This study explores profiles of individuals in community service, focussing on gender differences and women’s social vulnerability. Surveys from 503 participants undergoing community service via the Spanish Red Cross unveiled significant gender-related distinctions. Women faced more family responsibilities and lower incomes than men, with heightened economic challenges and engagement in informal work. Property ownership was less frequent among women, who also grappled with more outstanding mortgage payments and single parenthood. A larger share of women relied on institutional support and joined the Extreme Vulnerability Programme. These findings resonate with global research advocating holistic intervention for women offenders. However, this demands a broader array of community service tailored to women’s needs, especially concerning dependent children. Addressing core necessities such as housing, healthcare, and employment, along with enhancing self-worth and recognition, proves pivotal in deterring women from criminal behaviour. A gender-oriented approach to alternative sentencing can enhance effectiveness and compliance.
AebiMFDelgrandeNMarguetY (2015) Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems?Punishment & Society17(5): 575–597.
2.
AnnisonJByngRQuinnC (2019) Women offenders: promoting a holistic approach and continuity of care across criminal justice and health interventions. Criminology and Criminal Justice19(4): 385–403.
3.
BirkettG (2019) Transforming women’s rehabilitation? An early assessment of gender-specific provision in three Community Rehabilitation Companies. Criminology and Criminal Justice19(1): 98–114.
4.
BlayE (2007) Nueve tópicos acerca del trabajo en beneficio de la comunidad: la necesidad de una discusión basada en conocimientos empíricos. Indret: Revista para el Análisis del Derecho4: 1–18.
5.
BlayE (2008) Work for the benefit of the community as a criminal sanction in Spain. Probation Journal55(3): 245–258.
6.
BlayE (2010) “It could be us”: recent transformations in the use of community service as a punishment in Spain. European Journal of Probation2(1): 62–81.
7.
Blay GilEVarona GómezD (2021) El castigo en la España del siglo XXI. Cartografiando el iceberg de la penalidad. Política criminal16(31): 115–145.
8.
BloomBOwenBCovingtonS (2004) Women offenders and the gendered effects of public policy. The Review of Policy Research21(1): 31–48.
9.
BrownKEcclestoneKEmmelN (2017) The many faces of vulnerability. Social Policy and Society16(3): 497–510.
10.
ByrneCFTrewKJ (2008) Pathways through crime: the development of crime and desistance in the accounts of men and women offenders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice47(3): 238–258.
11.
CarlenP (2012) Women’s imprisonment: an introduction to the Bangkok Rules. Revista Crítica Penal y Poder3: 148–157.
12.
Chesney-LindMPaskoL (2013) The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. London: Sage.
13.
CidJ (1999) El sistema de penas desde una perspectiva reduccionista: alternativas a la pena de prisión. In: LarrauriE (ed). Política criminal: Cuadernos de Derecho Judicial. Madrid: Consejo General del Poder Judicial, 119–148.
14.
CidJ (2009) Is imprisonment criminogenic? A comparative study of recidivism rates between prison and suspended prison sanctions. European Journal of Criminology6(6): 459–480.
15.
CovingtonSBloomB (2006) Gender-responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women & Therapy29(3): 9–33.
16.
EatonM (1993) Women after Prison. Buckingham: Open University Press.
17.
EspañolaCR (2021) Memoria Trabajo en Beneficio de la Comunidad (año 2020). Madrid: Cruz Roja Española.
18.
FreibergABartelsL (2023) Penal diversity, penality and community sanctions in Australia. Punishment & Society25(3): 577–599.
19.
GelsthorpeL (2020) What works with women offenders? An English and Welsh perspective. In: UgwudikePGrahamHMcNeillF, et al. (eds) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. London: Routledge, 622–632.
20.
GelsthorpeLHeddermanC (2012) Providing for women offenders: the risks of adopting a payment by results approach. Probation Journal59: 374–390.
21.
LoinazI (2016) Cuando “el” delincuente es “ella”: intervención con mujeres violentas. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica26: 41–50.
22.
LynchSMFritchAHeathNM (2012) Looking beneath the surface: the nature of incarcerated women’s experiences of interpersonal violence, treatment needs, and mental health. Feminist Criminology7: 381–400.
23.
MallochMMcIvorG (2011) Women and community sentences. Criminology and Criminal Justice11(4): 325–344.
24.
Ministerio del Interior (2020) Anuario estadístico. In: Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio del Interior. Madrid: Ministerio del Interior.
25.
MorashMKashyDSmithS, et al. (2014) The effects of probation or parole agent relationship style and women offenders’ criminogenic needs on offenders’ responses to supervision interactions. Criminal Justice and Behavior42(10): 412–434.
26.
NegredoLPérezM (2019) Intervención y tratamiento de delincuentes en prisión y medidas alternativas. Madrid: Ediciones Síntesis.
27.
NikartasSTereškinasA (2022) Women’s pains of punishment: experiences of female offenders serving community sentences in Lithuania. Probation Journal69(1): 66–85.
28.
NugentBLoucksN (2011) Female Offenders in the community: the context of female crime. In: SheehanRMcIvorGTrotterC (eds) Working with Women Offenders in the Community. Uffculme: Willan Publishing, 1–25.
29.
OnyenekeCCKaramAH (2022) An exploratory study of crime: examining lived experiences of crime through socioeconomic, demographic, and physical characteristics. Urban Science6(3): 43.
30.
PhelpsM (2020) Mass probation from micro to macro: tracing the expansion and consequences of community supervision. Annual Review of Criminology3: 261–279.
31.
RadcliffePHunterG (2016) ‘It was a safe place for me to Be’: accounts of attending women’s community services and moving beyond the offender identity: table 1. British Journal of Criminology56(5): 976–994.
32.
RodermondEKruttschnittCSlotboomAM, et al. (2016) Female desistance: a review of the literature. European Journal of Criminology13: 3–28.
33.
Secretaria General de Instituciones Penitenciarias (2020) Informe General. Madrid: Ministerio del Interior: Secretaria General Técnica. València: Secretaria General de Instituciones Penitenciarias.
34.
SheehanRMcIvorGTrotterC (2011) Working with women offenders in the community. Cullompton: Willan.
35.
Spanish Red Cross (2021) Memoria de Trabajos en Beneficio de la Comunidad (año 2020). Madrid: Spanish Red Cross.
36.
UN Bangkok Rules (2011) The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders. San Francisco, CA: United Nations.
37.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2012) Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders. New York: United Nations.
38.
VasilescuC (2021) Women offenders who served community sentences: a view from Catalonia. European Journal of Probation13(2): 178–198.
39.
VasilescuCLópez-RibaJM (2021) Diferencias por sexo entre la población penada a medidas penales alternativas en Cataluña: Un análisis con perspectiva de género. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica19(1): 1–25.
40.
WikströmPOHMannRPHardieB (2018) Young people’s differential vulnerability to criminogenic exposure: bridging the gap between people- and place-oriented approaches in the study of crime causation. European Journal of Criminology15(1): 10–31.
41.
WorrallAGelsthorpeL (2009) What works’ with women offenders: the past 30 years. Probation Journal56(4): 329–345.
42.
YagueC (2007) Mujeres en prisión: Intervención basada en sus características, necesidades y demandas. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica5: 1–24.
