0 

Gender-responsive 

102 r ebme

strateGies 

voN

f o r W o m e n o f f e n d e r s 

U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

Employment and Female 

Offenders: An Update of 

the Empirical Research 

By Shawn M. Flower, Ph.D. 

Female offenders are different from male offenders in many ways. Generally speaking, the pathway taken into and along the road of criminal behavior is influenced by life experiences and gendered perspectives (Berman 

2005; Daly 1994; Salisbury and Van Voorhis 2009; Simpson, Yahner, and 

Dugan 2008). Even among those factors regarded as gender neutral (e.g., 

mental illness is positively associated with criminal offending for both men 

and women, and offenders of both sexes engage in high rates of substance 

abuse), differences remain between men and women on either the type 

or severity of the factor and/or life experiences (e.g., trauma from sexual 

and/or physical abuse) that contextualize the offender’s perspective and 

response.1 Women’s engagement in crime also differs from men’s in the 

type of crime (less violent), in risk factors (the importance of relationships, 

which can override prosocial self-preservation), in societal roles (caring 

for children while balancing competing priorities), in the need for different 

types of services (counseling for trauma), and in less overall involvement 

in crime in terms of frequency, prevalence, and seriousness. Engagement 

and continued sustainment in crime can be a coping or survival mechanism 

that is viewed as a necessary or desirable way to meet the many challenges 

that women offenders face. Importantly, just as the pathways to and uses of 

crime differ by gender, desistance from crime is likewise contextualized by 

the circumstances and situations that women face. With respect to offenders 

generally, one of the key mechanisms for desistance is employment (Sampson and Laub 1993; Uggen 2000), and studies of offender populations have 

FROM THE DIREcTOR 

Existing research demonstrates 

a positive link between employment and desistance from 

criminal behavior for offender 

populations. Reentering men 

and women face many challenges, from the stigma of their 

criminal record to an individual 

lack of employment history and 

relevant skills. For individuals 

successful in their search for 

employment, job retention can 

be complicated by everyday 

circumstances that compete for 

attention. Although male and 

female offenders face many of 

the same issues, women often 

face a set of circumstances that 

add additional barriers, particularly if the women are the sole 

custodial parent for children. 

This bulletin is a summary of 

available literature related to 

employment and women in the 

criminal justice system. 

Morris L. Thigpen 

Director

National Institute of Corrections 
long established a predictive relationship between employment and criminal 

offending. Those who were employed 

prior to incarceration were less likely to 

violate institutional rules while incarcerated (Hardyman and Van Voorhis 2004; 

Turner and Petersilia 1996) and were less 

likely to recidivate once released (Sampson and Laub 1993; Uggen 2000; Uggen 

and Kruttschnitt 1998). This relationship 

reveals greater ambiguity when considering the impact of employment on crime 

disaggregated by gender. Blanchette and 

Brown (2006) reported correlations for 

six studies (including two multiple-study 

samples) and found mixed results— 

employment/education was a significant 

predictor for rearrest and reincarceration 

for half of the studies, but it was not significant for the multisample studies. 

The purpose of this bulletin is to explore 

the literature and summarize the empirical 

evidence related to the impact of employment on the criminal behavior of women. 

This bulletin focuses on three narrowly 

defined objectives. The first objective is 

to determine if there is any recent literature (i.e., within the past decade) related 

to employment and female offenders in 

various stages of the criminal justice system (detainment, incarceration, transition 

from prison or jail, and/or community 

supervision) that clearly shows the barriers to employment for women offenders. 

This includes a brief summary of the 

existing literature on the relationship between correctional education, correctional 

vocational training, and employment on 

criminal behaviors. The second objective is to summarize the gender-specific 

outcome studies of correctional education programs, vocational programs, 

and employment interventions related to 

female offending.2 The third objective 

is to determine if there is a discernible 

gender-specific pattern to the relationship 

between employment and crime and, if 

so, to hypothesize how that pattern may 

apply to female offenders and/or differ 

from that of male offenders. 

This review first provides a synopsis of 

the demographic and criminal history 

characteristics of women involved in the 

criminal justice system. Whenever possible, this overview categorizes women 

in the various stages of the criminal justice system (jail, prison, and community 

supervision).3 An exploration of the relevant literature focused on the challenges 

faced by female offenders and how these 

challenges affect the ability to find and 

maintain quality employment. Barriers 

to employment include economic marginalization, health concerns (including 

mental health and substance use), lack 

of education, low employment skills and 

experience, family and childcare obligations, time management and how time affects goal-setting by women in transition, 

self-esteem, social (e.g., connections to 

other individuals within a social network 

or community) and human (e.g., a person’s knowledge, skills, experiences, and 

personality) capital, and statutory restrictions that bar ex-offenders from numerous 

occupations in many industries. Woven 

throughout this discussion, where suitable, are gender-responsive strategies to 

reduce these barriers to employment. The 

link between employment and criminal 

offending is then summarized generally 

and the correctional, vocational, and educational programs’ link to employment 

and recidivism is examined specifically. 

Given the paucity of empirical research 

that explores the nexus of women, employment, correctional education, and 

criminal behavior, the author of this bulletin examined studies that included both 

juvenile and adult offenders. Overall, the 

evidence suggests that desistance from 

crime is not gender neutral. It also shows 

the need for higher levels of educational 

attainment and employment training 

for female offenders; a comprehensive, 

coherent, holistic, and strengths-based 

gender-responsive treatment strategy 

for women suffering from co-occurring 

mental health, physical, and/or addiction 

issues; case management services that 

extend into the community postrelease; 

problem-solving and time management 

skills; housing; health care; and supportive functional social networks both within 

and beyond the family. This type of comprehensive approach would help female 

offenders obtain and sustain long-term 

quality employment, thereby increasing 

the likelihood of achieving the consequent desistance from crime. 

Female Offenders 

The most recent correctional census indicates that more than 1.3 million women 

are under the control of the criminal justice system in the United States. Approximately 213,000 women are in correctional 

institutions and 1.1 million are under 

community supervision. As of 2007, 

114,000 women (7 percent of all those 

sentenced to state and federal prisons) 

were in prison (West and Sabol 2009). As 

of midyear 2008, more than 99,000 women (12 percent of the total jail population) 

were confined in local jails and detention 

centers (Minton and Sabol 2009). Women 

represent 24 percent of the 4.2 million 

people on probation and 12 percent of 

the 798,000 people on parole (Glaze and 

Bonczar 2007). Although the overall 

growth of prison admissions slowed in 

2007 (a 0.2-percent increase versus a 

2.6-percent average annual increase from 

2000 to 2007) (West and Sabol 2008), 

the number of women incarcerated and 

supervised by the criminal justice system 

has maintained a sharp upward trajectory 

since 1995, outpacing that of male offenders (Glaze and Bonczar 2007; 

Harrison and Beck 2005). 

In general, demographic profiles of women involved in the criminal justice system 

indicate they are in their midthirties, are 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

single mothers with young children, and 

are disproportionately women of color 

(Covington 2007). Women incarcerated 

in state and federal prisons are somewhat 

older (a median age of 33 to 36 years) 

than women in jail (a median age of 31 

years) or on probation (a median age of 

32 years) (Greenfeld and Snell 1999). 

Criminally involved women are less 

likely to have been married than those in 

the general public. Forty-seven percent of 

women in local and state facilities have 

never been married, compared with 42 

percent of women on probation and 34 

percent in federal prison (Greenfeld and 

Snell 1999). In contrast, 24 percent of 

women in the United States have never 

been married (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). 

Most female offenders have minor children (65 to 70 percent of women in state 

and local facilities, 72 percent of women 

on probation, and 59 percent of women 

in federal prisons) and the majority (66 

percent of state inmates and 50 percent of 

federal inmates) were the custodial parent prior to incarceration (Greenfeld and 

Snell 1999). 

Women offenders reflect a disproportionate representation of racial minorities 

across the criminal justice continuum, 

particularly among those in custody. As 

of 1999, more than 44 percent of women 

in local jails and state prisons were African American, 15 percent were Hispanic, 

and up to 36 percent were white. In federal institutions, 35 percent of women 

were African American, 32 percent were 

Hispanic, and 29 percent were white 

(Greenfeld and Snell 1999). In contrast, 

62 percent of women on probation were 

white, 27 percent were African American, 

and 10 percent were Hispanic (Greenfeld 

and Snell 1999). It is important to note 

that the racial composition of women incarcerated in state and federal institutions 

changed from 2000 to 2007—a higher 

proportion are white (48 percent in 2006 

versus 40 percent in 2000) and Hispanic/ 

Latino (17 percent versus 15 percent), and 

there has been a 10-percent decline in the 

number of African-American women (28 

percent in 2006 versus 38 percent in 2000) 

(Sabol, Couture, and Harrison 2007; West 

and Sabol 2008). Nonetheless, AfricanAmerican and Hispanic women remain 

disproportionately represented in the 

criminal justice system (Covington 2007; 

McCampbell 2005). 

Criminal histories differ between men 

and women—men have longer careers 

and more serious behaviors. Although 

65 percent of women and 77 percent of 

men in state institutions have a record of 

convictions, 43 percent of men (versus 

33 percent of women) had three or more 

prior convictions, and men were twice 

as likely to have a criminal career that 

included both a juvenile and an adult record (Greenfeld and Snell 1999). Further, 

women in jail and prison are less likely to 

be violent offenders and more likely to be 

incarcerated for property and drug offenses than men (James 2004; West and Sabol 

2008). Thirty-five percent of women in 

state prisons are committed for violent 

offenses (compared with 54 percent of 

men), 29 percent for property offenses 

(compared with 18 percent of men), and 

29 percent for drug-related offenses (compared with 19 percent of men) (West and 

Sabol 2008). Seventeen percent of women 

in jails are charged with violent offenses 

(compared with 27 percent of men), 32 

percent with property offenses (compared 

with 23 percent of men), 21 percent with 

public order offenses (compared with 

25 percent of men), and 29 percent with 

drug-related offenses (compared with 24 

percent of men) (James 2004). 

The use of alcohol or drugs at the time 

of the offense has dropped for convicted 

women in jail (from 59 percent in 1996 

to 50 percent in 2002); however, the rate 

of all jail inmates characterized as 

“alcohol- or drug involved offenders” 

remains the same (77 percent) (James 

2004:8). As of 2004, 60 percent of women 

in state facilities and 43 percent of those 

in federal institutions met the criteria 

for being dependent on drugs or abusing 

drugs (Mumola and Karberg 2006). For 

probationers, 12 percent reported drug 

use and 26 percent reported alcohol use at 

the time of their offense, and 53 percent 

had used both drugs and alcohol (Mumola 

1998). Although a substantial number of 

male and female offenders engage in 

substance use, studies show that women 

often use alcohol and drugs as a means 

of coping with past and present traumatic 

life circumstances (Bloom, Owen, and 

Covington 2003; McCampbell 2005). 

Compared with men, women are less 

likely to recidivate (Deschenes, Owen, 

and Crow 2007; Uggen and Kruttschnitt 

1998). Fifty-eight percent of women 

who were released from state facilities in 

1994 were rearrested and 40 percent were 

reconvicted, whereas 68 percent of men 

released were rearrested and 48 percent 

were reconvicted within 3 years of release 

(Langan and Levin 2002). Women incarcerated for violent offenses were the least 

likely to be rearrested, while drug and 

property offenders were not only the most 

likely to be rearrested for a new crime, 

but were reincarcerated more quickly than 

those reincarcerated for a violent crime 

(Deschenes, Owen, and Crow 2007). 

Both men and women were most likely 

to recidivate in the first year postrelease 

(Deschenes, Owen, and Crow 2007). 

Of particular relevance to this topic is that 

the nature of property crime for women 

has changed over the past 40 years. Small 

(2000) examined trends in female offending and found that since 1963, as women 

have increasingly entered the workplace, 

they have become more involved in 

property crimes such as embezzlement, 

fraud, forgery, and larceny. According to 

Small (2000:76), women “receive poor 

pay in unrewarding and insecure work 

[thus] women are motivated to commit 

crime as a rational response to poverty 

3 
 

• • • • 

and economic insecurity.” Coupled with 

the finding that women use alcohol and 

drugs to “self-medicate” (Bloom, Owen, 

and Covington 2005), “property and drug 

crimes can be conceptualized as survival 

crimes and have been tied to economic 

and emotional struggles”; consequently, 

correctional and community “resources 

should be targeted toward the economic 

and personal survival needs of women” 

(Deschenes, Owen, and Crow 2007:58). 

The challenges that face female offenders, 

particularly as they relate to employment, 

are described below. 

Barriers to Employment 

In general, the majority of female offenders are economically marginalized and 

face substantial challenges when they 

return to the community after a period 

of incarceration (O’Brien 2002; Zarch 

and Schneider 2007). These challenges 

impede efforts to obtain and maintain 

employment. Women offenders are both 

underemployed and unemployed, work 

fewer hours and make less per hour than 

their male counterparts, and are often 

employed in nonpermanent, low-level, 

or entry-level occupations with little 

chance for advancement (Bullis and 

Yovanoff 2006; Blitz 2006; Champion 

2001; Delveaux, Blanchette, and Wickett 

2005; James 2004; McCampbell 2005; 

Peters et al. 1997; Rose et al. 2008; Small 

2000; Tonkin et al. 2004; Zaitzow 2006). 

For example, a study that compared 

435 women with 1,220 men who were 

admitted to a substance abuse unit in a 

metropolitan jail found that women were 

significantly less likely to have a profession, trade, or skill and were more likely 

to report having no income in the 30 

days prior to incarceration (Peters et al. 

1997). Although women in state prisons 

are more likely than men to have a high 

school diploma (30 percent versus 25 percent) (Harlow 2003), many women 

offenders lack the education and vocational skills to compete in the labor market (O’Brien 2002). 

The majority of female 

offenders are economically 

marginalized and face 

substantial challenges 

when they return to the 

community. 

Peters and colleagues (1997:341) also 

illustrate, using the Addiction Severity 

Index, the psychosocial challenges that 

incarcerated women face: They were 

“significantly more impaired on scales 

related to drug use, employment, legal 

status, and psychiatric/psychological 

functioning” than male offenders. Female 

offenders suffer from mental health problems (including depression, mania, and 

psychotic disorders and from trauma due 

to childhood physical and sexual abuse) 

more than men (Bloom, Owen, and Covington 2005; Covington 2007). Childhood 

physical and sexual abuse is highly associated with mental and physical health 

issues as an adult (Lee and Tolman 2006; 

McLean, Robarge, and Sherman 2006; 

Messina and Grella 2006; O’Brien 2002). 

From 77 to 90 percent of incarcerated 

women report extensive abuse, and those 

with a greater exposure to childhood 

trauma experience a younger onset of 

many behavioral and health problems, including substance abuse, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic, eating 

disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, 

poor coping and problem-solving skills, 

and engagement in prostitution and other 

criminal behavior (McLean, Robarge, and 

Sherman 2006; Messina and Grella 2006; 

O’Brien 2002). Women offenders also 

experience high rates of homelessness— 

from 25 percent (McLean, Robarge, and 

Sherman 2006) to more than 50 percent 

(O’Brien 2002)—in the month before 

incarceration. Housing instability is a risk 

factor for parole revocation: in a study 

of female parolees, those who reported 

having an unstable housing situation 

“increased their odds of failure on parole 

by almost 995 percent” (Schram et al. 

2006:463). In addition, “most don’t have 

a car and had to rely on others for transportation ... a third suffered from emotional problems or chronic illness, and 

three fourths had a high probability of 

substance abuse or dependence” (Tonkin 

et al. 2004:68). 

Women offenders often have poor health 

outcomes, in part because they lack the 

means to access health services in the 

community. They are “typically impoverished, with inadequate transportation 

and resources, which limits access to 

community-based health systems” 

(Messina and Grella 2006:1842). Because 

the challenges that female offenders face 

frequently co-occur (e.g., mental health 

issues, poor health, trauma from a history 

of abuse, and/or substance abuse (James 

and Glaze 2006)), the failure to diagnose 

and treat these issues in a comprehensive 

and coherent fashion contributes to the 

challenge of finding stable employment 

for this population (Peters et al. 1997).4 In 

a prison survey of women, Blitz (2006) 

found that women who were treated for 

addiction or mental health issues were 

more likely to experience employment 

stability prior to incarceration. Blitz 

(2006) also contends that those who needed treatment but did not receive it had 

less successful employment outcomes. 

The author hypothesizes that because access to treatment is a key barrier to 

employment prior to incarceration, it 

will remain relevant postrelease. 

4 
• • • • 

Those who are criminally involved often 

lack high educational attainment and 

functional literacy skills (Harlow 2003; 

Holley and Brewster 1997; LoBuglio 

2001), thus impeding employment opportunities (Blitz 2006). Offenders are significantly less educated (51 percent had a 

high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) compared with 76 

percent of the general population), and 70 

percent of offenders (versus 50 percent 

of the general public) were unable to 

read and do math at levels functionally 

adequate to “interpret a train schedule or 

... resolve a billing dispute” (LoBuglio 

2001:7). Inmates with a disability fare 

worse—66 percent of state prison inmates 

with a disability have not finished high 

school or obtained a GED (Harlow 2003). 

Foley’s (2001) review of the literature 

on youthful offenders finds that approximately 40 percent of incarcerated youth 

never return to school following release 

and that, overall, delinquent youth have 

significant deficits in reading, math, and 

written and oral skills when compared 

with nondelinquent peers. Juvenile offenders have lower intellectual and 

academic functioning (reading skills are 

between fifth and seventh grade levels, 

generally 2 years below those of nondelinquent peers, and writing skills are 

between fifth and sixth grade levels). 

In addition, both male and female delinquents have significantly lower math 

achievement scores than nondelinquents 

and significantly inferior oral skills (as 

shown by a higher percentage of grammatical errors in their speech); 38 percent 

of boys and 14 percent of girls qualified 

for speech and language services (Foley 

2001). Many inmates also have cognitive deficits in the form of learning disabilities, mental retardation, and limited 

problem-solving and creative-thinking 

skills (Holley and Brewster 1997). Both 

youth and adults with disabilities and/or 

emotional and behavioral disorders have 

difficulty transitioning to the community 

postrelease (Foley 2001) and often fail 

to keep a job (Bullis and Nishioka-Evans 

1993). This is likely due, at least in part, 

to the lack of social skills needed to interact appropriately with supervisors and 

coworkers. 

The existence of a criminal record also 

affects opportunities for employment 

(American Bar Association 2007; Dietrich 2006; O’Brien 2002).5 Employers are 

often reluctant to hire ex-offenders due to 

a perceived risk of continued engagement 

in criminal behavior (Harris and Keller 

2005), concerns about the trustworthiness of the individual (Stoll and Bushway 

2008), or fear of negligent tort claims in 

Both state legislatures and 

Congress have passed laws 

restricting ex-offenders 

from obtaining employment in approximately 

350 occupations. 

the event an employer failed to conduct 

a background check and the individual’s 

behavior harmed another during the 

course of work or through an opportunity 

provided by the job (Clark 2004). Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 prohibits employers from refusing to hire an individual solely because of 

a criminal record,6 many exceptions exist 

(Harris and Keller 2005). Both state legislatures and Congress have passed laws 

restricting ex-offenders from obtaining 

employment through licensure and certification restrictions in “approximately 

350 occupations” (Clark 2004:196; Harris 

and Keller 2005). These industries and 

occupations include financial institutions 

(accounting and real estate), the medical 

field (dentists, optometrists, pharmacists, 

home health care, and nursing), transportation, some unionized trade occupations 

(plumbers), and the personal service 

industry (cosmetology, barbering, and 

child care) (Lucken and Ponte 2008; 

Petersilia 2003). The situation has notably worsened since the terrorist attacks 

of September 11, 2001: “a heightened 

concern for internal security has translated into a spate of new laws requiring 

records checks upon application for various professional occupations and employments ... such as transportation, and with 

vulnerable populations such as children 

and the elderly, without regard to the 

nature of the conviction, how long ago it 

occurred, or what the people have since 

made of their lives” (American Bar Association 2007:3). These employment restrictions are limiting for all ex-offenders, 

but pose particular concerns for women. 

Because female offenders generally have 

minimal skills and little experience, several of the restricted occupations would 

be well suited for them, including the 

caregiving and service industries of home 

health care, child care, and cosmetology. 

Further, these positions are likely to have 

more flexible hours and allow women 

to work part time, providing more time 

to care for children or to seek training to 

improve long-term employment opportunities. However, because of prohibitions 

against higher skilled positions such as 

nursing, accounting, and skilled trades 

(e.g., electrical or plumbing), women cannot advance from caregiving and service 

positions into professions that are more 

likely to provide a living wage and benefits. It is ironic that vocational programs 

in correctional institutions usually focus 

on industries such as cosmetology and 

barbering, although in some states 

ex-offenders are statutorily prohibited 

from these fields. 

5 
Although these restrictions might keep 

an ex-offender from seeking employment 

in particular occupations and industries, 

there is another barrier to employment in 

unrestricted occupations and industries. 

Often, employers ask about criminal history during the job application process. 

This practice has led to a movement to 

“ban the box” (which seeks to eliminate 

questions related to criminal convictions 

on initial job applications) so that exoffenders will not immediately be deemed 

ineligible for hire based on that factor 

alone (Stoll and Bushway 2008). As a 

result, new policies to promote fair hiring 

practices have been enacted at the state, 

county, and city levels (Safer Foundation 

2009). Stoll and Bushway (2008:373) 

assert that this movement may not have 

the desired impact because of insufficient 

information about “how employers use 

criminal history information or what its 

effect on hiring ex-offenders might be.” 

Further, Stoll and Bushway (2008) studied 619 firms in California and found 

that some employers were willing to hire 

ex-offenders based on the type of crime 

committed (e.g., a drug offense versus a 

violent crime); this shows that employers 

are making informed decisions based on 

the substance of a person’s entire history rather than simply the existence of a 

criminal record. Although this is encouraging, the existence of a criminal record 

is often a barrier to fruitful employment. 

Employment prospects for most female 

offenders typically consist of low-wage 

jobs; even those who have the skills 

and experience to obtain a better job are 

often challenged by responsibilities as 

the primary caretaker of minor children. 

Demands include “family court, child 

protective services, and school systems 

on behalf of their children” (Flavin 

2004:213) and the lack of adequate and 

affordable childcare (Berman 2005; 

Harm and Phillips 2001; Travis and Waul 

2003). Childcare issues are particularly 

problematic for parents of infants or children with disabilities. An additional logistical challenge is that daycare providers 

usually operate only during regular business hours, yet many jobs require alternative shifts. Further, public transportation 

for alternative shifts may not be available 

or women may feel unsafe taking public 

transportation late at night or in more 

risky neighborhoods (Berman 2005). 

Historically, public welfare was a “safety 

net” to stabilize families during this reentry process, but this has changed in recent 

years (Travis and Waul 2003:24). In 

many states, offenders with a felony drug 

conviction or who are in violation of probation or parole are ineligible to receive 

public assistance benefits, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 

food stamps, Social Security, and public 

housing (Holtfreter, Reisig, and Morash 

2004; Travis and Waul 2003). This is an 

unfortunate trend, particularly given that 

a study of impoverished female offenders 

convicted of felony offenses and under 

community supervision showed that 

women were psychologically empowered 

through the provision of services (e.g., 

education, health care, housing, and job 

training), which significantly decreased 

recidivism by 83 percent (Holtfreter, 

Reisig, and Morash 2004; Salisbury and 

Van Voorhis 2009). Women who are not 

financially independent are more likely to 

continue the cycle of recidivism (Berman 

2005). 

The Role of the Family and 

the community 

Another challenge for offenders is returning home to family. The family and other 

positive supportive relationships (either 

in the family of origin or in families of 

formation) can be critical components of 

success after incarceration because these 

relationships provide both social control 

and social support that inhibit criminal 

activity (Cullen, Wright, and Chamlin 

1999; Maruna, Immarigeon, and LeBel 

2004; Mills and Codd 2008). Conversely, 

individuals who do not have positive 

supportive relationships are more likely 

to engage in criminal behavior (Travis, 

Solomon, and Waul 2001). However, not 

all families provide positive or functional 

environments. Mills and Codd (2008:10) 

caution that families of offenders who 

are returning from incarceration “may 

themselves engage in criminal activity or 

be the cause of the initial offending, and 

in such cases are unlikely to promote a 

reduction in re-offending” [and that this 

is particularly important with respect to 

female offenders, where] “relationships 

with men were at the core of their offending behavior.” This conclusion is 

supported by Daly (1994), who finds 

that the pathway to crime for many girls 

and women included dealing drugs for 

boyfriends or with family members and/ 

or a childhood history of victimization 

and/or neglect. More recently, Alarid and 

colleagues (2000) found that a marital or 

partner relationship with criminal others 

was the strongest predictor of women’s 

engagement in crime. Clearly, although 

families provide crucial support to those 

who have been released from confinement, these “relationships are complicated and made more complicated by the 

prisoner’s return” due to past harms and 

“fear of recurrence” (Travis 2005:222) 

and can be “both the best and most difficult part of returning” home (Harm and 

Phillips 2001:10). 

The role of family is also important in the 

reentry process to “facilitate informal social controls—those interpersonal bonds 

which link ex-inmates to churches, lawabiding neighbors, families and communities” (Petersilia 2003:19). This process 

of expansion to a larger social network allows one to build the social capital needed to succeed in the long term (Broidy 

and Cauffman 2006; Flavin 2004; Reisig, 

Holtfreter, and Morash 2002; Salisbury 

and Van Voorhis 2009). Many offenders 

find jobs through these social networks 

6 
7

(e.g., family and friends) because they are 

not successful in obtaining employment 

otherwise (Bullis and Yovanoff 2006; 

Visher and Travis 2003). Additional social capital available through these social 

networks includes “access to training 

and education, as well as instrumental, 

social and emotional support” (Reisig, 

Holtfreter, and Morash 2002:168), which 

then can be leveraged to increase an individual’s human capital (“acquire new 

skills or knowledge”) (Reisig, Holtfreter, 

and Morash 2002:168). Women offenders generally have less social and human 

capital (which can also be “viewed as 

self-efficacy, or personal confidence to 

act in the best interest of achieving specific goals”) (Salisbury and Van Voorhis 

2009:545) than others. This is particularly 

true when offenders return to communities where a disproportionate percentage 

of the population have come under criminal justice control, thus disrupting kinship 

ties and reducing social capital overall 

(Rose and Clear 1998). In essence, those 

who have little rely on others who have 

little or less; this is true even more for 

those who are socially isolated. 

Reisig, Holtfreter, and Morash (2002) 

explored the availability of social capital 

among 402 women under community 

supervision; they looked at self-reported 

size of social networks (including measures of emotional, instrumental, and 

overall support) as well as characteristics 

of social networks, social support, and 

demographics. They found that women 

with lower levels of educational attainment had smaller networks and received 

less support. Also, younger offenders 

(although with similar-sized networks as 

older offenders) received less social and 

instrumental support. Overall, women 

who earned less than $8,000 per year 

had less social support than women who 

earned more than $8,000 annually. In addition, Reisig and colleagues (2002:181) 

state that those who attempt to move 

beyond an existing social network “in 

conventional ways” (e.g., legitimate 

employment in lieu of criminal involvement) may experience ridicule or 

resistance because their actions are 

viewed as undermining group cohesion.

Thus, social networks can both foster 

success by nurturing social and human 

capital or discourage those who engage 

in activities or ideas that are perceived a

different. 

s 

Salisbury and Van Voorhis (2009:547) 

advanced this area of research when they 

tested a “social and human capital model” 

with 313 felony female probationers and 

found that both social and human capital 

are needed to comprehensively address 

the challenges of female offenders. Specifically, the authors observed that both 

family support scales (assessing conflict 

in the family of origin and communicating with those who provided encouragement and assistance) and self-efficacy are 

related to an employment and financial 

needs scale. (Employment was measured 

by whether the individual had a job at 

the time of her arrest and the presence of 

employment challenges over the previous 

3 years. Financial needs included whether 

the respondent had a car, had a bank account, was ever unable to pay bills without assistance, and was ever homeless.) 

The results indicate that women with 

“lower self-confidence and little to no 

support from family ... had greater problems keeping and maintaining a job and 

financial independence” (Salisbury and 

Van Voorhis 2009:559) and these factors 

were significantly related to readmission 

to prison.

Further, the findings support those who 

call for the use of holistic approaches 

(Richie 2001), which serve not only the 

totality of the individual’s needs (e.g., 

housing, education, relationship counseling, family support, substance abuse and 

mental health treatment) but also respond 

to gender-specific needs and risk factors 

(e.g., trauma informed (understanding 

the cultural, social, and psychological 

context of those who were mentally, 

physically, and/or sexually abused) and 

relational (the desire or need to be connected to others)) (Berman 2005; Bloom, 

Owen, and Covington 2003; McCampbell 

2005; Salisbury and Van Voorhis 2009). 

Because the problems are multiplicative, 

complex, and comprehensive, the solutions should be likewise. 

Time-Management Skills

Successfully navigating the numerous 

family and personal responsibilities and 

competing priorities is often contingent 

on time-management skills. A recent 

study by the Women’s Prison Association 

explores how women in transition manage time and how this influences reentry 

priorities and goals (Rose et al. 2008). 

In general, people struggle to meet dayto-day responsibilities, but for those who 

have recently left an institution where 

choice and freedom are in short supply, 

the task of returning to the community 

can be difficult (Rose et al. 2008). There 

are many transitional objectives (which 

the authors call “manifest” goals), including obtaining identification, applying for 

social service benefits, acquiring stable 

housing, meeting criminal justice release 

requirements (including substance abuse 

recovery meetings and regular contact 

with supervision officers), and reuniting 

with family. The study analyzed selfreported time diaries and conducted 

indepth interviews of 34 women who 

• • • •

Both social and human 

capital are needed to 

comprehensively address 

the challenges of female 

offenders.
 

returned to the community from prison 

(n = 18) and jail (n = 16)7 and found that 

although employment was an important 

goal, it was not the most important priority for these women. 

Although the majority of the women in 

the study were unemployed, most were 

not actively seeking employment at the 

time of the study and “the way they organized their schedules generally prevented 

them from becoming employed” (Rose et 

al. 2008:116). The women were often 

focused on meeting “latent” goals of 

minimizing stress (by allowing enough 

time to travel to appointments to avoid 

being late or not making too many appointments in a single day), staying out 

of trouble (by maintaining various obligations), and taking care of themselves8 

(taking time to relax or meet with prosocial friends). Consequently, their day-today schedule often contained a degree of 

free time and flexibility. This was often 

an accommodation to the lack of control 

the women experienced when appointments were scheduled by others (e.g., a 

service provider) to meet the timetable 

of a provider or government agency. 

Nonetheless, although the women had 

pockets of time available, these periods 

were generally not long enough to accommodate a work schedule or occurred 

at varying intervals that did not permit a 

work schedule. 

Further, the study sample was divided 

into three groups (least scheduled, 

semischeduled, and most scheduled) and 

researchers determined that the capacity 

to reorganize schedules to accommodate 

work was most likely among the leastscheduled and semischeduled groups. 

Those who fell into the most-scheduled 

group were “highly programmed (much 

like prison is) ... [which] doesn’t leave 

time for work” (Rose et al. 2008:139). 

Interestingly, this highly programmed 

group had been home for the longest 

period; therefore, this group may be well 

served by exploring alternatives to 

programming to allow more time for 

employment. 

Rose and colleagues (2008) compared 

the respondents’ daily schedules to their 

stated goal of obtaining work (although 

the respondents exhibited little effort 

toward that goal) and explored this contradiction with the participants. They 

found that although the respondents generally felt work is important, the women 

were also realistic about their potential 

for employment. They realized that it 

would be difficult to find a job and that 

they would not be likely to obtain a job 

with a living wage, benefits, or the possibility for career advancement. For those 

who “had aspirations of doing work that 

extended beyond the paycheck, this was 

an insurmountable disincentive. They 

gave up hope and effectively stopped 

looking for work” (Rose et al. 2008:120). 

The researchers also note that although 

the lack of job opportunities was a barrier, improving both problem-solving 

and time-management skills might increase the women’s self-esteem (having 

a sense of worth) and self-efficacy (the 

knowledge that it is possible to succeed), 

leading to better overall outcomes. Case 

and Fasenfest (2004) also found that poor 

self-esteem was perceived as the most 

difficult challenge in regard to reentry 

and suggested that women receive training in the area of life skills. Without intervention, feelings of worthlessness and 

helplessness can erode a person’s confidence and undermine efforts to overcome 

difficult circumstances, thus making successful reentry more difficult. 

The Role of Agency 

The task of effective intervention and 

behavioral change is complicated by the 

role of “personal agency” (Giordano, 

Cernkovich, and Rudolph 2002). Personal 

agency is the ability to act on opportunities (Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph 

2002; Laub and Sampson 2003), and people need a “minimum level of resources 

to draw on in order to begin such a transformation process” (Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph 2002:1056). Further, the 

degree of personal agency differs among 

individuals. “Individuals vary in what 

they bring to the change process, including differences in preferences and level 

of motivation” (Giordano, Cernkovich, 

and Rudolph 2002:1055). The ability to 

change is affected by the level of difficulty one experiences, such that the role 

of agency is less pivotal for those with 

greater advantages (or social capital) 

overall. For those “at an exceedingly high 

level of disadvantage, cognitive transformations and associated agenic moves are 

unlikely to be nearly enough” to engender 

long-term change despite opportunities 

provided (Giordano, Cernkovich, and 

Rudolph 2002:1054; Broidy and Cauffman 2006). It is important to note that 

most of the individuals in the study by 

Giordano and colleagues were not at the 

extremes of the continuum of structural 

disadvantage (exceedingly high versus 

exceedingly low), and these are the individuals for whom targeted interventions 

may be most effective. 

These barriers to employment are not 

only economically challenging to women 

returning to the community; they may be 

emotionally draining as well. Although 

there is a prosocial emphasis on the 

value of work and an expectation that 

ex-offenders will seek and obtain employment, these women are faced with limited 

opportunities and multiple complex challenges; this can be a recipe for depression, self-doubt, and continued reliance 

on institutional and social services for 

support. However, there are opportunities 

for women to address some of these challenges while they are under the custodial 

control of criminal justice agencies. 

8 
9

several correctional institutions provided 

insight on the challenge to coursework 

completion—a “potential barrier” existed 

whenever inmates had to choose between 

classwork and paid work assignments 

(Winterfield et al. 2009:7). This study 

also includes a recidivism analysis that 

found that inmates who participated in 

postsecondary education were less likely 

to recidivate within 1 year of release 

compared with those who did not participate (Winterfield et al. 2009). Two sites 

(Massachusetts and New Mexico) measured recidivism by rearrest and Indiana 

measured recidivism by return to prison. 

Although the results are statistically significant, they should be viewed as “promising” due to the marginal significance of 

the findings (Winterfield et al. 2009). 

Vocational/Technical Programs 

Vocational training includes trade skills 

(e.g., auto mechanics, carpentry, electrical 

work), computer and other occupational 

skills (e.g., culinary arts, warehousing), 

and time management, ethics, and basic 

math skills required on the job (Bouffard, 

MacKenzie, and Hickman 2000; Finn 

1997). Some vocational programs also 

provide “hands-on industrial experience” 

(MacKenzie 2002:363). Fifty-six percent 

of state prisons, 94 percent of federal 

prisons, and 7 percent of local jails report 

that they provide vocational training and 

other “special programs designed to train 

participants for a job” (Harlow 2003:4). 

Unfortunately, more inmates would like 

to participate in vocational training, but 

the availability is limited—more inmates 

were on waiting lists than were enrolled 

in training programs (Contardo and Tolbert 2008). For example, in a survey of 

jail inmates, women indicated that work 

and vocational training were among their 

program priorities, but only 14 to 28 percent of them were enrolled in vocational 

programs (Gray, Mays, and Stohr 1995). 

Barriers to enrollment in programs include 

classes (Gray, Mays, and Stohr 1995). A 

national survey of 100 jails conducted in 

1981 indicated that 35 percent of women 

in “mixed population jails” were involved 

in educational classes, compared with 

11 percent in exclusively women’s jails 

(Neto 1981, as cited by Gray, Mays, and 

Stohr 1995:195). 

Participation in postsecondary education programs in correctional institutions declined after 1994, when inmates 

became ineligible to receive a Pell grant 

and other student financial aid (Contardo 

and Tolbert 2008). Although less than 5 

percent of inmates participated in postsecondary programs in 2003, the number 

of individuals in these programs is on 

par with 1994, given the increased prison 

population. About 7 in 10 postsecondary 

programs are conducted through the local 

community college, and course equivalence is sought for those in the institution 

and those in the community. In addition, 

degrees are issued without distinguishing 

between the correctional institution and 

the community campus (Contardo and 

Tolbert 2008). However, inmates often 

withdraw from or drop out of courses, so 

completion rates are a challenge for these 

programs. A study by the Urban Institute 

that included inmate focus groups in 

The following section provides an overview of correctional education and vocational programs for offenders.9

correctional Education and 

Vocational Programs 

Education Programs 

Blitz (2006) surveyed 900 women in a 

state correctional facility to determine the 

factors that predict stability in employment prior to incarceration (measured by 

full-time employment and employment 

for at least 1 year) and found that educational achievement was the strongest 

predictor. There is a positive relationship 

between an increased level of educational 

achievement and an increased probability 

of employment (Alemagno and Dickie 

2005) by “providing job skills, life skills 

and increased self-esteem” (Case and 

Fasenfest 2004:25). Blitz (2006:16) 

recommends that correctional education should focus on women with low 

levels of education and asserts that the 

institution is the best place for education 

because inmates are a “captive audience 

... and can be easily motivated to make 

productive use of their time.” However, 

for correctional education to be effective, 

standardized programs must be developed 

to ensure greater parity in both access to 

and quality of inmate programming. 

All federal prisons, 90 percent of state 

prisons, and 60 percent of jails provide 

educational programs (Harlow 2003), 

which generally focus on GED preparation and adult basic education. A few 

prison institutions have postsecondary educational programs; however, a survey of 

five exclusively female jails in 1995 revealed that none of the jails provided college courses to inmates (Gray, Mays, and 

Stohr 1995).10 Further, although women 

in this survey rated college courses as a 

top program priority, only 7 percent were 

either in GED preparation or high school 

• • • •

For correctional education 

to be effective, standardized programs must be 

developed to ensure greater parity in both access 

to and quality of inmate 

programming. 
 

• • • • 

not only availability of programming, 

but participants’ failure to meet enrollment eligibility criteria. For example, a 

14-week business skills class in a New 

Hampshire women’s facility in the 1990s 

was underutilized because inmates did 

not have the “educational proficiency required by the course content” (North and 

Annis 1994:38). 

Unfortunately, employment training in 

correctional facilities is not only limited, 

it is inferior for women (Zaitzow 2006) 

and is less than salient once the women 

are released (Case and Fasenfest 2004; 

Mann 1997). Traditionally, vocational 

programs for women have focused on 

careers that “lead to low-level, low-pay 

positions in the work force” (Tonkin et al. 

2004:53) such as “cosmetology, food service, laundry, sewing, clerical work, and 

keypunch” (Zaitzow 2006:15). Vocational 

programs should move toward more 

technology-based enterprises to keep up 

with current employment demands (Blitz 

2006; Case and Fasenfest 2004). 

Meeting the basic needs of 

women in jail, along with 

providing employment services and training in social 

skills, will result in better 

outcomes overall. 

Even with adequate and relevant vocational programs, there remains a growing 

need to address both “job-related social 

skills” (Alemagno and Dickie 2005:72) 

and “soft skills”—the “core personal 

competencies and beliefs that hinder” 

an offender’s probability of success 

in a work environment (Tonkin et al. 

2004:53). Soft skills include problemsolving and interpersonal skills needed to 

increase the likelihood that an individual 

will interact well with supervisors and 

coworkers. They include conflict management techniques, socially appropriate 

behavior, and the development of attitudes and behaviors that reflect integrity, 

honesty, and a sense of personal responsibility (Tonkin et al. 2004). Further, 

there is a need to provide opportunities to 

“practice modeling the behavior and skills 

needed to obtain and retain employment” 

(LoBuglio 2001:23). One way to build 

these social, business, and relational skills 

is for offenders to seek out entrepreneurial opportunities.11 

A study by Alemagno and Dickie (2005) 

provides additional information about 

women’s programmatic needs in jail. In 

this project, researchers interviewed 110 

women in 2 county jails in the Midwest. 

Respondents were asked about their personal, criminal, and health histories, and 

a comprehensive employment history, 

training, and placement needs assessment 

was conducted (Alemagno and Dickie 

2005). Of the 108 women who provided 

employment information, approximately 

half (52 women) were employed prior 

to detainment; 56 women had not been 

employed. Those who had been employed 

were significantly more likely to be a 

parent, to have a high school diploma, to 

have an employment skill, to have a driver’s license and a vehicle, and to have no 

prior convictions (significant at p<.10) as 

compared with the unemployed women. 

The 56 women who were not employed 

were significantly more impaired than 

the employed sample—they were more 

likely to be physically ill and receiving 

mental health services, to be preoccupied 

with alcohol and/or drugs, and to perceive 

they had a drug problem. The women in 

the study were grouped by stated need for 

employment services. Of the 110 women 

in the study, 96 (or 87 percent) stated 

they needed employment assistance; the 

remaining 14 respondents did not need 

assistance. Among those who expressed 

a need for assistance, 81 percent also had 

a need for housing and 62 percent needed 

family assistance. This was a significant 

difference from those who declared they 

had no need for employment services. 

The two groups were similar in their need 

for medical care, mental health treatment, 

and/or drug treatment. 

These data and those from another study 

by the same group (Tonkin et al. 2004) 

indicate that meeting the basic needs 

of women in jail, along with providing 

employment services and training in social skills, will result in better outcomes 

overall. A holistic and publicly funded 

approach will be necessary to provide 

offenders with basic necessities such as 

food, housing, child care, clothing, and 

transportation until employment and 

earnings have stabilized. In addition, 

Tonkin and colleagues (2004) state that 

co-occurring mental health and drug addiction issues must be addressed so an 

offender can find and maintain employment (particularly as employers routinely 

test for drug use as part of their screening process).12 Alemagno and Dickie 

(2005:73) also call for social skills interventions that are sufficiently brief to 

be useful for a transient jail population, 

along with routine employment assessments that are comprehensive and 

include “evaluation of basic skills and 

technology/computer skills, a review of 

past job and employment success, identification of current barriers to employment, an assessment of substance use and 

abuse, and exploration of realistic and 

attainable goals.” These combined efforts, 

coupled with social skills programs and 

access to services postrelease, are needed 

to increase opportunities for sustained 

employment. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

Overall Effectiveness of Educational 

and Vocational Programs 

Much of the research in this area is hindered by the limitation that studies have 

been unable to control for an individual’s 

motivation to succeed. This is particularly 

true regarding studies in which subjects 

volunteered for the program and thus may 

have been more likely to do well regardless of the intervention.13 Nevertheless, 

there is reason to believe that educational 

and vocational programs may be effective 

in reducing criminal behavior (Bouffard, 

MacKenzie, and Hickman 2000; LoBuglio 

2001; MacKenzie 2002; Western 2006; 

Wilson, Gallagher, and MacKenzie 

2000; Winterfield et al. 2009). Notably, 

MacKenzie (2002) found that inmates 

who participated in vocational and educational programs while incarcerated 

were less likely to recidivate. The Urban 

Institute study discussed above found that 

inmates who participated in postsecondary education were less likely to recidivate within 1 year of release (Winterfield 

et al. 2009). Further, juvenile delinquents 

who earned a GED or completed a vocational program while incarcerated were 

twice as likely to be employed 6 months 

postrelease and recidivated less compared with those who did not participate 

(Foley 2001). The few adult studies that 

examine prison industry programs suggest 

that those that combine work along with 

“vocational education and/or job search 

assistance” have a greater likelihood of 

reducing recidivism, although the evidence is weak (Bouffard, MacKenzie, and 

Hickman 2000:22; Wilson, Gallagher, 

and MacKenzie 2000) and is most likely 

a result of the more direct relationship of 

program participation, thus increasing the 

chances of finding employment postrelease (Richardson 2005). 

The value of correctional education appears to vary by race. Case and Fasenfest 

(2004) conducted focus groups with 

29 offenders postrelease. Half the participants were African American, and 

the other half were white. The AfricanAmerican males viewed vocational training as more valuable because skills could 

be translated directly into employment, 

whereas college education focused on less 

practical critical thinking skills. However, 

this view may be due to perceptions of 

barriers to employment. Although both 

whites and African Americans perceive 

barriers to employment, white participants more often felt that failure to obtain 

a job was because of “a personal characteristic, rather than systemic discrimination” (Case and Fasenfest 2004:32). The 

authors assert that regardless of race, 

adjustment postrelease largely depends 

on social skills; those who were “well 

adjusted to their social situations” were in 

sharp contrast to the group of respondents 

who believed that the prison industrial 

complex was more concerned about the 

survival of its system and that programs 

therefore were “designed for failure rather 

than success” and who were “angry at 

the system and believed the job search 

was futile” (p. 35). Although training in 

social skills may facilitate greater personal responsibility, many who felt this 

way would likely decide not to participate 

in such a program (Case and Fasenfest 

2004). 

Outcomes for Female Offenders 

in Educational and Vocational 

Programs 

The Urban Institute’s study of postsecondary education included a women’s 

prison in New Mexico; although the 

recidivism results were not disaggregated by gender, the results from the 

focus group showed that participation 

in postsecondary education increased 

self-esteem (Winterfield et al. 2009). 

Further, focus group participants stated 

that engagement in college classes helped 

offenders adjust to the institution because 

classes “overshadowed the fact that they 

were incarcerated and kept them from 

thinking about ‘doing time’” (Winterfield et al. 2009:6). Brewster and Sharp 

(2002) examined the impact completing 

a GED in a correctional setting has on 

recidivism. They found that, of 5,572 

Oklahoma prisoners (548 of whom were 

women) who did not have a high school 

diploma when they entered prison, 1,044 

completed a GED. This group had a 

longer survival time postrelease before 

returning to prison compared with those 

who did not complete a GED. Further, 

women who completed a GED took longer to recidivate than men who completed 

a GED (Brewster and Sharp 2002). 

Brewster and Sharp (2002) also examined 

the impact of vocational education on 

recidivism. They found that in a sample 

of more than 11,800 inmates (including 

1,178 women) in Oklahoma who participated in vocational technical programs 

while in custody, participants returned to 

prison in less time than those who did not 

participate (Brewster and Sharp 2002). 

The authors concluded that “current vocational programs in Oklahoma appear to be 

ineffective or even harmful in some situations” (Brewster and Sharp 2002:328). 

However, these data reflect the impact of 

vocational education overall and do not 

address specific curriculums in the Oklahoma prison. An alternative explanation 

is that engaging offenders in vocational 

education may raise “expectations that 

are ultimately unmet” if they do not find 

a job postrelease, leading to “[becoming] 

disillusioned and feeling even more trapped 

in the system ... [leading] to a return to 

crime” (Brewster and Sharp 2002:330). 

The following section contains a review 

of the empirical evidence related to employment and crime. 

11 
12

employment opportunities for low-skilled 

workers in recent decades (Giordano, 

Cernkovich, and Rudolph 2002). 

The next section discusses employment 

and female offenders.

Employment Outcomes and 

Female Offenders 

Generally, female offenders are underemployed and unemployed, work fewer 

hours than men, make less per hour than 

men, and are often employed in temporary low-level occupations or entry-level 

positions with little chance for advancement. Many of them also lack the education and vocational skills required to be 

competitive in the labor market (O’Brien 

2002). 

Uggen and Kruttschnitt (1998) conducted the only gender-specific study of 

employment-based interventions (e.g., 

training, placement, skill building) with 

an adult female offender sample that 

includes recidivism as the outcome. Six 

other studies explore employment and 

female offending but do not evaluate 

programmatic effectiveness. Rather, they 

incorporate employment as an outcome of 

interest among a criminal justice population. One study examines a jail diversion 

program (Pollard et al. 2007), one examines women released from jail (Freudenberg et al. 2005), and four explore women 

on parole (O’Brien 2006; Schram et al. 

2006; Hall et al. 2004; and LaLonde and 

Cho 2008). No studies were identified 

for probationers. Given the lack of available studies on adult women, a genderdisaggregated study of the transitional 

experiences of female and male adolescents concludes this section.

Uggen and Kruttschnitt (1998:347) used 

data from the National Supported Work 

Demonstration (NSWD) program in the 

1970s, which was a rigorous study of 

employment and crime that included a 

“population of serious and high-risk 

but there is an intermediate step in the 

desistance process where individuals begin to think of themselves in a new way 

and form an identity that is inconsistent 

with continued engagement in criminal 

behaviors. Giordano and colleagues 

(2002:999–1000) further assert that while 

turning points (e.g., employment) can 

be “hooks for change,” the process of 

“cognitive transformation” toward a new 

self-identity is a necessary step toward 

long-term desistance. 

It is important to note that Sampson and 

Laub’s (1993) theory of age-graded informal social control was based on the 

life events of 500 white male delinquents 

from the 1920s; therefore, the role of race 

and gender in this process is unknown. 

The longitudinal study by Giordano and 

colleagues (2002) provides a gender and 

race perspective on the role of social 

bonds in desistance by analyzing a contemporary sample of previously institutionalized adolescent male and female 

offenders, a third of whom were nonwhite. Although these researchers found 

that their results were “generally compatible” with those of Sampson and Laub, 

job stability was not a strong predictor 

of desistance. This may be due in part to 

changes in the marketplace (e.g., the loss 

of manufacturing jobs), with more limited 

Employment and crime 

Having a job can inhibit crime because 

prosocial values increase as “‘proper’ 

work habits” are developed (Scull 

1984:26); in this way, workers have an 

opportunity to practice the day-to-day discipline generally required by employers. 

This also improves the employee’s sense 

of worth and self-esteem (Doeren and 

Hageman 1982; Rose et al. 2008). In addition to reducing the risk of recidivism, 

employment helps establish a daily routine, a sense of satisfaction in a job well 

done, and the ability to provide for loved 

ones. Thus, employment plays a vital 

role in an individual’s ability to conform 

to “familial and communal roles” (Piven 

and Cloward 1993:7) and enhances the 

development of prosocial community 

ties (Doeren and Hageman 1982). This 

is important because offenders who are 

influenced by informal social control established through bonds to family, work, 

and/or community members are more 

likely to desist from crime (Petersilia 

2003).

The Role of Employment and 

Desistance From crime 

Work can be a vital turning point away 

from a criminal path (Sampson and Laub 

1993; Uggen 2000).14 Employment can 

impact the desistance process by the 

establishment of informal social bonds 

through the development of strong attachments to prosocial others15 (e.g., 

employers and/or fellow employees) and 

thereby engender behavioral change. This 

is referred to as “age-graded informal social control” (Sampson and Laub 1993); 

it is a cumulative process in which the 

greater levels of commitment one feels to 

conventional others, the more constrained 

one is in engaging in antisocial and 

criminal behaviors. However, Giordano, 

Cernkovich, and Rudolph (2002) posit 

that it is not simply the existence of a 

prosocial relationship that drives change, 

• • • •

Offenders who are 

influenced by informal 

social control established 

through bonds to family, 

work, and/or community 

members are more likely 

to desist from crime.
offenders.” The NSWD program drew 

from three groups of disadvantaged men 

and women, including ex-offenders, 

substance abusers, and youth who had 

dropped out of school. Individuals were 

referred to the program by criminal justice, social service, and drug treatment 

facilities and were randomly assigned 

to either a supported work program or 

a control group. Those in the treatment 

group were “offered subsidized jobs for 

up to 18 months in work crews with six 

to eight other participants” (Uggen and 

Kruttschnitt 1998:347). Both the treatment and control group participants provided information about their criminal 

and employment status every 9 months 

for 3 years. 

In this study, Uggen and Kruttschnitt 

(1998) selected only those in the sample 

who admitted they had earned money 

through illegal means or had a prior arrest. Of the 3,093 participants who reported illegal earnings, 302 were women; 

of the 3,764 participants who had a prior 

arrest, 340 were women. The results 

indicated that for women, employment 

was not a significant factor in predicting 

involvement in illegal earnings. However, 

employment in a “regular” job reduced 

the risk of arrest by 83 percent. An 

analysis of women who were employed 

in subsidized jobs, while less rigorously 

significant at p<.10, likewise indicated a 

reduction in criminal activity. Although 

there is little information about the type 

or quality of work for women in “regular” 

jobs, the description of a program job 

(i.e., a work crew) may indicate that these 

jobs were somewhat less significant, in 

part because they are of a lower quality 

than other types of jobs. 

A jail diversion program (the Women’s 

Support Program in Connecticut) 

provides preliminary evidence of the 

effectiveness of a gender-specific case 

management model that includes treatment for substance abuse and trauma 

(Pollard et al. 2007). This program incorporates a “gender sensitive approach 

[that] is strength-based, empowering 

and nurturing with attention to the importance of women’s relationships and 

connectedness with others” (Pollard et 

al. 2007:54).16 Outcomes 12 months after 

program initiation indicate overall improved functioning, including higher levels of employment, higher wages, lower 

engagement in illegal earnings, reductions 

in substance use, and “significantly fewer 

arrests in the 12 months after enrollment 

in the program than the 12 months prior 

to enrollment” (Pollard et al. 2007:61). 

The authors note that this is a small 

sample (109 participants), only 69 participants (63 percent) reported at 12 months, 

and the study does not use a comparison 

group. 

One of the few studies that focus on the 

nexus of employment, women, and recidivism was conducted by Freudenberg 

and colleagues (2005) on individuals who 

were transitioning to the community from 

jail. This study compared outcomes between adult women and adolescent males 

1 year postrelease and found gender- and 

age-related differences. For example, for 

adult women, income generated from 

employment was “associated with a lower 

likelihood of rearrest, such that each 

$100 increase in weekly salary (up to 

$500) was associated with a 24-percent 

reduction in the likelihood of rearrest” 

(Freudenberg et al. 2005:1729), but 

weekly salary was not a significant factor 

on rearrest for adolescent males. Likewise, any type of employment (formal or 

informal) was not a significant factor on 

rearrest for women, but having a job significantly reduced the likelihood that adolescent males would be rearrested. The 

authors assert that these differences indicate “there is no single, gender-neutral 

pathway home from jail” (Freudenberg 

et al. 2005:1733), thus illustrating the 

need for a gender-responsive approach 

for programs and services “beyond the 

walls” in helping offenders return to the 

community. 

Four studies explored employment outcomes for women postrelease: 

• A qualitative examination of reentry 

in an economically distressed, “underresourced” community (O’Brien 

2006:101). The study explored employment outcomes for 13 female 

offenders and found that 6 months 

after returning home, almost half of 

the women were employed part time 

or were engaged in vocational programming. The women reported a 

consequent increase in self-efficacy 

and more successful outcomes overall 

(O’Brien 2006). 

• A study of 546 female parolees in 

California (Schram et al. 2006). This 

study found that the majority of parolees were sporadically employed 

and those who “experienced frequent 

unemployment during their supervision increased their odds of [parole] 

failure by 250 percent” (Schram et al. 

2006:463). In the 12 months following release from prison, unemployed 

parolees were significantly more likely 

than those who had steady employment to be reincarcerated because of a 

new arrest or technical violation. 

• A study that explored employment 

outcomes of the Forever Free program, 

a prison-based, cognitive-behavioral 

substance abuse treatment program 

followed by residential aftercare treatment in the community (Hall et al. 

2004). The study found that women 

who participated in Forever Free were 

more likely to be employed 1 year 

postrelease than a comparison group. 

However, once the analysis controlled 

for differences in background characteristics, it was determined that length 

of stay in community aftercare residential treatment and the level of prior 

academic achievement were significant 

13 
factors in employment outcomes, 

rather than participation in the prison 

treatment program. 

• A study related to employment 

outcomes of inmates postrelease 

(LaLonde and Cho 2008). These researchers analyzed data from 6,991 

first-time female offenders who were 

released from a state prison in the 

1990s and matched to a social welfare 

database so that economically disadvantaged offenders would be included. 

Therefore, the sample excludes women 

who did not have “a social or welfare 

history between 1990 and 2001,” those 

who are not economically disadvantaged, and recidivists (LaLonde and 

Cho 2008:245). Because the sample 

included first-time sentenced offenders, the average prison stay was 283 

days, half of the sample was incarcerated for 6 months, and 99 percent 

were imprisoned for less than 4 years. 

LaLonde and Cho (2008) then estimated the impact of incarceration on 

employment rates before and after 

incarceration. This study revealed 

that for the first two to three quarters 

postrelease, employment rates increased beyond preincarceration levels, 

indicating that “prison does not harm 

Illinois women’s employment prospects ... in the short-term it is associated with modestly improved chances 

of employment” (LaLonde and Cho 

2008:251). However, this improvement 

appears to be temporary, particularly 

for those women who “fall out of employment ... their chances of becoming employed again may be no larger, 

and may even be a little less, than they 

were during the pre-prison period” 

(LaLonde and Cho 2008:255). When 

the researchers examined these results 

according to number of children and 

type of offense, they found that women who had four or more children, who 

were incarcerated for person-related 

crimes, and who had been incarcerated 

for a longer period of time had better 

employment outcomes for longer periods. These results showing that prison 

improves employment opportunities, 

at least in the short term, are counterintuitive; however, many factors are 

not accounted for in the data. For example, there are no measures of parole 

conditions or the rate of employment 

once parole was completed. Second, 

there are no indicators that the women 

took part in vocational, educational, 

mental health, and/or substance abuse 

programs while incarcerated. These 

programs and services may have had a 

beneficial impact on overall outcomes, 

including employment, that were not 

sustained over the long term. Third, 

women who were convicted of person 

offenses are the least likely to recidivate compared with those convicted of 

property or drug offenses (Deschenes, 

Owen, and Crow 2007). 

Because there are very few studies on the 

outcomes of employment programs for 

adult women, this review concludes with 

a descriptive study of 531 formerly incarcerated boys and girls in Oregon (Bullis 

and Yovanoff 2006). The study captures 

transition experiences for these youth 

in their return to the community after 

release from the Oregon Youth Authority. Study participants were interviewed 

in person while they were detained in 

facilities, and then by telephone every 6 

months for up to 4 years. Although only 

30 percent of the sample was working at 

either 6 months or 12 months postrelease, 

girls were almost three times less likely 

to be employed than boys at 6 months 

postrelease—they worked significantly 

fewer hours per week than boys and 

earned less per hour. Those with special 

education disabilities (defined as learning disabilities or emotional problems) 

were two times less likely to be employed 

than those without such disabilities. Outcomes for the entire sample also indicate 

a strong positive association between 

vocational education, substance abuse 

treatment, and employment—those who 

participated in vocational training while 

detained or who received substance 

abuse treatment prior to detainment were 

more likely to be employed 12 months 

postrelease. The differences in employment outcomes for boys and girls, and for 

those with special education disabilities, 

indicate that there is a need to contextualize employment efforts to account for 

specialized needs or potential stigmas 

that may differ among groups (e.g., those 

affiliated with a gang may have different 

employment outcomes than those who 

are not involved with a gang) and for 

individual circumstances that may impact 

job placement and long-term employment 

(Bullis and Yovanoff 2006). In essence, 

the researchers conclude, “it is a grave 

error to oversimplify the way employment placement and supports are offered” 

(Bullis and Yovanoff 2006:83). This is 

particularly true in regard to employment 

assistance for youth—it must be viewed 

not in terms of a single job placement, 

but as a long-term investment that provides ongoing support that addresses the 

individual’s inevitably changing needs 

and interests as he/she gains more employment experience. 

Exploring Gender Differences 

in Employment and crime 

Several important studies address gender 

differences in employment and crime. 

Giordano and colleagues (2002) found 

that although employment stability was 

not a significant factor for recidivism 

in the multivariate analysis, distinctions 

are revealed when the data are examined 

contextually. The researchers categorized 

the sample by gender and according to 

whether the individuals were employed, 

married, or both; they found that women 

who were both unmarried and unemployed were more likely to remain criminally involved (measured as self-report 

14 
15

variables) and found that for women, 

employment in either the NSWD program 

job or in another job was not a significant 

predictor of participation in illegal earnings, but both types of employment were 

significant factors that predicted a reduction in arrests. In contrast, for men in the 

sample, employment in an NSWD program job was statistically significant for 

reducing both illegal earnings and arrest, 

while having a “regular” job significantly 

reduced the chances for rearrest but was 

not a significant factor for involvement in 

illegal earnings. 

In a separate analysis of male offenders in 

the NSWD program data, Uggen (2000) 

observed that offenders age 26 or older 

were significantly less likely to recidivate 

after 3 years, but that employment was 

not an effective deterrent for younger offenders. This difference in effectiveness 

may be less salient for women because 

they are usually older (e.g., an average 

age in the midthirties) than male offenders, and because of gendered criminal 

pathways. 

Other studies assert that the relationship 

between employment and crime differs 

for men and women. For example, Li and 

MacKenzie (2003) found that in a sample 

of 125 probationers, being employed 

had a deterrent effect for male offenders 

but it increased women’s involvement in 

crime. However, only a small number of 

women (31 of 125) were included in this 

study, and employment was measured 

solely by whether or not the individual 

had a job; there were no indicators of the 

job’s quality. This is important because 

the impact of work on criminal behavior 

is generally within the context of permanent, full-time, quality jobs that pay a 

living wage and provide benefits (Broidy 

and Cauffman 2006; Sampson and Laub 

1993). For example, being employed full 

time was found to increase the time between release and measures of recidivism 

in a 5-year study of male and female 

and income above the poverty line) and 

expressed higher marital satisfaction were 

more likely to desist from crime. Social 

bonds formed through quality involvement in more than one prosocial institution at a time may make it easier for an 

individual to turn away from antisocial 

and criminal behaviors. 

Uggen and Kruttschnitt’s 1998 study of 

the NSWD program (discussed above in 

the “Employment Outcomes and Female 

Offenders” section) explores gender differences in the impact of employment on 

recidivism and found that women were 

significantly more likely to desist than 

men. There was a statistically significant 

gap between men and women on two 

measures of criminal activity—illegal 

earnings and rearrest. Within 3 years 

of participation in the NSWD program, 

among this sample of 252 women and 

2,415 men, 75 percent of the women and 

59 percent of the men did not report il-

 legal earnings. Similarly, 76 percent of 

the women and 58 percent of the men had

not been rearrested.17 The researchers also

examined these outcomes while accounting for a number of relevant factors (including age, race, educational attainment, 

criminal history, employment, and social 

and arrest in the 2-year period prior to the 

study interview). In contrast, women who 

were married and unemployed were less 

likely to engage in criminal behavior than 

unmarried employed women, and women 

who had what the researchers termed 

the “complete package” (married and 

employed) or “complete ‘high-quality’ 

package” (in a good marriage and in a 

stable job) were the most likely to desist 

(Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph 

2002:1014). This pattern also held for 

men—those who were unmarried and unemployed were much more likely to continue offending, while those who reported 

a “high-quality marital and employment 

package” were more likely to desist compared with men who were married and 

employed (but who did not have a quality marriage or job), married and unemployed, or employed but not married. 

Giordano and colleagues (2002) also 

examined these descriptive categories 

by race and gender and found that of 

those who were African American (male 

and female) or white, women who were 

unemployed and unmarried were the 

most likely to continue their involvement in crime. The sample included 39 

African-American women (67 percent 

were unmarried and unemployed, and 23 

percent desisted) and 65 white women 

(44 percent were unmarried and unemployed, and 24 percent desisted). Of the 

26 African-American men in the sample, 

7.7 percent were both married and employed (although none were in the highquality marriage/employment group). Of 

these individuals, 49 percent desisted. 

The pattern also differed somewhat with 

respect to white males. Of the 67 white 

men in the sample, 23.9 percent were unmarried and unemployed; in this group, 6

percent desisted. In contrast, 7.5 percent 

of the white men were married and unemployed, and none of them desisted. The 

authors conclude that overall, the study 

participants who were both economically 

advantaged (measured by job stability 

• • • •

Social bonds formed 

through quality involvement in more than one 

prosocial institution at a 

time may make it easier 

for an individual to turn 

away from antisocial and 

criminal behaviors.
boot camp graduates (Benda, Harm, and 

Toombs 2005). 

A study by Olson, Lurigio, and Alderden 

(2003) provides information on gender 

differences in factors predicting recidivism among 2,636 male and 689 female 

probationers released from probation in 

November 2000. A comparison between 

the samples indicated that 63 percent of 

male probationers were employed versus 

51 percent of female probationers, but 

there were no differences in age, education level, or substance abuse history. 

However, men had a more extensive 

criminal history—53 percent had one or 

more prior convictions compared with 40 

percent of women. Men were also more 

likely than women to recidivate (as measured by rearrest). In this sample, 

employment (a dichotomous variable of 

1 = employed and 0 = not employed) 

did not significantly predict rearrest or 

technical violations for either men or 

women. As noted by Li and MacKenzie 

(2003), the measure of employment is 

crude and fails to distinguish those with 

quality jobs. However, for men, income 

was negatively and significantly associated with recidivism, in that those with 

higher levels of income were less likely 

to recidivate (either rearrest or technical 

violations). Income was not significant 

for women. 

For women, the key factor for rearrest 

was whether or not treatment was completed. Those who completed substance 

abuse treatment were 75 percent less 

likely to get arrested than those who 

dropped out of treatment, but women who 

“failed at treatment (relative to successful completers) were nearly 300 percent 

more likely to get arrested” (Olson, 

Lurigio, and Alderden 2003:44). These 

findings show that women who succeed 

at substance abuse treatment do very 

well; women who do not succeed become 

more severely at risk for rearrest and 

technical violations. In contrast, men who 

completed treatment were 45 percent less 

likely to recidivate, compared with “only” 

80 percent of men who dropped out of 

treatment (Olson, Lurigio, and Alderden 

2003:44). It is important to consider these 

differences between men and women 

regarding saliency of employment and 

the impact of treatment for probationers, 

especially because little is known about 

probationers. 

Overall, the evidence suggests that desistance from crime is not gender neutral; 

however, the reasons why women desist, 

particularly with respect to employment, 

are a subject for empirical research. Patterns of desistance for women appear 

contextualized by their roles, the importance of relationships, and life experiences (including poverty and trauma). 

However, there are no definitive answers 

about the relationship between employment and crime for female offenders. 

With the identification of only one 

gender-specific study of the impact of an 

employment intervention on recidivism 

(although methodologically rigorous, it 

was based on data from the 1970s) and a 

handful of studies incorporating employment descriptively or as an outcome, 

there is an obvious lack of clarity on the 

topic. It would be premature to posit how 

this relationship differs for women and 

men beyond acknowledging the gendered 

nature of crime and barriers that affect 

women differently than men. Clearly, the 

field is ripe for additional studies of female offenders and work, with particular 

attention to evaluations of employment 

assistance and vocational education for 

women along the entire continuum of 

criminal justice involvement (detainment, incarceration, reentry, probation, 

and parole). Further, observations of the 

work-crime relationship for men (e.g., 

older male offenders are more likely to 

desist than younger offenders) should be 

explored to ascertain saliency for women. 

Research into the area of pathways might 

be called for, including differences that 

exist for women who became criminally 

involved as children or adolescents versus 

those who engaged in crime for the first 

time as adults. Additional insight into 

these areas would allow policymakers and 

correctional administrators to respond to 

the many barriers faced by women who 

are under the control of the criminal justice system. 

conclusion 

Recent studies of women offenders, although few in number, support the contention that pathways out of crime are 

complex and require a gender-responsive 

holistic approach. Further, these studies confirm that it may be more difficult 

for women to overcome many complex 

challenges to obtain, and then maintain, 

employment that is both rewarding and 

sustainable. To make it more likely that 

women will have quality long-term employment, they should have access to the 

following: 

• Correctional education and vocational 

training. 

Employment assistance programs. 

The opportunity to learn problemsolving and time-management skills. 

Supportive functional social networks 

both within and beyond the family. 

The opportunity to engage in a comprehensive, coherent, and holistic 

gender-responsive strategy for treatment and case management services 

that extend beyond institutional walls. 

Public capital (child care, cash assistance, housing, and health care). 

Fewer structural barriers, such as 

reliance on criminal history records. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

Women who have the opportunity to take 

advantage of these services and supports 

are less likely to be involved in criminal 

activities. In addition, access to these 

16 
services and supports can help women 

increase their personal, social, and human capital as well as enhance the overall 

quality of life for the ex-offender, her 

children, her family, and her community. 

Endnotes 

1. The degree to which predictive factors 

such as employment, peers, and education 

are gender neutral is the subject of debate 

(Manchak et al. 2009). Researchers raise 

concerns about the accuracy of predicting 

level of risk and the appropriateness of 

using classification schemas for women 

based on tools normed on male samples 

(Farr 2000). The Level of Service 

Inventory–Revised (LSI–R), a widely 

used prediction tool in criminal justice 

that is a “dynamic risk or needs assessment” (Salisbury, Van Voorhis, 

and Spiropoulos 2009:553, emphasis in 

original), has been the center of this debate. Research conducted on the LSI–R 

strongly supports the “predictive utility of 

the LSI–R for male offender’s general recidivism” (Manchak et al. 2009:427), and 

the LSI–R has been validated with both 

institutional and community populations 

of female offenders (Andrews, Bonta, 

and Wormith 2006; Holsinger, Lowenkamp, and Latessa 2003). However, the 

evidence is mixed. Some studies find 

that the LSI–R predicts female offending 

overall equally well to male offending 

(e.g., Coulson et al. 1996; Manchak et 

al. 2009), while other studies find that 

certain risk factors have a differential impact on prediction, contingent on gender 

(e.g., Heilbrun et al. 2008). For example, 

Manchak and colleagues (2009) found 

that financial problems were a better predictor of time to failure for women than 

for men, and Heilbrun and colleagues 

(2008) found that financial problems were 

significantly higher for women than for 

men. Holtfreter and Morash (2003) state 

that “the specific needs [of offenders] are 

certainly gender related, although the 

focus on the general area ... is similar” 

(p. 141). This plays out in how risk factors influence outcomes; for example, 

marital relationships can inhibit crime in 

men but can be a risk factor for female 

offending (Heilbrun et al. 2008). Recent 

advances to the field on this topic are 

provided in the work of Van Voorhis and 

colleagues at the University of Cincinnati 

in collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections; their work involves 

validation of gender-specific risk factors 

that predicted continued engagement in 

the criminal justice system (Van Voorhis 

2009). These factors include housing 

safety, parental stress, trauma and abuse, 

depression, unhealthy relationships, and 

personal strengths (Van Voorhis et al. 

2009). 

2. This review excludes studies that do 

not focus on employment and correctional 

education as the primary intervention on 

criminal behavior. Studies that incorporate employment or correctional education as a way to describe the sample and/ 

or are included solely as a control variable in an overall analysis were generally 

omitted. 

3. The most recent comprehensive review 

across the continuum of women offenders 

is a publication by Greenfeld and Snell 

(1999). Although this bulletin relies on 

more recent statistical reports with respect 

to gender descriptives, these reports did 

not provide information according to the 

intersection of both gender and race. 

4. Likewise, in terms of economic disadvantage (albeit without the stigma of a 

criminal record), welfare recipients moving from welfare to work face many of 

the same challenges as female offenders. 

These barriers include a lack of job skills, 

illiteracy, physical and mental health 

problems, and lack of adequate child 

care (Danziger et al. 2002). For welfare 

recipients, having one barrier makes independence a difficult goal to achieve, but 

having more than one has a multiplicative 

effect and problems compound accordingly; having multiple barriers “is strongly 

associated with employment, so that the 

greater the number of barriers, the less 

likely the woman is to work” (Danziger et 

al. 2002:19). 

5. See Dietrich (2006) for a detailed 

discussion on issues of availability and 

use of criminal records by non-lawenforcement personnel and the accuracy 

and completeness of criminal history records, including the prevalence of “false 

positives” (“a criminal record attributed 

to someone who is not the person charged 

with the offenses” (p. 9)) and identity 

theft. 

6. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1987, 1990) policy statements 

indicate that employers are prohibited 

from using arrest and conviction records 

in hiring and firing decisions unless there 

is a “business necessity” to do so. To establish business necessity, the employer 

must show that three factors were considered as part of the hiring decision: the 

nature and gravity of the offense(s), the 

time that has elapsed since the conviction 

and/or completion of the sentence, and 

the nature of the job held or sought. 

7. This study was limited because it included a small sample, those in the study 

had attained higher levels of education 

than general offender populations, and 

white women were underrepresented. 

In addition, participants were selected 

from a convenience sample of women 

who were receiving services, which does 

not allow the results to be generalized 

to women who return to the community 

without accessing any services. 

8. This does not imply that these latent 

goals are unworthy; ultimately, they may 

be important factors in the offender’s 

successful transition to the community. 

A recently evaluated gender-responsive 

program incorporating relational theory, 

17 
motivational interviewing, and cognitivebehavioral interventions included similar 

topics in the curriculum. In a sample of 

380 probationers, program participants 

had significantly lower recidivism rates 

at 30 months postrelease compared with a 

control group (Gehring, Van Voorhis, and 

Bell, in press). 

9. The author appreciates an anonymous 

reviewer’s suggestion that while women 

are under community supervision, they 

could take advantage of opportunities for 

vocational training and/or seek sustainable employment. 

10. A key barrier to providing a longterm program (such as a college course) 

in a jail is the relatively short stay (e.g., 

typically no more than 12 to 18 months 

for sentenced offenders and often shorter 

periods for detainees due to pretrial release and/or bail). Nonetheless, “women 

were eager for programming ... [and 

they] were very receptive to learning, improvement and a variety of programming 

opportunities” (Gray, Mays, and Stohr 

1995:192). 

11. Entrepreneurial efforts are likely a 

response to the lack of legitimate opportunities because of statutory, social, 

and stigmatic barriers against employing 

individuals who have a criminal record. 

This is particularly true during an economic downturn, when the available labor 

market talent exceeds the demand, thus 

further limiting opportunities for offenders, who are generally less educated, less 

experienced, and less skilled than noncriminal populations. 

12. Tonkin and colleagues (2004) recommend the “working model” outlined by 

Mann (1997) as an optimal program plan. 

The working model incorporates prerelease job training and postrelease case 

management and job placement. 

13. Studies of criminal behavior are often 

limited by this feature (referred to as 

“selection bias”), which may be obviated 

by random assignment of the study participants to a treatment or control group 

or by recent use of statistical techniques 

that involve matching study subjects 

based on “propensity scores” such as 

one’s tendency to commit crime. 

14. Visher and Travis (2003) note that 

recent studies do not consider recidivism 

in the context of an offender’s period of 

incarceration (the “temporal dimensions 

of the experience of imprisonment” (p. 

106)) and hypothesize that with a longer 

time in confinement, it is more difficult to 

transition to employment and other types 

of prosocial support. 

15. Quality marital relationships to prosocial partners are also considered as a path 

to normative values and a subsequent 

reduction in criminal activity. One of the 

primary sources of information about 

criminal behavior over the life course is 

data originally gathered by Sheldon and 

Eleanor Glueck (1950). These researchers 

gathered data on delinquents (beginning 

in the 1920s) through their adulthood. 

Sampson and Laub (1993) studied 500 

male delinquents from the Glueck data 

and incorporated followup information 

through interviews and arrest records conducted until the subjects were 70 years 

old. They found that men in high-quality 

conventional marriages were more likely 

to refrain from criminal activity (Laub 

and Sampson 2003; Sampson and Laub 

1993). Broidy and Cauffman (2006) 

analyzed the 5-year followup data of the 

500 women in the Glueck study who 

were released from a reformatory in the 

1920s and also found that marriage was 

a predictor of crime cessation. Giordano, 

Cernkovich, and Rudolph (2002) studied a more contemporary sample (data 

originally collected in the 1980s and followup data in the mid-1990s) of male and 

female offenders. Although they did not 

find a strong relationship between marital 

attachment and desistance from crime 

in their overall sample, the data support 

Sampson and Laub’s findings in a small 

subsample of white women and white 

men who “report an average or better 

level of marital happiness, stable employment and household income above the 

poverty level” and were more likely to 

desist (Giordano, Cernkovich, and 

Rudolph 2002:1014). It is important to 

note, however, that the “centrality of 

marriage to the desistance process may 

be historically contingent, such that as 

marriage becomes less accessible, its 

role in the desistance process becomes 

less prominent” (Broidy and Cauffman 

2006:29). This is particularly relevant in 

urban communities that experience disproportionate rates of incarceration and 

subsequent reentry, which create more 

social disorganization along with commensurate lower levels of social cohesion and fewer potential marital partners 

who are not involved in crime (Rose and 

Clear 1998). There is also evidence showing that relationships other than spouse/ 

employer may lead an offender to desist. 

A study of the National Supported Work 

Demonstration program in the 1970s 

found that women with children, higher 

levels of educational attainment, and a 

conventional (“straight”) best friend reported lower illegal earnings, although 

these factors were not significant for arrest (Uggen and Kruttschnitt 1998:355). 

Likewise, men with a conventional best 

friend reported lower illegal earnings; 

however, level of educational attainment 

and parental status were not significant 

factors for either illegal earnings or arrest 

for male offenders. In addition, fostering 

strong attachments to prosocial others is 

the theoretical basis of mentoring programs for both at-risk juveniles and adults 

by providing encouragement, support, 

and a model for normative behaviors and 

problem-solving skills. 

16. This type of strengths-based approach 

is in sharp contrast with the traditional 

medical model, which “suggests that 

18 
 

offenders are ‘sick’ and must be ‘cured’ 

and that things must be done to or for offenders rather than with them ... [which] 

does little to develop a sense of responsibility” (Gray, Mays, and Stohr 1995:200, 

emphasis in original). 

17. These estimates are based on Uggen 

and Kruttschnitt 1998, p. 354, figures 1 

and 2. 

References 

Alarid, L., V. Burton, and F. Cullen. 

2000. “Gender and Crime Among Felony 

Offenders: Assessing the Generality of 

Social Control and Differential Association Theories.” Journal of Research in 

Crime and Delinquency 37:171–99. 

Alemagno, S., and J. Dickie. 2005. “Employment Issues of Women in Jail.” Journal of Employment Counseling 42:67–74. 

American Bar Association. 2007. ABA 

Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions Report IV: Access to and Use of 

Criminal History Information for NonLaw Enforcement Purposes. Available 

from: http://meetings.abanet.org/ 

webupload/commupload/CR209800/ 

newsletterpubs/Report103Drev3307(2).pdf. 

Andrews, D.A., J. Bonta, and J.S. 

Wormith. 2006. “The Recent Past and 

Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment.” Crime & Delinquency 52(1):7–27. 

Benda, B.B., N.J. Harm, and N.J. 

Toombs. 2005. “Survival Analysis of Recidivism of Male and Female Boot Camp 

Graduates Using Life-Course-Theory.” 

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 

40(3/4):87–113. 

Berman, J. 2005. Women Offender Transition and Reentry: Gender Responsive 

Approaches to Transitioning Women Offenders from Prison to the Community. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

NIC Accession Number 021815. 

Blanchette, K., and S.L. Brown. 2006. 

The Assessment and Treatment of Women 

Offenders: An Integrative Perspective. 

West Sussex, England: John Wiley and 

Sons. 

Blitz, C.L. 2006. “Predictors of Stable 

Employment Among Female Inmates in 

New Jersey: Implications for Successful 

Reintegration.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 43(1):1–22. 

Bloom, B., B. Owen, and S. Covington. 

2003. Gender-Responsive Strategies: 

Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections. NIC Accession 

Number 018017. 

Bloom, B., B. Owen, and S. Covington. 

2005. Gender-Responsive Strategies for 

Women Offenders: A Summary of Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles 

for Women Offenders. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections. NIC Accession 

Number 020418. 

Bouffard, J.A., D.L. MacKenzie, and 

L.J. Hickman. 2000. “Effectiveness of 

Vocational Education and Employment 

Programs for Adult Offenders: A 

Methodology-Based Analysis of the 

Literature.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 31(1/2):1–41. 

Brewster, D.R., and S.F. Sharp. 2002. 

“Educational Programs and Recidivism 

in Oklahoma: Another Look.” The Prison 

Journal 82(3):314–34. 

Broidy, L.M., and E.E. Cauffman. 2006. 

Understanding the Female Offender. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

NIC Accession Number 022063. 

Bullis, M., and V. Nishioka-Evans. 1993. 

“Identifying and Assessing the JobRelated Social Skills of Adolescents and 

Young Adults with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.” Journal of Emotional 

and Behavioral Disorders 1(4):236–51. 

Bullis, M., and P. Yovanoff. 2006. “Idle 

Hands: Community Employment Experiences of Formerly Incarcerated Youth.” 

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral 

Disorders 14(2):71–85. 

Case, P., and D. Fasenfest. 2004. “Expectations for Opportunities Following 

Prison Education: A Discussion of Race 

and Gender.” Journal of Correctional 

Education 55(1):24–39. 

Champion, D.J. 2001. “Women and Corrections.” In Corrections in the United 

States: A Contemporary Perspective, 

3d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice 

Hall. 

Clark, L.D. 2004. “A Civil Rights Task: 

Removing Barriers to Employment of 

Ex-Convicts.” University of San Francisco Law Review 38:193–211. 

Contardo, J., and M. Tolbert. 2008. “Prison Postsecondary Education: Bridging 

Learning from Incarceration to the Community.” Available from: www.jjay.cuny. 

edu/centersinstitutes/pri/pdfs/ 

ContardoTolbert_Paper.pdf. 

Coulson, G., G. Ilacqua, V. Nutbrown, D. 

Giulekas, and F. Cudjoe. 1996. “Predictive Utility of the LSI for Incarcerated 

Female Offenders.” Criminal Justice and 

Behavior 23(3):427–39. 

Covington, S.S. 2007. “Women and 

the Criminal Justice System.” Women’s 

Health Issues 17:180–82. 

Cullen, F.T., J.P. Wright, and M.B. 

Chamlin. 1999. “Social Support and Social Reform: A Progressive Crime Control Agenda” Crime & Delinquency 45(2). 

19 
Daly, K. 1994. Gender, Crime and Punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Danziger, S., M. Corcoran, S. Danziger, 

C. Heflin, A. Kalil, J. Levin, D. Rosen, K. 

Seefeldt, K. Siefert, and T. Tolman. 2002. 

Barriers to the Employment of Welfare 

Recipients. Ann Arbor, MI: University 

of Michigan, Population Studies Center 

at the Institute for Social Research. PSC 

Research Report 02–508. Available from: 

www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/ 

rr02-508.pdf. 

Delveaux, K., K. Blanchette, and J. 

Wickett. 2005. Employment Needs, 

Interests and Programming for Women 

Offenders. Ontario, Canada: Correctional 

Service Canada, Research Branch. 

Deschenes, E.P., B. Owen, and J. Crow. 

2007. Recidivism Among Female Prisoners: Secondary Analysis of the 1994 BJS 

Recidivism Data Set. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice. 

Dietrich, S.M. 2006. “Expanded Use 

of Criminal Records and Its Impact on 

Re-entry.” Presentation to the American 

Bar Association Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions. Available from: 

meetings.abanet.org/webupload/ 

commupload/CR209800/ 

sitesofinterest_files/Dietrichpaper.pdf. 

Doeren, S.E., and M.J. Hageman. 1982. 

Community Corrections. Cincinnati, OH: 

Anderson Publishing Company. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1987. “Policy Statement on the 

Issue of Conviction Records under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended.” Available from: http://www. 

eeoc.gov/policy/docs/convict1.html. 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1990. “Policy Guidance on the 

Consideration of Arrest Records in 

Employment Decisions under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.” Available from: www.eeoc.gov/ 

policy/docs/arrest_records.html. 

Farr, K.A. 2000. “Classification for Female Inmates: Moving Forward.” Crime 

& Delinquency 26(1):3–17. 

Finn, P. 1997. The Orange County, 

Florida, Jail Educational and Vocational 

Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Flavin, J. 2004. “Employment Counseling, Housing Assistance ... and Aunt 

Yolanda? How Strengthening Families’ 

Social Capital Can Reduce Recidivism.” 

Criminology 3(2):209–16. 

Foley, R. 2001. “Academic Characteristics of Incarcerated Youth and Correctional Educational Programs: A Literature 

Review.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 9:248–59. 

Freudenberg, N., J. Daniels, M. Crum, T. 

Perkins, and B.E. Richie. 2005. “Coming 

Home from Jail: The Social and Health 

Consequences of Community Reentry 

for Women, Male Adolescents, and their 

Families and Communities.” American 

Journal of Public Health 25(10):1725–36. 

Gehring, K.S., P. Van Voorhis, and V.R. 

Bell. In press. “‘What Works’ for Female 

Probationers? An Evaluation of the Moving On Program.” Women, Girls and 

Criminal Justice. 

Giordano, P.C., S.A. Cernkovich, and 

J.L. Rudolph. 2002. “Gender, Crime, and 

Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation.” American Journal 

of Sociology 107(4):990–1064. 

Glaze, L.E., and T.P. Bonczar. 2007. Probation and Parole in the United States, 

2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Glueck, S., and E. Glueck. 1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: 

The Commonwealth Fund. 

Gray, T., G.L. Mays, and M.K. Stohr. 

1995. “Inmate Needs and Programming 

In Exclusively Women’s Jails.” The Prison Journal 75(2):186–202. 

Greenfeld, L.A., and T.L. Snell. 1999. 

Women Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Hall, E.A., M.L. Prendergast, J. Wellisch, 

M. Patten, and Y. Cao. 2004. “Treating 

Drug-Abusing Women Prisoners: An 

Outcome Evaluation of the Forever Free 

Program.” The Prison Journal 84(1): 

81–105. 

Hardyman, P.L., and P. Van Voorhis. 

2004. Developing Gender-Specific Classification Systems for Women Offenders. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Corrections. 

NIC Accession Number 018931. 

Harlow, C.W. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

Harm, N.J., and S.D. Phillips. 2001. 

“You Can’t Go Home Again: Women 

and Criminal Recidivism.” Journal of 

Offender Rehabilitation 32(3):3–21. 

Harris, P.M., and K.S. Keller. 2005. “ExOffenders Need Not Apply: The Criminal 

Background Check in Hiring Decisions.” 

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 21(1):6–30. 

Harrison, P.M., and A.J. Beck. 2005. 

Prisoners in 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Heilbrun, K., D. Dematteo, R. Fretz, J. 

Erickson, K. Yasuhara, and N. Anumba. 

20 
2008. “How ‘Specific’ are GenderSpecific Rehabilitation Needs? An Empirical Analysis.” Criminal Justice and 

Behavior 35(11):1382–97. 

Holley, P.D., and D. Brewster. 1997. 

“An Examination of the Effectiveness 

of GED Programs within the Oklahoma 

Department of Corrections.” Journal of 

the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research 

Consortium 4. Available from: www.doc. 

state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/97_98/ 

An%20Examination%20of%20the% 

20Effectiveness%20of%20GED% 

20Programs.pdf. 

Holsinger, A.M., C.T. Lowenkamp, and 

E.J. Latessa. 2003. “Ethnicity, Gender, 

and the Level of Service Inventory– 

Revised.” Journal of Criminal Justice 

31:309–20. 

Holtfreter, K., and M. Morash. 2003. 

“The Needs of Women Offenders: Implications for Correctional Programming.” 

Women & Criminal Justice 14(2/3): 

137–60. 

Holtfreter, K., M.D. Reisig, and M. 

Morash. 2004. “Poverty, State Capital, 

and Recidivism Among Women Offenders.” Criminology and Public Policy 3(2): 

185–208. 

James, D.J. 2004. Profile of Jail Inmates 

2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

James, D.J., and L.E. Glaze. 2006. Mental 

Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

LaLonde, R.J., and R. Cho. 2008. “The 

Impact of Incarceration in State Prison on 

the Employment Prospects of Women.” 

Journal of Quantitative Criminology 

24:243–65. 

Langan, P.A., and D.J. Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Laub, J.H., and R.J. Sampson. 2003. 

Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: 

Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 

Lee, S.J., and R.M. Tolman. 2006. 

“Childhood Sexual Abuse and Adult 

Work Outcomes.” Social Work Research 

30(2):83–92. 

Li, S.D., and D.L. MacKenzie. 2003. 

“The Gendered Effects of Adult Social 

Bonds on the Criminal Activities of 

Probationers.” Criminal Justice Review 

28(2):278–98. 

LoBuglio, S. 2001. “Time to Reframe 

Politics and Practices in Correctional Education.” In The Annual Review of Adult 

Learning and Literacy, vol. 2. Available 

from: www.ncsall.net/?id=560. 

Lucken, K., and L.M. Ponte. 2008. “A 

Just Measure of Forgiveness: Reforming 

Occupational Licensing Regulations for 

Ex-Offenders Using BFOQ Analysis.” 

Law and Policy 30(1):46–72. 

MacKenzie, D.L. 2002. “Reducing the 

Criminal Activities of Known Offenders 

and Delinquents: Crime Prevention in the 

Courts and Corrections.” In L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh, and 

D.L. MacKenzie (eds.), Evidence-Based 

Crime Prevention. New York: Rutledge. 

Manchak, S.M., J.L. Skeem, K.S. Douglas, and M. Siranosian. 2009. “Does 

Gender Moderate the Predictive Utility 

of the Level of Service Inventory– 

Revised (LSI–R) for Serious Violent Offenders?” Criminal Justice and Behavior 

36(5):425–42. 

Mann, T.J. 1997. “A Working Model for 

Inmate Training in Correctional Industries.” Journal of Correctional Education 

48(4):166–76. 

Maruna, S., R. Immarigeon, and T.P. 

LeBel. 2004. “Ex-offender Reintegration: 

Theory and Practice.” In S. Maruna and 

R. Immarigeon (eds.), After Crime and 

Punishment: Pathways to Offender 

Reintegration. Portland, OR: Willan 

Publishing. 

McCampbell, S.W. 2005. The GenderResponsive Strategies Project: Jail Applications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 

of Corrections. NIC Accession Number 

020417. 

McLean, R.L., J. Robarge, and S.G. Sherman. 2006. “Release from Jail: Moment 

of Crisis or Window of Opportunity for 

Female Detainees?” Journal of Urban 

Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 83(3):382–93. 

Messina, N., and C. Grella. 2006. “Childhood Trauma and Women’s Health 

Outcomes in a California Prison Population.” American Journal of Public Health 

96(10):1842–48. 

Mills, A., and H. Codd. 2008. “Prisoners’ Families and Offender Management: 

Mobilizing Social Capital.” Probation 

Journal 55(1):9–24. 

Minton, T.D., and W.J. Sabol. 2009. Jail 

Inmates at Midyear 2008—Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Mumola, C.J. 1998. Substance Abuse and 

Treatment of Adults on Probation, 1995. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

21 
Mumola, C.J., and J.C. Karberg. 2006. 

Drug Use and Dependence, State and 

Federal Prisoners, 2004. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

Neto, V.V. 1981. Programming for 

Women in the Jail Setting. Boulder, CO: 

National Institute of Corrections Information Center. 

North, J.M., and W. Annis. 1994. “New 

Hampshire’s State-Sentenced Female Offender.” Journal of Correctional Education 45(1):38–48. 

O’Brien, P. 2002. Reducing Barriers to 

Employment for Women Ex-Offenders: 

Mapping the Road to Reintegration. 

Chicago: Safer Foundation. 

O’Brien, P. 2006. “Maximizing Success 

for Drug-Affected Women After Release 

from Prison: Examining Access to and 

Use of Social Services During Reentry.” 

Women & Criminal Justice 17(2/3): 

95–113. 

Olson, D.E., A.J. Lurigio, and M. 

Alderden. 2003. “Men Are From Mars, 

Women Are From Venus, But What 

Role Does Gender Play in Probation Recidivism?” Justice Research and Policy 

5(2):33–54. 

Peters, R.H., A.L. Strozier, M.R. Murrin, and W.D. Kearns. 1997. “Treatment 

of Substance-Abusing Jail Inmates: 

Examination of Gender Differences.” 

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 

14(4):339–49. 

Petersilia, J. 2003. When Prisoners Come 

Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. 

New York: Oxford University Press. 

Piven, F.F., and R.A. Cloward. 1993. 

Regulating the Poor: The Functions of 

Public Welfare. New York: Random 

House. 

Pollard, J.M., J. Schuster, H.J. Lin, 

and L.K. Frisman. 2007. “Evaluation 

of a Gender and Trauma Specific Jail 

Diversion Program for Female Offenders, 

Part II.” American Jails (November/ 

December):53–63. 

Reisig, M.D., K. Holtfreter, and M. 

Morash. 2002. “Social Capital Among 

Women Offenders: Examining the Distribution of Social Networks and Resources.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal 

Justice 18(2):167–87. 

Richardson, R.L. 2005. “Assessing the 

Impact of Prison Industries on PostRelease Employment and Recidivism of 

Florida Inmates.” Unpublished master’s 

thesis. Available from: 

http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/ 

etd-07122005-124100/unrestricted/ 

RobinRichardsonThesisSummer2005.pdf. 

Richie, B.E. 2001. “Challenges Incarcerated Women Face as They Return to 

Their Communities: Findings from Life 

History Interviews.” Crime & Delinquency 47(3):368–89. 

Rose, D.R., and T.R. Clear. 1998. “Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime: 

Implications for Social Disorganization 

Theory.” Criminology 36:441–79. 

Rose, D.R., V. Michalsen, D.R. Wiest, 

and A. Fabian. 2008. Women, Re-entry 

and Everyday Life: Time to Work? New 

York: The Women’s Prison Association. 

Available from: http://66.29.139.159/pdf/ 

Women Reentry and Everyday Life - 

Final Report.pdf. 

Sabol, W.J., H. Couture, and P.M. Harrison. 2007. Prisoners in 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

Safer Foundation. 2009. Recent Legislation Establishing Standards for Hiring 

People with Criminal Records. Chicago, 

IL: Safer Foundation. Available from: 

www.saferfoundation.org/docs/ 

Hiring_Standards_Matrix_Final_ 

%282%29.pdf 

Salisbury, E.J., and P. Van Voorhis. 2009. 

“Gendered Pathways: A Quantitative Investigation of Women Probationers’ Paths 

to Incarceration.” Criminal Justice and 

Behavior 36(6):541–66. 

Salisbury, E.J., P. Van Voorhis, and G. 

Spiropoulos. 2009. “The Predictive Validity of a Gender-Responsive Needs Assessment: An Exploratory Study.” Crime 

& Delinquency 55(4):550–85. 

Sampson, R.J., and J.H. Laub. 1993. 

Crime in the Making: Pathways and 

Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 

Schram, P.J., B.A. Koons-Witt, F.P. 

Williams III, and M.D. McShane. 2006. 

“Supervision Strategies and Approaches 

for Female Parolees: Examining the Link 

Between Unmet Needs and Parole Outcome.” Crime & Delinquency 52(3): 

450–71. 

Scull, A.T. 1984. Decarceration: Community Treatment and the Deviant—A 

Radical View, 2d ed. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

Simpson, S.S., J.L. Yahner, and L. 

Dugan. 2008. “Understanding Women’s 

Pathways to Jail: Analysing the Lives of 

Incarcerated Women.” Australian and 

New Zealand Journal of Criminology 

41(1):84–108. 

Small, K. 2000. “Female Crime Rates in 

the United States, 1963–1998: An Update.” Gender Issues (Summer):75–90. 

Stoll, M.A., and S.D. Bushway. 2008. 

“The Effect of Criminal Background 

Checks on Hiring Ex Offenders.” Criminology and Public Policy 7(3):371–404. 

22 
 

 

Tonkin, P., J. Dickie, S. Alemagno, and 

W. Grove. 2004. “Women in Jail: ‘Soft 

Skills’ and Barriers to Employment.” 

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 

38(4):51–71. 

Travis, J. 2005. But They All Come Back: 

Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute 

Press. 

Travis, J., A. Solomon, and M. Waul. 

2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimension and Consequences of Prisoner 

Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute 

Press. 

Travis, J., and M. Waul. 2003. “Prisoners 

Once Removed—The Children and Families of Prisoners.” In J. Travis and M. 

Waul (eds.), Prisoners Once Removed. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. 

Turner, S., and J. Petersilia. 1996. Work 

Release: Recidivism and Corrections 

Costs in Washington State. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice. 

Uggen, C. 2000. “Work as a Turning 

Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A 

Duration Model of Age, Employment and 

Recidivism.” American Sociological Review 67:529–46. 

Uggen, C., and C. Kruttschnitt. 1998. 

“Crime in the Breaking: Gender Differences in Desistance.” Law and Society 

Review 32(2):339–66. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. “Marital Status: 2000.” Census 2000 Brief. Available 

from: www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/ 

c2kbr-30.pdf. 

Van Voorhis, P. 2009. “Next Steps in 

Gender-Responsive Classification Models.” Women, Girls and Criminal Justice 

10(6):81–96. 

Van Voorhis, P., A. Bauman, E.M. 

Wright, and E.J. Salisbury. 2009. “Implementing the Women’s Risk/Needs Assessment (WRNAs): Early Lessons From 

The Field.” Women, Girls and Criminal 

Justice 10(6):81–96. 

Visher, C.A., and J. Travis. 2003. “Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways.” Annual 

Review of Sociology 29:89–113. 

West, H.C., and W.J. Sabol. 2008. Prisoners in 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

West, H.C., and W.J. Sabol. 2009. Prison 

Inmates at Midyear 2008—Statistical 

Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Western, B. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell 

Sage Foundation. 

Wilson, D.B., C.A. Gallagher, and D.L. 

MacKenzie. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of 

Corrections-Based Education, Vocation 

and Work Programs for Adult Offenders.” Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 37(4):347–68. 

Winterfield, L., M. Coggeshall, M. 

Burke-Storer, V. Correa, and S. Tidd. 

2009. The Effects of Postsecondary Correctional Education Final Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. 

Zaitzow, B.H. 2006. “Empowerment not 

Entrapment: Providing Opportunities for 

Incarcerated Women to Move Beyond 

‘Doing Time.’” Justice Policy Journal 

3(1):1–24. 

Zarch, R., and G. Schneider. 2007. The 

Jewish Vocational Services Women 

Offender Reentry Collaborative—A 

Practitioner’s “Blueprint” for Replication. 

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc. 

23 
U.S. Department of Justice 

National Institute of Corrections 

Washington, DC 20534 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Address Service Requested 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Permit No. G–231 

www.nicic.gov

National Institute of Corrections • 320 First Street, NW • Washington, DC 20534 • 800–995–6423 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgments 

The author would like to thank 

Maureen Buell and Phyllis Modley 

for their assistance as well as the 

anonymous reviewers who provided 

very helpful advice. All errors are 

my own. 

This document was prepared under Technical Assistance Number 09B7113 from the 

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

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

position of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

About the Author 

Shawn M. Flower, Ph.D., is Principal Researcher at Choice Research Associates, 

Greenbelt, MD. Choice Research Associates provides criminal justice research 

services that focus on issues of prisoner reentry, female offenders, community 

corrections, and program evaluation, which employ rigorous methodologies. 

Dr. Flower conducts both process and outcome evaluations of a variety of 

programs and provides consulting services to state and local agencies. She is 

a member of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Female Offender Management Work Group and a member of the Montgomery County Pre-Release and Reentry Services Community Advisory Board. 

Dr. Flower received her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, Department of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice, College Park, MD. 

NIc Accession Number 024662