Diverting Women Offenders from Prison
description
Transcript of Diverting Women Offenders from Prison
Diverting Women Offenders from Prison
Nena Messina, PhD, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse ProgramsNancy Chand Esq., Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office
Association of Criminal Justice Research October 22, 2010
Changing AOD Treatment Populations and Policies
Changing Criminal Justice Policies: Dramatic increases in the number of women under CJ
supervision over past 2 decades (8% increase in women in prison vs. 6% increase in men)
Zero tolerance policies surrounding drug crimes
Result: An Influx of Women into Prison & Community Programs
Women Pose Complex Issues for Treatment Practitioners
Compared with men, women:1. Have patterns of drug abuse that are more socially
embedded – revolving around their relationshipsa. Drug use is often initiated by sexual partnersb. Continue to use drugs to cope with abusive relationships
2. Have more severe histories of sexual/physical abuse
3. Have a higher prevalence of psychological and physical health problems
4. Have limited education/employment histories5. Are typically primary caregivers for minor children
Messina, Burdon, & Prendergast (2003).
Theoretical Developments:The Relational Model
Recognizes the different ways in which women and men develop psychologically.
Suggests that healthy connections with other people are fundamental to women’s psychological well-being. Incarcerated women continue to maintain a
relational context in their lives (develop closeness with other inmates, create pseudo-families)
Theory provides a conceptual basis for planning treatment services for women.
Miller (1976) & Covington (1997; 1998).
Women-Focused Programs: Women are more likely to discuss certain issues in
a growth-fostering environment (prostitution and abuse);
Have gender-specific role models. Include curricula and philosophy that attends to
women’s specific needs.Traditional Therapeutic Community Programs: Were designed initially for men; May hinder growth and recovery among women.
The Relational Model: Guide for Treatment
Treatment Components Associated with Better Outcomes for Women
Review of 38 studies with randomized and non-randomized comparison group designs:– child care– prenatal care– women-only admissions– supplemental services & workshops on
women’s focused topics– mental health services– comprehensive programming
Source: Ashley, Marsden, & Brady , 2003. Slide provided by Christine Grella, Ph.D.
Treatment Retention in Residential Programs by Program Characteristics
97
33
83
22
0
20
40
60
80
100
w/childcare
w/o childcare
women-only
mixed-gender
Days
Source: Brady & Ashley, 2005, SAMHSA Office of Applied Studies. Slide provided by Christine Grella, Ph.D.
Randomized Study of Women in G-R Prison Treatment Decreased Reincarceration
31.0
45.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
TOTAL TIME TO RETURN TO CUSTODY
GRT TAU (p<.05)
Source: Messina, Grella, Cartier & Torres, 2010
The 2nd Chance Women’s Re-Entry Court Program
• Drug Court ModelWomen are on paroleCharged with new felonyNo option but prison
A Unique Collaborative Effort
• Prototypes Centers for Change• CA Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation • CA Endowment • Los Angeles County Government & Community
Agencies • UCLA ISAP
Treatment Curriculum• Gender Responsive
– Helping Women Recover• Trauma Informed
– Seeking Safety
Two minor children allowed Children receive specialized treatment
Current EvaluationProcess evaluation:
Barriers to implementation & multi-agency collaborations
Perceptions of success/failure of program from staff and clients
Records based follow-up to assess:Program attendance & completion statusSanctions, court records, and incarcerationControlling for participant demographics
CA Endowment Funded EvaluationMatched comparison outcome evaluation:
1 to 1 matched comparison group from VSPW In depth interviews
Program entry for Prototypes 6 months to parole for VSPW women 6 month follow up interview
Outcomes Program completion/retention Health status and access to health care Psychological status and Self-Efficacy Employment and/or continued education Parental attitudes/parental reunification Drug use (urinalysis results and self-report) Recidivism (CDCR)
Subject Characteristics (N=145):
White (30%), Black (43%) or Latina (23%) Never married (59%) or previously married (30%) Mean age 37 (9.6) Mean education 11 years (1.9) Primary drug –cocaine/crack (38%),
methamphetamine (29% ), heroin (17%) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (51%) Hepatitis (25%) HIV Positive (6%)
Criminal History and Current Sentence
Range Mean (SD)
Average number of arrests 2 – 85 18 (16.4)Felony convictions 0 – 14 4 (4.2)Misdemeanor convictions 0 – 42 7 (8.6)Prison commitments 1 – 10 3 (1.9)
Maximum exposure in years 2 – 24 8 (4.9)Estimated Offer in years -- 4 (4.0)Projected actual time served -- 3 (3.0)
Pregnancy & Children in Program
• 78% Have children (N=145) with 20% CPS involvement
• Average number of children = 3 (1.9)
• 11% Currently pregnant
• 47% came into program with no prenatal care
• To date, 12 babies born during treatment
• To date, 21 children in residence
Program Status for Clients
Program Status (N=145)
Graduated 36 25%Currently in Residential 35 24%Currently in Outpatient 20 14%Transferred 8 06%Bench Warrant 18 13%Returned to State Prison 25 17%Deceased 2 01%
Time in Treatment
N RangeMean (SD)
Months in Residential 118 1 – 19 8 (4.5)
Months in Outpatient 43 1 – 13 8 (2.9)
Graduate’s Months in Residential 36 2 – 16 9 (3.5)
Graduate’s Months in Outpatient 36 4 – 13 8 (2.1)
Total Months in Treatment for Graduates 36 11 – 24 15 (3.2)
Predictors of Program SuccessCharacteristic Prison/BW (n=43) Grad/Outpatient (n=56) Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian 33%33%
African American 38%29%
Hispanic/Latina 24%29%Other 5%
9%Criminal Justice Supervision
Parole 70%59%Probation 30%
41%Primary Drug
Heroin 23%11%Methamphetamine 23%43%Cocaine/Crack 35%33%Other 20%
13%Any Mental Health Diagnosis* 94%
75%Childhood Sexual Abuse 40%
34%Adult Rape Victim 40%
36%Age* 35 (9.2)
37 (9.5)Months in Residential Treatment** 6.2 (4.3)
10 (4.1)
Re-Entry Court Successes!• Improved & ongoing collaborations
– Benefit of over 5 years of multiagency collaborations
• Reduced costs for CDCR– If not for re-entry program, CDCR would have all 145
women in prison
• Prevention & health care for children– If not for re-entry program, CDCR would have 12
babies born in prison with more children in CPS
• Enormous State & County Savings
This study is funded by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
& The California Endowment
Thank you!