This article was downloaded by: [American University Library] On: 27 November 2011, At: 12:27 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Women & Criminal Justice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wwcj20

Parenting Programs in Women's Prisons

Joycelyn M. Pollock PhD, JD
a a

Southwest Texas State University, USA

Available online: 25 Sep 2008

To cite this article: Joycelyn M. Pollock PhD, JD (2003): Parenting Programs in Women's Prisons, Women & Criminal Justice, 14:1, 131-154 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J012v14n01_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

Parenting Programs in Womens Prisons

Joycelyn M. Pollock

Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

ABSTRACT. This paper presents the results of a national survey of parenting programs in womens prisons. Parenting programs may be defined as those programs that specifically address the womans role as mother and attempt to facilitate her performance of that role, and/or aid in the development of parental skills. These programs range from parenting classes of a few hours to nurseries where imprisoned women and their infants can live together during the term of imprisonment. The need for such programs is also discussed. [Article copies available for a fee from The

KEYWORDS. Female prisoners, parenting programs, prisons

Although women have never comprised a large portion of this nations prison population, their numbers are increasing alarmingly. In 1995 there were over 69,000 women in prison, in 1998 that number was around 84,000, and in 2000 the number was about 93,000 (Greenfield and Snell, 1999; BJS News Release, May 1, 2001). In some states, the rate of increase has been incredible. For instance, in the present study,
Joycelyn M. Pollock, PhD, JD, is Professor at Southwest Texas State University. Research areas include female criminality, corrections, and ethics in criminal justice. This research was funded by the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture (a part of the Open Society Institute). An expanded presentation of this study is available in a monograph also funded by the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture. Interested parties should contact the author to receive a copy of this monograph. Address correspondence to: Joycelyn M. Pollock, Dept. of Criminal Justice, HAC 120, San Marcos, TX 78666 (E-mail: jp12@swt.edu). Women & Criminal Justice, Vol. 14(1) 2002 http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J012 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

131

132

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

several states reported three-year increases (1995-1998) of over 50 percent. It should also be noted that there is a tremendous range in the number of female prisoners for each state, from a low of roughly 50 in North Dakota to a high of over 10,000 in both California and Texas. These population differences obviously also mean different issues and circumstances faced by policymakers in various states. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate these numbers. All studies indicate that women in prison are young, single, economically disadvantaged, and disproportionately minority. Women in prison are usually there for drug offenses and/or property crimesusually larceny. They are less likely than male prisoners to have long criminal histories (Owen and Bloom, 1995; Fletcher, Shaver and Moon, 1993; Pollock, 1998). Those women who have committed violent offenses may have killed or injured an intimate partner after years of battering (Browne, 1987). Women in prison are also very often mothers of small children. While the children of imprisoned fathers also experience loss, there is a tremendous difference in the disruption that imprisonment brings to the children of women, as compared to the children of men. The children of imprisoned women are more likely than the children of imprisoned men to lose their primary caregiver, to have their living arrangement disrupted, to move several times during the course of the imprisonment, to be in foster care, and they are less likely to visit their imprisoned parent. Women in prison are more likely than men in prison to have children under 18, they report more distress over their separation, and are more likely to report that they plan to regain primary custody of their children (see, for instance, Koban, 1983; Gabel and Johnson, 1995). Parenting programs in prison may be defined as those programs that specifically address the womans role as mother and attempt to facilitate her performance of that role, and/or aid in the development of parental skills. This article reports on a national survey of parenting programs in womens prisons. METHODOLOGY In the spring and summer of 1998, letters were sent to the departments of correction in all 50 states. If an individual could be identified who was primarily responsible for womens programming, the letter was sent to that person; if not, the letter was sent to the director of corrections with the request that it be assigned to the appropriate staff person. In the letter, the author introduced the study and provided a

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

Joycelyn M. Pollock TABLE 1. Womens Imprisonment

133

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

1990 U.S. Total Federal State Northeast Midwest South West Selected States California Florida New York Texas Maine Massachusetts North Dakota Vermont 6,502 2,664 2,691 2,196 44 582 20 36 44,065 9,186 39,054 6,293 7,521 15,366 9,874

1998 84,427 6,293 75,241 9,367 13,684 33,345 18,845 11,694 3,526 3,631 10,343 63 750 69 45

Incarceration Rate1998 57 5 51 31 42 65 58 67 45 38 102 9 13 19 9

From: Beck, A. and C. Mumola, 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Prisoners in 1998. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice.

TABLE 2. State Prison Populations

Prison Population Less than 100 100-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000 Over 10,000 States ND, VT, ME, MT WV, SD, AL, ID, RI, DE, KS OR, IO, TN, CO, WA, KY, WI, MA MD, CT, IN, MS, VA, SC, OK, AL, PA MO, MI, NC IL OH FL NY TX, CA

134

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

questionnaire that covered changes in the womens prison population since 1995, demographics of the womens prison population, information concerning the children of inmate-mothers, and a series of questions concerning the availability and description of parenting programs. The letter also explained that the author would be calling to administer the questionnaire by telephone. The states were then contacted. By the end of the summer, 40 states had responded, either through telephone contact or by mailing the questionnaire back to the author. Ten states either refused outright to participate or the appropriate staff person(s) did not return repeated telephone calls. The data were then collated; a state was determined to have a program if it existed in at least one prison. Statistics were usually obtained through the central office and/or a designated administrator in charge of womens issues. At times, the survey was filled out by the warden of one of the womens prisons, in which case it was emphasized that she or he needed to answer for the whole state and not just for the particular prison. Some states returned very extensive statistical profiles of their female population, and handbooks or brochures describing programs. Other states provided minimal information. This was a descriptive research effort, thus the information provided was simply reported via frequency distributions or pie charts (see Appendix for copy of survey). INMATE-MOTHERS The estimates of the number of women prisoners who have children range from 60 percent to about 85 percent of the total female prisoner population. There seems to be consensus that at least 70 percent of women in prison have at least one child under 18, and incarcerated women have an average of two or three children (Gabel and Johnston, 1995; Immarigeon, 1994; Bloom and Steinhart, 1993; Pollock, 1998). One study in Maryland, for instance, found that 80 percent of the women in prison had children and they averaged three children each. The children were usually young34 percent were in preschool and 55 percent were school age (Block and Potthast, 1997). If one uses the figure of 93,000 women imprisoned, then a conservative estimate of the number of children under 18 with mothers in prison is 130,200 (70 percent of 93,000 2), although some authors estimate the number is much higher (see Gabel and Johnston, 1995). Contrary to the common belief that inmate-mothers had already abandoned their children prior to imprisonment, a large number of women were the primary caregivers

Joycelyn M. Pollock

135

of their children before their imprisonment and expect to regain custody upon their release. In the Maryland study mentioned earlier, for instance, researchers found that three-fourths of the children lived with their mother prior to her incarceration and 70 percent of the mothers in prison were the primary caregivers to their children. Furthermore, almost all women (94 percent) planned to reunite with their children (Block and Potthast, 1997). Most studies indicate that at least half of the mothers were the primary caregivers or living with their children prior to incarceration (Hairston, 1991). What happens to these children when their mother is imprisoned? In this study, it was found that only six states were able to share data regarding the placement of inmate-mothers children. Most often, state corrections departments do not collect information about the children of incarcerated mothers (or fathers). We know from a few states and national samples that only about 10 percent enter foster care (Immarigeon, 1994; Pollock, 1998). In this study, it was found that there was a great deal of variation between the six reporting states, ranging from 5 percent to 38 percent of the incarcerated womens children in foster care. Of those women who retain custody of their children during imprisonment, most place their children with relatives, usually the maternal grandmother (Grossman, 1984; McGowan and Blumenthal, 1978; Hungerford, 1993; Henriquez, 1982; Baunach, 1984; Bloom, 1995; Bloom and Steinhart, 1993). In this study, it was reported that up to 85 percent of the children were with grandparents (not specifically maternal). According to other studies, only a small fraction of these children live with fathers. In this study, the figures ranged from a low of 3 percent (Indiana and Mississippi) to a high of 21 percent (Pennsylvania). Children of imprisoned women are often moved around several times during the prison sentence. Placements and arrangements for guardianship of the children are often informal and ad hoc. Womens avoidance of state childrens protective agencies may be because of the fear that they will have difficulty regaining custody of their children after release. Thus, there is often no financial assistance from the state to help care for the children, necessitating already overburdened families with few resources to care for them. This study found, similar to other published reports, that about 10 percent of women in prison on any given day are pregnant (Muse, 1994). This percentage may mean a few women a year in those states with small prison populations, but it could mean several hundred women in larger states. These pregnancies are often high risk since women in prison may have been drug users, have avoided or neglected

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

136

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

medical treatment, and/or have had difficult previous pregnancies (Woolredge and Masters, 1993) One report, for instance, indicated that 77 percent of imprisoned women had exposed their fetus to drugs (Johnson, 1995: 67). Some research indicates a higher than average rate of miscarriages for women in prison, at least part of which is attributed to the fact that women must be transported to outside hospitals for delivery and for medical emergencies (Bloom, 1995: 23; Amnesty International, 1999). In all but a few states, the inmate-mother must arrange custody, relinquish her infant, and return to prison 24-48 hours after birth. COMMUNICATION AND CONTACT DURING IMPRISONMENT Some women in prison never see their children (Immarigeon, 1994; Courturier, 1995; Kiser, 1991). Visits are difficult because of the long distances between the prison and home and the expense of traveling. Also, there may be hesitancy on the part of caregivers to take the children to the prison and/or anger at the mother for her actions that led to the situation. Many social workers may feel it is traumatic for the child to see their mother in prison and resist accommodating such visits. Finally, the mother herself may not want her children to see her in prison, or subject them to the search and admission procedures required for visitation. She may feel guilty and ashamed over her imprisonment and refuse to let her children see her in such a setting. Furthermore, visits necessarily include saying good-byean experience that is so painful to both mother and child, that many women in prison prefer to avoid it (Henriquez, 1996; Gaudin, 1984; Bloom and Steinhart, 1993). Estimates of the number of women who never see their children varywhile some reports indicate about half of the women in prison have at least one visit during their prison sentence, other reports indicate the number is higher. The Maryland study reported that 43 percent of the women in prison received phone calls from their children; 41 percent received letters, but 30 percent said they had no contact whatsoever with their children (Block and Potthast, 1997). Another study from Georgia reported that of a sample of 45 mothers in prison, only one-third saw any of their children as much as l hour a month; 53 percent had no telephone contact; and 42 percent had one call a month for 5 minutes (Gaudin, 1984). Bloom and Steinhart (1993) found that 54 percent of mothers in a national sample reported no visits; this compares to

Joycelyn M. Pollock

137

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

only 2 percent of those surveyed in a similar study in 1978 who reported no visits. Why fewer women receive visits today is attributed to a restriction of prison telephone privileges to collect calls only, the construction of new womens prisons in rural areas, and lack of financial support from social service agencies for travel. Bloom and Steinhart also report that the pre-prison caregiving arrangement was correlated with visitation frequency. While 46 percent of those who lived with children prior to imprisonment received no visits, 72 percent of those who did not live with children prior to prison or jail received no visits (1993: 80). These numbers come from single state studies and/or projections based on samples because states do not keep track of this type of information. In fact, most states do not collect any information at all on the children of incarcerated mothers. We simply do not have information concerning where their children are, who is taking care of them, whether or not the imprisoned mother has retained custody or plans to upon release, or how they are adjusting to their mothers imprisonment. THE NEED FOR PARENTING PROGRAMS As mentioned previously, parenting programs may be defined as those programs that specifically address the womans role as mother and attempt to facilitate her performance of that role, and/or aid in the development of parental skills. Research from psychology and child development (specifically, the concepts of attachment and bonding) indicates that the separation brought on by imprisonment will create problems for the child and mother to overcome. In addition, criminological research indicates that women in prison seem to be even more likely than male prisoners to be products of dysfunctional families (for review, see Pollock, 1999). It seems clear that many women in prison were deprived of good parental role models and could benefit from parenting programs. Twenty years ago, research on child development resulted in the coining of the term attachment and bonding. These terms refer to the relationship between the child and his or her first primary caregiver. Attachment refers to the childs relationship with the caregiver (usually the mother), and bonding refers to both the child and the caregivers feelings toward each other. Healthy development includes secure attachment. Attachment is indicated by signaling behavior (i.e., crying, smiling, or vocalizing), looking at or following the movements of the primary caregiver, and physical contact such as embracing or clinging.

138

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Attachment forms when the mother (or other caregiver) is responsive to the babys cues indicating need. The baby very quickly learns that the mother will respond to hunger with food, wetness with a dry diaper, and loneliness with cuddling. The baby becomes attached to the mother, and this relationship is fundamentally different and stronger than the relationship the baby may form with others. This attachment formsor should formbetween infancy and the second year. If there is not a healthy, loving relationship with at least one caregiver, then the baby does not form an attachment with anyonewith serious implications for future social and cognitive development (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1952/1969; Rutter, 1979, 1995). If the child is separated from the mother between the ages of 2 to 5, research indicates that there will be serious setbacks in development. The loss of the mother or primary caregiver will result in whining, crying, aggressive behavior reflecting anxiety and distress, perhaps a regression in toilet training, and delayed development in verbal skills. If the separation occurs during the ages of 6 to 10, there may be learning problems, the child may become withdrawn and have sleeping problems (Ainsworth, 1973; Woolredge and Masters; 1993; Sheridan, 1996). It is possible for the child to form attachments to more than one person (i.e., father or maternal grandmother or baby-sitter). Separation is less traumatic for those children who have formed other attachments, and more severe when there has been only one primary attachment. Factors which affect the consequences of separation include the age of child, whether the separation is temporary or permanent, the length of the separation, whether it occurs in familiar or unfamiliar surroundings, whether it is ameliorated by visits from the mother, whether there is a substitute mother figure, the kind of child-mother attachment that preceded the separation, and the kind of interaction characteristic of mother and child after reunion (Ainsworth, 1973). A review of the research indicates that separation effects may be traumatic, but they may not necessarily be immutable. Further, the severity of the separation is related to other circumstances, i.e., the strength of the attachment, and the presence of other attachment relationships. Studies of the effects of maternal separation are also complicated by other factors that may also affect the childs life. Most studies of the children of incarcerated mothers find that the children exhibit behavioral symptoms that indicate distress. Various studies have noted that maternal incarceration may cause emotional problems, discipline issues, learning difficulties, hyperactivity, aggressiveness, acting out behavior, excessive crying, withdrawal, sleep disturbances, impaired concentration, and anxiety (Block and Potthast,

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

Joycelyn M. Pollock

139

1997; Hairston, 1991; Gaudin, 1984; Stanton, 1980; Jose-Kampfner, 1995; Johnston, 1995). Children feel resentment, hostility, loss and abandonment, and experience feelings of distrust, alienation and estrangement (Henriquez, 1996). Another study reported that the future of children whose parents are incarcerated will include broken homes, early separation from family, and juvenile delinquency (Moses, 1993, 1995). Obviously, the parent-child relationship is extremely important in healthy child development, and separation and/or lack of attachment due to ineffective parenting will affect later relationships and emotional development (Rutter, 1995). While attachment is the relationship of the child to a caregiver, bonding occurs in the caregiver toward her child. Research indicates that mothers are not necessarily predisposed to love their newborn. Love or bonding occurs over the period of time immediately after birth. There is biological evidence to indicate that the hormones released with breastfeeding actually influence the development of loving feelings of the mother toward the infant. There is also evidence to indicate that mere closeness and responding to the needs of the infant create the bond or maternal love that characterizes healthy mother-child relationships. Research indicates that when mothers and their babies are separated after birth (due to medical problems), then it is harder for women to bond with their babies. There is even evidence to indicate that child abuse is more frequent among those mother-child pairs that experienced such a separation (Ainsworth, 1973; Walsh, 1991).1 Attachment forms arguably when there is a good relationship between the parent and child, but what is good parenting? There are certain elements of parenting that researchers have identified as relating to the development of healthy attachmentincluding consistency, contingent responsiveness, and facilitation and cooperation rather than interference with the infants ongoing behavior. Measuring scales to study mothering behavior include: sensitivity/insensitivity to infant signals and communications, acceptance/rejection, accessibility/ignoring, emotional expression, cooperation/interference, and maternal rigidity. The mother may not be able to provide nurturing because she never received nurturance herself. Much of our research on female prisoners relates the prevalence of dysfunctional families marked by physical and sexual abuse, neglect, alcoholism and drug use, criminality, and other forms of dysfunction. Although these backgrounds are not shared by all women in prison, they do point to the fact that many female prisoners may not have had good parental role models.

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

140

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

It has been fairly well established that chronic delinquency is related to a variety of childhood factors including: prenatal difficulties, neurological and biological factors, low verbal ability, neighborhoods of social disorganization, parental criminality and substance abuse, inconsistent and/or harsh parenting practices, and low socio-economic status (Kelley, Loeber, Keenan and Delamatre, 1997; Yoshikawa, 1995). There is some evidence to indicate that providing social support to parents will improve their ability to parent effectively. Intervention programs should enhance parents social support, foster positive parenting and family interactions, facilitate the parents ability to help the childs cognitive development (especially verbal skills) and reduce family level and community level poverty (Yoshikawa, 1995). Since the children of incarcerated parents are a high-risk group, it seems logical to provide some form of intervention in the form of parenting programs in prison. SURVEY RESULTS Parenting programs range from prison nurseries to parenting classes. Included in this discussion are the following programs: nurseries, overnight visits, community facilities, furloughs, special visiting areas or programs, and parenting classes. Programs provide enriched or expanded visitation or contact with children and/or actively assist the mother in improving her parenting skills. Inmate-mothers are often frustrated in their efforts to be good mothers. Phone calls and standard visits are poor mechanisms for maintaining maternal authority (Clark, 1995; Datesman and Cales, 1983). Parenting programs that include expanded visitation ameliorate some of the negative effects the prison sentence has on the mother-child(ren) relationship. Most women in prison are not generally bad mothers. In the few attempts to measure parental effectiveness, studies indicate that prison mothers score in the low normal range on parent attitude surveys (Baunach, 1984; Gabel and Johnston, 1995: 12). However, they do face problems. In one review, their needs were listed as including adjustment and mental health counseling, legal protection of parental rights, prenatal health services, financial assistance for families, substance abuse/addiction counseling, employment training and placement services, and re-entry and family reunification assistance (Gabel and Johnston, 1995: 16). Thus, programs for inmate-mothers should provide them the skills necessary to be good parentsthis would include life skills to earn a decent wage, the tools necessary to stay drug-free, and skills necessary to be a good parent.

Joycelyn M. Pollock

141

Children of incarcerated parents suffer a unique form of separation, since the prison sentence carries with it stigma, guilt, and shame for family members, as well as the incarcerated parent. Thus, separation is different from death or divorce because the child takes on the shame of incarceration. There is also worry over what is happening to the parent. In some cases, family members (such as grandparents) may project shame and anger toward the incarcerated parent onto the child (Breen, 1995; Fritsch and Burkhead, 1981). Staff report that children worry over what is happening to their parent in prison, they worry that if they share their activities with the parent during visitation that it will make the parent sad, and they sometimes have unresolved feelings of anger and resentment toward their mother and her abandonment of them. It should also be noted that imprisonment may provide a relief to the child. If the imprisoned mother subjected her child to a life filled with parental absences, substance abuse, domestic violence, police contacts, arrests and other disruptions, to have the mother gone and be with another caregiver may be, in some ways, a relief. Of course, the child may then experience guilt over feeling better off without her parent. Thus, programs should provide the opportunity for children to have expanded visitation with their mother in a natural setting, to be able to talk to those who understand what it is like to have a parent in prison, and to receive support for issues and problems in the childs life that the inmate-mother can do nothing about. There have been a number of national surveys conducted to determine the range and extent of programs for inmate-mothers. In one review of current studies, the authors conclude that few numbers of women were involved in any meaningful parenting programs. For instance, only 14% of women prisoners were enrolled in parenting classes, less than 10% of all prisoners were enrolled in drug treatment (and the majority of these prisoners were in prisons for men), only about 10% were enrolled in any psychological counseling, and only 5.3% of all prisoners were enrolled in employment training programs (again, with the majority in mens prisons) (Gabel and Johnston, 1995: 16). In Clements (1993) survey of 43 states, most reported that they had some type of parenting program (36 states). However, the length of the program varied from four to eight weeks (13 states) to 20 weeks (1 state), and ranged from one to two hours per week (16 states) to 24 hours a week (1 state). Clement reports that the average profile of a parenting program was a 4-9 week program, 2 hours a week, accommodating 25 or less inmates per class (1993: 96). Fifteen of the programs were modeled after STEP (Systematic Training for Effective Parenting),

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

142

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

while 23 used no particular model. Only 12 used correctional staff and the rest of the programs used outside staff and/or volunteers. Boudouris reported on a survey that covered 74 state prisons, 9 federal facilities, and 3 Canadian prisons (1996). His findings will be compared with this surveys results where appropriate below. Tables 3 and 4 present the findings of the current study regarding the prevalence of programs. Parenting Classes. Most prisons (90 percent) have some form of parenting classes, either as part of a general life skills program, or separately. The range of length, intensity, and coverage of such programs, however, is extreme. In some of the more comprehensive programs, parenting classes are offered as part of a total package of services that include enriched visitation and other programs. In other cases, classes are short modules in a life skills offering. While most prisons have some type of class, it is hard to estimate how many women are reached since classes are small. Another issue is whether a few hours of discussion on general parenting issues is of much value. Special Visiting Areas. Many prisons (73 percent) have special visiting rooms or separate days for children to visit their mothers. These accommodations are designed to lessen the intimidation of a visit to a prison, and to provide a more natural setting. The time for visitation may be longer and there may be fewer rules regarding movement, touching, and activities. One of the problems mentioned by inmates is the difficulty of taking care of adult business in front of children. Thus, some prisons staff their childrens rooms with volunteer inmate aides who will play with the children for a short period of time so that adults can talk freely. Again, survey responses cover a wide range of visiting opportunities, from simple Sesame Street corners with toys in traditional visiting rooms, to separate buildings with playgrounds used for day-long visits between mothers and children without caregivers present. Furloughs. Boudouris (1996) discusses the use of furloughs to maintain familial bonds. Over 50 percent of responding institutions in his survey used furloughs, or had them available, but this was a decline from a previous survey in 1985. In this survey, 55 percent of states reported having furloughs available, but reporters noted that they may be on paper only and are not seriously considered as viable tools to maintain parental bonds. The value of the furlough is the opportunity to be with children in a natural, non-intimidating environment. The inmate-mother is typically the one who travels as opposed to the caregiver and children. The children are not subjected to the negative and frightening elements of a

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

Joycelyn M. Pollock

143

prison visit. On the other hand, the distance and the expense involved in travel is still a barrier for the mother, and furlough programs have been drastically curtailed across the country. Community Facilities. Some states (35 percent) have one or several community facilities that allow mothers to live with their children while serving some remaining portion of their sentence, all of their sentence, or part of their parole immediately after release. Boudouris (1996: 34) reported that 17 states had community facilities in 1996 (up from 5 states in 1985). In this study, of the 40 states that responded, 14 had community facilities. This may be an underreporting since it became clear when talking to some state reporters that they were not aware of private facilities that were available for state prisoners, as well as clients sentenced directly from the court. California, for instance, contracts with private providers for a half dozen community facilities for women with infants and young children to 6 years of age. However, there is a state corrections department staff person responsible for overseeing the operation of these facilities and all state rules regarding visitation and contraband are followed. The facilities provide drug treatment and a range of other services and programming. Other states have slightly different operational models. Female prisoners, especially with their children, are perhaps the best offender group to utilize community facilities. The public typically are not as opposed to facilities housing women, they tend not to pose the same risk, there are more resources in the community for new mothers, and, arguably, a community setting with enriched services is the best setting for the childrens health and welfare. Overnight Visitation. Boudouris (1996: 36) reported that thirty-one of 86 responding institutions (in 21 states and provinces) allowed overnight visits between mothers and children. He also reported that the use of overnight visits had declined, as had childrens centers or daycare centers. Overnight visits can take place in trailers or cabins on the prison grounds, or even in the mothers room. They might be camping programs where several mothers meet with their children on or off the grounds of the prison for a weekend camping experience. The value of overnight visitation is that it allows mother and child uninterrupted time to talk and interact away from the caregiver and away from the restrictions often placed on regular visiting room visits. These visits are distinct from family visits available in some states. These family visits involve husbands, mothers, and other relatives, as well as children, who spend up to 48 hours with the inmate in an isolated apartment or trailer.

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

144

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE TABLE 3. Available Programs

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

Program Parenting Classes Special Visiting Areas Furloughs Community Facilities Overnight Visits Nurseries

States That Have Program 90% 73% 55% 35% 28% 7%

Often overnight visitation programs take place within a larger framework of parenting programming. That is, mothers must complete parenting classes, or remain in parenting classes to take advantage of such visits. There are no studies thus far of such programs and whether or not they assist in easing the transition back to full parenthood. In the present study, 11 states reported overnight visits were available. Again, however, availability may not necessarily mean many inmates were able to utilize the program. In one state, for instance, it was discovered that only 5 inmates were cleared for overnight visits with children. Prison Nurseries. Although several state prisons had accommodations for babies in the early part of this century, only four statesNew York, California, Nebraska, and South Dakotacontinue to allow women to spend any length of time with their newborns today (see Brodie, 1995 for history). Bedford Hills is the only prison in this country that has continuously provided a nursery since the early 1900s. California has recently opened the first of several small institutions that accommodate mothers and infants, sentenced directly from the court. Nebraskas program was modeled after New Yorks. South Dakota has a modified nursery program that allows the mother to return from the hospital with her infant for a bonding period of 30 days. After that time, other arrangements must be made. The argument for prison nurseries is that bonding and attachment between mother and child outweigh any operational or cost concerns of creating prison nurseries. Those state officials familiar with nursery programs point out that few, if any, security incidents have occurred. Arguments against prison nurseries point to security and liability concerns, as well as a general perception that babies dont belong in prison. Other Programs. Several unique programs exist alone or in combination with the ones described above. MotherRead, for instance, is a

Joycelyn M. Pollock TABLE 4. State Programs

145

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

State Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana New Hampshire New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Classes Community Nursery Furlough Overnight Family Facility Visits Visits x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Special Visiting Area x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x

Non-reporting states: Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah

146

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

program in many states across the country, that allows a woman to read a story into a tape and the tape is given to the child. The program is said to assist in literacy improvement for the mother and child, and help to maintain the tie between the mother and child, even if there is no opportunity for visitation. Girl Scouts Behind Bars is a program that is also in several states across the country. These programs allow the daughters of imprisoned mothers to organize as a girl scout troop and those involved can visit the mother at one or two meetings a month (the other meetings take place outside the prison). This program provides counseling and support to the daughters of imprisoned mothers as well as allows the mothers inside to spend more time with their children and to meet in support groups themselves (Moses, 1993, 1995). POLICY IMPLICATIONS One of the most important issues regarding parenting programs in prisons for women is the issue of who is the customer in corrections. One state official responded to the relative paucity of parenting programs in her state with the comment that the only customer of the department of corrections was the inmate-mother, not her children. If administrators and policy-makers believe that corrections should concern itself solely with the female offender, ignoring her role as mother, and the family members who are affected by her imprisonment, then there will naturally be little or no commitment to providing services for children. It is only with an expanded view of the goal and mission of corrections that one sees the children of inmate-mothers are customers, inasmuch as they are and will be affected by her. An all too common policy position is to treat the inmate-mother solely as an individual with no attempt to address issues regarding her responsibilities as a mother. This policy is short-sighted since there is much anecdotal evidence to indicate that a womans success upon release is often compromised by the real problems of renewing these responsibilities. Whether or not the children are direct customers of the correctional system, or should be, is a subject that generates a great deal of discussion. One fact that cannot be ignored, however, is many of the children of inmate-mothers either already are or will be customers in the traditional sense of the word. It is clear that how one answers this question will influence subsequent decisions regarding parenting programs.

Joycelyn M. Pollock

147

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

There are other policy and practical barriers to providing parenting programs in womens prisons (see Table 5). Obviously, there is a widespread belief among policy-makers that children do not belong in prison and this belief prevents the consideration of prison nurseries or overnight programs. Another belief is that women in prison deserve to lose their children because they were not good mothers. This underlying belief affects both the lack of programs and the implementation of any programs that exist. If one believes that inmate-mothers, by definition, are bad mothers, then the programs tend to be judgmental, authoritarian, and instructive (i.e., a classroom approach on what good parenting is with little input or participation from inmate-mothers). As noted earlier, many inmate-mothers were adequate parents, and many others did their best despite major obstacles. It is simply untrue that a prison sentence is, by itself, evidence of being a bad parent. However, a prison sentence obviously makes it harder to be a good parent, raises many obstacles to overcome in remaining a good parent, and provides no help at all to those who might have benefited from parenting resources before their criminal act and conviction. Fears of security incidents are uppermost in administrators minds, even though the prisons that have had long-running programs report few or no actual incidents. Womens prisons are often located far away from urban areas and this distance is often cited as the reason why women do not receive more frequent visits from their children. It would also be a problem for any parenting program that incorporated the physical presence of children. The expense in traveling to the prison is often
TABLE 5. Problems with Implementing Parenting Programs, in Order of Frequency Cited
Transportation/geographic isolation of prison Funding/lack of space Time constraints of staff Time constraints of inmates Negative relationship with caregivers No ability to implement classroom skills Punitive segregation takes women out of class No demand Poorly paid staff Women arent focused on their children Lack of volunteers Initiating interest Women dont want classes without visits Length of sentence Different needs for different age-groups of children

148

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

prohibitive, even for an extended visit. There is the perennial issue of fundingshould parenting programs take precedence over other prison programs if it came to a budget decision? This is a difficult question. Often programs exist only as long as a grant funds them, a volunteer remains enthusiastic, and/or a staff member has enough energy and time to devote to the program. Longer-running programs must be part of the annual budget with full-time staff allocated as program staff, even if there is also the use of outside volunteers. All of these practical concerns can be overcome with a commitment and philosophy that providing enriching experiences for the inmate-mother and her children is an appropriate and necessary function of corrections. If there is no such belief, then these practical issues will be used to explain why such programs do not exist. A well thought out program should address the following issues. First, the mothers needs should be addressed, including cycles of poverty, domestic violence, and drug addiction. Poor parenting, marital discord, mental illness and/or depression, lack of education, and parental abandonment are just some of the issues that should be addressed in counseling efforts with inmate-mothers. The program should also address the childrens needs, including the opportunity to visit the mother in a non-intimidating location. There should be support for children to express their emotions concerning abandonment, anger, and embarrassment over having a parent in prison. Johnston (1995), for instance, suggests that children should be evaluated for aggression, withdrawal/depression, concentration/attention problems, asocial behavior, and/or anxiety states, and then intervention should occur with weekly therapeutic sessions supplemented by social activities. Caregivers should also be given supportboth financial and emotional. For instance, there should be some attempt to provide the childrens transportation to the prison so that caregivers do not bear this financial burden and it also would alleviate the problem of where caregivers should spend time during an extended visitation between children and their inmate-mother. Caregivers may require some respite opportunities; often caregivers are grandparents and the physical and emotional demands of raising their grandchildren weigh heavily upon them and could be alleviated by weekends away or some other method to give them some respite from parenting. Bedford Hills, for instance, runs summer camps with the assistance of foster families around the prison. For a week during the summer, the children of inmate-mothers come and stay with foster families and spend most of the day with their mothers in the prison. If such a program is possible in one prison, why can it not be achieved elsewhere?

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

Joycelyn M. Pollock

149

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

As with previous surveys, the present survey illustrates the sad fact that most female prisoners in this country are unable to access comprehensive, enriched programs to help them with their parenting role. Some states have a number of different parenting programs, but these also tend to be states that have very large female prisoner populations, so only a fraction of imprisoned women are able to access such programs. Sadly, some states have virtually no parenting programs available. Although most prisons across the country have parenting classes, these merely provide content on parenting, with no real opportunity to have extended contact with children, or the opportunity to implement what is learned in class. Nor do such classes offer assistance or support in maintaining bonds to children. In general, the states that offer an integrated combination of classes and extended visitation, with perhaps overnight visitation programs as well, seem to provide the best continuum of services to women and their children. It is important to note that programs indicated on paper may not be implemented as fully as survey data indicates. Thus, our national survey can only provide minimal information about each states offerings. It is clear, however, that many states could do much more to provide more than simple parenting classes for incarcerated women. There are very few studies that systematically support the claim that parenting programs strengthen bonds or improve the lives of the children of incarcerated mothers. One study, however, found that a parenting program that incorporated an enriched visitation opportunity not only showed measurable effects on the bonds between mothers and children, but also participation in the program seemed to be correlated with a reduction in recidivism (Martin, 1997). It is clear, however, that much needs to be done and those programs in operation need to have careful, methodologically rigorous evaluations in order to justify their existence and expansion. It seems clear that prisons could do much more to assist women in their clear desire to be mothers from prison, and help them become better mothersduring the time they are in prison and after their release. Unfortunately, with no attempt to help inmate-mothers in their parental role, we should not be surprised when many of their children become the next customers of our corrections system.

150

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NOTE
Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011
1. The research on attachment and bonding is still developing and not without controversy. In one subject search of periodicals, no fewer than 9,500 articles were uncovered on attachment. Critical articles, extremely small in number, focus on the elements of attachment theory (as empirical with little causal theory), and the relative de-emphasis of individual biological factors (such as temperament). There is also what must be called a type of political controversy centered around the attachment research concerned with the effects of daycare and working mothers. Whether or not children in daycare suffer because of maternal separation is, however, not extremely relevant to the issue of inmate-mothers, absolute separation from their children for months or years. The interested reader is urged to explore this topic; however, it seems safe to say that the majority of those who study child development accept and endorse the fundamental principles of attachment, at least as far as it relates to our premise, that severe separation when there has been a secure attachment is detrimental to the child (see Hazan and Shaver, 1994).

REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. 1973. Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Jonesdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Amnesty International. 1999 March. Not Part of My Sentence: Violations of the Human Rights of Women in Custody. London, England: Amnesty International. Baunach, P. 1984. Mothers in Prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers/Transaction Press. Block, K. and M. Potthast. 1997. Living Apart and Getting Together: Inmate Mothers and Enhanced Visitation Through Girl Scouts. Paper presented at Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, March, 1997. Bloom, B. 1995. Imprisoned Mothers. In K. Gabel and D. Johnston, Children of Incarcerated Parents, pp. 21-30. New York: Lexington Books. Bloom, B. and D. Steinhart. 1993. Why Punish the Children? A Reappraisal of the Children of Incarcerated Mothers in America. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Boudouris, J. 1985/1996. Prisons and Kids. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association. Bowlby, J. 1952/1969. Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books. Breen, P.A. 1995. Advocacy Efforts on Behalf of the Children of Incarcerated Parents. In K. Gabel and D. Johnston, Children of Incarcerated Parents, pp. 292-298. New York: Lexington Books. Browne, A. 1987. When Battered Women Kill. New York: Free Press. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2001. News Release. Prisoner Populations. May 1, 2001. Clark, J. 1995. The Impact of the Prison Environment on Mothers. The Prison Journal, 75, 3: 306-329. Clement, M. 1993. Parenting in Prisons: A National Survey of Programs for Incarcerated Women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 19, 1: 89-100. Couturier, L. 1995. Inmates Benefit from Family Services Program. Corrections Today (December): 100-107.

Joycelyn M. Pollock

151

Datesman, S. and G. Cales. 1983. Im Still the Same Mommy: Maintaining the Mother/Child Relationship in Prison. Prison Journal 63, 2: 142-154. Fletcher, B., L. Shaver and D. Moon. 1993. Women Prisoners: A Forgotten Population. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fritsch, T. and J. Burkhead. 1981. Behavioral Reactions of Children to Parental Absence Due to Imprisonment. Family Relations 30, 1: 83-88. Gabel, K. and D. Johnston. 1995. Children of Incarcerated Parents. New York: Lexington Books. Gaudin, J. 1984. Social Work Roles and Tasks with Incarcerated Mothers. Social Casework. 53: 279-285. Greenfield, L. and T. Snell. 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Women Offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs. Grossman, J. 1984. Female Commitments 1982. The Family Report, NJSDOCS. Hairston, C. 1991. Family Ties During Imprisonment: Important to Whom and for What? Journal of Sociology and Welfare 18, 1: 87-104. Hazan, C. and P. Shaver. 1994. Deeper into Attachment Theory. Psychological Inquiry 5, 1: 68-79. Henriquez, Z. 1982. Imprisoned Mothers and Their Children. Washington DC: University Press of America. Henriquez, Z. 1996. Imprisoned Mothers and Their Children: Separation-Reunion Syndrome Dual Impact. Women & Criminal Justice 8, 1: 77-97. Hungerford, G. 1993. The Children of Incarcerated Mothers: An Exploratory Study of Children, Caretakers and Inmate Mothers in Ohio. PhD dissertation, Ohio State. Immarigeon, R. 1994. When Parents Are Sent to Prison. National Prison Project Journal 9, 4: 5 & 14. Johnston, D. 1995. Effects of Parental Incarceration. In K. Gabel and D. Johnston, Children of Incarcerated Parents, pp. 59-88. New York: Lexington Books. Jose-Kampfner, C. 1995. Post Traumatic Stress Reactions in Children of Imprisoned Mothers. In K. Gabel and D. Johnston, Children of Incarcerated Parents, pp. 89-100. New York: Lexington Books. Kelley, B., R. Loeber, K. Keenan and J. DeLamatre. 1997. Developmental Pathways in Boys Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. December. Kiser, G. 1991. Female Inmates and Their Families. Federal Probation 55, 3: 56-63. Koban, L. 1983. Parents in Prison: A Comparative Analysis of the Effects of Incarceration on the Families of Men and Women. Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control 5: 171-183. Martin, M. 1997. Connected Mothers: A Follow-Up Study of Incarcerated Women and Their Children. Women & Criminal Justice 8, 4: 1-23. McGowan, B. and K. Blumenthal. 1978. Why Punish the Children? A Study of Children of Women Prisoners. Hackensack, NJ: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Moses, M. 1993. Girl Scouts Behind Bars: New Program at Womens Prison Benefits Mothers and Children. Corrections Today, August: 132-135. Moses, M. 1995. Keeping Incarcerated Mothers and Their Daughters Together: Girl Scouts Behind Bars. National Institute of Justice: Program Focus. Washington DC: United States Dept. of Justice. Muse, D. 1994. Parenting from Prison. Mothering (Fall) 72: 99-105. Owen, B. and B. Bloom, 1995. Profiling Women Prisoners: Findings from National Surveys and a California Sample. The Prison Journal, 75, 2: 165-185. Pollock, J. 1998. Counseling Women in Prison. San Francisco, CA: Sage.

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

152

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

Pollock, J. 1999. Criminal Women. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publ. Co. Rutter, M. 1979. Maternal Deprivation, 1972-1978: New Findings, New Concepts, New Approaches. Child Development 50: 283-305. Rutter, M. 1995. Maternal Deprivation. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting, pp. 3-31. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Assoc. Sheridan, J. 1996. Inmates May Be Parents Too. Corrections Today. August: 100-103. Stanton, A.M. 1980. When Mothers Go to Jail. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Walsh, A. 1991. Intellectual Imbalance, Love Deprivation and Violent Delinquency. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Woolredge, J. and K. Masters. 1993. Confronting Problems Faced by Pregnant Inmates in State Prisons. Crime and Delinquency 39, 2: 195-203. Yoshikawa, H. 1995. Long Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Social Outcomes and Delinquency. The Future of Children, 5, 3: 51-75.

APPENDIX
Parenting Programs in Womens PrisonsA Survey
This is a survey conducted by Joycelyn M. Pollock, PhD, JD, Southwest Texas State University and funded by the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture (The Open Society Institute, New York City). State: ________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Contact Person: __________________________________________________________ 1. Number of women in states prisons (as of Jan. 1, 1998 or closest date)? _________ 2. Number of women in states prisons (as of Jan. 1, 1995 or closest date)? _________ 3. Number of womens facilities in state?________ 4. Is there a special womens advisor or individual in charge of womens correctional issues in state? If so, who? ____________________ 5. Are any facilities for women under private contract? If so, which ones and capacity for each? ________________________________________________________________ 6. Are there any plans to construct any new womens prisons in next three years? ______ 7. Of the total number of women incarcerated, how many (percentage or number) have children under 18? __________________ 8. Are there summary statistics that reveal average number of children? If so, what is that number? __________________ 9. Of those who have children, what percent have lost custody permanently of all children?______ 10. Of those who have children, what percent have lost custody permanently of at least one child? ______ 11. Regarding other state summary statistics: Number married: __________ Average age: _______________ Number sep./div./wid. __________ Percent minority: ____________ Number nev. marr. __________ Previous prison (%): __________ 12. Regarding crime of conviction information: Percentage incarcerated for violent crime: _______ Percentage incarcerated for property crime: _______ Percentage incarcerated for drugs: _______________

Joycelyn M. Pollock

153

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

13. Is there any information kept on number of visits with children (per month/year)? _______ 14. Is there any information available on the placement of the inmate-mothers children? If so, indicate percentage living with: grandparents: ______ father: _______ other relatives: _______ foster care: _______ other: _______ 15. Is there any information on what percentage of the inmate-mothers children receive financial assistance from social services? _______ 16. Of the total number of women incarcerated, how many are pregnant? (average or actual) _______ 17. What are the states provisions for prenatal health care? ______________________ Is woman separated from general population? ________________ Frequency of doctor visits? ______________ 18. What is the states provisions for birth? (How long does woman stay in hospital, does she have any contact with infant? Does state child protection always get involved? How long does she stay with baby?) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ 19. Does the state (in any facility) have the following programs? If so, how many beds available? (Total in state) Program (state or private) 20. Prison nurseries 21. Overnight visits 22. Family/conjugal visits 23. Parenting classes 24. Furloughs 25. Special visiting area Yes/No _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Beds/Numbers _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Funding _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Year Established _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

If yes to parenting class/program, the following questions apply 26. Criteria for entry?______________________________________________________ 27. How long is the class (weeks/months)? _____________________________________ 28. Schedule? (weekly hours) _______________________________________________ 29. Include supervised visits with children? ____________________________________ 30. If yes, how arranged? ___________________________________________________ 31. Is program run by staff member? __________________________________________ 32. Does program use volunteers? ___________________________________________ 33. Are outside speakers used? _____________________________________________ 34. Describe other characteristics: ___________________________________________ Curriculum content (yes/no): 35. Child development stages? ______ 36. Communication? ______ 37. Discipline? ______ 38. Self-esteem (of mother)? ______ 39. Self-esteem (of child)? ______ 40. Moral development? ______ 41. Abuse victimization (mother) ______ 42. Abuse victimization (child) ______ 43. Other? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ 44. If program involves supervised visitation, who pays for childs transportation? _______ 45. Does state have any community facilities (i.e., halfway houses) for mothers with children? _________ 46. If yes, how many beds? __________

154

WOMEN & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Downloaded by [American University Library] at 12:27 27 November 2011

47. Criteria for admission? _______________________________________________ 48. What have been the problems, if any, identified in preparing and delivering parenting programs to inmate-mothers? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ 49. Describe any other programs related to parenting skills for inmate-mothers. ________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ 50. Describe any studies done to evaluate parenting programs (i.e., recidivism). ________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ 51. Is there a parenting program that could be highlighted in the compendium? Describe: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ State would like copy of survey results? For information, please contact: Joycelyn M. Pollock, PhD, JD Dept. of Criminal Justice Southwest Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 E-mail: JP12@swt.edu Yes No