Residential programmes for mothers and children in prison: Key themes and concepts
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895819848814 |
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819848814
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2021, Vol. 21(1) 21 –39
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895819848814
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Residential programmes for
mothers and children in prison:
Key themes and concepts
Jane R Walker
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Eileen Baldry
University of New South Wales, Australia
Elizabeth A Sullivan
University of Technology Sydney, Australia; University of Newcastle, Australia
Abstract
Like the United Kingdom and New Zealand, all eight Australian jurisdictions have legal provisions
for the full-time accommodation of young children with their mothers in prison. Whether and
how these laws are enacted varies, and there are no national or international norms. This article
integrates a review of policies, principles and operating models with findings from a qualitative
study, to describe the current landscape in residential programmes for mothers and children in
Australian prisons. It demonstrates how current ideologies limit the system’s ability to meet the
needs of imprisoned mothers, their children and prison staff. Three issues emerge as problematic:
the separation of the rights and interests of mothers and children; over-reliance on attachment
theory as both rationale and evidence base; and the individualization of responsibility and risk.
The study is of international relevance because these themes and concepts are recognizable
elsewhere, including the United Kingdom, New Zealand and some European countries.
Keywords
Australia, children, Mother and Baby Unit, mothers, policy, prison, welfare
Corresponding author:
Jane R Walker, The Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, University of Technology
Sydney, Level 8, Building 10, 15 Broadway, Ultimo NSW 2007 (PO Box 123), Australia.
Email: jane.walker@uts.edu.au
848814CRJ0010.1177/1748895819848814 Criminology & Criminal JusticeWalker et al.
research-article2019
Article
22 Criminology & Criminal Justice 21(1)
Introduction
Women are now imprisoned at a higher rate than ever in Australia. The rate grew by 43%
between 2010 and 2018, compared with 23% in Aotearoa/New Zealand (ICPR, 2019). In
contrast, in England and Wales the rate fell by around 15% between 2010 and 2019,
reversing the longer-term trend (ICPR, 2019). As at 2018, the rate of women’s imprison-
ment in Australia was twice that of England and Wales (ICPR, 2019). Australia’s tough
sentencing policies have had a disproportionate effect on Indigenous women, who now
account for more than one-third of the country’s female prisoner population, but only 3%
of its female population as a whole (ABS, 2013).
Women remain more likely than men to be the primary carers of children, so this
disturbing trend impacts children, families and communities – especially Australia’s
Indigenous communities. Most women in prison are mothers,1 and between 5% and 10%
are pregnant in prison (AIHW, 2015). Unlike the children of male prisoners, the children
of imprisoned mothers are more likely to be made homeless, have to move schools and
be separated from siblings; since the majority will not remain in the care of their father
(Carlen, 1998; Dodge and Pogrebin, 2001). Internationally,
most criminal justice systems agree that in some situations it can be in the best interests of the
child to live in prison with her/his mother […] However, views about which children should be
allowed to live in prison vary greatly both between and within countries. (Robertson, 2008: 6)
Women can apply to have their baby or young child live in prison with them, in seven of
the eight Australian States and Territories. These practices are usually referred to as
‘mothers and children’s programmes’. Their goals are typically to reduce re-offending,
improve mother–child attachment and protect and promote child health, well-being and
development. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of robust, published evidence about whether
programmes achieve these outcomes and if so, what programme attributes are effective.
However, there is so far no evidence of actual harm to children who live with their moth-
ers in prisons with formalized programmes for this purpose (Shlonsky et al., 2015).
Sustained public policy debate about children living in adult prisons has occurred in
some countries, such as Finland, but has yet to happen in Australia, Aotearoa/New
Zealand or the United Kingdom – although, in 2016, then British Prime Minister David
Cameron ‘called for an urgent rethink of the way the prison system in England and Wales
treats pregnant women and mothers with babies’ (BBC, 2017). He said:
It is absolutely terrible to think that some babies are spending the earliest months – even years
– of their lives behind bars […] Think of the damage done to the life chances of these children.
It’s time to think seriously about whether this is the right approach. (UK Prime Minister’s
Office, 2017)
The issue of children living in adult prisons receives sporadic attention in the mainstream
media, but reports are generally voyeuristic and do not aim to foster public debate about
the legitimacy or quality of programmes. A United States study (Umamaheswar, 2013)
found that they reproduce well-worn narratives about the mother–child bond, and both
motherhood and prison as salvation for deviant women. They serve to reinforce in the
To continue reading
Request your trial