Why Correctional Service Providers and Researchers Should Focus on Intersectionality and Recommendations to Get Started

Abstract

Across disciplines, there has been increased attention to understanding and addressing compounded oppression and marginalization associated with intersecting identities. We argue that involvement with the criminal justice system can, in itself, represent an identity (self-ascribed or not) that interplays with other demographic and systemic variables, making it more difficult for these clients to disconnect from the system. We offer our perspective on integrating conversations and tools focused on intersectionality into assessment and interventions that address criminogenic risks, recommendations for adopting a mixed-methods approach to researching intersectionality in correctional settings that better accounts for individual variability, as well as suggestions for advocacy, policy reform, and graduate-level training. With its emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism, health service psychology and related professions are uniquely poised to help correctional agencies move in a more inclusive direction that will likely improve client well-being and prosocial reengagement as well as reduce continued systemic oppression.

Keywords

intersectionality justice-involved diversity correctional psychology

“Intersectionality” has become a popularized term in social justice advocacy that describes multilayered experiences of discrimination that result when an individual’s collective identity is comprised of two or more (typically nonmajority) characteristics or identity categories. Intersectionality theory considers the complex and multiplicative ways in which discriminatory stereotypes can impede the fair and just treatment of an individual or group (Hester et al., 2020). These multiple biological, social, and/or cultural identities can combine in unique ways to increase the potency of marginalization (see Crenshaw, 1989).

There are perhaps few other groups that exemplify the existence of intersectionality more than those who are involved in the criminal justice system¹; yet, these individuals are less often at the center of discussions on marginalization and oppression in clinical work. When they are, the focus tends to be predominantly on issues of race or ethnicity while ignoring other relevant sociocultural and labeling barriers. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system are inarguably important. As a glaring example, an estimated one in three Black men will be incarcerated at some point in their lifetime compared with only one in 17 White men (see American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.), and Black people tend to receive harsher sentences than their White counterparts (Franklin, 2018). We have also seen racism become center stage once again with the unjust police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Adam Toledo, among many other people of color. Race and ethnicity, however, are pieces of a much larger puzzle. For example, justice-involved persons are also poorer (Rabuy & Kopf, 2015), less educated (Western et al., 2003), and have a higher prevalence of mental illness (Prins, 2014) than the general population despite research consistently showing mental illness is not a primary predictor of crime or violence (Bolaños et al., 2020; Bonta et al., 1998). Regarding gender, some scholarship suggests reentry for justice-involved women is particularly difficult due to intersectional vulnerabilities, including economic disadvantage, racism, and sexism (Wesley & Dewey, 2018). Thus, understanding the impacts of intersectionality among justice-involved populations requires consideration of a multitude of characteristics and circumstances.

Still, for many people who are justice-involved, the most damaging part of their identity composition is having a criminal record. Being an “ex-con” is associated with immense challenges and discriminatory practices, including problems securing employment and being denied a voice in choosing elected officials. Using employment outcomes as an example, many returning residents remain jobless within the first year of their release. A 2011 study reported a 35% unemployment rate for people who had been released from prison 8 months (Visher et al., 2011); the average national unemployment rate for that same year was only 8.9% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). Consider how the inherent consequences of a criminal identity or label² could be multiplied for a woman of color, a person from diverse sexual or gender communities, a veteran, someone with psychiatric risks, or myriad other identities and combinations thereof that are likely to engender faulty assumptions and stereotypical judgments.

It is important to acknowledge that individuals who become seriously involved in the criminal justice system typically do so for a reason and should be held accountable for their behavioral choices—choices that have, in many cases, violated the rights or well-being of others, sometimes causing serious bodily injury and death. But, if we want to ensure a higher rate of success among returning residents and prevent continued contacts with the system, we must work to understand and reduce compounded experiences of disadvantage and discrimination among this group in our practice and research. “Victim” and “offender” are themselves intersecting for many justice-involved people (Creek & Dunn, 2014). What the general public often fails to consider is that 90% to 95% of incarcerated individuals will return to their communities (Kaeble et al., 2016). Furthermore, estimates suggest that roughly 45% of new clients seeking mental health services have at least one contact with the criminal justice system (Theriot & Segal, 2005). Thus, it is time to start focusing on this highly diverse, highly marginalized, high cost (Ash, 2019), and yet frequently disregarded population. While we acknowledge systemic inequities and oppressions make it more likely certain groups, primarily Black and Brown people, will become justice-involved in the first place, this article focuses on the actions our field can take after contact with the criminal justice system has already been made.

As a discipline, however, we must be careful not to engage in what has been dubbed “hollow intersectionality rhetoric” (Masri, 2019), whereby public pleas to consider intersectionality are made without much supporting action. Rhetorical gestures that are not followed by an unequivocal and genuine commitment to changing practices and policies are empty and irresponsible. As Masri (2019) explains, hollow intersectionality is like sticking a Black Lives Matter sign in a front lawn within a gentrified neighborhood that effectively pushed out residents of color. While others have spoken to issues of intersectionality in the administration of justice (e.g., arrest, sentencing; see Paik, 2017; Steffensmeier et al., 2017) or specific groups of people with offense histories (e.g., Wesley & Dewey, 2018), there are few published commentaries on how best to address intersectionality in the criminal justice system from a mental or behavioral health perspective. Most notably, Varghese et al. (2019) provided a thorough overview of the long-standing injustices against marginalized groups across the spectrum of justice system contacts and grounded their recommendations for eradicating inequities in counseling psychology principles. Our purpose here is to provide consolidated guidance for service providers, researchers, and trainees in correctional settings that recognizes inherent challenges within the system and the need to balance intersectionality theory with existing best practices for justice-involved clients. We hope to empower service-oriented professionals to take manageable steps toward achieving justice and equity in their work. The remaining sections focus on incorporating an intersectionality lens within clinical assessment and treatment, research, public policy, and training.

Intersectionality in Clinical Practice

Integration Into the “Gold Standard” Service Model

The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model is arguably the most prominent and researched conceptualization and treatment of justice-involved clients (see Bonta & Andrews, 2017). The RNR framework posits that correctional treatment is most effective when it (a) uses the client’s risk of recidivism (i.e., criminogenic risks) to determine the intensity (or dose) of treatment, (b) addresses dynamic risks (i.e., criminogenic needs that can be changed through treatment), and (c) considers individual factors that, while not highly predictive of criminal activity alone, may impede a client’s ability to understand, integrate, or access treatment content (e.g., treatment readiness, learning disability, mental illness). Respectively, these components translate to the risk, needs, and responsivity principles. Integrating intersectionality theory into the RNR model, then, requires an examination of the ways in which intersectionality experiences and consequences may be relevant to these principles.

In Assessing Offense Risk and Needs

One of the first points of contact where service providers can explore experiences of intersectionality with justice-involved clients is during an assessment of their risk level and needs. Empirically supported criminogenic needs include altering antisocial cognitions and attitudes, building prosocial relationships, work or educational attainment, substance misuse, and reducing unstructured leisure time (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Measures of mental health functioning are also routinely used to guide treatment and/or placement decisions. Clinicians should familiarize themselves with what diversity factors do and do not predict recidivism. Research on offense risk prediction, for example, tends to find that race and ethnicity alone are not predictive of crime or reoffense (Piquero & Brame, 2008). Despite this, other factors may serve as a proxy, leading to potential bias (Vincent & Viljoen, 2020). For example, Black men may be more likely to endorse items on risk tools (e.g., Level of Service/Case Management Inventory; Andrews et al., 2004) related to unemployment or limited educational opportunities than White men or Black women. Intersectionality could be considered by incorporating open-ended questions into risk assessment protocols to explore the impact of marginalization and oppression on each identified risk factor; for example, “Tell me what it was like for you as a trans woman dealing with mental health issues while living on the streets?” “Have you ever felt disadvantaged in obtaining a job as a Black man with a criminal record?” or “In what ways has systemic oppression made it difficult for you to stay out of the legal system?” Although the answers to these questions may not fundamentally change recommendations for treatment intensity or the need to focus on specific criminogenic risks, they are likely to inform how interventions are tailored (i.e., the responsivity principle). When communicating about risk to colleagues or in written documentation, evaluators should detail ways in which intersectionality or diversity factors may have over- or underestimated a client’s risk level.

Validated measures of trauma (including racial trauma), adverse childhood experiences, identity development, and experiences of marginalization may also be helpful for understanding system impacts on individual clients. Examples include the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure (GMSR; Testa et al., 2015), Ableist Microaggressions Scale (AMS; Conover et al., 2017), the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS; Nadal, 2011), the Trauma Symptoms of Discrimination Scale (TSDS; Williams et al., 2018), or the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013; PCL-5; Blevins et al., 2015). When standardized measures are used, we recommend incorporating elements of therapeutic assessment (e.g., reviewing testing data with clients in an empathic, nonjudgmental manner; Finn et al., 2012). Along with measures of reoffense risk, these additional tools can be used to foster client insight and a self-conceptualization that includes both intersectionality and criminogenic needs.

In Treatment Development and Delivery

In addition to assessment, we encourage considering the impacts a person’s multiplied identity composite has on treatment engagement and planning. For example, Latino/a clients, particularly men, are historically less likely to seek treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015). Reluctance to engage with services could be especially problematic in correctional settings where treatment may be court ordered or required in exchange for certain privileges (Shim et al., 2009). However, when developing treatment plans and buy-in strategies with clients, practitioners should avoid drifting away from criminogenic needs in favor of noncriminogenic targets of therapy. Best practices for justice-involved persons suggest that cognitive-behavioral and social skills programs centered on criminogenic needs are most efficacious for reducing reoffense rates regardless of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Caudy et al., 2013; Gannon et al., 2019; Mpofu et al., 2018). Focusing primarily on treatment targets unrelated to criminal reoffense, such as personal growth, self-esteem, or multicultural concerns in isolation of these targets, is a common oversight by correctional clinicians (Bewley & Morgan, 2011) and may produce costly, iatrogenic results (Romani et al., 2012). Even among justice-involved persons with mental illnesses, clinical researchers have advised following the RNR model while concurrently targeting psychiatric needs (e.g., symptom reduction, medication compliance; Bartholomew et al., 2018).

To better account for systemic oppression (inside and outside institutional walls) within RNR-informed treatments, we suggest integrating interventions such as Socratic questions about clients’ justice involvement, discussions about intersecting identities and the presence of justice involvement within those identities, cognitive or experiential exercises to encourage exploration of identity and existing in the world as a justice-involved person, or psychoeducation on the impact justice involvement can have on one’s identity formation. Importantly, client experiences can be shaped by level of custody and oversight (incarceration vs. community supervision; general prison population vs. restrictive housing, etc.), how long they have been justice-involved, and any number of personal (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, gender, risk level) or offense-related (e.g., type, severity) variables. Open dialogue and learning directly from clients can provide an opportunity for service providers to challenge preexisting notions about their justice-involved clients, thereby reducing the risk of further oppression. Furthermore, these discussions give justice-involved individuals an opportunity to share their personal experiences and learn about the unique experiences of their peers.

Specific Considerations for Manualized Treatment Protocols

Using RNR as a framework, much of the treatment delivered in in-custody settings (e.g., jail, prison) or on an outpatient basis (e.g., specialty courts, community supervision) is manualized (e.g., Changing Lives, Changing Outcomes [CLCO]; Morgan et al., 2018; Thinking for a Change [T4C]; Bush et al., 1997). Creating separate treatment protocols that uniquely address the needs of justice-involved gender or sexually diverse individuals or myriad other identity combinations would be ideal, but we argue it is an impractical use of program developers’ efforts. Based on personal experience, the process of constructing, testing, and encouraging the adoption of novel programs by correctional agencies can be costly and time-consuming. Furthermore, correctional administrators may be reluctant to focus on addressing systemic barriers and, as such, may be less inclined to approve these programs for widespread use. Therefore, to ensure prompter focus on intersectionality, we recommend adaptations to preexisting treatment programs be considered first. Doing so capitalizes on already-available programs with demonstrated outcomes for reducing criminogenic and mental health risks.

One strategy to address intersectionality within established programs is to publish theoretical articles that outline recommendations for adapting program materials, such as how intersectionality should be conceptualized within specific program modules and materials (e.g., de-identified case examples and dialogue). Publishers of original treatment protocols may offer complementary online access to supplemental or updated materials. For correctional treatment programs in development or not yet conceptualized, developers should consider building in worksheets and discussions that broach concepts of identity and intersectionality at the outset. Clinician’s manuals should also highlight the importance of moving issues of intersectionality closer to the forefront and offer guidance on how to talk about topics in a way that validates client experiences, addresses retraumatization, and preserves the primary targets of change within correctional interventions. Furthermore, developers and publishers are encouraged to invite experts on intersectionality or with differing cultural perspectives (ideally also with experience treating justice-involved clients) to co-author supplemental materials and new treatment protocols. Historically, there is a pervasive trend among majority individuals (who are often overrepresented in academia; Lee, 2012) to assume the experiences and subsequent needs of individuals who experience intersectionality. Using mixed-method approaches (e.g., semi-structured interviews, concept-mapping via focus groups; Green et al., 2015) to learn directly from justice-involved individuals may also provide insight for ensuring the relevance of content and improving responsivity to program implementation.

Finally, we note that while manualized, RNR-informed cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the standard for correctional treatment, some apparent cognitive distortions may not be appropriate for cognitive restructuring. For example, it may be invalidating and counterproductive to exert substantial clinical energy reversing a thought such as “all cops are racist,” given its basis in reality for many clients of color. Incorporating elements of third-wave CBT approaches into treatment manuals and materials, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes et al., 2012), may diffuse or distance the client from thoughts that, while true in their experience, are unhelpful for disconnecting from the criminal justice system.

Transcending Specific Approaches to Assessment and Intervention

Next, we offer several broadband recommendations that may enhance clinical work with justice-involved clients, regardless of what is being targeted or how it is being targeted.

Practicing and Promoting Person-Oriented Language

“Offender,” “sexual predator,” “inmate,” and similar terminology continue to be used in the criminal justice practice and research. While it could be argued from a punishment perspective that such labels are deserved because of the person’s harmful choices and they serve as a warning to the rest of us about who might be a threat, it has also been argued that language helps build our reality (Hyams et al., 2018). Perhaps especially for those who have extensive, recurrent, or long-term contacts with the system, being a “felon,” “criminal,” or “gangster” may be an engrained feature of one’s identity. Although these labels are perpetuated and reinforced by the system and those working within it, they are also often self-ascribed. Bernburg et al. (2006) discussed how criminal labeling in particular can increase an individual’s awareness of stereotypically held beliefs about criminals, potentially leading to concerns of rejection from rule-abiding supports and increase engagement with deviant groups. Thus, changing the way we talk to and about justice-involved persons may place some space between the person and their offending behavior, thereby allowing other prosocial identities to come to the forefront.

Although not a new development in clinical work generally (Bedell et al., 2019), we are fortunately seeing a shift in how clients involved in the criminal justice system are described in practice, research, and mainstream media (Godvin & West, 2020; Jordan, 2021). With the understanding that acceptable terminology may change over time, current alternatives include “justice-involved,” “incarcerated person,” “returning resident,” or “persons with sexual offense histories.” This can also be extended to intersecting identities (e.g., “people of color who are incarcerated”). Some criminal justice-focused journals explicitly discourage the use of pejorative terms (e.g., Criminal Justice & Behavior, Sex Abuse). The goal of person-oriented language is not to diminish harms caused by criminal actions, but to emphasize that people are multifaceted and capable of growth. We hope service providers will make concerted efforts to change the precedent and culture within their institutions.

Balancing the Role of Systems With Personal Choice and Responsibility

Correctional service providers applying intersectionality theory would also be wise to consider the role of certain systems in perpetuating criminal justice contacts. For many clients, their justice involvement can be compounded by preexisting cultural and/or socioeconomic disadvantage. For example, incarcerated women may experience greater distress than men due to increased dependency upon family and friends to care for their children (Christian et al., 2006).

Importantly, consideration of external systems does not absolve all accountability for poor personal choices, nor does promoting accountability mean people are to blame for being oppressed. Rather, the goal of a systems approach is to conceptualize clients from a more holistic and realistic point of view by accounting for the ways these systems create inherent challenges for justice-involved persons, especially those from oppressed groups, to succeed. Consider a young Black woman who is incarcerated for trafficking drugs. She was reared in a low socioeconomic neighborhood, her father was unemployed and on disability, and she dropped out of high school to work. Her lack of education coupled with race- and gender-based disadvantage, in turn, stunted her chances for economic advancement. Seeing an opportunity to improve her financial standing, she opted to move and sell drugs with her partner.

Taking a more systemic view of clients helps identify individual pathways to crime, including what choices (if any) were available at certain decision points. This allows service providers to acknowledge and process choices rather than excuse them. In some cases, clients may see this process as an opportunity to avoid taking responsibility altogether. Providers should be prepared for this possibility and work to validate the client’s experience of oppression while also examining choices and responsibility. Making room for culturally sensitive discussions, even when emphasizing client accountability, is likely to shift perceptions of therapy, strengthen the therapeutic alliance, help form clearer goals for treatment, and increase motivation for change (PettyJohn et al., 2020).

Recognizing and Addressing Impacts of Staff Burnout

So far, our discussions have centered on intersectionality considerations when engaging directly with clients; however, staff well-being and healthy working conditions are essential for providing quality care. Schaufeli and Greenglass (2001) described burnout as “a state of physical, emotional and mental exhaustion that results from long-term involvement in work situations that are emotionally demanding” (p. 501). Correctional mental health practitioners experience greater degrees of burnout when compared with those working in other settings (Isenhardt & Hostettler, 2020; Senter et al., 2010). There are many emotionally taxing demands in this field, as this client population has high rates of trauma, acute mental health concerns, and difficult-to-manage personality disorders (Briere et al., 2016). Furthermore, although correctional facilities are highly secure, staff may witness aggressive or assaultive behavior and, in rarer cases, become targets of attacks (Konda et al., 2012). As symptoms of burnout become more evident, providers may begin simply going through the motions of their job, with decreased attentiveness and acuity (Wright & Bonett, 1997). Persistent contact with clients who are confrontational, manipulative, and often slow to make observable changes can also be frustrating and interfere with our ability to empathize with clients. Burnout among mental and behavioral health professionals has been shown to impact staff morale and turnover as well (Yang & Hayes, 2020), possibly translating to decreased access to services within an institution or agency.

Addressing burnout requires an awareness of relevant signs such as quicker and more frequent feelings of frustrations toward clients, irritability with co-workers, lack of energy, reduced self-care, and less desire to be present at work or with clients (Yang & Hayes, 2020). It is likely that providers’ intersecting identities may also contribute burnout. For example, being the only Latina mental health counselor in a South Texas jail where a large proportion of the population is Hispanic men may mean increased experiences with stereotyping or tokenization (e.g., becoming the go-to expert for colleagues on Latin American or migrant culture). Being a woman within a male-centric facility also increases the odds of exposure to sexist comments and gestures, and being a Latina in particular may require firmer boundaries with clients who ascribe to the machismo conceptualization of women. Correctional employees can take steps to reduce burnout such as normalizing conversations about burnout, increasing acceptance of strategies for reducing burnout (e.g., asking for schedule adjustments), and finding time to decompress. Employees are also encouraged to reflect on how their intersecting identities and personal experiences with oppression may impact their work with justice-involved clients as well as remain mindful of the ways they may contribute to the burnout of their colleagues, especially those from communities of color. Finally, while a comprehensive discussion is beyond the scope of this commentary, correctional administrators must also explore ways to prevent staff burnout from a systemic level, including specific initiatives aimed at recruiting and retaining staff with diverse and intersecting identities (see Senter et al., 2010).

Intersectionality in Clinical Research

Recognizing Unique Challenges

Many scholars and advocates have argued for greater attention to intersectionality topics and outcomes in psychosocial research (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020; Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). Here, we briefly discuss the most noteworthy challenges to studying intersectionality and review overarching recommendations for research with justice-involved persons.

Quantitative Research and the Problem of Low Base Rates

The social and behavioral sciences broadly tend to prioritize quantitative methodologies—that is, looking at a phenomenon from a nomothetic or group-based approach using inferential statistical techniques—and consider them to be more robust (Duffy & Chenail, 2008). However, intersectionality experiences and their consequences are far more individualized or idiographic in nature, leading to the problem of low base rates within a subpopulation and, consequently, in the obtained sample of participants within a given study. As one example, a 2016 UCLA report showed that only 0.8% of Black adults in the United States identify as transgender (Flores et al., 2016). With a national rate of less than 1%, efforts to meaningfully examine these intersecting identities using quantitative approaches within a legal or correctional setting would be near impossible and certainly statistically underpowered. Depending on the reach of recruitment, it is quite possible a justice-involved sample would not include any participants who identify as both Black and transgender. The pool narrows even further if attempting to account for other aspects of identity such as the specific gender identified or sexual orientation. A similar problem emerges if, continuing with the example of transgender Black adults, a researcher wants to explore how the justice system as an institution upholds the oppression and marginalization of these individuals by targeting representatives of the system itself (e.g., judges, prison administrators, correctional officers). If an institution (or its representatives) had limited opportunities to engage with or oversee justice-involved persons who are Black and trans, findings may be more assumptive than inferential. Another major and related challenge of intersectionality-focused research is that no single study can capture all levels of variability within a demographic group (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020), leaving the possibility that latent factors (differing economic standing, educational opportunities, family systems, etc.) may be contributing to observed outcomes.

Quantitative research that attempts to focus on intersectionality is typically limited or only indirectly related to intersectionality (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016). As a result of low base rates, for example, available research is frequently contained to more prevalent identity combinations (e.g., Black women vs. White women). Furthermore, some researchers have simply taken to expanding the way in which demographic data are collected, coded, and reported. Yet, descriptive outcomes fall short of meeting the criteria for intersectional research. As a core tenet of intersectionality research, it must focus on highlighting the causes of injustice, oppression, and privilege with the intention of engendering systemic change (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020). In line with this, we urge quantitative researchers to include qualitative methods whenever relevant to better contextualize nomothetic outcomes and further support advocacy efforts.

Getting Creative About Group-Based Comparisons

Given the complexity of intersectionality with regard to both data collection and analysis (see also McCall, 2005), it makes sense that extant research has primarily relied on qualitative strategies (e.g., identifying themes emerging from guided interviews or observations) to obtain experiences of oppression and injustice. However, intersectionality research also calls for marginalized groups with intersecting identities to be compared with those with more privileged identities as well as marginalized groups with different identity combinations (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020). Quantitative experimental research is best suited to draw group-based conclusions (Betz & Fassinger, 2012); therefore, relying entirely on qualitative strategies is likewise insufficient. Although sample size (as a general rule, the more identities included, the greater the challenge) and researcher access (e.g., recruiting from one facility vs. nationally) may remain a challenge, some general suggestions for conducting quantitative intersectionality research in psychology have been outlined by Else-Quest and Hyde (2016) and readers are encouraged to refer to their publication for a full discussion.

To enhance research on intersectionality in criminal justice settings, we also propose that the field adopt a systematic method of collecting demographic variables so larger databases can be created, combined, and compared across teams of researchers. In a similar vein, using a more uniform demographic form (see Supplemental Appendix A, available in the online version of this article),³ may also allow later meta-analytic studies to include multiple identities as moderators as well as improve replicability of findings. Thus, our scientific community can make both individual and collective efforts to understand the nuances of intersectionality and its consequences among justice-involved persons. Finally, given evidence that a lack of culturally diverse researchers may bias research design (Delgado-Romero et al., 2005), service-oriented correctional researchers must collaborate with individuals who are themselves diverse (including those who have been oppressed by the justice system) and can help develop unique hypotheses and methods for testing them.

Areas for Future Research Exploration

To better conceptualize intersectionality among justice-involved clients, researchers should expand existing data on how clients’ experiences in the system vary as a function of their identity composition. Specific research questions should explore the extent to which justice-involved persons’ experiences differ at pretrial (e.g., bail/bond, diversion decisions), during incarceration (e.g., disciplinary infractions, medical/mental health treatment access, restrictive housing placement), and in the community (e.g., hiring/firing practices, access to higher education, access to social services, medical/mental health care utilization). When relevant, correctional studies should also incorporate measures of acculturation, gender and sexual identity, religious attitudes, trauma, and other validated tools that capture dimensions of intersecting identities (e.g., the Intersectional Discrimination Index; Scheim & Bauer, 2019). Quantitative methods that explore causal relationships and explanations for observed intergroup differences are also needed. For example, it may be the case that lack of work-related experience or continued association with antisocial peers better predicts differences in hiring decisions than race and/or gender (or vice versa). Such an outcome would suggest that employer anti-discrimination training is not sufficient to increase the probability of hire when these criminogenic factors are also present. Qualitative methods would help the field understand how experiences with oppression and socioeconomic disadvantage may make it more difficult for certain groups to obtain quality work experience or disengage from criminal associates.

Research questions examining this construct from the perspectives of those who interact with justice-involved persons, such as security staff, probation and parole officers, treatment providers, triers of fact (e.g., judges, potential jurors), medical professionals, and attorneys, will add to the developing picture of intersectionality among justice-involved individuals. Areas of continued exploration among these groups include general perceptions of incarcerated persons (e.g., Attitudes Toward Prisoners; Melvin et al., 1985), perceived risk and dangerousness, treatment and placement decisions, verdict and sentencing decisions, pretrial psycholegal determinations (e.g., competency), perceptions of pain and medication-seeking behaviors, evaluations of client treatment adherence, and measures of therapeutic alliance and treatment motivation within counseling relationships. Furthermore, correctional researchers should aim to increase access to study participants across a variety of subgroups and settings. In the context of community corrections, for example, researchers can explore opportunities to collect data from multiple counties or regions, as diversity factors such as race may interact with residential location (e.g., urban vs. rural) to change the diversion programs or community release opportunities justice-involved persons are offered (Freiburger & Hilinsky, 2013).

Making Lasting Changes

While there are many ways in which frontline providers and researchers can implement more immediate changes to account for experiences of intersectionality, lasting systemic changes will require more persistent efforts. In this final section, we discuss the importance of knowledge dissemination, advocating for policy reform, and tailoring training for graduate students pursuing careers in correctional mental health care that places a spotlight on intersectionality.

Advancing Social Justice in Criminal Justice

As established policies and laws can impede the success of justice-involved individuals with complex cultural identities, an examination of their impact through the lens of intersectionality is vital. By doing so, such policies can be rectified. This correction is a big task and one that service providers alone are unlikely to resolve. However, there are incremental actions that can be taken to advance social justice in criminal justice.

One such action is to disseminate theoretical commentary and empirical findings related to conceptualizing, assessing, and breaking down barriers created by intersectionality in mainstream correctional publications (e.g., Corrections Today, Journal for Evidence-Based Practices in Correctional Health, Journal of Correctional Health Care, The Prison Journal) and at annual conventions attended by correctional administrators and personnel (e.g., American Correctional Association, National Judges Association, Correctional Leaders Association, National Commission on Correctional Health Care). In fact, there has been a steady rise in the number of articles published about intersectionality within the criminal justice system. For instance, the Women & Criminal Justice Journal saw a 10% rise in the number of published intersectionality articles between 1989 and 1998 and the last decade (Posey et al., 2020). However, much of the extant work is focused on the administration of justice, not on clinical assessment and intervention. Research published or presented to intradiscipline audiences is unlikely to reach those with greater authority to make policy decisions about behavioral and mental health care.

Criminal justice experts can also look for local mechanisms to increase awareness and advocacy related to intersectionality policy development, such as asking to present scientific findings or practice recommendations at state judicial conferences or congressional meetings with elected officials. As intersectionality may not be fully embraced by administrators of justice or politicians, presenters will likely need to practice patience and allow time for questions and clarification. Yet, simply disseminating scholarly work is not enough to inform policy. It is critical to collaborate with policymakers when conducting research to ensure findings will inform policy needs (Phoenix et al., 2019). Working more collaboratively with agencies will also provide researchers a better understanding of financial and logistical barriers. For example, while it may seem preferable to advocacy groups to house transgender women in female facilities or units, security staff may have legitimate concern about differences in physical stature, especially among individuals with violent histories who transitioned later in life or are in earlier stages of transition. Furthermore, creating and staffing specialized units for gender diverse persons is costly. Mental health staff working internally may also increase the likelihood of having their voices heard (with wardens, department of corrections commissioners in their state, etc.) by shaping their proposed goals around a correctional system’s mission, budget, and overall needs (Batastini et al., 2020).

Service providers and researchers wishing to form successful collaborations with the criminal justice community and government organizations should also be prepared to manage potential differences in philosophy; that is, professionals with mental health or social services training tend to focus on positive growth and agents of change, while many in positions of power within criminal justice organizations ascribe to a more punitive perspective. To increase buy-in, it may help to emphasize that investigating the connection between systemic oppression, marginalization, and one’s involvement with the criminal justice system does not swing the pendulum away from responsibility or the need for just consequences. Incorporating intersectionality within the criminal justice system may also improve intervention outcomes and relationships between staff and incarcerated persons, which could respectively reduce recidivism as well as the high rate of burnout and turnover among correctional employees (Isenhardt & Hostettler, 2020).

Advocacy efforts can be further strengthened by forming special interest groups and coalitions dedicated to implementing correctional services that consider intersectionality within the criminal justice system. Partnering with existing organizations that support disadvantaged groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and various divisions of the American Psychological Association (e.g., both Division 18 [Psychologists in Public Service] and 41 [Psychology-Law] have diversity-focused committees), may amplify social justice initiatives (Gopaldas, 2013). In addition, scientist-advocates are encouraged to invite criminal justice leaders to join these groups. Reform-driven groups often represent one side of an issue and (overtly or not) exclude or discourage viewpoints of those perceived to be on the other side, thereby increasing the risk of an adversarial and delayed process of change.

Graduate Training

In this last section, we briefly touch on several initiatives that can be easily and promptly built into graduate-level training in psychology, counseling, social work, and related disciplines. On a basic level, teaching about intersectionality can influence the questions, interventions, and perspectives students bring into their therapeutic work (Hernández & McDowell, 2010). Yet, many graduate programs appear to lack specific training. For example, research indicates many counseling psychology students (a subdiscipline with a historical focus on multiculturalism and social justice) either have not heard of or do not understand intersectionality (Brinkman & Donohue, 2020). Clinical service-focused programs should include learning activities related to intersectionality across domains (e.g., coursework, therapy and supervision, research, comprehensive examinations) to ensure students can critically analyze policies that affect disadvantaged groups, including justice-involved persons, and engage in practices to eradicate or alter policies that uphold the consequences of intersectionality. For example, students could be challenged to discuss preconceived notions about working with justice-involved persons, how their perceptions could perpetuate oppression, and role play intersectionality dialogue within the context of evidence-based practices for risk assessment and recidivism reduction.

Outside program requirements, students are encouraged to seek opportunities within their communities and in practicums that focus on social justice, intersectionality, and criminal justice. Acquiring leadership or student representative positions within relevant professional organizations or subcommittees can help increase awareness and produce solutions to criminal justice-related issues. Universities and applied programs can also encourage the formation of student-led, multidisciplinary (e.g., psychology, criminal justice, law, public health) initiatives related to improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in the criminal justice system. For instance, hosting student-led town halls or webinars with diverse experts on criminal justice issues, supporting fundraisers (e.g., holiday toy drives for children of incarcerated parents) focused on marginalized, justice-involved people, and/or promoting the recruitment and retention of students of color and other culturally diverse applicants into programs that offer pathways to a career in correctional service.

Conclusion

While certainly not exhaustive nor absolute, we hope these recommendations will encourage service providers, researchers, policymakers, and educators to practice the true meaning of justice by holding people accountable for their harmful actions and administering appropriate consequences while also advocating for humanity, inclusivity, more accurate assessment, better treatment, and second chances for those who have criminal histories. Finally, we acknowledge these recommendations are largely theoretically driven and preliminary; as such, they must be expanded on with empirical investigation into their effectiveness for improving clinical outcomes for justice-involved persons and their desistence from the system.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548221074369 – Supplemental material for Why Correctional Service Providers and Researchers Should Focus on Intersectionality and Recommendations to Get Started

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548221074369 for Why Correctional Service Providers and Researchers Should Focus on Intersectionality and Recommendations to Get Started by Ashley B. Batastini, Ashley C. T. Jones, Meera Patel and Sarah M. Pringer in Criminal Justice and Behavior

Footnotes

AUTHORS’ NOTE:

We have no interests to disclose. Dr. Ashley B. Batastini is a first-generation college graduate, cisgender, White woman who earned her PhD in counseling psychology in 2015 and is a tenure-track assistant professor. Ashley C. T. Jones is a first-generation college graduate, cisgender, White woman. Meera Patel is a cisgender, second-generation Indian American woman. Sarah M. Pringer is a first-generation college graduate, cisgender, mixed race/ethnicity (White and Filipino American) woman. A.C.T.J., M.P., and S.M.P. are counseling psychology doctoral students under the advisement and mentorship of. A.B.B. All authors are dedicated to efficacious, culturally informed, and humane care of people who are in contact with the criminal justice system.

ORCID iDs

Ashley B. Batastini

Ashley C. T. Jones

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Appendix A is available in the online version of this article at .

Notes

Ashley B. Batastini received her PhD in counseling psychology at Texas Tech University and is currently an assistant professor at the University of Memphis in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, & Research. Her professional interests include development of and research on mental health interventions for criminal justice–involved populations and best practices in forensic mental health assessment.

Ashley C. T. Jones is a fourth-year doctoral student in the counseling psychology program at the University of Southern Mississippi. Her research interests include the ways in which forensic evaluations, remote technologies, and correctional mental health treatment may contribute to or hinder equity among justice-involved populations.

Meera Patel is a third-year counseling psychology doctoral student at the University of Memphis in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, & Research. Her ongoing clinical research interests include jury decision-making, reentry programs, and criminality in marginalized populations.

Sarah M. Pringer is a third-year counseling psychology doctoral student at the University of Memphis in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, & Research. Her research interests are primarily focused on the impact of trauma and trauma-informed interventions for justice-involved individuals.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Mass incarceration. https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/mass-incarceration

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

J. L.

Wormith

S. J.

(2004). Level of service/case management inventory (LS/CMI). Multi-Health Systems.

Ash

(2019, September 16). More money goes into the U.S. prison system than it does on education. Study International. https://www.studyinternational.com/news/education-spend-prison-system-us/

Bartholomew

N. R.

Morgan

R. D.

Mitchell

S. M.

Van Horn

S. A.

(2018). Criminal thinking, psychiatric symptoms, and recovery attitudes among community mental health patients: An examination of program placement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817734007

Batastini

A. B.

Jones

A. C.

Lester

M. E.

Davis

R. M.

(2020). Initiation of a multidisciplinary telemental health clinic for rural justice-involved populations: Rationale, recommendations, and lessons learned. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(7), 2156–2173. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22424

Bedell

P. S.

Morse

D. S.

Kinner

S. A.

Ferguson

W. J.

Spaulding

A. C.

(2019). Corrections for academic medicine: The importance of using person-first language for individuals who have experienced incarceration. Academic Medicine, 94, 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002501

Bernburg

J. G.

Krohn

M. D.

Rivera

C. J.

(2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427805280068

Betz

N. E.

Fassinger

R. E.

(2012). Methodologies in counseling psychology. In Altmaier

E. M.

Hansen

J. C.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 237–269). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342314.013.0009

10.

Bewley

M. T.

Morgan

R. D.

(2011). A national survey of mental health services available to offenders with mental illness: Who is doing what? Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9242-4

11.

Blevins

C. A.

Weathers

F. W.

Davis

M. T.

Witte

T. K.

Domino

J. L.

(2015). The posttraumatic stress disorder checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5): Development and initial psychometric evaluation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(6), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22059

12.

Bolaños

A. D.

Mitchell

S. M.

Morgan

R. D.

Grabowski

K. E.

(2020). A comparison of criminogenic risk factors and psychiatric symptomatology between psychiatric inpatients with and without criminal justice involvement. Law and Human Behavior, 44(4), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000391

13.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.

14.

Bonta

Law

Hanson

(1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.123

15.

Briere

Agee

Dietrich

(2016). Cumulative trauma and current posttraumatic stress disorder status in general population and inmate samples. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(4), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000107

16.

Brinkman

Donohue

(2020). Doing intersectionality in social justice oriented clinical training. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 14(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000274

17.

Buchanan

N. T.

Wiklund

L. O.

(2020). Why clinical science must change or die: Integrating intersectionality and social justice. Women & Therapy, 43(3–4), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2020.1729470

18.

Bush

Glick

Taymans

(1997). Thinking for a change: Integrated cognitive behavioral change program. National Institute of Corrections.

19.

Caudy

M. S.

Durso

J. M.

Taxman

F. S.

(2013). How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(6), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.08.004

20.

Christian

Mellow

Thomas

(2006). Social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.010

21.

Conover

K. J.

Israel

Nylund-Gibson

(2017). Development and validation of the Ableist Microaggressions Scale. The Counseling Psychologist, 45(4), 570–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017715317

22.

Creek

S. J.

Dunn

J. L.

(2014). Intersectionality and the study of sex, gender, and crime. In Gartner

McCarthy

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender, sex, and crime (pp. 40–58). Oxford University Press.

23.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 139–167.

24.

Delgado-Romero

E. A.

Galvan

Msachino

Rowland

(2005). Race and ethnicity in empirical counseling and counseling psychology research: A 10-year review. The Counseling Psychologist, 33(4), 419–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000004268637

25.

Duffy

Chenail

R. J.

(2008). Values in qualitative and quantitative research. Counseling and Values, 53(3), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.2009.tb00111.x

26.

Else-Quest

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

(2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: II. Methods and techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316647953

27.

Finn

S. E.

Fischer

C. T.

Handler

(2012). Collaborative/therapeutic assessment: A casebook and guide. John Wiley.

28.

Flores

A. R.

Brown

T. N. T.

Herman

J. L.

(2016). Race and ethnicity of adults who identify as transgender in the United States. UCLA School of Law. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Race-Ethnicity-Trans-Adults-US-Oct-2016.pdf

29.

Franklin

T. W.

(2018). The state of race and punishment in America: Is justice really blind? Journal of Criminal Justice, 59, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.05.011

30.

Freiburger

T. L.

Hilinsky

C. M.

(2013). An examination of the interactions of race and gender on sentencing decisions using a trichotomous dependent variable. Crime & Delinquency, 59(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708330178

31.

Gannon

T. A.

Olver

M. E.

Mallion

J. S.

James

(2019). Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical Psychology Review, 73, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752

32.

Godvin

West

(2020, December 15). The words journalists use often reduce humans to the crimes they commit. But that’s changing. Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2020/the-words-journalists-use-often-reduce-humans-to-the-crimes-they-commit-but-thats-changing/

33.

Gopaldas

(2013). Intersectionality 101. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(Suppl. 1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.12.044

34.

Green

C. A.

Duan

Gibbons

R. D.

Hoagwood

K. E.

Palinkas

L. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

(2015). Approaches to mixed methods dissemination and implementation research: Methods, strengths, caveats, and opportunities. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 508–523.

35.

Hayes

S. C.

Strosahl

K. D.

Wilson

K. G.

(2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

36.

Hernández

McDowell

(2010). Intersectionality, power, and relational safety in context: Key concepts in clinical supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017064

37.

Hester

Payne

Brown-Iannuzzi

Gray

(2020). On intersectionality: How complex patterns of discrimination can emerge from simple stereotypes. Psychological Science, 31(8), 1013–1024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620929979

38.

Hyams

Prater

Rohovit

Meyer-Kalos

P. S.

(2018). Person-centered language clinical: No. 8. Minnesota Center for Chemical and Mental Health, University of Minnesota. https://practicetransformation.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/9.-MNCAMH-Clinical-Tip-Person-Centered-Language-May-11-2018.pdf

39.

Isenhardt

Hostettler

(2020). Inmate violence and correctional staff burnout: The role of sense of security, gender, and job characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(1-2), 173–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516681156

40.

Jordan

A. O.

(2021, February 24). Language matters: NCCHC’s new position statement on use of humanizing language in correctional health care. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. https://www.ncchc.org/blog/language-matters-ncchcs-new-position-statement-on-use-of-humanizing-language-in-correctional-health-care

41.

Kaeble

Glaze

Tsoutis

Minton

(2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2014 (NCJ No. 249513). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus14.pdf

42.

Konda

Reichard

A. A.

Tiesman

H. M.

(2012). Occupational injuries among US correctional officers, 1999-2008. Journal of Safety Research, 43(3), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2012.06.002

43.

Lee

(2012). Does universalism hold in academia? Focusing on women and racial minority faculty. The Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 48–66.

44.

Masri

(2019). Communication studies’ hollow intersectionality rhetoric. Women’s Studies in Communication, 42(4), 417–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2019.1682916

45.

McCall

(2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.

46.

Melvin

K. B.

Gramling

L. K.

Gardner

W. M.

(1985). A scale to measure attitudes toward prisoners. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 12(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854885012002006

47.

Morgan

R. D.

Kroner

Mills

J. F.

(2018). A treatment manual for justice involved persons with mental illness: Changing lives and changing outcomes. Routledge.

48.

Mpofu

Athanasou

J. A.

Rafe

Belshaw

S. H.

(2018). Cognitive-behavioral therapy efficacy for reducing recidivism rates of moderate- and high-risk sexual offenders: A scoping systematic literature review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(1), 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16644501

49.

Nadal

K. L.

(2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025193

50.

Paik

(2017). Critical perspectives on intersectionality and criminology: Introduction. Theoretical Criminology, 21(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480616677495

51.

PettyJohn

M. E.

Tseng

Blow

A. J.

(2020). Therapeutic utility of discussing therapist/client intersectionality in treatment: When and how? Family Process, 59(2), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12471

52.

Phoenix

J. H.

Atkinson

L. G.

Baker

(2019). Creating and communicating social research for policymakers in government. Palgrave Communications, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0310-1

53.

Piquero

A. R.

Brame

R. W.

(2008). Assessing the race-crime and ethnicity-crime relationship in a sample of serious adolescent delinquents. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 390–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707307219

54.

Posey

B. M.

Kowalski

M. A.

Stohr

M. K.

(2020). Thirty years of scholarship in the women and criminal justice journal: Gender, feminism, and intersectionality. Women & Criminal Justice: WCJ 30th Anniversary Edition and Dual Language Papers, 30(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2019.1661330

55.

Prins

S. J.

(2014). Prevalence of mental illnesses in US state prisons: A systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 65(7), 862–872. https://doi.org./10.1176/appi.ps.201300166

56.

Rabuy

Kopf

(2015). Prisons of poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html

57.

Romani

C. J.

Morgan

R. D.

Gross

N. R.

McDonald

B. R.

(2012). Treating criminal behavior: Is the bang worth the buck? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(1), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024714

58.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Greenglass

E. R.

(2001). Introduction to special issue on burnout and health. Psychology & Health, 16(5), 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440108405523

59.

Scheim

A. I.

Bauer

G. R.

(2019). The Intersectional Discrimination Index: Development and validation of measures of self-reported enacted and anticipated discrimination for intercategorical analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 226, 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.016

60.

Senter

Morgan

R. D.

Serna-McDonald

Bewley

(2010). Correctional psychologist burnout, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Psychological Services, 7(3), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020433

61.

Shim

R. S.

Compton

M. T.

Rust

Druss

B. G.

Kaslow

N. J.

(2009). Race-ethnicity as a predictor of attitudes toward mental health treatment seeking. Psychiatric Services, 60(10), 1336–1342. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2009.60.10.1336

62.

Steffensmeier

Painter-Davis

Ulmer

(2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416679371

63.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Racial/ethnic differences in mental health service use among adults (HHS Publication Number SMA-15-4906). https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/MHServicesUseAmongAdults/MHServicesUseAmongAdults.pdf

64.

Testa

R. J.

Habarth

Peta

Balsam

Bockting

(2015). Development of the gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65–77. https://doi-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1037/sgd0000081

65.

Theriot

M. T.

Segal

S. P.

(2005). Involvement with the criminal justice system among new clients at outpatient mental health agencies. Psychiatric Services, 56(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.56.2.179

66.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Regional and state unemployment—2011 annual averages. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/srgune_02292012.pdf

67.

Varghese

F. P.

Israel

Seymour

Becker Herbst

Suarez

L. G.

Hargons

(2019). Injustice in the justice system: Reforming inequities for true “justice for all.” The Counseling Psychologist, 47(5), 682–740.

68.

Vincent

G. M.

Viljoen

J. L.

(2020). Racist algorithms or systemic problems? Risk assessments and racial disparities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820954501

69.

Visher

C. A.

Debus-Sherrill

S. A.

Yahner

(2011). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly, 28(5), 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.535553

70.

Wesley

J. K.

Dewey

S. C.

(2018). Confronting gendered pathways to incarceration: Considerations for reentry programming. Social Justice, 45(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/26677646

71.

Western

Schiraldi

Ziedenberg

(2003). Education and incarceration. Justice Policy Institute.

72.

Williams

M. T.

Printz

D. M. B.

DeLapp

R. C. T.

(2018). Assessing racial trauma with the Trauma Symptoms of Discrimination Scale. Psychology of Violence, 8(6), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000212

73.

Wright

T. A.

Bonett

D. G.

(1997). The contribution of burnout to work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(5), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199709)18:5<491::AID-JOB804>3.0.CO:2-1

74.

Yang

Hayes

J. A.

(2020). Causes and consequences of burnout among mental health professionals: A practice-oriented review of recent empirical literature. Psychotherapy, 57(3), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000317

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB