https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3643-1852
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
With increasing numbers of women entering and exiting prison, gender-responsive services are needed to address unique challenges women face when reentering society. Seattle Women’s Reentry (SWR), a gender-responsive reentry initiative, was implemented in 2017–2018 in King County, Washington. SWR is a collaborative partnership between the Seattle Police Department’s IF Project, the Washington State Department of Corrections, and community social service agencies to address the needs of women leaving the Washington Corrections Center for Women. Using a quasi-experimental design, this study examined 85 women (60 in the experimental group and 25 in the comparison group) released from the Washington Corrections Center for Women in 2017 and 2018. Results show a significant difference between groups with respect to violations and arrests. Factors associated with rearrest/violations were the number of post-release SWR contacts, age, and LS/CMI scores. Qualitative findings reveal program satisfaction among participants and themes that tell a story about how women navigate the reentry process showing distinct stages in the reentry process characterized by support stability, and responsibility. Research and policy implications for gender-responsive services for women leaving prison are discussed.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to the women who participated in this study and to Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz, Chief Carmen Best (retired), and Detective Kim Bogucki, Seattle University research assistants Tia Squires, Kidst Messelu, Nadine Guyo, The IF Project’s Amber Flame, and the many individuals from the Washington State Department of Corrections, the IF Project, and other agencies in Seattle and Washington State for their work on this project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. The vast majority (95%) of people incarcerated eventually return to their communities. In 2015, there were 641,000 people sentenced to federal and state prisons released to their communities and approximately 9 million people released from jail (National Reentry Resource Center, n.d.).
2. See: https://www.theifproject.org/.
3. See: https://www.theifproject.org/.
4. The Personal Reentry Education Plan (P.R.E.P.) Workbook was developed by members of the SWR Executive Committee and IF Project staff with input from a curriculum advisory committee comprised of women incarcerated at WCCW. The P.R.E.P. workbook is a 64-page booklet including a description of the IF Project, the prison-based Prison Reentry Education Plan, and the SWR Initiative, a “reentry checklist,” and reflections and assignments for 12 sessions.
5. At the time this study was conducted, the Washington State Department of Corrections Research Review Committee was the committee charged with research review. Currently the Washington State Department of Corrections utilizes a state-wide Institutional Review Board – The Washington State Institutional Review Board (WSIRB). This change was adopted in 6/11/2020 (See: https://www.mhs.com/MHS-Publicsafety?prodname=pcl-r2).
6. Between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018 of the study period, 1037 women were released from Washington State prisons and work releases. These releases are for women released to all 39 counties in the state. In the counties from which the sample was drawn for this study, there were 117 eligible participants. Of the eligible 117, 32 did not participate for various reasons including choosing not to participate, last minute change to county of release, extradition to other states, or Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention. For an example of prison admissions and releases within the context of operating capacity in Washington State, see: https://doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/400-RE001.pdf.
7. Snohomish, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties were selected as comparison groups based on their proximity to Seattle and the limited post-prison reentry resources for women available in these counties. Snohomish, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties are located to the north of King County from the end of King County to the Canadian border. Pierce County, the largest and most comparable county to King County, was excluded as a potential comparison group because Pierce County has reentry resources provided through multiple agencies that overlap with services offered through SWR.
8. Participants were interviewed in various open rooms within the prison depending on availability including staff offices, private hallways, program meeting rooms, and vacant living units depending on staffing levels and facility availability.
9. Alcatel One Touch flip phones with T-Mobile accounts were given to the research team and participants by WA DOC for use for the post-release interviews.
10. This question was not asked of the comparison group.
11. These questions were not asked of the comparison group.
12. WA DOC defines recidivism as “any felony offense committed by an offender within 36-months of being at-risk in the community which results in a Washington State conviction.” This (and rearrests and charges) was the primary recidivism outcome variable. The SWR participants were provided services and were contacted for interviews for one-year post-release and followed for purposes of collecting recidivism data through the study end December 31, 2019. Thus, at the date of final data analysis, those released from prison in January 2017 were followed for up to three years while those released later dates in December 2018 were followed for one year.
13. The comparison group was released per WA DOC policy guidelines (see WA DOC Policy 350.200) which includes prerelease planning with a case manager 6-12 months prior to release, assistance obtaining a social security or state license, and gate money and/or transportation expenses or pre-paid phone cards.
14. This occurred in a small number of cases where women moved back and forth from King county to the comparison group counties. Thus, these women were originally designated to be released to addresses in the comparison group counties, however as a result of circumstances ended up in King County and requested services.
15. WA State Department of Corrections Agency Fact Card: https://www.doc.wa.gov/docs/publications/reports/100-QA002.pdf.
16. The one-year follow-up qualitative data collection was supplemental to the recidivism and violation data. Given the span of time during which the women were released (January 1, 2017 through December, 2018) the research team was only able to follow the women for one year based on the project timeline.
17. Actual n/% cannot be presented when n<10 per WA DOC policy.
18. The crimes for which participants were arrested and cited ranged from traffic citations (e.g., speeding, driving without a license, operating a motor vehicle without insurance, no valid operating license, and failure to wear a seat belt, improper lane usage, failure to renew tabs, and Driving Under the Influence) to property crimes (burglary, theft of a motor vehicle, theft, organized retail theft, money laundering) to public order crimes (trespassing, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, alcohol in a public place, possession of a dangerous weapon, escape, obstructing a law enforcement officer, and attempt to allude police) to person crimes (assault, kidnapping, robbery, harassment/threaten to kill).
19. Since the Washington Department of Corrections prohibited any reporting of data with less than ten cases and we had some monthly interviews, particularly toward the end of the one-year post-release follow-up, that had less than ten interviews, we had to group the data. The data were group into equal categories and also represent the various stages of the reentry process: early, mid, and later.
20. The comparison group received the standard prison programming offered at the facility which included substance abuse treatment, work and vocational programming, and academic (i.e., adult basic education, GED) and partnership programming (e.g., horticulture, technical design, prison-pet partnership).
21. While some of the women in the comparison group were also released to urban areas in the comparison group counties (e.g., Everett, WA in Snohomish County and Bellingham, WA in Whatcom County), these cities are much smaller than Seattle the largest city in WA State.
22. Per WA DOC policy, n<10 cannot be displayed to protect subject privacy. Thus, the demographic characteristics, crime types, length of incarceration, and other background characteristics cannot be used for the purpose of analysis or speculation as to the differences between the comparison and experimental groups who recidivated.