S p e c i a l N e e d s O f f e n d e r s

a publication of the Federal Judicial Center BULLETIN

INSIDE Sentencing Women Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Supervising Women Defendants

and Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

BOP Programs for Female Offenders . . . . . 11

Supervision Planning Checklist . . . . . . . 14

Probation and Pretrial Services

Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

No. 7

September

2001

I

n an era when so many

of our legal theorists and

institutions are focused

on gender equality . . .

the question ‘why focus on

women offenders?’ is a legitimate one,” wrote Judge

Patricia M. Wald this

spring in Criminal Justice

magazine. Wald, who

served for 20 years on the

U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia

Circuit, was addressing the

conundrum of “equal but

different” treatment of

women in the federal judiciary.

“It is commonly understood,” Wald continued,

“that women offenders as a

group display significant

differences from their male

counterparts in ways that

materially affect the goals

of sentencing.” Among

these differences, Wald

noted, were lower conviction rates for violent offenses or major drug offenses,

the absence of prior criminal records, and the greater likelihood of being the

primary caretakers of young

children at the time of arrest

(children are far more likely to

be consigned to state care if

their mother, rather than their

father, is imprisoned, she pointed out).

Other differences Wald cited were women offenders’ distinct physical and mental

health needs, their greater likelihood to have a history of sexual or physical abuse, and their

greater vulnerability to physical and sexual abuse from

guards and other personnel. On

the positive side, female offenders showed lower recidivism rates,

Weld noted, and a greater ability to change motivation and

attitudes than male offenders.

Wald concluded, “These

differences in men and

women offenders strongly

suggest that the goals of

sentencing may be best addressed by looking carefully at differences from, as

well as commonalities

with, male offenders—

both individually and as a

group.” She added that the

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), “while

commanding that gender

never be a relevant factor

in sentencing . . . base

their core sentences on a

predominantly male behavior pattern.” Thus,

when the same sentence is

levied on a female and a

male offender, it can impose far greater deprivations on the female because of her gender.

The Caretaker

Problem

As law professor Myrna Raeder, an expert on sentencing of

women, and Leslie Acoca, director of the Women and Girls

The discussion about women in

the criminal justice system tends to

focus on prisons and, secondarily,

on jails. However, there are more

offenders under community supervision than are incarcerated, and

most prisoners will, at some point,

return to the street. To construct a

law abiding life, a woman offender

is likely to require the assistance of

a large number of public systems,

including public assistance, homelessness services, family court,

child care, public education, drug

treatment, health and mental

health. If we are to help women

succeed in the community, the

criminal justice system must work

more effectively with the other

public systems that shape the lives

of these women. Competing demands must be reconciled.

—Ann L. Jacobs, Executive Director

Women’s Prison and Home Association

“

Women Offenders and their Children by Mark Sherman
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children 2

Institute at the National Council on Crime and Delinquency,

wrote in a recent issue of Stanford Law and Policy Review, “in

[federal] sentencing, the deletion of gender assumes a world

in which men and women have

equal custody of children and

where the non-custodial parents are willing and able to take

responsibility for the care of

their children.”

Justice Department statistics

indicate, however,

that the ratio of female offenders who

are single parents is

much greater than

the ratio of male offenders who are. Other studies bear out the

common wisdom that

minor children of

male offenders almost

always continue in

the mother’s care,

whereas children of

female offenders usually are taken in by

relatives or friends or

are funneled into foster care.

For example, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS) reported that, in 1997, of

the federal female offenders

who lived with their children

at the time of admission, 94%

said that their children’s current caretakers were the children’s grandparents, other relatives, friends, or foster parents,

while 31% said that the current

caretaker was the children’s father. (According to the BJS,

these percentages total more

than 100 because some prisoners had several children living

with multiple caretakers.) In

No one disputes that women offenders as

a group simply do not present the same

degree of danger to the community that male

offenders as a group do. Indeed, the Bureau

of Prisons has instituted a separate classification category for women offenders based

on their predominantly nonviolent character.

Subject to individual exceptions, it would

make sense . . . to design programs and

security regimes for the “typical” woman

offender that ensure the necessary degree

of protection for society, but permit us to

meet essential needs and even promote

rehabilitation.

—Hon. Patricia M. Wald

U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (retired)

contrast, 92% of federal male

offenders who lived with their

children at admission said that

their children’s current caretaker was their mother.

Researchers Paula Dressel,

Jeff Porterfield, and Sandra Kay

Barnhill identified a pattern of

family separation starting at

sentencing, when a substitute

caretaker is required for an extended period. Writing about

this “family separation paradigm” in Corrections Today,

Dressel, Porterfield, and Barnhill noted that 11% of children

of incarcerated mothers experience at least two changes in

caretaker during the period of

incarceration, exacerbating the

trauma of separation.

“The mothers of children

placed in foster care find it difficult to meet state reunification requirements for regaining

custody,” they pointed out.

The federal Adoption and

Safe Families Act accelerates

termination of parental rights

and, under 42 U.S.C. §671

(a)(20)(A), bars individuals

with certain convictions from

being foster or adoptive parents. (42 U.S.C. §671 (a)

(20)(B) allows states to opt

out of this prohibition.) Although the intention of the law

is to create permanency for

children, it has a potentially

devastating effect on families in

which the mother is involved

with the criminal justice system. Pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §675(5)(E),

the law requires

states to seek termination of parental

rights when a child

has been in foster

care 15 of the previous 22 months. Obviously, a single

mother serving

more than 15

months would have

serious problem reuniting with her

children. Some

states have enacted

more restrictive

statutes.

Implications

for the Federal Judiciary

Judge Wald’s observations

about differences between female and male offenders apply

to both the front and back ends

of sentencing (i.e., presentence

report, institutional recommendation, BOP designation,

and post-sentence supervision),

as well as to pretrial services

supervision.

Because many female defendants are primary caretakers of

young children and may be facing prison terms, the role of the
• Between 1990 and 1998

the per capita number of

women in state and federal

prison—i.e., the number of

prisoners per 100,000 in

the population—increased

88%. The number of

women under state and

federal probation supervision climbed 40%.

• The number of female

inmates in the Federal

Bureau of Prisons system

increased from 1,400 in

1980 to over 9,000 at the

end of 1998. Seventy-two

percent of these inmates

were incarcerated because

of drug offenses, while the

remaining 27% were there

because of property offenses

(12%), public order offenses (8%), or violent

offenses (7%).

• In 1997, 40% percent of

female federal inmates

reported that they had been

physically or sexually

abused before incarceration.

• Of women and men in

federal prison in 1997, 60%

of each group had minor

children. However, 84% of

women offenders lived with

their minor children prior

to entering prison, compared to 55% of male

offenders. Fifty-one percent

of these women were single

parents, compared to 14%

of the men.

• In 1997, 30% of female

federal inmates reported a

medical problem since

admission excluding

injuries, colds, viruses, and

flu, compared to 21% of

male federal inmates. In

1998, over 12% of female

federal inmates were

identified as mentally ill,

compared to 7% of male

federal inmates.

• Between 1997 and 2000,

more than 34,500 women

began a period of active

federal post-conviction

supervision—over 20% of

all offenders under federal

supervision during that

period.

Source: Federal Judicial Center;

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau

of Justice Statistics, Special Report:

Medical Problems of Inmates, 1997

(January 2001); U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Special Report: Incarcerated Parents

and their Children (August 2000);

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau

of Justice Statistics, Special Report:

Intimate Partner Violence (May

2000); U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special

Report: Women Offenders (December

1999); U.S. General Accounting

Office, Women in Prison: Issues and

Challenges Confronting U.S.

Correctional Systems (1999).

Some Facts about Women in the

Criminal Justice System

pretrial services officer might

entail helping the defendant to

stabilize her life situation and

to arrange child custody and

disposition of child support

payments. This aid might extend to referring the defendant

to mental health counseling as

the time of imprisonment

nears, so that she can deal emotionally with the impending

separation from her children

and effectively manage the

transition. The pretrial services

officer might even have to seek

addition of the mental health

condition at a late stage in the

defendant’s supervision.

Similarly, the same type of

defendant facing probation, or

one who is reentering society

to begin a term of supervised

release, may need the help of

her pretrial services and probation officers in obtaining child

support. Further, if violations of

conditions are to be avoided,

probation officers must be prepared to help women offenders

reconnect with their children

(where permitted) and to help

avert crises related to housing,

substance abuse and mental

health treatment, transportation, and employment.

Ultimately, treating women

offenders “equally but differently” means that the court,

pretrial services, and probation

understand the unique barriers

and needs confronted by many

in this population. While the

court cannot sentence on the

basis of gender, it may select an

alternative sentence where the

guidelines permit and tailor

special conditions of supervision to meet the needs of individual female offenders. ◆
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children 4

The Administrative Office

of the U.S. Courts’ Publication 107 states that “the presentence report has multiple

functions in judicial and correctional administration.”

While

its primary purpose is to

assist the court in determining the appropriate

sentence . . . [it] also serves

to aid the probation officer

in supervision efforts during probation, parole, and

supervised release; to support Bureau of Prisons inmate designation, classification, programming, and

release planning; [and] to

furnish the U.S. Parole

Commission with information pertinent to parole

consideration (for those

offenses committed before

November 1, 1987).

In cases involving substance

abuse and mental health, the

report can also assist treatment

providers.

Relevant Guidelines

Section 5H1.10 of the USSG

explicitly decrees that sex is not

relevant in the determination

of a sentence. According to

policy statement 5H1.6, “family ties and responsibilities and

community ties are not ordinarily relevant in determining

whether a sentence should be

outside the applicable guideline

range.” Still, §5K2.0 states that

offender characteristics that the

U.S. Sentencing Commission

has deemed “not ordinarily relevant,” such as family and community ties, may be relevant in

Sentencing Women Offenders

determining whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range if the

court determines that these

characteristics are present to a

degree that places the case outside the “heartland” of such

cases.

In addition, 18 U.S.C. §3661

states that there are to be no

limits placed on the information about background, character, and conduct of an offender

that a court may receive and

consider when imposing an appropriate sentence (see USSG

§1B1.4). Thus, there is nothing in the law preventing a probation officer from reporting

this information to the court at

the time of sentencing.

According to the Sentencing

Commission, in 1999 there

were 492 downward departures

based on family ties and responsibilities, constituting 5.1% of

downward departure cases for

that year. Of these, 61% were

for male offenders while 39%

were for female offenders. However, because females account

for only 15% of the federal offender population, they receive

the departure as a group proportionately more often.

According to criminal defense lawyers Allan Ellis and

Samuel Shummon, all of the

courts of appeals “have recognized that the presence of family circumstances to an unusual,

special, or extraordinary degree

can serve to remove a case from

the heartland.”✝ However, Ellis

and Shummon point out, the

courts of appeals differ as to

what is “ordinary” and, therefore, have arrived at different

results in similar cases. (For examples, see pages 7 and 8.)

From their review of the case

law, Ellis and Shummon assert

that the courts of appeals are reluctant to “affirm district

courts’ decisions to depart

downward for extraordinary

family circumstances, a fact

that is especially true in cases

where the district court has not

adequately articulated its reasons for departing.”

Writing in a 1995 Federal

Sentencing Reporter devoted to

gender and sentencing, Judge

Wald (quoted on page 1), observed that Criminal Justice

Act-appointed attorneys

seemed not to ask for a downward departure even on the

basis of parenting “because of a

general notion that most appellate courts have rejected it or

allow it only in the most desperate circumstances.” Wald

recommended that “[p]robation officers preparing presentence investigation reports

✝ Allan Ellis and

Samuel A. Shummon,

“Federal Sentencing: Let

Judges be Judges! PostKoon Downward Departures, Part 7: Family Ties

and Responsibilities,”

Criminal Justice Magazine

48 (Summer 1999)

(citing United States v.

Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 948

(1st Cir. 1993); United

States v. Johnson, 964 F.2d

124, 129 (2d Cir. 1992);

United States v. Monaco, 23

F.3d 793, 801 (3d Cir.

1994); United States v.

Wilson, 114 F.3d 429,433

(4th Cir. 1997); United

States v. Brown, et al., 29

F.3d 953, 961 (5th Cir.

1994); United States v.

Brewer, 899 F.2d 503,

508 (6th Cir. 1990);

United States v. Canoy, 38

F.3d 893, 906 (7th Cir.

1994); United States v.

Bieri, 21 F.3d 811, 817

(8th Cir. 1994); United

States v. Mondelo, 927

F.2d 1463, 1470 (9th Cir.

1991); United States v.

Rodriguez-Velarde, 127

F.3d 966, 968–69 (10th

Cir. 1997); United States v.

Mogel, 956 F.2d 1555,

1565 (11th Cir. 1992);

United States v. Dyce, 91

F.3d 1462, 1466 (D.C.

Cir. 1996)).

It cannot be emphasized

enough that [the presentence report] is the one collection of data upon which

virtually all correctional

designation and other decisions are made. . . . The PSI

is known as the ‘bible’ by

prisoners and Bureau [of

Prisons] staff alike.

—Alan Ellis and Samuel Shummon

Federal Prison Guidebook
5 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children

(PSIs) . . . be energized to watch

out for appropriate fact scenarios where such a departure

might be recommended.” In a

footnote she added that conversations with women prisoners

“surfaced a repeat grievance

that some had been interviewed only cursorily for 10–20

minutes by the PSI authors.”

Courts have also departed

downward in cases involving

female offenders where extraordinary situations of family ties

and responsibilities are combined with an act of aberrant

behavior on the offender’s part.

Section 5K2.20 of the sentencing guidelines provides that “a

sentence below the guideline

range may be warranted if the

defendant’s criminal conduct

constituted aberrant behavior.”

According to the commentary accompanying §5K2.20,

“aberrant behavior” means “a

single criminal occurrence or

single criminal transaction that

(a) was committed without significant planning; (b) was of

limited duration; and (c) represents a marked deviation by

the defendant from an otherwise law-abiding life.”

When women are victims of

domestic violence, §5K2.12

may be another basis for downward departure in some cases.

This guideline provides that

coercion or duress not amounting to a complete defense may

be a reason for the court to depart downward.

In U.S v. Johnson, 956 F.2d

894 (9th Cir. 1992), the court

of appeals affirmed the district

court’s decision to permit use of

battered woman syndrome as

an affirmative defense of duress

for acts of drug distribution

which are relevant conduct

under §1B1.3, and as evidence

of incomplete duress for which

the court could grant a discretionary downward departure.

In that case, a female defendant had been continually

threatened and beaten by the

male leader and other members

of a drug trafficking organization. It was this treatment that

led to her involvement in distribution. Another female defendant took part in the distribution after threats of injury to

one of her children. A third female defendant had been physically abused by the drug kingpin’s son, to whom she was engaged.

Another possibility for

downward departure exists

where a female defendant com-

• More than 59% of women

under federal post-sentence

supervision were White,

34% were Black, 3% were

Asian, and 3% were Hispanic.

• These offenders’ Risk Prediction Index (RPI) scores were

concentrated between zero

and two, while scores for

men during the same period

were concentrated between

zero and four. (The RPI is a

statistical model that uses

information about an offender to estimate the likelihood that the offender will

recidivate (i.e., be arrested or

have supervision revoked)

during his or her term of supervision. Offenders are

scored according to an index

ranging between zero and

nine, with zero indicating

the lowest risk.)

• Fifty-two percent of these offenders began a period of probation, compared to 34% of

their male counterparts,

while 47% began a period of

supervised release, compared

to 60% of males. One percent entered parole, compared to 6% of males.

• Thirty-three percent of

women beginning a period of

active supervision during this

period were between the ages

of 20 and 29, while 32% were

between the ages of 30 and

39.

• Forty-three percent of these

offenders were unemployed

prior to being incarcerated or

starting probation.

• Sixty-three percent had no

prior criminal record, compared to 42% of men.

• 31% percent were white-collar offenders, and 30% were

drug offenders.

• Forty-nine percent listed

drug treatment as their most

important need, with money

running second at 13%.

About Women under

Post-sentence Supervision*

Between 1997 and 2000:

* Source: Federal Judicial Center
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children 6

mits a crime through an act of

self-defense. Section 5K2.10

provides that if wrongful conduct by the victim (wife beating, for example) contributed

significantly to provoking the

offense behavior, the court may

depart downward, even if the

jury rejected the defendant’s

claim of self-defense. This section of the guidelines applies to

violent offenses primarily but

may apply to nonviolent offenses in some instances.

Finally, §5C1.2 provides a

safety valve that lets a judge

depart below a mandatory

minimum in certain circumstances, even if the prosecutor

does not initiate the request

or agree to it. According to

Raeder and Acoca (see “The

Caretaker Problem,” page 1),

The profile of the perfect

candidate for this statutory gift appears ideal for

many women because it is

intended for first-time,

nonviolent drug offenders

who played a minor role in

the offense and have made

a good faith effort to cooperate with the government, despite the lack of

usefulness of their information. However, the defense must initiate the

contact with law enforcement and must be willing

to supply whatever information the offender possesses. . . . Given the importance of relationships

to women, it is not surprising that some women offenders are not willing to

jeopardize others in order

to benefit themselves. In

addition, denying culpability at trial has resulted

in its inapplicability in

some circuits, confining its

use to cases in which the

defendant pleads guilty.

Even if an offender is willing to cooperate, the safety

valve may be inapplicable

if the supplied information

reveals that the woman’s

role was not minor. In fact,

such information can be

used to increase the sentence. Thus, cost-benefit

analysis may indicate that

if the guideline sentence is

not significantly less than

the mandatory sentence,

there is more upside risk

than downside reward in

talking to the prosecutor.

BOP Institutional

Recommendation

In light of the unique needs of

women offenders and the availability of different types of gender-responsive programming at

the 15 BOP women’s facilities

(see page 11), a sentencing

judge’s recommendation can

assist with placement in the

most appropriate institution for

the offender. The Federal Prison

Guidebook states that “in most

cases, assuming the individual

qualifies for placement in the

institution recommended by

the sentencing judge, the Bureau of Prisons will make every

effort to honor the recommendation.”

As with the sentencing of

any offender, the court must try

to balance the goals of sentencing and the offender’s needs.

Background information on the

offender in the presentence report (e.g., substance abuse and

physical or sexual abuse histories and parental status) will

help the sentencing judge make

an appropriate recommendation. For example, in the case

of a chronically substance-abusing single mother, relevant information in the presentence

report could help the court determine how recommending

that the offender be incarcerated at an institution with a

500-hour residential drug and

alcohol treatment program—

which could be far from her release residence—will correspond with her need for visitation with her child (not to

mention the child’s needs).

Similar trade-offs may arise

when the sentencing judge

considers recommendations to

facilities with particular genderspecific programming.

Special Conditions

Pretrial, post-conviction, and

post-sentence special conditions should be realistic in

terms of the types of treatmentrelated services available in the

offender’s community and the

challenges unique to women offenders and, therefore, to the

officers who supervise them.

Moreover, just as special conditions should not provide an

advantage to a defendant or offender simply because of her

gender, neither should they put

her at a disadvantage for that

reason.

Michael Cox and Elisha

Rivera, U.S. probation officers

on the Southern District of

New York’s Female Offenders

Committee, remarked in an interview for this bulletin that

[m]any female offenders

suffer from self-esteem issues which can affect their

ability to obtain or maintain employment, increase
For a complete digest of district

and circuit cases, see Jason

Binimow, “Downward Departure

from United States Sentencing

Guidelines Based on Extraordinary

Family Circumstances,” 145 A.L.R.

Fed. 559 (2001). Presentence officers seeking immediate assistance

and advice regarding downward

departures based on family ties and

responsibilities can contact the U.S.

Sentencing Commission hotline at

(202) 502-4545.

Sole or primary

provider for family :

departure justified

U.S. v. Alba, 933 F.2d 1117 (2d

Cir. 1991). Defendant pleaded

guilty to a charge of conspiracy to

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. District

court found, and court of appeals

affirmed, that defendant’s family circumstances were extraordinary,

noting that defendant, his wife, and

two daughters lived with his disabled father and his paternal grandmother and that he had longstanding employment, working two

jobs to maintain his family’s economic well-being. Defendant’s incarceration might have resulted in

the destruction of an otherwise

strong family unit.

U.S. v. Galante, 111 F.3d 1029 (2d

Cir. 1997), reh’g in banc denied, 128

F.3d 788 (2d Cir. 1997). District

court departed downward, and

court of appeals affirmed, for 41-

year-old defendant with no criminal record who was married with

two children ages eight and nine,

Selected Circuit Cases Involving Downward Departures

Based on Family Ties and Responsibilities Under

USSG §5H1.6

whose wife spoke little English and

thus had limited earning capacity,

and who was the primary source

of financial support for the family.

Defendant’s imprisonment would

have resulted in destruction of the

family unit and its relegation to

public assistance.

U.S. v. McKelvey, 7 F.3d 236 (6th

Cir. 1993). Court of appeals affirmed district court’s downward

departure, applying a “totality of

the circumstances” approach for

55-year-old male defendant who

pleaded guilty to one count of

knowingly receiving and possessing an unregistered silencer. District court found that, taken together, defendant’s health, his wife’s

health, his status as primary caregiver for a minor grandson, and his

financial responsibility to care for

additional relatives all justified the

departure.

Sole or primary provider for family : departure not justified

U.S. v. Sweeting, 213 F.3d 95 (3d

Cir. 2000). Defendant pleaded

guilty to distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Court of appeals held that

the fact that defendant was a single

mother and sole provider for her

five children did not take her case

out of the USSG heartland and did

not warrant downward departure.

U.S. v. Gallegos, 129 F.3d 1140

(10th Cir. 1997). Court of Appeals

vacated district court’s downward

departure under USSG §5H1.6,

which was based on defendant’s

status as sole supporter for her

six-year-old son and partial supporter for her parents. Appellate

court found that defendant’s circumstances fell within the heartland of cases and thus could not

be a lawful basis for departure.

Effect upon child of

loss of affection and

nurturer: departure

justified

U.S. v. Sclamo, 997 F.2d 970 (1st

Cir. 1993). Defendant pleaded

guilty to single count of possession

of cocaine with intent to distribute. He had developed an important relationship with his live-in

companion’s 12-year-old son, who

suffered from attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder. Court of

appeals affirmed downward departure based on family circumstances because defendant had

been living with the woman and

her two children for three years

and participated in individual psychotherapy sessions with the son

on a weekly basis. The child had

continually been physically abused

by his alcoholic biological father

since age five and began to display

aggressive and disruptive behavior at home and in school, being

placed in a behavior disorder class

and eventually diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

U.S. v. Johnson, 964 F.2d 124 (2d

Cir. 1992). Defendant was convicted of conspiracy, bribery, and

theft of public money. She was a

single mother who was solely re7 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children
sponsible for the upbringing of

three of her own children ages six,

five, and six months, as well as her

six-year-old granddaughter, whose

mother (the defendant’s 21-yearold daughter) lived in an institution. Defendant’s 17-year-old son

lived with her; she received no

child support for any of the children; there were no signs of drug

or alcohol use; and she had no

mental or emotional health problems. Court of appeals affirmed the

sentencing judge’s departure.

U.S. v. Pena, 930 F.2d 1486 (10th

Cir. 1991). District court found, and

court of appeals affirmed, downward departure based on defendant’s status as a single parent

of a two-month-old child and the

sole supporter for herself, her infant child, her 16 year-old daughter, and her daughter’s infant child,

and on the expectation that incarcerating defendant would place the

children at potential risk. Defendant had been convicted of possession with intent to distribute

marijuana but had no prior history

of substance abuse or prior felony

convictions and had been steadily

employed.

Effect upon child of loss

of affection and nurturer:

departure not justified

U.S. v. Chestna, 962 F.2d 103

(1st Cir. 1992). After conviction

on drug charges, defendant challenged her sentence by arguing

that district court erred in refusing a downward departure based

on the unique circumstances of

her family responsibilities, since

she was a single mother with three

children ages 13, 11, and 4 and was

two months pregnant at the time

of sentencing. Appellate court affirmed the sentence, concluding

that, even if appellate court had

jurisdiction to consider the argument, defendant failed to allege

facts sufficient to justify a downward departure based on family

circumstances under §5H1.6.

U.S. v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079 (3d

Cir. 1991). Single mother, convicted

of charges stemming from activities as a drug courier for a large

narcotics manufacturing and distribution organization, lived with her

five children ranging in age from

11 months to 11 years who were

fathered by the leader of that organization. Court of appeals, noting that the imprisonment of a

single parent was not extraordinary and the imposition of prison

sentences normally disrupts parental relationships, determined that

defendant had not shown her family circumstances to be extraordinary and concluded that district

court’s refusal to depart was not

erroneous.

U.S. v. Dyce, 91 F.3d 1462 (D.C.

Cir.), reh’g en banc denied (1996).

Downward departure for extraordinary family responsibilities not

supported by statement that defendant was a single mother with

three children under four years of

age, one of whom was being breast

fed, and that incarceration would

require placing the children in a

foster home. At the time of arrest, defendant was living with the

father of her children and with her

parents and sister, who were employed. Presentence officer could

not confirm that defendant had

been gainfully employed during six

years preceding arrest, and situation indicated that children could

and would be cared for by members of her family.

the possibility of drug use,

and be detrimental to

their adjustment overall.

In that case, an officer may

want to make a referral to

an agency that can address

this . . . or recommend a

special condition requiring a form of counseling.

A female offender who is

also a parent can usually

benefit a great deal from

parenting classes. [While]

assessing a parent’s ability

may be difficult, an officer

should consider the fact

that the offender committed a crime, thereby jeopardizing the life of her

child or enhancing the

possibility of separation

from her child. The court

can impose special conditions such as participation

in mental health counseling, including programs

specifically for women,

parenting classes, or a special condition that requires the offender to obtain a GED, attend vocational/educational training, or obtain/maintain

employment.

If a female is using her

time to educate herself or

establish independence,

chances are she will have

greater self-esteem and

less free time, both of

which can prevent involvement in unhealthy

relationships with males.

However, the court should

probably refrain from imposing a special condition

that requires a female offender who is also a single

parent to perform community service or serve a period of home confinement. Such requirements

inadvertently may lead to

neglect of a child (for ex-
9 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children

In fashioning, recommending, and imposing or modifying special conditions for women defendants and offenders, pretrial

services officers, presentence officers, courts, and supervision

officers should ask themselves the following questions:

✓ What is the offender’s release residence? (supervised release only)

✓ What specific services might the defendant or offender

need (e.g., drug aftercare, mental health treatment, prenatal care, parenting, financial management, employment

or job training, etc.)?

✓ What gender-responsive services are available in the

defendant’s community or offender’s release residence?

✓ Is the defendant or offender a single mother? If so, what is

the status of custody and child support?

✓ In the case of probation or term of supervised release, was

the offender receiving public assistance (including housing assistance) before conviction? If so, what will be the

status of those benefits following conviction, and what income alternatives will be available to the offender upon

commencing a sentence of probation or term of supervised

release?

✓ What is the defendant’s or offender’s housing situation:

shelter, transitional, or permanent? How will this correspond with the defendant’s or offender’s ability to comply

with conditions of bond, probation, or supervised release?

✓ Will the defendant or offender have access to transportation while on pretrial release, probation, or supervised release? How will this correspond with the individual’s ability to comply with the conditions of bond, probation, or

supervised release?

Special Conditions Considerations

ample, if a mother works

all week and then has to

perform community service all day Sunday) or

punishment of a child (for

example, if the mother

cannot take the child to

the park, etc.).

These comments underscore

that single motherhood is a

unique and important consideration in the development,

recommendation, and imposition of special conditions for

many women defendants and

offenders. In such a case, it is

appropriate for the pretrial services officer, presentence officer, supervision officer, and

the court to inquire about the

status of child support payments—especially where other

income sources are limited or

nonexistent.

If child support has not been

obtained, a special condition

can be developed requiring the

defendant or offender to initiate collection efforts. The

purpose of such a condition is

not to punish the defendant or

offender but to communicate

both to her and to her supervision officer the importance of

diligently pursuing child support that, if received, can in

certain cases provide the

supplemental income required

for a family’s survival.

Depending on the defendant’s or offender’s needs and

the supervision context, other

special conditions might require completing programs

about financial management,

domestic violence, or physical

or sexual abuse. Ultimately, the

development, recommendation, and imposition of special

conditions addressing the

unique correctional treatment

needs of a female defendant or

offender must account for her

ability to comply, which could

depend on her access to child

care, her housing situation

(e.g., shelter, transitional, or

permanent), her access to

transportation, and her financial situation.

The issue of income (or the

lack thereof) can be especially

challenging—for offender and

officer both—if she is relying

on welfare until she can get a

job. In 23 states, federal and

state welfare laws combine to

bar persons with a drug-related

felony conviction from receiving cash assistance and food

stamps. Offenders also may be

unable to qualify for federal

housing assistance (see box,

page 13). ◆
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children 10

clear whether the sentence

would involve probation or a

short period of incarceration.

(She was separated from her

husband, the codefendant.)

The woman had cancer

but had decided to cease

further chemotherapy and

radiation treatment because she felt it was too

hard on her and her children. She often had bouts

of great pain and got very

little sleep. Her employment had been sporadic

due to her illness, and she

had been supporting herself and her children

through public assistance.

She also had a disabled

mother, whom she assisted

frequently.

Previously, the woman,

who had a history of physical and emotional abuse,

was receiving psychiatric

treatment for depression

and stress, paid for by her

husband’s insurance. She

had no substance abuse

history.

The woman was anxious

about her children and would

not show any weakness in front

of them. She was particularly

concerned about her oldest

child, who had behavior problems.

The pretrial services officer

requested, and the court approved, a special condition of

mental health treatment, and

the officer referred her to the

* Further explanation of

the case management

approach, albeit in a nongender-specific context,

can be found in Special

Needs Offenders Bulletin:

Reducing Risk through

Employment and Education

(January 2000), page 5.

Since women typically manage their lives in the context of relationships,” wrote

Barbara Bloom and Anne

McDiarmid last year in

Topics in Community Corrections: Responding to

Women Offenders in the

Community,

building trust with a female [defendant or offender] is an important

step in helping her to be

successful [under supervision]. Family mentoring and/or other community support is critical for a woman’s continued success in the

community. Engaging

the family, particularly

her children, in her recovery process can promote successful outcomes for a woman.

To that end, Bloom,

criminal justice professor

at Sonoma State University, and McDiarmid,

community corrections

supervisor in St. Paul,

Minnesota, recommend

that supervision officers use a

case management approach as

opposed to a surveillance approach to supervision.

Case management presumes

that the pretrial services or probation officer will engage the

defendant or offender to build

trust, identify issues that may

impede successful supervision,

link the individual with services to address those issues,

and closely monitor services to

Supervising Women Defendants

and Offenders

determine their effectiveness.

Where necessary, the officer

will use community-based service providers and local agencies to assist in achieving the

goals of supervision. The difference between pretrial services

and probation use of the case

management approach is

merely one of degree.*

A Pretrial Services Case

A 35-year-old woman, the primary caretaker of children ages

11, 13, and 15, was awaiting

sentencing after having been

convicted of fraud. It was un-

“

Increasing caseloads have made

it necessary to focus on offenders

who are at high risk to public safety. Women, who typically commit

low-level property and drug crimes,

are generally not a danger to their

communities. Therefore, they tend

to be ignored despite the fact that

their success or failure has an impact on their children, families, and

other social service systems. Failure

often means a woman’s increased

involvement in the criminal justice

system, which may lead to family

fragmentation. Success, on the other hand, can mean that a woman is

in charge of her life, in recovery

from trauma and dependency, and

fostering healthy children and families with resources and community

support.

—Barbara Bloom and Anne McDiarmid

Topics in Community Corrections:

Responding to Women Offenders

in the Community
The BOP maintains 15 facilities in

eight states for women. The agency

has mandated the development

of programs to meet the needs of

female offenders who have a

history of physical, emotional, or

sexual trauma. These programs are

listed below.

BRIDGE

(FCI Danbury)

BRIDGE is the only residential

program that helps inmates with

histories of chronic sexual,

physical, or emotional abuse

overcome trauma and learn ways

to avoid future victimization.

CHANGE

(FMC Carswell)

An intensive residential program

for female offenders, CHANGE

(Choosing Healthy Alternatives

and New Growth Experiences)

emphasizes self-improvement,

self-discovery, healthy relationships, and personal effectiveness.

The program is designed to offer

the offender a vehicle through

which to evaluate and make

positive improvements in

her life.

LIFT

(FPC Bryan)

An intensive, nonresidential

program, LIFT (Liberation From

Trauma) is composed of group

psychotherapy, psychoeducaBureau of Prisons Programs for

Female Offenders

tional classes, and structured

group activities addressing the

mental health of female offenders who are trauma and abuse

survivors, with the overall goal of

breaking the cycle of abuse and

violence.

New Pathways

(FCI Dublin)

Currently under development,

this nine-month, nonresidential

program will be available to

female offenders with a history

of physical, emotional, or sexual

trauma. The program will address

simultaneously occurring

problems such as substance

abuse and trauma and issues

such as incest and domestic

violence.

SHARE

(FMC Carswell)

SHARE (Sharing Hope About

Recovery Experiences) enables

female offenders with histories

of substance abuse, domestic

violence, or sexual assault to

interact with young “at-risk”

women in the community. According to the BOP, by describing

and discussing their experiences,

inmates seek to help the youths

avoid making the same mistakes.

The experience reportedly is

also very therapeutic for the

inmates.

The BOP also maintains the

following program for mothers and

infants.

MINT

(various facilities)

An alternative residential

program for pregnant women in

federal prisons, MINT (Mothers

and Infants Together) is offered in

Hartford, Conn.; Hillsboro,

W. Va.; Tallahassee, Fla.; Springfield,

Ill.; Fort Worth, Tex.; Phoenix,

Ariz.; San Francisco, Cal.; and

Sioux Falls, S.D. Participants, who

must be okayed for minimum

security, are placed in a halfway

house during their last two

months of pregnancy. After

delivery, the mother is allowed

three months to bond with the

child. The mother is responsible

for arranging custody thereafter.

Other relevant BOP programs are

listed below.

Intensive Confinement

Center (ICC)

(FPC Bryan)

The Intensive Confinement

Center combines features of a

military boot camp with the

BOP’s traditional correctional

values, followed up with extended participation in community-based programs. The highly

structured environment, which

includes labor-intensive work

11 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children
district’s mental health provider. The woman has made

great strides, and the mental

health counselor is conducting

both individual and family

therapy. She is now employed,

and her self-esteem has improved because she is able to

support her family.

Cases like this one are particularly challenging in the pretrial context because of the limited nature of supervision. The

officer’s role is to help stabilize

the defendant’s situation so that

issues such as parenting and

child care can be managed effectively.

A Post-sentence Case

A substance-abusing offender

with minor children was released from a halfway house and

had only overnight shelter

housing and no job. Aware of

the situation, her probation officer had helped her contact a

community-based nonprofit

housing provider for women

and children that also provided

substance abuse counseling and

other social services. By assisting her in this way, the officer

had increased the likelihood

that she would comply with release conditions, reduced risk to

the community, and addressed

the offender’s (and her children’s) needs.

Using Community

Resources

A 1992 National Institute of

Corrections-sponsored study

found that the most promising

community-based programs for

women defendants and offenders did not employ the medical

or clinical model of correctional

assignments and training in

vocational and life-coping skills, is

intended to reduce recidivism by

promoting personal development, self-control, and selfdiscipline.

IMPACT Program

of Southeastern

Guide Dogs

(FCI Coleman)

IMPACT (Inmates Practicing

Animal Care and Training)

participants earn adult continuing

education certificates as they

care for and train guide dogs for

the visually impaired. Eligible

inmates also work with the

county’s Habitat for Humanity as

part of an outreach program to

prepare them for release.

IMPACT is open to both male

and female inmates.

Parenting Programs

(all facilities)

Regularly scheduled classes and

work groups enable both male

and female inmates to learn

about child development and to

improve family skills. Inmates and

their children can spend weekend days in children’s centers

adjacent to visiting rooms,

working to reestablish and

strengthen their relationships.

A Video-to-Child program allows

inmates to record themselves on

videotape reading books or

telling stories, to help them

maintain a link with their

children.

Living Free

(all facilities)

For both men and women, Living

Free is designed to help inmates

develop more socially acceptable

lifestyles by reassessing their

values. Participants examine their

life options and develop plans for

personal change aimed at

enhancing honesty, respect,

tolerance, and responsibility.

Conceived as a “gateway” to

participation in other prison selfdevelopment programs, Living

Free is not intended to undo

lifelong patterns of criminality

but to begin the process of

change by getting participants to

think about their feelings and

behavior. Participation is

voluntary.
13 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children

In discussing women offenders, Ann Jacobs, Executive

Director of the Women’s

Prison and Home Association, says that “it is common

for a woman [offender] to rely

on welfare until she can enter

the job market, first at an

entry-level position (often

supplemented by public

assistance), then gradually

working her way up to a job

that pays a living wage.”

There are obstacles to obtaining federal aid, however, that

officers should know about.

Some of those obstacles are

listed here.

• Offenders with a drugrelated felony conviction

are ineligible to receive

federal cash assistance and

food stamps. 21 U.S.C.

§862a(a). (Twenty-seven

states have opted out of

this prohibition.)

• Offenders who have been

evicted from federally

funded public housing

because of drug-related

criminal activity are

ineligible to reside in such

Women Offenders and Welfare

Benefits

housing for three years

following the date of

eviction. 42 U.S.C.

§13661(a).

• Some jurisdictions conduct

criminal record checks of

people applying for federal

housing assistance. Denial

of eligibility can be based

on an applicant’s criminal

record. 42 U.S.C. §13661(c).

Denials can be appealed.

• Individuals who are violating a condition of probation

or parole are ineligible to

receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

(TANF), 42 U.S.C.

§608(a)(9); Supplementary

Security Income (SSI), 42

U.S.C. §1382(e)(4)(b);

housing assistance, 42

U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(B)(v)(II);

and food stamps, 7 U.S.C.

§2015 (k)(2).

• Students convicted of drugrelated offenses are ineligible to receive federally

funded higher education

grants, loans, or work

assistance. 20 U.S.C.

§1091(r).

intervention. Rather, the programs used an “empowerment”

model for developing skills the

women needed to achieve independence. The programs further addressed issues such as domestic violence, sexual abuse,

pregnancy, single motherhood,

gender bias, and gender-related

pathways to substance abuse.

Probation officers interviewed for this bulletin have

stressed the effectiveness of

gender-responsive, communitybased programs for women offenders and the importance of

locating such services.

Generally, development and

use of community resources can

be accomplished through mapping, partnership, and brokerage.

Mapping involves identifying, gathering, and compiling

information about community

resources. Often, mapping will

already have been done by a

district’s community resources

specialist, local-government or

nonprofit human services

agency, legal services clinic, or

community corrections agency.

Otherwise, mapping can be accomplished through internet

and library research, telephone

contacts, site visits, and networking with local-government and nonprofit human services agencies, places of worship, and community corrections agencies.

Partnerships. Once resources

have been mapped, districts can

form partnerships with groups

that will be particularly helpful to female defendants and offenders. The potential partner

must be evaluated according to

criteria such as clarity about

services, accessibility, professionalism of staff, comprehensiveness of services, experience

providing services to female defendants and offenders, and

reputation in the community.

Brokerage. After partnerships

are established, the officer can

broker community resources

and customize the menu of services to address specific needs.

This requires careful screening

of defendants and offenders,

networking to find service providers, and functioning as a

liaison between the defendant

or offender and service providers. ◆
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children 14

In planning and conducting supervision

of women defendants and offenders,

officers should consider whether the

following issues are present and, if so,

how the issues might affect the woman’s

ability to comply with release conditions, the degree of risk she presents to

the community, and the effectiveness

of correctional interventions. While

most of these issues are critical for any

defendant or offender, they are especially important for women with caretaker responsibilities. This checklist will

apply differently in pretrial, post-conviction, and post-sentence contexts.

Does the defendant or offender have

enough and appropriate food and

clothing?

• If not, what community resources are

available to assist the defendant or

offender?

Does the defendant or offender have

housing?

• If not, what is the individual’s current living arrangement?

• If not, what housing options are available in the community? Are genderspecific options (e.g., women’s shelters) available?

• If not, how will this affect the

individual’s ability to care for or reunite with her minor child and obtain welfare benefits? Are family-specific housing options available in the

community (e.g., shelters or transitional housing for mothers with minor children)?

• If so, what is the nature of the

individual’s housing (e.g., living with

family or friends, overnight shelter,

transitional housing, rental housing,

homeowner, location of housing),

and how might it affect supervision ?

• If not, are housing subsidies available,

and is the defendant or offender eligible to receive them?

Does the defendant or offender have

transportation?

• If so, what is the nature and reliability of the transportation (e.g., personal automobile, friend or relative

who provides transportation, public

transportation, etc.)?

• If so, and the individual will be using

public transportation, does the transportation agency sponsor reduced

fares or similar programs for which

she is eligible, or are such programs

available via community organizations or employers?

• If not, how will this affect the

defendant’s or offender’s ability to

obtain employment, attend substance

abuse treatment, and so on?

• If not, are community resources (e.g.,

nonprofit or volunteer organizations)

available to provide transportation?

Does the defendant or offender have

a history of sexual or physical abuse?

If so,

• what is the nature of the abuse?

• is there a possible or documented

connection between the physical or

sexual abuse and substance abuse?

• are gender-responsive, communitybased treatment services available?

Does the defendant or offender have

income and employment?

• If so, what is the nature of the income

and employment?

Pretrial, Post-conviction, &

A Planning
15 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children

• If not, is the individual eligible to receive welfare benefits?

• If not, does she have marketable skills

and a history of paid employment?

• If not, are gender-responsive community-based training services appropriate and available to help her obtain

marketable skills and employment?

What are the nature, extent, and potential effects of the defendant’s or

offender’s support systems (or lack

thereof) in the community?

• If the individual does not have support systems, or if such systems are

dysfunctional, how can they be developed in the former case or restructured in the latter?

Does the defendant or offender have

a history of substance abuse? If so,

• what is the nature of the abuse?

• is there a possible or documented connection to physical or sexual abuse?

• are gender-responsive communitybased treatment services appropriate

and available?

Does the defendant or offender have

a history of mental illness? If so,

• what is the nature of the illness?

• Is there a possible or documented

connection to physical or sexual

abuse?

• does the mental illness co-occur with

substance abuse?

• what medications have been used,

and what is the status of the

individual’s access to medication?

• are gender-responsive communitybased treatment services appropriate

and available?

Does the defendant or offender have

access to gynecological or reproductive health care?

• If not, are community-based services

available?

Is the defendant or offender a single

mother of a minor child? If so,

• what is the status of the individual’s

relationship with the child (current

and historical)? If mother and child

are separated during a period of incarceration, does the offender want

to reunite with the child? If so, is she

eligible to do so? Does the child wish

to do so?

• what is the individual’s and child’s relationship with the father?

• what are the current custodial arrangements?

• is the defendant or offender eligible

to receive child support? If so, what

is the status of child support?

• do custodial arrangements involve

other family members as caretakers

(e.g., the child’s grandparents, the

defendant’s or offender’s sibling, etc.)?

How will this situation affect the defendant or offender?

• what is the status of the defendant’s

or offender’s parenting skills?

• does the defendant or offender have

access to child care? If so, what is the

nature of the care (e.g., friend or relative, child-care center, school-based,

etc.)? If not, are community-based

child-care services available?

Are legal services available in the community to help the defendant or offender reunite with her minor child,

obtain child support, obtain welfare

benefits, et cetera?

Post-sentence Supervision

Checklist
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children 16

Northern District of Texas

The probation office in the Northern

District of Texas, Garland Division, has

developed two programs for female offenders: the Feminine Forum and the

Walking Group.

The Feminine Forum was created in

response to an increase in the number

of female offenders on the Garland

Division’s caseload. Officers in the division observed

that most of these

women appeared to

be “stuck”— they

were making no

progress and had no

resources. It was

hoped that the forum would provide

a supportive environment promoting growth and at

the same time educate officers on the

issues that female offenders faced.

Coordinated by a probation officer,

each forum lasts eight weeks and is open

to all female offenders. Participants discuss their adjustment to supervision

and the impact of their punishment on

their lives. Those in the forum facing

violations or revocation receive support

from others in the group. The discussion enables offenders to confront misguided thinking and receive advice from

peers.

To address employment issues, the

forum also includes a YWCA career

counselor who provides information on

completing applications, interviewing,

and discussing the impact of felony convictions with prospective employers.

Participants also engage in mock interviews with feedback.

The Feminine Forum provides a “safe

haven” where women do not have to

Probation & Pretrial

 for Women Defendants

hide from what they’ve done. Supervision officers find that attending the sessions improves trust and understanding

and enhances working relationships

with offenders. Since the forum began,

journal writing, a book club, and a yoga

class have been added.

For overweight offenders, the Walking Group was created by the offenders

themselves (with encouragement from

officers) with the

goal of reducing

depression related

to obesity and improving physical

appearance, selfesteem, and motivation. (Offenders

created a flyer to

generate interest

in the group.)

“Walking” is

actually a metaphor for developing life skills related to moving forward,

setting goals and limits, celebrating accomplishments, working as a team, and

learning alternate ways to deal with

anger.

A female deputy from the U.S. Marshals Service participates in the Walking Group by measuring body fat and

recording progress. The group is open

to all female offenders and to officers.

Besides improving their own health, the

latter benefit by building trusting relationships with offenders.

For more information on the Feminine

Forum and Walking Group, contact

Senior U.S. Probation Officer Wendy

Landry (Mental Health/Substance Abuse

Treatment Specialist) at (972) 864-8503.

Western District of Texas

Probation and pretrial services officers

in the Western District of Texas collaboThe specific objective of the

Feminine Forum is to “tear

down self-inflicted barriers to

motivate and encourage female offenders by providing a

forum that allows female offenders to find a sense of

achievement, self-esteem, and

ownership.”
17 Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children

rate with a clinician from the University of Texas Health Science Center to

provide women defendants and offenders with groups addressing relapse prevention and other issues. The groups,

which convene at a nonprofit community health center near the probation

and pretrial services offices, are facilitated by the clinician, either alone or

in conjunction with an officer. The center provides meals for defendants, offenders, and their children; child care;

and bus tokens, if necessary.

Women in the probation program are

referred after a screening process which

determines the best program for them.

The 15-week pretrial services program,

which is operating but still under development, is voluntary. Defendants

can join the program at any point. Sessions include a meeting with women in

the probation group to discuss personal

and family issues related to incarceration, prison conditions, et cetera. Graduates of the pretrial services program

can continue in a mixed probation and

pretrial support group.

For more information on the pretrial services program, contact Senior U.S. Pretrial Services Officer Sylvia Recio (Drug

and Alcohol Treatment Specialist) at (210)

472-4053. For more information on the

probation program, contact U.S. Probation Officer Cynthia Mendiola (Drug and

Alcohol Treatment Specialist) at (210)

472-6590.

Southern District of

New York

Under the auspices of a Female Offenders Committee formed in 1992, the probation office in the Southern District

of New York engages in several activities specifically to help women reintegrate into the community.

Recognizing that some problems,

Services Initiatives

& Offenders

such as domestic violence and lack of

housing and child care, affected female

offenders more than male offenders, the

committee first compiled a resource

manual, which was completed in 1995

and distributed to staff. The manual lists

community agencies that can help

women in the areas the committee

identified as critical to successful adjustment in the community. The committee is currently updating the manual.

The new version, which will be fully

automated, should be completed this

year.

In June 1996, in conjunction with

the New York City Victims Services

Agency, the committee conducted a

four-hour workshop on domestic violence. The workshop explored the needs

of battered women and the services

available to them, while seeking to

increase understanding about victimization and trauma. Practical advice

on working with victims was also provided.

Following the workshop, the committee conducted a half-day program, in

conjunction with New York State Parole, on working with women offenders. The program identified major issues

affecting women offenders, discussed supervision strategies, and defined services

addressing the unique needs of the

population.

The committee’s next two projects

are a “Motivation Day” (actual name is

still to be determined) for women offenders suffering from low self-esteem,

and a workshop on domestic violence.

The latter will update the district’s prior

workshop to give officers a fuller understanding of the issue’s complexity.

For more information on these programs, contact the district’s Female Offenders Committee at Female_Offender_

Committee@nysp.uscourts.gov.
Special Needs Offenders Bulletin ◆ September 2001 ◆ Women Offenders and their Children 18

These resources can be helpful to

defendants and offenders who reside

in the districts in which the resources are located and, nationwide, to officers seeking assistance regarding

such services. For a comprehensive

list, see the National Institute of Corrections’ Directory of Communitybased Programs for Women Offenders (http://nicic.org/services/

video/01_womenoffend.htm#

resources).

Women’s Prison and Home

Association, Inc.

110 Second Avenue

New York, NY 10003

(212) 674-1163

This nonprofit agency works to

create opportunities for change in

the lives of women prisoners, exprisoners, and their families. It provides programs through which

women acquire life skills needed

to end their involvement in the

criminal justice system and to

make positive, healthy choices for

themselves and their children. The

association is part of the Women’s Justice Alliance, a coalition of

300 public and private agencies

and individuals which has developed the Training Manual on Working with Women in the Criminal Justice System.

Aid to Children of Imprisoned Mothers, Inc.

524 Larkin Street, S.W.

Atlanta, GA 30314

(404) 221-0092

This organization offers local programs for children: after-school

tutorials, mentors, Saturday eduResources Available to Women Defendants and Offenders and

Officers who Supervise Them

cational and recreational programs, transportation for motherchild visits, and a weeklong summer camp. It also provides local

programs for caretakers and

mothers and national consultation

services on child custody issues

for legislators, court employees,

and others.

The organization has published

these two books: Parenting from

Prison: A Handbook for Incarcerated

Mothers and Jails and Justice:

A Handbook for Incarcerated Women.

Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE)

CURE National

Washington, D.C.

(202) 789-2126

www.curenational.org

Federal CURE

Cleveland, Ohio

(216) 479-6885

For both men and women, CURE

National has 43 chapters, including Federal CURE. Each chapter

provides support and assistance to

prisoners and ex-prisoners and

their families, as well as to the professionals who work with offenders. For example, in 1999 the District of Columbia chapter published Starting Out, Starting Over,

Staying Out: A Guide for District of

Columbia Ex-Offenders (Housing,

Food, Employment, and Other Resources).

Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)

Indiana:

Anderson (765) 649-7341

Indianapolis (317) 635-4973

Newark, N.J. (201) 624-1145

Ithaca, N.Y. (607) 272-7885

Virginia:

Arlington (703) 228-7030

Charlottesville (804) 296-

2441

Fairfax (703) 246-3033

Richmond (804) 643-2746

OAR offers programs for defendants and offenders of both sexes. Some chapters have programs

specifically for women. For example, OAR of Essex County (Newark) sponsors a Patchwork Family Center for children and their

incarcerated mothers. This chapter also provides domestic-violence, single-parent, and women’s

services.

Strive Incorporated

New York, N.Y.

(212) 360-1100

www.strivecentral.com

Strive offers gender-specific job

training combined with social services for women and men, including offenders. The For Women

Only program provides on-site

social services, ongoing group and

individual counseling, and a twoday workshop focusing on selfconfidence, self-analysis, and selfesteem issues. Additional counseling, support groups, and coordinated referral services are available after graduation. Strive has

branches in Baltimore; Battle

Creek, Michigan; Boston; Buffalo;

Chicago; Ft. Lauderdale; Norwalk,

Connecticut; Philadelphia; San Diego; San Francisco; and Washington, D.C.
Acoca, Leslie, and Myrna Raeder.

“Severing Family Ties: The Plight of

Nonviolent Female Offenders and

Their Children.” Stanford Law and

Policy Review 133 (Winter 1999).

Bloom, Barbara, and Anne McDiarmid.

“Gender-Responsive Supervision and

Programming for Women Offenders

in the Community” in Topics in

Community Corrections: Responding

to Women Offenders in the Community 11. Washington, D.C., National

Institute of Corrections (2000).

Chesney-Lind, Meda. “Women in

Prison: from Partial Justice to

Vengeful Equity.” Corrections Today

66 (December 1998).

Covington, Stephanie, and Barbara

Bloom. “Gender Specific Programming for Female Offenders: What is

it and Why is it Important?”(1998)

(unpublished).

Dressel, Paula, Jeff Porterfield, and

Barnhill, Sandra Kay. “Mothers

Behind Bars.” Corrections Today 90

(December 1998).

Ellis, Allan, and Samuel Shummon.

Federal Prison Guidebook. Sausalito,

Cal.: Law Offices of Allan Ellis

(2001)

Gabel, Katherine, and Denise Johnston

(eds.). Children of Incarcerated

Parents. New York: Lexington Books

(1995).

Jacobs, Ann L. “Give ’Em a Fighting

Chance: Women Offenders Reenter

Society.” Criminal Justice Magazine

45 (Spring 2001).

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics. Special Report:

Incarcerated Parents and their

Children. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice (August

2000).

––. Special Report: Intimate Partner

Violence: Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice (May 2000).

––. Special Report: Medical Problems of

Inmates, 1997. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice (January

2001).

––. Special Report: Women Offenders.

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

of Justice (December 1999).

U.S. General Accounting Office.

Women in Prison: Issues and

Challenges Confronting U.S.

Correctional Systems. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. General Accounting

Office (1999).

U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Guidelines Manual. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Sentencing Commission

(2000).

––. 1999 Sourcebook of Federal

Sentencing Statistics. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Sentencing Commission

(2000).

Wald, Patricia M. “What About the

Kids?” Federal Sentencing Reporter

137 (November/December 1995).

––. “Why Focus on Women?” Criminal

Justice Magazine 11 (Spring 2001).

Selected References

Special Needs Offenders Bulletin

a publication of the Federal Judicial Center

No. 7, September 2001

Written by

Mark Sherman

Education Specialist

Court Education Division

Edited and designed by

Nathan Dotson

Communications Policy & Design

Send questions or comments to Mark Sherman, Court

Education Division, Federal Judicial Center, Thurgood

Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus

Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-8003.

This publication was undertaken in furtherance of the

Center’s statutory mission to develop and conduct education programs for judicial branch employees. The

views expressed are those of the author and are not

necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.
Federal Judicial Center

Thurgood Marshall Federal

Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20002-8003

http://jnet.fjc.dcn