Breaking the Cycle: Understanding the Needs of Women Involved in the Criminal Justice System and the Role of Mentoring in Promoting Desistance

Abstract

An increasingly popular gender-specific intervention to assist women involved in the criminal justice system (e.g., ex-prisoners) is mentoring. However, despite the growing popularity of mentoring, there is a dearth of literature that has explored the intervention’s efficacy, particularly as it relates to women involved in the criminal justice system. In the current study, client files of 64 women in a one-to-one mentoring program in Australia were examined to identify (a) the social and practical needs and obstacles faced by women overcoming their involvement with the justice system, and (b) the extent to which mentoring addressed these needs and obstacles. The results show that consistent with previous research, many of the women experienced a range of social and practical difficulties that impeded the desistance process. For a large portion of the women, however, mentoring helped overcome some difficulties by enhancing positive social capital in their lives. These findings are discussed in the context of how mentoring relationships can act as key turning points in the lives of women involved in the criminal justice system.

Keywords

mentoring desistance reintegration social capital women offenders

Introduction

Since the second wave of feminism in the 1960s, a growing body of research has investigated the nature and extent of women’s offending along with the sociostructural and psychosocial factors associated with women’s criminal involvement (Heidensohn, 2012). This has resulted in attempts by policy makers to develop more gender-specific interventions aimed at addressing the factors that shape women’s criminal behaviour. One intervention along these lines is mentoring, which is a strategy that connects offenders to individuals generally tasked with offering positive guidance and advice (Hucklesby & Wincup, 2014). The key goal is to counter antisocial lifestyles associated with criminal behaviour, providing offenders with positive role models from which they can learn and gain support from (Hucklesby & Wincup, 2014). Furthermore, in the case of women involved in the criminal justice system, mentoring potentially has the added benefit of addressing gender-specific relational needs (Brown & Ross, 2010a, 2010b).

Despite the increasing popularity of mentoring, however, there is a dearth of research into the intervention’s efficacy, particularly as it relates to women involved in the criminal justice system. While several studies have examined the relationship between mentoring and reoffending rates (e.g., Blechman, Maurice, Buecker, & Helberg, 2000; Joliffe & Farrington, 2007; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006), research into the dynamics of mentoring in practice, and the specific impacts that it has on the lives of offenders, particularly women, remains sparse (Brown & Ross, 2010a, 2010b). Therefore, the aim of the current study was to explore the characteristics and mentoring dynamics of women involved in the criminal justice system who engaged in a one-to-one mentoring program in Australia.

Pathways to Offending Among Women

The notion that women’s pathways to offending are characterised by a series of gender-specific experiences is perhaps one of the most significant developments to emerge from feminist criminology (e.g., Daly, 1992; Kruttschnitt, 2016). Many women offenders in the criminal justice system come from low socioeconomic backgrounds characterised by poverty and poor employment opportunities and educational attainment (Gelsthorpe, Sharpe, & Roberts, 2007; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). Limited prosocial opportunities to escape these backgrounds of disadvantage result in some women engaging in antisocial methods of overcoming these sociostructural deficits (Carlen, 1988).

These sociostructural deficits can exacerbate other psychosocial risk factors for women’s offending. For example, family disorganisation is associated with poverty (Wong, 2007), and disruptions in family life, such as the removal of children from the family, can act as a stressor towards antisocial behaviour. Feelings of rejection and isolation that such disruptions engender can compel women to turn to antisocial peers and substance use as a means of escaping their negative emotions (DeHart, 2008). Furthermore, mental health issues are overrepresented among women involved in the criminal justice system (e.g., DeHart, Lynch, Belknap, Dass-Brailsford, & Green, 2014; Green, Miranda, Daroowalla, & Siddique, 2005; Johansson & Kempf-Leonard, 2009; Jordan, Clark, Pritchard, & Charnigo, 2012; Leigey & Reed, 2010; McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997; Mullings, Pollock, & Crouch, 2002). This overrepresentation is clearly evident in Australia, where approximately two thirds of women prison entrants received a diagnosis for a mental health disorder, including substance abuse (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015).

Women involved with the criminal justice system are often characterised by a wide variety of prior victimisation experiences (Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; DeHart, 2008; Indig et al., 2010; Makarios, 2007). For many, victimisation begins in childhood in the form of physical and/or sexual abuse (Browne et al., 1999). Over the life-course, victimisation experiences accumulate and occur across different contexts such as intimate partner violence (Browne et al., 1999). In a study of 150 incarcerated women at a maximum-security prison in the United States, Browne and colleagues (1999) found that nearly three quarters of women reported being physically abused when they were minors, and nearly two thirds reported being sexually abused. Similarly, in a study of 240 women imprisoned in Australia, close to half reported that they had experienced some form of abuse or control by their partner or spouse in the year prior to their imprisonment (Indig et al., 2010). While victimisation experiences are neither necessary nor sufficient precursors for offending, the research is quite clear that these two factors are strongly related, particularly for women (Cernkovich, Lanctôt, & Giordano, 2008; DeHart, 2008; Makarios, 2007; Siegel & Williams, 2003). DeHart (2008) described “ripple effects” that flow on from victimisation experiences and substantially affect other domains in the lives of the women over the life-course. For example, the trauma of abuse can lead to the early onset and aggravation of mental health issues, such as depression, as well as maladaptive coping mechanisms such as substance abuse (DeHart 2008).

Gender-Specific Pathways to Desistance

Baldry (2010) argued that one of the key barriers to the women’s successful re-entry into the community following incarceration lies in the fact that many of these women have come from and will return to backgrounds of marginalisation and disadvantage. The lives of these women are often characterised by low levels of education, poor housing, childhood and adult victimisation, low socioeconomic status, and family disorganisation (Baldry, 2010). These disadvantages are often exacerbated upon release from prison as individuals are suddenly forced to grapple with these issues all at once (O’Brien, 2001; Richie, 2001). Richie (2001) documented a variety of immediate and practical challenges faced by women ex-prisoners upon release, such as the need for substance abuse treatment, health care, mental health treatment, protection from violence, educational and employment assistance, stable and affordable housing, and child support services. Baldry (2010) argues that the challenge in assuring many women’s successful transition back into the community lies not in helping them to reintegrate into society but in allowing them to be integrated into mainstream society for the first time.

A key aspect of social exclusion that women involved in the criminal justice system experience is a lack of strong, positive social connections in their lives. For example, there is considerable literature that has highlighted how the strong emphasis that women place on interpersonal relationships may make the formation of such relationships central to enhancing satisfaction with their lives (e.g., Aukett, Ritchie, & Mill, 1988; Miller, 1986). In the case of women offenders who are trying to rebuild their lives in prosocial ways, the need for strong relationships becomes even more pressing because many women find themselves isolated by their decision to break away from antisocial peers and partners (Brown & Ross, 2010b).

Mentoring as a Means of Promoting Desistance

In recent years, mentoring has been applied in the criminal justice context, typically as a tertiary intervention strategy to address relational deficits in the lives of offenders to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Mentoring programs usually involve matching an “offender,” or a group of “offenders,” with a mentor whose goal is to promote prosocial behaviour through the provision of guidance and relational support (Hucklesby & Wincup, 2014). Some programs recruit rehabilitated ex-offenders as mentors, whereas others select individuals who have not had any prior involvement in the criminal justice system. Both cases may offer different benefits. The former brings possibly shared experiences of the criminal justice system. The latter brings possibly more unique experiences on life outside of prison. Furthermore, some programs may choose mentors based on their ability to provide gender-specific support (see Brown & Ross, 2010a, 2010b). Despite the increasing popularity of mentoring as a criminal justice intervention, however, the evidence of its impact on reoffending has been mixed. In a review of 18 studies that looked at the impacts of mentoring on reoffending, Joliffe and Farrington (2007) reported that only seven studies found that mentoring had significantly reduced reoffending. Further analysis of these studies showed that mentoring tends to be more successful in situations where mentors spend greater time interacting with their mentees and when mentoring is used alongside an array of other interventions (Joliffe & Farrington 2007). As the review suggests, the efficacy of mentoring remains unclear.

In a study of 25 women ex-prisoners engaged in a one-to-one, post-release mentoring program in Victoria, Australia, Brown and Ross (2010a, 2010b) investigated the relationship between mentoring and desistance through the lens of social capital. Defining social capital as the social and institutional bonds and connections that an individual has, they found that a majority of women ex-prisoners had limited social networks, with many reporting that they had either no or only one regular social contact. For a number of these women, low social capital could be attributed to their decision to reduce contact with peers and/or partners who were still involved in antisocial behaviour. For others, their offending lifestyles had led to the loss of close personal relationships. Together, these factors created considerable relational deficits in the lives of women ex-prisoners, who already faced numerous practical difficulties transitioning back into the community (Brown & Ross 2010b).

Mentoring provided an opportunity for these deficits to be addressed by allowing the women ex-prisoners to build positive relationships with the mentors they were matched with. Many of the women ex-prisoners in the program reported relational benefits, stating that they enjoyed being able to talk to someone that they felt was non-judgemental, not enmeshed in criminal conduct, trustworthy, and who could offer them with prosocial methods of resolving their issues. To the extent that mentors were able to develop positive social relationships with their mentees, they were able to directly enhance their mentees’ social capital (Brown & Ross, 2010b).

The study also found that mentors were able to mobilise their own social capital to provide mentees with a variety of practical forms of assistance. These included providing character references for their job or housing applications, speaking for them at court hearings, giving statements to the criminal justice system on cases involving them, helping them access information on educational or other opportunities, giving them lifts to appointments, and assisting them in the complexities of bureaucratic paperwork and processes. Thus, mentors used their status and connections in society to strengthen the social capital of their mentees (Brown & Ross, 2010b).

The work of Brown and Ross (2010a, 2010b) represents one of the few studies that have examined mentoring using a more inclusive definition of desistance. As previously noted, studies that have looked at the efficacy of mentoring have generally used reoffending as a proxy for failure to desist (see Blechman et al., 2000; Joliffe & Farrington, 2007; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006). This conceptualisation of desistance is narrow, as it does not provide a full picture of the complex psychological, social, and structural interactions that underpin an individual’s capacity to turn their life around. This is especially problematic in terms of examining women’s offending, as it does not adequately account for the lived experiences of many women involved in the criminal justice system or allow for their personal conceptions of desistance and success to be given weight (Carlton & Segrave, 2016). As Carlton and Segrave (2016) note, there needs to be more emphasis on alternative indicators of post-release success. While achievements such as reducing substance use and regaining child custody are not typically treated as evidence of such success, they do provide some indication of the extent to which women involved in the criminal justice system are able to progressively transform their lives (Carlton & Segrave, 2016).

To this extent, Brown and Ross’s (2010a, 2010b) use of social capital as a framework for examining women’s desistance is useful as it allows for a more holistic approach to evaluating criminal justice interventions for women. However, despite the utility of their framework, their study remains limited in its generalisability due to the small sample size used. The current study sought to address this by examining the impacts of mentoring on the social capital of women involved in the criminal justice system using a different and larger sample of women. More specifically, the aim of the current study was to investigate the dynamics of mentoring relationships and whether and to what extent mentoring was able address the needs and obstacles faced by these women by enhancing their social capital.

Method

Sample and Procedures

This study involved a mixed-methods analysis of case files from a community-based not-for-profit women’s mentoring program run in a large Australian city. Under the program, women involved in the criminal justice system were matched with volunteer women mentors in the community, who were tasked with providing mentees with social and practical support. Mentors were typically recruited through open calls that were advertised online or on posters and brochures at community agencies across the city. While mentors did not need to have any professional experience in the fields of criminal justice or social work, the program required that mentors attend a 2-day training workshop prior to being matched with a mentee. The workshop was aimed at providing mentors with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively assist their mentees.

The sample for the current study consisted of program case files of 64 women involved in the criminal justice system who engaged in the one-to-one mentoring program between the program’s inception in 2008 and the project’s data collection cut-off date in August 2016. Three main forms of client data from case files were analysed. The first was mentees’ program entry and exit surveys. These surveys were administered by program staff, and information about financial status, criminal history, family circumstances, social networks, accommodation status, mental and physical health background, educational level, employment status, and drug and alcohol use of the women at the time of their entry into and exit from the mentoring program was collected.

The second form of client data consisted of mentor-completed activity sheets, client notes, and mentee review forms that documented the progress of the women as they engaged with their mentors throughout their involvement in program. More specifically, activity sheets contained rich qualitative information that tracked each woman’s progress through the mentoring program, such as mentors’ reports of their meetings with the women. Client notes contained information that staff members overseeing the program took from their conversations with clients. Mentee review forms contained mentees’ periodic reflections on how they believed their relationships with their mentors were progressing.

Finally, since late 2014, the mentoring program began administering the Quality of Life Inventory (QOLI; Frisch, 1994) to the women mentees first around the time of their entry into the program (i.e., Time 1 [T1] QOLI) and then again several months after they began engaging with their mentors (i.e., Time 2 [T2] QOLI). The QOLI is a self-report questionnaire that assesses an individual’s subjective well-being by determining the extent to which their satisfaction with various areas of their life diverges from the level of importance that they attach to those areas (Frisch, 1994). For the current study, we examined the level of satisfaction respondents reported in terms of their (a) health, (b) self-esteem, (c) goals and values, (d) money, (e) work, (f) play, (g) learning, (h) creativity, (i) helping, (j) love, (k) friends, (l) children, (m) relatives, (n) home, (o) neighbourhood, and (p) community.

At the time of the commencement of the study, all the client data were stored in both hardcopy and computer files at the organisation’s head office. Only women who had given written consent for their data to be used for research purposes were included in the sample. Ethics approval from the host university was obtained prior to the study’s commencement. To protect the identities of the women in the sample, the data collected for the study were de-identified at the office where the program is run, and all mentors and mentees were assigned pseudonyms.

Analytic Strategy

A mixed-methods analysis was conducted to gain a holistic understanding of the needs of women involved in the criminal justice system and the dynamics of their mentoring experiences. First, entry assessments of the women were used to develop a general profile of the women in the program and their needs. Second, qualitative content analysis was conducted with the activity sheets and client notes to explore both the challenges that the women faced as they tried to lead law-abiding lives in the community and the extent to which mentoring assisted them in addressing these challenges. Themes and patterns relating to the specific needs and obstacles that the women encountered while in the community and the emotional, social, and practical impacts that mentoring had on their lives were identified and coded using NVivo. These themes were then organised into categories to describe the dynamics of mentoring in this specific program and the broad effects it had in terms of addressing the needs of the women in the sample.

Finally, dependent samples t tests were conducted on T1 and T2 QOLIs completed by a subsample of the women. This subsample consisted of 20 women who completed a QOLI at or near program commencement and then several months later. Levels of satisfaction with the 16 domains of the QOLI were coded on a 6-point scale (–3 = very dissatisfied to 3 = very satisfied). The overall QOLI scale demonstrated good internal consistency (T1 QOLI α = .93, T2 QOLI α = .91).

Results

Demographic and Legal Characteristics at Program Entry

Table 1 displays the specific needs profile of the women in the sample at the time of their entry into the mentoring program. The mean age of the women in the sample was 35.1 years (SD = 9.2), with just over one fifth (21.9%) of them identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Although many of the women were residing in the community (67.2%) at the time of their entry into the program, most of these women (93.0%) had experienced incarceration, with nearly three quarters (72.1%) indicating that the date of their last release from prison was less than 2 years prior to completing their entry assessment. A further 28.1% of women in the overall sample were recorded as being in prison at the time they were assessed for program entry and were close to their release dates. Thus, many of the women in the sample were either dealing with or on the verge of dealing with the demands of post-release life.

Table 1.

Demographic and Legal Characteristics at Entry Assessment (N = 64).

	M (SD)/n (%)
Age	35.1 (9.2)
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander	14 (21.9%)
Referral source^a
Self-referred	27 (42.2%)
Referred by another agency	37 (57.8%)
Custody status
In community	43 (67.2%)
In custody	18 (28.1%)
Unascertainable	3 (4.7%)
Legal status
Probation or parole	20 (31.3%)
Bond	2 (3.1%)
Suspended sentence	6 (9.4%)
Bail	1 (1.6%)
Serving prison sentence	18 (28.1%)
Unascertainable	17 (26.6%)
Incarceration history
One incarceration episode	21 (31.8%)
More than one incarceration episode	33 (51.6%)
Unknown	10 (15.6%)
Custodial history of women who were in the community at the time of entry assessment (n = 43)
Have experienced incarceration	40 (93.0%)
Last release from prison <2 years ago	31 (72.1%)
Offence history, any charges for
Property offences	20 (31.3%)
Assault	11 (17.2%)
Arson	1 (1.6%)
Fraud	7 (10.9%)
Drug related	28 (43.8%)
Manslaughter/murder	1 (1.6%)
Sex offence	2 (3.1%)
Other	6 (9.4%)
Reason for exit from program
Completed	24 (37.5%)
Non-engagement	17 (26.6%)
Moved	4 (6.3%)
Returned to custody and ceased program participation	2 (3.1%)
Still active	17 (26.6%)
Returned to custody while in the mentoring program^b	13 (20.3%)
Returned to custody for minor breach of community supervision order while in the mentoring program^c	7 (10.9%)
Average length of engagement with the program in months (n = 62)	8.0 (7.2)

If a woman was referred to the program on multiple occasions, then the referral source was taken to be the referral that led to her first mentor match.

Returns to custody included instances where a woman served a short term in prison during the course of mentoring but did not cease participation in the program, as well as instances where a woman ceased program participation due to reimprisonment.

Minor breaches of community supervision order include instances where a woman breached parole or some other form of community supervision due to a dirty urine test or failing to remain in a residential rehabilitation program.

In terms of the characteristics of the mentoring relationships that the women engaged in, it is worth noting that of the 64 women in the sample, 24 (37.5%) successfully completed the program and 17 women (26.6%) had their mentoring relationships terminated because of their failure to adequately engage with their mentors. While 13 women (20.3%) returned to custody during the time that they were engaged with the program, only two (3.1%) ceased participation in the program due to reimprisonment. In addition, more than half of the women who returned to custody (53.8%) did so due to minor breaches of community supervision orders. Data on length of engagement with the program were available for 62 women. The average length of engagement with the program for these women was 8.0 months (SD = 7.2).

Housing, Relationships, and Health Status at Program Entry

As Table 2 shows, the women also faced a number of social and practical challenges at the time of their entry into the program. First, the attainment of long-term housing proved to be a major issue for a number of women. Of the 41 women in the sample who were recorded as residing in the community at the time of their entry assessment, only about a third (34.1%) reported that they were living in stable housing that they either rented (29.3%) or owned (4.9%).

Table 2.

Housing, Relationships, and Health Status (N = 64).

	M (SD)/n (%)
Housing status of mentees in the community (n = 41)
Rental accommodation	12 (29.3%)
Private ownership	2 (4.9%)
Alcohol or drug treatment residence	16 (39.0%)
Temporary accommodation	5 (12.2%)
Other	6 (14.6%)
Relationship status
In a relationship	24 (37.5%)
Not in a relationship	39 (60.9%)
Not indicated	1 (1.6%)
Parenting status
Is a parent	48 (75.0%)
Parent of a child who is still a minor (n = 48)	40 (83.3%)
Child protection services’ involvement (n = 48)	20 (41.7%)
Have contact with child/children (n = 48)	20 (41.7%)
Mental health
Ever diagnosed with a known mental health problem	51 (79.7%)
Most prevalent mental health issues
Depression	37 (57.8%)
Anxiety	28 (43.8%)
PTSD	12 (18.8%)
Ever been recipient of a mental health response^a	29 (45.3%)
Ever self-harm	17 (26.6%)
Physical health and drug use
Any physical health issues	38 (59.4%)
History of substance abuse^b	58 (90.6%)
Most commonly used drugs
Most prevalent first drug of choice^c
Methamphetamines	21 (32.8%)
Opiates	19 (29.7%)
Most prevalent second drug of choice
Methamphetamines	12 (18.8%)
Opiates	8 (12.5%)
Used drugs while in custody	19 (29.7%)
Ever overdosed on drugs	15 (23.4%)
Want to cut down/stop drug use	34 (53.1%)
Ever had contact with a drug or alcohol service	40 (62.5%)
Currently on a methadone or buprenorphine program	21 (32.8%)

Note. PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mental health response includes hospitalisation, mental health crisis team response, community treatment order, counselling, and medication.

Women who did not explicitly report having a drug and/or alcohol addiction, but who nevertheless reported having overdosed on drugs, struggling not to relapse, and accessing drug and/or alcohol treatment services were coded as having a history of drug and/or alcohol issues.

Where a woman listed multiple drugs of choice, the first drug that she listed was coded as her first drug of choice.

Second, the women faced many needs in terms of their personal relationships, with the majority of women (60.9%) reporting that they were single at the time of their entry into the program. In addition, less than half (41.7%) of the women who were recorded as being parents stated that they had contact with their child/children. In fact, of the 40 women who reported being parents of at least one minor, half (50.0%) stated that child protection services was involved in the care of their child/children in some way. These figures highlight the estrangement that many of the women experienced with regard to their children.

Third, health was a major need for the women in the sample, with 79.7% stating that they had been diagnosed with a known mental health problem and almost two thirds (59.4%) reporting physical health issues. These health problems coincided with high levels of drug and alcohol use. Almost all of the women (90.6%) had a history of substance abuse, and 62.5% reported having had contact with a drug or alcohol service.

Qualitative Analysis of Needs

To contextualise the array of social and practical challenges described above, qualitative content analysis was also applied to the client notes, activity sheets, mentee review forms, and exit assessments of the women with a specific focus to identify themes relating to the needs of the women in the program. During their engagement in the mentoring program, the women attempted to grapple with searching for affordable long-term accommodation, applying to regain custody of their children, managing their mental and physical health issues, and trying to stay off substances. In addition, many women in the sample also encountered problems attaining further education and employment. As some women noted, these problems were often compounded by the stigma that was attached to their criminal backgrounds:

[Mentee “Laura”] spoke largely about feeling discriminated for having gone to prison. She spoke about the shame and guilt that she feels and that this has impacted on her self-worth and confidence. [“Laura”] was released from custody 6 years ago, but states that her [Master Index Number (MIN)] has followed her and inhibited her ability to gain employment. (Program staff member)

[Mentee “Belinda”] has been stood down from work upon [a] criminal record check. [“Belinda”] has been a Billing Officer at a hospital for the past 17 months. Just last week, [Human Resources (HR)] requested a Criminal History Check of all their staff. As a result, [“Belinda”] was called into a meeting and “stood down.” (Mentor “Marion”)

The overall needs profile and the qualitative analysis demonstrate these women faced a variety of social and practical obstacles that impeded their ability to rebuild their lives in the community. It is important to note that these obstacles often did not occur in isolation from one another. Rather, many of the women were forced to grapple with multiple obstacles at once as they tried to turn their lives around. In the next section, the extent to which these compounding obstacles were tackled through the mentoring program is explored.

Experiences of Women in the Mentoring Program

Qualitative content analysis was also used to gain an in-depth understanding of the women’s experiences with the mentoring program. In this analysis, the various impacts that mentors had on the women were grouped and classified according to how they affected the women’s lives and the challenges they faced. From there, a spectrum that represented the various dimensions of the mentor’s role was developed (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Dimensions of the mentor’s role.

As Figure 1 shows, the role of the mentor was complex, one which took on different dimensions at different times, depending on what she was helping her mentee achieve. On one end of the spectrum was the Casework dimension of the mentoring relationship. Here, the mentor was primarily engaged in performing traditional social work–type functions with the woman that she was matched with to aid her in overcoming the practical challenges in her life. On the other end of the spectrum was the Friendship dimension. In this context, the mentor acted as a friend to the woman, providing her with positive relational support. Situated in the middle of the spectrum are several other mentor functions that were identified in the analysis. These were coded as Middle-range functions, as they did not fit squarely within either the casework or friendship dimensions of the mentoring relationship, but rather were an amalgamation of both of these aspects.

The Casework Dimension

The Casework dimension represents the most formal aspect of the mentoring relationship, reflecting a strictly professional dynamic. Within this dimension, mentors worked closely with the women they were matched with to tackle practical obstacles to their participation in community life. Such obstacles were overcome in many ways that included researching educational, housing, and job opportunities for the women; transporting them to important appointments; and helping them liaise with other services, such as drug and alcohol treatment centres. The capacity of mentors to assist mentees in these ways is notable given that the mentors in the program were generally community volunteers who did not have any professional training in the field.

The potential for mentors to address practical needs of their mentees was especially evident in situations where mentors actively assisted women in gaining employment. Some mentors reported helping the women review their resumes and cover letters, editing their job applications, preparing them for job interviews, and even using personal networks to get some of the women employment. Mentor “Eliza,” for example, not only helped her mentee “Laura” develop her resume but also put her in touch with a friend who worked in the human resources (HR) sector, who was able to help “Laura” refine her job interviewing techniques:

Mock interview scheduled for [“Laura”] with a HR friend of mine. Ran through some interview practice questions. . . . (Mentor “Eliza”)

The kind of practical assistance a woman received from her mentor also appeared to depend on the type of goals the woman wanted to achieve. Mentor “Isobel,” for example, upon learning that her mentee “Esther” was not interested in working for others, but rather wanted to start her own business, tailored her assistance to help “Esther” achieve that goal:

During the last meeting, I have shared my business advisory knowledge in starting up a small business, as there was a huge gap in her needs and ideas of business. . . . During those 7 days, we exchanged [a] number of text messages and she has quickly gained a good understanding and developed more ideas from there . . . . (Mentor “Isobel”)

As the account demonstrates, the mentor assisted the woman she was matched with by imparting her own knowledge and skills. This was a common theme; the activity sheets and client notes revealed that on many occasions, mentors would act as teachers, passing on their specific expertise to the women. Furthermore, the types of expertise that mentors transmitted ranged from basic social skills, such as how to approach people and present oneself, to more technical skills, such as how to send emails and texts, and fill out government forms. In some circumstances, mentors would not directly pass their own personal knowledge to the women that they had been matched with, but would instead connect them to other individuals and institutions that were more capable of assisting them in developing the skills they required. Mentor “Eliza,” for example, used her personal connections to get an IT expert to teach her mentee “Laura” the computer skills that she needed to succeed in an office job:

. . . assisted [“Laura”] to choose and purchase a laptop with [the] relevant version of Windows and Office that she will need for work. Organised intro session with an [Information Technology (IT)] friend of mine [who] showed [‘Laura’] how to use it/connect to WIFI etc. (Mentor “Eliza”)

However, despite the lengths that many of the mentors went to in order to tackle the practical challenges the women faced, there were also instances where they appeared to be limited in their capacity to address certain issues. This seemed to stem from the fact that while in some cases mentors could take on the role of a caseworker, in other circumstances they were restricted in terms of their knowledge and ability to assist the women in practical terms. When mentee “Ramona” was arrested, for example, her mentor “Glinda” made the decision to seek the assistance from mentoring program staff, instead of attempting to resolve “Ramona’s” issues on her own:

[“Ramona”] contacted her mentor to inform her that she had been arrested and fears that she may be returning to custody. [“Glinda”] encouraged [“Ramona”] to come into the [PROGRAM] office to discuss the ways in which she can address her current issue. They both came to the [PROGRAM] office and the following were actioned planned: Assistance during her court hearing, advocacy and support letters that will be needed, Centrelink issues and how to resolve her payments being suspended, housing and how to ensure that she does not fall behind in arrears that could result in her accommodation being terminated. (Program staff member)

This account illustrates program staff members played a key role in filling the gap in the women’s service delivery by stepping in to offer practical assistance that they needed when the mentors were unable to provide it. In fact, a further analysis of the client notes revealed that program staff members played a prominent role in addressing some of the more immediate practical issues that the women were facing, such as homelessness, domestic violence, and getting into drug and alcohol treatment programs. Thus, while mentors did appear to have a considerable impact in terms of their ability to alleviate the practical disadvantages that the women faced, many of the women still had to rely on the assistance of program staff members to have their immediate practical needs addressed.

The Friendship Dimension

Beyond helping the women address their practical needs, mentors also tackled many social challenges of the women they were matched with. This involved adopting an opposite role to the “caseworker”—that of a “friend.” During their mentoring relationships, many of the women came to see their mentors as their friends—women who they could trust and confide in. Far from being a formal arrangement geared towards the achievement of practical goals, the friendship dimension is one that is more casual, relaxed, and oriented towards enhancing relational aspects of the women’s lives.

The friendship dimension was an evident theme throughout the data, as mentors provided women with a range of relational supports. This included offering a listening ear, helping them in times of setbacks or personal crises, having regular catch-ups and chats with them, encouraging them when they were feeling down, and complimenting them on their strengths. Mentor “Gina,” for example, exhibited characteristics of a supportive friend when her mentee “Sofia” relapsed,

My mentee has to go to [Drug Court] early due to having “shot up” and illicit drug, and failed on her urination . . . She stated that she was “ashamed and disgusted” and that she had to explain to the Judge the reasons behind her taking drugs. She stated that most or other times she would “calm down” herself but “this time she couldn’t.” I offered that next time she has a thought, or is triggered to “shoot up,” she is to call me to help distract [her]. (Mentor “Gina”)

Often the women and their mentors would also engage in social and recreational activities together, such as going shopping, watching movies, celebrating each other’s birthdays, and catching up over coffees and meals. These activities highlight the element of friendship inherent in mentoring, as mentors and mentees found themselves enjoying each other’s company and enhancing their bonds to one another through normal social activities. For many women, having a mentor who was able to provide them with such positive relational support was a sign of progress in their lives to the extent that it offered them an opportunity to open up in ways they had never done before:

I feel very comfortable. This is the first time in my life I am opening up to someone not drunk or high. I tell her more stuff than I tell my counsellor. (Mentee “Nikki”)

I have gone through a lot. Before I turned to cocaine (and crime) I grew up in a very destructive household. My uncle sexually assaulted me for years as a kid and my parents weren’t supportive. In the Lebanese culture you don’t talk about this stuff. I opened up to my [mentor “Tabitha”] about everything and she made me see there were better ways to deal with this than using drugs. (Mentee “Samantha”)

In some circumstances, the relational role that mentors played in the lives of the women also appeared to raise their self-esteem. The data suggested that some of the women in the sample experienced feelings of low self-esteem during their mentoring relationships. This typically manifested in instances of self-sabotage, where the women would suddenly withdraw from the relationships because they believed they were unworthy of the positive support that they were receiving. Here, mentors played a crucial role in reassuring the women and encouraging them to reengage in their relationships:

[“Bonnie”] has cancelled our last two planned meetings and on [date] I got a text saying “[‘Felicia’], I think we should just leave it in meeting, I am a lost cause and better not to waste all your time. Very sorry. . .” I texted and called her until she answered and I told her I didn’t think our meetings were a waste of time and she agreed to meet . . . as we had previously planned. (Mentor “Felicia”)

The potential for mentors to enhance the self-esteem of the women was also evident in some of the exit interviews conducted with the women. When asked what they had gotten out of the mentoring relationship, several mentees reported that they felt more assured about themselves and their abilities. Mentee “Abbie,” for example, stated,

I am way more confident now, I even feel “normal.” To know someone like [mentor “Hilary”] has made me see I am worthy of good things. (Mentee “Abbie”)

Middle-Range Functions

While many aspects of the mentoring relationship could be classified as falling purely within either the casework or the friendship dimensions, there were several functions that the mentors performed which occupied a more complex position. These functions combined elements of both practical and relational assistance to create circumstances where the women felt socially supported in addition to being practically equipped for prosocial lives in the community. Such forms of assistance included accompanying the women to appointments with other services, such as to meet with their parole officer, ensuring they complied with the conditions of their community supervision orders, and helping them to stay off substances. In these instances, the presence of the mentor not only had the effect of making the woman feel as though someone was there for her but also contributed towards helping her address some of the practical issues in her life.

Perhaps the most prominent sub-theme that arose in this category was the capacity for mentors to provide the women with positive advice and to instil in them more prosocial ways of thinking and problem solving. Throughout the client notes and activity sheets, mentors were repeatedly seen helping the women manage difficult issues by providing them with counsel and guidance on a variety of topics that included financial budgeting, coping with physical and mental health issues, stress management, and overcoming trauma and abuse. In many cases, mentors also attempted to negate negative influences of the women’s antisocial associates by providing advice on how to deal with precarious situations:

We talked quite a bit and [mentee “Deena”] alluded that she is in a new relationship with a guy who is doing some illegal activity. I advised [“Deena”] strongly about where that might lead and that it could have major consequences (negative ones). (Mentor “Kristine”)

We also talked about people from her past—[mentee “Angela”] recognises that some of the people she used to socialise with are not constructive connections. I asked her about positive people from her past that she might consider reconnecting with and she was able to tell me of two possible [people], so we explored this a little. (Mentor “Jennifer”)

Mentees also played an active role in formulating ideas and problem solving. This was especially evident in instances where mentors worked together with the women they were matched with to discuss and brainstorm ideas about how to deal with specific problems in a prosocial manner. Mentee “Alicia,” for example, actively worked with her mentor “Heather” to develop ways in which she could ensure that her ex-partner did not negatively affect her efforts to turn her life around:

[“Alicia”] is nervous and anxious about her ex-partner being released from prison . . . The release of her ex-partner is affecting her parents too as they’ve become anxious too due to the negative history [“Alicia”] has when this person has been in her life. We talked about strategies of what she would do when he is released and hangs out in her area again. This is what [“Alicia”] came up with by brainstorming with me: Already changed her usual time to go to the clinic . . . that will help as his family don’t go as early . . . and so won’t be able to give him that feedback anymore. Changed her mobile number and only a very few people know [“Alicia’s”] new number. Keeping busy—work and studying—minimised the risk of “bumping” into him. If she feels threatened in [any way]—report to police . . . When she feels overwhelmed and confused—calling a friend or mentor or [program staff members] . . . (Mentor “Heather”)

One aspect of the mentor’s role in steering the women towards more prosocial ways of thinking was reflected in their capacity to engender a sense of responsibility and accountability in the women. Strong bonds that mentors forged with the women that they were matched with did, in some circumstances, increase the level of responsibility of the women. In some cases, women felt compelled to make better, more positive decisions because they either felt a strong motivation to avoid disappointing their mentors due to the level of trust and confidence their mentors had in them or because they had been convinced by their mentors that they needed to own up to their mistakes. The following represent some of the responses that the women provided when asked about their takeaways from the mentoring experience:

I was stronger doing it with [mentor “Tabitha”]. I didn’t break down and run like I used to. She even encouraged me to hand myself in. I would have run if she didn’t. (Mentee “Samantha”)

I don’t just turn to the drink straight away anymore. I think about it. I think about the consequences. And I now take my medication properly. Things are heaps better. (Mentee “Karen”)

I know it’s not worth it—taking drugs and committing crime. You always get caught. (Mentee “Caitlyn”)

As the accounts suggest, in some cases mentoring appeared to alter the ways in which the women conceptualised their offending and responsibility more generally. In one case, a woman even went as far as to describe her mentor as being a positive role model. Mentee “Holly,” when asked what the best part of having a mentor was and what she had gotten out of the mentoring relationship, stated,

Being able to talk and have coffee with a professional, married woman with children. Not long ago I was [a] married, professional mother myself, so being around strong women has really helped me keep focused on important things in life . . . [Mentor “Ida”] over time shared with me her studies that she had done in the course of her career and I was really impressed. Fantastic role model for me. (Mentee “Holly”)

Limitations of Mentoring

Despite the many positive impacts that mentoring had on the practical and relational aspects of the women’s lives, the data also revealed that mentoring has important limitations. First, like typical relationships, mentoring is a two-way exercise that requires the active participation of both the mentor and the mentee for it to be successful. However, as the needs profile has shown, just over one quarter (26.6%) of the women in the sample had their mentoring relationships terminated because of their failure to engage adequately with their mentors. Typically, when a woman is not engaging with the program, a program staff member would contact the woman and persuade her to participate more actively. However, as the number of women who failed to successfully complete the program due to non-engagement shows, there were limits on the capacity of mentors and staff members to encourage participation among women who were not motivated to engage. To this extent, mentoring, like many other rehabilitative strategies, requires a level of personal investment on the part of the mentee for it to be effective.

Second, while mentoring relationships have casework, friendship, and middle-range functions, mentors do not fall exclusively within a specific category, but rather adopted various aspects of each function at different times depending on the specific needs of their mentees. As the data show, mentors are in a unique position in that they can combine elements of both casework and friendship without fully embracing one or the other. This was evident in the instances where mentors deferred to program staff members for guidance and expertise as they were not sufficiently knowledgeable or well placed to resolve some of the women’s practical issues on their own. Similarly, there were many occasions where it became apparent to the women that their mentors were not their friends in the traditional sense of term. Mentee “Olivia,” for example, had seen her mentor as a friend up until the point when her mentor, due to limitations imposed by the program guidelines, denied her a financial loan. The following client note on the incident reflects “Bonnie’s” disappointment:

[Phone call] to [“Bonnie”] following email from mentor stating that she received a text from mentee [stating] “please leave me” regarding the mentee’s request for the mentor to loan her $500 for a vet bill . . . [“Bonnie”] stated that she felt “let down” by mentor when [she] as asking for help. (Program staff member)

Similarly, mentee “Martha” expressed some dismay at the fact that her mentor had not seen her as enough of a friend to accept her request to connect on social media:

I just didn’t feel like [mentor “Rhonda”] understood. I tried to add her on Facebook because I thought “okay she’s my mate” and she didn’t accept it. (Mentee “Martha”)

As mentee ‘Martha’s’ account reveals, the personal boundaries that mentors sometimes put in place to protect themselves and to maintain an element of professionalism in the relationship functioned as an obstacle to the women’s capacities to form genuine friendships with their mentors in some instances.

Quality of Life Measures

In the final stage of analysis, scores on 16 items of the QOLI were compared at T1 (i.e., at program entry/when women had no or little engagement with the mentoring program) and T2 (i.e., after women had engaged with the program for at least several months) (Table 3) for a subsample of 20 program participants. Dependent samples t tests were performed to compare specific items and overall score on the QOLI. Except for level of satisfaction with employment, program participants reported higher levels of satisfaction with all of the Quality of Life questions in the follow-up survey. As it was not possible to control for the effects of factors external to the mentoring program, these positive results cannot be directly attributable to engagement in the program. Nevertheless, they do provide some evidence that participation in the program may be associated with increases in self-perceived quality of life of women who successfully engaged in the program.

Table 3.

QOLI: Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) Item Responses (n = 20).

How satisfied are you with . . . .	T1 surveyM (SD)	T2 surveyM (SD)	t (df)
1. Your health	−0.6 (1.8)	1.2 (1.2)	−4.7 (19)***
2. Your self-esteem	−0.2 (1.8)	1.6 (1.1)	−4.6 (19)***
3. Your goals and values	0.0 (1.9)	1.6 (1.2)	−3.9 (19)**
4. The money you have	−1.3 (1.8)	0.4 (1.4)	−4.1 (18)**
5. Your work. If not working, how satisfied about not working	−1.1 (2.0)	−0.4 (1.6)	−1.3 (18)
6. The play in your life	−0.7 (2.0)	1.0 (1.1)	−3.6 (19)**
7. Your learning	−0.2 (1.9)	1.1 (1.1)	−2.7 (19)*
8. Your creativity	−0.1 (2.2)	1.6 (1.2)	−3.6 (18)**
9. The helping you do	−0.5 (1.9)	1.9 (1.4)	−3.8 (19) **
10. The love in your life. If not in a relationship, how satisfied about not having a love relationship	−1.1 (2.3)	0.5 (1.9)	−2.5 (19)*
11. Your friends. If no friends, how satisfied about having no friends	−0.7 (1.5)	1.5 (1.5)	−3.8 (19)**
12. Your relationships with your children. If no children, how satisfied about not having children	−1.1 (2.1)	1.0 (1.9)	−3.7 (18)**
13. Your relationships with your relatives	0.0 (2.0)	1.1 (1.2)	−2.7 (18)*
14. Your home	−0.3 (2.1)	1.7 (1.1)	−4.7 (19)***
15. Your neighbourhood	−0.4 (1.9)	1.6 (1.2)	−4.9 (18)***
16. Your community	−0.5 (1.7)	1.6 (1.4)	−4.2 (17)***
Overall QOLI Score	−0.6 (2.2)	1.8 (1.6)	−4.9 (17)***

Note. Six-point Likert-type scale: –3 = very dissatisfied to 3 = very satisfied. QOLI = Quality of Life Inventory.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The results of the current study reinforce the range of social and practical difficulties that affect the ability of women involved in the criminal justice system to lead prosocial ways of life, and that mentoring, through unique combinations of casework and friendship roles, has potential to at least begin to address some of these difficulties. The array of social and practical challenges that the women in the study faced draws attention to the high levels of social exclusion that women involved in the criminal justice system tend to experience. The concept of social capital provides a good framework for understanding the depth of the social exclusion that the women encountered and the extent to which it affected their abilities to desist from offending.

Social Capital of Women Involved in the Criminal Justice System

In the context of the current study, it was initially obvious that the women in the sample lacked positive relational supports and institutional connections in their lives. As the results suggested, many of the women in the sample struggled to break away from antisocial associates and lifestyles. This was compounded by considerable challenges such as unstable housing, poor employment opportunities, physical and mental health issues, substance abuse, and fractured personal relationships (e.g., Brennan, Breitenbach, Dieterich, Salisbury, & Van Voorhis, 2012; Carlson, Shafer, & Duffee, 2010; DeHart, 2008; DeHart et al., 2014; Gelsthorpe et al., 2007; Gilfus, 1993; Green et al., 2005; McClellan et al., 1997; Mullings et al., 2002; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). These challenges often did not occur in isolation, but intersected with one another to create a network of compounding difficulties that impeded the ability of the women to turn their lives around (e.g., Richie, 2001). Given that most of the women in the sample had experienced imprisonment at some point within the 2 years prior to their engagement with the mentoring program, the findings further underscore the high levels of social and practical difficulties faced by women leaving prison (O’Brien, 2001; O’Brien & Leem, 2007; Richie, 2001). In many respects, the results support Baldry’s (2010) contention that many women ex-prisoners live in a “liminal, marginal space” that is characterised by high levels of social exclusion.

Far from being full participants of society, many of the women in the study lived on the fringes of society, struggling to build stable and independent lives due to the difficulties they faced in gaining basic necessities, such as safe housing, education, health care, employment, and positive relational support. The effects of social exclusion should not be underestimated. To the extent that social exclusion engenders low positive social capital among women offenders, it also seriously restricts their self-efficacy. For these women, the key to overcoming the positive social capital deficits in their lives lies in addressing their needs in a holistic manner that recognises the ways in which many of these needs intersect to produce environments that are often not conducive to their progress.

Mentoring and Desistance

In their study on the impacts of mentoring on the social capital of women offenders, Brown and Ross (2010b) identified two key forms of support that mentors could provide mentees. The first was instrumental support, and the second was psychological support (Brown & Ross 2010a, 2010b). While the former refers to support that is geared towards the achievement of immediate practical goals, the latter relates to assistance that is targeted at enhancing the most relational aspects of an individual’s life (Brown & Ross 2010a, 2010b). In many ways, the casework and friendship dimensions of the mentoring relationships described in this study replicate these categories of support identified by Brown and Ross (2010a, 2010b). In both dimensions, the positive social capital of mentors was utilised to enhance the positive social capital of the women involved, allowing them to take the kinds of steps they needed to make progress in their lives. Mentors mobilised the social connections and resources that they had to create more prosocial opportunities and networks for the women whom they were matched with.

Perhaps, the most unique aspect of mentoring, however, lies in the middle-range functions it performs. The ability of certain mentors to simultaneously incorporate instrumental and relational support offers a unique means by which prosocial behaviour was encouraged among the women they were mentoring. The themes of prosocial advice-giving and role-modelling provide good examples of how mentoring can enhance the positive social capital of women offenders promoting desistance. In their study, Brown and Ross (2010b) highlighted how the former could facilitate the psychological transformation of women offenders by allowing them to build positive social connections that could assist them in developing and internalising prosocial values. These psychological impacts are evident in the results of the current study. First, matching mentees to women who are leading successful prosocial lives in the community allows for women involved in the criminal justice system to form prosocial attachments in their lives. Through their interactions with one another, the women can enhance their attachments to their mentors, and as such, develop an understanding of, and internalise the prosocial norms that their mentors abide by. To this extent, mentoring can enhance the capacity for women offenders to “go straight.” The cultivation of prosocial attachments between women offenders and their mentors may lead to an increase in their positive social capital and quality of life that provides them with thinking processes they need to develop more productive lives.

Second, a sense of commitment is built between the women and their mentors if they cultivate strong interpersonal bonds with each other over time. This commitment appeared to have an impact on the ways in which many of the women conducted themselves. It enhanced a sense of responsibility among some women that seemed to make an impact on their decision-making process. For example, several women in the study cited their mentors as being the reason why they decided to make positive decisions in their lives. These women stated that it was their desire to avoid disappointing their mentors, with whom they had developed bonds with that guided their decision-making processes. As such, commitment seems to have an important role in mentoring, with the potential to alter the way women who have been involved in the criminal justice system conceptualise the basis for their prior criminal behaviour.

Taken together, when mentoring is successful through a combination of instrumental and relational support, prosocial attachments and commitments can provide a key turning point for women involved in the criminal justice system to move towards more prosocial lifestyles. Sampson and Laub (1993) recognised that turning points were only effective motivators for desistance in instances where individuals ascribe a meaningful level of significance to them. In this context, Brown and Ross (2010a) explained that the effectiveness of mentoring also depends on the extent to which a woman offender is ready to change. While in the current study the specific factors that made mentoring a “turning point” for some women but not for others was not examined, one possibility is that middle-range functions in these relationships are critical. Of course, the success of these relationships is dependent on more than just the types of assistance provided by mentors. The fact that over a quarter of the women in the sample had their mentoring relationships terminated because of their failure to engage adequately with their mentors suggests that, consistent with the work of Brown and Ross (2010a, 2010b), there also must be an element of readiness on the part of the women to take progressive steps to make mentoring work.

Limitations

This study was characterised by important limitations. It is based on a small sample of women involved in the criminal justice system who were engaged in a mentoring program and for whom data were available. Therefore, generalisation based on the results may be limited. The archival nature of the data makes it susceptible to selective deposit limitations. Finally, program entry surveys and mentee reports are based on self-report data, and it was not possible to control for social desirability in the current study as this information was not collected in the program context. Despite these limitations, the findings from the current study produced similar information to prior studies using different samples (e.g., Brown & Ross, 2010a, 2010b) and adds to the knowledge-base regarding the potential and limitations of mentoring in addressing the specific needs and obstacles faced by women trying to overcome their involvement in the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

Overall, the current study provides some empirical support for the benefits of mentoring for women involved in the criminal justice system. While we did not examine recidivism as a central outcome measure, in total only approximately one fifth of the women were recorded as having returned to prison during the time that they were engaged with the mentoring program. While reoffending is typically used as an outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice–related interventions, it is critical to reiterate that re-offences are discrete events and encompass a vast array of transgressions ranging from minor to severe forms of offences. In fact, a little over half of the women who returned to custody did so due to minor breaches of community supervision orders.

On the contrary, pathways to desistance are far fewer and can be extremely difficult to navigate and maintain. As Bushway, Piquero, Broidy, Cauffman, and Mazerolle (2001) point out, it is necessary to understand desistance as a process; instances of reoffending are governed by social structural characteristics, psychosocial processes, and individual differences, and these factors are all interconnected. In this context, it is necessary to consider the extent to which interventions equip offenders with the resources they require to overcome these multi-level problem profiles that shape their offending. The current study provided some empirical evidence along these lines; positive changes in the women’s relational needs, social capital, self-efficacy, and overall quality of life all reflect an enhancement of the potential for desistance.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aukett

Ritchie

Mill

(1988). Gender differences in friendship patterns. Sex Roles, 19, 57-66.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015). The health of Australia’s prisoners 2015. Canberra: Author.

Baldry

(2010). Women in transition: From prison to . . . . Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22, 253-267.

Blechman

Maurice

Buecker

Helberg

(2000). Can mentoring or skill training reduce recidivism? Observational study with propensity analysis. Prevention Science, 1, 139-155.

Brennan

Breitenbach

Dieterich

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2012). Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: A person-centred analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1481-1508.

Brown

Ross

(2010a). Assisting and supporting women released from prison: Is mentoring the answer? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22, 217-232.

Brown

Ross

(2010b). Mentoring, social capital and desistance: A study of women released from prison. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43, 31-50.

Browne

Miller

Maguin

(1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 301-322.

Bushway

S. D.

Piquero

A. R.

Broidy

L. M.

Cauffman

Mazerolle

(2001). An empirical framework for studying desistance as a process. Criminology, 39, 491-516.

10.

Carlen

(1988). Women, crime and poverty. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

11.

Carlson

B. E.

Shafer

M. S.

Duffee

D. E.

(2010). Traumatic histories and stressful life events of incarcerated parents II: Gender and ethnic differences in substance abuse and service needs. The Prison Journal, 90, 494-515.

12.

Carlton

Segrave

(2016). Rethinking women’s post-release reintegration and “success.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49, 281-299.

13.

Cernkovich

S. A.

Lanctôt

Giordano

P. C.

(2008). Predicting adolescent and adult antisocial behavior among adjudicated delinquent females. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 3-33.

14.

Chesney-Lind

Pasko

(2004). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

15.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2, 11-52.

16.

DeHart

(2008). Pathways to prison: Impact of victimization in the lives of incarcerated women. Violence Against Women, 14, 1362-1381.

17.

DeHart

Lynch

Belknap

Dass-Brailsford

Green

(2014). Life history models of female offending: The roles of serious mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 138-151.

18.

Frisch

M. B.

(1994). QOLI: Quality of Life Inventory manual and treatment guide. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

19.

Gelsthorpe

Sharpe

Roberts

(2007). Provision for women offenders in the community. London, England: The Fawcett Society.

20.

Gilfus

M. E.

(1993). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4, 63-89.

21.

Green

B. L.

Miranda

Daroowalla

Siddique

(2005). Trauma exposure, mental health functioning, and program needs of women in jail. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 33-151.

22.

Heidensohn

(2012). The future of feminist criminology. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 8, 123-134.

23.

Hucklesby

Wincup

(2014). Assistance, support and monitoring? The paradoxes of mentoring adults in the criminal justice system. Journal of Social Policy, 43, 373-390.

24.

Indig

Topp

Ross

Mamoon

Border

Kumar

McNamara

(2010). 2009 NSW Inmate Health Survey: Key findings report. Sydney, Australia: Justice Health.

25.

Johansson

Kempf-Leonard

(2009). A gender-specific pathway to serious, violent and chronic offending. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 216-240.

26.

Joliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2007). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on reoffending: A summary. London, England: Home Office.

27.

Jordan

C. E.

Clark

Pritchard

Charnigo

(2012). Lethal and other serious assaults: Disentangling gender and context. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 425-455.

28.

Kruttschnitt

(2016). The politics, and place, of gender in research on crime. Criminology, 54, 8-29.

29.

Leigey

M. E.

Reed

K. L.

(2010). A woman’s life before serving life: Examining the negative pre-incarceration life events of female life-sentenced inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 20, 302-322.

30.

Makarios

M. D.

(2007). Race, abuse and female criminal violence. Feminist Criminology, 2, 100-116.

31.

McClellan

D. S.

Farabee

Crouch

B. M.

(1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 455-476.

32.

Miller

J. B.

(1986). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

33.

Mullings

J. L.

Pollock

Crouch

B. M.

(2002). Drugs and criminality: Results from the Texas women inmates study. Women & Criminal Justice, 13, 69-96.

34.

O’Brien

(2001). “Just like baking a cake”: Women describe the necessary ingredients for successful reentry after incarceration. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 82, 287-295.

35.

O’Brien

Leem

(2007). Moving from needs to self-efficacy. Women & Therapy, 29, 261-284.

36.

Richie

B. E.

(2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 368-389.

37.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 541-566.

38.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31, 301-325.

39.

Siegel

J. A.

Williams

L. M.

(2003). The relationship between child sexual abuse and female delinquency and crime: A prospective study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 71-94.

40.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2006). Recidivism findings for the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration’s Mentoring Program: Final report. Olympia: Author.

41.

Wong

S. K.

(2007). Disorganization precursors, the family and crime: A multiyear analysis of Canadian municipalities. Western Criminology Review, 8, 48-68.