Dissertation DUMBLEDORE FINISHED PRINT

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
“Womenogenic
Empowerment”
A dissertation exploring the theory and application
of holistic empowerment practice, when working
with female offenders in the community
Ruby Lloyd-Shogbesan
5/1/2014
A project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of BA (Hons)
Criminology and Sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University

Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank all the empowered women in my life, who have inspired
me to empower myself so that I can encourage and support others
I would also like to thank the academic and support staff at Manchester Metropolitan
University, who have helped shape my experience of higher education and
encouraged me to seek for a better understanding of the way the world works
I would like to acknowledge the staff and volunteers at pact (Prison Advice and Care
Trust), who have enabled me to volunteer within the Criminal Justice System and
provided opportunities and advice on which I can build my career
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continued support, proof
reading and cups of tea; encouraging me to draw upon my own strengths by
reminding me daily – “you’ve got this”
‘The powerless individual assumes the role of an object who is acted on by the environment,
rather than that of a subject who acts in and on her world’
(Wilson and Anderson, 1997:349)

Abstract
The term ‘criminogenic’ has been increasingly favoured by desistance academics in
recent years, an umbrella term indicating certain personal factors and attributes
considered to have a direct impact on offending behaviour. This dissertation
questions what has led to the development of the current profile of the ‘female
offender’, familiarising the reader with her understood ‘womenogenic’ factors – which
we suggest and define to be women-specific attributes of offending behaviour. This
dissertation evaluates the success and potential of the evidence-based, action-led,
holistically natured programmes, which focus on uncovering ‘womenogenic’
strengths and developing networks from within a community setting, while inviting
women offenders to become agents in their own change process. This dissertation
applies sociological and criminological thought to the portrayal of offending women in
the criminal justice system, and considers whether current social attitudes towards
women with convictions are inhibiting opportunities for self-empowerment. It
questions whether a pre-occupation with proving desistance can have implications
on the lives of female offenders, victims and their families, and whether a focus on
improving social justice through holistic intervention and empowerment, might pre-
empt the damaging cycle of crime and improve wellbeing for the offender and her
community.

Contents
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 - Understanding the ‘Female Offender’ 5
1.1 The Extent of Female Offending
1.2 Women as Victims
1.3 Women’s Childhoods and Care
1.4 Mental Health and Self-Harm
1.5 Women in Education, Training and Employment
1.6 Women and Substance Misuse
1.7 Women as Mothers and the Impact of Parental Imprisonment
1.8 Prison Locations and Facilities
1.9 Women and the Cost of Custody
Chapter 2 - A Critical Review of the Literature underpinning current practice
with Female Offenders 16
2.1 Assessment
2.2 Risk of Harm & Recidivism Indicators
2.3 Responsivity
2.4 “Nine Lessons” (Gelsthorpe, 2007)

Chapter 3 Holistic Interventions for Female Offenders: Theory of Change,
Practice and Evaluation 26
3.1 Theory of change and outcomes for Women’s Community services
3.2 Evaluation of Together Women’s Project
Chapter 4 -“Help Yourself”: Approaching Empowerment 33
4.1 Principles of Empowerment Theory
4.2 Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002)
4.3 Plausibility
4.4 Doability
4.5 Testability
Conclusion 41
References 44

Page | 1
Introduction
This dissertation will seek to understand how a combination of opportunities for
personal empowerment and a focus on social change might integrate and transform
work with female offenders. It will explore how principles of empowerment and
holistic support might aid the desistance process for both the individual and the
intervening agency, by considering statistics, suggestions and successes from
recent decades.
This research will attempt to understand the characteristic and dynamic ‘needs’
profile of women in conflict with the law, which makes them so distinctively different
from their male counterparts. Chapter 1 will conduct an analysis of statistical data
from the Ministry of Justice’s Social Exclusion Task Force, which will provide a
demographic framework, and reference throughout. It will construct a profile of the
female of the offender, in an attempt to explore how ‘she’ is currently considered,
within policy, practice and the prison institution. This dissertation recognises that
most criminological research often seeks to term women who have committed a
criminal act as either ‘victims’, ‘offenders’ ‘mothers’ or ‘deviants’. However,
throughout this research, it will consider these women as ‘women’, and provide a
debate seeking to understand the need for a responsive balance between holistic
intervention, community rehabilitation and victim empowerment, where applicable.
Following Baroness Corston’s (2007) review of provisions for women in the criminal
justice system with particular vulnerabilities, there has been a somewhat heightened
awareness of the issues facing female offenders of today. The recognition that there
is a prevalent history of social injustice among many women who display offending
behaviour, has encouraged research into how these women should be helped, and

Page | 2
what services can be provided to address the complex multitude of needs they enter
the criminal justice system with (2007:46). This dissertation will seek to understand
why female offenders have historically been identified and treated based on their
needs, weaknesses and deficits above their motivation to change and their ability to
self-empower, noting how even within sensitive academia, political terminology
reflects these attitudes of helplessness. It will consider whether a deficit-based
approach to rehabilitation, can somewhat hinder women’s ability to motivate
themselves away from their offending behaviour, and analyse the alternative
rationale that suggests providing women with access to a range of services which
correlate to their areas of assessed ‘need’ may reduce offending (Corston, 2007).
Throughout the nineties, there was an increase in evidence-based practice, which
accompanied an influx of programmes developed to ‘provide women with the kind of
support they needed, as well as to provide the courts with constructive alternatives to
imprisonment’ (Roberts, 2002, cited in Worral and Gelsthorpe, 2009:333). In light of
the Moving Forward principles of the time, pioneering programmes from across the
country received recognition and praise, for their exemplification of ‘unique
partnership facilities … [which] take a holistic approach’ (Hirst, 1996:58) in
addressing said needs. Of Corston’s 43 suggestions made in her 2007 report, there
was again suggested adoption of “holistic” principles (2007:59), some 11 years later.
The slow uptake of holistic principles has encouraged this dissertation to conduct a
progress report on current interventions, in attempt to identify further opportunities
through which agencies can provide holistic support.
In chapter 2, this dissertation will attempt to justify and explain the increasing
recognition of women in the criminal justice system, and examine developments in
contemporary criminological research surrounding successful interventions with

Page | 3
female offenders, which has played an informative role in the current provision. It will
acknowledge developments from the past 30 years of probation practice (Worrall
and Gelsthorpe, 2007) which have led to the increased visibility of female offenders,
and seek to understand the social and political context, which has encouraged this
heightened awareness. It will discuss the role of the ‘male centred’ what works
movement, understanding how research built on understanding the needs of men is
informative in work with female offenders, despite their ‘fundamental differences’
(Corston, 2007).
Chapter 2 will also provide an evaluation of the responsivity of Offender
Management services and discuss the programme integrity of their provided
interventions. What this dissertation recognises outright, is that many assessment
and risk prediction tools fail to encompass or identify the potential within an offender
not to reoffend, in favour of an overarching focus on why they will. Chapter 2 will
therefore provide a critical discussion of the offenders assessment process (OASys)
currently adopted by the National Probation Service, before exploring whether the
methods used to uncover risk and need should be uniformly applied to offenders,
reminiscent of the suggestion that “equal treatment” does not always result in “equal
outcomes” (Corston, 2007).
Also in the second chapter, this dissertation will explore the importance of research
in informing policy and practice; questioning which publications have been
contributory in the development of offender management programmes, which seek
to satisfy pre-determined ‘outcomes’ and are expected to reduce reoffending in order
to legitimate the criminal justice system. This research will consider whether the
purposes of punishment, retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation,

Page | 4
lack the element of focus on long-term social improvement, and discuss how this
could consequently result in aggregated crime rates.
In the final chapters, this dissertation will explore whether pioneering approaches
throughout social work practice and community intervention have had an impact on
improving motivation and engagement with programmes of an empowering nature,
by qualitatively assessing their underpinning theory of change. This research will
outline and assess the principles of empowerment, and evaluate whether application
of this approach would be ‘plausible’, ‘doable’, and ‘testable’, using Connell and
Kubisch’s (1998) suggestions on how to evaluate an effective theory of change. This
dissertation is limited to some extent by a lack of primary data; although there has
been some awareness of the empowerment approach, it is yet to be widely
implemented in 2014, and this research is therefore prospective in its attempt to
suggest opportunities for further reform

Page | 5
Chapter 1
Understanding the ‘Female Offender’
“The majority of women have been let down by society long before
they reach the attention of the criminal justice system” Rachel Halford,
Women in Prison charity
This chapter will explore the specifically influential factors which, upon
identification, have caused a recent increase in visibility of the female offender. This
outline of the ‘womenogenic’ needs that both cause and result from crime will
enhance an understanding of the obstacles, which may impinge on women’s ability
to self-empower. Initial analysis of these statistics and trends in offending and
sentencing, will provide a basis for further reference and discussion throughout this
dissertation.
1.1 The Extent of Female Offending and ‘Womenogenic’ Needs
Between 1995 and 2010, the female prison population increased by 115% (Prison
Reform Trust, 2013); there are currently 3,860 women in prison in the UK (Ministry of
Justice.gov.uk, May 2014). Of the women sentenced to custody in 2008, less than a
quarter were serving time for committing violent crimes; a larger proportion were
indicted for drug offences and a further 20% were imprisoned for their involvement
with acquisition and monetary crimes, such as theft and handling (fig1).

Page | 6
(Fig1) Ministry of Justice: Social Exclusion Task Force. Short Study on Women
Offenders. May 2009, page 8.

Page | 7
The above graph (fig2) shows the OASys (Offender Assessment System) needs
profile of women offenders, compared to their male counterparts. Areas of specific
and heightened concern include women’s relationships (including familial
connections), their emotional wellbeing, and levels of skills and employment; these
three areas provide substance for a critical discussion of the barriers to achieving
self-empowerment. The graph below outlines the percentage of women assessed by
probation, identified as having more than one need.
1.2 Women as Victims
The representation of women in the criminal justice system who have experienced
abuse is disproportionate to the general population. Over half of women in prison
report having suffered domestic violence and one in three reports having suffered
sexual abuse. On average, 53% of women in prison report having experienced
emotional, physical or sexual abuse during childhood (Prison Reform Trust, 2013).
Female prisoners who had experienced abuse as a child were more likely to report
suffering sexual abuse (67%) than male prisoners (24%). The Fawcett Society

Page | 8
(2004) discovered that women’s sexual and violent victimisation can play a part in
the onset and persistence of offending (cited in Social Exclusion Task Force,
2009:13), alongside a correlation of trauma-related mental health concerns (Carlen,
1998).
1.3 Women’s Childhoods and Care
The dysfunctional families in which many women grew up, ‘ensured they began to
feel powerless at an early age’ (Wilson and Anderson, 1997:348); more than half
(56%) of female respondents to a longitudinal cohort study of prisoners (SPCR,
2012) said that they had spent time in local authority care during childhood. Often
attributed to family breakdown and instances of neglect, almost a third of the women
and one quarter of the men in prison were cared for by the state as children,
compared with just 2% of the general population (Prison Reform Trust, 2013). Most
prisoners have a history of social exclusion, being more likely than the general
population to suffer poverty and have witnessed the imprisonment of a family
member (cited in Williams, K et al. MoJ, 2012:1); herein lays an illustration of an
error in social justice which is perpetuating a cycle of crime.

Page | 9
1.4 Mental Health and Self-Harm
Women in custody are five times more likely to have a mental health concern than
those in the general population; 50% of sentenced women are assessed to have
depression compared to just 12% of the general population (fig4). Suggestions have
been made (Pryce, 2013:248) that this is often due to the inability to deal with the
separation from their children; statistics support this, showing that approximately
30% of prisoners who take their own lives had no family contact prior to their deaths
(Prison Reform Trust, 2013).
Statistics have also shown that imprisoned females are consistently more likely to
self-harm in custody, with the rates of self-inflicted injury in 2011 being 10 times
higher than those of their male counterparts (MOJ, 2012:13); accounting for 28% of
all cases, despite the female estate only housing 5% (Prison Reform Trust, 2013).
Holistic services seek to address the identified issues surrounding mental health,

Page | 10
signposting to other agencies where possible in order to provide an enhanced level
of responsivity, thus motivating and encouraging women.
1.5 Women in Education, Training and Employment
Research has shown that nearly 40% of women in prison left school before the age
of 16 years (Prison Reform Trust, 2013), suggesting that they might have lower
levels of education. Longitudinal research by the Ministry of Justice, discovered that
59% of prisoners had regularly played truant from school; 63% had been suspended
and 42% were permanently excluded or expelled (Williams, K. et al MoJ. 2012).
Prisoners with these educational issues had an increased likelihood of reconviction
upon release than those without, inviting practitioners to begin incorporating
educational empowerment into their sentence planning decisions.

Page | 11
In 2002/3, 53% of imprisoned women had Reading Proficiency of Level One of
below, and 76% had numeracy levels at Level One or below (Level One is the
expected level of an average 11-year old) (MoJ, 2009:15). Of 547 women
interviewed in prison, only 3 in ten were working prior to their incarceration, most
commonly in low skilled and short-term work (Home Office, 2000 [cited in MoJ,
2009]), showing women to be less educationally and vocationally empowered than
the general population. Employability is a factor worsened still upon release, due to
the dominant principles of society, regarding the employment of people with
convictions (see O’Keeffe et al, 2007:240 and Offender Rehabilitation Act, 1971).

Page | 12
1.6 Women and Substance Misuse
Some 66% of women in prison, compared to just 38% of men, report committing
their indicted offences in order to get money to fund their drug habit (MoJ, 2013).
Following assessment, 27% of women, compared to 20% of men, reported a form of
current serious drug use, specifically heroine, methadone and crack cocaine (Social
Exclusion Task Force, 2009:11). Women’s offending patterns mirror the influence of
drug and alcohol misuse as well as theft and the handling of stolen goods (fig1),
which reflects an unfortunately low socio-economic position and many women’s
nature of dependency (Corston, 2007).
1.7 Women as Mothers and the Impact of Parental Imprisonment on Children
Estimates show that four out of 10 young women in prison are mothers, and surveys
suggest that 20% of female offenders are lone parents, compared with just 9% of the
general population (Prison Reform Trust, 2013). However, ‘information regarding
dependants is not routinely recorded, either within the Prison Service or Children’s
Services’ (MoJ, 2009:18), despite the ‘obligation for the local authority to promote
and help maintain contact … for children who are living apart from their family’
(Children Act, 1989). Studies have shown that only around 9% of children, remain
under the care of their fathers during the mother’s incarceration (Prison Reform
Trust, 2013), showing a discrepancy in the demanding familial roles of women.
It was discovered that more children had experienced the imprisonment of a parent,
than instances of divorce in the family (Action for Prisoners’ Families, 2010), with
approximately 200,000 children in England and Wales having an imprisoned parent
at some stage during 2009 (MoJ, 2012). It is estimated that more than 17,240
children were separated from their mothers as a direct result of incarceration during

Page | 13
2010 (Wilks-Wiffen, S. 2011), though there are no accurate figures available due to
issues of gathering self-report data. The Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile recognised
that there was no specific agency responsible for monitoring the parental status of
prisoners in the UK, or systematically identifying children of prisoners, where they
live or which services they are accessing. In addition, it was noted that even when
this information has been collected, it is quite often “patchy and not always shared”
(Prison Reform Trust, 2013:29).
Under reporting is often based on overly fearful assumptions of women prisoners
that their children will be automatically ‘taken away’ if the authorities are notified,
therefore limiting statutory agencies in their ability to provide services for these
vulnerable children. Research has discovered that families are at a higher risk of
financial instability, poverty, and potential housing disruption following the
imprisonment of a family member (Smith et al, 2007); however, the reality of these

Page | 14
women’s fears makes it less likely they will voluntarily engage with monitored
support services. The impact of this, as outlined below, perpetuates a cycle of
female offenders’ children being identified as having issues surrounding emotional
well-being.
1.8 Prison Locations and Facilities
When considering the practicalities of imprisonment, it is important to recognise that
there are only 12 female prisons in the UK, soon to be 10 (Women in Prison, 2014).
The Bromley Briefings recognises that in instances where prisoners are held far
away from their homes, maintaining contact with their children becomes increasingly
difficult. On average, men and women are held 50 miles away from their home,
however in 2009, 753 women were being held over 100 miles away from home
(Hansard, HC 2010 [cited in Prison Reform Trust, 2013]) making it increasingly
difficult for any holistic service model to continue resettlement support with them
post-release.
The government also recently announced that the mother and baby unit at HMP
Holloway is to close; one of several significant cutbacks to resettlement institutions
which empower women in their role as mothers (Women in Prison, 2014). The
implications of these cuts indicate a need to consider more practical and accessible
alternatives to custody, delivery of which may be through community initiatives in the
local area, and with an increased role for the voluntary sector.
1.9 Women and the Cost of Custody

Page | 15
On average, it costs ‘12 times more to send a woman to prison than to put her on a
probation or community service order’ (MoJ, 2009:20). Despite suggestions that
women are “out of place” in the prison environment (Worrall, 1981; Corston, 2007),
in 2008, £108m was spent on the adult female custodial estate. Custody is often
associated with a range of negative outcomes, as roughly one third of women
prisoners lose their homes and possessions while in prison; with a particular impact
on women whose children are taken into care (MoJ, 2009:20).
Re-offending rates are highly impacted by the inappropriate use of custody, as the
prison environment dislocates women from community networks, which offer a
source of social capital longer term upon release, which could potentially discourage
crime (see Tertiary Desistance, McNeill, 2014*). The following chapters will consider
this evidence against custody in support of a journey towards an enhanced
‘community’ approach to sentencing, which includes rather than excludes, thus
fostering a sense of empowerment.

Page | 16
Chapter 2
A Critical Review of the Literature underpinning current practice with
Female Offenders
“Equal outcomes require different approaches” – Baroness Corston
The last century has seen an increase in contemporary research about women
offenders, which until recently was ‘an ignored area of criminological exploration and
analysis’ (Sheehan, McIvor and Trotter, 2009:300, emphasis added,). This is due in
part, to an increased visibility of their personal attributes and ‘needs’ which
distinguish them from their male counterparts. Moreover, it is widely recognised by
academics that a specialised understanding of how and why women offend, the
processes through which they desist, and barriers in this process, ‘can inform
strategies to improve services’ within the community (2009:300, emphasis added).
Worrall and Gelsthorpe (2009) provided an overview of the visibility of women
offenders in research, policy and practice over the last 30 years, highlighting those
which have informed best practice in probation. The authors consider the 25 ‘key’
articles, which they suggest paint a ‘fascinating picture of the concerns and changing
attitudes of probation and academics to what ‘might’ work with female offenders’
(2009:329). They mention the initial findings of Frances’ Heidensohn (1968) on
sentencing, as an instigator of research, and agree that Carol Smart’s (1976)
Women, Crime and Criminology was also a catalyst in raising awareness about the
issue of discrimination against women offenders in Britain. However, both these
early publications make little or no reference to empowerment approaches, despite
their shared stated aim of promoting social justice.

Page | 17
The authors also acknowledge the role of more contemporary research, noticing that
in 1985 the Probation Journal made an unprecedented move, by allowing publication
of ‘Joan’s’ honest yet grammatically challenged account of her ‘Eight days in the
System’ following arrest for fine-default (Joan, 1985, cited in Worrall and Gelsthorpe,
2009). However, this opportune insight was considered to have ‘unintentionally
reinforced the discriminatory view that woman offenders are “not like us”’ (2009:331),
due to the author’s inability to ‘punctuate’. Some 30 years on, there has been further
discrediting of ‘insider insights’ of this kind; criticisms surround economist and
government personality Vicky Pryce, for the publication of her prison-diaries and
suggestions for cost-effective prison reform (Prisonomics, 2013). The derision with
which these contemporary ‘field-research’ contributions are viewed, illustrates the
extent to which societies preoccupation with punishment can further limit women with
convictions, in their ability to empower themselves academically.
Worrall and Gelsthorpe discuss how a ‘pioneering’ body of research encouraged a
response from the Probation Service, with a gradual increase in their publications
addressing relevant theories in their approach to work with women offenders
(2009:330), over the subsequent thirty years. Mawby’s 1977 research on sentencing
challenged the ‘dual assumptions of the “chivalry” thesis that women are less likely
to be detected for their criminality, and that when they are, they are treated more
leniently’ (cited in Worrall and Gelsthorpe, 2009:330). Here lies an illustration of
society’s then preoccupation with ‘protecting’ women, rather than treating them as
equals. However, Mawby’s conclusion that women have a higher likelihood of being
imprisoned despite their ‘shorter criminal careers’, omits the suggestion that the
safety of society would not be threatened, were fewer women to be imprisoned in
favour of ‘a greater and more imaginative use of community sentences’ (Carlen and
Worrall, 2004:151).

Page | 18
Worrall and Gelsthorpe continue their chronological analysis, suggesting that by
1989 there was a heightened awareness of the discrimination surrounding gender in
the criminal justice system which had become ‘embedded in probation service
culture as a whole’(2009:332). The probation service reflected this in their publication
of four relevant articles during 1989; Empowering Women, (Buckley and Wilson),
The Criminalisation and Empowerment of Black Women (Chigwada), Imprisoned
Mothers (White) and Women-Wise Penology (Carlen). Worrall and Gelsthorpe
consider this collective of publications ‘a comprehensive and sophisticated analysis
of the practice problems… [located] within a broad critique of social and criminal
justice policy’ (2009:332). As the authors continue through the decades of research
on female offenders, they note that this approach may have been the last of its kind,
with an explicit aim of achieving social justice.
The authors observe that the prior to the introduction of the 1991 Criminal Justice
Act, ‘professionals and academics were at their most united and politically influential’
(2009:332). Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act enables practitioners to become
aware of the relative effectiveness of different sentencing options, and assists in
promoting public confidence in the criminal justice system by minimising
opportunities for discrimination. Joan Orme subsequently published an article on the
impact of Section 95 on the treatment of women offenders. She argued that the
‘male minded’ omission of information specifically pertaining to female offenders
suggested that ‘at best’, we [could] consider the act as ‘gender indifferent… but at
worst, it is a reflection of patriarchy operating within the framework of the criminal
justice system’ (Orme, 1992:80). She notes that ‘women will continue to be victims,
despite their offence’ and concludes that this act ‘will not be effective in changing the
philosophies and ideologies which have already framed the legislation’ (1992:81).

Page | 19
However, between 1994 and 1998, there was a further cluster of publications in the
Probation Journal, which focussed on ‘integrating feminist perspectives on criminal
justice’ into the foundations of probation involvement with women offenders (Worrall
and Geltshorpe, 2009:332), and has allowed for further consideration of these
‘woman-centred’ approaches, which incorporate principles of empowerment.
Worrall (1981) also suggested that women offenders were ‘“out of place”’ in the
criminal justice system and, if applicable, were ‘more likely than men to be
processed according to their traditional roles in their lives outside the court, than
according to their offence’ [cited in Worrall and Gelsthorpe, 2009:331), inviting
further feminist discussion throughout research in the field. Dominelli further
contributed to this evolving feminist discussion about the impact of these gendered
differences, she argued that the complexities extended beyond the disparity in
sentences. She considered how the influence of the prejudicial ‘values and
assumptions embedded in society’s definition of womanhood’ could be 'detrimental' if
used informatively when constructing a sentence plan (Dominelli, 1984, cited in
Worrall & Gelsthorpe, 2009:331).
Accepting the nature and complexity of many offending women’s personal
circumstances, some of which are outlined in chapter 1, this chapter will now discuss
how quantitatively assessing needs and predicting risks has helped in shaping the
said ‘profile’ of the female offender. It will also provide a critique of the reductionist
methods through which these needs are uncovered, leading to a discussion about
the requirement for appropriate levels responsivity, in ensuring equal, effective and
empowering practice.

Page | 20
2.1 Assessment
It was suggested by Andrews’ et al (1990) that offenders’ level of risk of reoffending
should be assessed and used as the basis for allocation to services, and an
assessment of risk and criminogenic needs should be carried out using validated
methods.
While retribution theorists may argue that the ‘punishment must fit the crime’, this
chapter asks if the punishment might, instead, fit the individual; considerate, fair and
tailored assessment methods may better equip female offenders to engage with their
sentence planning process, providing a better choice and range of outcomes for both
the individual and the assessing body. Much of the research which informs the
recently preferred ‘risk–needs’ model has been carried out using data about male
offenders. This leads to questions about the criminogenic needs of women offenders
and “whether there may be women-specific criminogenic needs” (Hollin & Palmer,
2006:179). This dissertation questions if women can yet be recognised for their
differing strengths and weaknesses considering the unisex application of
assessment methods; this may, in turn, be an illustration of women offenders as
somewhat passive ‘afterthoughts’ within certain outdated areas of the Criminal
Justice System (Howard, 2006; Hollin & Palmer 2006; and Severson 2007). Much
literature asks whether ‘women’s needs should be incorporated into risk
assessments’ or not (Blanchette and Brown, 2006, cited in Severson et al, 2007:61).
When preparing a pre-sentencing report for a first offence, professionals are required
to provide a judgement of future offending patterns alongside a vision of treatment
they consider will have the most impact on recidivism (NOMS, 2012:15). A
judgement-based ‘score’ calculates recidivism based on the previous behaviour
patterns of the offending individual, their criminogenic needs and their determined

Page | 21
level of risk. Another criticism emerges here, however, around the extent to which
these current assessment practices ignore strengths, focussing primarily on
‘weaknesses’ and ‘needs’. Among practitioners, there is also much debate around
ensuring a balance between ‘the pursuit of consistency and standardisation’ in the
assessment process, and the ‘discretion and professional judgement’ of the
assessor (Robinson and Crow, 2008:97), which might extend to a personalised
understanding of an offenders motivation to change, alongside a consideration of
gender differences (Morton, 2009).
Brown (2002) argued that the work involving women is somewhat restricted in its
focus on testing the extent to which recidivism risk indicators, validated for male
offenders, might apply to females, yet the results reported in discussed literature for
several current instruments “show poor correlations between male and female risk
profiles" (cited in Deschenes et al, 2007:2). Andrews et al’s pre-empted remedy is
that 'interventions should have general responsivity, with services matched to
offenders’ learning styles, motivations and ability… taking account of [the] diversity,
strengths and limitations' (Andrews et al, 1990:8) often uncovered during
assessment, in other words, “what works” with men, might not actually work with
women (Sheehan, McIvor and Trotter, 2007:300).
2.2 Risk of Harm & Recidivism Indicators
McIvor and McNeill (2007) observed and discussed how increases in women’s
imprisonment were not attributed to an increase in the severity or violent nature of
women’s offending behaviour, but instead were ‘a reflection of increasingly punitive
responses by the court system’ (2007:1). Although most women’s initial offences are
relatively minor and pose no risk to the public, establishing a risk level is necessary
in understanding how best to safely promote desistance through interventions.

Page | 22
In the United States, comparative studies into recidivism rates have discovered the
complex role of gender in enabling accurate recidivism predictions. Makarios
(2010:1) examined the effect of some common obstacles in the re-entry and
desistance process, such as deficits in education, employment, and housing; he
detected no gender differences in the predictors, 'suggesting that the factors likely
behave in a gender-neutral manner'. In other research, O’Brien’s summary of
previous studies on female recidivism colluded that effects of some of these same
obstacles, were ‘similar’ to those of men; these include employment, substance
abuse, educational attainment and offence history. She found, however, that 'female
recidivism was different in terms of two family dynamics: unstable living situations
and partner abuse' (cited in Deschenes 2007:9), issues which may inhibit a female
offenders’ motivation and empowerment.
A vast library of research into prior victimisation of female offenders has explained
how a history of abuse can make females more likely to offend. ‘Female inmates are
among the most marginalised in society’ (Nicholls et al, 2004:179); the ‘emotional
and social injuries’ caused by this trauma can lead to a diminished desire to admit
vulnerabilities and seek help’ (Severson et al, 2007:61). Some authors suggest that
‘characterising unmet needs as risks for criminal behaviour… obscures the basic fact
that women still lack basic protection from physical and sexual abuse as children’
(2007:61), however, the protective nature of these assumptions can obscure and
avert the internal responsibility for change, creating higher levels of dependency
among offenders who are also victims.
Andrews’ et al (1990) suggest that 'more intensive human services are best reserved
for higher risk cases' and there is no real need or benefit of introducing correctional
treatment, where there is already a 'lower probability of recidivism'. However, while

Page | 23
women are lower risk in terms of re-offending or violent crimes, they may indeed
pose the highest risk to themselves (see chapter 1, fig4 and fig5) and therefore be
more desperately in need of interaction. Robinson and Crow (2008:90) suggest that
practitioners should ‘take into account both the risk posed to the offender (e.g. self-
harming) as well as the likely risks to others (e.g. children, the public)’ when
establishing the ‘gravity’ of any future offending behaviour.
2.3 Responsivity
The probation service is committed to ensuring fair treatment, including the ability for
women to be considered for the full range of sentencing options available within the
court system; however, inequality of access makes ‘equality of outcome a reality that
may need different approach and/or additional support’ (Corston, 2007:113) in order
to maximise the potential for empowerment. It is becoming increasingly accurate that
‘resources follow risks’ with higher risk offenders attracting more intensive
rehabilitative intervention (Robinson and Crow, 2008:99); however, as suggested
above, women are often lower risk but higher in need, requiring a responsive level of
restorative and rehabilitative intervention.
The Correctional Services Panel will not accredit programmes that do not
‘demonstrate … that appropriate consideration has been given to diversity issues’,
therefore, interventions with women must display an appropriate level of responsivity
to gain accreditation (Wilson and Anderson, 1997). Osei-Hwedie (1993, cited in
Wilson & Anderson, 1997:355) also explains how ‘one cannot totally develop with
someone else’s ideas, especially if these ideas do not fit one’s special circumstances
or living conditions’, further supporting the need for general and specialised
responsivity in order to maximise an offenders’ potential.

Page | 24
The Prison Reform Trust, The Fawcett Society, The Howard League for Penal
Reform and the government-led Social Exclusion Unit have all championed those
which ‘approach the needs of women offenders in a holistic, rather than piecemeal
fashion’ (Worrall and Gelsthorpe, 2009:338). While many of these publications have
a practical rather than theoretical base, they provide insight into the motivations of
organisations which are seeking to promote social change, as a direct response to
the needs of their invested research population.
The most recent publication to adopt this approach is the 2007 report by Baroness
Jean Corston; Corston and her team of colleagues conducted a review of vulnerable
women in the criminal justice system during 2006, they visited overcrowded women’s
prisons, local women’s centres and explored alternatives to custody available for
women across the UK. The review this team produced, outlined the need for a
“distinct, radically different, visibly-led, strategic, proportionate, holistic, woman-
centred, integrated approach”, and made 43 recommendations for ‘improving the
approaches, services and interventions for women in the criminal justice system and
women at risk of offending. ‘The Corston review gives government the chance at
long last to join up its social policy with its criminal justice policy’
(PrisonReformTrust.org), however, this commonly referenced report makes sparse
reference or suggestion as to how the criminal justice system could or should be
empowering these ‘vulnerable’ women, by instead focussing on providing for them.
2.4 “Nine Lessons”
In other research, Gelsthorpe et al concluded from responses to a Fawcett Society
Survey (2007:137), that community provisions should both ‘meet the needs [of
women] … and be flexible enough to address changing needs’. They also
considered the delivery of this service through partnership with voluntary agencies;

Page | 25
there was ‘evident capacity’ within those organisations already doing work with
women offenders, to suggest that ‘NOMS (National Offender Management Service)
might be able to utilise and build on the available provisions’.
Following analysis of previous research and the findings of the survey, Gelsthorpe et
al highlighted ‘9 lessons’ for NOMS commissioners who were challenged with
providing responsive provisions for female offenders. The nine lessons detailed
below will form the basis for the evaluation of current interventions and programmes,
explored in the next chapter:
1. Be ‘women-only’ to foster safety and a sense of community and to enable
staff to develop expertise with women;
2. Integrate offenders with non-offenders so as to normalise women offenders’
experiences and facilitate a supportive environment;
3. Foster women’s empowerment so they gain sufficient self esteem to directly
engage in problem-solving themselves, and feel motivated to seek
appropriate employment;
4. Utilise ways of working with women which draw on what is known about their
effective learning styles;
5. Take a holistic and practical stance to helping women to address social
problems which may be linked to their offending;
6. Facilitate links with mainstream agencies, especially health, debt advice and
counselling;
7. Have the capacity and flexibility to allow women to return to the centre or
programme for ‘top up’ of continued support and development where required;
8. Ensure that women have a supportive milieu or mentor to whom they can turn
when they have completed any offending related programmes, since personal
support is likely to be as important as any direct input addressing offending
behaviour;
9. Provide women with practical help with transport and childcare so that they
can maintain their involvement in the centre of programme
Geltshorpe etal. (2007) ‘Working with Offenders in the Community,A view from England in Wales’ p.137

Page | 26
Chapter 3
Holistic Interventions for Female Offenders:
Theory of Change, Practice and Evaluation
“From this key, central principle, others fall into place…” (Corston, 2007)
This chapter will proceed by highlighting interventions services for women
which seek to holistically address multiple needs, paying particular attention to those
which provide practical interagency support within a community setting and
incorporate an outcome of ‘empowerment’ into their theory of change. There are
multitude of issues surrounding custodial delivery of programmes for women,
research into which often focusses on the individual’s internal ability to cope (Koons
et al, 1997). However, this dissertation focuses on the role of current research by
McNeill into Tertiary Desistance (POPS, 2014), which adopts a more positive stance,
and provides support for community sentences, by understanding the ‘perception of
self’ in a journey towards belonging. The empowerment approach ‘calls for social-
action practitioners who can mobilise [both] individuals and the society’ (Wilson and
Anderson, 1997:351).

Page | 27
3.1 Theory of change and outcomes for Women’s Community services
Using both opinion and statistical data gathered from offending clients using
Women’s Community Services, the New Economic Foundation established the
above theory of change and acknowledged how ‘over a three-month period, 44% of
women demonstrated a measurable increase in well-being’ (Nicholles and
Whitehead, 2012:3), one of the earlier discussed areas of criminogenic need.
Sapouna et al agreed ‘holistic interventions that address multiple criminogenic needs
are more likely to be effective in reducing reoffending’ (2011:12). Holistic
Interventions offer a ‘one stop shop’ where women have access to a range of
(Fig9) nef (New Economic Foundation), Women’s Community Services: A Wise Commission
November 2012, page 10.

Page | 28
services in a safe, women-only environment, preferable to probation offices in
instances where the offender has been a victim of physical or sexual abuse
(Radcliffe et al, 2013).
3.2 Evaluation of Together Women’s Project
The Together Women’s Project (Yorkshire and Salford) was first funded by the
Ministry of Justice in 2006; it sought to develop and test out a new ‘gender-specific
community approach’ to women offenders and women who were at risk of offending.
Following a ‘highly successful demonstration phase’, Together Womens Project
became an independent charity in April 2009, and currently, the TWP ‘provide the
all-important women-only spaces where vulnerable women can access tailored
support’ (TWP.org).
Dr. Gillian Granville used Gelsthorpe’s nine lessons (2007, see ch3) as a theoretical
framework to underpin her evaluation of the Together Women’s Project (Salford);
she understood and explained the aims of the project to be as follows:
o To reduce women’s offending and re-offending
o To positively influence decision-making by Criminal Justice Service
practitioners, to reduce the number of women given custodial sentences
o To increase the number of women ‘accessing and being sustained’ in
appropriate community provision
o To reduce the number of avoidable family breakdowns, specifically those
involving children

Page | 29
Granville (2009) then analysed a collection of high quality monitoring data in order to
discover the outcomes of the programme in relation to these aims, ultimately
‘supporting evidence that the project’s actions created change’. The outcomes were:
o Reducing isolation and creating active citizens
o Moving on: support not dependency
o Reduced vulnerability through learning coping strategies
o Improved life chances- routes to training, employment and parenting
In practice, professionals engaging in empowerment practice should ‘help a client
develop personal power [by adopting] an action-oriented approach, becoming a
supporter, partner … and role model for the client in taking action, rather than
engaging in passive talking or enforcement’ (Wilson and Anderson, 1997:351).
Statistics from the Howard League for Penal reform show ‘the re-offending rate of
women accessing the support of Together Women Project [is] just 7 per cent,
compared to a national average of 36 per cent’ (Howard League, 2011d). Despite a
reduction in offending behaviour and an improvement in other areas, these
provisions are not currently being used in place of other sentences, in part due to
suggestions that ‘mandating attendance would damage the ethos of a project ‘which
aims to treat the women ‘as women’ and not as ‘offenders’, enabling practitioners to
build up their trust and confidence’ (Granville, 2009:6).
Evidence from desistance studies into the mobilisation of social capital (Mills and
Codd, 2008:14) have discovered how offenders often value practical support above
other forms of intervention, as it enables them to ‘maintain their pro-social identities’,
specifically for those who are mothers. Together Womens Project offers a simple
remedy in their provision of practical childcare support, by operating a ‘professionally

Page | 30
supervised crèche’; thus removing a barrier which many women on probation identify
in their ability to comply with their sentence (see Gelsthorpe et al, 2007).
Sapouna et al (2011) acknowledge that many offenders are not accustomed to
‘actively seeking help from outside agencies’ to find a solution to their problems, due
to their lack of grasp over their rights to social resources. They suggest ‘offender
managers might need to adopt a more proactive approach to solving offenders’
practical needs’, however; they should always maintain the necessary development
of an individual’s ‘problem-solving skills’, and ‘empower’ them to search out suitable
help when needed (Sapouna et al, 2011:13). Together Women’s Project actively
engages with other agencies, which enables them to signpost service users to seek
the most appropriate support.
Focussing on empowerment over punishment has proved successful in this instance;
alongside the initially intended and subsequently satisfied aims of reducing
reoffending, there have also been unintended but equally positive outcomes.
Granville’s evaluation explained how the staff team are skilled at ‘creating a positive
culture… which supports vulnerable women who have very low self-esteem and self
worth… careful attention is paid to celebrating success and supporting women to
recognise their achievements, however small they may appear’ (Granville, 2009:11),
which may be a contributing factor to the visible decrease in TWP service users
reconvictions.
Granville attributes the success of this project to a number of ‘mechanisms’ which
help women ‘move forward and manage their own lives rather than create another
form of dependency’; thus empowering women, ‘many of whom spoke proudly of

Page | 31
their achievements in “being ready to fly”’ (2009:16) following a period of involvement
with the project. She identified key mechanisms which include: the role of a skilled
key-worker who offers one-to-one support and constant positivity; individualised
support plans which review progress and acknowledge achievements; practical
support and self-esteem building activities; peer support and role modelling of ex-
offenders who return to the centre and help with confidence building and problem
solving with others. Finally, she acknowledged how the continued nature of support
in moving forward is ‘indefinitely welcoming for when things may deteriorate’
(Granville, 2009:17).
Empowerment is a concept which this dissertation considers instrumental in
successful offender management. Through the research that has been compiled and
analysed, it appears many of the issues facing women regard their victimisation and
lack of social networks. Holistic and remedial interventions, such as Together
Women’s Project have an underlying motivation to improve emotional wellbeing and
therefore empower women to be active agents in their own desistance process.
‘Offenders are more likely to eventually desist from offending if they manage to
acquire a sense of agency and control over their lives and a more positive outlook on
their future prospects’, agrees Sapouna et al (2011:24).
Other research has shown how interventions that help an offender develop ‘prosocial
networks’ have a significantly higher chance of succeeding in reducing reoffending
(McNeill, 2010). Desistance studies have found that ‘rebuilding ties with family,
friends and the wider community’ are important aspects of desisting from crime.
Another illustration of the concept of Tertiary Desistance (McNeill, 2014*) suggests
that an individual must achieve a new sense of belonging, in order to move away
from their previous sense of belonging ‘within’ criminality.

Page | 32
Further research suggests that offenders who feel ‘welcomed’ into society have a
lower probability of recidivism, than ‘those who feel stigmatised’. It is therefore
important that criminal justice agencies aim to work primarily with offenders, but also
integrate work with their family, friends and the wider community, to encourage the
sustenance of pro-social and positive relationships (Sapouna, 2011:22). Although
‘women-only’ environments are often favoured for their aspects of safety, they may
prove contributory to the prevalence of stigma and marginalisation, of the ‘most
marginalised group in society’ (Carlen, 1998:98). Together Women’s Project Salford
is located anonymously on the second floor of an unremarkable office building,
indicating that while this is valuable in terms of women ‘taking refuge’ there, with the
nature and type of location being valuable in instances of victimisation, this set up
has limitations in terms of supporting the reintegration process.
Among females, ‘55% of those discharged from custody and given a probation order’
were reported to have been reconvicted within 2 years of their sentence, however,
the same study showed only 27% of those given a community service order were
reconvicted (Sapouna, 2011:7), explicitly suggesting how community sentences can
improve chances of the desistance process. This dissertation has surmised from its
analysis of the Together Women’s Project, that practice which understands the key
role of empowerment has proved to be more successful than traditional punitive
interventions, and will now examine ways in which themes of empowerment may be
incorporated in practice throughout the criminal justice system.

Page | 33
Chapter 4
“Help Yourself”: Approaching Empowerment
“Women gain insight into their situation, identify their strengths, and are supported
and challenged to take positive action to gain control of their lives. This process
acknowledges and holds women offenders accountable for their actions while
recognizing that actions occur within a social context”.
[Creating Choices: The Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women in the USA]
The ‘Plausibility’, ‘Doability’ and ‘Testability’ of empowerment approaches will
be explored throughout this final chapter (Connell & Kubisch, 1998), alongside a
critique of the environment into which we may attempt to introduce these concepts
when working with female offenders.
4.1 Principles of Empowerment Theory
Katherine Van Wormer explores the two promising developments in social work
education as anti-oppressive practice and the empowerment perspective; she
discusses the plausibility of a move towards a ‘strengths approach, in its focus on
helping clients tap into their inner and cultural resources’ (2004:72). She continues to
suggest how the aforementioned ‘empowerment perspective ‘goes further in
focussing on oppression and power imbalances in the society’. Empowering practice
begins, she suggests, by acknowledging that ‘structural injustices have prevented
many individuals and groups from receiving the treatment and resources they are
entitled to’ (2004:74).

Page | 34
Effective practice with female offenders requires a model that fosters both social and
self-empowerment; argue Wilson and Anderson (1997:348). It is understood that
‘this focus is particularly salient in working with offenders who have multiple personal
problems’, however, Wilson and Anderson also recognise that despite female
offenders’ variety of problems and needs, they have ‘tremendous strengths … [such
as] their ability to negotiate the correctional system’. Relating to and drawing upon
these strengths increases self-esteem and provides a ‘foundation on which to build
more effective strategies for living’ (1997:355).
The underlying principles of Empowerment Theory are explained as follows (Allen
and Loss, n/d):
 It assumes that society consists of separate groups possessing different
levels of power and control over resources.
 It’s goal is social justice
 Social problems stem not from individual deficits, but from the failure of the
society to meet the needs of all its members
 In social work, it emerged from efforts to develop more effective and
responsive services for women and people of color
 It suggests a process of increasing personal, interpersonal, or political power
so that individuals can take action to improve their life situations
 And, most importantly, it ‘Integrates both individual change and social
change’ and promotes a belief system that many of the negative symptoms
that emerge in powerless clients stem from their strategies to cope with a
hostile world.

Page | 35
Empowerment theory is not dissimilar to the more familiar ‘Desistance Theory’; it too
recognises the broader social contexts and conditions that are required to support
change from within an offender. It recognises the complexity of pathways to
desistance for females, in which self-efficacy and empowerment are both key
elements. Moreover, British Probation culture has, following recent policy
implementation, been preoccupied with a ‘deficit paradigm’; a focus on the individual
as someone who needs to be ‘fixed’ by an external force, due to their personal
incapability and external locus of control. What the empowerment model aims to
encompass, is a ‘combination of individual change and structural support’, which
does not fix the offender, but provides ‘infrastructure to promote healthier
communities to support the offenders’ (Allen and Loss: no date).
4.2 Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002)
An example of a parallel approach is the Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002); this
holistic approach to offender rehabilitation, addresses the limitations of the traditional
risk management approach that has been explored throughout this research. The
Good Lives Model is a ‘strengths-based approach… premised on the idea that we
need to build capabilities and strengths in people, in order to reduce their risk of
reoffending’ (GoodLivesModel.org). Good Lives Model has until now, primarily been
applied to work with sexual offenders; however, recent successes within this method
of working have led to further debate as to its appropriation with other sub-sections
of offender (see Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011:735). What this dissertation
questions, is whether an approach which focuses on empowering rather than
punishing, may open doors to practitioners working with low-risk female offenders, to
enable the women to open their own. Through this, specific focus is afforded to those
who pose a significantly lower risk, and who lack confidence and emotional-
wellbeing due to a history of ‘social injustice’, as outlined in chapter 1.

Page | 36
4.3 Plausibility
In terms of this concepts ‘plausibility’, authors have suggested that such an approach
is both necessary and effective in providing ‘the comprehensive treatment required
for long term desistance from crime’ (Henriques and Jones-Brown, 1998:307, cited in
Zaplin, 1998). Research has shown that causes for criminal behaviour are often
rooted in the depths of victimisation and socio-economic deprivation, noted to be
more common among the profile of female offenders, but can be improved and
eradicated when an individual has the correct ‘equipment’ to alleviate the effects of
this. Shifting focus to incorporate both the needs of society and the individual is
necessary in establishing the plausibility of this concept; Allen and Loss
acknowledge that ‘it is impossible to see the female offender without the context of
the environment in which she lives in (Allen and Loss: no date).
Another element of practice which would, and does, make this approach possible, is
the valued and instrumental role of voluntary sector organisations. As outlined the
Home Office report (2012), these agencies play an important role in assisting the
government to tackle the root causes of crime, by providing access to a range of
services on-site and within community settings; their aim, being to tackle problems
obstructing the ‘nine key pathways’ out of crime (MoJ, 2014:2 and Cobbina, 2009).
Voluntary organisations often provide complementary intervention packages and
services, but despite acknowledgement of their contribution (Clinks, 2012), there is
yet to be a transformational shift towards increased responsibility, due to budget
restraints and the imposing ‘private’ offender management companies, who are
contracted and therefore motivated to deliver services, rather than develop them.
While it may not be ‘plausible’ to insist voluntary organisations secure a greater role
and responsibility, it is important we understand the contribution such programmes

Page | 37
have, on the motivation and empowerment of people with criminal convictions and
those at risk of offending.
4.4 Doability
To consider whether this is ‘doable’, we must ensure we have a full understanding of
the service users’ motivation to engage with the empowerment practice model; ‘the
degree to which interaction is successful depends largely on the individual’s skills in
participatory competence’ (Wilson and Anderson, 1997:357). Challenges of working
with involuntary clients can offset the positive outcomes of applying a holistic model;
if the individual is not aware of their capabilities, they will struggle to maintain their
balance during the process towards desistance. A strengths perspective in the
related field of social work practice attempts to ‘correct destructive emphasis on what
is wrong, missing or abnormal’ with the individual, and shifts focus to seeing
individuals in ‘the light of their hopes, possibilities and the belief in their capacity for
change’ (Saleebey, 1996:202). These two intertwined fields of statutory intervention
have somewhat conflicting ideals; while it can be argued that the punitive sectors of
the criminal justice system primarily intend to improve society by protecting the
public, what some social work and empowerment practitioners argue is that the
focus should instead be on ‘social justice’. Offenders who have experienced
disadvantage and victimisation must play a role in their own ‘rehabilitation’, but there
are responsibilities of the state to protect them also (Saleebey, 1996:203).
In order for this approach to succeed and be ‘rolled out’ to the further reaching
corners of the criminal justice system, we must begin by enlightening the attitudes of
the public, away from retribution towards a more holistic and socially-aware
response to crime. Other nations have shown this increased level of consciousness;
Denmark, for example, appreciates and support efforts by the individual to improve

Page | 38
their socio-economic status despite their convictions. To encourage inmates to
educate themselves, the same amount is paid to inmates who choose to attend the
prison school instead of going to work (Winslow, 2014). Building on an
understanding that ‘an inadequate education limits how one realises the hopes and
dreams of the future’ (Wilson and Anderson, 1997:352), books provide just one
example of a tool for empowerment which encourages growth and motivation;
however, their availability within the custodial estate is currently diminishing.
Research has shown that many offenders use education as a route away from crime,
and therefore we should be nurturing this potential strength from within, both the
‘walls’ and within the individual.
Prison reading groups operate throughout the UK, commonly on a voluntary basis,
and are created as a means of empowerment by providing reading materials to
incarcerated offenders. Caddick and Webster (1998) suggest in their aptly titled
Offender Literacy and the Probation Service, that access to the ‘communicated
thoughts and experiences of a wide range of others via reading, enable individuals to
become more aware of the ways they interact with and make meaning of the world’
(also cited in Voices for the Library, 2014). Research has shown how reading and
education can and does expand the ability to think about alternatives and
consequently evaluate options which may lead to strategies for avoiding criminal
behaviour. Caddick and Webster also state how a core part of developing individual
responsibility and a feeling of inclusion and identity with others is through literacy; an
avenue through which people from both the general and offending population,
develop an ability to reflect on their own experiences.
Statistics for female offender literacy has been shown to consistently fall below the
average standards for the population, and while some services offer educational

Page | 39
services, these are often basic and only intended to equip an individual with skills to
attain low-level occupations. While this dissertation does not necessarily consider
the reading of books to be a ‘crime reduction strategy’, what it does recognise is that
attempts made by an individual to engage with their own rehabilitative punishment
should be nurtured through all appropriate channels, appreciating an individuals’
quest for self-improvement, rather than constantly reminding them they are being
punished. Disappointingly though, the current government does not wholly share
these motivations, with a higher proportion of currently policies focussing on
‘incentivising’ these ‘rights’, in order to gain a higher level of control.
In Britain, the recent approach is somewhat conflicting with the ideals apparent in
countries like Denmark; Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling has chosen
instead to reduce funding for some optional educations provisions from the prison
estate, alongside a ‘book ban’, prohibiting prisoners from receiving books as gifts,
reclassifying them as ‘enhance privileges’ which must be earnt (MoJ, 2013).
However, ‘left-wing pressure groups’ and other charitable organisations have
opposed this decision, voicing concern that ‘this move to view the prison system as
wholly punitive rather than as serving also as rehabilitative and restorative is short-
sighted and counter to the ethos’.
Empowerment theory promotes the idea that there exists in every person, ‘potential
for positive change’, it supports the process of increasing personal and interpersonal
power, arguing that individuals are better able to take action in order to improve their
life situations when they are empowered with the belief that they are able to do so
(Gutierrez, 1990). ‘Powerless persons’, as many female offenders are considered to
be, often ‘blame themselves for their circumstances, [and] have a sense of distrust
and hopelessness in the sociopolitical environment, feel alienated from resources for

Page | 40
social influence, and are disenfranchised and economically vulnerable’ (Kieffer,
1984, cited in Wilson and Anderson, 1997:349). Empowerment approaches,
therefore, ‘are especially critical to populations who are chronically poor, such as
female inmates and their families’ (1997:355).
4.5 Testability
When exploring effective ways of measuring empowerment approaches, there are
often shortfalls and debates surrounding the ability and necessity to prove a
reduction in recidivism. As has been discussed, there are often barriers to
quantitatively determining effectiveness with more contemporary interventions, which
focus on empowerment, as ‘the outcomes involved (including changing relationships
and attitudes) are largely intangible, and the criminal justice system is complex’ (New
Philanthropy Capital, 2011). Similarly, issues present surrounding the ‘testability’ of
holistic approaches, as it is difficult to isolate and identify an element, which has had
the most impact on re-offending.
Parson and Robbins (2002, cited in Lewis, 2013:6) provided qualitative data outlining
what female offenders themselves considered instrumental in their successful re-
entry into the community. Amongst other things, ‘support groups, supportive friends
and family, [their] children and stable employment were considered to be a driving
force for change, however a reassuring proportion concluded that their “personal
determination” had been a driving force for change.
The Ministry of Justice recently recognised this challenge facing women’s service
providers, accepting that due to the multiple agencies which interact with the female
offending population, ‘it can be quite difficult to obtain reliable data from which to
draw reliable conclusions’. They acknowledge how the ‘outcome star’ method of

Page | 41
measuring success is ‘necessarily subjective [but] can be useful in exploring
progress [the service users] have made in a range of areas’ (MoJ, 2013:23). In a
stocktake of services, they conclude that ‘in order to build on the[se] kind of
innovative approaches’…the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, is opening out
the provision of offender services, for both men and women, to a much wider range
of providers. ‘[They] believe it will help new providers to see the great possibilities for
innovation – particularly through the involvement of organisations from the voluntary
and community sector’; suggesting here, that the ‘Community Rehabilitation
Companies’ who will soon be the ‘providers’ of this service ‘may be very interested in
understanding the current practice’ of monitoring positive progress. However, this
blueprint is yet to be implemented (MoJ, 2013:24).
Conclusion
What this dissertation has recognised, is the frustratingly slow pace at which
suggestions for reform surrounding the treatment of female offenders are being
considered and implemented. Of the 43 recommendations made by Baroness
Corston 7 years ago, there is still some distance to go in the practical adaptation of
services, and the government are still funding 12 women’s prisons throughout the
UK (Women in Prison, 2014).
In recent years, there have been a number of independent research projects and
publications by voluntary and campaigning organisations whose interest and
involvement in the sector has encouraged the consideration of imaginative
alternatives to custody. It is these agencies who are ultimately responsible for the
increased visibility of female offenders, and their suggestions of fair and purposeful
treatment could potentially prove more and more influential over the coming years,

Page | 42
with a shift away from literature determining ‘what works’, towards ‘what might work’
and who should be involved in the discussion.
What this dissertation understands, is that the responses of the dominant public and
politicians are subtly but damagingly influential in dictating practice, surrounding
work with offenders. Throughout history, the combination of patriarchy and
stigmatisation of the ‘deviant’ female led to the initial development of punitive
measures, while the competing feminist insights and chivalrous need to ‘protect’
have kept many offending women from motivating themselves, by overriding the
need for individual determination and responsibility. What this dissertation argues
necessary, is an appropriate balance between treating the female offender as neither
a victim or as a criminal, but maintaining that each woman is an individual with
strengths and abilities. This dissertation has concluded that a holistic and
empowering sentence can be implemented in line with principles of both retribution
and rehabilitation – if it maintains a necessary focus on desistence, and an
insistence that the individual must help themselves. Helping an offender to ‘do the
right thing’ and ‘do things right’, through the provision of accessible opportunities,
should eventually impact on societies quest for social justice, and the potential role
and expertise of the voluntary sector makes this suggestion encouragingly more
possible.
Some criminological research has suggested that women’s ‘self-worth is based on
[their] connections to others’ (see Carlen, 1998), therefore the segregated nature of
women’s prisons, very few of which are still semi-open or open, often leads to an
increase in ‘isolation and shaming’. In some research (McNeill, 2010), this lack of
social networking potential is identified as a cause for re-offending, due to the
prolonged stigma and separation of social capital which accompanies a prison

Page | 43
sentence, leading this dissertation to conclude that, where possible and appropriate,
all intervention packages for women should be delivered from within her ‘home’
community.
However, in contrast to the vast body of current research suggesting prison isn’t an
appropriate place for women with the aforementioned ‘needs’ and issues, there is
research which indicates that for some, ‘prison [provides] a safe haven from
violence, racism and other social conditions’ (Henriques and Jones-Brown, 2000).
Brown et al (1998) also suggested that “if prison [is] considered a physically and
psychologically safe environment, [it] may be an effective time to address effects of
prior victimisation which has led to female offending’. What this dissertation
considers then, in light of this research, is a substantial need to improve the social
environment outside of prison for the entire population, so that the loss of liberty,
which accompanies incarceration, is never preferable; the prison institution should
not exist to provide respite from any level of social injustice, discrimination,
disadvantage or danger. Instead, society should accept dual responsibility in
empowering and encouraging individuals not to commit crimes; by insisting on
equality and support for the more vulnerable, by holistically challenging issues of
victimisation, discrimination and disadvantage within the local community, and
encouraging others to seek voluntary help before there is a need to intervene.

Page | 44
REFERENCES
Allen, E. and Loss, J. (n/d) Empowerment Approaches with Offenders: Techniques
that Heal York Correctional Institute, Conneticut. US
Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2011) ‘The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model:
Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?
Criminal Justice and Behavior (38) p.73
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. and Hoge, R. D. (1990) Classification for effective
rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17 (1), 19-52.
Caddick, B. and Webster, A. (1998) ‘Offender Literacy and the Probation Service’
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 37 (2) pp. 137-147.
Carlen, P. (1998) Sledgehammer: Women’s Imprisonment at the Millennium,
Macmillan Press Ltd: Hound mills; Basingstoke; Hampshire; London.
Carlen, P. and Worrall, A. (2004) Analysing Women’s Imprisonment Cullompton,
UK: Willan p.151
Carol Smart (1976) Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique London:
UK. Routledge
Centre for Social Justice (2009) Locked up potential: A strategy for reforming prisons
and rehabilitating prisoners, London. p366
Children Act 1989 c.41. London: GOV.UK
Clinks (2012) Clinks’ response to NOMS Commissioning Intentions Discussion
Documment August, London.
Cobbina, J.E. (2009) From Prison to Home: Women’s Pathways in and Out of Crime
Doctor of Philosophy degree University of Missouri.
Connell & Kubisch (1998) `Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation
of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects and Problems'.
Aspen, US.
Corston, (2007) A report by Baroness Jean Corston of A review of women with
particular vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice system. Home Office.

Page | 45
Criminal Justice Act 1991 c. 53, Section 95. London: GOV.UK
CSC Correctional Service Canada (2014) Community Strategy for Women
Offenders: Princples and Concepts in Women’s Corrections [online] [accessed 15th
April, 2014] http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/fsw/wos22/wos22-eng.shtml#6
Deschenes, E.P., Owen, B. and Crow, J. (2007) Recidivism Among Female
Prisoners: Secondary Analysis of the 1994 BJS Recidivism Data Set Fresno, CA. pp.
2;9
Gelsthorpe, L. (2007) ‘Working With Offenders in the Community, A view from
England in Wales’ p.137 in Working With Women Offenders in the Community
Sheehan, R., McIvor, G. and Trotter, C. (2011) Willan, London.
Granville, G. (2009) An Evaluation of the Salford Together Women Project Gillian
Granville Associates. pp. 6,11,16,17
Gutierrez, L. (1990) ‘The Organizational Context of Empowerment Practice:
Implications for Social Work Administration’ Social Work Journal, Vol 40 (2) pp. 249-
258
Hirst, G. (1996) ‘“Moving Forward”: How Did We Do That?’ Probation Journal
43(2): p.58
Hollin and Palmer (2006) Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development,
Application and controversies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons p179
Home Office (2012) Annual Report and Accounts 2011-12. HC 45 London: The
Stationery Office, Crown.
Howard, P. (2006) A 4-page evaluation of a pilot test of the Offender Assessment
System being used in the UK to assess offending-related needs, likelihood of
reconviction and risk of serious harm Home Office. UK.
Koons, B.A., Burrow, J.D., Morash, M. and Bynum, T. (1997) ‘Expert and Offender
Perceptions of Program Elements Linked to Successful Outcomes for Incarcerated
Women’ Crime and Delinquency: Criminology and Penology Vol 43(4). Pp. 512-532
Lewis, P. (2013) ‘Empowering Female Offenders to Reach Success in Probation and
Parole’ Journal of Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research (Vol 2, Article 1) p.6

Page | 46
Loureiro, T (2009) Child and Family Impact Assessments in Court: Implications for
Policy and Practice. Families Outside. p.7
Makarios, M., Steiner, B. and Travis, L.F. (2010) ‘Examining the Predictors of
Recidivism Among Men and Women Released from Prison in Ohio’ Criminal Justice
and Behaviour Vol 37 (12) pp.1377
McIvor, G. and McNeill, F (2007) Probation in Scotland: past, present and future
p.132 In Handbook of Probation, eds. Gelsthorpe, L. and Morgan, R. Cullompton:
Willan.
McIvor, G., Trotter, C. and Sheehan, R (2009) ‘Women, resettlement and desistance’
Probation Journal, Vol 56 (4) pp.347-361
Mcneill, F. and Weaver, B. (2010) Changing Lives? Desistance Research and
Offender Management SCCJR Project Report; No3. Glasgow.
McNeill, F. at POPS Partners of Prisoners’ (2014 March). The Anderson Lectures,
New Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University. Guest Lecturer: Fergus
McNeill. (attended)
Mills, A. and Codd, H. (2008) ‘Prisoners’ Families and Offender Management:
Mobilizing Social Capital’, Probation journal, v55;1; 9-24.
Ministry of Justice: Social Exclusion Task Force (2009) Short Study on Women
Offenders. May 2009. pp. 8-21
Morton, S. (2009) Can OASys deliver consistent assessments of offenders? Results
from inter-rata reliability study Ministry of Justice Research Summary 1/09, p.103
National Offender Management Service/NOMS (2013) Stocktake of Women’s
Services for Offenders in the Community, London. pp.15, 23, 24
Nicholles, N. and Whitehead, S. (2012) Women’s Community Services: A Wise
Commission nef: New Economics Foundation. London. p3
NPC New Philanthropy Capital (2011) De La Casas, L. et al. Improving prisoners’
family ties: Piloting a shared measurement approach (April 11).
Orme, J. (1992) ‘Women and the Criminal Justice Act’, Probation Journal, 39(2).
pp.80, 81

Page | 47
Prison Reform Trust (2013) Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: Autumn 2013 London
Pryce, V. (2013). Prisonomics: Behind Bars in Britain’s failing prisons. BiteBack. 248
Radcliffe, P. Hunter, G. and Vass, R. (2013) The development and impact of
community services for women offenders: an evaluation. The Institute for Criminal
Policy Research, School of Law, Birkbeck College, London.
Robinson, G. and Crow, I.(2009) Offender Rehabilitation: Theory, Resesarch and
Practice SAGE. pp.97, 99
Saleebey, D. (1996) ‘the Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice: Extensions
and Cautions. Social Work, 41 (3) p 203.
Sapouna et al (2011) SAPOUNA, M. BISSET, C. CONLONG, A.M. (2011) What
Works to Reduce Reoffending: A Summary of the Evidence. (2011). Justice
Analytical Services - Scottish Government pp.12;22
Severson, M., Berry, M. and Postmus, J.L. (2007) ‘Risks and needs: factors that
predict women’s incarceration and inform service planning’ in ‘What Works with
Women Offenders’ eds. Sheehan, R., McIvor, G. and Trotter, C. Routledge. p61
Sheehan, R., McIvor, G. and Trotter, C. (2009) ‘What does work for women
offenders?’ in What Works with Women Offenders Routledge p.300
Smith, R., Grimshaw, R., Romeo, R. and Knapp, M. (2006) Poverty and
Disadvantage among Prisoners’ Families, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Together Women Project (2014) Empowering Women to Promote Real Change,
[online] [accessed 20th April, 2014] www.togetherwomen.org
Van Wormer, K. (2001) Counselling female offenders and victims: A strengths-
restorative approach Springer. pp.72, 74
Voices for the Library (2014) Grayling Ban Books in Prison [online] [accessed 25th
April] http://www.voicesforthelibrary.org.uk/2014/03/grayling-ban-on-books-in-prison/
Ward, T. and Brown, M. (2004) ‘The Good Lives Model and Conceptual Issues in
Offender Rehabilitation’ Journal of Psychology, Crime and Law Vol 10 (3) Routledge
pp.243-257

Page | 48
Wilks-Wiffen, S. (2011) ‘Voice of a Child’, London: Howard League for Penal Reform
Williams, K., Papadopoulou, V. and Booth, N. (2012) Prisoners’ childhood and family
backgrounds: Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR)
longitudinal cohort study of prisoners Ministry of Justice Research Series 4/12.
London: Crown
Wilson, M. K., and Anderson, S. (1997) ‘Empowering Female Offenders: Removing
Barriers to Community-Based Practice’ Affilia. Vol 12(3) pp. 348, 349, 355, 357
Winslow, R. (2014) Crime and Society: A comparative criminology tour of the world
(Europe: Denmark) [Online] [accessed 17th April, 2014] www-
rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/denmark.html
Women in Prison (2014) Women’s Prisons [Online] [accessed 3rd March, 2014]
www.womeninprison.org.uk/womensprisons.php
Worrall, A. and Gelsthorpe, L. (2009) ‘What works’ with women offenders: The past
30 years’ Probation Journal: The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice 2009.
Vol 56(4) pp329-345
Zaplin, R. T. (1998) Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective
Interventions. Aspen. p.307
[Word Count: 10,124]

Dissertation DUMBLEDORE FINISHED PRINT

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (7)

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Dissertation DUMBLEDORE FINISHED PRINT

Similaire à Dissertation DUMBLEDORE FINISHED PRINT (20)

Dissertation DUMBLEDORE FINISHED PRINT