Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
The Wiley handbook of what works with sexual offenders: Contemporary perspectives in theory, assessment, treatment, and prevention 1st Edition Franca Cortoni (Editor)
The Wiley Handbook on What Works with Girls and Women in Conflict with the Law: A
Critical Review of Theory, Practice, and Policy
WILEY-BLACKWELL
SERIES
IN: WHAT WORKS IN OFFENDER REHABILITATION
Series Editors
Leam A. Craig
Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd, The Willows Clinic, UK
Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK
School of Social Sciences, Birmingham City University, UK School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK and Louise Dixon
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand WHAT WORKS IN OFFENDER REHABILITATION: AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT
Leam A. Craig, Louise Dixon, and Theresa A. Gannon
THE WILEY HANDBOOK ON WHAT WORKS IN CHILD MALTREATMENT: AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT IN CARE PROCEEDINGS
Louise Dixon, Daniel Perkins, Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis, and Leam A. Craig
THE WILEY HANDBOOK ON WHAT WORKS IN VIOLENCE RISK MANAGEMENT: THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE
Steven J. Wormith, Leam A. Craig, and Todd Hogue
THE WILEY HANDBOOK ON WHAT WORKS WITH OFFENDERS WITH INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES: AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH TO THEORY, ASSESSMENT, AND TREATMENT
William R. Lindsay, Leam A. Craig, and Dorothy Griffith
THE WILEY HANDBOOK ON WHAT WORKS WITH SEXUAL OFFENDERS: CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES IN THEORY, ASSESSMENT, TREATMENT, AND PREVENTION
Jean Proulx, Franca Cortoni, Leam A. Craig, and Elizabeth J. Letourneu
THE WILEY HANDBOOK ON WHAT WORKS WITH GIRLS AND WOMEN IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THEORY, PRACTICE, AND POLICY
Shelley L. Brown and Loraine Gelsthorpe
The Wiley Handbook on What Works with Girls and Women in Conflict with the Law
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Shelley L. Brown and Loraine Gelsthorpe to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www. wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Title: The Wiley handbook on what works with girls and women in conflict with the law : a critical review of theory, practice, and policy / edited by Shelley L. Brown, Loraine Gelsthorpe.
Description: Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons Ltd, [2022] | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021025956 (print) | LCCN 2021025957 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119886419 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119576822 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119576839 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Female offenders--Services for. | Female offenders--Rehabilitation. | Crime--Sex differences. | Sex discrimination in criminal justice administration.
Set in 10/12.5 pt GalliardStd by Integra Software Services, Pondicherry, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the contributors for their patience, given the long gestation of this book, when the pandemic has taken its toll on all of us. We would also like to express our sincere gratitude to Faith Payne and Charlotte Dove, based at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, UK, for their generous assistance in getting all the chapters into the Wiley house style.
We have benefited from the kind assistance of Cathrine Pettersen, Emma McFarlane, Melissa O’Donaghy, and Cassidy Hatton from the Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. Thank you for your immense help in collating and formatting the chapters.
We would also like to thank the publishers for their patience and understanding as we repeatedly promised and missed deadlines. Many thanks are also extended to the copyedit team for painstakingly proofreading the book.
Most importantly, we would like to acknowledge the endless courage and personal resilience of the girls and women (and their families) who have been impacted by criminal justice systems worldwide.
Contributors
Julie Abbate, J.D.
(Former) Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division US Department of Justice Washington, D.C. United States
Maihan F. Alam, B.A.
Research Assistant Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences Charlottesville, University of Virginia United States
Chantal Allen Manager Women Offender Sector Correctional Service of Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Elisha R. Agee, Psy.D. Staff Forensic Psychologist Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy University of Virginia School of Medicine Charlottesville, Virginia United States
Linsey Belisle, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor Department of Criminal Justice and Social Work
University of Houston, Downtown Houston, Texas United States
Molly Biddle, B.A. (Haverford College) Visiting Student, 2018–19 Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge Cambridge, United Kingdom
Kelley Blanchette, Ph.D. Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Lisa Broidy, Ph.D. Regents’ Professor and Graduate Program Director Department of Sociology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico
Shelley L. Brown, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Psychology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Cassandra Conley, M.A. Department of Psychology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Contributors
Stephanie S. Covington, Ph.D., L.C.S.W.
Co-Director, Institute for Relational Development, Center for Gender and Justice
La Jolla, California United States
Vivienne de Vogel, Ph.D.
Professor at the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht Centre for Social Innovation
Senior Researcher at the Research Department De Forensische Zorgspecialisten Utrecht
The Netherlands
Dr. Jenny Earle
Open University Honorary Doctorate; B.A. (Hons) Cantab Programme Director, Reducing Women’s Imprisonment Prison Reform Trust
London
United Kingdom
Maria Fotopoulou, Ph.D.
Lecturer in Criminology and Programme Director MSc Substance Use
Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research
University of Stirling Stirling Scotland
Theresa A. Gannon, DPhil., CPsychol. (Forensic) Professor
Centre of Research & Education in Forensic Psychology (CORE-FP)
School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent Canterbury, Kent United Kingdom
Renée Gobeil, Ph.D. Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Katelyn A. Golladay, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice & Sociology University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming United States
Loraine Gelsthorpe, Ph.D. Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice & Director Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom
Leticia Gutierrez, Ph.D.
Senior Research and Policy Advisor Office of the Correctional Investigator Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Samuel T. Hales, M.Sc. (Forensic Psychology), MBPsS
Doctoral Researcher in Forensic Psychology
Centre of Research & Education in Forensic Psychology (CORE-FP)
School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent Canterbury, Kent United Kingdom
Kristy Holtfreter, Ph.D. Professor, School of Criminology & Criminal Justice
Arizona State University Phoenix, Arizona United States and Editor-in-Chief, Feminist Criminology
Kayla M. Hoskins, M.S. Doctoral Candidate
Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan United States
Shelly L. Jackson, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Professor
Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy
Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences
Charlottesville, University of Virginia United States
Bridget Kelly, M.A.
Manager Cannon Survey Center University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada United States
Patrick J. Kennedy, BSc (Hons)., MSc, D. Clin. Psych., PgCert., CPsychol., AFBPsS
Consultant in Clinical & Forensic Psychology
Kolvin Service Clinical Lead Cumbria, Northumberland Tyne and Wear
NHS Foundation Trust
Newcastle upon Tyne, England and
Visiting Researcher
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne, England
United Kingdom
Caroline Lanskey, Ph.D.
University Lecturer in Criminology Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge Cambridge United Kingdom
Nicole Leeper Piquero, Ph.D.
Robert Holmes Professor of Criminology & Vice President for Research Development University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, Texas United States
Gill McIvor, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Criminology Faculty of Social Sciences University of Stirling
Stirling, Scotland United Kingdom
Anadora (Andie) Moss, M.Ed. Founder and CEO The Moss Group, Inc Washington, D.C. United States.
Chelsey Narvey, M.S.
Doctoral Candidate
Criminology & Criminal Justice University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, Texas United States
Megan Nyce, B.A. Department of Sociology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico United States
Jaclyn Parker Keen, M.S.
Doctoral Candidate
Department of Criminal Justice University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada United States
Margaret S. Malloch, Ph.D. Professor of Criminology
Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research University of Stirling Stirling Scotland
Joanne McGrath, M.A., MSc. PhD student
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne, North East England United Kingdom
Dr. Annette McKeown, B.Sc. (Hons.), MSc., PsyD., CPsychol., AFBPsS., CSci. Acting Consultant Forensic Psychologist Kolvin Service
Cumbria, Northumberland Tyne and Wear
NHS Foundation Trust
Newcastle upon Tyne, England and Honorary Lecturer, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England
United Kingdom
Sara B. Millspaugh, M.S.
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology Candidate
Psychology Department
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science
North Chicago, Illinois
United States
Merry Morash, Ph.D. Professor
Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice
Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
United States
Mark E. Olver, Ph.D.
Professor & Registered Doctoral Psychologist
Department of Psychology and Health Studies
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada
Alex R. Piquero, Ph.D.
Ashbel Smith Professor Criminology & Director of Social Impact Research
University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, Texas United States and Professor of Criminology Monash University Australia
Natasha Pusch, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work
Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas United States
Jala Rizeq, Doctoral Candidate Department of Psychology
York University Toronto, Ontario Canada
Colleen Robb, M.A. Department of Psychology
Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Emily J. Salisbury, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Director, Utah Criminal Justice Center College of Social Work University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah
United States
Terri Scott, Ph.D. Department of Psychology
Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Gilly Sharpe, Ph.D. Lecturer in Criminology School of Law University of Sheffield Sheffield United Kingdom
Rosemary Sheehan, AM Order of Australia & Professor Department of Social Work Monash University Victoria, Australia
Tracey A. Skilling, Ph.D., C. Psych. Clinical and Forensic Psychologist & Clinician Scientist
Child, Youth and Family Services, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Assistant Professor Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario Canada
Keira C. Stockdale, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor & Registered Doctoral Psychologist Department of Psychology and Health Studies
University of Saskatchewan and Saskatoon Police Service Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada
Katy Swaine Williams, BA PGDL Senior Programme Manager Prison Reform Trust London United Kingdom
Tereza Trejbalová, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada United States
Marilyn Van Dieten, Ph.D. Orbis Partners Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Patricia Van Voorhis, Ph.D. Professor Emerita School of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio United States
Megan Wagstaff, M.A. Department of Psychology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Kayla A. Wanamaker, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Kaitlyn Wardrop, Ph.D. Senior Research Officer Correctional Service of Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Janet I. Warren, D.S.W.
Professor Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences
Charlottesville, University of Virginia United States
Introduction
Shelley L. Brown and Loraine Gelsthorpe
What Works with Girls and Women in Conflict with the Law is a book about imperatives, ideas, and initiatives. Imperatives include the need to recognize women and girls as distinct groups of people mired in criminal justice systems. Ideas and initiatives refer to the extant What Works evidence-base germane to girls and women in conflict with the law. Or more accurately, in the words of Gill McIvor (Chapter 15) due to the nascent nature of the evidence base, the book details What Might Work to divert girls and women from crime, and what might minimize contact with criminal justice systems that at times, damages rehabilitation efforts.
The What Works paradigm strives to achieve two over-arching goals. First, to accumulate research that explores the causes, and ultimately the prevention and re-occurrence of criminal conduct. Second, to translate the aforementioned cumulative knowledge base into practice. Those of us who work within the What Works movement germane to girls and women in conflict with the law (i.e., gender responsive What Works proponents) share similar values with our mainstream What Works counterparts; the overall aim of both perspectives is to prevent and reduce the rate at which women and girls come in contact with the justice system by implementing the best available evidence. But we have additional goals. We may also be human rights’ advocates; we may draw attention to, and ultimately try to eliminate, the unimaginable reality that many incarcerated women around the world remain shackled during labor and childbirth (see Chapter 27). Similarly, we may also be social change agents who lobby for the abolition of prison systems entirely, or actively challenge laws that impede formally incarcerated women from gaining access to affordable and safe housing, employment opportunities, or reunification efforts with their children. We may investigate the benefits of holistic programs that simultaneously targets trauma, addictions and mental health while recognizing that these “individual” or “personal” needs are unequivocally enmeshed within a broader political and social fabric characterized by injustices. Also, we are more likely to address these aforementioned goals as mixed methodologists, embracing both qualitative and quantitative approaches rather than solely relying on quantitative methods.
Notably, the emergent influence of intersectionality scholars (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Gueta, 2020) and social justice movements such as Black Lives Matter have forever refocused the lens of gender responsive What Works proponents. Intersectionality scholars argue that multiple axes of marginalization and systematic oppression rooted in factors such as race, age, gender, gender orientation, and social location place a multiplicative negative burden upon justice involved women (Crenshaw, 1991); while a White woman may experience biases and unfair treatment from the criminal justice system, a Black woman will experience a triple jeopardy effect (Bloom, 1996). Throughout the book, our contributors incorporate intersectionality-based findings
when possible. However, female-focused research that simultaneously deconstructs by factors such as race, ethnicity, or gender orientation remains scarce.
Gender responsive What Works proponents are also multi-disciplinary. We have been trained in sociology, criminology, social work, legal studies, biology, evolution, and/or psychology. Operating through an evidence-base lens, our multi-disciplinary contributors vividly present exciting ideas and initiatives for re-imagining What Works with girls and women in conflict with the law. However, before we formally outline the structure of the book, we believe it will be helpful to provide some context in regard to the nature and prevalence of crimes that bring girls and women to the attention of criminal justice systems.
The Nature of Female Crime: Prevalence, Trends, and Gender Differences
It is universally accepted that boys and men commit more crime, particularly more serious and more violent crime than girls and women. This gender gap in crime has been confirmed repeatedly across time, different countries, and by scholars who operate through vastly different disciplinary lens (Estrada et al., 2016; Gelsthorpe & Larrauri, 2013; Schwartz & Steffensmeier, 2015). Not surprisingly, scholars have devoted considerable time and energy to (a) understand the nature of the gender gap in crime, and (b) explore if, how, and why the gender gap has changed over time.
In sum, the gender gap remains widest for serious crimes of violence. Men account for 90% of homicides, robberies, rapes, forcible confinements, and weapons-related arrests. Although, the gender gap narrows in the context of family-related homicides with women accounting for nearly one-third of these homicides (Barberet, 2014; Brown et al., 2019a). Conversely, the gender gap is less pronounced for non-violent and less serious crimes such as theft, fraud, forgery, and shoplifting (Brown et al., 2019b; Gelsthorpe & Larrauri, 2013). Albeit nuanced gender differences persist even within these non-violent general crime categories. For example, in the United States, when men are arrested for fraud, 65% of the time it is because they have used counterfeit subway tokens or jumped turnstiles. In contrast, when women are arrested for fraud, 46.5% of the time it is because they have written a bad cheque (Steffensmeier et al., 2015). Thus, not all frauds are created equal; context and gender certainly matter.
In 1975, Adler argued that the gender gap in crime was closing because women were engaging in more violent and non-violent crime. Decades of thoughtful research conducted globally has convincingly debunked Adler’s position. Collectively, scholars (see Schwartz & Steffensmeier, 2015 & Estrada et al., 2016 for recent examples) have demonstrated that the apparent “surge” in female crime reflected in official crime statistics is primarily the result of two factors: (a) men and boys are in fact, committing less crime – non-violent, as well as violent; thus girls and women by comparison appear more criminally active, and (b) various net-widening policies have inadvertently, and disproportionately swept more girls and women into the justice system.
Net-widening practices such as up-charging (e.g., a shoplifter gets charged with robbery because of running away), the global war on drugs, and the ever-increasing presence of law enforcement in private settings have (it is argued) collectively and unintentionally impacted girls and women more so than their male counterparts (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). Girls and women are more likely to engage in minor crimes such as shoplifting and simple assault that in turn are easily subject to up-charging. Further, relationally motivated acts of aggression against family members—when girls and women engage in aggression – are most likely directly
against those they love, rather than acquaintances or strangers (Nicholls et al., 2015). It is hypothesized that such acts of aggression in private settings are now criminalized when previously informal mechanisms would have prevailed (Chesney-Lind, 2006). Typically, women are not criminal masterminds in the illegal drug enterprise. Rather, they use illegal drugs, or misuse prescription drugs. If women do play an instrumental role, it is marginal, such as transporting drugs across a border at the behest of an intimate partner, or because they are desperate for money to purchase food and shoes for their children (Fleetwood, 2010). Regardless, women suffer the consequences of mandatory drug sentencing practices that result in inordinately long terms of imprisonment. Notably, there is also evidence that the war on drugs has been biased against economically disadvantaged women, particularly women of color (see Chapter 14).
In sum, the evidence is clear that girls and women are not becoming more violent or more criminally active. Paradoxically, however, the number of incarcerated girls and women worldwide increased 53% between 2000 and 2017. In comparison, the number of imprisoned men and boys increased only 20% during the same time period, an increase commensurate with the global population growth rate (Walmsely, 2017). Although imprisoned girls and women continue to be eclipsed by their male counterparts accounting for only 6.9% of the global prison population, the exponential growth in the female imprisonment rate is alarming (Walmsely, 2017). Thus, a book devoted exclusively to girls and women in conflict with the law is a global imperative.
How This Book is Organized
Consensus is slowly emerging in terms of what effective assessment, rehabilitation, and support should look like for girls and women in the justice system. Although, questions and debates remain. As a result, this book seeks to critically synthesize the extant knowledge base to guide research, practice, and policy efforts for justice-involved girls and women.
Part I: Theories of Female Crime
Each chapter included in Part I seeks to explain why girls and women ultimately come to the attention of criminal justice systems. Holtfreter et al. describe the origins and evolution of the feminist pathways perspective. After providing a detailed account of Daly’s (1992) foundational pathways study, Holtfreter et al. thoughtfully examine more than two decades of subsequent qualitative and quantitative evidence that has explored the soundness of Daly’s original pathway model. The authors illustrate how both quantitative and qualitative evidence supports multiple pathways to the justice system, but also the compatibility between feminist pathways and mainstream developmental perspectives. Aptly, in the next chapter, Piquero et al. explain female offending patterns through the lens of developmental and life course criminology. First, the authors expertly weave female-centered results from three longitudinal studies: (1) the Dunedin Health and Human Development Study (Moffitt et al., 2001); (2) the Pittsburgh Girls Study (Loeber et al., 2017); and (3) the Pathways to Desistance Study (Mulvey et al., 2004). Next, the authors critically review theoretical positions conducted by female-centered life course researchers. In Chapter 3, Broidy and Nyce apply three mainstream theories: learning (Akers, 1998), control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), and general strain (Broidy & Agnew, 1997), each purportedly gender neutral, to understand gender differences (and similarities) in law-breaking behavior. Grounded in evidence, Broidy and Nyce convincingly argue that gender differences in criminal conduct are attributable to (1) differential exposure to criminogenic risk and opportunities and
Shelley L. Brown and Loraine Gelsthorpe
(2) differential response and processing mechanisms. Finally, Brown and Robb explore the extent to which evolutionary psychology and biological perspectives can help explain female law-breaking behavior. The authors examine the extent to which female-focused findings from various meta-analyses, neurochemistry, brain, twin/adoption, and molecular genetics research support Moffitt’s life course biosocial theory of crime, and Anne Campbell’s evolutionary psychological explanation of crime. In sum, the authors attempt to debunk the belief that biological and evolutionary accounts are deterministic, morally corrupt, anti-environmental, or sexist.
Part II: Assessment and Security Classification
Chapters 5 to 9 in Part II address risk and need assessment, prison security classification, and the need for humane prison environments. In Chapter 5, Scott et al. lay the empirical groundwork for what we currently know about risk and strength factors for justice-involved girl and women. Evidence is reviewed using Bonta and Andrew’s (2017) Central Eight framework. However, additional factors hypothesized to be particularly salient for girls and women but not captured within the Central Eight are also reviewed. The authors clearly illustrate that while there is evidence for both the Central Eight as well as some hypothesized female-specific factors, more research is needed to develop a clear and nuanced understanding.
In Chapter 6, Blanchette and Gobeil succinctly review gender-responsive evidence-based security classification practices that contribute to safe and humane prisons. Special focus is placed on cross-gender staffing and supervision issues, staff training, housing/accommodation models, integrating trauma-informed care into interventions, and gender-responsive health care. It is clear from this chapter that while gender-responsive policies, processes, and researchbased assessment methods germane to security classification and institutional culture are emerging, considerable progress is still required.
In Chapter 7, Belisle et al. review three promising risk/need assessment tools for girls and women: Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI, Orbis Partners, 2000), Service Planning Instrument for Women (SPIN-W, Orbis Partners, 2007), and the Women’s Risk Need Assessments (WRNA & WRNA-T; Van Voorhis et al., 2008). The authors make a strong case for the importance of using risk assessment tools that have been built specifically for girls and women. Conversely, in Chapter 8, Olver and Stockdale explore whether Gender Neutral Risk Tools Can Be Used with Women and Girls, If So, how? The authors painstakingly review the applicability of nine gender neutral tools currently used with adolescent and adult women who are in conflict with the law. In short, Olver and Stockdale conclude that gender neutral tools can be used, if used in a gender-responsive manner.
In Chapter 9, Rizeq and Skilling critically review the psychometric properties associated with self-report measures used to assess both gender neutral and gender-responsive needs. Remarkably, the authors located upwards to 30 potentially useful self-report tools to supplement traditional risk/needs assessments. However, the corresponding female-specific psychometric evidence associated with each measure was scarce. Further, it was particularly rare to find psychometric information analyzed as a function of race or ethnicity.
Part III: Exploring the Meaning of Gender-responsive Tenets
This section encapsulates the heart of what it means to be gender responsive. The first two chapters written by Van Voorhis and Van Dieten aim to help the reader understand how and why the Gender Matters movement emerged, how it has changed, and where it is going. Van Voorhis insightfully covers several issues relevant to what works with girls and women in
conflict with the law; she not only reviews feminist pathways findings but also reviews femalefocused risk/need literature, as well as promising programs for justice-involved women. In a similar vein, Van Dieten skillfully describes how the Gender Matters movement is transforming rehabilitative responses for justice-involved women. The transformation involves moving from a deficit-based model to one that is trauma informed, relational, holistic, and strength-based but still firmly grounded in the Risk-Need-Responsivity framework (Bonta & Andrews, 2017).
The remaining chapters in this section expand upon three gender-responsive pillars identified by Van Voorhis and Van Dieten: (1) the need for trauma-responsive interventions; (2) strengthening and maintaining healthy relationships while incarcerated; and (3) understanding substance use treatment, and substance-related crimes through a gendered lens. In Chapter 12, drawing on over 30 years of experience and concrete examples, Covington lucidly describes what trauma-informed, trauma-responsive, and trauma-specific services look like in justice settings. She convincingly illustrates how a trauma-responsive approach can reduce prison violence and make the prison experience more tolerable for prisoners and for staff. In Chapter 13, Lanskey and Biddle deconstruct the importance of maintaining and strengthening healthy family relationships during the carceral process. She critically reviews 23 different programs designed to either improve parenting skills, or programs that allow children to reside with their incarcerated mothers. Importantly, she elucidates paradoxically that while such programs ultimately aim to maintain and/or repair women’s bonds with their families, the controlling and stigmatizing nature of carceral life significantly impedes the realization of this goal.
Lastly, in Chapter 14, Fotopoulou and Malloch address another key pillar of gender responsiveness – the gendered nature of substance use, and substance-related convictions. The authors demonstrate how anti-drug policies and laws have disproportionally impacted women and women of color. The authors also critically examine unresolved debates – the benefits of abstinence vs. harm reduction models- and whether correctionalizing grass root recovery pathways run counter to the basic tenets of these programs. Notwithstanding these challenges, the authors underscore that many innovative, community-based approaches designed to treat rather than punish are available to both men and women with substance use issues.
At this time, it is important to comment on mental health. This section of the book could have easily included a chapter focused on mental health as a fundamental gender-responsive pillar. Instead, we have devoted two chapters to mental health in Part V: Working with Special Populations through a Gender Responsive Lens.
Part IV: Gender-responsive Models in Practice
This section presents international gender-responsive exemplars. First, McIvor comprehensively reviews and evaluates Scotland’s shift toward a regional, community-based model for criminalized women that is grounded in gender-responsive principles. She underscores that some of these programs have indeed reduced re-offending, and helped women achieve their short-term goals. However, achieving long-term success, and implementing methodologically strong evaluation frameworks have proven elusive. In a similar vein, Allen and Wardrop chronicle how Correctional Service of Canada’s approach to federally sentenced women has evolved considerably since women were incarcerated in Canada’s first centralized prison in 1835. The authors carefully describe four generations of women-specific programming strategies (including programs designed specifically for Indigenous women) that first emerged in 1994. While also reviewing the associated effectiveness evidence, the authors highlight how low re-offending rates coupled with the virtual absence of untreated women in the Correctional Service of Canada cause evaluation challenges.
Shelley L. Brown and Loraine Gelsthorpe
In Chapter 17, Gelsthorpe describes policy and practice developments in England and Wales. In doing so, she carefully outlines the possibilities and pitfalls associated with these developments and points to the need for consistent political will for change to be implemented. In Chapter 18, Morash and Hoskins critically review the evidence for an array of community-based programs (drug courts, programs, interactions with staff) largely available in the United States to both girls and women in conflict with the law. The authors illustrate that gender-responsive programming efforts with girls can result in intermediate treatment change and reduce reoffending in some instances. However, like Scotland’s experience, maintaining change over the long term, and conducting rigorous evaluations remains difficult. The authors underscore that successful programming efforts with women in the community result when parole and probation officers use supportive and conversational supervision styles vs. punitive and conformity-focused approaches. Lastly, in the final chapter of this section, Sheehan provides a detailed account of the Australian approach. She underscores how the overuse of incarceration for women, particularly Indigenous women is problematic and that shifts to community-based approaches for women in conflict with the law must continue. Consistent with several voices within this book, Sheehan stresses the need for trauma-informed and strength-based approaches that help women find secure housing, develop parenting solutions, and build positive relationships. Importantly, the aforementioned gender-responsive goals advocated by Sheehan are discussed alongside the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model (Bonta & Andrews, 2017)
Part V: Working with Special Populations Through a Gender-responsive Lens
In Chapter 20, Gutierrez and Wanamaker painstakingly review risk assessment and program evaluation research specific to justice-involved Indigenous girls and women spanning three countries: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In doing so, the authors unequivocally illustrate that not only are Indigenous girls and women grossly over-represented in each country’s respective criminal justice systems, but extant risk/need assessment and classification tools have failed Indigenous girls and women. Encouragingly, the authors present some promising evaluation findings, albeit extant studies are rare. Lastly, the authors convincingly argue that advancing evidence-based practices for justice-involved Indigenous girls and women requires simultaneously contextualizing evidenced-based practices within the lived experiences of Indigenous peoples; Indigenous peoples’ experiences of colonialism, collective traumas, injustices, and systematic racism have decidedly contributed to the vast over representation of Indigenous peoples – girls and women in particular- within criminal justice systems. It is these lived experiences that must be addressed holistically within the context of evidence-based practices.
In Chapter 21, Sharpe focuses on adolescence and emerging adulthood. She skillfully reminds us (1) that the voices of young people are often silenced, and (2) that young people are more likely viewed as troublesome persons in need of correcting, rather than vulnerable persons in need of support. Sharpe also critically examines pathways theory and female-perpetrated violence through the lens of intersectionality and a macro-level systems perspective. She provides vivid examples of how structural barriers force girls to adopt criminalized survival strategies. Sharpe’s chapter dovetails flawlessly with the Holtfreter et al. and Piquero et al. chapters (Chapters 1 and 2).
Chapters 22 and 23 critically synthesize the vast and complex mental health literature as it pertains to girls and women in conflict with the law. However, gender comparisons are also noted. In Chapter 22, de Vogel focuses on anxiety, PTSD, victimization experiences, mood disorders, self-injurious behavior, and psychosis. She ambitiously covers an array of topics such as
prevalence rates, the gendered natured of victimization experiences and associated responses, as well as the complexities associated with unraveling how, and if mental illness plays a direct role in law-breaking behavior among females. She also specifically explores whether or not psychosis is related to violence in females. She accomplishes her objectives by blending clinical cases with international quantitative evidence including results from the Netherlands. Importantly, de Vogel underscores that the study of mental illness in female populations is further complicated by the reality that gender bias and stereotyping may hinder diagnostic processes.
In Chapter 23, Warren et al. critically examines theory and evidence related to personality disorders (including psychopathy), gender, and criminal conduct through a macro and micro lens. The authors remind the reader that the high rate of personality disorders among incarcerated women is not surprising given the co-occurring high rate of adversities. The authors also convincingly challenge the long-standing assumption that personality disorders are stable throughout the lifespan. As well, the authors provide critical context regarding the perennial debate of whether or not personality disorders should be measured dimensionally or categorically. The authors argue that although the evidence strongly supports a relationship between violence and Cluster B personality disorders: antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissism in men, the evidence is less clear for women. The authors also provide an in-depth analysis of the relationship between psychopathy as measured by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R, Hare, 2003), gender, and related personality disorders. A comprehensive review of therapeutic communities, cognitive behavioral, and dialectical behavior therapies as well as mindfulness, and meditative and family-focused interventions for treating women with personality disorders is also reviewed.
Chapters 24 and 25 focus on sexual offending and intimate partner violence perpetrated by girls and women. In Chapter 24, Hales and Gannon critically synthesize an array of international research that addresses female-perpetrated sexual crimes. The authors demonstrate that women who engage in sexual crimes (1) are lower risk than their male counterparts; (2) have many co-occurring needs such as mental health and past traumas, but may not have necessarily been sexually abused or victimized themselves; (3) have needs that over-lap with men who have engaged in sexual crimes (e.g., inappropriate sexual interest, intimacy and relations issues); and lastly (4) are diverse; they offend for different reasons, target different types of victims and under different circumstances – sometimes with or without a co-accused. The authors discuss implications for treatment, and theory development.
In Chapter 25, McKeown et al. comprehensively examine the nature and prevalence of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV), associated correlates (e.g., PTSD, emotional regulation difficulties), as well as assessment and treatment methods; they also address adolescent and adult-specific findings. Importantly, the authors underscore that the vast majority of interventions and assessment methods currently in use with female perpetrators of IPV were initially developed for male batterers; the effectiveness of these male-based assessments and IPV programs for women has rarely been examined. Lastly, McKeown et al. provide invaluable historical context regarding the backlash experienced by researchers who initially reported that women could be both survivors as well as perpetrators of IPV.
Part VI: Legal and Policy Considerations
This section contains three chapters that illustrate how international standards and countryspecific statutes, and policies can either facilitate or hinder safe, humane and effective incarceration practices and re-entry efforts for girls and women in conflict with the law. In Chapter 26,
Shelley L. Brown and Loraine Gelsthorpe
Gelsthorpe points to the wide recognition of the over-use of imprisonment for women and discusses various possibilities to reduce the rate of imprisonment. She highlights the need to go beyond gender-responsive programs and interventions in the quest to establish “what works” with women in conflict with the law and to pose fundamental questions about sentencing.
In Chapter 27, Moss and Abbate critically explore how the United Nations Bangkok Rules1 and four relatively new US laws impact incarcerated women in the United States. Lastly, in Chapter 28, Swaine Williams and Earle explore the legal consequences associated with resettlement after sentencing in the context of England Wales laws. Resonating throughout each chapter is the clear message that although laws and policies are necessary change catalysts, they are not sufficient. Initiating and maintaining meaningful and long-lasting change for girls and women in conflict with the law requires that laws – particularly those written through a gender neutral lens- are implemented in a manner that actively incorporates the gender-responsive evidence base. Also noteworthy, some laws may actively work against incarcerated women’s rights to humane and fair treatment.
A Final Word on Language
A few caveats are in order regarding the fluidity of language, as well as international and disciplinary differences in terminology. First, in this book we have asked all contributors to refrain from using the word “offender” (when possible) given the pejorative and stigmatizing nature of the word. Some of us have routinely used this word in the past without considering the potential for damaging labelling effects. Debbie Kilroy, a formally incarcerated woman, sentenced to six years in prison for selling cannabis to undercover police in Australia vividly captures the devasting effects that this particular label can have:
Despite having finished parole more than 20 years ago, and having completed four degrees, having been admitted as a practising lawyer and receiving multiple honours and awards, I am still primarily seen through the lens of my criminal history, as the “offender” – a label that is absolutely offensive. (Lean & Kilroy, 2020)
Alternatively, our contributors have used an array of terms such as women and girls in conflict with the law, justice-involved women/girls, system-impacted women, incarcerated women/ girls, and women/girls on probation (or parole). Although these subtle shifts in language may at times appear cumbersome, they are imperative. They remind us that we are writing about real girls and real women who have families, friends, neighbors, and aspirations. Subtle shifts in language are requisite first steps toward envisioning what evidence-based practices should ultimately look like for girls and women in conflict with the law.
Second, is the reality that it is extremely difficult to find neutral, agreed upon language from a range of authors in an international text. For example, terms such as correctional services and correctional interventions are commonplace in the United States and Canada. But these terms are not used in the United Kingdom. Further, in the United Kingdom, there are references to the female custodial estate – meaning prisons, whereas in Canada and the United States there are references to jails and prisons. We almost produced a glossary of terms but
1 The Bankok Rules is the abbreviated term for “The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisons and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders” (United Nations, 2010).
instead settled on allowing contributors to define and explain country-specific terminology. However, it would also be worth consulting David Nelken’s (2010) Comparative Criminal Justice. Making Sense of Difference. Relatedly, a myriad of phrases will appear throughout the book: gender responsive, gender informed, gender specific, gender salient, gender matters movement, as well as our own phrase used earlier Gender Responsive What Works proponents. While some scholars use these terms interchangeably, others assign distinct meaning to these terms. Notwithstanding these nuanced differences, each term unequivocally emerged to capture research and policy that first and foremost shone a spotlight on girls and women impacted by criminal justice systems (see Chapter 10 by Van Voorhis). In closing, during the past two decades comparative perspectives have flourished in the realm of criminology and criminal justice. As evidenced by the very existence of this book, this trend is gaining traction in regard to girls and women in conflict with the law. We have been immensely inspired by our international contributors. We hope that you will be too.
References
Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal. McGraw-Hill. Akers, R. L. p(1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance Northeastern University Press.
Barberet, R. (2014). Women, crime and criminal justice: A global enquiry. Routledge. Bloom, B. (1996). Triple jeopardy: Race, class, and gender as factors in women’s imprisonment [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Anderson. Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 3, 275–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022427897034003001
Brown, S. L., Blanchette, K. D., & Dean, R. J. (2019a). Are females really more violent and more criminal than ever? In R. D. Morgan (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology (pp. 502–505). Sage Publications.
Brown, S. L., Blanchette, K. D., & Thapa, S. (2019b). Female crime: Prevalence and statistics. In R. D. Morgan (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of criminal psychology (pp. 506–508). Sage Publications. Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 27–47.
Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Criminalizing victimization: The unintended consequences of pro-arrest policies for girls and women. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(1), 81–90. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00108.x
Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women and crime (3rd ed.). Sage. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 6, 1241–1298. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 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. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4135/9781412959193.n69
Estrada, F., Bäckman, O., & Nilsson, A. (2016). The darker side of equality? The declining gender gap in crime: Historical trends and an enhanced analysis of staggered birth cohorts. British Journal of Criminology, 56(6), 1272–1290. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv114
Fleetwood, J. (2010). Drug mules in the International cocaine Trade: Diversity and relative deprivation. The Service Prison Journal, 192(1), 3–8. https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice. org.uk/files/PSJ_192_November_2010.pdf
Gelsthorpe, L., & Larrauri, E. (2013). The Routledge handbook of European criminology. In S. BodyGendrot, M. Hough, K. Kerezsi, R. Lévy, & S. Snacken (Eds.), Gender and crime in Europe (pp.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford Press.
Gueta, K. (2020). Exploring the promise of intersectionality for promoting justice justice-involved women’s health research and policy. Health and Justice, 8(19), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40352-020-00120-8
Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare psychopathy checklist-revised manual (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems. Lean, T., & Kilroy, D. (2020, July 25). Speaking out for criminalised women. The Saturday Paper, Australian Foreign Affairs. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2020/07/25/ speaking-out-criminalised-women/159559920010157
Loeber, R., Jennings, W. G., Ahonen, L., Piquero, A. R., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). Female delinquency from childhood to young adulthood. Springer.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour. Cambridge University Press.
Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, F., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L., Knight, G. P., Brame, R., Schubert, C. A., Hecker, T., & Losoya, S. H. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice, 2(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204004265864
Nelken, D. (2010). International Handbook of Criminology. Comparative criminal justice: Making sense of criminal justice. Sage.
Nicholls, T. L., Greaves, C., Greig, D., & Moretti, M. M. (2015). Aggression: Gender differences in. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science (2nd ed., pp. 1–26). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470061589. fsa223: John Wiley and Sons.
Orbis Partners. (2000). Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI). https://www.orbispartners. com/juvenile-risk-assessment.
Orbis Partners. (2007). The Service Planning Instrument for Women (SPIn-W). https://www. orbispartners.com/risk-needs-assessment-women
Schwartz, J., & Steffensmeier, D. .(2015). Can the gender gap in offending be explained? F. T. Cullen, P. Wilcox, P. Lux, & J. L. Jonson (Eds.), Sisters in Crime Revisited: Bringing Gender into Criminology C.L. (pp. 229–259). Oxford University Press.
Steffensmeier, D., Harris, C., & Painter-Davis, N. (2015). Gender and arrests for larceny, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement: Conventional or occupational property crime offenders? Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(23), 205–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.03.004
Van Voorhis, P., Salisbury, E. J., Wright, E., & Bauman, A. (2008). Achieving accurate pictures of risk and identifying gender-responsive needs: Two new assessments for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/ Library/022844.pdf
Walmsely, R. (2017). World female imprisonment list (4th ed.). Institute for Criminal Policy Research. https://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/world_female_ prison_4th_edn_v4_web.pdf
Part I
Theories of Female Offending
1 Evolution, Evidence, and Impact of the Feminist Pathways Perspective
Kristy Holtfreter, Natasha Pusch, and Katelyn A. Golladay
The gender gap in offending – that males have historically been and continue to remain responsible for a larger share of crime than females – is widely accepted as fact (Lauritsen et al., 2009; Schwartz et al., 2009). Empirical evidence confirming the existence of the gap has been demonstrated in both the United States and internationally (Savolainen et al., 2017). The gender gap has narrowed over the past 25 years or so, attributed to increases in the female share of theft, fraud, forgery, and other economic offenses (Heimer, 2000; Steffensmeier et al., 2015). These gender-based differences in offending as evidenced by official data sources (e.g., the US Uniform Crime Reports) have stimulated much scholarly interest in examining the context and circumstances of male and female crime. Central to this important focus is the work of feminist criminologists, who also called attention to the gender gap in criminological theory (Chesney-Lind, 1989; Daly, 1989; Simpson, 1989). They argued that theories originally developed and tested on samples of males are less applicable to females, and that the research methods employed to test mainstream theories obscure contextual differences. Kathleen Daly’s (1992, 1994) influential pathways to crime perspective developed amidst this debate.
Although critical of mainstream criminology, Daly’s (1992) study was equally concerned with representation in feminist scholarship that suggested a uniform model of female offending, described as the “leading feminist scenario.” This model described a developmental trajectory where a young girl (1) experiences childhood trauma, violence, and abuse in her family of origin, (2) runs away from home to escape the abuse, and (3) subsequently gets initiated into crime on the streets, including prostitution and drug-related offending. Within this trajectory, there is a continual cycle of victimization and offending; young women may come into repeated contact with the criminal justice system through either outcome. Daly’s (1992) study of female felony court participants in New Haven, Connecticut, examined the prevalence of the “leading feminist scenario” and other issues feminist criminologists face in studying justice-involved females. The goal was to identify contextual circumstances that bring women to court, some of which are gendered and others that apply to males and females.
In this chapter, we first discuss Daly’s original study, which emerged within the broader debate between mainstream and feminist criminologists that began in the mid-1970s (Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). Our coverage of Daly’s (1992) study focuses on methodology and major findings. We then trace the evolution of the pathways perspective to more contemporary interpretations of the model. This discussion includes an evaluation of the quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodology evidence on Daly’s framework. The chapter concludes with an overview of the implications of the pathways model for correctional assessment, treatment, and policy and directions for future research.
Pathways to Crime: An Overview
Daly (1992, pp. 13–14) described the “leading feminist scenario of lawbreaking” as women who ran away from abusive homes, entered deviant street networks, and got immersed in victimization and offending through substance addiction. This description was gleaned through Daly’s assessment of qualitative studies of women and girls, which provided rich detail not present in traditional quantitative studies of female offending. Quantitative studies focused on demographic variables and official data sources, offering limited insight into context. The dominant approach taken by quantitative studies testing criminological theory was to control for sex, rather than identifying important between-sex differences. As Daly noted, the assumption that the “leading feminist scenario” described most if not all women also perpetuated an inaccurate myth. Daly (1992) sought to reconcile these positions.
Daly’s Original Study
Relying on data obtained from a felony court in New Haven, Connecticut, between 1981 and 1985, Daly (1992, 1994) examined variation in sentencing for a “wide sample” of 400 male and female offenders. She also examined Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) reports to construct life histories – termed biographies – of 40 men and 40 women, or a “deep sample.” This analysis of women’s biographies produced five unique pathways taken to the most recent felony conviction.
Daly’s (1992) female pathways included four “gendered” groups of women: Street, harmed and harming, battered, and drug connected. The first two pathways made up more than half of the women in Daly’s sample. The street woman pathway takes its label from Eleanor Miller’s (1986) study of female street hustlers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in the late 1970s, and is also consistent with the “leading feminist scenario” described by Daly (1992). Women who followed this pathway ran away or were pushed out of their homes as teenagers, used and sold drugs, engaged in other petty crimes to support drug habits, and eventually got involved in prostitution and street hustling. They had more extensive criminal records, often including time in jail or prison. And they were not specialists when it came to their offending: prior arrests and/or convictions included prostitution, drugs, violence, and theft-related crimes. Similar to this group, Daly’s harmed and harming pathway was comprised of women who were also abused or neglected in childhood. They responded to victimization by acting out violently against aggressors or others; leading to arrest. While harmed and harming women also abused substances to cope with their victimization, they differed from street women in that their criminal histories were not as lengthy or versatile, they were not typically immersed in deviant networks and street life, and lacked a history of prostitution. However, the trajectory of harmed and harming women can eventually become street women
