Gendered social forces: A review of the impact of institutionalized factors on women and girls' criminal justice trajectories.

Gender-Responsive Lessons Learned and Policy Implications for Women in Prison

“…Many researchers (e.g., Bloom, 2000;Bloom et al, 2003Bloom et al, , 2004Owen, 1998;Owen & Bloom, 1995) have argued that female prisoners are mostly nonviolent offenders whose numbers throughout the criminal justice system have risen drastically, primarily because of the war on drugs and "get tough" laws (e.g., harsher sentencing policies and mandatory minimums), and evidence supports these claims (Javdani et al, 2011). Steffensmeier and Allan (1998) likewise noted that women are far more likely than men to be involved in minor property crimes, such as larceny, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement, whereas men are more often involved in serious person or property crimes.…”

“…Given women's often troublesome relationships, these programs should focus on developing relationships with others inside and outside of prison that are supportive, loving, nonabusive, and free from criminal activity. One type of violence particularly relevant for female offenders, domestic violence, should be incorporated into these programs (Covington & Bloom, 2006;Javdani et al, 2011). Programs that enhance skills such as anger and conflict management may be useful so that women can use these techniques, both within and outside of prison, to deescalate conflicts with others.…”

“…This was perhaps fueled by a dramatic increase in their numbers within the criminal justice system, especially relative to male offenders (Javdani, Sadeh, & Verona, 2011), as well as research suggesting that gender differences between offenders existed throughout the criminal justice system (Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003 and at various decision points in the system (Javdani et al, 2011). Scholars have since contended that female offenders are unique from male offenders in that they engage in qualitatively different offenses than men and do so for different reasons, pose less threat of violence across criminal justice settings, and follow different pathways into criminal behavior (Belknap, 2007;Belknap & Holsinger, 2006;Bloom et al, 2003;Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004;Daly, 1992;Owen, 1998;Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash, 2006;Van Voorhis, Wright, Salisbury, & Bauman, 2010;Wright, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2007).…”

A Meta‐Analysis of Program Characteristics for Youth with Disruptive Behavior Problems: The Moderating Role of Program Format and Youth Gender

“…Approximately 25% of youth in the juvenile justice system become involved not for delinquency charges, but rather due to curfew violations, loitering violations, and running away from home (Tracy, Kempf-Leonard, & Abramoske-James, 2009). Moreover, girls are more likely than boys to become system-involved due to non-violent, minor disciplinary offenses, suggesting that there is utility in broadening our inclusion criteria (Javdani et al, 2011b).…”

“…The latter aim is particularly important given the lack of research on treatment impact for adolescent girls, despite steady increases or lower relative decreases in girls’ rates of arrests for a variety of offenses, including violence (Snyder & Sickmund, ). Indeed, a growing literature underscores gender‐specific risk and protective factors associated with girls’ DBP (Javdani, Sadeh, & Verona, , ; Leve, Chamberlain, & Kim, ) and suggests differential impact of DBP programming on girls’ outcomes (Chesney‐Lind, Morash, & Stevens, ; Zahn, Day, Mihalic, & Tichavsky, ). However, despite girls’ different constellations of risk, the majority of review and meta‐analytic studies on DBP do not examine the possibility that treatment impact may vary for boys versus girls (Anderson et al., ; Javdani & Allen, ).…”