Girls and women account for between 2% and 9% of the world’s incarcerated population. Although these numbers may not seem particularly distressing, it is necessary to emphasize that, worldwide, the female incarceration rate increased 50% between 2000 and 2015. This increase is almost 3 times higher than the corresponding rate for males.
Historically, scholars and correctional agencies have intentionally or unintentionally ignored female offenders. Further, early explanations of female criminal conduct were sexist, suggesting that men commit crime because of external causes such as poverty or peer pressure, whereas women commit crime because of internal causes such as faulty biology. However, this is no longer the case. In the early 21st century, scholars who study crime began to take an active interest in understanding why female criminal conduct occurs, reoccurs, and how it should be prevented and treated. Similarly, correctional agencies worldwide are slowly adopting female-centered philosophies grounded in the assumption that females (girls and women alike) are different from their male counterparts.
This entry first reviews two prevailing theories of female criminal conduct: (1) a gender-neutral theory of crime that is purported to apply equally to both sexes and a (2) female-specific theory, developed specifically for girls and women. Next, it reviews key risk and need factors responsible for the initiation and maintenance of female criminal conduct and discusses how these factors are incorporated into correctional interventions. Finally, this entry offers some recommendations for research and practice in the field of female offender rehabilitation.
Theories of Female Criminal Conduct
There are various theories of criminal conduct, and a few focus explicitly on female crime. This section briefly reviews two theories of crime and their applicability specifically to girls and women.
Pathways Theory
Pathways theory was written specifically to explain female criminal conduct. It states that girls and women initially start engaging in criminal conduct largely because of adverse events, such as childhood maltreatment (e.g., abuse and neglect), poverty, or dysfunctional relationships with caregivers or intimate partners. Pathways theorists further hypothesize that females cope with these adverse events by running away from home, abusing drugs and/or alcohol, developing anxiety and/ or depression, or simply by doing whatever it takes (e.g., transporting drugs across the border to please a partner) to maintain the dysfunctional relationship. In turn, these coping mechanisms lead to criminalized survival methods, such as prostitution, drug use/dealing, or robbery.
The pathways perspective is a feminist-inspired model written in response to years of male- dominated scholarship that explicitly or implicitly discounted the female perspective. Noteworthy, the pathways model of female criminal conduct is as much about theory as it is about method. In particular, pathway theorists have developed theories of female offending using methodologies that intentionally give girls and women a voice. Accordingly, feminist pathways researchers have typically used qualitative methods of inquiry to study female offenders. These methods are usually interview based and consequently give girls and women an opportunity to tell their stories in their own words.
As of 2016, there were several (about 30) different studies that examined female criminal conduct through the lens of pathways theory. Collectively, quantitative (the study of numbers) and qualitative (the study of words) research has clearly found that various forms of victimization (e.g., sexual, emotional, and physical abuse; neglect; and witnessed violence), family disruption, running away, substance abuse, depression/ anxiety, and poverty are key themes in the lives of women and girls who have committed crime. However, more research is needed because much of the existing research has failed to incorporate detailed questions related to the nature and context of victimization (e.g., sexual abuse by a trusted adult over a prolonged period of time versus witnessing violence perpetrated between strangers). As well, research that explicitly compares males and females is needed to determine the extent to which the pathway theory is truly unique to females.
Personal, Interpersonal, Community-Reinforcement (PIC-R) Theory
The PIC-R theory is a general model of criminal behavior that aims to explain individual differences in criminal behavior in both males and females. PIC-R is largely built upon two preexisting theories of criminal behavior: social learning theory and personality (self-control) theory. Social learning theory hypothesizes that both males and females learn to commit crime through the same mechanisms, such as differential reinforcement. One woman, for example, continues to commit crime because most of her friends support (i.e., reinforce), rather than discourage, her criminal activity. In contrast, self-control theory focuses on personality traits and the environment. Self- control theory hypothesizes that males and females are more likely to commit crime when given the opportunity to do so and that they possess impulsive and sensation-seeking personality traits. These impulsive and sensation-seeking personality traits foster a tendency to seek short-term gratification (e.g., “I can steal a new iPod now”) rather than a consideration for long-term consequences (e.g., “I will end up on probation for one year”).
PIC-R categorizes criminal risk factors into four domains for males and females alike: situational, personal, interpersonal, and community. The situational domain includes factors that can change rapidly, such as opportunities (e.g., temptations), stressors (e.g., a single mother who just lost her job), facilitators (e.g., sudden psychotic state), and disinhibitors (e.g., acute drunkenness). In contrast, personal factors are an individual’s characteristics that typically do not change without intervention. They include things such as criminal thinking styles (e.g., “crime is ok,” “insurance covers what I steal”) and antisocial personality features (e.g., cold/callous, lacking remorse, impulsive, manipulative). PIC-R also classifies gender and having a long and varied criminal history as personal risk factors, albeit as static, or nonchanging, factors. Although gender is classified as a personal variable that shapes both the person and the immediate situation, it is not central to the model. Interpersonal factors include variables such as criminal friends and family/ marital dysfunction (e.g., having an intimate partner who is also criminal). Lastly, the community dimension encompasses factors such as the quality of one’s neighborhood (e.g., a person who resides in a high crime neighborhood is more likely to engage in crime than one who resides in an affluent neighborhood). In sum, PIC-R argues that, irrespective of gender, as the number of these factors increases, so does the probability that the rewards for doing crime will exceed the costs. Ultimately, it is variations in the reward-to-cost ratio that explains why one person engages in crime and another does not.
There is considerable research in support of the PIC-R as a general theory of crime for males and females alike. Even some feminist scholars have acknowledged that these seemingly gender-neutral perspectives have merit in understanding female criminal conduct. For instance, it has been suggested that social learning and related theories such as PIC-R may help explain why males are more likely to engage in crime in the first place; males are more likely to associate with antisocial peers than females because boys have greater access outside the home, providing more exposure to negative peers, whereas girls have less access due to more supervision and control in the home.
Gender-Informed Risk Factors
Through socialization, biology, or a combination of the two, differences in gender yield different life experiences for girls and women, compared to boys and men. The term gender informed reflects these between-group differences; when referencing a gender-informed concept for girls and women, it means that gender is a preeminent consideration. For example, a gender-informed teaching method for females would be one that yields relatively better results for girls and women; it is one that females are more responsive to than males because in its development, gendered (female) considerations were taken into account. In contrast, a gender-neutral concept is one that makes no consideration of gender; in form and measurement, the concept operates in the same manner for males and females alike. This section considers criminal risk factors and, more specifically, gender-informed risk factors.
Risk factors are variables that, when present, increase the likelihood that criminal behavior will occur. They help predict if criminal behavior will occur at some future date. Risk factors are generally described as either static or dynamic. Static risk factors are constant and unchanging or change only in one direction (e.g., age, criminal history). Dynamic risk factors are characteristics of the offender or his or her situation, which are changeable, with changes associated with changes in the likelihood of reoffending (criminal recidivism). As such, dynamic risk factors (also called criminogenic needs) are considered promising targets for correctional intervention.
Various studies have shown that some of the best risk factors associated with criminal recidivism (for males and females alike) include static risk factors such as current age, number of previous offenses, age at first arrest, criminal versatility, poor parental supervision, and early onset of behavioral problems (e.g., lying, cheating, stealing before age 12 years). Static factors, although good predictors of future crime, are not amenable to treatment.
The gender debate with respect to risk factors lies mainly in the area of dynamic risk. This is because correctional programming targets dynamic risk factors, and these interventions must be informed by sound empirical research. Until the late 1990s or early 2000s, the vast majority of research had been conducted using male-only, or predominantly male, samples. Feminist-inspired researchers have strongly questioned the scientific merit of assuming that research conducted on male offenders will naturally generalize to female offenders. Nonetheless, a large body of malebased research has produced consistent findings: Correctional programs reduce reoffending by, on average, 10%. Further, through foundational meta-analytic research published in 1990, Don A. Andrews and colleagues provided a convincing demonstration of how programs adhering to now widely accepted principles of effective correctional intervention (risk, need, and responsivity) show the most promising correctional results yielding reductions in recidivism in the range of 30%. Andrews and colleagues’ original findings have been supported by a large number of male-based studies, and the risk-need-responsivity model is universally accepted as a best practice in correctional programming.
According to Andrews and colleagues, the most promising treatment targets include: antisocial attitudes and feelings; antisocial associates; poor self-control, self-management, and/or problemsolving skills; substance abuse problems; lack of education and/or vocation; lack of familial ties or dysfunctional family relationships; and poor use of recreational or leisure time. The general acceptance of these factors as criminogenic needs is based on a considerable body of research.
As noted, the appropriateness of these promising treatment targets for girls and women has been challenged in the correctional literature. The skepticism comes, in part, from the fact that the supporting research is based on samples of male offenders. As such, some advocate for gender-specific assessment and intervention for girls and women. These authors argue that certain other needs, more prevalent among justiceinvolved girls and women (e.g., parenting stress, a history of trauma, adverse social conditions, and mental health problems), can also impact response to treatment and correctional outcomes. This point of view is supported by work demonstrating that many girls and women have gendered pathways into the criminal justice system.
Correctional Interventions
To respond to this gap in service for girls and women, the latest generation of correctional interventions is labeled gender informed or gender responsive. Although many of these interventions incorporate traditional program elements, they also consider needs that are particularly salient to females and are founded, at least in part, on pathways perspectives and other theoretical models, such as relational-cultural theory (a perspective that underscores the centrality of relationships in women’s lives) and strength-based approaches. Gender-informed approaches are trauma informed (consider the impact of trauma in lives of girls and women) and consider the gendered context, including pathways associated with female offending.
In 2016, Renée Gobeil, Kelley Blanchette, and Lynn Stewart conducted a systematic summary (a meta-analysis) of 37 individual studies examining whether correctional interventions for women offenders are effective in reducing recidivism. The authors also explored whether gender-informed interventions differ from traditional (i.e., genderneutral) programs in their effectiveness. The results showed that women who participated in correctional interventions had 22–35% greater odds of community success than nonparticipants. In other words, correctional interventions for women are at least as effective as the published rates for men. When analyses were limited to studies of higher methodological quality, gender-informed interventions were significantly more likely to be associated with reductions in recidivism.
One study that looked at correctional programs for youth offered further insight into what works well for girls. Specifically, it showed that genderinformed programming for youth in secure detention was associated with a lower risk of recidivism only for girls with gender-specific risk factors. The authors concluded that incarcerated girls require different approaches depending on their histories of trauma and associated mental and physical health issues. Specifically, although girls who followed gendered pathways into detention benefited from gender-informed programs, girls without such needs gained more from traditional (genderneutral) programming. Similar findings were noted in a study exploring correctional outcomes for women offenders who participated in genderinformed substance abuse treatment. Researchers looked at whether a history of sexual or physical abuse would have any impact on the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment for two groups: (1) women substance abusers who were randomly placed in a gender-neutral substance abuse program or 2) women substance abusers who were randomly placed in a gender-informed substance abuse program. Results showed that those who had reported having experienced abuse and who were treated with gender-informed interventions had significantly better outcomes compared to those who reported abuse and were treated in the gender-neutral program group. For women who had no history of sexual or physical abuse, the gender-neutral program was comparable to the gender-informed program (e.g., likelihood of relapse into substance abuse was about the same). The authors concluded that women offenders who have experienced prior abuse may benefit most from interventions that are trauma informed and gender informed.
Rehabilitating Female Offenders: Past, Present, and Future Advancements
In the mid-1980s, Robert Ross and Elizabeth Fabiano coined the term correctional afterthoughts in reference to female offenders. In that era, the designation appropriately reflected the lack of research to guide interventions for justiceinvolved girls and women. Indeed, until the 1990s, girls and women were rarely included as research participants, and correctional practice simply mirrored what was done for boys and men.
In the 1990s, as researchers began to place greater focus on what works in terms of offender treatment, girls and women were more often included in research studies, in attempts to ensure that evidence-based interventions were gender neutral. Notwithstanding those efforts, the research was predominantly male based, and results were rarely disaggregated by gender. There were few attempts to consider or study alternatives to the male model. Instead, the approach was like force-fitting correctional services for girls and women into a model built for males. Accordingly, skeptics still argued that correctional interventions were male based and not appropriate for females.
The 21st century has brought with it a greater understanding that gender matters and, consequently, a growing body of research to inform correctional policies and programs for girls and women. Pathways into the criminal justice system suggest that female offender populations have multiple needs, most often including substance abuse problems, experiences of trauma, family dysfunction, and mental health issues. Accordingly, modern-day programs for female offenders target multiple need areas, either holistically in an integrated program or sequentially through multiple programs.
Researchers continue to make impressive gains in the development and evaluation of risk assessment tools developed specifically for women. Gender responsive treatment programs continue to be developed. On the international stage, in 2010, the United Nations declared that all incarcerated women should be treated in accordance with the Bangkok Rules. By unanimously endorsing the Bangkok Rules, the 193 member countries acknowledged that women in the criminal justice system have gender-specific characteristics and needs that require a gendered approach. This is a tremendous sign of progress in research and practice in the area of corrections for girls and women.
Looking Forward: Recommendations for Research and Practice
Although it is clear that great gains have been made for gender-informed corrections for girls and women, there is still opportunity for improvement. Going forward, it is suggested that theories should steer away from being gender neutral and become gender informed. This involves gendering (or operationalizing) core constructs in such a manner that readily accommodates female- specific factors, such as the importance and centrality of positive healthy relationships. In their efforts to develop gender-informed theories (or adapt existing theories), social science theorists must be vigilant to avoid stereotypes based on gender. As such, it will be a challenge for progressive theorists to develop and apply their work in a manner that is informed by gender, yet free of stereotypic schemas.
As researchers continue to develop assessment models for female offenders, they should consider assessment tools that are gender informed and built from the ground up for the specific population to which they will be applied (in this case, girls and women). Many static risk predictors are gender invariant, meaning that they help to predict outcomes for both males and females. However, there are also factors that are more relevant to girls and women, and these should be carefully considered when assessing females.
Finally, it is important to recognize that females represent a diverse group of correctional clients. They range in age, culture, ethnicity, their pathways into the criminal justice system, needs, abilities, and strengths, to name a few. A onesize-fits-all approach will not work. Although integration of gender-informed factors is critical, those working with females as correctional clients must also tailor their services to the individual.
References:
- Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender and Company.
- Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.
- Belknap, J. (2015). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (4th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
- Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. Wiley Series in Forensic Clinical Psychology. Chichester, UK:
- Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., Dieterich, W., Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centered analysis incorporating gender-responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1481–1508. doi:10.1177/ 0093854812456777
- Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women and crime (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Daly, K. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2(11), 11–52.
- Gobeil, R., Blanchette, K., & Stewart, L. (2016). A metaanalytic review of correctional interventions for women offenders: Gender-neutral versus genderinformed approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 301–322.
- Grella, C. (2008). From generic to gender-responsive treatment: Changes in social policies, treatment services, and outcomes of women in substance abuse treatment. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 5, 327–343.
- Kruttschnitt, C. (2016). The politics, and place, of gender in research. Criminology, 54(1), 8–29.
- Penal Reform International. (2010, October). United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules). Retrieved December 31, 2017, from http://www.penalreform.org/priorities/womenin-the-criminal-justice-system/ international-standards/
- Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 541–566. doi:10.1177/0093854809334076
- Saxena, P., Messina, N. J., & Grella, C. E. (2014). Who benefits from gender-responsive treatment? Accounting for abuse history on longitudinal outcomes for women in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 417–432.
- United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. (n.d.). 2014 crime in the United States (Uniform Crime Reports). Retrieved from https:// www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/ crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-42
- Walmsley, R. (2015). World Female Imprisonment List (3rd ed.). Women and girls in penal institutions, including pre-trial detainees/remand prisoners (World Prison Brief). Retrieved from http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/ downloads/world_female_imprisonment_list_third_ edition_0.pdf