Running head: MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON
Exploring the Communicative Construction of Motherhood in Prison
______
A Thesis
Presented to
The Honors Tutorial College
Ohio University
______
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for Graduation
from the Honors Tutorial College
with the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Communication Studies
______
by
Madison F. Sloat
April 2019
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 2
For my dad, who taught me the power of curiosity and imagination, to trust my gut, and
to dream enormously big: Thank you for never failing to believe in me, even when I
haven’t believed in myself.
For my mom, whose enormous heart and selfless spirit I can only hope to emulate one
day: You are the mother I wish everyone could have. This thesis is a tribute to you.
And thank you both for always encouraging me to write.
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 3
Abstract
This thesis explores the constructions of motherhood created and perpetuated by incarcerated mothers and correctional staff at two women’s prisons: a prison medical facility and a prison nursery program, both located in the United States. Findings from the interpretive analysis of the data—drawn from participant observations at both prisons and 52 interviews with inmates and prison staff—yielded one dominant construction of motherhood. Inmates and staff alike primarily focused on the constructed identity of a good mother. In line with this finding, four core themes emerged as significant: (a) motherhood as preeminent; (b) motherhood as feminine; (c) motherhood as growth; and
(d) motherhood as sacrifice. These findings advanced scholarly conceptualizations of identity construction, particularly with respect to the juxtaposition of stigmatized (i.e., inmate) and valorized identities (i.e., mother) and can be further explained through a structurational lens. Practically, these findings suggest the need for continued dedicated support for incarcerated mothers through prison programming and positive messaging surrounding good motherhood.
Keywords: women in prison, motherhood, communication, identity
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROLOGUE……………………………………………………………………………..5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………...11
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS……………………………………………………..24
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS……………………………………………………...... 42
Motherhood as Preeminent……………………………………………………....42
Motherhood as Feminine………………………………………………………...51
Motherhood as Growth…………………………………………………………..55
Motherhood as Sacrifice………………………………………………………....63
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION……………………………………………………..70
Theoretical Implications………………………………………………………....70
Practical Applications…………………………………………………………....77
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….79
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………83
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………..92
Appendix A: SMC Inmates Interview Guide……………………………………92
Appendix B: SMC Staff Interview Guide……………………………………….94
Appendix C: PFP Inmates Interview Guide……………………………………..96
Appendix D: WCF Staff Interview Guide……………………………………...100
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 5
PROLOGUE: REFLECTIONS ON MOTHERHOOD
A Prologue
What is motherhood? Think, for a moment.
When you think of the word motherhood, what comes to mind?
Is motherhood…
Beautiful? Joyous? Exciting? A blessing?
Difficult? Intimidating? Disciplinary?
Traumatic? Heartbreaking?
Wanted? Unwanted?
Physically close? Distant? Everywhere?
For the short-term? Forever?
By blood?
Love? Pain?
-
Is it incarcerated?
These are all questions that I have asked myself over the course of the past year.
For me, motherhood is unwanted at the moment. As a college student with the buddings of a career ahead of me, I am not ready for, nor do I want, a child at this time. My experiences with motherhood stem from my mother, my grandmothers, my aunts, and mothers of close friends, who have shown me that motherhood cannot be contained in a single word. Motherhood, I have learned, is a significant part of their identities as individuals. Motherhood is a full-time job with no vacation days, but motherhood can also be a badge of pride worn proudly on one’s lapel. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 6
Motherhood is a beautiful, life-giving gift, but is also an incredible challenge and a role that requires hard work. Motherhood can be joy: bringing home a newborn baby; watching her take her first steps. Motherhood can be pain: suffering alongside a sick child; grieving the life of a lost son or daughter. Motherhood can become friendship: I have experienced this as I have transitioned into adulthood and consider my own mother a friend and confidante, an advocate and supporter.
However, until recently, I never envisioned motherhood as incarcerated. When I thought of motherhood, I thought of physical proximity. I thought of hugs from my mom when I got home from school, the subtle smell of her perfume in my nose. I thought of seeing her and my father sitting proudly in the second row of the school cafeteria, laughing through my atrociously off-tempo elementary band concert. I thought of her at my dance recital, carefully smoothing my hair into its bun before I rushed back to the stage for my next number. I have never conceived motherhood as physical distance, as separation. Perhaps now, as a college student separated several hundred miles from my parents and my hometown, this distance is more comprehensible. Still, this distance is a choice.
What I have learned is that motherhood cannot be marked or even defined by distance and that it exists in all spaces, including (and perhaps especially) behind bars.
Defining motherhood is impossible, because motherhood is simultaneously a boundary and boundless, constraining and free, limiting and limitless. Motherhood is both unique and common, individual and universal. Motherhood is significant—and sometimes motherhood is incarcerated.
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
In 2014, the United States was home to 43.5 million mothers between the ages of
15 and 50, who had given birth to 95.8 million children (United States Census Bureau,
2017). A growing number of those mothers lived behind bars. The U.S. Department of
Justice found that “since 1991, the number of children with a mother in prison has more than doubled, up 131%” (2010, p. 2). In fact, over 60% of incarcerated women in state prisons have a child younger than 18 years old (The Sentencing Project, 2018), and
“approximately 6% to 10% of women entering jails are pregnant” (Clarke, Phipps, Tong,
Rose, & Gold, 2010, p. 133). Given the significant increase in the incarceration of women over the past four decades—with 1.2 million women imprisoned at a rate double that of male incarceration (The Sentencing Project, 2018)—the issues of incarcerated motherhood and pregnancy have become even more significant.
Due to this rapid rise in incarcerated mothers, criminal justice systems across the
United States are facing unique challenges in addressing maternal incarceration. Prisons are often ill-equipped to handle the medical needs of pregnant inmates (Clarke & Adashi,
2011; Parker, 2005); perhaps unsurprisingly, then, inmates to feel apprehensive and unsatisfied with prenatal care they receive while incarcerated (Wismont, 2000).
Moreover, incarcerated mothers who are physically separated from their children experience psychological symptoms of depression, grief, and loss—stressors that prisons struggled to address (Baunach, 1982; Chesney-Lind, 1983; Hairston, 1991; Ingram-
Fogel, 1993). The incarceration of mothers frequently burdens inmates’ families, forcing them to assume the role of caregiver and take on the financial, social, and emotional responsibilities of child-raising in inmates’ absences (Comfort, McKay, Landwehr, MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 8
Kennedy, Lindquist & Bir, 2016; Hairston, 1991; Turney & Wildeman, 2018). Children also face the consequences of maternal incarceration, experiencing increased problems with mental health, school performance, and participation in crime (Aaron & Daillaire,
2010; Roettger & Swisher, 2011).
In order to keep up with this unique demographic of inmates and the particular challenges they face, prisons across the country have begun searching for programming and resources to better address the needs of pregnant inmates and incarcerated mothers, ranging from traditional parenting programs (Enos, 2001) to programs that provide increased visitation and bonding opportunities for mothers and their children (Block,
1999; Enos, 2001; Grant, 2006). However, these programs are often unsuccessful in preparing incarcerated women long-term for their responsibilities as mothers or in reducing recidivism among inmate-mothers (Tremblay & Sutherland, 2017).
One particularly unique program has been adopted by a few prisons across the country: the prison nursery, which allows incarcerated mothers to serve their sentences while living with their newborn babies inside prison. The first program was established in
1901, at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, a maximum-security prison in
New York (Elmalak, 2015). Although the exact number of prison nurseries in the United
States is unknown due to fluctuations in funding and community support, approximately nine state prisons have nursery programs: Illinois, New York, Ohio, Nebraska,
Washington, Indiana, West Virginia, South Dakota, and Wyoming (DeBoer, 2012;
Chuck, 2018). Criteria for admission to these prison nurseries varies by program; still, all of the programs require eligible mothers to be low-security with non-violent charges, and most programs require sentences of 36 months or less. The prisons that house these nursery programs work in coordination with prison medical facilities, which are MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 9 institutions where pregnant inmates live up until they give birth. The intention of prison nursery programs is to curtail the harmful impacts of mother-child separation by keeping mothers and babies together after birth, while also taking the burden off inmates’ families in serving as caregivers and give inmates the opportunity to develop their skills as mothers (Goshin & Byrne, 2009).
Limited research exists regarding prison nursery programs (Carlson, 2018;
Goshin, Byrne & Blancard-Lewis, 2014; Kanaboshi, Anderson & Sira, 2017), and there is still much to learn about the programs’ effectiveness and their impacts on incarcerated mothers. We know through Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1974) that individuals assume identities through their membership in social groups and are evaluated based on others’ perceptions of said social groups. We also know that identities can be stigmatized
(Goffman, 1963) based on negative social evaluations, especially in the case of incarcerated individuals. However, there is limited knowledge about the identity negotiations experienced by incarcerated mothers.
The central aim of this study was to explore the experiences of incarcerated women, from pregnancy through custodial parenting in prison, to gain a deeper understanding of incarcerated motherhood. In order to achieve this aim, this central research question was pursued: In what ways is the identity of motherhood constructed by both the prison and the inmates themselves within both prison sites? Findings from this study ultimately illustrate that incarcerated women—both ante- and post-partum—as well as prison staff, co-constructed what it means to be a good mother. These findings enrich our scholarly understandings of identity, particularly in light of the competing roles of inmate and mother, two salient social identities uniquely juxtaposed through maternal incarceration. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 10
In chapter two, I provide an overview the current, albeit limited, literature on women in prison, pregnancy, parenting from prison, incarcerated motherhood, and prison programs. In chapter three, I discuss the research sites and methodology used in completing this study in concert with my research team. In chapter four, I outline the four themes related to the construction of a good mother identity that emerged through my analysis of the interviews: motherhood as (a) preeminent, (b) feminine, (c) growth, and
(d) sacrifice. My discussion (chapter five) advance scholarly conceptualizations of identity construction, particularly with respect to the juxtaposition of stigmatized (i.e., inmate) and valorized identities (i.e., mother) and can be further explained through a structurational lens. Overall, this work is significant in expanding our understanding of the overlapping experiences of pregnant inmates and prison nursery program participants, as well as the unique identity constructions at play as inmates make sense of who they are: as mothers, inmates, and incarcerated mothers.
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Women in Prison
The Rise of Incarcerated Women
Today the United States faces the reality of mass incarceration, with state and federal prisons holding an estimated 1,505,400 prisoners in 2016 (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2018a) and jails reporting 10.6 million admissions (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2018b). According to the World Prison Brief, an international database on criminal policy research, the United States incarcerates more individuals than any other country in the world, with our prison and jail populations housing over a million more inmates than the next highest incarcerated population in China (World Prison Brief, 2015). The spike in the United States’ incarceration rates is widely attributed to the Congress’s ‘War on
Drugs’ in the 1980s, when the federal government made “dramatic changes to sentencing statutes” for drug crimes that instituted mandatory minimums for drug-related sentences and encouraged punitive action rather than rehabilitative responses to communities with large amounts of drug use (Lynch, 2012, p. 178).
These policies greatly impacted female populations in the United States, particularly poor women of color, as “the drug policies reflected in the Acts of 1986 and
1988 were directly responsible for the growing incarceration of female drug offenders, generally, and especially for low-level drug offenses” (Bush-Baskette, 2000, p. 922). As communities of women in poverty lacked access to rehabilitative resources, like drug counseling and programming to help with their drug dependencies, jails and prisons began to fill with female inmates at rates higher than ever before. During the years between 1986-1995, the rates of increase for female incarceration were much higher than male incarceration; during that time, prisons saw a 487% increase in incarcerated female MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 12 drug offenders, in comparison to the 203% rate of increase for men imprisoned for drug charges (Lenox, 2011). The consequences of these drug policies linger. As of September
2015, the most recent date for which federal data are available, “almost 50% (92,000 prisoners) of sentenced prisoners were serving time for drug offenses” and “59% [of female federal prisoners] were serving sentences for drug offenses” (U.S. Department of
Justice, 2016, p. 15). Additionally, the rates of incarceration for women have remained higher than men, as recent studies by the Vera Institute of Justice found that “the number of women in local jails in the United States was almost 14 times what it was in the 1970s, a far higher growth rate than men” (Williams, 2016, para. 4).
In addition to the challenges posed by substance abuse and incarceration, the majority of incarcerated women are also mothers. Over 6 out of 10 incarcerated women have children under the age of 18 years old (Sentencing Project, 2018) and 80% of women in jails are mothers (Swavola, Riley & Subramanian, 2016). Additionally, a growing number of those women come to prison pregnant (Maruschak, 2004; Clarke,
2010), and face unique challenges as they experience pregnancy while inside prison walls. Maternal incarceration not only has long-term impacts on mothers in prison, including their physical and mental wellbeing and their likelihood of recidivism
(Banauch, 1982; Hairston, 1991; Ingram-Fogel, 1993), but also affects inmates’ children and families (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Comfort, McKay, Landwehr, Kennedy, Lindquist
& Bir, 2016; Hairston, 1991; Roettger & Swisher, 2011; Turney & Wildeman, 2018), who must handle the emotional, physical, financial and social consequences of an incarcerated mother.
Pregnancy
Incarcerated pregnancy has significant impacts on inmates and their children, MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 13 families, and partners, but the information known about this experience is limited. The most recent data on pregnancy in prison is from the Department of Justice’s 2004 report, which found that “among female prisoners, 4% of state and 3% of federal inmates said they were pregnant at the time of admission [to a state or federal institution]”
(Maruschak, 2004, para. 16). However, given the continual rise in the numbers of women admitted to jails and prisons across the country, this number is likely much higher today.
Additionally, practices like shackling mothers while giving birth and inadequate prenatal care have begun to appear in the media (Quinn, 2014; Law, 2015), with criminal justice reform advocates calling for better resources and programs dedicated to pregnancy in prison.
Much of the literature on pregnancy in prison discusses the medical implications of incarcerated maternity, particularly the risks and complications that this experience poses to inmates and their unborn babies (Clarke & Adashi, 2011; Parker, 2005;
Wismont, 2000). Parker (2005) found that “given the constellation of difficulties that pregnant incarcerated women face, many of their pregnancies are considered high risk…
[this includes] a history of drug addiction and sexually transmitted diseases or pelvic inflammatory disease” (p. 265). These complications extend to inmates’ emotional states while pregnant. For instance, pregnant inmates are often apprehensive about prison hospital facilities and medical staff care, in addition to feeling powerlessness in decisions about their bodies and unborn babies (Wismont, 2000). In fact, Wismont (2000) found that inmates were also ill-prepared for the emotional consequences of forcible separation from their child immediately after giving birth, experiencing symptoms of grief that prison staff often failed in helping to address. While these studies generally called attention to inherent issues present in the prenatal care of pregnant inmates, they were MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 14 limited in scope and did not examine the individual experiences or resources utilized by pregnant inmates, nor the challenges of parenting children living outside of prison during a pregnancy in prison.
Parenting While Incarcerated
Inmates with children living outside prison are forced to make difficult decisions as parents, which often have long-lasting consequences not only on themselves but for their families as well as their children. While men and women in prison must both face the challenges of parenting children living outside prison while incarcerated, women are uniquely impacted due to traditional gendered expectations of mothers that position women as primary caregivers. The Department of Justice (2010) found that “among parents in state prison who had lived with their minor children prior to incarceration, mothers (77%) were almost three times more likely than fathers (26%) to report that they had provided most of the daily care for their children” (p. 5). Although incarcerated fathers are often able to rely on their children’s mothers to care for childcare as they serve time, incarcerated mothers frequently had to find other family members willing to take on caregiving responsibilities. The Department of Justice’s (2010) most recent prison data found that “fathers most commonly reported the child’s mother as current caregiver of their children, while mothers most commonly reported the child’s grandparents” (p. 5).
Additionally, relationships between incarcerated women and their children were different than incarcerated fathers; a Department of Justice report showed that mothers were more likely to maintain some contact with their children while incarcerated (2010). In response to the rising number of incarcerated women, scholars have increasingly focused attention on the unique challenges that maternal incarceration generates for mothers, their children, and their children’s caregivers. These studies also shed light on the need for increased MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 15 attention and resources dedicated to incarcerated motherhood on the part of prisons, as well as the need for greater insight into the experiences of mothers in prison.
Impacts on mothers. Incarcerated mothers face unique challenges when forcibly divorced from their children while in prison; Chesney-Lind and Rodriguez (1983) described this feeling as experiencing “a special pain of separation from [their] children”
(p. 53). While the literature on the effect of mother-child separation on incarcerated mothers is limited, the available studies argued that mothers experienced significant psychological impacts, particularly grief and trauma, when separated from their child
(Baunach, 1982; Hairston, 1991; Ingram-Fogel, 1993). One particular concern expressed by incarcerated women was that their children would not know them due to their physical absence (Ingram-Fogel, 1993), as they were unable to build relationships and have everyday interactions with their children in the same way their children’s caregivers could. The stress of mother-child separations exacerbated mental health problems among incarcerated mothers, particularly feelings of loss, lack of self-esteem, and depression
(Hairston, 1991; Ingram-Fogel, 1993). Baunach (1982) suggested that some of these stressors could be alleviated if prisons took “a direction that emphasizes the involvement of inmate-mothers in developing a sense of parental responsibility” (p. 156). This
“direction” might include increased resources for prison-run parenting programs and opportunities for inmates to take active roles in their child(ren)’s upbringing, despite the complicating factors of physical distance and familial caregivers. The price of incarceration is not only endured by incarcerated mothers; their children’s caregivers also experience the challenges and costs of their loved ones’ prison sentences.
Impacts on caregivers. When mothers are in prison, their families (often grandparents, aunts, sisters, etc.) must take up the responsibilities and burdens of MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 16 childcare. Families and caregivers encumber significant costs (financial, social, emotional, etc.) in response to the incarceration of a loved one (Comfort, McKay,
Landwehr, Kennedy, Lindquist & Bir, 2016; Hairston, 1991; Turney & Wildeman, 2018).
Comfort et. al (2016) observed that family members of incarcerated individuals must adjust “not only to the physical absence of their loved one, but also to a void in the place of the monetary and practical contributions which that person made to the household”, in addition to the costs associated with “maintaining a relationship with the prisoner” (p.
785). Low-income families were particularly impacted by a loved one’s incarceration; since the highest number of inmates come from economically disadvantaged communities, the financial hardships experienced by families of inmates were exacerbated due to incarceration and the cost of taking on caregiving responsibilities
(Western, Lopoo & McLanahan, 2004). Frequently, grandparents took on ‘double duty’ as both parents to adult (incarcerated) children as well as grandparents and primary caregivers to their grandchildren—an unexpected role they were forced to assume due to an adult child’s incarceration (Burnette, 1999; Dressel & Barnhill, 1990). Additionally, the financial and physical costs to caregiving families were compounded by the stigmatized grief they experienced through losing a loved one to incarceration, as their incarcerated loved one was viewed disapprovingly by society (Braman, 2007). Given the significant burdens (financially, socially, emotionally, etc.) taken on by caregivers, opportunities for mothers to serve as primary caregivers while incarcerated provide alternatives that could help in reducing this impact on families. Although families as a whole bear the financial and emotional costs of a loved ones’ incarceration, inmates’ children are particularly impacted by the generational challenges of an incarcerated parent. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 17
Impacts on children. In addition to the financial, social, and emotional burdens families of inmates must bear, the separation of children and incarcerated mothers can have detrimental impacts on both the child and inmate. For example, Turney and
Wildeman (2018) found that children with incarcerated mothers may experience “long- term consequences” including “intergenerational harm” (p. 1174). Their research determined that maternal incarceration, particularly the physical separation of mothers and their children, was detrimental to the wellbeing of the children involved. And while maintaining mother-child contact proved valuable for the rehabilitation of imprisoned mothers, this strained contact could have negative consequences for children. Although mothers needed regular contact with their children for their emotional and social health, children experienced higher rates of anxiety and depression, increased aggression, and poor school performance, among other issues, when a parent was incarcerated (Aaron &
Dallaire, 2010; Hairston, 1991). Children with incarcerated parents were also more likely to act out, experience behavior problems, and engage in crime (Roettger & Swisher,
2011). These studies all pointed to a greater need for research and funding for “policies and programs designed to strengthen family ties” and found “a critical need for sound assessments of different prison visiting policies and practices, and scientific evaluations of current and new family-oriented programs” (Hairston, 1991, p. 100), particularly given the lasting consequences of incarceration on parents, caregivers/families, and children. A handful of such programs exist to address these challenges from inside prison.
Parenting Programs in Prison
In response to these challenges that mothers, their caregivers, and their children faced due to maternal incarceration, some prisons in the United States have begun implementing new programs to address the unique needs of incarcerated mothers. While MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 18 these programs are not always successful in addressing the needs of incarcerated mothers or reducing rates of recidivism (Tremblay & Sutherland, 2017), they are heavily utilized by prisons as strategies to address the impacts of incarceration on inmates and their families and children. By far, the most common among prisons across the country was the traditional parenting program, which was “designed to enhance the parenting skills of inmate mothers and rest on the premise that maintaining contact between mothers and children will have positive benefits on the women’s rehabilitation”, focusing on “group therapy sessions about parenting skills and the impact of substance abuse on parenting”
(Enos, 2001, p. 146). These parenting programs focused on creating communities among inmate-mothers through their shared motherhood experiences and providing them tools to improve their parenting skills when released, with some success seen in their goal of reducing recidivism among participants. Building on these basic programs, some prisons moved to include additional programming that erased some boundaries between mothers and children. One particular way that prisons accomplished this goal was through programs that provided inmates extended visiting opportunities with their families to increase interactional time between mothers and their children (Enos, 2001). For instance,
Girl Scouts Beyond Bars—a program designed to bring girls with incarcerated mothers together—gave incarcerated mothers enhanced visitation rights and dedicated support to help build bonds between mothers and daughters and shared community between girls with incarcerated moms (Block, 1999; Grant, 2006).
Some prisons went one step future to erase the boundary between incarcerated mothers and their children by implementing unique, and perhaps radical, programs— prison nursery programs. Instead of temporarily or partially erasing the boundaries between incarcerated moms and their children, nursery programs eliminated them all MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 19 together, giving inmates the opportunity to raise their children on the inside. At present, an estimated nine states host nursery programs (the exact number is unknown due to fluctuating funding and support for the programs), but they have sparked broader conversation in the media (Chuck, 2018; Jouvenal, 2018) and drawn increased attention by criminal justice scholars (e.g. Carlson, 2018; Goshin, Byrne & Blancard-Lewis, 2014;
Kanaboshi, Anderson & Sira, 2017). Prison nursery programs have proved to be beneficial for the health and wellbeing of both children and inmates (Kanaboshi,
Anderson & Sira, 2017) and have been referenced as a best practice for incarcerated women with children (Goshin, Byrne & Blancard-Lewis, 2014). For example, a study by
Goshin, Byrne, and Blancard-Lewis (2014) compared outcomes of preschool-aged children who lived in a prison nursery program and children separated from their mothers due to incarceration and found that children who lived with their mothers were less likely to experience symptoms of anxiety/depression and were more resilient. Similarly,
Kanaboshi, Anderson, and Sira (2017) argued the importance of prison nursery programs in providing children the opportunity to “form a secure attachment with their mother” and the government’s responsibility to provide said programs for the wellbeing of both incarcerated mothers and their children (p. 55). Nursery programs have also proved effective in facilitating successful reentry back into society for incarcerated women.
Carlson (2018) found that “women who participated in the nursery program include a
28% reduction in recidivism and a 39% reduction in women returning to prison custody”
(p. 760).
While prison nursery programs have garnered some scholarly interest in the criminal justice literature, significant gaps remain. Notably, experiences of incarcerated mothers as custodial parents in prison, the intersection of the identities of mother and MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 20 inmate, and the prison’s role in these prison nursery programs are still largely unknown and provide further opportunity for study. Additionally, exploring the experiences from the perspective of pregnant inmates and post-partum inmates living in a prison nursery program has the added benefit of providing a more comprehensive understanding of incarcerated motherhood. In order to further explore this connection between incarcerated motherhood and identity, I turn to the literature on identity (and particularly stigmatized identities), to highlight the complicated nature of claiming both the identity of mother and inmate.
Stigmatized Identity
Tajfel’s (1974) foundational work in the exploration of identity construction led to the creation of Social Identity Theory (SIT), where social identity was understood as
“part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his [sic] knowledge of his [sic] membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership” (p. 69). Social identity is mostly based on the perception of the group by other groups, where “positively discrepant comparisons between in-group and out-group produce high prestige [and] negatively discrepant comparisons between in- group and out-group result in low prestige” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p. 16). In other words, in order to differentiate themselves, social groups will establish ‘in-groups’ and
‘out-groups’, and through identifying with the “in-group,” will perpetuate negative perceptions of the ‘out-group’ to bolster their own social group’s status. Thus, one’s group memberships play a large role how their social identity will be viewed by society.
Identities are typically maintained only if that group continues to bring him/her satisfaction and social acceptance. However, for inmates, who are assigned the identity of MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 21
‘criminal’ or ‘prisoner’ against their own will, identities can be considered involuntary
(see Peterson & McNamee, 2016) and impossible to leave (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
Identities such as inmate are stigmatized identities, which are viewed as undesirable, unwelcome in society and a reflection of the morality of the individual possessing the stigmatized identity. Goffman (1963) explained that stigmatized individuals are often perceived as subhuman, thus “on this assumption we exercise varieties of discrimination, through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce his [sic] life chances” (pp. 5-6). Stigmatized identities are often linked to stereotypes and a subscribed set of characteristics, which are affixed to the individual holding the stigmatized identity, whether applicable or not (Goffman, 1963). Stigmatized identities can include current prisoners and formerly incarcerated individuals (Cusak, Jack &
Kavanagh, 2003), but can also encompass professions that are viewed as “dirty work,” like correctional officers (Tracy & Scott, 2006) and blue-collar professions (Ashforth &
Kreiner, 1999).
It is nearly inarguable that the identity of inmate is one that comes with a great deal of stigma. What is less clear, however, is the degree of stigmatization (or lack thereof) surrounding women who bear the dual and often contradictory identities of inmate and mother, given that the identity of mother is often seen as desirable and covetable by society (Ennis, 2014). Motherhood is an idealized identity (Coontz, 1992;
Tardy, 2000). It is seen as fulfilling a natural, normative role in women, an expectation so culturally ingrained that women without children are often perceived negatively by society (Ulrich and Weatherall, 2000). Good mothers are stereotypically “full-time, at- home, White, middle-class, and entirely fulfilled through domestic aspirations (Johnston
& Swanson, 2006, p. 509), dedicating themselves fully and wholeheartedly to their MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 22 identities as mothers (Hallstein, 2006). In the case of incarcerated mothers, this glorification of motherhood is uniquely positioned against the stigmatization of incarceration.
These contrasting identities of inmate and mother, where one is viewed disapprovingly and the other approvingly, introduce tensions into incarcerated mothers’ identities. It is possible that incarcerated mothers experience the challenges of a ‘dual- role tension’, where their identities as mothers and inmates are both intersecting and competing for salience (Bridge & Baxter, 2009). In chapter five, these juxtaposing identities will be further examined to better understand how incarcerated navigate and balance their simultaneous roles of ‘inmates’ and ‘mothers’ from inside prison.
In summary, today women in the United States are being incarcerated at increasingly higher rates, with over 6 out of every 10 women in prison identifying as mothers (The Sentencing Project, 2018) and a growing number entering prison pregnant
(Clark, 2010). Maternal incarceration creates difficulties for inmates (Baunach, 1982;
Hairston, 1991; Ingram-Fogel, 1993), their families (Comfort, McKay, Landwehr,
Kennedy, Lindquist & Bir, 2016; Hairston, 1991; Turney & Wildeman, 2018) and their children (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Hairston, 1991, Roettger & Swisher, 2011), and although prison programs have addressed some of these growing needs (Enos, 2001,
Block, 1999; Grant, 2006), there is still much to be learned. In particular, the ways in which inmates construct and perpetuate identities of good motherhood while incarcerated necessitates further study. The presence of these tensions and conflicting identities of inmate and mother, as well as the desire to better understand the experiences of pregnant inmates and mothers in prison nursery programs, inspired this research. In consultation with the literature on women in prison and stigmatized identities, this initial research MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 23 question emerged: In what ways is the identity of motherhood constructed within both prison sites? In the chapters that follow, I will describe the methodology and data analysis procedures used, the study’s findings, and the theoretical and practical implications of this research, with the ultimate goal of examining the constructions of motherhood occurring among pregnant inmates, mothers in prison nursery programs, and prison staff.
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 24
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Methods Overview
This study is a senior honors thesis undertaken to fulfill the requirements of my communication studies major in the Honors Tutorial College. The interviews and observational research obtained through this study were collected by a research team of three individuals, which included myself, an associate professor (and my thesis advisor), and a doctoral student, all in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University.
The data collected thus far will be part of a larger study on prison nursery programs in the
United States. I have used the data we collected collaboratively to conduct my own independent data analysis and overall project separate from the broader study.
In this chapter, I overview the research sites and participants included in this study, as well as my methods of data collection (i.e. qualitative interviews and observational research). I outline my process of data analyses and the reasons I chose my methodological procedures. Additionally, throughout this chapter I describe how my data collection and analytic procedures adhere to high quality standards for interpretive research.
Research Sites
This fieldwork for this study took place in two research sites over the course of several months. The sites included Shuttlesworth Medical Center (SMC), a prison medical facility, and the Women’s Correctional Facility (WCF), a women’s prison, both located in the United States. Both prisons’ names have been changed to pseudonyms.
Prior to starting the study, my research team and I obtained approval from the
Institutional Research Board (IRB) to complete this research at SMC and WCF, in addition to approval from the state’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 25 wardens at both facilities. However, the findings of this project are independent from these institutions and do not reflect the policies or views of either facility or those of the state Department of Rehabilitation and Correction as a whole. As a note, all statistics and information discussing both Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional
Facility were gathered from their websites but have not been cited to maintain anonymity.
Shuttlesworth Medical Center
General Overview
The Shuttlesworth Medical Center is a prison medical facility located in the
United States. This facility is the state’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s primary medical center, serving as a provider of medical services to “inmates in need of intensive skilled medical and nursing care,” including inmates with disabilities and pregnant inmates (Ogonek, 2016, p. 3). The institution also contains a transit hub for inmates in need of medical treatment to be bused through, which is located at the back of the facility. SMC, due to its classification as a medical facility, houses a range of incarcerated individuals with security classifications ranging from low-level to death row offenses. The institution can house a maximum of 690 inmates and operates near or at capacity consistently. Shuttlesworth Medical Center includes two facilities: Zone A, which contains both male and female inmates and the primary medical center, and Zone
B, which exclusively holds incarcerated men. In total, SMC employs approximately 500 employees, with roughly 64% of those workers hired as security staff.
The facility is relatively small, with two midsized buildings called Zones A and
B. The buildings are located directly next to a main highway, near a carpet cleaning storefront and several manufacturing warehouses. Shuttlesworth Medical Center contains very little outdoor space, with tall barbed wire fences surrounding the small amount of MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 26 green spaces the institution owns. Inside both buildings, the facility reflects a mixture of a hospital and a prison, with long, sterile hallways interrupted by cameras and airtight metal doors. Zone A, where our fieldwork was primarily conducted, includes a small visitors’ building with a front desk staffed by a security officer and a metal detector that all visitors and staff are required to enter. Once cleared through security, a correctional officer or staff member is needed to escort visitors from the visitors’ building into the prison medical facility, where the inmates live.
As guests at SMC conducting research with pregnant inmates, my research team and I regularly waited anywhere from fifteen minutes to an hour and a half before being escorted upstairs, despite calling and scheduling with the head correctional staff members to receive gate passes at the front desk weeks in advance. As we began our research, we found ourselves at the mercy of SMC’s institutional constraints when obtaining access to the inmates, as this process was often slow and inefficient. We were transferred between multiple “gatekeepers,” or individuals who not only have power and authority, but the ability to grant us access to the research sites and participants (Tracy, 2013), before establishing a more streamlined process for research through a particularly effective staff member. We moved through gatekeepers with varying degrees of authority: first, a case manager and recreational director who little authority in the institution, and finally, the lead correctional officer with the access and power to efficiently grant us access, with several gatekeepers with ascending levels of access in between. Our “lower” status in the hierarchy of this particular prison system was reinforced by the lack of efficiency or concern for our time during our visits to Shuttlesworth Medical Center. However, this hierarchal positioning proved to be beneficial in establishing rapport with the inmates and MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 27 some staff members, especially as we learned the intricacies and politics of the institution.
While Shuttlesworth Medical Center houses a variety of inmates, including both male and female inmates and a range of security levels, our time spent at SMC took place primarily on the female wing of the facility, which is housed on the second floor of Zone
A. We received a brief tour of the entirety of Zone A, including the cafeteria, visitation room, and staff offices, but the majority of time spent with inmates and staff occurred on the women’s wing. This relatively small, L-shaped floor houses both pregnant and post- partum women, as well as women with other medical needs that require them to live at the prison medical facility. Pregnant inmates could be identified by their bright pink linen shirts, a stark and heavily gendered contrast to the blue shirts worn by non-pregnant inmates.
Shuttlesworth Medical Center offers greater freedom to inmates than most prisons, so once a visitor enters the women’s wing of the medical facility, inmates can be seen walking around the floor, participating in classes and programming, lying in their beds in their rooms, or using the restrooms and showers when they choose. Typically, one correctional officer is stationed in the female wing, with case managers, recreational staff members, sergeants, and other correctional staff present at various points throughout the day. Additionally, volunteers regularly visit to teach classes; for women, the programming available ranges from parentings classes like “Mothers Matters,” “Cage
Your Rage,” and “Victim Awareness.” This open atmosphere, with one correctional officer staffed on the wing and many volunteers frequently present, contributes to a feeling of greater comfort and safety than one would expect inside of a prison.
Participants MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 28
At Shuttlesworth Medical Center, we interviewed a total of 30 (N = 30) individuals. Our study involved pregnant, incarcerated women (n = 19), in addition to correctional officers and staff members who regularly work with this population of women (n = 9) and volunteers who lead programming for mothers at Shuttlesworth
Medical Center (n = 2). All inmates interviewed had applied to, had been rejected from, or were considering applying to the prison nursery program at WCF. The staff positions included correctional officers, sergeants, assistant warden, case managers and recreational staff members. The inmates interviewed were all women, while the correctional officers, staff and volunteers were comprised of both men (n = 2) and women (n = 9). Ages were not requested for this study, as they were not vital to understanding the experiences of the incarcerated women and staff involved with the PFP program.
Our interviews with incarcerated mothers at Shuttlesworth Medical Center took place in the female wing of the facility in the rooms that were available that day. We interviewed in the rooms used for programming and classes, which were larger spaces with several tables and chairs that oft included motivational posters and bookshelves stocked with educational materials. However, on one occasion I interviewed in the wing’s hair salon, which contained a shampoo station and a salon chair, and during another visit
I was instructed to use a large closet with recreational materials, including a popcorn machine and craft materials. While some inmates were hesitant to participate when first asked, most were enthusiastic about sharing their experiences once they learned the nature of our research. The topic of motherhood and pregnancy in prison elicited a variety of responses from the women; to some, it was an exciting, joyous conversation about a new baby, while to others, it was an emotional, tear-filled discussion about being MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 29 forced to separate from their children when incarcerated. Some women approached the conversation as one of resignation and apathy to pregnancy and motherhood in prison.
Regardless, many women were eager to share their experiences with motherhood and talk about their child(ren) and future child with us.
The correctional officers, staff and volunteers at SMC ranged in their enthusiasm and willingness to interview with us. While some staff members were eager for a distraction and the opportunity to share their personal experiences in corrections, others seemed hesitant and uncomfortable speaking about their work in the prison. As we conducted fieldwork at the prison during regular work hours, the interviews were worked around the schedules and availability of the correctional staff. We met with two volunteers who facilitated parenting programs at locations outside of SMC, including a coffee shop and the church out of which the program is run. However, the rest of the interviews were conducted within Shuttlesworth Medical Center, either in the offices of staff members or at the posts where correctional officers sat during their shifts. This flexibility in interview locations allowed us to work the conversations into the staff’s busy schedules.
Data Collection
My research team and I conducted a total of 30 interviews (N = 30) with inmates, correctional officers, case managers, staff members and program volunteers at
Shuttlesworth Medical Center. Interviews were audio recorded with a digital recording device, with consent obtained to record prior to beginning the discussion with each participant. All participants were given informed consent documents, which were signed and returned before each interview began. All participants participated voluntarily through consent given both verbally and through their signing of the informed consent MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 30 documents. Participants were informed that their interviews and the recordings would be kept confidential, with pseudonyms assigned to their names for the study.
The interviews ranged in length from twelve to ninety minutes. Most interviews lasted for around thirty minutes each. These conversations utilized loosely structured interview guides, as they allow for greater flexibility and informality in approach and consist of topics and questions that can be arranged to best fit the context and discussion with each participant interview (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Utilizing this technique, we encouraged participants to share their personal experiences through narratives, as
“storytelling enables people to make their experiences intelligible to each other” (Lindlof
& Taylor, 2011, p. 181). Some examples of questions/prompts included in the inmate interview guide are (note: edited with prison pseudonyms):
(a) Can you start by telling me about how you came to be here at Shuttlesworth
Medical Center? Tell me the story of how you found out you were pregnant.
(b) What is it like to be pregnant in prison?
(c) Tell me about some of the programs that you have participated in here.
(d) How do you define being a “mother”? How do you define being an “inmate”?
(e) Have you applied to the nursery program at the Women’s Correction Facility?
Why did you apply? What was the process like?
Some examples of the questions/prompts included in the staff member/correctional officer interview guide are:
(a) Can you tell me the story of how you came to work/volunteer here?
(b) What does a typical day look like for you? If you have worked with other
inmate populations, how is this experience similar or different for you?
(c) What advice would you give to a pregnant inmate when she arrives at SMC? MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 31
(d) Do you encourage inmates to apply to the nursery at WCF? Why or why not?
The interviews’ qualitative nature provided me with the rich data utilized in most of the analysis for this project. Once transcribed, our interview transcriptions totaled 407 double-spaced pages.
Data was also collected through observations at Shuttlesworth Medical Center, where we acted as ‘play participants.’ Tracy (2013) defined ‘play participants’ as researchers who opt in and out of participating in their research setting and “shadow, which means they not only watch but follow around, eat, spectate, and play with participants” (p. 109). We observed parenting classes and toured the facilities at the prison medical center, where we took detailed notes and, with permission, recorded our conversations with the staff and inmates showing us around. In the parenting classes, we sat as ‘play participants’ in the space, occasionally speaking and taking part in the activities during the class but mostly listening and observing the women’s interactions.
One class in particular we observed was called “Mothers Matters”, which was targeted towards new and expectant mothers learning to navigate parenthood while incarcerated.
In these classes, we took detailed notes and interacted with inmates and the class facilitators.
Finally, after each visit at Shuttlesworth Medical Center, the research team and I would record our debriefing conversations, where we would discuss any meaningful, interesting, difficult or exciting interactions, discussions or observations we made during our visit. These debriefs provided additional data as we reflected on our research that day.
The audio recordings of these conversations served as the beginning of data analysis and were further utilized in our analysis procedures.
Women’s Correctional Facility MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 32
General Overview
The Women’s Correctional Facility (WCF), located in the United States, is the largest and primary prison for women in the state in which it is located. WCF opened in
1916 during World War I, after progressive women’s rights activists pushed for separate male and female prisons to better address the rehabilitative needs of each population.
Today, the Women’s Correctional Facility houses nearly 2500 minimum to medium security level inmates, in addition to those in close custody with slightly higher security requirements. WCF, in addition to housing inmates permanently, also acts as the temporary intake facility for all female inmates before they are transferred to their permanent institution based on their charge, security level and specific needs. For example, pregnant inmates begin their sentences at WCF’s reception building before being transferred to Shuttlesworth Medical Center.
The Women’s Correctional Facility, often referred to by correctional staff as ‘the farm’, is located just off a highway exit in a small city. The prison covers over 250 acres of land, with dirt paths woven between housing blocks and green, freshly mowed grass surrounding the facility. The location would be idyllic, if not for the barbed wire wrapped around the perimeter and the guard tower looming above the buildings. Visitors follow a small walkway, surrounded by blossoming flowerbeds, to the reception building, which is staffed by two correctional officers and holds a small waiting room and a vending machine. Our experiences at WCF were vastly different than our visits to Shuttlesworth
Medical Center; the correctional staff at the Women’s Correctional Facility were awaiting our arrival, greeting us with gate passes and efficiently leading us through the metal detector. We never waited more than five minutes at WCF to be guided out of the reception building and were always treated as privileged guests, rather than nuisances. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 33
Once passed through security, we were escorted from the reception building outside and taken to the main administrative building, beautifully constructed from white stone and referred to by inmates as the ‘White House.’ The White House, which formerly housed inmates, today contains the high-level administrative staffs’ offices, most prominently the warden and assistant warden. The building, shaped like a square, houses a lush garden in the middle, visible through the large windows along the long hallways of the building.
The White House, despite its antique-like charm, feels intimidating; its quiet halls and beautiful green garden do not distract from the eerie knowledge that one is inside a prison.
Staff typically move around the prison’s campus on foot or, rarely, golf cart, parked just outside of the White House. The administrative nature of the White House makes it a central location for the prison, with gravel and dirt paths seemingly spreading from the warden outward to the over ten ‘cottages’ that house inmates, as well as the cafeteria and recreational and programming areas. Once outside of the White House, the
‘farm’, as staff calls it, feels lively; inmates can be seen walking between buildings, tending to gardens, pushing food carts to the cafeteria, always supervised by badged correctional officers. Inmates wear blue linen uniforms with different colored collars signifying their security levels. During our first research visit, we were informed that green collars represented low-security risk, while pink was the prison’s own scarlet letter symbolizing high-security risk.
The Women’s Correctional Facility offers a variety of unique programming opportunities for their inmates, including specialized housing for drug and alcohol rehabilitation through an intensive group-therapy program, apprenticeships and jobs through community partners, and career-technical programs (i.e. GED) and community MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 34 college classes. However, WCF’s most unique program addresses a specific population in prison. The Preserving Families Program (PFP) prison nursery program is one of nine nursery programs in the United States (Caniglia, 2018a, Chuck, 2018; Jouvenal, 2018), offering pregnant women with low-security, non-violent offenses the opportunity to live with their newborn child for up to three years after birth at the specialized nursery at
WCF. The program encourages bonding for the health of both the mother and child; the state’s Department of Rehabilitation and Correction explains that “child development experts have determined that infants must bond with their mother in the first few months of their life or their emotional and intellectual functioning is impaired” (ODRC, 2018b, para. 1). In addition to encouraging healthy mother-child relationships, the prison nursery program aims to prepare its participants for reentry back into society as mothers, as well as reducing their chances of recidivism in the future (Caniglia, 2018a; Chuck, 2018;
Jouvenal, 2018).
The PFP program is situated in the prison’s intake building at the corner of the farm. When one enters the building, they first encounter a large, open-concept space, supervised by a desk for correctional staff. The intake facility contains picnic-table-style tables and chairs, as well as bunk beds squeezed tightly together in long rows. This facility is where all female inmates in the state come before being transferred to other building units at WCF or other prisons altogether. In plain view of the main intake center is the prison’s nursery, visible through a large window surrounded by colorful murals of cartoon characters. Inside, the nursery’s walls are painted in primary colors—blue, yellow, red—and covered in pictures of current and former children and their mothers, all taken in the nursery. The program, in addition to two small offices for nursery staff, houses over half a dozen small bedrooms, a large sitting area with two couches, a MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 35 television and an abundance of children’s toys, bouncy seats and strollers, a narrow closet filled with children’s clothes and shoes, several small recreational rooms, and a tiny kitchenette. The program’s space leads outside into a small grassy yard with a swing-set, enclosed by a tall fence. The nursery is not constantly under direct supervision by correctional staff. During the day, case managers and correctional officers monitor the women, but in the evening, as correctional officers make rounds throughout the entire facility, the inmates are left alone for periods of time. However, cameras placed around the nursery, as well as the large window looking out into general population. make up for the lack of constant observation,
The nursery has held this space in the intake building since the program’s inception in 2001, but will soon be moving to a newly constructed, specially designed building, in plain view of both the reception building and the White House. The staff at
WCF were proud of this program and excited about the construction of the new building, feelings shared by the program’s participants, who looked forward to more space and more dedicated programming for the mothers.
Participants
At the Women’s Correctional Facility, my research team and I interviewed a total of 11 (N = 11) individuals. Our study focused on mothers participating in the nursery program (n = 6), in addition to correctional officers and staff members who regularly work with this population of women (n = 5). Specifically, the staff positions included correctional officers, warden, assistant warden, case managers, a program director, and medical professionals. The inmates in the PFP program were all women, while the correctional officers, staff and volunteers were comprised of both men (n = 1) and women (n = 4). Some inmates were interviewed multiple times throughout our several MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 36 research visits. One inmate was interviewed at both SMC while pregnant and then WCF in the nursery program several months later.
Interviews at WCF took place in a variety of locations. Since the prison’s nursery was a communal space, finding private locations to interview was difficult. Often, my research team would interview the women in their cramped bedrooms, sitting on the floor or leaning against a crib, for the sake of privacy. Other times, we would interview sitting on the couches of the living room as the mothers fed their babies, sometimes speaking to several inmates at once. Occasionally, if a room became available, we would interview individual women in the nursery’s small recreational rooms, sitting among strollers, toys and extra diapers. Our interviews with correctional staff were no different; at times, my research team would interview staff members in their offices, while other visits required recording on-the-go while we accompanied staff through their day.
Due to the PFP’s uniqueness and visibility as a prison program, both the inmates and staff were accustomed to visitors and speaking about their experiences in the nursery.
Despite this preparedness, my research team and I still had to earn the trust of both the inmates and correctional staff at WCF, establishing working relationships with both through our visits to the prison. This trust-building helped us to garner more authentic, honest responses from the interviews, especially among the mothers in the nursery program. Our interviews at WCF differed from those at Shuttlesworth Medical Center especially because, as opposed to interviewing each pregnant woman at SMC only once, we followed up with the PFP participants each visit, obtaining several interviews from each woman. The regularity in visits and interviews also bolstered our reputation among the inmates, furthering our relationship and the genuineness of our conversations.
Data Collection MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 37
My research team and I collected a total of 22 (N = 22) audio files of both formal interviews and informal conversations with inmates, correctional officers, case managers, therapists, and wardens at the Women’s Correctional Facility. As noted, some inmates and staff were interviewed multiple times over the course of our visits, and one mother was interviewed at both SMC and WCF. We used the same data collection methods at
WCF as we used at Shuttlesworth Medical Center. Interviews were audio recorded with a digital recording device, with consent to record obtained prior to beginning the discussion with each participant. All participants were given informed consent documents, which were signed and returned before each interview began. All participants participated voluntarily through consent given both verbally and through their signing of the informed consent documents. Participants were informed that their interviews and the recordings would be kept confidential, with pseudonyms assigned to their names for the study.
The interviews ranged in length from seven minutes to ninety-two minutes. Most interviews lasted for around forty minutes each. Once transcribed, we had collected 409 pages of double-spaced interview transcriptions. While we created interview guides for both the inmates and staff at the Women’s Correctional Facility to organized and structure our interviews, most of our discussions at WCF and in the nursery were conversational and narrative-based rather than reliant on the interview guide’s framework. Much of our audio was context-dependent, based on situations that arose in the nursery during our visits. In contrast to our structurally similar interviews at SMC, our interviews at WCF were more unique and personal, serving as loose interpretations of our interview guides. Some examples of questions/prompts included in the inmate interview guide are (note: edited with prison and program pseudonyms): MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 38
(a) Tell me the story of how you got in to the PFP program? How long have you
been a part of the program? What was the application process like?
(b) Tell me about what it’s like to be a parent and be in prison at the same time. Is
there anything that’s easy? Is there anything that’s challenging?
(c) What are your interactions like with correctional officers?
(d) What are your interactions like with other moms in the program?
Some examples of questions/prompts included in the staff interview guide are:
(a) How did you come to be connected to the PFP program? How long have you
been involved?
(b) What are the main goals of the PFP program? How does the program work to
accomplish those goals?
(c) How is it similar/different to be a staff member/correctional officer in the PFP
wing versus other wings of the prison?
(d) In terms of parenting in prison:
a. What are the benefits of having these women raise their children in
prison?
b. What are the drawbacks of having these women raise their children in
prison?
In addition to obtaining interviews, our visits to WCF were observational. Laura, our
‘gatekeeper’ and the director of the prison nursery program, allowed us to observe several of her interactions with other staff members, including a prison nursery task force meeting that brought together many stakeholders of the program, including the warden, correctional staff, case managers, and community partners. While we were not allowed to record this meeting, my research team and I observed the meeting and took notes, MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 39 debriefing the conversation together later. Additionally, Laura permitted my research team to observe her one-on-one conversations with the mothers, often addressing disciplinary issues and conflicts among the women. She also allowed one researcher to attend the inmates’ Christmas party, which brought their families and partners to WCF to celebrate the holiday. These observational interactions allowed us to gain further insight into the ‘backstage’ (Goffman, 1959) of the prison’s nursery program, or the interactions that occur when inmates and staff are unobserved and are able to express their true selves.
Finally, after each trip to the Women’s Correctional Facility, the research team and I would record our debriefing conversations, where we would discuss any meaningful, interesting, difficult or exciting interactions, discussions or observations we made during our visit. These debriefs provided additional data as we reflected on our research that day. The audio recordings of these conversations were utilized in our analysis procedures.
Data Analysis
As we collected audio from our interviews, observations, and debriefing conversations during and after our visits to the prisons, we began uploading the audio clips to an online transcription service, which selects professional transcribers based on the number of speakers and accents or regional slang used. As each audio file was returned transcribed, I listened to the audio myself and read through the transcriptions to ensure the highest accuracy and quality of each document. Although no content was changed, interviews were transcribed with the elimination of filler statements like ‘um’.
Before sending the 55 transcripts for transcription, I assigned pseudonyms to each interview transcript to maintain the confidentiality and identity of each participant in the study. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 40
As I began data analysis, I spent time rereading, taking notes, mind-mapping the transcribed data, and sitting with the fieldwork before determining the direction of my themes. I worked closely with my advisor, discussing potential themes both in-person, via email and over the phone. After several of these sessions, I began the coding process, utilizing the qualitative coding system Nvivo. I analyzed the data utilizing primary, secondary, and advanced coding procedures through the Nvivo system. Primary codes, or first-level codes, are general descriptions of the data itself, guiding researchers in understanding what is occurring in the data but requiring “little interpretation” (Tracy,
2013, p. 189). My primary codes focused generally on motherhood (generally and in prison), drug addiction, pregnancy, gendered interactions, inside and outside support, stigma and personal growth. These codes summarized the many broad topics frequently discussed during our interviews and observational research.
Using these primary codes, I began the secondary coding stage, which builds upon the first-level codes and includes “interpretation and identifying patterns, rules, or cause-effect progressions” (Tracy, 2013, p. 194). The expansion of my primary codes revealed an opportunity for contextualization within structuration theory (Giddens, 1986), as second-level codes are often based in theoretical concepts (Tracy, 2013). In particular, taking a structurational ontology (Banks & Riley, 1993) toward the data encouraged me to consider how the inmates and the prisons (i.e., staff, administration, volunteers, structural programming, etc.) each played a role in the communicative construction of motherhood. As such, I slightly revised my research question to attend to the role that inmates and prisons played in the construction of motherhood: In what ways is the identity of motherhood constructed by both the prison and the inmates themselves within both prison sites? In response to this revised question, one dominant construction of MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 41 motherhood emerged. Inmates and staff alike primarily focused on the constructed identity of a good mother—a claim which is supported through four emergent themes: (a) motherhood as preeminent, (b) motherhood as feminine, (c) motherhood as growth, and
(d) motherhood as sacrifice.
Once I determined these emergent themes through my secondary codes, I started my advanced and final coding procedure. Through this process, I located “exemplars” in the transcriptions, which are “significant multi-faceted examples researchers identify in the data throughout coding” (Tracy, 2013, p. 207). Exemplars provide context and narrative to themes; in this case, they provide personal accounts of each emergent theme
(e.g. motherhood as preeminent, feminine, growth, and sacrifice). The significance of these themes is evident in the rich responses of the inmates, staff and volunteers that participated in the research, many of whose insights are used in the findings and discussion chapters to come.
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 42
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS
Constructing Motherhood
My data analysis explored the characteristics associated with motherhood among both inmates and prison staff. In response to the revised research question—In what ways is the identity of motherhood constructed by both the prison and the inmates themselves within both prison sites?—one dominant construction of motherhood emerged; inmates and staff alike primarily focused on the constructed identity of a good mother. In line with this finding, four core themes emerged as significant: (a) motherhood as preeminent; (b) motherhood as feminine; (c) motherhood as growth; and (d) motherhood as sacrifice. All four themes are reflective of the discursive struggle occurring both inside and outside prison of what it means to be a good mother. Even as these four different constructions of motherhood developed as meaningful, the data also reflected tensions present, reinforcing the idea that identity construction is an “ongoing communicative process by which individuals develop a sense of whom they are… in relation to the world around them” (Wieland, 2010, p. 505). At Shuttlesworth Medical Center (SMC) and the
Women’s Correctional Facility (WCF), both the prison institutions as collective units
(comprised of staff, correctional officers, and volunteers) and the inmates as individuals played equally important roles in creating and perpetuating these constructions of motherhood, continuously defining what it means to be a good mother in prison.
Motherhood as Preeminent
The theme of motherhood as preeminent emphasizes a constructed identity where motherhood stands as the most important facet of inmates’ identities; at its roots, this theme reflects the message, “You are a mother first.” This construction of motherhood as preeminent places a woman’s duty to her child first, underscoring the importance of her MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 43 maternal identity above all other identities she might hold. Woven throughout this interview and observational data is the constructed idea that good mothers place their children and their identities as mothers first, casting aside all other identities as secondary to this role. At both Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional
Facility, inmates and prison staff reinforced this idea of motherhood as preeminent through programs that iterated this message, prison staff who elevated inmates’ identities as mothers, and inmates who prioritized their motherhood above all.
One way the construction of motherhood as preeminent was produced at
Shuttlesworth Medical Center was through its programming. At our first research visit there, my research team and I observed a ‘Mothers Matter’ class, facilitated by volunteers from a local church in the nearby community. Inside a small recreational classroom on the women’s floor, we joined the pregnant inmates sitting at tables organized in a circle around the room. Each inmate sat behind a name tag made of folded construction paper, decorated with flowery doodles and a list of their child or children’s name(s) and age(s), including their unborn child and his/her due date. Some inmates’ tags only reflected their unborn child’s name, while other inmates’ tags crowded three, four or five names on the wrinkled construction paper. Here, the inmates’ motherhood was their identity; their name tags, packed with their children’s names, reflected their preeminent identities as mothers. Hallie was not just Hallie. Instead, she was “Jason’s mom.” Her identity as a mother overshadowed any other facets of her identity in this class.
The class’s facilitators Alani and Carla, two middle-aged women with children of their own, passed around pink and purple highlighters at the start of class, asking the inmates to open their personal Mothers Matter workbooks. The class’s workbook, based off Mickey Tobin’s (1996) The Art of Positive Parenting, was designed to prepare MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 44 incarcerated women to be better mothers, starting inside the prison walls and preparing to parent outside, as well. Alani, one of the volunteer class facilitators, explained that through the class, the inmates are “learning helpful tips on how to become better mothers.
Especially those that might be in [prison] for things that involve their children. I find it very beneficial. They’re growing.” The class itself focused on tips to help the women grow and develop their parenting skills to be good mothers, with topics ranging from communicating with partners and caretakers from inside prison, to learning time- management skills, to rewarding and disciplining children’s behaviors. Each class covered a different chapter and topic each week. The Mothers Matter class affirmed the theme of motherhood as preeminent through its messages around the notion of good motherhood, notably that inmates’ children and their identities as mothers should be first priority during their incarceration. The class and its facilitators defined a good mother as emotionally and physically close to her children, willing to sacrifice her own needs to prioritize the needs of her children and living constantly as a role model “of what a good woman and mother should be,” according to the Mothers Matter workbook.
In the particular class we observed, the class facilitators discussed a chapter called
“Positive ‘Pair’enting” (a play on words of ‘positive parenting’) with the child’s father.
The mothers were encouraged to cast aside their personal grievances, including previous mistreatment or abuse from their child’s father, and continue as co-parents for the sake of their child(ren). The workbook and class facilitators stressed that good mothers had relationships with their co-parents for their child’s wellbeing, not acknowledging the potential of an absent father. One page in the workbook asked, “Is it safe for the father to be alone with the child?” The following question said, “If no, what can make the situation safer?” The chapter proceeded to provide ways for mothers to personally make the MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 45 situation safer for their child, including educating the fathers on car seats and cribs, as well as supplying them with emotional support to cope with the stress of parenting. These constructed messages communicated the theme of motherhood as preeminent, where an inmate must prioritize her child (and therefore her child’s relationship with his/her father) above her own relationships and emotional needs in order to be a good mother.
The communal space of incarcerated mothers was intended for group dialogue and growth; Carla, the lead volunteer facilitator of the class, described the class’s intentionally open environment:
When I first come in and we’re starting the first session of Mothers Matter, I set
the tone by telling them, “This is sacred space. We’re going to share somethings
with one another that’s really painful and it’s not okay to use it against one
another. This is a sisterhood of mothers and once we get started talking about our
children, you will probably see that we are more alike than we are different just in
our love for our children and what we want for them.
In this quote, Facilitator Carla’s language in describing “a sisterhood of mothers” linked the inmates through their motherhood, all connected by their shared prioritization of their children and their investment in the constructed message of motherhood as preeminent.
The facilitators, both mothers themselves, also used personal experiences as parents and regular volunteers in prisons to connect with the inmates. Facilitator Alani said, “It just felt natural to me to be able to go in there and just be a part of a class where you’re helping mothers to become better mothers.” Here, Alani described her instinctive personification of the motherhood as preeminent theme, explaining that she naturally prioritized her identity as a mother when she served as a role model of good motherhood for the class’s participants. The class emphasized the shared identity of motherhood and MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 46 personal growth for the sake of their child, characteristics reflected in the role of the good mother. The facilitators themselves, while honest about their personal struggles with parenthood, presented themselves as models of good mothers whom inmates could model themselves after. The Mothers Matter class defined specifically what a good mother looked like (i.e. a good listener, a self-sacrificing individual, a co-parent). Each class, with the guidance of the facilitators (and exemplary good mothers), was meant for the inmates to compare their own parenting strategies with these constructed good mother characteristics and learn how to better fit that good mother mold. Specifically, the most important quality of a good mother, according to the Mothers Matter class and its facilitators, was her prioritization of her identity as ‘mother’ above all else. A good mother knew she was a mother first; her identity as a mother was preeminent.
Similarly, the Preserving Families Program (PFP) at the WCF constructed a message of motherhood as preeminent through its programming and elevation of inmates’ identities as mothers. Throughout this study PFP, the prison nursery program, was and continues to be a prominent prison program available to eligible incarcerated mothers at the Women’s Correctional Facility (a detailed description of the PFP program can be found on page 29). Unlike the other parenting classes offered, admittance into the program involved an application and interview process, as well as eligibility requirements regarding the type of offense, the security level of the inmate, and the amount of time being served. Mothers admitted to the prison nursery program were able to live with their child in the nursery unit until their release—a maximum of three years after the birth of their child—and learn parenting skills in a confined environment away from their homes,
(abusive) partners, and alcohol, drugs or other addictive substances. The program provided necessities like food, clothes, and diapers to the moms at no cost, as well as MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 47 additional resources like toys, strollers and cribs. The prison nursery program operated under the mission of teaching these program participants to be good mothers by scheduling their day-to-day lives around their child and his/her needs. PFP provided access to these resources—luxuries in the context of a prison—through the message of motherhood as preeminent; essentially, inmates in this program who prioritized their identities as mothers were considered good mothers and thus deserved additional support.
If inmates in the PFP program did not subscribe to this constructed identity of motherhood as preeminent, they faced consequences—some as extreme as being removed from the program.
The prison nursery program was heavily advertised by the prison as an exemplary program. The WCF put motherhood on a pedestal, elevating inmates who embraced their motherhood as preeminent and lived with their children in the nursery above the rest of the inmate population at the Women’s Correctional Facility. At the time this research was conducted, the nursery program was situated within the intake building, where all female inmates in the state were first housed before being sent to their permanent unit. The nursery could be seen from the general population area through a colorfully decorated window, often by inmates who left children behind when incarcerated and pregnant women who were awaiting transfer to Shuttlesworth Medical Center still unsure of their own baby’s future. Kaila, an inmate at SMC, described her discomfort with this highly- visible location of the program:
There’s almost three hundred women in this admissions [sic] building and every
time they line up to get chow, every time they’re in the day-room, they can see
straight through this window and see these babies.
The prison staff’s choice in placing the nursery in such a visible location—paired with MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 48 the nursery’s colorful, comforting space contrasting an otherwise dull, bleak building— physically reflected the prison’s priority of motherhood. This construction was not only known to the mothers living in the nursery but also to the inmates in the building’s general population, who watched from the outside as other incarcerated mothers reaped the benefits of living in the PFP.
On our first research trip at WCF, the mothers in the nursery informed us that they were used to outsiders observing the program, as tour groups and media outlets visited the nursery regularly. Even as researchers with expectations about the nursery program before visiting the program, my team and I had the both jarring and fascinating experience of seeing children living inside a prison on our first visit; the program itself has shock value. However, to the prison, which prioritized the wellbeing of children and their relationships to their incarcerated mothers, having young children live inside of the prison was a physical manifestation of their commitment to the constructed narrative of motherhood as preeminent.
In our interviews and observations, some inmates and staff argued that incarcerated women choosing to participate in the Preserving Families Program were putting their identities as mothers first by keeping their child close, even during incarceration. Warden Johnson of the Women’s Correctional Facility was one person who forwarded the vision of motherhood as preeminent. She shared her excitement at the recent passing of state legislation that allowed inmates with sentences up to 36 months after birth to be eligible for PFP:
We were so excited about the lobby and passed being able to be in the program
because what we truly believe in is if they have an opportunity to spend time with
your [sic] child and have that bonding period, some parental skills . . . the moms MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 49
would have an opportunity to really learn some skills and really have that time
with their children.
Warden Johnson implied that good mothers would choose to be physically close to their children regardless of their circumstances; these inmates would identify as mothers first, thus choosing the nursery program for its access to programming and resources that prioritized motherhood. Kiley, a mother new to the PFP nursery program, chose the program for these reasons specifically:
I breastfed my daughter, there is no way I’d be able to do that if she wasn’t with
me. . . This is the most important time to build bonds with your children. That’s
something I included in my letter [for entry into the nursery program]. I don’t
want to miss the opportunity to make—to have a strong bond with my child. Even
with my daughter, even not being with her it’s—I mean, I’m a mom.
Here, Kiley emphasized her identity as a ‘mom’ as preeminent in her decision-making while incarcerated. Despite her circumstances, Kiley chose to participate in the prison nursery program for the opportunity to live and bond with her newborn baby, rooting her decision in the best interest of her child and her prioritized identity as a mother.
Staff members at both WCF and SMC constructed the message of motherhood as preeminent, expressing their own expectations that inmates should prioritize their identities and responsibilities as mothers, especially in relation to their pasts that brought them to prison. Many of the incarcerated mothers faced charges that brought them to prison for substance abuse and addiction. The prison staff members regularly stressed that these behaviors were incompatible with good parenting, as inmates’ addictions forced them to deprioritize their identities as mothers. Warden Johnson of the Women’s
Correctional Facility said: MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 50
If they were out there getting high and doing things…that took them away from
their children instead of bringing them close to their children…people say, "Well,
I’m an addict but I’m a good mom." No, you’re not. No, you’re not. Because I
promise you that your child is deficient in something because of your addiction.
Whether you’re taking food out of their mouths to buy your drugs, whether you’re
home high, you can be home high and nothing ever happens to your child, but you
can’t tell me that you are giving your child that attention and what they need.
In this response, Warden Johnson constructed the message of motherhood as preeminent by stressing that ‘good moms’ could not participate in behaviors that would diminish their children’s priority. This construction of motherhood necessitated the inmates’ full dedication to their identities as mothers.
Through interviews and observations with both Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional Facility’s prison staff, inmates, and programming, one constructed identity of motherhood as preeminent emerged as significant. This first construction of motherhood reflected the importance of inmates prioritizing their identities as mothers, with all other facets of themselves becoming secondary to their identity as a parent to their child. The prison staff, volunteers, correctional officers, and inmates at SMC and WCF all contributed to constructing the theme of motherhood as preeminent within the prison, reflecting the broader societal expectations of women to wholeheartedly and unequivocally embrace their identities and responsibilities as mothers. Institutionally, the prison nursery program at WCF reinforced the construction of motherhood as preeminent by creating a space where motherhood could be both elevated and prioritized, allowing inmates to rise above their incarceration to be mothers MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 51 first. The theme of motherhood as preeminent was the first constructed definition of good motherhood (i.e. what it means to be a good mother) that developed as significant.
Motherhood as Feminine
The second emergent theme in my data analysis was the construction of motherhood as feminine, an identity construction founded in gendered expectations of women as mothers. Traditionally, women bear more of the child-raising responsibilities in partnered relationships, with fathers largely expected to play more passive and less child-centered roles (Dobris, White-Mills, Davidson & Wellbrook, 2017). Moreover, motherhood is a critical aspect of femininity and the construction of a feminine identity
(Choi et. al, 2005); thus, it is largely unsurprising that being feminine is one of the of main constructions of motherhood in the present study. In my observations of
Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional Facility, both prisons constructed feminine identities for their incarcerated mothers, creating spaces and programs that invoked gendered and feminine conceptualizations of motherhood. The construction of motherhood as feminine necessitated inmates’ fulfillment of traditionally gendered expectations of motherhood in order to be good mothers, ranging from wearing pink to crafting and coloring to being continuously surrounded by child-centered spaces.
At both Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional Facility, the spaces themselves perpetuated the construction of motherhood as feminine among their incarcerated mothers. Space plays an important, albeit less obvious, role in “constructing meaning than other, more active modes of communication… as communication draws attention to the content of messages, while space contributes to the meaning without being obvious about its role in constructing meaning” (Gaines, 2006, p. 175). Endres and
Senda-Cook (2011) argue that space is “a process that is under constant construction, MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 52 reconstruction, and sometimes subject to deconstruction” and can transmit constructed messaging and meaning through these spatial structures (p. 260). Through these subtle yet constantly evolving messages, the spaces inside SMC and WCF feminized their incarcerated mothers and contributed to the broader construction of motherhood as feminine among prison staff and inmates.
Walking onto the women’s floor in Shuttlesworth Medical Center, a unit comprised of both pregnant and ‘cadre’ (i.e. non-pregnant, working) inmates, my research team and I were first struck by the prison’s strategy for differentiating the pregnant inmates: all of the mothers wore button-up bright pink linen shirts, most of them unbuttoned to make room for their swollen pregnant bellies. During an interview with
Ariel, a pregnant inmate on the floor, she referred to herself as a member of the “pink posse,” alluding to the cohort of pregnant women living at SMC. While the sea of pink on the floor allowed for easy identification of which inmates were pregnant, the choice of pink as the identifier—a color widely known as a gendered marker of femininity and womanhood (Koller, 2008)—accentuated the identity construction of motherhood as feminine among inmates. Additionally, much of the space on the women’s floor at
Shuttlesworth Medical Center was dedicated to décor invoking motherhood and children, despite only half of its inmates being pregnant. A bulletin board lining one of the hallways, decorated with blue and pink cutouts of baby bottles and toy rattles, contained resources and information about pregnancy, ranging from healthcare options to materials on adoption and foster care. The recreational room, often used as programming space by prison staff or volunteers, included bookshelves holding mothering books and crafting supplies used for parenting classes. The visitation room, a tiny space with a vending machine and six chairs for families and friends to visit their incarcerated loved ones, was MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 53 adorned with paintings of Disney characters; the room itself was designed for the comfort and amusement of children visiting their parents in prison. These child-centered spaces also contributed to the construction of motherhood as feminine, invoking gendered and feminized expectations of women to assume their roles as mothers and caretakers, even inside prison walls.
Similarly, the Women’s Correctional Facility’s Preserving Family Program created a feminized space for its incarcerated mothers and their children. The nursery was full of brightly colored artwork and decorations, from murals of Sesame Street characters and building blocks, to walls filled with printed pictures of mothers and babies who went through the PFP program. A living room area—naturally lit with windows facing the center of the prison ‘farm’ and the barbed wire fence surrounding the building—held several couches, a colorful rug, and a scattering of toys, bouncy seats, strollers, and pacifiers. The entire nursery stood in stark contrast to the rest of the building, which was painted in dull shades of yellowed gray with bare walls and cramped bunkbeds.
Congruent to SMC’s feminized floor, the prison nursery program reflected the theme of motherhood as feminine through its spatial messaging, constructing a highly gendered and child-centered good mother identity for its inmates to occupy.
Additionally, prison programming played a role in the construction of motherhood as feminine. Shuttlesworth Medical Center suggested that all pregnant inmates take the Graduation, Reality and Dual-Role Skills (GRADS) class, facilitated by a volunteer trained through the National Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences
Education (FACSE). The program was practically required for inmates who wanted to be considered for the nursery program and was also looked favorably on by judges determining whether or not an inmate would be released from prison early. The program MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 54 spanned from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. five days a week, mimicking a typical school day. The
GRADS program is often available in high schools to student parents as a resource for teenage pregnancy, providing training on practical parenting skills while still helping the students to stay in school and graduate from high school. We were told by the GRADS facilitator that the class at Shuttlesworth Medical Center was adapted to fit the population of incarcerated mothers, who faced unique challenges in being physically separate from their children due to incarceration or being pregnant while in prison.
However, the class elicited a variety of responses from pregnant inmates on the women’s floor, many alluding to hyper-feminized activities and programming. Tiffany, a pregnant inmate at SMC, explained:
We color, we watch movies, and we might do a chapter. Usually, every night, we
get a chapter out of the book but it’s like, you don’t even need the chapter book to
read the questions. They’re just common-sense questions.
When asked about GRADS, another mother named Cassidy said she refused to participate in the program because she did not “want to go sit there and watch cartoons all day.” However, inmate Allison said, “It is a useful class. You do learn how to be a parent from prison.” Kaila, another pregnant mother, said “We talked a lot about, like, just child development, like physically and intellectually. I learned a lot of new things just how the brain works in children.” Most interviewed inmates expressed that GRADS was a way to keep themselves occupied during their sentences. While the utility of the class was contested among inmates, almost all who spoke about GRADS agreed that feminized activities like coloring and crafting were prevalent in the program. Inmates being compelled to color, make crafts, and watch movies, activities typically associated with children (and by association, their caretakers), constructed the identity of motherhood as MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 55 feminine through the perpetuation of the idea that good mothers participated in these tasks with their children. According to SMC’s constructions of motherhood through this program, a good mother would embrace these feminized, gendered activities for the sake of their child.
Through spatial and programmatic messaging, the prison as a collective
(including the staff, correctional officers, and volunteers at both Shuttlesworth Medical
Center and the Women’s Correctional Facility) defined motherhood as feminine. These messages constructed the identity of a highly gendered good mother, who is willing to be identified by the color pink, to craft, color, and participate in other feminized activities, and to live in child-centered spaces, even with no children present. This good mother identity fulfills societal expectations of motherhood and femininity, two concepts that are traditionally linked (Choi et. al, 2005). Both prisons’ physical spaces and Shuttlesworth
Medical Center’s GRADS program reflected this emergent theme of motherhood as feminine, a construction that fits into the broader narrative of gendered notions of motherhood in society.
Motherhood as Growth
The third significant construction that developed through my data analysis was motherhood as growth, a theme more specific to the context of prison. Prison staff and inmates both defined motherhood as an opportunity for self-reflection and personal growth, particularly due to inmates’ pasts of substance abuse and/or criminal activities.
Incarcerated mothers at Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional
Facility were motivated by their (un)born children to ‘be better’ than the actions that brought them to prison, as these babies represented opportunities to start again in inmates’ journeys to be good mothers. Many of the incarcerated women we interviewed MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 56 were already mothers to children living outside with family or in adoption/foster homes, so their recently conceived or born babies served as incentives to better themselves as individuals and mothers. Inmates constructed the identity of motherhood as growth through their dedication to growth towards good motherhood, while prison staff underscored this message through their encouragement of and interactions with the incarcerated mothers.
Inmates at both Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional
Facility shared their constructions of motherhood as growth through their perspectives of prison as an opportunity for self-improvement, particularly for the sake of their children.
Jenny, a mother in the nursery program, shared her newfound motivation to improve her life to be a better mother for her daughter:
She’s the purpose now. All the while that I’ve struggled with my addiction, I
never felt like I had a purpose. I just wanted to die…Since having her, she’s my
motivation. She’s my determination. Every morning I wake up and I just want to
be better for her.
This sentiment was echoed by many of the inmates, describing their personal catalysts for growth as rooted in their children and their identities as mothers. Kiley, another mother in the nursery program, explained her decision to apply for the program:
Basically…I wanted the opportunity to grow as a person—not even just as a mom
but as a person. That I wanted the opportunity to show that I’m making changes in
my life and just saying that the best thing for a baby is to be with their mom.
Here, Kiley not only described the nursery program as an opportunity for personal growth, but she also positioned herself as a good mother for making a choice for the benefit of her baby. Jenny and Kiley invoked the construction of motherhood as growth MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 57 in their personal motivations for choosing the nursery program and working to be better mothers while incarcerated.
Cassidy, a pregnant inmate at Shuttlesworth Medical Center, cited her children outside of prison as incentives to grow in her identity as a mother, particularly in relation to the actions that precipitated her incarceration: “I think that’s the biggest thing for me is just to make sure that they see me doing different. Me living right, so that they know that they don’t have to do what I was doing before.” Cassidy shared her own upbringing in a family where drugs and alcohol were regularly present, habits that she picked up from an early age and continued up until her incarceration. When asked about what she was looking forward to upon her release, Cassidy said:
Going home and just being a good mom, playing with the kids, and just showing
them different, like I said, just to make sure they don’t have to live the life that I
lived, like to do anything that I did. I got high with my mom and…I just want to
make sure that my kids don’t have to deal with none of that.
In this conversation, Cassidy not only used her own personal shortcomings as a mother as reasons to embrace the construct of motherhood as growth, but also the failures of her own mother as a motivating force for change. Cassidy compared herself directly to her mother, positioning herself as a better mom due to her own self-awareness and dedication to personal growth for the sake of her children. Cassidy’s mother did not learn from her mistakes and instead passed them on to her children, so Cassidy’s choice to end the cycle of substance abuse and criminal activity with herself is her ‘line in the sand’; she used this construction of motherhood as growth as her motivating force during her time in prison.
Ava, another SMC inmate, expressed to me that her time in prison had motivated MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 58 her to reassess her priorities in life and set her personal goals in line with those of her children, constructing an identity of motherhood as growth. Regarding her future, she said:
I have to start with my kids. It would have to start off with making goals for them
and showing them what a goal is…I got to just live for them. My time has passed.
It's all about them now and I just got to make sure that the rest of the goals in my
life is for them. I have to get my stuff together. For real and stop playing around.
Ava compared herself to family members her age who went “the right way,” went to college, and now have careers, houses and stable families. She told me that she constantly thinks, “That could be me. I could have had it together.” In our interview, she outlined specific goals she has for herself to attend college and become a teacher, all with the intention of bettering the lives of her children. Ava’s time in prison pushed her to reflect on her own actions as a mother and learn from her mistakes; she embraced the idea that good motherhood required personal growth.
Many of the mothers we interviewed reflected on motherhood as an identity that required role modeling, but they also framed it as an identity with difficult expectations to meet, thus necessitating growth and self-improvement while incarcerated. Ariel, a pregnant mother at Shuttlesworth Medical Center with a teenage daughter at home, said,
“It’s hard to have those little eyes look up to you, man. So much to live up to. You got to do everything for them and be there and support them. I mean, you make the tiniest mistake and they just spiral out of control.” Later in the interview, Ariel reflected, “I don’t know, being a parent is just the hardest job you’ll ever have in your life, and no matter how hard you try, you mess it up.” Carson, another inmate at SMC, shared a nearly identical concern for her unborn daughter: “I just don’t want to mess her up.” MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 59
These inmates’ concerns were rooted in a fear that is felt by many mothers inside and outside prison: the fear of failing to be a good mother and a good role model for one’s child. Ariel and Carson’s anxieties reflected the societal construction of motherhood as growth, where mothers must always be self-reflecting and developing their parenting skills to meet the needs of their children and achieve good motherhood.
In order to meet these high expectations of good motherhood, some of the interviewed inmates focused on taking classes, participating in programs and attempting to better themselves in advance of having their child. Many of the mothers and pregnant women were incarcerated for drug charges, so addiction recovery was often mentioned as an area of growth. Kaila, a pregnant inmate at SMC, described her personal journey while incarcerated, including the programming she became involved in:
Knowing where I was the first day I went to jail mentally to where I’m at now is
so different, like day and night. I thought my life was over. Knowing that it’s not
is pretty awesome to know. I’ve gotten through this. I’m actually doing things that
I would have never done being out there like just parenting classes and going to
college and just staying proactive and that kind of stuff. I would have never done
that out there.
Kaila’s involvement in prison programs and college classes contributed to her construction of motherhood as growth, where her identity as a mother was revitalized with the help of the prison’s educational resources.
Inmates used the construction of motherhood as growth as a standard for good motherhood; mothers who did not take advantage of the prison classes, attempt to change their behaviors, or fight their addictions (i.e. inmates not participating in the construction of motherhood as growth) were implied to be bad mothers. Jenny, a mother in the prison MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 60 nursery program, explained incarcerated motherhood this way:
My personal opinion of it is, we’re not working on the problem that led them to
prison. They [other inmates] sit here and they talk about times of getting high and
what they did in their addictions. While it’s fun to joke about sometimes, it’s
really not. That’s why some of the people here are on their second and third
prison number. I hit the ground running when I came in here. I was aware that I
had issues. I’ve been to rehab before. This is an ongoing thing, however I’ve
never made it to prison. This is a lot to deal with. This is my first child and I had
her in prison. I don’t want to come back here again. Let me figure out what’s
wrong with me and fix it.
Jenny’s description of her time in prison reflects the theme of motherhood as growth, as she identifies herself as a good mother working to improve for the sake of her child. She is judgmental of mothers who do not embrace the construction of growth or fit this standard of good motherhood, instead continuing to reoffend and returning to prison.
Faith, a pregnant mother living at SMC with children living with family at home, shared a similar frustration with mothers not meeting expectations of the motherhood as growth construction during their prison sentences:
The people that have five, six, seven, eight numbers, they’re either
institutionalized because they did so much time the first couple times or they just
don’t want to change. They don’t care. I hear girls all the time, "I can’t wait to get
out and get high." You’ve been there how long? Two years? It makes sense,
because that’s all you know. That’s all you’ve done. You don’t want to change?
Okay, that’s on you. I’m finally to the point where I’m sick and tired of being sick
and tired. Sick and tired of putting my kids through hell. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 61
In this interview, Faith pinpointed to change as an integral part of her own good motherhood, reflecting the theme of motherhood as growth. Faith expressed concerns with other mothers who refused to learn from their mistakes and ultimately ended up recidivating; these mothers did not follow the construction of motherhood as growth and were therefore labeled as ‘bad mothers’ by fellow inmates like Faith.
Prison staff at both Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional
Facility also perpetuated the construction of motherhood as growth, describing their own personal relationships with inmates and their pride in watching those inmates grow as mothers. Warden Johnson of WCF described the prison’s mission through the construction of motherhood as growth, explaining that she viewed prison staff as “public servants” helping to guide inmates in the journeys of personal growth and development.
She told us a story about a former inmate in the PFP nursery program, whose grandmother reached out to the Warden several months after the inmate’s release:
Grandma said to me, “You all sent back a different person. You sent to us
somebody totally different." She said, "We waited. We waited for her to fail. We
waited for her to use [drugs]. We waited-" She said, "We almost kind of wished
it." She said, "It’s not that we wanted it to happen, but it was like we know it’s
going to happen, so just let it happen." She said, "It never did. It never did." She
said, "You’ve sent me back a totally different person." Her daughter, she
graduated. She got her GED in here. She started college in here too. She really
worked hard. I think for me that meant more to me than anything and I’ll
remember that for the rest of my life that this mom felt like we saved her
daughter’s life and that it worked. That’s what we talked about that we’re in the
business of saving lives. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 62
Warden Johnson then reflected on her own staff’s responsibilities to inmates’ growth, explaining that prison staff are “helping to change and impact the lives of people who commit crimes so that they don’t return to society and do the same thing… our hope is that they become good neighbors to us and they become good employees or employers and they become law abiding, tax paying citizens.” In this interview, the warden reiterated the construction of motherhood as growth, reinforcing the importance of inmates’ personal development, especially in relation to their roles as mothers.
Zelda, a psychologist at WCF, reflected on her own interactions with some incarcerated mothers who had listened to her advice and eventually chose to embrace the construct of motherhood as growth, even if it took several prison sentences:
[Inmates] will come back and say, "I remember that you said this, and you were
right. I’m going to make these changes because I’m growing up and I’m not
getting any younger and I need to do something differently." So, if you don’t
catch them the first time, sometimes it takes two, three, seven, nine numbers for
them to say, "You know what? Maybe it is me. Maybe I am doing something
wrong and I need to own up to this."
Zelda’s role as a prison staff member gave her power to enforce the construct of motherhood as growth. In her mandatory counseling sessions with mothers in the nursery program, Zelda could encourage inmates’ participation in prison programming, as well as frame good motherhood with motherhood as growth as an expectation.
Nursery director Laura recounted her own encouragement of the mothers living in the nursery to take ownership of their motherhood and fight for custody of their other children upon release:
I say, "Well, you have to do better. You have to get your kids back but that’s MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 63
something you have to want. You need to have that for yourself." I said, "Believe
in yourself. Remember I always told you. Believe in yourself. You can do it." I
said, "Ain’t nothing is going to be given to us. Ain’t nothing easy. Why are you
here? Figure it out. Go in there. I just need you to fight and get your kid back.
That’s one thing you can do."
Laura’s tough love mentality, described here, is rooted in the idea of motherhood as growth. As director of the nursery program, one of Laura’s many responsibilities included helping inmates in the program develop their skills as mothers and grow away from the behaviors that brought them to prison. Her words reflect the construction of motherhood as growth, where inmates must ‘figure out’ and learn from their mistakes to be good mothers to their children.
Through inmates’ own narrations of their personal development and prison staff’s encouragement of this maturation, the third construction of motherhood as growth emerged as significant in the data. In order to identify as good mothers, inmates needed to conform to this constructed expectation of motherhood as growth, where incarcerated mothers used their prison sentences as opportunities to self-reflect and grow from their mistakes. This growth was incentivized by inmates’ unborn or newborn children, who served as the primary motivators for mothers to better themselves while incarcerated. The construction of motherhood as growth was represented in inmates’ self-reflections, their justifications for participating in prison programs, their standards of good motherhood imposed on fellow inmates, and prison staff’s expectations and interactions with inmates.
Motherhood as Sacrifice
A fourth and final emergent theme in this study was motherhood as sacrifice, where incarcerated mothers made difficult, sometimes unwanted decisions for the sake of MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 64 their children. The idea of motherhood as sacrifice is a pervasive, common theme in our traditionally gendered society, where mothers are positioned as the “all-caring, self- sacrificing ideal ‘Mother’” (Hallstein, 2006, p. 97). In order to fulfill the first construction of motherhood discussed (motherhood as preeminent, where women are expected to prioritize their identities as mothers above all other identities), mothers must make sacrifices for the benefit of their children and, often, to their own detriment. In this research, inmates described the personal sacrifices they made, ranging from medical decisions to choosing adoption/foster care for their babies. These decisions were challenging, emotional, and sometimes traumatizing for the mothers, but they were made with the best interest of their children in mind. Both the inmates and prison staff constructed good motherhood with the expectation of motherhood as sacrifice, where good mothers made sacrifices for the sake of their children, regardless of what they gave up as mothers and individuals in the process.
The incarcerated mothers’ medical decisions were often justified by the construction of motherhood as sacrifice. One pregnant inmate at Shuttlesworth Medical
Center, Ariel, tearfully shared her choice to forcibly take herself off methadone cold- turkey for the chance to be admitted into the prison nursery program:
Eventually, they told me that I couldn’t get in the baby program because I was on
methadone. They told me I was on drugs when I came to prison and I was
automatically disqualified… One day they called me into the office and said, "If
you and your baby are weaned off of this methadone and neither of you are sick,
we are willing to reconsider you for the baby program." I got so excited. [laughs]
I begged them to wean me off methadone and no one would do it. No one would
do it. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 65
Ariel explained that the nurses at the prison declined to wean her off of the medication, so she began refusing the methadone instead. During the interview, wiping tears from her eyes, she mimicked herself lying in bed shivering and aching for weeks, experiencing the symptoms associated with both withdrawal and pregnancy, only to be told that even though she was now clean, she was still disqualified from the program, this time for refusing her medication. Through these challenges, Ariel continued to refuse her methadone, saying “The main concern for me was my baby. I didn’t want him being born sick and withdrawing because of my poor decisions, because I couldn’t stay away from heroin or whatever else.” During this interview, one of the correctional officers on the floor interrupted our session and asked my research partner and I to stop recording, only to tell us that he was proud of Ariel for standing up for herself and making decisions that would positively impact her son. Both Ariel and the correctional officer invoked the construction of motherhood as sacrifice, positioning Ariel as a good mother for sacrificing her health and comfort for the benefit of her son.
Many of the pregnant inmates, especially those whose children were being taken to live with family, being adopted or going into foster care (i.e. being separated), chose to have cesarean sections instead of natural births—decisions that reflected the construction of motherhood as sacrifice. The surgery component of the cesarean sections required mothers to spend an extra day or two in the hospital. Despite the longer healing and recovery time surgery necessitated, as well as the many health risks posed by cesarean sections in comparison to natural birth, many inmates chose this option to have extra time with their newborn before he/she was taken away. In this way, they sacrificed their bodies for the sake of their children, perhaps somewhat selfishly. Jenny, now a mother in the nursery program, did not know she had been accepted into the prison nursery program MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 66 until the morning after she gave birth to her daughter, and described her experience in the hospital:
I didn’t want anybody to take any time away from me that I would potentially
have with her. I’m in the hospital, I’m dog tired but I didn’t want to give her up, I
didn’t want them taking her to the nursery, I didn’t want them taking her from me,
I was forcing myself to be awake, I wanted every second I could get possibly get
with her.
Similarly, Ariel, the same inmate who refused her methadone, described her decision to choose a cesarean section as her birthing procedure:
If I have the C-section, I get a whole extra day or two in the hospital, which
means I get a whole extra day or two with my baby before they send me back
here. I’m greedy with my baby. I’m taking as much time as I can. If they got to
cut me open for me to have two extra days, then they can cut me open all they
want. [laughs] I want to be with my baby.
Both Jenny and Ariel’s justifications for choosing cesarean sections for birthing their babies—a surgery that is painful, requires a longer recovery period, and can pose additional health risks for mothers—were based in their desires to spend more time with their babies before being separated. They were willing to sacrifice their own health for their children, a reflection of the construction of motherhood as sacrifice.
Some inmates also chose to adopt or foster their babies, often making this difficult sacrifice to take stress off of their families outside of prison who already serve as caregivers to other children. These inmates chose adoption or foster care with the intention of giving their child the best life possible, conforming to the construction of MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 67 motherhood as sacrifice. Krista, whose elderly parents already cared for her teenager and could not care for another child, said:
I was really, really upset about it at first, but I feel it is the right thing to do. Even
though I only have six months on my sentence and all that, I could choose foster
care, but with just present system and everyone puts it out to you, “it’s all so
stressful.” Everything that they give you that you do get to answer to in here, they
take it to the extreme, like, "It’s going to take you forever to get your kid back and
blah, blah, blah." I don’t want her to just be floating around the system. This way,
I know the family. I’ll get to see her.
Krista expounded that she felt content with her decision to adopt because “I know that she’ll be taken care of regardless of the decisions I make.” In Krista’s circumstance, adoption was a difficult decision she was making for the sake of her daughter’s future, rather than for her own benefit; to Krista, this decision was her version of being a good mother and aligned with the expectations of motherhood as sacrifice.
Faith, another pregnant inmate at SMC, disclosed her motivations for choosing adoption or placement with her family, while also addressing some of the criticism she received from other inmates about her decision:
People are like, "You’re still losing your kid." No, I’m not. My kid is going to
family. Even if I put it up for adoption, at least I know that I didn’t hurt another
baby because of the choice I made, because I blame myself for losing those two. I
blame myself for my youngest. Even though there’s nothing wrong with him, I
blame myself, so the thing with this one, it’s like a do-over.
Faith, earlier in the interview, had told us that her older two children had been taken by
Child Protective Services due to previous drug charges. Her decision to either adopt or MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 68 place her child with a family member seemed to bring her relief that her child would be well cared for elsewhere and that her personal struggles with addiction would not impact him/her. From Faith’s point of view, choosing adoption was a decision in the best interest of her child and therefore a decision a good mother would make; Faith’s choice reflected the construction of motherhood as sacrifice in this way.
Isabella, an inmate pregnant with her second child who had already adopted out her first-born, explained: “I’m putting [my son] up for adoption because I am not eligible for the baby program at WCF and my parents are 80 so I did the next best thing. But I’m excited.” She shared that she would be adopting her son to a gay couple who were unable to have biological children, and who had agreed to an ‘open adoption’ where she could still speak with her son on the phone and visit him at their house occasionally. While
Isabella’s decision to adopt her son meant she would sacrifice her proximity to him, her choice gave her son the opportunity to live in better circumstances than Isabella could provide. Isabella’s decision was one of motherhood as sacrifice, made as a good mother with her son’s best interests above her own.
Through medical decisions like self-weaning off methadone or choosing additional surgery when giving birth, to choosing adoption/foster care for their babies, inmates reinforced the construction of motherhood as sacrifice in their choices as incarcerated mothers. These sacrifices were made with the interests of inmates’ children in mind, rather than inmates’ own interests as mothers and individuals. The theme of motherhood as sacrifice is reflective of the gendered expectations prevalent in our society that mothers must be self-sacrificing in order to be good mothers (Hallstein, 2006).
Through interviews and observational data, this gendered standard for good MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 69 motherhood—the idea of motherhood as sacrifice—emerged as meaningful in the identity constructions of motherhood perpetuated by inmates and prison staff in this research.
Final Thoughts
In response to my research question: In what ways is the identity of motherhood constructed by both the prison and the inmates themselves within both prison sites?, inmates and prisons together focused on the construction of a good mother identity and four themes of “motherhood as” emerged as significant. These themes, as described above, included (a) motherhood as preeminent, (b) motherhood as feminine, (c) motherhood as growth, and (d) motherhood as sacrifice. The observational data and interview exemplars obtained at both Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s
Correctional Facility’s ‘Preserving Families’ prison nursery program reflected the significance of these themes in constructing an identity of a good mother in prison.
According to inmates’ and prison staff’s constructions of motherhood, good mothers prioritize their identities as mothers above all else (preeminent), conform to gendered and feminized standards of motherhood (feminine), invest in personal growth and self- reflection motivated by their child (growth), and make difficult sacrifices for the sake of their children (sacrifice). Mothers who fail to meet these constructed expectations fail to be good mothers. While these constructions of motherhood are based in two prisons, they are reflective of broader expectations of what it means to be a good mother in our society generally.
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 70
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
This study focused on the broad question—In what ways is the identity of motherhood constructed by both the prison and the inmates themselves within both prison sites? Upon completion of the fieldwork at SMC and WCF, inmates and prisons co- constructed the identity of a good mother through four emergent themes: (a) motherhood as preeminent, (b) motherhood as feminine, (c) motherhood as growth, and (d) motherhood as sacrifice. Taken together, these themes have broader theoretical implications for communication scholarship and practical applications for the criminal justice system as a whole. In this chapter, I analyze the dueling and juxtaposing identities of inmate and mother, as well as use Gidden’s (1982) duality of structure and dialectic of control as explanatory frameworks for the communicative construction process occurring among incarcerated women. Subsequently, I discuss the practical applications and limitations of this research, as well as opportunities for future research.
Discussion
Identity Construction
This research contributes to communication scholarship through its exploration of the conflicting social identities that incarcerated mothers must navigate. Mothers in prison possess two contradictory identities: inmate, a stigmatized identity, and mother, a valorized identity. As previous literature has demonstrated (Cusak, Jack & Kavanaugh,
2003; Goffman, 1963), the identity of inmate is highly stigmatized, and “can marginalize an individual, resulting in that person being disqualified from full social acceptance”
(Toyoki & Brown, 2014, p. 716). Incarcerated people are stigmatized because the criminal actions that brought them to prison are viewed as deviant by society (Goffman, MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 71
1963), a label that often overwhelms any other salient identities an inmate might possess.
Faith, an incarcerated mother at SMC, described the pervasiveness of this stigma through a phone call with her three-year-old son: “When I call, he’s like, ‘Mommy, actually you’re bad. You’re in jail.’ [And I said] ‘Yes, mommy is.’” Additionally, stigmatized identities—and particularly the identity of inmate—can be involuntary (Peterson &
McNamee, 2016), imbued through societal constructions and difficult to erase.
However, in this study, inmates challenged their involuntary stigmatized identities through constructing identities as good mothers. The identity of mother is arguably, what
I term, a ‘valorized identity’, which is a favorable, moral, and often sought-after identity.
Mothers are viewed positively by society because the identity of motherhood is directly associated with children and inherently positions mothers as wholesome and honorable
(Ennis, 2014; c.f. Hays, 1996). Despite these oft affirmative assumptions about motherhood, Western society has high expectations for good motherhood. Particularly, good mothers are expected to “care for their children with boundless devotion and unconditional love” (Tangir, Cohen & Peled, 2017, p. 518) and must dedicate themselves entirely to their children to achieve the identity of good mother (Douglas & Michaels,
2004).
Notably, the physical state of incarceration directly contradicts societal expectations of good motherhood, especially for inmates physically separated from their children. As mothers are expected to practically be superhuman through their simultaneous management of household chores, careers, and childrearing (Choi,
Henshaw, Baker & Tree, 2005) as well as through their constant performance as all- caring, all-knowing and self-sacrificing humans (Hallstein, 2006), their dueling identities as inmates position them as bad mothers for failing to meet these social expectations MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 72
(Dobris, White-Mills, Davidson & Wellbrook, 2017). In contrast, incarcerated mothers living in the nursery program had more of a chance to enacted some of the societal expectations imbued upon mothers. Presumably, the women in the prison nursery program were viewed more favorably by prison staff for the inmates’ physical proximity and connection to their children—a supposition I was anecdotally able to confirm through my observations at SMC and WCF. I noticed that inmates living in the prison nursery program were affirmed in their identities as good mothers more frequently than mothers physically separated from their children. Perhaps, the presence of the nursery mothers’ children played a role in emphasizing the salience of their identities as mothers above their identities as inmates in the eyes of prison staff.
The dueling identities of mother and inmate create tensions for mothers in prison, as they struggle to not only navigate their incarceration, but also their responsibilities and expectations as mothers. Inmate-mothers also juggle labels of good (mother) and bad
(inmate), as they attempt to be good mothers to their children (living inside or outside of prison) while simultaneously experiencing the constraints of incarceration and their stigmatized identity. These conflicting identities add increased anxiety and stress to the already difficult feat of achieving good motherhood, placing incarcerated mothers in the nearly impossible situation of performing the good mother while also being told they are a bad, deviant person (Goffman, 1963) as an inmate.
Despite the challenges incarcerated mothers’ juxtaposing identities generate, the inmates interviewed at SMC and WCF still managed to construct salient mother identities for themselves. This study demonstrates the active process of identity construction occurring in women’s prisons, particularly among incarcerated mothers and pregnant inmates, who envision and advance their own constructions of motherhood while MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 73 incarcerated. At the same time, findings from this study also show the consequential role of the prison, including prison staff, administrators, and volunteers, in shaping the construction of motherhood for incarcerated women. These concurrent, and at times competing, constructions are grounded in power-based systems and inmates and prisons alike construct, produce, and reinforce these identity constructions. In an effort to explain this cyclical process, I will draw on Gidden’s (1984) theory of structuration.
Structuration Theory Application
In examining the emergent themes in this study, the cyclical dynamics of power and agency were present both institutionally in the prison system and individually in inmate experiences. Indeed, by taking a structurational ontology (Banks & Riley, 1993) toward the analysis, both inmates and prisons emerged as significant the in the construction of motherhood in prison. Thus, unsurprisingly, these themes aligned with
Giddens’ (1986) structuration theory, which provided a framework in which both institutions and individual agents had power in creating and reproducing social systems.
Giddens proposed that the actions of institutions and individuals in the present could lay the foundation for the social systems and structures of the future; importantly, these systems are built utilizing both the resources and normative rules of the agents. Giddens
(1981) calls this cyclical system the duality of structure, where structures are “both the medium and the outcome of the practices which constitute social systems” (p. 27). In essence, an individual’s actions can be influenced by these social structures, but their actions can also influence and shape future social structures. Giddens (1981) argued that this cycle was a foundational way to understand how structures both impact and are impacted by our world. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 74
In this study, both the prison as an institution and individual inmates influenced the social systems and expectations surrounding the construct of motherhood, each exerting agency and control through different strategies. Even as inmates face a disadvantage of power while incarcerated, they are able to find routes to claim some agency and control over their circumstances; Giddens (1986) calls this the dialectic of control, where “the less powerful manage resources in such a way as to exert control over the more powerful in established power relationships” (p. 374). The dialectic of control explores how subordinate individuals or groups still find strategic means to agency and control to “influence the activities of their superiors” (Giddens, 1986, p. 16), despite their institutional lack of power. Giddens’ (1986) dialectic of control can be applied to understand power relations and agency, particularly in organizations based on hierarchies and inherent superior/subordinate relationships, much like prisons.
To demonstrate the application of the duality of structure (Giddens, 1981) in this data, I will access the first theme from this study, motherhood as preeminent. In both
Shuttlesworth Medical Center and the Women’s Correctional Facility, inmates and prison staff perpetuated the idea that motherhood should be preeminent in the identities of incarcerated mothers, stressing the importance of prioritizing inmates’ children above all.
Their social practices, like creating programs (i.e. Mothers Matter, the prison nursery program) that elevated the salience of inmates’ identities as mothers and reinforced the message of ‘motherhood first’, produced a system within the prison that required mothers to adhere to this particular construction of motherhood. For example, inmates who failed to complete the mother’s matters programming were not looked favorably upon during judicial hearings (i.e., petitions to the court for early release). Additionally, mothers in the nursery who did not prioritize their children faced expulsion from the program. Warden MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 75
Johnson of WCF described a situation where an inmate failed to obey the construct of motherhood as preeminent and was ultimately removed from the prison nursery:
Her issue was that she had developed a relationship out in the compound, and that
relationship with that woman became more important than her relationship with
her child. They counseled her, they talked to her, we talked about, “So [the nanny]
would babysit or watch my child and we’ll go hang out in the yard” and with the
nursery program, you don’t get to do that. There are things that you’re going to
miss because you’re in the nursery program, so you won’t be able to hang out.
In this example, the social actions and expectations of both the inmates and prison staff, who expected inmates to prioritize their identities as mothers above all, had solidified into a system within the prison, where inmates were punished for failing to conform to this construct. The prison, as an institution, exerts power over its inmates through this construction of motherhood, forcing their compliance through the threat of expulsion and separation from their child. Still, even within these constraints, mothers continue to resist and reshape the systems. For instance, at times the incarcerated moms resisted motherhood as preeminent by co-sleeping with their children (a practiced classified as dangerous for the child). They were frequently given shots (i.e., written up) if caught in the act, so they found ways to more covertly lay in bed with their infants and young children to avoid being disciplined.
Notably, societal systems also create and influence social practices (Giddens,
1981). Prison staff and inmates’ conceptualizations of good motherhood and motherhood as preeminent are informed by deep-rooted ideas about motherhood ingrained in Western society. As mothers traditionally were expected to perform as primary caregivers of their children and wholeheartedly assume their identities as mothers (Ennis, 2014; Hallstein, MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 76
2006), these social practices codified into a systemic, highly gendered maternal structure in our society where women must treat their motherhood as preeminent or face the social consequences (Douglas & Michaels, 2004). This parenting structure is so interwoven into the fabric of modern society that it produces social practices; for instance, the Mothers
Matter program’s educational workbook encourages mothers to put their children first if they want to be perceived as ‘good parents’. In this way, the theme of motherhood as preeminent demonstrates Giddens’ (1981) duality of structure, a social cycle where systems simultaneously create and are created by social practices, much like structures of motherhood both construct and are constructed by social practices around mothering.
Similarly, these findings represent Giddens’ dialectic of control (1986), where power is managed by less-powerful individuals to exert their agency, particularly in powerful systems. In the case of the fourth theme—motherhood as sacrifice—inmates used what little resources they had to exert control over their circumstances. As described in the previous chapter, SMC inmate Ariel’s decision to continually reject her methadone for the health of her baby and for admittance into the prison nursery program was her own way of asserting her agency in her motherhood. While her imprisonment stifled much of her ability to exercise agency, Ariel wielded what resources she had to “exert control over the more powerful” (Giddens, 1986, p. 374), which in this instance amounted to resisting the mandates of the correctional and medical staff at SMC. Ariel’s assertion of her agency, however limited, reinforces Giddens’ dialectic of control, and reflects how “those in subordinate positions in social systems are frequently adept at converting whatever resources they possess into some degree of control over the conditions of reproduction in social systems” (Giddens, 1979, p. 6).
In both of these examples, Giddens’ duality of structure and dialectic of control MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 77 are both performed through the exertion of agency and social practices by inmates and correctional staff, in addition to the broader social structures that inform and are informed by these practices. The themes used to demonstrate this theory in action, motherhood as preeminent and motherhood as sacrifice, are representative of structuration theory’s general application in this study’s findings. In this context, we can see how constructions of motherhood in women’s prisons are reflective of wider social systems that inform our conceptualizations of good motherhood, and also how individuals (i.e. inmates and prison staff) play important roles in the perpetuation of those constructions from inside prison.
Practical Applications
As the number of women behind bars continues to rise, more pregnant women and mothers will be incarcerated and face the unique challenge of parenting in prison.
This research suggests the importance of investment in dedicated resources to help inmates navigate incarcerated motherhood, particularly in empowering their identities as mothers and supporting the development of strong inmate-child relationships.
Incarcerated mothers shared experiences of grief and trauma over the physical separation from their children after birth, psychological impacts that prisons must commit more resources to addressing (Baunach, 1982; Hairston, 1991; Ingram-Fogel, 1993). While prison nursery programs extend opportunities to eligible inmates to grow in their identities as mothers (Carlson, 2018; Goshin, Byrne & Blancard-Lewis, 2014; Kanaboshi,
Anderson & Sira, 2017), incarcerated mothers separated from their children must be offered similar resources, both for their mental and emotional health while in prison and also in preparation for their release. For instance, providing increased visitation opportunities, access to technology to communicate with children, and increased education on navigating parenthood while incarcerated could help to bridge the MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 78 separations created through incarceration. Additionally, dedicated support services to address the grief, trauma, and other psychological impacts of mother-child separation are imperative for prisons to adopt.
Additionally, these findings reveal the power prisons hold in influencing inmates’ identity constructions, as well as the importance of inmates’ maternal identities. Prisons should be thoughtful in the programs and messaging they provide to inmates; instead of using inmates’ motherhood as a tool to reinforce compliance, prisons could empower inmates to take ownership of their motherhood and use it as an opportunity for growth and transformation (as reflected in the theme of motherhood as growth). Prisons should train correctional staff to communicate this message to inmates through programs that convey motherhood as an individualized experience rather than a coerced one.
Additionally, prison nursery program staff members should consider working with nursery mothers to make thoughtful, informed decisions about their children, empowering their independent decision-making—whenever possible—in an effort to equip them to be successful parents upon release. As prison staff are often the people that inmates most regularly engage with, their affirmations and positive constructions of motherhood hold power among incarcerated mothers and are particularly meaningful.
Finally, one last practical application of this research applies more broadly to our societal constructions of motherhood. Being a mother is difficult and requires constant learning and hard work—especially in prison. These constructions of motherhood reflect the firm beliefs our society possesses in regard to mothers, often holding women to impossible expectations and enforcing traditionally gendered stereotypes. Prisons and broader society alike should reflect on the standards we hold mothers to (e.g. motherhood as preeminent, feminine, growth, and sacrifice), and explore opportunities to empower MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 79 the many ways women can be good mothers. This is not only beneficial for mothers broadly, but especially for incarcerated mothers, who experience unique challenges in navigating their motherhood from behind bars.
Conclusion
Limitations
This research has several limitations. First, the inmates participating in this research were either pregnant women or participants in a prison nursery program. The research did not include incarcerated women at WCF separated from their children and living in general population, so their perspectives and insights are not represented in this study. Second, as this research was conducted at one prison medical facility and one nursery program in the same state, it might not capture all of the unique nuances of how motherhood is constructed at all women’s prisons. States. Finally, as the interviews at both WCF and SMC were often conducted in semi-private settings or rooms without ceilings, there could be social consequences for inmates’ complaints about staff or peers.
Although this detail did not seem to impact most inmates’ willingness to share these thoughts, some inmates may have disclosed less to mitigate these potential concerns.
However, there is no reason to believe the information shared was inauthentic.
Ensuring Quality
This study strove to fulfill Tracy’s (2013) eight big-tent criteria for qualitative research. The review of the literature on incarcerated motherhood, prison nurseries, and constructions of motherhood demonstrated that this research explores a worthy topic, particularly relevant due to the continual rise in incarcerated women over the past several decades. This research is rigorous, reflected in the more than sixty research hours spent interviewing and observing over the course of twelve research visits to gain authentic and MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 80 nuanced data. Our work is sincere, displaying “openness to the life experiences of others, as well as a willingness to share aspects of your own experience” (Tracy, 2013, p. 233) through the careful thought and reflection put into all aspects of the study, as evidenced in my own reflections in the prologue. In this thesis, I aimed for credibility through my inclusion of thick description and multivocality, as well as my research team’s own member reflections throughout the findings. This research is resonant and transferable to many aspects of communication and criminal justice literature, as displayed in the chapter five where I describe the theoretical and practical implications to which this research contributes. Additionally, this work is significant in examining the constructions of motherhood inside prison, an unexplored area of literature that expands both communication and criminal justice literature. My research team and I were both procedurally and situationally ethical in this study by ensuring confidentiality, cultivating trust among our participants, and taking care to reflect always on “whether the potential benefits of this research outweigh its costs” (Tracy, 2013, p. 243). Finally, this research achieved meaningful coherence, fulfilling the guidelines as outlined by Tracy (2010) that qualitative studies should “(a) achieve their stated purpose; (b) accomplish what they espouse to be about; (c) use methods and representation practices that partner well with espoused theories and paradigms; and (d) attentively interconnect literature reviewed with research foci, methods, and findings” (p. 848). Although I believe this study has met all eight of these big-tent criteria for quality and rigor in qualitative studies, I invite readers to consider these criteria as they engage this study.
Opportunities for Future Research
This study opens the door for many future research opportunities. Prison nursery programs are still largely unexplored in the United States and require a broader MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 81 comparative study to understand the general experiences of nursery program participants, as well as the differences in prison nursery programming in the U.S. Additionally, there are significant opportunities for longitudinal studies following inmates from pregnancy to nursery programs to release, which would provide meaningful insight into maternity and motherhood in prison. Targeted research comparing experiences of prison nursery program participants and inmates separated from their children due to incarceration would be useful in better understanding the true benefits of prison nursery programs, as well as the impressions of nursery programs from the perspective of general population inmates. Finally, a broader discussion about incarcerated motherhood and identity construction is necessary to fully understand the complexity of these experiences, which are collective, but inherently subjective.
Conclusion
Motherhood can be many things—beautiful, challenging, joyful, heartbreaking, life-giving, and even incarcerated. As the number of incarcerated women in the United
States continues to rise, and nearly 60% of those women being mothers (The Sentencing
Project, 2018), the need for more insight into the experiences of incarcerated mothers, nursery programs, and constructions of motherhood in prison have become clear.
Through qualitative interviews and observational research at a prison medical facility,
Shuttlesworth Medical Center, and a prison nursery program at the Women’s
Correctional Facility, in this project, I focused on addressing these literature gaps. This study was successful in examining the ways both correctional staff and inmates construct motherhood while in prison, illuminated through the themes of motherhood as (a) preeminent, (b) feminine, (c) growth, and (d) sacrifice. These findings are transferable not only in stigmatized identity and identity construction communication literature, but MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 82 also more broadly in women’s prisons across the United States. As inmates navigate, construct, and grow in their identities as mothers, it is the role of scholars and prison staff alike to empower motherhood and provide opportunities for this identity to blossom, not only for the benefit of the inmates but also for their children. In fact, we all make up the community that can help to redefine what it means to be both a mother and an inmate.
Indeed, incarcerated motherhood is truly a co-constructed communicative experience— one that requires a collaborate community—or, as WCF inmate Kristen described, a village: “You know that saying, it takes a village to raise a baby? Well, it takes a whole prison to raise these babies.”
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 83
References
Aaron, L. and Dallaire, D. (2010). Parental incarceration and multiple risk experiences:
Effects on family dynamics and children’s delinquency. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39, 1471-1484.
Ashforth, B.E., & Kreiner, G. (1999). How can you do it?: Dirty work and the challenge
of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management review, 24, 413-434.
Banks, S. P., and Riley, P. (1993). Structuration theory as an ontology for communication
research. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 167–196). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Baunach, P. J. (1982). You can’t be a mother and be in prison… can you? Impacts of the
mother-child separation. In B. Price and N. Solokoff (Eds.), The Criminal Justice
System and Women (pp. 155-169). New York, NY: Clark Boardman.
Bernard, T. (2018). Criminal justice: academic discipline. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Retrieved April 20, 2018 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-justice.
Block, K. (1999). Bringing scouting to prison: Programs and challenges. The Prison
Journal, 79(2), 269-283.
Braman, D. (2007). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban
America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bridge, K. and Baxter, L. (2009). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates.
Western Journal of Communication, 56, 200-225.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2018a). In 2016 state and federal prison populations
declined for the third consecutive year. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/p16pr.cfm. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 84
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2018b). Jail inmates in 2016. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6186.
Burnette, D. (1999). Social relationships of Latino parent caregivers: A role theory
perspective. The Gerontologist, 29, 49-58.
Bush-Baskette, S. (2000). The war on drugs and the incarceration of mothers. Journal of
Drug Issues, 30(4), 919-928.
Caniglia, J. (2018a, March 4). Growing up behind bars: How 11 states handle prison
nurseries. The Plain Dealer. Retrieved December 26, 2018 from
https://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/03/growing_up_behind_bars_h
ow_sta.html.
Carlson, J. (2018). Prison nurseries: A way to reduce recidivism. The Prison Journal,
98(6), 760-775. DOI:10.1177/0032885518812694.
Choi, P., Henshaw, C., Baker, S. and Tree, J. (2005). Supermum, superwife,
supereverything: Performing femininity in the transition to motherhood. Journal
of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 23(2), 167-180.
Clark, J. (1995). The impact of the prison environment on mothers. The Prison Journal,
75(3), 306-329.
Clarke, J. and Adashi, E. (2011). Perinatal care for incarcerated patients: A 25-year-old
woman pregnant in jail. Journal of the American Medical Association, 305(9),
923-929.
Clarke, J., Phipps, M., Tong, I., Rose, J., and Gold, M. (2010). Timing of conception for
pregnant women returning to jail. Journal of Correctional Health, 16(2), 133-138.
Chesney-Lind, M. and Rodriguez, J. (1983). Women under lock and key. The Prison
Journal, 63, 47-65. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 85
Chuck, L. (2018, August 17). Prison nurseries give incarcerated mothers a chance to raise
their babies—behind bars. NBC News: U.S. News. Retrieved March 17, 2019
from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prison-nurseries-give-
incarcerated-mothers-chance-raise-their-babies-behind-n894171.
Comfort, M., McKay, T., Landwehr, J., Kennedy, E., Lindquist, C., Bir, A. (2016). The
costs of incarceration for families of prisoners. International Review of the Red
Cross, 98(903), 783-798.
Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap.
New York: Basic Books.
Cusack, M., Jack, G., & Kavanagh, D. (2003). Dancing with discrimination: Managing
stigma and identity. Culture and Organization, 9(4), 295-310.
DeBoer, H. (2012). Prison nursery programs in other states. Connecticut General
Assembly: Reports. Retrieved March 17, 2019 from
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0157.htm.
Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Parents in prison and
their minor children. Retrieved April 29, 2018 from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf.
Dobris, C., White-Mills, K., Davidson, R. and Wellbrook, T. (2017). The Spockian
Mother: Images of the “good” mother in Dr. Spock’s The Common Sense Book of
Baby and Child Care, 1946-1992. Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 39-59.
Douglas, S. J. & Michaels, M. W. (2004). The mommy myth: The idealization of
motherhood and how it has undermined all women. New York, NY: Free Press.
Dressel, P. and Barnhill, S. (1994). Reframing gerontological thought and practice: The
case of grandmothers with daughters in prison. The Gerontologist, 34, 685-690. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 86
Elmalak, S. (2015). Babies behind bars: An evaluation of prison nurseries in American
female prisons and their potential constitutional challenges. Pace Law Review,
35(3), 1080-1106.
Ennis, R. L. (2014). Intensive mothering: The cultural construction of modern
motherhood. Bradford, England: Demeter Press.
Enos, S. (2001). Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a women’s prison. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Fritz, S. and Whiteacre, K. (2016). Prison nurseries: Experiences of incarcerated women
during pregnancy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(1), 1-20.
Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a women’s prison. New York,
NY: Wiley Publishers.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and
contradiction in social analysis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1981). A contemporary critique of historical materialism. Volume 1: Power,
property and the state. London: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goshin, L. and Byrne, M. (2009). Converging streams of opportunity for prison nursery
programs in the United States. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(4), 271-
295. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 87
Goshin, L., Byrne, M., and Blancard-Lewis, B. (2014). Preschool outcomes of children
who lived as infants in a prison nursery. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 139-158.
DOI:10.1177/0032885514524692.
Grant, D. (2006). Resilience of girls with incarcerated mothers: The impact of Girl
Scouts. Prevention Researcher, 13(2), 11-14.
Hairston, C. F. (1991). Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for
what? Corrective and Social Psychiatry, 22, 21-27.
Hallstein, D. (2006). Conceiving intensive mothering. Journal of the Association of
Research on Mothering, 8(1-2), 96-108.
Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Ingram-Fogel, C. (1993). Hard time: The stressful nature of incarceration for women.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 14, 367-377.
Johnston, D. and Swanson, H. (2006). Constructing the ‘good mother’: The experience of
mothering ideologies by work status. Sex Roles, 54, 509-519.
Jouvenal, J. (2018, May 11). Raising babies behind bars: A bold experiment in parenting
and punishment is allowing children in prison. But is that a good thing? The
Washington Post. Retrieved March 19, 2019 from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/05/11/feature/prisons-are-
allowing-mothers-to-raise-their-babies-behind-bars-but-is-the-radical-experiment-
in-parenting-and-punishment-a-good-idea/?utm_term=.afb06896327f.
Kanaboshi, N., Anderson, J. and Sira, N. (2017). Constitutional rights of infants and
toddlers to have opportunities to form secure attachment with incarcerated MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 88
mothers: Importance of prison nurseries. International Journal of Social Sciences,
5(2), 55-72.
Koller, V. (2008). ‘Not just a colour’: Pink as a gender and sexuality marker in visual
communication. Visual Communication, 7(4), 395-423.
Larson, J. and Nelson, J. (1984). Women, friendship, and adaptation to prison. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 12, 601-615.
Law, V. (2015, October 20). Pregnant and behind bars: How the U.S. prison system
abuses mothers-to-be. The Guardian. Retrieved April 29 from
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/20/pregnant-women-prison-
system-abuse-medical-neglect.
Lenox, M. (2011). Neutralizing the gendered collateral consequences of the war on drugs.
New York University Law Review, 86, 280–315.
Lynch, M. (2012). Theorizing the role of the ‘war on drugs’ in U.S. punishment.
Theoretical Criminology, 16(2), 175-199.
Maruschak, L. (2004). Medical problems in prisoners. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Office
of Justice Programs. Retrieved April 29, 2018 from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/mpp/mpp.cfm.
Parker, K. (2005). Pregnant women inmates: Evaluating their rights and identifying
opportunities for improvements in their treatment. Journal of Law and Health, 19,
259-295.
Quinn, A. (2014). In labor, in chains. The New York Times. Retrieved April 29, 2018
from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/the-outrageous-
shackling-of-pregnant-inmates.html. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 89
Roettger, M. and Swisher, R. (2011). Associations of fathers’ history of incarceration
with sons’ delinquency and arrest among black, white, and Hispanic males in the
United States. Criminology, 49, 1109-1147.
The Sentencing Project. (2018, May 10). Incarcerated women and girls. The Sentencing
Project: Publications. Retrieved March 7, 2019 from
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls/8/.
Swavola, E., Riley, K. and Subramanian, R. (2016). Overlooked: Women and jails in an
era of reform. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved March 19, 2019 from
http://www.safetyandjusticechallenge.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/overlooked-women-in-jails-report-web.pdf.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information,
13(2), 65-93.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.
Pyschology of Intergroup Relations, 7-24.
Tanger, G., Cohen, O., and Peled, E. (2017). The construction of maternal identity among
nonresidential mothers in Israel. Journal of Women and Social Work, 32(4), 517-
530.
Tardy, R. (2000). “But I am a good mom”: The social construction of motherhood
through health-care conversations. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(4),
433-473.
Toyoki, S. and Brown, A. (2014). Stigma, identity and power: Managing stigmatized
identities through discourse. Human Relations, 67(6), 715-737.
Tracy, S. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 90
Tracy, S., & Scott, C. (2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among
firefighters and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “America’s
heroes” and the “scum of law enforcement”. Management Communication
Quarterly, 20, 6-38.
Tremblay, M. and Sutherland, J. (2017). The effectiveness of parenting programs for
incarcerated mothers: A systematic review. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
26(12), 3247-3265.
Turney, K. and Wildeman, C. (2018). Maternal incarceration and the transformation of
urban family life. Social Forces, 96(3), 1155-1181.
Ulrich, M. and Weatherall, A. (2000). Motherhood and infertility: Viewing motherhood
through the lens of infertility. Feminism & Psychology, 10, 323-336.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2017, May 14). Facts for features: Mother’s Day: May
14, 2017. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 17, 2019 from
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/cb17-ff09-mothers-
day.html.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2016, December). Prisoners in 2015. Bureau of Justice
Statistics: Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved April 20, 2018 from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf.
Western, B., Lopoo, L., and McLanahan, S. (2004). Incarceration and the bonds between
parents in fragile families. In Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass
Incarceration, eds. M. Patillo, D. Weiman and B. Western. New York: Russel
Sage Foundation.
Wieland, S. (2010). Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity.
Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 503-528. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 91
Williams. T. (2016, August 17). Number of women in jail has grown far faster than that
of men, study says. The New York Times. Retrieved on April 4, 2018 from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us/number-of-women-in-jail-has-grown-
far-faster-than-that-of-men-study-says.html.
Wismont, J. (2000). The lived pregnancy experience of women in prison. Journal of
Midwifery & Women’s Health, 45(4), 292-300.
World Prison Brief (2015, December 31). Highest to lowest—Prison population total.
Retrieved April 20, 2018 from http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-
lowest/prison-population-total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All.
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 92
APPENDIX A
Interview Guide: Shuttlesworth Medical Center Inmates
*Document edited to include program and prison pseudonyms.
Background & Expectations:
• Can you start by telling me a little be about how you came to be here at the Shuttlesworth Medical Center? o What was the intake process like at WCF? o Tell me the story of how you found out you were pregnant. § Did you know you were pregnant when you arrived at WCF? • What did you think it will be like to be in the Shuttlesworth Medical Center? o Is it the way you expected it to be? o What, if anything, has surprised you most about being in here?
Programming
• Tell me about some of the of programs that you’ve participate in here? • With respect to programming, what does the SMC do particularly well? • What, if anything, do you think is lacking in the programming here?
Pregnancy in Prison
• Is this your first child? o If not, what was it like to become a mom for the first time? o How has the experience been similar or different this time around? • What is it like to be pregnant in prison?
Plans post-delivery
• What are your plans for the baby? o Probe baby program. o SEE Questions below for PFP questions Social Support • When I say the word “support” what does that mean to you? What does it mean to be supported? • What kind of support do you have here in prison? • What are your relationships like with the other women on the floor? • What are your interactions like with COs (medical staff)? • What kind of support do you have on the outside? • When you told people on the outside that you were pregnant, how did they react? (stigma?)
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 93
Closing Questions:
• If you could finish this sentence, what would you say? Being a mother is… • Ok, now if you could finish this sentence, what would you say? Being an inmate is… • Do you think you are a part of the community here? Why or why not? • What advice would you give to new women who are just arriving at the Shuttlesworth Medical Center? What do they need to know? • What is the most memorable experience you have had since being incarcerated either here at the Shuttlesworth Medical Center? • When you think about your future, what is the next chapter of your story? • Is there anything else you feel is important that I haven’t already asked you?
Addendum
If Inmate has Applied to or been Admitted to the Baby Program at WCF If Admitted/Interested in PFP:
• Why did you decide to apply to the PFP program? • What was the application process like? • When you think about the PFP program… o What are you most excited about? o Do you have any concerns/worries about the program? If so, what are they? o What, if anything, do you hope to learn during your time in the PFP program? • When you think about parenting inside of prison, what do you think it will be like? o What do you expect to be easy? o What do you expect to be difficult?
Communal Parenting in Prisons: In this section, we really want to talk about what it’s like to live alongside other moms and kids in a prison. We want to understand what the parenting dynamics are like in prison. To what extent do these women parent together and/or separately and what are the challenges that come alongside that?
• When you think about being a part of the PFP program, what do you think your relationship will be like with other moms in the program? o What are you looking forward to when it comes to relationships with other moms? o What concerns do you have (if any)?
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 94
APPENDIX B
Interview Guide: Shuttlesworth Medical Center - Employees & Other Relevant Professionals
This interview guide is designed for correctional officers (COs), warden, assistant warden, program director, and other individuals who come in to the SMC to work with the women on special programs.
*Document edited to include program and prison pseudonyms.
Experience of Membership/Background: In this section we hope to learn more about how the program started and how it has changed over the years that it has been in place. We also want to understand the employee’s role in the program.
• Can you start by telling me the story of how you came to work/volunteer here? • Can you me about your current role at the prison?
Program Specific Questions
• What kind of programming is available to pregnant women at SMC? o Probe about each of the programs mentioned. o What do they do? o How do the women respond to them? etc. o What are the interactions like in class? • What does the SMC do particularly well? • What, if anything, do you think is lacking in the programming here? • Do you encourage inmates to apply for the baby program?
Interactions with Correctional Staff and other (non-incarcerated) individuals In this section we want to understand what the communication interactions are like with prison staff and also with the outside programing staff who come in to support the women.
• What does a typical day look like for you? • Have you worked/volunteered at other prisons with other inmate populations? And if so, how is this experience similar or different for you? • Can you tell me about a particularly memorable interaction you’ve had with an expectant mom? • What do you enjoy most about your job/role? • What is most challenging about your job/role?
Closing Questions: In this section we want the staff/employees to reflect on their overall experiences on being connected to this program. MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 95
• What advice would you give to a pregnant inmate when she arrives at the SMC? • What advice would you give to a new CO in this unit? • What is the most memorable experience you have had/witnessed here? • What will/would you always remember when your time here is up? • Is there anything else you feel is important that I haven’t already asked you?
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 96
APPENDIX C
Interview Guide: PFP Program Participants
The questions below are flexible and will help guide our conversations with the program participants. In general, we view interviews as conversations between the interviewer & interviewee. As such, we won’t necessarily ask all of these questions. We’ve noted possible questions here that might be relevant as the conversation develops. We will begin with this interview guide after walking participants through the informed consent document.
*Document edited to include program and prison pseudonyms.
Experience of Membership/Background:
In this section we hope to learn more about how the women apply to and become a part of the program. We want to know what they expected before they joined and what has been unexpected. We’d also like to understand how the transition from general population to the hospital to the program wing works for them.
• Can you start by describing with the PFP program is? If I didn’t know anything about the program, what would you tell me? • Joining: o Tell me the story of how you got in to the PFP program? § How long have you been a part of the program? § What was the application process like? o Can you tell me a little bit about your experience moving from the prison to the hospital and then back to this wing of the prison? • Expectations: o What did you think it was going to be like to be in the PFP program? o Was it the way you expected it would be? Please explain. o What, if anything, has surprised you most about being in here? o Tell me about your first day in the program. What were your first impressions?
Custodial Parenting in Prisons:
In this section we want to understand what it’s like to be a parent while in prison.
• What does a typical day (or week?) look like in here for you/your child? • Tell me about what it’s like to be a parent and be in prison at the same time…. o Is there anything that is easy? Please explain. o Is there anything that is challenging? Please explain. o Is there anything you enjoy? Please explain. o Is there anything you dislike? Please explain. • When you think about this program… o What are the best parts about it for you? MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 97
o What are the bests parts about it for you child? o Do you have any concerns/worries surrounding your role in the program? If so, what are they? o Do you have any concerns/worries about having your child in this program? If so, what are they? o How much independence do you feel like you have in the program? With respect to parenting? • Do you have other children? (if yes….) o Have you experienced parenting outside of prison? (if yes…) § How, if at all, is parenting a child inside prison different from parenting children outside prison? § How, if at all, is it similar? • Is this your first child? (if yes…) o Does this program allow you to parent your first child in ways you hoped to? Can you share an example? o Is parenting a child inside prison different from how you envisioned parenting children outside prison? If yes, how so? Please explain. o Are there any ways that parenting a child is similar to parenting a child outside of prison? If yes, how so? Please explain.
Communal Parenting in Prisons:
In this section, we really want to talk about what it’s like to live alongside other moms and kids in a prison. We want to understand what the parenting dynamics are like in prison. To what extent do these women parent together and/or separately and what are the challenges that come alongside that?
• What are your interactions like with other moms in the program? o To what extent (if at all) do you help each other out? o Tell me a bit about your communication with other moms. o Can you tell me about a time where there was a conflict with one or more moms in the wing? o Can you tell me about a time when you had a positive interaction with another mom or where you worked together to accomplish something? o Do you think of other mom’s in the program as being your friends? Why/Why not? • What is the best part about having other moms with you in this program? • What is the most challenging part about having other moms with you in this program? • What are the roles of the nannies who come in to help out? o What is the best part of having nannies? o What is the most challenging part? o Can you tell me about a typical interaction you would have with a nanny? • What has been your greatest parenting success? • What has been your greatest challenge as a parent?
Interactions with Correctional Staff and other (non-incarcerated) individuals MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 98
In this section we want to understand what the communication interactions are like with prison staff and also with the outside programing staff who comes in to support the women.
• What are your interactions like with COs? o Can you tell me about a particularly memorable interaction? • To what extent do the COs communicate with your children? o What do those interactions look like? o Can you think of an example of a particularly memorable time? • What are your interactions like with other individuals who come into the prison for programming? o Can you tell me about a particularly memorable interaction? • To what extent do the other program staff communicate with your children? o What do those interactions look like? o Can you think of an example of a particularly memorable time?
Re-entry Questions
In this section, we want to learn about how the women feel about their future re-entry.
• When you think about getting out of prison, what kinds of thoughts/feelings come to mind? Explain. • To what extent do you feel prepared to transition out of prison? • Has this program helped you to feel more/less prepared? If so, how? If not, why not? • Do you think about how your child will transition out of prison? o Do you expect it to be easy/hard for your child? o Why? • What do you think will be easiest/most challenging for you? • What do you think will be easiest/most challenging for your child? • What are you most excited about in the transition? • What are you most scared about in the transition?
Closing Questions:
In this section we want the participants to reflect on their overall experiences on being a part of this program. What have they learned?
• Membership: o When you think about being an inmate here at the Women’s Correctional Facility, do you consider yourself to be a “member” of the prison? Why or why not? o What about the PFP program? Are you a member of it? Why or why not? • What advice would you give to new women when they join the PFP program? • If you could go back to your first day here in the PFP program, what do you wish you would have known? MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 99
• What is the most memorable experience you have had here? • What will/would you always remember when your time here is up? • What is your favorite thing about the PFP program? • What could be added or changed to improve the PFP nursery program? • Is there anything else you feel is important that I haven’t already asked you?
MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 100
APPENDIX D
Interview Guide: Women’s Correctional Facility - Employees & Other Relevant Professionals
The questions below are flexible and will help guide our conversations with the program participants. In general, we view interviews as conversations between the interviewer & interviewee. As such, we won’t necessarily ask all of these questions. We’ve noted possible questions here that might be relevant as the conversation develops. We will begin with this interview guide after walking participants through the informed consent document.
This interview guide is designed for correctional officers (COs), warden, assistant warden, program director, and other individuals who come in to the prison to work with the women on special programs.
*Document edited to include program and prison pseudonyms.
Experience of Membership/Background:
In this section we hope to learn more about how the program started and how it has changed over the years that it has been in place. We also want to understand the employee’s role in the program.
• Can you start by describing with the PFP program is? If I didn’t know anything about the program, what would you tell me? • Tell me the story of how the PFP program started (or how you came to be connected to the program)? o How long have you been involved with the program? o What was the application process like? • Logistics (we will ask this of the main director of the program): o Can you tell me a little bit about how inmates are transferred from the prison to the hospital and then back to this wing of the prison? o What are the challenges involved in navigating all of this? o What does your selection process look like for women who want to join the PFP program?
Admissions Questions
• What does the admissions process look like for new inmates? • Could you share a story about what it’s like when you have to notify women that they are pregnant?
Program Specific Questions
• What are the major goals of the program? MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 101
• How does the program work to accomplish those goals? • When you think about the whole program… o What are the best parts about it for the women? o What are the bests parts about it for the children? o What are the most challenging parts for women? o What are the most challenging parts for children? o To what extent do the women have control over parenting decision in the wing? • Program shift o As you likely know, this program used to allow children to be in prison from birth to 2 years and now it’s birth to three years. § How do you feel about this shift? § Positives/benefits? § Do you have any concerns/worries about having child in a prison from birth to three years? If so, please tell me more about those. • What does the program do particularly well? • What advice would you give another facility hoping to start an PFP program? • What could be added or changed to improve the PFP nursery program?
Interactions with Correctional Staff and other (non-incarcerated) individuals
In this section we want to understand what the communication interactions are like with prison staff and also with the outside programing staff who come in to support the women.
• How is it similar/different to be a staff/CO in the PFP wing vs. other wings of the prison? • What does a typical day look like for you when you are in the PFP wing? • Can you tell me about a particularly memorable interaction you’ve had with a mom? • To what extent do you communicate with the children? o What do those interactions look like? o Can you think of an example of a particularly memorable time? • Do you have children? (if yes…) o In what way, if at all, have your own parenting experiences informed the way you offer support to women in the PFP program?
Custodial & Communal Parenting in Prisons:
In this section we want to understand what it’s like to be a parent while in prison. We also want to talk about what it’s like to live alongside other moms and kids in a prison. We want to understand what the parenting dynamics are like in prison. To what extent do these women parent together and/or separately and what are the challenges that arise from these conditions?
• When you think about parenting in prison…. o What are the benefits of having these women raise their children in prison MOTHERHOOD IN PRISON 102
for the women? o What are the drawbacks of having these women raise their children in prison for the women? o What are the benefits of having these women raise their children in prison for the children? o What are the drawbacks of having these women raise their children in prison for the children? • What are interactions like between the moms in the program? o To what extent (if at all) do they help each other out? o Can you tell me about a time where there was a conflict between two or more moms in the wing? How was it resolved? o Can you tell me about a time when there was a positive interaction between two or more moms in the wing, what did they accomplish? • Do you think the women co-parent alongside one another? o Benefits? o Drawbacks? Challenges? o How do the nannies play into the parenting dynamic?
Re-entry Questions
In this section, we want to learn about how the staff/COs feel about the re-entry process.
• What does the program do to prepare women to transition out of prison? • What does the program do to prepare children to transition out of prison? • What do you think will be easiest/most challenging for the women in the re-entry process? • What do you think will be easiest/most challenging for the children in the re-entry process? • What else could the program do to facilitate a successful re-entry experience for the women? For the children?
Closing Questions:
In this section we want the staff/employees to reflect on their overall experiences on being connected to this program.
• What advice would you give to new women when they join the PFP program? • What advice would you give to a woman leaving the PFP program during the re- entry process? • What is the most memorable experience you have had/witnessed here? • What will/would you always remember when your time here is up? • Is there anything else you feel is important that I haven’t already asked you?