Children Visiting Mothers in Prison: The Effects on Mothers' Behaviour and Disciplinary Adjustment

418 THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGYVOLUME 37 NUMBER 3 2004 PP. 418–430

Children Visiting Mothers in Prison:The Effects on Mothers’ Behaviourand Disciplinary AdjustmentKaren Casey-Acevedo,Tim Bakken and Adria KarleLynn University, Florida, USA

This article examines 158 inmate mothers released from a maximumsecurity prison to determine the influence of minor children’s visita-

tion on their mothers’ disciplinary adjustment in prison. Logistic regres-sion analysis was used to predict the mothers’ involvement in disciplinarybehaviour. Although up to 80% of female inmates have minor children,the findings indicate that the majority of the mothers do not receivevisits from them. The inmates who do receive visits from their minorchildren are more likely to engage in both serious and violent infractionswhile in prison. It appears that mothers who receive visits from theirchildren have more difficulty adjusting to institutionalisation, perhapsbecause of the emotional factors surrounding visitation and separationfrom children. However, it is possible that the visitation with theirchildren while imprisoned may help prepare mothers for life upon paroleand reunification with their families and children.

The incarceration of women who are mothers raises several important issues aboutthe effects of forced separation on women and their children. Between 65% and80% of the women in prisons are mothers of minor children (Greenfield & Snell,1999; Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998; Moses, 1995). This article addresses theinfluence of minor children’s visitation on their mothers’ institutional behaviour.

The hypothesis is that women who receive visits from their minor children willbe less likely to engage in disciplinary behaviour while incarcerated. Holt andMiller (1972) found that inmates who maintained contact with family memberswere less likely to engage in disciplinary infractions, although other researchindicated no relationship between outside contact and institutional adjustment(Lembo, 1969). However, other researchers again found a relationship betweenvisitation and violent behaviour in prison (Ellis, Grasmick, & Gilman, 1974). Allof this conflicting prior research focused on males and their contact with wives andadult family members and did not consider contact with children. This article andthe study on which it is based focuses solely on children who visit their mothers.

Address for correspondence: Associate Professor Karen Casey-Acevedo, Director of CriminalJustice, Lynn University, 3601 N. Military Trail, Boca Raton, Florida. Email: [email protected]

Crim 37.3-text-final 10/1/04 4:08 PM Page 418

at FRESNO PACIFIC UNIV on December 19, 2014anj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://anj.sagepub.com/

The Circumstances Surrounding Visitation and SeparationVisitation between mother and child may be beneficial for several reasons.Visitation can strengthen familial bonds with loved ones and enhance postreleasebehaviour. Holt and Miller (1972) suggested that maintaining contact with familymembers increases the chance of success upon parole. Also, visitation betweenmothers and children may increase the chance of successful reunification after themothers’ release from prison. Holt and Miller (1972) indicated that inmates whomaintain contact with their families might be less likely to engage in disciplinaryinfractions while incarcerated. Indeed, the interest in the importance of inmates’families has resulted in an increase in the number of family-centred programs inprisons across the United States (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Boudouris, 1985;McGowan & Blumenthal, 1978) and an increased focus on incarcerated women inAustralia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand (Immarigeon, 1997).

Internationally, the treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society ofwomen in prison has been a concern of social scientists and prison reformers.However, while prisons in most countries have tried to preserve the bonds betweenmothers and children, nearly all prison systems in the United States, for example,separate a mother from her children (Kauffman, 2001). Separated children, whoare themselves already at a high risk of offending because of the factors surround-ing their mothers’ criminal status, are often placed in abusive homes as they awaittheir mothers’ release (Sharp, 2001). Moreover, nearly 10% of the women whoenter prison are pregnant (Kauffman, 2001).

Separation may be especially difficult for the many women (for example, those inAustralian prisons) who enter prison with high drug addiction rates and have beenvictims of violence (Easteal, 2001). This finding comports with data in the UnitedStates, which indicate that 54% of women had used drugs prior to incarceration(Morash, Bynum, & Koons, 1998), and that from 43% (Morash, Bynum, & Koons,1998) to 60% (Greenfield & Snell, 1999) of incarcerated women had been victims ofsexual assault. However, researchers may have found it difficult to extrapolate fromrelatively small female prison populations. For instance, Easteal (2001) believed thatthe Australian prison population was so small that women were placed inappropri-ately in maximum-security facilities. Thus, it may increase the reliability of researchfindings to examine women who share a similar criminal status, as this will minimiseas far as possible the influences of other inmates on the behaviour of an individual.This article examines such women in a maximum security prison.

The Conditions of Mothers in Prison Although the number of women in state and federal prisons in the United Stateshas doubled (from about 41,000 to over 87,000) in a recent ten-year period (Bureauof Justice Statistics, 1998, p. 494; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000a) and tripled ina recent twenty-year period (Gowdy et al., 1998), the influence of visitation onwomen inmates and their minor children has received scant attention, eventhough up to 75 or 80% of prison inmates are mothers of minors (Bloom &Steinhart, 1993; Moses, 1995). Generally, most researchers support visitation onthe basis that it might advance inmate readjustment upon release and help

419

CHILDREN VISITING MOTHERS IN PRISON

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY




maintain family structures. However, it is also important to understand how visita-tion influences the institutional adjustment of inmate mothers.

Although there has been an increase in programs for mothers and children,there has not been a corresponding increase in research addressing the nature orfrequency of prison visitation, especially by children. The limited research that hasaddressed children’s visitation has usually focused on questioning incarceratedwomen about it (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Boudin, 1998; Kitzinger, 1997; LeFlore& Holston, 1989; Stanton, 1980). Other research has noted impediments to visita-tion, such as the location of women’s prisons in rural areas (Henriquez, 1982;LaPoint, 1977; McGowan & Blumenthal, 1978), caretakers’ resistance to bringingchildren to the prison (Hairston, 1990), and the restrictive visiting policies of insti-tutions (Hairston & Hess, 1988).

Visits by minor children are qualitatively different from visits by adult familymembers and may therefore have a more significant influence on mothers’ behav-iour in prison. This is because women are the sole caretakers of their children(Banauch, 1985; Henriquez, 1982; LaPoint, 1977; McGowan & Blumenthal,1978; Stanton, 1980). They have legal, moral and emotional obligations to theirchildren that they do not have with other adults. Also, the atmosphere inwomen’s prisons encourages concern about children, and contact is expected andencouraged. Even women who did not have contact with their children prior toincarceration begin to show interest in their children when imprisoned(McCarthy, 1980; Zalba, 1964). Thus, the purpose of this article is to explorewhether women who receive visits from their minor children are less likely to beinvolved in disciplinary infractions in prison than women who receive no visitsfrom their children.

MethodsThe data for this study were collected as part of a larger research project thatexamined the relationship between visitation and disciplinary adjustment (Casey,1993). A purposive sample of women who were mothers of minors (N = 158)(defined as children under the age of 18) was selected from a cohort of femaleinmates (N = 222) released from a state, as opposed to federal, prison in the UnitedStates between January 1986 and December 1987. A release cohort was chosenbecause it allowed for the examination of visitation and disciplinary behaviour overthe entire prison sentence.

While the national prison population has increased, perhaps largely becauseof mandatory sentencing laws, the offences for which women are incarceratedhave remained constant since the 1980s. That is, in the 1970s, women werelikely to be incarcerated for property crimes (Greenfield & Snell, 1999). By 1986and into the late 1990s and today, the women in state prisons had beensentenced for (1986 and 1997 percentages in parentheses) violent offences(32.2/28.2); property offences (28.7/26.6); drug offences (32.8/34.4); and publicoffences such as intoxicated driving (5.7/10.5) (Greenfield & Snell, 1999). Thetypes of inmates in prisons have remained the same for approximately 15 to 20years, although the female inmates of today are more likely to have been incar-

420

KAREN CASEY-ACEVEDO,TIM BAKKEN AND ADRIA KARLE





cerated for violent and drug offences than for the property offences that ensnaredwomen prior to the 1980s.

Data Collection and Measurement of VariablesWhen inmates violated the rules of the prison, the violations were recorded inprison records. Pursuant to state rules, the prison had a three-tier system thatseparated disciplinary offences into categories. Prisons were permitted to assessviolations for particular penalties.1 The penalties included loss of good time,confinement in the Special Housing Unit, loss of privileges, “keeplock” (confine-ment to one’s cell), and suspension of parole.

State rules also specified certain procedures for processing disciplinary offenders.Allegations regarding more serious offences required that the prison hold a discipli-nary hearing over which the superintendent presided. Disciplinary reports andhearing dispositions became part of inmates’ permanent records and were kept ininmates’ individual institutional folders. Logistic regression analysis was used toexamine the relationship between visitation of children and their mothers’involvement in disciplinary infractions.

Demographic data were obtained for all inmates in the sample. The datacollected included present offence; length of present sentence; prior record; age;race; ethnicity; and marital status at the time of incarceration. Also, data on thenumber of children, their age, and their placement were recorded.2 This informa-tion was gleaned from the inmates’ institutional files. The names and ages of thechildren were found in the presentence investigation report (PSI), which waswritten by inmates’ probation officers prior to sentencing (Bakken, 1997).

Disciplinary adjustment, the primary dependent variable, was measured as thenumber and severity of disciplinary infractions. All infractions were recorded andtabulated into an annual rate of infractions. Although tabulating the number ofinfractions might sometimes overemphasise the nature of disciplinary incidents(because multiple infractions might arise from a single incident), the number ofinfractions, especially serious infractions, was relatively low for women. Moreover,recording the total number of infractions permitted the identification of inmateswho were repeatedly involved in minor infractions, those who were seriouslydisruptive, and those who were violent. Also, there were several instances whereinmates were subjected to a Superintendent’s Hearing, the most serious discipli-nary hearing at the institution, because of chronic misbehaviour. Tabulating thetotal number of infractions permitted identification of behaviour patterns that ledto the hearing.

Disciplinary infractions were classified as violent, serious, and minor. Violentinfractions included fighting, assault, and attempted assault. Serious infractionsincluded possession of weapons, alcohol, drugs or other contraband; fire-setting; escape;stealing; and burglary. Minor infractions included disobeying a direct order; threaten-ing; refusing to move or work; being out of place; lying; and abusing privileges.

There can be concerns with using disciplinary infractions as a measure of prisonadjustment. For example, disciplinary reports are based on the subjective nature ofcorrections officers’ decisions (Ellis et al., 1974; Light, 1990; Poole & Regoli,1980). Also, Light (1990) identified other areas that influence the validity of using

421






disciplinary infractions as a measure of inmate behaviour. They include issuesinvolving officer discretion, selective nonenforcement, officer-initiated events,supervisors’ dismissal of reports, and inmate characteristics.

Regardless of these concerns, disciplinary infractions remain the most commonmeasure of adjustment in prisons. These data are the only indicator of adjustmentthat is systematically recorded by prison officials and can be used to distinguishbetween inmates who do not become involved in disciplinary behaviour and thosewho are chronically troublesome, violent, or disruptive. Also, the institutional disci-plinary record is used in classification, assignment, transfer, and parole decisions(Flanagan, 1983). It might sometimes be appropriate to refer to infractions as“reported infractions”, because the conclusion that one occurred always comes fromthe reports and/or conclusions of correctional officers or administrators. Nonetheless,to achieve clarity and consistency when discussing and comparing inmates’ behav-iours, this article refers to “infractions” without qualification or modification.

Visitation by minor children was the main independent variable. An annualvisitation rate was calculated to measure it. The annual visitation rate was formu-lated using the number of times children visited divided by the number of monthseach inmate served. Each visit by a child was counted as a separate visit.

ResultsInmate MothersTable 1 presents a comparison of the release cohort with the women used in thisstudy on a number of demographic and criminal history variables. There were nosignificant differences between the two groups. Over half the women were Black;approximately one quarter each were Hispanic and White. The average age was28.9 years. Most of the women (74%) were not married. Almost two thirds had lessthan a high school education. Only 19% were employed at the time of their arrests.

Characteristics of the sample matched those of the typical female inmateshoused in United States prisons (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998) and in someform of custody (prison, jail, probation or parole) (Bureau of Justice Statistics,2000d). Because distance from the prison is one variable that might affect theability of family to visit, the inmates’ counties of residence were recorded. Eighty-eight per cent of the sample of inmates came from counties within a 120-mileradius of the prison. Of the sample, 38% were incarcerated for violent crime, 37%for property offences, and 25% for drug offences. On average, the sample served22.4 months before being released. The mean number of prior arrests for eachinmate was 8.6.

Children of Inmate MothersThe inmates’ presentence investigation reports provided most of the data concern-ing the number, ages, and residences of children of inmates prior to and during themothers’ incarceration, and the placement of children during their mothers’ incar-ceration. The158 women in the sample had 303 children. Information on place-ment was missing for 6% of the children (N = 18), and information on theirresidence was missing for 34% (N = 102) of the children. The mean number of

422






423



children per inmate was 2.1. Information on where the children resided prior totheir mothers’ incarceration was missing for 41% of the children (N = 125). Of theremaining children, 53% lived with their mothers and 47% did not.

During the mothers’ incarceration, children under 18 years of age were mostoften placed with the mothers’ relatives. Nearly half (N = 137) were with grandpar-ents. Fathers had custody of 12% and other relatives or family friends cared for 11%of the children. Eighteen per cent (N = 52) were in the care of social serviceagencies. For those children for whom information on residence was available, 44%lived within 120 miles of the prison and 14% lived within the state but not withina 120-mile radius. Sixteen per cent lived outside the state and 10% lived outsidethe United States.

Bivariate analysis was conducted to determine whether there were any differ-ences between mothers who received visits from their children and mothers whodid not. The analysis considered race, marital status, type of crime, age, and numberof children. As shown in Table 2, age is related to visitation of minor children.Younger women are more likely to receive visits from their minor children; womenover 33 less likely. Also, the county from which the mother was committed wasrelated to child visitation. Women who were committed to prison from countiesoutside the metropolitan area were much less likely to receive visits from theirchildren. This is most likely related to the difficulty children have in travelling tothe prison to visit (Hairston, 1990).

TABLE 1Comparison Of Demographic Data/Criminal History of Release Cohort and Study Sample

Release cohort (N = 222) Study sample (N = 158)

Race N = 222 N = 153

Black 52% 54%

White 24 21

Hispanic 24 25

Marital statut N = 222 N = 150

Single 75% 74%

Married 25% 26

County of commitment N = 222 N = 158

Metro 89% 88%

Nonmetro 11 12

Crime N = 222 N = 158

Violent 42% 38%

Property 36 37

Drug 22 25

Average age 29.7 years 28.9 years

Average months served 22.7 22.4

Number of previous arrests 8.3 8.6




424



Disciplinary Behaviour of Mothers in PrisonRelying on the rates of infractions does not fully illustrate the nature of an inmate’sunderlying disciplinary behaviour. Therefore, the women were categorised intogroups based on the type of infractions that they had committed. In order to deter-mine whether there were specific variables that could distinguish inmates whocommitted violent and serious infractions from inmates who committed minorinfractions or none at all, the sample was divided into two groups. As shown inTable 3, over half (51%) the mothers who received visits from minor children wereinvolved in violent or serious disciplinary infractions and almost half of the womenwho committed minor infractions or none at all received visits from their children.

TABLE 2Mothers Receiving Visits from Minor Children

Total mothers Mothers % df χ2 Signif.receiving

visits

Race 153 2 3.50249 .17356

White 32 8 25

Black 83 35 42

Hispanic 38 17 48

Marital status 150 3 2.69054 .44184

Single 79 35 44

Married 30 11 37

Divorce 32 9 28

Common-law 9 4 44

Crime type 158 2 1.34678 .50998

Violent 60 27 45

Property 59 21 36

Drugs 39 14 36

Age of admission 157 2 8.45303 .01460*

24 yrs or less 44 22 50

25–32 yrs 77 33 43

33 yrs or more 36 7 19

Number of children 157 1 1.57464 .45506

1–3 132 52 39

4 or more 25 10 40

Commitment county 158 1 7.4682 .00628*

Metro area1 139 60 43

Outside metro2 19 2 10

Note: 1Includes counties within 120 mile radius of facility2Includes all remaining counties in state*p < .05




425



Women receiving visits from minor children committed a greater percentage of allinfractions than women who did not receive visits. Women who did not receivevisits were more likely to commit minor infractions or none at all.

Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine whether certainindependent variables could be used to predict membership in disciplinary groups.This is similar to linear regression except that it is used with dichotomous depen-dent variables. The logistic model looks at the odds of an event occurring (Hosmer& Lemeshow, 1989). The goal of the analysis is to compare different groups in aneffort to identify independent variables that increase the probability that a womanwill engage in a particular type of infraction. Binary dependent variables werecreated based on membership in one of the groups.

Table 4 displays the results of the equation comparing the two groups. Severalindependent variables were entered into a stepwise regression equation. The indepen-dent variables included race (Black), type of crime, number of children, time served,marital status, and visits by minor children. Forward stepwise regression was to deter-mine the strength of variables in the equations. Variables were eliminated if theywere not significant at the .05 level. The analysis revealed that two variables weresignificant in the equation: time served and visits by minor children.

DiscussionThe hypothesis that visits from minor children would have a positive impact oninstitutional behaviour was not supported. In fact, the findings concerning thesevisits are very intriguing, because the analysis indicates that the women who

TABLE 3Mothers Receiving Visits from Minor Children by Type of Infractions

Infractions Visits No visits

N % N %

Total 61 100 83 100

None & minor 30 49 63 76

Serious & violent 31 51 20 24

Note: χ2 = 10.977p = .001df = 1

TABLE 4Logistic Regression Predicting Membership in Disciplinary Groups for Mothers of Minor Children

b SE Wald df Sig. Exp(b)

Time served .227 .080 8.034 1 .005* 1.255

Minor visit –1.041 .404 6.655 1 .010* .353

Constant –.031 .720 .002 1 .966 .970




receive visits have a higher probability of engaging in both serious and violentinfractions. Women who do not receive visits are less likely to engage in infrac-tions; where they do, the infractions are minor ones.

Although these findings were unexpected, they might not be altogether surpris-ing. Visitation can often be a very emotional and bittersweet experience. Althoughmost women are happy and relieved to see their children, the pain of separationcan lead to depression and anger. If a woman is upset because a visit ended and shewill not see her children again for some time, she may be inclined toward aggres-sion. For women, tolerating conditions of incarceration may be more difficult oncethey see their children and relive the guilt caused by their arrest, conviction, andresulting separation.

Moreover, visitation is often the only time that parents are informed of theproblems their children may be experiencing, such as those concerning school,friends, relatives, and sexual experiences. The emotional visitation experience isintensified by the mothers’ lack of control over, or influence in, their children’s lives.Inmates are left powerless to effect any changes to help their children. Also, thenumber of children is positively related to the commission of violent infractions.

Much of the data on children’s placement during mothers’ incarceration wasmissing from prison files. This finding is consistent with previous data that suggestthat women often do not reveal the whereabouts of their children, or even theirexistence, for fear that authorities will intervene and assume custody (McCarthy,1980). The data from the present study revealed that the majority of children weresent to live with relatives and friends. This finding is consistent with previousresearch (Banauch, 1985; Henriquez, 1982; LaPoint, 1977; McGowan &Blumenthal, 1978; Stanton, 1980). A somewhat surprising finding is the percent-age of children that are in the custody of social services. Other studies haveestimated that the number of women whose children were in foster care was 7% to12% (Beckerman, 1989). However, it appeared from prison documents that approx-imately 20% of mothers had children in foster care.

Only slightly more than half the children lived with their mothers prior to thepresent incarceration. This finding is also somewhat surprising, because priorresearch on inmate mothers had suggested that many women live with theirchildren prior to incarceration (McCarthy, 1980; McGowen & Blumenthal, 1978).However, previous studies focused on medium- and minimum-security inmates orwomen in county jails. Women in this study (in a maximum-security prison) weremore likely to have experienced family disruption before this incarceration becauseof a prior criminal lifestyle (i.e., an average of 8.6 prior arrests).

More than half the women with young children did not receive visits fromthem. It was anticipated that more women would have received visits from theirchildren given the emphasis at the prison on maintaining the mother–childbond. However, many mothers were committed to prison from counties outsidethe metropolitan area. Therefore, the relatively long distance from those countiesto the prison precluded visitation. For those women who did receive visits, thenumber averaged about one per month. Hispanic mothers received the most visitsfrom their children, almost one per month, while white mothers received theleast. Also, mothers under the age of 33 received the most visits, while older

426






mothers received the fewest visits, perhaps because older mothers have olderchildren who have a variety of interests. Mothers convicted of violent crimesserve twice as much time in prison as inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes. Itmay be that the caretakers of these women’s children make more of an effort tobring the children to the prison because of the greater length of incarceration (anaverage of three years).

Moreover, the mother–child relationship may be a major factor in explainingvisitation that is not accounted for in this analysis. The relationship between themother and caregiver may determine whether children visit the prison. Manyinmates have strained relationships with their children’s caregivers (Hairston,1990). Financial concerns of the caregiver may also influence whether childrenvisit. Travelling to prison with children is expensive and many caregivers cannotafford it.

Some limitations in this study should be recognised. For example, the study didnot find a cause-and-effect relationship between children’s visits and their mothers’violent behaviour while in prison. Also, generalisations from the results must bemade with caution. The sample for this research consisted of a release cohort from amaximum-security institution located near a large city. Most women’s prisons are notclassified as “maximum security”, and are located in rural, not metropolitan areas.Also, given the emphasis on visitation at this prison, it is unlikely that other prisonsfor women would experience the high level of visitation found in this study.

Moreover, some results may be limited to the circumstances in the study. Thatis, it was not possible to assess the quality or meaning of the visits for women orchildren. Also, the meaning of the visits to the visitors was not measured.Although visits may be painful for inmates, they may be extremely beneficial tothose visiting, especially children.

Furthermore, one cannot assume that women who do not receive visits aredisconnected from their families. Glaser’s study (1964) illustrated that inmates canmaintain strong family ties through correspondence and phone calls. Also, thisstudy examined one aspect of visitation: the effects of visitation on inmates’ institu-tional behaviour. In addition, researchers might also examine whether or howvisitation affects recidivism and reunification with children, and families moregenerally, upon release from prison.

ConclusionThe results of this study may indicate that women who receive visits, especiallyvisits from their minor children, actually have more difficulty adjusting to institu-tionalisation. However, these adjustment problems may be an indication ofconnection to family, friends and children. Visitation from children is a double-edged sword. Although seeing their children may provide women with comfort andjoy, it can also create or stir painful emotions, which may leave women vulnerablewhen dealing with correctional officers and other inmates. Inside the prison, aninmate may overreact to insignificant events and/or use drugs and alcohol to copewith emotional pain.

Given that children’s visitation appears to increase the probability that womenwill commit infractions, critics of visitation might assert that children should not

427






be permitted to visit or that their visits be restricted. However, such a conclusionmay not be merited. First, eliminating visitation does not minimise problemscreated by separation and may actually increase family dysfunction upon a woman’srelease and reunification with her children. Second, children of inmates maybenefit from physical contact with their incarcerated parents. Third, inmates needto learn to deal constructively with the consequences of their actions and developparenting and interpersonal skills. Having the opportunity to communicate withtheir children while incarcerated forces them to confront the reality of their familysituations. Visitation can provide an opportunity for inmates to build relationshipswith their children. Finally, one might argue simply that the elimination of visitsbetween mothers and their children would be unnecessarily punitive.

Ultimately, a woman’s incarceration will affect her children. Inmates do notexist in a vacuum. The lack of resources for this population has been documented(Banauch, 1985; Haley, 1977; Henriquez, 1982; McGowan & Blumenthal, 1978;Stanton, 1980). Inmates who are mothers will return home to their children.Maintaining the mother–child bond through visitation can help to strengthenthese relationships and may increase the possibility of successful parole and reunifi-cation (Holt & Miller, 1972).

Endnotes1 Offences classified as tier 1 are minor, and disposed of by a violations officer. Penalties include

the loss of privileges, a reprimand, or the imposition of a work task. Tier 1 violations are notmade part of an inmate’s permanent record. Tier 2 offences require a disciplinary hearing with ahearing officer and carry penalties allowing for longer periods of restricted privileges, restitution,and “keeplock” (confinement to one’s cell). Tier 3 offences are the most serious and require aSuperintendent’s Hearing. At the hearing, evidence of the charges is presented and the inmatehas the opportunity to defend herself. Superintendent’s Hearings may also be held when aninmate is continually involved in tier 2 offences. The seriousness of the behaviour is the culmi-nation of offences rather than the circumstances of a particular incident. Penalties that can beimposed at the Superintendent’s Hearing include loss of good time, confinement in the specialhousing unit, and keeplock, as well as the suspension of privileges.

2 Although the age of the child was frequently reported, the date of birth was often missing. In sucha case, children’s ages were approximated by subtracting the number of years stated in the reportfrom the dates of the presentence investigation report. Date of birth for the child was entered asthe first day of the resulting year. An attempt was made to approximate the ages of children whoseage and birthdates were missing. When the record revealed the placement of children, it wasassumed the children were in need of supervision and hence were under the age of eighteen. Inmost instances, the records indicated which children were adults. For the children for whomplacement data were available but ages were not, status as a minor or adult was determined by themother’s age. The average age of mothers who were known to have minor children was 29.1, whilethe modal category was 29 to 34 with 56% of the women falling into this age category. Therefore,a decision was made to categorise children as minors if placement data were available and theirmother’s age was less than 34. For women between 34 and 50, the data were left as unknown. Forwomen who were over 50, children were categorised as adults. An error could occur with thisclassification scheme. However, by relying on two sources of data for estimation, the possibility ofan error would be minimised.

428






ReferencesBakken, T. (1997). The continued failure of modern law to create fairness and efficiency: The

presentence investigation report and its effect on justice. New York Law School Law Review,40(3), 363–407.

Banauch, P. J. (1985). Mothers in prison. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Beckerman, A. (1989). Incarcerated mothers and their children in foster care: The dilemma of

visitation. Children and Youth Services Review, 11, 175–183.Bennett, L.A. (1989). Correctional administrator’s attitudes towards private family visiting. Prison

Journal, 69(2), 110–114.Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the children: A reappraisal of incarcerated mothers in

America. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.Boudin, K. (1998). Lessons from a mother’s program in prison: A psychosocial approach supports

women and their children. Women & Therapy, 21(1), 103.Boudouris, J. (1985). Prisons and kids. College Park, MD: American CorrectionalAssociation.Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1991). Special report: Women in prison. Washington, DC: United

States Department of Justice.Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. Washington, DC:

United States Department of Justice.Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000a). Prison Statistics. Washington, DC: United States Department of

Justice. Retrieved September 9, 2003 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htmBureau of Justice Statistics. (2000b). Drug Use and Crime. Washington, DC: United States

Department of Justice. Retrieved September 9, 2003 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000c). Criminal Offender Statistics. Washington, DC: United StatesDepartment of Justice. Retrieved September 9, 2003 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000d). Women offenders. NCJ 175688. Washington, DC: UnitedStates Department of Justice.

Burgess, R.G. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Casey, K.A. (1993). The effect of visitation on the disciplinary adjustment of incarcerated females. Ann

Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International Ellis, D., Grasmick, H., & Gilman, B. (1974). Violence in prisons: A sociological analysis.

American Journal of Sociology, 80, 16–43.Easteal, P. (2001). Women in Australian prisons: The cycle of abuse and dysfunctional environ-

ments. Prison Journal, 81(1), 87–112. Flanagan, T. (1983). Correlates of institutional misconduct. Criminology, 21, 29–39.Glaser, D. (1964). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Greenfield, L.A., & Snell, T.L. (1999). Women offenders. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved

August 30, 2003 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wo.txtGowdy, V.B., Sutton, R., Cain. T., Moss, A., Corrothers, H., Camp, A. (1998). Women in criminal

justice: A twenty year update. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved August 30, 2003 fromhttp://www.ojp. usdoj.gov/reports/98Guides/ wcjs98.

Hairston, C.F., & Hess, P. M. (1988). Regulating parent–child communication in correctionalsettings. Paper presented at the First National Conference on Family and Corrections. Sacramento,CA.

Hairston, C.F. (1991). Mothers in jail: Parent–child separation and jail visitation. AFFILIA, 6(2),9–27.

Henriquez, Z. (1982). Imprisoned mothers and their children: A descriptive and analytical study.Washington, DC: University Press of America.

429






430



Holt, N., & Miller, B. (1972). Explorations in inmate–family relationships. Sacramento, CA:California Department of Corrections.

Hosmer, D.W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley.Immarigeon, R. (1997). International developments in criminal justice. Federal Probation, 61,

74–76.Kauffman, K. (2001). Mothers in prison. Corrections Today, 63(1), 62–5.Kitzinger, S. (1997). Sheila Kitzinger’s letter from Europe: How can we help pregnant women and

mothers in prison? Birth, 24(3), 197.Kline, S. (1993). A profile of female offenders in state and federal prisons. In American

Correctional Association, Female offenders: Meeting the needs of a neglected population.Washington, DC: Author.

LaPoint, V. (1977). Mothers inside, children outside: Some issues surrounding imprisoned mothersand their children. 107th Congress of Correctional Proceedings. Washington, DC: AmericanCorrectional Association.

LeFlore, L., & Holston, M. A. (1989). Perceived importance of parenting behaviors as reported byinmate mothers and their children. 107th Congress of Correctional Proceedings. Washington,DC: American Correctional Association.

Lembo, J. (1969). The relationship of institutional disciplinary infractions and the inmate’spersonal contact with the outside community. Criminology, 7(1), 50–54.

Light, S. (1990). Measurement error in official statistics: Prison rule infraction data. FederalProbation, December, 63–68.

McCall, G.J., & Simons, J.L. (1969). Issues in participant observation: A text and reader. Reading,UK: Addison-Wesley.

McCarthy, B.R. (1980). Inmate mothers: The problems of separation and integration. Journal ofOffender Counseling, Service, and Rehabilitation, 4(3), 199–208.

McGowan, B.G., & Blumenthal, K.L. (1978). Why punish the children? Hackensack, NJ: NationalCouncil on Crime and Delinquency.

Morash, M., Bynum, T.S., & Koons, B.A. (1998). Women offenders: Programming needs and promis-ing approaches, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 30, 2003 from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/171668.pdf

Moses, M.C. (1995). Keeping incarcerated mothers and their daughters together: Girl scouts beyondbars, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved August 30, 2003 from http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/girlsct.txt

Pollock-Byrne, J. (1990). Women, prison and crime. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Poole, E., & Regoli, R. (1980). Race, institutional rule breaking and institutional response: A

study of discretionary decision-making in prison. Law and Society Review, 14, 931–936.Sharp, S. (2001). It’s a family affair: Incarcerated women and their families. Women & Criminal

Justice, 12(4), 21–49.Stanton, A. (1980). When Mothers Go to Jail. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Ward, K.D., & Kassebaum, G. (1965). Womens’ prison. Chicago: Aldine.Zalba, S.R. (1964). Women prisoners and their families. Los Angeles: Delmar.

■ ■ ■




Documents

Children Visiting Mothers in Prison: The Effects on Mothers' Behaviour and Disciplinary Adjustment