Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Celinska, K., & Siegel, J. A. (2010). Mothers in trouble: Coping with actual or pending separation from children due to incarceration. The Prison Journal, 90, 447–474. DOI:10.1177/0032885510382218

Abstract: Although female offenders are the fastest growing population in prison today, relatively few studies focus on their unique experiences as mothers. In this study, the authors utilize 74 semistructured interviews with mothers before trial and during incarceration to document coping strategies employed to deal with potential or actual separation from their children. From the study data, seven strategies emerge: being a good mother, mothering from prison, role redefinition, disassociation from prisoner identity, self-transformation, planning and preparation, and self-blame. The findings show that mothers used multiple strategies and tended to employ emotion-focused and adaptive coping techniques. The policy implications are discussed.

Journal Article 2: Salisbury, E. J., Van Voorhis, P., & Spiropoulos, G. V. (2009). The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: An exploratory study. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 550–585. DOI:10.1177/0011128707308102

Abstract: Risk assessment and classification systems for women have been largely derived from male-based systems. As a result, many of the needs unique to women are not formally assessed or treated. Emerging research advocating a gender-responsive approach to the supervision and treatment of women offenders suggests that needs such as abuse, mental health, substance abuse, relationship difficulties, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and parenting issues are important treatment targets. Although these needs may be highly prevalent among women offenders, they have not been adequately tested to determine their relationships with future offending. In response, the present study sought to understand whether gender-responsive needs contributed as risk factors to poor prison adjustment and community recidivism. Additionally, several types of risk assessment models were explored to determine whether gender-responsive needs enhanced the validities of currently established risk classification systems (i.e., a state’s institutional custody scale and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised). Patterns of results differed across prison and community outcomes, with some gender-responsive needs contributing to more valid risk assessment systems. As a pilot study, the results, although mixed, appear to support continued research on this topic.