Pains of Incarceration: the Stigmatization Of

PAINS OF INCARCERATION: THE STIGMATIZATION OF

INCARCERATED MOTHERS

Victoria L. Glinsky

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts with

Honours in Sociology

Acadia University

April, 2013

This thesis by Victoria L. Glinsky

is accepted in its present form by the

Department of Sociology

as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts with Honours

Approved by the Thesis Supervisor

______

(Dr. Anthony Thomson) Date

Approved by the Head of the Department

______

(Dr. Jim Sacouman) Date

Approved by the Honours Committee

______

(Dr. Pritam Ranjan) Date

I, Victoria L. Glinsky, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia

University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or

electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______

Victoria L. Glinsky

______

Date

iii

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the support of Dr. Anthony

Thomson. He has served as a remarkable mentor and has lent a wealth of knowledge to the development of this project. I deem myself truly lucky to have worked under his wing and continue to see him as an inspiration.

I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to those at Elizabeth Fry Society for their assistance and patience throughout this project. I extend my gratitude to the mothers and primary workers who participated in this study. This research would not have been possible without your participation.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for being my biggest support system and always encouraging me to push through—my parents for being my backbone and my

Nanny who gave me strength.

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... IV

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 7

HISTORY OF WOMEN’S IMPRISONMENT ...... 8

THEORY AND THE CRIMINAL LABEL: TATTOOED FOR LIFE ...... 13

REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY...... 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 26

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS & DISCUSSION ...... 34

EMOTIONAL RESPONSE ...... 37

BASIC NECESSITIES ...... 41

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...... 49

REFERENCES ...... 52

GLOSSARY...... 60

APPENDICES ...... 61

APPENDIX 1: SUBJECT RECRUITMENT EMAIL ...... 61

APPENDIX 2: CONSENT FORMS ...... 62

APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDES ...... 68

APPENDIX 4: RESULTS FLOW CHART ...... 71

Abstract

Gender roles and identity are some of the most important forces that determine who we are. In prison, it is common for one’s identity to be stripped away through a series of degradation ceremonies and constant humiliations. This thesis investigates how gender- based incarceration policies have targeted women and, even more harshly, mothers.

While the term ‘jail’ refers to an institution which houses those who have been convicted under provincial sentencing, the term ‘prison’ is used for federal offenders. A combination of stigma and labeling theory was utilized as complementary frameworks within a feminist perspective, producing a theoretical approach to the issue of social stigmatization of maternal incarceration. Through qualitative research, including interviews with two mothers who had previously been in a provincial institution for a minimum of six months and two Elizabeth Fry Society employees, my work explains why incarcerated mothers are a targeted cohort and how the development of social stigma is linked to criminal and social background. In addition, this study uncovers ways in which the mother can further enhance her family relationships after incarceration within the community. Ultimately, it was found that society plays a large role in determining the label that is placed on those in trouble with the law, but it is also up to the mother to determine the role of that label in her life. The investigation determined that the oppression that mothers face after jail is a direct reflection of self-stigmatization developed by the mothers who arguably forfeit their opportunities as being a respected mother in society.

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

“The way in which a woman sees herself, plays an important role in how she responds to others. Moreover, the way in which a woman sees herself is determined, in part, by the way in which others interact with and see her.”

- Phyllis Jo Baunach

Little is known about the consequences once a mother leaves jail (Young and Smith,

2000). Rapidly growing female incarceration rates have stimulated attempts at explaining how a mother’s imprisonment affects her children. Despite these attempts, however, research has less often moved beyond the theoretical framework of childhood development and has paid less attention to the consequences mothers face post- incarceration (Young and Smith, 2000).

Historically, prison culture has symbolized oppressive authority but, nevertheless, there has been an expectation that prisoners develop autonomy, a belief that is especially applied to women (Zaitzow and Thomas, 2003). The world of the inmate is characterized by a multitude of rules and commands designed to control his or her behaviour. Yet, some argue that the female inmate is not much worse off than the individual in the free community who is regulated in a great many aspects of his or her life by the dictates of custom (Howard, 1999). It may be precisely social customs that make reintegration difficult for ex-offenders, especially women and mothers.

In most countries, women constitute a minority of the jail population, usually between 2% and 8% (Bastik and Townhead 2008:1). Prison systems and prison regimes

are almost invariably designed for the majority male prison population, from the security procedures, to facilities for healthcare, family contact, work and training. Women’s prisons are an adaptation of prisons for men. As a consequence, prisons tend not to meet the needs of women prisoners, and women in prison are affected by imprisonment in a particularly harsh way.

Inflexibility and unresponsiveness to the concerns of prisoners often results from bureaucratic indifference, whereby events which seem important or vital to those at the bottom of society are viewed with an increasing lack of concern by those occupying places each step upward (Howard 1999:4). Women in this sense continue to be at the bottom rung. Female inmates generally lost their sense of self-efficacy once autonomy was taken away. Offenders were not given opportunities equal to their male counterparts, such as access to health facilities, clean sleeping quarters, women-only latrines, and they were sexually degraded on a daily basis (Zaitzow and Thomas, 2003).

Concern about questions of autonomy continues to be central to penal practices in the gender division in prisons and to the sociology of women’s imprisonment. Studies of gender within prisons have remained preoccupied with women prisoners’ social identities on the basis of transforming their sense of self from criminal to law-abiding citizen and their apparent tendency to adopt a negative image within the prison scene (Rowe, 2011).

With little to no preparation for re-entry or community supervision once released from prison, the overwhelming majority of those who enter prison eventually leave prison with the same underlying personal and social problems that, whether directly or indirectly, most likely contributed to the prisoners’ initial troubles. With determinate sentencing, female prisoners have little incentive to participate in programs to help prisoners better

themselves. Canada is facing diminished public support for prison-based programs and the subsequent reduction in these programs, at the same time that the government is using tax increases to fund prison construction and pay for escalating operational costs, all while amplifying public safety concerns (Zaplin, 2011). For successful reintegration, the female offender must adapt and transform, which requires that the offender adopt socially responsible attitudes, values, and beliefs (Zaplin, 2011). Like male offenders, a female offender must change her thinking and behaving and unlearn the criminal ways that led to the offender’s troubles in favor of learning socially responsible behaviors and actions, despite, in many ways, being degraded in the process. To prepare effectively for community reentry, offenders must embrace the internal and external changes necessary for successful assimilation. Success, according to Bastick and Townhead (2008), demands ability to adapt and adjust quickly and effectively to new ways of thinking and acting. One must not fear change but rather embrace change. Bastick and Townhead

(2008) recommend that offenders use every single day, both during and following captivity, for positive, consistent preparation and growth, altering the way they think, act, and behave to conform to society’s norms, laws, and values. For women however, the chances of this are cut in half due to their particular vulnerability of becoming economically and socially disadvantaged segments of society (Bastick and Townhead

2008:1).

Past prison policies have largely favored males in terms of opportunities and further contributed in hierarchically molding gender identity. This preoccupation with the selves of women prisoners is reflected in sociological research into women’s experiences of imprisonment. For mothers, the negative association attached with crime, social

ostracism and being labeled as a ‘bad mother’, can depress the way that mother inmates see themselves and furthermore contribute to such stigmatization.

In this thesis, I examine whether the oppression that mothers face while incarcerated is a direct reflection of the triple stigma that may be attached to women who violate the law and, arguably, sacrifice their right to being respected as a mother. One of the most important pains associated with imprisonment is the loss of family that is especially important for mothers. The purpose of this project is to better understand the effects maternal incarceration has on mothers and how the development of social stigma is linked to criminal background. Through the literature and primary research collected during this research project, the topic of stigmatization is addressed and the triple stigma of being an incarcerated mother is analyzed through interviews with mothers who were previously incarcerated within the provincial system and those who work with them within the community.

Chapter Two presents a review of relevant literature surrounding the effects of incarceration on anyone but, particularly, the consequences of being a women prisoner.

Specific concerns that are particularly relevant to women, in that women are more often primary caregivers whose identity is closely connected to their mother role, is presented and utilized to discuss common thematic observations of similar research. It examines three areas: Imprisonment of women and the pains of incarceration associated with this punishment, the social effects of maternal imprisonment on mothers, and community and institutional support systems that are available in various places to provide resources and support for imprisoned mothers. Each section of the literature review will present an overview of what has happened historically, what we now know, and continuing

problems. Focusing first on when women began entering the prison system and for what reasons will provide a basis for examining the vulnerability of the population and how women and especially mothers have established gender-roles and identity within the prison institution.

Researchers speculate that unequal opportunity given to women pushed them deeper into oppression within the prison system and forced them to work harder to regain social acceptance once released into the community (Zaitzow and Thomas 2003:2).

Furthermore, the dominant discourse around motherhood suggests it is difficult for mothers who are incarcerated to sustain the mothering practices that are part of societal ideologies (being caring, compassionate, able to provide necessary resources etc.). The legitimacy of incarcerated women’s motherhood is often questioned on the grounds that those women are not mentally and physically available for their children. How can someone who has the capacity to commit a crime truly up bring their child in a ‘normal’ environment (Miller, 2007)? The ideology of crime as deviant forces parents under the spotlight and makes them notoriously known as a ‘bad parent,’ creating a stigmatized identity. The nature of community outreach programs presented by the literature indicates benefits for the mothers in significant ways and assists in creating a stronger mother-child bond post-incarceration in hopes of eliminating the stigmatized identity. However, there are few services offered to mothers after incarceration who have gone through the provincial prison system (those who have served a sentence less than two years), and this treatment gap causes the destabilization experienced by the mother in the prison setting to continue in the community.

The examination of labeling theory, feminism, and Goffman’s stigma theory

address the history of women’s oppression but also the history of their resistance as mothers who have been incarcerated strive to reach a further sense of equality within the community. To uncover the most effective community programs to aid maternal inmates who have gone through the provincial system, Chapter Three is comprised of semi- structured interviews with mothers who have previously been incarcerated and those who work with them. This brings to light, first-hand, the experiences faced by mothers in prison and those who work with them (second-hand). This research is solely focusing on mothers who were in prison and those who have worked with them to understand the process of stigmatization and what can be done to lessen its effects. In Chapter Four the results from the interviews are analyzed and common themes among them are addressed.

Finally, Chapter Five discusses the results from the data and concludes the thesis.

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review & Theoretical Framework

When the general public thinks about prisons, typically what comes to mind are overcrowded facilities, barbed wire and an all-male population. The picture fewer see is that of female prisoners. Since the development of the Canadian criminal justice system, the experiences of women have gained attention within areas of research and the general public. However, the effects of women’s imprisonment still remain largely ignored by our government and correctional facilities.

Historically, the nature of female incarceration has made it clear that the needs of women prisoners are often overlooked by penal institutions and that consideration needs to be given to women’s prison regimes as well as to the reasons for the increasing female prison population to ensure that their rights are met (Townhead, 2006). It is notable that, despite the fact that women were originally incarcerated in the same institutions as men, most of the historical accounts studied in this chapter make little or no mention of women. Nicole Hahn Rafter, a feminist criminology professor, explains that, although men and women experienced many of the same conditions in prison, the needs of women were neglected:

. . . few historians of the penitentiary have noted that women as well as men inhabited these gloomy institutions. Had they investigated the treatment of incarcerated women, they would have found that in nearly every respect, it contradicted the usual picture of penitentiary discipline. (Rafter, 1990:3-4)

The suggestion that women and men are now being dealt with in much the same way

requires evidence, first, that women were previously dealt with differently from men and, second, that this has changed. It is clear that, overall, a higher proportion of female offenders are jailed than 10 years ago, but these figures have not changed significantly

(Harding et al., 1985). In 1998, the Canadian federally incarcerated adult woman population was at 321 (a jump from 200 in 1981) (Dell et al., 2001). By 2007, there were approximately 476 women incarcerated in Canada under federal jurisdiction, and hasn’t showed signs of slowing (Hackney, 2011).

History of Women’s Imprisonment

The earliest recorded attempt to provide separate accommodation for men and women in prison was in York, England, in 1237 (Harding et al., 1985). In 1293, the

Chancellor of Oxford University urged that the prison to be extended by one floor so that suspect offenders and women may all be held separately. The segregation of women was declared necessary ‘for the avoidance of sin’ (Harding et al., 1985). The sins, however, were women’s. It was argued that the presence of women within prison made them more vulnerable to acting out and rebelling against the strict prison regimes (Harding et al.,

1985).

In pre-industrial times, women and men were subject to the same penalties, most of which were non-custodial (Heidensohn, 1985). As the penal custody developed, women were equally susceptible with men and young children to be imprisoned

(Heidensohn, 1985). However, while there were many punishments designed to publicly shame and hurt the offenders, such as branding, whipping and mutilation, there were also punishments especially designed for women, such as ‘common scolds’, including the ducking stool where women were strapped to a wooden chair and dunked underwater

(Rawlings, 1999). An individual could be reformed by being given the opportunity to seek her or his own salvation in prison (Rawlings, 1999).

While ideas about reforming the criminal justice system were being debated, change had been taking place throughout the eighteenth century. Policy was concerned with male prisoners, but the approach taken to women offenders also changed. It had been commonplace in the eighteenth century to see women not as criminals but as the causes of crime, but by the nineteenth century, women were regarded as either morally superior to men or they were seen as mad, evil, or the ‘helpless product of a defective biological constitution’ (Rawlings, 1999:86). Many policy makers regarded these conditions as untreatable; nevertheless, the belief that a different approach was needed for dealing with women prisoners from that used for men can be seen in the penal reforms introduced by British reformer Elizabeth Fry in Newgate Prison from 1816 (Rawlings,

1999).

Fry was noted as a major driving force behind new legislation to make the treatment of prisoners more humane. In 1813, she visited Newgate Prison in London and found that the women there had been reduced to “riot, licentiousness and filth” (Ash,

2010). The conditions she saw horrified her: “The women’s section was overcrowded with women and children, some of whom had not even received a trial. They did their own cooking and washing in the small cells in which they slept on straw” (Ash 2010:2).

During this time, several babies were born inside the walls. In some cases, mothers were allowed to keep their babies in their cells, usually only as long as was necessary to wean them, after which the child would be sent to an orphanage or to family members. Women, despite experiencing harsh criticisms based on their gender and being imprisoned,

experienced more labeling and stigmatization once they were noted as being a mother.

Fry’s concern as a Quaker woman of her time was to help the ‘fallen’ women prisoners to become domesticated women and provide the necessities for these women that she felt were needed. Not all of Fry’s accomplishments within the prison earned her the label of a

‘hero’. Many criticized Fry for her influential role as a woman and alleged that she was neglecting her duties as a mother in order to conduct her humanitarian work, labeling her as a ‘bad parent’ (Ash, 2010).

As these basic principles and system still apply in modern prisons, this evidence appears to contradict views that the nineteenth-century UK prison system was designed by men, solely for men (Hackney, 2011).

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the belief in punishment and deterrence as the main objects of imprisonment, and confidence in the separate system as a desirable and effective means of dealing with prisoners, came increasingly under question in the UK and elsewhere (Edwards and Hurley, 2002). The Gladstone Report led to the British Prison Act of 1898, which unified the convict and local prison systems, limited the use of corporal punishment and introduced remission of sentence for local prisoners (Hackney, 2011).

Although prisons vary internationally in their regimes, the main achievement of the prison has been to contain and restrain offenders regardless of their gender (Prison

Service Order, 2008). In Canada, only a small number of women were incarcerated in the nineteenth century, but the use of prison as a sanction has grown steadily since the development of female Canadian penitentiaries in the twentieth century (Prison Service

Order, 2008). Up until the early nineteenth century in Canada, women were held in

chambers instead of facing their sentences in prison. In 1835, the first three women were sentenced to a prison term at Kingston Penitentiary, in Ontario (Correctional Service

Canada, 2000). Although their numbers were small, women prisoners in Kingston

Penitentiary were seldom given enough space and were expected to live in harsh, if not worse conditions than their male counterparts. In 1858, the number of prisoners had almost tripled and the women, not men, were forced to sleep in the corridor due to a lack of cells (Correctional Service Canada, 2000). Overcrowding became a problem for the institution and riots became more frequent as the prison began overflowing. It wasn’t until almost a decade later, in 1867, which an inspector of the prison advocated that a proper women’s prison be built outside the walls of Kingston Penitentiary (Correctional

Service Canada, 2000). It would take many decades before a separate prison for women was constructed.

Although the statistics vary annually, there are approximately 116 women prisoners in Canadian penitentiaries per every 100,000 people in the Canadian population

(Statistics Canada, 2012). Twentieth-century researchers Alida V. Merlo and Joycelyn

M. Pollock suggest that women have always been drastically underrepresented in our prisons, and this partly explains why limited attention has been paid to their prison experience (Johnson et al., 2005). Even with the current accelerated growth in rates of confinement for women, only six percent of the overall prison populations at the turn of the century were women (Johnson et al., 2005). According to a study conducted by

Statistics Canada in 2010/11, the number of women in prison was up to approximately

15% of the total incarcerated population (Statistics Canada, 2012). Don Head, commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, acknowledges the challenges posed

by population growth, but says the service now has more tools for helping inmates: “We are miles ahead of where we were 15 years ago. We have lots of visitors that come around the world to look at our facilities, to look what we’re doing. It is a different approach” (Stone 2012:4). Although such changes can be attributed to the rising number of female prisoners, it was the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario that brought attention to the question of the treatment of women, which led to the present system of regional jails, once the prison’s terrible conditions and harsh treatment of prisoners was discovered.

In Canada, correctional services are generally operated by both the federal and provincial governments. Offenders who receive prison sentences of two years or more are the responsibility of the federal government and Canadian taxpayers. Federal prisons have more dangerous offenders in them and security is tighter. However, such prisons also tend to have more recreational facilities and rehabilitation and activity programs than provincial jails (Correctional Services Canada, 2000). Provincial jails, on the other hand, are specifically for offenders who receive sentences of less than two years. If an individual is sent to federal prison, they may be sent a long way from their home because prisons are scattered across the country and not every province has a federal prison.

The development of regional institutions, moreover, allowed for a multi-level system with the same living skills, sex offender programs and substance abuse treatment as federal prisons, but at a more provincial-level (Correctional Services Canada, 2000).

The Nova Institution for Women built in 1995, for example, is one of five regional facilities for federally-sentenced women across Canada (Correctional Services Canada,

2000).

Theory and the Criminal Label: Tattooed for Life

Receptions into women’s institutions have more than doubled in the last 10 years.

A number of explanations have been offered for this increase, including changes in the nature and seriousness of women’s crime, moves towards dealing with male and female offenders more ‘equally,’ changes in sentencing patterns, changes in the ‘type’ of women sentenced to imprisonment, and increases in the length of women’s prison sentences.

Prisons for men and those for women operate within the same rules and policies.

However, all women’s prisons are additionally required to comply with gender-specific standards for working with women prisoners, which are set out in Prison Service Order

4800 (Ministry of Justice, 2012). This enables staff to be aware of the gender-specific issues that affect women prisoners and respond appropriately.

The Prison Service Order 4800 was developed 2008 to provide regimes and conditions for women prisoners that met their needs. Often times, women are faced with harsh conditions in their cells and transportation vehicles which make them feel more distressed under arrest. Such vulnerability in these conditions often makes them more of a target of intimidation from the close proximity of male prisoners as increases the potential for self-harm. The Prison Service Order 4800 recognizes gender-specific needs of prisoners and establishes guidelines to facilitate a successful resettlement (Prison

Service Order 4800, 2008).

The experience of victimization is not a recent phenomenon in the discussion of women in prison. According to the labeling theory developed by Howard Becker, social group reactions serve to make certain behaviors deviant, regardless of the individual context in which they occur (Pfohl, 1994). Akers (2000) suggests that “labeling theory

essentially asks why some acts are labeled deviant when others are not” (Akers 2000:3).

This argument raises the question as to who creates the label associated with deviant behaviour. Edwin M. Schur makes the argument that the answer is, “those who hold the power within a given social structure are those who create the label associated with being deviant” (Ackers 2000:5). Some sociologists have asserted that it is the more powerful members of society who create the standard for labels that are applied to individuals who are less socially prominent (Ackers, 2000). Women, in this case, generally lack social power and, therefore, are targeted under those who impose labels upon them.

With the prison population being drawn disproportionately from the less affluent members of society, it should come as no surprise that prison norms may, in various ways, exemplify power status norms held by those of a dominant status. Becoming a criminal doesn’t depend solely on individual behaviour, but on the reactions of others. Even more astounding about the population of women in prison is that most are mothers (Kravitz, 2010). The imprisonment of a woman who is a mother can lead to the violation not only of her parental rights but also the rights of access to her children.

The social construction of deviance over time is an important focus of the labeling theory. Individual behaviour is shaped by stigmatization through societal labels. A person truly becomes a criminal once they are labeled that way by society and once they adopt the label to their identity or conceptual selfhood. According to Ackers (2000),

“once the label of ‘offender’ is supplied to an individual, they learn to live up to that label” (Akers 2000:7). The function of a ‘label’ for mothers in conflict with the law mainly works as a way to target them as a ‘bad parent’. Theorist Edwin Lemert suggested two levels of deviance that work to produce different reactions to the label of deviant:

primary and secondary deviance (Pfohl, 1994).

Lemert implies that primary deviance works in part when someone commits a crime. The act of committing a crime, however, is seen as only an act, not part of the individual’s identity (Pfohl, 1994). The act of committing a crime is seen as bad; however, without an official label, the individual can still be involved in conventional life with little or no problem. The use of secondary deviance, however, involves the label of criminal being placed on the individual. Once the label is given, it takes over their identity (Ackers, 2000). The key to secondary deviance is the reaction of others. The crime itself doesn’t cause someone to become criminal; it’s the label given by others that creates a new self-concept defined by the label of criminal. The change from primary deviance to secondary deviance signifies a change in overall identity.

Once secondary deviance occurs, offenders become isolated from the conventional groups of society. The stigma of a criminal label limits participation in formal and informal conventional activities. Individuals previously in conflict with the law have a harder time finding employment and difficulty being accepted back into social circles more so than those who had never been in trouble with the law (Ackers, 2000).

The limitations cause those labeled as delinquents or criminals to associate with others who share their label. Schur further explains that the public reaction to deviance creates a self-fulfilling prophecy which leads to a spiraling cycle of additional criminal behavior

(Ackers, 2000).

Other research includes the finding that women are less likely to be labeled officially as a criminal and, therefore, they are less likely to be stigmatized. It is generally true that women are labeled differently (Ackers, 2000). From an early age, girls are less

likely than boys to be labeled or viewed as delinquent. Later, women are more likely to be labeled as mentally ill, while for the same behavior men will be labeled criminal

(Ackers, 2000). The label given to a criminal mother who is seen as ‘unfit’ to care for her child further carries over to her being classified as mentally not just with being criminal.

Gender roles play a large part in women being classified as ‘mad’ and being treated differently from men in prison. The 1960s and 1970s shed light on many issues involving women in prison. The momentum of social change through civil rights and women’s movements had significant impacts for society and the criminal justice system.

Second-wave feminism broadened the debate to the issues of sexuality, family, and reproductive rights. Some of the key struggles were around affirmative action, rape, domestic violence, pornography, and reproductive choice (Women’s Conference, 2010).

It should be noted, as well, that some crimes specifically target women. The fight for reproductive choice included a fight to have information about, and access to, birth control (selling or promoting birth control was illegal in Canada until 1969) as well as the struggle to decriminalize abortion (Women’s Conference, 2010). In 1988, the Supreme

Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law noting that it violated a women’s right to ‘liberty and personal autonomy’ under section 7 in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Heritage, 2002). After much investigation in both the United

States and Canada, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women was set up following the Canadian Royal Commission on the Status of Women to advocate for women’s equality and became an important focal point for feminist action in Canada during the 1970’s and 80’s (Women’s Conference, 2010).

Second-wave feminists see women’s cultural and political inequalities as linked

and encourage women to understand aspects of their personal lives as politicized and as reflecting sexist power structures (Women’s Conference, 2010). There is a tendency within feminist theory to emphasize the differences between men and women. Nineteenth century theorists Cesare Lombroso and Guglielmo Ferrero believed that the different crimes committed by men and women are a result of their physical difference (History

Learning Site, 2012). Recent Canadian statistics show that female murderers are more rare than male murderers and most women are in prison for drug-related crimes (11%)

(Statistics Canada, 2012). Feminism of difference is used mainly to explain why the majority of women do not offend and why only a small minority do. It begins with the belief that women are innately different from men, with a natural desire to be caring and nurturing, both of which tend not to be values that support crime. Those who are likely to commit crime are therefore not ‘normal’ (History Learning Site, 2012).

Freda Adler (1975) believed that the arrival of the second wave feminism during the 1970s coincided with an advance in women’s criminal activity (Alder, 1975). She claims that, while “women have demanded equal opportunity in the fields of legitimate endeavours, a similar number of determined women have forced their way into the world of major crime such as white collar crime, murder and robbery” (Adler 1975:115). The emergence of the ‘new female criminal’ as noted in Adler’s book, Sisters in Crime: The

New Female Criminal, suggests that female crime has increased since the liberation of women: “The emergence of this ‘new female criminal’ engaged in predatory crimes of violence and corporate fraud has broken into a man’s world” (Adler 1975:90).

James and Thornton revealed, from studies involving women prisoners, that those incarcerated were primarily from impoverished and uneducated backgrounds (Adler,

1975). When asked why they offended, responses did not appear to be ‘liberation’ motivated (Adler, 1975). Contrary to Adler’s theory of emancipation, feminism appeared to be a positive force for conformity when there was opportunity to offend.

Some theorists claim that ‘the female role’ limits offending (Adler, 1975). Parsons claims that women tend to take up the role in the family, which provides emotional support and caring for children as a full-time job, rather than seeking paid work (Adler,

1975). Due to this obligation, women are seen as having less opportunity to commit crime, being required to stay at home, caring for children. However, we cannot assume now that such obligations are a defence against committing crime. New technologies such as the Internet enable anyone to commit crime. From a contemporary point of view, however, this is not always the case. Denscombe looked at the increase in female risk- taking behaviour, and the idea that women want to be seen as anything but the typical stereotype (History Learning Site, 2012). A woman can be at home looking after her children and, at the same time, she can be cheating innocent people on websites such as

Ebay or even committing identity theft or fraud (History Learning Site, 2012).

American criminologist Travis Hirschi believes that liberation and social conformity are connected in his ‘bond of attachment’ theory. Hirschi claims that the more attached individuals are to certain aspects of society, the less likely they are to risk committing crime (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1994). He claims that “a woman with children has more at stake by committing crime, because if she is caught and sent to prison, her children will probably be put into care, or at least be very strongly affected by the loss of their mother” (Hirschi and Gottfredson, 1994). However, attachment and commitment are only half of the barrier for committing a crime. Without the conventional

values, gender does not become such a factor. Also, even with children, we cannot assume that all women will feel so attached and committed to these values that crime is not an option.

Not all aspects of female imprisonment relate to discrimination, but many do.

Some hypothesize that maternal incarceration puts further strain on the family and the woman involved. For example, Lia Jenner (2009) suggests that mothers experience higher rates of depression, guilt and a sense of loss while serving their sentence due to the systematic nature of oppression. Conventionally, women who are incarcerated at the provincial level are single mothers who experience a disproportionate amount of criticism for ‘neglecting’ the needs of their child (Baunach, 1988). The dominant discourse around mothering makes it difficult for incarcerated mothers to sustain mothering practices that are part of societal ideologies. This ideology forces a mother under the spotlight and makes her notoriously known as a ‘bad parent’, creating a stigmatized identity.

Twentieth century theorist, Erving Goffman, defined stigma as “the process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity” (Heatherton et al., 2000). Going hand-in-hand with the labeling theory, social stigma theory depends on the perception or attribution of mental illness, physical disabilities, diseases, illegitimacy, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity or criminality, to name a few (Heatherton et al., 2000).

Many people who have been stigmatized feel as though they are different and devalued by others. This sense of devaluation can happen in the workplace, healthcare system, and criminal justice system. Once people identify and label one’s differences, others will assume that is just how things are, and the person will remain stigmatized until the stigma is no longer considered an attribute of that person. However, the attributes that society

selects differ according to time and place. What is considered out of place in one society could be the norm in another. When society categorizes individuals into stigmatized groups, the labeled person is subjected to status loss and discrimination (Heatherton et al.,

2000). Goffman suggests that society will start to form expectations about those groups once the cultural stereotype is secured:

the stigmatized are ostracized, devalued, rejected, and shunned. They experience discrimination, insults, attacks, and are even murdered. Those who perceive themselves to be members of a stigmatized group, whether it is obvious to those around them or not, often experience psychological distress and may view themselves contemptuously. (Heatherton et al., 2000)

Similar to the labeling theory, stigma may affect the behavior of those who are stigmatized. Heatherton et al. (2000) claim that those who are stereotyped often start to act in ways that their stigmatizers expect of them, and contend that the stigma “not only changes their behaviour, but it also shapes their emotions and beliefs” (75). These stigmas therefore put a person’s social identity into threatening situations, such as low self-esteem.

Prisoners and their families experience a tremendous sense of loss when incarceration occurs, and that loss is heightened when children are involved. Incarcerated mothers contend that separation from their children is one of the most difficult aspects of imprisonment. Donald P. Schneller (1976) found that “depending on the crime and the prevalence of imprisonment in the neighborhood in which they live, family members may not be the objects of social stigma or hostility in that neighborhood” (70). There is, nevertheless, a social stigma which families experience from other elements of society.

The spouse, parent or child of a prisoner may not experience stigma directly until they

reveal the incarcerated relative’s status to a child’s teacher or to a prospective landlord or until the family moves to a prison town (Schneller, 1976).

Despite this criticism, there is no obvious way to identify families affected by imprisonment because criminal justice services, such as courts, probation, and prisons, have no statutory obligation to tell health, education or employment services that someone has been sent to prison or received a community sentence (Heatherton et al.,

2000). A teacher will not necessarily know a child has a family member in prison if the family chooses not to let the school know. Families have the right to confidentiality and to choose to cope by themselves. It is up to the organizations which provide services and support to make as much effort as possible to publicize their availability so that a family member can access them when and if they need to. Many families’ lives become dominated by the effect of imprisonment. They have to live with the consequences.

Stigma, shame, guilt, isolation, social, and psychological consequences are just some of the issues faced by those involved at different stages (Heatherton et al., 2000). In particular, mothers need to develop and be part of their community but the stigma attached to being an incarcerated mother makes life after prison extremely difficult.

Reaching Out to the Community

Because there are far fewer women’s prisons, women tend to be imprisoned further away from their homes and families than do male prisoners, making it more difficult for them to maintain family contact. Many women who are given the opportunity to have their babies or young children in prison with them are often excluded from participating in education or work programmes because there are no childcare facilities

(Townhead, 2006). In Canada, pregnant prisoners may apply for compassionate release to

community sentencing; however, many provincial policies have cancelled the plan to allow pregnant inmates to keep their babies with them while they serve time (Zaitzow and

Thomas 2003:127) Theodore reported that no province besides British Columbia allows women to keep their children in jail with them after giving birth (Theodore, 2008). But even this policy has changed. Alison Granger-Brown, a former social worker in

Corrections B.C., mentions:

Babies born to jailed moms will go to a relative or be placed in foster care. The change, apparently for safety reasons. I was angered. There were obvious benefits to the program of mothers nursing and bonding with their babies. But there was an added bonus: Other women in the Alouette Correctional facility connected with the children. Women didn't use bad language around the children. They were gentle, it just changed the culture. (Theodore 2008:1)

Unfortunately, staff members were not properly trained to care for infants and lacked infant first-aid, so the program was eliminated. In response, Corrections B.C. is continuing to work on a program that would allow mothers to visit with their children for several hours every day, no matter what the age of the child (Theodore, 2008). Theodore believes the practice should be generalized:

Women given federal prison time have been given more freedom in being allowed to take their babies to prison with them, so it is about time those at provincial and regional levels be given the same opportunity. (Theodore, 2008)

Sandra Enos (2001) suggests that women who are mothers currently serving in prison can more effectively serve their sentences when given the opportunities available through community or institutional-based programs. From 2005 to 2007, a partnership between BC Corrections, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD), and BC Women’s Hospital’s Fir Square Combined Care Unit led to an infant and mother

health and coping initiative at the major BC provincial correctional centre for women

(Granger-Brown et al., 2012). Research results show that community outreach programs benefit the mother in significant ways and assist in creating a stronger mother-child bond post-incarceration. Currently, about 62 percent of all female prison inmates are reported to be mothers to children and, 61 percent are reported to have lived with their children prior to incarceration (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). National estimates indicate that the majority of incarcerated mothers who were living with their children prior to incarceration were also providing most of their daily care (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008).

Despite the established link between maternal incarceration and children’s placement with non-parent caregivers, evidence examining the effect of such placement is extremely rare. Gaudin and Sutphen show that non-relative foster care families provide no less quality care, if not better, for children of incarcerated mothers than the care provided by extended family members (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). Despite the good intentions of these mothers, some basic issues about the well-being of children must be considered prior to their release.

Much of the contact a mother is given with her child depends on the type of sentence she faces. Prisoners within provincial prisons have been sentenced to less than two years incarceration. Most of the women who are sent to provincial prison have committed theft, fraud, or drug-related offences. Some women may be placed in procincial prisons are on remand waiting for trial or sentencing. Individuals sentenced to more than two years incarceration serve their sentence at a federal prison. Federally sentenced women must serve two-thirds of their sentence before they are able to apply for release. In general, the numbers of women sentenced to federal time quickly surpassed

the number of beds available (Elizabeth Fry Society, 2012).

When considering the state of provincial institutions for women, we must remember the context. Women are increasingly being criminalized and we are being criminalized in a society that provides limited community and social supports and programs to those at a provincial level. Prisons for women have been influenced by the lack of programming and social services available. Recent research on federal prisons for women in Canada found that federal prisons are increasingly being used as treatment centers for criminalized women who have addictions, mental health concerns and counseling needs. This may mean that women see some advantages to serving time in a federal prison instead of provincial jails. But this is not enough. Those who are sentenced under the provincial system also experience the same kinds of criticisms as those who serve a longer sentence; hence, the label is still there.

These historical contexts and varying societal norms create and manipulate the stereotypes upon which labels are placed. A mother’s role in their stigmatization is based largely on whether she ‘deviates’ from the norms expected from society. Is she a good mother to her children? If criminalized, this automatically suggests that she isn’t.

Society’s role in the stigmatization of mothers who have been incarcerated is inevitable, and although there are many potential ways to limit such stigmatization, mothers often conform to the negative label placed on them and therefore may continue to act out the label or see themselves as unable to integrate back into society. On the surface, crime may be seen as inherently bad, but what about mothers who commit crimes to assist the well-being of their children? Society often does not take into consideration crime as a means-end for those under different and disadvantaged social conditions.

Furthermore, society plays a significant role in labeling those who are considered deviant. Does the way in which society labels those who are deviant, greatly influence the stigmatization of mothers and determine their experiences within the community? The focus of the thesis is to examine the extents to which women who are mothers, who are released from prison, are stigmatized particularly in relation to their role as mothers. My method is to analyze, within a small, homogenous sample, mothers who had previously been in conflict with the law and employees of the Elizabeth Fry Society, to uncover the extent to which the criminality of a mother influences society to label her as a ‘bad parent’ and further stigmatization continues. Labeling theory from a feminist perspective, combined with aspects of Goffman’s stigma theory, indicate that targets are placed on those who act in any way differently than the social norms established by society.

Criminality is a deviation in social traits and can convey useful information about the convicted, which makes stigmatization an important function of the criminal justice system apart from moral considerations.

Applying this combined theoretical framework to my thesis has allowed me to approach the stigmatization of mothers in prison from a multi-perspective framework.

Labels constructed by societal norms and expectations, combined with perceived ideologies surrounding the classification of those who have a criminal background, work together to create a negative stigma about mothers who have previously been incarcerated. In my thesis, I analyze a combination of perspectives around genderization and imprisonment to gain an understanding of how the effects of stigmatization of mothers in prison develops, and how these effects can be lessened. A full analysis of the methodology can be found in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 3: Methodology

An analysis of the current literature available on the history of stigmatization of mothers in prison has provided the basis for further research and data collection and has worked, in part, towards shaping the conclusion of the collected data. Unfortunately, there is a lack of ethnographic work on or discussing mothers in jail and many prison theorists have failed to focus on the effects of provincial imprisonment on mothers. This scholarship does not necessarily help contextualize the personal stories I want to tell. Instead, I look to primary research: structured interviews involving two mothers who have been previously in conflict with the law through the provincial system and two Elizabeth Fry

Society employees in order to ascertain, first-hand, the experiences faced by mothers in prison and post-release, and those who work directly with them.

I decided to focus on the Elizabeth Fry Society (EFry) as a means for gathering participants because of their history of working with women in conflict with the law, and their support to women who are experiencing physical, emotional or financial difficulties.

The Elizabeth Fry Society is a non-profit, direct service organization that assists women from the time that they are arrested to their discharge from prison and through to their reintegration into the community (Elizabeth Fry Society, 2012). Programs that are offered include counselling, probation services, life skills, substance abuse programs, in-reach programs, release planning, parole supervision, vocational training and a program related to residential services (Elizabeth Fry Society, 2012). The goal of the association is to work collaboratively with Elizabeth Fry Societies across Canada and other women’s

advocacy groups to “address poverty, racism, and other forms of oppression” (Elizabeth

Fry Society, 2012). Although the facility is one of the few programs available for women who have been federally sentenced and released into the community, the focus of this study is on women provincially sentenced. These women also access Elizabeth Fry

Society services, which support all women regardless of race, disability, sexual orientation, age, and religion. This agency provides programs and services, which are devoted to help females of all ages who are or could be at risk of being in conflict with the law. This combination of services and access to incarcerated women made this research site ideal for data collection.

Upon researching the Elizabeth Fry Society to get a better idea of what the organization was about, I approached the Community Outreach Coordinator to discuss the issue of stigmatization of incarcerated mothers and pitch my idea to interview mothers who have previously been in conflict with the law and Elizabeth Fry employees who have worked with women in this situation. The organization was intrigued by my thesis proposal and willingly allowed me send out a call for participants.

This study was looking solely for mothers who are no longer incarcerated but served a minimum of a one-year sentence. Participants volunteered their participation in this study and were notified of the study through a general email (Appendix 1).

Participants were given the opportunity to opt out of their participation at any point.

Communication between the Community Outreach Coordinator and I worked to maintain confidentiality of their clients. Once women volunteered their participation, signed consent was further obtained (Appendix 2). Data collection took place at the Elizabeth

Fry Society. The society office was chosen as a location for interviews for a more

confidential, relaxed atmosphere. Each interview with the mothers took approximately an hour and fifteen minutes with a ten minute debriefing period. All data from the inmate sample were collected on one day in January 2013. The interviews were recorded using a computer software program and subsequently transcribed. Interview questions (Appendix

3) revolved around questions concerning such matters as family history, what was the hardest thing about being a mother in prison, whether the mother felt obligated to prove herself as being a good mother to her family, friends, and society, and whether there were programs available for her to see her child in jail and post-incarceration. The transcribed copy of each interview was coded thematically, analyzed, and compared to the literature reviewed.

Participants who are Elizabeth Fry Society employees were recruited in a similar manner through the Elizabeth Fry Society. This study selected Elizabeth Fry Society employees who have worked with mothers in prison. Data collection took place at the

Elizabeth Fry Society on two separate days that were convenient for the interviewees, in

December2012 and January 2013. Interviews involving Elizabeth Fry Society staff took approximately fifty minutes each with a ten minute debriefing period. Interview questions

(Appendix 3) focused on questions such as the programs the Elizabeth Fry Society offer to mothers in need, what are some of the Society’s barriers in providing programming to mothers in jail, whether care arrangements available to mothers differ depending on a short-term sentence versus long-term sentence, and what are some of the main problems they find mothers face socially, emotionally and physically once released from jail. The transcribed copy of each interview was coded thematically, analyzed and compared to the responses from mothers and the existing literature.

There was minimal risk associated with participation in this study. Although participation was purely voluntary and subjects were able to discontinue their participation at any time, the cohort of mothers who have been in jail in Nova Scotia is quite small. The primary concern arising from this small number is how anonymity of participants will continue to be maintained. In order to fulfill this requirement, participant’s names as well as the names of children and other family members was removed from all data collection. Study participants were each assigned a unique subject number to identify their data. In addition, the tape recording was transcribed solely by the researcher and the audio file was erased once the transcript was written. The electronic transcriptions were kept on a computer file and password protected until the thesis was approved, at which point, they were erased. During this time only the researcher and principal supervisor had access to this transcription. Participants had the option of being tape recorded, keeping in mind that the recordings were to help the researcher transcribe the data in an effective way. Simultaneously, I took extensive notes throughout each interview in case the participants felt uncomfortable continuing the tape recording.

With the cohort of maternal incarceration in Nova Scotia being so small, a convenience sample of only two mothers and two Elizabeth Fry Society employees was sought. Because data were only obtained from a small sample, the results cannot be generalized beyond the sample. In terms of qualitative research, interviews pertaining to this topic were difficult to obtain given concerns about privacy. Qualitative methodology was used as the only reasonable data collection method from a small sample of subjects and was appropriate to uncover questions pertaining to the area of social stigma.

The benefits to using semi-structured interviews are that it was more effective in

terms of both quality of information obtained and the efficiency of the interview process.

Semi-structured interviews allow for the researcher to ask unanticipated follow-up questions and pursue themes that arise in the interviews. Through this method I was able to get more of a feel for each participant being face-to-face, as well as see an emotional side in terms of their in-depth responses. All applicants in the interview were treated the same. This enabled me to make an ‘apples to apples’ comparison since the same questions and response evaluation options were used (amongst mothers and separate questions amongst Elizabeth Fry Society employees).

The use of individual interviewing allowed mothers and primary workers to guide the focus and direction of the narrative. This afforded the opportunity for me as the researcher, to follow up and clarify questions based on the mother’s narratives and primary worker’s perspectives (Babbie and Benaquisto, 2002). This approach further enabled mother’s voices to be at the forefront (Babbie and Benaquisto, 2002).

The only weakness I encountered with this method was that the validity of the responses could be questioned because of the ‘unnatural’ atmosphere in the interview.

However, I was able to combat the issue of the participants having little control over the interview because my questions allowed the interviewees to expand on their responses, often giving me new information that had not been in my questions.

Obtaining data from mothers who were previously in conflict with the law provided me with further insight into the treatment of women in jail as and how the development of stigma attaches a negative label to mothers, which they carry into the community once released from jail. Interviewing Elizabeth Fry Society employees regarding what programs they offer for women in need coming from provincial jails

offered insight into the efforts being made to integrate mothers back into society, hopefully sans-label.

For each interview, the questions that were discussed with the mothers coincided with the ideologies surrounding the severity of the crime that they committed, the rights to their children, whether they felt they were treated differently once they were released into the community and whether there were programs to help them deal with imprisonment and separation from their children throughout the process.

The analysis of these collected data, discussed in the following chapter, will explore the relationships between feminism and stigmatization. The research seeks to understand how negative societal judgments attached to being a mother who has been in conflict with the law relates to self-identity and how the behaviour of individuals may be influenced by the way others categorize them. The intention was to uncover, first-hand, the experiences faced by mothers in jail and those who had worked with them. This research focused on understanding the process of stigmatization and what can be done to lessen its effects.

I 1ooked for critical themes and key events while transcribing the interviews.

After the initial codes had been created, a flow chart was developed in order to present the links between concepts and themes (Appendix 4). The final step which was utilized for data coding is called selective coding. This part of data analysis involves the researcher scanning all the data and selectively choosing cases that illustrate themes. In keeping with the feminist approach, I paid close attention to culture and themes of oppression.

I combined feminism with Goffman’s stigma theory and the belief that society

labels those who have been involved with criminal behaviour, to gain an understanding of how such labels work to shape a mother’s experiences within the community post- incarceration. Through my interview questions, I was interested in understanding how negative societal judgments attached to being a mother previously in conflict with the law relates to how self-identity and behaviour of individuals may be influenced by the way others categorize them.

Within the literature review, the notion of gender was examined as well as the process of stigmatization of those who have been in trouble with the law. The literature further addressed a third component through which the label of deviant extends further to mothering and to label women negatively who have a child and who have committed a crime. It is common in society to see a woman go to jail and be thus deemed a ‘bad’ mother. Yet, if a mother commits a crime and does not receive jail time, it may be that the stigma is not placed by the wider society. The label of a criminalized woman as a

‘bad’ mother negates the lack of social and economic power she faces in society and the reasons for which she commits crime.

The major themes extracted from the literature; what it means to be a respected mother, society’s placement of labels on those who are deviant, and the role of community programming, were compared to current literature and academic conclusions regarding the lack of social power and representation of mother offenders in the community. In Canada, the demands of the women’s movement for equal rights within the prison system are connected with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section

15. The section provides for equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic

origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability (Canadian Heritage,

2002). However, Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. The testimonies from female offenders work to uncover the realities of stigmatization and unfair treatment of mothers once they are labeled by society.

Through coding of the interviews, similar themes arose pertaining to society’s influence toward the stigma placed on incarcerated mothers, the mother’s acceptance of the label and how community outreach programs can benefit incarcerated mothers once in the community. The differences in support programs offered to offenders once they are released into the community differs greatly depending on whether the individual served a sentence of less than a year or more. Focusing on the provincial system allows room to identify the programs or support systems that could better benefit those who have been labeled through petty crime.

CHAPTER 4: Results & Discussion

Qualitative interviewing produced a unique perspective for uncovering the stigmatization of mothers in prison. This method was useful in structuring each interview as a natural flowing conversation between the researcher and participant. The purpose of these interviews was to enable myself as a researcher to learn more about the stigmatization of mothers in jail through the experiences of mothers who have been incarcerated, which cannot be directly discussed through the use of literature. The interviews were utilized in hopes of uncovering proper programming to assist mothers who are in prison and once they are released into the community. These interviews not only aided this research by adding an inner perspective to external experiences of being a mother in jail, but allowed for probing and increased accuracy of response. For confidentiality purposes of this report, the names of the interviewees have been changed.

It is difficult enough for me to imagine being in jail. Most of my images stem from old movies such as The Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile in which the tough guys are mean to the more innocent inmates, and those of different races or gender are allegedly guilty despite their innocence. With the onset of television programs such as

‘Jail,’ there’s a newer consciousness of the jail experience, including extreme violence and out of control teens, as a reality of incarceration. None of these representations however, properly prepared me for my interviews with two previously incarcerated mothers. Two mothers were interviewed, ages 37 and 40, both of whom had been previously incarcerated. Many significant themes emerged from the interviews, several of which were accompanied by vivid memories and strong emotions. The time spent interviewing mothers and primary workers from Elizabeth Fry Society sheds light on the

impact of maternal incarceration on these mothers.

For six months, Amy, a mother of one, spent her time behind bars. Growing up,

Amy never imagined herself in the correctional system; “I had a good life growing up, a good supportive family. I was on the honor roll”, she says. Then, after high school, she started getting high and eventually became addicted to marijuana:

I never went to college or any of that. Getting high was my hobby. It was what I liked to do. I had a guy friend who did it with me all of the time. We eventually got pretty close and the next thing I knew I was pregnant with him. At first I freaked. I wasn’t educated past high school, all of my money went to pot and this guy didn’t care about me at all. That is when I really let loose and got involved with crime to try and make up for being a bum. This child was going to need me.

In 1998, at the age of twenty-two, Amy was arrested for petty theft and spent six months in jail without parole. While in jail, she gave birth to a son, who was directly sent to social services and later onto a foster family.

Kathy, also a mother of one, had her daughter before she was arrested. She talked about how life growing up wasn’t easy but she still got by:

My dad left us when I was quite young. My mom didn’t deal with it too well and spent the majority of the family money to support her heroin addiction. My brother and I had to fend for ourselves so it was difficult in that sense. He was a lot younger than me so I took over the matriarchal role often working many jobs throughout high school to help support my family. I had dreams of going to college but I felt helping my family was more important. I met a guy from work and we dated for a few months before I got pregnant. I was really excited. I was used to taking care of a family and I was happy for my own. After I had my daughter our money began to run out and my partner started dealing as a means for money. I developed an interest in marijuana and eventually tried it myself.

In 2001, Kathy faced a twelve-month jail sentence after she tried to snatch a woman’s purse to get money for drugs.

Already, the backgrounds of the mothers whom I interviewed were eye opening.

The emotional responses and sense of trust that the mothers lent to me made me sensitive to their stories; I was intrigued to learn of their struggles.

Upon approaching the Elizabeth Fry Society, I was able to obtain two female participants who have been employees of the Elizabeth Fry Society since 2005. They described their experiences working at the organization as ‘eye-opening’ but also ‘heart- breaking’ in many cases:

Many of these women come to us begging for help. They’ve been abused, they have nowhere to go, and they feel like life has no purpose. But more interesting is they just want to build the relationships they lost in jail, especially with their families.

According to the primary workers from their experience gained from working with mothers who have been incarcerated, the vast majority of inmates have a history of abuse that is sometimes intergenerational:

This becomes a problem and something we keep an eye on with families who come through here. We want to catch any habits that the mothers have that may pass onto their children such as alcoholism. That’s why we develop community services and supports so that the family can receive help as well.

After analyzing the data it appears that the mothers and the primary workers from the

Elizabeth Fry Society reported two main aspects which affect the mother-child relationship while they are in jail: system barriers and resource barriers. These major themes have an influence and impact on the mother and child, and the impact on the mother is noted as one of the factors that may contribute to their self-stigmatization. The mothers described system barriers deriving from jail policies and procedures while they faced their sentence. A sample of their accounts helps give shape to what mothers

experienced serving their sentence in jail. Both participants articulated their experience of jail policies and procedures surrounding visits as acting as system barriers and also as erecting ‘barriers’ toward being a good parent.

Emotional Response

One of the primary workers who worked at the Elizabeth Fry Society commented on how many of the women she has come across have a history of coping with issues of abuse. She stated:

I would have to say substance abuse is always a big issue that we see when women come in. A lack of self awareness seems to be a major issue. Abuse is always a topic of conversation. Especially for mothers, we try to find out whether they had been abused in the past and whether any experiences of abuse may pass onto their children.

With respect to mothering, both ex-inmate participants reported that they were the sole caregivers of their children prior to their incarceration. Kathy stated that “it was all me who took care of the kids. His father was never around and I didn’t expect him to be”.

She described the experience of transferring parental responsibility over for adoption prior to her incarceration:

At the time I did my crime there was no way I could keep them because I was looking at jail time, initially. They wanted a year so I was, like, “Well, what the hell am I going to do now?” So this family wanted my daughter and she was in foster care for six months. Once I was released I fought for her and after a few years of proving myself, you know, cleaning myself up, getting a job. I could have her back.

Participant’s perceptions of their incarceration varied in this study. One mother perceived her incarceration as a positive experience because it relieved her from parental responsibilities while she was getting substance abuse programming for her drug addiction:

It was good because it relieved my stress from me. I didn’t have to take all the responsibility on anymore. The fact that someone else had guidance over my child, I knew they were in good hands.

I asked her how she could be so sure that her child was in good hands.

I know he was because the program he was in. It was sort of a ‘nanny program’ where an elderly lady from the social worker site would bring him in to see me. Almost like a day trip. We could hang out in the correctional facility and color, that stuff you know. It seemed real. I’ve been out (of jail) for awhile but I don’t think those luxuries are there anymore.

The Elizabeth Fry Society informed me that the aim of the mother-child program (in which children were allowed to visit their mothers) was to establish and maintain the bond between a mother and child, and to reduce the effects of separation on the mother and her child. There are three types of possible mother-child contact in prison: Full-Time

Residency was designed for children aged 0-5 years, whereby, if it was in the best interests of the child, s/he may reside with her/his mother full time in prison. Part-Time or

Occasional Residency was if it was in the best interests of the child, s/he may visit with her/his mother on some weekends and holidays. Finally, Regular Visits were offered if it was in the best interests of the child, s/he may visit with her/his mother in the visiting area of the prison – provided there was someone willing to transport the children and be present during the visits, which allowed the mother to maintain regular access to her children.

In Amy’s case, she was granted regular visits with her son during which a ‘nanny’ would bring him into the correctional facility to visit her. One of the primary workers informed me that in February 2008, however, Public Safety Minister, Stockwell Day, announced:

The Mother-Child Program would exclude mothers from the program who have been convicted of ‘serious’ crimes, with no requirement that the nature or context of their convictions be linked to their abilities to parent. Women who would not permit their children to be strip-searched should not be permitted to participate in the mother-child program.

“Although this would not have affected individuals such as Amy”, said one primary worker, “it limits those who have been convicted of more serious crimes from seeing their children, making their sentence more difficult (emotional).”

Kathy, on the other hand, did not receive regular visits with her daughter as did Amy, but she expressed the view that incarceration gave her time to reflect on past mistakes associated with mothering:

For the first time in my life I could look back and figure out where I went wrong with my life. I thought a lot about my mistakes and how I got into this mess. I thought about how I could be a better mother because I mean you have all the time to think about this stuff in jail right.

Both of the participants also recalled experiencing negative feelings from being separated from their children during their incarceration. This part of the interview impacted Amy emotionally and she disclosed the following:

It made me feel like I had a lot of guilt and shame for what I did. I missed my kid every day and it kind of made me feel empty. I was no longer whole because I didn’t know what he was up to. He came to visit but was too young to tell me in detail what he had been up to. When I had him I was a great mom. Now I don’t even have him in my life. After I was released he needed to stay with the social worker. His father was never around and I wasn’t allowed to maintain custody. It was awful because at the time I was also fighting an addiction and I was trying to beat that while I was away from my kid. I also had to deal with trying to keep my kid but that didn't happen. I had a lot of mixed feelings at that time.

Kathy articulated feelings of detachment when asked to describe the feelings associated with being separated from her child. She stated:

It was hard at first but I adapted quite well. Knowing that I couldn’t see my daughter anyways and being in jail helped me not show emotions so I was okay. I got through it pretty good; knowing that eventually I would regain custody. It was the light at the end of the tunnel, I suppose.

One of the primary workers empathized with a lot of the mothers that she encountered while working in the prison. She claimed:

It would be hard I think for anyone to be in jail. I think that whole process of being in jail is very humiliating and degrading for these women. This is a part of their life that is very traumatic for them so, for them, it is important to come to terms with that and deal with those issues prior to getting the custody of their children again.

Both primary workers further elaborated to describe how many women are triggered with negative emotions. One stated that:

It is very difficult. That’s when you see it hurt mother’s the most and trigger them greatly when they are inside the prison because they don’t have the physical connection with their children. They can talk to them on the phone but that only seems to go so far. The mother who was able to see her son still felt very strong emotions upon his departure. Although she could see his physical self, the sense of motherhood and her duties to take care of him were gone.

One primary worker articulated that most of the women that she has worked with tend to demonstrate low self esteem when discussing their role as a mother while in prison:

Many women talk about the separation and how it hinders the relationship with their children. As a result of this a lot of them think they aren’t good mothers. I guess they think that if they aren’t seeing them then they aren’t taking care of them. And even if they are seeing them, it is treated like a visit and they feel detached from that nurturing aspect that every mother craves.

When asked whether the mothers disclose how they felt about their incarceration and being separated from their children, one primary worker suggested that women experience distrust in expressing their emotions around this topic:

Yes, some women do share their feelings around being in prison. However, some of the other women will not discuss or refuse to when they initially come in to Elizabeth Fry Society. Once they build that rapport with you, then a lot of them just break down. A lot of women have had to deal with giving their children up for adoption or whether the father has them and there is no longer contact. They may not have them because they are on parole or at the halfway house too. They will break down over this because it is a constant reminder of the mistakes they have made along the way.

Once they were incarcerated, some women struggled with the change in their parenting role once their child was being taken care of by a caregiver. Amy described her experience with her son as the following:

It was kind of like I was meeting a new friend. She (social worker) would bring him in to see me. I had to try and rebuild all that trust back and prove to him that I’m not going anywhere. I have to be grateful though because they were taking care of him. I think they were doing a pretty good job.

Kathy stated that she felt as though she “was not a parent anymore, but a mother”.

Basic Necessities

Both of the mothers mentioned how their basic necessities were neither being met prior to their incarceration nor once they were released. Kathy mentioned how she struggled to support the family in sparse living in conditions even after she was released:

When I had my kid I was a bit younger right. At that age I couldn’t afford anything for my kid because I was on welfare and that was hard. I was on welfare so I had trouble paying for food, diapers and everything else in the house.

She added that it was difficult once she left jail because she still did not have employment, and not having a job hindered her from seeing her child:

I didn’t really have a job right away. That was hard because I just wanted my daughter back. I felt like people wouldn’t hire me because I was a

criminal. I stole, ya, but I learned my lesson. Unfortunately, ‘being a criminal’ stuck with me.

One of the primary workers agreed with the mothers that employment was considered one barrier that many women tend to face once they enter post-incarceration programming at Elizabeth Fry Society. She stated:

Many don’t have jobs at first which is always hard for them to deal with. A lot of them are working up to getting jobs but at first none of them have one. They don’t have the finances then to go and see their family usually.

According to the mothers and primary workers who were interviewed in this study, it appears that incarceration is not the only variable which influences the label of being a

‘bad mother’ but there is equally the process of self-stigmatization of the mother herself.

Through the interviews it appears that understanding how one reacts to being jailed and forfeiting her responsibilities as a mother is essential in attempting to appreciate the impact of maternal incarceration on mothers.

In this study, the impact of stigma is twofold. Although public stigma is a contributing factor to how the wider society views those who are criminal, self-stigma largely comes into play with the notion that individuals who are criminal turn the label against themself. Social psychologists view stereotypes as especially efficient, social knowledge structures that are learned by most members of a social group. Stereotypes are considered ‘social’ because they represent collectively agreed upon notions of groups of persons. They are ‘efficient’ because people can quickly generate impressions and expectations of individuals who belong to a stereotyped group. Though society and the environment can have a large influence on the mother who is incarcerated, it is the mother who is left to interpret herself as having good or bad mothering practices (Jenner,

2009).

Some of the findings from this study relate to current research. As Jenner (2009) noted, women who have been incarcerated tend to handicap their parenthood by their beliefs that the greater society is already doing so. Both of the respondents in this study disclosed that they had lived on welfare prior to their incarceration and were the sole caregivers of their child. Both women acknowledged that they did not receive the benefit of child care, subsidized housing, or the support of a spouse to contribute to the well being of their children. This is congruent with other researchers who claim that this population is not being afforded with opportunities that will allow them to prosper financially and socially (Stevens and Hall, 1992).

All of the respondents from this study also acknowledged that jail policies and practices hindered inmates’ communication and contact with their children. This is congruent with the Barnhill (1996) study, which examined the policies and procedures in the social welfare system and suggested that they give dependent women little choice, further disadvantaging vulnerable individuals. One of the mothers and one primary worker mentioned practical barriers such as rules related to phone calls and visitation which impeded communication with their children. Young and Smith (2000) found similar findings, which suggest that institutional policies regarding phone calls and physical visitation often make it more difficult for women to stay in contact with their family members. Both mothers complained that the locations of the correctional facilities are often remote from their homes and from the foster homes of their children and were thus inaccessible to their children. One mother who had the benefit of having her child come visit on a regular basis said that:

Even though he was there with me, there were still strict rules. We could colour and make crafts together but even if we wanted to talk, the social worker was right there with us. It seemed impersonal.

Primary workers elaborated to suggest that scheduled times are allotted for family visitation but that this appointment rarely follows through because of a number of factors, including eligibility of visitation and pending on behaviour. The literature supports these findings and notes that visits tend to depend on would-be visitors’ schedules, which also makes visitation more difficult (Kaplan and Sasser, 1996).

All the respondents from this study recommended that, in order to support mother-child relationships while mothers are incarcerated, there needs to be more child friendly centres and privacy associated with visitations. Many of the participants were ambivalent about the notion of children visiting or residing in the jail. These beliefs could stem from cultural views that inmates should be without privileges including family visitations. They also reflect the question of whether visiting jail can have negative consequences on the children, usually depending on their age.

One of the primary workers interviewed for this study expressed the need to have agencies and the community to reach out and include mothers who have been incarcerated. A family liaison official could help to facilitate and maintain the mother- child relationship while women are in prison. They could help bridge the gap between workers, caregivers, extended family members, school personnel and anyone else connected to the child’s immediate environment, almost as a relief for the mother.

Both the primary workers and mothers expressed how there were a lack of services to promote healthy relationships with the caregivers and their children. Several reports have noted that the programs offered to women in correctional facilities in Canada

have not taken into account the needs of women (Moffat and Shaw, 2000). Some correctional program strategies have been put into place, such as parenting programs

(Moffat and Shaw, 2000). One respondent in this study suggested that parenting programs may be in place but these services do not necessarily suit individual needs. Her experience was that it merely dealt with basic parenting skills instead of the grief and loss associated with being separated from your child and the thought of being a ‘bad mother.’

Confinement to jail means that women are being separated from any source of support including their children. The women in this study said that they experienced a variety of negative emotions associated with being disconnected with the sources of support they count on, such as their children and family members. Prison tends to aggravate women’s emotions linked to close ties with family members, and this response is one of the consequences of being incarcerated (Pollock-Byrne, 1990). The rupture of emotions experienced by the child and mother because of separation could be avoided by having women serve their sentence in community-based programs such as conditional sentencing instead of being incarcerated (Myers et a1., 1999). Community sentencing programs include half way houses, house arrest and day programs where inmates could be supervised but also reside with their children (Griffiths, 2004).

These programs are positive alternatives when one considers that the vast majority of offenses committed by women are non violent and considered minor offenses. Most of the women who are confined to provincial facilities are sentenced for drug-related offences and theft (Finn et al., 1999). Some studies have shown that community based programs are an effective way to ensure family preservation and have more positive implications for children’s adjustment (Devine, 1997).

Although community based intervention strategies benefit these families, it is also important to look at the larger systems to have mothers prosper in the community. The women interviewed in this study expressed the difficulties associated with being the sole caregiver while living on welfare. Mothers who have been incarcerated need public assistance from community agencies. Access to public assistance, education, child care, mental health agencies and drug treatment would ensure women have the basic necessities to support the development of their children.

Through examination of the literature and conducting interviews, it is evident that maternal incarceration can have negative implications. Federal law and local practice should consider the large systems that influence these families. Public policies concerned with employment, child welfare, criminal justice systems and immigration are all candidates to promote the mother-child relationship. Implementation of program and service that directly benefit these families could give mothers the tools necessary to provide the necessities to their children.

Research around this topic needs to focus on examining the child directly.

Children need to be given the opportunity to express their opinion on their experience. It could be argued that, without examining the personal experience of the child, society has an incomplete account of the issues associated with maternal incarceration and the impact on the mother. Studying the mother’s perspective on this topic advances our understanding.

The purpose of asking mothers whether there were programming options given to them, was to uncover whether the programming allowed the mothers to have fewer problems once they re-entered the community. This programming could largely

determine whether the mothers felt less stigmatized if they were given the proper assistance. Thus, the interviews worked as a way of giving the mother a sense of security and enabled her momentarily to feel as though the experience of being in prison had been a mere bump in the road that she overcame, despite being continually labelled.

Examining the four interviews further, key themes which arose from the interviews complement those themes that were discussed largely in the literature. Mainly, the mothers that were interviewed felt as though, because of their gender, they were predisposed to be stigmatized within the prison and, once in the community, for their actions (committing a crime). One mother felt “…if a mother commits a crime and does not receive jail time, the stigma does not apply for pathological reasons.” Yet, one of the primary workers who had not specifically worked with this mother felt that “the label of a criminalized woman takes away from the lack of social and economic power she faces in society, and the reasons she commits crime.” Therefore, it is suggested that, through the viewpoint of the mother, society is to blame for the way she is treated as a result of her criminal background, and if she is saddled with that label, she will be further stigmatized.

Though as the primary worker suggests, the label works to suppress the fact that women are less powerful in society and therefore they act in a way that would steer away from that ideology – in such a way that they take on the ‘criminal’ label.

Ultimately, the major themes which emerged from the data revolve around pre- existing expectations about the stigmas of mothers in prison and the preconceived notions of motherhood. Although the mothers were not compensated for participating in this research study, both felt that it was an empowering experience to be able to tell their story and one mother believed that it helped her to feel relieved of the pain she felt as a mother

in prison:

the experience [of being in prison] is something that nobody wants to face. But as a mother, it is harder than anyone could imagine. Each day I feared what people would think of my child, my family and most importantly, me. When I got out, there was not much that could help me not to feel ashamed, but being able to tell my story [almost a decade later] gives me a sense of relief that everything is O.K. now.

CHAPTER 5: Conclusion

To conclude, using a semi-structured interview approach and scholarly literature worked best for this research. With a relatively small population of previously incarcerated women, quantitative data collection was not feasible. The information gained from qualitative interviewing allowed for the mothers to have a voice and primary workers to give further insight into their institution and experiences with mothers in prison.

It is not possible to understand the experiences and attitudes surrounding maternal incarceration from a single framework, as our society hinges on the development of societal norms and constant criticisms surrounding what behaviours and lifestyles are and are not acceptable. Society, therefore, is the best collaboration in determining how mothers are stigmatized in terms of their deviant background. The notion that an individual who cares for their child should be fit to do so is based largely on the expectations created by those within a society. If that individual lacks such characteristics, or is deemed ‘unfit’, they are seen as deviant and a negative label is imposed.

This notion of societal expectations has not been previously presented in regards to mother’s experiences with incarceration; however, aspects of how mothers conform to these labels were reviewed within the literature review chapter. A mother’s adherence to accept stigmatization, for example, creates an atmosphere in which she feels as though she cannot get away from the label and its consequences.

Therefore, the label continues to be a part of her life and she continues to feel a sense of detachment from the community. Despite efforts within community programming to lessen these effects faced by mothers, the label largely depends on how the mother interprets it and whether or not she accepts it as a representation of who she truly is.

All of the interviewees were concerned that the women were vulnerable to a triple stigmatization as women, who were criminals, and who were also ‘bad mothers’ as a result of being criminals. Furthermore, the women took on the label themselves in the process of self-stigmatization. It was not clear from the research, however, how much of the stigmatization the women experienced in the community related to their poverty, their welfare-state status, or to their history of substance abuse. Although the sample is small, the question of regaining custody of their children appears to be a complex matter and the criminal label may not be the most important. Rather, social workers appeared to be concerned about the overall stability of the single-parent situation post-incarceration. The problem of substance and drug abuse was one of the important factors they took into consideration. Judging from the comments from the mothers, they knew that establishing family ties required breaking from their addictions.

This thesis was directed at understanding the relationships which exist between mothers who were previously incarcerated and society. Through a series of interviews, I was able to create a feminist model of research, which combined qualitative data, giving a voice to the experiences of women within the prison system and those who worked within the system. Unfortunately, the small cohort of mothers

available for interviewing as well as the lack of participation among primary workers through the Elizabeth Fry Society, ultimately hindered the ability to generalize the experiences regarding the stigmatization of mothers in prison.

As members of society, we have preconceived expectations about the responsibilities which come with being a parent. These specific expectations are coupled with gendered notions that women, who are largely noted in society as the primary caregiver, who commit a crime great enough to be imprisoned, are mentally unstable and therefore unfit to care for their family. Such ideologies which determine how we label people, work in part in determining how they are molded by such labels.

Thus, we expect certain behaviours depending on an individual’s conformity to societal norms. Yet, by imposing these expectations, we are further limiting those individuals to have a fair chance at reversing the label and therefore integrating back into society.

My research has led to the conclusion that it is the societal expectations of what it means to be a mother and how we define those who are involved with crime that are the primary barriers to successful reintegration and the reestablishment of families for previously incarcerated women. Although my research model was modest and had only a limited sample, it provides a feminist model for research future inquiries into the stigmatization of mothers in jail and post-incarceration.

References

Adler, Freda. 1975. Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal. New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Akers, R.A. 2000. Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and

Application. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Arditti, Joyce A. 2012. Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and

Social Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents and Caregivers. New York,

NY: New York University Press.

Ash, Juliet. 2010. Dress Behind Bars: Prison Clothing as Criminality. New York,

NY: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.

Babbie, E. & Benaquisto, L. (2002). Fundamentals of social research, (pp. 330-345).

Scarborough, ON: Thomson Nelson.

Banks, Cyndi. 2003. Women in Prison: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara,

California: Cyndi Banks.

Barnhill, S. (1996). Three generations at risk: Imprisoned women, their children, and

grandmother caregivers. Generations, 20, 39-40.

Bastick, Megan and Laurel Townhead. 2008. Women in Prison: A Commentary on

the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Geneva, SUI:

Quaker United Nations Office.

Baunach, Phyllis Jo. 1988. Mothers in Prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, Inc.

Canadian Heritage. 2002. “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Retrieved

Dec 6, 2012 (http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf).

Correctional Services Canada. July 6, 2000. “Women in Prison in Canada.” Retrieved

Dec 1, 2012 (http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/brochurep4w/2-eng.shtml).

Dell, Colleen Ann, Roberta Lynn Sinclair and Roger Boe. 2001. “Canadian Federally

Incarcerated Adult Women Profiles Trends from 1981 to 1998.” Retrieved Feb 22,

2013 (http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r99/r99_e.pdf).

Devine, K. 1997. “Family Unity: The benefits and costs of community-based

sentencing programs for women and their children in Illinois.” Retrieved Feb 14,

2013( http://www.c-I-a-i-m.org/).

Edwards, A. and Hurley, R., 2002. “Prisons: Sources of information on prisoners,

history and architecture.” Retrieved Feb 13, 2013 (http://www.hmprisonservice.

gov.uk/assets/documents/1000015Fhistorysourcesmar04.doc).

Elizabeth Fry Society. 2012. “Prisons.” Retrieved Feb 22, 2013

(http://www. efrynovascotia.com/prisons.php).

Enos, Sandra. 2001. Mothering from the Inside: Parenting in a Women’s Prison.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fessler, Kathryn Bondy. 2008. Reclaiming A Spoiled Maternal Identity: Young

Mothers’ Experiences and Rejection of Stigma. Ann Arbour, MI: ProQuest

Information and Learning Company.

Figueira-McDonough, Josefina and Rosemary C. Sarri. 2002. Women at the Margins:

Neglect, Punishment, and Resistance. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Finn, A. S., Treventhen, G. C, & Kowlaski, M. 1999. “Female inmates, Aboriginal

inmates and inmates serving life sentences: A One Day Snapshot.” Canadian

Centre for Justice Statistics: Juristat, 19(5).

Glaze, Lauren E. and Laura M. Maruschak. August 2008. “Parents in Prison and

Their Minor Children.” Retrieved Feb 26, 2013 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/

pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf).

Granger-Brown, Alison, Jane A. Buxton, Lara-Lisa Dulce Feder, T. Gregory Hislop,

Ruth Elwood Martin, Amy Salmon, Megan Smith, and Jeanine Thompson. 2012.

“Collaborative community-prison programs for incarcerated women in BC.” BC

Medical Journal 54(10): 509-513.

Griffiths, C.T. 2004. Canadian Corrections (2nd ed.). Toronto: Thomson Canada

Limited.

Hackney, Lydia. 2011. Was the UK Prison System Designed By Men, For Men?

Nottingham, UK: Internet Journal of Criminology. Retrieved Feb 2, 2013

(http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/).

Harding, C., Hines, B., Ireland, R. & Rawlings, P., 1985. Imprisonment in England

and Wales: A Concise History. Kent: Croom: Helm Ltd.

Harris, Yvette R., James A. Graham and Gloria J. Oliver Carpenter. 2010. Children of

Incarcerated Parents: Theoretical, Developmental and Clinical Issues. New York,

NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Hayes, Margaret Oot. 2007. The Lived Experience of Mothering after Prison. Ann

Arbour, MI: ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

Hayman, Stephanie. 2006. Imprisoning Our Sisters: The New Federal Women’s

Prisons in Canada. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press.

Heatherton, T., R. Kleck, M. Hebl, and J. Hull. 2000. The Social Psychology of

Stigma. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Heidensohn, F., 1985. Women and Crime. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Hirschi, Travis and Michael R. Gottfredson. 1994. The Generality of Deviance. New

Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

History Learning Site. August, 2012. “Feminism and Crime.” Retrieved Dec 18, 2012

(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/feminism_crime.htm).

Howard, John. 1999. “Effects of Long Term Incarceration.” Retrieved Feb 1, 2013

(http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C35.htm#autono).

Jenner, Lia Morrin. 2009. Maternal Incarceration: Exploring the Impact on Children.

Toronto, ON: Ryerson University.

Johnson, Robert, Ania Dobrzanska, and Seri Palla. 2005. The American Prison in

Historical Perspective: Race, Gender, and Adjustment.

Kaplan, M.S., & Sasser, J.E. 1996. Women behind bars: Trends and policy issues.

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23 (4), 43-56.

Kravitz, Robert. 2010. “Women in Prisons.” Retrieved Nov 11, 2012

(http://www.corrections.com/news/article/23873-women-in-prisons).

Mallicoat, Stacy, L. 2012. Women and Crime: A Text/Reader. London, UK: Sage.

Miller, Tina. 2007. “Is This What Motherhood is All About?”: Weaving Experiences

and Discourse through Transition to First-Time Motherhood. Oxford, UK: Sage

Publications.

Ministry of Justice. December 10, 2012. “Women Prisoners.” Retrieved Feb 22, 2013

(http://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/types-of-offender/women).

Moffat, K.H., & Shaw, M., 2000. An ideal prison? Critical essays on women's

imprisonment in Canada. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Myers, B.J., Smarsh, T.M., Amlund-Hagen, K. & Kennon, S., 1999. Children of

incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8 (1), 11-25.

Neuman, W.L. 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon / Pearson.

Pedwell, Terry. 2013. “Ontario’s Corrections ministry reviewing Ottawa prison birth

case.” Retrieved Feb 12, 2013 (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-s-

corrections-ministry-reviewing-ottawa-prison-birth-case-1.1145627).

Pfohl, Stephen J. 1994. Images of deviance and social control: A sociological history.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Pollock-Byrne, J.M. 1990. Women, Prison and Crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/

Cole. Publishing Company.

Prison Service Order. April 28, 2008. “Women Prisoners.” Retrieved Feb 22, 2013.

Rafter, N. H., 1990. Partial Justice: Women, Prisons, and Social Control. 2nd Edition.

New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Rawlings, P., 1999. Crime and Power: A History of Criminal Justice 1688-1998.

Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

Rowe, Abigail. 2011. Narratives of self and identify in women’s prisons: Stigma and

the struggle for self-definition in penal regimes. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open

University.

Schneller, Donald P. 1976. The Prisoner’s Family: A Study of the Effects of

Imprisonment on the Families of Prisoners. San Fransisco, CA: R and E Research.

Shaw, Roger. 2001. Prisoners’ Children: What are the Issues? New York, NY:

Routledge.

Sheehan, Rosemary. 2011. Working with Women Offenders in the Community. New

York, NY: Willan Publishing.

Statistics Canada. December 4, 2012. “Adult criminal court statistics in Canada,

2010/11.” Retrieved Dec 1, 2012 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-

x/2012001/article/11646-eng.htm).

Stevens, P.W., & Hall, J.M. 1992. Applying critical theories to nursing in

communities. Public Health Nursing, 9(1), 2-9.

Stone, Laura. 2012. “On the winding road to redemption in Canada’s women’s prison

system.” Retrieved Feb 1, 2013 (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/win

ding+road+redemption+ Canada+women+prison+system/5533995/story.html).

Theodore, Terri. 2008. “B.C. says no to allowing babies in jail.” Retrieved Feb 10,

2013 (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/08/14/bc_says_no_to_allowing

_babies_in_jail.html).

Townhead, Laurel. 2006. “Women in Prison & Children of Imprisoned Mothers:

Recent Developments in the United Nations Human Rights System.” Retrieved

Nov 20, 2012 (http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/humanrights/women-in-prison/W iP-Recent-UN-developments-200603.pdf).

Urbina, Martin Guevara. 2008. A Comprehensive Study of Female Offenders: Life

Before, After and During Incarceration. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas

Publisher, Ltd.

Women’s Conference. 2010. “A Short History of Feminism.” Retrieved Dec 18, 2012

(http://www.ffaw.nf.ca/Docs/a%20short%20history%20of%20feminsm.pdf).

Young, D.S., & Smith, CJ. (2000). When moms are incarcerated: The needs of

children, mothers, and caregivers. Families in Society, 81 (2), 130-141.

Zaitzow, Barbara H. and Jim Thomas. 2003. Women in Prison: Gender and Social

Control. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Zaplin, Ruth T. 2011. “Female Offenders: A System’s Perspective”. Retrieved Feb 26, 2013

(http://www.jblearning.com/samples/0763741159/ch3_female_offenders_2e.pdf).

Glossary maternal incarceration—the detention of a woman in prison, who is pregnant or has children, typically as punishment for a crime. penitentiary—a place in which people are physically confined and usually deprived of a range of personal freedoms. Also referred to as a ‘prison’. self-stigma—what you believe the world thinks of you. stigmatization—to accuse or condemn or brand as disgraceful.

Women’s liberation movement— a political movement born in the 1960s from second- wave feminism which aims to eliminate forms of oppression based on gender and to gain for women for equal economic and social status and rights to determine their own lives as are enjoyed by men.

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: Subject Recruitment Email

SUBJECT RECRUITMENT EMAIL

This email is sent on behalf of Victoria Glinsky, Senior Teaching Assistant for the Department of Sociology and fourth year Sociology Honours student at Acadia University.

Victoria Glinsky is looking for volunteers to take part in a study on the implications of being incarcerated while becoming a mother. The purpose of this study is to examine the development of stigma associated with mothers in prison and focuses on community outreach programming for keeping the mother-child bond intact.

Study participation involves the completion of one hour and a half interview and a five to ten minute debriefing period.

Your participation would involve only one data collection session. This session will last approximately one hour. Data collection will take place at the Elizabeth Fry Society, Nova Scotia.

Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You should not feel obligated to participate in this study because of your status as a mother who has previously been incarcerated. You may opt to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty or prejudice.

For more information about this study, or to volunteer your participation, please contact Victoria Glinsky at [email protected].

The Acadia University Research Ethics Board has approved this study.

*exact location has been removed for confidentiality purposes.

APPENDIX 2: Consent Forms Appendix 2a: Maternal Informed Consent Form

Maternal Informed Consent Form

Introduction Victoria Glinsky, a fourth year Sociology Honours student at Acadia University, is conducting a research project entitled ‘Pains of Incarceration: The Stigmatization of Incarcerated Mothers’. The project aims to examine the development of stigma associated with mothers in prison and focuses on community outreach programming for keeping the mother-child bond intact.

Researcher Contact Information Principal Researcher: Victoria Glinsky Sociology Honours student, Acadia University Tel: 902-223-1754 Email: [email protected] Supervisor: Anthony Thomson Professor, Acadia University Lecturer, Sociology Department, Acadia University Tel: 902-585-1479 Email: [email protected] Acadia Research Ethics Board: Dr. Stephen Maitzen Chair, Acadia Research Ethics Board Tel: 902-585-1407 Email: [email protected]

What is this study about? The research methodologies of this study involve a thirty minute interview discussing the experiences of being a mother in jail or having worked with this cohort. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You should not feel obligated to participate in this study because of your status as a mother who has been in jail or who has worked with this cohort. You may opt to withdraw your participation at any time without penalty or prejudice. However, once data is anonymised, it cannot be removed from the study.

How is this study being completed? If you agree to participate in this study, Victoria Glinsky will contact you via email to arrange an individual appointment for an interview. Data collection will be carried out at the

Elizabeth Fry Society in Nova Scotia. All data will be collected on one day. You will complete one hour and a half interview about your experiences of being a mother in jail or your experiences working with mothers in jail. There will be no penalty for withdrawing from this study at any time. Deciding not to participate will not affect any service you might receive from the Elizabeth Fry Society.

Risk There is minimal risk associated with participation in this study. Although participation is purely voluntary and subjects can discontinue their participation at any time, the cohort of mothers who have been in jail in Nova Scotia is quite small. Due to this you may be concerned that it will be possible to uncover your identity. In order to protect your privacy, your identity will be protected by making data anonymous. In order to fulfill these requirements, participant’s names along with children and family members will be removed from all data collection. Study participants will be assigned a unique subject number to identify their data. In addition, you will have the option to be tape recorded while in the interview. This tape recording will be transcribed by the Researcher and the audio file will be erased once the transcript is written. The electronic transcriptions will be kept on a computer file and password protected until the thesis is approved, at which point, will be erased. During this time only the Researcher and Principle Supervisor will have access to this recording. Hard copies of data will be kept in a locked cabinet following data collection and will then be destroyed once the collection is complete. Electronic copies of data will be stored in secure, password-protected locations and will likewise be destroyed after the data is transcribed (approximately 1 calendar year after data is collected). If you choose to withdrawal during or after data collection is complete, the data will automatically be destroyed. Participants have the right to withdraw their information up until the thesis has been submitted. Consenting to participate in this research project does not waive your rights to legal recourse in the event of research-related harm. Upon completion of this study, data obtained will be published in the ‘Pains of Incarceration: The Stigmatization of Incarcerated Mothers’ thesis available in the Acadia University library. May it be noted that it is my responsibility as the Researcher to disclose any information of a criminal nature to the Elizabeth Fry Society.

Positive Benefits Conducting research will aid in our efforts to increase understanding about the unique needs of mothers in conflict with the law and their children and suggestions for community support systems. It is expected that the study will recommend improvements in the programs for women incarcerated and their children.

Publication Anonymous research results may be published in an educational research journal. Data will likely be presented at professional and research conferences.

Compensation You will not be compensated for your participation in this research project.

CONSENT

A research project is being conducted at the Elizabeth Fry Society regarding the stigmatization of incarcerated mothers. The level and nature of your participation has been described above. The confidentiality of your participation will be ensured as outlined above.

By signing this form, you confirm that: (1) you have read and understood the nature of your participation. (2) you understand that you may be asked questions in the future. (3) you give permission for Victoria Glinsky to contact you via email to arrange a data collection appointment time. (4) you wish to participate at this time but reserve the right to withdraw your participation without prejudice at any time by emailing Victoria Glinsky or indicating such in person.

Participant’s Printed Name: Participant’s Signature: Participant’s Email Address: Participant’s Phone Number: Date: Witness Signature:

*exact location has been removed for confidentiality purposes.

APPENDIX 2: Consent Forms Appendix 2b: Elizabeth Fry Society Employee Informed Consent Form

Maternal Informed Consent Form

Introduction Victoria Glinsky, a fourth year Sociology Honours student at Acadia University, is conducting a research project entitled ‘Pains of Incarceration: The Stigmatization of Incarcerated Mothers’. The project aims to examine the development of stigma associated with mothers in jail and focuses on community outreach programming for keeping the mother- child bond intact.

Publication Anonymous research results may be published in an educational research journal. Data will likely be presented at professional and research conferences.

Compensation You will not be compensated for your participation in this research project.

CONSENT

A research project is being conducted at the Elizabeth Fry Society regarding the stigmatization of mothers in jail. The level and nature of your participation has been described above. The confidentiality of your participation will be ensured as outlined above.

Participant’s Printed Name: Participant’s Signature: Participant’s Email Address: Participant’s Phone Number: Date: Witness Signature:

*exact location has been removed for confidentiality purposes.

APPENDIX 3: Interview Guides Appendix 3a: Maternal Interview Guide

What brought you to jail?

How did you get involved with crime?

How long was the sentence that you served?

What was the hardest thing about being in jail?

What was your family life like growing up?

How old is your child/children?

Did you live with your child before you came to jail? If so, where?

Where does your child live now?

Did your child visit you in jail?

Were there programs offered to you while you were in jail for you to see your child?

Does your child know you well?

How did you decide where to place your child?

What were the pros and cons of placing your child with a care taker?

Are you involved with making decisions for your child like, where they will go to school?

What kind of obligations do you think families have for one another?

Are you comfortable asking your family for help?

Do you believe that there are only things that mothers can give to their children? If so, what?

What are some things that make it hard to be a good mother to your child?

People say that getting into trouble with the law might pass down through generations. Are you concerned with your child getting into trouble with the law? What could be done to prevent this?

Do you need to prove to your friends and family that you are a good mother? Child welfare?

Do people treat you differently because you were a mother in prison?

Do you think it’s possible to tell if someone is a good mother by the way they interact with their child in prison?

APPENDIX 3: Interview Guides Appendix 3b: Elizabeth Fry Society Employee Interview Guide

How long have you worked at the Elizabeth Fry Society?

What peaked your interest in working with women in need?

What programs does the Elizabeth fry Society offer to women in need? Women/mothers in jail?

If any, what are some of the Society’s barriers when providing programming to mothers in jail?

What are the pros and cons of mothers placing their child with family? Foster care?

Can you tell when women in jail are ready to make a change in their lives?

Do you feel as though the care arrangements mothers make for their children differ from a short-term sentence to a long-term?

What are some of your deepest concerns about mothers who are incarcerated?

What are some of the main problems mothers face socially, emotionally, and physically once released from jail?

APPENDIX 4: Results Flow Chart

Variables Contributing to the Stigmatization of Incarcerated Mothers

Jail

System Barriers Resource Barriers

Jail Policies Societal Expectations Programs in Jail

Reintegration Effective Mothering into Community Labelling

Necessary Skills Impact on Mother

Parental Role Emotional Response