Reconciling the Differences Between the “Gender-Responsive” and the “What Works” Literatures to Improve Services for Girls

By D. Hubbard, Betsy Matthews. 2008

131 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5bd30755eadab8a82c8a7e3af90db3cbf36b4e2b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Determining What Works for Girls in the Juvenile Justice System (2009, background): “Finally, along with the different theoretical foundations, goals, and components, the gender-specific programming literature has proposed different assessment and therapeutic approaches from the what works literature (for a review, see Hubbard & Matthews, 2008).”
The Relationship Between Matching Service to Criminogenic Need and Recidivism in Male and Female Youth (2012, background): “…approach emphasize that a gender-specific treatment orientation is necessary because justice-involved female youth have distinct needs and commonly engage in behaviors (e.g., running away, drug abuse, prostitution) that present more danger to themselves than to others (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008).”
Comparative Analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL:YV in Adolescent Offenders: A 10-year Follow-Up Into Adulthood (2011, background): “There is a growing recognition that there may be a role for gender-sensitive risk assessment that considers generic risk factors relevant to both genders but also considers needs that are uniquely important to each gender (Green, 2006; Hubbard & Matthews, 2008).”
General Risk and Need, Gender Specificity, and the Recidivism of Female Offenders (2010, background): “…an integrative “what works” perspective is readily available if one is willing to distinguish between major and minor risk factors and criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs and to recognize the role of specific responsivity (Andrews et al., 2004; Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Hubbard & Mathews, 2008).”