1 / 21

Diverting Women Offenders from Prison

Diverting Women Offenders from Prison. Nena Messina, PhD, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs Nancy Chand Esq., Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office Association of Criminal Justice Research October 22, 2010. Changing AOD Treatment Populations and Policies.

taariq
Télécharger la présentation

Diverting Women Offenders from Prison

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diverting Women Offenders from Prison Nena Messina, PhD, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs Nancy Chand Esq., Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office Association of Criminal Justice Research October 22, 2010

  2. 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

  3. Women Pose Complex Issues for Treatment Practitioners Compared with men, women: • Have patterns of drug abuse that are more socially embedded – revolving around their relationships • Drug use is often initiated by sexual partners • Continue to use drugs to cope with abusive relationships • Have more severe histories of sexual/physical abuse • Have a higher prevalence of psychological and physical health problems • Have limited education/employment histories • Are typically primary caregivers for minor children Messina, Burdon, & Prendergast (2003).

  4. 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).

  5. The Relational Model: Guide for Treatment 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Treatment Retention in Residential Programs by Program Characteristics Source: Brady & Ashley, 2005, SAMHSA Office of Applied Studies. Slide provided by Christine Grella, Ph.D.

  8. Randomized Study of Women in G-R Prison Treatment Decreased Reincarceration (p<.05) Source: Messina, Grella, Cartier & Torres, 2010

  9. The 2nd Chance Women’s Re-Entry Court Program Drug Court Model Women are on parole Charged with new felony No option but prison

  10. A Unique Collaborative Effort Prototypes Centers for Change CA Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation CA Endowment Los Angeles County Government & Community Agencies UCLA ISAP

  11. Treatment Curriculum Gender Responsive Helping Women Recover Trauma Informed Seeking Safety Two minor children allowed Children receive specialized treatment

  12. Current Evaluation Process 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 status Sanctions, court records, and incarceration Controlling for participant demographics

  13. CA Endowment Funded Evaluation Matched 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)

  14. 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%)

  15. Criminal History and Current Sentence RangeMean (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)

  16. 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

  17. 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%

  18. Time in Treatment N Range Mean (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)

  19. Predictors of Program Success Characteristic 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)

  20. 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

  21. This study is funded by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation& The California EndowmentThank you!

More Related