The Female Inmate

by

Jack W. Brown, Ph.D.

June, 2003

ABSTRACT

     This research details the modern correctional experience of women in the United States. A brief historical overview is provided to develop the foundation of the work. The adjustment of the female inmate to the penitentiary is discussed. Similarities and differences that exist between female and male penal institutions are explored. The effect of incarceration on women prisoners who are parents is detailed, including a look at how children are affected by their mother’s incarceration. Special attention is paid to the effects of incarceration on the African-American inmate and her family due to the fact that African-Americans are disproportionately represented in the prison population and, as well, are disproportionately represented in prison research (although this reality is rapidly changing). The scope of correctional education within women’s prisons, often overlooked within the philosophical development of many research efforts on the modern (male) penitentiary, will be presented. This work concludes with a look at the efforts of social reintegration undertaken by the recently released female inmate.

INTRODUCTION     

Correctional experts throughout the years have seriously neglected female offenders and the prisons they reside in. One reason that these “forgotten offenders” have been neglected for so long is that female inmates comprise only approximately five percent of the American prison population. The development of U.S. penitentiaries has been directed by male legislators, for male corrections agents whose main state and federal directive is to contain and control the country’s male prison population. As a result, particular accommodations in the penitentiary designed specifically for the female inmate, such as bathing facilities, different recreational, educational and vocational opportunities have been slow to develop. However, progress is being made as the female prison population explodes at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Champion, 1990).

     Recent trends in criminal activity reveal increasing numbers of arrests and convictions of female offenders. In the past decade alone the rate of incarceration for women has increased threefold (Bloom & Chesney-Lind, 2000). These numbers, however, are still relatively small in comparison to figures for male offenders. This marked increase in female criminal activity does not necessarily imply a crime wave on the part of women in the United States. In reality, it may simply mean that law enforcement officers have discontinued the traditional activity of not only focusing on male offenders but also ignoring the female offender as an area of focus for their community control efforts. As well, the growing proportion of females in the U.S. population may also account for the rise in the rate of female criminal activity. Whatever the explanation may be, an increase in the number of female arrests and, more importantly, convictions (which leads to a corresponding increase in the female prison population) has led to an increase in the interest paid by correctional scholars to the female inmate and her experience in the modern correctional process (Champion, 1990).

     Female offenders, historically, have represented the lowest caste in a subculture (prison society) that is traditionally neglected by both scholars and society. Typically, prison and community aftercare programs are designed primarily for the male offender, with the female offender a distant afterthought. A brief historical overview of the plight of the female inmate in the United States sheds light on the intense struggle that has occurred behind the walls of female institutions, hidden from the view of an increasingly cynical American population (Miller & Montilla, 1977).

HISTORY

     The first U.S. prison to house only female inmates was established in 1835 in New York, five years after the rise of the Magdalen Society, a female prison reform organization. This facility was known as the Mount Pleasant Female Prison (Rafter, 1983). Rafter designates this facility as an important one for three specific reasons. First, Mount Pleasant was the first and only female penitentiary that was in existence prior to the ‘great era’ of prison construction that began in the late 1800s. Second, Mount Pleasant was initially administered by women. This resulted in significant operational improvements that increased the quality of life of the female residents. Third, Mount Pleasant was an exclusively custodial facility due to the fact that the state of New York ran out of other places to house female convicts.

     Rafter (1983) notes that Mount Pleasant was a typical model employed for female prisons during the years 1790-1870. She goes on to divide women’s penitentiary evolution into three eras, focusing on particular developments and innovations of the periods, as well as the different treatment emphases that were prevalent at the time. Although not universally recognized, these stages are unofficially a solid starting point for understanding the development of the female penitentiary and the struggle of its residents. The first era, or model as it is most commonly known, was the custodial model. This model, which Rafter designates as being in effect from 1790-1870, had as its main features confinement, containment, uniformity and discipline. The reformatory model, in effect from 1870-1935, featured reformation, moral and social improvement, skill acquisition and reintegration preparation. The campus model, in effect since 1935, has many goals, including skill acquisition, reform, development of parenting skills, educational and vocational training and rehabilitation efforts. 

     The “mother of corrections” in the United States was a woman named Elizabeth Gurney Fry. A Quaker Englishwoman, she was a fierce advocate for women’s correctional reform. Her seminal 1827 work, Observations in Visiting, Superintendence and Government of Female Prisons was widely accepted by prison reformers of the era. She encouraged separate facilities for female prisoners, education (religious and secular), rehabilitative and reintegrative programs that focused on learning practical skills and improving inmate classification systems. In 1845, the year of her death, the Women’s Prison Association was established. In 1873, three years prior to the opening of the famed Elmira Reformatory (headed by corrections pioneer Zebulon Brockway), the Indiana Women’s Prison was opened. So, in fact, the beginning of prison reformation actually had its birth in the area of female penology, not male penology as is typically held to be the case (Champion, 1990).

     The delay in the advocacy and necessity for totally separate female correctional facilities was due to a multitude of factors. First, in reality, there were actually a small number of female inmates requiring housing. This was due to controls placed upon women that emanated from their family unit, their church and their community. Second, the typical female offender had been convicted of “crimes of morality,” such as prostitution, drunkenness and even vagrancy. As a result of being sentenced for minor crimes, they served relatively short sentences. Third, the combination of these factors resulted in the reality of the female criminal being hidden from the view of the public. Therefore, legislators and corrections professionals of the day were not apt to undertake a flurry of penitentiary development dedicated solely to the female offender (Hawkins & Alpert, 1989).  

MODERN TIMES

   This dilemma of female inmate scarcity is still present in today’s modern correctional atmosphere. Most U.S. states that have separate institutions for female prisoners maintain but one facility for maintaining control and custody of the state’s female inmate population. The location of the prison is often rural and not centralized within the borders of the state. This results in furthering the feelings of isolation from family and friends that many female inmates indicate are predominant in their struggle to survive the emotional roller coaster they experience while behind bars. The federal system is extremely lacking in this measure, due to the fact that there are very few federal institutions in the United States that house female prisoners (Hawkins & Alpert, 1989).

     In contrast to prisons of yesteryear, contemporary prisons do not deny that their primary task is punishment, not reformation. Although this is the case in both men’s and women’s prisons in the U.S., punishment is delivered differently within the two arenas. The women’s penitentiary system has seen the tradition of neglect combine with the reformatory era’s gender stereotyping. Inferior care seems to still be the norm, justified by traditional rationales of numbers and the nature of the female clientele. The recent rise of the ‘justice model’ has not helped ease the problems associated with the female prison experience (Rafter, 1990).

     However, this ‘partial-justice’ has resulted in a counterforce within women’s penitentiaries of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century. This “parity movement” aims to overcome perceived gender discrimination while simultaneously promoting the need for acceptance of gender differences among prison inmates. This movement recog- nizes the unique needs of the female inmate, such as medical care, employment and parenting skills and the development of self-esteem. It is important to realize that reformers (both community and professional) strive for equivalency of services and care, not merely service and care that is identical to that received by male prisoners. Admittedly, the parity movement is attempting to develop a feminist alternative to the traditional masculine mindset of the custodial institution. Although parity movement members argue for improved treatment and educational programs, they do not identify with the supposed rehabilitational value of incarceration. The overall goal of the parity movement is to develop women’s ability to control their criminal behavior and their quality of life, not to promote more formal (male oriented, specifically) social control of women (Rafter, 1990).

     A marked increase has been seen in recent years in arrests of female offenders for larceny, fraud and forgery. The subsequent prosecution and conviction of these female offenders is viewed as mainly a result of the criminal justice community finally recognizing the explosion of female offenders, and finally mobilizing themselves to attempt to control it before the activity moves to more serious (violent) crimes (Watterson, 1996).

     The typical female criminal traces her issues of social maladjustment to physical or emotional abuse suffered as a young girl. Abuse suffered as a juvenile is what historically leads females to their first interaction with law enforcement. Turning to alcohol and drug abuse as a way to “bury” their persistent problems, female self-esteem rapidly fades, leading to chronic criminal habits and even suicide attempts. These serious issues in their lives continue to plague them as they attempt to come to grips with bearing the label of “criminal.” As representatives of all female lawbreakers, the modern female criminal is seen as the sample population for all ‘criminal women.’ Many female offenders report that they are treated by judges, lawyers and other criminal justice professionals with contempt, often being viewed as “anti-mothers” for getting into trouble with the law and deviating from society’s norm of family matriarch and primary care-giver. They are often subject to harsher treatment by the “system” and suffer unwarranted abuses based solely on angry moral judgments. Bail is often higher, sentences are longer, and parole is denied more often. Stereotypes affect women as well as men (Watterson, 1996).

     Women on the inside, similar to those in free society, who want to break the cycle of addiction (to drugs, abuse and criminal behavior) often have difficulty finding help. Very few institutional programs are geared toward the female addict. In those institutions where programs designed to develop understanding, communication skills and trust do exist, the programs are often full and waiting lists are simply too long (Watterson, 1996).

     Another issue of the female inmate that suffers from neglect is that of racial discrimination. Specifically, the trials and tribulations endured by the African-American female inmate have been paid particular attention in recent years. In the United States today, a black female is seven times more likely to be incarcerated than a white female- for similar criminal activity. While African-American females account for only thirteen percent of the American female population, they account for forty-four percent of America’s female inmate population. African-American women are more often denied bail and returned to prison for parole violation than are white females (Watterson, 1996).

      The African-American female offender has not been accorded the same level of attention and research as has the white female offender. Several reasons may account for this disparity. First, opportunities for African-Americans to conduct research in the field of criminal justice (and criminology) are sorely lacking. Second, corrections research is a field dominated by white male researchers. Third, this particular area of corrections is a politically sensitive one. It is possible that revelations in the plight of the African-American female inmate could cause a dramatic shift in resources traditionally earmarked for white male and female inmates. This could possibly result in the elimination of several key positions within the traditionally white male dominated profession of corrections (Collins, 1997).

     Research conducted on the experience of African-American inmates indicates that the pattern of marital relationship has a very strong determinate effect on the adjustment to the crisis of incarceration. Within prior research, five prominent patterns of relationship were revealed:

     1) Dependent Wife-Dominant Husband- The husband's criminality is tolerated because the wife is extremely dependent on the relationship. 

     2) Mothering Wife-Dependent Husband- The men are dependent on their wives; it is the women who are at the helm. 

     3) Dominant Wife-Passive Husband- The wife's dominance creates a sort of stimulating irritation, pressuring the husband by complaints and demands. 

     4) Immature Wife-Immature Husband- Usually before the crisis, the parents dominated the couples' lives.                       

        After the husband's imprisonment, the wife continues to get substantial emotional and financial support from their parents. In this pattern of relationship, the husbands and wives generally exhibit a great deal of tolerance toward each other's behavior. 

     5) Mature Wife-Dominant Husband- Both wife and husband are very tolerant of each other, and the husband's dominance is felt to be neither excessive nor inappropriate.   Their marital relationship is stable, and the wife is proficient in her role (Swan, 1981, p. 38-40).

Furthermore, research indicates that there are nine separate typical family typologies that exist specifically concerning black inmates. These typologies are:

     1) Families where good relationships before imprisonment remain unimpaired, or where a certain amount of conflict is tolerated. 

     2) Families where relationships are good before imprisonment, but deteriorate as problems become intensified during imprisonment. 

     3) Families where relationships are strained before imprisonment, the experience of imprisonment brings them together. 

     4) Families where relationships are strained before imprisonment, prison may bring financial or material difficulties, but also may bring psychological relief. 

     5) Families where relationships are strained before imprisonment and the separation is a severe crisis materially and emotionally but the family will remain together because there seems to be no other alternative. 

     6) Families where relationships before imprisonment were very strained. 

     7) Families where there were good relationships before imprisonment but little likelihood of resuming. 

     8) Families separated before imprisonment and where there was definitely no contact during imprisonment. 

     9) Families where husband/wife are in complete disagreement about the situation (Swan, 1981, p. 41-42). 

 Although the previous two lists of research results concerning black prisoners are very comprehensive, many correctional activists still hold firm to the view that there is much work left to be done in the area of African-American incarceration in the United States.

     Freda Adler, a sociologist, argues that African-American women in the United States have been liberated (as concerns their position of prominence in the family unit) longer than white American women. The result has been detrimental, argues Adler, and has resulted in the overrepresentation of African-American women in the prison population. However, Adler’s views have the effect of totally misinterpreting the social position of the modern African-American woman. She puts forth the idea that they are somehow discriminated against because they are women, and black women at that. Many white and black female sociologists agree that this only continues this misnomer by simultaneously applying a ‘double whammy’ to the plight of the African-American female inmate (Collins, 1997).

     One factor to consider in the plight of the African-American female as concerns her interaction with the criminal justice system is that the white male-female ratio and black male-female ratio are quite different. Due to the reality that black men die at an earlier age than do black women, black women traditionally outnumber black men as heads of households. Therefore, African-American female criminality has far-reaching implications within the African-American community in the United States (Lewis & Bresler, 1981).

     It was not until the 1930s and 1940s that researchers began to notice a substantial rise in the African-American female population behind prison walls. Although this prompted a number of comparative studies, these studies utilized methods designed by males for male-centered research. As the theories of female criminality arose and began to be applied to African-American women, they were, in reality, invalid. The 1990s saw a revisiting of theories of genetic differences among the sexes, and the black and white races particularly, with the hope of explaining complicated differences in patterns of criminal behavior. Many poorly designed research efforts have been undertaken to address the issue of African-American female criminality. Investigations have focused primarily on arrest records, demographics, social and environmental influences and the effects of poverty, sexism and racism. The variety of these important variables adds further credence to the realization that a valid theory of African-American female criminality still needs to be developed in order to satisfactorily explain the extreme overrepresentation of the African-American female in the population of the modern female prison (Collins, 1997).   

     Besides obvious physical differences, there are psychosocial differences between men and women. Simply stated, men and women perceive the world differently. They experience different cultural situations and react differently to situations that might be similar. Therefore, it is not surprising that men and women “do time” differently from one another. Men traditionally focus on “doing their own time.” This means relying on inner fortitude and physical and mental abilities to see them through their prison experience. Women, in contrast, remain connected to the lives of their family members, particularly their children and their own mothers. Seen in this light, it is not surprising that in order to “make it” behind bars, many female inmates continue in a significant caretaking role while incarcerated by joining a “prison family” (Lord, 1995).

     In understanding the rationale behind the female inmate becoming part of a prison family one only need to look to simple economics. The sub-rosa economy of the female prison is not conducted under the auspices of a distinct system of prison rackets as in male penal institutions. In the female prison, “family” members provide goods and services to those members of the family who demonstrate need. This “kinship” network becomes the main conduit of illicit goods and services in the female prison. Although other bases of economic exchange in women’s prisons do exist, they are rarely found on  a broad scale. The main reason for the underutilization of traditional inmate rackets in female prisons is a lower commitment to “the inmate code.” Women prisoners are much more likely to “snitch-off” a fellow inmate than are male prisoners. The development of kinship networks to provide illicit goods and services make family sex roles seem more realistic (Hawkins & Alpert, 1989).

     Men’s prisons tend to entail three basic levels of security at the state level: minimum, medium and maximum. A fourth designation, known as “super-max” is reserved for specific federal institutions, none of which house female inmates. Female institutions, on the other hand, often have multiple levels of custody behind their walls because most states have only one or two female prisons. As a result, female prisoners often feel the burden of security restrictions that would not normally be applied to male inmates. Overall, however, security has traditionally not been rigidly enforced in female prisons. Today this practice is undergoing considerable change. The rapidly increasing female inmate population has prompted several states to build additional female facilities. With the new construction of female prisons, security and classification issues are being revisited with the result being a more disciplined and controlled prison experience for the female prisoner in the United States than has been witnessed in years past (Silverman & Vega, 1996).

     Similar to male correctional institutions, female institutions have a subculture that is distinct from the culture that is imposed upon them by administrative policy and prison personnel (Champion, 1990). The dispute over whether the prisoner subculture is imported or indigenous to the prison society reveals interesting findings as concerns female inmates. Premier prison sociologists Donald Clemmer (author of the 1940 classic work on male prison sociology entitled The Prison Community) and Gresham Sykes (author of the 1958 book entitled The Society of Captives) both identified a unitary prisoner social structure that arose from within the penitentiary. However, prison sociologist Ester Heffernan, in her study of a female penitentiary in Virginia, found that women inmates did not exhibit a “clear-cut” pattern of rejection or acceptance of the inmate social system, nor did they share a uniform perception of deprivation. One reason for this may be that unlike their male counterparts, who are typically incarcerated for homogenous convictions, female institutions are populated with inmates whose convictions are heterogeneous in nature. Heffernan was able to empirically reveal that in reality, inmates whose criminal convictions were homogeneous in nature had developed a typology of norms and values, interrelationships and roles that served prison needs, prior to being incarcerated. This gave further credence to the theory of subculture importation (Heffernan, 1972).

     Surviving the prison experience obviously requires adaptation on the part of the inmate. Women prisoners are often divided by their fellow inmates into one of three groups: the squares, the cool and the lifes. “Squares” are considered (interestingly) non-criminal. These female inmates are often first-time offenders who have been sentenced to prison upon being convicted of petty offenses. Oddly enough, homicide is actually sometimes deemed a petty offense by female inmates. Squares tend to “identify” with the prison administration and have lower rates of recidivism. “Cools” consist of repeat offenders who usually try to obtain fringe benefits through illicit means. They perceive their period of incarceration as a “break” from their routine criminal employment. “Lifes” are habitual offenders who do not care to make pretenses about breaking rules or caring about the consequences. They are not concerned with rehabilitation or release because they are not anticipating ever being released from behind prison walls. These three designations seem to give credence to the idea of indigenous sub-cultures developing behind the walls of the female penitentiary. (Heffernan, 1985). These sub-cultures allow for the development of social networks between inmates with similar problems and interests (Weisheit and Mahan, 1988).

     The relative brevity of female prisoner sentences compared to male prisoner senten-  ces, the smaller women’s penal facilities, greater inmate selfishness (less loyalty among inmates), and the female preference to operate alone makes it difficult to completely apply the argot of the importation or the indigenous model to women’s prisons in the United States. Female inmates are slow to form unions, with the result being that female gangs are not seen in the massive numbers that they are in male prisons. This ‘retards’ the development of female inmate culture. Furthermore, the relative low rate of female recidivism interferes with identifying a perpetual female inmate subculture. Therefore, one concludes that female prisoner sub-cultures are both indigenous and imported, although not to the degree, both in their development and continuity, that is found within the male prisoner sub-culture (Champion, 1990).

     The limited number of female prisons in the United States provides a direct correlation to the state of women’s educational programs within the correctional environment- it is limited and underdeveloped. Mann (1984, p. 216) notes that despite prison reforms and legal milestones, a lack of solid vocational and educational programs for women inmates still exists. She lists six probable reasons for this, which are:

1.      Women make up such a small proportion of the prison population that extensive programming is cost-prohibitive. 

2.      Women prisoners are less of a threat than males to society; therefore, they do not require equivalent financial expenditures to fund such programs.

3.      Training costs for women prisoners are too high compared with their male counterparts.

4.      When programs are offered, few women participate voluntarily.

5.      Women’s prisons are isolated and inaccessible to many services, thus making service difficult or impossible.

6.      Society’s traditional view of women as wage earners is secondary to their role as mothers and housewives.

    As concerns vocational education for women, it must be realized that women who enter prison are typically not individuals from socially elite backgrounds nor are they in possession of an excellent education. In reality, the typical female prisoner is from a low socio-economic status and was raised in a family where education was not a high priority. Often, criminal activity was viewed within the family as a way to easily put food on the table and clothes on one’s back (Bonfanti, 1992). Bonfanti, a female inmate, provides an interesting female perspective when she admits to the realization that one does not stop living simply because they are incarcerated. As well, being imprisoned does not mean that the world will stand still and await an inmate’s release.

     Although prisoner education programs are typically assumed to be consistently designed within all American correctional systems, the reality is that many women’s institutions are not afforded the same variety of educational opportunities as their male counterparts. As well, many female educational programs suffer from stereotyping. Programs are designed for traditional “women’s work” such as cosmetology, cooking and housekeeping. These traditional programs have not kept pace with the modern world of opportunities for women that display constant expansion in employment possibilities. One area of extreme shortcoming is the area of post-secondary education. This type of educational program is not nearly as prevalent in female prisons as they are in male prisons. This inequality is amplified by the reality that upon release, many women return to their homes where they are expected to support not only themselves, but also often children and other family members (Clear & Cole, 1997).

     Many prison administrators, when pressed to offer an explanation for the seemingly consistent disparity in program offerings, object to the belief that women are suffering needlessly at the hands of a largely male-dominated bureaucracy. Specifically, many institutional program directors emphasize that not all female inmates are interested in educational programs. Furthermore, many of the inmates are not interested in being financially self-sufficient. They are content to return to the home and perform the role of being a wife or mother or both. What is lacking, note most correctional administrators, are plausible incentives to bring apathetic female inmates into the prison classroom (Clear & Cole, 1997).

     Vocational and educational programs are not the only services lacking adequacy within women’s prisons. Medical services in female facilities are typically lacking as well. Due to their limited access to preventive medicines (some researchers equate this to low socioeconomic status of the female offender), women often have more serious medical issues than do male inmates. As compared to men, women have higher rates of diabetes, asthma, drug abuse, heart problems and (of course) gynecological issues. Although women inmates report receiving medical care more often than do male inmates, a women’s prison typically does not possess a full-time medical staff or on-site hospital facilities. Aside from the aforementioned traditional health risks for female inmates, contemporary medical issues, such as HIV, mental illness, drug addiction and even tuberculosis affect female inmates more than male inmates. Most importantly, women prisoners who are pregnant require special medical and nutritional support during the period of their pregnancy. Pregnancies raise multiple procedural and legal issues for prison administrators and state legislators. One special concern of administrators is that many pregnant inmates are classified as “high-risk” pregnancies due to advanced age, prior multiple abortions, history of drug abuse, history of mental illness and sexually transmitted diseases. Also, the stress inherent in being incarcerated poses special problems for both the inmate and the staff of women’s prisons (Clear & Cole, 1997).

     The incarceration of women presents them with many problems and challenges. However, one group of individuals whose lives go traditionally unnoticed is the children of female inmates. One significant reason for this is that these children are not easily identified, nor are they easily mobilized into taking matters of care and concern into their own hands. Children cannot consistently and accurately tell society what they need. Another reason for this pervasive problem that affects the female inmate is that social activists who bring attention to the plight of the incarcerated individual fail to realize that the same intense attention, if not more so, needs to be paid to the inmate’s family unit that is left behind in free society. As well, the components of the correctional process are focused on the punishment and rehabilitation of the individual- not the family. Institutional success is measured in terms of recidivism rates, not family cohesiveness (Crites, 1976).

     Male inmates worry about their children and experience adjustment difficulty as a result of being incarcerated. However, the magnitude of concern in this area experienced by female inmates is much larger. Since women are traditionally and culturally condi- tioned within American culture to be responsible for raising children, the forced separation of incarceration is especially problematic for the female inmate. As a result of this multiplied burden of arranging for childcare and being unable to ensure it is carried out properly, a corresponding effect on the female inmate subculture is easily under- stood. This can be seen in the development within women’s prisons of “prison families,” as previously detailed (Hawkins & Alpert, 1989).

    Depression and constant worry (anxiety) about the day-to-day safety of the children inmate mothers leave behind stem from multiple sources. Custody issues, marital problems and financial woes all come together at once to weigh heavily upon the psyche of the female inmate. Women prisoners of older children have been known to instruct relatives to inform their children that they have gone on an extended vacation. This deception is typically only successful for a brief period of time. Furthermore, children whose primary caretakers choose not to allow them to visit their incarcerated mother provide another source of anxiety for the inmate. Perceiving themselves as powerless to protect their children, many inmate mothers develop treacherous feeling of self-hatred and worthlessness. These feelings of helplessness often combine with feelings of guilt and often lead to major depression and even suicide- both unsuccessful and successful attempts (Hawkins & Alpert, 1989).

     As previously discussed, many women’s penitentiaries are located in non-centralized, rural areas. This results in high travel expenses and travel coordination problems for loved ones that may want to visit the inmate. This problem is especially problematic as concerns visitation of children with their incarcerated mother. This failure of visitation, however, is not solely the fault of the inmate’s relatives. Institutional barriers are also partly to blame. Visitors to women’s institutions (often other female relatives) are often subjected to searches of their personal effects and their person. As well, many institutional work schedules are so precise as to not allow for inmates to visit for any consistent length of time, therefore sometimes resulting in relatives spending hours driving to and from an institution, to find that they are only able to spend a few minutes with their daughter, sister, wife or mother. Visitation is typically conducted in a room that accompanies many families, thus making any attempt at renewing intimacy virtually impossible between an inmate mother and her children or significant other (Allen & Simonsen, 1998).

     In reality, few family-oriented services are provided for inmates in the United States. In fact, institutions often discourage the carrying out of family commitments and obligations. One would not be remiss to deduce that a criminal offender, once incarcerated, subsequently denies other family aspirations and sometimes even family identity. However, evidence suggests that prisoners' family relationships are not only very important to the prisoner's well-being while on the "inside," they are extremely important as concerns post-release success. Research has shown problems related to family maintenance as one of the principal deprivations suffered by male and female prisoners (Hairston, 1989). 

     Prisoners often relate that their inability to see their loved ones causes them tremendous psychological pain and stress (Hairston, 1989). The inmate’s "significant others" often feel that the person incarcerated has deserted the family. Typically, family members left behind harbor accusatory and residual rage that usually erupts during the incarcerated family member's only time of relief- while reading mail they have received or during phone calls and visitation times. As is too often the case, the family has suffered a parting episode full of feelings of remorse, anxiety and 'unfinished business' (Kaslow, 1987). As aforementioned, correspondence expedites the family keeping informed. However, as concerns mail, some inmates are unable to read or write. There- fore, the desire to receive and send mail serves as a powerful motivator to spur the inmate on to acquiring these basis skills in the prison school. Although phone calls to and from prisoners are subject to prison rules of procedure, inmates being allowed to call loved ones on important occasions (birthdays, death in the family) serves to keep communication lines open and, hopefully as a result, family ties strong (Kaslow, 1987). 

     The allowance of family visits to prison has the effect of reducing, usually, the amount of family problems. This is due to the fact that family members who take advantage of visitation are less apt to become estranged from the incarcerated individual, and the two parties can share at least some aspect of their lives. Some "progressive" states permit 'direct contact' visitation, where family members are not separated by bars or glass.   Also, these same states have installed play areas so that children may visit the incarce- rated parent and the parent can share in 'play time' with her/his child.   These 'liberal' policies regarding visitation aid family maintenance considerably. Most importantly, however, they make reentry and transition into the family, once the incarcerated member is released and returns to the home, somewhat easier (Kaslow, 1987). 

     Both male and female inmates suffer from serious misgivings concerning their affectional needs and how such needs will be satisfied once the specific individual becomes incarcerated. The major concern, research shows, is whether or not their partner will become homosexually involved while in prison. Statistics and dozens of reports from inmates and prison staff indicate that there is a high probability that this will indeed be the case (Kaslow, 1987).

     Studies exploring the attitudes of imprisoned mothers have found that the majority had major concerns about being separated from their children. Many of the women related that they felt guilty about depriving the children of care and that the children were being made to suffer for what they (the incarcerated mother) had done.  Advocates of penal reform (particularly women's organizations) have brought attention to the plight of the incarcerated mother. Many advocates espouse the notion that being separated from one's children constitutes serving "hard time." This separation from children is often identified by inmate mothers as one of the most hard to accept realities of being incarcerated. Some professionals have indicated that this separation affects women more harshly than it does men. These professionals point out that incarcerated fathers usually have wives that will care for the children. However, incarcerated women who have children on the outside are usually, as previously identified, single-parents (Stanton, 1980). 

     The suggestion of the existence of an intergenerational cycle of crime has contributed to the interest in the relationship between the incarcerated parent and their offspring. It has been suggested by some professionals that women are a greater threat to society than even violent men due to their potential influence over their children and the possibility that women will encourage their children in acts of criminal conduct (Stanton, 1980).  The children of incarcerated parents are typically the most heavily penalized by the criminal justice process. Incarceration robs parents of an opportunity to develop strong attachments with their children. Prisons lack child-oriented materials for visitors, such as toys and cribs. While some correctional facilities are beginning to address parental and family needs of those incarcerated, relatively few help inmates to build and maintain functional relationships with their families (Family Resource Coalition, 1991). A visit to an incarcerated parent remains an enterprise that only the very committed undertake with any regularity. In many facilities there are restrictions placed on children's movement.   They are expected to not run around but to remain perfectly still by their parent's side during the entire visit. Infants often have to be changed and fed on the very counters that separate their parents. Most prisons do not have facilities for storing baby formula or refrigerating baby food. Until recently (for security reasons), some prisons would not allow visiting parents to bring baby food and diapers into the visiting area. Any implication that such environments are designed to encourage visitation is indeed a bureaucratic fallacy (Bauhofer, 1987).

     The effect of incarceration of a parent, particularly the mother, has been shown to be detrimental to the psychological development of children. Children thusly deprived typically suffer from poor coping skills and low self-esteem. Also, they tend to reveal patterns of aggression and anxiety, as well as attention deficit disorders. Many more (specifically teenagers) have difficulty with peer relationships, school functioning, and delinquency (Family Resource Coalition, 1991).

     There is an apparent demoralization that is connected with incarceration that is not found in other forms of involuntary separation other than perhaps parental desertion. Incarceration is assigned a stigma that is difficult for families to remove, especially when children are involved.  Families are often not willing to inform the child of the whereabouts of the incarcerated parent. This deception often makes the problem worse once the child learns of their true whereabouts- especially if the information comes from sources outside the family, such as peers or the media (Hopper & McCance, 1983). 

     Many children, as a result of a parent's being incarcerated, are shuffled about from one type of living arrangement to another. The ordeal of frequently moving is compounded for school-age children. As well as having to adjust to a new home, they must adjust to a new school and to the idea of making new friends (Hopper & McCance, 1983).

     If the correctional community ever hopes to be effective in intervening in the intergenerational cycle of criminal connections, new policies concerning drugs, physical and emotional abuse and the implementation of incarceration will have to be developed.

These new policies will need to be directed toward the entire family unit, not only the incarcerated offender. The reality that healthy mother/child relationships cannot occur in an environment that promotes isolation is a key first step in re-developing the relationship that is of key importance for the future of free society. It must not be forgotten by the traditionally male prison bureaucracy that parenting is a learned skill. The implementation of more private visiting areas, longer visitation periods, better health care and treatment programs for female inmates can only help stem the tide of problems faced by incarcerated female inmates who enter, or leave, U.S. correctional facilities under the label of “mother “(Crites, 1976).

     Prison (as should be expected) is a difficult experience for women. The subsequent hardships that they endure upon release are often as significant as the hardships they experienced behind bars. Internalized feelings of low self-worth, typically a result of embarrassment or guilt, combined with stigmatizing social shame in the eyes of the community to which the ex-inmate returns, often has the effect of continuing punishment after release from the penitentiary. These sudden realities often lead women into patterns of continuing deviance (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001).

     Being freed of prison regulations, prison food and the inmate sub-culture is often more liberating as a fantasy than it is in the reality of free society. Disappointing expectations only serve to make the prison experience more realistic and the female ex-inmate more bitter. Society must realize that these individuals have just been released from an environment where they were stripped of all autonomy relating to decisions, self-determination, and possibilities for leadership that provide self-esteem and a sense of purpose. Many criminologists note that, by default, prison conditions reinforce the original state of conditions that is seen as normal for most female inmates: not possessing marketable job skills, low educational level, few economic resources, minimal family support, extremely low levels of self-discipline, self-respect and self-direction. A normal state of affairs is to be abused both physically and psychologically. What shockingly comes to be realized as abnormal is to find a supportive community that accepts the inmate’s attempt to successfully reintegrate by making self-directed decisions, developing a sense of self-worth to instill a sense of optimism and desire for new opportunities into the normal day-to-day behavior of the recently released convict. As a result of this upside-down logic, it is no wonder that reintegration is often very problematic for ex-prisoners (Watterson, 1996).

     When women prisoners are released and directed to reintegrate into free society, they face the trauma of re-establishing a suitable living environment, obtaining work and, oddly enough, reuniting with their children. Although reuniting with her children is a constant dream of the female inmate, the actual attempt upon release is terrifying. The reason for this is that many women who are released from prison were heavily involved in drug use, alcohol abuse and possibly even child neglect. It is only reasonable that ex-inmates would be extremely apprehensive at encountering their children so swiftly upon re-entering the community and attempting to adjust to an atmosphere in which they feel truly alone (Watterson, 1996).

     When women re-enter the home they are immediately pressed with major problems that their children may have experienced as a result of their extended absence. Often, children experience intense teasing at the hands of classmates. The stigma of being a criminal knows no bounds. In reality, however, one of the greatest problems is that the child misses having her or his mother involved in their life on a daily basis. Feelings of anger and shame are intertwined with the innate feelings of love the child has for the mother. Even a year of separation seems like a lifetime to a child, especially a young child in the prime of their social development (Watterson, 1996).

     Maintaining close ties to family members while incarcerated is crucial in maintaining strong beneficial ties in the community into which the female inmate hopes to reintegrate upon her release. Sustained correspondence, via phone calls, visitation or mail serve to allow the inmate to retain old community relationships and foster new ones prior to release. For the female inmate, family assistance upon release is crucial to her successful reintegration. This support can provide the recently released female inmate with finances for food, clothing and shelter immediately, stemming the proverbial tide until they can become financially independent. More so for female ex-inmates than male ex-inmates, support from relatives and friends provides the female ex-inmate with a better chance at surviving the emotional roller coaster of reintegration (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001).

     Inmate mothers who lose custody of children while incarcerated face an uphill battle upon release. The reality of a prison record, coupled with a typically unstable and insufficient financial history does not serve the ex-inmate well when attempting to regain custody of her children. As well, the emotional struggle inherent in such an ordeal often leads recently released women back to a pattern of drug abuse and eventual criminal behavior. If the ex-inmate is able to obtain employment, she then faces the challenge of proving to an already suspect court that she can provide her children with adequate supervision while she is working. Regardless of custody pursuits, newly released women often must first accept low-paying jobs that force them to live in areas of poverty that are crime-ridden. This does not make their attempt at reintegration easier, nor does it enhance their chances at someday actually regaining custody of their children (Silverman & Vega, 1996).

        The “double standard” also provides problems of reintegration for the recently released female offender. Society often views a man recently released from prison as an “ex-con.” The same American society views a recently released woman as not only an ex-con, but a “fallen” woman as well. This negative image severely hinders a woman’s chance at succeeding at obtaining suitable employment, another chance at marriage and other possibly successful pursuits that allow for successful reintegration. If a law-abiding woman’s life is complicated on a recurring basis by sexist attitudes, the female ex-inmate suffers this burden twice as much (Miller & Montilla, 1977).

     The first and most-cited effort that recently released female inmates make upon being released is to obtain their own place to live. Recently, those efforts received a major setback. The U.S. government enacted a lifetime ban on the receipt of welfare payments by any person convicted of a felony drug offense. This means that disability services and rehabilitation programs once available to ex-offenders with drug and alcohol problems are now obsolete. Furthermore, public housing and its accompanying assistance became, more through practice than policy, less accessible to women with criminal records. More than a few female recidivists have indicated that these new governmental operating policies were either directly or indirectly related to their return trip to the penitentiary. (Harm & Phillips, 2001).

     Although the previously mentioned emotions of shame and guilt experienced by female ex-inmates is equivocal to a degree, one must be aware of the reality that shame is an internalized emotion based upon external (societal) disapproval, whereas guilt stems from a specific behavior undertaken by the individual actor. Ex-inmates rarely view themselves as totally blameless; however, continued social alienation only serves to hinder the reintegration process (Dodge & Pogrebin, 2001). Community members do not easily accept female ex-inmates back into the community. They often engage in voicing harsh judgments of the recently released inmate. As a result, minimal effort is undertaken to reconcile the ex-inmate’s presence in the community. This has the effect of the person, not the person’s previous acts, being labeled “bad” or “unworthy” (Braithwaite, 1989).

     The expected and unexpected challenges of reintegration lead many corrections professionals to identify several key areas that female offenders must improve if they are to successfully reintegrate into free society. Emotions that result in feelings of shame, hopelessness, isolation and frustration must be correctly interpreted. The need for resources, both financial and professional, to assist the female ex-inmate in obtaining assistance with problems of substance abuse, family conflict resolution and obtaining fiscally prudent employment and suitable housing must not be ignored by either the community, the ex-inmate or the criminal justice system (Harm & Phillips, 2001).

     The numbers of women entering and reentering U.S. prisons is increasing with every passing year. Unless the particular needs and problems addressed in this work are adequately remedied by correctional administrators, government agencies and community organizations this trend will more than likely continue. As important as empirical studies are in understanding inmate behavior, many criminal justice professionals are calling for new theoretical ideas concerning female criminality that bear in mind the realities of women’s lives, especially the differences that exist concerning the female prison experience as compared to the male prison experience. Close scrutiny of women’s prisons needs to be encouraged to ensure that future administrators of female prisons are fully aware of the special needs that their clients require (Fletcher & Shaver & Moon, 1993).

     The state of women’s prisons and women prisoners in the United States obviously has problems that need to be addressed. If the field of corrections is to earn its name and not simply aspire to be a bastion of punishment, public support for the reality that women- and men- cannot be taught how to live competently in a free, civilized society if they are forcibly removed from it and not allowed to return until after learning how to live in a grossly distorted reality of it, must be forthcoming. As concerns the plight of the female inmate in the United States, one thing is clear: a woman’s ultimate place is more than likely not simply in the home, and it is definitely not in a prison (Miller & Montilla, 1977). 

REFERENCES

     Bauhofer, V.  (1987).  Prison Parenting: A Challenge for Children's Advocates.  Children Today, January-February, 15-16.    

     Bloom, B., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2000). Women in prison: Vengeful equity. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), It’s a crime: Women and Justice (pp. 183-204). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

     Bonfanti, C. (1992). A Chance to Learn. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 4 (1).    Retrieved June 18, 2001 from: http://www.jpp.org/fulltext-v4/v4n1-e.html

     Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

     Clear, T.R., & Cole, G.F. (1997). American Corrections. (4^th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

     Crites, L. (Ed.). (1976). The Female Offender. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

     Family Resource Coalition.  (1991).  Family Support Programs and Incarcerated Parents: Overview of Family Support Programs.  Washington, D.  C.: Administration for Children, Youth, and Families.  

     Hairston, C. F. (1989). Men in Prison: Family Characteristics and Parenting Views.  Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation, 14 (1), 23-30.   

     Heffernan, E. (1985). Making It in a Woman’s Prison: The Square, the Cool and the Life. In Carter, R.M., & Glaser D., & Wilkins, L.T. (Eds.). Correctional Institutions. (3^rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

     Heffernan, E. (1972). Making It In Prison. New York: Wiley.

     Hopper, C. B., & McCance, K.  (1983).  The Forgotten Sufferers: Children of Inmates.  U. S. Department of Education, National Institute of Education, ERIC Document 235439.  

     Kaslow, F. W.  (1987). Couples or Family Therapy for Prisoners and Their Significant Others.  The American Journal of Family Therapy, 15 (4), 352-360.  

     Lewis, D., & Bresler, L. (1981). Is There a Way Out? A Community Study of Women in the San Francisco Jail. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

     Mann, C.M. (1984). Female Crime and Delinquency. University, AL: University of Alabama Press.

     Rafter, N.H. (1983). Prisons for Women: 1790-1980. In Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

   Stanton, A. M.  (1980).  When Mother's Go to Jail.  Lexington, MA: Lexington.  

   Swan, L. A. (1981). Families of Black Prisoners: Survival and Progress.  Boston:

G. K.  Hall.

     Weisheit, R., & Mahan, S. (1988). Women, Crime and Criminal Justice. Cincinnati: Anderson.

This page available at: