Title: Women Offenders: Programming Needs and Promising Approaches.
Series: Research in Brief
Author: Merry Morash, Timothy S. Bynum, and Barbara A. Koons
Published: August 1998
Subject: Female offenders, inmate programs 
21 pages
45,000 bytes

-------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included in this ASCII plain-text
file. To view this document in its entirety, download the Adobe Acrobat
graphic file available from this Web site or order a print copy from NCJRS
at 800-851-3420.

-------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, Director

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

Women Offenders: Programming Needs and Promising Approaches

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

-------------------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: Results of an NIJ-sponsored survey of State-level
correctional administrators, prison and jail administrators, and program
administrators to determine the special needs of incarcerated women in the
areas of management, screening, assessment, and programming. The
survey also sought information on innovative correctional programming
for women and specific program elements conducive to success.

Key issues: Women offenders have needs different from those of men,
stemming in part from their disproportionate victimization from sexual or
physical abuse and their responsibility for children. They are also more
likely to be addicted to drugs and to have mental illnesses. Many States
and jail jurisdictions, particularly those with small female offender
populations, have little special provision, either in management or
programming, for meeting the needs of women.

Key findings: Survey respondents identified the following needs:

o Classification and screening for women prisoners for needs related to
children, spouse abuse, and childhood sexual abuse, according to one in
four administrators.

o Management styles different from those for men. Managerial
characteristics deemed desirable are capacity to respond to expressions of
emotions and ability to communicate openly with offenders.

o Use of alternatives to incarceration for more women, although 9 out of
10 State administrators reported current use of some alternatives, primarily
work release.

Survey respondents were asked to name women's programs in their
jurisdictions that were effective, innovative, or promising. 

o They cited 242 programs, although correctional administrators in 17
States could name no such programs. The programs cited included
substance abuse programs, work training programs, child visitation and
parent education programs, and a variety of transition, aftercare, education,
and health programs.

o Elements deemed conducive to success in these programs included many
that were gender specific: staff who provided strong female role models,
the opportunity to form supportive peer networks, and attention to
women's particular experiences as victims of abuse, as parents of children,
and in negative relationships with men.

o Survey respondents also cited the need for more programs providing
drug treatment and mental health services.

Target audience: State and local legislators, correctional officials, prison
and jail administrators, and administrators of correctional programs in
prisons, jails, and the community.

-------------------------------

The last decade has seen a surge in both the number and proportion of
incarcerated women in the United States. Even though the rate of
incarceration for women continues to be far lower than for men (51 out of
100,000 women versus 819 out of 100,000 men),[1] the number of women
in prisons and jails is growing at a faster rate than the number of men.
During the decade between 1985 and 1995, the number of men doubled,
from 691,800 to 1,437,600, but the number of women tripled, from 40,500
to 113,100.[2] At midyear 1997 women accounted for 6.4 percent of all
prisoners nationwide, up from 4.1 percent in 1980 and 5.7 percent in
1990.[3]

Women in prison have some needs that are quite different from men's,
resulting in part from women's disproportionate victimization from sexual
or physical abuse and in part from their responsibility for children.
Women offenders are also more likely than men to have become addicted
to drugs, to have mental illnesses, and to have been unemployed before
incarceration.[4] The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State
prison inmates reported that in 1991:

o More than 43 percent of women inmates (but only 12 percent of men)
said they had been physically or sexually abused before their admission to
prison.

o Women serving a sentence for a violent offense were about twice as
likely as their male counterparts to have committed their offense against
someone close to them.

o More than two-thirds of all women in prison had children under the age
of 18, and among them only 25 percent (versus 90 percent for the men)
said their children were living with the other parent.

o Women in prison used more drugs and used those drugs more frequently
than men. About 54 percent used drugs in the month before their current
offense, compared with 50 percent for the men.[5]

These different circumstances, together with the general rise in the number
of women in prison and jail, point to the need for different management
approaches as well as different programming to ensure parity and to
provide interventions that reduce recidivism.[6] To achieve gender parity
in correctional programming, women must have the same range of
opportunities as men, and their needs must be met to the same extent that
men's are. This standard is difficult to achieve because women make up
just a fraction of the total inmate population. Their needs can easily be
overlooked when programs are designed and resources allocated.[7]

Previous research has shed light on this problem, citing inadequacies in
the areas of medical services, education, vocational training, prison
industry, law libraries, and parenting as well as a lack of objective
knowledge about what works.[8] 

There is need for documentation of the types of programming available for
women offenders, the characteristics of these interventions, and the
perceived nature of effective programs for this offender population. There
has also been little documentation of the best management approaches to
classification, housing, staff selection, and staff training in institutions
housing women. 

To fill this information gap, the National Institute of Justice sponsored a
national survey, conducted during 1993 and 1994, among State-level
correctional administrators, administrators of State and local correctional
institutions, and administrators of correctional programs that include
women. The survey was designed to explore the needs of women
offenders as perceived by administrators, program staff, and program
participants. It also explored various issues related to prison and jail
administration, such as classification and screening procedures, the use of
alternatives to incarceration, the extent of contracting for programs, and
the extent of coordination to acquire services from other State agencies.
The survey also elicited information on institutional and community-based
approaches considered to be effective with female offenders. Responses to
the survey are summarized in this Research in Brief.

Collecting the data

Data were collected by means of mail and telephone surveys, site visits,
and focus groups. All State correctional departments and at least 1 prison
for each State were surveyed, in addition to jail administrators from 50
city/county jurisdictions. The correctional institutions selected for study
represented facilities differing in size and region of the country. The vast
majority of correctional institutions surveyed by mail were for women
only. See "Methodology" for details of the samples and methods of
gathering and analyzing the data.

Findings on management of prisons and jails

One important aspect of the study involved a comparison of the
perspectives of State-level administrators--who were responsible for
planning and coordination--and prison administrators--who were
responsible for day-to-day operations. They were separately surveyed
because data from multiple sources make it possible to verify information
and to obtain information that is not known by all people in the
correctional system. There were both similarities and differences in the
perspectives of these two groups on managing women offenders. For
instance, State-level administrators were much less likely than prison
administrators to cite problems in processing an increasing number of
women offenders. Nineteen of the State-level administrators surveyed (but
only two prison administrators) said there are few, if any, problems in
processing a larger number of women offenders. This difference of
opinion may be because many of the State-level administrators also deal
with male offenders who represent an overwhelming proportion of the
prison population and pose greater difficulties in the system.

Similarly, in 40 percent of the jail jurisdictions, jail administrators
indicated no need for new models or approaches to holding women in jail,
whereas administrators of women's prisons noted a number of
management problems resulting from crowding, lack of programming, and
difficulties with classification and intake systems. Women's prison
administrators also pointed to high staff turnover and the need for better
qualified staff, lack of parity in programming, and high numbers of
women prisoners.

Classification, screening, and assessment. The most commonly mentioned
management problem, noted in 11 States, was in the area of classification
and screening. Administrators at all levels said that classification and
screening procedures did not provide needed information, were not
adapted to women, and were not useful in matching women's needs for
programming.

About one in four administrators said that current techniques of
classification and assessment are problematic with respect to women.
Despite women's different needs, circumstances, and risk profiles, the
same classification instrument was used for women and men in 39 States;
in 7 States the instrument for men was adapted for the women, and in 3
States a special instrument was used. One State had no instrument. In 50
of the 54 jails surveyed, the same classification instrument was used for
both male and female offenders.

Exhibit 1 shows the proportion of State prisons and local jails that screen
women for various problems and needs. In light of the number of women
inmates who have parental responsibilities or who have a history of being
abused, there is a notable lack of screening for needs related to children,
spouse abuse, and childhood sexual abuse. This is most pronounced in
jails. Jail administrators said they rarely used classification and assessment
to match women to appropriate programs or services.

Screening and assessment ideally relate to placement in appropriate
housing and programs within institutions. Except for States with female
inmate populations of 1,000 or more, classification and assessment are
often unrelated to where women are housed or to what programs they are
referred. States with larger female inmate populations have more
flexibility with respect to housing, and their programming benefits from
economies of scale. Yet in only half the States with 500 or more women
inmates do program needs influence the placement of women. The
proportion is about one-third for States with smaller female inmate
populations.

Effects of crowding. Lack of space and constant movement of high
numbers of women in and out of the institutions were also cited as
problems. Said one administrator, "Currently the 53 beds intended for
maximum security women are also used for HIV-positive women, women
with mental health problems, and those on disciplinary detention. . . . We
must downgrade some women who should be in close confinement
because of the need for beds."

Crowding was frequently tied to other problems in managing facilities.
One State began housing women and men in the same facilities as the
number of women prisoners rose over the last decade. This situation led to
security problems and inattention to the women inmates. "Women are
treated as minorities. There is an insufficient focus on their needs because
they are outnumbered by the men. The prison is run as a men's prison,"
one respondent said. In another State, crowding led to double-bunking,
restrictions on the availability of employment, and a tense, threatening
climate. 

Need for different management style. Survey respondents generally
described women prisoners as more concerned with interpersonal
relationships and likely to express emotion differently from men. With this
in mind, 7 in 10 State-level and prison administrators believed that a
different style of management was needed for women. Different
management styles would involve a capacity to respond to expressions of
emotions and a willingness and ability to communicate openly with
offenders. A less authoritarian manner and recognition that women had
needs different from men were also cited as desirable characteristics of
women's prison management. Skills such as active listening, patience in
explaining rules and expectations, awareness of emotional dynamics, and
the capacity to respond firmly, fairly, and consistently were cited as
important attributes of those who would manage women in prisons.

A smaller proportion of jail administrators (fewer than half), however, saw
the need for differentiation in management style between men and women,
but they cited knowledge of the special needs of women as an important
attribute for managing women in jail.

Innovation in management. Respondents were asked to mention
particularly effective or innovative management practices used in their
States. Although many jail and prison administrators said they knew of
effective management practices, particularly for jails, these were based on
fairly commonsense notions of being fair and strict. Exceptions were
comments identifying training or other practices that promoted greater
staff sensitivity to women, the hiring of additional female staff, and the
use of approaches that decentralized management decisions and involved
offenders in carrying out selected responsibilities. Respondents also
commended classification methods that addressed gender-specific needs
and circumstances, together with processes for reassessing needs over
time.

Use of contracting and interagency coordination for program delivery

Survey respondents were also asked the extent to which they used two
means of providing programming: contracting out to the private sector and
coordinating with other State agencies.

Nearly all States contract out to the private sector for at least some
services for women offenders, and some States use departments other than
the corrections department to provide some programming. 

Both State-level departmental and institutional administrators (86 percent)
and jail administrators (70 percent) reported contracting for program
services such as mental health treatment, drug programming, and
educational services. Contracts were viewed as improving programs,
promoting new ideas, containing costs, and resolving problems with
employees. 

In about three-quarters of the States at least some services were provided
to incarcerated women by other agencies, including hospitals and
departments focused on education, vocational education, health, and
mental health. The most typical arrangement, found in 17 States, was for
the State department of education to provide programming. In 13 States
vocational education was provided by a State agency. Despite
administrators' emphasis on the mental health needs of imprisoned
women, survey answers showed State mental health agency involvement
in only 12 States, and just 6 States had interagency provision of drug
treatment services.

Survey respondents generally saw benefits in interagency provision of
programming, primarily higher quality and more effective programs, in-
creased administrative flexibility, and greater availability of professional
staff resources. 

Use of alternative sanctions

State correctional administrators said that lack of space in institutions was
an impetus to finding alternatives to incarcerating women. Although some
States divert women to alternative sanctions at or before the point of
sentencing, the survey focused on the use of alternative sanctions after
commitment to prison or jail. State-level administrators in 9 out of 10
States reported using some type of alternative to prison for women
offenders after commitment. As shown in exhibit 2, the largest number of
States use work release.

Halfway houses, prerelease centers, and day supervision also provide an
alternative for a high proportion of committed women in some States.
Although boot camps are used by 15 States, they affect a very small
percentage of the committed women. States vary greatly in the proportion
of women they assign to incarceration alternatives. The alternative
sanction considered to be most effective was community corrections.

With respect to jails, while there is some availability of alternatives such
as community-based substance abuse treatment, electronic monitoring, and
work-related programs, most alternatives are available to women in fewer
than 1 out of 10 jail jurisdictions. More than half the jail jurisdictions,
however, reported reducing populations by granting credit against
sentence length, most commonly for community service.

Program administrators who worked most closely with offenders were
asked whether their clients would be better served by more use of
alternatives to incarceration. Regardless of whether their programs were in
prison, jail, or the community, nearly half of the program administrators
felt that the use of alternatives to incarceration should be expanded. There
was by no means complete agreement on this issue, however. Said one
program administrator, "The women tell me that many of them need
prison in order to straighten out and that without it they would not have
straightened out." A number of offenders in the focus groups supported the
statement, but another administrator said, "I think if 90 percent had some
alternative, they would turn around and be made into worthwhile citizens
and not be a drain on society as they are as incarcerated inmates." In
explaining why alternatives could and should be used more often, many
program administrators noted that women offenders are generally neither
violent nor dangerous.

A number of factors inhibit the use of alternative sanctions, however,
according to both State- and institution-level administrators. They include
the unavailability of alternatives, lack of money or other resources, and
community resistance. The problem of lack of alternatives is particularly
acute in States with the smallest female inmate populations.

Innovative programs for women offenders

Once respondents had identified the needs of women offenders for special
management approaches, programming, and alternatives to incarceration,
they were asked to identify programs in their jurisdictions that appeared to
be especially effective, innovative, or promising in meeting these needs. A
total of 242 programs were cited, but as exhibit 3 shows, few States
reported high numbers of innovative programs, and 17 States could name
no such programs.

The programs nominated by State- and institution-level administrators fell
into the following categories:

o Psychological programs. These included substance abuse programs,
mental health programs, and programs dealing with other forms of abuse,
including domestic abuse. A total of 90 programs were identified in this
category, with substance abuse programs constituting more than a third.

o Work programs. These included work training, in-prison industries, and
other work-related programs. A total of 48 programs fell in this category,
of which half were in work training.

o Parenting programs. Child visitation programs, parent education, and
other parenting programs made up this group of 42 programs, with child
visitation programs constituting one-half.

o Other programs. The range of 62 programs in this miscellaneous
category included transition and aftercare programs, education programs,
health programs (including HIV/AIDS education), and programs to build
life skills.

Jail administrators nominated 49 programs, with substance abuse
programs the most numerous followed by education, life skills, mental
health, health, and multiple-focus programs.

See shaded boxes on the following pages for descriptions of three typical
programs.

Program initiation and staffing. The vast majority of the programs (63
percent) were initiated by correctional staff or administrators who
designed and implemented the programs to address identified needs.
Programs initiated by correctional staff and administrators tended to
involve mental health and parent-child visitation. Litigation against the
State department of corrections, grants, and litigation in combination with
grants were instrumental in starting a smaller proportion (32 percent) of
the programs, primarily work and educational programs.

Programs were typically staffed by department of corrections employees
(45 percent), contract staff (18 percent), or a combinations of these (6
percent). Additionally volunteers, or some combination of volunteers and
correctional, contract, mental health, or educational department staff,
worked in small numbers of the programs.

Key program elements for success. Program administrators, staff, and
participants identified a number of elements that contributed to successful
outcomes. Staff characteristics, comprehensiveness of approach, and
pertinence to women's own interests were termed the three chief areas
most important for success. Exhibit 4 lists examples of program elements
that administrators of programs, correctional institutions, and State
departments of correction, as well as program staff and participants,
identified as related to successful outcomes.

Information on program elements related to successful outcomes was
obtained in two ways: 

o From State-level correctional administrators and institution-level
administrators who had heard of or observed the programs in their
jurisdiction or in their institutions. This information was obtained through
the phase 1 telephone surveys, supplemented in some cases by site visits.

o From the experience of the administrators, staff, or program participants
themselves. This information was obtained from telephone surveys among
administrators of 62 of the programs, plus onsite interviews with staff and
focus groups in which the inmates participated.

The qualitative data collected during the site visits reveal the
gender-specific nature of many of these program elements. Ingredients
considered essential for success were staff who acted as strong female role
models and the opportunity for participants to form supportive networks
with female peers-networks that often continued after release. Successful
programs were individualized and structured to respond to multiple
gender-specific experiences, including victimization, parenting, and
negative relationships with men. A safe environment was considered
critical for women with histories of being abused, both as children and as
adults.

Not all the success factors were unique to programs for women-for
instance, skill development, interactions between institutional or court
administration and program staff, and assistance from the community.
However, study respondents generally saw the need for programming to
include at least some gender-specific elements if outcomes were to be
successful.

The women participating in the programs were most likely to stress the
importance of identifying with female staff. Some staff might be
ex-offenders or recovering substance abusers with whom they could
identify in a particular way. 

Staff pointed to the importance of tailoring controls (such as urinalysis or
the parole violation process) to individual women's situations.

Unmet or insufficiently filled needs

Many respondents stated that some needs of incarcerated women were still
unmet or were not met satisfactorily. They also suggested areas where
programs existed but needed to be expanded.

Substance abuse treatment was widely identified as not being sufficiently
provided, and it was linked to a set of other problems as well-violence and
abuse, lack of job skills or training, and inability to form constructive
relationships. Most respondents did not distinguish between men's and
women's needs with respect to drug treatment, but a few did. They
described higher rates of abuse and mental health problems for women,
and they thought the problems took different forms for women than for
men. Said one administrator, "Women who are victims of abuse tend to
continue on as victims of abuse. Men, on the other hand, tend to react to
their own history of victimization by becoming abusers themselves." The
larger the State's female population, the larger the State-level proportion of
administrators who wanted substance abuse treatment expanded.

Despite awareness that health education and mental health programming
were significant among the needs of incarcerated women, few of the 62
programs identified as most innovative focused on these needs. However,
because the majority of program administrators reported adopting a
holistic approach to meeting women's needs, it is possible that health
education and mental health needs were addressed to some extent within
other program components.

In response to questions about whether the programs needing expansion
were unique to women, State-level administrators mentioned four general
types that were unique (in descending order of mention): family-related,
mental health, substance abuse, and vocational programming. In the
mental health area, the most frequently mentioned specific program needs
were for counteracting victimization from abuse and for improving
self-esteem.

Most administrators, with the exception of jail administrators, saw a need
to expand mental health programming. Some described unique aspects of
the family experiences of the women in their charge. They spoke of the
need for programming to overcome female offenders' early socialization,
which had limited their independence and occupational choices. They also
saw the need for parenting programs to strengthen nurturing and discipline
skills. They viewed mental health services as countering the effects of
abuse and victimization by raising the women's self-esteem. Very few jail
administrators said women's programming requirements were different
from men's, but they reported substance abuse programming as meeting a
particularly critical need for women.

Conclusion

The findings of this study reflect the perceptions of correctional
administrators, staff, and women offenders that many needs of
incarcerated women are different from those of men and require
approaches tailored to their specific characteristics and situations. In
addition to the development of more gender-specific programming, other
issues were identified as requiring attention. For instance, in States
experiencing rapidly growing female inmate populations, crowding leads
to problems in screening, assessment, and adequate housing. And States
and institutions with relatively few female inmates lack the economies of
scale to provide the variety of programming needed.

However, progress is being made. In 30 States there was a clear indication
of systematic recent planning to respond to increased numbers of women
offenders. This type of formal planning was related to the level of
innovation in women's programming. States that were able to cite several
innovative programs were more likely to have planning efforts than States
with little or no innovation. Most planning groups were described as
special working groups or task forces designed to address issues related to
the influx of women into prisons. In a few States, different sorts of groups
engaged in planning, such as a State planning agency, an internal
department of corrections group or, in one case, an interagency group.

Although corrections administrators could identify programs they
considered innovative and program administrators could list program
characteristics thought conducive to success, few outcome evaluations
have been conducted so far. The review of both published and unpublished
literature that preceded this study revealed written reports on the outcomes
of just 68 programs, actual measurement of outcomes for 12, and
measurement of recidivism for a mere 6 of these. The survey described in
this report is but a first step in the direction of improving the
understanding of what works in treating women offenders in prisons, jails,
and community corrections to prevent recidivism.

Notes

1. Mumola, Christopher J., and Allen J. Beck, Prisoners in 1996, Bureau
of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997.

2. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1995, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997. 

3. Gilliard, Darrell K., and Allen J. Beck, Prison and Jail Inmates at
Midyear 1997, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998.

4. See D. Leclair, The Incarcerated Female Offender-Offender, Victim, or
Villain? Boston: Massachusetts Division of Correction, Research
Division, 1990; Huling, T., Breaking the Silence, Albany, New York:
Correctional Association of New York, 1991; and American Correctional
Association, The Female Offender: What Does the Future Hold?
Washington, D.C.: St. Mary's Press, 1990.

5. Snell, Tracy L., Women in Prison, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1994.

6. See Snell, Women in Prison. See also T.L. Snell, Women in Jail, 1989,
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992; and Immarigeon,
R., and M. Chesney-Lind, Overcrowded and Overused, San Francisco: San
Francisco National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1992.

7. Rafter, N., Partial Justice: Women, Prisons, and Social Control, New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1990.

8. Dobash, R.P., R.E. Dobash, and S. Gutteridge, Imprisonment of
Women, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Also N. Shover, "Institutional
Corrections: Jails and Prisons," in J.F. Shelley (ed.) Criminology: A
Contemporary Handbook, Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1991;
Pollock-Byrne, J.M., Women, Prisons, and Crime, Pacific Grove,
California: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1990; Mann, C.R., Female Crime and
Delinquency, Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1984; Smart, C.,
Women, Crime, and Criminology: A Feminist Critique, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977; Weisheit, R., and S. Mahan, Women,
Crime, and Criminal Justice, Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson, 1988; and Ryan,
T.E., Adult Female Offenders and the Institutional Programs: A State of
the Art Analysis, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections,
1994.

-------------------------------

Methodology

Data were collected in three phases:

Phase 1

This phase was designed to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the
opinions of administrators in State departments of corrections and
administrators of prisons and jails that house women. Data collected in
phase 1 were mail and telephone reports of responses to the influx of
women into jails and prisons, of the needs of incarcerated women, and of
management and program approaches to meeting those needs.

The mail surveys concentrated on acquiring factual information, much of
which might be provided by a research department or by other staff
specialists within an administrative office. Phone surveys were followups
with directors, commissioners, or deputy directors of corrections or with
administrators of correctional institutions; they focused on obtaining
opinions and descriptions of practices, needs of offenders, and
implementation difficulties. 

Survey respondents were also asked to identify programs that in their view
stood out as being especially effective in meeting the needs of incarcerated
women. Information was gathered about specific types of programs, such
as mental health programs, work-related programs, life skills programs,
programs for mothers, health-related programs, and transition or aftercare
services. Respondents, who were asked what made the programs work
well and by whom they were staffed and operated, identified 242
promising programs and supplied contact information.

Phase 2 

Data were gathered through telephone interviews with administrators of 62
of the 242 programs nominated as innovative or promising in meeting
offender needs. Main issues considered in the selection of those to be
interviewed included representation of programming or administrative
approaches that addressed the range of frequently identified problems; the
availability of evaluation results; and evidence of program relevance to
special needs-for example, related to unique problems of women, race,
ethnicity, or type of crime. Interviewees were asked about the primary
focus of the programs, the needs addressed, screening and assessment
associated with the program, characteristics of program approaches,
program staffing, and targeted participants. 

Phase 3

Site visits were made to 17 of the promising and innovative programs,
clustered in 3 geographic areas (2 in the Northeast and 1 in the Northwest).
Criteria for selecting programs for site visits were that the programs
addressed the critical needs identified from the survey of correctional
administrators, that they included in-prison/jail programs as well as
community programs, and that there was evidence of program
effectiveness. During the visits, researchers conducted interviews with
administrators, with staff and, in focus groups, with women participating
in the programs. 

For all groups sampled, response rates were quite high, ranging from 87
percent for telephone surveys completed with program administrators to
100 percent for mail and telephone surveys completed with State-level
administrators.

-------------------------------

Program Elements Related to Success

Program Staff

o Staff are dedicated/caring/qualified.

o Ex-addicts or ex-offenders are on staff.

o Women staff members serve as role models.

Meeting of Specific and Multiple Needs

o Program has a comprehensive or multifaceted focus.

o Program addresses rudimentary or basic needs. 

o Program establishes a continuum of care.

Program Participation

o Participants like the program.

o Inmate participation is high or self-initiated.

o Participants help run the program.

Peer Influence

o Other participants provide positive peer influence.

o Other participants provide pressure (e.g., to be a good mother).

o Other participants provide support.

Individualized, Structured

o Clear, measurable goals are established.

o Treatment plans and programming are individualized.

o Program is intensive and of appropriate duration.

o Appropriate screening and assessment are provided.

Technology, Resources

o Equipment, money, and other resources are available.

o Adequate space is available.

Acquisition of Skills

o Marketable job skills can be acquired.

o Parenting and life skills are taught.

o Education addresses thinking and reasoning.

o Anger management is taught.

Program Environment

o Atmosphere is "homey"; climate is conducive to visits.

o Communications are open; confidentiality is kept.

o Rapport with other participants is good.

o Participants are separated from the general population.

o Program enrollment is small.

Victimization Issues

o Program addresses self-esteem.

o Women are treated like human beings.

o Program addresses domestic violence.

o Program addresses empowerment and self-sufficiency.

Administrative and Staff Interaction

o Administrative support and communication are good.

o Management style is nonaggressive.

o Security staff are understanding and supportive.

Assistance From Outside the Facility

o Outside private-public partnerships exist.

o Interagency coordination exists.

o Some staff come from outside the department of corrections.

-------------------------------

The Children's Center

Bedford Hills Correctional Facility houses a nursery, where babies of
women involved in the prison programs are cared for until they are 1 year
old. When there is certitude that mother and baby can leave together, an
extension to 18 months is granted. The Children's Center promotes
parenting skills and serves the infants living at the institution and the
inmates' children living outside the prison. Approximately 75 mothers are
involved with the Children's Center at one time. Over the course of a year,
it serves 700 women. Most women are involved in the program from 1 to
5 days each week.

The purpose of the program is to help inmates "learn to be mothers," with
a focus on meeting the women's mental health needs. Other focus areas are
relationships with family, transition to the community, and parenting.
Sister Elaine Roulet, who initiated the program, is guided by a philosophy
of inmates teaching other inmates. A case management approach is used to
match women's needs to particular activities and services. Programming is
bilingual, and many activities are culturally specific.

The employment of inmates as coordinators, most of whom were
previously in the program themselves, is a unique feature. Each program
in the Children's Center has an inmate coordinator and a volunteer
coordinator from the outside who is responsible for doing what the inmate
cannot do, such as make telephone calls and other contacts.

Among the Children's Center activities (many of them initiated by
inmates) are:

o Mother-child visits.

o Tape recording of mothers reading books.

o Summer camp (children housed with neighboring host families and
participating in daytime activities with their mothers).

o A "sponsor baby" program to provide items to caregivers (e.g., clothing)
when the babies leave the nursery.

o An overnight weekend visiting program.

o A structured activity program for children.

For more information, contact:
Sister Elaine Roulet
Children's Center
Bedford Hills Correctional Facility
247 Harris Road
Bedford Hills, NY 10509
914-241-3100

-------------------------------

A Community Corrections Program Addressing Multiple Needs

The Women's Opportunity Resource Center was developed in the 1980s
by a women's advocacy program concerned with high recidivism and the
lack of programming for female offenders. The program's primary focus is
to help women offenders obtain jobs and stay off drugs. It does so by
working in the areas of basic education, vocational development,
parenting, substance abuse, and health and medical problems. The
program also emphasizes life skills training and the use of community
resources.

Participants are nonviolent felony and misdemeanor offenders, generally
in jail at the time of referral and on local probation while in the program.
About 95 percent have drug or alcohol problems. Women learn by word of
mouth about the program and call collect from the jail to ask to enroll.
Usually, the women accepted are conditionally released on probation. A
critical component is the network of agencies that will accept referrals
from the program.

Housed in a fairly new, attractively decorated suburban office building, the
program seeks to provide a homelike environment and structure for
participants. It uses case management techniques to match client needs to
program activities and to make referrals. A consistent theme is preparing
women to work, either in clerical positions or as health aides. Basic
education and GED classes are offered. Participants are referred to alcohol
and drug counseling programs located in the same building.

Participants attend from 9:30 a.m. until 4 p.m. daily and must stay at least
9 months to graduate. Within the first 30 days, the dropout rate is
significant, but thereafter 75 percent of the remaining group of women
stay in the program. About 30 to 35 women graduate each year, with
graduation ceremonies held at a nearby hotel. For many women, the
ceremony marks their first recognition of success. Parents, children, and
even judges attend; the women wear caps and gowns and receive
certificates and diplomas. 

Judges have overcome their initial reluctance to place women in the
program, and some insist that referrals be accepted even when the program
is full.

For more information, contact:
Dianne Gaines
Project Director
Women's Opportunity Resource Center
50 Clinton Street
Suite 208
Hempstead, NY 11550
516-483-0336

-------------------------------

A Prison-Based Life Skills Program

The Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Program uses a holistic approach to
providing basic life skills training, substance abuse education, relationship
development, and anger management to substance abusers in a
minimum-security institution housing 500 inmates, of which 160 are
women. Fifty men and 50 women participate in separate programs.

The program addresses the differences in the way women and men think
and act. Women deal with more mental health, abuse, medical, and
medication issues; they more often suffer grief, commonly over the loss of
their children. The women and men are kept separated to focus on
gender-specific issues without distractions from the opposite sex during
treatment.

Participation in the program is related to the inherent privileges in its
structure, such as work assignments outside the institution or earned time
credit off their sentences. The women's program builds on relationships
among the inmates to instill accountability, peer pressure, and support. It
uses a case management approach to match inmate needs with program
services and to arrange aftercare. The program is designed to deal with
women's issues and to promote change. An increasing number of women
receive treatment and medication for mental illness, including depression,
schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder.

All inmates participate 7 days a week, with treatment aspects given
priority over work, which can involve assignments outside the institution
and prison chores. The program lasts a minimum of 9 months, but most
women stay up to 12 months at the end of their sentence so they can focus
on transitioning back to the community. Aftercare is integrated into the
program and lasts 6 months, with a drug treatment slot guaranteed for 2
months; subsequently the offender pays for treatment.

For more information, contact:
Kevin Hormann
Alcohol and Drug Program Coordinator
Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Program
Columbia River Correctional Institution
9111 N.E. Sunderland Avenue
Portland, OR 97211
503-280-6663 (ext. 240)

-------------------------------

The study reported in this Research in Brief was conducted under grant
numbers 92-IJ-CX-K027 and 96-IJ-CX-0021 awarded by the National
Institute of Justice. Merry Morash, Ph.D., is Director and Professor,
School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University; Timothy S.
Bynum, Ph.D., is a Professor in the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan
State University; and Barbara A. Koons, the study's research manager, is
an Assistant Professor, College of Criminal Justice, University of South
Carolina.

Copies of the full report of this study, Findings From the National Study
of Innovative and Promising Programs for Women Offenders, can be
obtained from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS),
800-851-3420, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, through
interlibrary loan. Photocopies are also available. Ask for NCJ 171667.

-------------------------------

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice.

-------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

-------------------------------

NCJ 171668