Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Subst Use Misuse. 2013 Oct 18;49(4):435–447. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2013.844164

Substance Use Among Victimized Women on Probation and Parole

Seana Golder 1, Martin T Hall 2, TK Logan 3, George Higgins 4, Amanda Dishon 5, Tanya Renn 6, Katherine Winham 7
PMCID: PMC4042007  NIHMSID: NIHMS549174  PMID: 24138096

Abstract

Victimized women within the criminal justice system are an important group and understanding their substance use is critical. Substance use was examined among 406 victimized women on probation and parole in an urban community from 2010 to 2013. Ninety-three percent reported lifetime use of an illicit substance, while 58% and 45% reported use of at least one illicit substance in the past two years and 12 months, respectively. Among probationers, having been in a controlled environment was associated with a higher prevalence of illicit substance use as compared to parolees. Implications for practice, policy and future research are discussed.

Keywords: Women, substance use, women, victimization, probation, parole

Over 7 million adults in the United States were under the supervision of correctional authorities by yearend 2010 (Glaze, 2011). Although greater numbers of men are involved in the criminal justice system, women represent one of the fastest growing segments of the correctional population. For example, between 1980 and 2009, women’s arrest rates for simple assault increased 281% compared to 69% for men; similarly, female arrest rates for drug possession or use rose 225% from 1980 to 2009 while those for men increased by 104% during the same period (Snyder, 2011). Likewise, the number of women incarcerated in state or federal prison from 2000 to 2009 rose by 21.6%, compared to a 15.6% increase for men (Mauer, 2013). Current data indicate that 1 out of every 89 women in the U.S. is involved in the criminal justice system (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011; Sabol & Couture, 2008) and that over 85% of these women are sanctioned within the community (e.g., probation, parole; Greenfeld & Snell, 2000; Shilton, 2000).

The growth in the female criminal justice population has been fueled by the ‘war on drugs’ and associated drug laws and sentencing procedures (Golder, 2012; Grella & Greenwell, 2006; Prendergast, Wellisch, & Wong, 1996; Strauss & Falkin, 2001; Wahler, In Press). As such, illicit substance use is a major contributing factor to women’s involvement in the criminal justice system (Bennett, Holloway, & Farrington, 2008; DeGroot, 2001; DeGroot, Zierler, & Stevens, 1996; Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1996). In fact, evidence suggests that female drug users may be more likely to engage in lawbreaking behavior than their male counterparts (Bennett, et al., 2008). National data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics support this assertion. For example, both female jail and prison inmates are more likely than their male counterparts to be incarcerated for a drug offense (Carson & Sabol, 2012; James, 2004). Among female jail inmates 29.2% are drug offenders, while among state prisoners 25% are drug offenders; this is compared to 24.1% and 17%, respectively of men in jail and state prison (Carson & Sabol, 2012; James, 2004). Similarly, in a recent study of 500 female jail detainees in rural and urban counties in the U.S., 83% had a lifetime substance use disorder and 53% met the criteria for a substance use disorder in the past 12 months (S. Lynch, DeHart, Belknap, & Green, 2012a).

In particular, for women being sanctioned in the community, substance use is a major factor contributing to return to custody for parole and probation violations (Burke, Gelb, & Horowitz, 2007; Henderson, 1998; Marlowe, 2003; Office of Nation Drug Control Policy, N.D.). Research has consistently found that alcohol and illicit substance use negatively impact recidivism, specifically and criminal conduct, generally (Bennett, et al., 2008; Carmichael & Koons-Witt, 2007; Chesney-Lind & Rodriquez, 1983; Crawford, 1990; Dowden & Brown, 2002; Greenfeld & Snell, 2000; Marlowe, 2003; Mumola, 1998; Warner & Kramer, 2009). In a randomized trial of probation case management among 183 female offenders it was found that alcohol and illicit substance use during supervision was the strongest predictor of whether women were able to successfully complete their probation or parole sentence (Carmichael & Koons-Witt, 2007). Research that provides in-depth information about substance use, for example, identifying commonly and/or recently used substances, may assist in the development of policy and programming to more effectively target drug and alcohol use among this group.

In addition, while there are undoubtedly similarities among women on probation and parole, they are not a homogenous group. Probation and parole represent different ends of the criminal justice continuum (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2005). Women on parole have been incarcerated and are on conditional supervised release from prison, whereas women on probation are under community supervision rather than serving a prison or jail sentence (and may or may not have ever been incarcerated). Furthermore, there is evidence that probation and parole populations may differ in meaningful ways with parolees being at higher risk for recidivism in some instances (Daly & Peck, 2007; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2005). Therefore, documenting and exploring differences and similarities between women on probation and parole, particularly as they relate to known areas of risk, such as substance use, may have immediate implication for criminal justice policy and practice.

Further complicating the picture is the interrelated nature of victimization and substance use. Among substance-involved women, up to 88% have experienced some form of victimization in their lives (i.e., childhood, intimate partner, non-intimate partner; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), while up to 80% of women in the criminal justice system have experienced such violence (Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999; El-Bassel et al., 1996; Green, Miranda, Daroowalla, & Siddique, 2005; Greenfeld & Snell, 1999; Lynch, DeHart, Belknap, & Green, 2012b; Shannon Lynch, Fritch, & Heath, 2012; McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997; Owen & Bloom, 1995; Reichert, Adams, & Bostwick, 2010)1. The available evidence strongly suggests that for women in the criminal justice system in particular, there is a significant and overlapping relationship between substance use and victimization (Hall, Golder, Conley, & Sawning, 2013). Furthermore, this relationship may affect women’s continued engagement in substance use and other high-risk behaviors contributing to recidivism and continued criminal justice involvement. For these reasons, victimized women within the criminal justice system are an especially important group and understanding their patterns of substance use is critical.

In summary, the majority of justice involved women are sanctioned within the community (Greenfeld & Snell, 2000; Shilton, 2000). As such, it is important to identify any existing similarities and differences among female probationers and parolees, particularly, within those areas that are most closely associated with recidivism (i.e., substance use). Similarly, there is a critical need for additional research focused explicitly on victimized women within the criminal justice system; foremost, research that documents and explores patterns of substance use among this particularly high-risk subpopulation. Thus, the present study had the following goals: 1) to comprehensively document substance use among a sample of victimized women on probation and parole; 2) identify differences and similarities in substance use and associated descriptive and behavioral domains between victimized female probationers and parolees; and, as engagement in substance abuse treatment (e.g., residential/inpatient treatment) is often a condition of probation and/or parole, 3) explore whether being in a controlled environment affected engagement in substance use for either group of women.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The sample consisted of 406 women on probation and/or parole in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Jefferson County is a large, urban area that encompasses Louisville. Recruitment methods included: face-to-face recruitment at all of the probation and parole offices located within the county; direct mailings to women on probation and parole in Jefferson County; advertisements in the local newspaper, the website craigslist, and public access TV; fliers posted in a variety of public locations (e.g., bus stops, convenience stores, apartment complexes), community based organizations, government agencies, and health care facilities; as well as community outreach by study personnel.

To be eligible for participation, women had to meet the following criteria: a) be on probation and parole in the aforementioned county; b) at least 18 years of age; c) report that they either had sex with men only or both women and men (women who had been recently incarcerated were asked about the year prior to incarceration)2; and d) report any experience of physical and/or sexual victimization as a child or an adult from a parent or caretaker, intimate partner, and/or non-intimate partner (i.e., stranger; acquaintance). Screening for eligibility was conducted by telephone (90%) and in person (10%). Eighty-one percent of the women screened were eligible to participate. Women who were screened reported learning about the study from the following sources (participants could identify more than one source): direct mail (33%); word of mouth (e.g., a probation officer, mother, friend; 33%); fliers posted in public locations (15%); community based organization (11%); direct contact with study personnel (9%); and newspaper/radio/internet (2%). The most common reasons for ineligibility were not being on probation or parole, no history of victimization, and reporting only female sexual partners. All interviews were administered face-to-face by trained female staff using audio computer-assisted interviewing (ACASI; NOVA Research Company, 2003). Participants were debriefed and compensated $35 for their time. The [UNIVERSITY’S NAME] Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Measures

Five categories of measures were used: sociodemographic characteristics; victimization; correctional status, offense, and controlled environment; substance use; and dynamic drug-and crime-involvement factors. Descriptions are found below.

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Six sociodemographic variables (age, race/ethnicity, intimate partner status, educational attainment, current employment, and homelessness) were examined. Respondents’ age was provided in years. Three categories were used to describe the race/ethnicity of the participants: Black, non-Hispanic; white, non-Hispanic; and other (participants who reported being Latina, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, multi-racial, and other). Intimate partner status was assessed by three categories that indicated whether a respondent reported being: single; married or cohabitating with a sexual partner of the opposite gender; or being divorced, separated, or widowed at the time of the interview. Five categories described educational attainment: less than a high school diploma/GED; high school diploma/GED; trade/technical training; some college/college graduate; some graduate school/graduate school degree. Current employment status was operationalized as unemployed, working full or part-time, disabled, in school only, or “other”. Finally, women were asked if they considered themselves homeless (yes=1; no=0).

Victimization

Cumulative victimization was described by three categories of violence assessing childhood, intimate partner violence (IPV), and non-intimate partner victimization. Victimization questions were adapted from the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes the National Violence against Women Survey) and intimate violence literature including the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale and Tolman’s Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2000; Tolman, 1999; Tolman, 1989). All questions have been used in previously published research (Golder & Logan, 2010; Logan, Cole, & Leukefeld, 2003).3 For each of the aforementioned categories of victimization, three subtypes of victimization (i.e., psychological, physical, and sexual) were assessed by dichotomous variables (yes=1; no=0), with the exception of non-intimate adult victimization, where only physical and sexual victimization were examined.

Childhood psychological abuse was measured by eight items assessing potentially psychologically abusive experiences (e.g., “insulted, shamed or humiliated you in front of others”). An affirmative response (yes=1; no=0) to any of the questions was treated as an indication of psychological victimization (similar coding procedures were followed for all abuse items). Physical childhood abuse was assessed by four items asking respondents if they had ever been physically hurt on purpose, beat up, or attacked with a weapon. Childhood sexual victimization was measured by three questions that asked respondents if they had ever been forced or threatened to do: “sexual things other than sexual intercourse (e.g., petting, oral sex)”; “to have sexual intercourse but it did not actually occur”; and/or “to have sexual intercourse and it actually happened”.

Psychological IPV was measured by six dichotomous questions (e.g., “your partner has stopped you from seeing and/or talking to your family or friends”). Physical IPV was assessed by five questions asking the respondent if her partner had physically hurt her on purpose, caused her to have an accident, beat her up, used a knife, gun or some other thing (like a club or bat) to get something [from her], and/or attacked her with a weapon. The same three questions used to assess sexual abuse in childhood were used to evaluate sexual IPV (the stem was changed accordingly). Non-intimate partner violence was defined as victimization perpetrated by a stranger, acquaintances, or relative (other than guardians/parents or spouses). All variables were measured by the same sets of questions (the stem was changed accordingly) and operationalized in the same fashion as questions assessing IPV.

Correctional status, offense, and controlled environment

Correctional status was assessed by asking women to indicate whether they were on probation, parole, or both. They were also asked to indicate all the charges that lead to their current probation and/or parole assignment. Response options included: shoplifting/vandalism; parole/probation violations; drug charges; forgery; weapons offenses; burglary/larceny/breaking and entering; robbery; assault; arson; homicide/manslaughter; prostitution; contempt of court; and other. Questions adapted from the ASI (McLellan et al., 1992) were used assess whether participants had been in a controlled environment and/or halfway house/recovery home in the past 12 months (yes=1; no=0) and for how many days.

Substance use

Substance use items examined alcohol use to intoxication as well as the use of 10 illicit drugs: marijuana; cocaine; crack; heroin; other opiates (e.g., “Percocet, OxyContin, Tylenol 2”); hallucinogens, sedatives/tranquilizers/barbiturates (e.g., “Benzos, Xanax, Seconal, Valium”); club drugs (e.g., “GHB [Xyrem], Rohypnol, Ketamine [Special K]; or MDMA [ecstasy]), and prescription drugs).4 For each substance, respondents were asked if they had ever used a particular substance (yes=1; no=0), age at first use, use in the past two years (yes=1; no=0), use in the past 12 months (yes=1; no=0), and frequency of use in the past 12 months (only once or twice; 1 to 2 times per month; 1 to 2 times per week; 3 to 5 times per week; almost every day; more than one time per day). Frequency of use was coded one through six with higher scores reflecting greater frequency of use. Four summary variables were also created reflecting whether a respondent reported using any illicit drugs in the past two years and 12 months, respectively, as well as the sum of the number of illicit drugs used during these two times.

Dynamic drug- and crime-involvement factors

Adapted from Salisbury and Van Voorhis (2009), dynamic drug- and crime-involvement factors provide an opportunity to capture the complex context of women’s engagement in behaviors and environments related to their substance use. Seven variables operationalized this construct. Participants were asked whether they had ever been in alcohol or drug treatment (yes=1; no=0), been in treatment during the past 12 months (yes=1; no=0), and the total number of lifetime treatment episodes. Lifetime and past 12 months involvement in two specific drug-related lawbreaking activities was also assessed: driving while intoxicated or high (DUI) (yes=1; no=0); and, selling, distributing, or helping to make illegal drugs (yes=1; no=0). Additionally, the frequency with which participants had engaged in each of these behaviors in their lifetime and during the past 12 months was also assessed.

Data Analysis

In order to meet the research goals, descriptive data, including means, percentages, and standard deviations are presented; all between group differences were assessed using chi-square analyses (for categorical level variables) and analyses of variance (ANOVA; for variables that were interval level or higher).

Results

Table 1 presents data on the sociodemographic characteristics, victimization, correctional status, offense, and controlled environment. Tables 2 and 3, respectively, provide data on differences between women on probation and parole with respect to prevalence of substance use and dynamic drug- and crime-involvement factors. Table 4 describes the prevalence of substance use for women on probation and parole based on their history in a controlled environment.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics, Victimization, Correctional Status, Associated Charge, and Controlled Environment

Sample (N=406) Probation (n=307) Parole (n=92) Chi-Square/FA (p)
Mean/Percentage (SE) Mean/Percentage (SD) Mean/Percentage (SD)
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Race
 African American 41.9%
 White 50.5%
 Other 7.6%
Age 37.2 (10.2) 36.4 (10.4) 39.7 (9.2) 7.397 (.007)
Partner Status
 Single 44.6% 44.7% A 45.1% A 10.330 (.006)
 Married/living with a partner of the opposite sex 16.7% 19.9%A 6.6%B
 Divorced/separated/widowed 38.7% 35.4.% A 48.4% B
Educational Attainment
 Less than a HS diploma/GED 27.1%
 GED/HS diploma 36.2%
 Trade School 3.4%
 Some college to College Degree 30.0%
 Some Graduate school to Graduate Degree 3.2%
Work Status
 Unemployed 40.9%
 Working 28.8%
 Disabled 20.2%
 In School 3.7%
 Other 6.4%
Homeless 34.2%
Victimization
Childhood
 Any physical or sexual 69.5%
 Psychological 75.1%
 Physical 64.3%
 Sexual 38.7%
IPV
 Any physical or sexual 90.4%
 Psychological 95.3%
 Physical 89.7%
 Sexual 53.2%
Non-Intimate Partner Violence
 Any physical or sexual 72.2%
 Physical 56.7%
 Sexual 59.6%
Correctional Status
Probation 75.6%
Parole 22.7%
Both 1.7%
Offense Associated with Current Probation/Parole Charge
Shoplifting/vandalism 14.0%
Parole/probation violations 19.2% 13.4% 37.0% 25.833 (.000)
Drug charges 36.0%
Forgery 16.0%
Weapons offenses 3.2%
Burglary/larceny/B&E 6.4%
Robbery 6.2%
Assault 9.6% 11.7% 3.3% 5.752 (.016)
Arson 1.2%
Homicide/manslaughter 0.2%
Prostitution 1.2%
Contempt of court 0.5%
Other 32.5%
Controlled Environment
Controlled Environment and/or Halfway House, Past 12 MonthsB 57.4% 53.4% 69.6% 7.534 (.006)
Total Days in Controlled Environment and/or Halfway House 46.9 (75.4) 35.6 (63.4) 86.9 (98.2) 35.090 (.000)
Open in a new tab

The same superscripts denote that means between the two groups for each variable are statistically equivalent (i.e., not significantly different).

A

Between group differences were assessed using chi-square analyses (for categorical level variables) and analyses of variance (ANOVA; for variables that were interval level or higher). Chi-square, F, and associated p values are only reported for those between group differences that met the criteria for conventional statistical significance (p≤.05).

B

48.5% of respondents reported being in a controlled environment; 30.3% reported being in a halfway house.

Table 2.

Comparisons of Women on Probation (N = 307) and Parole (N = 92) Across Substance Use Measures

Substance Lifetime (%) Age First Use M (SD) Past Two Years (%) Chi-SquareA (p) Past 12 Months (%) Chi-Square (p) Frequency of Use, Past 12 Months M (SD)
Any illicit drug use
 Sample 93.1% 59.1% 46.1%
 Probation 66.1% 53.7%
 Parole 38.0% 23.190 (.000) 21.7% 29.161 (.000)
Alcohol to intoxication
 Sample 71.4% 15.3 (5.3) 33.7% 23.3% 2.4 (1.4)
 Probation
 Parole
Marijuana
 Sample 86.4% 14.6 (4.4) 38.9% 27.9% 3.1 (1.9)
 Probation 45.6% 33.7%
 Parole 18.5% 21.754 (.000) 9.8% 19.943 (.000)
Cocaine
 Sample 70.4% 21.4 (7.1) 26.7% 18.0% 3.0 (1.7)
 Probation 21.2%
 Parole 8.7% 7.434 (.006)
Crack
 Sample 52.0% 25.1 (8.7) 21.5% 14.8% 3.1 (1.7)
 Probation 17.3%
 Parole 7.6% 5.211 (.022)
Heroin
 Sample 17.7% 27.1 (9.6) 7.4% 6.2% 3.4 (2.1)
 Probation 9.4% 7.8%
 Parole 1.1% 7.114 (.008) 1.1% 5.460 (.019)
Other Opiates
 Sample 41.7% 21.6 (7.5) 24.3% 19.8% 3.9 (1.9)
 Probation 27.5% 23.0%
 Parole 14.1% 6.885 (.009) 9.8% 7.689 (.006)
Hallucinogens
 Sample 27.9% 18.2 (5.1) 2.0% 0.7% 1.3 (0.5)
 Probation
 Parole
Sedatives
 Sample 40.6% 21.4 (7.7) 21.9% 17.0% 3.6 (1.8)
 Probation 25.4% 20.2%
 Parole 10.9% 8.702 (.003) 7.6% 7.841 (.005)
Methamphetamine
 Sample 29.1% 23.4 (7.9) 10.9% 7.4% 3.0 (1.828)
 Probation
 Parole
Club Drugs
 Sample 22.9% 23.0 (7.6) 4.9% 2.7% 2.0 (1.2)
 Probation 6.2%
 Parole 1.1% 3.870 (.049)
Prescription Drugs
 Sample 38.3% 21.1 (8.1) 19.2% 13.1% 3.9 (1.8)
 Probation 22.1% 16.3%
 Parole 10.9% 5.727 (.017) 3.3% 10.427 (.001)
Open in a new tab
A

Chi-square and associated p values are only reported for those between group differences that met the criteria for conventional statistical significance (p≤.05).

Table 3.

Dynamic Crime and Drug Factors for Women on Probation (n = 307) and Parole (n = 92)

Sample Probation Parole Chi-Square/FA (p)
Drug treatment, ever 66.7% 62.2% 81.5% 11.874 (.001)
Number of times in drug treatment, ever 2.3 (5.0) 2.0 (3.4) 3.4 (8.4) 5.251 (.022)
Drug treatment – 12 months 40.1%
Drug related crime, ever
 DUI 54.9%
 Drug Crime 40.2%
Number of Times Engaged in Specific Drug Related Crime, Lifetime
 DUI 20.8 (53.4)
 Drug Crime 28.6 (83.0)
Drug Related Crime, Past 12 Months
 DUI 12.8% 15.8% 2.2% 14.602 (.001)
 Drug Crime 8.0%
Number of Times Engage in Specific Drug Related Crime, Past 12 Months
 DUI 1.5 (7.5)
 Drug Crime 2.1 (11.1)
Open in a new tab
A

Between group differences were assessed using chi-square analyses (for categorical level variables) and analyses of variance (ANOVA; for variables that were interval level or higher). Chi-square, F, and associated p values are only reported for those between group differences that met the criteria for conventional statistical significance (p≤.05).

Table 4.

Comparison of the Prevalence of Illicit Substance Use in the Past 12 Months Between Women on Probation and Parole by Controlled Environment

Substance Use in the Past 12 Months (%) Use in the Past 12 Months (%)
Probation (n=307) Parole (n=92)
Not in Controlled Environment (n=143) Controlled Environment (n=164) Chi-SquareA (p) Not in Controlled Environment (n=28) Controlled Environment (n=64) Chi-Square (p)
Alcohol to Intoxication 19.7% 30.1% 21.4% 15.6%
Marijuana 33.1% 34.1% 7.1% 10.9%
Cocaine 16.8% 25.2% 14.3% 6.3%
Crack 11.2% 22.7% 7.048 (.008) 14.3% 4.7%
Heroin 4.2% 11.0% 4.873 (.027) 0% 1.6%
Other Opiates 16.3% 28.7% 6.536 (.011) 7.1% 10.9%
Hallucinogens 0% 1.8% 0% 0%
Sedatives 14.0% 25.6% 6.404 (.011) 10.7% 6.3%
Methamphetamine 3.5% 12.8% 8.539 (.003) 0% 4.7%
Club Drugs 5.6% 1.8% 0% 0%
Prescription drugs 9.1% 22.6% 10.166 (.001) 3.6% 3.1%
Open in a new tab
A

Chi-square and associated p values are only reported for those between group differences that met the criteria for conventional statistical significance (p≤.05).

Sociodemographic characteristics and victimization

The majority of women in the sample were either White (50.6%) or Black (41.7%), on average 37 years old (range, 19 to 69), and largely single (i.e., women reported that they were not married and/or living with a partner at this time; 44.5%) or divorced/separated/widowed (38.8%). Approximately 27% of the women had less than a high school diploma/GED, 36% had a high school diploma or GED, while 33.3% had some college or graduate school. Approximately 29% of the women were working part- or full-time. Thirty-four percent of the women considered themselves homeless.

Sixty-nine percent of the women had experienced either physical or sexual victimization as children, 90% had experienced similar victimization with an intimate partner, and 72% had experienced physical or sexual violence with a non-intimate partner.

Correctional status, offense, and controlled environments

Overall, 307 (75.6%) women were on probation, 92 (22.7 %) were on parole, and 7 (1.7%) had both a probation and parole sentence. The most common charges leading to a women’s current probation or parole sentence were drug, “other”, and probation and parole violations. Over half of the women (57.4%) reported they had spent time in either a controlled environment or halfway house in the past 12 months for an average of 50 days.

Substance use.5

The vast majority of women (93%) reported lifetime use of at least one illicit drug, and on average, lifetime use of four different illicit drugs. Marijuana was the most commonly used illicit substance with 86.4% of participants reporting lifetime use. Fifty-nine percent and 46% of the women reported illicit substance use in the past two years and 12 months, respectively. After marijuana, cocaine, crack, and other opiates were the most commonly used drugs in the past two years and 12 months. Drinking alcohol to intoxication was also quite common; approximately one-quarter to almost three-fourths of the sample reported drinking to intoxication during one of the measured timeframes. Data on frequency of drinking to intoxication indicated that women were on average drinking to intoxication one to two times per month.

Examination of Table 2 illustrates highly similar patterns of use for cocaine and crack. Post hoc correlations (Spearman’s rho) between cocaine and crack use in the past two years (.781; p≥.01) and past 12 months (.759; p≥.01) suggest that use of these substances is virtually the identical. To a somewhat lesser degree, use of different categories of prescription drugs was also similar. Use of other opiates, sedatives, and prescription drugs over the past two years (range: .577 to .630; p≥.01) and 12 months (range: .506 to .587; p≥.01), respectively, demonstrate some overlap in the use of these particular types of substance as well.

Dynamic drug- and crime-involvement factors

The majority of women reported they had been in alcohol or drug (AOD) treatment sometime in their lives (66.7%). Women averaged two lifetime AOD treatment episodes, and almost 40% reported being in treatment in the past 12 months. Fifty-five percent and 40% of the women reported engaging in DUI and the selling, distributing and/or manufacturing of drugs, respectively, during their lives. In the past 12 months approximately 12.8% and 8.0%, respectively, reported engaging in these drug-related lawbreaking behaviors.

Differences in substance use and associated descriptive and behavioral domains among women on probation and parole (Tables 1 to 3)

Compared with women on probation, women on parole were on average four years older, less likely to report being married and/or living with a partner of the opposite gender, and more likely to report being divorced/separated/widowed (Table 1). The only significant differences in regard to offense associated with their current probation or parole charge were for parole and/or probation violations and assault. Women on parole reported more parole and probation violations (chi-square=25.833, p=.000; (1, N=399)) and women on probation reported more assault offenses (chi-square=5.752, p=.016; (1, N=399)). Parolees were more likely to report being in a controlled environment/halfway house (chi-square=7.534, p=.006; (1, N=399)) and to have spent more days in a controlled environment/halfway house during the past 12 months as compared to probationers (F(1, 398)=35.090, p=.000).

Women on parole and probation were further distinguished by distinct substance using profiles. Women on probation were more likely to have used any illicit drugs in the past two years (chi-square=23.190, p=.000; (1, N=399)) and previous 12 months (chi-square=29.161, p=.000; (1, N=399)) as compared to women on parole. In general, women on probation evidenced greater use of illicit drugs in the past two years and 12 months, respectively, than their counterparts on parole. Specifically, within these timeframes, women on probation reported more frequent use of marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, sedatives, club drugs, and prescriptions drugs than women on parole (Table 2).6

In regards to the dynamic factors (Table 3), few differences between the women on probation and parole were identified. A higher percentage of women on parole indicated at least one episode of AOD treatment in their lifetime (chi-square=11.874, p=.001; (1, N=399)) as well as a greater number of treatment episodes (F(1, 398)=5.251, p=.022).; however there was no significant difference between the two groups in regards to AOD treatment in the past 12 months. In terms of lawbreaking, women on probation reported more DUI behavior in the past 12 months than women on parole (chi-square=14.602, p=.001; (1, N=399)).

Did being in a controlled environment affect substance use for either group of women (Table 4)?

Examination of Table 4 indicates that for probationers being in a controlled environment was significantly related to a higher prevalence of illicit drug use. Specifically, among women on probation who had been in a controlled environment, higher percentages reported past 12 months use of 10 of the 11 substances assessed (inclusive of alcohol to intoxication) as compared those who had not been in controlled environments; differences between these groups were statistically significant for seven substances (alcohol to intoxication, crack, heroin, other opiates, sedatives, methamphetamine, and prescription drugs).

Discussion

This research provided a unique opportunity to begin addressing a significant gap in our understanding of a key criminal justice population, victimized women on probation and parole. Empirical research, as well as evidence-based principles of practice, indicate that substance use is a risk factor that should be targeted for intervention in order to reduce further involvement in the criminal justice system and engagement in lawbreaking (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Golder et al., 2005; Hall, et al., 2013). As such, this research contributes significantly to our understanding of substance use among this understudied population; this constitutes a necessary and critical step in developing effective intervention strategies and policies for the majority of women under the control of the criminal justice system. These findings also have important implications for future research.

While the link between substance use and victimization (childhood, IPV) has been clearly established, the extent of illicit substance use in the current sample of victimized women appeared particularly high. Drinking to intoxication and illicit substance use were essentially ubiquitous among the participants, with the majority of women reporting use of at least one illicit substance and alcohol to intoxication in their lives. Marijuana use among the participants was remarkably high. In fact, marijuana use was more common than drinking to intoxication for each time interval assessed (i.e., ever, past two years, past 12 months). In comparison, national estimates, indicate that 20.6% of individuals on probation and parole report current use of marijuana (SAMHSA, 2011), while among women in the general population, 36.8% and 8.6% report lifetime and past year use of marijuana, respectively (SAMHSA, 2008 and 2009). These data strongly imply that the use of marijuana among women on probation and parole is so common as to be a normative behavior. A number of factors may contribute to this finding. Environmentally, it is likely that marijuana is prevalent in the respondents’ social circles and readily available within their urban neighborhoods, potentially even more so than alcohol or cigarettes (Lee & Kirkpatrick, 2005). Attesting to the environmental prevalence of marijuana, Kentucky has ranked third out of all states in terms of arrests for marijuana offenses (Gettman, 2009).

Extensive marijuana use among the respondents may also be related to their experiences of victimization. Marijuana use among adolescents and young adults is associated with “adverse rearing environments” including physical and sexual victimization (Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2008; Hayatbakhsh et al., 2009). In fact, young adult women who experienced forced or pressured sexual contact prior to the age of 16 were almost four times more likely to report frequent marijuana use at age 21 compared to peers that had not experienced similar victimization (Hayatbakhsh, et al., 2009). Similarly, there is considerable empirical evidence linking women’s marijuana use with their experience of IPV (Moore et al., 2008; Nabors, 2010; Railford, Wingood, & Diclemente, 2007; Reingle, Staras, Jennings, Branchini, & Maldonado-Molina, 2011). Future research will seek to examine the relationship between victimization (childhood, IPV, non-intimate partner violence) and its’ association with marijuana use, specifically, and other illicit substances, generally, in order to better understand the influence of victimization on drug use among this population.

Notwithstanding the possible environmental and psychosocial factors that contribute to marijuana use, the regularity with which participants in this study use marijuana suggests that indicated preventive interventions targeting women who smoke marijuana should be considered for regular inclusion in programming for women in the criminal justice system. Motivational enhancement therapy (MET) and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) are common drug treatment approaches and both have been shown to reduce marijuana use (Nordstrom & Levin, 2007). Notably, even relatively brief exposure to MET and CBT (between two and five sessions) resulted in higher rates of abstinence from marijuana relative to those who did not receive treatment (Nordstrom & Levin, 2007). To address problematic marijuana use, as well as accompanying probation and parole violations, it is recommended that these brief, evidence-based treatments be incorporated into probation and parole programming.

Rates of prescription drug misuse (i.e., other opiates, sedatives, and/or prescription drugs) were also high. Post hoc analysis support prior empirical findings that prescription drug misusers tend to use more than one class of prescription drugs (Hall, Howard, & McCabe, 2010a). For example, 74% of prescription opiate users in this study also used sedatives.7 Thus, it is reasonable that use of these two classes of prescription drugs can be conceptualized as general prescription drug misuse. Future research is needed to determine whether substance use characteristics can be used to empirically and qualitatively establish distinct subgroups of women within this population. Previous studies have identified subgroups of prescription drug misusers based on motive(s) for use, route(s) of administration, and whether the drugs were co-ingested with alcohol (McCabe, Boyd, & Teter, 2009). Other work has identified subgroups of sedative and tranquilizer misusers based on mental health status (Hall, Howard, & McCabe, 2010b). Such efforts are important as they may allow treatment providers to better match prescription drug misusing women in the criminal justice system to appropriate services. For example, if levels of anxiety differed significantly among subgroups of prescription sedative and tranquilizer misusers, it may suggest a need for intensive mental health treatment among some categories of misusers. Similarly, research is needed to determine if there are meaningful differences between women who report more recent use of illicit drugs and those that do not.

In addition to documenting substance use patterns among this population, differences between women on probation and parole were also examined. These findings strongly suggest that illicit substance use is a more acute issue for female probationers than for parolees. In particular, it appears that use of marijuana, heroin, other opiates, sedatives, and prescription drugs are particularly problematic for probationers. This is consistent with data suggesting that prescription drug misuse is a significant problem in the U.S. generally, and within Kentucky specifically (Leukefeld et al., 2005; SAMHSA, 2012; Warner, Chen, Makuc, Anderson, & Minino, 2011). In fact, data from Kentucky indicates that prescription opiates and sedatives are among the fastest growing categories of abused substances in the state (Mateyoke-Scrivner et al., 2009). This finding, along with those presented in the prior paragraph, strongly suggests that it may be important for correctional agencies to identify and specifically target the subgroup of female probationers who are ‘prescription drug misusers’ for intervention.

Relatedly, the findings regarding the effects of being in a controlled environment on substance use were potentially concerning. For women on parole, the data trend suggested that there was no consistently discernible effect on substance use, while for probationers, being in a controlled environment was associated with a higher prevalence of illicit drug use. There are at least two competing explanations for this finding. It may be that the relationship between controlled environments and a higher prevalence of illicit substance use for probationers reflects a period of binging/increased use prior to and/or resulting in their engagement in the criminal justice system and confinement within a controlled environment. However, in contrast, it may be that associating with high-risk others (i.e., substance users; crime- and drug-involved individuals) within controlled environments increases the likelihood that women will initiate or continue to engage in substance use. Clearly, further research is needed to document the chronology of substance use and time spent in controlled environments so that the relationship between these factors for both women on probation and parole can be more clearly elucidated.

Finally, it is important to note that women in the criminal justice system have been identified as an economically marginalized and vulnerable population. A large proportion of women in the present study reported being homeless, with a significantly higher percentage of women on parole reporting homelessness than those on probation. The absence of stable housing increases the difficulty of finding and maintaining employment, accessing needed services (e.g., substance abuse treatment; medical care), and maintaining and/or restoring formal and informal social support networks (Metraux & Culhane, 2004; Wilkins, 2012). Homelessness puts parolees and probationers at higher risk for violating the conditions of their supervision and housing instability is connected to increased risk of re-arrest (The National Reentry Resource Center, 2012; Metraux & Culhane, 2004; Wilkins, 2012). Taken together, these data strongly suggest that assisting women to establish stable housing is a key element of a successfully “reentry” plan.

This research has several limitations. First, as the sample was not randomly selected, results may not be representative of all women on probation and parole in the U.S.. However, the 406 participants who participated in the study represented approximately one-fifth of all women on probation and parole in Jefferson County at the time recruitment was initiated (Kentucky Department of Corrections, 2010). Second, the self-report nature of the measures may have resulted in the underreporting of some sensitive information, though evaluations of IPV and substance use self-report measures support the integrity of such data (Caetano, Schafer, Field, & Nelson, 2002; Darke, 1998; Fincham, 1992; Hser, Maglione, & Boyle, 1999; Magdol, Moffitt, & Silva, 1998; Rouse, Kozel, & Richards, 1985). Furthermore, the use of ACASI technology for data has numerous advantages over other data collection methods (Newman et al., 2002; Williams et al., 2000) and is the most reliable method for collecting information about potentially stigmatized behaviors/experiences (Wolff & Shi, 2012). Finally, this study was cross-sectional and cannot describe the temporal relationship between risk factors and problematic behavior.

In spite of these limitations, this research contributes significantly to our understanding of substance use among an understudied population, victimized women in the criminal justice system. The findings presented here have direct implications for the development of effective intervention strategies and policies within the criminal justice system as well as other service systems providing care to drug- and crime-involved women. Future research with women on probation and parole should include longitudinal studies to examine risk behaviors over time, as well as intervention studies focused on substance abuse treatment and relapse prevention, particularly among probationers.

Acknowledgments

The research described here was supported, in part, by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA027981). Special thanks to all the women who have participated in this research. Additional gratitude is expressed to Robin Cook, Amy Brooks, and the Kentucky Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole for their assistance.

Footnotes

1

Actually, Reichert et al. (2010) found that 99% of the women in their sample of 217 women randomly selected from the population of female inmates in three Illinois prisons had experienced some form of lifetime victimization, a figure is significantly higher than prior research.

2

Intimate partner violence between same gender female partners is an important and understudied issue. The dynamics of intimate partner violence between same gender partners may be both similar to and distinct from violence between opposite gender partners. This however, is an empirical question/issue. Furthermore, there was concern that inclusion of women who only had sex with other women would yield a subsample that was too small for meaningful analysis.

3

A complete list of questions used to assess victimization is available from the first author.

4

Prescription drug misuse was operationalized as ever using, “prescription drugs that were not prescribed to you, in excess of what was prescribed for you, and/or for recreational purposes”.

5

The following data are not reported in the table: 5.9% of the respondents reported no use of alcohol or illicit substances ever, 22.9% reported use of illicit substances only; 1.0% reported use of alcohol only and 70.2% reported use of both alcohol and illicit substances.

6

These analyses were conducted without consideration as to whether a woman had been in a controlled environment in the past 12 months or two years.

7

Based on post-hoc analysis; not reported elsewhere in this paper.

Contributor Information

Seana Golder, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Martin T. Hall, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY

TK Logan, Department of Behavioral Science and the Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky.

George Higgins, Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Amanda Dishon, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Tanya Renn, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

Katherine Winham, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

References

  1. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge RD. Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1990;17:19–52. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett T, Holloway K, Farrington D. The statistical association between drug misuse and crime: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2008;13:107–118. [Google Scholar]
  3. Browne A, Miller B, Maguin E. Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 1999;22(3–4):301–322. doi: 10.1016/s0160-2527(99)00011-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Burke P, Gelb A, Horowitz J. Public safety policy brief. Vol. 3. Washington, D.C: The Pew Charitable Trusts; 2007. When offenders break the rules: Smart responses to parole and probation violations. [Google Scholar]
  5. Caetano R, Schafer J, Field C, Nelson SM. Agreements on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2002;17(12):1308–1322. [Google Scholar]
  6. Carmichael S, Koons-Witt B. The successful completion of probation and parole among female offenders. Women & Criminal Justice. 2007;17(1):75–97. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carson EA, Sabol W. Prisoners in 2011. Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  8. The National Reentry Resource Center. Reentry Facts. 2012 Retrieved 10-4-12, 2012, from http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/facts.
  9. Chesney-Lind M, Rodriquez N. Women under lock and key. The Prison Journal. 1983;63:47–65. [Google Scholar]
  10. NOVA Research Company. QDS Questionnaire Development System. 2003 Retrieved from http://www.novaresearch.com/index.cfm.
  11. Crawford J. The Female Offender: What does the Future Hold? Washington, D.C: American Correction Association; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  12. Daly R, Peck M. Considering consolidation: The Nebraska probation and parole services study. Vera Institute of Justice; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  13. Darke S. Self-report among injecting drug users: A review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1998;51:253–263. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(98)00028-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. DeGroot AS. HIV among incarcerated women: An epidemic behind the walls. Corrections Today. 2001;63:77–81. [Google Scholar]
  15. DeGroot AS, Zierler S, Stevens J. HIV risk behavior and HIV-related morbidity in a cohort of incarcerated women in Massachusetts. Paper presented at the 11th International AIDS Conference; Vancouver, British Columbia. 1996. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dowden C, Brown SL. The role of substance abuse factors in predicting recidivism: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2002;8(3):243–264. [Google Scholar]
  17. El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Ivanoff A, Schilling RF, Borne D, Safyer SF. Correlates of crack abuse among incarcerated women: Psychological trauma, social support and coping behavior. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 1996;22:41–56. doi: 10.3109/00952999609001644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ. Exposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse and adjustment in early adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2008;32:607–619. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fincham F. Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;62(3):457–468. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.62.3.457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gettman J. Marijuana in Kentucky: Arrests, usage and related data. The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform. 2009 www.drugscience.org.
  21. Glaze L. Correctional populations in the United States, 2010. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  22. Glaze L, Bonczar T. Probation and parole in the United States, 2012. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  23. Golder S. Substance Use. In: Hoffler EF, Clark EJ, editors. Social Work Matters: The Power of Linking Policy and Practice. Washington, D.C: NASW Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Golder S, Ivanoff A, Cloud R, Besel K, McKiernan P, Bratt E, Bledsoe LK. Evidence based practice with adults in jails and prisons: Strategies, practices, and future directions. Best Practices in Mental Health: An International Journal. 2005;1(2):100–132. [Google Scholar]
  25. Golder S, Logan T. Lifetime victimization and psychological distress: Cluster profiles of out of treatment drug-involved women. Violence & Victims. 2010;25(1):62–83. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.25.1.62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Green B, Miranda J, Daroowalla A, Siddique J. Trauma exposure, mental health functioning and program needs of women in jail. Crime and Delinquency. 2005;51(1):133–151. [Google Scholar]
  27. Greenfeld L, Snell T. Women offenders. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  28. Greenfeld LA, Snell TL. Women Offenders. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  29. Grella C, Greenwell L. Correlates of parental status and attitudes toward parenting among substance abusing women offenders. The Prison Journal. 2006;86(1):89–113. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hall MT, Golder S, Conley C, Sawning S. Interventions for women in the criminal justice system. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2013;38(1):27–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hall MT, Howard MO, McCabe SE. Prescription drug misuse among antisocial youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2010a;71:917–924. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hall MT, Howard MO, McCabe SE. Subtypes of adolescent sedative/anxiolytic misusers: A latent profile analysis. Addictive Behaviors. 2010b;35:882–889. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hayatbakhsh M, Najman j, Jamrozik K, Mamun A, O’Callaghan M, Williams G. Childhood sexual abuse and cannabis use in early adulthood: Findings from an Australian birth cohort study. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2009 doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9172-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Henderson D. Drug abuse and incarcerated women: A research review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1998;15(6):579–587. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(97)00319-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hser YI, Maglione M, Boyle K. Validity of selfreport of drug use among STD patients, ER patients, and arrestees. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 1999;25(1):81–91. doi: 10.1081/ada-100101847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. James D. Profile of jail inmates, 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kentucky Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole. Jefferson County Probation and Parole: Females. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee JP, Kirkpatrick S. Social Meanings of Marijuana Use for Southeast Asian Youth. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Use. 2005;4(3–4):135–152. doi: 10.1300/J233v04n03_06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Leukefeld C, McDonald HS, Mateyoke-Scrivner A, Roberto H, Walker R, Webster M, Garrity T. Prescription drug use, health services utilization, and health problems in rural Appalachian Kentucky. Journal of Drug Issues. 2005;5(3):631–644. [Google Scholar]
  40. Logan T, Cole J, Leukefeld C. Gender differences in the context of sex exchange among individuals with a history of crack use. AIDS Education and Prevention. 2003;15(5):448–464. doi: 10.1521/aeap.15.6.448.24041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lynch S, DeHart D, Belknap J, Green B. Pathways Project--Research Factsheet: Mental Health & Trauma among Women in Jails. Pocatello, ID: Idaho State University; 2012a. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lynch S, DeHart D, Belknap J, Green B. Women’s pathways to jail: The role and intersections of serious mental illness and trauma. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Assistance; 2012b. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lynch S, Fritch A, Heath N. Looking beneath the surface:The nature of incarcerated women’s experiences of interpersonal violence, treatment needs, and mental health. Feminist Criminology. 2012;7(4):381–400. [Google Scholar]
  44. Magdol L, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-lnongitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1998;107(3):375–389. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.107.3.375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Marlowe D. Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice. 2003;2(1):4–14. doi: 10.1151/spp03214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mateyoke-Scrivner A, Walker R, Cole J, Stevenson E, Logan T, Shannon L. Examining prescription opiate abuse in Kentucky A look at an emerging trend. KTOS In-Focus. 2009;2(3):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  47. Mauer M. The changing racial dynamics of women’s incarceration. Washington, D.C: The Sentencing Project; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  48. McCabe SE, Boyd CJ, Teter CJ. Subtypes of nonmedical prescription drug misuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2009;102:63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.01.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. McClellan DS, Farabee D, Crouch BM. Early victimization, drug use, adn criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1997;24(4):455–476. [Google Scholar]
  50. McLellan AT, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G, Argeriou M. The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1992;9(3):199–213. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Metraux S, Culhane D. Homeless Shelter Use and Reincarceration Following Prison Release. Criminology and Public Policy. 2004;3(24):139–160. [Google Scholar]
  52. Moore TM, Stuart GL, Meehan JC, Rhatigan DL, Hellmuth JC, Keen SM. Drug abuse and aggression between intimate partners: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2008;28:238–247. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mumola C. Substance abuse and treatment of adults on probation, 1995. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  54. Nabors EL. Drug use and intimate partner violence among college students: An in-depth exploration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2010;25:1043–1063. doi: 10.1177/0886260509340543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Newman JC, Jarlais DCD, Turner CF, Gribble J, Cooley P, Paone D. The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. American Journal of Public Health. 2002;92:294. doi: 10.2105/ajph.92.2.294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Nordstrom BR, Levin FR. Treatment of cannabis use disorder: A review of the literature. American Journal of Addiction. 2007;16:331–342. doi: 10.1080/10550490701525665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Owen B, Bloom B. Profiling women prisoners: Findings from national survey and California sample. The Prison Journal. 1995;75(2):165–185. [Google Scholar]
  58. Office of National Drug Control Policyl. In-custody treatment and offender reentry. N.D Retrieved June 12, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/in-custody-treatment-and-reentry.
  59. Prendergast ML, Wellisch J, Wong MM. Residential treatment for women parolees following prison-based drug treatment: Treatment experiences, needs and services, and outcomes. The Prison Journal. 1996;76:253–274. [Google Scholar]
  60. Railford JL, Wingood GM, Diclemente RJ. Prevalence, incidence, and predictors of dating violence: A longitudinal study of African American female adolescents. Journal of Women’s Health. 2007;16:822–833. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Reichert J, Adams S, Bostwick L. Victimization and help-seeking behaviors among female prisoners in Illinois. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  62. Reingle J, Staras S, Jennings W, Branchini J, Maldonado-Molina M. The relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violenc in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2011;27(8):1562–1578. doi: 10.1177/0886260511425787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Rouse B, Kozel N, Richards L. NIDA Research Monograph No 57. National Institute of Drug Abuse; 1985. Self-report methods of estimating drug use: Meeting current challenges to validity. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Sabol W, Couture H. Prison Inmates at Midyear 2007. Wasington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  65. Salisbury E, Voorhis PV. Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2009;36(6):541–566. [Google Scholar]
  66. SAMHSA, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2008 and 2009. (2008 and 2009). Table 1.40B – Hallucinogen Use in Lifetime, Past Year, and Past Month among Persons Aged 12 to 17, by Demographic Characteristics: Percentages, 2008 and 2009.
  67. SAMHSA. Table B.8 Nonmedical Use of Pain Relievers in Past Year, by Age Group and State: Percentages, Annual Averages Based on 2007 and 2008 NSDUHs. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  68. SAMHSA. Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shilton MK. Resources for mother-child community corrections. LaCrosse, WI: International Community Comunity Corrections Association; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  70. Snyder H. Patterns and Trends: Arrest in the United States, 1980–2009. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  71. Straus M, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues. 1996;17(3):283–316. [Google Scholar]
  72. Strauss SM, Falkin GP. The first week after drug treatment: The influence of treatment on drug use among women offenders. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2001;27:241–264. doi: 10.1081/ada-100103708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Teplin L, Abram K, McClelland G. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1996;53(June):505–512. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830060047007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Stalking in America: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, D.C: National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  76. Tolman R. The validation of the psychological maltreatment of women inventory. Violence & Victims. 1999;14(1):25–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Tolman RM. The development of a measure of the psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims. 1989;4(3):159–178. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Treatment, CfSA. Substance abuse treatment for adults in the criminal justice system: Chapter 10: Treatment for offenders under community supervision. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series. 2005;44 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wahler E. Retribution or rehabilitation? Conflicting goals of U. S. policies pertaining to drug felonies and their impact on women. Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy (In Press) [Google Scholar]
  80. Warner M, Chen LH, Makuc DM, Anderson RN, Minino AM. Drug poisoning deaths in the United States, 1980 – 2008. Vol. 81. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief; 2011. pp. 1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Warner TD, Kramer JH. Closing the revolving door?: Substance abuse treatment as an alternative to traditional sentencing for drug-dependent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2009;36(1):89–109. [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilkins C. Frequently asked questions: Housing. 2012 Retrieved 10-4-12, 2012, from http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/faqs/housing-and-reentry.
  83. Williams ML, Freeman RC, Bowen AM, Zhao Z, Rusek R, Signes C. A comparison of the reliability of self-reported drug use and sexual behaviors using computer-assisted versus face-to-face interviewing. AIDS Education and Prevention. 2000;12:199–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Wolff N, Shi J. Childhood and adult trauma of incarcerated persons and thier relationship to adult behavioral health problems and treatment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2012;9:1908–1926. doi: 10.3390/ijerph9051908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES