What Works for Whom? The Effects of Gender Responsive Programming on Girls and Boys in Secure Detention

AuthorMargaret A. Zahn,Lisa P. Tichavsky,Jacob C. Day
Date01 February 2015
Published date01 February 2015
DOI10.1177/0022427814538033
Subject MatterArticle
Article
What Works
for Whom? The
Effects of Gender
Responsive
Programming on
Girls and Boys in
Secure Detention
Jacob C. Day
1
, Margaret A. Zahn
2
,
and Lisa P. Tichavsky
2
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigates whether gender responsive programming
is effective at reducing recidivism relative to traditional, reinforcement-
based programming for both girls and boys in secure detention. Methods:
Event-history analysis is used to examine recidivism outcomes for two pro-
pensity score matched samples of girls (n¼148) and boys (n¼140)
released from gender responsive versus traditional detention facilities in
Connecticut. The contingent effects of trauma, depression/anxiety, alco-
hol/drug abuse, anger/irritability, and somatic complaints are also examined.
1
Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of North Carolina Wilmington,
Wilmington, NC, USA
2
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC,
USA
Corresponding Author:
Jacob C. Day, Departme nt of Sociology and Crim inology, Universi ty of North Carolina
Wilmington, Campus Box 5978, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA.
Email: dayj@uncw.e du
Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency
2015, Vol. 52(1) 93-129
ªThe Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022427814538033
jrc.sagepub.com
Results: Compared to traditional programming, gender responsive pro-
gramming for youth in secure detention is associated with a lower risk
of recidivism for girls with gender-sensitive risk factors but a higher risk
of recidivism among girls who do not display these risk factors. Gender
responsive programs are no more or less effective at reducing recidivism
for boys, regardless of whetherthey display risk factors commonly associated
with girls’ delinquency and confinement. Conclusions: The results sug-
gest that girls in secure detention require different approaches depending
on their histories of trauma and associated mental and physical health
issues. While girls who follow gendered pathways into detention benefit
from the rel ational approach employedin gender responsive programs, girls
without such issues benefit more from traditional reinforcement
programming.
Keywords
gender, program evaluation, recidivism, causes/correlates, juvenile
delinquency, feminist theories, criminological theory
Introduction
Gender is one of the most consistent correlates of crime. Across different
social and historical contexts, males commit more crime than females.
Partly as a result of their lower representation among criminal and delin-
quent populations, early criminological scholars either ignored or devel-
oped stereotypical theories of girls’ criminal behavior (Chesney-Lind
1989; Tracy, Kempf-Leonard, and Abramoske-James 2009). However, over
the last 30 years, feminist criminologists have corrected much of this early
view on the etiology of girls’ delinquency and incarceration by arguing that
girls are developmentally different from boys and traverse unique pathways
into the juvenile justice system (Belknap 2001; Chesney-Lind 1989; Daly
1992). Furthermore, in responseto girls’ increasingrepresentation in the juve-
nile justice system (Chesney-Lind and Pasko 2013; Snyder and Sickmund
2006; Steffensmeier et al. 2005), gender responsive approaches to working
with girls in the systemthat are rooted in feminist theories on the etiology of
female delinquency have proliferated (Bloom, Owen,and Covington 2003).
Advocates of gender responsive programming suggest that programs
designed for incarcerated boys are not likely to meet the ‘‘unique needs’’
of incarcerated girls (Bloom et al. 2002a; Bloom et al. 2003). Adapting the
original guiding principles for gender responsive programming developed
94 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(1)
by Bloom et al. (2003), gender responsive programming advocates suggest
that preventing delinquency in girls requires a focus on physical and emo-
tional safety in order to counteract the feelings of fear engendered by past
abuse, an emphasis on building positive relationships or healthy connec-
tions to family and significant others, and self-esteem enhancement in
order to more effectively counteract negative influences from male peers
(Benedict and Sokoloff 2007; Bloom et al. 2002a; Foley 2008; Matthews
and Hubbard 2008).
Although rooted in feminist theories on gender differences in social
psychological development and pathways to offending and in carceration,
gender responsive programs for youth in detention have not undergone
rigorous evaluations regarding their effectiveness at reducing recidivism
(Hipwell and Loeber 2006; Zahn et al. 2009). Furthermore, given that
boys experience many of the same risk factors and traverse some of the
same pathways to offending and incarceration as girls, gender responsive
advocates have not fully considered how programs rooted in feminist
principles on female offending may also work for boys who display sim-
ilar risk factors and traverse similar pathways. Toward this end,we compare
the effects of a gender responsive program and a behavioral reinforcement-
based program for both female and male youth incarcerated in Connecticut
during 2010.
Since both programs are implemented with girls and boys in detention,
this provides a unique opportunity to examine the effectiveness of gender
responsive programming. First, we are able to compare the effectiveness
of gender responsive programming to youth receiving traditional pro-
gramming. Such comparison groups are generally lacking in the limited
evaluation research on gender responsive programming (Hipwell and
Loeber 2006; Zahn et al. 2009). Second, by analyzing the effects of each
program on both boys and girls, we avoid the pitfalls of prior evaluation
research on mixed-gender samples where gender effects have not be en
examined, as well as those of gender-specific evaluations where boys have
been excluded (Hipwell and Loeber 2006; Lipsey 2009; Zahn et al. 2009).
In fact, to our knowledge, this evaluation offers one of the first attempts to
determine whether both boys and girls benefit from gender responsive
programming principles.
Finally, in addition to speaking directly to the effectiveness of gender
responsive programming, the inclusion of measures of risk factors (e.g.,
trauma, drug, and alcohol abuse, and mental and physical health prob-
lems) more common among incarceratedgirlsallowsustoexamine
whether gender responsive programming works better for youth who
Day et al. 95

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT