Female Incarceration In Prisons
Do we as a society have the right to deny a mother the opportunity to care for her child, even if that mother is a convicted felon? As society continues to grow and change these are important questions to ask. According to statistics today, “Female incarceration is growing at a rate far outpacing the growth in male incarceration” (Schubert, Duininck, and Shlafer 2016). With the emergence of a more prominent female prisoner population there are different factors to consider. Including the fact that it is still expected, based on gender roles and dynamics for mothers to be the primary caregivers of their children (Schubert et al. 2016). Keeping this in mind, there is a need for female prisoners with children to have options to interact with
…show more content…
their children, for both the females and the children’s sake. In regards to children, it has been shown that in general children tend to experience different behavioral and psychological issues as a result of parental incarceration.
In particular, one study found that specifically children with incarcerated mothers compared to those without, are more likely to be convicted of a crime in adult hood (Schubert et al. 2016). In response to these factors there have been programs implemented in some prisons such as extended visiting programs in prison and programs that allow parenting while incarcerated. Programs that allow for mothering in prison aim to offer new alternatives for families who get split apart as a result of incarceration. This paper will utilize the article “Motherhood as Punishment: The Case of Parenting in Prison” as a way to analyze a fairly new program called Visions that promises to offer mothers in prison a way to be in their children’s life while their incarcerated, but instead becomes a social system that utilizes motherhood as a tool for …show more content…
manipulation.
To begin, as mentioned in the introduction these programs are not only for the health of the incarcerated mothers but also for the children. Incarcerated mothers are more vulnerable to aspects such as depression, anxiety, etc. as a result of being separated from their children. However, research has shown that mothers who not only receive frequent visits or contact with their children they had lower levels of depression and anxiety and also lower levels of stress (Schubert et al. 2016). The research surrounding this topic also points out that most but not all children who are able to have more contact with their mother’s younger have “decreased problem behavior” and are less likely to “drop out of school” (Schubert et al. 2016). However, the amount of time that children are able to have with their incarcerated mothers or the environment that they visit their mothers in affects how different children react.
For example, the article, “Visiting Mom: A pilot evaluation of a prison-based visiting program serving incarcerated mothers and their minor children”, illustrated a response to the needs above, by having an extended visiting program. They especially saw this need when looking at the fact that the visits taking place in the prison currently were very strict and not environments that fostered emotional connection. For instance, the article mentions how in normal visits in prison there is to be “noncontact” visiting, and mothers understandably find it hard to fully abide by this rule, especially with small children. As a result, mothers would rather not visit at all because having that barrier with their children can be painful for most mothers (Schubert et al. 2016). Also the environment in general, the absence of any forms of entertainment for children, makes for the children to have less patience and at some ages they cannot last during the entire visitation period because there is nothing for them to keep their attention (Schubert et al. 2016). This program attempted to help with the negatives associated with typical visitation by trying to create a situation in which visits were longer and there were activities to be done with the children in a structured manner.
The Extended program in the article allowed for visitation to last for four hours (Schubert et al. 2016). Also they split children by age group. Finally, it focused on it just being woman and child by not allowing for caregivers to directly participate in visits. Also this program served as a motivation because it was only given to certain woman who were eligible by demonstrating “exemplary behavior” (Schubert et al. 2016). When evaluating this program this study looked at the mother’s perspective and the caregiver. To begin, the mothers felt that the program offered a source of motivation as well as women found a community with other woman in the program because they had similar goals. Furthermore, in terms of the drawbacks the mothers did feel that the time was still not enough and that in some cases the activities failed to be appropriate for all ages present (Schubert et al. 2016). Also in the article they mention how caregivers love this idea of keeping the mother in the child’s life, however they did say that some of the children would get extremely anxious after visiting with their mothers. Also that some children would get anxious before and it was harder for them to get the children to the facility as a result (Schubert et al. 2016). All of these opinions kept in mind overall these visits were preferable compared to the typical visits.
Furthermore, it was preferable because most of the mother’s needs were met by getting to spend more private time with their children, not having as much surveillance over their interactions, and there was a focus on just the mother and child instead of having the caregiver involved. It is clear that the extended visiting program took a step in trying to reunify families and lessen or soften the emotional side effects that come with having a parent incarcerated. The next program, Visions a part of the Community Prisoner Mothers Program in the Bay area, attempts to take this a step further by allowing mothers to go to a residential facility where their children are with them (Haney 2013). Usually the children who are a part of these programs are under six years old however there are cases in which older children are allowed to stay on as well. Essentially the children also have a form of confinement in this program because, “they cannot come and go as they please or visit with friends and relatives outside scheduled visiting hours” (Haney 2013: 111). Also, programs similar to this one is offered in only certain states as of late, New York, California, Illinois, and North Carolina (Haney 2013). Additionally, the goal of this program is, “disrupt the punishment-through-separation model by uniting mothers and children” (Haney 2013: 112). However, this paper will focus on how the program failed to achieve this goal and instead utilized the idea and expectations of motherhood as a form of control.
To begin, it should be kept in mind that a program like this is only offered to mothers currently, based on ideas such as, “female offenders have different and unique needs than male offenders” (White 2012: 287). Also female offenders tend to be offered other programs such as the extended visiting program mentioned earlier in the paper as well as onsite nurseries, and overnight weekend visits with children under six years old (White 2012). All of these ideas are under the premise that woman with children should be working on their relationships with their children whether they want to or not. In the program Visions, it would seem that if these women are not the “proper mothers” than it is also a reflection of who they are as people. Visions, teaches its woman that, “mothers should put aside their needs for the benefit of their children” (Haney 2013:118). Also, that if you are “tired, angry, or ambivalent” and do not keep your emotions in check then you do not care for your children and are being “selfish”. In both of these ideas they are forcing this idea of the woman being the caretaker (Haney 2013). Additionally, there was hardly any focus or questioning about the role a father should play. In fact, the article illustrated that few fathers actually came to visiting hours and strategies on how to get the men to come were never discussed (Haney 2013). This idea furthers the point that the motherhood is being pushed only on women and not men. As a result, woman in this program are being taught that as a woman in this society if they cannot bond with their children then they are not only failing as mothers but also as woman as a whole. Additionally, this program was teaching woman that if these women had needs or wants outside of wanting to be a mother than they were “selfish people” and they were participating in “destructive behavior” (Haney 2013). With these ideas in mind it is clear to see how utilizing mothering as a means for controlling behavior would be easy in this type of environment.
Another way this program used motherhood as a form of control was simply by seemingly creating a program where mothers are promised more opportunities to be in their children’s’ lives but not actually giving the woman control over their children.
As the author states in the article, “inmates could not be trusted to wield authority” (Haney 2013: 114). Children in this facility grow up recognizing that their mothers are not in control and that they answer to a higher power, the staff. The article gave several examples where a child would misbehave or lie in order to get their mother in trouble and get what they want. Also, the program has strict rules about what constituted as proper punishment for a negative behavior, “spanking was strictly forbidden” (Haney 2013). This was not the only aspect of parenting they controlled but they also constantly monitored a mother’s actions and sayings, attempting to regulate or filter what they felt was unacceptable. Therefore, even though mothers were promised to reside in a facility where they could continue to mother their children, it was quite the contrary, they barley had control over their own lives much less their children. When comparing this aspect of the program to the extended visiting program mentioned earlier, it would seem that a mother would get more freedom in the extended visiting program. The extended visiting program allows for guards to not be brooding over all the woman’s actions and sayings. In contrast, Visions, is
attempting to give these woman “freedom”, but makes the situation worse because although these women have their children with them they are being blocked from truly connecting with them. Furthermore, Visions program is arguably more painful because women are so close to their children. Whereas the extended visiting programs are temporary and there are no promises that they are going to get more than just an extended visit.
Additionally, not only are these woman being constantly monitored but they are not receiving much in terms of understanding and compassion. The program has a tendency to perceive, “How a woman mothered became a window into her true psyche” (Haney 2013: 122). This quote illustrates that the facility is quick to not take into account the effects of different circumstances that the parents have been through. Additionally, the facility does not take into account that the conditions in which the woman are expected to parent in at Vision are not ideal. As mentioned earlier, women barley have any control over their children, as well as a choice in whether or not they think mothering is for them. Furthermore, the article stated that, “Parenting was something the inmates were given less say over when they misbehaved or resisted” (Haney 2013: 122). This quote is a powerful example of how mothering is a form of control in this facility. If a woman steps out of line, her parenting is question as well as threatened. In other words, they used relationships with children as a tool for control. Additionally, Visions would threaten “access to their children” if they step out of line. For example, maybe a woman was not allowed to pick up the child from school that day or from going on a group field trip with the children (Haney 2013). Also, threats of losing their children held a lot of weight when mothers considered that a lot of the time the alternative to their children leaving the facility meant that they were going to be entered into foster care. In addition, a lot of the times when children were taken away as a result of punishment the woman were not able to say goodbye to them (Haney 2013).
In closing, if this program deemed that you were not acting like a “proper” mother or you made some type of mistake they were going to quickly threaten to separate you from your child. However, the way that the program was portrayed in the article it did not seem that there was much room for consideration or understanding coming from the facility itself. A lot of these mothers come from lower socio-economic status. In fact, it has been illustrated that, “women sentenced to prison today are overwhelmingly poor, marginalizes, and disadvantaged” (White 2012: 284). With this in mind, the facility should recognize that because of their social status they have probably been constantly judged and told that they are not good enough a lot in their lives. Therefore, logically it would seem counterproductive to punish immediately when a woman does something wrong, rather than having the woman reflect why she is engaging in such actions and what that means about how she looks at herself.
In conclusion, after reviewing programs that attempt to give mothers and families in general alternatives while incarcerated, it would seem that a program like Visions is a great concept but its execution seems to be causing more distress than good. However, there is an acknowledgement that this program is meant to be a statement in which as a society there is an agreement that we should not deny a mother the opportunity to care for her child. Although, this statement is important, the fact that the program is not being executed properly means that instead it becomes another outlet for a system to exert control and power over women. This can be seen through the fact that this program is only offered to woman and does not exist for incarcerated fathers. Meaning that it encourages the typical gender ideal that, all woman wants to be mothers and only live for their children, when in reality that is not always the case. Furthermore, utilizing children as a means of control for inmate’s behavior, although effective, is unethical and only serves to put children and their mothers down in the end. Finally, I would argue that overall, the extended visiting program is the only program examined in this paper that is being executed properly. It seems to be the middle ground, it gives mothers motivation, and allows for their children to still have extended periods where they can receive emotional interaction. Just focusing on Vision, it would seem that we as a society have not quite figured out the proper balance or policies surrounding how to foster an environment where parenting in prison would work. In fact, there should be further research, in how this type of program affect children in the long-run. Seeing the type of benefits or drawbacks, might help to create a more effective program.
their children, for both the females and the children’s sake. In regards to children, it has been shown that in general children tend to experience different behavioral and psychological issues as a result of parental incarceration.
In particular, one study found that specifically children with incarcerated mothers compared to those without, are more likely to be convicted of a crime in adult hood (Schubert et al. 2016). In response to these factors there have been programs implemented in some prisons such as extended visiting programs in prison and programs that allow parenting while incarcerated. Programs that allow for mothering in prison aim to offer new alternatives for families who get split apart as a result of incarceration. This paper will utilize the article “Motherhood as Punishment: The Case of Parenting in Prison” as a way to analyze a fairly new program called Visions that promises to offer mothers in prison a way to be in their children’s life while their incarcerated, but instead becomes a social system that utilizes motherhood as a tool for …show more content…
manipulation.
To begin, as mentioned in the introduction these programs are not only for the health of the incarcerated mothers but also for the children. Incarcerated mothers are more vulnerable to aspects such as depression, anxiety, etc. as a result of being separated from their children. However, research has shown that mothers who not only receive frequent visits or contact with their children they had lower levels of depression and anxiety and also lower levels of stress (Schubert et al. 2016). The research surrounding this topic also points out that most but not all children who are able to have more contact with their mother’s younger have “decreased problem behavior” and are less likely to “drop out of school” (Schubert et al. 2016). However, the amount of time that children are able to have with their incarcerated mothers or the environment that they visit their mothers in affects how different children react.
For example, the article, “Visiting Mom: A pilot evaluation of a prison-based visiting program serving incarcerated mothers and their minor children”, illustrated a response to the needs above, by having an extended visiting program. They especially saw this need when looking at the fact that the visits taking place in the prison currently were very strict and not environments that fostered emotional connection. For instance, the article mentions how in normal visits in prison there is to be “noncontact” visiting, and mothers understandably find it hard to fully abide by this rule, especially with small children. As a result, mothers would rather not visit at all because having that barrier with their children can be painful for most mothers (Schubert et al. 2016). Also the environment in general, the absence of any forms of entertainment for children, makes for the children to have less patience and at some ages they cannot last during the entire visitation period because there is nothing for them to keep their attention (Schubert et al. 2016). This program attempted to help with the negatives associated with typical visitation by trying to create a situation in which visits were longer and there were activities to be done with the children in a structured manner.
The Extended program in the article allowed for visitation to last for four hours (Schubert et al. 2016). Also they split children by age group. Finally, it focused on it just being woman and child by not allowing for caregivers to directly participate in visits. Also this program served as a motivation because it was only given to certain woman who were eligible by demonstrating “exemplary behavior” (Schubert et al. 2016). When evaluating this program this study looked at the mother’s perspective and the caregiver. To begin, the mothers felt that the program offered a source of motivation as well as women found a community with other woman in the program because they had similar goals. Furthermore, in terms of the drawbacks the mothers did feel that the time was still not enough and that in some cases the activities failed to be appropriate for all ages present (Schubert et al. 2016). Also in the article they mention how caregivers love this idea of keeping the mother in the child’s life, however they did say that some of the children would get extremely anxious after visiting with their mothers. Also that some children would get anxious before and it was harder for them to get the children to the facility as a result (Schubert et al. 2016). All of these opinions kept in mind overall these visits were preferable compared to the typical visits.
Furthermore, it was preferable because most of the mother’s needs were met by getting to spend more private time with their children, not having as much surveillance over their interactions, and there was a focus on just the mother and child instead of having the caregiver involved. It is clear that the extended visiting program took a step in trying to reunify families and lessen or soften the emotional side effects that come with having a parent incarcerated. The next program, Visions a part of the Community Prisoner Mothers Program in the Bay area, attempts to take this a step further by allowing mothers to go to a residential facility where their children are with them (Haney 2013). Usually the children who are a part of these programs are under six years old however there are cases in which older children are allowed to stay on as well. Essentially the children also have a form of confinement in this program because, “they cannot come and go as they please or visit with friends and relatives outside scheduled visiting hours” (Haney 2013: 111). Also, programs similar to this one is offered in only certain states as of late, New York, California, Illinois, and North Carolina (Haney 2013). Additionally, the goal of this program is, “disrupt the punishment-through-separation model by uniting mothers and children” (Haney 2013: 112). However, this paper will focus on how the program failed to achieve this goal and instead utilized the idea and expectations of motherhood as a form of control.
To begin, it should be kept in mind that a program like this is only offered to mothers currently, based on ideas such as, “female offenders have different and unique needs than male offenders” (White 2012: 287). Also female offenders tend to be offered other programs such as the extended visiting program mentioned earlier in the paper as well as onsite nurseries, and overnight weekend visits with children under six years old (White 2012). All of these ideas are under the premise that woman with children should be working on their relationships with their children whether they want to or not. In the program Visions, it would seem that if these women are not the “proper mothers” than it is also a reflection of who they are as people. Visions, teaches its woman that, “mothers should put aside their needs for the benefit of their children” (Haney 2013:118). Also, that if you are “tired, angry, or ambivalent” and do not keep your emotions in check then you do not care for your children and are being “selfish”. In both of these ideas they are forcing this idea of the woman being the caretaker (Haney 2013). Additionally, there was hardly any focus or questioning about the role a father should play. In fact, the article illustrated that few fathers actually came to visiting hours and strategies on how to get the men to come were never discussed (Haney 2013). This idea furthers the point that the motherhood is being pushed only on women and not men. As a result, woman in this program are being taught that as a woman in this society if they cannot bond with their children then they are not only failing as mothers but also as woman as a whole. Additionally, this program was teaching woman that if these women had needs or wants outside of wanting to be a mother than they were “selfish people” and they were participating in “destructive behavior” (Haney 2013). With these ideas in mind it is clear to see how utilizing mothering as a means for controlling behavior would be easy in this type of environment.
Another way this program used motherhood as a form of control was simply by seemingly creating a program where mothers are promised more opportunities to be in their children’s’ lives but not actually giving the woman control over their children.
As the author states in the article, “inmates could not be trusted to wield authority” (Haney 2013: 114). Children in this facility grow up recognizing that their mothers are not in control and that they answer to a higher power, the staff. The article gave several examples where a child would misbehave or lie in order to get their mother in trouble and get what they want. Also, the program has strict rules about what constituted as proper punishment for a negative behavior, “spanking was strictly forbidden” (Haney 2013). This was not the only aspect of parenting they controlled but they also constantly monitored a mother’s actions and sayings, attempting to regulate or filter what they felt was unacceptable. Therefore, even though mothers were promised to reside in a facility where they could continue to mother their children, it was quite the contrary, they barley had control over their own lives much less their children. When comparing this aspect of the program to the extended visiting program mentioned earlier, it would seem that a mother would get more freedom in the extended visiting program. The extended visiting program allows for guards to not be brooding over all the woman’s actions and sayings. In contrast, Visions, is
attempting to give these woman “freedom”, but makes the situation worse because although these women have their children with them they are being blocked from truly connecting with them. Furthermore, Visions program is arguably more painful because women are so close to their children. Whereas the extended visiting programs are temporary and there are no promises that they are going to get more than just an extended visit.
Additionally, not only are these woman being constantly monitored but they are not receiving much in terms of understanding and compassion. The program has a tendency to perceive, “How a woman mothered became a window into her true psyche” (Haney 2013: 122). This quote illustrates that the facility is quick to not take into account the effects of different circumstances that the parents have been through. Additionally, the facility does not take into account that the conditions in which the woman are expected to parent in at Vision are not ideal. As mentioned earlier, women barley have any control over their children, as well as a choice in whether or not they think mothering is for them. Furthermore, the article stated that, “Parenting was something the inmates were given less say over when they misbehaved or resisted” (Haney 2013: 122). This quote is a powerful example of how mothering is a form of control in this facility. If a woman steps out of line, her parenting is question as well as threatened. In other words, they used relationships with children as a tool for control. Additionally, Visions would threaten “access to their children” if they step out of line. For example, maybe a woman was not allowed to pick up the child from school that day or from going on a group field trip with the children (Haney 2013). Also, threats of losing their children held a lot of weight when mothers considered that a lot of the time the alternative to their children leaving the facility meant that they were going to be entered into foster care. In addition, a lot of the times when children were taken away as a result of punishment the woman were not able to say goodbye to them (Haney 2013).
In closing, if this program deemed that you were not acting like a “proper” mother or you made some type of mistake they were going to quickly threaten to separate you from your child. However, the way that the program was portrayed in the article it did not seem that there was much room for consideration or understanding coming from the facility itself. A lot of these mothers come from lower socio-economic status. In fact, it has been illustrated that, “women sentenced to prison today are overwhelmingly poor, marginalizes, and disadvantaged” (White 2012: 284). With this in mind, the facility should recognize that because of their social status they have probably been constantly judged and told that they are not good enough a lot in their lives. Therefore, logically it would seem counterproductive to punish immediately when a woman does something wrong, rather than having the woman reflect why she is engaging in such actions and what that means about how she looks at herself.
In conclusion, after reviewing programs that attempt to give mothers and families in general alternatives while incarcerated, it would seem that a program like Visions is a great concept but its execution seems to be causing more distress than good. However, there is an acknowledgement that this program is meant to be a statement in which as a society there is an agreement that we should not deny a mother the opportunity to care for her child. Although, this statement is important, the fact that the program is not being executed properly means that instead it becomes another outlet for a system to exert control and power over women. This can be seen through the fact that this program is only offered to woman and does not exist for incarcerated fathers. Meaning that it encourages the typical gender ideal that, all woman wants to be mothers and only live for their children, when in reality that is not always the case. Furthermore, utilizing children as a means of control for inmate’s behavior, although effective, is unethical and only serves to put children and their mothers down in the end. Finally, I would argue that overall, the extended visiting program is the only program examined in this paper that is being executed properly. It seems to be the middle ground, it gives mothers motivation, and allows for their children to still have extended periods where they can receive emotional interaction. Just focusing on Vision, it would seem that we as a society have not quite figured out the proper balance or policies surrounding how to foster an environment where parenting in prison would work. In fact, there should be further research, in how this type of program affect children in the long-run. Seeing the type of benefits or drawbacks, might help to create a more effective program.