Abstract
In Victoria, Australia, the rate of female incarceration has continued to rise in the last decade. The majority of women prisoners are primary caregivers of their children. This article examines issues mothers face in mothering, both inside and outside prison, as seen by professionals and stakeholders who support them. Reunification of mothers and children is hampered by factors such as poverty, homelessness, abuse, and lack of access to services. Research and government interventions to address incarcerated mothers’ situations have had little positive impact for over 50 years.
Introduction
A finding that has emerged from statistics and recent studies of female incarceration in Australia and internationally is that the profile of female offenders has not changed in almost 50 years. The women are frequently poor, unskilled, and unemployed, with histories of childhood abuse and violent relationships (Carlson & Shafer, 2010; Goulding, 2004; Johnston & Gabel, 1995; Kilroy, 2005; Liddell & Martinovic, 2013; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978; McIvor, 2007; Richie, 2001; Wybron & Dicker, 2009; Zalba, 1964). They are likely to suffer from mental health problems and have histories of substance abuse (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2010; Goulding, 2004; Sheehan, McIvor, & Trotter, 2007). In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (A&TSI) women, Vietnamese women, and women who have experienced such problems are likely to be over-represented (see Baldry, 2013; Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone & Peeters, 2006; Freckelton, 2013; Goulding, 2004; Victorian Equal Opportunity Human Rights Commission [VEOHRC], 2013). Moreover, the majority of women prisoners in Australia are the primary caregivers of their children. Their incarceration increases marginalization from society and family unit, and can perpetuate intergenerational cycles of offending. This article explores incarcerated mothers’ challenges from the perspective of professionals and stakeholders who support them. It begins with information on the increasing rates of female incarceration and the subsequent impact. Feminist theory and method is then outlined. In presenting findings, we discuss factors that affect the mother–child relationship, health and well-being, and the issues and barriers that incarcerated mothers face in regaining custody of their children. We outline the opportunities for change, and show that policy and program responses have attempted to improve incarcerated women’s lives, with limited success over a 50-year time frame. In conclusion, we suggest that responses need to be holistic and place more emphasis on incarcerated mothers’ individual needs.
Contextual Information
Women currently comprise 7% of the prison population in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2017). Since 2002 there has been a rapid increase in the number of women in prison in Australia, even as male involvement in criminal activities is much higher than that of women. However, between 2001 and 2014, there was a 63% increase in the number of Australian female prisoners, whereas the increase in male prisoners was 39% (ABS, 2015). In Victoria, Australia, between June 2006 and June 2016, the number of female prisoners grew by 75% (ABS, 2017). Such mounting rates of incarceration are part of a worldwide trend in “tough on crime” policies and practices (Baker, 2013; Newburn, 2007).
A trend in Victoria which has also affected mothers is the increased use of short-term custodial sentences or remand (Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee [DCPC], 2010). Imposing short custodial sentences on mothers committing nonviolent crimes entrenches them in the criminal justice system and may force their children into alternative forms of care. Because most female offending is less violent, many women receive prison sentences of 6 months or less. On June 30, 2014, 32.5% of female offenders received sentences less than 1 year, and a further 50.4% received sentences of 1 to 5 years (Corrections Victoria, 2015).
The use of short prison sentences to address predominantly nonviolent or property-related crimes and those involving substance abuse is increasingly being questioned (George, 2011; Sisters Inside, 2010). Short prison sentences damage the family unit and are often disproportionate to the crimes committed. Mothers can lose homes, jobs, and children (Sisters Inside, 2010). Often, mothers who are spending long periods on remand are reluctant to disrupt child care arrangements at this time but do not qualify for in-prison services and programs which could assist in their rehabilitation (George, 2011; Sisters Inside, 2010). Most children of incarcerated parents in Victoria go into kinship care (that is, live with a relative), but as few as 28% are reunited with their mothers (Hannon, 2006; Sheehan & Levine, 2007). Overseas research shows many mothers lose their children while incarcerated because they are divorced or abandoned by their partner (La Vigne, Brooks, & Shollenberger, 2009; Richie, 2001).
There is a high incidence of mental health disorders among incarcerated mothers, with incidents of self-harm and attempted suicides in prison (Easteal, 2001; Farrell, 1998; Goulding, 2004; Kilroy, 2005; Wybron & Dicker, 2009). Many mothers have spent much of their lives in institutions: from children’s homes or foster care through to detention centers or psychiatric care facilities, and then prisons. The legacy of these experiences is poor self-esteem, distrust of authorities, depression and frustration, all of which contribute to an intergenerational cycle of offending (Wybron & Dicker, 2009). This cycle can be broken by addressing disadvantage and providing services to minimize the harm caused to children who have a parent in prison (Robinson, 2011), who have to deal with the stigma of parental incarceration and a fractured family unit. Furthermore, there is increased demand for social services, foster care services, knowledge of childhood development, and parent education (George, 2011; Goulding, 2004; Johnston & Gabel, 1995; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978; Travis & Waul, 2003).
Preparing Mothers for Release Inside and Outside Prison
Over the last 50 years, there have been calls to improve policies and programs for mothers to both enhance the mother–child relationship during incarceration and increase opportunities for mothers to unite with their children upon release (Baldry, 2007; Gelsthorpe, 2013; Kingi, 2000; Loper & Tuerk, 2010; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978; Richie, 2001; Zalba, 1964). Options include improving visitation polices for children of incarcerated mothers, individual case management plans, and family-based planning and support for incarcerated mothers and their children’s caregivers.
Research in the United States (Loper & Tuerk, 2010) and Australia (Centre for the Human Rights of Imprisoned People [CHRIP] & Flat Out, 2010; Frye & Dawe, 2008; Perry, 2009) shows that when incarcerated mothers receive parenting education in prison, they are better able to communicate with their children and outside caregivers and are better able to manage their children when they return home.
The proliferation of short-term sentences prohibits many women from attending programs inside prisons in Victoria (Bartels & Gaffney, 2011). For example, the Women’s Integrated Support Program (WISP) program does not apply to mothers serving sentences of less than 3 months and is only funded for 12 months of support. Mothers, particularly those serving short sentences, are frequently released back into the community with similar problems to those they experienced prior to their imprisonment. These include homelessness, being moved from one transitional house to another (Baldry et al., 2006; George, 2011), lack of income, and poor coping skills. They are still required to prove their capacity to resume responsibility for their children (Easteal, 2001; George, 2011; Goulding, 2004; Hannon, 2006).
Since 2005, Corrections Victoria has endorsed the importance of maintaining mother–child relationships once a mother is imprisoned. The Better Pathways strategy (2005-2009) aimed at addressing recidivism through gender-responsive policies and programs. It provided funding for some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to provide services. In 2009, PricewaterhouseCooper conducted an evaluation of the Better Pathways strategy. It praised the improved gender-responsiveness of programs and services but was unable to determine the extent to which all the Better Pathways goals and objectives had been met. What is known is that the rate of female incarceration from 2005 to 2009 fell (Bartels & Gaffney, 2011) but then rose significantly (ABS, 2014; Carlton & Baldry, 2013; Corrections Victoria, 2011; Segrave & Carlton, 2011, 2013) despite the initiatives.
Gender Responsive Policies
Research has questioned how women in prison, particularly mothers who feel powerless as they are no longer responsible for day-to-day decisions about their children, can function as responsible adults upon release (Clark, 1995; Easteal, 2001; Hunter & Greer, 2011; Koban, 1983; Wybron & Dicker, 2009). As our research will show, mothers have enormous barriers to regaining custody of their children.
Studies for over 50 years highlight the complex needs and multiple disadvantages of incarcerated mothers both in the United States and Australia, and have called for more gender-responsive policies and family-based programs (Baldry, 2013; Baldry & Cunneen, 2014; Bergseth, Jens, Bergeron-Vigesaa, & McDonald, 2011; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Koban, 1983; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978; Zalba, 1964). All studies found that incarcerated mothers suffer more social isolation than incarcerated fathers and have more fractured relationships with their children and family than their male counterparts. The longer the mother remains incarcerated, the more the mother–child relationship is at risk. There can also be a loss of identity as a mother, due in part to her perceived violation of socially accepted norms and loss of ability to mother since being stripped of maternal responsibilities.
Key research recommendations include emphasizing gender-informed policy, such as increased use of noncustodial sentences, collaborative services to case manage incarcerated mothers, and a stronger focus on maintaining the family unit. Policy changes to address maternal incarceration are seen as imperative. These include family-based planning and collaborative services that focus on the specific and complex needs of incarcerated mothers and their children. In the United Kingdom in 2007, the need for “gendered responsivity” (Gelsthorpe, 2013, p. 15) became more prominent with recognition that the criminal justice system was primarily designed for men, with women’s needs continuing to be overlooked (Liddell & Martinovic, 2013). Developing tailored responses to incarcerated mothers should reduce women’s reoffending. Holistic and individual support packages are required for women to divert those who are at risk of committing offenses as well as reducing reoffending (Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Gelsthorpe, 2013; Richie, 2001).
Barriers to Re-Establishing the Maternal Role
Barriers to re-establishing the maternal role have been addressed by many researchers in the United States and Australia (Arditti & Few, 2006; Baldry, 2013; Baldry & Cunneen, 2014; Bergseth et al., 2011; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Carlton & Segrave, 2011; Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; George, 2011; Koban, 1983; La Vigne et al., 2009; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978; Richie, 2001). The majority of incarcerated mothers are primary caregivers who expect to resume parental responsibility on release. However, they rarely receive financial support from the children’s fathers. In addition, many are divorced or abandoned by partners during their incarceration (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001; La Vigne et al., 2009; Richie, 2001). Mothers often have no money, no home, no transportation, and no job prospects. Their coping skills are also strained by the triple threat of substance abuse, trauma, and mental health problems, all of which are intensified by the prison experience (Arditti & Few, 2006).
As well, because of their primary caregiver role, when mothers are incarcerated, the children’s care arrangements can be more unstable, regardless of whether the placement is with the offender’s family or the state. Women are more likely than men to return to a “broken” or troubled family. This increases the difficulties in readjusting to living together and resuming the parental role (Arditti & Few, 2006; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Koban, 1983; La et al., 2009; Richie, 2001). Kingi (2000) found that the mothers in her study felt the criteria for regaining care of their children from the state continually changed, making reunification almost impossible. For example, as they reached a goal (such as staying drug free), another was imposed (see also Walsh & Douglas, 2009 study in Queensland, Australia).
Furthermore, parole requirements upon release are complex, especially as mothers feel stigmatized, lost, have little support, and lack confidence (Hannon, 2006; Johnson, 2014). Baldry (2007, p. 6) highlighted the need for “throughcare” policies in providing “continuous, coordinated and integrated management of offenders,” from the day they enter prison until a period some months after release. The lack of continuity of drug treatment programs post-release placed women at significant risk of resuming drug use and potentially overdosing. Baldry (2010) also criticized the lack of post-release programs to address barriers to mothers’ reunification with their children and suggested that such programs should apply to all women post-release, including those who were on remand or served short-term sentences. Regardless of the length of sentence, the mother still needs intervention to address reunification and reintegration back into society (Baldry, 2010). Faris and Miller (2010) believed that incarcerated mothers have few opportunities to connect with their families or gain employment and that have little substantial assistance to change their lives (see also Johnson, 2014).
In conclusion, there is agreement in current research that responses should be holistic. Few programs, however, address the holistic needs of women or provide sufficient individual support to interrupt the cycle of offending (Bartels & Gaffney, 2011). Addressing the structural and social change necessary to improve incarcerated mothers’ situations has, therefore, remained a challenge.
The Research Study
A feminist qualitative research base that explores the interviewee’s ideas of reality within a given context (Reinharz, 1992) was used for this study. Hesse-Biber (2014, p. 3) suggested feminist research “centralizes the relationship between the researcher and the researched to balance deferring levels of power and authority.” Feminist research addresses the inequities and social injustices that can undermine the lives of women and their families (Hesse-Biber, 2014; Reinharz, 1992).
Standpoint feminism was seen as an appropriate research framework for understanding the participant’s perspective because of its concern for oppressed and disadvantaged groups and with facilitating political and social structural change discussed in the previous section (Hesse-Biber, 2014; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007; Naples & Gurr, 2014). Feminist standpoint perspectives seek to understand how social structures contribute to the day-to-day reality of women’s lives (Harding, 2004; Hesse-Biber, 2014; Jaggar, 2004; Naples & Gurr, 2014).
Feminist standpoint requires us to understand the world through the experiences of oppressed women, including the mental and physical violence they endure as an oppressed group (Brooks, 2007). Hence, this theory has relevance for comprehending the experiences of incarcerated mothers who are an oppressed group through the eyes of the women who work with them. Furthermore, mothers who have been imprisoned come from a range of classes, cultures, and racial backgrounds that reflect their own particular sources of oppression. As noted above, standpoint feminism is also concerned with facilitating political and social structural change (Dominelli, 2002; Naples & Gurr, 2014), critical issues for incarcerated mothers where little has changed over 50 years. For such change to occur, the patriarchal nature of penalties would need to be reframed (see Baldry & Cunneen, 2014).
Despite some criticisms (see Carrington, 2008; Jaggar, 2004), we believe that this theory has relevance to the study of incarcerated mothers. Brooks (2007) suggested standpoint feminism is suited to understanding women in the criminal justice system because they often have a lifetime of oppression, social, and political disadvantage and current political and social structures that both contribute to and perpetuate this disadvantage. Naples and Gurr (2014) believed that standpoint feminism is important for current feminist research as it goes beyond current and traditional theoretical and methodological approaches. Furthermore, it assesses the power dynamics or lack of power of the research recipients (Naples & Gurr, 2014). This will be demonstrated in the discussion below of the responses of participants who work with these mothers.
Research Method
Qualitative data were collected from in-depth interviews with professionals who case-managed mothers while in prison and upon their release as well as via meetings and discussions with 24 key stakeholders who advocate for incarcerated mothers. The interviews with the professionals (who have been given pseudonyms) occurred in Melbourne, Australia in late 2011 and early 2012. The consultations with stakeholders occurred over a 5-year period, from 2007 to 2012 (Stone, 2013). Ethical approval was granted by RMIT University prior to the commencement of research.
The interviews with the professional participants, who had up to 25 years of experience, enabled an understanding of the issues that incarcerated mothers face in regaining custody of their children. All participants were asked to outline the issues and challenges incarcerated mothers faced on reentry from prison. Similarly, the stakeholders had extensive involvement with incarcerated women, especially mothers, and provided ongoing consultations related to their issues. The stakeholder consultations occurred in meetings, conferences, and one-to-one sessions throughout the research. As Mertens and Stewart (2014) stated, the inclusion of stakeholders is important for feminist qualitative research as they help determine the appropriate methodology and ensure that the researcher is open to and respectful of the perspectives and experiences of those interviewed (see also Hesse-Biber, 2014). The stakeholders steered the researcher away from interviewing incarcerated women or those whom had been released due to their often precarious and traumatic experiences. Stakeholder views on the multiple marginalization of incarcerated mothers and their ongoing frustration at the lack of structural social and political change helped lead to the use of standpoint feminism as a framework for this research.
The study aimed to understand the effect which maternal incarceration has on the relationships between incarcerated mothers and their children. The participants (see above) roles included systemic advocacy, mentoring, and education on pharmacotherapy, counseling, ongoing support and referrals, and provision of support programs. As the responses of professionals and stakeholders were consistent, they have been aggregated in the findings discussion.
Since incarcerated women were not interviewed, the feminist framework was used “vicariously,” and interviewees were asked to see things from the woman’s perspective. Some of the professionals and stakeholders had themselves been incarcerated mothers, so they had been inside the system and experienced it, not just viewed it second hand. Their own incarceration as well as the experience of supporting incarcerated mothers supported their understanding of the social structural disadvantage, multiple marginalization, lack of power, and lack of political and social structural change faced by incarcerated mothers.
The data collected in this research have been organized into themes. Thematic analysis included reviews of interview transcriptions and making notes of themes as they emerged from the data. These themes, along with field notes, enabled interpretations and complexities in the data to emerge that were then coded (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007; Neuman, 2012). Once data saturation was achieved, the following themes emerged (Neuman, 2012): (a) factors that impact on the mother–child relationship, (b) individual health and well-being issues in regaining custody, (c) systemic issues and barriers, and (d) the opportunities that exist for change. These themes are discussed in the following section.
Findings From the Research
Factors That Impact the Mother–Child Relationship
All interviewed participants said the single greatest punishment for incarcerated mothers was separation from their children. They described the self-loathing incarcerated mothers’ experience when unable to fulfill their parenting role and how angry and isolated they become. They commented upon their experiences being similar to stages of grief as if their child had died, but they grieve without support from other loved ones. The participants believed that the incarceration of women for nonviolent offenses was problematic. They felt that many women should not be enmeshed in the criminal justice system nor have their children placed in care, as there was little hope of having them returned when they were released from prison. Long-term separation or multiple short-term separations are damaging to the mother–child relationship, as women gradually lose touch with their children’s day-to-day activities and anxieties. Feminist standpoint argues that these mothers, oppressed and vulnerable, are subjected to ongoing disadvantage by policies which exercise political and social control over them. To address this, the patriarchal nature of penalties and the wider criminal justice system would need to be changed or at least reframed.
Participants believed that mothers frequently wish to have their baby with them, but the process of applying for the mother–baby unit is often too lengthy and complex. In addition, these units are in very short supply and few mothers wanted their children in prison with them when they reach preschool age as they felt the overcrowded prison environment was too threatening and violent. A dilemma was the lack of choice between the child being with them in prison or their being placed in care. In fact, mothers cannot apply to have their child with them while on remand and when they are sentenced it is often too late for them to consider the opportunity, as the comment from Cynthia below demonstrates,
Before she’s remanded, the Mum doesn’t know how long she’s going to be in for. Would you take the child in—then when you go to court you might get bailed or get out or get a two year sentence . . . it’s like, do I uproot the child? . . .
The lengthy process, described above, often precludes mothers on remand or on short-term sentences having children with them; for those on longer sentences, it impinges on them as their children reach school age. This situation could be addressed with a flexible package of support services for mothers with children provided at the commencement of their involvement in the criminal justice system. Individual packages can be tailored taking into account the combination of disadvantages that incarcerated mothers experience. This may enable better responses to women with children whether they are on remand, or on short or long-term sentences. Standpoint feminism shows that a lack of structural, legal, and political change related to sentencing, policy development, and provision of adequate services for incarcerated mothers will further exacerbate mothers’ disadvantage and make it harder for them to regain custody.
Family members can be reluctant to bring the children to visit or they may have decided to keep the mother’s incarceration from the children. Multiple short sentences, in particular, can be a problem because the children can bond more to other family members; particularly if they are babies. Cynthia further explained,
Families are generally burnt in the process of all this stuff . . . some families continue to be fantastic for women who’ve been in 10 times, but for a lot of families it takes its toll. Families have been victims in a lot of ways and they are just over it.
Other complications arise when the mother herself decides she does not want visits from her children. This can be due to the prison environment itself, the time and cost of travel (if mothers are incarcerated a long way from their homes), or the relationship between the mother and foster caregivers. Furthermore, incarcerated mothers receive few visits from male partners, extended family, or caregivers, so they often have to rely on community services to bring children to visit. There are some support organizations which offer this service, but they rely heavily on funding and are often largely under-resourced. Georgy explained this further as follows:
Having somebody who can regularly bring the child, prepare the child for the visit and work with mum too on how to build/rebuild that relationship is really difficult . . . in terms of maintaining contact that’s a really difficult one.
The above information shows the complexity in maintaining the mother–child relationship and the lack of support to do this while the mothers are incarcerated. It is, therefore, not surprising that Sheehan and Levine (2007) showed that only 28% of women are successful in having their children returned to them (see also Baldry, 2013; Baldry & Cunneen, 2014; Bergseth et al., 2011; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Koban, 1983; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978; Zalba, 1964).
Individual Health and Well-Being Barriers in Regaining Custody
The participants raised a number of barriers and challenges for mothers in regaining the custody of their children upon release from prison. The most critical of these was dealing with their drug and alcohol dependency, their mental health issues, and their vulnerability to ongoing poverty and disadvantage. These affected their housing, their ability to regain custody of children as well as other life style choices. For example, the need for clean urine tests to obtain subsidized housing, a mandatory requirement to regain custody, is often difficult because they have few supports, feel lonely and depressed, and revert to using again. They also felt that some mothers did not want to produce urine samples, as this was degrading in front of a stranger and it reminded them of their past experience of abuse and victimization. Furthermore, they were perceived as an addict regardless of whether they used or not. Compounding these challenges is that mothers face difficulties both registering for a program and accessing appropriate services. Some of these difficulties involved lack of communication by Corrections Victoria about available and appropriate programs and some to labeling by the community. Ella commented on the value of drug replacement programs:
. . . but quite often you’re not allowed to walk around the shop, you’ve got to sit on a seat and wait while they serve everyone else. All those messages suggest “you’re worthless, you’re not as good as anyone else, you’re different, and you’re not trusted” . . .
As the literature and participants have illustrated, mothers in prison present with many health problems, including drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, and mental health disorders (Baldry, 2007; Goulding, 2004; Kilroy, 2005; Wybron & Dicker, 2009). Hence, another factor in maintaining the mother–child relationship from inside prison is the mother’s health and the lack of opportunities to address her health problems. Women may exit prison with the same drug and alcohol addictions, leaving them vulnerable to committing the same crimes for which they were previously incarcerated and further damaging their mother–child relationship. From a standpoint feminist view, mothers who have been incarcerated and who have drug addictions are politically and socially disadvantaged in society (Hesse-Biber, 2014; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007; Mertens & Stewart, 2014). In addition, incarcerated mothers suffer ongoing discrimination as a result of policies which reinforce and exercise control over very powerless lives (see Brooks, 2007; Naples & Gurr, 2014).
All participants struggled to manage incarcerated mothers who suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); many were unaware that they suffered from PTSD. Post-release issues for mothers also include lack of consideration of their general health and risk of overdosing. Similar issues were reported in previous research (Arditti & Few, 2006; Baldry, 2010; Hunter & Greer, 2011). Ella confirmed this, stating,
Most have got Hepatitis C, so they need to find a decent doctor they can talk to . . .but most (mothers) are in drug user clinics . . . so there are problems ’cos if they’re trying not to use they’re going to run into other drug users there and if they’re not strong enough . . . they’ll start using again . . .
Nicky further stated,
Things like psych meds can’t be stopped straight away . . . anything can happen if it’s not streamlined when you leave . . . so being sure you have access to medication . . . there’s generally a big hiccup. It’s hardly ever done.
If the mother has been a drug user but has not used while in prison, then her tolerance will be down, so overdosing becomes a huge threat. As Nicky explains,
Overdosing is a huge risk; we know that a quarter of all fatal overdoses are people released from prison . . . in Victoria they overdose fatally within two weeks of being released.
The vulnerability of mothers’ post-release can be a determining factor in their disproportionate rate of harm and death (Carlton & Segrave, 2011; Segrave & Carlton, 2011). Research (Arditti & Few, 2006; Easteal, 2001; George, 2011; Goulding, 2004; Hannon, 2006; Richie, 2001) shows the difficulties mothers have in negotiating living on the outside and regaining custody of their children, issues that are further compounded by lack of resources (Baldry, 2010), and inadequate interest and recognition (Wybron & Dicker, 2009) of the triple disadvantage they experience. Standpoint feminism would suggest that their lives are endangered as a result of policies which fail to address their complex needs during their transition from prison back into society. Also, these mothers’ lives are negatively affected as a result of policies which fail to address their complex needs during their transition from prison back into society (see Brooks, 2007; Hesse-Biber, 2014).
Systemic Issues and Barriers
The discussion above shows that there are many problems coordinating the mother’s release from prison with access to post-release programs. One participant said that Corrections Victoria are meant to fund post-release programs for women who were on pharmacotherapy, but her organization encounters a lot of difficulties with pharmacies not being paid, and the mothers, therefore, not having access to regular doses. As well, there are not enough pharmacies with permits. Nicky said,
If it hasn’t been organized for you and you come out I can guarantee it’s going to take you a while before you’re able to get on a program . . . especially if you live in a country town because word has spread “you’ve been incarcerated, we don’t want your type at this pharmacy.”
The majority of mothers when released from prison have to negotiate with child protection to regain custody of their children. Cynthia felt this was difficult as some mothers have a history of involvement and mistrust of child protection from when they were children. It is also possible that mothers experienced similar issues to those in Kingi’s (2000) study, where mothers felt that criteria for regaining custody of children was constantly changing.
The participants in this study commented upon the level of discrimination among child protection workers toward incarcerated mothers and how this affected the mother’s ability to regain custody. The mothers contact with child protection was perceived by participants as an “extension of the prison outside, except with no set boundaries.” Participants also felt that there was limited understanding of the mother’s difficulties in reintegration into society. Ana’s statement provides an example:
Mothers most of the times are on public transport and again they (DHS) just don’t get how long it takes to run around and do all of that . . . and how walking out of prison can be completely overwhelming . . . even to get on a train . . . so expecting a mother to just pick up and start doing it all . . . and you know the pressure that they (child protection) apply . . .
Participants in this study emphasized that child protection staff are often too young, are straight out of university, and have few life skills. Sam commented,
When they write their reports . . . they outline all the shitty stuff about why the children were removed in the first place . . . it’s always very negative. It’s like any hope you may have had for reunification is hindered if you’ve been inside.
They further expressed frustration about child protection policy in Australia, particularly the lack of family-oriented planning and policy. The child-centered approach used in Australia was seen to be divisive and focused on breaking up families rather than maintaining the family unit at all costs (see Kingi, 2000; Walsh & Douglas, 2009). From a feminist standpoint view, these vulnerable women are politically and socially disadvantaged through policies which continue to impoverish and exercise power over them, perpetuating a cycle of despair (Brooks, 2007).
Participants spoke of the difficulty mothers have managing children traumatized by the separation and possibly very distrustful of the mother. Cynthia stated,
. . . A lot of women have the closest bond with their child while they are in prison but as soon as they get out they don’t . . . that’s very common . . .
Georgy commented that often mothers forgot,
You’ve got to rebuild that relationship. Don’t expect the kids to come running up to you, don’t promise the kids the world, a new bike for Christmas, or that you’re going to stay out of prison.
In addition, Cynthia believed that specific support should be provided:
A lot of women would benefit from having a family worker . . . they need it to deal with issues around being reunited with the children, the partner . . .
Participants said an additional challenge mothers face is when they exit prison on parole. The numerous parole expectations are often unrealistic and affect the mother’s ability to resume care of their children. Juggling multiple expectations, including special conditions on drug use, housing, and child protection, is burdensome (see also Baldry, 2007, 2010; Hunter & Greer, 2011; Wybron & Dicker, 2009).
There are also limited services to provide one-on-one support, which the participants deemed critical in addressing recidivism, reinforcing the long-term issues and perspectives raised by Zalba (1964), Bloom and Steinhart (1993), Farrell (1998), Kingi (2000), Goulding (2004), Hannon (2006), and Baldry (2007). Standpoint feminism would suggest that these policies reflect little understanding of the issues that incarcerated mothers face at re-entry.
All participants expressed frustration with the current criminal justice system and how it functions to support or not support the mothers with lived prison experience. They believe that prisons are about punishment, not rehabilitation. They questioned the necessity of custodial sentences for mothers who are nonviolent and suggested that the impact of breaking up the family unit was misunderstood by government and society as a whole. Ana questioned the prison system in the following way:
It doesn’t make the community any safer, but . . . we’ve constantly got the Government telling us that prisons are the reason communities seem safer . . . and when you sit with these women, you realize that they’re the most inspirational, strong but very, very traumatized women who just needs lots of support.
All participants were adamant that punishing women offenders by incarcerating them can perpetuate the cycle of multiple marginalization. They spoke of the discrimination endured by women with lived prison experience and by drug users in general. They referred to the programs that exist but lamented the lack of resources available to ensure all incarcerated mothers are able to access them.
Dominelli (2002) and Harding (2004) believed severing the mother–child bond for minor offenses is symbolic of patriarchal systems which use power to control the vulnerable, with little regard for the ensuing cycle of disadvantage. Standpoint feminism (Harding, 2004; Naples & Gurr, 2014) suggests that social structures can perpetuate a woman’s social disadvantage, indicated by welfare and criminal justice policies which ignore the marginalization imposed on mothers with prison experience.
Opportunities for Change
The opinions of the participants in this research are significant because they bring the multiple experiences of incarcerated mothers together and allow us to see the impact these experiences have on families and the community. Participants felt that more emphasis on rehabilitation instead of punishment is critical for improving women’s ability to regain custody. Ella and Cynthia expressed frustration at time wasted in prison that could be better spent in a rehabilitation program with support workers instead of prison officers. Ella acknowledged that many women would go back to using again. This is part of getting off drugs, so lapses and relapses must be built into any rehabilitation program. They were both passionate about the mother getting off drugs, how positive this would be for her, her children, and society in stopping the cycle of abuse. Study participants believe that there need to be more drug and alcohol rehabilitation services with live-in child care and more flexibility in the way services cater for women who have been incarcerated and are unable to cope with too much freedom or too many restrictions. Services should meet individual needs. Cynthia suggested a family worker, available prior to and after release, could ensure that the incarcerated mother’s services were tailored to her specific needs. One can ask why calls for resource-intensive responses have gone unanswered for 50 years.
Participants viewed maintaining the family unit as an essential part of this rehabilitation process. They felt that child protection policy needed to be more realistic about the mother’s situation, the difficulty of reintegration, and more focused on support, skill development, and strategies to maintain the family unit. Again, for over 50 years, researchers have called for the development of holistic program responses to strengthen families rather than fragment them, and in so doing, reduce the intergenerational cycle of poverty, addiction, and criminality (Baldry, 2007; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Easteal, 2001; Farrell, 1998; Gelsthorpe, 2013; George, 2011; Goulding, 2004; Kingi, 2000; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978; Zalba, 1964). Under-resourcing of gender-responsive programs continues to disadvantage incarcerated mothers and perpetuates political and social, and structural disadvantage (Hesse-Biber, 2014; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2007; Mertens & Stewart, 2014).
Conclusion
The research story of incarcerated mothers’ daily life experiences and the policies which govern them paint a picture of discrimination, disadvantage, and general despair. Incarcerated women’s multiple marginalization appears never-ending. Our findings confirm much of what is known about incarcerated mothers’ experiences of an often unresponsive criminal justice system. What has not been discussed previously is that these issues have been evident for over 50 years. The evidence shows that the profile of incarcerated mothers has changed little in over 50 years, and policy and program responses for these mothers have been woefully inadequate.
It is acknowledged that some mothers will always need to be imprisoned due to the seriousness of their offending, but for most mothers the human cost to them and their families is hard to surmount (Carlton & Segrave, 2011; Easteal, 2001; Farrell, 1998; Kilroy, 2005; Kingi, 2000). Short-term prison sentences should be avoided wherever possible, and community-based alternatives to prison should be expanded and applied for mothers with children. When community-based options are not suitable, adequate funding of support programs and individual packages for all mothers released from prison particularly those who were on short-term sentences is required.
The female prison population is sufficiently small to allow policy makers to develop more cost-effective and humane methods of addressing the social problems these women face, rather than increasingly relying on prison, particularly given the negative impact of short custodial sentences on the whole family. Collaborative services and more gender-responsive policies and programs are required to reduce the incarceration of women, especially mothers. However, the ability of policy makers to provide these services seems limited by perceived costs and a persistent law and order philosophy. Individual packages (see Gelsthorpe, 2013) should be considered for incarcerated mothers. Although this might be resource intensive, the cycle of offending will only be interrupted through providing intensive resources. Unless we use a strong feminist standpoint lens to examine these issues, this situation is unlikely to change. Change must occur and standpoint feminism, criticisms acknowledged, may provide a foundation upon which to address long-term multiple marginalization of incarcerated mothers through its call for political and structural social change. If no action is taken to reduce the issues and barriers incarcerated women face upon their release, the problems for these women and those who support them will be compounded. Little change in 50 years to address incarcerated mother’s plight is not acceptable.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.