School of Law

Dr Emma Wincup's Publications


  • Hucklesby A, Wincup E, Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice, ed. by Hucklesby A and Wincup E, 1st (Open University Press, 2010)

  • Hale C, Hayward K, Wahidin A, Wincup E, Criminology, ed. by Hale C and others (Oxford University Press, 2009), 2nd

  • King R, Wincup EL, Doing Reseach on Crime and Justice (Oxford University Press, 2007), 2

  • Hale C, Hayward K, Wahidin A, Wincup EL, Criminology (Oxford University Press, 2005)

  • Noaks L, Wincup EL, Criminological Research: Understanding Qualitative Methods, Introducing Qualitative Methods (Sage, 2004), xi,196p

  • Wincup EL, Residential Work with Offenders: Reflexive Accounts of Practice, Evaluative Research in Social Work (Ashgate, 2002), vii,191p

  • King RD, Wincup E, Doing research on crime and justice, ed. by King RD and Wincup E, 1st (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Journal articles

  • Wincup E, ‘More carrots, less sticks: the role of incentives in drug treatment’, Addiction, 112.5 (2017), 761-762
    DOI: 10.1111/add.13667

  • Wincup E, Monaghan M, ‘Scrounger narratives and dependent drug users: Welfare, workfare and warfare’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 24.3 (2016), 261-275
    DOI: 10.1332/175982716X14721954315084, Repository URL:

    © Policy Press 2016 • #JPSJ. Since 2008 political and media attention has focused on the allegedly problematic behaviour of drug users who 'choose' to pursue their 'habit' at the expense of the hardworking taxpayer. This forms part of the 'new welfare commonsense', which censures welfare dependency and stigmatises drug users as 'undeserving' claimants, entrenching the 'war on drug user' discourse. This article makes a significant contribution to recognising that stigma is a substantial barrier to recovery. It identifies ways of challenging the 'scrounger' narrative as applied to drug users through more informed media reporting and less coercive approaches to address drug and welfare dependency.

  • Hudson J, Patrick R, Wincup E, ‘Introduction to themed special issue: Exploring 'welfare' attitudes and experiences’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 24.3 (2016), 215-226
    DOI: 10.1332/175982716X14721954315048

  • Wincup E, ‘Gender, recovery and contemporary UK drug policy’, Drugs and Alcohol Today, 16.1 (2016), 39-48
    DOI: 10.1108/DAT-08-2015-0048, Repository URL:

    © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a gendered reading of the 2010 UK drug strategy and draw out the implications of the new recovery paradigm for female drug users. Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores the concept of recovery at a theoretical level, uncovering the taken-for-granted assumptions in the three overarching principles: freedom from dependence; well-being; and citizenship. It also analyses the available quantitative and qualitative evidence on women’s access to recovery capital to explore the role gender might play in the journey to recovery. Findings – Strategic thinking around recovery in the UK is largely silent on gender. However, close scrutiny of the available, albeit limited, evidence base on female drug users and feminist scholarship on the principles of well-being and citizenship suggests the need to understand recovery against a backdrop of the social and normative context of women’s lives. Originality/value – Recent analyses of contemporary UK drug policy have focused on the conflation of recovery with abstinence and the displacement of the harm reduction agenda. They have failed to draw out the implications for particular groups of drug users such as women. The pursuit of recovery-based drug policy is not peculiar to the UK so the paper offers a case study of its gendered application in a particular national context.

  • Hearty P, Wincup E, Wright NMJ, ‘The potential of prisons to support drug recovery’, Drugs and Alcohol Today, 16.1 (2016), 49-58
    DOI: 10.1108/DAT-08-2015-0041, Repository URL:

    © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Purpose – Recovery is the predominant discourse within current UK drug policy, promoted as freedom from dependence. In support of such a policy driver, prison drug recovery wings have been piloted in ten prisons in England and Wales to address high drug prevalence rates in prisoner populations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of these specialist wings within the context of wider developments to tackle reoffending among drug-using prisoners. Design/methodology/approach – The first part of the paper offers an analysis of the emergence of the recovery paradigm in the prison context through analysis of official policy documents. The second draws predominantly upon two process evaluations of the drug recovery wings, alongside literature on prison drug treatment. Findings – There is limited empirical evidence to inform the debate about whether prisons can provide settings to facilitate recovery from the effects of illicit drug use. What is available suggests that effective therapeutic environments for recovering drug users could be established within prisons. Key components for these appear to be sufficient numbers of staff who are competent and confident in providing a dual role of support and discipline, and a common purpose of all prisoners committing to recovery from illicit drugs and supporting each other. Further research regarding the impact of drug recovery wings upon health, crime and wider social outcomes is needed. Originality/value – This paper provides an updated perspective on the development of drug treatment in prisons, with a particular focus on the implications of the new recovery paradigm.

  • Wincup E, ‘Book review: Residential Children’s Homes and the Youth Justice System: Identity, Power and PerceptionsShawJuliePalgrave Macmillan, 2014; pp. 193; £58, hbk ISBN: 978-1137319609’, Probation Journal, 62.1 (2015), 84-86
    DOI: 10.1177/0264550515570176c

  • Wincup E, ‘Book review: Fifty-one MovesAshcroftBenWaterside Press; 2013; pp 148; £10, pbk ISBN: 978-1904380245’, Probation Journal, 61.2 (2014), 206-207
    DOI: 10.1177/0264550514535728

  • Wincup E, ‘Thoroughfares, crossroads and cul-de-sacs: Drug testing of welfare recipients’, International Journal of Drug Policy, 25.5 (2014), 1031-1037
    DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.02.011

    © 2014 Elsevier B.V. Over the past five years, proposals to introduce drug testing for welfare recipients have proliferated across the globe. In England, it was included in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 (yet never implemented) and in 2013, the New Zealand government introduced legislation which requires claimants to take pre-employment drug tests when requested by a prospective employer or training provider. Similarly, in over 20 US states there have been attempts to initiate drug testing of welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility for welfare, although frequently these controversial plans have either stalled or once introduced they have been halted through legal challenge.This article examines the process of introducing drug testing of welfare claimants in the UK as part of a broader strategy to address worklessness among problem drug users. Using Hudson and Lowe's (2004) multi-level analytic framework, which disputes 'top down' rational models of policy-making, it explores the mechanisms used for challenging drug testing policies. In so doing, it identifies the key policy actors involved, noting the alliances forged and strategies adopted to persuade the government to pursue alternative policies. Whilst the primary focus of the article is on the UK, consideration of the US and New Zealand facilitates comparison of the types of policy networks which emerge to oppose similar policies proposed in different socio-political contexts, and the forms of argument and/or evidence they inject into policy discussions. It is argued that a heavy reliance on rights-based arguments was a feature of opposing drug testing in the UK, US and New Zealand, and these featured more heavily than attempts to refute evidence underpinning these policies. However, there were important differences between jurisdictions in relation to the mechanisms used to challenge drug testing policies. These do not simply reflect the nature of the policies proposed but instead are reflective of different modes of governance, which influence the character of the policy networks formed and their judgements about the most effective ways of opposing what they regard as essentially flawed policies.

  • Hucklesby A, Wincup E, ‘Assistance, support and monitoring? the paradoxes of mentoring adults in the criminal justice system’, Journal of Social Policy, 43.2 (2014), 373-390
    DOI: 10.1017/S0047279413001013, Repository URL:

    Mentoring has recently taken centre stage as one of the primary criminal justice 'interventions' to reduce reoffending, having grown in popularity over the past fifteen years. Its rapid growth has been driven by claims of success within and outside the criminal justice system, leading some to argue that it has been perceived as a silver bullet (Newburn and Shiner, 2005). This article challenges such claims on three fronts: first, mentoring is an ill-defined concept with weak theoretical foundations; second, the evidence base upon which claims of success are made is limited; and, third, transferring mentoring into the coercive and punitive environment of the criminal justice system results in a departure from the very principles and values which are the basis of its usefulness elsewhere. The article utilises the findings from three empirical criminal justice research projects to question claims of widespread and effective mentoring activity with defendants and offenders, suggesting instead that 'interventions' described as mentoring serve as a vehicle to extend the reach of the criminal justice system. At the end of the article, we suggest that desistance theory, specifically the Good Lives Model, provides a conceptual framework for taking mentoring in criminal justice forward. © Cambridge University Press 2014.

  • Monaghan MP, Wincup E, ‘Work and the journey to recovery: exploring the implications of welfare reform for methadone maintenance clients’, International Journal of Drug Policy 2013
    DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.08.006

  • Wincup E, ‘Drugs, Crime and Public Health: The Political Economy of Drug Policy’, CRIMINOLOGY & CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 11.5 (2011), 537-538
    DOI: 10.1177/1748895811415348

    Author URL []

  • Wincup EL, ‘Carrots and Sticks: Problem Drug Users and Welfare Reform’, Criminal Justice Matters 2011, 22-23

  • WINCUP E, ‘Judith Rumgay (2007), Ladies of Lost Causes: Rehabilitation, Women Offenders and the Voluntary Sector. Devon: Willan Publishing. £25.00, pp. 264, pbk’, Journal of Social Policy, 37.03 (2008)
    DOI: 10.1017/S0047279408002122

  • Wincup EL, ‘Almost a century of residential work with offenders: past, present and future roles of approved premises’, British Journal of Community Justice, 5.2 (2007), 29-40

  • Wincup E, ‘Book Review: Fragile Moralities and Dangerous Sexualities: Two Centuries of Semi-Penal Institutionalisation’, Probation Journal, 53.2 (2006), 178-179
    DOI: 10.1177/0264550506063615

  • Wincup EL, Bayliss R, Buckland G, ‘Listening to young homeless problem drug users: considering the implications for drug service provision’, Probation Journal, 52.1 (2005), 39-55
    DOI: 10.1177/0264550505048233

  • Wincup E, ‘Book Review: Analysing Women’s Imprisonment’, Probation Journal, 52.1 (2005), 93-94
    DOI: 10.1177/026455050505200116

  • PAHL J, WINCUP E, ‘Editorial’, Journal of Social Policy, 33.03 (2004), 345-345
    DOI: 10.1017/S0047279404007937

  • Wincup EL, ‘Ethnographies of Crime and Deviance’, Social Science Teacher, 33.2 (2004), 11-14

  • Wincup EL, Downey S, ‘Are the Police 'Getting it Right?' Exploring the Impact of a Crime Reduction Initiative on Primary School-aged Children’, Criminal Justice Matters, 47 (2004), 12-13

  • Wincup E, ‘Getting it Right?’: police in primary schools’, Criminal Justice Matters, 54.1 (2003), 36-37
    DOI: 10.1080/09627250308553553

  • Wincup E, ‘Book Review: Qualitative Research through Case Studies’, Qualitative Research, 2.2 (2002), 275-276
    DOI: 10.1177/146879410200200212

  • Buckland G, Wincup E, Bayliss R, ‘Excluding the Excluded: working with homeless drug users’, Criminal Justice Matters, 47.1 (2002), 12-13
    DOI: 10.1080/09627250208553368

  • Wincup E, ‘Book Review: The Psychology of Female Violence: Crimes Against the Body’, Probation Journal, 49.1 (2002), 51-52
    DOI: 10.1177/026455050204900114

  • Wincup E, ‘Book Review: Too Much Time: Women in Prison’, Probation Journal, 48.4 (2001), 309-309
    DOI: 10.1177/026455050104800423

  • Brookman F, Noaks L, Wincup EL, ‘Access to Justice: Remand Issues and the Human Rights Act’, Probation Journal, 43.3 (2001), 195-202

  • Wincup EL, Bayliss R, ‘Problematic substance use and the young homeless: implications for health and well-being’, Youth and Policy 2001, 44-58

  • Wincup EL, ‘Managing Security in Semi-Penal Institutions for Women’, Security Journal, 14.2 (2001), 41-52

  • Wincup E, ‘Surviving through substance use: The role of substances in the lives of women who appear before the courts’, Sociological Research Online, 4.4 (1999)

    Drawing upon qualitative data gathered through fieldwork in three bail hostels, this paper outlines the role of substance use (illegal drugs, alcohol, prescribed medication and food) in the lives of women awaiting trial. Their use of substance is explored within the context of the multiple and complex problems which shaped their lives. It is argued that womenís use of substances can be viewed as a active strategy to achieve personal and social satisfaction, to cope with stresses and problem experienced and to exert some degree of control over their lives. Whilst seemingly beneficial for the women in the short-term, ultimately substance use for this group of women can be seen as counter-productive and self-destructive; increasing the control of others (health care, social work and criminal justice professionals) over their lives, leading to social problems and damaging their emotional and physical well-being.

  • Wincup E, ‘Invisible Women’, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 1.4 (1999), 66-67
    DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140039

  • Wincup E, ‘Feminism and criminology - Naffine,N’, SOCIOLOGY-THE JOURNAL OF THE BRITISH SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, 31.3 (1997), 631-632
    DOI: 10.1177/0038038597031003023

    Author URL []

  • WINCUP E, ‘Book Reviews’, British Journal of Social Work, 26.3 (1996), 436-437
    DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011115

  • Wincup E, ‘Crime and criminal justice policy - Newburn,T’, BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK, 26.3 (1996), 436-437

    Author URL []

    DOI: 10.1177/0038038595029004021

    Author URL []

    DOI: 10.1017/S0047279400025605

    Author URL []

  • Wincup E, ‘John Stewart, David Smith, Gill Stewart with Cedric Fullwood, Understanding Offending Behaviour, Longman, London 1995, 200 pp. paper, £15.99’, Journal of Social Policy, 24.04 (1995), 599-599
    DOI: 10.1017/S0047279400025605


  • Wincup E, ‘Revolutionary times? The changing landscape of prisoner resettlement’, in Social Policy Review 29: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy, 2017 ([], 2017), 43-62

  • Wincup E, ‘Drugs’, in Shades of Deviance: A Primer on Crime, Deviance and Social Harm ([], 2014), 105-107
    DOI: 10.4324/9781315848556

  • Wincup EL, ‘Addiction and Dependency’, in The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. by Ritzer G, 1st (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 5-5

  • Wincup EL, ‘Drugs, Drug Abuse and Drug Policy’, in The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. by Ritzer G (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 1st, 161-161

  • Lister S, Wincup EL, ‘Policing Problem Drug Users’, in Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice, ed. by Hucklesby A and Wincup E (Open University Press, 2010), 1st, 43-64

  • Hucklesby A, Wincup EL, ‘Researching Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice’, in Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice, ed. by Hucklesby A and Wincup E (Open University Press, 2010), 1st, 18-42

  • Hucklesby A, Wincup EL, ‘Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice’, in Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice, ed. by Hucklesby A and Wincup E (Open University Press, 2010), 1st, 1-17

  • Wincup E, ‘Addressing Homelessness through Effective Partnership Working’, in Effective Practice in Health, Social Care and Criminal Justice, ed. by Carnwell R and Buchanan J (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2009), 130-142

  • Wincup EL, ‘Drugs, Alcohol and Crime’, in Criminology, ed. by Hale C and others (Oxford University Press, 2009), 2nd, 229-254

  • Smith C, Wincup EL, ‘Gender and Crime’, in Criminology, ed. by Hale C and others (Oxford University Press, 2009), 2nd, 385-405

  • Wincup EL, ‘Researching Crime and Criminal Justice’, in Criminology, ed. by Hale C and others, 2nd (Oxford University Press, 2009), 103-125

  • King R, Wincup EL, ‘The Process of Criminological Research’, in Doing Research on Crime and Justice, ed. by King R and Wincup E (Oxford University Press, 2007)

  • Hucklesby AL, Wincup EL, ‘Models of Resettlement Work with Prisoners’, in Prisoner Resettlement: Policy and Practice, ed. by Hucklesby A and Hagley-Dickinson L (Willan Publishing, 2007)

  • Wincup EL, Hucklesby AL, ‘Researching and Evaluating Resettlement’, in Prisoner Resettlement: Policy and Practice, ed. by Hucklesby A and Hagley-Dickinson L (Willan Publishing, 2007)

  • Wincup EL, ‘Drugs, Drug Abuse and Drug Policy’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology, ed. by Ritzer G (Blackwell Publishing, 2006)

  • Wincup EL, ‘Addiction and Dependency’, in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology, ed. by Ritzer G (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006)

  • Wincup EL, ‘Drugs, Alcohol and Crime’, in Criminology, ed. by Hale C and others (Oxford University Press, 2005), 203-222

  • Buckland G, Wincup EL, ‘Researching Crime and Criminal Justice’, in The Student Handbook of Criminal Justice and Criminology, ed. by Muncie J and Wilson D (Cavendish Publishing, 2004), 35-49

  • Smith C, Wincup EL, ‘Some reflections on doing feminist research in criminal justice institutions’, in Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research, ed. by Welland T and Pugsley L, Cardiff Papers in Qualitative Research (Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research, 2002), 108-120

  • Wincup EL, ‘Feminist research with women awaiting trial: the effects on participants in the research process’, in The Emotional Nature of Feminist Research, ed. by Gilbert K, Innovations in Psychology (CRC Press, 2001), 17-36


  • Wincup EL, Buckland G, Bayliss R, Youth Homelessness and Substance Use, (Home Office, 2003)

  • Maguire M, Kemshall H, Noaks L, Wincup EL, Risk management of sexual and violent offenders: the work of public protection panels, (Home Office, 2001)

© Copyright Leeds 2018