Empowerment and Social Support: Implications for Practice and Programming among Minority Women with Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice Histories

Abstract

Programs for women with substance abuse and criminal justice histories often incorporate empowerment and social support into service delivery systems. Women’s empowerment research has focused on the relationship between women’s personal identities and the larger sociopolitical context, with an emphasis on how community based resources are critical for promoting well-being. Social support often protects against negative outcomes for individuals who live with chronic stress. However, few studies have evaluated community resource knowledge and empowerment among marginalized women or how social support might strengthen or weaken this relationship. This study investigated resource knowledge, social support and empowerment among 200 minority women in substance abuse recovery who had recent criminal justice involvement. Results indicated that resource knowledge was related to empowerment and belonging social support marginally moderated this relationship. In addition, education level increased and current involvement in the criminal justice system decreased empowerment. Implications for research, practice and policy are discussed.

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, researchers, policy makers and practitioners have devoted attention toward understanding factors that contribute to women’s involvement in the criminal justice system as there has been an exponential increase in the number of women who are justice involved.¹ For example, between 2010 and 2013, the male inmate population declined 4.2 percent while the female population increased 10.9 percent.² This has resulted in a need for effective policies and programs that address the specific needs of justice involved women. Justice involved women’s needs are complex and multiplicative, as they are more likely to live in poverty, have inadequate nutrition, substance abuse histories and limited knowledge of or access to preventative medical care.³ Women in jails report a higher prevalence of chronic medical and psychiatric disorders than their male counterparts, even after controlling for demographic and socioeconomic factors.⁴ Additionally, justice involved women often have limited educational and employment histories which limits their opportunities in the community.^5,6

Justice involved women have higher rates of co-occurring mental health diagnoses, including Post Traumatic Stress and Substance Use Disorders⁷ than the general population. These co-occurring disorders increase risk for further victimization, homelessness, re-incarceration and termination of parental rights.⁸ Justice involved women report higher rates of substance use and are more likely to be convicted of drug-related offenses than men,⁹ however; few substance abuse treatment programs are provided through the criminal justice system.¹⁰ There are even fewer resources available to women upon re-entry to the community,¹¹ which results in women being less likely to use substance abuse treatment services and rehabilitation programs than men exiting the criminal justice system.¹²

Minority women have been disproportionately impacted by the mental health, physical health and social consequences of criminal justice involvement. In particular, African American women are more than three times more likely to be incarcerated than White women,¹³ and often for substance abuse related offenses.¹⁴ African American women involved with the criminal justice system have higher rates of health problems specifically related to substance abuse, including higher rates of HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) than White women.¹⁴ Many of the neighborhoods and communities where African American women return post-incarceration have few resources to address their needs. As such, the lack of available resources for minority women may perpetuate feelings of powerlessness.^15,16 These disparities in resource access permeate the criminal justice landscape, and highlight the gaps in policy and programs that need to be addressed to promote the health and well-being of women who are or were formerly involved in the criminal justice system.

Programs that support women’s adjustment during and after criminal justice involvement often incorporate both empowerment and social support into their theoretical and service delivery frameworks. Gendered frameworks of development have historically focused on the importance of women’s relationships to their well-being (e.g.^17–19). In this context, women are empowered through their ability to form interpersonal relationships that are reciprocal and grounded in connection to others (e.g.^10,18,20). Research has consistently found that positive relationships, or social supports, promote women’s mental health;^21–23 physical health;^24–26 and overall functioning.²⁷ Social support has been found to act as a buffer against life stressors.^21,28 Women’s experience of social support may also influence their personal sense of empowerment.^29–31

Social supports have been described as both coping mechanisms and psychosocial resources.^32,33 As a resource, social support embodies access to relationships that provide material goods, reciprocity, and emotional guidance.³⁴ For example, women have indicated that supportive behaviors from health care professionals are highly important,³⁵ and that personal and family-related health problems may lead to feelings of disempowerment and isolation from support.³⁶ Similarly, one study found that social support decreased the occurrence of stress, depression and somatic problems among a group of homeless women.³⁷ Social support has also been found to increase substance abuse treatment retention³⁸ and decrease the likelihood of relapse among women.³⁹ In contrast to these positive findings, several studies have found that social support may also act as a stressor for women, especially when the supports are not positive.^40–42 For example, Taylor and Budescu⁴³ found stressful kin relations among low-income African American mothers to be associated with increased levels of depressive symptoms, and Sherman et al.²³ found social strain to be related to higher depressive symptoms when measuring negative aspects of social relationships among women.

Social support from positive relationships may be one type of resource that has the capacity to promote women’s empowerment. Traditionally, empowerment has been broadly defined as a process whereby individuals gain control over their lives and acquire the resources needed to achieve their goals (e.g.^44,45). As such, empowerment reflects the ability to obtain power and make choices in the larger social and political environment. Empowerment has been viewed as a cyclical, interpersonal process facilitated through collective discourse⁴⁶ and may include goal setting, building efficacy and competence, obtaining knowledge, and taking action to achieve goals.^47–49

Oppression and the resulting structural inequalities often limit community resources that may help women develop and achieve their goals.^50–52 This may be especially true for justice involved women who are returning to communities that provide few supports to meet their needs. Knowledge of resources and having a way to obtain resources may be components of the empowerment process.⁴⁷ For example, one study found that African American women who perceived themselves to have low levels of social support and little success in obtaining resources were at a high risk for attempting suicide.⁵³ For women who participate in reentry services, increasing knowledge of community resources is central to providing effective case management services. Therefore, it is important to understand how justice involved women’s knowledge of resources are related to empowerment.

Empowerment and social support have increasingly been integrated into women-focused programs for women with substance abuse disorders and involvement in the criminal justice system. For example, gender-responsive programs have demonstrated decreases in recidivism and substance abuse when compared to standard therapeutic programs.⁵⁴ Empowerment-focused programs have shown promise as women reported increases in daily functioning⁵⁵ and reductions in substance abuse severity, anxiety symptoms and stressful life events among female trauma survivors receiving treatment for co-occurring disorders.⁵⁶ Some studies have found that within gendered treatment programs and self-help groups, women are encouraged to build positive and mutual relationships with other recovering peers, sponsors, helping professionals and supportive family members,⁵⁷ which may then increase treatment completion and satisfaction.⁵⁸

Unfortunately, little research has specifically examined the relationship between resource knowledge, social support and empowerment or highlighted how they may be used to inform practice, programs, and policy for justice involved, minority women. Therefore, the present study examined relationships between resource knowledge, social support, and empowerment among a sample of community based women who had recent criminal justice involvement and were attempting to abstain from alcohol and/or drug use. Specifically, it was hypothesized that high resource knowledge would be related to high empowerment, after accounting for demographic variables. Additionally, it was expected that different types of social support would interact with resource knowledge and moderate the relation between resource knowledge and women’s empowerment.

Method

Participants

Participants were 200 urban women who had recent involvement (an arrest, conviction, or incarceration in the past two years) with the criminal justice system and were attempting to remain abstinent from alcohol and/or drug use. On average, participants were 39.94 years old (SD = 8.58). Race for the sample included African American (N = 149; 74.5%), White (N = 45; 22.5%) and Latina or other (N = 6; 3.0%). Most women were unemployed at the time of their interview (N = 132; 66%) and had a high school degree or had obtained some form of higher education (N = 119; 59.5%). Of the 200 participants, many had never been married (N = 123; 61.5%), but most were currently in a relationship at the time of the interview (N = 131; 65.5%). The majority of the women were mothers (N =169; 84.5%).

Procedure

Women were enrolled in a longitudinal, National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)-funded study to examine how different types of housing impact recidivism, sexual risk, and substance use outcomes.⁵⁹ Participants were recruited from various treatment and correctional settings across a large, Midwestern urban and suburban area. In order to qualify for the study, women had to have past criminal justice involvement (an arrest, conviction, or incarceration in the past two years), be abstinent from alcohol/drugs, and willing to move to a sober living home. Participants were not required to be homeless or unstably housed to enroll in the study. Enrollment in the larger study included five interviews at six month intervals over the course of two years. Data for the present analyses were drawn from the baseline interview in which participants completed a one-on-one interview conducted by a trained research assistant and were reimbursed with $40 gift certificates to a local grocery store. Interviews lasted between three and four hours and participants were allowed to take as many breaks as needed. All participants completed informed consent and the study was approved and compliant with university IRB policies.

Materials

Demographic and Background Characteristics

Demographic and background data were collected to evaluate race/ethnicity (White and Non-White), education (High School Diploma/GED or less and some college or more), abuse history (the presence of lifetime emotional, sexual and physical abuse), substance of abuse, and criminal justice involvement, including whether or not the participant was on probation or parole at the time of the interview. These questions were administered as part of the Addiction Severity Index, 5^th Edition.⁶⁰

Empowerment

The Personal Progress Scale-Revised⁶¹ is a 28 item, 7-point Likert scale (“almost never” to “almost always”) that measures empowerment, with focus on the important role of resilience and personal empowerment for women. The scale includes items such as “I want to help other women like me improve the quality of their lives” and “I feel prepared to deal with the discrimination I experience in today’s society.” The scale yields an overall empowerment score and has been validated with diverse female populations.^61–63 The PPS-R demonstrated adequate reliability in this sample (α = 0.85) and participants average score on the measure was 5.15 (SD = 0.83).

Resource Knowledge

Resource Knowledge⁶⁴ was measured by four items designed to evaluate knowledge of community resources pertaining to housing, education, childcare and employment. Questions included, “I am aware of where to go for housing assistance in my community,” and were designed to be consistent with the way in which items on the PPS-R were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (“almost never” to “almost always”). These items demonstrated adequate internal reliability (α = 0.77) and participants average resource knowledge scores were 5.18 (SD = 1.56).

Social Support

The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List −12 (ISEL)⁶⁵ is a 12-item, 4-point Likert scale that measures an individual’s perceived level of social support (‘Definitely false’ to ‘definitely true’). The scale has three, four-item subscales that assess perceived interpersonal social support, including appraisal support, belonging support and tangible support. Tangible support relates to the perceived availability of material aid, for example “If I were sick, I could easily find someone to help me with my daily chores.” Appraisal Support relates to the perceived availability of having someone to talk to about one’s problems, for example “There is someone I can turn to for advice about handling problems with my family.” Belonging Support relates to the perceived availability of having people with whom to do things with, for example “If I decide one afternoon that I would like to go to a movie that evening, I could easily find someone to go with me.”²⁸ Participants scored an average of 3.24 (SD = 0.72) on Tangible Support, an average of 3.41 (SD = 0.67) on Appraisal Support and an average of 3.35 (SD = 0.67) on Belonging Support. This scale has been widely used and validated in research across diverse populations (e.g.^66,67). Reliability coefficients in the current sample were adequate for each subscale: appraisal support (α = 0.69), belonging support (α = 0.79) and tangible support (α = 0.71).

Results

Most participants were Non-White (N = 155; 77.5%) compared to White (N = 45; 22.5%), with 136 (68%) participants reporting a High School Diploma/GED or less and 64 (32%) participants reporting some college/vocational training or above. Participants self-reported lifetime emotional abuse (N = 169; 84.5%), lifetime physical abuse (N = 151; 75.5%) and lifetime sexual abuse (N = 139; 69.5%). As shown in Table 1, most women reported that their primary substance of abuse had been heroin (N = 94; 47.0%) or crack/cocaine (N = 59; 29.5%). Participants had an average of 16.09 lifetime arrests (SD = 34.77), and had been incarcerated for an average of 46.48 months during their lifetime (SD = 69.83). Women reported their criminal histories with the most frequent being drug offenses (N = 144; 72.0) and parole/probation violations (N = 102; 51.0%). The two most recent charges at the time of the interview were drug possession (N = 28; 14.4%) and retail theft (N = 27; 13.9%). The majority of participants reported being on either parole or probation at the time of the interview (115; 57.5%), and almost half of the women had pending court cases and were awaiting trial or sentencing at the time of the baseline interview (42; 21.0%).

Table 1.

Demographic and Background Information for Total Sample

Characteristic	N	%
Age (M±SD)	39.94±8.58
Race
White	45	22.5
African American	149	74.5
Latina	4	2.0
Other	2	1.0
Employed	68	34.0
Education
Less than high school	81	40.5
HS Diploma/GED	55	27.5
Post HS College/Training	64	32.0
Marital Status
Married and living with partner	23	11.5
Widowed, separated, divorced	54	27.0
Never married	123	61.5
In a current relationship	131	65.5
Mother	169	84.5
Primary Substance of Abuse
Heroin	94	47.0
Crack/Cocaine	59	29.5
Methamphetamine	2	1.0
Marijuana	15	7.5
Alcohol	25	12.5
Other opiates	3	1.5
Hallucinogens	2	1.0
Criminal History Characteristics
Lifetime number of arrests (M±SD)	16.09±34.77
Months incarcerated lifetime (M±SD)	46.48±69.83
Criminal charge/offense
Shoplifting/vandalism	93	46.5
Parole/probation violation	102	51.0
Drug offense	144	72.0
Forgery	43	21.5
Weapon offense	20	10.0
Robbery	29	14.5
Burglary	30	15.0
Assault	44	22.0
Arson	3	1.5
Homicide	3	1.5
Prostitution	69	34.5
Other	38	19.0
Currently on Probation/Parole	115	57.5
Currently awaiting charges, trial, sentencing	42	21.0

As shown in Table 2, preliminary analyses examined correlations between demographics, resource knowledge, social support, and empowerment. Notably, Resource Knowledge was positively associated with Tangible Support (r = 0.22, p < 0.01), Empowerment (r = 0.25, p < 0.01) and current probation or parole (r = 0.16, p < 0.05). Similarly, Appraisal Support (r = 0.38, p < 0.01), Tangible Support (r = 0.35, p < 0.01), and Belonging Support (r = 0.42, p < 0.01) were positively associated with Empowerment. Higher Education levels were associated with higher empowerment scores (r = 0.18, p < 0.05) but there were no additional significant associations between demographic characteristics or abuse history and empowerment scores.

Table 2.

Correlations among demographic variables, resource knowledge, social support and empowerment

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Education	--	−0.05	0.19**	0.06	−0.01	0.06	0.07	−0.01	0.08	0.06	0.10	0.18*
2. Age		--	−0.37**	−0.03	−0.01	−0.07	0.09	0.09	−0.01	−0.03	−0.01	0.09
3. Race			--	0.12	0.09	0.01	0.04	0.04	0.01	0.07	−0.01	−0.11
4. Lifetime Emotional Abuse				--	0.40**	0.32**	−0.09	−0.06	−0.03	−0.13	−0.16*	−0.09
5. Lifetime Physical Abuse					--	0.36**	−0.18**	−0.08	0.01	0.03	−0.03	−0.09
6. Lifetime Sexual Abuse						--	−0.11	0.03	−0.03	−0.12	−0.11	−0.07
7. Currently on probation/parole							--	0.16*	−0.05	0.01	0.05	−0.06
8. Resource Knowledge								--	0.11	0.22**	0.13	0.25**
9. Appraisal Support									--	0.65**	0.74**	0.38**
10. Tangible Support										--	0.62**	0.35**
11. Belonging Support											--	0.42**
12. Empowerment

^*Significant at p ≤ 0.05;

^**p ≤0.01

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between Resource Knowledge and Empowerment with Appraisal, Tangible, and Belonging Support as moderators while accounting for demographic characteristics, current criminal justice involvement and abuse history. All continuous data were centered prior to the analyses, which were completed with SPSS version 21.0. As shown in Table 3, Education, Race/Ethnicity, Age, Lifetime Abuse History, current probation or parole and Resource Knowledge were entered into Step 1, and this model was significant, R² = 0.14, F(8, 192) = 3.63, p < 0.01. In the second step, the three perceived Social Support subscales were included in the model, which was significant, R² = 0.28, F(11, 192) = 6.46, p < 0.01. The final third step included the following interaction terms: Resource Knowledge and Appraisal Support, Resource Knowledge and Tangible Support, and Resource Knowledge and Belonging Social Support. Main effects are reported from the second step and interaction effects are interpreted from the third step of the hierarchical regression model.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Model predicting Empowerment Scores

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
Variable	B	SE(B)	β	B	SE(B)	β	B	SE(B)	β
Education	0.40	0.13	0.23*	0.32	0.12	0.18**	0.31	0.11	0.17*
Age	0.00	0.01	0.04	0.00	0.01	0.06	0.01	0.01	0.05
Race	−0.25	0.15	−0.13	−0.23	0.14	−0.12*	−0.22	0.14	−0.11
Lifetime Emotional Abuse	−0.11	0.17	−0.05	0.02	0.16	0.01	0.03	0.16	0.01
Lifetime Physical Abuse	0.09	0.15	−0.05	−0.17	0.14	−0.09	−0.16	0.14	−0.08
Lifetime Sexual Abuse	−0.10	0.14	−0.05	0.02	0.16	0.01	−0.03	0.13	−0.02
Currently on probation/parole	−0.22	0.12	−0.13	−0.22	0.11	−0.13*	−0.22	0.11	−0.13*
Resource Knowledge	0.13	0.04	0.25**	0.10	0.04	0.18**	0.09	0.04	0.17*
Appraisal Support				0.10	0.13	0.08	0.13	0.13	0.11
Tangible Support				0.13	0.10	0.11	0.15	0.11	0.13
Belonging Support				0.31	0.13	0.25*	0.29	0.12	0.24*
Appraisal X Resource Knowledge							0.00	0.10	0.01
Belonging X Resource Knowledge							0.16	0.09	0.22+
Tangible X Resource Knowledge							−0.02	0.09	−0.03
R2		0.14			0.28			0.32
F for change in R2		3.63**			12.24**			3.44*

N = 193

^*Significant at p ≤ 0.05;

^**p ≤0.01

The final model was significant, R² = 0.32, F(14, 192) = 6.02, p < 0.01, and there were several main effects on empowerment. As shown in Table 3, Model 2, Education level was the only demographic variable to predict Empowerment, as women with higher levels of education scored 0.32 points higher than women who had a high school diploma or less on the Empowerment scale (b = 0.32; SE = 0.12; CI = 0.09 −0.54), t(192) = 2.73, p = 0.01. Current probation or parole status was also significantly related to Empowerment, as women who were on probation or parole scored 0.22 points lower on the Empowerment scale than women who were not on probation or parole (b = −0.22, SE = 0.11; CI = −0.44 −0.00), t(192) = −1.97, p = 0.05). Resource Knowledge was a significant predictor of Empowerment, such that a one point increase in Resource Knowledge was associated with a 0.10 point increase in Empowerment (b = 0.10; SE = 0.04; CI = 0.03 – 0.17), t(192) = 2.71, p < 0.01. Similarly, Belonging Support (b = 0.31; SE = 0.13; CI = 0.06-0.17), t(192) = 2.46, p < 0.05, predicted empowerment when controlling for demographic variables, appraisal and tangible social support as well as resource knowledge. Of the three interactions in Model 3, there was a marginally significant interaction between Belonging Support and Resource Knowledge (b = 0.16; SE = 0.09; CI = −0.02-0.35), t(192) = 1.78, p = 0.077. As shown in Figure 1, women who had high Resource Knowledge and high Belonging Support had higher Empowerment Scores than women who had low Resource Knowledge and low Belonging Support and high Resource Knowledge and low Belonging Support.

Figure 1.

Belonging Support and Resource Knowledge on Empowerment Scores

Discussion

The present study examined the relationship between resource knowledge, social support and empowerment among community-based women with past criminal justice involvement. These findings support the importance of education level, being on probation or parole, resource knowledge and belonging support on personal empowerment. In addition, this study provides initial support for an interaction between resource knowledge and belonging support on empowerment. The results point to the importance of education differences in empowerment as women who had higher levels of education, specifically some college or more, had higher empowerment scores than women who had a high school diploma or less. Consistent with prior research, this model indicates that resource knowledge influences perceived empowerment. These findings highlight the need for women-focused programs and policies that incorporate both empowerment and social support into service delivery frameworks.

Empowerment has been conceptualized as a process in which women acquire internal and external resources that promote well-being.⁶¹ Education level was associated with empowerment, which is closely aligned with prior research( (i.e.⁶⁸), and suggests that women who have higher levels of education are more empowered. Interestingly, race was not significantly related to empowerment, which had been found in prior research.⁶³ Because racial power differentials may be more salient for historically marginalized populations and could lead to a stronger sense of racial group membership, social support and levels of control around this identity, it is important for research to continue to examine main and interaction effects between race and educational level on empowerment. In addition, practitioners who work with marginalized women should be cognizant of how education level could impact personal empowerment.

There were no significant relationships among lifetime trauma history variables and empowerment. This finding was surprising given that empowerment and abuse history have been found to have significant ties to one another.⁶¹ A possible explanation for this finding may reflect the overall high levels of empowerment and incidence of past abuse reported by this sample, leaving little room for variability in comparison groups (those with low empowerment scores and no past abuse). Another possible reason for this finding may have to do with empowerment as an outcome variable, when it is often examined as an attenuating factor of abuse and adverse symptomology. Future research should continue to investigate the relationship between women’s abuse history and empowerment. In addition, there may be other factors that impact women’s empowerment, such as their involvement in romantic relationships and their partner’s substance use status. Thus, more research is need to understand how justice-involved women’s partners contribute to their personal empowerment.

Current criminal justice involvement, which was assessed by current probation or parole, was positively correlated with Resource Knowledge. This finding suggests that women who are on probation or parole may be provided with information about area services by the probation or parole officers. In contrast, current criminal justice involvement was associated with lower empowerment scores in this sample. Given these findings, providers who work with marginalized women should provide knowledge of resources in the community while recognizing that being under criminal justice supervision is limiting and negatively affects empowerment. It may be useful for probation and parole officers to use women-focused, or gender-responsive, approaches when working with justice involved women.¹⁰

Resource Knowledge was a significant predictor of empowerment, indicating that women whom reported higher levels of resource knowledge also reported higher levels of empowerment. This finding is closely aligned with empowerment theory,⁵⁰ and suggests that knowledge of resources available in the community is related to women’s empowerment scores. This is important to consider especially when working with low income, African American women who may not know of tangible resources in their communities. Because women return from the criminal justice system to communities that are structurally unequal with limited access to resources, it is important to acknowledge that knowledge of resources in the community does not translate to tangible supports. As such, practitioners should provide women with knowledge of available resources in the community and policy makers should ensure that all communities, especially low-income areas, have resources to address basic unmet needs and well as provide support for substance abuse recovery and community reentry for women.

Findings from the present study indicate that social support types may differentially impact women’s empowerment. Positive social support has been identified as an empowering resource for women coping with multiple stressors.^35,36 Belonging support was significantly related to perceived empowerment among this sample as both a main effect and a marginal interaction effect. That is, belonging support marginally moderated the relationship between resource knowledge and empowerment such that women who had high resource knowledge and high belonging support reported higher empowerment scores than women with high resource knowledge and low belonging support as well as low resource knowledge and low belonging support. As such, women who have substance abuse and criminal justice histories may greatly benefit from knowledge of community resources as well as having people in their lives with whom they can engage in positive activities. For programs and services focused on women, this could include 1) providing knowledge of and access to material resources, and 2) creating an environment where peers have the opportunity to engage in positive activities, such as going to movies, together. This finding also suggests that, in this cohort, social support and empowerment are different constructs that operate independently of each other. As such, program frameworks should integrate both social support and empowerment into service delivery systems to support women’s substance abuse recovery and community reentry.

Limitations

This study was subject to several limitations. All data collected for the present study were self-reported by the participants, including substance use and criminal justice histories. In addition, the cross-sectional data used for the present study limits any causal conclusions that can be made about the direction of the relationships between resource knowledge, social support and empowerment. In this sense, it is possible that women with higher perceived social support feel empowered and in control of their environment, or that women who have a higher sense of empowerment view their social support networks as a positive interpersonal resource. At the time of this study’s baseline interview, most participants were receiving or recently had completed substance abuse treatment and may have participated in mental health treatment, which may have influenced their resource knowledge, social support and empowerment scores. Future research should examine how participation in substance abuse and/or mental health treatment impacts the relations among resource knowledge, social support and empowerment.

Implications for Behavioral Health

Implications for practice

Empowerment and social support have provided effective frameworks for those working to promote healthy lifestyles among high-risk groups of women. As such, both constructs should be emphasized in program planning and policy development to best address the needs of women who are attempting recovery and have past criminal justice involvement. Resource knowledge and belonging social support individually and in combination may play an important role for personal empowerment. However, future practice and policy should promote not only knowledge of resources but the development of tangible resources within impoverished communities where many justice involved women live. Treatment or interventions that promote the development of positive social networks among women aid in strengthening recovery and treatment engagement.⁵⁷ Providing a specific space for women to socialize and develop connections with each other may be essential to their subsequent recovery and reintegration. Thus, women should be encouraged to view recovery groups as additional relational resource, and women-focused programs should offer groups that provide social support and promote knowledge of resources to support community reentry.

Future directions for research

This study revealed several areas for additional research. First, it is important to better understand the relation between educational level, race and empowerment. It is possible that this study did not confirm prior research that found racial differences because the sample was largely minority. Thus, it is important to continue to examine how race and education independently and interactively influence empowerment scores. Second, more research is needed to understand strategies that probation and parole officers can implement so that women feel more empowered. Being under criminal justice supervision is inherently disempowering as control and freedom is restricted. Research should investigate the types of supervision (probation or parole) that reduce empowerment that can inform practice and policy in criminal justice supervision. Finally, research should continue to examine the relations between resource knowledge, social support and empowerment among marginalized women. In particular, it would be useful to examine how resource knowledge and empowerment are related to tangible resources, such as employment and stable housing, over time, as knowledge of resources does not necessarily translate to tangible resources.

In sum, the findings from the present study emphasize the importance of social support, resource knowledge, and empowerment for women. Community re-entry efforts that do not include these essential components may miss an opportunity to potentiate the effects of treatment and programming for justice involved women. Future research should continue to examine the relationship among these variables and incorporate a longitudinal design. This study provides a first step in elucidating the relations among resource knowledge, social support and empowerment among a community-based sample of justice involved women.