportunities that men have

traditionally been afforded.47 They also found

that women’s medical and familial needs are

not met in jails designed to incarcerate men.

In our national focus group interviews, one

administrator of a co-ed jail stated:

There is no question that different programming is needed for female offenders,

particularly in a jail. . . . Many were

arrested and incarcerated at the same time

as their spouse or significant other and so

received few visits or had no one on the

outside. Many were dealing with issues of

sexual or physical abuse, and others were

left with working out arrangements for

children, as well as dealing with financial

issues, family separation, and other issues.

In a 1996 review of legal issues involving

female jail inmates, Collins and Collins suggest that the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment requires jail officials

to explain and justify differences in housing,

privileges, and programming for male and

female inmates. They suggest that female jail

inmates are without many of the programs and

services available to men owing to their smaller numbers and the resulting limited resources

allocated to them.48 Collins and Collins and

Gray, Mays, and Stohr found that work programs were much less common for women in

jail, sometimes resulting in fewer opportunities

for earned good time and work release.49

Vocational programs were found to be inadequate both in number and in the ability to

prepare women for career-oriented training.

Health-related resources, particularly those

relating to gynecological and obstetric needs,

were also found to be lacking. Johnston,

Veysey, Teplin et al., and Singer et al. all found

that mental health problems among jail populations were particularly significant and were typically not addressed in the jail environment.50

Pregnant inmates, argued Collins and Collins,

presented particular challenges to the jail

health-care system. As in the prison setting,

staff sexual harassment was identified as a

problem in jails, but one with little documentation at the time of the report. Family concerns,

they assert, are magnified for women in jail

because women are often both the sole caretakers and source of financial support for their

children. Other problems identified in women’s

jails were obstacles to visiting and access to

legal resources that provide assistance in the

area of parental rights.

Prisons

In the national survey of prison administrators

conducted by Morash and Bynum, about 40

percent of the states surveyed indicated that

providing programs and services for women

offenders (including resources) was their most

serious operational problem.51 In a survey

of state prison administrators, the National

Institute of Corrections requested information

on programs developed specifically to meet the

needs of women offenders.52 They found that

female-focused programs fell into one of two

categories:

➤ Programs offered solely or primarily to

female offenders that addressed issues

common in this population, such as victimization through domestic violence and

sexual abuse, low self-esteem, and mentoring needs.

➤ Programs dealing with issues common to

both women and men but with specific

content altered to deal with the different

treatment needs or survival skills important

to women.
chapter two 23

Research on prison programs for women has

consistently established the following:

➤ Male prisons typically provide a greater

variety of educational and vocational programs and training for more skilled (and

better compensated) occupations.

➤ Women were offered a narrow range of

stereotypical job-training programs for conventionally “female” occupations, such as

cosmetology and low-level clerical work.

➤ Women in prison receive fewer institutional

work assignments and lower rates of pay

than male inmates, and men have greater

access to work-release programs.53

Staffing and Training

Staffing and training are core issues in the

appropriate management and supervision of

women in the criminal justice system. The

national focus groups conducted for this report

revealed a need for gender-specific training

within each segment of the system. As a community corrections participant noted, “Our

staff are continually frustrated because they

lack any information or training about dealing

with the women in their caseloads.” Respondents also mentioned that the lack of training

contributed to the perception that female

offenders were much more difficult to work

with than male offenders. A participant in a

jail focus group noted, “None of the jail staff

have received any gender-specific training. We

had to learn on the job. We need training in

communication skills, sensitivity training,

available community resources, and how to

handle the emotions and manipulations of the

female inmate.”

Although the Morash and Bynum study found

that at the institutional level most administrators report staffing and training as a high priority, Rasche stated that a 1998 national survey

of 40 prison systems found that more than half

did not have specialized training on the female

offender.54 Rasche also suggests that specialized training for those working with female

offenders is justified, based on the real differences between male and female offenders

along three dimensions: demographics, needs,

and personalities.

Morash and Bynum also suggested that the 

education of central office management in

the nature of these differences is important.55

Preparing staff to work with female offenders

requires increased knowledge about women that

will enable staff members to develop constructive attitudes toward female offenders, the interpersonal skills necessary for working with

women, and guidelines for appropriate interaction with women under correctional supervision.

Knowledge Regarding Women Offenders

Data sources reviewed for this project uniformly indicated that standard training protocols

neglect or minimize information about the

female offender. Focus group interviews and a

review of existing training materials suggest that

including the following content areas and points

of information will better prepare staff and management to work with women offenders:

➤ Demographics of women offenders.

➤ Proportion of female offenders within the

system.

➤ Reasons for female criminality.

➤ Offense distributions.

➤ Parenting and the importance of children in

the lives of female offenders.

➤ Developmental and psychological differences between men and women.

➤ Sexuality and alternative lifestyles.

➤ Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences

among women.
24 Gender-Responsive Strategies

➤ Implications of violence and trauma across

the lifespan.

➤ Substance abuse and treatment histories

and the trajectory of the healing process.

➤ Physical and mental health needs.

➤ Educational and vocational backgrounds.

A community corrections participant in the

national focus groups also noted: “[Staff] need

to be equipped with both the skills and the

referrals to address the real problems and

issues of women in the community. We need

to learn how to advocate for positive changes

in women’s lives in the community context.”

One corrections officer in a western state

noted: “None of us have been trained to work

with female offenders because our academy

focused totally on men.”

Attitudes About Women Offenders 

National studies,56 research,57 and national

focus group interviews have all identified negative attitudes and cultural stereotypes about

the female as major obstacles to supervising

women and providing services for them. In the

prison setting, Rasche refers to these attitudes

as “the male inmate preference” and suggests

that it is found among both low- and highranking male and female correctional officers.58 Pollock notes: “[T]here is an informal

agreement among correctional personnel that

female offenders are somehow ‘harder to work

with’ than male offenders.”59 Pollock also

found that both male and female officers

defined women inmates as more demanding,

more complaining, and more likely to refuse

orders.

In the community, as one probation officer

participating in the national focus groups stated, “Women are often defined as ‘less than’

and not worth the trouble they cause.” Many

staff interviewed in the focus groups report

that the woman offender is often defined as

inconvenient and difficult to work with in a

system designed to supervise the behavior of

men. Others note that working with the

woman offender is seen as a low-status assignment. Attitudes toward female offenders were

described as “stereotypical” and “negative.”

Respect was also seen as a critical issue in

managing the female offender in the community. As one probation officer stated:

Most women have been abused before by

their intimates and also by the criminal

justice system. They expect to be abused

and humiliated and are prepared to be

treated badly. When women are respected,

this breaks down the barriers. It is important to know that we are not here to continue the abuse. We also have to treat a

woman like a woman instead of like a

child.

Skills Needed for Working With Women

Offenders

Women and men have vastly different styles of

communication.60 Many of those interviewed

in the national focus groups expressed the

view that female offenders are more willing

than males to share the details of their lives

and that they also express themselves more

extensively. This creates a need to educate staff

in the different ways in which females and

males communicate and relate to others.

“Listening skills,” in particular, were seen as

specifically appropriate to women offenders.

In the national focus groups, a prison manager

suggested: “[I]t is important to learn how to

talk to women offenders, maybe even more

important than with male offenders. For example, you would want to talk to a woman before

you write her up. Sometimes those few minutes of conversation can save you hours of

paperwork.” A prison administrator in a midwestern state commented that working with
chapter two 25

women required more patience and time. Basic

counseling skills were also mentioned as

essential.

Guidelines for Appropriate Interaction With

Women Offenders

A review of procedure and operations manuals

reveals that few guidelines exist for working

with women offenders. Cross-gender supervision strategies, appropriate language to be used

in referring to women, and the meaning of

professional boundaries were among the

guidelines mentioned in the national interviews and in Pollock’s study.61 Sexual misconduct issues are also included in this area. To

reduce both the abuse of inmates by staff and

the incidence of lawsuits, employees need to

be trained specifically in how to work better

with all inmates and how to maintain professional boundaries between themselves and

inmates.

Staff Sexual Misconduct

During the past 10 years, the problems of staff

sexual misconduct have received significant

attention from the media, the public, and many

correctional systems.62 While the discussion

here is based on published work that describes

this problem within the institutional environment, the problem exists throughout the criminal justice system. Moss offers a definition of

sexual misconduct as “sexual behavior directed toward inmates, including sexual abuse,

sexual assault, sexual harassment, physical

contact of a sexual nature, sexual obscenity,

invasion of privacy and conversations or correspondence of a romantic or intimate nature.”63

The potential abuse of power inherent in

staff-inmate relationships is at the core of staff

sexual misconduct. Moss states that this inherent difference in power between staff and

inmates makes any consensual relationship

between staff and inmates impossible.

Misconduct can take many forms, including

inappropriate language, verbal degradation,

intrusive searches, sexual assault, unwarranted

visual supervision, denying of goods and 

privileges, and the use or threat of force.64

Misconduct includes disrespectful, unduly

familiar, or threatening sexual comments made

to inmates or parolees. It is important to note

that female officers have also been found to be

involved in this serious misconduct, although

the more publicized pattern appears to involve

male staff with female inmates.

The problem can be aggravated by poor grievance procedures, inadequate investigations,

and staff retaliation against inmates or parolees

who “blow the whistle.” In addition, standard

policies and procedures in correctional settings

(e.g., searches, restraints, and isolation) can

have profound effects on women with histories

of trauma and abuse, and they often act as triggers to retraumatize women who have PTSD.

Such operational concerns as the isolation of

post assignments, the overuse of overtime,

inadequate facility design for privacy, extended

inmate work assignments, poor transportation

practices, and an absence of teamwork among

security staff and civilian staff can also contribute to the inadequacies of the environment

in systemically addressing staff sexual misconduct. One focus group respondent noted that,

in the final analysis, staff sexual misconduct

should be defined as a security issue, in that

such behavior damages the safety and security

of everyone, staff and inmates alike.

Kupers has identified a constellation of issues

relevant to the problems of sexual harassment,

abuse, privacy violations, and retaliation in

women’s correctional facilities.65 In his written

testimony in the case of Everson v. Michigan

Department of Corrections, he reviews evidence regarding staff sexual misconduct in

U.S. prisons in general, and specifically in
26 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Michigan. His argument can be summarized 

as follows:

➤ Women prisoners with histories of abuse

may be retraumatized by sexual harassment

and abuse in prison and by the absence of a

“safe place” for them to heal and rehabilitate themselves.

➤ The impact of retraumatization includes

PTSD, depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses and disabilities; and decreased

ability to participate in rehabilitative programs while in prison and the effects of this

on a female offender’s reintegration into the

community upon release.

Legal Aspects of Staff Sexual Misconduct

Smith reviews the history of contemporary litigation, beginning in 1990 with the Women’s

Correctional Institution at Milledgeville,

Georgia.66 The allegations included claims that

women were forced to have sex with staff, routinely exchanged sex for favors, and experienced verbal harassment. The suit also alleged

that the women’s complaints had been ignored

and that they had not received appropriate

counseling to deal with the trauma created by

the abuse. As a result of litigation, the consent

decrees entered into by the state set the standard for systemwide policy to address this

problem. These decrees established the following standards:

➤ Misconduct would be reported confidentially and the individual reporting it would be

protected from retaliation.

➤ Counseling would be provided to women

who experience such abuse.

➤ Strip searches would be prohibited except

in very special circumstances.

➤ Procedures would be put in place for investigating allegations of sexual contact, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse.

➤ Training for employees and women

inmates would be provided.

The highlighted lawsuits and other, less visible

lawsuits contributed substantially to raising the

issue of staff sexual misconduct to the level at

which it received correctional administrators’

deliberate policy-level attention.

In her detailed discussion of selected legal

issues (see appendix A), Professor Myrna

Raeder begins the section on staff sexual misconduct by stating that misconduct cannot be

tolerated in any correctional setting, whether

or not it involves violence on the part of a correctional official. Sexual misconduct has criminal and civil consequences. It can result in

disciplinary actions or in criminal charges

against the staff member accused of improper

behavior. In addition, civil litigation may be

instituted against the particular staff member,

other staff members, supervisors, and even the

municipality. Beyond the legal context, sexual

misconduct implicates the culture of the institution and hinders the ability of administrators

to achieve rehabilitative goals.

Independent Reports

Several major reports were instrumental in

documenting the scope of staff sexual misconduct in women’s prisons. Human Rights Watch

reviewed the conditions of women incarcerated

in five states (California, Georgia, Illinois,

Michigan, and New York) and the District of

Columbia and made recommendations concerning training, legislation, and policy.67

Amnesty International also researched the

issue and made similar recommendations.68

Smith summarizes the following overlapping

recommendations:69

➤ Same-sex supervision for female inmates.

➤ More explicit policies and laws prohibiting

sexual abuse of inmates.
chapter two 27

➤ Stronger mechanisms for investigating and

prosecuting sexual abuse.

➤ Appropriate supportive services and redress

for sexual abuse.

➤ Greater protection from retaliation for

inmates reporting sexual misconduct.

The General Accounting Office also examined

this issue through a review of staff sexual

misconduct policy in selected jurisdictions.70

Recommendations contained in this report

focused on problems in monitoring, tracking,

and reporting incidents.

NIC Surveys

The National Institute of Corrections has

responded to the issue of staff sexual misconduct in a variety of ways. The Institute has

sponsored several national surveys of state

laws and existing policy and has supported the

development of training programs. Strategies

designed to address staff sexual misconduct in

correctional facilities, as reported by NIC,

include the following:71

➤ Passing new laws that define sexual misconduct and exclude consent by the inmate

as a legal defense.

➤ Assessing agencies’ operational and management practices.

➤ Developing new policies specifically prohibiting staff sexual misconduct.

➤ Improving training programs to heighten

staff awareness of the issue and its 

consequences.

➤ Revising agency procedures for investigating charges of staff sexual misconduct.

➤ Developing new ways to increase inmates’

awareness of this issue.

Implications for Jail and Community Settings

Although most of the publicity and research

attention given to the issue of staff sexual misconduct has involved the prison setting, it is a

serious issue in jail and community correctional settings as well. While jails may experience

issues similar to those of prisons, the issue

may play out differently in the community.

Regardless of location, common concerns

include the following:

➤ Community corrections and jail staff have

significant power over the female offender.

➤ Women offenders in the community have

similar backgrounds of sexual abuse.

➤ Most agencies have not addressed the problem through policy, training, legal penalties, or reporting and grievance procedures.

Legal Aspects of Criminal

Justice Practice Concerning

Women Offenders

In appendix A, Raeder states that the current

legal environment for prison officials is

favorable toward the development of genderappropriate policy and criminal justice practice owing to both judicial interpretation and

congressional legislation. This legal environment appears to support opportunities for

creative administrators to adopt innovative

programs that are more likely to ensure better

outcomes for women offenders and their children. Administrators who believe that genderresponsive programming will better serve the

needs of the female inmate population have

great leeway for experimenting with creative

approaches to solve previously intractable

problems (see “Key Legal Themes”).

In addition to the discussion of the legal aspects

of staff sexual misconduct summarized above,
28 Gender-Responsive Strategies

the following specific issues have significant

bearing on managing women offenders:

➤ Cross-gender supervision.

➤ Due process challenges.

➤ Pregnancy and child-related questions.

➤ Equal protection issues/equivalent access to

programs and services.

Cross-Gender Supervision

A number of lawsuits involving women

offenders are based on issues surrounding

cross-gender supervision. Administrators must

balance competing institutional security and

management interests with the privacy interests of women offenders. Courts have accorded women more rights to privacy than men in

correctional settings. Thus, women are more

likely than men to continue to be successful

in suits that implicate privacy interests. This

stems from society’s apparent view that

women should be afforded more privacy

than men and from the fact that cross-gender

supervision will cause many female offenders

to experience additional trauma, given their

histories of sexual and physical assault.

Due Process Challenges

Typically, due process has failed to provide a

useful tool for convicted prisoners to use in

challenging their conditions of confinement.

Research has indicated that women in prison

are given penalties for minor types of behavior

that would not be considered violations of the

rules in a men’s prison. These penalties may

prolong women’s incarceration or put them in

solitary confinement more frequently. Raeder

argues that it is difficult for prisoners to raise

due process claims successfully. However,

officials should determine whether women 

are being segregated for mental health problems that are made worse by that type of 

confinement.

Pregnancy and Child-Related

Questions

Inmate pregnancy is an issue of particular significance for jails; however, it also occurs in

prison settings. Legal issues often arise concerning access to nontherapeutic abortions

and the conditions surrounding the birth of an

inmate’s child. Restrictions on termination of

pregnancies and deliveries should be carefully

monitored by administrators because they are

likely to result in litigation.

KEY LEGAL THEMES

➢ Under an equal protection analysis, the goal is

parity of facilities, programming, and services for

women offenders.

➢ Gender-responsive programming is an appropriate correctional response.

➢ Differences exist between men’s and women’s

rights to privacy: Essentially, the employment

rights of female correctional officers supersede

the privacy rights of male inmates. Women

offenders’ rights to privacy have been ruled as

extending farther than those of male offenders.

➢ Cross-gender supervision can be appropriate, but

case law is stricter when male correctional officers pat-search female inmates than when

female correctional officers pat-search male

inmates. In some situations, single-sex supervision may be the better response. However,

female employees should be given opportunities

for job advancement that ensure they serve in

male institutions.

➢ Decisionmakers need to be proactive to lessen

the chances of sexual misconduct litigation.

Protocols should be established and followed,

and training should be instituted. Consideration

should be given as to how best to deploy male

staff.

➢ Restrictions on access to abortion services,

such as court approval, should be eliminated.

However, an inmate may not be entitled to public

funds to pay for the abortion.

➢ Restricted visiting and parental rights termination

proceedings are significant to women inmates

and may adversely affect their rehabilitation,

even if such policies and laws are not 

unconstitutional.
chapter two 29

Also, because most female offenders are

mothers, visits with their children can be key

to motivating them to change their behavior.

Understanding how such family-based legal

issues impact women offenders is important in

designing programs that can ensure the best

outcomes for women and their children, not

only in jail or prison settings but also in probation, parole, and community correctional

settings.

Equal Protection and Access

Raeder suggests that penological goals may

justify gender-specific treatment. In evaluating

equal protection arguments, courts vary as to

what standard of review to apply to evaluating

the legality of a policy or criminal justice practice.72 However, even if the policy is intentionally discriminatory, applying only to women, it

will be upheld if an important penological justification is demonstrated. Under either standard, different policies, facilities, programs,

and services can satisfy equal protection even

if the populations are similarly situated as long

as a valid penological justification exists for

the differences.

Conclusion: The Importance

of a Coordinated Response

to Gender-Specific Needs

The preceding discussion of the implications

of gender within the criminal justice system is

based on a simple assumption: Responding to

the differences between women and men and

their pathways to criminal behavior is consistent with the goals of all correctional agencies.

These goals are the same for all offenders,

whether they are male or female. Across the

criminal justice continuum, the goals of the

system typically involve sanctioning the initial

offense, controlling behavior while the offender is under its jurisdiction, and, in many cases,

providing interventions, programs, and services to decrease the likelihood of future offending. At each stage in the criminal justice

process, the differences between female and

male offenders affect behavioral outcomes and

the ability of the system to address the pathways to offending and thus achieve its goals.

As Judge Patricia Wald stated, “[I]t is commonly understood that women offenders as a

group display significant differences from their

male counterparts in ways that materially

affect the goals of sentencing.”73

A review of the evidence strongly suggests

that systems and agencies encounter problems

and minimize success by not acknowledging

gender differences and integrating them into

their operational and management practices.

The need for the criminal justice system to

respond appropriately to the documented gender differences is clear. As Modley has written,

the “sheer growth in the numbers of women

offenders . . . contributes to our sense of

urgency to understand why so many women,

why they keep returning to (and failing in) our

corrections systems, and what more effective

strategies for supervising and for treating them

might be available.”74

These issues will be the focus of chapters 3

and 4.

Notes

1. Collins, W., & Collins, A. (1996). Women in

jail: Legal issues. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Corrections, p. iv.

2. American Correctional Association. (1995).

Public correctional policy on female offender

services. Lanham, MD: Author, p. 1.

3. Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1999). The mental health supplement to the National Study of

Innovative and Promising Programs for

Women Offenders. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Justice, p. 33.
30 Gender-Responsive Strategies

4. Harris, K. (2001a, May). Women offenders

in the community: Differential treatment in the

justice process linked to gender. Information

session on supervision of women offenders 

in the community. Lexington, KY: National

Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections

Division, Networking Conference; Harris, K.

(2001b, December). Assessing existing operations and programming for gender responsivity.

National Institute of Corrections improving

community responses to women offenders

project seminar. Memphis, TN.

5. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999b). Special

report: Women offenders. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice.

6. Ibid.

7. Wald, P.M. (2001). Why focus on women

offenders? Criminal Justice, 16(1), 10-16.

8. Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (2000,

November). Gendered justice: Programming

for women in correctional settings. Paper 

presented to the American Society of 

Criminology, San Francisco, CA.

9. Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., & McClelland,

G.M. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 53(6), 505-512.

10. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999b.

11. Harris, 2001a.

12. Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman:

Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth; Collins & Collins, 1996; Owen,

B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival 

in a women’s prison. Albany, NY: State 

University of New York Press; Pollock, J.

(2002). Women, prison and crime (2d ed.).

Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

13. Brown, V., Melchior, L., & Huba, G.

(1999). Level of burden among women

diagnosed with severe mental illness and substance abuse. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs,

31(1), 31-40.

14. Burke, P., & Adams, L. (1991). 

Classification of women offenders in state 

correctional facilities: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: National Institute of

Corrections; Morash & Bynum, 1999; Harer,

M.D., & Langan, N.P. (2001). Gender differences in predictors of prison violence:

Assessing the predictive validity of a risk 

classification system. Crime & Delinquency,

474(4), 513-536.

15. Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001).

Classification of women offenders: A national

assessment of current practice. Washington,

DC: National Institute of Corrections, p. vi.

16. Morash & Bynum, 1999.

17. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2000). Reforming the

prison: Rethinking our ideals. In K. HannahMoffat & M. Shaw (Eds.), An ideal prison?

Critical essay on women’s imprisonment in

Canada (pp. 30-40). Halifax, Nova Scotia:

Fernwood Publishing; Kendall, K. (1994).

Therapy behind prison walls: A contradiction

in terms? Prison Service Journal, 96, 2-11;

McMahon, M. (2000). Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community

corrections. Lanham, MD: American 

Correctional Association.

18. Hannah-Moffat, 2000.

19. Bloom, B. (2000a). Beyond recidivism:

Perspectives on evaluation of programs for

female offenders in community corrections. In

M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment to assistance:

Programs for women in community corrections

(pp. 107-138). Lanham, MD: American 

Correctional Association, p. 122.

20. Harris, 2001a & 2001b; Bloom, 2000a;

Chapple, K.V. (2000). Community residential
chapter two 31

programming for female offenders and their

children. In P. Modley (Ed.), Annual review of

topics in community corrections: Responding

to women offenders in the community (pp. 

31-35). Washington, DC: National Institute 

of Corrections.

21. Bloom, 2000a, p. 111.

22. Whitaker, M.S. (2000). Responding to

women offenders: Equitable does not mean

identical. In P. Modley (Ed.), Annual review of

topics in community corrections: Responding

to women offenders in the community. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections,

p. 5.

23. Van Voorhis, P. (2001, December). 

Classification for women in community 

corrections. Paper presented to the National

Institute of Corrections Improving Community

Responses to Women Offenders Project

Seminar, Memphis, TN.

24. Jacobs, A. (2001). Give ’em a fighting

chance: Women offenders reenter society.

Criminal Justice Magazine, 16(1), 44-47.

25. Chapple, 2000.

26. Williams, F., McShane, M., & Dolny, H.

(2000, March). Female parolees: Will standard risk prediction instruments work? Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the 

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, New

Orleans, LA.

27. Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001, p. iv.

28. Harer & Langan, 2001; Van Voorhis &

Presser, 2001.

29. Morash & Bynum, 1999, p. 18.

30. Harer & Langan, 2001; Van Voorhis &

Presser, 2001.

31. Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001.

32. Stableforth, N.L. (1999). Effective corrections for women offenders. Forum on 

Correctional Research, 11(3), 3-5.

33. Shaw, M., & Dubois, S. (1995). 

Understanding violence by women: A review

of the literature. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional

Service of Canada.

34. McClellan, 1994, p. 76.

35. Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001.

36. Ibid., p. x.

37. Ibid., p. 13.

38. Ibid., p. 24.

39. Van Voorhis, P., Pealer, J., Presser, L.,

Spiropoulis, G., & Sutherland, J. (2001).

Classification of women offenders: A national

assessment of current practices and the experiences of three states. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, The Center for Criminal

Justice Research, p. iv.

40. Pollock, 2002; Belknap, 2001; Owen,

1998; Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female

offender: Girls, women and crime. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

41. Chesney-Lind, M. (2000). Women in the

criminal justice system: Gender matters. In P.

Modley (Ed.), Annual review of topics in community corrections: Responding to women

offenders in the community (pp. 7-10). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections,

p. 10.

42. Richie, B. (2001). Challenges incarcerated

women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews.

Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 368-389.

43. Richie, 2001, p. 386.

44. Harris, 2001a & 2001b.
32 Gender-Responsive Strategies

45. Wellisch, J., Anglin, M.D., & Prendergast,

M.L. (1993). Treatment strategies for drugabusing women offenders. In J.A. Inciardi

(Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (pp.

5-25). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

46. Hoskins, R. (2000). Maricopa County partnership network responds to female substance

abusers in the criminal justice system. In P.

Modley (Ed.), Annual review of topics in

community corrections: Responding to women

offenders in the community (pp. 4-6). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

47. Stohr, M.K., & Mays, G.L. (1993).

Women’s jails: An investigation of offenders,

staff, administration and programming. Las

Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University,

Department of Criminal Justice, p. 4.

48. Collins & Collins, 1996, pp. 2-4 .

49. Collins & Collins, 1996; Gray, T., Mays,

G.L., & Stohr, M.K. (1995). Inmate needs and

programming in exclusively women’s jails.

The Prison Journal, 75(2), 186-202.

50. Johnston, D. (2001, November). Jailed

mothers. Testimony to the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, Dana Point, CA;

Veysey, B.M. (1997). Specific needs of women

diagnosed with mental illnesses in U.S. jails.

Delmar, NY: National GAINS Center, Policy

Research Inc.; Teplin et al., 1996; and Singer,

M., Bussey, J., Song, L., & Lunghofer, L.

(1995). The psychosocial issues of women

serving time in jail. Social Work, 40(1), 103-

113.

51. Morash & Bynum, 1999.

52. National Institute of Corrections. (1998a).

Current issues in the operation of women’s

prisons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, pp. 5-6.

53. Belknap, 2001; Pollock, 2002; Morash,

M., Haarr, R.N., & Rucker, L. (1994). A comparison of programming for women and men

in U.S. prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 40(2),

197-221.

54. Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1998). Findings from the National Study of Innovative and

Promising Programs for Women Offenders.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice;

Rasche, C.E. (2000). The dislike of female

offenders among correctional officers: Need

for special training. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), It’s

a crime: Women and justice (pp. 237-252).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

55. Morash & Bynum, 1998.

56. Morash & Bynum, 1999.

57. Rasche, 2000; Pollock, J. (1986). Sex and

supervision: Guarding male and female

inmates. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

58. Rasche, 2000, p. 238.

59. Pollock, 1986, p. 84.

60. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation. New

York, NY: William Morrow.

61. Pollock, 1986.

62. Smith, B.V. (2001). Sexual abuse against

women in prison. Criminal Justice, 16(1), 30-

38; U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999).

Women in prison: Sexual misconduct by correctional staff. Washington, DC: Author.

63. Moss, A. (1999). Sexual misconduct

among staff and inmates. In P. Carlson & J.

Garrett (Eds.), Prison and jail administration:

Practice and theory. New York, NY: Aspen

Publishers, p. 189.
chapter two 33

64. Human Rights Watch Women’s Rights

Project. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse

of women in U.S. state prisons. New York, NY:

The Ford Foundation.

65. Kupers, T. (2001). Written testimony re:

Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections. Case No. 00-73133, Feb. 16, 2001, U.S.

District Court, E. Dist. of Michigan, Honorable Avern Cohn, Judge.

66. Smith, 2001.

67. Human Rights Watch Women’s Rights

Project, 1996.

68. Amnesty International USA. (1999). Not

part of my sentence: Violations of the human

rights watch in custody. New York, NY:

Author.

69. Smith, 2001, p. 32.

70. General Accounting Office, 1999.

71. National Institute of Corrections. (2000,

May). Sexual misconduct in prisons: Law,

remedies, and incidence. Longmont, CO: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of

Corrections Information Center.

72. Raeder, M. (1993). Gender issues in the

federal sentencing guidelines. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 8(3), 20-25.

73. Wald, 2001, p. 11.

74. Modley, P. (Ed.). (2000). Topics in community corrections: Responding to women

offenders in the community. Washington,

DC: National Institute of Corrections, p. 1.
chapter three 35

chapter three

The Context of Women’s Lives:

A Multidisciplinary Review of

Research and Theory

This chapter reviews the concept of gender and gender differences within

society and associated implications for the criminal justice system. Three

general areas are reviewed: first, multidisciplinary research on gender,

including such disciplines as health, family violence, substance abuse, mental

health, and trauma; second, theoretical perspectives specific to women; and

third, the gendered effects of policies.

Until recently, the criminal justice system has lacked a specific focus on the

female offender for a variety of reasons. First, the overall number of men in

custody and under supervision overwhelms the small number of women; little

contemporary work has focused on the female offender (most theory and

research are centered on crimes perpetrated primarily by males); and traditional

policy and practice are based on experiences with male offenders. Often by

default, practices designed for male offenders are viewed as the norm. With the

rise of women offenders in the system and the increased knowledge gained

from research on women in the general population, gender-based issues are now

receiving attention at all levels of the criminal justice system.

Recent research and theory on women, with emphasis on issues involving

women offenders, are summarized to provide a foundation for identifying

gender-responsive and culturally responsive options. Understanding the context

of women’s lives, both in the general population and under criminal justice

supervision, is an important first step in developing gender-responsive policy

and practice.

Acknowledging Gender: Differences Between

Women and Men

Research on the differences between women and men suggests that social and

environmental factors, rather than biological determinants, account for the

majority of behavioral differences. While purely physiological differences influence some basic biological processes (such as health and medical care) and a

range of reproductive issues, many of the observed behavioral differences are

the result of differences in gender socialization, gender roles, and gender

inequality.
36 Gender-Responsive Strategies

It is important to understand the distinction

between sex and gender differences. Belknap

explains that sex differences are biological differences, such as those concerning reproductive organs, body size, muscle development,

and hormones. Gender differences are ascribed

by society and relate to expected social roles.1

They are neither innate nor unchangeable.

Gender shapes the reality of women’s lives

and the contexts in which women live.

Understanding the distinction between sex

and gender informs us that most differences

between men and women are societally based

(gender), not biologically determined (sex). It

is important to comprehend and acknowledge

some of the dynamics inherent in a gendered

society. The influence of the dominant culture

is so pervasive that it is often unseen. One of

the gender dynamics found where sexism is

prevalent is that programs or policies declared

“genderless” or “gender neutral” are in fact

male based.2

Race and class can also determine views

of gender-appropriate roles and behavior.

Differences exist among women based on race

and socioeconomic status or class. Regardless

of their differences, all women are expected

to incorporate the gender-based norms, values,

and behaviors of the dominant culture into

their lives. As Kaschak states:

The most centrally meaningful principle

on our culture’s mattering map is gender,

which intersects with other culturally and

personally meaningful categories such as

race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Within all of these categories, people

attribute different meanings to femaleness

and maleness.3

The differences between women and men

exist in a range of areas, including biological,

health, violence, substance abuse, mental

health, trauma, and socioeconomic status.

Concerns relating to these areas pertain to

women in both the general population and the

criminal justice system.

Biology

A great deal of controversy surrounds any

discussion of biological differences between

women and men. The one obvious area of

agreement involves reproductive differences,

such as birth and lactation. Beyond this difference, there is considerable debate regarding

other sex differences.

At this point, separating biological effects

from social and cultural effects is problematic.

Pollock argues that a “biosocial” approach

takes these findings into account.4 For example, she reviews research that suggests that

male aggression is based on the fact that men

possess 10 to 15 times more testosterone than

women. Although enormous measurement and

definitional issues are involved in this work,

there appear to be consistent findings that “the

differential level of aggressiveness among men

was a sex difference rather than a gender difference.”5 However, studies that indicate some

link between testosterone and aggression also

suggest that such a relationship is socially

mediated.6

Another area of biological research concerns

brain differences. As Pollock notes, there is

increasing evidence that the brains of men and

women are different both in size and in the

complexity of neural networks and pathways.7

One area of research is brain lateralization.

Women are likely to have more neural pathways in the left hemisphere, and men have

more pathways in the right hemisphere. These

findings have thrown into further dispute speculation regarding men as being more “left

brain” (e.g., more analytic) and women as

more “right brain” (e.g., more emotional).

Women also show greater connections

between the two hemispheres. There is some

speculation that this suggests that men, with
chapter three 37

more lateralized brains, thus tend to be more

self-oriented, while a more integrated brain

makes women tend to be more “other” and

“us” oriented. While much further study is

needed, this finding may be the basis for the

more relationship-oriented behavior exhibited

by women.

Physical Health and Health Care

Research into gender differences related to

biology and medical needs has been increasing

in recent decades. In addition to the biological

and medical needs, new research is being conducted on the effects of sociological and institutional factors. One of the primary sources for

information about women’s health comes from

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the

NIH Women’s Health Initiative. In summarizing information about women’s health in the

general population, this section begins with a

discussion about the need to study women’s

medical and health care needs independently

from those of men.

In the 1999 Agenda for Research on Women’s

Health in the 21st Century, the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s

Health (ORWH) found that research results are

rarely reported or analyzed by gender, and that

women are typically not recruited in sufficient

numbers to support conclusions regarding the

impact of gender on the study findings. The

report states:

We are just beginning to understand and

appreciate the differences between men

and women in virtually every system of

the body, as well as the way men and

women experience disease. Differences 

in drug metabolism frequently explain

women’s drug vulnerability to medications

that have been tested primarily on men.8

ORWH also noted:

Investigators consistently assume that

information they glean from clinical and

basic studies on male subjects can be

extrapolated without modification to

women. This traditional assumption was

rarely, if ever, directly tested. It is remarkable that we have tolerated this “leap of

faith” in an otherwise rigorous research

enterprise. . . . We now have enough information about the differences between

males and females to acknowledge the

danger of assuming that they are

identical.9

The ORWH report found that the terms “sex”

and “gender” have also confused the understanding of health and medical issues. Although

some biological differences can account for

differences in male and female health profiles,

they found that a purely biological model is an

inadequate approach to develop a clear understanding of these observed differences. The

impact of social and cultural variables also

must be included in future investigations. In

this regard, the NIH panels see that women’s

health must be conceptualized as “genderspecific medicine that will provide new information to correct the male models and

definition of normal functioning and

pathophysiology.”

This emphasis on women’s health as qualitatively different from that of men is justified by

findings that document the specific differences

in women’s bodies, the way in which they

experience disease processes, and the way in

which they interact with medical and health

care institutions. The following sections summarize both biological and social findings

regarding medical conditions that affect men

and women differently.

Cardiovascular Disease

Heart disease is the leading cause of death

among American women, and the death rate is

nearly 20 percent greater for African-American

women. Cardiovascular disease, which includes

heart disease, stroke, and high blood pressure,

kills nearly 250,000 more women every year

than all forms of cancer combined and is often
38 Gender-Responsive Strategies

linked to tobacco use. Although heart disease

usually affects women 10 years later than it

affects men, nearly 43,000 more women than

men die each year as a result of cardiovascular

disease. While the prevalence of cardiovascular

disease is greater in women than men, it is not

detected and treated in women until the condition has become severe. As a result of delayed

detection, 44 percent of women who suffer a

heart attack die within 1 year compared with

27 percent of men.10

Cancer

Cancer rates also have specific gender differences. Lung cancer is the leading cause of

cancer death among American women. Nearly

23 percent of all adult American females are

smokers; these women have much higher rates

of lung cancer, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis than female nonsmokers. If current

smoking trends continue, the death rate among

women from smoking-related diseases will

exceed that of men by early in the next century. Teenage females smoke at higher rates than

teenage males, and female smokers are somewhat more likely to develop lung cancer than

male smokers.11

Breast cancer and gynecological cancers are

also gender related. After lung cancer, breast

cancer is the second leading cause of cancer

death for women. Seventy-seven percent of

new cases and 84 percent of breast cancer

deaths occur in women age 50 and older, with

women accounting for 99 percent of all breast

cancer incidence and mortality.12 Of all gynecological cancers, uterine cancer is the most

common form of gynecological cancer, while

the lack of a reliable method of early detection

makes ovarian cancer the deadliest form.

Osteoporosis

Osteoporosis is a degenerative disease characterized by loss of bone mass. The National

Osteoporosis Foundation reports that osteoporosis affects 25 million Americans. More

than 80 percent of those afflicted are women,

with white and Asian females at greatest risk.13

Eating Disorders

According to the National Institute of Mental

Health, eating disorders are 8 to 10 times more

prevalent among women than men. Anorexia,

a condition in which an individual starves herself for weight control, leads to death in 10

percent of cases, killing approximately 1,000

adolescent girls each year in the United States.

Bulimia, characterized by binge eating, affects

1 to 4 percent of the American population, and

women are more likely to suffer from it than

men.14

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

More than 12 million new cases of sexually

transmitted diseases (STD) other than AIDS

are diagnosed each year in the United States.

Women are twice as likely as men to contract

a sexually transmitted disease. They suffer

a disproportionate burden of STD-related complications, which include pelvic inflammatory

disease, infertility, potentially fatal ectopic pregnancies, and cancer of the reproductive tract.15

HIV/AIDS

Women are 10 times more likely than men to

contract HIV during unprotected sex with an

infected partner.16 According to the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, between

120,000 and 160,000 females in the United

States were living with HIV in 1998, including

those diagnosed with AIDS.17 The proportion

of reported cases of HIV or AIDS in American

females rose from 7 percent to 20 percent

between 1985 and 1996. HIV is the fourth

leading cause of death for U.S. women

between the ages of 25 and 44 and the second

leading cause of death for African-American

women in this age group.
chapter three 39

Seeking Medical Services

According to Bertakis et al., women use more

health-care services than men.18 They found

that the women in their study had poorer

health and lower education and income levels

than the men. Women had a significantly higher number of visits to primary care clinics and

diagnostic service providers. Women were

charged more for primary care, specialty care,

emergency treatment, and diagnostic services.

Women are 48 percent more likely to receive

prescriptions and to use prescription drugs.19

Health Issues for Women

Offenders

Incarcerated women are at greater risk for 

serious health problems than nonincarcerated

women because it is more likely they have

experienced poverty, poor nutrition, substance

abuse, limited access to preventive medical

care, and limited education on health issues.20

The majority of imprisoned women have significant health-care problems, and few of these

needs are met in prison for a range of reasons,

including scheduling, limited access to physicians, and, in the case of emergencies, transportation from rural prisons to urban hospitals.21

Acoca notes that the lack of female-specific

drug treatment is one of the factors linked to

the high incidence of HIV infection among

imprisoned women.22 Nationally, about 3.5

percent of women prisoners are thought to be

HIV positive compared with about 2.2 percent

of male prisoners.23 Researchers in New York

have found that female inmates in New York

prisons have a higher seroprevalence rate of

HIV than prisoners elsewhere.24 Women in

prison are also at risk for other infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, and hepatitis B and C. Acoca

suggests that both risky behavior preceding

arrest and inadequate prison health care contribute to this problem.25

A 1994 study conducted by the California

Department of Corrections found that 18 percent of incarcerated women tested positive for

exposure to tuberculosis (TB). Medications for

preventing and treating TB must be taken consistently, and TB-exposed women who are

released from prison without completing the

medication are at greater risk of either developing active TB or transmitting the disease.

They are also at risk of developing drugresistant strains of TB.26

Estimates of the percentage of pregnant

women in prisons and jails range from 4 percent to 9 percent. A survey of U.S. women’s

prisons found that fewer than half provided

prenatal care, only 15 percent provided special

diets and nutritional programs for pregnant

women, and only 11 percent provided postnatal counseling.27

Acoca argued that pregnancy during incarceration must be understood as a high-risk situation, both medically and psychologically, for

inmate mothers and their infants.28 She notes

that deficiencies in the correctional response 

to the needs of pregnant inmates may include

lack of prenatal and postnatal care, including

nutrition; inadequate education regarding

childbirth and parenting; and inadequate

preparation for the mother’s separation from

the infant following delivery.

This lack of knowledge about women’s

health needs within the criminal justice system, coupled with increased health-care costs,

has specific implications for correctional

health-care delivery. In the focus groups and

in analyses of comments made in NIC training seminars, prison managers consistently

noted that health care was a critical concern

in managing women offenders.
40 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Violence Against Women and

Children

Awareness of violence against women and

children has increased over the past 25 years.

The pervasiveness of traumatic violence within

our culture has a dramatic impact on the wellbeing of women, creating victims of physical

and sexual abuse, victims of racial and gender

discrimination, and witnesses to violence.

Violence is defined as a verbal or physical act

that causes physical or emotional injury or

harm; the unfair or abusive use of power or

force; the violation of a person’s sense of self

through intimidation, humiliation, or physical

force; or the meeting of one’s own needs by

exploiting another person without regard for

that person’s well-being. Basic facts include

the following:

➤ Approximately 52 percent of child abuse

and neglect victims are girls, and 48 percent are boys.29

➤ “Stranger” sexual abuse is by far the most

publicized form of child sexual abuse, but it

constitutes only 10 percent of all reported

cases.30

➤ Compared with victims of childhood physical

abuse and neglect, victims of childhood sexual abuse are at greater risk of being arrested

for one type of sex crime: prostitution.31

➤ More female than male adolescents have

been sexually assaulted: one study reported

assaults on 13 percent of females compared

with 3.4 percent of males;32 another reported assaults on 38 percent of females and 

7 percent of males.33

➤ An estimated 67 of every 100,000 females

in the United States were reported rape

victims in 1998. Despite a decline in the

nation’s crime rate over the past decade,

reported rates of rape and sexual assault did

not decline.34

➤ Only 22 percent of rapes are committed by

someone the victim does not know.35

➤ The National Crime Victimization Survey

found that, in 1996, more than two-thirds

of the rapes and sexual assaults committed

in the United States remained unreported.36

➤ Approximately 2.5 million females age 12

and older are raped, robbed, or assaulted

each year.37

➤ There are 4 million cases of domestic violence in this country each year; a woman is

beaten every 15 seconds.38

➤ Every year, more than 5,000 women are

murdered in the United States. Every day,

four women are killed by their male

partners.39

➤ Domestic violence is found across all ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic lines.40

➤ From 22 to 35 percent of emergency room

visits by women are the result of partner

violence,41 and approximately 53 percent of

domestic violence victims are seen by

physicians repeatedly (i.e., six or more

times) with trauma-related injuries.42

➤ Approximately 20 to 30 percent of marriages in this country have been characterized at one point by overt interpersonal

aggression,43 and between roughly 1.8 and

4 million women in the United States are

physically abused by their partners each

year.44

➤ Women are up to six times more likely to

be violently assaulted by a partner or expartner than by a stranger, and they are

more likely to suffer injury when the

assailant is an intimate.45

➤ Sexual assault is also highly prevalent in

domestic settings. From 33 to 50 percent of

women who are physically assaulted by
chapter three 41

their partners are also sexually assaulted by

those partners.46

Family Violence and Children

Researchers in the area of family violence

have begun to study the harmful consequences

children experience as a result of witnessing

domestic violence. While it may seem obvious

that observing the abuse of one’s mother

would cause trauma to a child, not all children

are affected in the same way. Their different

experiences related to the impact of violence

make it difficult to address the complex policy

issues facing family violence experts today.

According to Carlson, the immediate negative

effects on a child who witnesses violence

against his or her mother appear to be low selfesteem, behavioral problems, reduced social

competence, depression, and anxiety.47 One

factor complicating the identification of the

negative effects of parental violence on children is that many witnesses are also themselves victims of physical abuse.

The first national survey on family violence

confirmed the connection between violence in

childhood and the later use of violence. As

adults, the sons of the most violent parents

were found to beat their wives at a rate 1,000

times greater than the sons of nonviolent parents.48 Among females, childhood domestic

violence may manifest in adulthood as

increased vulnerability to victimization and,

specifically, as increased likelihood of being

victimized by a spouse. Furthermore, both

men and women who reported having been hit

by their parents in childhood were found to be

more likely to hit their own children.49

Seventy percent of those who enter domestic

violence shelters are children. In 1998, the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

published a study indicating that violence

against mothers by their intimate partners 

may also pose a concurrent risk of abuse to

the victims’ children. Conversely, mothers of

abused children are at a higher risk of being

abused than mothers of children who are not

abused. The mother’s abuser is her partner,

while the child may be abused by either the

partner or the battered mother herself. When

women do abuse children, the abuse is primarily physical and rarely sexual.

Abuse Histories of Women

Offenders

Many women in the criminal justice system

have extensive histories of sexual and physical

abuse. By some estimates, women offenders

have rates of abuse 6 to 10 times that of

women in the general population.50 The Bureau

of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that women

in the criminal justice system are more likely

than women in the general population to have

experienced abuse.51 According to BJS:

➤ Nineteen percent of female state prison

inmates, 10 percent of female federal

inmates, and 16 percent of women in local

jails and on probation had been physically

or sexually abused before their most recent

admission to a criminal justice setting.

➤ One-third of the women in state prisons,

one-sixth of the women in federal prisons,

and one-quarter of those in jails said they

had been raped. Another 3 to 6 percent

reported that someone had tried to rape

them but had not succeeded.

➤ As many as 9 in 10 abused women knew

their abuser.

➤ Two-thirds of women in criminal justice

settings had been injured in a fight or

assault.

➤ Just fewer than half of the women in correctional populations but only 1 in 10 men

indicated past abuse.
42 Gender-Responsive Strategies

➤ Women in the criminal justice system are

more likely than women in the general population to have been abused in childhood.

➤ Between 7 and 16 percent of male offenders and between 40 and 57 percent of

female offenders reported that they had

been physically or sexually abused before

the age of 18.

Owen and Bloom found that physical, sexual,

and emotional abuse has been a defining experience for the majority of women in California

prisons.52 In their sample, which included the

category of emotional abuse, 80 percent of the

women interviewed reported having experienced some kind of abuse. With the exception

of sexual assault, most women indicated that

the abuse had been committed by family members or other intimates.

In a detailed examination of women incarcerated in New York prisons, Browne et al. found

that a substantial majority of their sample

reported sexual molestation or severe violence

in childhood and adolescence.53 Most telling

is the finding that when all forms of violence

are taken together, only 6 percent of the 150

respondents did not report at least one physical

or sexual attack during their lifetime.54 These

findings suggest that violence across the lifespan for women incarcerated in the general

population of a maximum security prison is

pervasive and severe.55 Most prisons lack programs to deal with this fundamental problem

of the female prisoner.56

Substance Abuse, Mental

Health, and Trauma

There is significant evidence that women and

men have divergent experiences in the areas of

substance abuse, mental illness, and trauma.

These gender differences have specific application with regard to women offenders.

Substance Abuse

In the last two decades, clinicians and

researchers have developed a solid body of

knowledge in best practices for the treatment

of addicted women. The National Institute on

Drug Abuse has contributed to this knowledge

through a major research commitment to

identifying and understanding the differences

between women and men. Research indicates

that gender differences play a role from an individual’s earliest opportunity to use drugs; that

the effects of drugs are different for women and

men; and that some approaches to treatment

are more successful for women than for men.57

Studies indicate that substance-abusing women

and men differ on numerous variables, including etiological, physiological, psychological,

sociological, and familial factors.

The pathway to drug use and abuse has a later

onset and is more complex for females than it

is for males. For females, there is typically a

breakdown of individual, familial, and environmental protective factors and an increase in

childhood fears, anxieties, phobias, and failed

relationships. The roots of female drug use

often lie in psychiatric disorders that began

prior to the drug use. Other important points

include the following:

➤ Women describe the onset of drug use as

sudden and heavy rather than gradual. They

report that often it has begun for a specific

reason, such as depression or a family

problem.58

➤ Women experience the adverse physiological effects of alcohol on the liver, cardiovascular system, and gastrointestinal system

more quickly than men, a condition referred

to as “telescoping.”59

➤ The link between HIV/AIDS and drug use

is greater in women. Nearly half of all

women diagnosed with AIDS are users of

injectable drugs.60
chapter three 43

➤ Women are more likely than men to have

been initiated into drug use by a male sexual partner, and they often continue to use

drugs to maintain the relationship. Women

are also more likely to have a partner with

an addiction problem.61

➤ Female substance abusers have a greater

number of life problems than do most male

substance abusers. Such problems may be

related to employment, family issues, child

care, and mental health.62

➤ Women who abuse substances also have

higher rates of childhood physical and sexual abuse than men and non-substanceabusing women. Using alcohol and other

drugs also increases a woman’s risk of

being abused during her adult life.63

➤ Treatment programs for women recognize

the need for comprehensive services and

for a focus on relationship issues. Women’s

programs are seen as more effective if 

they focus on support and skill building 

and if they are strength based rather than

confrontational.64

➤ Culture, race, and ethnicity have an impact

on women’s development of substance

abuse problems. Societal and institutional

responses to these issues, especially when

combined with lower income, less education, and unemployment, can lead to feelings of alienation and powerlessness.

Women also experience barriers to treatment

that differ from those experienced by men.

Barriers experienced by women include a

lack of economic resources, referral networks,

women-oriented services, and conflicting

child-related responsibilities. Research has

shown that treatment of substance-dependent

women is more successful when the treatment

environment is mutually supportive and therapeutic, addressing the following issues:

psychopathology, a woman’s role as mother,

interpersonal relationships, and the need for

parenting education.65 These programs seek to

balance treatment for the individual woman

with help for the parent-child relationship.

Children also should receive services designed

to meet their own needs.66

Mental Health

Implications of the role of gender in mental

health are complex and require a careful study

of many variables (including biology, age,

race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) and

recognition of the social constructs of mental

health diagnoses. Gender stereotypes, sex-role

expectations, cultural attributes, and such

gender-related stressors as access to resources,

help-seeking behaviors, and the multiple

demands placed on women in our society also

must be examined. There is a consensus

among practitioners that gender plays an

important role in psychological development,

personality structure, and other areas that

relate to psychological health and well-being.

Although women and men are equally affected

by psychiatric disorders, they experience different types of disorders. Depression is diagnosed twice as often in women as in men, and

women are two to three times as likely to

experience anxiety disorders. The most common anxiety disorders for women are panic,

phobias, and post-traumatic stress. Women are

also more likely to experience eating disorders,

particularly anorexia and bulimia. In contrast,

men are twice as likely to experience a substance abuse disorder and five times as likely to

experience an antisocial personality disorder.67

Depression, the most common mental disorder

for women, affects between 7 and 11 million

women each year and correlates strongly with

low income, low educational level, and other

measures of powerlessness in society.68

Researchers have consistently found that
44 Gender-Responsive Strategies

poverty and exposure to unrelenting stress are

two factors that can precipitate the onset of

mental health problems.69 Women, particularly

those who are single parents, are more likely

to live in poverty. Female heads of households

are also significantly more likely to experience

the stress of chronic and persistent poverty. In

addition, low-income women, particularly

women of color, often experience crime, violence, discrimination, and the loss of a child

or a partner to violence, imprisonment, or 

disease.70 Finally, as mentioned previously,

domestic violence and sexual victimization 

are widespread problems and can have significant mental health consequences.

Although women are more likely than men to

report and seek treatment for mental health

problems, they remain significantly underserved, with only one-quarter of women

receiving any form of treatment.71 In addition,

women are also more likely than men to

somaticize—that is, to develop a physical

symptom that cannot be fully explained as a

medical condition. Women with mental health

issues may thus seek services from a primary

care provider instead of a mental health specialist. However, primary care providers often

fail to diagnose mental health problems, and

they tend to be overly reliant on drug therapy,

often prescribing inappropriate dosages.72

Studies show that women receive two-thirds

of all prescriptions for psychotropic drugs.

Although women’s increased expression of

distress has been said to account for drug prescription patterns, women receive more prescriptions even when symptom levels are held

constant.73 In addition, most drug testing is

done without analyzing male/female differences, which means that psychotropic drugs

are often prescribed for women in the absence

of adequate information regarding appropriate

dosages or unique side effects in women.

Women are also more likely than men to

become addicted to prescription drugs and 

to combine them with alcohol as a coping

mechanism.

Among women, the intersections among mental health, trauma, and substance abuse are

critical. In a study of both men and women in

the general population, 23 percent of those

surveyed reported a history of psychiatric disorders, and 30 percent reported also having

had a substance abuse problem at some time in

their lives.74 Furthermore, among substance

abusers, depression, anxiety, and other mood

disorders are more common among women

than men. Blume found that major depression

co-occurred with alcohol abuse in 19 percent

of women (almost 4 times the rate for men);

phobic disorder co-occurred in 31 percent of

women (more than twice the rate for men);

and panic disorder co-occurred in 7 percent of

women (3.5 times the rate for men).75

Other aspects of mental disorders that differ

between men and women include the prevalence of certain syndromes, the age of onset,

the presentation and diversity of symptoms,

the course and severity of a disorder, responses

to intervention, and known risk factors. For

example, Kessler et al. found that women were

at higher risk than men for comorbidity of substance use and psychiatric illness.76 Prior found

that women were at higher risk of both annual

and lifetime co-occurrence of substance abuse

and at least one other mental disorder.77 Other

findings suggest that women have more affective disorders (with the exception of mania)

than men and higher rates of somaticization,

obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety disorders, and episodes of major depression.78

Trauma

One of the most important developments in

health care over the past several decades is the

recognition that a substantial proportion of

people have a history of serious traumatic
chapter three 45

experiences that play a vital, and often unrecognized, role in the evolution of an individual’s physical and mental health problems. The

risk of interpersonal violence continues to be

higher for women than for men throughout

life: “While both male and female children are

at risk for abuse, females continue to be at risk

for interpersonal violence in their adolescence

and adult lives. The risk of abuse for males in

their teenage and adult relationships is far less

than that for females.”79

A number of disorders are known to be related

to traumatic experience. Post-traumatic stress

disorder is the most obvious and well recognized. PTSD symptoms include flashbacks,

nightmares, physiological reactions when

remembering, hypervigilance, and exaggerated

startle response.80 There is also a high level of

comorbidity between PTSD and depression,

anxiety, panic disorder, phobic disorder, substance abuse, and many physical disorders.

In addition, recent brain research describes

neurological changes related to experiencing

violence that has resulted in trauma. While

some change in brain chemistry is immediate,

chronic abuse may increase the severity of the

chemical changes. The biology of trauma has

been the subject of recent research that suggests that childhood sexual abuse creates a cascade of neurological events that affect brain

development and emotional behavior and produce a risk factor for the development of substance abuse.81

The connection between addiction and trauma

for women is intricate and not easily disentangled. One key finding is that substanceabusing women are vulnerable targets for

violence. M. Miller found that both childhood

and current abuse increase a woman’s risk for

substance abuse.82 In one of the earliest comparison studies of addicted and nonaddicted

women, 74 percent of the substance-abusing

women reported sexual abuse (versus 50 

percent of the nonaddicts); 52 percent reported

physical abuse (versus 34 percent); and 72 

percent reported emotional abuse (versus 44

percent).83

In a review of studies that examined the combined effects of PTSD and substance abuse,

Najavits found more comorbid mental disorders, medical problems, psychological symptoms, inpatient admissions, and interpersonal

problems and other significant life problems

(such as homelessness, HIV, domestic violence, and loss of custody of children) among

those experiencing both PTSD and a substance

abuse disorder compared with those experiencing one of those problems alone.84

As previously stated, women who have been

exposed to trauma and who are also addicted

to drugs or alcohol are at higher risk for other

mental disorders. The rate of major depression

among alcoholic women was almost three

times the rate of the general female population,

and the rate for phobias was almost double.

The rate of antisocial personality disorder—a

disorder that can often result in criminal justice

involvement—was 12 times higher among alcoholic women than among the general female

population.85

Co-occurring disorders are complex, and the

historic division in the fields of mental health

and substance abuse often has resulted in contradictory treatment. Women in early recovery

frequently show symptoms of mood disorders,

but these can be temporary conditions associated with withdrawal from drugs. Also, it is

difficult to know whether a psychiatric disorder

existed before a woman began to abuse alcohol

or other drugs, or whether the psychiatric

problem emerged after the onset of substance

abuse.86 Research suggests there is slower

improvement in preexisting psychiatric disorders for recovering substance abusers and that

this needs to be addressed directly in treatment.
46 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Implications for Women Offenders

As noted in chapter 1, Characteristics of

Women in the Criminal Justice System, the

issues of substance abuse, mental health, and

trauma are closely intertwined in the lives of

women offenders. According to BJS, nearly 8

of every 10 female offenders with a mental illness report prior physical or sexual abuse.87 A

1994 study of women in U.S. jails indicated

that approximately 22 percent of the women

had been diagnosed with PTSD.88 In a study

of participants in prison-based treatment programs, Messina, Burdon, and Prendergast

found that women report childhood abuse at

nearly twice the rate reported by men.89 Abuse

of women as adults was reported at eight times

the rate reported by men. One study indicated

that nearly 80 percent of female prisoners in

California had experienced some form of

abuse as children or as adults.90 It is also

important to note that abuse statistics may

reflect the possibility that women are more

willing to report victimization than men.

In a survey of female pretrial jail detainees,

more than 80 percent of the women in the

sample met the Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for one

or more lifetime psychiatric disorders.91

According to Teplin et al., “The most common

disorders were drug abuse or drug dependence

(63.6 percent), alcohol abuse or alcohol

dependence (32.3 percent), and post-traumatic

stress disorder (33.5 percent).”92 Sixty percent

of the subjects had exhibited drug or alcohol

abuse or dependence within 6 months prior to

the interview. In addition, 17 percent met the

criteria for a major depressive episode.

Women with serious mental illness and 

co-occurring disorders experience significant

difficulties in criminal justice settings.

As Teplin et al. reported:

The American Bar Association recommends that persons with mental disorders

who were arrested for misdemeanors be

diverted to a mental health facility instead

of being arrested. With appropriate community programs, nonviolent felons could

also be treated outside the jail after pretrial

hearings . . . Unfortunately, communitybased programs are rarely available for

released jail detainees, who often have

complex diagnostic profiles and special

treatment needs.93

With the higher rate of mental illness among

female offenders, high rates of medication can

be expected. However, there is a tendency to

overmedicate women both in society at large

and in correctional settings. The use of psychotropic drugs is 10 times higher in women’s

than in men’s prisons.94 In comparing men’s

and women’s prisons, McCorkel finds that

“women’s institutions rely on the prescription

of psychotropic drugs to restrict and control

behavior.”95 Many women interviewed by

Leonard reported that psychotropic drugs

directly interfered with their ability to participate in the preparation of their defense cases.

Leonard notes the overuse of antidepressants

and mood regulators, which she refers to as

“chemical restraints,” as a means of institutional social control.96

Socioeconomic Status

Women’s socioeconomic status is significantly

affected by gender-related differences in earnings, educational attainment, and type of

employment.

Employment

Research in the area of women and work indicates an ongoing gender gap in earnings

despite advances in women’s education and

improvement in occupational niches. In 1997,

women working full time earned $26,029 per

year and men earned $35,248.97 Overall, across

most job classes, women earn about 74 percent
chapter three 47

of what men earn. In 1997, the U.S. Census

Bureau reported that men working full time

earned more than $35,000 while only 30 percent of women earned that amount.98 Female

college graduates earn less than male college

graduates and only slightly more than males

with only a high school education. A gender

stratification perspective shows that pay is distributed according to gender: Women earn less

than men both historically and currently, even

when similar positions are held. This gender

stratification is further complicated by race.

M. Anderson summarizes data that show

minority women to be particularly subject to

decreased earning power.99

A variety of explanations are offered for this

gender gap in earnings. In terms of statistical

facts, women earn less than men for the following reasons:

➤ Women, more often than men, stay home

with children.

➤ Women complete fewer years of training

and schooling.

➤ Women typically prepare themselves for

lower income positions, such as clerical

and service work.

There are less obvious explanations as well:

Women often experience the “glass ceiling,”

with its “implicit limits on their ability to

move up at work.”100 The 1995 governmentsponsored “Glass Ceiling Commission” found

that despite the development of new policies to

promote gender and racial equality, women

were effectively blocked from most senior

management positions.101

The lack of parity in earnings is reflected in

the high rates of poverty among women who

are single heads of households. In 1997, the

median family income for all families was

$37,005. In 1997, almost 32 percent of all

female-headed households lived below the

official poverty line. For households headed by

women, the following was true:

➤ White families had a median income of

$25,670, with 28 percent living below the

poverty line.

➤ African-American families had a median

income of $17,962, with almost 40 percent

living below the poverty line.

➤ Hispanic families had a median income of

$16,393, with 48 percent living below the

poverty line.102

Education

Historically, women have lagged behind men in

educational attainment. Although both genders

theoretically have the same access to education,

actual completion rates vary by gender and race.

In its influential report How Schools Shortchange Girls, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) explored the gender

gap in education and found that even in the

same classroom, girls were given “different

amounts of education.”103 Research on education

shows that, in the classroom, girls typically wait

to be called on and boys tend to volunteer. The

AAUW report documented that females and

males respond to modes of teaching differently

and that typically competitive teaching styles

place girls at a disadvantage. One study found

that while girls in general may get less feedback

from teachers overall, black girls get even less

attention.104 Sapiro also cites evidence that

demonstrates that teachers have different kinds

of interactions with girls than with boys.105

These differences in teaching styles and interactions are also mediated by type of subject.

Other studies show that in the 1990s, most

females of high school age indicated that they

planned to be employed in the future. Only

7 percent thought they would stay home
48 Gender-Responsive Strategies

with children and be supported by a husband.

Sapiro reviews studies showing the following:

➤ Girls tend to take marriage and children

into account in planning their occupational

futures.

➤ Girls anticipate that they will have their

children at a younger age than boys do.

➤ Girls from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to plan for academic achievement, and girls from lower socioeconomic

backgrounds tend to plan for vocational

training.

➤ Boys begin paid work earlier and work

longer hours than girls.106

The AAUW also examined differential dropout

rates. Once again, race and gender combined

to create differential patterns. There was no

real difference among white students, but

among African-American students, young men

(18 percent) were more likely to drop out of

high school than young women (14 percent).

Hispanic young women, however, were more

likely to drop out (35 percent) than Hispanic

young men (27 percent).107 Sapiro further indicates that while pregnancy is often seen as the

primary reason for dropping out among young

women, more than half reported other circumstances as their motivation for leaving high

school. Among young women, family problems were mentioned as the most common

reason for leaving school; among young men,

going to work was the primary rationale for

leaving school.

After high school, about half of women with

high school degrees work compared with

three-quarters of men with high school

degrees. This difference narrows among 

college-educated women and men. Although

decreasing numbers of women are staying

home with their children, many women

attempt to enter the job market after their

children are grown. Late entry into the job

market creates specific problems for women,

such as the lack of a consistent work history,

the lack of prior relevant experience, and outdated skills that limit earning potential.

The types of work that women and men do

also differ by gender. Women are more likely

to be employed in service and clerical industries; women are most represented in the professional occupations of teaching, nursing, and

cosmetology. Sapiro notes that both women

and men make job choices based on an assessment of their chances, not only in specific jobs

but also in the job market overall.

Employment and Education

Histories of Women Offenders

As noted in chapter 1, most female offenders

are poor, undereducated, and unskilled. A survey of female jail inmates in the United States

found that more than 60 percent were unemployed when arrested, and one-third of these

had not been looking for work. Fewer than

one-third of male inmates were similarly

unemployed, and fewer than 12 percent of

these had not been looking for work.108

Another study of women prisoners found that

of those women who had been employed

before incarceration, many had been on the

lower rungs of the economic ladder, with

only 37 percent working at a legitimate job.

Twenty-two percent had been on some kind

of public support, 16 percent had made money

from drug dealing, and 15 percent had been

involved in prostitution, shoplifting, or other

illegal activities.109

When the educational and work experiences

of women under correctional supervision are

examined, the data show that these women have

been marginalized from the conventional world

of work. In a survey of women in California

prisons, Owen and Bloom found that women

in prison have few skills and little education:110
chapter three 49

➤ Almost 40 percent reported less than a high

school education. About 15 percent had

completed high school, and another 25 percent had some training beyond high school.

The remainder had completed college. Of

the women with any vocational training,

the trades most commonly studied were in

the clerical, medical/dental, and cosmetology fields.

➤ About half of the women in the representative sample had never worked at any time,

and more than half had been unemployed

in the year before this prison term. Onethird of the women indicated their ongoing

substance abuse problems had prohibited

them from working; others said they made

more money from illegal pursuits; and

about 12 percent said child care and other

responsibilities had kept them at home.

Fewer than 10 percent said that their partners or families had provided them with

support.

Other measures of female offenders’ education

and work history come from BJS:111

➤ In 1998, an estimated 55 percent of women

in local jails, 56 percent of those in state

prisons, and 73 percent of those in federal

prisons had a high school degree.

➤ Approximately 40 percent of women in

state prisons reported that they had been

employed full time at the time of their

arrest compared with almost 60 percent

of males.

➤ Most of the jobs held by women were entry

level, requiring a low level of skills and providing low pay. Two-thirds of the women

reported they had never held a job that paid

more than $6.50 per hour.

Because women appear disproportionately

among the poor, changes in public assistance

and other welfare systems also affect women

disproportionately. Recent changes in these

support systems also negatively affect the ability of women to support themselves and their

children. Phillips and Bloom analyze the

impact of the changing welfare system on relatives caring for the children of incarcerated

parents, detailing the social and emotional

challenges inherent in caring for these children

and the financial problems faced by their caregivers. They argue that lack of financial support for these children is grounded in the

inflexibility of public assistance programs that

were not designed to meet the needs of relative

caregivers.112

Currie has long argued that there are connections among crime, work, and welfare, asserting that unemployment is a steady predictor

of criminality and subsequent imprisonment.

Currie sees the lack of adequate economic

and social supports for women and children

in society as a key factor in rising crime rates.

For some women, the poverty of their lives on

the street and the lack of educational opportunity and economic advantages make crime a

reasonable choice, with subsequent imprisonment a predictable outcome. Currie argues that

material disadvantages and quality of family

life are intimately related and may in fact combine to create conditions that foster crime.113

Theoretical Perspectives on

Women in the Criminal Justice

System

Women and men enter the criminal justice system in different ways. This is due partly to differences in pathways into criminality and

offense patterns and partly to the gendered

effect of the war on drugs. A fuller understanding of women in the criminal justice system

involves a discussion of the context of their

lives in several key dimensions. These factors

have been shown to affect women’s lives quite
50 Gender-Responsive Strategies

differently from men’s lives and to mediate

the impact of the criminal justice system for

women offenders. Scholarship on women’s

lives has made significant strides in the past

decades.

This section summarizes that work in the

following areas:

➤ Race and ethnicity.

➤ Theories of women and crime.

➤ Relational theory and female development.

➤ Trauma theory.

➤ Addiction theory.

Race and Ethnicity

In all cultures, the experiences and developmental contexts of women differ from those 

Although female offenders share many of the problems of

their male counterparts, they also experience unique issues

as a result of their race, class, and gender. Women of color,

especially African-American women, are disproportionately

incarcerated in the United States. In 1999, African-American

women were nearly eight times more likely to be incarcerated than white women.a

According to a recent study by the Sentencing Project, from

1989 to 1994 African-American women experienced the

greatest increase in criminal justice supervision of all demographic groups studied.b The 78 percent increase in criminal

justice control rates for African-American women was more

than double the increase for African-American men and for

white women, and more than nine times the increase for

white men. Nationally, between 1980 and 1992 the number

of African-American females in state or federal prisons grew

278 percent, while the overall inmate population increased

by 168 percent.

In a review of studies concerned with racial and ethnic

differences among women offenders, McGee and Baker

concluded that, in particular, women of color from lowincome communities continue to bear the burden of punitive

philosophies within the criminal and juvenile justice systems

and have experienced the greatest criminal justice control

of all demographic groups. Continuing stereotypes about

women of color, particularly African-American women, limit

access to programs that relate to economic independence,

family reunification, and reduced criminal involvement.c

In their analysis of nearly 1,600 probation files between

1986 and 1989, these researchers found that about 42

percent of those in the sample had completed high school

and that the majority had been employed less than 40

percent of the time. The vast majority (84 percent) had

been convicted of only one charge, with 83 percent having had no prior felony convictions. In analyzing the outcomes of these cases, they found that white women, at

54 percent, were more likely than African-American

women (35 percent) to have received such services as

substance abuse treatment and mental health counseling

as conditions of probation. McGee and Baker conclude

that there is very little Afro-centric treatment throughout

the criminal justice system.

a. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001a). Mental health treatment in

state prisons, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

b. Mauer, M., & Huling, T. (1995). Young black Americans in the

criminal justice system: Five years later. Washington, DC: The

Sentencing Project.

c. McGee, Z.T., & Baker, S.R. (2003). Crime control policy and

inequality among female offenders: Racial disparities in treatment

among women on probation. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), It’s a crime:

Women and justice (pp. 196-208). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.

of their male peers. Thus, the variable of gender molds the life experiences of all women,

regardless of race, ethnicity, or social class.

However, the culture or social class context 

of each woman will influence how she experiences the variable of gender. (See “Triple

Jeopardy: The Intersection of Race, Class, and

Gender.”)

Culture may be seen as a framework of values

and beliefs and a means of organizing experiences. Providing appropriate services and

supervision for a woman calls for consideration of the particular circumstances of each

woman—of her reality as it has been informed

by her individual history, including her class

and racial, ethnic, and cultural context. No

two women exist in exactly the same circumstances and context, although all exist in the

same circumstance as women.

TRIPLE JEOPARDY: THE INTERSECTION OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER
chapter three 51

It is imperative to recognize that just as

women’s lives differ from those of men,

women’s lives are not all the same. Although

they share common threads because of their

gender, cultural and other differences also

must be acknowledged. For example, there

are differences among the lives of AfricanAmerican women, Latinas, and Asian women;

differences among heterosexual women,

bisexual women, lesbian women, and transgendered women; differences between older

women and younger women; and differences

due to privilege and oppression.

Any discussion of ethnicity raises definitional

and conceptual issues. Ethnicity, as discussed

here, is defined by culture: a shared identity

and a shared ideological, normative, and behavioral framework. Although this shared cultural

framework may overlap with race or national

origin, the fit is usually imperfect. The categories “Asian,” “Latina,” “African American,”

and “Native American” do not denote homogeneous populations but, rather, are convenient

census and survey categories. For example, the

category “Latina” includes Cubans, MexicanAmericans, Puerto Ricans, and other groups.

The terms “African American” or “black” mask

any variations that may exist, such as the differences between those whose families have been

in the United States for many generations

and those who have recently arrived from the

Caribbean or from African nations.114

Myriad differences are experienced by women

from different ethnic and racial backgrounds,

including patterns of alcohol and drug use,

importance of family, and role of mothers.

Because of the Anglo-Saxon focus of our society and its neglect of cultural variability, ethnic

minorities are either excluded or their difference is understood as a deficit.115 Being “different” often leads to marginalization and

oppression due to lack of privileges and limited access to power. Culture and race can also

affect “the degree to which . . . women internalize negative racial stereotypes from the

dominant society.”116

A risk of “cultural encapsulation” exists when

correctional personnel allow culturally based

perceptions of reality to dominate.117 A culturally encapsulated person, unable to see others

through a different cultural lens, may regard as

pathological what is normal for the minority

cultural group.118 The challenge is to become

culturally attuned; that is, to become aware

and accepting of cultural differences when

working with someone from a different cultural background.

Sapiro concludes there is immense variation in

the ways that gender is shaped in a complex

sex/gender system.119 Bloom similarly makes

this argument in her discussion of “triple jeopardy” in the lives of women prisoners.120 There

is also evidence that age creates different classifications and life experiences for women

and men.

Theories of Women and Crime

Contemporary theorists note that most theories

of crime were developed by male criminologists to explain male crime.121 Historically, theories about women’s criminality have ranged

from biological to psychological and from economic to social. Social and cultural theories

have been applied to men, while individual

and pathological explanations have been

applied to women.

Pollock found that, until recently, most criminology theory ignored the dynamics of race

and class and how these factors intermix

with gender to influence criminal behavior

patterns.122 In fact, she argues, a common

belief is that adding gender to these analytic

variables “tended to complicate the theory and

were better left out.”123 Based on this lack of
52 Gender-Responsive Strategies

attention, Belknap has called the female

offender “the invisible woman.”124

Class membership, particularly poverty, is also

racially and ethnically based. Across groups

of women, class differences emerge in such

forms as disease patterns, response to treatment, and other behaviors. These findings support the contention that differences among

women are also critical in providing womansensitive policies and programs. Contemporary

theorists argue for the integration of race,

class, and gender in any analytic framework to

study the experiences of women in the criminal justice system. Without such a framework,

they assert, it is impossible to draw an accurate

picture of the experiences of these women.125

Two primary approaches to explaining female

criminality have been taken. The first involves

theories that attempt to explain female criminality separately, without recourse to theories

of male criminality. These theories are often

based on assumptions about the female psyche

that are without empirical support.

The second approach is demonstrated in traditional mainstream theories of crime developed

to explain male criminality. This raises what

some scholars refer to as the “generalizability

problem.”126 In addressing the issue of whether

theories related to men’s crime can be applied

to women’s crime, criminologists have tested

theories derived from all male samples to see

whether they also apply to females. Others

have borrowed from existing theories (e.g.,

social learning theory) or have recast the logic

of a theory altogether.

The earliest work on women’s crime focused

on women’s biology.127 Lombroso and Ferraro

explained female criminality by stating that

women are throwbacks to an earlier evolutionary state in human development. Much of the

literature that followed continued to focus on

individual and pathological theories to explain

female criminality, well into the 1960s.

In the mid-1970s, female criminality was often

explained as a byproduct of the women’s liberation movement.128 Simon attributed a rise in

women’s involvement in property crime to

increased opportunities to enter previously

male occupations, such as banking and business.129 Steffensmeier criticized the liberation

theory on the grounds that neither the status

of women nor their patterns of offending had

changed dramatically over time.130

Feminist theorists have examined other factors

that relate to female criminality. For example,

the economic marginalization theory asserts

that for women, it is the absence rather than

the availability of employment opportunity that

appears to lead to criminal behavior.131 Much

of women’s crime is petty property crime,

often committed as a response to poverty and

economic insecurity. Proponents of this theory

suggest that the feminization of poverty, not

women’s liberation, is most relevant to

women’s criminality.

The Pathways Perspective

Research on women’s pathways into crime

indicates that gender matters significantly in

shaping criminality. Steffensmeier and Allan

note that the “profound differences” between

the lives of women and men shape their patterns of criminal offending.132 Among women,

the most common pathways to crime are based

on survival (of abuse and poverty) and substance abuse. Belknap has found that the pathways perspective incorporates a “whole life”

perspective in the study of crime causation.133

The pathways research has used extensive

interviews with women to uncover the life

events that place girls and women at risk of

criminal offending. Other studies use presentence investigative reports134 and official
chapter three 53

records.135 These diverse data collection strategies “sequence” the life events that shape

women’s choices and behaviors.

Research on female offenders has established

conclusively that women enter the criminal

justice system in ways different from those of

male offenders. The following differences have

been empirically documented:

➤ The roles of violence, trauma, and substance abuse in criminal pathways.136

➤ Offense and reoffense patterns.137

➤ The impact of responsibilities for children

and other dependent family members,

and reduced ability to support self and

children.138

➤ Race and ethnicity and the impacts of these

in terms of crime, violent partners, and

substance abuse.139

➤ Connections with violent and substanceabusing partners.140

Recent work on the totality of women’s lives

has established that because of gender, women

are at greater risk of experiencing sexual

abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence.

They are also more likely than men to have the

responsibility of caring for children. The pathways research has identified the following key

issues in producing and sustaining female

criminality.

Histories of Personal Abuse. Empirical

research has established that female offenders

have histories of sexual and/or physical abuse

that appear to be major roots of subsequent

delinquency, addiction, and criminality.141

Abusive families and battering relationships

are also strong themes in the lives of female

offenders.142 Frequently, women have their

first encounters with the justice system as

juveniles who have run away from home to

escape situations involving violence and

sexual or physical abuse. Prostitution, property crime, and drug use can become a way of

life for these individuals.

Mental Illness and Substance Abuse. Covington discusses the ways in which emotional

disconnections contribute to criminal pathways.143 Many women suffer from some form

of mental illness or co-occurring disorder.

According to BJS, nearly 8 in 10 female

offenders with a mental illness reported having

experienced prior physical or sexual abuse.144

The link between female criminality and drug

use has been found to be very strong; research

indicates that women who use drugs are more

likely to be involved in crime.145 Approximately

80 percent of women in state prisons have substance abuse problems,146 and about 50 percent

of female offenders in state prisons had been

using alcohol, drugs, or both at the time of their

offense.147 Nearly one in three women serving

time in state prisons reports having committed

the offense to obtain money to support a drug

habit. About half describe themselves as daily

users.

Economic and Social Marginality. Many

women on the social and economic margins

struggle to survive outside legitimate enterprises, which brings them into contact with the

criminal justice system. Economic marginalization, often shaped by disconnections from

conventional institutions, such as school, work,

and families, further increases the likelihood of

criminal behavior. A significant proportion of

women in the criminal justice system have little education or work experience and significant histories of personal abuse.148

Homelessness. A result of severed social relations, economic vulnerability, addiction, and

abuse, homelessness is a frequent complication

in the lives of women involved in the criminal

justice system.149 North and Smith reported that
54 Gender-Responsive Strategies

homeless women are far more likely than their

male counterparts to have young children in

their care and to be more dependent on public

assistance. These women (23 percent) are also

more likely than men (4 percent) to be victims

of sexual abuse.150

Relationships. Another gender difference

found in studies of female offenders is the

importance of relationships, with criminal

involvement often having come about through

relationships with family members and significant others.151 Women are often first introduced

to drugs by partners who frequently continue

to be their suppliers. Women’s attempts to get

off drugs, and their failure to supply partners

with drugs through prostitution, often elicit

violence from the partners; however, many

women remain attached to partners despite

neglect and abuse.

Research using the pathways perspective continues to add to the portrait of female offending:

➤ Arnold suggests that for young AfricanAmerican girls from poor families, law

breaking often represents a resistance to

victimization. These girls experience a

structural dislocation from family, education, and legitimate occupations. Arnold

suggests that sustained criminal involvement becomes a rational coping strategy.152

➤ Daly identifies the following categories:

street women, harmed and harming women,

battered women, drug-connected women,

and other.153

➤ Richie’s theory of “gender entrapment”

explains the connection between AfricanAmerican women who have been battered

and their pathways to crime.154

➤ Owen identifies five significant factors in

women’s pathways to imprisonment: the

multiplicity of abuse; early family life;

children; the street life; and spiraling 

marginality.155

In identifying the specific events and contexts

of women’s lives that promote criminal

behavior, the pathways perspective has made

significant contributions to our understanding

of women’s criminality. This perspective

appears to be most promising in terms of

providing an empirical framework for the

development of gender-responsive principles,

policy, and practice.

Relational Theory and Female

Development

One way of understanding gender differences

is found in relational theory, which has

developed from an increased understanding

of gender differences and, specifically, of the

different ways in which females and males

develop psychologically.

Traditional theories of psychology have

described individual development as being a

progression from childlike dependence to

mature independence. According to these theories, an individual’s goal is to become a selfsufficient, clearly differentiated, autonomous

self. A person would thus spend his or her

early life separating and individuating in a

process leading to maturity, at which point he

or she would be equipped for intimacy. Jean

Baker Miller challenged the assumption that

separation is the route to maturity. She suggested that these accepted theories are describing only the experience of males, with a

female’s path to maturity being different. A

female’s primary motivation, said Miller, is to

build a sense of connection with others.

Females develop a sense of self and self-worth

when their actions arise out of, and lead back

into, connections with others. Connection, not

separation, is thus the guiding principle of

growth for girls and women.156
chapter three 55

Miller’s work led a group of researchers and

practitioners to create the Stone Center at

Wellesley College in 1981 to examine the

qualities of relationships that foster growth

and development. The Stone Center relational

model defines connection as “an interaction

that engenders a sense of being in tune with

self and others and of being understood and

valued.”157 Such connections are so crucial that

many of the psychological problems of women

can be traced to disconnections or violations

within relationships, whether in families, with

personal acquaintances, or in society at large.

Mutual, empathic, and empowering relationships produce five psychological outcomes:

increased zest and vitality, empowerment to

act, knowledge of self and others, self-worth,

and a desire for greater connection.158 These

outcomes constitute psychological growth for

females. Mutuality, empathy, and power with

others are thus essential qualities of an environment that will foster growth in women. By

contrast, Miller has described the outcomes of

disconnections—that is, nonmutual or abusive

relationships, which she terms a “depressive

spiral.”159 These outcomes are diminished zest

or vitality, disempowerment, confusion or lack

of clarity, diminished self-worth, and a turning

away from relationships.160

Communication

Recent research and popular literature have

also focused on gender differences in communication patterns.161 Such communication

differences have been attributed to distinct

differences in socialization of women and

men, resulting in “distinct female and male

subcultures.”162 According to DeLange:

When men and women listen, they use

different behaviors and may, in fact, listen

for different things. Men tend to listen

for the bottom line, for some action to

be taken or decision to be made; women

tend to listen for details to fill in the full

picture. Men use less eye contact and

head nods; women ask more questions

and tend to work at maintaining the

communication. . . . Research has found

that men generally talk more than women

and interrupt more. Women tend to engage in more self-disclosure, display

more empathetic behaviors, and be more

adept at decoding and translating nonverbal behavior into meaningful messages.163

Different communication patterns between

women and men are particularly noticeable in

group settings. In general, studies indicate that

mixed-gender groups benefit men, and allfemale groups are most beneficial to women.164

Relationships and Women Offenders

The importance of understanding relational

theory is reflected in the recurring themes of

relationship and family seen in the lives of

female offenders. Disconnection and violation

rather than growth-fostering relationships characterize the childhood experiences of most

women in the correctional system. In addition,

these women have often been marginalized

because of race, class, and culture as well as

by political decisions that criminalize their

behavior (e.g., the war on drugs). “Females are

far more likely than males to be motivated by

relational concerns. . . . Situational pressures

such as threatened loss of valued relationships

play a greater role in female offending.”165

Although Gilligan, Lyons, and Hanmer reported that girls are socialized to be more empathic than boys, incarcerated women have been

repeatedly exposed to nonempathic relationships.166 As a result, they may lack empathy for

both self and others, or they may be highly

empathic toward others but lack empathy for

themselves. To create change in their lives,

women need to experience relationships that

do not repeat their histories of loss, neglect,

and abuse.
56 Gender-Responsive Strategies

When criminal justice policy ignores the dominant theme of connections and relationships

that threads throughout the lives of female

offenders, the ability to improve women’s lives

through correctional intervention is significantly diminished. Additionally, when the concept

of relationships is ignored in the correctional

environment, the ability of the system or

agency to operate effectively is undermined.

Thus, a relational context is critical to success

in addressing the reasons why women commit

crimes, their motivations, the ways in which

they change their behaviors, and their reintegration into the community. Understanding the

role of relationships and connections is thus

fundamental to understanding the female

offender.

For example, women offenders who cite drug

abuse as self-medication often discuss personal

relationships as the cause of their pain.167 Abusive families and battering relationships are often

strong themes in the lives of these women.168

This has significant implications for therapeutic

interventions that deal with the impact of such

relationships on women’s current and future

behavior.

It is important that women learn about and

experience healthy relationships as part of the

intervention process. If women in the system

are to change, grow, and recover, it is critical

that they be in programs and environments in

which relationships and mutuality are core

elements. It is therefore essential to provide

a setting that makes it possible for women to

experience healthy relationships both with staff

and with one another. However, the design of

the criminal justice system discourages women

from coming together, trusting, speaking about

personal issues, or forming bonds in relationships. In addition, women who leave prison

are often discouraged from associating with

other women who have been incarcerated, so

there is a lack of continuity of relationships.

A pilot project in a Massachusetts prison

found that women benefited from being in a

group in which members both received information and had the opportunity to practice

mutually empathic relationships with others.169

Female offenders also need to have respectful,

mutual, and compassionate relationships with

correctional staff. In an Ohio study, respect

was one of the main things young women in

detention said they needed from correctional

staff.170 Finally, women would benefit if relationships among staff and between staff and

administration are mutual, empathic, and

aimed at power with others rather than power

over others.

Women Offenders and Their Children

Male and female differences in terms of relationships are best illustrated by examining

women offenders and their children. It is estimated that 1.3 million minor children have a

mother who is under criminal justice supervision,171 and an estimated 70 percent of women

offenders in the United States have a child or

children younger than age 18.172

As stated earlier in this report, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics reported that in 1997, 65 percent of women in state prisons and 59 percent

of women in federal prisons had minor children.173 The majority were single mothers with

an average of two children, and prior to their

arrests they had been the custodial parents.174

Many of these women felt enormous guilt

about being absent from their children’s lives

and worry about whether they would regain

custody of their children following their

release.175 Bloom and Steinhart found that

more than half (54 percent) of the children of

incarcerated mothers never visited their mothers during the period of incarceration. Such

barriers to visitation as the isolated locations

of prisons and a lack of transportation exacerbate the problems of maintaining family ties

and of reunification with children.176
chapter three 57

Bloom and Chesney-Lind have discussed the

implications of motherhood among women

prisoners in the United States. They argue that

mothers in prison face multiple problems in

maintaining relationships with their children

and that they encounter obstacles created both

by the correctional system and by child welfare agencies. Bloom and Chesney-Lind state

that geographical distance between the prison

and the children’s homes, a lack of transportation, and limited economic resources compromise a woman prisoner’s ability to maintain

relationships with her children.177

An estimated 4 to 9 percent of women are

pregnant at the time of incarceration. Women

who give birth while incarcerated are rarely

allowed to spend time with the child after

birth; mother-infant bonding is severely undermined by this lack of contact. Termination of

parental rights also affects prisoner mothers.

About half the states in the nation have policies that address the termination of parental

rights of incarcerated parents.178

While the majority of women offenders are

mothers, substance abuse and involvement in

the criminal justice system may have affected

their ability to maintain custody of their children. However, there is significant evidence that

the mother-child relationship may hold significant potential for community reintegration.

Incarcerated women tend to experience a sense

of isolation and abandonment while in prison

because of their inability to keep their families

together. Research demonstrates that recidivism

is less likely among both male and female

offenders who maintain ties to their families

and communities during incarceration.179

The only source of hope and motivation that

many women have while under criminal justice supervision is their connection to their

children. Recognizing the centrality of women’s

roles as mothers provides an opportunity for the

criminal justice, medical, mental health, legal,

and social service agencies to develop this role

as an integral part of program and treatment

interventions for the female offender population. Promoting relationships between mothers

and their children also entails providing programs and services that increase a woman’s

ability to support her children following her

release. The majority of women offenders are

poor; they possess few job skills and little education. Without attention to the improvement

of women’s capacity to support themselves,

responsible connections between mothers and

their children cannot be maintained.

Relationships in Prison

Relationships also influence the ways in which

women and men live and relate to others while

in prison. There is a clear gender difference

in the relationships women and men prisoners

develop and maintain while incarcerated. As

Elaine Lord, warden of Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York, states:

Women “do time” differently from how

men do time. Men concentrate on “doing

their own time,” relying on feelings of

inner strength and their ability to withstand outside pressures to get themselves

through their time in prison. Women, on

the other hand, remain interwoven in the

lives of significant others, primarily their

children and their own mothers, who usually take on the care of the children. Yet,

the inmate continues a significant caregiving role even while incarcerated.180

Three types of relationships occur within

prison: relationships with children and family

in the community, relationships with other

women prisoners, and relationships with staff.

Owen documents the gender differences that

exist between male and female connections to

the outside world, particularly in contacts with

families and significant others.181

In 1990, an American Correctional Association

survey asked women prisoners to name “the

most important person in your life right now.”
58 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Fifty-two percent of the women interviewed

responded that their child (or children) was

most important to them. Another 18 percent

identified their mothers as most important to

them. Just more than 10 percent replied that a

husband or significant other held this status.182

Understanding relationships among women

in prison is also important in developing an

understanding of how women behave in an

institutional environment. Women in prison

often develop close personal relationships as

part of their adjustment to prison life, either

in intense emotional relationships or through

pseudo- or “play family” arrangements. The

research on prison culture among women has

consistently described the play family or the

prison family as the primary way in which

women organize their relationships while in

prison. The same-sex relationships appear to

be an important, but not exclusive, aspect of

these families. Owen argued that a complicated pattern of personal relationships exists.183

These relationships have at their base emotional, practical, and material connections as well

as sexual and familial ties.

Somewhat related to the prison family, but not

necessarily tied to it, is the existence of the

romantic dyad or couple. Women in prison

form deep attachments to others that may or

may not be sexual in nature and endure as

friendships rather than romance. Research on

prison staff shows that many workers are often

unprepared to respond appropriately to these

relationships and that a better understanding of

women’s behavior with other women while in

custody is needed.

Relationships with staff are also quite different

in female and male prisons. Historical scholarship184 details the oppressive and often sexually

abusive nature of the relationship between male

workers and female prisoners. Contemporary

writers suggest that more subtle forms of

oppression, such as invasive searches and privacy violations, characterize the modern relationship. In their study of classification, Van

Voorhis and Presser suggest that staff often

view women as more difficult to supervise

because the staff members are “reacting to

women’s different ways of problem solving,

relating to staff, and doing time. Women ask

more questions, question authority, want to

discuss things, and challenge decisions. Staff

who are inexperienced with these differences

become irritated and more likely to write up

the inmates in an effort to better control their

behavior.”185 Recent attention to staff sexual

misconduct also demonstrates the need for

further education on these issues.

Trauma Theory

The terms “violence,” “trauma,” “abuse,” and

“PTSD” are often used interchangeably. One

way to clarify these terms is to think of trauma as a response to violence. Trauma is the

injury done by violence and abuse, and it

often requires treatment. PTSD is one type

of traumatic response.

Women exhibit different responses to violence

and abuse. Some may respond without trauma

because they possess coping skills that may be

effective for a specific event. Sometimes, however, trauma has occurred but may not be recognized immediately because the individual

may have perceived the violent event as normal.

Trauma occurs on multiple levels. “Trauma is

not limited to suffering violence; it includes

witnessing violence, as well as stigmatization

because of gender, race, poverty, incarceration,

or sexual orientation.”186 Root also expands the

conventional notion of trauma to include not

only direct trauma but also indirect trauma and

insidious trauma. Insidious trauma “includes

but is not limited to emotional abuse, racism,

anti-Semitism, poverty, heterosexism, dislocation, [and] ageism.”187 The effects of insidious
chapter three 59

trauma are cumulative and are often experienced over the course of a lifetime. For example, women of color are subject to varying

degrees of insidious trauma throughout their

lives. According to Root, the exposure to insidious trauma activates survival behaviors that

might be easily mistaken for pathological

responses if their etiology is not understood.

Misdiagnosis of pathology can be a consequence of a lack of understanding of the impact

of insidious trauma on women who have lived

their lives under the impact of racism, heterosexism, and/or class discrimination.

Over the past 100 years, a number of studies

have investigated trauma, and various experts

have written about the process of trauma

recovery.188 It is now understood that there are

commonalities between rape survivors and

combat veterans, between battered women and

political prisoners, and between survivors of

concentration camps and survivors of abuse in

the home. Because the traumatic syndromes

have basic features in common, the recovery

process follows a common pathway.

Theorists have based their constructs on a

stage model of recovery, describing the stages

in different language but referring to the same

process. Essentially, recovery unfolds in three

stages. The central task in the first stage is

establishing safety; in the second stage, the

central task is experiencing remembrance and

mourning; and in the third stage, it is reconnecting with ordinary life.189 Several treatment

models are based on this three-stage process.190

As the understanding of traumatic experiences

has increased, mental health conceptualizations and practice have changed accordingly.

It is now necessary for all service providers to

become “trauma informed” if they want to be

effective. Trauma-informed services are those

that are provided for problems other than trauma but that require knowledge concerning

violence against women and the impact of

trauma. Trauma-informed services encompass

the following characteristics:

➤ Take the trauma into account.

➤ Avoid triggering trauma reactions and/or

retraumatizing the individual.

➤ Adjust the behavior of counselors, other

staff, and the organization to support the

individual’s coping capacity.

➤ Allow survivors to manage their trauma

symptoms successfully so that they are able

to access, retain, and benefit from these

services.191

The Role of Physical and Psychological Safety

Safety is a critical and primary element in

trauma work and is a key environmental component of that work. The importance of environment is stressed in the field of child

psychology,192 which demonstrates that the

optimum context for childhood development

consists of a safe, nurturing, consistent environment where the child experiences warmth

and a sense of being cared for and understood.

In the therapeutic process, the environment

becomes the foundation for a corrective experience and is a cornerstone in the healing

process. Community psychologists also emphasize the importance and role of environment as they seek to create communities that

sustain life. A basic tenet of community psychology is that “environment cues behavior.”

Studies indicate that social support turns out to

be critical to the recovery of victims, and the

lack of that support is damaging.193 The growing awareness of the long-term consequences

of unresolved traumatic experience, combined

with the disintegration or lack of communities

of meaning (such as neighborhoods, extended

families, and occupational identities), has

encouraged a new look at the established practice of the therapeutic milieu model. The therapeutic milieu model provides an example of
60 Gender-Responsive Strategies

the environmental context needed for trauma

survivors.

The term “therapeutic milieu” means a carefully arranged environment that is designed to

reverse the effects of exposure to situations

characterized by interpersonal violence.

Trauma always occurs within a social context,

and social wounds require social healing. As

S. Bloom argues, “We have come to believe

that retraumatizing people by placing them

in environments that reinforce helplessness,

scapegoating, isolation, and alienation must be

viewed as antitherapeutic, dangerous, immoral,

and a violation of basic human rights.”194

Safety has also been identified as a key factor

in addressing the needs of victims of domestic

violence and sexual assault. Research and

practice have established the importance of

both physical safety and psychological safety

in addressing the problems of domestic violence and assault. Without both forms of

safety, there is little likelihood of obtaining

a positive outcome.

The therapeutic culture contains the following five elements,195 all of which are fundamental in both institutional settings and the

community:

➤ Attachment: A culture of belonging.

➤ Containment: A culture of safety.

➤ Communication: A culture of openness.

➤ Involvement: A culture of participation

and citizenship.

➤ Agency: A culture of empowerment.

Any teaching and reorientation process will be

unsuccessful if the environment mimics the

behaviors of the dysfunctional systems the

women have experienced. Rather, the design

of program and treatment strategies should be

aimed at undoing some of the prior damage.

Therapeutic community norms are consciously

designed to be different: Safety with oneself

and with others is paramount, and the entire

environment is designed to create living and

learning opportunities for everyone involved,

staff and clients alike.196

Safety in Criminal Justice Environments

Abuse and trauma histories have specific

implications for an understanding of the need

for safety and security within criminal justice

environments. It has been well established that

women in prison have extensive abuse histories and are also likely to have been involved

with substance abuse. These background characteristics can make women offenders more

vulnerable to inappropriate relationships with

staff and can create the possibility of womeninitiated sexual situations. The issue of staff

sexual misconduct has gained most of its

publicity and research attention in the prison

setting, but there is significant concern with

community corrections about staff sexual misconduct. Although the issue plays out differently in the community, essential elements

remain the same.

Addiction Theory

Depending on how one defines addiction, it

can be said that addiction will afflict approximately 26 percent of all Americans at some

time in their lives. It is also estimated that 25 to

40 percent of addicts are women.197 The damage

caused by addiction is incurred not only by the

addicts themselves but also by their families

and friends. This type of damage touches one

in every three American families.198

Historically, addiction research and treatment

have been focused on men even though women’s addictions span a wide scope, ranging

from alcohol and other types of drug dependence to smoking, gambling, sex, eating disorders, and shopping.199 According to the National
chapter three 61

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 4.5

million women in the United States are alcohol

abusers or alcoholics, 3.5 million misuse prescription drugs, and 3.1 million regularly use

illicit drugs.200 Other studies estimate that 31

million women have a substance addiction.201

It is important to have a theoretical framework

to use when designing services for women.

The model presented here is a disease model

that has been developed for women.202 Decades

ago, Gitlow argued:

The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American

Public Health Association, American Hospital Association, American Psychological

Association, National Association of

Social Workers, World Health Association,

and the American College of Physicians

have now each and all officially pronounced alcoholism a disease. The rest

of us can do no less.203

Much of what has been learned about alcoholism has informed the understanding of the

addictive process generally. Additionally, health

professionals in many disciplines have revised

their concepts of all disease and have created a

holistic view of health that acknowledges the

physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects of disease.204 Alcoholics Anonymous

(AA) was one of the first proponents of a holistic health model of the disease of addiction that

encompassed all of these aspects.

The holistic health model of addiction, with

the inclusion of the environmental and sociopolitical aspects of disease, is the theoretical

framework recommended for the development

of women’s services.205 This is consistent with

information from the National Institute on

Drug Abuse and the Center for Substance

Abuse Treatment:

➤ The reality, based on 25 years of research,

is that drug addiction is a brain disease, one

that disrupts the mechanisms responsible

for generating, modulating, and controlling

cognitive, emotional, and social behavior.206

➤ Alcohol and drug use disorder, or addiction, is a progressive disease, with increasing severity of biological, psychological,

and social problems over time.207

Although the debate over models will continue, this updated and expanded disease perspective offers a more helpful approach to the

treatment of addiction for women because it is

more comprehensive and meets the requirements for a multidimensional framework. In

contrast, the disorder model focuses on social

learning theory and a cognitive-behavioral

approach,208 thereby minimizing the importance of genetic studies, the affective aspects

of the problem and its solution,209 and the

sociopolitical and environmental elements

involved. The holistic health model allows clinicians to treat addiction as the primary problem while also addressing the complexity of

issues that women bring to treatment: genetic

predisposition, health consequences, shame,

isolation, and a history of abuse, or a combination of these. For example, although some

women may have a genetic predisposition

to addiction, it is important in treatment to

acknowledge that many have grown up in

environments in which drug dealing, substance

abuse, and addiction are ways of life. In sum,

when addiction has been a core part of the

multiple aspects of a woman’s life, the treatment process requires a holistic, multidimensional approach.

A generic definition of addiction as “the

chronic neglect of self in favor of something

or someone else”210 is helpful when working

with women. This view conceptualizes addiction as a kind of relationship. The addicted

woman is in a relationship with alcohol or

other drugs, “a relationship characterized by

obsession, compulsion, nonmutuality, and an
62 Gender-Responsive Strategies

imbalance of power.”211 The relational aspects

of addiction are also evident in the research

that indicates that women are more likely than

men to turn to drugs in the context of relationships with drug-abusing partners in order to

feel connected through the use of drugs. In

addition, women often use substances to numb

the pain of nonmutual, nonempathic, and even

violent relationships.212 Therefore, it is important to integrate trauma theory and relational

theory when developing substance abuse services for women.

The Gendered Effects of

Current Policy

Current policies have specific implications for

women in a number of areas, including sentencing, welfare benefits, drug treatment, public housing, employment, and reunification

with children.

The War on Drugs

Gender is important in examining the differential effects of drug policy. Nationwide,

the number of women incarcerated for drug

offenses rose by 888 percent from 1986 to

1996.213 Mauer and colleagues have presented

compelling evidence to support their contention that much of the increase in criminal

justice control rates for women is a result of

the war on drugs.214 Inadvertently, the war on

drugs became a war on women, particularly

poor women and women of color.215

According to Bush-Baskette,

Drug use by any woman, whether she

lives in suburban or urban areas, brings

with it the psychological, social, and cultural experience of stigmatization that can

perpetuate the continued problem of drug

use. This usage and its inherent problems

violate gender expectations for women in

our society. Poor women who use streetlevel drugs experience additional societal

stigma because they do not have the protective societal buffer enjoyed by women

who are insulated by their families, friends,

and economic status. Those who use streetlevel drugs are also less protected from

becoming prisoners of the “war on drugs”

because of their high visibility.216

The emphasis on punishment rather than treatment has brought many low-income women

and women of color into the criminal justice

system. Women offenders who in past decades

would have been given community sanctions

are now being sentenced to prison. Mandatory

minimum sentencing for drug offenses has

significantly increased the numbers of women

in state and federal prisons. Between 1995

and 1996, female drug arrests increased by 95

percent, while male drug arrests increased by

55 percent. In 1979, approximately 1 in 10

women in U.S. prisons was serving a sentence

for a drug conviction; in 1999, this figure was

approximately 1 in 3.217

Mandatory minimums for federal crimes, coupled with new sentencing guidelines intended

to reduce racial, economic, and other disparities in sentencing males, have distinctly disadvantaged women. Twenty years ago, nearly

two-thirds of the women convicted of federal

felonies were granted probation; in 1991, only

28 percent of women were given straight probation.218 Female drug couriers can receive

federal mandatory sentences ranging from 15

years to life following their first felony arrest.

These gender-neutral sentencing laws fail to

recognize the distinction between major players in drug organizations and minor ancillary

players. According to Judge Patricia Wald:

The circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime vary significantly

between men and women. Yet penalties

are most often based on the circumstances

of crimes committed by men, creating a

male norm in sentencing which makes the

much-touted gender neutrality of guideline

sentencing very problematical.219
chapter three 63

While most of the attention on the impact of

the war on drugs has focused on the criminal

justice system, policy changes in the areas of

welfare reform, housing, and other social policy arenas have combined to create a disparate

impact on drug-abusing women and women

of color.220

Welfare Benefits

Section 115 of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF), stipulates that persons convicted of

a state or federal felony offense involving the

use or sale of drugs are subject to a lifetime

ban on receiving cash assistance and food

stamps. This provision applies only to those

who are convicted of a drug offense.221 For

several reasons, the lifetime welfare ban has

had a disproportionate impact on AfricanAmerican and Latina women with children.

First, due to disparities in drug policies and in

the enforcement of drug laws, women of color

have experienced greater levels of criminal

justice supervision. Second, as a result of raceand gender-based socioeconomic inequities,

women of color are more susceptible to poverty and are therefore disproportionately represented in the welfare system.222

Drug Treatment

Research has shown that drug treatment plays

a critical role in the recovery process and

improves offenders’ chances for law-abiding

behavior. Access to drug treatment is frequently

impeded for women who lose welfare benefits

as a result of drug convictions. Cash assistance

and food stamps are critical for the successful

recovery of low-income women for whom

work obligations may prevent participation in

treatment. In addition, limited numbers of residential treatment programs can accommodate

women with children. In states where eligibility

for TANF or food stamps is dependent on

mothers’ participation in or completion of a

treatment program, women may lose their benefits because of a lack of availability of treatment slots.

Public Housing

Obtaining public housing may not be a viable

option for women with a drug conviction. In

1996, the federal government implemented

the One Strike Initiative, authorizing local

public housing authorities (PHAs) to obtain

from law-enforcement agencies the criminal

conviction records of all adult applicants or

tenants. (This policy was upheld by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Department of Housing and

Urban Development v. Rucker et al., March

26, 2002.) Federal housing policies permit

(and in some cases require) PHAs, Section 8

providers, and other federally assisted housing

programs to deny housing to individuals who

have a drug conviction or are suspected of

drug involvement.223

Education and Employment

As previously mentioned, a significant number of women under criminal justice system

supervision have a history of low educational

attainment. As of 1996, only 52 percent of

correctional facilities for women offered postsecondary education. Access to college education was further limited when prisoners were

declared ineligible for Pell Grants.224 Educational

opportunities may also be limited by the Higher

Education Act of 1998, which denies eligibility

for students convicted of drug offenses. Lack

of education is a key factor contributing to the

underemployment and unemployment of many

women in the criminal justice system.

A significant number of women under criminal

justice supervision have limited employment

skills and sporadic work histories, and many

correctional facilities offer little in terms of

gender-specific vocational training. Also, having

a criminal record poses an additional barrier to
64 Gender-Responsive Strategies

securing employment. The transitional assistance provided through TANF and food stamps

offers the financial support women need as

they develop marketable employment skills

and search for work that provides a living wage.

Women who are denied this transitional assistance may not be able to provide shelter and

food for themselves and their children while

engaging in job training and placement.

Reunification With Children

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

(ASFA) mandates termination of parental

rights once a child has been in foster care for

15 or more of the past 22 months. It is difficult

enough for single mothers with substance

abuse problems to meet ASFA requirements

when they live in the community, but the short

deadline has particularly severe consequences

for incarcerated mothers, who serve an average

of 18 months.225 Placement of children with

relatives, which would avoid the harsh ASFA

mandate, is hampered by state policies that

provide less financial aid to relatives who are

caregivers than to nonrelative foster caregivers.

Conclusion: Contemporary

Perspectives Provide a Solid

Foundation

This multidisciplinary review of the context of

women’s lives concludes that contemporary

perspectives on female criminality can provide

a solid foundation for the development of a

gender-responsive criminal justice system. The

current theories have particular strengths. First,

a focus on women’s lives and their personal

histories highlights the connections among

crime, substance abuse, violence, and trauma.

Second, the pathways perspective applies a

variety of research methodologies in the

search for explanations of criminal behavior.

Third, the pathways and relational explanations offer specific targets for correctional

intervention. These descriptions are particularly useful for developing an empirical framework for gender-responsive principles, policy,

and practice.

Notes

1. Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman:

Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth, p. 11.

2. Kivel, P. (1992). Men’s work: Stopping the

violence that tears our lives apart. Center City,

MN: Hazelden.

3. Kaschak, E. (1992). Engendered lives: A

new psychology of women’s experience. New

York, NY: Basic Books, p. 5.

4. Pollock, J. (1999). Criminal women.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

5. Ibid., p. 199.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid., p. 200.

8. 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, p. 10.

9. Ibid.

10. American Heart Association. (2002). Diseases and conditions. www.americanheart.org.

Accessed: May 22, 2002.

11. American Cancer Society. (1999). Cancer

facts and figures 2000-2001. Atlanta, GA:

Author; American Lung Association. (1999).

Fact sheet: Women and smoking. New York,

NY: Author; Society for the Advancement

of Women’s Health Research. (2002). Understanding research. Washington, DC: Author.

12. American Cancer Society, 1999.
chapter three 65

13. National Osteoporosis Foundation. (2002).

The state of osteoporosis and low bone mass

in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

14. National Institute of Mental Health.

(2001). The facts about eating disorders and

the search for solutions (No. 01–4901).

Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health.

15. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. (1996). The challenge of STD prevention in the United States. Rockville, MD:

Author.

16. Society for the Advancement of Women’s

Health Research, 2002.

17. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 1996.

18. Bertakis, K.D., Azari, R., Helms, L.J.,

Callahan, E.J., & Robbins, J.A. (2000). Gender

difference in the utilization of health care services. Journal of Family Practice, 48, 147-152.

19. Simoni-Wastila, L. (2000). The use of

abusable prescription drugs: The role of gender. Journal of Women’s Health and Gender

Based Medicine, 9(3), 289-297.

20. Belknap, 2001.

21. Pollock, J. (2002). Women, prison and crime

(2d ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

22. Acoca, L. (1998). Defusing the time bomb:

Understanding and meeting the growing health

care needs of incarcerated women in America.

Crime & Delinquency, 44(1), 49-70.

23. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999a).

Correctional populations in the United States,

1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

24. Lachance-McCollough, M., Tesoriero, J.,

Sorin, M., & Stern, A. (1994). HIV infection

among New York state female inmates: Preliminary results from a voluntary counseling

and testing program. The Prison Journal,

74(2), 198-220.

25. Acoca, 1998.

26. Ibid.

27. Wooldridge, J.D., & Masters, K. (1993).

Confronting problems faced by pregnant

inmates in state prisons. Crime & Delinquency,

39(2), 195-203.

28. Acoca, 1998.

29. National Center on Child Abuse and

Neglect. (1998). Child maltreatment 1996:

Reports from the states for the national child

abuse and neglect data system. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

30. Tower, C.G. (1993). Understanding child

abuse and neglect. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

31. Widom, C.S. (1995). Victims of childhood

sexual abuse—Later criminal consequences.

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: Office of

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

32. Kilpatrick, D.G., & Saunders, B.E. (1997).

Prevalence and consequences of child victimization: Results from the national survey of

adolescents, final report. Washington, DC:

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice.

33. Commonwealth Fund. (1997, November).

The Commonwealth Fund survey of the health

of adolescent girls (Pub. 252). New York, NY:

Author.

34. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1999).

Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime

Reports, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

35. Kilpatrick, D.G., Acierno, R., Saunders,

B., Resnick, H.S., Best, C.L., & Schnurr, P.P.
66 Gender-Responsive Strategies

(1998). National survey of adolescents: Executive summary. Charleston, SC: Medical University of South Carolina, National Crime

Victims Research and Treatment Center.

36. Ringel, C. (1997). Criminal victimization

in 1996. Changes 1995–1996 with trends

1993–1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

37. Acierno, R., Resnick, H., & Kilpatrick,

D.G. (1997). Prevalence rates, case identification and risk factors for sexual assault and

domestic violence in men and women, part 1.

Behavioral Medicine, 23(2), 53-67.

38. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998).

National crime victimization survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

39. Ibid.

40. Hotaling, G.T., & Sugarman, D.B. (1990).

A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives.

Journal of Family Violence, 5(1), 1-13.

41. McLeer, S.V., & Anwar, R. (1989). A study

of battered women presenting in an emergency

department. American Journal of Public

Health, 79(1), 65-66; Randall, T. (1990).

Domestic violence intervention calls for more

than treating injuries. Journal of the American

Medical Association, 264(8), 939-940.

42. Stark, E., Flitcraft, A., & Frazier, W.

(1979). Medicine and patriarchal violence:

The social construction of a “private” event.

International Journal of Health Services, 6,

461-492.

43. Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (1990).

Physical violence in American families: Risk

factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145

families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction;

Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S.K.

(1980). Behind closed doors: Physical violence in the American family. New York, NY:

Doubleday/Anchor.

44. Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence

from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national

surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

48(3), 465-475.

45. Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L.E. (1995).

Violence against women: Estimates from the

redesigned survey special report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

46. Frieze, I.H., & Browne, A. (1989). Violence in marriage. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry

(Eds.), Family violence, crime and justice: A

review of research (pp. 163-218). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

47. Carlson, B. (1990). Adolescent observers

of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence,

5(4), 285-299.

48. Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1985). Woman

battering, child abuse and social heredity:

What is the relationship? In N. Johnson

(Ed.), Marital violence. Sociological Review

Monograph No. 31. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

49. Cappell, C., & Heiner, R.B. (1990). The

intergenerational transmission of family

aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2),

135-152.

50. Pollock, 2002, p. 58.

51. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999c).

Prior abuse reported by inmates and probationers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

52. Owen, B., & Bloom, B. (1995). Profiling

women prisoners: Findings from national

survey and California sample. The Prison

Journal, 75(2), 165-185.

53. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E.

(1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime
chapter three 67

physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law

and Psychiatry, 22(3-4), 301-322.

54. Ibid., pp. 313-315.

55. Ibid., p. 316.

56. Morash, M., Haarr, R.N., & Rucker, L.

(1994). A comparison of programming for

women and men in U.S. prisons. Crime &

Delinquency, 40(2), 197-221.

57. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2000).

Gender differences in drug abuse risks and

treatment. NIDA Notes, 15(4), 15.

58. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

(1999). Substance abuse treatment for women

offenders: Guide to promising practices.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

59. Alexander, M. (1996). Women with cooccurring addictive and mental disorders: An

emerging profile of vulnerability. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66(1), 10.

60. National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2000.

61. Covington, S., & Surrey, J. (1997). The

relational model of women’s psychological

development: Implications for substance

abuse. In S. Wilsnack & R. Wilsnack (Eds.),

Gender and alcohol: Individual and social

perspectives (pp. 335-351). New Brunswick,

NJ: Rutgers University Press.

62. Straussner, S.L.A. (1997). Gender and substance abuse. In S.L.A. Straussner & E. Zelkin

(Eds.), Gender and addictions (pp. 3-27).

Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

63. Covington, S. (1997). Women, addiction,

and sexuality. In S.L.A. Straussner & E. Zelkin

(Eds.), Gender issues in addiction: Men and

women in treatment (pp. 71-95). Northvale,

NJ: Jason Aronson.

64. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment,

1999.

65. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

(1994). Practical approaches in the treatment

of women who abuse alcohol and other drugs.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

66. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

(2001). Telling their stories: Reflections of

the eleven original grantees that piloted residential treatment for women and children for

CSAT. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

67. Kessler, R. (1998). Sex differences in

DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United

States. Results from the national co-morbidity

survey. Journal of the American Medical

Women’s Association, 53(4), 142-155.

68. Tomas, N. (1990). Historical perspectives

on women and mental illness. In R. Apple

(Ed.), Women, health, and medicine in

America: A historical handbook. New York,

NY: Garland Publishers.

69. Russo, N. (1995). Women’s mental health:

Research agenda for the 21st century. In R.

Apple (Ed.), Women, health, and medicine in

America: A historical handbook (pp. 370-382).

New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

70. Belle, D. (1994). Inequality and mental

health: Low income and minority women. In

L. Walker (Ed.), Women and mental health

policy. Sage yearbooks in women’s policy

studies (vol. 9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

71. Kessler, 1998.

72. Glied, S. (1997). The treatment of women

with mental health disorders under HMO and

fee-for-service insurance. Women and Health,

26(2), 1-16.
68 Gender-Responsive Strategies

73. Russo, 1995.

74. Daly, D., Moss, H., & Campbell, F. (1993).

Dual disorders: Counseling clients with chemical dependency and mental illness. Center

City, MN: Hazelden.

75. Blume, S. (1997). Women: Clinical

aspects. In J. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, A. Milkman,

& J. Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook (pp. 645-654). Baltimore,

MD: Williams and Wilkins.

76. Kessler, R.C., McGonigal, K.A., Zhao,

S., Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S.,

Wittchen, H.U., & Kendler, K.S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R

psychiatric disorders in the United States:

Results from the national co-morbidity survey.

Archives of General Psychiatry, 51(1), 8-19.

77. Prior, P. (1999). Gender and mental health.

New York, NY: New York University Press.

78. Robins, L., & Regier, D. (1991). Psychiatric disorders in America: The epidemiologic

catchment area study. New York, NY: Free

Press; Kessler et al., 1994; Prior, 1999.

79. Covington & Surrey, 1997, p. 341.

80. American Psychiatric Association. (1994).

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

81. Anderson, C. (2002). Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27(1-2), 231-244.

82. Miller, M. (1991). Women inmates and

recidivism in Delaware. Wilmington, DE:

Delaware Council on Crime and Justice.

83. Covington, S., & Kohen, J. (1984).

Women, alcohol, and sexuality. Advances in

Alcohol and Substance Abuse, 4(1), 41-56.

84. Najavits, L. (1997). The line between substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder

in women: A research review. The American

Journal of Addictions, 6(4), 273-283.

85. Blume, 1997; Alexander, 1996.

86. Institute of Medicine. (1990). Broadening

the base of treatment for alcohol problems.

Washington, DC: National Academy of 

Sciences.

87. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999c.

88. Veysey, B.M. (1997). Specific needs of

women diagnosed with mental illnesses in U.S.

jails. Delmar, NY: National GAINS Center,

Policy Research Inc.

89. Messina, N., Burdon, W., & Prendergast,

M. (2001). A profile of women in prison-based

therapeutic communities. Los Angeles, CA:

UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Program,

Drug Abuse Research Center.

90. Bloom, B., Chesney-Lind, M., & Owen, B.

(1994). Women in California prisons: Hidden

victims of the war on drugs. San Francisco,

CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

91. American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

92. Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., & McClelland,

G.M. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 53(6), 508.

93. Teplin et al., 1996, p. 511.

94. Culliver, C. (1993). Female criminality:

The state of the art. New York, NY: Garland,

p. 404.

95. McCorkel, J.A. (1996). Justice, gender,

and incarceration: An analysis of the leniency

and severity debate. In J. Inciardi (Ed.),

Examining the justice process. Fort Worth, TX:

Harcourt Brace, p. 171.

96. Leonard, E. (2002). Convicted survivors:

The imprisonment of battered women who kill.
chapter three 69

Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

97. Anderson, M. (2002). Thinking about

women: Sociological perspectives on sex and

gender. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, p. 105.

98. U.S. Census Bureau. (1998). Money income

in the United States: 1997. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

99. M. Anderson, 2002.

100. Ibid., p. 117.

101. Cited in M. Anderson, 2002.

102. M. Anderson, 2002, pp. 136-137.

103. American Association of University

Women, 1992, cited in Sapiro, V. (1999).

Women in American society: An introduction

to women’s studies (4th ed.). Mountain View,

CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, p. 155.

104. Irvine, cited in Sapiro, 1999, p. 157.

105. Sapiro, 1999, p. 56.

106. Ibid., pp. 456-457.

107. Ibid., p. 154.

108. Collins, W., & Collins, A. (1996).

Women in jail: Legal issues. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Corrections.

109. Bloom et al., 1994.

110. Owen & Bloom, 1995.

111. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999b.

112. Phillips, S., & Bloom, B. (1998). In

whose best interest? The impact of changing

public policy on relatives caring for children

with incarcerated parents. In C. Seymour &

C.F. Hairston (Eds.), Child welfare, special

issue: Children with parents in prison, LXXVII

(pp. 531-541).

113. Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An

American challenge. New York, NY: Pantheon

Press.

114. Gray, M., & Littlefield, M. (2002). Black

women and addiction. In S.L.A. Strausser &

S. Brown (Eds.), The handbook of addiction

treatment for women (pp. 301-322). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Mora, J. (2002).

Latinas in cultural transition: Addiction, treatment, and recovery. In S.L.A. Stausser & S.

Brown (Eds.), The handbook of addiction

treatment for women (pp. 323-347). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Kitano, K., & Louie,

L. (2002). Asian and Pacific Islander women

and addiction. In S.L.A. Strausser & S. Brown

(Eds.), The handbook of addiction treatment

for women (pp. 348-374). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

115. Espin, O.M. (1997). Latina realities:

Essays on healing, migration and sexuality.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

116. Sanders-Phillips, K. (1999). Ethnic minority women, health behaviors, and drug abuse:

A continuum of psychological risks. In M.D.

Glantz & C.R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse:

Origins and interventions (pp. 191-217).

Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association, p. 198.

117. Wrenn, C. (1962). The culturally encapsulated counselor. Harvard Educational

Review, 32(4), 444-449.

118. Falicov, C. (1998). Latino families in

therapy: A guide to multicultural practice.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

119. Sapiro, 1999, p. 124.

120. Bloom, B. (1996). Triple jeopardy: Race,

class and gender as factors in women’s imprisonment. Riverside, CA: UC Riverside.

121. Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman:

Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA:
70 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Wadsworth; Pollack, J. (1999). Criminal

women. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing

Co.; Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female

offender: Girls, women and crime. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

122. Pollock, 1999, p. 8.

123. Ibid., p. 123.

124. Belknap, 2001.

125. Bloom, 1996.

126. Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1989).

Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly,

5(4), 499-535.

127. Lombroso, C., & Ferraro, W. (1894/

1920). The female offender. New York, NY:

Appleton.

128. Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise

of the new female criminal. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

129. Simon, R. (1975). Women and crime.

Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

130. Steffensmeier, D. (1980). Assessing the

impact of the women’s movement on sexbased differences in the handling of adult

criminal defendants. Crime & Delinquency,

26(3), 344-357.

131. Naffine, N. (1987). Female crime: The

construction of women in criminology. Sydney,

Australia: Allen & Unwin.

132. Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1998).

The nature of female offending: Patterns and

explanations. In R.T. Zaplin (Ed.), Female

offenders: Critical perspectives and effective

interventions (pp. 5-29). Gaithersburg, MD:

Aspen Publishers.

133. Belknap, 2001, p. 402.

134. Daly, K. (1992). Women’s pathways to

felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking

and problems of representation. Review of Law

and Women’s Studies, 2, 11-52.

135. Widom, C.S. (2000, January). Childhood

victimization: Early adversity, later psychopathology. National Institute of Justice

Journal, 242, 2-9.

136. Belknap, 2001; Browne, A., Miller, B.,

& Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity

of lifetime physical and sexual victimization

among incarcerated women. International

Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3-4), 301-

322; Daly, 1992; Dougherty, J. (1998). Power

belief theory: Female criminality and the

dynamics of oppression. In R. Zaplin (Ed.),

Female crime and delinquency: Critical perspectives and effective interventions (pp. 133-

163). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers;

Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press; Pollock, 1999;

Widom, 2000; Richie, B. (1996). The gendered

entrapment of battered, black women. London:

Routledge.

137. Kruttschnitt, C. (2001). Gender and

violence. In C. Renzetti & L. Goodstein

(Eds.), Women, crime, and criminal justice

(pp. 77-92). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Press;

Steffensmeier, D. (2001). Female crime trends,

1960–1995. In C.M. Renzetti & L. Goodstein

(Eds.), Women, crime, and criminal justice:

Original feminist readings (pp. 191-211). Los

Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

138. Enos, S. (2001). Mothering from the

inside. Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press.

139. Pollock, 1999; Bloom, B. (1997, September). Defining gender specific: What does it

mean and why is it important? Paper presented

at the National Institute of Corrections Intermediate Sanctions for Women Offenders

National Project Meeting, Longmont, CO.
chapter three 71

140. Browne, A. (1987). When battered

women kill. New York, NY: Free Press; Richie,

1996.

141. Pollock, 1999; Belknap, 2001; ChesneyLind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls,

women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications; Widom, 1995, 2000.

142. Chesney-Lind, 1997; Owen & Bloom,

1995.

143. Covington, S. (1999). Helping women

recover: A program for treating substance

abuse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

144. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999a.

145. Merlo, A., & Pollock, J. (1995). Women,

law, and social control. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

146. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

(1997). Substance abuse treatment for incarcerated offenders: Guide to promising practices. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

147. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999a.

148. Owen & Bloom, 1995; Owen, 1998;

Chesney-Lind, 1997; Bloom, 1996.

149. Bloom, B. (1998). Women with mental

health and substance abuse problems on probation and parole. Offender programs report:

Social and behavioral rehabilitation in prisons, jails and the community, 2(1), 1-13.

Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

150. North, C.S., & Smith, E.S. (1993). A

comparison of homeless men and women: Different populations, different needs. Community

Mental Health Journal, 29(5), 423-431.

151. Chesney-Lind, 1997; Covington, S.

(1998a). The relational theory of women’s

psychological development: Implications

for the criminal justice system. In R. Zaplin

(Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives

and effective intervention (pp. 113-131).

Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers; Owen &

Bloom, 1995; Owen, 1998; Pollock, J. (1998).

Counseling women in prison. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

152. Arnold, R.A. (1990). Women of color:

Process of victimization and criminalization of

black women. Social Justice, 17(3), 153-166.

153. Daly, 1992.

154. Richie, 1996.

155. Owen, 1998.

156. Miller, J.B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

157. Bylington, D. (1997). Applying relational

theory to addiction treatment. In S. Straussner

& E. Zelvin (Eds.), Gender and addictions:

Men and women in treatment (pp. 33-45).

Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., p. 35.

158. Miller, J.B. (1986). What do we mean

by relationships? Work in progress No. 22.

Wellesley, MA: Stone Center.

159. Miller, M. (1990). Perceptions of available and needed programs by female offenders

in Delaware. Wilmington, DE: Delaware

Council on Crime and Justice.

160. Covington & Surrey, 1997; Covington, S.,

& Surrey, J. (2000). The relational model of

women’s psychological development: Implications for substance abuse (No. 91). Wellesley,

MA: Stone Center, Working Paper Series.

161. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Men and women in conversation. New

York, NY: William Morrow.

162. DeLange, J. (1995). Gender and communications in social work education: A crosscultural perspective. Journal of Social Work

Education, 311(1), 75-81.
72 Gender-Responsive Strategies

163. DeLange, 1995, p. 325.

164. Lex, B.W. (1995). Alcohol and other psychoactive substances dependence in women

and men. In M.V. Seeman (Ed.), Gender and

psychopathology (pp. 311-357). Washington,

DC: American Psychiatric Press.

165. Steffensmeier & Allan, 1998, p. 16.

166. Gilligan, C., Lyons, N.P., & Hanmer, T.J.

(1990). Making connections. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

167. Pollock, 1998.

168. Chesney-Lind, 1997; Owen & Bloom,

1995.

169. Coll, C., & Duff, K. (1995). Reframing

the needs of women in prison: A relational and

diversity perspective. Final report, women in

prison pilot project. Wellesley, MA: Stone

Center.

170. Belknap, J., Dunn, M., & Holsinger, K.

(1997). Moving towards juvenile justice and

youth-serving systems that address the distinct

experience of the adolescent female: A report

to the Governor. Washington, DC: Office of

Criminal Justice Services.

171. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000).

Incarcerated parents and their children.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

172. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999a.

173. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000.

174. Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why

punish the children? A reappraisal of the children of incarcerated mothers in America. San

Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime

and Delinquency.

175. Ibid.; Watterson, K. (1996). Women in

prison: Inside the concrete womb. Boston,

MA: Northeastern University Press.

176. Bloom & Steinhart, 1993.

177. Bloom, B., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2000).

Women in prison: Vengeful equity. In R.

Muraskin (Ed.), It’s a crime: Women and justice (pp. 183-204). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

178. Bloom & Steinhart, 1993.

179. Holt, N., & Miller, D. (1972). Exploration of inmate-family relationships. Sacramento, CA: California Department of

Corrections.

180. Lord, E. (1995). A prison superintendent’s perspective on women in prison. Prison

Journal, 75(2), p. 266.

181. Owen, 1998.

182. American Correctional Association.

(1990). The female offender: What does the

future hold? Washington, DC: St. Mary’s

Press, p. 54.

183. Owen, 1998.

184. Rafter, N. (1985). Partial justice: State

prisons and their inmates, 1800–1935. Boston,

MA: Northeastern University Press; Freedman,

E. (1981). Their sister’s keepers: Women’s

prison reform in America, 1830–1930. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

185. Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001).

Classification of women offenders: A national

assessment of current practice. Washington,

DC: National Institute of Corrections, p. 20.

186. Covington, S. (2002a). Helping women

recover: Creating gender-responsive treatment.

In S.L.A. Straussner & S. Brown (Eds.), The

handbook of addiction treatment for women

(pp. 52-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

p. 60.

187. Root, M. (1992). Roots uprooted: Autobiographical reflections on the psychological
chapter three 73

experience of migration. In M. Ballou & L.

Brown (Eds.), Theories of personality and

psychopathology: Feminist reappraisals. New

York, NY: Guilford Press, p. 23.

188. Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery.

New York, NY: Harper Collins.

189. Ibid.

190. Bloom, S. (2000). Creating sanctuary:

Healing from systemic abuses of power. Therapeutic Communities, 21(2), 67-91; Covington, 1999; Najavits, L. (2002). Seeking safety:

A treatment manual for PTSD and substance

abuse. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

191. Harris, M., & Fallot, R.D. (2001). Envisioning a trauma-informed service system:

A vital paradigm shift. In M. Harris & R.D.

Fallot (Eds.), Using trauma theory to design

service systems (pp. 3-22). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

192. Winnecott, D.W. (1965). The maturational process and the facilitation environment: Studies in the theory of emotional

development. New York, NY: International

University Press, Inc.; Stern, D. (1985). The

interpersonal world of the infant. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

193. S. Bloom, 2000; Najavits, 2002.

194. S. Bloom, 2000, p. 85.

195. Haigh, R. (1999). The quintessence of a

therapeutic environment: Five universal qualities. In P. Campling, R. Haigh, & Netlibrary,

Inc. (Eds.), Therapeutic communities: Past,

present, and future (pp. 246-257). London:

Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

196. S. Bloom, 2000.

197. Kessler et al., 1994.

198. Vaillant, G. (1983). The natural history

of alcoholism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press; Brown, S., & Lewis, V.

(1999). The alcoholic family in recovery.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

199. Straussner, S.L.A., & Brown, S. (2002).

The handbook of addiction treatment for

women: Theory and practice. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

200. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1996). Substance abuse and the

American woman. New York, NY: Columbia

University.

201. Drug Strategies. (1998). Keeping score—

women and drugs: Looking at the federal drug

control budget. Washington, DC: Author.

202. Covington, 1999.

203. Gitlow, S. (1973). Alcoholism: A disease.

In P.B. Bourne, R. Fox, & G.L. Albrecht (Eds.),

Alcoholism: Progress in research and treatment.

New York, NY: Academic Press, p. 8.

204. Northrup, C. (1994). Women’s bodies,

women’s wisdom. New York, NY: Bantam.

205. Covington, 1999; 2002a.

206. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1998).

What we know: Drug addiction is a brain disease. In Principles of Addiction Medicine (2d

ed.). Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of

Addiction Medicine, Inc.

207. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment,

1994.

208. Parks, G. (1997, October). What works

in relapse prevention? Paper presented at

International Community Corrections Association’s Fifth Annual Research Conference,

Cleveland, OH.

209. Brown, S. (1985). Treating the alcoholic:

A developmental model. New York, NY: Wiley.
74 Gender-Responsive Strategies

210. Covington, S. (1998b). Women in prison:

Approaches in the treatment of our most invisible population. Women and Therapy Journal,

21(1), p. 141.

211. Covington & Surrey, 1997, p. 338.

212. Covington & Surrey, 1997.

213. Mauer, M., Potler, C., & Wolf, R. (1999).

Gender & justice: Women, drugs & sentencing

policy. Washington, DC: The Sentencing

Project.

214. Ibid.; Mauer, M., & Huling, T. (1995).

Young black Americans in the criminal justice

system: Five years later. Washington, DC: The

Sentencing Project.

215. Bloom, Chesney-Lind, & Owen, 1994.

216. Bush-Baskette, S. (1999). The war on

drugs: A war against women? In S. Cook &

S. Davies (Eds.), Harsh punishment: International experiences of women’s imprisonment.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press,

pp. 216-217.

217. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999a).

Correctional populations in the United States,

1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

218. Raeder, M. (1993). Gender issues in

the federal sentencing guidelines. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 8(3), 20-25.

219. Wald, P.M. (2001). Why focus on women

offenders? Criminal Justice, 16(1), 10-16,

p. 12.

220. Allard, P. (2002). Life sentences: Denying

welfare benefits to women convicted of drug

offenses. Washington, DC: The Sentencing

Project.

221. Allard, 2002, p. 1.

222. Ibid.

223. Ibid.

224. Ibid.

225. Jacobs, A. (2001). Give ’em a fighting

chance: Women offenders reenter society.

Criminal Justice Magazine, 16(1), 44-47.
chapter four 75

chapter four

A New Vision: Guiding Principles

for a Gender-Responsive Criminal

Justice System

This report documents the need for a new vision for the criminal justice system, one that recognizes the behavioral and social differences between female

and male offenders and the specific implications those differences hold for

gender-responsive policy and practice. This chapter delineates guiding principles, general strategies, and steps for implementation. Developing genderresponsive policies, practices, programs, and services requires incorporation

of the following key findings:

➤ An effective system for female offenders is structured differently than a

system for male offenders.

➤ Gender-responsive policy and practice target women’s pathways to criminality by providing effective interventions that address the intersecting issues of

substance abuse, trauma, mental health, and economic marginality.

➤ Criminal justice sanctions and interventions recognize the low risk to public

safety presented by the offenses that female offenders typically commit.

➤ When delivering sanctions and interventions, gender-responsive policy considers women’s relationships, especially those with their children, and their

roles in the community.

Being gender responsive in the criminal justice system requires an acknowledgment of the realities of women’s lives, including the pathways they travel to

criminal offending and the relationships that shape their lives.

To help those working with women to respond effectively and appropriately to

these findings, Bloom and Covington define being gender responsive as:

[C]reating an environment through site selection, staff selection, program

development, content, and material that reflects an understanding of the

realities of women’s lives and addresses the issues of the participants. Genderresponsive approaches are multidimensional and are based on theoretical

perspectives that acknowledge women’s pathways into the criminal justice

system. These approaches address social (e.g., poverty, race, class and gender

inequality) and cultural factors, as well as therapeutic interventions. These

interventions address issues such as abuse, violence, family relationships,
76 Gender-Responsive Strategies

substance abuse and co-occurring disorders. They provide a strength-based

approach* to treatment and skill building.

The emphasis is on self-efficacy.1

Principles and Strategies

Evidence drawn from a variety of disciplines

and effective practice suggests that addressing

the realities of women’s lives through genderresponsive policy and programs is fundamental

to improved outcomes at all criminal justice

phases. The six guiding principles that follow

are designed to address system concerns about

the management, supervision, and treatment of

women offenders in the criminal justice system

(see “Guiding Principles”). Together with the

general strategies for their implementation (see

“General Strategies”), the guiding principles

provide a blueprint for a gender-responsive

approach to the development of criminal

justice policy.

Guiding Principle 1: Acknowledge

That Gender Makes a Difference

The foremost principle in responding appropriately to women is to acknowledge the implications of gender throughout the criminal justice

system. The criminal justice field has been

dominated by the rule of parity, with equal

treatment to be provided to everyone. However, this does not necessarily mean that the

exact same treatment is appropriate for both

women and men. The data are very clear concerning the distinguishing aspects of female

and male offenders. They come into the criminal justice system via different pathways;

*A strength-based approach measures the emotional and behavioral skills, competencies, and characteristics that create a sense of

personal accomplishment.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Gender: Acknowledge that gender makes a difference.

Environment: Create an environment based on safety,

respect, and dignity.

Relationships: Develop policies, practices, and programs

that are relational and promote healthy connections to children, family, significant others, and the community.

Services and supervision: Address substance abuse,

trauma, and mental health issues through comprehensive,

integrated, and culturally relevant services and appropriate

supervision.

Socioeconomic status: Provide women with opportunities

to improve their socioeconomic conditions.

Community: Establish a system of community supervision

and reentry with comprehensive, collaborative services.

GENERAL STRATEGIES

The following overarching strategies can be applied to

implement each guiding principle:

Adopt: Adopt each principle as policy on a systemwide and

programmatic level.

Support: Provide full support of the administration for principle adoption and implementation.

Resources: Evaluate financial and human resources to

ensure that implementation and allocation adjustments are

adequate to accommodate any new policies and practices.

Training: Provide ongoing training as an essential element

in implementing gender-responsive practices.

Oversight: Include oversight of the new policies and practices in management plan development.

Congruence: Conduct routine procedural review to ensure

that procedures are adapted, deleted, or written for new

policies.

Environment: Conduct ongoing assessment and review of

the culture/environment to monitor the attitudes, skills,

knowledge, and behavior of administrative, management,

and line staff.

Evaluation: Develop an evaluation process to consistently

assess management, supervision, and services.
chapter four 77

respond to supervision and custody differently;

exhibit differences in terms of substance

abuse, trauma, mental illness, parenting

responsibilities, and employment histories;

and represent different levels of risk within

both the institution and the community. To

successfully develop and deliver services,

supervision, and treatment for women offenders, we must first acknowledge these gender

differences (see “Implementing Guiding

Principle 1”).

Key Findings

The differences between women and men are

well documented across a variety of disciplines and practices, and evidence increasingly

shows that the majority of these differences are

due to both social and environmental factors.

Although certain basic issues related to health,

such as reproduction, are influenced by physiological differences, many of the observed

behavior disparities are the result of genderrelated differences such as socialization, gender roles, gender stratification, and gender

inequality. The nature and extent of women’s

criminal behavior and the ways in which the

women respond to supervision reflect such gender differences, which include the following:

➤ Women and men differ in levels of participation, motivation, and degree of harm

caused by their criminal behavior.

➤ Female crime rates, with few exceptions,

are much lower than male crime rates.

Women’s crimes tend to be less serious

than men’s crimes. The gender differential

is most pronounced in violent crime, where

women’s participation is profoundly lower.

➤ The interrelationship between victimization

and offending appears to be more evident

in women’s lives. Family violence, trauma,

and substance abuse contribute to women’s

criminality and shape their patterns of

offending.

➤ Women respond to community supervision,

incarceration, and treatment in ways that

differ from those of their male counterparts.

Women are less violent while in custody

but have higher rates of disciplinary infractions for less serious rule violations. They

are influenced by their responsibilities and

concerns for their children, by their relationships with staff, and by their relationships with other offenders.

IMPLEMENTING GUIDING

PRINCIPLE 1

➢ Allocate both human and financial resources

to create women-centered services.

➢ Designate a high-level administrative position

for oversight of management, supervision, and

services.

➢ Recruit and train personnel and volunteers who

have both the interest and the qualifications

needed for working with women under criminal

justice supervision.

Guiding Principle 2: Create an

Environment Based on Safety,

Respect, and Dignity

Research from a range of disciplines (e.g.,

health, mental health, and substance abuse) has

shown that safety, respect, and dignity are fundamental to behavioral change. To improve

behavioral outcomes for women, it is critical

to provide a safe and supportive setting for

supervision. A profile of women in the criminal justice system indicates that many have

grown up in less than optimal family and community environments. In their interactions with

women offenders, criminal justice professionals must be aware of the significant pattern

of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse that

many of these women have experienced. Every

precaution must be taken to ensure that the

criminal justice setting does not reenact women

offenders’ patterns of earlier life experiences.
78 Gender-Responsive Strategies

A safe, consistent, and supportive environment

is the cornerstone of a corrective process.

Because of their lower levels of violent crime

and their low risk to public safety, women

offenders should, whenever possible, be supervised with the minimal restrictions required to

meet public safety interests (see “Implementing

Guiding Principle 2”).

Key Findings

Research from the field of psychology, particularly trauma studies, indicates that environment

cues behavior. There is now an understanding

of what an environment must reflect if it is to

affect the biological, psychological, and social

consequences of trauma. Because the corrections culture is influenced by punishment and

control, it is often in conflict with the culture of

treatment. The criminal justice system is based

on a control model, and treatment is based on a

model of behavioral change. These two models

must be integrated so that women offenders can

experience positive outcomes. This integration

should acknowledge the following facts:

➤ Substance abuse professionals and literature report that women require a treatment

environment that is safe and nurturing.

They also require a therapeutic relationship

that reflects mutual respect, empathy, and

compassion.

➤ A physically and psychologically safe environment produces positive outcomes for

women.

➤ Studies in child psychology demonstrate

that the optimal context for childhood

development consists of a safe, nurturing,

and consistent environment. Such an environment is also necessary for changes in

adult behavior.

IMPLEMENTING GUIDING

PRINCIPLE 2

➢ Conduct a comprehensive review of the institutional or community environment in which women

are supervised to provide an ongoing assessment

of the current culture.

➢ Develop policy that reflects an understanding of

the importance of emotional and physical safety.

➢ Understand the effects of childhood trauma to

avoid further traumatization.

➢ Establish protocols for reporting and investigating

claims of misconduct.

➢ Develop classification and assessment systems

that are validated on samples of women offenders.

➤ Safety is identified as a key factor in effectively addressing the needs of domestic

violence and sexual assault victims.

➤ Custodial misconduct has been documented

in many forms, including verbal degradation, rape, and sexual assault.

➤ Classification and assessment procedures

often do not recognize the lower level of

violence by women both in their offenses

and in their behavior while under supervision. This can result in women’s placement

in higher levels of custody than necessary

in correctional institutions and in an inappropriate assessment of their risk to the

community.

➤ Low public safety risk suggests that women

offenders can often be managed in the

community. Female offenders’ needs for

personal safety and support suggest the

importance of safe and sober housing.
chapter four 79

Guiding Principle 3: Develop

Policies, Practices, and Programs

That Are Relational and Promote

Healthy Connections to Children,

Family, Significant Others, and

the Community

Understanding the role of relationships in women’s lives is fundamental because the theme of

connections and relationships threads throughout the lives of female offenders. When an

understanding of the role of relationships is

incorporated into policies, practices, and programs, the effectiveness of the system or agency

is enhanced. This concept is critical when

addressing the following:

➤ Reasons why women commit crimes.

➤ Impact of interpersonal violence on

women’s lives.

➤ Importance of children in the lives of

female offenders.

➤ Relationships between women in an institutional setting.

➤ Process of women’s psychological growth

and development.

➤ Environmental context needed for programming.

➤ Challenges involved in reentering the

community.

Attention to the above issues is crucial to the

promotion of successful outcomes for women in

the criminal justice system (see “Implementing

Guiding Principle 3”).

Key Findings

Studies of women offenders highlight the

importance of relationships and the fact that

criminal involvement often develops through

relationships with family members, significant

others, or friends. This is qualitatively different

from the concept of peer associates, which is

often cited as a criminogenic risk factor in

assessment instruments. Among many females,

connections with significant others are often

key to their involvement in crime. A basic difference in the way women and men “do time”

is in their ability to develop and maintain relationships. Interventions must acknowledge and

reflect the impact of relationships on women’s

current and future behavior. Important relationship findings include the following:

➤ Developing mutual relationships is fundamental to women’s identity and sense of

worth.

➤ Female offenders frequently suffer from

isolation and alienation created by discrimination, victimization, mental illness, and

substance abuse.

➤ Studies in the substance abuse field indicate

that partners, in particular, are an integral

part of women’s initiation into substance

abuse, continuing drug use, and relapse.

Partners can also influence the retention of

women in treatment programs.

➤ Theories that focus on female development,

such as the relational model, posit that the

primary motivation for women throughout

life is the establishment of a strong sense of

connection with others.

➤ The majority of women under criminal justice supervision are mothers of dependent

children. Many women try to maintain their

parenting responsibilities while under community supervision or while in custody, and

many plan to reunite with one or more of

their children upon release from custody or

community supervision.

➤ Studies have shown that relationships

among women in prison are also important.

Women often develop close personal relationships and pseudo families as a way to
80 Gender-Responsive Strategies

adjust to prison life. Research on prison

staff indicates that correctional personnel

often are not prepared to provide appropriate responses to these relationships.

and often unrecognized role in the evolution of

a woman’s physical and mental health problems

(see “Implementing Guiding Principle 4”).

Key Findings

The salient features that propel women into

crime include family violence and battering,

substance abuse, and mental health issues. The

connections between substance abuse, trauma,

and mental health are numerous. For example,

substance abuse can occur as a reaction to

trauma, or it can be used to self-medicate

symptoms of mental illness; mental illness

is often connected to trauma; and substance

abuse can be misdiagnosed as mental illness.

Other considerations include the following:

➤ Substance abuse studies indicate that trauma, particularly in the form of physical or

sexual abuse, is closely associated with

substance abuse disorders in women. A

lifetime history of trauma is present in 55

to 99 percent of female substance abusers.

➤ Research shows that women who have been

sexually or physically abused as children or

adults are more likely to abuse alcohol and

other drugs and may suffer from depression, anxiety disorders, and PTSD.

➤ Regardless of whether the mental health or

substance abuse disorder is considered to be

primary, co-occurring disorders complicate

substance abuse treatment and recovery. An

integrated treatment program concurrently

addresses both disorders through treatment,

referral, and coordination.

➤ Research conducted by the National

Institutes of Health indicates that gender

differences, as well as race and ethnicity,

must be considered in determining appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and prevention

of disease.

IMPLEMENTING GUIDING

PRINCIPLE 3

➢ Develop training for all staff and administrators

in which relationship issues are a core theme.

Such training should include the importance of

relationships, staff-client relationships, professional boundaries, communication, and the motherchild relationship.

➢ Examine all mother and child programming

through the eyes of the child (e.g., child-centered

environment, context), and enhance the motherchild connection and the connection of the mother

to child caregivers and other family members.

➢ Promote supportive relationships among women

offenders.

➢ Develop community and peer-support networks.

Guiding Principle 4: Address

Substance Abuse, Trauma, and

Mental Health Issues Through

Comprehensive, Integrated, and

Culturally Relevant Services and

Appropriate Supervision

Substance abuse, trauma, and mental health

are three critical, interrelated issues in the

lives of women offenders. These issues have

a major impact on a woman’s experience of

community correctional supervision, incarceration, and transition to the community in terms

of both programming needs and successful

reentry. Although they are therapeutically

linked, these issues historically have been

treated separately. One of the most important

developments in health care over the past several decades is the recognition that a substantial proportion of women have a history of

serious traumatic experiences that play a vital
chapter four 81

➤ Experience in the substance abuse field has

shown that treatment programs are better

able to engage and retain women clients if

programs are culturally targeted.

Key Findings

Most women offenders are poor, undereducated, and unskilled. Many have never worked,

have sporadic work histories, or have lived on

public assistance. Additional factors that affect

their economic and social conditions include

the following:

➤ Most women offenders are female heads of

household. In 1997, nearly 32 percent of all

female heads of households lived below the

poverty line.

➤ Research from the field of domestic violence has shown that such material and

economic needs as housing and financial

support, educational and vocational training, and job development are essential to

women’s ability to establish lives apart

from their abusive partners.

➤ Research on the effectiveness of substance

abuse treatment has noted that without

strong material support, women presented

with economic demands are more likely

to return to the streets and discontinue

treatment.

➤ Recent changes in public assistance due to

welfare reform (e.g., Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families) affect women disproportionately and negatively affect their ability to support themselves and their children.

In approximately half the states in the

Nation, convicted drug felons are ineligible

for benefits. When eligible, they still may

not be able to apply for benefits until they

have been released from custody or community supervision. They cannot access

treatment or medical care without Medicaid.

Additionally, their convictions may make

them ineligible for public housing or

Section 8 subsidies.

IMPLEMENTING GUIDING

PRINCIPLE 4

➢ Service providers need to be cross-trained in

three primary issues: substance abuse, trauma,

and mental health.

➢ Resources, including skilled personnel, must be

allocated.

➢ The environment in which services are provided

must be closely monitored to ensure the emotional and physical safety of the women being served.

➢ Service providers and criminal justice personnel

must receive training in cultural sensitivity so that

they can understand and respond appropriately to

issues of race, ethnicity, and culture.

Guiding Principle 5: Provide

Women With Opportunities To

Improve Their Socioeconomic

Conditions

Addressing both the social and material realities

of women offenders is an important aspect of

correctional intervention. The female offender’s

life is shaped by her socioeconomic status; her

experience with trauma and substance abuse;

and her relationships with partners, children,

and family. Most women offenders are disadvantaged economically and socially, and this

reality is compounded by their trauma and substance abuse histories. Improving outcomes for

women requires preparing them through education and training to support themselves and

their children (see “Implementing Guiding

Principle 5”).
82 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Guiding Principle 6: Establish a

System of Community Supervision

and Reentry With Comprehensive,

Collaborative Services

Women offenders face specific challenges as

they reenter the community from jail or prison.

Women on probation also face challenges in

their communities. In addition to the female

offender stigma, they may carry additional

burdens such as single motherhood, decreased

economic potential, lack of services and programs targeted for women, responsibilities to

multiple agencies, and a general lack of community support. Navigating through myriad

systems that often provide fragmented services

and conflicting requirements can interfere with

supervision and successful reintegration. There

is a need for wraparound services—that is, a

holistic and culturally sensitive plan for each

woman that draws on a coordinated range of

services within her community (see “Implementing Guiding Principle 6”). Types of

organizations that should work as partners in

assisting women who are reentering the community include the following:

➤ Mental health systems.

➤ Alcohol and other drug programs.

➤ Programs for survivors of family and

sexual violence.

➤ Family service agencies.

➤ Emergency shelter, food, and financial

assistance programs.

➤ Educational organizations.

➤ Vocational and employment services.

➤ Health care.

➤ The child welfare system, child care,

and other children’s services.

➤ Transportation.

➤ Self-help groups.

➤ Consumer-advocacy groups.

➤ Organizations that provide leisure and

recreation options.

➤ Faith-based organizations.

➤ Community service clubs.

Key Findings

Challenges to successful completion of community supervision and reentry for women

offenders have been documented in the research

literature. These challenges can include housing, transportation, child care, and employment

needs; reunification with children and other

family members; peer support; and fragmented

community services. There is little coordination

among community systems that links substance

abuse, criminal justice, public health, employment, housing, and child welfare services.

Other considerations for successful reentry and

community supervision include the following:

➤ Substance abuse studies have found that

women’s issues are different from those of

men. Comprehensive services for women

should include, but not be limited to, life

skills training, housing, education, medical

IMPLEMENTING GUIDING

PRINCIPLE 5

➢ Allocate resources within both community and

institutional correctional programs for comprehensive, integrated services that focus on the economic, social, and treatment needs of women.

Ensure that women leave prison and jail with

provisions for short-term emergency services

(e.g., subsistence, lodging, food, transportation,

and clothing).

➢ Provide traditional and nontraditional training,

education, and skill-enhancing opportunities to

assist women in earning a living wage.

➢ Provide sober living space in institutions and in

the community.
chapter four 83

care, vocational counseling, and assistance

with family preservation.

➤ Studies from fields such as substance abuse

and mental health have found that collaborative, community-based programs that

offer a multidisciplinary approach foster

successful outcomes among women.

➤ Substance abuse research shows that an

understanding of the interrelationships

among the women, the programs, and the

community is critical to the success of a

comprehensive approach. “Comprehensive”

also means taking into consideration a

woman’s situation and desires related to

her children, other adults in her family or

friendship network, and her partner.

➤ Data from female offender focus groups

indicate that the following needs, if unmet,

put women at risk for criminal justice

involvement: housing, physical and psychological safety, education, job training and

opportunities, community-based substance

abuse treatment, economic support, positive

role models, and a community response to

violence against women. These are all

critical components of a gender-responsive

prevention program.

➤ Research has shown that women offenders have a great need for comprehensive,

community-based wraparound services.

This case management approach has been

found to work effectively with women

because it addresses their multiple treatment needs.

➤ Relational theory indicates that approaches to

service delivery that are based on women’s

relationships and the connections among the

different areas of their lives are especially

congruent with female characteristics and

needs.

Developing Gender-Responsive

Policy and Practice

The guiding principles proposed in this report

are intended to serve as a blueprint for the

development of gender-responsive policy and

practice. These principles can also provide

a basis for systemwide policy and program

development. Following are scenarios based

on a gender-responsive model for women

offenders:

➤ The correctional environment or setting

is modified to enhance supervision and

treatment.

➤ Classification and assessment instruments

are validated on samples of women

offenders.

➤ Policies, practices, and programs take into

consideration the significance of women’s

relationships with their children, families,

and significant others.

➤ Policies, practices, and programs promote

services and supervision that address substance abuse, trauma, and mental health

and provide culturally relevant treatment

to women.

IMPLEMENTING GUIDING

PRINCIPLE 6

➢ Create individualized support plans and wrap the

necessary resources around the woman and her

children.

➢ Develop a “one-stop shopping” approach to community services, with the primary service provider

also facilitating access to other needed services.

➢ Use a coordinated case management model for

community supervision.
84 Gender-Responsive Strategies

➤ The socioeconomic status of women

offenders is addressed by services that

focus on their economic and social needs.

➤ Partnerships are promoted among a range of

organizations located within the community.

A first step in developing gender-appropriate

policy and practice is to address the following

questions:

➤ How can correctional policy address the

differences in the behavior and needs of

female and male offenders?

➤ What challenges do these gender differences create in community and institutional

corrections?

➤ How do these differences affect correctional practice, operations, and supervision in

terms of system outcomes and offenderlevel measures of success?

➤ How can policy and practice be optimized

to best meet criminal justice system goals

for women offenders?

Policy Considerations

As agencies and systems examine the impact

of gender on their operations, policy-level

changes are a primary consideration. A variety

of existing policies developed by the National

Institute of Corrections Intermediate Sanctions

for Women Offender Projects, the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, the American Correctional

Association (ACA), the Minnesota Task Force

on the Female Offender, and the Florida

Department of Corrections contain crucial

elements of a gender-appropriate approach.

Gender-responsive elements derived from

this analysis are considered below.

Create Parity

As expressed in the ACA Policy Statement,

“Correctional systems should be guided by

the principle of parity. Female offenders must

receive the equivalent range of services available to male offenders, including opportunities

for individual programming and services that

recognize the unique needs of this population.”2

Parity differs conceptually from “equality”

and stresses the importance of equivalence

rather than sameness: Women offenders should

receive opportunities, programs, and services

that are equivalent, but not identical, to those

available to male offenders.

Commit to Women’s Services

Executive decisionmakers, administrators, and

line staff must be educated about the realities

of working with female offenders. Establishing

mission and vision statements regarding

women’s issues and creating an executive-level

position charged with this mission are two

ways to ensure that women’s issues become a

priority. A focus on women is also tied to the

provision of appropriate levels of resources,

staffing, and training.

The National Institute of Corrections has recognized the need for gender-specific training

and has sponsored a variety of initiatives

designed to assist jurisdictions in addressing

issues relevant to women offenders. In Florida,

a staff training and development program was

mandated and will be implemented for correctional officers and professionals working with

female offenders in institutions and community corrections. In the Bureau of Prisons, training occurs at the local institution level. The

Texas Division of Community Corrections has

also created specific training for those working

with female offenders in the community.

Develop Procedures That Apply to Women

Offenders

Another key element of policy for women

offenders concerns a review of policies and

procedures. Although staff working directly
chapter four 85

with female offenders on a day-to-day basis

are aware of the procedural misalignment of

some procedures with the realities of women’s

lives, written policy often does not reflect the

same understanding of these issues. As stated

by the ACA, “Sound operating procedures that

address the [female] population’s needs in such

areas as clothing, personal property, hygiene,

exercise, recreation, and visitations with children and family” should be developed.3

Respond to Women’s Pathways

Policies, programs, and services need to

respond specifically to women’s pathways in

and out of crime and to the contexts of their

lives that support criminal behavior. Procedures,

programs, and services for women should be

designed and implemented with these facts in

mind. Both material and treatment realities of

women’s lives should be considered. For example, Florida’s policy states the following:

[E]mphasis is placed on programs that

foster personal growth, accountability,

self-reliance, education, life skills, workplace skills, and the maintenance of family

and community relationships to lead to

successful reintegration into society and

reduce recidivism.4

ACA standards call for the following:

[A]ccess to a full range of work and programs designed to expand economic and

social roles for women, with an emphasis

on education, career counseling and

exploration of non-traditional training;

relevant life skills, including parenting

and social and economic assertiveness;

and pre-release and work/education

release programs.5

Florida’s policy states that the system must

“ensure opportunities for female offenders to

develop vocational and job-related skills that

support their capacity for economic freedom.”6

Consider Community

Given the lower risk of violence and community harm found in female criminal behavior, it

is important that written policy acknowledge

the actual level of risk represented by women

offenders’ behavior in the community and in

custody. The recognition and articulation of

this policy will enable the development of

strong community partnerships, creating a

receptive community for model reentry and

transitional programs that include housing,

training, education, employment, and family

support services.

The ACA advocates for a range of alternatives

to incarceration, including pretrial and posttrial

diversion, probation, restitution, treatment for

substance abuse, halfway houses, and parole

services. Community supervision programs

need to partner with community agencies in

making a wide range of services and programs

available to women offenders. Community

programs are better equipped than correctional

agencies to respond to women’s realities.

After a review of its Security Designation and

Custody Classification procedures, the Bureau

of Prisons developed additional low- and

minimum-security bed space to house female

offenders more appropriately and closer to

their homes.

Include Children and Families

Children and families play an important role in

the management of women offenders in community and custodial settings. As noted elsewhere in this report, more female than male

offenders have primary responsibility for their

children. However, female offenders’ ties to

their children are often compromised by criminal justice policy. ACA policy states that the

system should “facilitate the maintenance

and strengthening of family ties, particularly
86 Gender-Responsive Strategies

between parents and children.”7 In Florida,

an emphasis on the relationships of women

offenders with their children and other family

members has potential rehabilitative effects in

terms of motivation for treatment and economic responsibility.8

Implications for Practice

After policy development, the next step concerns

the specific ways in which gender-appropriate

policy elements can be incorporated into practice

to improve service delivery and day-to-day

operations and procedures. Identifying problems

created by a lack of knowledge about women

offenders and by gender-neutral practice is a

critical step in addressing the issue.

The analysis of operational practice and procedures raises several questions that agencies and

the criminal justice system need to consider

in developing a systemic approach to women

offenders. These questions are organized into

categories that reflect specific elements of

gender-responsive practice (see “Questions

To Ask in Developing a Systemic Approach

for Women Offenders”).

Build Community Support

Building community support is an important

factor in effective community corrections. To

improve the circumstances of women offenders and their children, a gender-responsive

approach must emphasize community support

for women. A critical need exists to develop a

system of support within our communities that

assists women who are returning to their communities in the areas of housing, job training,

employment, transportation, family reunification, child care, drug and alcohol treatment,

peer support, and aftercare. Women transitioning from jail or prison to the community must

navigate myriad systems that often provide

fragmented services, and this can pose a barrier to their successful reintegration.9

Prevention. Prevention is another aspect of

building community support. In the series of

focus groups conducted with women in the

criminal justice system for this report, participants identified the following factors when

asked what they felt could help prevent them

from criminal involvement:

➤ Housing.

➤ Physical and psychological safety.

➤ Education, job training, and opportunities.

➤ Community-based substance abuse treatment.

➤ Positive female role models.

➤ An appropriate community response to

violence against women.

Restorative Justice. Restorative justice is

an important vehicle for building community

support for criminal justice services. In keeping with female psychosocial developmental

theory, the framework for restorative justice

involves relationships, healing, and community. The focus of this is not on punishment and

retribution but, rather, on a variety of mechanisms, such as victim-offender mediation, family conferencing, and community circles of

support. This perspective is consistent with

both the level of harm represented by women

offenders and the need to target their pathways

to offending. Social support is a key variable

in a range of effective interventions and

includes intimate relationships, social networks, and communities.

Women offenders are good candidates for

restorative justice and community corrections.

Because they commit far fewer serious or violent offenses and pose less risk to public safety

than male offenders, they are in a preferred

position to take the lead in participating in programs of restorative justice. Similarly, because

of their suitability for community correctional

settings, women offenders may be in a better
chapter four 87

Operational Practices

➢ Are the specifics of women’s behavior and circumstances addressed in written planning, policy, programs, and operational practices? For example, are

policies regarding classification, property, programs,

and services appropriate to the actual behavior and

composition of the female population?

➢ Does the staff reflect the offender population in

terms of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation,

language (bilingual), ex-offender, and recovery

status? Are female role models and mentors

employed to reflect the racial/ethnic and cultural

backgrounds of the clients?

➢ Does staff training prepare workers for the importance of relationships in the lives of women

offenders? Does the training provide information

on the nature of women’s relational context,

boundaries and limit setting, communication, and

child-related issues? Are staff prepared to relate

to women offenders in an empathetic and professional manner?

➢ Are staff trained in appropriate gender communication skills and in recognizing and dealing with

the effects of trauma and PTSD?

Services

➢ Is training on women offenders provided? Is this

training available in initial academy or orientation

sessions? Is the training provided on an ongoing

basis? Is this training mandatory for executivelevel staff?

➢ Does the organization see women’s issues as a

priority? Are women’s issues important enough to

warrant an agency-level position to manage

women’s services?

➢ Do resource allocation, staffing, training, and

budgeting consider the facts of managing women

offenders?

Review of Standard Procedures

➢ Do classification and other assessments consider

gender in classification instruments, assessment

tools, and individualized treatment plans? Has the

existing classification system been validated on a

sample of women? Does the database system allow

for separate analysis of female characteristics?

➢ Is information about women offenders collected,

coded, monitored, and analyzed in the agency?

➢ Are protocols established for reporting and investigating claims of staff misconduct, with protection

from retaliation ensured? Are the concepts of privacy and personal safety incorporated in daily operations and architectural design, where applicable?

➢ How does policy address the issue of crossgender strip searches and pat-downs?

➢ Does the policy include the concept of zero tolerance for inappropriate language, touching, and

other inappropriate behavior and staff sexual

misconduct?

Children and Families

➢ How do existing programs support connections

between the female offender and her children and

family? How are these connections undermined

by current practice? In institutional environments,

what provisions are made for visiting and for other

opportunities for contact with children and family?

➢ Are there programs and services that enhance

female offenders’ parenting skills and their ability to

support their children following release? In community supervision settings and community treatment

programs, are parenting responsibilities acknowledged through education? Through child care?

Community

➢ Are criminal justice services delivered in a manner that builds community trust, confidence, and

partnerships?

➢ Do classification systems and housing configurations allow community custody placements? Are

transitional programs in place that help women

build long-term community support networks?

➢ Are professionals, providers, and community volunteer positions used to facilitate community connections? Are they used to develop partnerships

between correctional agencies and community

providers?

QUESTIONS TO ASK IN DEVELOPING A SYSTEMIC APPROACH FOR

WOMEN OFFENDERS
88 Gender-Responsive Strategies

position to model the significant benefits to

the community that may be achieved through

effective restorative justice programs.

Reentry and Wraparound Services. Reentry

programs can serve as a model for enhancing

community services. Although all offenders

must confront the problems of reentry into the

community, many of the obstacles and barriers

faced by women offenders are specifically

related to their status as women. Beyond the

stigma attached to a criminal conviction and

to a history of substance abuse, women carry

additional burdens. These extra burdens are

due to such individual-level characteristics as

single motherhood and decreased economic

potential as well as to system-level characteristics, such as the lack of services and programs

targeted for women, responsibilities to multiple agencies, and lack of community support

for women in general. Often, nonoffender

women in the larger community confront

many of the same harsh realities. As noted

elsewhere in this report, there is a need for

wraparound services—that is, a holistic and

culturally sensitive plan for each woman that

draws on a coordinated continuum of services

within the community. As Jacobs notes,

“[W]orking with women in the criminal justice

system requires ways of working more effectively with the many other human service

systems that are involved in their lives.”10

Integrated and holistic approaches, such as

wraparound models, can be very effective

because they address multiple goals and needs

in a coordinated way and facilitate access to

services.11

Wraparound models stem from the idea of

“wrapping necessary resources into an individualized support plan.”12 Both client-level and

system-level linkages are stressed in the wraparound model. The need for wraparound services is highest for clients with multiple and

complex needs that cannot be addressed by

limited services from a few locations in the

community.

For women leaving custodial environments,

the program focus should be on planning for

successful community reentry. Many types of

reentry services for female offenders would

also benefit women in the larger community.

The development of more effective and comprehensive services for women generally and

women offenders specifically could enhance

community services and also could help to

prevent crime.

Create Gender-Responsive Programs

and Services

A number of issues may be considered for the

development of gender-responsive programs

and services. For women who are in the system, a gender-responsive approach would

include comprehensive services that take into

account the content and context of women’s

lives. Programs need to take into consideration

the larger social issues of poverty, abuse, and

race and gender inequalities as well as individual factors that affect women in the criminal

justice system.13 Services also need to be

responsive to women’s cultural backgrounds.14

Culture may be defined as a framework of

values and beliefs and a means of organizing

experience. Programs and services that are culturally sensitive take into account differences

in ethnicity (e.g., language, customs, values,

and beliefs) to create a sense of inclusiveness

(see “Approaches for Developing GenderResponsive Programs and Services”).

Programming that is responsive in terms of

both gender and culture emphasizes support.

Service providers need to focus on women’s

strengths, and they need to recognize that a

woman cannot be treated successfully in

isolation from her social support network

(i.e., her relationships with her children,

partner, family, and friends). Coordinating
chapter four 89

systems that link a broad range of services

will promote a continuity-of-care model. Such

a comprehensive approach would provide a

sustained continuity of treatment, recovery,

and support services, beginning at the start of

incarceration and continuing through transition to the community.

Evaluate Programs

Program evaluation is another step in building

gender responsiveness. As the vision of gender

responsiveness evolves, documenting the

effectiveness of practice addresses the need for

empirical research on the outcomes of genderresponsive programs. Process evaluation identifies the fit between the principles of gender

responsivity and program implementation.

The following approaches are organized into two categories:

structure; and content and context/environment.

Structure

➢ Contemporary theoretical perspectives on

women’s particular pathways into the criminal

justice system (e.g., relational theory, trauma

theory) fit the psychological and social needs of

women and reflect the realities of their lives.

➢ Treatment and services are based on women’s

competencies and strengths and promote selfreliance.

➢ Women-only groups are used, especially for primary treatment (e.g., trauma, substance abuse).

➢ Staff members reflect the client population in terms

of gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, language

(bilingual), and ex-offender and recovery status.

➢ Female role models and mentors are provided

who reflect the racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds of the clients.

➢ Cultural awareness and sensitivity are promoted

using the resources and strengths available in

various communities.

➢ Gender-responsive assessment tools and individualized treatment plans are utilized, with appropriAPPROACHES FOR DEVELOPING GENDER-RESPONSIVE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

ate treatment matched to the identified needs and

assets of each client.

➢ Transitional programs are included as part of

gender-responsive practices, with a particular

focus on building long-term community support

networks for women.

Content and Context/Environment

➢ To fully address the needs of women, programs

use a variety of interventions with behavioral,

cognitive, affective/dynamic, and systems 

perspectives.

➢ Services/treatment address women’s practical

needs, such as housing, transportation, child care,

and vocational training and job placement.

➢ Participants receive opportunities to develop skills

in a range of educational and vocational (including

nontraditional) areas.

➢ Emphasis is placed on parenting education, child

development, and relationship/reunification with

children.

➢ The environment is child friendly, with ageappropriate activities designed for children.

This type of evaluation measures the environments within which programs operate.

Process evaluation measures the unique “culture” of individual programs (such as the relationships between staff and women offenders,

relationships between women, and rules and

regulations) to determine how these factors

may affect the program. Such evaluations must

also involve participants’ input so that their

feedback on the services provided can be

obtained.

Outcome evaluations describe measures of

program success or failure, examining both

the short- and long-term effects of the intervention on program participants. Ideally, outcome measures used in evaluations should be
90 Gender-Responsive Strategies

tied to a program’s mission, goals, and objectives. Also, outcome measures should go

beyond traditional recidivism measures to

assess the impact of specific program attributes

on pathways to female criminality.

Conclusion: The Importance

of Understanding Women

Offenders

This report documents the importance of

understanding and acknowledging the differences between female and male offenders and

the impact of those differences on the development of gender-responsive policies, practices, and programs in the criminal justice

system. Analysis of available data indicates

that addressing the realities of women’s lives

through gender-responsive policy and practice

is fundamental to improved outcomes at all

phases of the criminal justice system. This

review maintains that consideration of

women’s and men’s different pathways into

criminality, their differential responses to

custody and supervision, and their differing

program requirements can result in a criminal

justice system that is better equipped to

respond to both male and female offenders.

The guiding principles and strategies outlined

in this report are intended to be a blueprint for

the development of gender-responsive policy

and practice. They can serve as the foundation

for improving the ways in which criminal justice agencies manage and supervise women

offenders in both institutional and community

settings. Ultimately, commitment and willingness on the part of policymakers and practitioners will be needed to actualize the vision

and to implement the principles and strategies

of a gender-responsive criminal justice system.

Reducing women’s involvement in the criminal justice system will benefit the women

themselves, their communities, and society.

Such efforts will develop a more effective

criminal justice system and generate positive

effects for generations to come.

Notes

1. Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (2000,

November.) Gendered justice: Programming

for women in correctional settings. Paper

presented to the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA, p. 11.

2. American Correctional Association. (1995).

Public correctional policy on female offender

services. Lanham, MD: Author, p. 2.

3. Ibid., p. 1.

4. Florida Department of Corrections. (1999).

Operational plan for female offenders. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Corrections,

p. 1.

5. American Correctional Association, 1995, p. 2.

6. Florida Department of Corrections, 1999, p. 1.

7. American Correctional Association, 1995, p. 1.

8. Florida Department of Corrections, 1999, p. 7.

9. Covington, S. (2002b). A women’s journey

home: Challenges for female offenders.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

10. Jacobs, A. (2001). Give ’em a fighting

chance: Women offenders reenter society.

Criminal Justice Magazine, 16(1), p. 47.

11. Reed, B., & Leavitt, M. (2000). Modified

wraparound and women offenders in community corrections: Strategies, opportunities and

tensions. In M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment

to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections (pp. 1-106). Lanham, MD:

American Correctional Association.
chapter four 91

12. Malysiak, R. (1997). Exploring the theory

and paradigm base for wraparound fidelity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6(4), p. 400.

13. Bloom, B. (1996). Triple jeopardy: Race,

class and gender as factors in women’s imprisonment. Riverside, CA: UC Riverside.

14. Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (1998,

November). Gender-specific programming

for female offenders: What is it and why is it

important? Paper presented to the American

Society of Criminology, Washington, DC.
bibliography 93

bibliography

Acierno, R., Resnick, H., & Kilpatrick, D.G. (1997). Prevalence rates, case

identification and risk factors for sexual assault and domestic violence in men

and women, part 1. Behavioral Medicine, 23(2), 53-67.

Acoca, L. (1998). Defusing the time bomb: Understanding and meeting the

growing health care needs of incarcerated women in America. Crime & Delinquency, 44(1), 49-70.

Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Alexander, M. (1996). Women with co-occurring addictive and mental disorders:

An emerging profile of vulnerability. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,

66(1), 10.

Allard, P. (2002). Life sentences: Denying welfare benefits to women convicted

of drug offenses. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange

girls. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation.

American Cancer Society. (1999). Cancer facts and figures 2000–2001.

Atlanta, GA: Author.

American Correctional Association. (1990). The female offender: What does

the future hold? Washington, DC: St. Mary’s Press.

American Correctional Association. (1995). Public correctional policy on

female offender services. Lanham, MD: Author.

American Heart Association. (2002). Diseases and conditions. 

www.americanheart.org. Accessed: May 22, 2002.

American Lung Association. (1999). Fact sheet: Women and smoking.

New York, NY: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of

mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Amnesty International USA. (1999). Not part of my sentence: Violations of the

human rights watch in custody. New York, NY: Author.

Anderson, C. (2002). Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27(1-2), 231-244.

Anderson, M. (2002). Thinking about women: Sociological perspectives on sex

and gender. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
94 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Arnold, R.A. (1990). Women of color: Process

of victimization and criminalization of black

women. Social Justice, 17(3), 153-166.

Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L.E. (1995). 

Violence against women: Estimates from the

redesigned survey special report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman:

Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Belknap, J., Dunn, M., & Holsinger, K.

(1997). Moving towards juvenile justice and

youth-serving systems that address the distinct

experience of the adolescent female: A report

to the Governor. Washington, DC: Office of

Criminal Justice Services.

Belle, D. (1994). Inequality and mental

health: Low income and minority women.

In L. Walker (Ed.), Women and mental health

policy. Sage yearbooks in women’s policy

studies (vol. 9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Bertakis, K.D., Azari, R., Helms, L.J.,

Callahan, E.J., & Robbins, J.A. (2000).

Gender difference in the utilization of health

care services. Journal of Family Practice,

48, 147-152.

Bloom, B. (1996). Triple jeopardy: Race, class

and gender as factors in women’s imprisonment. Riverside, CA: UC Riverside.

Bloom, B. (1997, September). Defining

gender specific: What does it mean and

why is it important? Paper presented at the

National Institute of Corrections Intermediate

Sanctions for Women Offenders National Project Meeting, Longmont, CO.

Bloom, B. (1998). Women with mental health

and substance abuse problems on probation

and parole. Offender programs report: Social

and behavioral rehabilitation in prisons, jails

and the community, 2(1), 1-13. Kingston, NJ:

Civic Research Institute.

Bloom, B. (2000a). Beyond recidivism: Perspectives on evaluation of programs for female

offenders in community corrections. In M.

McMahon (Ed.), Assessment to assistance:

Programs for women in community corrections

(pp. 107-138). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Bloom, B. (2000b). Successful genderresponsive programming must reflect women’s

lives and needs. Women, Girls & Criminal

Justice, 1(1), 1-2.

Bloom, B., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2000).

Women in prison: Vengeful equity. In R.

Muraskin (Ed.), It’s a crime: Women and justice (pp. 183-204). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Bloom, B., Chesney-Lind, M., & Owen, B.

(1994). Women in California prisons: Hidden

victims of the war on drugs. San Francisco,

CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (1998, November). Gender-specific programming for female

offenders: What is it and why is it important?

Paper presented to the American Society of

Criminology, Washington, DC.

Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (2000, November).

Gendered justice: Programming for women

in correctional settings. Paper presented to

the American Society of Criminology, San

Francisco, CA.
bibliography 95

Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the children? A reappraisal of the children

of incarcerated mothers in America. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Bloom, S. (2000). Creating sanctuary: Healing

from systemic abuses of power. Therapeutic

Communities, 21(2), 67-91.

Blume, S. (1997). Women: Clinical aspects.

In J. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, A. Milkman, & J.

Langrod (Eds.), Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook (pp. 645-654). Baltimore,

MD: Williams and Wilkins.

Bremmer, J.D., Southwick, S., Darnell, A.,

& Charney, D.S. (1996). Chronic PTSD in

Vietnam combat veterans: Course of illness

and substance abuse. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 153(3), 369-375.

Brown, S. (1985). Treating the alcoholic: A

developmental model. New York, NY: Wiley.

Brown, S., & Lewis, V. (1999). The alcoholic

family in recovery. New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Brown, V., Melchior, L., & Huba, G. (1999).

Level of burden among women diagnosed with

severe mental illness and substance abuse.

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 31(1), 31-40.

Browne, A. (1987). When battered women kill.

New York, NY: Free Press.

Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999).

Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical

and sexual victimization among incarcerated

women. International Journal of Law and

Psychiatry, 22(3-4), 301-322.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). Women in

prison. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). National

crime victimization survey. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999a). Correctional populations in the United States, 1996.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999b). Special

report: Women offenders. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999c). Prior

abuse reported by inmates and probationers.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001a). Mental

health treatment in state prisons, 2000.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001b). National

correctional population. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001c). Prisoners

in 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001d). Prison

and jail inmates at midyear 2000. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Burke, P., & Adams, L. (1991). Classification

of women offenders in state correctional facilities: A handbook for practitioners. Washington,

DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Bush-Baskette, S. (1999). The war on drugs:

A war against women? In S. Cook & S. Davies

(Eds.), Harsh punishment: International experiences of women’s imprisonment (pp. 211-229).

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
96 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Bylington, D. (1997). Applying relational 

theory to addiction treatment. In S. Straussner

& E. Zelvin (Eds.), Gender and addictions:

Men and women in treatment (pp. 33-45).

Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Campbell, J.C., Poland, M.L., Waller, J.B., &

Ager, J. (1992). Correlates to battering during

pregnancy. Research in Nursing and Health,

15(3), 219-226.

Cappell, C., & Heiner, R.B. (1990). The

intergenerational transmission of family

aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2),

135-152.

Carlson, B. (1990). Adolescent observers of

marital violence. Journal of Family Violence,

5(4), 285-299.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1994).

Practical approaches in the treatment of

women who abuse alcohol and other drugs.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1997).

Substance abuse treatment for incarcerated

offenders: Guide to promising practices.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1999).

Substance abuse treatment for women offenders: Guide to promising practices. Rockville,

MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2001).

Telling their stories: Reflections of the eleven

original grantees that piloted residential treatment for women and children for CSAT.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

Chapple, K.V. (2000). Community residential

programming for female offenders and their

children. In P. Modley (Ed.), Annual review of

topics in community corrections: Responding

to women offenders in the community (pp. 31-

35). Washington, DC: National Institute of

Corrections.

Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls, women and crime. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Chesney-Lind, M. (2000). Women in the

criminal justice system: Gender matters. In

P. Modley (Ed.), Annual review of topics in 

community corrections: Responding to women

offenders in the community (pp. 7-10). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Coker, A.L., Patel, N.J., Krishnaswami, S.,

Schmidt, W., & Richter, D. (1998). Childhood

forced sex and cervical dysplasia among

women prison inmates. Violence Against

Women, 4(5), 595-608.

Coll, C., & Duff, K. (1995). Reframing the

needs of women in prison: A relational and

diversity perspective. Final report, women in

prison pilot project. Wellesley, MA: Stone

Center.

Collins, W., & Collins, A. (1996). Women in

jail: Legal issues. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Corrections.

Commonwealth Fund. (1997, November). The

Commonwealth Fund survey of the health of

adolescent girls (Pub. 252). New York, NY:

Author.

Covington, S. (1997). Women, addiction, and

sexuality. In S.L.A. Straussner & E. Zelkin

(Eds.), Gender issues in addiction: Men and

women in treatment (pp. 71-95). Northvale,

NJ: Jason Aronson.
bibliography 97

Covington, S. (1998a). The relational theory

of women’s psychological development: Implications for the criminal justice system. In R.

Zaplin (Ed.), Female offenders: Critical perspectives and effective intervention (pp. 113-

131). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Covington, S. (1998b). Women in prison:

Approaches in the treatment of our most invisible population. Women and Therapy Journal,

21(1), 141-155.

Covington, S. (1999). Helping women recover:

A program for treating substance abuse. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Covington, S. (2002a). Helping women recover: Creating gender-responsive treatment. In

S.L.A. Straussner & S. Brown (Eds.), The

handbook of addiction treatment for women

(pp. 52-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Covington, S. (2002b). A women’s journey

home: Challenges for female offenders.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Covington, S., & Kohen, J. (1984). Women,

alcohol, and sexuality. Advances in Alcohol

and Substance Abuse, 4(1), 41-56.

Covington, S., & Surrey, J. (1997). The relational model of women’s psychological development: Implications for substance abuse. In

S. Wilsnack & R. Wilsnack (Eds.), Gender 

and alcohol: Individual and social perspectives (pp. 335-351). New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers University Press.

Covington, S., & Surrey, J. (2000). The relational model of women’s psychological development: Implications for substance abuse (No.

91). Wellesley, MA: Stone Center, Working

Paper Series.

Culliver, C. (1993). Female criminality: The

state of the art. New York, NY: Garland.

Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An

American challenge. New York, NY: Pantheon

Press.

Daly, D., Moss, H., & Campbell, F. (1993).

Dual disorders: Counseling clients with chemical dependency and mental illness. Center

City, MN: Hazelden.

Daly, K. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony

court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and

problems of representation. Review of Law and

Women’s Studies, 2, 11-52.

Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4),

499-535.

DeLange, J. (1995). Gender and communications in social work education: A cross-cultural

perspective. Journal of Social Work Education,

311(1), 75-81.

Dougherty, J. (1998). Power belief theory:

Female criminality and the dynamics of

oppression. In R. Zaplin (Ed.), Female crime

and delinquency: Critical perspectives and

effective interventions (pp. 133-163).

Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

Drug Strategies. (1998). Keeping score—women

and drugs: Looking at the federal drug control

budget. Washington, DC: Author.

Enos, S. (2001). Mothering from the inside.

Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Espin, O.M. (1997). Latina realities: Essays

on healing, migration and sexuality. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Falicov, C. (1998). Latino families in therapy:

A guide to multicultural practice. New York,

NY: Guilford Press.
98 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1999). Crime

in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports,

1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

Florida Department of Corrections. (1999).

Operational plan for female offenders. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Corrections.

Freedman, E. (1981). Their sister’s keepers:

Women’s prison reform in America, 1830–1930.

Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Frieze, I.H., & Browne, A. (1989). Violence 

in marriage. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.),

Family violence, crime and justice: A review

of research (pp. 163-218). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Gendreau, P., Andrews, D.A., Goggins, C., &

Chanteloupe, F. (1992). The development of

clinical and policy guidelines for the prediction of criminal behavior in criminal justice

settings. Ottawa, Ontario: Ministry Secretariat,

Solicitor General, Canada.

Gilligan, C., Lyons, N.P., & Hanmer, T.J.

(1990). Making connections. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Gitlow, S. (1973). Alcoholism: A disease. In

P.B. Bourne, R. Fox, & G.L. Albrecht (Eds.),

Alcoholism: Progress in research and treatment (pp. 2-15). New York, NY: Academic

Press.

Glied, S. (1997). The treatment of women with

mental health disorders under HMO and feefor-service insurance. Women and Health,

26(2), 1-16.

Gray, M., & Littlefield, M. (2002). Black

women and addiction. In S.L.A. Strausser &

S. Brown (Eds.), The handbook of addiction

treatment for women (pp. 301-322). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gray, T., Mays, G.L., & Stohr, M.K. (1995).

Inmate needs and programming in exclusively

women’s jails. The Prison Journal, 75(2), 186-

202.

Haigh, R. (1999). The quintessence of a therapeutic environment: Five universal qualities.

In P. Campling, R. Haigh, & Netlibrary, Inc.

(Eds.), Therapeutic communities: Past, present, and future (pp. 246-257). London: Jessica

Kingsley Publishers.

Hannah-Moffat, K. (2000). Reforming the

prison: Rethinking our ideals. In K. HannahMoffat & M. Shaw (Eds.), An ideal prison?

Critical essay on women’s imprisonment in

Canada (pp. 30-40). Halifax, Nova Scotia:

Fernwood Publishing.

Harer, M.D., & Langan, N.P. (2001). Gender

differences in predictors of prison violence:

Assessing the predictive validity of a risk

classification system. Crime & Delinquency,

474(4), 513-536.

Harris, K. (2001a, May). Women offenders in

the community: Differential treatment in the

justice process linked to gender. Information

session on supervision of women offenders in

the community. Lexington, KY: National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections

Division, Networking Conference.

Harris, K. (2001b, December). Assessing existing operations and programming for gender

responsivity. National Institute of Corrections

improving community responses to women

offenders project seminar. Memphis, TN.

Harris, M., & Fallot, R.D. (2001). Envisioning

a trauma-informed service system: A vital paradigm shift. In M. Harris & R.D. Fallot (Eds.),

Using trauma theory to design service systems

(pp. 3-22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
bibliography 99

Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New

York, NY: Harper Collins.

Holt, N., & Miller, D. (1972). Exploration of

inmate-family relationships. Sacramento, CA:

California Department of Corrections.

Hotaling, G.T., & Sugarman, D.B. (1990).

A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives.

Journal of Family Violence, 5(1), 1-13.

Hoskins, R. (2000). Maricopa County partnership network responds to female substance

abusers in the criminal justice system. In P.

Modley (Ed.), Annual review of topics in

community corrections: Responding to women

offenders in the community (pp. 4-6). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Human Rights Watch Women’s Rights Project.

(1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of

women in U.S. state prisons. New York, NY:

The Ford Foundation.

Institute of Medicine. (1990). Broadening the

base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Jacobs, A. (2001). Give ’em a fighting chance:

Women offenders reenter society. Criminal

Justice Magazine, 16(1), 44-47.

Johnston, D. (2001, November). Jailed mothers. Testimony to the California Legislative

Women’s Caucus, Dana Point, CA.

Jordan, B.K., Schlenger, W.E., Fairbank, J.A.,

& Cadell, J.M. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women.

Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(6), 513-519.

Kaschak, E. (1992). Engendered lives: A new

psychology of women’s experience. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Kendall, K. (1994). Therapy behind prison

walls: A contradiction in terms? Prison Service

Journal, 96, 2-11.

Kessler, R. (1998). Sex differences in DSMIII-R psychiatric disorders in the United States.

Results from the national co-morbidity survey.

Journal of the American Medical Women’s

Association, 53(4), 142-155.

Kessler, R.C., McGonigal, K.A., Zhao, S.,

Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S.,

Wittchen, H.U., & Kendler, K.S. (1994).

Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSMIII-R psychiatric disorders in the United

States: Results from the national co-morbidity

survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51(1),

8-19.

Kilpatrick, D.G., Acierno, R., Saunders, B.,

Resnick, H.S., Best, C.L., & Schnurr, P.P.

(1998). National survey of adolescents:

Executive summary. Charleston, SC: Medical

University of South Carolina, National Crime

Victims Research and Treatment Center.

Kilpatrick, D.G., & Saunders, B.E. (1997).

Prevalence and consequences of child victimization: Results from the national survey of

adolescents, final report. Washington, DC:

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice.

Kitano, K., & Louie, L. (2002). Asian and

Pacific Islander women and addiction. In

S.L.A. Strausser & S. Brown (Eds.), The

handbook of addiction treatment for women

(pp. 348-374). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kivel, P. (1992). Men’s work: Stopping the

violence that tears our lives apart. Center City,

MN: Hazelden.
100 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Kruttschnitt, C. (2001). Gender and violence.

In C. Renzetti & L. Goodstein (Eds.), Women,

crime, and criminal justice (pp. 77-92). Los

Angeles, CA: Roxbury Press.

Kupers, T. (2001). Written testimony re:

Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections. Case No. 00-73133, Feb. 16, 2001, U.S.

District Court, E. Dist. of Michigan, Honorable Avern Cohn, Judge.

Lachance-McCollough, M., Tesoriero, J.,

Sorin, M., & Stern, A. (1994). HIV infection

among New York state female inmates: Preliminary results from a voluntary counseling

and testing program. The Prison Journal,

74(2), 198-220.

Leonard, E. (2002). Convicted survivors: The

imprisonment of battered women who kill.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lex, B.W. (1995). Alcohol and other psychoactive substances dependence in women

and men. In M.V. Seeman (Ed.), Gender and

psychopathology (pp. 311-357). Washington,

DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Lombroso, C., & Ferraro, W. (1894/1920). The

female offender. New York, NY: Appleton.

Lord, E. (1995). A prison superintendent’s perspective on women in prison. Prison Journal,

75(2), 257-269.

Malysiak, R. (1997). Exploring the theory and

paradigm base for wraparound fidelity. Journal

of Child and Family Studies, 6(4), 399-408.

Mauer, M., & Huling, T. (1995). Young black

Americans in the criminal justice system: Five

years later. Washington, DC: The Sentencing

Project.

Mauer, M., Potler, C., & Wolf, R. (1999).

Gender and justice: Women, drugs and sentencing policy. Washington, DC: The Sentencing

Project.

McClellan, D. (1994). Disparity in the discipline of male and female inmates in Texas

prisons. Women and Criminal Justice, 5, 71-

97.

McCorkel, J.A. (1996). Justice, gender, and

incarceration: An analysis of the leniency and

severity debate. In J. Inciardi (Ed.), Examining

the justice process. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt

Brace.

McGee, Z.T., & Baker, S.R. (2003). Crime

control policy and inequality among female

offenders: Racial disparities in treatment

among women on probation. In R. Muraskin

(Ed.), It’s a crime: Women and justice (pp. 196-

208). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Press.

McLeer, S.V., & Anwar, R. (1989). A study of

battered women presenting in an emergency

department. American Journal of Public

Health, 79(1), 65-66.

McMahon, M. (2000). Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community

corrections. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Merlo, A., & Pollock, J. (1995). Women, law,

and social control. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

Messina, N., Burdon, W., & Prendergast, M.

(2001). A profile of women in prison-based

therapeutic communities. Los Angeles, CA:

UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Program,

Drug Abuse Research Center.

Miller, D. (1991). Are we keeping up with

Oprah? A treatment and training model for

addiction and interpersonal violence. In C.

Bepko (Ed.), Feminism and addiction (pp. 103-

126). New York, NY: Haworth.

Miller, J.B. (1976). Toward a new psychology

of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
bibliography 101

Miller, J.B. (1986). What do we mean by relationships? Work in progress No. 22. Wellesley,

MA: Stone Center.

Miller, M. (1990). Perceptions of available

and needed programs by female offenders in

Delaware. Wilmington, DE: Delaware Council

on Crime and Justice.

Miller, M. (1991). Women inmates and recidivism in Delaware. Wilmington, DE: Delaware

Council on Crime and Justice.

Modley, P. (Ed.). (2000). Topics in community

corrections: Responding to women offenders

in the community. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Corrections.

Mora, J. (2002). Latinas in cultural transition:

Addiction, treatment, and recovery. In S.L.A.

Stausser & S. Brown (Eds.), The handbook of

addiction treatment for women (pp. 323-347).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1998). Findings

from the National Study of Innovative and

Promising Programs for Women Offenders.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1999). The mental

health supplement to the National Study of

Innovative and Promising Programs for

Women Offenders. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Justice.

Morash, M., Haarr, R.N., & Rucker, L. (1994).

A comparison of programming for women and

men in U.S. prisons. Crime & Delinquency,

40(2), 197-221.

Moss, A. (1999). Sexual misconduct among

staff and inmates. In P. Carlson & J. Garrett

(Eds.), Prison and jail administration: Practice and theory (pp. 185-195). New York, NY:

Aspen Publishers.

Naffine, N. (1987). Female crime: The construction of women in criminology. Sydney,

Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Najavits, L. (1997). The line between substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder

in women: A research review. The American

Journal of Addictions, 6(4), 273-283.

Najavits, L. (2002). Seeking safety: A treatment manual for PTSD and substance abuse.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

National Center on Addiction and Substance

Abuse. (1996). Substance abuse and the

American woman. New York, NY: Columbia

University.

National Center on Addiction and Substance

Abuse. (1998). Behind bars: Substance abuse

and America’s prison population. New York,

NY: Columbia University.

National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.

(1998). Child maltreatment 1996: Reports from

the states for the national child abuse and neglect data system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

National Institute of Corrections. (1995).

Intermediate sanctions for women offenders:

Compilation of various state reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

National Institute of Corrections. (1998a).

Current issues in the operation of women’s

prisons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice.

National Institute of Corrections. (1998b).

Women offenders: Operational practices

in prison settings. Longmont, CO: U.S.

Department of Justice.
102 Gender-Responsive Strategies

National Institute of Corrections. (2000, May).

Sexual misconduct in prisons: Law, remedies,

and incidence. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections Information Center.

National Institute of Mental Health. (2001).

The facts about eating disorders and the

search for solutions (No. 01–4901). Rockville,

MD: National Institutes of Health.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1998).

What we know: Drug addiction is a brain disease. In Principles of addiction medicine (2d

ed.). Chevy Chase, MD: American Society of

Addiction Medicine, Inc.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2000).

Gender differences in drug abuse risks and

treatment. NIDA Notes, 15(4), 15.

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.

National Osteoporosis Foundation. (2002). The

state of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the

United States. Washington, DC: Author.

North, C.S., & Smith, E.S. (1993). A comparison of homeless men and women: Different

populations, different needs. Community

Mental Health Journal, 29(5), 423-431.

Northrup, C. (1994). Women’s bodies,

women’s wisdom. New York, NY: Bantam.

Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and

survival in a women’s prison. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Owen, B., & Bloom, B. (1995). Profiling

women prisoners: Findings from national survey and California sample. The Prison Journal, 75(2), 165-185.

Parks, G. (1997, October). What works in

relapse prevention? Paper presented at International Community Corrections Association’s Fifth Annual Research Conference,

Cleveland, OH.

Phillips, S., & Bloom, B. (1998). In whose

best interest? The impact of changing public

policy on relatives caring for children with

incarcerated parents. In C. Seymour & C.F.

Hairston (Eds.), Child welfare, special issue:

Children with parents in prison, LXXVII (pp.

531-541). Washington, DC: Child Welfare

League of America.

Pollock, J. (1986). Sex and supervision:

Guarding male and female inmates. New York,

NY: Greenwood Press.

Pollock, J. (1998). Counseling women in

prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pollock, J. (1999). Criminal women. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

Pollock, J. (2002). Women, prison and crime

(2d ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Pollock-Byrne, J. (1990). Women, prison and

crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Prior, P. (1999). Gender and mental health.

New York, NY: New York University Press.

Raeder, M. (1993). Gender issues in the federal sentencing guidelines. Journal of Criminal

Justice, 8(3), 20-25.

Rafter, N. (1985). Partial justice: State prisons

and their inmates, 1800–1935. Boston, MA:

Northeastern University Press.

Randall, T. (1990). Domestic violence intervention calls for more than treating injuries.

Journal of the American Medical Association,

264(8), 939-940.
bibliography 103

Rasche, C.E. (2000). The dislike of female

offenders among correctional officers: Need

for special training. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), It’s

a crime: Women and justice (pp. 237-252).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Reed, B., & Leavitt, M. (2000). Modified

wraparound and women offenders in community corrections: Strategies, opportunities and

tensions. In M. McMahon (Ed.), Assessment to

assistance: Programs for women in community

corrections (pp. 1-106). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Richie, B. (1996). The gendered entrapment of

battered, black women. London: Routledge.

Richie, B. (2001). Challenges incarcerated

women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews.

Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 368-389.

Ringel, C. (1997). Criminal victimization

in 1996. Changes 1995–1996 with trends

1993–1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Robins, L., & Regier, D. (1991). Psychiatric

disorders in America: The epidemiologic

catchment area study. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Root, M. (1992). Roots uprooted: Autobiographical reflections on the psychological

experience of migration. In M. Ballou & L.

Brown (Eds.), Theories of personality and

psychopathology: Feminist reappraisals

(pp. 19-29). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Russo, N. (1995). Women’s mental health:

Research agenda for the 21st century. In R.

Apple (Ed.), Women, health, and medicine in

America: A historical handbook (pp. 370-382).

New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Sanders-Phillips, K. (1999). Ethnic minority

women, health behaviors, and drug abuse:

A continuum of psychological risks. In M.D.

Glantz & C.R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse:

Origins and interventions (pp. 191-217).

Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Sapiro, V. (1999). Women in American society:

An introduction to women’s studies (4th ed.).

Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing

Company.

Shaw, M., & Dubois, S. (1995). Understanding

violence by women: A review of the literature.

Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of

Canada.

Simon, R. (1975). Women and crime. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

Simoni-Wastila, L. (2000). The use of abusable prescription drugs: The role of gender.

Journal of Women’s Health and Gender Based

Medicine, 9(3), 289-297.

Singer, M., Bussey, J., Song, L., & Lunghofer,

L. (1995). The psychosocial issues of women

serving time in jail. Social Work, 40(1), 103-

113.

Smith, B.V. (2001). Sexual abuse against

women in prison. Criminal Justice, 16(1),

30-38.

Society for the Advancement of Women’s

Health Research. (2002). Understanding

research. Washington, DC: Author.

Stableforth, N.L. (1999). Effective corrections

for women offenders. Forum on Correctional

Research, 11(3), 3-5.

Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1985). Woman battering, child abuse and social heredity: What is

the relationship? In N. Johnson (Ed.), Marital

violence. Sociological Review Monograph No.

31. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
104 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Stark, E., Flitcraft, A., & Frazier, W. (1979).

Medicine and patriarchal violence: The social

construction of a “private” event. International

Journal of Health Services, 6, 461-492.

Steffensmeier, D. (1980). Assessing the impact

of the women’s movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime & Delinquency, 26(3), 344-357.

Steffensmeier, D. (2001). Female crime trends,

1960-1995. In C.M. Renzetti & L. Goodstein

(Eds.), Women, crime, and criminal justice:

Original feminist readings (pp. 191-211). Los

Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1998). The

nature of female offending: Patterns and

explanations. In R.T. Zaplin (Ed.), Female

offenders: Critical perspectives and effective

interventions (pp. 5-29). Gaithersburg, MD:

Aspen Publishers.

Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of

the infant. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Stohr, M.K., & Mays, G.L. (1993). Women’s

jails: An investigation of offenders, staff,

administration and programming. Las Cruces,

NM: New Mexico State University, Department of Criminal Justice.

Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (1986). Societal

change and change in family violence from

1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

48(3), 465-475.

Straus, M.A., & Gelles, R.J. (1990). Physical

violence in American families: Risk factors

and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S.K.

(1980). Behind closed doors: Physical violence in the American family. New York, NY:

Doubleday/Anchor.

Straussner, S.L.A. (1997). Gender and substance abuse. In S.L.A. Straussner & E. Zelkin

(Eds.), Gender and addictions (pp. 3-27).

Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Straussner, S.L.A., & Brown, S. (2002). The

handbook of addiction treatment for women:

Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration. (1993). National household

survey on drug abuse: Population estimates

1992. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand:

Men and women in conversation. New York,

NY: William Morrow.

Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., & McClelland,

G.M. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 53(6), 505-512.

Tomas, N. (1990). Historical perspectives on

women and mental illness. In R. Apple (Ed.),

Women, health, and medicine in America: A

historical handbook. New York, NY: Garland

Publishers.

Tower, C.G. (1993). Understanding child

abuse and neglect. Boston, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1998). Money income in

the United States: 1997. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1996). The challenge of STD prevention

in the United States. Rockville, MD: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999).

Women in prison: Sexual misconduct by correctional staff. Washington, DC: Author.
bibliography 105

Vaillant, G. (1983). The natural history of

alcoholism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Van Voorhis, P. (2001, December). Classification for women in community corrections.

Paper presented to the National Institute of

Corrections Improving Community Responses to Women Offenders Project Seminar,

Memphis, TN.

Van Voorhis, P., Pealer, J., Presser, L.,

Spiropoulis, G., & Sutherland, J. (2001).

Classification of women offenders: A national

assessment of current practices and the experiences of three states. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, The Center for Criminal

Justice Research, p. iv.

Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practice. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Corrections.

Veysey, B.M. (1997). Specific needs of women

diagnosed with mental illnesses in U.S. jails.

Delmar, NY: National GAINS Center, Policy

Research Inc.

Wald, P.M. (2001). Why focus on women

offenders? Criminal Justice, 16(1), 10-16.

Watterson, K. (1996). Women in prison: Inside

the concrete womb. Boston, MA: Northeastern

University Press.

Wellisch, J., Anglin, M.D., & Prendergast, M.L.

(1993). Treatment strategies for drug-abusing

women offenders. In J.A. Inciardi (Ed.), Drug

treatment and criminal justice (pp. 5-25). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Whitaker, M.S. (2000). Responding to women

offenders: Equitable does not mean identical.

In P. Modley (Ed.), Annual review of topics in

community corrections: Responding to women

offenders in the community (pp. 4-6). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Widom, C.S. (1995). Victims of childhood

sexual abuse—Later criminal consequences.

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: Office of

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Widom, C.S. (2000, January). Childhood victimization: Early adversity, later psychopathology. National Institute of Justice Journal, 242,

2-9.

Williams, F., McShane, M., & Dolny, H. (2000,

March). Female parolees: Will standard risk

prediction instruments work? Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, New Orleans, LA.

Winnecott, D.W. (1965). The maturational

process and the facilitation environment:

Studies in the theory of emotional development. New York, NY: International University

Press, Inc.

Wooldridge, J.D., & Masters, K. (1993). Confronting problems faced by pregnant inmates

in state prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 39(2),

195-203.

Wrenn, C. (1962). The culturally encapsulated

counselor. Harvard Educational Review, 32(4),

444-449.

Young, D.S. (1996). Contributing factors to

poor health among incarcerated women: A

conceptual model. Affilia, 11(4), 440-461.
appendix A 107

appendix A

Legal Considerations With Regard to

Women Offenders*

by Professor Myrna Raeder**

A number of legal topics must be considered when managing women offenders

(see “Summary of Key Legal Themes”). It is essential for all involved to

become knowledgeable and to be proactive and responsive. Although litigation

is always a possibility regardless of its ultimate likelihood of success, positive

outcomes are more likely when legal issues have been anticipated and administrators can articulate appropriate reasons for the policy, practice, or conduct in

question.

The following discussion points out the major areas in which gender has an

impact. However, specific questions must be researched according to the particular state or federal case law. Only U.S. Supreme Court decisions and congressional legislation applicable to federal and state governments are binding in all

jurisdictions. Therefore, to the extent that a legal question has not been decided

by the U.S. Supreme Court, any reference to specific cases should be viewed as

persuasive but not necessarily predictive of how a different state or federal court

will rule.

The following legal issues concerning women offenders are addressed:

➤ Equal protection and access to facilities, programs, and services.

➤ Staffing and supervision.

➤ Sexual misconduct.

➤ Due process challenges.

➤ Pregnancy and child-related questions.

General Legal Framework

The current legal environment for prison officials is extremely favorable as a

result of both judicial interpretation and congressional legislation. This situation

presents opportunities for creative administrators to adopt innovative programs

that will help ensure better outcomes for women offenders and their children.

For example, effective gender-responsive programming for treating the problems underlying substance abuse can be justified as promoting female offenders’

* This document is intended to be read by individuals who do not have any legal training.

** Special thanks to Brenda Smith and William Collins. The opinions stated are solely those of the author.
108 Gender-Responsive Strategies

rehabilitation and lowering their risk of recidivism. Similarly, expanded visits with children,

including programs for overnight visits, can be

implemented to foster the mother-child bond.

This would support the mother’s own rehabilitation and better prepare her for successful

reentry into the community. Also, as will be

further discussed, in some situations crossgender supervision of women prisoners can be

limited.

Because litigation is always a possibility, proactive administrators must be able to articulate a

reasonable basis for their decisions based on

specific circumstances. They need not fear,

however, that doing something new will have

worse legal consequences than doing nothing.

Indeed, in some situations (e.g., allegations of

sexual misconduct), doing nothing may ultimately pose more legal difficulties for officials.

Deference to Decisions of Prison

Officials

Over the past 15 years, the U.S. Supreme Court

has consistently deferred to prison officials:

Subjecting the day-to-day judgments

of prison officials to an inflexible strict

scrutiny analysis would seriously hamper

their ability to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to

the intractable problems of prison administration. The rule would also distort the

decisionmaking process, for every administrative judgment would be subject to

the possibility that some court somewhere

would conclude that it had a less restrictive way of solving the problem at hand.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)

Turner established that “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights,

the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related

to legitimate penological interests.” Id. The

decision in this case was grounded in the belief

that courts are not suited to managing prisons.

Turner identified four criteria for determining

the constitutionality of prison regulations:

➤ Is there a valid rational connection between

the prison regulation and the legitimate

governmental interest?

➤ Do alternative means of exercising the right

remain open to inmates?

➤ What impact will accommodation of the

constitutional right have on guards, other

inmates, and allocation of prison resources?

➤ Are there ready alternatives that permit

accommodation of the right at de minimis

cost to valid penological interests?

SUMMARY OF KEY LEGAL THEMES

➢ Under an equal protection analysis, parity of 

facilities, programming, and services for women

offenders is the goal.

➢ Gender-responsive programming is an appropriate correctional response.

➢ There are differences in how courts interpret

men’s and women’s rights to privacy: Essentially,

women’s employment rights are weighed against

men’s rights to privacy, and women offenders’

rights to privacy extend farther than male offenders’ rights to privacy.

➢ Cross-gender supervision can be appropriate, but

case law is less supportive of pat-searches of female inmates by male correctional officers than of

male pat-searches by female correctional officers.

In some situations, single-sex supervision may be

the better response. However, female employees

should be given opportunities for job advancement

that ensure they serve in male institutions.

➢ Be proactive to lessen the chances of sexual misconduct litigation. Establish protocols and follow

them; institute training. Consider how best to

deploy male staff.

➢ Restrictions on access to abortion services, such

as court approval, should be eliminated. However,

an inmate may not be entitled to public funds to

pay for an abortion.

➢ Restricted visiting and parental rights termination

proceedings are significant to women inmates

and may adversely affect their rehabilitation, even

if such policies and laws are not unconstitutional.
appendix A 109

The Court recently reaffirmed the use of the

Turner standard in two cases. The first was

Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001), a case

involving the First Amendment, right of access

to the courts, and due process. In the second

case, Overton v. Bazzetta, 2003 WL 21372482

(June 16, 2003), upholding restrictions on noncontact visits to prisoners, the Court reiterated

“[w]e must accord substantial deference to the

professional judgment of prison administrators.” As a result, courts do not second-guess

prison administrators or require them to justify

why they did not adopt other alternatives.

It is unresolved whether the Turner standard

applies to jails: Pretrial detainees cannot be

punished, meaning that penological rationales

such as rehabilitation are not relevant. The

general standard for measuring the constitutionality of regulations aimed at detainees is

found in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979),

which permits restrictions that are an incident

of some other legitimate governmental purpose, such as to ensure that the individual will

be present for trial or to maintain security and

order at the institution.

Decreased Prisoner Litigation

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),

enacted in 1996 because of the perception

that prisoners were bringing many frivolous

actions, has dramatically decreased inmate litigation. The legislation governs all civil litigation, whether in federal or state court, with

respect to conditions in federal, state, or local

correctional facilities that are alleged to violate a federal right, and applies to detainees

as well as convicted prisoners. See 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3626(a)(1)(A), (d), and (g)(2) and (5). It

provides that a court shall not grant or approve

any prospective relief unless it is narrowly

drawn, extends no further than necessary to

correct the violation of the federal right, and is

the least intrusive means necessary to correct

the violation of the federal right. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3626(a)(1)(A). The act also limits attorneys’

fees. In the case of Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S.

343 (1999), the Supreme Court held that the

PLRA limits attorney fees for postjudgment

monitoring services performed after the PLRA’s

effective date but that it does not limit fees for

monitoring performed before that date.

The PLRA also requires prisoners to exhaust

their remedies before they can sue. In Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001), a unanimous Supreme Court held that under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a), an inmate seeking only monetary

damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the complaint and providing some form of relief, even

if the process does not make specific provision

for monetary relief. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S.

516 (2002), clarified that exhaustion applies to

all actions about prison life including excessive

force claims. The PLRA imposes another substantial restriction on obtaining relief by making any recovery for mental or emotional injury

contingent on a showing of physical injury.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(c). Finally, the PLRA

requires prisoners to pay filing fees, and it prohibits prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have brought three prior frivolous

actions or appeals.

The Combined Impact of the

PLRA and Turner Favors GenderResponsive Innovation

The combined impact of the PLRA and Turner

has dramatically reduced the feasibility and

efficacy of both prison reform litigation and

individual prisoner suits. Although this has

the potential to worsen prison conditions and

decrease services, it also leaves administrators

free to introduce innovative programs designed

to aid rehabilitation. Thus, administrators who

believe that gender-responsive programming

will better serve the needs of the female

inmate population have great leeway for
110 Gender-Responsive Strategies

experimenting with creative approaches to

solve previously intractable problems.

In this legal environment, while anyone can

sue for anything, the prisoners most likely to

sue are those who complain about egregious

circumstances or sexual misconduct and those

who remain undaunted when assessed filing

costs. Additional potential litigants include former prisoners whose suits are not barred by

statutes of limitations and staff members.

It should also be noted that every jurisdiction

adopts their own laws and policies to dictate

sentencing and correctional issues. Therefore,

specific questions can be answered definitively

only by reference to the applicable state or

federal legal standards. However, to the extent

that the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on a

topic, states cannot provide lower protections

to their prisoners. In contrast, state constitutions, statutes, or policies can provide inmates

with greater protection than that afforded by

the U.S. Constitution.

Equal Protection and Title IX:

Equivalent Access to

Programs and Services

Although the goal is to provide parity of treatment for all prisoners, regardless of gender,

administrators may not be required to provide

the same level of facilities and services to men

and women if they can justify the differences.

For example, if a court does not find a male

and female population to be “similarly situated” because men vastly outnumber women in

the comparable institutions, equal protection is

not violated even if women are disadvantaged.

In addition, penological goals may justify gender-specific treatment. In evaluating equal protection arguments, courts vary as to what

standard of review is applied to evaluating the

legality of a policy or practice. However, even

if the policy is intentionally discriminatory,

applying only to women, it will be upheld if an

important penological justification is demonstrated. The following important questions and

answers should be considered when evaluating

how best to manage, supervise, and rehabilitate female inmates.

1. Do the same policies, facilities, programs,

and services have to be offered to men and

women? In many circumstances, differences

will not run afoul of equal protection because

male and female inmate populations are not

deemed to be similarly situated. The modern

trend treats gender as governed by Turner,

unless the gender discrimination is purposeful,

in which case regulations must satisfy heightened scrutiny in equal protection analysis.

Under either standard, different policies, facilities, programs, and services can satisfy equal

protection even if the populations are similarly

situated, as long as a valid penological justification exists for the differences. Fairness and

rehabilitative concerns dictate that parity should

be the goal even when not constitutionally

required. Thus, women should not be disadvantaged simply because in some settings according them fewer resources may not be

unconstitutional.

Because there are so many more men than

women in prison, providing equivalent facilities and services for women has always posed

an issue for administrators. A number of the

early prison reform suits addressed such

inequalities. Since Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S.

71, 76 (1971), gender issues have typically

received heightened scrutiny in equal protection analysis. Classifications must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and they must rest on some

fair and substantial relation to the object of the

legislation, so that all persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike.

In a prison setting, this can be satisfied by

showing that the classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially

related to the achievement of those objectives.
appendix A 111

The pre-Turner case law found male and

female inmates to be similarly situated for

equal protection analysis, applied the heightened scrutiny test by comparing programs,

and typically found substantial disparities.

Financial arguments based on women’s smaller numbers were rejected as a justification of

poorer conditions and programming for them.

Relief was afforded based on concepts of

parity—that is, substantially equivalent in

substance, if not form.

In contrast, post-Turner case law has generally

required a threshold showing that the women

are similarly situated to the male population

based on prison population, security classification level, types of crime committed, length of

sentence, and special characteristics. See, e.g.,

Klinger v. Department of Correctional Servs.,

31 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, the

rational relationship test is applied unless the

plaintiff shows purposeful or intentional discrimination because of the plaintiff’s gender.

Cases reject any burden on the state to provide

a gender-neutral basis for the discrepancy. If

policy is neutral, disparate impact alone does

not suffice to invalidate a classification without

a showing of discriminatory purpose. See, e.g.,

Jackson v. Thornburgh, 907 F.2d 194, 196-98

(D.C. Cir. 1990), relying on Personal Administrator v. Feeney, 442 U.S, 256, 274 (1979).

The focus is on the process by which programming decisions are made. Therefore, program

comparisons are rejected. The anomalous

result is that the more unequal the men’s and

women’s prisons are, the less likely it is that

this court will consider differences in the

prison experiences of men and women

unconstitutional.

Although no litigants have challenged sexsegregated prisons, it should not follow that

women may be segregated into unequal facilities. Indeed, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S.

515 (1996) (VMI) may have implications for

sex-segregated prisons. VMI rejected a claim

that women were receiving separate but equal

education, instead holding that sex segregation

in an all-male educational institution violated

equal protection because the comparable

women’s institution did not have equivalent

programs or resources. Because the Supreme

Court has not addressed unequal treatment of

women in prison, it is unclear whether heightened scrutiny for gender discrimination survives Turner. It has been suggested that the

focus should be on the purpose of programming, which is directed to preparing both male

and female populations for release into the

community. Therefore, the appropriate factors

include custody levels, length of sentence, purpose of incarceration, and ability to benefit

from a program, not the number of inmates at

the institution and their special characteristics,

which are dictated by sex segregation.

One case that has received wide attention is

West v. Va. Dept. of Corrections, 847 F. Supp.

402, 407 (W.D. Va. 1994), which held that the

absence of any equivalent to placement in a

male boot camp that could result in a shorter

sentence violates equal protection. West

applied a heightened scrutiny standard in analyzing the equal protection claim. This accords

with decisions that view purposeful discrimination as requiring a higher level of scrutiny.

In general, proactive administrators should

strive for parity based on fairness as well as

rehabilitative rationales. Parity should not be

viewed as requiring the same programming for

male and female inmates but, rather, as including gender-responsive programs that may look

different but that serve the same rehabilitative

goals as equivalent programs for men.

Some 14 states also have enacted Equal Rights

Amendments, which provide another means

of attacking sex discrimination. However,

depending on the state, the plaintiffs may have
112 Gender-Responsive Strategies

to demonstrate differential treatment of similarly situated groups. The standard of judicial

review is also state specific.

2. Can women prisoners raise sex discrimination claims under Title IX in addition to

those based on equal protection? To the

extent that Title IX remains a viable litigation

approach, it appears to provide more favorable

outcomes for female litigants than equal protection claims.

Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681a, prohibits sex discrimination in any educational program or

activity receiving federal assistance. Thus, by

definition it does not apply to the Federal

Bureau of Prisons but only to state and local

governments. The comparison of programs in

Title IX litigation has been measured against

the entire prison system. Although it is unclear

whether a comparison between similarly situated prisons will satisfy Title IX, in practical

terms, it is difficult to identify similarly situated male and female institutions.

Title IX provides several advantages for

female inmates. In contrast to equal protection

litigation, the trend has been to reject a threshold showing that the female and male populations are similarly situated. Moreover, some

courts have applied strict scrutiny to Title IX

claims, which is even more demanding than

heightened scrutiny applied to gender-based

discrimination.

In addition, Title IX requires equality of programs rather than parity. However, this difference is somewhat elusive. While women must

have reasonable opportunities for similar studies and must have an equal opportunity to participate in programs of comparable quality,

judges have not required gender-integrated

classes in prisons, strict one-for-one identity

of classes, or as many classes in the smaller

women’s prisons as in the larger men’s prisons. The extension of Title IX to recreation

and paying jobs has met with mixed success,

depending on their relationship to educational

and vocational programs. Jeldness v. Pearce,

30 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1994), held that the

award of merit pay to men but not to women

when both are participating in the same vocational training course in the same location violated Title IX.

The application of Title IX in prison cases is

currently in doubt. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532

U.S. 275 (2001), held that there is no private

right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court interpreted prior Title IX case law as providing private

actions only in cases of intentional discrimination. As a result, it is likely that private claims

would also be barred in disparate impact cases

under Title IX. Such a restriction would virtually eliminate the use of Title IX in prison

cases because courts typically focus on the

following questions:

➤ Is there a disparate gender impact?

➤ Is there no substantial justification for

difference?

➤ Is there an equally effective alternative that

would have a less discriminatory impact?

While the presence of Title IX has provided an

incentive for creating educational programs for

women, its absence would not eliminate the

overarching goal of reaching parity in programs for female prisoners.

Moreover, Robinson v. Kansas, 295 F.3d 1183

(10th Cir. 2002), recognized that disparate

impact claims can still be brought against state

officials for prospective injunctive relief to

enforce Title VI, which would also apply to

Title IX claims.
appendix A 113

3. Can female prisoners be given genderresponsive programming or services not

provided to men? Typically, gender-responsive

programming can be justified on penological

and rehabilitative grounds.

It is ironic that although women traditionally

have been placed in a prison system based on

a male model for facilities, programs, and

services, providing them with gender-responsive

programming is viewed by some as inappropriate from an equal protection perspective. In

other words, they are doubly disadvantaged

by their gender. First, women receive fewer

resources, and the resources they do receive

often are not directed toward their needs. Second, when women seek gender-responsive programs and accommodations, they are told that

women cannot be treated differently from men.

The fallacy of this position should be selfevident. For example, there are valid biological

reasons why women do not use urinals or why

one-piece jumpsuits are a great inconvenience

for women.

Significant numbers of women offenders have

histories that demonstrate severe physical and

sexual abuse, substance abuse, and more mental illness than male offenders; these are also

factors that should be considered in determining differences in policies and programs for

the two genders. Indeed, physiological differences are emerging in addiction and sexual

trauma research that also suggest the need for

men and women to be given distinct programming. Similarly, women’s pathways to crime

and their biological and cultural parenting ties

to their children should be considered when

attempting to determine how to create programming that will best enable women to succeed when they are released from custody.

Only when there is general recognition that the

current correctional system is not gender neutral but is gender responsive to male inmates

will the concept of gender-responsive female

programming be fully accepted by administrators. Without such recognition, correctional

systems will be handicapped in ensuring successful reintegration of women into the community because programming for them has

not been designed in the most effective way

to promote rehabilitation and deter recidivism.

Legally, two approaches may be employed to

analyze gender-responsive programming. One

is based on heightened scrutiny and the other

on Turner’s rational basis test. In the current

legal framework, there is reason to believe that

either type of challenge to gender-responsive

programming is unwarranted. Preliminarily, the

Prison Litigation Reform Act makes litigation

on such issues less likely to be pursued by prisoners or their advocates. However, to the extent

that such programming affects job opportunities

for staff members, Title VII litigation claiming

sexual discrimination remains a possibility.

Under Turner, courts routinely defer to 

correctional administrators who need only

demonstrate the rehabilitative rationale for

the programming. In addition, in jurisdictions

where courts have rejected program-to-program

analysis for purposes of establishing that male

and female populations are similarly situated,

equal protection litigation has become virtually

unwinnable, despite even blatant disproportionality. Ultimately parity, not identity of programs, is the focus, even when the male and

female populations are similarly situated.

If heightened scrutiny is applied, the administrator must show that gender-responsive programming serves important governmental

objectives (e.g., has a better likelihood of rehabilitating women) and that it is substantially

related to the achievement of these objectives.

The court would address whether a stereotypical view of women is the basis for the programming as well as whether supportable reasons

justify why such programming works. For
114 Gender-Responsive Strategies

challenge would have failed had either Turner

or heightened scrutiny been applied.

4. Can gender-specific programming affect

staffing? Care should be taken in deciding

whether any position requires a female staff

member. Such positions must either place a de

minimis burden on male employees or meet a

bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)

under Title VII.

If a job description for a gender-responsive

program specifies that only women are qualified for certain positions, staff members or

their union may challenge the restriction. This

could occur if a female therapist is designated

because administrators have found that women

prisoners relate better to them, particularly in

the early stages of treatment.

The same type of issue has arisen when prisons have attempted to limit the role of male

officers in female institutions to avoid crossgender supervision and sexual misconduct.

Such employee complaints are based on

Title VII, which prohibits sexual discrimination in employment. However, Tharp v. Iowa

Department of Corrections, 68 F.3d 223 (8th

Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1135 (1996),

held that a prison employer may, without violating Title VII, adopt a reasonable genderbased job-assignment policy that is favorable

to women employees if it imposes only minimal restrictions on male employees.

Similarly, Robino v. Iranon, 145 F.3d 1109

(9th Cir. 1998), held that a policy of assigning

only females to certain posts imposed a de

minimis restriction on male employees. To

the extent that a colorable Title VII claim was

raised, Robino held that gender was a BFOQ

to accommodate the privacy interests of female

inmates.*

*Although courts give deference to decisions of prison administrators in a Title VII context, they balance the rights of employees.

Therefore, the Turner standard appears to play a role in the analysis of whether the sex discrimination is a BFOQ, even though it is not

directly determinative. See Torres v. Wisconsin Department of Health and Human Services, 859 F.2d 1523 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,

489 U.S. 1017 (1989).

example, for many women, the underlying reason for substance abuse often involves previous

sexual or physical abuse. Thus, the response to

an equal protection challenge based on genderresponsive substance-abuse treatment is that,

until the underlying causes for these females’

substance abuse are addressed in programming,

such women are unlikely to forsake drugs.

The Court’s decision in Nguyen v. I.N.S., 533

U.S. 53 (2001), lends support to providing

gender-specific programming for women

offenders. Nguyen upheld a statute that distinguished proof of citizenship based on whether

the citizen parent was the child’s mother or

father. The biological differences between

men and women concerning birth justified the

statutory distinction that required fathers to

acknowledge paternity in a way not required of

mothers. The Court noted that “[t]he issue is

not the use of gender-specific terms instead of

neutral ones” (533 U.S. at 64). In other words,

so long as “the difference does not result from

some stereotype, defined as a frame of mind

resulting from irrational or uncritical analysis”

it will satisfy equal protection (533 U.S. at 68).

Therefore, justification based on penological

research and rehabilitative goals should survive

claims of stereotyping, meaning it is unlikely

that courts will attempt to second-guess prison

administrators concerning gender-specific programming based on rational distinctions.

Concerning programs available only to

women, in Smith v. Bingham, 914 F.2d 740,

742 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 910

(1991), the court denied a claim of sex discrimination brought by a male inmate who

was precluded from attending vocational classes that were open only to females. Security

claims dictated the result. Smith noted that the
appendix A 115

In the therapist example, the response to a

Title VII challenge by male staff is twofold:

➤ The restriction is de minimis because it

affects only one or two slots in a prison

system that includes many such slots (for

these purposes, slots in male facilities can

be included, since the focus is job opportunity within the correctional setting).

➤ Gender is a BFOQ because effective therapy for the women to aid their rehabilitation

is dependent on the therapist’s gender.

However, BFOQs are difficult to justify and

must be carefully considered. In addition, a

BFOQ may ultimately disadvantage female

staff in the overall correctional system if the

same arguments regarding gender responsiveness apply to male prisoners. In many situations, a BFOQ may not be necessary. For

example, pat searches of female inmates can

be performed by women on staff, whether

these staff members have correctional or other

assignments.

Other Staffing and Litigation

Issues

A number of lawsuits involving women

offenders are based on cross-gender supervision. Administrators must balance competing

institutional claims with the privacy interests

of women offenders. The law on cross-gender

supervision and searches is very fact specific.

However, challenges brought by women prisoners appear to be treated more favorably than

those brought by male prisoners. Thus, women

are more likely than men to continue to be

successful in suits that implicate privacy interests. This circumstance stems from society’s

apparent view that women should be afforded

more privacy than men. Also, because many

female offenders have been victims of sexual

and physical assault, cross-gender supervision

can cause them additional trauma.

Cross-gender supervision also provides opportunities for sexual misconduct, which is one

of the few areas in prison administration that

is likely to generate high-profile litigation,

and a substantial likelihood of liability being

imposed. While prisoners bring suits concerning cross-gender supervision, staff members

or their unions sometimes challenge same-sex

supervision policies. Generally, these issues

require administrators to be proactive, to institute and enforce policies designed to lessen the

possibility of improper contact, and to be able

to articulate reasonable explanations to justify

staffing decisions.

If litigation is brought, it may require discovery and a full record before any defendant’s

claim of qualified immunity can be determined. In other words, equal protection litigation is very fact bound. As a result, summary

judgment rather than a motion to dismiss is

often the more likely procedural vehicle used

to end the case.

Philosophical Underpinnings

We must not exaggerate the distance

between us, the lawful ones, the respectable ones, and the prison and jail population; for such exaggeration will make it

too easy for us to deny that population

the rudiments of humane consideration.

—Chief Judge Posner, concurring and

dissenting from a request for an en

banc rehearing in Johnson v. Phelan, 69

F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,

519 U.S. 1006 (1996).

The following questions need to be considered

with regard to privacy and strip-searches.

1. Do prisoners have a general right to privacy? A prisoner’s right to privacy is quite curtailed. However, courts appear to accord female

inmates more privacy rights than male inmates.

The Fourth Amendment provides that “the

right of people to be secure in their persons,
116 Gender-Responsive Strategies

houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” Privacy to decide personal matters has

been found under the penumbra of the First

Amendment (e.g., marriage, procreation,

abortion, family relationships, child rearing,

and education). In contrast, inmates have no

reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells

(Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)) and

can be subjected to visual body-cavity inspections (Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)).

Based on Hudson and Bell, most federal courts

recognize that under the Fourth Amendment a

convicted prisoner maintains some reasonable

expectations of bodily privacy while in prison,

particularly where those claims are related to

forced exposure to strangers of the opposite

sex, even though those privacy rights may be

less than those enjoyed by nonprisoners. See,

e.g., Cornwell v. Dahlberg, 963 F.2d 912, 916

(6th Cir. 1992); Moore v. Carwell, 168 F.3d

234, 236-37 (5th Cir. 1999); Peckham v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 141 F.3d 694, 697

(7th Cir. 1998) (narrowing Johnson v. Phelan,

which held that “the Fourth Amendment does

not protect privacy interests within prisons”);

Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024, 1030 (11th

Cir. 1993); and Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73,

78 (2d Cir. 1992).

Such rights are subject to Turner’s reasonable

relationship test. Therefore, observation must

be more than inadvertent, occasional, casual,

and/or restricted to be actionable. In addition,

qualified immunity may bar liability of

administrators in their individual capacity.

See Cookish v. Powell, 945 F.2d 441 (1st Cir.

1991); Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 618-

19 (9th Cir. 1997); and Fortner v. Thomas, 983

F.2d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 1993).

Many of the cases involve male prisoners. For

example, in Grummett v. Rushen, 779 F.2d 491

(9th Cir. 1985), male inmates brought a class

action challenging the prison policy of allowing female officers to view them in various

stages of nudity. The Ninth Circuit affirmed

the district court’s grant of summary judgment

for the state, concluding that under the Fourteenth Amendment, the prisoners’ right to

privacy was not violated and that the state had

chosen the least intrusive means to further its

interest in security. It is important that the

female guards saw the men only in casual

observation and from a distance. The court

was concerned about providing female guards

with equal employment opportunities.

Generally, men have been unsuccessful in their

suits as long as the supervision was designed

to be professional. For example, Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220 (6th Cir. 1987), held that

the male inmates’ claims could not be dismissed out of hand and remanded to the district court, which applied Turner to find in

favor of the prison. Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d

144 (7th Cir. 1995), dismissed a male pretrial

detainee’s action, based on female guards’

observation of him while naked, for failure to

state a claim. Timm v. Gunter, 917 F.2d 1093

(8th Cir. 1990), held that surveillance of nude

male prisoners by female guards violated no

privacy interest and must yield to the prison’s

security needs.

Courts apparently think that women have a

greater expectation of privacy than men. Thus,

cases in which women complain about crossgender supervision have a greater probability

of success. In Forts v. Ward, 621 F.2d 1210 (2d

Cir. 1980), female inmates challenged male

guards’ placement in their housing units during

nighttime shifts. The court took as a given that

women had a constitutional expectation of privacy. Women would be provided suitable

sleepwear and permitted to cover cell windows

for 15-minute intervals. Lee v. Downs, 641

F.2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1981), upheld a jury verdict on behalf of a woman inmate who had

been forced to disrobe in the presence of male

guards. Torres v. Wisconsin Department of
appendix A 117

Health and Human Services, 859 F.2d 1523

(7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1017

(1989), held that the state could exclude male

guards from its female prisons to promote

female prisoners’ rehabilitation without

violating the male staff’s employment rights, if

it could show that the BFOQ was “reasonably

necessary to furthering rehabilitation.” Privacy

was a key concern in reassignments.

However, the law is not settled in this area and

is very factually oriented. For example, Cain v.

Rock, 67 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D. Md. 1999),

upheld a cross-gender guarding policy and

rejected Section 1983 liability where the plaintiff failed to establish that the policy was the

direct cause of her alleged sexual assault.

2. What is the law concerning cross-gender

strip-searches and pat-downs? While stripsearches should always be considered a samesex function, female prisoners have fared better

in the courts on their challenges to both stripsearches and pat-downs. In some factual settings, such general practices may even violate

the Eighth Amendment rights of female prisoners.

Results differ depending on whether the

inmate is male or female. Assuming nonegregious facts, cross-gender searches of male

inmates by females tend to be upheld, and

cross-gender searches of females by male

guards have a greater chance of being struck

down. This relates to differing expectations of

privacy and to concerns that female correctional employees will be denied employment

opportunities if they are routinely excluded

from jobs in male prisons. 

This double standard is evident in Madyun v.

Franzen, 704 F.2d 954 (7th Cir.), cert. denied,

464 U.S. 996 (1983), where no violation of the

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, or

Equal Protection Clause was found where

female guards conducted pat searches of male

inmates. No Fourth Amendment violation

existed because there was no requirement that

female guards examine the genital area; no

First Amendment violation existed, given the

state’s important governmental interest in security and equal employment opportunities for

women staff; and while female inmates were

searched only by female staff members, no

equal protection violation existed for the different treatment. 

Similarly, in Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736 (5th

Cir. 2002), the court found no constitutional

privacy violation by cross-sex surveillance of

male prisoners in showers and bathrooms. Oliver also rejected their equal protection challenge,

although female inmates were accorded more

privacy, holding the men were not similarly situated to the women. Differences in the population included the fact that there were six times

as many men as women; unlike the women, the

men had been convicted of violent crimes; and

the male units had a higher incidence of violent

gang activity and sexual predation. The court

noted that “all of the facts that justified roundthe-clock surveillance by guards of both sexes

applied uniquely to men” (276 F.3d at 747).

Cases involving female inmates are often fact

specific. Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521

(9th Cir. 1993) (en banc), held that a Washington state policy that allowed male guards to

conduct a pat search on women inmates violated the women’s Eighth Amendment right to be

free from cruel and unusual punishment where

the cross-gender searches were random, nonemergency, without suspicion, and conducted

on women offenders who had prior histories of

abuse and would be likely to feel revictimized

by the intimate contact of their breasts and

genitals by male guards. 

Colman v. Vasquez, 142 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.

Conn. 2001), refused to dismiss Fourth and

Eighth Amendment claims on qualified immunity grounds where males conducted pat

searches on female inmates assigned to a special unit for victims of sexual abuse. However,
118 Gender-Responsive Strategies

in Carlin v. Manu, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Or.

1999), officers were entitled to qualified

immunity for strip-searches by female officers

in the presence of male guards because the

practice was not clearly unlawful at the time of

the search. In contrast, in Foote v. Spiegel, 118

F.3d 1416 (10th Cir. 1997), strip-searches of

female jail inmates without reasonable suspicion resulted in an officer being denied qualified immunity.

A strip search of arrestees charged with a

minor offense is permissible only if the official

has individualized suspicion that an arrestee

is hiding weapons or contraband. See, e.g.,

Kelly v. Foti, 77 F.3d 819, 822 (5th Cir. 1996);

Skurstenis v. Jones, 236 F.3d 678 (11th Cir.

2000); Chapman v. Nichols, 989 F.2d 393

(10th Cir. 1993). Some courts do not even permit routine strip-searches of females arrested

for drug possession or nonviolent felonies.

See, e.g., Foote (marijuana possession) and

Ford v. City of Boston, 154 F. Supp. 2d 131

(D. Ma. 2001) (nonviolent felonies).

Sexual Misconduct

Sexual misconduct cannot be tolerated in any

correctional setting, whether or not it involves

violence on the part of any correctional official. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994),

clearly establishes that “being violently

assaulted in prison is simply not part of the

penalty that criminal offenders pay for their

offenses against society.” Increasingly, statutes

and case law recognize that employees have a

duty not to engage in any sexual activity with

inmates, even if the inmate initiated the contact, because such liaisons cannot be deemed

voluntary in light of the employee’s position of

authority in the institution. The existence of

sexual misconduct in female institutions in the

United States can no longer be dismissed as an

isolated phenomenon. It has been condemned

by several human rights organizations as well

as in the case law. Undoubtedly, the burgeoning of the female inmate population and the

prevalence of male employees in most female

institutions has contributed to the increased

incidence of sexual misconduct.

Sexual misconduct has criminal and civil consequences. It can result in discipline or in

criminal charges against the staff member

accused of improper behavior. In addition,

civil litigation may be instituted against the

particular staff member, other staff members,

supervisors, and even the municipality.

Beyond the legal context, sexual misconduct

implicates the culture of the institution and

hinders the ability of administrators to achieve

rehabilitative goals. Administrators must develop protocols and training that strive to eliminate sexual misconduct. Explicit prohibition of

all sexual contact between staff and inmates,

regardless of who initiates it or whether it is

arguably consensual, should be adopted to

send a message of zero tolerance. Only if all

such conduct is treated as abusive and warranting termination can the safety of the inmates

and the integrity of the institution be ensured.

Supervisors must reinforce that any sexual

contact will not be tolerated. Being proactive

also ensures the best possibility that any

resulting civil liability will be restricted to

the offending staff member.

Most suits will be based on Section 1983

claims of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment

violations, although some will be based on privacy and cross-gender supervision claims citing the First and Fourth Amendments. For

municipal liability, an official policy or custom

must be alleged that deprives a person of a

federally protected right. Failure to adequately

train or supervise can be actionable if the policy was adopted with deliberate indifference

to the known or obvious possibility of sexual

assaults. The municipality must also have actual

or constructive knowledge of the inappropriate
appendix A 119

practice before liability can be imposed against

it. When liability is imposed it can be costly.

For example, Daskalea v. DC, 227 F.3d 433

(D.C. Cir. 2000), upheld a $350,000 verdict

where a jail inmate was forced to perform a

striptease in front of other prisoners and male

and female guards. The imposition of personal

liability against a warden and director of security for failure to protect female inmates from

harm was affirmed in Riley v. Olk-Long, 282

F.3d 592 (8th Cir. 2002), despite a claim that

the collective bargaining agreement prohibited

the removal of the predatory guard. In both of

these cases, there had been a history of complaints.

Eighth Amendment Challenges

(Applied to the States by the

Fourteenth Amendment)

Demonstrating an Eighth Amendment violation requires both an objective and a subjective

component. See, generally, Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825 (1994), and Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97 (1976).

The injury is objectively and sufficiently serious, denying “the minimal civilized measure

of life’s necessities” if it—

➤ results in the “unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain,”

➤ is “grossly disproportionate to the severity

of the crime warranting imprisonment,” or

➤ results in an “unquestioned and serious

deprivation of basic human needs.”

The official has a sufficiently culpable state

of mind demonstrating deliberate indifference

when—

➤ the official knew of and disregarded an

excessive risk to inmate safety or health,

➤ the official was aware of facts from which

an inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm existed, and

➤ the official actually drew the inference.

It is not sufficient that the injury was grave

enough that the official should have known of

the risk, if that individual did not subjectively

know of the risk. For example, if an inmate

did not tell the guards she was offended and

harassed by their verbal abuse, they did not

have the requisite culpable state of mind. See

United States v. Sanchez, 53 M.J. 393 (2001).

Qualified immunity was created to shield government officials from civil liability for the

performance of discretionary functions as long

as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

which a reasonable person would have knowledge. It is available as a defense to public officials sued in their individual capacity, unless

the official has acted with an impermissible

motivation or with such disregard of the person’s clearly established constitutional rights

that the action cannot be reasonably characterized as having been in good faith. If a reasonably competent official knew or should have

known that conduct was unlawful, immunity

does not exist. Richardson v. McKnight, 521

U.S. 399 (1997), clarified that prison guards

who are employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to qualified

immunity from suit by prisoners charging a

violation of Section 1983. The Court left open

whether a defense of good faith was available

to private guards.

Questions Typically Posed

to Administrators in Sexual

Misconduct Cases

Administrators are often asked the following

in sexual misconduct cases:
120 Gender-Responsive Strategies

➤ Did the misconduct happen on your watch?

➤ Were you responsible for promulgating and

enforcing policy?

➤ Did you fail to act?

➤ Did you ignore information presented

to you?

To obtain personal liability, the plaintiff must

provide notice that the suit is against the official in his or her personal capacity. It requires

fairly egregious behavior for an official to be

held liable in individual capacity.

The following questions need to be considered

with regard to preventive policy and same-sex

supervision.

1. What precautions should be taken to

avoid lawsuits resulting from sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, or cross-gender

supervision? Establish clear policies and procedures and follow them.

Precautions may include—

➤ Establishing clear policies concerning

inappropriate conduct.

➤ Conducting training of staff concerning

sexual misconduct and cross-gender

supervision.

➤ Establishing multiple reporting mechanisms.

➤ Establishing protocols for investigating

claims and ensuring against retaliation.

➤ Ensuring that prisoner complaints are

investigated because they provide notice

to the municipality if the correctional staff

member commits further misconduct.

It is very important to create an appropriate

inmate grievance procedure and a method to

punish retaliatory conduct against inmates who

report abuse. Policies also must be established

for reporting abuse to the appropriate prosecutorial agencies.

Carrigan v. Delaware, 957 F. Supp. 1376 (D.

Del. 1997), held that an inmate’s “consent” to

an officer’s sexual misconduct is not a defense.

Similarly, Morris v. Eversley, 205 F. Supp. 2d

234 (S.D. N.Y. 2002), denied a qualified

immunity defense because the state penal code

deemed an inmate incapable of consent.

2. Could same-sex supervision lessen the

likelihood of sexual misconduct or privacy

claims arising from cross-gender supervision? Although not all sexual misconduct or privacy claims will be eliminated through same-sex

supervision, this practice will likely decrease the

number of such claims.

Several factors support the conclusion that

same-sex supervision lessens the likelihood of

sexual misconduct or privacy claims. Although

sexual misconduct also may occur between

same-sex staff and inmates, the most visible

claims are those brought against males who

are supervising female inmates. The prevention of sexual misconduct serves legitimate

prison interests in security and rehabilitation.

There are historical, cultural, and psychological reasons why women may feel more violated and/or intimidated by cross-gender

supervision than men. In addition, crossgender supervision and sexual misconduct

may violate standards of international law.

3. Does same-sex supervision violate the

rights of employees of the opposite sex?

Is it a BFOQ for certain positions that the

employee be female or male? Same-sex

supervision or job descriptions can be justified

in certain specific factual settings. However,

care should be taken to review the manner in

which such policies are implemented. See also

Equal Protection and Title IX: Equivalent Access

to Programs and Services, Question 4.

Although it can be difficult to obtain a BFOQ

for intentional discrimination based on gender,
appendix A 121

BFOQs on this basis have been permitted in

correctional settings. Privacy and rehabilitation

concerns, as well as security interests, must be

documented. Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S.

321 (1977), upheld gender restrictions that

prohibited hiring of female guards in contact

positions in an all-male maximum security

prison, finding that gender was BFOQ based

on the need to protect women guards from

assaults by male prisoners. Courts often narrowly construe this case to its facts when it is

cited as a justification to limit the employment

opportunities of female correctional staff

members.

In contrast, when female employees are not

disadvantaged and when significant reasons

support the same-sex staff for female inmates,

courts have approved such designations.

For example, Tharp v. Iowa Department of

Corrections, 68 F.3d 223 (8th Cir. 1995), cert.

denied, 517 U.S. 1135 (1996), held that a

prison employer may, without violating Title

VII, adopt a reasonable gender-based jobassignment policy that is favorable to women

employees if it imposes only minimal restrictions on male employees. Similarly, Robino v.

Iranon, 145 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1998), held

that a policy of assigning only females to certain posts imposed a de minimis restriction on

male employees. To the extent that a colorable

Title VII claim was raised, gender was a

BFOQ to accommodate the privacy interests

of female inmates.

Torres v. Wisconsin Department of Health

and Human Services, 859 F.2d 1523 (7th Cir.

1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1017 (1989),

held that the state could exclude male guards

from its female prisons to promote female

prisoners’ rehabilitation without violating the

male staff’s employment rights if it could

show that the BFOQ was “reasonably necessary to furthering rehabilitation.” The state is

not required to show objective evidence, either

from empirical studies or otherwise, displaying

the validity of its theory. Proper evaluation is

on the totality of the circumstances as contained in the entire record. In other words, the

decision of a penal administrator is entitled to

substantial weight when it is the product of a

reasoned decisionmaking process based on

available information and experience. The fact

that a program is considered a reasonable

approach by other professional penologists is

a significant consideration.

Even assuming deference to decisions favoring

single-sex supervision, an administrator must

demonstrate reasons justifying the policy for

the specific prison population. For example,

Carl v. Angelone, 883 F. Supp. 1433 (D. Nev.

1995), held that an administrator could not

base a claim of qualified immunity on an affirmative defense of BFOQ because the discrimination was intentional. In that case, an issue

of fact precluded summary judgment on the

BFOQ defense because there were no factual

findings that a large percentage of female prisoners would suffer psychological pain or harm

upon being physically searched by men or that

prison security was not dependent on crossgender clothed body searches. The employer’s

single-sex supervision decision had been

based solely on an interpretation of Jordan v.

Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1993) (en

banc), that cross-gender searches were illegal

in all situations.

Carl pointed to the factual underpinnings in

the Jordan case, demonstrating that a very

large percentage of the female population in

the prison in question were victims of prior

abuse and would suffer psychological harm

from random searches. Moreover, Carl indicated that before the prison will be entitled to the

BFOQ exception, the employer must demonstrate why it cannot reasonably rearrange job

responsibilities within the prison to minimize
122 Gender-Responsive Strategies

the clash between the privacy interests of inmates and the safety of prison employees on

the one hand and the nondiscrimination requirement of Title VII on the other.

Everson v. Mich. Dept of Corrections, 222 F.

Supp. 2d 864 (E.D. Mich. 2002), exemplifies

how not to justify a decision to eliminate

cross-gender supervision for all correctional

and resident unit officers in female housing

units throughout the state. Despite a long

history of sexual misconduct and privacy

problems that resulted in several class settlements, the trial judge rejected an across-theboard BFOQ where the change would have

affected numerous employees because he concluded the correctional director had a stereotyped view of the role of sex in employment in

prisons. The new director, who had previously

been a legislator, ostensibly adopted the policy

to protect male correctional officials from

charges of sexual misconduct and was characterized as making the decision “without consulting staff or reviewing internal studies,

national policies or the literature.”

The judge noted that most cases upholding

BFOQs were based on extensive studies and

reasoned conclusions undertaken for penological reasons. In contrast, in Everson there was

no proof as to why rescheduling was not sufficient, since elimination of the requirement of

five pat-down searches per shift could have

lessened male-female interactions. The Department also did not initiate any effort to enhance

pre-employment screening. In addition, it was

noted that the female inmates were already

protected against strip-search by males as a

result of prior settlements that provided that

strip-searches, observation of female inmates

while undressed, and staffing of medical visits

were limited to female officers.

Whether or not Everson is affirmed on appeal,

it should not be read as a general rejection of

same-sex staffing. Everson recognized that four

states have gender BFOQs equivalent to those

requested in Michigan. More significantly, the

decision stated that task-oriented gender assignments might have been justified by the factual

record. Survey information presented to the

Court listed 26 states that require that a minimum number of female corrections officers be

available to perform selected tasks and 31 states

that have gender-specific assignments for such

tasks as transportation runs, strip-searches,

urine collection, and medical appointments.

Ultimately, Everson exemplifies why the evidence presented to the Court to justify a BFOQ

was found wanting when balanced against the

rights of large numbers of employees. In other

words, even though deference is given to

administrators in Title VII litigation, this occurs

only when the original decision relies on the

views of seasoned penologists in the system.

Thus, the Department’s use of outside experts

at trial, without calling any senior staff to testify, reinforced the judge’s view that they had not

been adequately consulted and an across-theboard BFOQ was not warranted.

Although a prison administrator should be

able to justify a policy of single-sex pat-downs,

searches, or close supervision in many women’s

prisons, this must be done with reference to the

population held in a given prison. Discussions

with the prison psychologist and security officers are necessary before such a policy is instituted. It should also be remembered that such

policies should be formulated in a manner that

will not unduly disadvantage employees of

either sex.

Establishing a gender-sensitive policy that

addresses potentially litigious issues requires

thought. The prison administrator must be

clear about the interests to be served and certain that the policy is narrowly tailored to meet

such interests as security, rehabilitation, simple

decency, past trauma of women inmates, and
appendix A 123

affirmative action considerations for women

staff. It is appropriate in such situations for the

administrator to—

➤ Obtain legal analysis.

➤ Try to enlist the support of the union.

➤ Try to defuse the opposition of the union.

➤ Involve mental health staff in documenting the presence of trauma in the female

population.

➤ Determine whether security is dependent

on cross-gender searches.

Due Process Challenges

Typically, due process has not provided a useful

tool for convicted prisoners to challenge their

conditions of confinement. While restrictions

placed on detainees cannot be justified on penological grounds, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520

(1979), permits restrictions that are an incident

of some other legitimate governmental purpose,

such as to ensure that the individual will be

present for trial, or to maintain security and

order at the institution.

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995),

clarified due process analysis in prisoner cases:

First, a state may create liberty interests

protected by due process. However, these

interests will generally be limited to freedom from restraint, which, while not

exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by

the Due Process Clause of its own force . . .

nonetheless imposes atypical and significant

hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.

In Sandin, discipline in segregated confinement did not present a due process claim

because there was no liberty interest in

remaining in the general prison population and

free of disciplinary or administrative segregation. Therefore, discipline by prison officials

“falls within the expected parameters of the

sentence imposed by a court of law.” See 515

U.S. at 485.

Because the particular burdens imposed by segregation in Sandin were not great, facts that

implicate atypical significant deprivations or

inevitably affect the duration of sentence could

arguably still present a due process claim. Thus,

in relation to women prisoners, allegations of

particularly brutal isolation and sensory deprivation for women who act out or attempt suicide in the general population may raise due

process as well as Eighth Amendment and

equal protection concerns. The higher percentage of mentally ill female inmates has been

well documented. In general, the interrelation

of mental health care and security needs is a

subject that calls for more attention. Women

appear to be placed in solitary confinement

for less egregious behavior than men, some of

which is directed at themselves rather than others. Yet, their confinement appears to increase

their violent behavior against themselves and

may impose devastating psychological effects.

Proactive administrators should consult with

their mental health professionals to determine

whether isolation is an appropriate response

for the behavior in question.

Pregnancy and Child-Related

Questions

Inmate pregnancy is an issue of particular significance for jails; however, it also occurs in

prison settings. Legal issues often arise concerning access to nontherapeutic abortions

and the conditions surrounding the birth of an

inmate’s child. Restrictions on termination of

pregnancies and on deliveries should be carefully monitored by administrators because they

are likely to result in litigation.

Because most female offenders have children,

visits can be key to motivating them to change
124 Gender-Responsive Strategies

their behavior. Although prison officials can

control the nature and extent of visits, other

child-related issues, such as termination of

parental rights or placement of women in facilities close to their homes, may be outside the

administrator’s control. Yet, maintaining relationships can be particularly difficult when

women are housed at great distances from

their families. Similarly, custody issues can

also have detrimental effects on the state of

mind of incarcerated mothers.

Understanding how such family-based legal

issues impact women offenders is important

in designing programs to ensure the best outcomes for women and their children, not just

in a jail or prison setting but also in probation,

parole, and community correctional settings.

For example, the type and extent of community services available to female offenders, particularly mothers of young children, may affect

the women’s ability to meet conditions of

release. Preparation in prison is key to women

offenders’ ability to deal with their family

responsibilities in a way that ensures the best

chance of their success in the community.

Consideration must be given to the following

pregnancy- and child-related questions.

1. Is restraining a pregnant woman who is

about to deliver legal when it can endanger

her or her child? Whether or not it is currently

a constitutional violation, such restraint in the

absence of any security risk is questionable

viewed from either a humanitarian, public relations, or litigation perspective.

Restraints on pregnant women have been

the subject of worldwide attention. Amnesty

International, Human Rights Watch, and the

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence

Against Women have all questioned this practice. In particular, Amnesty International has

recommended legislation, regulation, policies,

and practices to reflect a commitment to protect

inmates against such abuse. It also considers the

routine use of restraints on pregnant women,

particularly on women in labor, a cruel and

unusual practice that rarely can be justified in

terms of security concerns because it endangers

the woman and her unborn child and also constitutes a violation of international standards.

Whether an Eighth Amendment violation can

be stated depends on a finding that such conduct involves the unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97 (1976). The Eighth Amendment standard is described in the sexual misconduct

section above.

Women Prisoners of District of Columbia

Department of Corrections v. District of

Columbia, 93 F.3d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1996),

cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1196 (1997), noted that

the district judge had found the use of physical

restraints on pregnant women to violate the

Eighth Amendment, a finding that was not

challenged by the defendant on appeal. The

court order in that case provided that:

➤ Defendants shall use no restraints on any

woman in labor, during delivery, or in

recovery immediately after delivery.

➤ During the last trimester of pregnancy up

until labor, the defendants shall use only

leg shackles when transporting a pregnant

woman prisoner, unless the woman has

demonstrated a history of assaultive behavior

or has escaped from a correctional facility.

At a minimum, prison and jail administrators

should question the necessity of physical

restraints in individual cases, since most pregnant women, particularly those nearing labor,

are not flight risks. In addition, the use of

restraints may factor into a claim for inadequate medical care for a pregnant inmate.

See, e.g., Calloway v. City of New Orleans,

524 So.2d 182 (La. Ct. App. 1988) (affirming
appendix A 125

liability against the sheriff but reducing the

award of damages).

2. Does a pregnant prisoner have a right to

obtain a nontherapeutic abortion, and, if so,

must the state pay for it? Officials cannot hinder a woman’s right to obtain an abortion and

should not require a court order before allowing

a woman to obtain one. However, it is unclear

whether in all settings the facility must pay for

the abortion.

It is well settled that a woman has a right to

obtain an abortion before viability of the fetus

without undue interference from the state.

See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern

Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992);

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). However,

liability over a state’s refusal to permit a pregnant detainee or prisoner access to abortion

services has met with mixed results. Several

courts have issued injunctions against regulations requiring court-ordered releases for

inmates to obtain nontherapeutic elective

abortions. For example, Monmouth County

Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro,

834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486

U.S. 1006 (1988), found that a county order

requiring inmates to secure court-ordered

releases to obtain abortion while in the county’s custody was unconstitutional. In addition,

to the extent that a county’s regulation requiring inmates to obtain their own financing for

abortion impinged upon the inmate’s right to

make an abortion choice, the regulation was

unconstitutional. In the absence of alternative

methods of funding, Lanzaro found that the

county must assume the cost of providing

inmates with elective, nontherapeutic abortions. Doe v. Barron, 92 F. Supp. 2d 694 (S.D.

Ohio, 1999), granted a Temporary Restraining

Order to a female prisoner requesting access to

pregnancy termination services after the director of the correctional center refused to provide access without a court order. However,

Doe did not involve any request to fund the

abortion.

In contrast, the District Court in Victoria W. v.

Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. La.

2002), found no constitutional violation for a

policy that required an inmate to obtain an

attorney, get a court order, and pay all costs of

her nontherapeutic abortion. Moreover, it

rejected an Eighth Amendment challenge,

holding that a nontherapeutic abortion was not

a serious medical need for Eighth Amendment

purposes. It is questionable how this decision

will fare if appealed, although it is likely to be

upheld on the issue of payment. Louisiana has

a law prohibiting the expenditure of public

funds for abortion. Such funding bans are

legal. See Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989) (in which a statutory ban on use of public employees and

facilities for performance or assistance of nontherapeutic abortions did not contravene the

Constitution).

Similarly, Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979 (2d

Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 849 (1991),

affirmed a grant of summary judgment in a

Section 1983 action where the pretrial detainee

failed to establish that the delay in scheduling

the abortion was the result of anything more

than mere negligence on the part of correctional authorities. In other words, negligence did

not establish a deprivation of due process. The

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim failed

because the facility’s procedure for termination

required only a written request, not permission

from either the Department of Corrections or

the court. Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532

(6th Cir. 1991), also held that officials were

entitled to qualified immunity and that their

actions did not rise to a level of constitutional

violation concerning negligent failure to provide an abortion. Again, the grant of qualified

immunity rested on the lack of a clearly
126 Gender-Responsive Strategies

established constitutional right at the time of

the abortion request.

While Victoria W. held the regulation requiring

a court order for the elective procedure was

constitutional, several of the mentioned cases

either explicitly or implicitly reject such

requirements. Administrators should review

their own regulations carefully to determine

whether they hinder an inmate’s right to

choose to terminate her pregnancy. It is only

a matter of time before qualified immunity

claims will be rejected for policies requiring

court orders. Even if a facility is not required

to pay for the abortion, policies that require

inmates to pay for transport and security may

be suspect.

3. Women’s prisons are often located far from

home, depriving them of the opportunity to

meet with their families as often as men. Is

this a basis for a constitutional challenge?

While it is unlikely that a successful constitutional

challenge can be raised on these grounds, from

a policy perspective it is questionable whether

such family separation is beneficial to either

most incarcerated mothers or their children.

Administrators must be sensitive to how family

issues affect an incarcerated mother’s programming in prison and her chances of rehabilitation

when she returns to the community.

Because the number of incarcerated women

is smaller than that of incarcerated men, and

because there is hesitancy to place women in

facilities for men, fewer institutional choices

are typically available to women. Therefore, it

is not uncommon for women to be located farther from home than men. Although this circumstance might seem ripe for an equal

protection challenge, as the previous discussion has indicated, such claims often fall prey

to penological realities. For example, in Pitts v.

Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989),

the court applied heightened scrutiny in a case

challenging general budgetary and policy

choices made over decades that resulted in

women prisoners being sent out of the District

of Columbia.

Pitts reasoned that, unlike Turner, the basic

policy decision of whether to provide a local

women’s prison facility “does not directly

implicate either prison security or control of

inmate behavior, nor does it go to the prison

environment and regime.” However, despite

heightened review, the court upheld closing

the local women’s institution to provide more

housing for men because it satisfied a substantial governmental interest of alleviating overcrowding in men’s institutions. As a result, the

women were required to serve their sentences

in West Virginia, far from home and family.

The Supreme Court’s view of the Due Process

Clause in a prison setting also has not been

proved to be useful to prisoners because “lawful incarceration brings about the necessary

withdrawal or limitation of many privileges

and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” See

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor

Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 125 (1977).

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976),

held that due process did not create a liberty

interest in prisoners to be free from intrastate

prison transfers, even from a medium to maximum security facility, because this was within

the normal limits or range of custody that the

conviction has authorized the state to impose.

Thus, a prisoner has no inherent constitutional

right to be confined in a particular prison or to

be held in a specific security classification. See

also Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-

46 (1983) (interstate transfer).

In Froehlich v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 196 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 1999), the

children of an incarcerated mother sued to

prohibit her transfer to an out-of-state prison.

Judge Posner rejected the Eighth Amendment

challenge based on cruel and unusual punishment as frivolous because the state is not
appendix A 127

punishing the children. In other words, the incidental infliction of hardship on a person not

convicted of a crime is not punishment within

the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. However, the transfer was viewed as insensitive, and

while recognizing that such an accommodation

is not constitutionally imposed on prison officials, the judge noted “it may be a moral duty.”

The underlying question raised by the imprisonment of women far from home is whether

many of them who are nonviolent and are

serving lengthy terms under harsh drug laws

can be rehabilitated in community correctional

facilities located closer to their homes. Thus,

they would be able to maintain family ties and

would also be more likely to obtain training

and jobs that would assist them in their reentry following release. If prison administrators consider such inmates to be good risks for

community-based programs without jeopardizing public safety, the chance of obtaining such

options is increased. Several urban areas have

created coordinating councils among all of the

agencies involved in the criminal justice system to deal more fairly with women offenders.

4. Are jails and prisons required to provide

visitation? If not, are they inflicting hardship

not only on the mother but on the children

as well? While visitation is a privilege, not a

right, restrictions must be reasonably related to

penological goals. From a policy perspective,

extended visiting by children strengthens the

mother-child bond and increases the likelihood

of the mother’s successful reintegration into

the community.

Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984),

upheld a blanket prohibition on contact visits

for pretrial detainees as an entirely reasonable,

nonpunitive response to the legitimate security

concerns identified, and therefore one consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. The

decision specifically noted:

We do not in any sense denigrate the importance of visits from family or friends to

the detainee. Nor do we intend to suggest

that contact visits might not be a factor

contributing to the ultimate reintegration

of the detainee into society. We hold only

that the Constitution does not require that

detainees be allowed contact visits when

responsible, experienced administrators

have determined, in their sound discretion,

that such visits will jeopardize the security

of the facility (458 U.S. at 589).

The denial of contact visits for prisoners has

been upheld by Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801

F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481

U.S. 1069 (1987), and Bazzetta v. McGinnis,

124 F.3d 774 (6th Cir. 1997).

Similarly, the denial of prison access to a particular visitor “is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison

sentence,” Kentucky Department of Corrections

v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 461 (1989). However, in his concurring decision in Thompson,

Justice Kennedy recognized that:

[N]othing in the Court’s opinion forecloses the claim that a prison regulation

permanently forbidding all visits to some

or all prisoners implicates the protections

of the Due Process Clause in a way that

the precise and individualized restrictions

at issue here do not.

One court found that a total ban on visits with

children violated the First Amendment right

to freedom of association. See Valentine v.

Englehardt, 474 F. Supp. 294, 295 (D. N.J.

1979). At a minimum, prison administrators

should consider the negative effect on rehabilitation caused by restricted visitation because

women’s ties with their children have been

recognized as a strong motivation for reducing

recidivism.

Typically, the impact of limited visitation on

children and families is not factored into the

legal analysis, although it is not doubted that
128 Gender-Responsive Strategies

the children, particularly those raised by single

mothers, face hardship that is exacerbated by

the inability to interact on a personal level.

However, particular restrictions on visitors

may run afoul of Turner or may be evaluated

by a stricter standard of review. See Procunier

v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 413-14 (1974). For

example, Burgess v. Lowery, 201 F.3d 942,

(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 817 (2000),

affirmed the trial court’s denial of a defendant’s qualified immunity claim because it was

clearly established that visitors have a Fourth

Amendment right not to be strip searched in

the absence of a reasonable suspicion that they

are carrying contraband.

Overton v. Bazzetta, 2003 WL 21372482

(June 16, 2003), upheld restrictions on noncontact visits to prisoners that excluded visits

by minor nieces and nephews and children as

to whom parental rights had been terminated.

The opinion did “not imply, that any right to

intimate association is altogether terminated

by incarceration or is always irrelevant” to

prisoner claims, but sustained the restrictions

because they bore a rational relationship to

legitimate penological interests and therefore

were valid under the Turner test. The correctional officials had argued that the regulations

promoted internal security by reducing the

total number of visitors and by limiting the

disruption caused by children. In addition, they

protected children from exposure to sexual or

other misconduct or from accidental injury.

Bazzetta also upheld a requirement that children be accompanied by a family member or

legal guardian as reasonable to ensure that the

child is supervised by adults who have the

child’s best interests in mind. The Court noted

that visits were allowed between an inmate

and her own children, grandchildren, and siblings. A 2-year ban on noncontact visits for

inmates with two substance abuse violations

was also upheld, despite the fact that it

relegated some inmates to brief and expensive

phone calls. In other words, “Turner does not

impose a least-restrictive alternative test.”

However, the Court recognized that if withdrawal of all visitation was permanent or for a

much longer period, or arbitrarily applied, the

result could be different.

After Bazzetta, visiting still remains important

to ensure that children bond with their mothers, to facilitate family reintegration, and to

encourage inmate rehabilitation. The decision

does not prohibit or discourage the adoption of

expansive visiting regulations of both a contact

and noncontact nature. However, the scope and

nature of those regulations are clearly within

the discretion of the prison administrators as

long as restrictions are reasonable.

5. Do harsh sentencing policies combined

with statutes terminating parental rights of

incarcerated women violate due process or

the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and

unusual punishment? In the current litigation

environment, it is quite unlikely that these claims

violate constitutional norms. However, from a

policy perspective, they raise issues that administrators should be aware of because they affect

the incarcerated mother’s mental outlook in

prison and her ability to reintegrate into the

community successfully.

Enactment of harsh drug laws, mandatory minimums, and repeat offender statutes has resulted in more women being incarcerated for

longer sentences. The majority of incarcerated

women are mothers, and many of these mothers are raising their children alone. Single

mothers who are incarcerated are more likely

to have their parental rights terminated than

male prisoners who are fathers because the

children of male inmates overwhelmingly

reside with their natural mothers. In contrast,

the children of female inmates are more likely

to reside with grandparents or other family

members, friends, or foster care providers.
appendix A 129

Termination of parental rights is a major issue

for incarcerated mothers. Lassiter v. Dept. of

Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981), rejected

any requirement that a state must provide a

parent with an attorney in termination proceedings, although some states provide an attorney

for the court appearance. The difficulty for

incarcerated parents in contacting social workers, child protection agencies, and others

responsible for parental rights determinations

can be daunting without an attorney. Attempts

to require the state to provide such legal

advice, if not otherwise legislatively mandated,

have not proved successful. Glover v. Johnson,

75 F.3d 264 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S.

816 (1996), held that the fundamental right

of access to courts did not require the state to

provide legal assistance for inmates in connection with custody matters.

State statutes concerning the termination of

parental rights vary widely. While a few are

based solely on incarceration for a stated time,

most have additional requirements that are

based on the timelines established by the

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

(ASFA). However, ASFA has imposed an

incredibly costly collateral consequence of

incarceration for single mothers who are incarcerated more than 15 months. Such women

now not only lose their liberty but also may

face early termination proceedings if their

children are placed in nonkinship foster care.

Moreover, welfare reform has made it more

difficult for relatives to receive funding for

children in their care without a finding that the

child is subject to the jurisdiction of dependency court. Yet, state involvement increases the

likelihood of eventual termination.

ASFA tightened the timeline for parental termination that existed in most states at the same

time that sentences were also increasing. As a

result, the vast majority of incarcerated mothers may face termination proceedings. This is

particularly true in federal court, which does

not “ordinarily” permit “family ties” as an

appropriate reason to lower a sentence. In

other words, many of the nonviolent drug

offenders who in the past would have been

sentenced to probation or community correctional facilities now face lengthy incarceration

and the possible loss of parental rights.

While ASFA became fully operative only in

1999, anecdotally there are already stories of

terminations for children who have no families

waiting to adopt them or who may be realistically nonadoptable. Such children will remain

in foster care without any real possibility of

adoption but without the ability of their relatives to obtain assistance to maintain family

ties or of their mothers to reunify with them

after their release. It is also likely that the low

percentage of foster care placements for children of incarcerated mothers reported in prisoner surveys is actually substantially higher

because many of the relatives caring for the

children are actually providing kinship placements. Ironically, when children age out of

foster care, some of them locate and return to

the mothers who long ago had their parental

rights terminated.

Although ASFA and termination statutes are

not unconstitutional, they affect both the incarcerated mothers and their children. Typically,

the mother feels guilty about the disruption to

her child’s life caused by her incarceration and

depressed about her potential loss of contact

with her child. This may have a negative

impact on her rehabilitation. Although the

child is not punished according to the Eighth

Amendment, which applies only to prisoners,

in reality the child’s world may be devastated.

Children not only lose contact with their mothers but also may be separated from siblings

and placed in unsatisfactory living circumstances, whether with family, friends, or

even foster care placements. Ultimately, such
130 Gender-Responsive Strategies

children are at risk of becoming involved in

the juvenile or adult correctional systems.

Programs to prevent intergenerational criminality have only recently begun to receive any

widespread attention. Without a thorough

reconsideration of the sentencing alternatives

open to incarcerated mothers and the impact of

incarceration on parental rights terminations,

mothers and children will continue to suffer

penalties that are not meted out to males.

Moreover, the collateral consequences of a

mother’s status may practically impact her

ability to unite with her children. Even if a

single mother avoids termination of parental

rights, she may still be denied federal cash

assistance and food stamps if she lives in a

state that has not opted out of the provision

of the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which bars

anyone with a drug-related felony conviction

from receiving such aid. Since women offenders are more likely than their male counterparts to be sentenced for drug-related crimes,

this provision disproportionately penalizes

them and their children.

A mother may face the lifetime 5-year limit

for receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families, or she may be hampered in obtaining

work if she requires drug treatment or cannot

obtain child care. A drug conviction may affect

her ability to obtain public housing or assistance to pay for private housing. Her immigration status may result in her deportation as a

result of her conviction, regardless of whether

her children are citizens. Even her educational

opportunities may be limited by the Higher

Education Act of 1998, which denies eligibility for students convicted of drug offenses.

Such consequences need to be understood by

those who design programs and services for

women offenders and by those who impose

conditions of release on women who may not

be able to meet them because of child-care

constraints. Moreover, it is critical for administrators to focus on transitional reentry issues

while women are incarcerated to prepare the

women to succeed. Forging connections with

governmental agencies to enable women to

obtain the necessary documentation for housing, health care, child-related services, and

other services before leaving the institution

may be as critical to the rehabilitation of

female offenders as effective programming.
appendix B 131

appendix B

Recommended Reading

Characteristics of Female Offenders and

Theoretical Perspectives

Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice.

Cincinnati, OH: Wadsworth. www.wadsworth.com

Browne, A.B., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 301-322. www.sciencedirect.com (article

can be purchased online)

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Special report: Women offenders. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf

Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls, women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. www.sagepub.com

Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. www.yale.edu/yup

Gilfus, M.E. (1992). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s routes of

entry and immersion into street crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(1), 63-90.

[cannot be accessed online at the National Institute of Corrections Information

Center; check with local library]

Girshick, L.B. (1999). No safe haven: Stories of women in prison. Boston, MA:

Northeastern University Press. www.nupress.neu.edu

Johnston, D., & Gabel, K. (1995). Children of incarcerated parents. New York,

NY: Lexington Books. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group (800-462-6420)

Mauer, M., Potler, C., & Wolf, R. (1999). Gender and justice: Women,

drugs and sentencing policy. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

www.sentencingproject.org

Muraskin, R. (2003). It’s a crime: Women and justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall. vig.prenhall.com

Office of Justice Programs. (1999). National symposium on women offenders.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. [hard copy available from the

National Institute of Corrections Information Center]
132 Gender-Responsive Strategies

Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and

survival in a women’s prison. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

www.sunypress.edu

Owen, B., & Bloom, B. (1995). Profiling the

needs of California’s female prisoners: A

needs assessment. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Corrections. www.nicic.org/pubs/

1995/012451.pdf

Pollock, J. (1999). Criminal women. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. www.

andersonpublishing.com

Pollock-Byrne, J. (2002). Women, prison

and crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

www.brookscole.com

Price, B., & Sokoloff, N. (1995). The criminal

justice system and women. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill. www.mcgraw-hill.com

Rafter, N. (1990). Partial justice: Women, prisons, and social control. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Books. www.transactionpub.com

Richie, B. 1996. Compelled to crime: The

gender entrapment of battered black women.

London: Routledge. www.routledge.com

Teplin, L., Abram, K., & McClelland, G.

(1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders

among incarcerated women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53, 505-512. [cannot be

accessed online at the National Institute of

Corrections Information Center; check with

local library]

Widom, C.S. (2000, January). Childhood victimization: Early adversity, later psychopathology. National Institute of Justice Journal, 242,

2-9. ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000242b.pdf

Program and Treatment Issues

Acoca, L. (1998). Defusing the time bomb:

Understanding and meeting the growing health

care needs of incarcerated women in America.

Crime & Delinquency, 44, 49-70. [cannot be

accessed online at the National Institute of

Corrections Information Center; check with

local library]

Austin, J., Bloom, B., & Donahue, T. (1992).

Female offenders in the community: An analysis of innovative strategies and programs.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. www.nicic.org/pubs/1992/010786.pdf

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1999).

Substance abuse treatment for women offenders: Guide to promising practices. TAP #23.

Rockville, MD: Department of Health and

Human Services. www.health.org

Covington, S. (1999). Helping women recover:

A program for treating substance abuse

(criminal justice edition). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass. www.josseybass.com

Galbraith, S., & National GAINS Center.

(1998). And so I began to listen to their 

stories . . . : Working with women in the criminal justice system. Delmar, NY: GAINS Center. www.gainsctr.com

Gray, T., Mays, G.L., & Stohr, M.K., (1995).

Inmate needs and programming in exclusively

women’s jails. The Prison Journal, 75, 186-

202. [cannot be accessed online at the National

Institute of Corrections Information Center;

check with local library]

McMahon, M. (2000). Assessment to assistance: Programs for women in community corrections. Lanham, MD: American Correctional

Association. www.aca.org
appendix B 133

Morash, M., Bynum, T., & Koons, B. (1998).

Women offenders: Programming needs and

promising approaches. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice. ncjrs.org/

pdffiles/171668.pdf

National Institute of Corrections. (2000). Topics in community corrections, annual issue

2000: Responding to women offenders in

the community. Washington, DC: National

Institute of Corrections. www.nicic.org/pubs/

2000/period180.pdf

O’Brien, P. (2001). Making it in the free

world: Women in transition from prison.

Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press. www.sunypress.edu

Pollock, J. (1998). Counseling women in

prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

www.sagepub.com

Veysey, B.M. (1998). Specific needs of women

diagnosed with mental illnesses in U.S. jails.

In B.L. Levin, A.K. Blanch, & A. Jennings

(Eds.), Women’s mental health services:

A public health perspective, Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications. www.sagepub.com

Zaplin, R. (1999). Female offenders: Critical

perspectives and effective interventions.

Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

www.jbpub.com

Gender Responsiveness

Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (1998, November).

Gender-specific programming for female

offenders: What is it and why is it important?

Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting

of the American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC. Available from the National Institute of Corrections Information Center.

Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (2000, November).

Gendered justice: Programming for women in

correctional settings. Paper presented at the 52d

Annual Meeting of the American Society of

Criminology, San Francisco, CA. Available

from the National Institute of Corrections Information Center.

Covington, S., & Bloom, B. (1999, November).

Gender-responsive programming and evaluation for women in the criminal justice system:

A shift from what works to what is the work?

Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of

the American Society of Criminology, Toronto,

Ontario. Available from the National Institute of

Corrections Information Center.

Staff Sexual Misconduct

Amnesty International USA. (1999). Not part

of my sentence: Violations of the human rights

of women in custody. New York, NY: Author.

www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/

AMR510011999

Smith, B.V. (1998). An end to silence: Women

prisoner’s handbook on identifying and

addressing sexual misconduct. Washington,

DC: National Women’s Law Center. [out of

print; rights have been transferred from

National Women’s Law Center to the author;

check with local library]

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999).

Women in prison: Issues and challenges

confronting U.S. correctional systems.

Washington, DC: Author. usgao.gov/archive/

2000/gg00022.pdf

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999).

Women in prison: Sexual misconduct by

correctional staff. Washington, DC: Author.

usgao.gov/archive/1999/gg99104.pdf