The Needs of Women Offenders

By Kristy Holtfreter, M. Morash. 2003

118 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ddefe158910bdc0d8571070d1095ba1e714fa313

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

Gendered Pathways (2009, unknown): “…in relatively equal frequency but with distinct personal and social effects for women (e.g., Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Farr, 2000; Funk, 1999; Gavazzi, Yarcheck, & Chesney-Lind, 2006; Holsinger, 2000; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003; Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash, 2006).”
Gender Differences in Factors Contributing to Institutional Misconduct (2008, background): “As a result, institutional programming is rarely structured for women serving time (Holtfreter & Morash, 2003), and female inmates have limited chances to receive appropriate treatment (Kuhlmann, 2005).”
Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment (2010, background): “…in uniquely personal and social ways that should be reflected in current correctional assessments (e.g., Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Farr, 2000; Funk, 1999; Gavazzi, Yarcheck, & Chesney-Lind, 2006; Holsinger, 2000; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003; Reisig et al., 2006; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009).”
Reintegration Success and Failure: Factors Impacting Reintegration Among Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women (2010, background): “…assert that intervention services that focus on surveillance, substance abuse, and employment are not enough to assist returning female offenders (Holtfreter & Morash, 2003; Jacobs, 2003), the current study suggests the need for both gender-neutral and gender-specific programs that address…”
Sacrosanct or Flawed: Risk, Accountability and Gender- Responsive Penal Politics (2010, background): “…classifications systems inspired a new generation of gender-informed risk-need classification research (Owen and Bloom 1995; Brennan 1998; Farr 2000; Hannah-Moffat and Shaw, 2001; VanVoorhis and Presser 2001; Holtfreter and Morash 2003; Hardyman and Van Voorhis 2004; Brown and Blanchette 2006).”
Achieving Accurate Pictures of Risk and Identifying Gender Responsive Needs: Two New Assessments for Women Offenders 1 (2008, unknown): “…Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997; Peters, Strozier, Murrin, & Kearns, 1997), as are phobic diagnoses (Blume, 1997), and co-occuring diagnoses such as depression and substance abuse (Bloom et al., 2003; Blume, 1997; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003; Owen & Bloom, 1995).”
Reconciling the Differences Between the “Gender-Responsive” and the “What Works” Literatures to Improve Services for Girls (2008, background): “…that as applied, the risk principle can hurt girls inappropriately categorized as high risk by locking them up and exacerbating some of the very problems that got them into trouble in the first place (e.g., depression, sexual abuse, disruptions in relationships) (see Holtfreter & Morash, 2003).”
Predicting the Prison Misconducts of Women Offenders (2007, background): “…et al., 2003; McClellan et al., 1997; Peters, Strozier, Murrin, & Kearns, 1997), and women often suffer from several cooccurring mental health needs such as depression and substance abuse (Bloom et al., 2003; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003; Owen & Bloom, 1995) at higher rates than men (Blume, 1990).”
Assessing Recidivism Risk Across Female Pathways to Crime (2006, background): “Among other things, existing tools fail to consider women’s economic disadvantages, their propensity to be involved in the justice system for drug-related offenses, and the salience of prior victimization experiences (Covington, 2003, pp. 74–76; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003).”
The Predictive Validity of a Gender-Responsive Needs Assessment (2009, background): “…of commonly used predictors2 to the array of women’s needs emerging from the gender-responsive literature (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Bloom et al., 2003; Brennan, 1998; Covington, 1998; Funk, 1999; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003; McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997; Morash et al., 1998; Owen, 1998).”
The Relationship Between Matching Service to Criminogenic Need and Recidivism in Male and Female Youth (2012, background): “…that the inappropriate categorization of females as high risk makes them more likely to receive strict sanctions that could worsen some of the very problems that got them into trouble in the first place (e.g., depression, sexual abuse, disruptions in relationships; Holtfreter & Morash, 2003).”