Rethinking women’s post-release reintegration and ‘success’
| Author | Marie Segrave,Bree Carlton |
| Date | 01 June 2016 |
| Published date | 01 June 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865815573876 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2016, Vol. 49(2) 281–299
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865815573876
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Rethinking women’s
post-release reintegration
and ‘success’
Bree Carlton and Marie Segrave
School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria,
Australia
Abstract
In this article, we interrogate three assumptions related to women’s post-release reintegra-
tion and success that are prevalent within and across official, institutional and criminological
discourses and practice. Our analysis is based on qualitative interviews conducted with sup-
port workers and women about experiences and perceptions of support and success in
Victoria, Australia. Ultimately, we contend that the introduction of women-specific policies
and support programs in Victoria has had limited impact because they are at core premised
upon the same problematic success-related assumptions that have failed to adequately serve
mainstream prisoner populations, i.e. men. We issue a broader challenge to criminologists to
rethink dominant understandings about post-release reintegration in the interests of facilitat-
ing alternative approaches that respond to the structural injustices that define the post-
release trajectories of women and men.
Keywords
Gender, imprisonment, post-release, reintegration, success
Introduction
A series of assumptions about what constitute successful post-release outcomes for
women predominate across official, institutional and criminological discourses and prac-
tices. These assumptions have shaped correctional policies, programs and practice. Yet,
they have been subject to limited critique. We identify and disrupt three success-related
assumptions drawing on research conducted with formerly imprisoned women and
support workers in Victoria, Australia. These include that women’s imprisonment is a
discrete episode, that gender responsive support programs make a difference and
improve women’s post-release outcomes and finally that recidivism is a useful factor
for measuring women’s post-release outcomes and success. We counter these assump-
tions with qualitative accounts by women and support workers, which reflect the reality
of women’s experiences. In this respect, we highlight the need for analyses in this field to
Corresponding author:
Bree Carlton, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Wellington Rd Clayton, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Email: Bree.Carlton@monash.edu
extend upon the large body of criminological literature, which has extensively estab-
lished the structural gendered contexts that determine women’s experiences of offending,
imprisonment and post-release (Carlen, 1983; Comack, 1996; Eaton, 1993; Hudson,
2002; Maidment, 2006; Pollack, 2009) to observe the multilevels of structural disadvan-
tage (i.e. race, class, sexuality and ability) and how these when combined with gender
change the shape and dynamics of women’s experiences. In this article, we problematise
recent women-specific support initiatives in Victoria, Australia. We contend that there is
a need for responses and understandings across official, institutional and criminological
thinking and practice that acknowledge and address the complex ways in which struc-
tural injustices such as socioeconomic disadvantage and histories of state intervention in
combination with other hardships created by victimisation and substance abuse can
significantly alter post-release experiences and outcomes. We begin by presenting
an overview of the key assumptions we will critique. We then move on to provide
an overview of background and methodology prior to presenting our analysis. We con-
clude with an alternative approach to understanding ‘success’ in relation to women’s
survival.
Assumption 1: Imprisonment and release are separate episodes in a woman’s life
The assumption that imprisonment is a contained, past event and release marks the
start of a ‘new life’ and the process of reintegration is problematic in two ways. First,
responding to the experience of exiting prison as a discrete event belies the reality that
the vast majority of women experience serial imprisonment. As many researchers in
nations including Australia (Baldry, 2010), Canada (Pollack, 2009), the UK (Kendall,
2013) and the US (Bulmiller, 2013) have noted, while data are often incomplete,
1
we do
know that women’s experiences of imprisonment are often recurring. It is therefore a
critical starting point to recognise the cumulative effect of each period spent in prison,
rather than each sentence as a discrete episode.
Second, the assumption that each sentence comprises a separate experience pre-
sumes that there is a distinction between experiences of imprisonment and release.
Moreover, it assumes imprisonment and release are distinct from lifetime trajectories
of institutional intervention and control. The assumption that imprisonment is some-
how separate or distinct from state intervention practices ranging from childhood
experiences with welfare systems to postimprisonment parole and support systems, is
at odds with critical scholarship in the area. This includes research that recognises
multiple experiences of imprisonment and release may exacerbate preexisting disad-
vantage whilst also sustaining, producing or reinforcing past experiences of trauma
arising from cross-institutional experiences (Carlton & Segrave, 2011; Liebling &
Maruna, 2005). Such work is founded upon the concept of transcarceration developed
by Lowman, Menzies, and Palys (1987, p. 9) who elucidated connections between the
‘peno-juridical, mental health, welfare and tutelage complex’, contending that the oper-
ation and effect of penal power can only be understood by appreciating its diffuse
cross-institutional arrangements and dynamics. Maidment’s (2006) adaptation of this
concept in her Canadian study of released women examined the interconnectedness
between institutionalisation and post-release support and regulation. This research
revealed how various forms of intervention and control are exercised through
282 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 49(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial