‘You have been punished in prison. And then when you are released,you are punished for life’: Post-incarceration barriers for women in Ukraine

Abstract

Spanish

French

Formerly incarcerated women face multidimensional barriers post-release, ranging from individual, relational, institutional, to systemic. Drawing on the conceptual framework of interlocking barriers facing formerly incarcerated women, this qualitative case study set in one minimum-security prison in Ukraine with 21 interviewed women, four teachers, and eight staff demonstrates that interlocking systemic barriers cemented in Ukrainian society complicate formerly incarcerated women’s integration in society and may set them up for failure and recidivism. The study illuminates how the absence of housing, employment and discrimination, stigma, inadequate support system, lack of economic and cultural capital to pursue further education, and health challenges confronting incarcerated women post-release disadvantage the already vulnerable population in Ukraine. The findings of this study contribute to the field of sociology by highlighting the interlocking barriers confronting women post-incarceration and elucidating a gendered approach to understanding women’s reentry experiences in Ukraine.

Keywords

Incarcerated women interlocking barriers post-incarceration

Introduction

Upon release from prison, formerly incarcerated people in Ukraine are thrust into a society that derides and despises them; an unwelcoming environment made to feel unwanted. Correctional facilities (e.g. prisons), or виправна колонія in Ukrainian, were conceptualized to improve, ‘correct’, or ‘re-socialize’ individuals, thus enabling them to reinvent themselves (Symkovych, 2020: 5). However, as ‘total institutions’, prisons tend to deface individuals, stripping them of their identities, and dehumanize them by depriving them of their self-determination, autonomy, and freedom of action (Goffman, 1961). Prison environments and the socio-cultural systems found outside of prison walls set up barriers to the individual’s successful reintegration and full participation in society writ-large.

Universally, formerly incarcerated women face multidimensional barriers post-release. Many women who end up incarcerated are at a significant economic, social, and educational disadvantage. As the international research shows, the majority come from a low socio-economic background with an incomplete or low-quality education; experienced physical or sexual abuse, poverty, substance abuse, trauma, and as a consequence mental health challenges; held low-paying jobs or were unemployed; lived in an unstable housing situation; and had broken familial relationships (Carter, 2019; Colbert et al., 2016; Dewey et al., 2018; Doherty et al., 2014; Schnappauf and DiDonato, 2017; Sturm and Nixon, 2015; Zurhold et al., 2011). Upon release from prison, these socio-economic disadvantages do not disappear; they get reinforced by barriers many women have to face alone. The literature in North America demonstrates that formerly incarcerated women leave prisons unprepared to enter their communities and reintegrate into society successfully (Carter, 2019; Christian and Walker, 2020; Cobbina, 2010; Pogrebin et al., 2014; Sturm and Nixon, 2015; Zurhold et al., 2011) and face more challenges than men (Cantora, 2015; Dewey et al., 2018). They confront such barriers as lack of housing, employment, and education opportunities; mental and physical health; fragile family relationships and intimate partner violence; caretaking demands; parole compliance; and stigmatization and discrimination (Cantora, 2015; Christian and Walker, 2020; Colbert et al., 2016; Dewey et al., 2018; Pogrebin et al., 2014; Schnappauf and DiDonato, 2017; Sturm and Nixon, 2015; Zurhold et al., 2011). Indeed, these multiple barriers post-release increase the risk of reincarceration (Cobbina, 2010; Schnappauf and DiDonato, 2017), which disintegrates the lives and livelihoods of women, their children, families, and communities.

While international research on the barriers faced by formerly incarcerated people has documented both male and female experiences predominantly in the United States, a dearth of research exists on the barriers confronting formerly incarcerated women in Europe (Zurhold et al., 2011), particularly in Ukraine. Morozova et al.’s (2013) quantitative study in the public health field illuminates the impending challenges facing prisoners 6 months prior to release. However, the findings do not account for gender differences in those challenges, and, as some scholars argue (Cantora, 2015; Carter, 2019; Dewey et al., 2018; Heidemann et al., 2016), a gendered approach is imperative to understanding women’s reentry experiences to facilitate their successful integration in society. The present qualitative research study endeavors to contribute to this lacuna by illuminating the interlocking barriers women face post-incarceration in economically volatile Ukraine at the individual, relational, institutional, and systemic levels. More specifically, this study shows how the absence of housing, employment and discrimination, stigma, inadequate support system, lack of economic and cultural capital to pursue further education, and health challenges confronting incarcerated women post-release disadvantage the vulnerable population in Ukraine. Moreover, the case in Ukraine could offer unique insight because different from the United States and other European countries, incarcerated women’s challenges in Ukraine are exacerbated by the crumbling family support and absence of state and community-based social system in the face of economic deprivation caused by the neoliberal policies and endemic corruption. In addition, failure of state social policies and the persistent stigma of ‘deviant and pathological needed by nobodies’ deeply rooted in the Soviet past and hampering women’s equal participation in society amplify women’s multidimensional barriers. The findings lend themselves to policy recommendations to address formerly incarcerated women’s holistic needs and to facilitate their integration as contributing members of society.

The article opens with a conceptual framework on barriers confronting formerly incarcerated women, provides a brief overview of the post-prison realities in Ukraine, and highlights the research design and methodology of this study. Next, the findings illuminate the individual, relational, institutional, and systemic barriers faced by formerly incarcerated women in Ukraine. Finally, remarks on policy recommendations, limitations of the study, and future lines of inquiry are discussed.

Conceptual framework: Interlocking barriers post-incarceration

As Heidemann et al. (2016) contend, ‘just as pathways into criminal justice involvement are gendered, so too are the pathways out of prison and back into the community’ (p. 25), which necessitates a gendered outlook into the barriers formerly incarcerated women face (Cantora, 2015; Carter, 2019; Dewey et al., 2018). Women’s reentry from prison is fraught with a myriad of individual, institutional, and systemic barriers. Sturm and Nixon (2015) in their qualitative study with formerly incarcerated women in New York City argue that individual, relational, institutional, and systemic/policy barriers are interlocked and operate on multiple levels, creating a compounding effect on women’s lives post-release. Individual barriers are those that involved ‘gaps in educational preparation; learning disabilities; lack of college knowledge; inadequate child care and housing; health and drug issues; lack of economic resources and employment; and fear, stress, disbelief, and disconnection’ (p. 33). Relational barriers included ‘competing family responsibilities; family turmoil; issues with children’s schools; lack of support network; “misinformation from misinformed”; stereotyping and discrimination’ (p. 33). Institutional barriers entailed ‘lack of child-friendly policies and practices; bureaucratic hurdles and mazes; inadequate advising and support; siloed institutions and conflicting schedules; and unwelcoming or unchallenging cultures’ (p. 33). Finally, systemic–policy barriers were the ‘collateral consequences of conviction which limit access to financial aid, employment, housing, and benefits; and inadequate funding and focus on education’ (p. 33).

Similar to Sturm and Nixon’s barriers conceptualization, Salem et al. (2021) in their study with formerly incarcerated women in California identified barriers at the individual, program, and institutional/societal levels. The individual-level barriers included diminished access to resources to help women become self-reliant; lack of personal finances for education upon reentry; disconnected family relationships; lack of parenting knowledge; trauma related to prior abuse; negative experiences with women; and lack of trust. The program-level barriers entailed lack of access to technology; time to find employment; lack of instructors and access to complete general education diploma (GED); and lack of programs for parents and children. Finally, the institutional-level barriers involved lack of access to healthcare, employment, and housing; challenges navigating societal systems; and stigmatization and discrimination.

In line with the relational barriers discussed in Sturm & Nixon’s study, Schnappauf and DiDonato (2017) documented how the lack of social belonging in the community post-release tends to affect women more than men and thus impedes their successful integration into society. A sense of belonging creates a sense of being valued and facilitates social support and trusting relationships, which strengthens individual capacity to cope with challenges. Conversely, social isolation and lack of acceptance by family, friends, and community members post-release create a sense of being ignored, unwanted, and demoralized. Similarly, Cobbina (2010) found that negative support networks, such as being around criminally involved family members and experiencing intimate partner violence; unsupportive parole officers; and competing demands to manage childcare, employment, housing, and other responsibilities were the contributing factors to hampering formerly incarcerated women’s efforts to successful integration in the United States.

Examining women’s reintegration readiness and challenges post-incarceration in Canada, Doherty et al. (2014) found that person-specific (e.g. personal desire for change) and context-specific factors (e.g. access to treatment, family and professional support, and continuity of care) contribute to one’s effective reentry. The lack of those support systems, such as nurturing family, treatment of long-term trauma and substance addiction, and holistic and inclusive social services, impede one’s successful reintegration in society.

As international research shows, formerly incarcerated women face multidimensional and interlocking barriers. Often, a vicious cycle devoid of resources and opportunities traps formerly incarcerated women in a society that expects them to recover from the multigenerational trauma of abuse, poverty, and discrimination and carry forward with their lives without a support system.

Post-prison realities in Ukraine

Ukrainian law mandates the following social services to support formerly incarcerated individuals with social adaptation: ‘temporary shelter; social, medical, legal, educational, and rehabilitation services; passport and residence registration; and additional guarantees for employment’ (Law on Social Adaptation, 2017). According to the Article 10 of this law, formerly incarcerated people have a right to the housing they had legally owned prior to incarceration. If they do not have housing of their own, they are provided with a designated space in a social dormitory until their housing situation improves. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for developing and implementing the policies for social adaptation, and local government bodies and non-governmental organizations are tasked with delivering social services aimed at assisting formerly incarcerated people with regaining their self-sufficiency.

However, as limited research on the incarcerated people’s experiences post-release in Ukraine demonstrates, both women and men are confronted with pressing challenges upon release, notably housing and employment. For example, Morozova et al. (2013) surveying 402 incarcerated people within 6 months of release found that employment and income; staying out of prison; restoring relationships with family and friends; finding a permanent place to live; and receiving the necessary government assistance with medical treatment for illnesses, addiction, and disability pension were the most cited challenges.

Similarly, Davydyuk (2015) surveying 982 homeless people in 2012 who lost their homes from incarceration found housing and employment as the most significant challenges confronting formerly incarcerated people. The Constitution of Ukraine (Article 47) states that every Ukrainian citizen has a right to housing, and the government is supposed to supply housing to socially vulnerable groups at no or reduced cost. However, the grim realities awaiting most incarcerated people in Ukraine result in homelessness for a number of reasons: the family members of incarcerated people either sell the property without their consent or remove them from housing registration illegally, or they become dispossessed of their housing via other illegal schemes. As formerly incarcerated people face housing loss upon release, they are further disadvantaged by the lack of information about their rights and responsibilities; requisite paperwork; employment discrimination or low wages entrapping them in poverty; and health challenges.

The health challenges experienced by formerly incarcerated people intersect with societal attitudes in Ukraine. As Polonsky et al. (2016) report, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) stigma runs high in Ukraine. While about 20–26% of the prison population may be diagnosed with HIV (prevalent among those who inject drugs), the stigma serves as a significant barrier for people reintegrating into their communities where they feel ostracized without a strong support network. These compounded challenges exacerbate formerly incarcerated people’s reentry experiences and subject them to recidivism (Davydyuk, 2015). While the extant research has documented formerly incarcerated women’s experiences and barriers post-release predominantly in North America, with a few studies focusing on formerly incarcerated people’s experiences in Ukraine, this study takes on a gendered approach to understand women’s lived experiences post-release and contributes to international scholarship and extends it by illuminating the interlocking barriers women face post-incarceration in Ukraine.

Research design and methodology

This article draws on a qualitative case study conducted in a minimum-security prison¹ located in the northern part of Ukraine during September and October 2019. This interpretivist case study (Stake, 1995) examined incarcerated women’s educational experiences in prison, aspirations about education post-incarceration, and barriers faced post-release. The main research questions that guided this study were: How do incarcerated women’s lived experiences shape their educational aspirations? What barriers exist, if any, for women to attain education in and out of prison? What barriers do women face post-incarceration as they reintegrate into society? The findings reported in this article are focused on the last question informed by 34 anonymous surveys conducted with incarcerated women and derived primarily from 33 semi-structured interviews: 21 interviews with incarcerated women, as well as individual and group interviews with eight prison officers who oversaw the women and four teachers who taught the women.

Purposive sampling was used to select the best-informed participants for this study: incarcerated women, and teachers and staff who observed and worked closely with the women. Incarcerated women in this correctional facility were classified as repeat offenders, which means they had been imprisoned before and thus more than once had experienced various barriers post-release. Fewer than 90 women were incarcerated in the minimum-security prison during data collection. The participating women were between 29 and 55 years of age, with an average age of 42 years.

Upon approval by the Ministry of Justice and the Institutional Review Board at the researcher’s institution to conduct this study, the researcher worked with one of the assigned officials in prison to be introduced to the participants. Aware of the incarcerated women’s vulnerable population status, the researcher took into account a number of ethical considerations, particularly informed consent, voluntary participation, right to withdraw, undue influence, confidentiality, and privacy. More specifically, the researcher ensured the participants were fully informed about the purpose and procedures of the study, volunteered to take part in the study, knew that they could withdraw from the study at any point with no repercussions and no undue influence came from the prison staff. At the start of each interview, the researcher read out informed consent and asked women for confirmation that they came to the interview voluntarily. Oral consent was used in lieu of written consent to protect vulnerable participants’ privacy in the context of post-authoritarian legacies where signing a document might put participants at risk (Silova et al., 2017). In addition, in order to safeguard participants’ privacy, the researcher deidentified data by removing identifiers and replacing first names (last names were not collected) with pseudonyms of participant choice and did not disclose participants’ personal or contextual identifiers in the findings.

The results from the open- and close-ended anonymous survey were not complete across all participants, save for the socio-demographic information, and as such the findings presented in this article draw from the semi-structured interviews only. All interviews were conducted either in Russian or Ukrainian, following each participant’s choice, in one of the staff offices on prison premises. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Unlike with staff and teacher interviews that were audio-recorded, the researcher was not allowed to audio-record interviews with women in prison and therefore had to take copious notes during each interview to capture their responses. The researcher translated all transcripts in English. In the data analysis process, thematic coding was employed, beginning with an inductive approach seeking emergent findings, followed by a deductive approach focused on the conceptual framework categories (Marshall and Rossman, 2016). To corroborate and triangulate data in the given context, three stakeholders were interviewed to get at the breadth of the perspectives about incarcerated women’s experiences in and out of prison: women, staff, and teachers.

Findings

Incarcerated women in Ukraine confront multiple interlocking barriers, hindering them from realizing their potential and becoming contributing members of society. The findings from the interviews with 21 women and 12 staff highlight that absence of housing; limited employment opportunities and discrimination; societal stigma; lack of support system, including family, friends, and government or community services; lack of economic and cultural capital to pursue further education; and health challenges loom large for women post-incarceration in Ukrainian society.

Housing

Each woman spoke anxiously about release from prison. The reentry day is filled with excitement to regain one’s freedom and to reunite with families and, concomitantly, with fear about the unknown and anxiety over housing. While prison staff do everything possible, according to the women and staff, to file and collect all the requisite paperwork for women ahead of time, preparing a portfolio of documents needed upon release, including their passport, medical, employment, and educational records one needs upon reentry, incarcerated women dread their housing issue. The majority of interviewed women had no housing of their own, and if they had a complicated family relationship, they may not be able to return to their previous homes. A number of officers recounted how the majority of women who come from rural areas may not have access to their houses for several reasons, including dilapidated housing resulting in hazardous living conditions; their family members have occupied or sold the house; or the state has taken their property in possession on legal and illegal grounds.

Facing housing barriers, some women seek temporary housing in shelters, which are few and far in between, or check in at religious rehabilitation centers, located in a handful of regions in Ukraine. While shelters may not be the safest and most stable housing option, religious rehabilitation centers present their own challenges for women: they require that women remain sober and follow the center’s religious regimen during the 6-month stay. As one officer noted, ‘Not everyone can handle it [such regimen]’. As these accounts demonstrate, lack of housing remains a pressing issue for formerly incarcerated women, which resonates with international research. Studies in the United States show that women face discrimination in housing application with a felony record or resort to the only option of shelters or halfway houses, which may not be the safest options in the United States (Carter, 2019).

Lack of housing instigates some women to commit crimes upon release to be able to return to prison where they have access to shelter, food, and wages. As Sofia reported, ‘When people are released from here, they have nowhere to go. The majority of women return to prison because of that. They deliberately commit a crime to come back here’. This was echoed in Natalia’s reflections who remarked the following: ‘Many women here who don’t have housing and have addiction problems return here again and again’.

Employment and discrimination

Lack of housing complicates the dearth of employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated women to afford housing and to put food on the table. The majority of women hold secondary education and vocational training certificates in sewing, but some may not possess a certificate of completion, which disenfranchises them in the labor market. The women who elect to work while in prison tend to apply their seamstress skills at the sewing factory located on the prison premises and seek similar employment opportunities post-release at a handful of state-run sewing factories in Ukraine. While some factories are known for hiring formerly incarcerated women because of their extensive experience in sewing, many women reported facing discrimination in job applications requiring criminal background check. Ten out of 21 women identified the ex-offender status as an immediate barrier in seeking employment and fair treatment in society.

The women shared that the only employment option available to them was a seamstress job at a state factory, while jobs with private companies running criminal background checks were out of reach for formerly incarcerated women. For example, Daria shared her own experience reflecting on job opportunities post-release: ‘The major barrier is your ex-offender status. Pretty much all ex-offenders work at the sewing factory in town because they don’t check your criminal background records’. This resonated with Larissa who was able to land a job at the sewing factory, known for hiring formerly incarcerated women, despite the anticipated discriminatory attitude: ‘When you are looking for a job, you keep hearing ‘we don’t need “zeki” [ex-cons] here’. I faced this when I was looking for a job’. Sofia, however, noted that the moment employers find out about one’s ex-offender status, they resort to firing them: ‘Some may offer you a job, but once they find out you are an ex-convict, then they fire you’. Feeling threatened and having no legal anti-discrimination protection, formerly incarcerated women reported feeling discouraged by societal attitudes and labor market hardships.

Stigma

Not only do formerly incarcerated women experience discrimination in employment as a result of their ex-offender status, they face societal stigma and ostracism when they return to their home communities. For example, Zhanna shared how her ex-offender status has brought shame not only to her but also to her mother in her home community: ‘My mom is being shamed by other women in the community that her daughter is back in prison over and over again’. Stigmatized identity was also highlighted by prison officers as one of the significant barriers for women post-release: ‘Another barrier they face is stigma. The way they interact, you can recognize them. And that makes them feel discriminated against. Society doesn’t need them’.

This observation echoes other officers’ accounts in which they effortlessly painted a picture of what a formerly incarcerated person looks like, suggesting that society can easily infer from the way a person looks and carries themselves in public to identify and label them as an ‘ex-convict’. For example, one of the officers described formerly incarcerated women as follows:

These people can be easily spotted in the crowd. They look different. If they are drug addicts, they have terrible dental hygiene. Their skin is yellowish. Their arms and legs are swollen as a result of drug-abuse. Those who are here as a result of alcohol abuse, they have the same yellow skin color and bloated body because they tend to have liver cirrhosis.

The social stigma attached to formerly incarcerated women runs deep in Ukrainian society and is shaped by ideology that tended to posit normative or socio-cultural assets on individuals based on their looks, interaction, and demeanor. This is similar to Bourdieu’s (1986) notion of ‘cultural capital’ where the way one looks, carries themselves, and interacts with others represents socially embedded dichotomies of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, or deviant, people and entraps the deviant ones in their socially inferior status where the ‘ex-convict’ label (in Ukrainian a derogatory term ‘zek’) remains attached for life. As Iryna noted, ‘In our society, if you have crossed the line [you have been incarcerated], you have no chance to redeem and improve’. This was echoed by Nika, whose statement captures the formerly incarcerated women’s experiences integrating back into society: ‘No matter where you go in life, you will have this stigma following you for the rest of your life’. Officers’ accounts reflected this sentiment, stating that stigma of an ex-offender was a lifelong marker and a significant barrier in reintegrating and becoming a fully participating member of society: ‘Society looks down upon you [incarcerated women]. Neighbors stigmatize you. No one wants to hire you’. Another officer shared that because of the persistent social stigmatization and discrimination, women are discouraged from trying hard to keep on the straight and narrow and may be tempted to relapse into their past lifestyle:

They get pushed around and are being told they are second-class citizens. Would they have the motivation to move forward when they are ostracized and no one needs them? It’s easier for them to go back to their past lifestyle, having fewer problems to deal with. All of them face stigmatization from their neighbors to employers.

As Becker (1963) in his seminal work on ‘outsiders’ contended, social groups create rules and apply them to particular people, sanctioning individual actions that run counter to those rules, thereby relegating and labeling an individual who has broken those rules as ‘deviant’ or an ‘outsider’, one who ‘stands outside of the circle of the ‘normal’ members of the group’ (p. 15). Deviance is viewed as something ‘pathological, revealing the presence of a disease’ (p. 5). In the same vein, individuals labeled as ex-offenders are perceived to be deviant and pathological in Ukrainian society. The women were acutely aware of the degrading attitude toward formerly incarcerated people in Ukraine. Natalia who has a higher education and professional experience recounted, ‘We are being looked down upon as if we are outcasts. They think we are idiots and have no intellectual potential’.

Women, from the moment they are released from prison, seeking to return to their home communities, looking for housing and employment opportunities, face a lifelong punishment. The stigma of being formerly incarcerated, deeply entrenched in societal attitudes and treatment of its citizens, serves as invisible shackles holding women back from deserving a second chance. Sofia’s account captured this unenviable experience poignantly: ‘You have been punished here [in prison], and you have served your sentence here. And then when you are released, you are punished for life’. As Cantora (2015) argues, US employers and society alike view formerly incarcerated people as untrustworthy, posing a potential liability to their business or community at large. Furthermore, formerly incarcerated women tend to face greater stigma than their male counterparts due to higher rates of mental health challenges and substance abuse among women (Cantora, 2015), which further complicates the social stigmas that are already in existence.

Health

While the health barrier was noted only by one woman and two officers, the majority of women’s physical and mental health was undermined due to substance use, addiction, and prior trauma, which is also documented as one of the challenges for formerly incarcerated women in the United States (Cantora, 2015; Colbert et al., 2016). Those who were addicted to drugs received proper medical care in prison free-of-charge. However, healthcare in Ukraine has become increasingly unaffordable with expectant bribes for services, further complicating women’s wellbeing. One woman, for example, endured excruciating pain in her heel and had to have an implant done, which would have cost her at least US$2000 when her pension would be a meager US$100 a month. As the findings demonstrate, each barrier alone was a significant challenge to overcome; when those barriers co-exist as interlocking barriers, their compounding effect stacks odds against these women to rehabilitate, reintegrate, and feel dignified.

Support system

Bearing the brunt of stigma and discrimination, society expects women to navigate life after prison and reintegrate on their own. Despite the law on social adaptation that presumably guarantees a host of social services regardless of individual gender, the lack of social support systems from the state and civil society organizations in Ukraine to assist them in seeking housing and employment opportunities, reconnecting with their children, addressing mental health and addiction challenges, and pursuing further education poses an additional barrier to formerly incarcerated women’s successful reintegration into society. Three of the 21 women noted that lack of socio-emotional support from family, friends, and social services complicates their reintegration experiences. Olesia’s account demonstrates how lack of social support services triggers some women’s return to prison, which was also documented in ethnographic research with incarcerated men in Ukraine (Symkovych, 2020):

What’s really important is your social environment on the other side of the fence. The reason why people keep coming back here is because they have no support when they get released. Even if you want to achieve something, the society drowns you. They treat you as if you were a lost cause. No one I’ve known here wants to return here. But without the support, it’s incredibly hard. We need to have access to the support system.

Teachers and officers echoed the absence of a social support system that could enable women to stand on their two feet. For example, one of the teachers noted the following:

The government needs to provide social support to them when they are released. There are no rehabilitation opportunities for them. They are left to their own devices when they are released.

Prison officers emphasized the lack of social support services to guide and assist women post-institutionalization:

No one needs you. We had one woman who was preparing for release for a long time, and no social services are there to help you. There is no social support system whatsoever. Even if we invested in them to help them upon release, that bridge disappears when they are released.

In addition to the lack of social support services, formerly incarcerated women face challenges reintegrating in a technologically evolving society. Both women and officers attested to the impending fear of navigating technology upon release. While women had access to the computer classroom in prison, no training in information computer technology (ICT) skills was provided to them while in prison or upon release. As one of the officers stated, ‘They don’t know how to handle technology. Life changes in between incarceration and release’.

The lack of support services and positive role models compounded the social environment and peer pressure some women faced upon release. For example, Zina shared her own experience and observations: ‘You see them [women] returning back here because of their friends. My friends bring me trouble only. If you have money, then you have friends. If you get in trouble, your friends will fade away’. This sentiment was reinforced in officer interviews: ‘If they go back to the same social environment then they go back to where they used to be’ and ‘When they go back home, they are around the same peer pressure. She shoots up and goes back to drinking or drugs’. Drug addiction in Ukraine is considered a public health crisis in Europe (Carrol, 2019). It is estimated that 1% of the population uses drugs; and one in five people who use drugs in Ukraine is HIV positive (Carrol, 2019). As such, for a number of women who are released from prison, it is challenging to rehabilitate if they return to their communities. Similarly, Doherty et al. (2014) in their study in Canada documented how for women coping with drug addiction and associated trauma, social networks exacerbated their chances of successful integration as many succumbed to drug use in the communities to which they returned.

Post-secondary education

In addition to housing, employment discrimination, stigma, and lack of social support services, incarcerated women faced structural barriers in pursuing post-secondary education post-release. As documented in the researcher’s earlier publication (Korzh, 2021), women who aspired to vocational and higher education were confronted with the lack of cultural and economic capital to pursue further education upon release. Drawing on Bourdieu (1986), cultural capital signifies knowledge, skills, or educational qualifications necessary for socio-economic mobility, which can be further converted into economic capital, or money. Higher education remains out of reach for formerly incarcerated women who lack the necessary academic knowledge and skills to prepare for university entrance exams and undertake higher education rigor. In addition, higher education is a costly endeavor for a socio-economically disadvantaged population in Ukraine, unaffordable for formerly incarcerated women who struggle to secure employment to meet their basic needs, let alone invest in higher or vocational education. Lack of cultural capital – higher education credentials – positions formerly incarcerated women for seamstress and menial labor jobs only, hindering their career development and economic mobility. As one of the teachers noted about the labor market requirements and age discrimination in Ukraine, ‘Women need to show their education credential when they apply for jobs. Who needs you at the age of 40 with basic education?’

Discussion

The findings from this qualitative study in one minimum-security prison in Ukraine demonstrate that interlocking systemic barriers cemented in Ukrainian society complicate formerly incarcerated women’s integration in society and may set them up for failure and recidivism. These findings resonate with and extend research conducted with formerly incarcerated women in the United States, Canada, and Europe.

Drawing on the conceptual framework of interlocking barriers (Sturm and Nixon, 2015), formerly incarcerated women in Ukraine face hurdles as a result of multiple intersecting socio-cultural and economic barriers. They face individual barriers, similar to those found in North America, from disrupted or inadequate educational preparation, which disadvantages them if they seek to pursue post-secondary education post-release or seek employment opportunities requiring a secondary school certificate of completion or higher education diploma; as well as lack of cultural capital, or lack of college knowledge, when seeking to apply to higher education institutions. Women face lack of housing and employment opportunities, which are intertwined with systemic barriers discussed further; physical and mental health challenges, including drug issues in the absence of rehabilitative services upon release; and fear of the unknown as women reintegrate in society. Research in Europe and the United States shows that the risk of drug relapse increases for women in the first few weeks of release when they are confronted with multiple barriers and have no support system to beat the odds (Colbert et al., 2016; Zurhold et al., 2011). In addition, formerly incarcerated women’s emotions hinder reentry: fear and anxiety to reenter and navigate the society after multiple years of incarceration and to manage competing demands, including finding housing, employment, and reconnecting with family.

Women face relational barriers manifested in broken family relationships and reconnection with old friends; lack of social support network and absence of social support services; and social stigma and discrimination, the latter permeating all aspects of society in Ukraine. While a handful of women maintain their familial connections, it is common for incarcerated women to have experienced disintegrated bonds with their families, which further compounds their reentry experience psychologically, economically, and socially, as found in North America (Christian and Walker, 2020; Doherty et al., 2014; Schnappauf and DiDonato, 2017; Sturm and Nixon, 2015; Zurhold et al., 2011). As research on male prisoners shows, male partners tend to abandon their female partners more often while they are incarcerated (see Symkovych), and tend to have broken bonds with their children, who have been deprived of parental care. Social bond theory helps explain this relational barrier demonstrating that informal ties to individuals and institutions, which provide a source of support to individuals, hinder the impulse to commit crime (Cobbina, 2010). In addition, as Zurhold et al. (2011) found in Austria, Germany, Poland, Scotland, and Spain, meeting old friends connected to drug use triggered not only drug relapse in formerly incarcerated women but caused legal troubles too. The overall lack of social support services upon release sets women up for failure, especially when they seek employment, housing, and social benefits. As research in North America shows, formerly incarcerated women have intersectional and multidimensional needs compared to those experienced by men, manifested in pre-existing abuse, trauma, substance addiction, and economic deprivation, which requires holistic programmatic approaches to preempt potential relapses and reincarceration (Cobbina, 2010). Having access to various social services provided by community-based organization is fundamental to formerly incarcerated women’s successful reintegration (Cobbina, 2010; Sturm and Nixon, 2015). Unlike in North America where social support services are available through community and nonprofit organizations (Sturm and Nixon, 2015), Ukrainian women have no social support network or strong family kinship to turn to, making relational barriers more pronounced for them.

When examining barriers through the institutional lens, women in Ukraine encounter bureaucratic challenges when applying for jobs and pension benefits or seeking housing. The majority of formerly incarcerated women did not have the cultural capital (knowledge, skills, and credentials) to apply for jobs requiring a higher education diploma and faced persistent discrimination in employment due to their ex-offender status. Contrary to the research documented in the United States where community-based organizations provide services to formerly incarcerated women to find employment and clear their criminal records (Sturm and Nixon, 2015), women in Ukraine face these institutional barriers on their own.

These institutional barriers dovetail with the systemic–policy barriers, which involved lack of policy on accessible and affordable higher education in and out of prisons; unenforced social policies facilitating employment, housing, and other social benefits; and anti-discrimination policies in society at large. Research in the United States and Europe demonstrates that lack of affordable housing and stable employment are most significant barriers and major contributing factors to women’s reincarceration (Christian and Walker, 2020; Zurhold et al., 2011). Indeed, formerly incarcerated people tend to end up in unskilled labor that pays low wages, which traps them in poverty, and employment discrimination (Pogrebin et al., 2014). Although the law on social adaptation for formerly incarcerated individuals accounts for a number of social policies meant to assist this vulnerable population in their reintegration and self-sufficiency, this study, alongside existing research in Ukraine, shows that such policies fail to be implemented in Ukraine, further exacerbating systemic–policy barriers for women in Ukraine.

Contrary to extant research in North America and Europe, the omnipresent barrier confronting formally incarcerated women in Ukraine was stigmatization that subjects women’s identities to ‘nobodies’, and compounds individual, relational, institutional, and systemic barriers discussed above. Incarcerated women whose family relationships had disintegrated and experienced stigmatization and discrimination in society felt needed by nobody. This concept of ‘needed by nobody’ signifies what Höjdestrand (2009) studying the homeless population in Russia calls the worthlessness or rejection of someone. ‘Neededness’ is akin to what anthropologists call ‘social personhood’ or ‘being recognized as a co-actor, or agent-in-society’ (Höjdestrand, 2009: 6). The identity of being not needed by society was ideologically produced in the former Soviet republics that relegated the incarcerated and homeless to amoral humans and discarded them as social waste to be hidden away from the public eye (Höjdestrand, 2009). The Soviet state engineered a Soviet organism comprised of social structures within which each subject played their specific roles to maintain the gargantuan system where each and every one of those subjects had to belong in their own place. Those who deviated from the expected social norms were expelled as ‘human refuse’ into the carceral or other institutionalized system (p. 20). Being needed by nobody reflects a broken nature of family relationships in the post-Soviet space, where the dissolution of the social welfare state as a result of the draconian neoliberal policies has brought about poverty, destitution, and disintegration of family kinship that used to provide mutual dependence (Höjdestrand, 2009).

The stigmatization and discrimination of incarcerated women stem from the perception of drug and alcohol use and addiction in Ukrainian society as amoral and deviant behavior, which remains entrenched in the Soviet past where both alcohol and drug use were considered as ‘pathological disorders of the will’ and ‘anti-social behaviors that tore correct social relationships asunder and threatened the entire socialist utopian project’ (Carrol, 2019: 64, 86). This public perception of the incarcerated as aberrant and pathological beings continues to be shaped by the neoliberal ethos of individualism, free will, and self-governability that hold individuals accountable for their own destinies, irrespective of social structures shaping human lives in the political economy context. The neoliberal ethos of individual responsibility and self-reliance permeates the public consciousness to regard the formerly incarcerated and their destinies post-release as solely the responsibility of an individual, who only needs to ‘hold up willfulness and sober self-determination as the ideal manifestation of the social self’ to change the course of their past and to pave their own path to keep on the straight and narrow (Carrol, 2019: 27).

As Carrol (2019) argues, marginalization of individuals as ‘toxic Others’ dispossesses them not only of their belonging to a social life but of their rights as citizens. It deprives them of finding a job, safe homes, harmony with their families and communities, and opportunities for self-actualization. The sheer ignorance of the public about the incarcerated women’s lived experiences, their troubles and tribulations, aspirations, achievements, and desires engender stigmatization and discrimination of the Other. The collective force of marginalization entraps individuals in their disempowered positions in society and cements social inequalities in the cultural fabric of Ukrainian life. Research shows that a stigma disrupts social relations and affects one’s mental health, which may further impact one’s employment and housing situation and result in recidivism (Schnappauf and DiDonato, 2017). Furthermore, stigmatization of formerly incarcerated people serves as a predictor of reincarceration (LeBel et al., 2008), as one’s self-image tainted by stigma begins to mirror the societal construct of the unwanted or needed by nobody.

Conclusion

Prisons as total institutions in Ukraine function ‘to punish and incapacitate’ individuals in Ukraine (Symkovych, 2020: 14), creating barriers for formally incarcerated individuals to reintegrate into society successfully and become contributing members. This qualitative case study set in one minimum-security prison in Ukraine illuminates how the absence of housing, employment and discrimination, stigma, inadequate support system, lack of economic and cultural capital to pursue further education, and health challenges confronting incarcerated women post-release disadvantage the already vulnerable population in Ukraine. These interlocking individual, relational, institutional, and systemic barriers undermine women’s integration in society and subject them to failure and recidivism. The findings contribute to the body of scholarship on women’s experiences post-incarceration in Europe and Ukraine in particular, which has not been investigated from a gender perspective. The findings of this study contribute to the field of sociology by demonstrating the importance of gender differences in this vulnerable population’s experiences post-release and the gendered approach in program design and implementation to address the comprehensive needs of women preparing for release from prison.

One limitation of this study is that it represents the experiences of a quarter of the population of incarcerated women in one minimum-security prison and thus it does not intend to generalize the findings to the entire incarcerated women’s population in Ukraine. Another limitation is the challenge of conducting qualitative research in a society with a post-authoritarian and surveillance-ridden past (Silova et al., 2017). For example, the 34 anonymous surveys conducted with incarcerated women did not generate rich and credible data and thus were largely used for socio-demographic findings. The interviews with women were conducted on prison premises; it is possible that some women held back their candid reflections, particularly about the prison and government-sponsored services and government-related challenges, for fear of repercussion. The findings lend themselves to further evidence corroboration by similar qualitative studies conducted in other prisons in Ukraine, especially the medium-security ones and juvenile detentions.

While this study has shed light on the interlocking barriers facing formerly incarcerated women in Ukraine, further research on the facilitators, or effective strategies, mediating their successful integration in society would further illuminate women’s self-efficacy in beating the odds. A similar exploration into the formerly incarcerated men’s experiences post-release would elucidate the similarities and differences experienced across the gender spectrum and generate insights into addressing this vulnerable population’s needs from a gendered approach.

From a policy perspective, a holistic support system needs to be in place for women to navigate their reentry experiences met with interlocking barriers. While the probation system is new to Ukraine, it is not culturally adapted to serve the needs of formerly incarcerated people. The state penitentiary system must work in close collaboration with various institutions, including community-based organizations, welfare services, schools and higher education institutions, to ensure a multi-stakeholder involvement in the wrap-around, gender-focused services and programs aimed at building bridges for women post-release. The needed services include mental and physical health assistance with rehabilitating from substance abuse; navigating and restoring family relationships; housing assistance in affordable homes; job search and training; and peer tutoring and mentoring services for higher education application and pursuit. As Doherty et al. (2014) argue, continuity of care, which begins in prison and is further enhanced with holistic social services provided post-release, is paramount for reducing fear and anxiety and is fundamental to facilitating released women’s reintegration into society so that it is not ‘something [that] happened to them but rather with them’ (p. 574). A more long-term and systemic change that needs to happen in Ukraine is addressing societal attitudes toward formerly incarcerated women commonly perceived as pathological and amoral ‘needed by nobodies’ to facilitate their successful integration into society as equal and dignified citizens.

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.

ORCID iD

Alla Korzh

Notes

Author biography

Alla Korzh is Associate Professor of International and Global Education and Chair of a Doctorate in Global Education at the School for International Training Graduate Institute. Her research focuses on education inequities experienced by socio-economically disadvantaged children, youth, and adults at the secondary and post-secondary education levels in Ukraine and the US. She holds a doctorate in international educational development from Teachers College Columbia University.

References

Becker

(1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: The Free Press.

Bourdieu

(1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp.241–258.

Cantora

(2015) Navigating the job search after incarceration: The experiences of work-release participants. Criminal Justice Studies 28(2): 141–160.

Carrol

(2019) Narkomania: Drugs, HIV, and Citizenship in Ukraine. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Carter

(2019) All they do is see the charge: Reentry barriers and correctional programming needs of women returning to society after incarceration. Corrections 4(4): 272–301.

Christian

Walker

(2020) Re-entering society from prison. Research Starters: Sociology, 1–13.

Cobbina

(2010) Reintegration success and failure: Factors impacting reintegration among incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49: 210–232.

Colbert

Goshin

Durand

, et al. (2016) Women in transition: Experiences of health and health care for recently incarcerated women living in community corrections facilities. Research in Nursing and Health 39: 426–437.

Davydyuk

(2015) Problematic aspects of the reintegration of homeless people who lost their homes as a result of imprisonment. Demography and Social Economics 2(24): 129–140.

10.

Dewey

Wesely

Epler

, et al. (2018) Ontologies of blame and cultural value of accountability: Formerly incarcerated women’s narratives. Psychology of Women Quarterly 42(1): 88–104.

11.

Doherty

Forrester

Brazil

, et al. (2014) Finding their way: Conditions for successful reintegration among women offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 53: 562–586.

12.

Goffman

(1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. London: Penguin Books.

13.

Heidemann

Cederbaum

Martinez

(2016) Beyond recidivism: How formerly incarcerated women define success. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work 31: 24–40.

14.

Höjdestrand

(2009) Needed by Nobody: Homelessness and Humanness in Post-Socialist Russia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

15.

Korzh

(2021) Education behind bars and beyond prison: Incarcerated women’s education aspirations and barriers in Ukraine. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2021.1941775.

16.

Law on Social Adaptation (2017) Law on social adaptation of the persons serving punishment in the form of restriction of freedom or incarceration for a definite period of time in Ukraine. Available at: https://ips.ligazakon.net/document/T113160?an=58

17.

LeBel

Burnett

Maruna

, et al. (2008) The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistence from crime. European Journal of Criminology 5: 131–159. doi:10.1177/1477370807087640

18.

Marshall

Rossman

(2016) Designing Qualitative Research, 6th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Morozova

Azbel

Grishaev

, et al. (2013) Ukrainian prisoners and community reentry challenges: Implications for transitional care. International Journal of Prisoner Health 9(1): 5–19.

20.

Pogrebin

Wesst-Smith

Walker

, et al. (2014) Employment isn’t enough: Financial obstacles experienced by ex-prisoners during the reentry process. Criminal Justice Review 39(4): 394–410.

21.

Polonsky

Rozanova

Azbel

, et al. (2016) Attitudes toward addiction, methadone treatment, and recovery among HIV-infected Ukrainian prisoners who inject drugs: Incarceration effects and exploration of mediators. AIDS and Behavior 20(12): 2950–2960.

22.

Salem

Kwon

Ekstrand

, et al. (2021) Transitioning into the community: Perceptions of barriers and facilitators experienced by formerly incarcerated, homeless women during reentry – A qualitative study. Community Mental Health Journal 57: 609–621.

23.

Schnappauf

DiDonato

(2017) From solitary to solidarity: Belonging, social support, and the problem of women’s recidivism. Modern Psychological Studies 23(1): 1–23.

24.

Silova

Sobe

Kovalchuk

(eds) (2017) Reimagining Utopias: Theory and Method for Educational Research in Post-Socialist Contexts. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

25.

Stake

(1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Sturm

Nixon

(2015) Home-Grown Social Capital: How Higher Education for Formerly Incarcerated Women Facilitates Family and Community Transformation. New York: Center for Institutional and Social Change.

27.

Symkovych

(2020) Untrustworthy subjects? Risks, blame and gradual prison release in Ukraine. European Journal of Criminology. Epub ahead of print 28 September. DOI: 10.1177/1477370820960613.

28.

World Prison Brief (2021) World Prison Brief data. Available at: https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/ukraine

29.

Zurhold

Moskalewicz

Sanclemente

, et al. (2011) What affects reintegration of female drug users affect prison release? Results of a European Follow-Up Study. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 50: 49–65.