Article 12: Implementation of an Evidence-Based Programme for Justice Involved Women in Namibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically evidence-based programmes in corrections have been developed to address the needs of males, who comprise the majority of the inmate population. However, many studies have identified significant differences between women and male offenders and their implications in criminal offending. Today there is general consensus that the criminogenic factors for justice involved women are distinct from those of men. Consequently, this has led to the development of gender specific programmes for women. Western correctional jurisdictions have designed and implemented a number of these gender specific programmes that recognise women's unique pathways into crime. Unfortunately, the same has not been the case in most African correctional jurisdictions. The Namibian Correctional Service (NCS) stands out as one of the few correctional jurisdictions within Africa that have introduced a gender-specific programme for women. The programme which is titled simply, "A Women's Programme", was adopted from Canada. The programme is consistent with the risk-needs- responsivity principle which underpins the Namibian Correctional Service rehabilitation framework. The programme is delivered to higher risk women, it appropriately addresses some of the unique criminogenic needs of justice involved women and it was designed in content and style of delivery to engage women. This paper highlights how a western developed evidence-based programme can be realistically implemented in the African context. In addition, the paper discusses some innovative strategies employed by the consultants in designing the programme and adopted by programme officers from the NCS in its implementation, to ensure that the programme would be relatable to the Namibian women offender population. An informal evaluation of a pilot implementation of the programme revealed that participants perceived it as promoting their self-efficacy and empowerment. Participants further stated that the programme increased insight into themselves, their past traumas, their crimes, and their relationships, leading to greater self-awareness and a sense of hope for the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".