U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

continued...

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Women Offenders: Programming

Needs and Promising Approaches

by Merry Morash, Timothy S. Bynum, and Barbara A. Koons

August 1998

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: Results of

an NIJ-sponsored survey of Statelevel correctional administrators,

prison and jail administrators, and

program administrators to determine the special needs of incarcerated women in the areas of

management, screening, assessment, and programming. The survey also sought information on

innovative correctional programming for women and specific

program elements conducive

to success.

Key issues: Women offenders

have needs different from those of

men, stemming in part from their

disproportionate victimization from

sexual or physical abuse and their

responsibility for children. They are

also more likely to be addicted to

drugs and to have mental illnesses.

Many States and jail jurisdictions,

particularly those with small female

offender populations, have little

special provision, either in management or programming, for meeting

the needs of women.

Key findings: Survey respondents

identified the following needs:

• Classification and screening for

women prisoners for needs related

to children, spouse abuse, and

childhood sexual abuse, according

to one in four administrators.

• Management styles different

from those for men. Managerial

The last decade has seen a surge in both

the number and proportion of incarcerated women in the United States. Even

though the rate of incarceration for

women continues to be far lower than for

men (51 out of 100,000 women versus

819 out of 100,000 men),1 the number of

women in prisons and jails is growing at

a faster rate than the number of men.

During the decade between 1985 and

1995, the number of men doubled, from

691,800 to 1,437,600, but the number of

women tripled, from 40,500 to 113,100.2

At midyear 1997 women accounted for

6.4 percent of all prisoners nationwide,

up from 4.1 percent in 1980 and 5.7 percent in 1990.3

Women in prison have some needs that

are quite different from men’s, resulting

in part from women’s disproportionate

victimization from sexual or physical

abuse and in part from their responsibility for children. Women offenders are

also more likely than men to have become addicted to drugs, to have mental

illnesses, and to have been unemployed

before incarceration.4 The U.S. Bureau of

Justice Statistics survey of State prison

inmates reported that in 1991:

• More than 43 percent of women inmates (but only 12 percent of men)

said they had been physically or sexually abused before their admission to

prison.

• Women serving a sentence for a violent

offense were about twice as likely as

their male counterparts to have committed their offense against someone close

to them.

• More than two-thirds of all women in

prison had children under the age of

18, and among them only 25 percent

(versus 90 percent for the men) said

their children were living with the

other parent.

• Women in prison used more drugs and

used those drugs more frequently than

men. About 54 percent used drugs in

the month before their current offense,

compared with 50 percent for the men.5

These different circumstances, together

with the general rise in the number of

women in prison and jail, point to the

need for different management approaches as well as different programming to ensure parity and to provide

interventions that reduce recidivism.6 To

achieve gender parity in correctional programming, women must have the same

range of opportunities as men, and their

needs must be met to the same extent that

men’s are. This standard is difficult to
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings

continued...

achieve because women make up just

a fraction of the total inmate population. Their needs can easily be overlooked when programs are designed

and resources allocated.7

Previous research has shed light on

this problem, citing inadequacies in

the areas of medical services, education, vocational training, prison industry, law libraries, and parenting as well

as a lack of objective knowledge about

what works.8

There is need for documentation of the

types of programming available for

women offenders, the characteristics of

these interventions, and the perceived

nature of effective programs for this offender population. There has also been

little documentation of the best management approaches to classification,

housing, staff selection, and staff training in institutions housing women.

To fill this information gap, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a

national survey, conducted during

1993 and 1994, among State-level correctional administrators, administrators of State and local correctional

institutions, and administrators of

correctional programs that include

women. The survey was designed to

explore the needs of women offenders

as perceived by administrators, program staff, and program participants.

It also explored various issues related

to prison and jail administration, such

as classification and screening procedures, the use of alternatives to incarceration, the extent of contracting for

programs, and the extent of coordination to acquire services from other

State agencies. The survey also elicited information on institutional and

community-based approaches considered to be effective with female offenders. Responses to the survey are

summarized in this Research in Brief.

Collecting the data

Data were collected by means of mail

and telephone surveys, site visits, and

focus groups. All State correctional

departments and at least 1 prison for

each State were surveyed, in addition

to jail administrators from 50 city/

county jurisdictions. The correctional

institutions selected for study represented facilities differing in size and

region of the country. The vast majority of correctional institutions surveyed

by mail were for women only. See

“Methodology” for details of the

samples and methods of gathering and

analyzing the data.

Findings on management of

prisons and jails

One important aspect of the study involved a comparison of the perspectives of State-level administrators—

who were responsible for planning and

coordination—and prison administrators—who were responsible for day-today operations. They were separately

surveyed because data from multiple

sources make it possible to verify information and to obtain information

that is not known by all people in the

correctional system. There were both

similarities and differences in the perspectives of these two groups on managing women offenders. For instance,

State-level administrators were much

less likely than prison administrators

to cite problems in processing an increasing number of women offenders.

Nineteen of the State-level administrators surveyed (but only two prison

administrators) said there are few, if

any, problems in processing a larger

number of women offenders. This difference of opinion may be because

many of the State-level administrators

also deal with male offenders who represent an overwhelming proportion of

characteristics deemed desirable are

capacity to respond to expressions

of emotions and ability to communicate openly with offenders.

• Use of alternatives to incarceration for more women, although

9 out of 10 State administrators

reported current use of some alternatives, primarily work release.

Survey respondents were asked to

name women’s programs in their

jurisdictions that were effective,

innovative, or promising.

• They cited 242 programs, although correctional administrators

in 17 States could name no such

programs. The programs cited included substance abuse programs,

work training programs, child visitation and parent education programs, and a variety of transition,

aftercare, education, and health

programs.

• Elements deemed conducive to

success in these programs included

many that were gender specific:

staff who provided strong female

role models, the opportunity to

form supportive peer networks,

and attention to women’s particular experiences as victims of abuse,

as parents of children, and in negative relationships with men.

• Survey respondents also cited

the need for more programs providing drug treatment and mental

health services.

Target audience: State and local

legislators, correctional officials,

prison and jail administrators, and

administrators of correctional programs in prisons, jails, and the

community.
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

the prison population and pose greater

difficulties in the system.

Similarly, in 40 percent of the jail

jurisdictions, jail administrators indicated no need for new models or

approaches to holding women in jail,

whereas administrators of women’s prisons noted a number of management

problems resulting from crowding, lack

of programming, and difficulties with

classification and intake systems.

Women’s prison administrators also

pointed to high staff turnover and the

need for better qualified staff, lack of

parity in programming, and high numbers of women prisoners.

Classification, screening, and

assessment. The most commonly mentioned management problem, noted in

11 States, was in the area of classification and screening. Administrators at

all levels said that classification and

screening procedures did not provide

needed information, were not adapted to

women, and were not useful in matching women’s needs for programming.

About one in four administrators said

that current techniques of classification and assessment are problematic with respect to women. Despite

women’s different needs, circumstances, and risk profiles, the same

classification instrument was used

for women and men in 39 States; in

7 States the instrument for men was

adapted for the women, and in 3 States

a special instrument was used. One

State had no instrument. In 50 of the

54 jails surveyed, the same classification instrument was used for both male

and female offenders.

Exhibit 1 shows the proportion of State

prisons and local jails that screen

women for various problems and needs.

Data were collected in three

phases:

Phase 1

This phase was designed to obtain a

comprehensive assessment of the opinions of administrators in State departments of corrections and administrators

of prisons and jails that house women.

Data collected in phase 1 were mail and

telephone reports of responses to the influx of women into jails and prisons, of

the needs of incarcerated women, and of

management and program approaches

to meeting those needs.

The mail surveys concentrated on acquiring factual information, much of which

might be provided by a research department or by other staff specialists within

an administrative office. Phone surveys

were followups with directors, commissioners, or deputy directors of corrections

or with administrators of correctional

institutions; they focused on obtaining

opinions and descriptions of practices,

needs of offenders, and implementation

difficulties.

Survey respondents were also asked to

identify programs that in their view stood

out as being especially effective in meeting the needs of incarcerated women.

Information was gathered about specific

types of programs, such as mental health

programs, work-related programs, life

skills programs, programs for mothers,

health-related programs, and transition

or aftercare services. Respondents, who

were asked what made the programs

work well and by whom they were

staffed and operated, identified

242 promising programs and supplied

contact information.

Phase 2

Data were gathered through telephone

interviews with administrators of 62 of

the 242 programs nominated as innovative or promising in meeting offender

needs. Main issues considered in the

selection of those to be interviewed included representation of programming or

administrative approaches that addressed

the range of frequently identified problems; the availability of evaluation results;

and evidence of program relevance to

special needs—for example, related to

unique problems of women, race,

ethnicity, or type of crime. Interviewees

were asked about the primary focus of

the programs, the needs addressed,

screening and assessment associated with

the program, characteristics of program

approaches, program staffing, and targeted participants.

Phase 3

Site visits were made to 17 of the promising and innovative programs, clustered in

3 geographic areas (2 in the Northeast

and 1 in the Northwest). Criteria for selecting programs for site visits were that

the programs addressed the critical needs

identified from the survey of correctional

administrators, that they included inprison/jail programs as well as community

programs, and that there was evidence of

program effectiveness. During the visits,

researchers conducted interviews with

administrators, with staff and, in focus

groups, with women participating in the

programs.

For all groups sampled, response rates

were quite high, ranging from 87 percent

for telephone surveys completed with

program administrators to 100 percent

for mail and telephone surveys completed

with State-level administrators.

M ethodology
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 1: Proportion of State Correctional Department and Jail Administrators

Reporting All Women Inmates Screened for Problems

In light of the number of women inmates who have parental responsibilities or who have a history of being

abused, there is a notable lack of

screening for needs related to children,

spouse abuse, and childhood sexual

abuse. This is most pronounced in jails.

Jail administrators said they rarely used

classification and assessment to match

women to appropriate programs or

services.

Screening and assessment ideally

relate to placement in appropriate

housing and programs within institutions. Except for States with female inmate populations of 1,000 or more,

classification and assessment are often

unrelated to where women are housed

or to what programs they are referred.

States with larger female inmate populations have more flexibility with

respect to housing, and their programming benefits from economies of scale.

Yet in only half the States with 500

or more women inmates do program

needs influence the placement of

women. The proportion is about onethird for States with smaller female

inmate populations.

Effects of crowding. Lack of space

and constant movement of high numbers of women in and out of the institutions were also cited as problems.

Said one administrator, “Currently

the 53 beds intended for maximum

security women are also used for HIVpositive women, women with mental

health problems, and those on disciplinary detention. . . . We must downgrade some women who should be in

close confinement because of the

need for beds.”

Crowding was frequently tied to other

problems in managing facilities. One

State began housing women and men

in the same facilities as the number

of women prisoners rose over the last

decade. This situation led to security

problems and inattention to the women

inmates. “Women are treated as minorities. There is an insufficient focus

on their needs because they are outnumbered by the men. The prison is

run as a men’s prison,” one respondent

said. In another State, crowding led to

double-bunking, restrictions on the

availability of employment, and a

tense, threatening climate.

Need for different management

style. Survey respondents generally

described women prisoners as more

concerned with interpersonal relationships and likely to express emotion differently from men. With this in mind, 7

in 10 State-level and prison administrators believed that a different style of

management was needed for women.

Different management styles would involve a capacity to respond to expressions of emotions and a willingness and

ability to communicate openly with offenders. A less authoritarian manner

and recognition that women had needs

different from men were also cited as

desirable characteristics of women’s

prison management. Skills such as active listening, patience in explaining

rules and expectations, awareness of

emotional dynamics, and the capacity

to respond firmly, fairly, and consistently were cited as important attributes

of those who would manage women in

prisons.

A smaller proportion of jail administrators (fewer than half), however,

saw the need for differentiation in

0

20

40

60

80

100

Substance abuse

Mental health problems

Venereal disease

Reading/math ability

Medical (physician)

Vocational choice

Spouse abuse

Childhood sexual abuse

Needs related to children

HIV status

Percentage of States 

Screening All Women (n=50)

Percentage of Respondent

Jails Screening All Women (n=54)

Area of Screening

Percentage
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 2: Women in Alternative Sanctions After Commitment management style between men and

women, but they cited knowledge of

the special needs of women as an important attribute for managing women

in jail.

Innovation in management.

Respondents were asked to mention

particularly effective or innovative

management practices used in their

States. Although many jail and prison

administrators said they knew of effective management practices, particularly for jails, these were based on

fairly commonsense notions of being

fair and strict. Exceptions were comments identifying training or other

practices that promoted greater staff

sensitivity to women, the hiring of

additional female staff, and the use

of approaches that decentralized

management decisions and involved

offenders in carrying out selected responsibilities. Respondents also commended classification methods that

addressed gender-specific needs and

circumstances, together with processes

for reassessing needs over time.

Use of contracting and

interagency coordination

for program delivery

Survey respondents were also asked

the extent to which they used two

means of providing programming: contracting out to the private sector and

coordinating with other State agencies.

Nearly all States contract out to the

private sector for at least some services for women offenders, and some

States use departments other than the

corrections department to provide

some programming.

Both State-level departmental and institutional administrators (86 percent)

and jail administrators (70 percent)

reported contracting for program services such as mental health treatment,

drug programming, and educational

services. Contracts were viewed as

improving programs, promoting new

ideas, containing costs, and resolving

problems with employees.

In about three-quarters of the States at

least some services were provided to

incarcerated women by other agencies,

including hospitals and departments

focused on education, vocational education, health, and mental health. The

most typical arrangement, found in 17

States, was for the State department of

education to provide programming. In

13 States vocational education was

provided by a State agency. Despite

administrators’ emphasis on the mental health needs of imprisoned women,

survey answers showed State mental

health agency involvement in only 12

States, and just 6 States had interagency provision of drug treatment

services.

Survey respondents generally saw

benefits in interagency provision of

programming, primarily higher quality

and more effective programs, increased administrative flexibility, and

greater availability of professional staff

resources.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Boot camp

Day supervision

Halfway house

Prerelease center

Work release

Other

Number of States Using This Alternative for Women Inmates

Alternative Program

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Boot camp

Day supervision

Halfway house

Prerelease center

Work release

Other

Average Percentage of Women in Alternative Sanctions 

After Commitment, in States With Sanctions Available

Alternative Program
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Use of alternative sanctions

State correctional administrators said

that lack of space in institutions was

an impetus to finding alternatives to

incarcerating women. Although some

States divert women to alternative

sanctions at or before the point of sentencing, the survey focused on the use

of alternative sanctions after commitment to prison or jail. State-level

administrators in 9 out of 10 States reported using some type of alternative

to prison for women offenders after

commitment. As shown in exhibit 2,

the largest number of States use work

release.

Halfway houses, prerelease centers,

and day supervision also provide an

alternative for a high proportion of

committed women in some States.

Although boot camps are used by

15 States, they affect a very small

percentage of the committed women.

States vary greatly in the proportion of

women they assign to incarceration alternatives. The alternative sanction

considered to be most effective was

community corrections.

With respect to jails, while there is

some availability of alternatives such

as community-based substance abuse

treatment, electronic monitoring, and

work-related programs, most alternatives are available to women in fewer

than 1 out of 10 jail jurisdictions.

More than half the jail jurisdictions,

however, reported reducing populations by granting credit against sentence length, most commonly for

community service.

Program administrators who worked

most closely with offenders were

asked whether their clients would be

better served by more use of alternatives to incarceration. Regardless of

whether their programs were in

prison, jail, or the community, nearly

half of the program administrators felt

that the use of alternatives to incarceration should be expanded. There

was by no means complete agreement

on this issue, however. Said one program administrator, “The women tell

me that many of them need prison in

order to straighten out and that without it they would not have straightened out.” A number of offenders in

the focus groups supported the statement, but another administrator said,

“I think if 90 percent had some alternative, they would turn around and be

made into worthwhile citizens and not

be a drain on society as they are as

incarcerated inmates.” In explaining

why alternatives could and should be

used more often, many program administrators noted that women offenders are generally neither violent nor

dangerous.

A number of factors inhibit the use of

alternative sanctions, however, according to both State- and institution-level

administrators. They include the unavailability of alternatives, lack of

money or other resources, and community resistance. The problem of lack

of alternatives is particularly acute in

States with the smallest female inmate

populations.

Innovative programs for

women offenders

Once respondents had identified the

needs of women offenders for special

management approaches, programming, and alternatives to incarceration, they were asked to identify

programs in their jurisdictions that

appeared to be especially effective,

innovative, or promising in meeting

these needs. A total of 242 programs

were cited, but as exhibit 3 shows,

few States reported high numbers of

Exhibit 3: Level of Innovation in Women Offenders’ Programming

Considerable

Innovation

(13 States)

High Level

of Innovation

(3 States)

Limited Innovation

(17 States)

No Innovation

(17 States)
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

innovative programs, and 17 States

could name no such programs.

The programs nominated by State- and

institution-level administrators fell

into the following categories:

• Psychological programs. These

included substance abuse programs,

mental health programs, and programs

dealing with other forms of abuse, including domestic abuse. A total of

90 programs were identified in this

category, with substance abuse programs constituting more than a third.

• Work programs. These included

work training, in-prison industries,

and other work-related programs. A total of 48 programs fell in this category,

of which half were in work training.

• Parenting programs. Child visitation programs, parent education, and

other parenting programs made up this

group of 42 programs, with child visitation programs constituting one-half.

• Other programs. The range of

62 programs in this miscellaneous category included transition and aftercare

programs, education programs, health

programs (including HIV/AIDS education), and programs to build life skills.

Jail administrators nominated 49 programs, with substance abuse programs

the most numerous followed by education, life skills, mental health, health,

and multiple-focus programs.

See shaded boxes on the following

pages for descriptions of three typical

programs.

Program initiation and staffing.

The vast majority of the programs (63

percent) were initiated by correctional

staff or administrators who designed

and implemented the programs to

address identified needs. Programs

Exhibit 4: Program Elements Related to Success

Program Staff

• Staff are dedicated/caring/

qualified.

• Ex-addicts or ex-offenders are

on staff.

• Women staff members serve as

role models.

Meeting of Specific and

Multiple Needs

• Program has a comprehensive or

multifaceted focus.

• Program addresses rudimentary

or basic needs.

• Program establishes a continuum

of care.

Program Participation

• Participants like the program.

• Inmate participation is high or

self-initiated.

• Participants help run the program.

Peer Influence

• Other participants provide positive

peer influence.

• Other participants provide

pressure (e.g., to be a good

mother).

• Other participants provide

support.

Individualized, Structured

• Clear, measurable goals are

established.

• Treatment plans and

programming are individualized.

• Program is intensive and of

appropriate duration.

• Appropriate screening and

assessment are provided.

Technology, Resources

• Equipment, money, and other

resources are available.

• Adequate space is available.

Acquisition of Skills

• Marketable job skills can be

acquired.

• Parenting and life skills are taught.

• Education addresses thinking and

reasoning.

• Anger management is taught.

Program Environment

• Atmosphere is “homey”; climate

is conducive to visits.

• Communications are open;

confidentiality is kept.

• Rapport with other participants

is good.

• Participants are separated from

the general population.

• Program enrollment is small.

Victimization Issues

• Program addresses self-esteem.

• Women are treated like human

beings.

• Program addresses domestic

violence.

• Program addresses

empowerment and selfsufficiency.

Administrative and Staff

Interaction

• Administrative support and

communication are good.

• Management style is

nonaggressive.

• Security staff are understanding

and supportive.

Assistance From Outside the

Facility

• Outside private-public

partnerships exist.

• Interagency coordination exists.

• Some staff come from outside the

department of corrections.
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

initiated by correctional staff and administrators tended to involve mental

health and parent-child visitation.

Litigation against the State department

of corrections, grants, and litigation in

combination with grants were instrumental in starting a smaller proportion

(32 percent) of the programs, primarily

work and educational programs.

Programs were typically staffed by

department of corrections employees

(45 percent), contract staff (18 percent), or a combinations of these

(6 percent). Additionally volunteers,

or some combination of volunteers and

correctional, contract, mental health, or

educational department staff, worked

in small numbers of the programs.

Key program elements for success. Program administrators, staff,

and participants identified a number

of elements that contributed to successful outcomes. Staff characteristics,

comprehensiveness of approach, and

pertinence to women’s own interests

were termed the three chief areas most

important for success. Exhibit 4 lists

examples of program elements that administrators of programs, correctional

institutions, and State departments of

correction, as well as program staff

and participants, identified as related

to successful outcomes.

Information on program elements

related to successful outcomes was

obtained in two ways:

• From State-level correctional

administrators and institution-level

administrators who had heard of or

observed the programs in their jurisdiction or in their institutions. This

information was obtained through the

phase 1 telephone surveys, supplemented in some cases by site visits.

• From the experience of the administrators, staff, or program participants

themselves. This information was obtained from telephone surveys among

administrators of 62 of the programs,

plus onsite interviews with staff and

focus groups in which the inmates

participated.

The qualitative data collected during

the site visits reveal the genderspecific nature of many of these

Bedford Hills Correctional Facility

houses a nursery, where babies of

women involved in the prison programs

are cared for until they are 1 year old.

When there is certitude that mother and

baby can leave together, an extension to

18 months is granted. The Children’s

Center promotes parenting skills and

serves the infants living at the institution

and the inmates’ children living outside

the prison. Approximately 75 mothers are

involved with the Children’s Center at

one time. Over the course of a year, it

serves 700 women. Most women are involved in the program from 1 to 5 days

each week.

The purpose of the program is to help

inmates “learn to be mothers,” with a

focus on meeting the women’s mental

health needs. Other focus areas are relationships with family, transition to the

community, and parenting. Sister Elaine

Roulet, who initiated the program, is

guided by a philosophy of inmates teaching other inmates. A case management

approach is used to match women’s

needs to particular activities and services.

Programming is bilingual, and many activities are culturally specific.

The employment of inmates as coordinators, most of whom were previously in

the program themselves, is a unique feature. Each program in the Children’s Center has an inmate coordinator and a

volunteer coordinator from the outside

who is responsible for doing what the inmate cannot do, such as make telephone

calls and other contacts.

Among the Children’s Center activities

(many of them initiated by inmates) are:

• Mother-child visits.

T he Children’s Center

• Tape recording of mothers reading

books.

• Summer camp (children housed

with neighboring host families and

participating in daytime activities with

their mothers).

• A “sponsor baby” program to provide

items to caregivers (e.g., clothing)

when the babies leave the nursery.

• An overnight weekend visiting

program.

• A structured activity program for

children.

For more information, contact:

Sister Elaine Roulet

Children’s Center

Bedford Hills Correctional Facility

247 Harris Road

Bedford Hills, NY 10509

914–241–3100
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

program elements. Ingredients considered essential for success were staff

who acted as strong female role models

and the opportunity for participants to

form supportive networks with female

peers—networks that often continued

after release. Successful programs

were individualized and structured to

respond to multiple gender-specific

experiences, including victimization,

parenting, and negative relationships

with men. A safe environment was

considered critical for women with

histories of being abused, both as children and as adults.

Not all the success factors were unique

to programs for women—for instance,

skill development, interactions between institutional or court administration and program staff, and assistance

from the community. However, study

respondents generally saw the need for

programming to include at least some

gender-specific elements if outcomes

were to be successful.

The women participating in the programs were most likely to stress the

importance of identifying with female

staff. Some staff might be ex-offenders

or recovering substance abusers with

whom they could identify in a particular way.

Staff pointed to the importance of tailoring controls (such as urinalysis or

the parole violation process) to individual women’s situations.

Unmet or insufficiently

filled needs

Many respondents stated that some

needs of incarcerated women were still

unmet or were not met satisfactorily.

They also suggested areas where

programs existed but needed to be

expanded.

Substance abuse treatment was widely

identified as not being sufficiently provided, and it was linked to a set of

other problems as well—violence and

abuse, lack of job skills or training,

and inability to form constructive

relationships. Most respondents did

not distinguish between men’s and

women’s needs with respect to drug

treatment, but a few did. They described higher rates of abuse and

The Women’s Opportunity

Resource Center was developed in the

1980s by a women’s advocacy program

concerned with high recidivism and the

lack of programming for female offenders. The program’s primary focus is to

help women offenders obtain jobs and

stay off drugs. It does so by working in

the areas of basic education, vocational

development, parenting, substance

abuse, and health and medical problems.

The program also emphasizes life skills

training and the use of community

resources.

Participants are nonviolent felony and

misdemeanor offenders, generally in jail

at the time of referral and on local probation while in the program. About 95 percent have drug or alcohol problems.

Women learn by word of mouth about

the program and call collect from the jail

to ask to enroll. Usually, the women accepted are conditionally released on probation. A critical component is the network of agencies that will accept referrals

from the program.

Housed in a fairly new, attractively

decorated suburban office building, the

program seeks to provide a homelike environment and structure for participants.

It uses case management techniques to

match client needs to program activities

and to make referrals. A consistent

theme is preparing women to work,

either in clerical positions or as health

aides. Basic education and GED classes

are offered. Participants are referred to

alcohol and drug counseling programs

located in the same building.

Participants attend from 9:30 a.m. until

4 p.m. daily and must stay at least 9

months to graduate. Within the first 30

days, the dropout rate is significant, but

A Community Corrections Program Addressing Multiple Needs

thereafter 75 percent of the remaining

group of women stay in the program.

About 30 to 35 women graduate each

year, with graduation ceremonies held at a

nearby hotel. For many women, the ceremony marks their first recognition of success. Parents, children, and even judges

attend; the women wear caps and gowns

and receive certificates and diplomas.

Judges have overcome their initial reluctance to place women in the program,

and some insist that referrals be accepted

even when the program is full.

For more information, contact:

Dianne Gaines

Project Director

Women’s Opportunity Resource Center

50 Clinton Street

Suite 208

Hempstead, NY 11550

516–483–0336
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

mental health problems for women,

and they thought the problems took different forms for women than for men.

Said one administrator, “Women who

are victims of abuse tend to continue on

as victims of abuse. Men, on the other

hand, tend to react to their own history

of victimization by becoming abusers

themselves.” The larger the State’s female population, the larger the Statelevel proportion of administrators who

wanted substance abuse treatment

expanded.

Despite awareness that health education and mental health programming

were significant among the needs of

incarcerated women, few of the 62 programs identified as most innovative

focused on these needs. However,

because the majority of program administrators reported adopting a holistic approach to meeting women’s

needs, it is possible that health educaThe Turning Point Alcohol and

Drug Program uses a holistic approach to

providing basic life skills training, substance abuse education, relationship development, and anger management to

substance abusers in a minimum-security

institution housing 500 inmates, of which

160 are women. Fifty men and 50 women participate in separate programs.

The program addresses the differences in

the way women and men think and act.

Women deal with more mental health,

abuse, medical, and medication issues;

they more often suffer grief, commonly

over the loss of their children. The women

and men are kept separated to focus on

gender-specific issues without distractions

from the opposite sex during treatment.

Participation in the program is related to

the inherent privileges in its structure,

such as work assignments outside the

institution or earned time credit off their

sentences. The women’s program builds

on relationships among the inmates to

instill accountability, peer pressure, and

support. It uses a case management

approach to match inmate needs

with program services and to arrange

aftercare. The program is designed to

deal with women’s issues and to promote change. An increasing number of

women receive treatment and medication for mental illness, including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

All inmates participate 7 days a week,

with treatment aspects given priority over

work, which can involve assignments outA Prison-Based Life Skills Program

side the institution and prison chores. The

program lasts a minimum of 9 months,

but most women stay up to 12 months

at the end of their sentence so they can

focus on transitioning back to the community. Aftercare is integrated into the

program and lasts 6 months, with a drug

treatment slot guaranteed for 2 months;

subsequently the offender pays for

treatment.

For more information, contact:

Kevin Hormann

Alcohol and Drug Program Coordinator

Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Program

Columbia River Correctional Institution

9111 N.E. Sunderland Avenue

Portland, OR 97211

503–280–6663 (ext. 240)

tion and mental health needs were addressed to some extent within other

program components.

In response to questions about whether

the programs needing expansion were

unique to women, State-level administrators mentioned four general types

that were unique (in descending order

of mention): family-related, mental

health, substance abuse, and vocational programming. In the mental

health area, the most frequently mentioned specific program needs were for

counteracting victimization from abuse

and for improving self-esteem.

Most administrators, with the exception of jail administrators, saw a need

to expand mental health programming.

Some described unique aspects of the

family experiences of the women in

their charge. They spoke of the need

for programming to overcome female

offenders’ early socialization, which

had limited their independence and

occupational choices. They also saw

the need for parenting programs to

strengthen nurturing and discipline

skills. They viewed mental health

services as countering the effects of

abuse and victimization by raising the

women’s self-esteem. Very few jail

administrators said women’s programming requirements were different from

men’s, but they reported substance

abuse programming as meeting a particularly critical need for women.

Conclusion

The findings of this study reflect the

perceptions of correctional administrators, staff, and women offenders that

many needs of incarcerated women are

different from those of men and require approaches tailored to their specific characteristics and situations. In
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

addition to the development of more

gender-specific programming, other

issues were identified as requiring attention. For instance, in States experiencing rapidly growing female inmate

populations, crowding leads to problems

in screening, assessment, and adequate

housing. And States and institutions with

relatively few female inmates lack the

economies of scale to provide the variety

of programming needed.

However, progress is being made. In

30 States there was a clear indication

of systematic recent planning to respond to increased numbers of women

offenders. This type of formal planning

was related to the level of innovation

in women’s programming. States that

were able to cite several innovative

programs were more likely to have

planning efforts than States with little

or no innovation. Most planning groups

were described as special working

groups or task forces designed to address issues related to the influx of

women into prisons. In a few States,

different sorts of groups engaged in

planning, such as a State planning

agency, an internal department of

corrections group or, in one case, an

interagency group.

Although corrections administrators

could identify programs they considered

innovative and program administrators

could list program characteristics

thought conducive to success, few outcome evaluations have been conducted

so far. The review of both published and

unpublished literature that preceded this

study revealed written reports on the

outcomes of just 68 programs, actual

measurement of outcomes for 12, and

measurement of recidivism for a mere

6 of these. The survey described in this

report is but a first step in the direction

of improving the understanding of what

works in treating women offenders in

prisons, jails, and community corrections to prevent recidivism.

Notes

1. Mumola, Christopher J., and Allen J. Beck,

Prisoners in 1996, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997.

2. Correctional Populations in the United

States, 1995, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1997.

3. Gilliard, Darrell K., and Allen J. Beck,

Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 1997, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1998.

4. See D. Leclair, The Incarcerated Female

Offender—Offender, Victim, or Villain?

Boston: Massachusetts Division of Correction,

Research Division, 1990; Huling, T., Breaking

the Silence, Albany, New York: Correctional

Association of New York, 1991; and American

Correctional Association, The Female

Offender: What Does the Future Hold?

Washington, D.C.: St. Mary’s Press, 1990.

5. Snell, Tracy L., Women in Prison, Bureau of

Justice Statistics Special Report, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1994.

6. See Snell, Women in Prison. See also T.L.

Snell, Women in Jail, 1989, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Special Report, Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1992; and Immarigeon, R., and

M. Chesney-Lind, Overcrowded and Overused,

San Francisco: San Francisco National Council

on Crime and Delinquency, 1992.

7. Rafter, N., Partial Justice: Women, Prisons,

and Social Control, New Brunswick, New

Jersey: Transaction Books, 1990.

8. Dobash, R.P., R.E. Dobash, and S. Gutteridge,

Imprisonment of Women, New York: Basil

Blackwell, 1986. Also N. Shover, “Institutional

Corrections: Jails and Prisons,” in J.F. Shelley

(ed.) Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook,

Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1991; PollockByrne, J.M., Women, Prisons, and Crime, Pacific

Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1990;

Mann, C.R., Female Crime and Delinquency,

Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1984;

Smart, C., Women, Crime, and Criminology: A

Feminist Critique, London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul, 1977; Weisheit, R., and S. Mahan, Women,

Crime, and Criminal Justice, Cincinnati, Ohio:

Anderson, 1988; and Ryan, T.E., Adult Female

Offenders and the Institutional Programs: A State

of the Art Analysis, Washington, D.C.: National

Institute of Corrections, 1994.

NCJ 171668

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office

for Victims of Crime.

The study reported in this Research in Brief

was conducted under grant numbers 92–IJ–

CX–K027 and 96–IJ–CX–0021 awarded by

the National Institute of Justice. Merry

Morash, Ph.D., is Director and Professor,

School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State

University; Timothy S. Bynum, Ph.D., is a

Professor in the School of Criminal Justice,

Michigan State University; and Barbara A.

Koons, the study’s research manager, is an

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Assistant Professor, College of Criminal Justice,

University of South Carolina.

Copies of the full report of this study, Findings

From the National Study of Innovative and

Promising Programs for Women Offenders,

can be obtained from the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), 800–851–

3420, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000,

through interlibrary loan. Photocopies are also

available. Ask for NCJ 171667.
BULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300