Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 May 25.
Published in final edited form as: Affilia. 2020 Apr 21;36(2):240–253. doi: 10.1177/0886109920919180

Examining the Influence of Financial Assistance and Employment Services on the Criminal Justice Outcomes of Women on Probation

Jordan Wilfong 1, Seana Golder 2, TK Logan 3, George Higgins 2
PMCID: PMC10211472  NIHMSID: NIHMS1607318  PMID: 37234571

Abstract

Although low income is common across the U.S. probation population, women offenders experience it more than men. However, despite the connection between income and probation outcomes, limited research has been conducted on programs that could improve the financial circumstances of female probationers. This study examined the influence on probation outcomes of receiving government financial assistance programs and employment services. The findings indicated that participants who received Social Security Disability Insurance more often were less likely to become incarcerated. Implications include expanding cash assistance programs to provide more substantial monthly incomes for women probationers, particularly those with disabilities, in order to increase financial stability and improve criminal justice outcomes.

Keywords: financial assistance, probation, social policy, women and crime

Probation is a major contributing factor to the high rate of incarceration among women in the United States. Often, this occurs through probationers experiencing difficulties meeting the conditions of their community supervision and therefore receiving technical violations and revocations that consequently lead to prison or jail sentences (Phelps, 2013). Although most research on the probation outcomes of women focuses on the behaviors through which they can receive technical violations and revocations, some evidence indicates that structural factors such as low incomes and limited employment opportunities also increase rates of incarceration (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2016; Holtfreter et al., 2004; Vera Institute of Justice [VIJ], 2016). While low incomes are common throughout the U.S. criminal justice population, women offenders experience them more often than men (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). Feminist criminology researchers have identified that structural inequalities in the United States limit the economic opportunities and incomes of justice-involved women, which therefore creates challenges meeting the financial requirements of probation sentences (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). These issues are further complicated since a large number of justice-involved women also have a disability, therefore producing additional difficulties with finding and maintaining employment (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2015; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013).

Despite the connection between income and probation outcomes, limited research has been conducted on the programs and services available to women probationers. As such, it is important to examine the impact of services that focus on improving the economic circumstances of women offenders and the impact this could have on sentence outcomes. This study will therefore examine how the probation outcomes of women are influenced by the receipt of several types of government financial assistance programs such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and housing assistance, as well as access to employment services.

Probation and Incarceration Among Women

The number of women on probation in the United States has risen steadily over the previous few decades and now stands at nearly 1 million, which accounts for 80% of the total population of women in the criminal justice system (Kaeble et al., 2016). Probation, which was established to function as a more affordable alternative to incarceration, has nonetheless increased the prison and jail populations in many regions of the United States (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Justice Center, 2013; Phelps, 2013; VIJ, 2016). Several factors are responsible for this. First, probationers often have difficulties meeting the conditions of their community supervision, which include monthly supervision fees, frequent illicit drug and alcohol screenings, regular meetings with probation officers, mandates to participate in and pay for treatment services, and other case-specific requirements (Phelps, 2013; VIJ, 2016). Consequently, probationers are often levied with technical violations and revocations that lead to prison or jail sentences. Second, the criminal codes in various regions of the United States have changed in recent years, resulting in multiple offenses that were previously settled with fines now leading to probation sentences (Phelps, 2013). As a result, more people are drawn into the criminal justice system for low-level offenses and subsequently become incarcerated after failing to meet the conditions of their probation supervision (Phelps, 2013).

Several studies have measured the rate at which women become incarcerated during probation sentences. These findings, though limited in number, suggest difficulties for the population at completing sentences without becoming incarcerated (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Justice Center, 2013; Langan & Cunniff, 1992; Phelps, 2013; VIJ, 2016). Specifically, a national study by Greenfeld and Snell (1999) identified one in three women prisoners were on probation prior to their incarceration. Also, a report by the VIJ (2016) found that a probation or parole violation accounted for the reason why 25% of women were in Washington, DC jails and 20% in Baltimore jails. Furthermore, studies including samples of both men and women provide other evidence linking probation to incarceration. More specifically, a 2013 study in Kansas illustrated that probation violations accounted for 40% of the state’s prison sentences (Justice Center, 2013). Additionally, a national study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics identified that over a 3-year period, 46% of probationers were incarcerated, fled the area, or were unable to be located by the criminal justice system (Langan & Cunniff, 1992).

Low Incomes and Probation Outcomes

The U.S. criminal justice population is primarily comprised of individuals who have lower incomes and limited wealth. Women offenders in particular are more likely than men to encounter economic deficits (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013; Daly, 1992, 1994; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Sawyer, 2016). Although limited research has been conducted on the specific financial conditions confronting women probationers, studies including women prisoners and the overall probation population suggest frequent economic challenges. In particular, prior to their incarceration, the average yearly income of a woman prisoner is US$10,000 less than nonincarcerated women and US$6,000 less than incarcerated men (Prison Policy Institute [PPI], 2015). Additionally, a 2016 statewide study in Massachusetts identified probationers were 88% more likely to live in the state’s poorer districts than the wealthier ones (Sawyer, 2016).

The financial challenges common to women in the criminal justice population have been linked to limited resources in the communities within which they reside. More specifically, several studies indicate that women who end up in the criminal justice system often live in communities with few educational and economic opportunities (Owen & Bloom, 1995; Reisig et al., 2002; Rose & Clear, 1998). As a consequence, women probationers are more likely to experience challenges affording the financial requirements of their sentences, which typically include monthly supervision fees, court fines, court-mandated treatment services, and transportation to and from meetings (ACLU, 2016). Economic challenges and the costs of sentences subsequently increase the likelihood of women probationers becoming incarcerated. As evidence, a study by Holtfreter et al. (2004), including a sample of 134 women probationers, identified that participants with lower incomes were both rearrested and received technical violations significantly more often. Also, a national report by the ACLU (2016) illustrated that an inability to afford the financial requirements of supervision often results in probationers becoming incarcerated during their sentences.

Several other issues are also likely to create financial barriers for women probationers to finish their sentences without becoming incarcerated. Specifically, the high rates of victimization histories common among women probationers have been linked to the development of substance use disorders and mental health issues, which could result in court mandates to participate in and pay for treatment services during probation sentences (Bloom et al., 2003; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013; Covington, 2008). Also, justice-involved women are disproportionately more likely to report having at least one disability, which could create more economic difficulties given the challenges this present to maintaining employment and affording probation costs. More specifically, a national study found that nearly 50% of women in jails and nearly 40% of women in prisons reported having at least one disability (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2015). Additionally, drug convictions, which are the number one reason a person is sentenced to probation, limit the ability for women probationers to access poverty reduction programs such as SNAP, TANF, and public housing (Allard, 2002; Sentencing Project, 2015). These bans are particularly impactful for women as they represent 90% of TANF recipients and receive SNAP benefits twice as often as men (Sentencing Project, 2015).

Race/ethnicity is also a contributing factor to income. More specifically, the historic and present-day economic discrimination directed toward African American women in the United States increases the likelihood of the population having fewer economic opportunities and lower incomes (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Zinn, 1980). Two recent national studies provide evidence of the economic marginalization common among African American women. Chang (2010) found that African American women have nearly 40 times less financial wealth than white men and 7 times less than white women (Chang, 2010). Also, the National Women’s Law Center [NWLC] (2017) identified that black women make 63 cents on the dollar in comparison to white men. As such, African American women on probation may experience greater likelihoods of economic challenges during probation sentences as a result of more limited opportunities to accumulate income.

Taken together, women probationers often confront financial challenges that obstruct their ability to complete sentences without becoming incarcerated. The combination of limited job opportunities, supervision fees, court mandates to participate in and pay for treatment services, and limited access to government financial supports can generate significant barriers to meeting the conditions of probation sentences (Allard, 2002; Owen & Bloom, 1995; Reisig et al., 2002; Rose & Clear, 1998; Sentencing Project, 2015). Therefore, it is important to examine services that aim to provide financial support for women probationers in order to understand the influence these programs could have on criminal justice outcomes.

Financial Assistance Programs

Currently, there are a limited number of studies on the impact of financial support programs on the criminal justice outcomes of women probationers. This may be the result of most criminal justice research focusing on the risk/needs/responsivity approach to community supervision, which emphasizes individual change without acknowledging how structural factors such as economic inequality and income disparities influence probation outcomes (Morash et al., 2017). However, one study had promising findings in terms of examining whether financial support programs could reduce incarceration among women probationers. Specifically, Holtfreter et al. (2004) investigated the influence of financial support services on the criminal justice outcomes of 134 women probationers and found that participants who received life skills or housing assistance were 83% less likely to become incarcerated. The life skills program included assistance finding jobs, filling out resumes, and preparing for interviews, while the housing assistance involved referrals to government-subsidized housing services (Holtfreter et al., 2004).

While the above study provides evidence to suggest that access to employment programs and housing assistance can improve probation outcomes, given the limited number of studies on the topic and the high amount of incarcerations occurring among women probationers, it is valuable to examine the issue in more detail. More specifically, it would be helpful to investigate the influence on probation outcomes of government programs designed for lower income populations and those with disabilities, such as SSDI, SNAP, and TANF. These programs, which were made available through various amendments to the Social Security Act, are considered among the most effective poverty reduction programs in U.S. history (Barusch, 2017). As such, investigating their influence on probation outcomes provides an opportunity to examine whether existing financial support programs have the potential to address the economic issues common among women probationers and also improve criminal justice outcomes. Additionally, assessing programs that help women probationers find employment could help examine the influence on criminal justice outcomes of interventions that aim to improve the financial circumstances of the population.

Several of the financial assistance programs included in this study would benefit from more explanation. SSDI provides financial benefits for U.S. citizens who are unable to work due to a medical condition expected to last at least 1 year or lead to their death (Social Security Administration [SSA], n.d.). Access to SSDI may be of particular importance to justice-involved women, given the high rates of physical health and mental health issues among the population (Bloom et al., 2003). SSDI provides a monthly check that varies depending on a person’s previous earnings but on average is US$1,166 (Barusch, 2017). A person can access SSDI if they have earned 40 “work credits,” which are received for each US$1,360 in wages earned with a maximum limit of accumulating 4 per year (SSA, n.d.). After a person applies for SSDI, medical and vocational experts from each U.S. state’s social security agency make a decision regarding their application, which typically takes between three and five months (SSA, n.d.). In addition to the financial assistance provided through SSDI, recipients qualify for Medicare after a 2-year waiting period (Barusch, 2017; SSA, n.d.).

SNAP is a federal program that provides vouchers to help individuals and families with the cost of food. A person is typically eligible for SNAP when they have a monthly income that is 130% of the federal poverty level and automatically will qualify if they receive TANF or Supplemental Security Income (Barusch, 2017). On average, a person receives US$127 per month in SNAP benefits, and in 2018, 20 million U.S. households received them as the program serviced approximately 40 million people (Barusch, 2017; U.S. Department of Agriculture, n.d.).

TANF, originally titled Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), provides financial assistance for impoverished children and families (Barusch, 2017). The development of TANF was part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which resulted in new stipulations, including a 5-year limit on access and requirements for parents to work or participate in job training (Barusch, 2017). As of 2018, 1.2 million U.S. families were receiving TANF and a total of 3.1 million individuals accessed it (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2019). The average monthly income provided through TANF varies significantly across U.S. states, but the vast majority provide fewer than US$700 and some fewer than US$300 (CRS, 2019).

Taken together, financial assistance programs such as SSDI, SNAP, and TANF have the potential to provide some level of financial assistance to women on probation during their sentences. As such, investigating their influence on probation outcomes provides an opportunity to examine whether existing financial support programs have the potential to address the economic issues common among women probationers and subsequently improve criminal justice outcomes. This study provides an opportunity to begin examining the types of macrolevel policies and programs that could reduce the number of probation sentences that result in incarcerations for justice-involved women.

Method

Data were analyzed from the Women’s Health Research Study (WHRS). The WHRS was a longitudinal study of 406 U.S. women on probation or parole in Jefferson County, KY. To specifically examine probation outcomes, the study included a subsample of the WHRS with only those participants who were on probation (n = 247).

Data for the WHRS were collected through three waves of interviews. Baseline data (i.e., T1) were collected between July 2010 and January 2013, while the second interview occurred at 12 months post-baseline (i.e., T2) and the third interview at 24 months post-baseline (i.e., T3). The WHRS was approved through the University of Louisville institutional review board, and a Certificate of Confidentiality was also obtained for the study. The overall aim of this research was to examine whether receiving financial assistance services over the course of the study influenced the likelihood of WHRS participants becoming incarcerated at the T2 and T3 interviews. Inclusion criteria for the WHRS included (a) born a woman; (b) speak English at a conversational level; (c) on probation in Jefferson County, KY, during the baseline interview; (d) 18 years of age or older at the baseline interview; (e) report at least one lifetime experience of physical and/or sexual victimization from a parent, caretaker, intimate partner, and/or nonintimate partner (i.e., stranger or acquaintance); and (f) self-reported as having sex with either men or both men and women.

The inclusion criteria of identifying as either only having sex with men or both men and women was part of the larger WHRS focus on women who experienced physical or sexual abuse within the context of an intimate partner relationship with a man. This was part of the WHRS’s objective to investigate the health-related impacts of the victimization histories common among women in the criminal justice system. As a result, potential participants who reported as having sex with only women were excluded from the WHRS and therefore absent from this secondary data analysis. Participants were also excluded from the study if they had a cognitive or psychological issue that impaired their ability to complete the interviews.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable measured whether or not the participants became incarcerated over the course of the study. Incarceration was operationalized as a dichotomous variable based on each participant’s answer to a WHRS question at the T2 and T3 interviews regarding whether they had been in prison or jail in the last 12 months for 24 hr or longer. Participants who answered “yes” to this question at either the T2 or T3 interviews were measured as a 1, while no reports of incarceration were measured as a 0.

Independent Variables

Several independent variables measured the impact of different types of financial assistance services on probation outcomes. These variables were based on the answers to questions asked to participants during all three WHRS interviews. First, three independent variables were constructed based on the participants’ answers to questions about whether or not they received each of the following services in the previous 30 days: (1) SNAP or housing support, (2) TANF, and (3) SSDI. These three variables were measured at an interval level ranging from 0 to 3. The participants received a score of 1 for each time they answered “yes” at T1, T2, and T3 to the question of whether they received each service in the previous 30 days. For example, a participant received a score of 3 if they answered “yes” to receiving SNAP or housing support at all three waves of data collection, a 2 if they receive it at two waves, a 1 if they received it at one wave, and a 0 if they did not receive it at all. The same scoring system was used for the TANF and SSDI variables. Furthermore, an interval variable was utilized to measure the total number of times the women participated in employment services over the course of the study based on a question asked to them at each wave of data collection regarding the number of sessions they received to assist with finding employment. Another interval variable measured the total number of times the participants received services to help them access SSDI during the study based on their answers to a question at each wave that asked them the number of sessions they received for helping them access SSDI.

Control/Descriptive Variables

Several control and descriptive variables were also included in the study. The control variables reflected additional factors that may influence probation outcomes among the participants according to existing research on the topic. In order to assess the influence of race/ethnicity on probation outcomes, the first control variable was race/ethnicity (0 = African American, 1 = white, and 2 = other; Jannetta et al., 2014; Steinmetz & Henderson, 2016). The second control variable was average monthly income of participants at the baseline interview (0 = less than US$500; 1 = US$500– US$999; 2 = between US$1,000–US$1,999; 3 = between US$2,000–US$3,999; 4 = between US$4,000–US$5,999; and 5 = greater than US$6,000). Three additional control variables were utilized to measure the lifetime number of experiences the participants had of (1) childhood abuse, (2) intimate partner abuse, and (3) nonintimate partner abuse. These variables were collected at the baseline WHRS interview to measure the influence of victimization histories on probation outcomes. Additionally, scores on the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) were also used as a control variable to assess the influence of various psychological issues on probation outcomes. The BSI is a 53-item self-report measure that assesses psychiatric symptoms such as somatization, obsessive compulsiveness, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). The final control variable measured the total number of illicit drugs used by the participants over the previous 12 months to account for the impact of illicit drug use on probation outcomes (Olson et al., 2003; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). The descriptive variables were utilized to provide additional context of the sample and included the age of the participants, their employment status, and highest level of education.

Analysis Strategy

A two-part analysis plan was utilized for this study. First, bivariate comparisons were performed on all the independent variables between participants who reported being incarcerated at either T2 or T3 and those who did not. χ2 tests were utilized for the bivariate comparisons on the categorical variables and t tests on the interval-level variables. Secondly, a logistic regression model utilizing the backward elimination technique was also conducted on the independent variables and control variables to measure their individual influence on the dependent variable. Logistic regression is a statistical procedure that determines the probability an event will occur based on a pattern of responses to a given number of questions with the goal of generating a model in the form of a linear equation that indicates the best weighted linear combination of independent variables to predict the dependent variable (Meyers et al., 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The backward elimination technique is a common model building technique in the social sciences (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). All of the analyses and statistical tests were performed at a .05 level of significance using SPSS Version 23.

Findings

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the participants. Table 2 presents the results from the bivariate comparisons. The findings illustrate that two variables significantly impacted incarceration outcomes. Specifically, the women who reported receiving SSDI in the previous 30 days at more points during the study were significantly less likely to become incarcerated, t(247) = 3.40, p = .01. Also, the participants who reported a higher number of total illicit drugs used in the previous year at the baseline interview were significantly more likely to become incarcerated, t(247) = −2.127, p = .036. The results from the rest of the bivariate comparisons indicated none of the other variables significantly affected criminal justice outcomes for the participants.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Variables.

Variables Frequency Percentage or Mean
Race/ethnicity
 African American 119 48.2%
 White 109 44.1%
 Other  19  7.7%
Average monthly income
 Less than US$500 131  53%
 US$500–US$999  83 33.6%
 US$1,000–US$1,999  30  12.1%
 US$2,000–US$3,999  3  1.2%
Age 36.96
Highest education level
 Less than high school  62 25.1%
 GED/high school  87 35.2%
 Some college/college  80 32.3%
 Some graduate/graduate  9 3.6%
Employment status
 Unemployed 135 51.0%
 Working full-time  35 14.2%
 Working part-time  39 15.8%
 Disabled  47 19.0%
Open in a new tab

Note. n = 247. GED = general equivalency diploma.

Table 2.

Differences Among Women Who Recidivated and Those Who Did Not.

Independent/Control Variables Total Sample (Mean/Percentage) n = 247 Women Who Recidivated (Mean/Percentage) n = 68 Women Who Did Not Recidivated (Mean/Percentage) n = 179 χ2/T
SSDI sessions  2.93  2.49  3.11  0.910
Employment services  1.42  1.94  1.22 −1.048
SNAP or housing  1.97  2.04  1.94 −0.723
Receipt of SSDI  0.74  0.38  0.87  3.40*
Race/ethnicity  0.259
 African American 48.2% 39.7% 51.4%
 White 44.1% 51.5% 41.3%
 Other  7.7%  8.8%  7.3%
Average monthly income  0.146
 Less than US$500      53% 64.7% 48.6%
 US$500–US$999 33.6% 25.0% 36.9%
 US$1,000–US$1,999 12.1%  8.8% 13.4%
 US$2,000–US$3,999  1.2%  1.2%  1.1%
Illicit drugs used in past year  1.43  1.86  1.26  0.036*
BSI  1.20  1.33  1.15 −1.400
Childhood victimization  2.09  2.14  2.06 −0.296
IPV  3.78  3.85  3.75 −0.302
NIPV  2.64  2.46  2.72  1.506
Open in a new tab

Note. Between group differences among women who recidivated and those who did not were assessed utilizing t tests for interval-level data and χ2 tests for categorical-level data. SSDI = Social Security Disability Insurance; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; IPV = intimate partner victimization; NIPV = nonintimate partner victimization; BSI = Brief Symptom Inventory.

*

p ≤ .05.

Table 3 presents the results from the financial assistance regression model. The final model accounted for 8% of the variance in incarceration (Nagelkerke R2 =.08) and retained two variables: the total number of times the participants identified as receiving SSDI in the past 30 days at the baseline, T2, and T3 interviews and the total number of illicit drugs used in the past 12 months at baseline. Only the variable reflecting the number of times participants reported receiving SSDI reached the conventional level of significance. Specifically, each point of the study in which participants reported receiving SSDI in the past 30 days was associated with a 35% decrease in the odds of becoming incarcerated, B = −.421, Wald χ2 = 7.488, p = .006, exp(B) = .656.

Table 3.

Final Logistic Regression Models Predicting Recidivism.

Variables β Standard Error Odds Ratio 95% CI
SSDI reception −.421* .154 0.656 [0.485, 0.887]
Illicit drugs used .145 .075 1.156 [0.999, 1.337]
Open in a new tab

Note. SSDI = Social Security Disability Insurance.

*

p ≤ 05.

Discussion

The results from this study illustrated that SSDI reception and illicit drug use influenced incarceration outcomes. The finding that more SSDI reception reduced incarcerations provides new evidence that financial assistance could improve criminal justice outcomes for women probationers with disabilities who have financial challenges. On the other hand, it is perhaps unsurprising that illicit drug use increased incarcerations among the participants, given that technical violations and revocations have been identified by previous research to occur more often among women probationers who are currently using drugs (Olson et al., 2003; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). The SSDI finding is of particular importance given that women probationers often encounter financial challenges associated with having limited educational and job opportunities, as was demonstrated in this study, which causes difficulties meeting the financial requirements of probation (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). Also, justice-involved women have high rates of disabilities and therefore could benefit from SSDI during instances in which they qualify for it (Bloom et al., 2003; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). As such, the participants in this study who accessed financial assistance through SSDI may have benefitted from receiving economic support to offset the challenges of having limited incomes, which could create challenges meeting the conditions of their probation sentences.

The influence of SSDI on reducing incarceration is notable for several reasons. First, unlike the other types of financial assistance programs included in the study, such as TANF, SSDI provides a consistent monthly income and has fewer limitations in terms of access. More specifically, as indicated above, the average monthly income provided to SSDI recipients is US$1,360, and an individual has the potential to receive it for an extended period if they continue to experience a health issue that precludes them from working (SSA, n.d.). Alternatively, TANF only provides US$262 a month to recipients in Kentucky, the state in which the WHRS took place, and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 put a 5-year time limit on access to TANF before people become ineligible (Allard, 2002; Barusch, 2017; CRS, 2019; Sentencing Project, 2015). Therefore, individuals in this study who accessed SSDI likely received significantly more cash assistance and did not encounter the same time limits as those who accessed TANF. Also, given the high number of drug-related offenses common to women probationers, the participants may have encountered difficulties obtaining SNAP due to drug convictions restricting their access (Allard, 2002; Sentencing Project, 2015). Furthermore, receipt of SSDI could have impacted the incarceration outcomes among the participants in the study since it typically provides access to Medicare (Barusch, 2017). Medicare, which was developed in the 1965 amendments to the Social Security Act, is available to all individuals who receive SSDI after a 2-year waiting period (Barusch, 2017). As a result, Medicare coverage could have provided participants with a means by which to access treatment services for several issues common among women probationers, such as substance use disorders and mental health issues.

However, SSDI was only received by a limited number of women in the sample. The variable that measured SSDI reception, as shown in Table 2, identified the mean score of SSDI access among the participants as .74. Since the highest level of SSDI attainment among the participants was measured as a 3 for those who reported receiving it at the baseline, T2, and T3 interviews, the average score of .74 indicates that a significant number of women in the study did not receive it at all. This was likely due to the extensive requirements for SSDI, which include a 10-year work history and a severe health condition, making it inaccessible to many participants in the study. Furthermore, the participants who received SSDI and were therefore less likely to become incarcerated during the study may have also experienced other factors that decreased their odds of incarceration apart from the cash assistance provided through SSDI. For example, participants who received SSDI during the study may experience different life circumstances through having a disability, which could have also been a contributing factor to reducing their likelihood of violating the conditions of probation and becoming incarcerated.

Additionally, the other independent variable aside from government financial support programs examined in this study was employment services, which did not have a significant influence on the criminal justice outcomes of the participants. It is possible that employment services were not impactful at reducing incarcerations since the job prospects available to justice-involved women are typically sparse, primarily due to a lack of educational attainment and criminal records creating barriers to employment (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). Opsal (2012, 2015) conducted a qualitative study of women parolees and found that most participants were employed at minimum wage jobs and lived paycheck-to-paycheck, and their frustrations with the marginal pay and sporadic work hours often resulted in them quitting (Opsal, 2012, 2015). As such, the employment services provided to the participants may have not been significant enough to expand economic opportunities among the participants in the study who accessed them.

The findings from this study have several policy and practice implications. Specifically, developing policies to provide monetary assistance for women probationers could help to offset the various costs of sentences and therefore reduce incarcerations, particularly given the low incomes and limited employment opportunities common among the population (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). Additionally, probation departments could place more emphasis on helping women probationers to access financial support for completing their sentences through implementing policies that shift their focus to the structural problems that often confront women in the criminal justice system, such as limited economic opportunities.

This study also has implications for future social work practice. More specifically, social workers represent the largest number of mental health and substance use clinicians in the United States and historically have taken on important roles in treating both of those issues (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2014). As such, social workers frequently have clients within the criminal justice population for whom they are providing therapeutic services. Given the high rates of substance use and mental health issues among justice-involved women, this specific population could be receiving treatment services from social workers. Richie and Martensen (2020) advocate for a feminist social work practice within the criminal justice population that focuses on community-based interventions to reduce the high rates of incarceration among U.S. women. Social workers practicing with justice-involved women can therefore employ the strengths perspective as a guiding principle to practice and provide a more rehabilitative alternative to the punitive supervision frequently utilized within the criminal justice system, subsequently challenging the existing framework with a more supportive alternative.

For example, feminist social work practice among women on probation could encompass referring clients to needed financial assistance programs and advocating for the elimination of the financial barriers of sentences, including supervision fees, court fines, court-mandated treatment costs, and travel to various appointments. However, as indicated above, the process of obtaining financial support from the government is a long one and requires meeting several different requirements, particularly regarding receipt of SSDI. As such, social workers working with justice-involved women could consider assessing their financial needs and subsequently helping with finding potential financial resources. During instances in which clients qualify for SSDI, social workers could provide necessary case management services to assist clients in going through the extensive process of receiving it.

There were several limitations to this study. First, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was not a variable available within the WHRS, which therefore limited the ability to measure access to cash assistance for participants who had a disability but were unable to receive SSDI due to not meeting the work history requirements. More specifically, SSI is a cash assistance program that can provide financial support to individuals with a disability who do not qualify for SSDI. The average monthly cash provided to individuals who receive SSI is lower than those who receive SSDI. More specifically, recent data indicate that SSI recipients receive an average of US$542 per month compared to US$1,171 for individuals receiving SSDI (Social Security Administration [SSA], 2020). Nevertheless, since the criteria for accessing SSI does not include the work history requirements comprised within SSDI, including the variable in this study would have been beneficial in terms of more fully measuring the impact of financial assistance. As such, it would have helped to fully examine the influence of financial support on the participants through including SSI as another variable in the study (SSI, n.d.).

Second, the criminal justice outcomes of probationers are largely dependent on the decisions of probation officers, yet no data were available in the WHRS to measure this. This is a limitation since previous research indicates that probation officers vary in their techniques for supervising probationers, which consequently influences the outcomes of sentences (ACLU, 2016; Draine & Solomon, 2001; Skeem et al., 2007). In particular, one study found that probationers who identified higher levels of fairness and trust in their relationships with probation officers became incarcerated less often (Skeem et al., 2007). Another limitation was the lack of data on whether the participants who did not receive any financial assistance during the study were unable to do so as a result of having a felony drug conviction or because of the declining welfare state in the United States reducing availability. Having this information would have helped examine whether access to financial assistance was desired among the participants who did not receive it. Furthermore, there were no data available from the WHRS to determine the total number of days that participants were incarcerated over the course of the study nor did data exist on why the women were sent to prison or jail. As such, this was a limitation in terms of understanding the length of time the participants who became incarcerated were in jail or prison and the reasons why it occurred.

Additionally, the exclusion of women who identified as only having sex with other women is another limitation of this study. The larger WHRS focused on women who experienced victimization from male intimate partners and therefore excluded those who identified as only having sex with other women. As such, the implications of the findings are limited since women who only have sex with other women were absent from the study. Furthermore, only including participants in this study who experienced physical or sexual abuse limits the ability to apply the findings to women with no victimization histories. While this is likely a small number of the overall population of justice-involved women given the high rates of the victimization among the population, it is still a limitation in terms of the study’s implications.

Overall, the findings from this study add to our understanding of the types of programs that could improve the criminal justice outcomes of women on probation. The most significant finding to emerge was that participants who received more SSDI during the study became incarcerated less often. As such, it is important for future research, practice, and policy to consider how consistent and significant financial assistance could help women on probation with meeting the economic obligations of supervision, especially given the histories of financial challenges and high rates of disabilities that occur among the population.

Funding

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

Author Biographies

Jordan Wilfong is an assistant professor of social work at Bowling Green State University. Dr. Wilfong’s research is focused on the intersection of poverty, discrimination, inequality, and treatment services, particularly within systems that include but are not limited to criminal justice and child welfare.

Seana Golder is a professor of social work at the University of Louisville, Kent School of Social Work. Dr. Golder’s research program is the development of effective, community based intervention strategies that address the needs and challenges faced by drug- and crime-involved women living in urban areas. In particular, she is interested in the intersection of women’s high risk behaviors (substance use; HIV risk; lawbreaking) and the criminal justice system.

TK Logan is a professor in the Department of Behavioral Science, College of Medicine, and the Center on Drug and Alcohol Research at the University of Kentucky with joint appointments in Psychology, Psychiatry, Sociology, and Social Work. Dr. Logan’s research and writings focus on stalking, protective order effectiveness, sexual assault, intimate partner homicide, and health disparities of rural women with partner violence experiences.

George Higgins is a professor at the University of Louisville Department of Criminal Justice. Dr. Higgins’ research focuses on testing criminological theories and quantitative methods. He applies theories and quantitative methods to substance use, cybercrime, race and ethnicity differences, and criminal justice organizational issues (i.e., leadership, administration, and profiling).

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.

References

  1. Allard P. (2002). Life sentences: Denying welfare benefits to women convicted of drug offenses. The Sentencing Project. [Google Scholar]
  2. American Civil Liberties Union. (2016). Every 25 seconds: The human toll of criminalizing drug use in the United States. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/10/12/every-25-seconds/human-toll-criminalizing-drug-use-united-states
  3. Barusch A. (2017). Foundations of social policy: Social justice in human perspective (6th ed.). Cengage. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bloom B, Owen B, & Covington S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. National Institute of Corrections. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bronson J, & Berzofsky M. (2015). Disabilities among prison and jail inmates, 2011–12. Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang M. (2010). Lifting as we climb: Women of color, wealth, and American’s future. Insight Center for Community Economic Development. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chesney-Lind M, & Pasko L. (2013). The female offender: Girls, women and crime (2nd ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  8. Collins PH, & Bilge S. (2016). Intersectionality. Polity. [Google Scholar]
  9. Congressional Research Service. (2019). The temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) block grant: Responses to frequently asked questions. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32760.pdf
  10. Covington SS. (2008). Women and addiction: A trauma-informed approach. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40(S5), 377–385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Council on Social Work Education. (2014). The role of social work in mental and behavioral health care: Principles for public policy. https://www.cswe.org/getattachment/Advocacy-Policy/RoleofSWinMentalandBehavorialHealthCare-January2015-FINAL.pdf.aspx
  12. Daly K. (1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representations. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2, 11–52. [Google Scholar]
  13. Daly K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Derogatis LR, & Melisaratos N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Draine J, & Solomon P. (2001). Threats of incarceration in a psychiatric probation and parole service. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(2), 262–267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Greenfeld LA, & Snell TL. (1999). Women offenders. Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  17. Holtfreter K, Reisig MD, & Morash M. (2004). Poverty, state capital, and recidivism among women offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 3(2), 185–208. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jannetta J, Breaux J, & Ho H. (2014). Examining racial and ethnic disparities in probation revocation. The Urban Institute. [Google Scholar]
  19. Justice Center: The Council of State Governments. (2013). Justice reinvestment in Kansas: Analysis & policy options to reduce spending on corrections and reinvest in strategies to increase public safety. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Kansas-JR-Final-Report.pdf
  20. Kaeble D, & Bonczar TP BJS Statistics. (2016). Probation and parole in the United States, 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  21. Langan PA, & Cunniff MA. (1992). Recidivism of felons on probation. Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  22. Meyers LS, Gamst G, & Guarino AJ. (2013). Applied multivariate research. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  23. Morash M, Kashy DA, Northcutt MN, Cobbina JE, & Smith SW. (2017). Women at the nexus of correctional and social policies: Implications for recidivism risk. British Journal of Criminology, 57, 441–462. [Google Scholar]
  24. National Women’s Law Center. (2017). The wage gap: The who, how, why, and what to do. https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Wage-Gap-The-Who-How-Why-and-What-to-Do-2017.pdf
  25. Olson DE, Lurigio AJ, & Alderden M. (2003). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, but what role does gender play in probation recidivism. Justice Research and Policy, 5(2), 33–54. [Google Scholar]
  26. Opsal T. (2012). “Livin” on the straights: Identity, desistance, and work among women post-incarceration. Sociological Inquiry, 82(3), 378–403. [Google Scholar]
  27. Opsal T. (2015). It’s their world, so you’ve got to get through: Women’s experiences of parole governance. Feminist Criminology, 10(2), 188–207. [Google Scholar]
  28. Owen B, & Bloom B. (1995). Profiling women prisoners: Findings from national surveys and a California sample. The Prison Journal, 75, 165–185. [Google Scholar]
  29. Phelps MS. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1–2), 51–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Prison Policy Institute. (2015). Prisons of poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html
  31. Reisig M, Holtfreter K, & Morash M. (2002). Social capital among women offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(2), 169–182. [Google Scholar]
  32. Richie BE, & Martensen KM. (2020). Resisting carcerality, embracing abolition: Implications for feminist social work practice. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 35(1), 12–16. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rose DR, & Clear TR. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441–479. [Google Scholar]
  34. Salisbury EJ, & Van Voorhis P. (2009). A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sawyer W. (2016). The high cost of probation fees in Massachusetts. The Prison Policy Institute. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sentencing Project. (2015). A lifetime of punishment: The impact of the felony drug ban on welfare benefits. http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/A-Lifetime-of-Punishment.pdf
  37. Skeem J, Louden JE, Polaschek D, & Camp J. (2007). Assessing relationship quality in mandated community treatment blending care with control. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 397–410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Social Security Administration. (n.d.). What you should know before you apply for social security disability benefits. https://www.ssa.gov/disability/Documents/Factsheet-AD.pdf
  39. Social Security Administration. (2020). Monthly statistical snapshop, January 2020. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/index.html
  40. Steinmetz KF, & Henderson H. (2016). Inequality on probation: An examination of differential probation outcomes. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 14(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  41. Supplemental Security Income. (n.d.). What is supplemental security income? https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/
  42. Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tabachnick BG, & Fidell LS. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  44. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). SNAP data tables. https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
  45. Vera Institute of Justice. (2016). Overlooked. Women and jails in the era of reform. https://www.vera.org/publications/overlooked-women-and-jails-report
  46. Zinn H. (1980). A people’s history of the United States. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES