Women in prison: The central issues of gender characteristics and trauma history

Dennis

et al. 2016

This study examines time-varying gender-responsive and gender-neutral predictors of recidivism over 3 years using baseline and quarterly follow-up interviews with 477 women released from a county jail. Of the 55 time-varying predictors tested in the longitudinal analysis, 39 were significant predictors of recidivism (new arrest or incarceration) even after controlling for baseline fixed predictors. Stepwise multivariate analysis simplified the model to 12 significant variables, including three time-varying variables associated with reduced risk of recidivism (custody of one's children, self-help activity, environmental support), eight time-varying variables associated with increased risk of recidivism (illegal activity, type of crime, problems with probation/parole, days in jail/prison, number of sexual partners, past-year trauma, problem orientation, external pressure), and the composite measure of risk from baseline. These findings support the development of post-release re-entry services tailored for female offenders that address both gender-responsive and gender-neutral criminogenic risk factors. T his study examines the time-varying effect of risk factors for recidivism over 3 years among a sample of women offenders following their release from a jail-based substance use program to the community. We build on a prior study (Scott, Grella, Dennis, & Funk, 2014), in which we systematically examined baseline predictors of recidivism over 36 months, with a focus on determining the predictive value of variables derived from gender-responsive and gender-neutral criminogenic recidivism models. Several variables

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Time-Varying Model of Risk for Predicting Recidivism Among Women Offenders Over 3 Years Following Their Release From Jail

Scott

Dennis

et al. 2016

“…This finding is in sharp contrast to much of the current literature that emphasizes these factors as correlates of criminal involvement among women that merit attention in treatment models based on women's risk/needs. Moreover, this finding runs counter to gender-responsive models of risk among female offenders (McKeown, 2010) that have emphasized the prevalence of trauma exposure and the association of trauma history with subsequent mental health and substance use disorders, which act as precursors to women's criminal behavior and enhance the risks of recidivism (Moloney, van den Bergh, & Moller, 2009;Tripodi & Pettus-Davis, 2013). In addition, fewer than half of the women in this sample met criteria for an Axis I mental disorder (45%), whereas 38% met criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD) and only 10% for antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).…”

Section: Gender-responsive Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Predictors of Recidivism Over 3 Years Among Substance-Using Women Released From Jail

Scott

Dennis

et al. 2014

This study examines predictors of recidivism over 3 years for 624 women released from a county jail using a comprehensive range of standardized measures derived from gender-responsive and gender-neutral criminogenic recidivism models. Although more than a dozen factors were related to recidivism in the univariate analysis, the multivariate analysis shows that recidivism can be reliably predicted (area under the curve = 0.90) with just four factors: age, no custody of children, substance use frequency, and number of substance problems. Exploratory analysis of women who recidivated in post-release months 1 to 3, 4 to 12, and 13 to 36 revealed that the effects of several variables (age, super optimism, and number of weeks in the jail treatment program) were dependent on the time elapsed since release from jail, whereas others (substance use and custody) had persistent effects over time. These findings support the development of re-entry services tailored for female offenders who address both gender-responsive and gender-neutral criminogenic risk factors.A rrest and incarceration rates have dramatically increased for women during the past two decades, particularly for drug-related offenses (Mauer, Potler, & Wolf, 1999). A recent Department of Justice report shows that although the overall population of inmates in county and city jails decreased from 2010 to 2013, the number and proportion of female inmates increased by 10.9% (Minton & Golinelli, 2014). As more attention is focused on understanding the factors related to successful outcomes for women who are released from in-custody settings (Lewis, 2006), the question of whether existing models of risk for

“…Women's pathways to crime mainly include a history of abuse, economic marginality, and a lack of resources to care for children (Daly, 1992, 1994; Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1998). Studies have consistently documented the link between experiences of sexual/physical violence, childhood trauma, neglect, and poverty to both criminal activity and substance abuse in samples of women offenders (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004, Moloney, van den Bergh, & Moller, 2009). Thus, one of the principles of GRT is to address substance abuse, trauma, and mental health issues through comprehensive and integrated services (Bloom et al, 2003).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Benefits From Gender-Responsive Treatment?

Saxena

Messina

2014

This study explores outcome variation among women offenders who participated in gender-responsive substance abuse treatment (GRT). In order to identify subgroups of participants that may differentially benefit from this treatment, secondary analyses examined the interaction between randomization into GRT and a history of abuse (physical/sexual) on depression and number of substances used post- treatment. The sample consisted of 115 incarcerated women assessed at baseline and 6- and 12-months post parole. Longitudinal regression showed that women reporting abuse randomized into GRT had significantly reduced odds of depression (OR = .29, p < .05, 95% CI = .10 – .86) and lowered rates of number of substances used (IRR = .52, p < .05, 95% CI = 0.28–0.98), in comparison to those who reported abuse and were randomized to the non-GRT group. GRT for women offenders who have experienced prior abuse would maximize the benefits of the trauma-informed, gender-sensitive intervention.