Correctional interventions for women offenders: a rapid evidence assessment

Abstract

Purpose

A Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) determined the effectiveness of correctional programmes for women offenders and examined features of programmes providing the strongest outcomes. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

Electronic databases and web sites were reviewed to identify literature focused on interventions with female offenders published since 2006, the end point of the last REA conducted in the area. The following retention criteria were applied: participants were over age 18; sample included women and results are reported separately for women; study included an appropriate comparison group; study included recidivism as an outcome measure. Studies’ methodological design quality was assessed using the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale.

Findings

In total, one meta-analysis and 22 studies reflecting 17 unique samples, published from 2006 to December 2014, were identified. Overall, the best evidence suggests that the following programmes and approaches have an evidence base: first, substance abuse treatment, in particular in-custody or hierarchical therapeutic community programmes; second, gender-responsive programmes that emphasize existing strengths and competencies, as well as skills acquisition; and third, following in-custody programme treatment with participation in community follow-up sessions. There is also promising evidence for the use of community opioid maintenance among heroin addicted women.

Originality/value

This review demonstrated that since 2006 the number of high-quality research studies assessing women’s correctional outcomes has grown considerably. The results provide guidance to programme designers and administrators on programmes for women offenders likely to be effective in promoting public safety goals and offender reintegration.

Citation

Stewart, L. and Gobeil, R. (2015), "Correctional interventions for women offenders: a rapid evidence assessment", Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 116-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-04-2015-0007