Women on Probation and Parole: A Feminist Critique of Community Programs and Services (review)

As the number of women in the criminal justice system has increased, so too has the academic interest in the causes and conditions of their punishment and rehabilitation. As Merry Morash correctly notes in her new book on women on probation and parole, feminist criminology has been particularly attuned to whether women under criminal supervision should be treated in ways that reflect their gender-specific needs. While there is wide acknowledgment that women in the criminal justice system are more likely to have suffered privations and trauma, there is debate about whether the treatment of women should be shaped by their gender-relevant needs. Morash frames this debate in terms of two major concerns: first, that gender-responsive programs tend to reinforce gender stereotypes about women's work by focusing on mothering instead of paid employment; second, that gender-responsive programming often increases control and punishment of women by exposing them to higher levels of supervision.

To test these propositions, Morash collected data from two adjacent Northwestern counties. One of these counties, called "Gender Responsive County" provides a full complement of "wrap around services" along a "continuum of care." The adjacent "Traditional County" follows a traditional supervision approach that makes no special effort to accommodate gender-specific needs. Morash collects data on 186 women in Gender Responsive County and 253 women in Traditional County. Along with extensive interviews at both the beginning and end of the year of supervision, Morash uses data collected from supervisors' initial assessments, case notes and follow-up survey, as well as the results of drug tests administered to the women during their supervision.

According to Morash, the only way to understand the differences in both types of supervision and eventual outcomes is to class the women according to their dominant illegal activity. This variable, she argues, best explains "where women live, how often they move, and their connections with intimate partners and children."(22) These variables, in turn, shape women's needs, the kinds of supervision required and the kinds of outcomes that can be termed "successful." While Morash's theory makes intuitive sense, there are problems with its execution. First, use of "dominant illegal activity" as an independent variable may obscure more that it reveals. Because women in some social locations are more likely to be involved in specific kinds of criminal activities, I wasn't convinced that it was the specifics of the crime that dictated the particularities of treatment needs. Second, it is not clear why some women are assigned to their groups. Why is "Samantha," who supported her cocaine addiction by dealing drugs but was convicted of a single violent crime categorized as "violence centered" rather than "substance centered?" Morash classifies about two-thirds of the women in both counties as "substance centered" and classifies the remaining third as economic, violence, marijuana cultivators, child maltreatment and partner-influenced. The bulk of the book is devoted to the largest group.

The three chapters that document substance centered women make a convincing case for the greater effectiveness of the programming in Gender Responsive County. In straightforward, engaging prose, Morash shows how the supervisors in Gender Responsive County go about setting goals, identifying needs and linking women to relevant resources. Women who use drugs are met with increased monitoring, sanctions and treatment. Staff document women's changing needs through regular contact. Women report that "broad and intense" supervision supported and assisted them in making positive changes. In contrast, the "limited and narrow" supervision in Traditional County focuses on moving women quickly to the lowest level of supervision, a move justified by a presumption that the women have limited needs. Instead of matching women with resources, Traditional County simply measures compliance with court mandates.

Although the absolute number of successful outcomes doesn't demonstrate greater effectiveness in Gender Responsive County, Morash makes a good case for an interpretation beyond simple numbers. Because the supervision at Gender Responsive County...