Retrospective cohort analysis shows higher re-entry support needs for women, indicating necessity for gender-responsive policies.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to inform gender-responsive policy and practice by investigating services and supports that women with substance use issues need when exiting prison. Design/methodology/approach This is a retrospective cohort study of women (n = 989 / 18%) and men (n = 4609 / 82%) exiting prison who engaged with the prison health program “Connections” in Australia between 2008 and 2018. Using pre-release assessment data, six re-entry variables were computed: substance use, mental health, housing, employment, social support and parenting. These variables represent areas of support/service provision that might be needed on release. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Associations between “re-entry support needs” and sex were estimated by multiple logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. Findings “Re-entry support need” was higher for women in housing (52% vs 46%), employment (88% vs 79%) and parenting (68% vs 60%) compared to men. Multivariate analysis found women also had increased odds of “re-entry support need” in these areas. Similar proportions of women and men were sentenced for substance-related offences (74.4% vs 75.3%), yet, twice the proportion of women were incarcerated for the first time (20.4% vs 8.6%), and double were sentenced to ≤6 months compared to men (44.3% and 22.9%). Originality/value This is a large-scale study of women’s re-entry needs on exiting prison, which is rare. The findings of this study indicate that gender-responsive policy/practice must account for women having higher level of need in housing, employment and parenting and ceasing the use of punitive short-term sentences. Gender-responsiveness requires addressing women’s social determinants of health and incarceration via policy, service provision and practice that will support women and address broader gender inequity taking an intersectional approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edwards et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: