Women's Transitions from Prison

The Post-Release Experience

Rosemary Sheehan, Chris Trotter

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138210288
• eBook ISBN: 9781315455679
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Women continue to be one of the fastest growing groups of offenders with an increasing group of women involved in the criminal justice system around the world. Whilst internationally women comprise a low percentage of the total prison population, there is an escalating use of custody inextricably linked to the high levels of personal and social needs of women involved in the justice system. This book presents original research undertaken with Corrections Victoria, Australia, which examines the effectiveness of services and programmes women access in prison and after release, and the impact of this on successful reintegration into the community and on other trends such as reoffending.

Victoria's Department of Justice introduced the Better Pathways strategy in response to a growing number of women entering the Victorian corrections system, and the concerning extent to which prison is used for women with inadequate accommodation and complex treatment and support needs. The strategy was developed to address the causes of women's offending and to try and help break the cycle of women's reoffending, by funding more holistic initiatives to support women in their transition to life after prison. It is well acknowledged that pathways into offending by women can also be the factors that most affect their reintegration.

The research outlined in this book presents data about individual women's pathways through the programmes offered as part of the Better Pathways strategy and the views of the women themselves about the effectiveness of these programmes. Negligible research attention has been paid to what services and programmes are effective for women after prison. This book addresses this gap and provides a cohesive presentation of the key issues salient to the needs of women offenders.

1 Women after prison*

Female crime, custody, and community

Introduction

The numbers of women in criminal justice systems around the world have grown exponentially in recent decades. This chapter highlights this growth and considers some of the differences between male and female offenders. It then discusses some general principles of good practice when working with offenders, including the type of interventions which work best and the importance of delivering those interventions as they were intended. This is followed by discussion about the effectiveness of a number of specific interventions which have been targeted towards women. It should be noted that much of the material in this chapter has been taken from a literature review on best practice with women offenders undertaken for Corrections Victoria (Trotter and Flynn, 2016).

The review of research presented in this chapter regarding good practice with women offenders is limited by a general lack of research on women offenders. Lipsey and Cullen (2007: 299) in a comprehensive review of systematic reviews on the ‘effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation’ for men and women comment that: ‘Much of the available research comes from quasi-experiments with non-randomized control groups, modest sample sizes, and varying completion and attrition rates.’ While there is some new material since the Lipsey and Cullen meta-analysis was undertaken there continues to be a lack of rigorous research in this field. This is particularly so for women as most of the limited research has been undertaken with men rather than women.

Growth in women in the criminal justice system

The issue of the rising numbers of women offenders is not addressed in detail in this chapter. It has been discussed in many publications (e.g. Sheehan et al., 2010) and does not need to be repeated here. Suffice to say that in recent decades, women have been a fast-growing group of prisoners around the world, growing at a consistently faster rate than men. These trends are evident in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014), the UK (Corston, 2007) and the US (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008) since the 1980s. National Australian data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014) show that the number of women in prison has increased by 55 per cent over the decade to 2014. The growing number of women in the criminal justice system and the lack of research in this area provide a rationale for the study reported on in this book.

Differences between men and women offenders

It seems clear that while women and men offenders share some characteristics, a range of distinct factors point to women’s differing pathways into crime. These factors are consistently described as high levels of victimisation and subsequent trauma, high levels of mental illness and high levels of substance use.

Taylor (2015) refers to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics finding that 40 to 57 per cent of female inmates were sexually or physically abused prior to the age of 18 compared to only 7 to 16 per cent of male offenders. An international meta-analysis by Fazel and Seewald (2012) examined the prevalence of mental illness among 33,588 prisoners in 24 countries and found lifetime prevalence of any mental disorder as 68.9 per cent for women and 56.1 per cent for men. Although rates of alcohol use are higher for males, female prisoners are more likely to have ever used drugs, have used drugs regularly, and have used drugs at the time of the offence (Greenfeld and Snell, 1999).

Women also appear to be more likely to identify their needs and to be interested in receiving support for those needs. Spjeldnes et al. (2014) examined the needs of 2,386 men (81.5 per cent) and 542 women (18.5 per cent) in US jails. They found that women showed much greater health and re-entry needs in nearly every area, including housing, employment, welfare dependence, medical problems and mental health issues. They also found that women were more positive and open about expressing their needs than men. A higher percentage of women communicated their interest in receiving various in-jail services including mental health, drug and alcohol, parenting, and family counselling.

Similar findings were seen in a study of 90 women exiting prison in Victoria where the women faced issues relating to parenting, housing, income and debt, health and mental health. Post-release housing was the most significant factor associated with return to prison (Sheehan et al., 2014).

On this basis, it is argued that greater attention is required to incorporate gender-responsive approaches which emphasise relationships and family, are strengths-based, provide continuity of care, address trauma and are holistic and culturally competent (e.g. Hannah-Moffat, 2009; Stewart and Gobeil, 2015). The importance of addressing the impact of trauma for women in prison is discussed regularly in the literature because of its links to current and ongoing problems, including AOD (Alcohol and Other Drugs), mental health and unhealthy relationships (Stathopoulos et al., 2012).

General principles of good practice with offenders in both institutional and community-based settings

Much has been written about what works and what does not in relation to reducing recidivism of offenders who are placed in prison or on community-based corrections orders. Most of this work applies to men or in some cases to mixed groups of offenders. They nevertheless provide a starting point for a discussion about effective practice with offenders including women.

Much of the recent discussion has revolved around what might be described as competing paradigms or models of criminal justice interventions. These paradigms include Risk Needs Responsivity (RNR), Desistance and Good Lives.

Andrews and Bonta (2010a) have been instrumental in developing the RNR model. They argue that effective interventions in corrections should focus on medium to high risk offenders, they should focus on criminogenic needs defined through a risk assessment process and that interventions should be based on cognitive behavioural principles and matched to offender’s learning styles. They identify a number of meta-analysis which support the Risk Needs Responsivity model (Andrews and Bonta, 2010b).

The concept of desistance is increasingly referred to in the criminal justice literature (see, for example, McIvor et al., 2004; McNeill, 2006; Maruna and LeBel, 2010). It refers to the study of people who desist from crime rather than the study of those who commit crime. The study of desistance is concerned with the factors which are associated with the progress away from criminal lifestyles such as natural maturation with age, the development of meaningful personal relationships, the gaining of work and money, and developing a self-concept which is non-criminal and pro-social. To put it very simply, the most common pathway to a crime free lifestyle involves turning 30 years of age, gaining a steady job and a regular partner.

The desistance concept has parallels with the Good Lives Model developed by Tony Ward and colleagues for work with sex offenders but has also been applied to other offenders (e.g. Purvis et al., 2013). It is argued that offenders change as they acquire goods consistent with a good life. In helping offenders to change it is important that their progress towards happy fulfilling lives is facilitated.

While these overarching paradigms place emphasis on different practices there is a degree of general agreement in the research literature about what works and what does not work in criminal justice interventions regardless of chosen paradigms. This work has however focused either on male samples or mixed samples of men and women. Given the lack of research undertaken with female offenders, this general research provides a starting point in considering the principles of good practice with women.

Numerous comprehensive systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g. Lipsey and Cullen, 2007; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2007) have attempted to synthesise the available studies and present general principles of good practice in work with offenders. Even though these reviews were conducted some years ago and some of the studies examined in the reviews date back many years, they remain the most up-to-date and comprehensive reviews of effective correctional interventions that we have been able to locate.

What does not work?

Perhaps what is most clear is what does not work. The evidence seems to be overwhelming that punitive approaches to offenders, regardless of their gender or other characteristics, do not work in achieving positive outcomes (Lipsey and Cullen, 2007; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2007). This includes surveillance-oriented parole, boot camps, electronic monitoring, and community case management without a treatment focus.

There continue to be examples of large-scale programmes and interventions delivered to offenders around the world which are relatively ineffectual. Lipsey and Cullen (2007) found in their review for example that probation and parole supervision overall had only minimal impacts, with 2 to 8 per cent reductions compared to no supervision in the four meta-analyses they examined.

What does work?

The reviews of the literature suggest that interventions and programmes which are generally defined as rehabilitation or treatment are successful in reducing recidivism. Lipsey and Cullen (2007, p.302) define rehabilitation/treatment as aimed at ‘motivating guiding supporting offenders in issues which promote criminal behaviour or subvert pro-social behaviour’. All meta-analyses they considered in their review identified positive outcomes for rehabilitation/treatment interventions with none showing less than 10 per cent reduction in recidivism and the average around 20 per cent reduction with the most effective interventions showing reductions up to up to 40 per cent. The impacts were strongest for community-based interventions. The authors are not specific about gender, however the studies appear to be predominantly with mixed samples.

The authors report reductions in offending of 12 to 46 per cent for sex offender interventions, 8 to 32 per cent for cognitive behavioural, and 4 to 20 per cent for drug and alcohol treatment. The strongest interventions in the review applied to family interventions where ten meta-analyses found impacts of 20 to 52 per cent on recidivism, however these have been mostly undertaken with juveniles. They also found support for relapse prevention, educational, vocational and work programmes.

Similar findings were seen in the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2007) review. This is an extensive review conducted for a corrections department, which, like the Lipsey and Cullen (2007) review, attempted to cover all of the available studies on the relationship between correctional interventions and recidivism. The authors found support for general and specific cognitive behavioural programmes in prison including programmes for sex offenders, education in prison, vocational education in prison, correctional industries in prison and work release programmes from prison. They also found support for intensive supervision in the community where it had a treatment (as opposed to surveillance) focus.

Core skills in programme delivery

In general terms, therefore, rehabilitation/treatment programmes and interventions have been shown to be effective both in prison and after prison, at least with mixed or male samples. However, while the nature and content of these programmes is important, effectiveness is also dependent on the way in which they are delivered and the skills of the staff who deliver the programmes. There is a growing body of research which shows that the effectiveness of a correctional intervention is at least in part dependent on the skills of those delivering the intervention, quite apart from the nature of the intervention itself. This is perhaps best illustrated by research which finds that community-based supervision is generally only minimally effective. As mentioned earlier, Lipsey and Cullen (2007) found only 2 to 8 per cent reduction in recidivism for probation and parole supervision compared to no supervision in four meta-analyses. Yet two reviews of studies – a meta-analysis and a systematic review (Chadwick et al., 2015; Trotter 2013) – found that when supervising workers were trained in effective practice skills or could demonstrate that they used those skills, offenders had recidivism rates which were on average 28 per cent and 33 per cent lower than the comparison groups.

The core practice skills identified in the systematic review by Trotter (2013) included pro-social modelling and reinforcement (or anti-criminal modelling and reinforcement). This skill involves practitioners modelling pro-social values such as fairness, reliability, and non-criminal lifestyle and reinforcing statements and activities of offenders that reflect those values. It also involves carefully and respectfully challenging pro-criminal comments and actions (e.g. making excuses for offending). Taxman (2007, p.19) summarises the concept in terms of ‘using incentives and sanctions to shape offender behaviours’.

The second practice skill involves addressing the issues which might help offenders to desist from future offending. This involves the use of problem-solving techniques (Bonta et al., 2011; Trotter, 2013) to identify problems (e.g. family issues, accommodation, drugs), setting goals to address the problems and developing strategies to address the goals including cognitive strategies. An example of a cognitive technique is the ‘ABC’ which involves teaching offenders about Antecedents that lead to Behaviours that lead to Consequences (Lowenkamp et al., forthcoming).

The client/worker relationship is also identified as an important factor in work with offenders. A number of studies have found that collaborative trusting worker/client relationships provide the basis for effective work with offenders (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Trotter, 2013).

While not specifically a core skill, work with offenders may be more effective if services are targeted towards medium- to high risk offenders. There are many studies supporting this principle summarised in Andrews and Bonta (2010). On the other hand, some studies have questioned the risk principle. Robinson et al. (2011) found among a group trained in effective practices that the greater impact on offending was with moderate risk offenders, with less impact on high risk offenders. Trotter (1996, 2012) found in two studies that low-to-medium- and high risk offenders all had lower re-offending when their workers had good skills. Pearson et al. (2010) found that medium-to-low- and medium to high risk clients benefitted from skilled intervention but that high risk offenders did not.

Support for the ‘risk principle’ with women is offered in a study by Brusman Lovins et al. (2007) who examined intensive residential services for women. When compared to minimal services offered on parole and probation they found that high risk women in the intensive services grou...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Series editor’s introduction
• Preface and acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Women after prison: female crime, custody, and community
• 2 Policy developments in Victoria: the Better Pathways strategy
• 3 The transition from prison to community
• 4 Adapting to community life
• 5 Services and programmes: sustaining the transition to community
• 6 Culture and ethnicity: life after prison for Indigenous and culturally diverse women
• 7 Return to reoffending
• 8 Women’s voices: women’s experiences
• 9 Women in the justice system: maintaining desistance
• References
• Index