Parental Incarceration: Social Bond Theories and the Prison Nursery Concept

1 PARENTAL INCARCERATION & SOCIAL BOND THEORY

1

Christina L. Corless

Study In-Depth

November 30, 2012

“I certify that I have read A Student's Guide to Academic Integrity at the University of

Oklahoma, and this paper is an original paper composed by me for this course. Except where

properly cited and attributed, it has not been copied or closely reworded from any other source

and has not been submitted as a whole, or in part, for credit in any other course at OU or any

other educational institution. It has not been created or submitted for any other purpose such as a

job assignment at my workplace or any other agency.”


2

Study in Depth

Abstract

Using scholarly research, the plight of children of incarcerated individuals, namely incarcerated

mothers, is focused upon. Questions addressing stigmatization issues, psychological

implications, sociological factors, and education are discussed. Travis Hirschi’s Social Bond

Theory is used as a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of prison nursery programs. The main

inquiry is based on this social bond theory. Whether or not the prison nursery concept is a real

solution to prevent future delinquency in children who may otherwise not have the opportunity to

bond with their parent is addressed.

Conclusions:

Through interdisciplinary research it was concluded that sudden separation and intermittent

exposure to incarcerated parents can cause lasting social/emotional issues that may have a long-

term effect on development, which has the potential to lead to future delinquency. Through

programs that encourage parent and child bonding, recidivism and delinquent behavior is

prevented/reduced, though aggression in these children remains a lasting concern.

Keywords: parental incarceration, corrections, mothers, inmate, behavior, social bonding,

delinquency, prison nursery, aggression


3

Parental Incarceration:

Social Bond Theories and the Prison Nursery Concept

Seven out of ten women in the corrections system have minor children (Snipes, 2012). The

criminal justice system is faced with the responsibility to keep track of over 1, 300,000 children

whose parents are in the correctional system (Snipes, 2012). What happens to these children?

Are they more or less likely to become offenders in the future? Are these children stigmatized?

What programs have been implemented to make sure children of incarcerated individuals have a

chance to overcome the obstacles of being a child of the corrections system?

“The notion that children whose parents are imprisoned are several times more likely

than other children to be incarcerated when they become adults is widely accepted as fact in

scholarly, political and bureaucratic circles.” This statement agrees with several criminological

theories that relate to child bonding and criminal behavior. However, this widely quoted statistic

was found by the Annie E. Casey Foundation not to be “supported by any reliable research” (pg.

3). The foundation located information that this statement was not only inaccurate but quite

plausibly could act to further stigmatize the children of incarcerated individuals. “As they (will)

become misidentified as potential criminals and treated as threats to society” (pg. 16).

Delinquency and antisocial behavior can take many forms according to J. Murray, D.P.

Farrington and I. Sekol, “It is clear that children with incarcerated parents are at increased risk

for antisocial behavior compared to their peers.” Their study gives the “antisocial” label to

behaviors such as those closely related to delinquency including conviction for any offense,

caregivers’ or teachers’ reports, and self-reports. However, their study found “empirical

evidence” that parental incarceration does not predict increased risk for mental health problems,

drug use, or poor education performance, which contradicts the idea of a child “at risk” for these


4

antisocial behaviors.

M. van de Rakt and P. Nieuwbeerta go so far as to use social labeling theories to “suggest

that parental imprisonment might cause children to experience (not only) stigma, (but) bullying,

and teasing, which increases their criminal behavior (van de Rakt & Nieuwbeerta, n.d.). These

scientists speculate that reluctance to attend school regularly, and lack of socialization leads to

poor school performance, and likely poor performance in the labor market. Also mentioned is

“official bias” that may go on throughout a child’s life due to their social status as the child of a

prisoner.

With conflicting information floating around regarding children of incarcerated

individuals, this paper will attempt to explore the effectiveness of using Travis Herschi’s Social

Bond Theory to support the recent trend in the correctional system offering children

opportunities to bond with incarcerated parents through programs such as the prison nursery

concept. The theory guides officials to presuppose that children who are socially bonded to

parents are less likely to exhibit delinquent behavior and therefore less likely to become

criminals themselves.

Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory

Travis Hirschi’s theory on social bonding states that the social bond and delinquency are

related to one another inversely, meaning that a strong social bond will be complimented with

weak propensity towards delinquent behavior and vice versa. Francis T. Cullen and Robert

Agnew cite four attributes that Hirschi bases his theory on attachment, commitment, involvement,

and belief. It is key to mention, as Cullen & Agnew have, that even these attributes treated as

independent variables, they affect the level of delinquency of an individual directly. Even more

so when these attributes are combined, their strength offers restraint of criminal conduct, and


5

inversely their weakness offers higher probability towards delinquency, deviance, and criminal

conduct.

Elements of the Social Bond:

Attachment

Hirschi says a psychopath has “deficient attachment or affection for others” (Cullen, 2011).

Given the basis of the Social Bond Theory, a psychopath is more likely to engage in criminal

behavior since the bond, or in this case lack of bond is inversely related to delinquency and

deviant acts. A sense of hostility, aggressiveness, and impulsivity is also detected in individuals

who have had attachments but these attachments are somehow weakened (through parental

imprisonment), which further exacerbates the frustration and alienation of these individuals.

If a child has bonded with a parent, and that parent becomes imprisoned, the weakening of

the bond could potentially cause this type of frustration and pull a child who once had a sense of

social attachment into isolation due to sudden lack of contact with their primary caregiver.

Forty-six percent of all incarcerated parents lived with at least one of their minor children prior

to incarceration, the average age of children with an incarcerated parent is 8years old, and 22%

of children are under age 5 (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007).

Dr. Bruce Perry, M.D., Ph.D., head of the ChildTrauma Academy and authority in brain

development and children in crisis calls bonding “emotional glue” (Perry, 2012). Perry says that

these emotional attachments happen during infancy and the first years of life. “Experiences

during this early vulnerable period of life are critical to shaping the capacity to form intimate and

emotionally healthy relationships” (Perry, 2012). The first years of life are critical to future


6

emotional and behavioral health in humans. According to leading physicians like Perry, timing

is everything. The first year has come to be known as the most critical period for bonding,

second only to the following two years of life.

When a person is neglected, taken away from, or abused by their primary caregiver or

other adult during this period future emotional relationships as well as behavioral issues are

common. Children may have mild to profound interpersonal issues depending on the severity of

the neglectful or negative experiences of early childhood. Typically developmental delays,

eating issues, soothing behavior, emotional functioning issues, inappropriate modeling, and

aggression can be seen in children who have not properly attached to a caregiver because of

neglect, separation, or abuse during this critical bonding period (Perry, 2012).

Commitment

“Few would deny that men on occasion obey the rules simply from fear of the

consequences” (Cullen, 2011). The second attribute related to social bond theory is

commitment. A person’s level of commitment is also measured by their level and efforts

towards conformity. Hirschi asserts that the level of risk associated with losing the investment

an individual has made has an influence on their behavior. Also labeled ambition or aspiration,

the level of commitment to conformity plays a role in whether or not a person chooses to commit

a criminal act.

Due to the misplacement/inconsistent lifestyle of the foster system and single-family

lifestyles, it is likely that children no longer in the care of their parents have a lack of

commitment to society and to conformity. As the Casey Foundation suggests, if a person is

stigmatized or alienated because they have already been identified as a possible future criminal


7

or operating outside the realm of a traditional lifestyle due to not living with parent and the

absence of someone to encourage their social growth, it is highly plausible that the very idea of

being a child of a prison inmate or criminal would lend itself to waning commitments to

conformity and society.

The opportunity for a “normal life” is lost before the child even begins to attempt any form

of conformity. Therefore, the chance of overcoming this stigma is lessened. Other factors such

as lack of financial resources, embarrassment, and behavior issues related to hostility/absence of

primary social bond may also push children of incarcerated individuals away from conformist

activities like participation in extracurricular activities and basic social interactions with peers.

Even if the child desires some form of social commitment, their opportunities may be limited

causing further hostility and frustration, which could vary well lead to criminal or deviant

behaviors as the theory suggests.

Sheldon Prestwich studied aggression and hostility in pre-school children in 1969.

Prestwich offered two different counseling options to positively influence Indian preschool

children’s aggression levels. The study results revealed, “no significant differences in physical,

verbal or total aggression between experimental and control groups before or after treatment”

(Prestwich, 1969). It is extremely difficult to treat, counsel, and change learned behavior and

emotional aggression/hostility in older children. With the commitment to community and a high

level of interest in conformity through social bonding between children and primary caregivers,

aggression and hostility can be prevented.

Involvement

The third attribute of social bonding is involvement in conventional activities. The more a


8

person is engaged in conventional, non-deviant behavior, the less time they have to spend

committing crimes or acting out in deviant ways. The opportunity for crime is lost in their

preoccupation of the conventional day-to-day lifestyle. Hirschi references Matza and Sykes to

explain that as children and adolescents, these individuals are part of a “leisure class,” and if they

are not properly introduced (by their parents or other socially bonded adults) to the conventional

social structure that involves work for reward and other social obligations, they may more easily

entertain the idea of a delinquent lifestyle, following in the footsteps of their parents. For

children of incarcerated parents it is profound and important to note that if these children are not

seeing conventional examples, the theory that they are less likely to adopt conventional theories

seems to be valid. This is further accentuated not only due to lack of conventional examples but

also the negative, non-conventional example of a parent entering and exiting the corrections

system as they continue to seek the next “big score” (Cullen, 2011).

Lack of involvement in school, little attention to conventional activities, or little desire to

pursue conventional activities & sports are symptoms of low involvement. Issues with poor

grades, truancy, suspensions, and poor behavior at school are common in children that have a

mother who is incarcerated. The Casey Foundation reports that 49 percent of children in one

study had been suspended and ten percent had been expelled from school (Annie E. Casey

Foundation, 2007). Up to thirty-three percent of students with mothers behind bars had failed a

grade.

Children not only have to manage feelings about their parent’s actions, but also have to

sometimes guard the “secret of their parents‘ imprisonment” while at school and with friends

(Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007). Hirschi explains this phenomena best when he says, “If a


9

person does not care about the wishes and expectations of other people-that is, if he is insensitive

to the opinion of others-then he is to that extent not bound by the norms. He is free to deviate.”

As children of incarcerated individuals are held at a lower standard educationally, have no

socially bonded example or a negative example, and have little involvement in conventional

lifestyles, the potential for deviation and non-conventional, or criminal behavior grows.

Belief

The Casey Foundation specifically links shame, social and institutional stigma to children

and families left behind (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007). The forth attribute of the social

bond theory is belief in rules and regulations. Hirschi says that we normally assume that a

criminal or deviant “has believed the rules, even as he violates them.” He says that this

assumption is inaccurate and that conventional assessment is not something that “the less a

person believes he should obey the rules, the more likely he is to violate them.” No assessment

immediately prior to the act is played out, however the belief system of the criminal includes a

self-assessment in which they believe their behavior is not part of the same conventional society.

Hirschi’s belief attribute combined with the Casey Foundation opinions on stigmatization,

assumes criminal behavior is a natural step in the life of a “prison child”. This combination sets

many children up for difficulty in their social/emotional development. Sometimes children sense

this labeling. Four years ago a mother was arrested for first-degree murder of an infant in

Oklahoma. She had four other children. The stepmother of the oldest daughter relates her

stepdaughter’s behavior after the arrest of her mother, with whom she had lived with for most of

her life. Her stepmother discusses the behavior of the oldest daughter of this convict. She

“started acting out about a year after her mom's original arrest date. Not wanting to do school


10

work, defying her teachers, lying about simple things, stealing. She'd never really have an

answer but I know it all came from the inner turmoil she has to be dealing with because of her

mom” (Mobley, 2012).

Children who form a social bond with apparent and then are pulled away from that parent

as well as being stigmatized because of the person with whom they are “bonded” suffer a unique

challenge. Initially, “When such a relationship exists, youths will be more likely to care what

that other person thinks of them.” Once stripped of what Cullen and Agnew call “indirect

control” through parental instruction and reaction, the bond is weakened and “weak social bonds

increase the risk of being involved in criminal behavior” (Akers and Sellers, 2008).

Applicability

Parental Incarceration in America

In 1999 six percent of women were pregnant at the time they entered the corrections

system (Snipes, 2012). That statistic, combined with nearly a quadruple amount (757%) of

growth in female prison population within the last 30 years brings the issue of mothers in prison,

and the increasing number of children of these women to the forefront of criminal justice issues

today (Women’s Prison Association, 2004).

Typically, a child would be born within prison walls or in a hospital and then separated

from the mother within 48 hours. Many of these mothers know they will not be given the

opportunity to bond with their newborn. This can be a traumatizing experience for both mother

and child.

Some state rules require prison visitors under sixteen years old to provide two forms of


11

identification, and being that most minors are not issued identification, newborns, and children

younger than sixteen years old rarely visit their mothers in prison. The chances these mothers

will be reunited with their children are slim. Convict Victoria Steele saw her daughter once after

she gave birth. Five years later they were reunited, but her daughter had never visited her in

prison, and also spoke only Spanish. Steele recounts her emotions during that time, “I was so

depressed...I was emotionally, mentally, and physically lost. I had no idea how to connect. It

was like losing my child. I lost her. There were no support services in prison” (Associated Press,

2012).

Traditional incarceration offers little support services to encourage mothers to stay

involved in their children’s lives, and there is little incentive for caregivers to actively encourage

involvement between parent and child. When a parent is sentenced to serve time, their children

also lose valuable time that cannot be replaced in later years. Ms. Steele says how different her

life would have been if she would have been allowed to keep her daughter. “I would have done

things so different because my life would have been about me and her.” Though Steele is a

convict, she understands how important the early years are, “Those moments are critical, not

only for the child, but for the mother too. Because when you’re in a situation like that, you feel

that all hope is gone.” Like many mothers today who are not afforded the opportunity to bond or

get to know their newborns, Steele acknowledges how responsibility for another life changes

perspective. In her case, those valuable years were lost to another culture, another language, and

to her cycles of drug addiction and legal problems. Years later, Steele expresses the loss and

universal pain of incarcerated mothers-to-be and new mothers, for their children, and for the

future, “Hope was just gone” (Associated Press, 2012).


12

Contact During Incarceration

According to a recent and extensive study for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Most

children’s contact with their parents in prison is irregular or nonexistent” (Annie E. Casey

Foundation, 2007). And “more than half of parents with minor children had never seen any of

their children” while in prison. In the 1997 survey, the Casey Foundation specifically mentions

gender and ethnicity as key relational factors that determine whether or not a child sees a parent

while in prison or a parent is visited by a child. It appears that African American parents stay in

closer contact with their children as compared to other races, and women are also more likely to

stay in contact with their children. Roughly a quarter of African American mothers reported

monthly visits from children (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007).

Mothers that have regular communication with their children offer another

perspective of parental incarceration, “Many (inmate mothers) appeared to be well informed

about their children’s activities and problems and to have some say about the way their children

were being raised” (Hairston, 1991). The methods of communication parents are using to stay in

contact with children have yet to be modernized in most prisons and include letters, in person

visits, and phone calls. Some issues that arise with this communication and contact issue include

distance and phone call difficulties. If a prisoner is within 50 miles of their home, about 54

percent of them would receive monthly visits from family. However, if the distance was

between 101 and 500 miles the number was reduced to 30 percent. If a prisoner is greater than

500 miles from their home, only about 16 percent received monthly visits from their children

(Hairston, 1991).

A stepparent caregiver discusses her stepdaughter’s interaction with her biological


13

mother who is in federal prison for murder.

She “doesn't visit her mother in prison...And we just don't feel like at this

age that's an appropriate setting. When she's older and more mature we will

take her. Her mother writes her letters about once a month. We proofread

them to make sure there isn't anything inappropriate in them. (She) reads

them and then just puts them away. The ones we don't feel she needs to read

we store to give to her later. Her mom never calls. (The mother’s) parents

call occasionally but we don't allow her to talk to them because they can't

control their emotions” (Mobley, 2012).

A study in New Zealand examined effects of children’s visits on inmates in a maximum-

security facility. Surprisingly, mothers who received visits from their children engaged in

serious and violent behavior more often than mothers who did not. The study cited “difficulty

adjusting to institutionalization because of emotional factors surrounding visitation and

separation...” (Casey-Acevedo, K., Bakken, T., & Karle, A., 2004). Though the findings claimed

mothers became more violent in the prison setting, also to be noted was that visitation would

assist in preparing the mothers for life if they are paroled and reunited with their children. The

study ultimately concluded, “Visitation from children is a double-edged sword.” While

providing continuity for children, comfort and joy...visits may leave women feeling vulnerable

when dealing with corrections officers, other inmates and life on the inside (Casey-Acevedo, K.,

Bakken, T., & Karle, A., 2004).

Recently, there has been a drop in some prison in-person visits due to technology offering

new communication mediums. For about $30 an hour an inmate can video chat with their family

and friends. Video chatting is affecting the morale within the District of Columbia Department


14

of Corrections. Less meaningful contact does not allow for the subtleties of human physical

interaction. “Video calling just isn’t the same as talking in person” (New York Times, 2012).

Video chatting does offer benefits to visitors. Invasive searches, and uncomfortable waiting

rooms, as well as sometimes being treated as an inmate within the prison walls, are typical of

normal prison visits.

Hairston provides insight into what happens after the mother’s release from confinement in

his 1991 study. “Mothers whose children lived with them before the arrest thought it was likely

that their children would live with them upon their release from jail.” Hairston goes on to report

that forty-seven percent of women who did not have their children living with them thought it

was somewhat likely that their children would live with them following their release. Though

optimistic, the statistics for these mothers are not good. Even in instances where children had

been living with the mother only about sixty-two percent of women who had been incarcerated

previously had reunited with their children following their first arrest. Hairston found that the

reunification was directly correlated with the number of times a mother had been incarcerated.

Caregivers

While the caregivers of these children felt they were being warm and accepting, the children

themselves felt quite unaccepted (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007). Eighty percent of

incarcerated parents said their children were living with the other parent. Some children, about

eighteen percent live with other relatives or grandparents. Unfortunately, some caregivers do not

accept collect phone calls from prisoners or budget for these phone calls, says the Casey study.

These collect calls can be quite expensive, and because of the parent’s unemployment due to

incarceration, they are not able to assist in support for their children, let alone assist in paying for

these phone conversations. Though children are allowed to visit in most facilities, the


15

environments are not exactly child friendly. The trend seems to be that older children are

allowed or choose to visit their parents, but younger children would really not be well served in

the prison environment as it stands. Most caregivers that are grandparents support the children

seeing their parent, but some parents choose not to receive visits. As previously mentioned,

parents have a harder time adjusting emotionally to being in prison. Many caregivers opt to

prevent or discourage visiting mothers because of the negative impact it could have on the child

long-term (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007). Then, some caregivers choose not to tell the

child or children that their parent is in prison. Some children are “reluctant” to stay in contact

with their parents, and choose on their own not to seek contact. This may ease the burden to the

caregiver, though it could indicate some underlying issues for the child.

Academic Outcomes

The most significant outcome of parental incarceration has been measured in school

performance levels and grade retention. The Law & Society Review found in March of 2012

that the increasingly high number of women being arrested due to effects of "equality with a

vengeance" and “tough on crime” stances in government that more children were displaced from

traditional homes with social and educational ramifications for these children. They found a

fifteen percent “reduction in college graduates in schools where as few as ten percent of other

students‘ mothers are incarcerated” (Law & Society Review, 2012). This study found “cultural

norms may have direct effects on how children are perceived and treated at school when mothers

are imprisoned...” (Law & Society Review, 2012).

Though some studies have suggested that children of parents who are in prison have grades

that suffer, researcher C. Rosa Minhyo has actually found the opposite. Surprisingly, Minhyo


16

found that children’s retention level lowered temporarily following their mother’s incarceration.

The scientists theorized that perhaps grandparents and alternative caregivers “are more actively

involved in children’s school activities by making sure they go to school and do their homework”

(Rosa Minhyo, 2012). This research suggests that at least in the first few years, for children in

lower grade levels, school success is more likely than when the child was with their mother.

However, after three or more years, these children ultimately succumb to stereotype and increase

grade retention the longer the mother is detained in a corrections facility.

The Prison Nursery Option

History

In the early 1900s the prison nursery concept was developed but slowly the concept tapered

off due to tougher sentences and high costs. Until recently, it was unknown whether or not

mothers were allowed to be with their children in a prison setting prior to the 1900s. In a prison

colony in Van Diemen’s Land Tasmania an archeologist uncovered lead seals that were attached

to cloth, as well as textile supplies like buttons and thimbles, which indicate mothers in the

prison colony had more contact with their children than originally thought, because they were

working with textiles in the nursery. The archaeologists assume they must have been allowed

informal contact with their young children (University of Manchester, 2011).

While the early 1900s offered some of these types of programs, most of these child-based

programs tapered off by the 1960-1970s. Despite not actually assessing the children while

studying the prison nursery programs some research concluded that incarceration had forced

children into prison, and instated “forced...punishment” by placement in a prison setting

(McGowan & Blumenthal, 1978).


17

Since that time, prison nursery programs have been re-implemented across the country to

offer mothers and children a chance at bonding and the opportunity to overcome their law

enforcement issues while cultivating a successful future for their family. In 2009 the Women’s

Prison Association (WPA) released their first national report on the growing trend of prison

nursery programs. According to the report, there are 9 states that offer prison nursery programs

in which non-violent female offenders are allowed to raise their children within prison confines

for a previously determined period of time. As reported by WPA, Policy Associate Chandra

Villanueva says these programs “allow for maternal/child bonding and enable women to address

the issues that brought them into the criminal justice system in the first place” (Women’s Prison

Association, July 13, 2009).

Boasting a mere eleven percent recidivism rate, the Ohio Reformatory for Women in

Marysville, Ohio has become a model for other states looking to provide a prison nursery

program for their pregnant, mom-to-be inmates. Indiana is using the Ohio model and $122,000

in grant funds to pilot their new program, which includes a nursery staff, pediatrician and a nurse.

Non-violent female inmates without young children will serve as nannies to the newborns so

their mothers can attend mandatory parenting classes throughout the day (Kusmer, n.d.).

Purpose

Writer Allison Ford describes the purpose of these prison nursery programs.

Prison nurseries rely on evidence suggesting that bonding securely with their

mothers helps the children, too, even if they do have to spend the first months of

their lives behind bars. The American Psychological Association reports that

children separated from their incarcerated parents are more likely to have


18

emotional or behavioral disturbances, drop out of school, and eventually be

arrested themselves. Prison nurseries try to nurture family bonds in hopes that

doing so will offer the children a safe, stable environment in which to thrive and

set them on a better course in life.

The goal is to give mothers time to bond with their children, not only for the child’s benefit

but also for the benefit of the mother and ultimately society.

Eligibility Requirements

Most programs have several requirements for the mothers to meet before they can be

admitted. The main requirement is that the mother be a non-violent offender. A history of child

abuse is obviously not acceptable for these types of programs, nor is extensive history within the

welfare or social systems (Ford, 2010). The mothers usually are limited to shorter sentences on

average around 18-24 months, allowing the mother and child to be released together.

Cost

Surprisingly, the cost of these programs is negligible in the correctional system’s overall

budget. Many of the supplies for the newborns and toddlers are donated by local and national

charities. Supplies are typical items a parent would need including developmental toys, baby

swings, diapers, soap, wipes, and clothing. Joseph Carlson Jr., a University of Nebraska

Kearney professor conducted a ten-year study on the prison nursery program in Nebraska. “The

Cost of prison nurseries is minimal,” says Carlson. The annual budget of $102,000 pays for a 15

mother and child unit and includes programming for the families. The annual cost for one

inmate in prison is roughly $31,500. This means it costs less for the state to have a woman and


19

child in the prison nursery program than it does to have the mother in regular confinement. With

a reduction of about $25,000 per inmate, and the high success rate with regards to recidivism, it

is easy to see why states are again exploring the prison nursery option. While states look

towards their bottom line to assist in determining if these programs are worthwhile, Carlson, a

former skeptic of the programs says, “The bottom line is that it reduces recidivism” (Jordan,

2011).

Daily Life

The daily life for children in prison nursery programs consists of waking in mothers cells,

morning mealtimes, playtime with nannies and co-resident babies, and more bonding and

playtime with their mothers, then bedtime sleeping in the cell with Mom. Most prison nursery

units require mothers to attend parenting classes and career/vocational enrichment courses during

the day. “Inmates who serve as nannies must have nonviolent offenses and reading levels of

eighth grade or higher; they also must complete a parenting class” (Kusmer, 2008). Screened

“nannies” who are also female prison inmates work in the child care rooms to provide the

mothers time to learn basic parenting skills, and other skills that will assist the mothers in

preparing for life after prison, on the outside. “Nurseries are generally segregated away from

other prison facilities and are renovated specifically to house children” (Byrne, M. W., Goshin, L.

S., & Joestl, S. S., 2010). Mothers say they understand that life away from the prison program is

“a little bit more chaotic,” which helps them appreciate and really enjoy the time they spend in

these programs (Kusmer, 2008).

Government Legislation

Some arguments have been made that permanent attachment to mothers who are likely to


20

have custody taken from them following release would set the child up for a traumatic separation,

causing great damage to the child. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) emphasizes

prompt permanent placement as an alternative to prison nursery programs. Separating the child

from their criminal parent sooner, allows them a higher chance at adoption placement and

permanency for the future. Mary Byrne, a leading researcher in the field cautions legislators to

take great care in implementing these prison nursery programs by ensuring funding for the

programs. According to Gilad & Gat there have been no incidents of serious child harm or abuse

reported in prison nurseries and community-based mother-child correctional programs (2011).

Yet, beyond the prison nursery walls, once the mother and child are released they are no longer

under strict supervision and the safety of the child cannot be guaranteed. These are all

arguments brought up in the ASFA. The recommendation if a state wishes to pursue mother-

child correctional programs is that the mother’s fitness and quality of care be evaluated not only

for admission to the program but that she must “assure compliance with the ASFA standard and

minimize impairment to the health and safety of the child after the departure from the program.”

“No state should launch a prison nursery program unless they also legislate the resources to

maintain that prison nursery...among those resources...environments, materials that will prompt

and support child development as well as parenting experiences and supportive parenting,

nurturing parenting for mothers who may have never had that kind of experience” (verainst,

2010).

A bill passed in early 2012 in the state of Connecticut will provide funding for a study on

prison nurseries. Connecticut would like to explore the option and offer their non-violent

inmates the opportunity to bond with their child and break the cycle of crime once they re-enter

society. The bill was reportedly passed by the Connecticut Judiciary Committee “with bipartisan


21

support and is not expected to meet with much opposition on the House and Senate floors”

(Associated Press, 2012). Provided that appropriate funding and screening of the mothers-to-be

is provided, and mothers agree to adhere to ASFA standards, the prison nursery program

implemented in the state of Connecticut has as great a chance, if any at the same degrees of

success as other more established state programs have demonstrated.

Program Analysis

Mary W. Byrne and her associates Lori Goshin and Barbara Blanchard-Lewis studied 100

children accepted into a New York state prison nursery program and followed them through

eight reentry years. The purpose of the study was to analyze and explore patters of union and

separation experienced by the subjects following their reentry into mainstream society. Out of

the 97 mothers and 100 infants in the study, first re-entry year recidivism was 0% for new crimes,

and 10% related to parole violation (Byrne, M. W., Goshin, L. S., & Joestl, S. S., 2010).

Perhaps one of the most surprising reports is that Bryne found “children in the prison

nursery program exhibited rates of secure attachment consistent with or exceeding population

norms.” Secure attachment is said to promote positive mental health outcomes in early

adulthood, further assisting to provide evidence of less propensity towards delinquent behavior

through social bonding and attachment to the mother. In a follow-up cohort study of the prison

nursery population conducted by Byrne and her associates the actual attachment measurements

between mother and child were studied. The results indicated that sixty percent of the co-

residing infants were classified as secure and for those children who stayed for over a year the

secure attachment rate was seventy-five percent. Significance was in the comparison between

mothers within the local community with samples including attributes such as low income,

depression, or substance abuse. The conclusion of the study stated that this provided the “first


22

evidence that mothers in a prison nursery setting can raise infants who are securely attached to

them at rates comparable to healthy community children...” The study was careful to point out

that even among mothers whose internal attachment was insecure, the rates of secure attachment

were as high, if not higher than the healthy community children comparatively (Byrne, M. W.,

Goshin, L. S., & Joestl, S. S., 2010).

Separating children from their mothers generally increases the likelihood of poor

development outcomes. Further evidence suggests that this separation can actually alter

hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function due to high stress levels created by the separation.

This alteration can play a part in mood disorders in these children. “The effect of early life stress

influences the normative development and function...and that these irregularities contribute to the

emergence of impulsive aggressive behaviors...” (Gollan & Coccaro, 2005). Previously

mentioned, aggressive behavior in preschoolers in Sheldon Prestwich’s research has also been

associated with adversity experienced by caregivers and also with harsh physical parenting or the

example of parental aggressiveness in punishment. This suggests that less stress and adversity

during these developing years spent in prison nursery programs is beneficial to at risk

populations. However, there is concern regarding possible aggression in these children.

Pushing beyond the recidivism rates for mothers, and beyond the attachment findings

research providing answers as to the long-term status of the infants who had spent their first year

in prison with their mothers was provided by Byrne’s associate L. Goshin in her study “Behavior

Problems And Competence In Preschoolers Who Spent Their First One To Eighteen Months In

A Prison Nursery Program.” According to the study, and consistent with stereotypes, children

who experienced early maternal incarceration exhibited higher rates of behavior issues

(Aggressive, ADH, Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn). Yet, for children who co-resided with


23

mothers in a prison nursery setting, “some resilience” was associated with potential behavior

issues such as ADH and Anxiety/Depression. The same was not said for aggressive behavior, as

even children who co-resided with mothers exhibited clinical aggressive behavior. The

attachment of these co-residing children “mirrored” low-risk children, even if the mother was

incarcerated, but did not positively influence tendency towards aggression (Goshin, 2010).

Separation from mother, whether during or after incarceration is a key factor in developmental,

behavioral, and psychological outcomes of young children.

Options for the Future

There are a few strategies states are using today to assist mothers in the attachment

process. Community based residential parenting programs offer mothers a type of “house arrest”

scenario like the Summit House in North Carolina. The Summit House is a residential

alternative-to-prison. The Summit House Program calls itself “A whole-way house.” The

program works to “keep families together by maximizing healthy bonding between mothers and

children.” They offer counseling, life skills, and job training, as well as substance abuse

counseling while giving the mother access to her children (Summit House, 2012).

The Prison Nursery Option is not for everyone. Founder of Women on the Rise Telling

HerStory recounts some regret in using the prison nursery program. “While I was fortunate to

have had the opportunity to spend the first months of my son's life with him while serving my

sentence in prison, it was not without sadness felt for my other son who was in foster care. I

often questioned if the time I spent in prison wouldn’t have been better spent learning about

myself and my children in community-based family treatment” (Women’s Prison Association,

2009).

“MINT” Mothers and Infants Nurturing Together is a program offered by The Federal


24

Bureau of Prisons under the agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. The federally based

program also serves to promote bonding and teach pre-natal, post-natal, childbirth classes,

coping skills, and parenting skills for low-risk inmates who are pregnant. The program is not

free, and the inmate must assume financial responsibility or have a guardian provide for the child.

Before birth the mother must arrange for a guardian or custodian to care for the child following

completion of the program. The MINT program offers the mother three months to spend

bonding with her newborn before returning to a federal institution for completion of sentence.

Though the child is separated from the mother following the 3-month period, the program’s

intent is to serve families by promoting the initial bond in the early stages of a newborn’s life

(Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2012).

Conclusion

Evidence of success and prevention of future criminal behavior in children of

incarcerated parents is difficult to ignore. Even with all the evidence suggesting that bonding of

mother and child is a successful pursuit in prison nursery programs Dr. Mary Byrne, a leading

expert in prison research and the prison nursery system suggests that additional services and

programs would be advantageous. “Prison nurseries offer needed services to a population of

women and infants who might otherwise be overlooked. However, additional community

prevention programs, alternatives to incarceration, and seamless follow-up programs are needed,”

(Women’s Prison Association, 2009).

Though most studies have seen a correlation between parental incarceration and deviant

behavior, the exact cause is still unknown. Consequences of parental incarceration have not been

tracked long-term past Byrne’s 8 year reentry tracking. “A clear, causal relationship between

parental incarceration and children’s problems has not been established.” Yet, evidence is


25

hopeful for the parent and child who have been allowed the uninterrupted time to bond, through

prison nursery programs, the rate of maternal success based on recidivism is undeniable (Annie

E. Casey Foundation, 2007). The benefits have been linked to maternal success outside prison

walls. “Those (inmates) with children to whom they are closely attached enjoy better

employment and substance use outcomes” (La Vigne, Nancy, Shollenberger, Tracey, & Debus,

2009).

Once released, many of these mothers are more competent caregivers to their children, have less

incentive to commit crime, and through their attachment to their children express more incentive

to take part in their social commitments, become more involved in their communities, and

believe that they will benefit from following the laws, rules, and expectations of society, fitting

Herschi’s Theory that attachment is directly related to restraint of criminal conduct.

Because of the likelihood and lack of prevention of aggressive behavior in these young

children, it is highly suggested that participants of these prison nursery programs receive

incentive-based parent training following their release from prison. This training should address

the possible aggression issues that have yet to be understood, and positive solutions to prevent or

alleviate conditions associated with a rise in aggressive behavior. This is thought to compensate

for the one behavioral issue that has not been prevented by secure attachment. If typically

aggressive mothers are securely bonded to their children, the tendency towards aggression is

logical. Any steps towards preventing, intervening or channeling this aggression are therefore

logical following release of prison nursery participants.

Professor of Pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Dr. Angela M. Tomlin

believes the prison nursery system is an investment for the community. “One of the most

important things we can do for a baby is to support her to have a strong and healthy relationship


26

with her parents. Once a baby feels safe in a relationship, everything else—from cognitive skills,

to school readiness, to positive mental health later in life—grows from that foundation. For

mothers, a strong attachment to her baby may reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The prison

nursery is an investment in the future, one mother and baby at a time” (Women’s Prison

Association, 2009).


27

References

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and

Application. 4th ed.

ASSOCIATED PRESS. (April 7, 2012). New York Post. Connecticut official wants prison

nursery for new moms. Retrieved June 30, 2012 from

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/connecticut_official_wants_prison_r00RdEe1NabE

IrdpxSINHI.

Byrne, M. W., Goshin, L. S., & Joestl, S. S. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of attachment

for infants raised in a prison nursery. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 375-393.

Casey-Acevedo, K., Bakken, T., & Karle, A. (2004). Children Visiting Mothers in Prison: The

Effects on Mothers' Behavior and Disciplinary Adjustment. Australian & New Zealand

Journal Of Criminology (Australian Academic Press), 37(3), 418-430.

Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological theory: Past to present: essential readings.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Emmanuel, A. (August 7, 2012). In-Person Visits Fade as Jails Set Up Video Units for Inmates

and Families. The New York Times. Retrieved October 2012 from

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/us/some-criticize-jails-as-they-move-to-video-

visits.html?smid=pl-share.

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2012). Female Offender Programs. Birth Control and Pregnancy.

Retrieved October 2012 from http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/female.jsp.


28

Ford, A. (June 2010). DivineCaroline.com. Bonding Behind Bars: Do Prison Nurseries Help

or Hinder Parenting?. Retrieved June 30, 2012 from

http://www.divinecaroline.com/22354/100800-bonding-bars-do-prison-nurseries.

Gilad, Michal and Gat, Tal, U.S. v. My Mommy: Evaluation of Prison Nurseries as a Solution

for Children of Incarcerated Women (June 1, 2011). New York University Review of

Law & Social Change, Vol. 36, 2012. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2171328

Gollan, J., Lee, R., & Coccaro, E. (2005). Developmental psychopathology and neurobiology of

aggression. Development And Psychopathology, 17(4), 1151-1171.

Goshin, L. (2010). Behavior Problems and Competence in Preschoolers Who Spent Their First

One to Eighteen Months in a Prison Nursery Program.

Hairston, C. F. Ph.D. (2007). Focus on Children with Incarcerated Parents: An overview of the

Research Literature. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved October 2012 from

http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid=%7BF48C4DF8-

BBD9-4915-85D7-53EAFC941189%7D.

Hairston, C. F. (1991). Mothers in jail: parent-child separation and jail visitation. AFFILIA:

Journal Of Women And Social Work, 6(2), 9-27.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1969.

Jordan, E. (2011, January 31). Prison nurseries cut inmates' risk of reoffending. Gazette, The

(Cedar Rapids, IA).

Kusmer, K. Nursery programs allow imprisoned moms, newborns to bond. Associated Press:

Indianapolis Metro Area (IN) [serial online]. May 10, 2008:Available from: NewsBank,

Ipswich, MA.


29

McGowan, B. G., & Blumenthal, K.L. (1978). Why Punish the Children? A Study of Children

of Women Prisoners. Hackensack, NJ; National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Mobley, C. (November 2012). Email Interview.

Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Children's antisocial behavior, mental health,

drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review

and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 175-210. doi:10.1037/a0026407.

Perry, B. (2012). Bonding and Attachment in Maltreated Children: Consequences of Emotional

Neglect in Childhood. Scholastic. Retrieved October 2012 from

http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/bonding.htm.

Prestwich, S., & Texas Univ., A. r. (1969). The Influence of Two Counseling Methods on the

Physical and Verbal Aggression of Preschool Indian Children. Part of the Final Report on

Head Start Evaluation and Research: 1968-69 to the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Rosa Minhyo, C. (n.d). Impact of maternal imprisonment on children's probability of grade

retention. Journal Of Urban Economics, 6511-23. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2008.09.004.

Snipes, L.A., (February 6, 2012). Statistics on Women Offenders. Corrections.com. Retrieved

October 2012 from http://www.corrections.com/news/article/30166-statistics-on-women-

offenders.

Summit House. (2012). About Summit House. Retrieved October 2012 from

http://www.summithouse.org/aboutsummithouse.html.

The University of Manchester (August 17, 2011). Find gives human face to Australia’s convict

past. British Academy grant. Retrieved October 2012 from

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/archive/list/item/?id=7318&year=2011&mon

th=08.


30

van de Rakt, M., Murray, J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (n.d). The Long-Term Effects of Paternal

Imprisonment on Criminal Trajectories of Children. Journal Of Research In Crime And

Delinquency, 49(1), 81-108.

verainst. (February 16, 2010). Mary Byrne: Women and children during their prison nursery

co-residence and in the reentry years. Retrieved October 2012 from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GUfn1Sjic0.

La Vigne, Nancy G., Shollenberger, Tracey L., and Sara Debus. (2009). One Year Out: Tracking

the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning to Houston, Texas. Washington, DC: Urban

Institute.

Women’s Prison Association. (2004). Hard Hit: The Growth in the Imprisonment of Women,

1977-2004. The Punitiveness Report. Retrieved October 2012 from

http://www.wpaonline.org/institute/hardhit/index.htm.

Women’s Prison Association. (July 13, 2009). Prison Nursery Programs a Growing Trend in

Women’s Prisons. Retrieved June 30, 2012 from

http://www.corrections.com/news/article/21644.

Documents

Parental Incarceration: Social Bond Theories and the Prison Nursery Concept