Photo by Denis Oliveira on Unsplash
Simran Adhikari and David L. Myers
Over the years, the number of incarcerated women has grown faster than that of men. This rise has brought several collateral consequences, including family separation, mental illness, disrupted employment and education, and barriers to work due to a criminal record. Incarcerated women are more likely than incarcerated men to experience depression, anxiety disorders, and eating disorders, and they are more likely to take prescribed medication for mental health conditions. The employment impacts of incarceration tend to be more severe for women, as men are generally more likely to secure full-time work after release. Women involved in the criminal justice system often come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and incarceration further disrupts family life. More than half of incarcerated women have at least one child under the age of 18, and most children lived with their mothers before incarceration. As a result, millions of children are affected by maternal incarceration and correctional supervision.
The criminal justice system, historically designed around male offenders, makes applying the same rules and programs to women difficult. Women offenders continue to be managed by policies and interventions originally developed for men, with the assumption that these approaches will work equally well. However, relying on male-centered programs often fails to produce effective outcomes for women.
Whether gender plays a role in criminal justice processing remains a debated question, but many argue that if gender had no influence, the number of incarcerated women would be equal to that of men. Questions about the importance of gender-responsive programs have existed since the beginning of the criminal justice system. Historically, correctional and community programs were developed for men, yet women have different criminogenic risks and behavioral health needs that must be addressed. Some believe that because women commit crimes similar to men, they should be treated the same in prison. In reality, women are often involved in different types of offenses and face distinct circumstances, making identical treatment ineffective. Additionally, the assumption that fewer women are incarcerated has contributed to the limited availability of programs designed specifically for them.
This paper reviews and discusses gender-responsive, evidence-based approaches tailored to women’s pathways into crime and their reintegration into society. It also examines long-standing assumptions about women inmates, including the belief that they should be treated the same as men both during incarceration and in post-release programming. Finally, it evaluates existing evidence-based programs and policies designed for women inmates.
Statement of the Problem
The growing presence of women in the criminal justice system has revealed patterns and needs that differ markedly from those of men. Approximately 7% of individuals held in state and federal prisons are women. However, even as the population of incarcerated women has increased sharply in recent years, most correctional programs and policies available to them remain based on models developed for male inmates (Vigesaa et al., 2016). Although the overall U.S. jail population has begun to decline, women’s incarceration has followed a different and more concerning trajectory. Between 1996 and 2011, the number of women in local jails increased by about 45%, rising from 51,300 to 93,300, even as the overall jail population fell by 6.4% between 2009 and 2011. During this period, the proportion of women in jail grew from 12.2% to 12.7%, while men’s share decreased from 87.8% to 87.3%, indicating that women were entering jail at a faster rate than men (Minton, 2012).
More recent data show that, although the total jail population dropped sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 734,500 in 2019 to 549,100 in 2020, women still accounted for about 12.7% of all people in local jails, with an incarceration rate of 42 per 100,000 female U.S. residents compared to 295 per 100,000 for men. Taken together, these trends suggest that, even when overall jail numbers decline, the persistent presence and distinct trajectories of women in jail warrant greater attention to gender-responsive policies, services, and rehabilitation programs (Minton, 2020). Recent data have found the number of women in state and federal prisons increased by nearly 4%, rising from 87,800 at year-end 2022 to 91,100 at year-end 2023 (Mueller, 2023).
Gender-responsive rehabilitation programs designed to meet the unique needs of women have been shown to lower recidivism rates for both women and men in prison settings. In jails, where population turnover is extremely high, nearly 13 million admissions were recorded between 2008 and 2009, and an estimated 73% of inmates cycled back into the system. This makes the need for effective interventions especially important. Gender disparities in recidivism patterns are also evident in older Bureau of Justice Statistics data, which show that men are more likely to return for violent offenses, while women are more likely to return for non-violent ones (Spjeldnes et al., 2014). These differences underscore the importance of gender-informed measures in prisons, where inmates face distinct challenges and are highly likely to reenter the criminal justice system.
For more than four decades, scholars have emphasized that women offenders have been largely overlooked in criminal justice research and policy. As early as the 1971 National Conference on Corrections, Dr. Edith Flynn warned that major national reports did not include a single statistic on female offenders, and that theories of crime based on male populations were being inaccurately applied to women. For many years, risk assessments, treatment programs, and classification systems were developed primarily using male samples, resulting in misclassification and inadequate services for women. History demonstrates the continued need for evidence-based, gender-responsive approaches that recognize and address the unique needs of women involved in the justice system (Voorhis, 2012).
Gender-Responsive Needs
Research on women who offend has expanded significantly in recent years. A major approach in this work is the “pathways” perspective, which examines whether women become involved in crime and return to crime for reasons that differ from men. This perspective is strongly informed by research from fields that study women in greater depth, such as psychology, addiction studies, and social welfare (Salisbury & Voorhis, 2009).
Studies have found that within nine years of release from prison, 77% of the women were re-arrested (Alper, 2018). Women’s release from the prison experience differs significantly from that of men, and studies have shown that both tangible support and emotional support are important for the successful reintegration of an individual (Tripodi et al., 2025). Gender-responsive programs and policies are crucial for women’s successful reintegration into society.
Criminology and criminal justice have historically focused on men as both offenders and victims. As a result, most theories explaining why people commit crimes and most approaches to punishment or rehabilitation, were based on men’s experiences, leaving women’s experiences largely overlooked. However, the number of women in the criminal justice system has been rising much faster than the number of men, both in prisons and on probation, demonstrating that their needs can no longer be ignored (Taxman & Cropsey, 2006).
Women offenders differ from male offenders in several ways that shape their path into the crime. They are less involved in violent offenses, and they are more often incarcerated for property crimes or drug offenses (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999). Women also tend to have a lower socioeconomic status than male offenders, which further influences their involvement in the criminal justice system (Taxman & Cropsey, 2006).
In recent decades, correctional systems have increasingly shifted toward evidence-based practices, a shift supported by federal initiatives like the Second Chance Act of 2008, which funded recidivism-reduction efforts. This reform movement, combined with the influence of feminist criminology, led women’s prisons to adopt gender-responsive programs that address women’s unique pathways to incarceration, including trauma histories, relational needs, and family responsibilities (Gorga, 2025). Women offenders are often low-income, undereducated, and unskilled, with unstable work histories, and they are disproportionately women of color. Compared to men, they are less likely to be involved in violent offenses and more likely to be convicted of drug- or property-related crimes. Many of these property offenses are economically driven and linked to poverty or substance use (Bloom et al., 2004).
In practice, gender-responsive programs and policies recognize that women’s involvement in crime is often influenced by trauma, victimization, caregiving responsibilities, mental health challenges, and broader social inequalities. Women who have experienced trauma show greater improvements, including reduced depression and decreased substance use, when participating in gender-responsive programs. This highlights why gendered risk assessments are essential for effective treatment (Gorga, 2025). Studies demonstrate that gender-informed or responsive programs are important to reduce recidivism among women. Evidence also shows that women are less likely to disengage from gender-neutral programs when these interventions are adapted to be more gender-informed and relational. Similarly, gender-responsive juvenile programs consistently show lower recidivism rates, particularly when they address multiple risk areas such as trauma, substance use, relationship skills, and life-skills development (Davidson et al., 2011).
Like men, women returning to their communities after incarceration must follow supervision rules, find stable income, access health care, secure housing, and reconnect with their families. However, these responsibilities can be more difficult for women because most are mothers. Many incarcerated mothers plan to care for their children after release, but they often receive little or no support from the fathers. Families who cared for their children while they were in prison may expect them to take full responsibility once they return immediately. Reuniting with children is particularly important to these women, but it can be challenging, especially when children are in foster care or state custody, requiring mothers to demonstrate that they can provide safe and stable care. Additionally, many women lose contact with their families during incarceration, making reentry even more difficult (Bloom et al., 2005).
Despite numerous calls for gender-responsive approaches, it is still unclear how to implement them effectively. In community settings, men and women are often placed together in group programs, and most interventions for women are only slightly adapted versions of programs originally designed for men. The field has not yet reached agreement on women’s specific needs or on whether programs focused on personal change are appropriate, especially given concerns about placing too much responsibility on women for problems rooted in larger social and structural inequalities (Porporino & Fabiano, 2005). Although research demonstrates that women have unique pathways into crime and distinct criminogenic needs, many practitioners still view gender-responsive strategies as “boutique” or low-value approaches. At the same time, correctional leaders sometimes struggle to recognize that gender-responsive programming, assessment, and supervision are not additional or optional but rather essential components of true evidence-based practice. These strategies are grounded in research showing that women have different risks, needs, and pathways than men (Salisbury, 2015).
Evidence-Based Programs
Many studies conclude that gender-specific programs are essential because women offenders differ from male offenders in several key areas, including offense type, socioeconomic status, substance use disorders, mental health challenges, histories of abuse, and their role as primary caregivers. Understanding these differences is crucial for improving the effectiveness of evidence-based programs and policies (Taxman & Cropsey, 2006). The primary goals of gender-responsive evidence-based practices are to reduce the number of women and girls involved in the criminal and juvenile legal systems and to improve their overall health and well-being (Salisbury & Crawford, 2025). The belief that incarcerated women require gender-specific programs and interventions is grounded in the pathways literature (Kruttschnitt et al., 2019).
Evidence-based practice began in medicine in the early 1990s and gradually spread to psychology and corrections, where meta-analyses became the foundation for identifying programs that reduce recidivism. However, these influential studies were overwhelmingly based on male samples, leaving women largely invisible in the research used to shape correctional policy. As a result, programs labeled ‘evidence-based’ were applied to women without adequate evidence of their effectiveness for female populations (Voorhis, 2012).
In the early 2000s, efforts such as the NIC’s Gender-Responsive Strategies review began addressing this gap by highlighting women’s higher rates of trauma, mental health challenges, and parenting stress, and by recommending wraparound, culturally sensitive interventions (Bloom et al., 2003). Although progress has been slow, current research is gradually building a clearer evidence base for gender-responsive programs that better reflect women’s distinct pathways, needs, and risks. Recent efforts to develop evidence-based, gender-responsive programs have begun to clarify ‘What Works’ for women offenders.
Emerging research shows that parental stress is a significant predictor of women’s recidivism, particularly for those in community settings who lack financial and emotional support and struggle with childcare responsibilities (Van Voorhis et al., 2010). Reentry programs have traditionally been designed around men’s needs because men have always made up the majority of the prison population. But as women’s involvement in the criminal justice system has increased since the 1980s, researchers and practitioners have begun to examine women’s specific needs and develop gender-responsive programs that support their successful return to the community (van Wormer, 2014).
Over the past few decades, correctional systems have started using evidence-based practices. This has made the field more professional and improved how programs are designed and delivered. These practices also help correctional leaders create policies that focus on the specific risks and needs of both male and female inmates. Research shows that evidence-based approaches work well for both men and women (BUELL, 2014).
A growing body of research is expanding to understand “what works” well for women inmates for rehabilitating and reintegrating into society, leading towards the development of the programs and policies that are both evidence-based and gender responsive. These initiatives are developed around the studies that have developed the fact that women’s pathways in crime often include trauma, substance use, unstable relationships, poverty, and caregiving. As a result, effective programs and policies are being developed and are grounded in studies.
Studies have evaluated whether gender-responsive treatment (GRT) for incarcerated women leads to better post-release outcomes than the standard therapeutic community (TC) model commonly used in prisons. The study found that women in the GRT program showed greater reductions in drug use, longer retention in residential aftercare after release, and significantly lower reincarceration rates within 12 months, and indicated a 67% reduction in the odds of returning to prison for GRT participants (Messina et al., 2010). Studies also highlight that trauma-informed interventions consistently showed reductions in PTSD symptoms, improvements in depression and anxiety, and, in some cases, greater decreases in drug use than in standard treatment-as-usual. Programs like Seeking Safety demonstrated meaningful symptom improvements even in women with long trauma histories and co-occurring substance use disorders. Helping Women Recover/Beyond Trauma showed positive effects on trauma symptoms and post-release outcomes (King, 2017).
The Moving On program is a gender-responsive, cognitive-behavioral program designed specifically for women probationers. Moving On is built on Relational Theory, Motivational Interviewing, and Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention, and focuses on empowerment, emotional regulation, problem-solving, and supportive networks. Studies have found that program completers had significantly lower rearrest and conviction rates and are less likely to be incarcerated than the comparison group, indicating meaningful treatment effects (Gehring & Bell, 2010).
One major contribution in the field of women involved in criminal justice due to addiction and trauma has been the development of the gender responsive, trauma-informed program model. Programs such as the Helping Women Recover Program/ Beyond Trauma, discovered by Stephanie Covington, is a new model for women’s treatment. It integrates three key frameworks: the theory of addiction, the theory of women’s psychological development, and the theory of trauma. The program is designed for use in both community-based treatment settings and criminal justice programs for women (S. S. Covington, 2000).
Women are often deeply focused on relationships and connection. Many begin using substances to feel connected, energized, or loved, or to change themselves in ways that please a partner and maintain the relationship. They also use alcohol and drugs to numb the pain of unequal, uncaring, or violent relationships. Substances can temporarily provide what real relationships do not: comfort, power, or relief from confusion. When male partners fail to provide emotional or financial support and are frequently jailed, some women cope with this disappointment through drug use (S. Covington, 2007).
In addition to gender-responsive and evidence-based programs, gender-responsive alternatives to incarceration have also emerged. One example is the ‘The Other Side Academy in Utah’ program. The Other Side Academy (TOSA) is a nonprofit residential program that helps people who have histories of crime, homelessness, and substance use. The participants receive job training, education, mentoring, leadership development, and support for reentering the community.
The Academy follows a therapeutic community model, which has been employed for over 70 years and is supported by robust research. Instead of relying on doctors or therapists, the program uses the guidance of experienced peers, people who have lived through the same struggles and have successfully rebuilt their lives. Staff members are not traditional professionals; they are graduates who once had the same challenges and have proven they can change. In this community, people learn by living, working, and holding each other accountable, creating a supportive environment in which long-term change can happen. This approach reflects Social Learning Theory, which explains that people learn behaviors by observing and imitating others, especially when those behaviors are rewarded (The Other Side Academy, n.d.).
In addition to the TOSA program, studies have been conducted to explore how formerly incarcerated women in Utah experienced The Other Side. Using narrative inquiry and reflective journaling, the study examines how gender, trauma, poverty, and structural inequalities shape women’s pathways into the criminal legal system. Two key themes emerged: “Doing Time,” which describes how incarceration failed to provide rehabilitation and instead deepened harm, and “Dead at the Door,” which captures the women’s sense of hopelessness before entering TOSA and their eventual transformation through community-based support. The study demonstrates that such restorative, community-based models can produce meaningful behavioral change, offering a humane and effective alternative to punitive incarceration for women (Cook, 2024).
In addition to efforts to reduce the mass incarceration of women and expand alternatives to imprisonment, Alternative to Incarceration Programs have begun to emerge. One example is the Justice Home program, which advocates for women and gender-expansive individuals to remain at home with their loved ones rather than being sent to jail or prison. Justice Home focuses on prevention rather than punishment by offering participants stability and support. Clients receive wraparound case management and referrals to community-based services. The program also advocates for participants in court, helping reduce charges from felonies to misdemeanors and, in some cases, securing full dismissals. Through letters and court accompaniment, it promotes evidence-based practices that address clients’ immediate needs and long-term goals (“Alternatives to Incarceration,” n.d.).
Similarly, gender responsive reentry programs are essential for supporting women as they transition back into society following their release and helping women improve their lives. Although all formerly incarcerated individuals face significant challenges when reentering society, women encounter obstacles that differ in both nature and intensity from those experienced by men. Upon release, many women struggle with low self-esteem and self-efficacy, unresolved trauma from sexual abuse, difficulties regaining custody of their children, and limited access to mental health and substance use treatment that addresses their specific needs (Miller et al., 2016) (Michalsen, 2019).
One example of a gender-responsive initiative is The IF Project’s Seattle Women’s Reentry Initiative. The IF Project, established in 2008 through a partnership between the Seattle Police Department (SPD), the Washington Department of Corrections (WA DOC), and several local agencies and nonprofits, works to support women, men, and youth in prisons, youth detention centers, and the community as they prepare for and navigate reentry. Within this initiative, the Supporting Women’s Reentry (SWR) program provides individualized case management and resource support to women returning to King County after incarceration. Its goal is to ensure continuity of care and help women access the services necessary for a stable transition. SWR programming is grounded in the core principles of the IF Project, emphasizing self-reflection, skill-building, and personal accountability. Central to this approach is the guiding question: If there is something you can do to improve your chances of success in the reentry process, what will it be? The studies have found that SWR participants had significantly fewer arrests and violations than comparison groups, and overall recidivism was far lower than the Washington State average for women (Helfgott & Gunnison, 2023).
Alongside reentry programming, efforts have expanded to improve gender-responsive assessment and treatment of women’s risk factors and needs. The Women’s Risk Need Assessment (WRNA) is one of the first gender-responsive risk assessment tools. It is an evidence-based, gender-responsive needs and risk assessment instrument validated for use with women in correctional facilities, at pre-release, and during community supervision. Unlike traditional assessments that rely mostly on gender-neutral factors, the WRNA includes key gender-specific needs and strengths such as histories of physical and sexual abuse, unhealthy or coercive intimate relationships, symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD, levels of self-efficacy, parental stress and involvement, and housing safety. By incorporating these domains, the WRNA helps justice professionals identify the unique risks and strengths that shape women’s pathways through the system and tailor case management accordingly. The tool has been adopted in more than 100 jurisdictions across the United States and in several other countries (Salisbury & Crawford, 2025).
Studies have also found the Life Skills Program for women to be promising. Evaluations of the program in Michigan show that participating women improved in several coping dimensions, increased their confidence in planning nutritious family meals, and addressed employment and financial matters more effectively. Women also perceived the program as helpful (Schram & Morash, 2002).
These are some of the evidence-based programs and tools being used for women inmates, with the focus of reducing the recidivism rate among women, supporting reintegration into society and improving their lives after incarceration. By focusing on gender responsive, evidence-based programs, the criminal justice system is moving towards helping women offenders and addressing their needs, rather than placing them in interventions that do not benefit them. This shift improves in reducing the incarceration rates among women, helps them reintegrate into society, and as well as promotes public safety.
Conclusion
The growing number of incarcerated women in the United States emphasizes the urgency of developing evidence-based, gender-responsive programs, practices, and policies that reflect women’s distinct pathways to crime, abusive histories, trauma, and substance use issues. Similarly, women face many challenges after release from incarceration, so developing evidence-based, gender-responsive reentry and rehabilitation programs and policies is also important for women offenders’ reintegration into society. For decades, the criminal justice system focused on managing and reducing male inmates, and programs and policies were designed for men, which resulted in women inmates being overlooked. Now, since studies have shown that women’s pathways to crime are different from men’s and that their needs and struggles are different, it is important to have gender-responsive treatment for women inmates to manage and reduce the incarceration rate of women.
Evidence reviewed in this paper demonstrates that gender-responsive programs and policies are effective for women inmates because they are trauma-informed, relational, psychological, and aligned with women’s needs. Studies have shown that these characteristics are essential for programs serving women inmates. When programs and policies acknowledge women’s unique experiences and struggles, they help reduce recidivism rates, improve mental and behavioral health, and support reintegration into society. As the rate of women’s incarceration continues to rise, the need for comprehensive, evidence-based, gender-responsive programs, policies, and practices tailored for women inmates is crucial.
References
Alper, M. (2018). 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-year Follow-up Period (2005-2014).
Alternatives to Incarceration. (n.d.). Women’s Prison Association. Retrieved December 7, 2025, from https://www.wpaonline.org/alternatives-to-incarceration/
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-Responsive Strategies Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2004). Women Offenders and the Gendered Effects of Public Policy1. Review of Policy Research, 21, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00056.x
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2005). Gender-Responsive Strategies Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders.
BUELL, M. (2014). NIC Services in Managing Justice-Involved Women. American Jails, 27(6), 51–54. (93723411).
Cook, A. (2024). Through the looking glass: Perspectives on an alternative to incarceration by Utah women. Contemporary Justice Review, 27(2/3), 202–217. (181628297). https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2024.2400926
Covington, S. (2007). Working with Substance Abusing Mothers: A Trauma-Informed, Gender-Responsive Approach. A Publication of the National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center Berkeley, CA, 16.
Covington, S. S. (2000). Helping Women Recover: A Comprehensive Integrated Treatment Model. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 18(3), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1300/J020v18n03_09
Davidson, J. T., Pasko, L., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2011). “She’s Way Too Good to Lose”: An Evaluation of Honolulu’s Girls Court. Women & Criminal Justice, 21(4), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2011.609406
Gehring, K., & Bell, V. (2010). “What Works” for Female Probationers? An Evaluation of the Moving On Program. Women, Girls, and Criminal Justice, 11.
Gorga, A. (2025). “They’re Meant for Men”: The Gendered Meaning of “Evidence-Based Practices” in Prison. Women & Criminal Justice, 35(4), 303–320. (186911633). https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2024.2305349
Greenfeld, L. A., & Snell, T. L. (1999). Women offenders. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice ….
Helfgott, J. B., & Gunnison, E. (2023). Gender-Responsive Services for Women Leaving Prison: The IF Project’s Seattle Women’s Reentry Initiative. Corrections (2377-4657), 8(4), 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2020.1852136
King, E. A. (2017). Outcomes of Trauma-Informed Interventions for Incarcerated Women. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 61(6), 667–688. (122311728). https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15603082
Kruttschnitt, C., Joosen, K., & Bijleveld, C. (2019). Research note: Re-examining the gender responsive approach to female offending and its basis in the pathways literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(6), 485–499. (137379530). https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1621415
Messina, N., Grella, C. E., Cartier, J., & Torres, S. (2010). A randomized experimental study of gender-responsive substance abuse treatment for women in prison. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.09.004
Michalsen, V. (2019). Mothering and Desistance in Re-Entry. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624143
Miller, H. V., Miller, J. M., & Barnes, J. C. (2016). Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.04.001
Minton, T. D. (2012). Jail Inmates at Midyear 2012-Statistical Tables. Statistical Tables.
Minton, T. D. (2020). Jail Inmates in 2020 – Statistical Tables. Statistical Tables.
Mueller, D. (2023). Prisoners in 2023 – Statistical Tables. Statistical Tables.
Porporino, F. J., & Fabiano, E. (2005). Is There an Evidence Base Supportive of Women-Centered Programming in Corrections? Corrections Today, 67(6), 26–101. (18460700).
Salisbury, E. J. (2015). Program Integrity and the Principles of Gender-Responsive Interventions. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 329–338. (109076982). https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12131
Salisbury, E. J., & Crawford, A. (2025). Gender-responsive treatment to improve outcomes for women and girls in correctional settings: Foundations, limitations and innovations. Health & Justice, 13, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-025-00316-w
Salisbury, E. J., & Voorhis, P. V. (2009). Gendered Pathways: A Quantitative Investigation of Women Probationers’ Paths to Incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809334076
Schram, P. J., & Morash, M. (2002). Evaluation of a Life Skills Program for Women Inmates in Michigan. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(4), 47. (27707099). https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v34n04_03
Spjeldnes, S., Jung, H., & Yamatani, H. (2014). Gender Differences in Jail Populations: Factors to Consider in Reentry Strategies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 75–94. (94723401). https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.868387
Taxman, F. S., & Cropsey, K. L. (2006). Women and the Criminal Justice System: Improving Outcomes Through Criminal Justice and Non-Criminal Justice Responses. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(2/3), 5–26. (25757458). https://doi.org/10.1300/j012v17n02_02
The Other Side Academy. (n.d.). The Other Side Academy. Retrieved December 7, 2025, from https://www.theothersideacademy.com
Tripodi, S. J., Kennedy, S. C., Miller, F., Renn, T., Veeh, C., Pettus, C., & Schelbe, L. (2025). “I Feel like I Have ‘Prison’ Tattooed on my Forehead”: Women’s Trajectories after Release from Incarceration. Women & Criminal Justice, 35(4), 284–302. (186911632). https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2023.2297019
Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs Assessment: The Current Status of a Gender-Responsive Supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442
Van Wormer, K., & Bartollas, C. (2014). Women and the Criminal Justice System. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Vigesaa, L. E., Bergseth, K. J., & Richardson Jens, K. (2016). Who participates in reentry programming? An examination of women offenders in a midwestern state. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(5), 308–328. (115995190). https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1181131
Voorhis, P. V. (2012). On Behalf of Women Offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(2), 111–145. (74690557). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00793.x