Pros and cons of prison nursery programs for mothers and infants

Prison Nurseries

There are few assets as precious to a nation as it children. Especially in the developed world. Social, care, and education systems are set up in such a way as to nurture the young ones to that they can grow and develop effectively to make the most of their lives and their future. Indeed, not making sure that children's lives can progress along optimal levels can result in dire consequences for a nation and its future. It affects everything from the economy to the moral fabric of a nation to not care for its children. It is also, however, a sad fact of the world today that not all children are born to loving parents, a home and family, or in otherwise ideal circumstances. Indeed, some children are born to mothers who are in prison. While there are many programs to care for these children, there is little consistency among the nature and number of these. In the United States, for example, some states include programs via which mothers can care for their children from 12 to 24 months via prison nurseries. In others, children are taken away from their mothers and entered into foster care or given to family members who will care for them until the mother is free. Recent arguments have stated that prison nurseries should be reimplemented for their ability to give children more consistency and stability during their young lives. There are, however, counter-arguments that are equally strong, relating to the relative health of the prison environment for the growth and development of young children, in addition to financing concerns. In my view, prison nurseries are more beneficial than harmful in terms of the mother-child bond, as long as the mother's prison term is brief and the criminal activity is non-violent.

According to Ford (2013), prison nurseries have been a common phenomenon in the United States at least since 1901, when one was installed in New York. By the mid-twentieth century, all the states had at least one prison nursery system. During the 1970s, however, states closed their nursery systems due to the relatively small number of inmates who proved themselves eligible to take part and due to the disproportionate costs involved.

As the 20th century drew to a close and melted into the new millennium, however, the number of women sent to prison rose rapidly due to a variety of factors, including tougher sentencing for relatively minor drug offenses. Many of these women are pregnant when they arrive in jail, and are in need not only of care for their children but also of programs to help them create a better and more nurturing home for their children once their prison sentence expires. For this reason, it has been estimated that the need for prison nurseries have become crucial, especially with sentences that last two years or less. By 1994, this need was recognized by Nebraska, which became the second state to reopen its prison nursery. Other states that include such programs include South Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Illinois, Indiana, California, and West Virginia (Carlson, 2009).

The nursery systems are set up according to a number of rules, which tend to vary across states. Similar rules include that mothers must be nonviolent offenders and they must give birth while in prison. Baby supplies such as clothes, diapers, and furniture are provided by charities. Babies spend the day in nurseries, apart from the mother, while being returned to their parents during the night. During the day, mothers are required to participate in vocational and other child-focused programs, such as breast feeding and child development. While most nurseries are only set up for mothers who will be in the system for 18 months or less, others, like Washington, allows two years, while Washington allows children to remain in nurseries until they are three years old.

There are several strong arguments in favor of prison nurseries, the most solid of which is that the best lace for a baby is with his or her mother (Ford, 2013). Ford cites the Women in Prison Project as stating that there were some 207,700 women in federal, state, and local correction facilities as of June 2008. While most of these ladies are already mothers, about 6% are pregnant when they arrive in prison. The author claims that, for those states having implemented prison nursery programs, there have been many benefits to allowing mothers to raise their babies in prison (Ford, 2013).

The two most powerful benefits of prison nurseries, according to Ford (2013), is that they allow mothers to bond with their children while also resulting in lower recidivism rates for mothers who participate in the programs. In Ohio, for example, there is an overall recidivism rate of 38%, while only 3% of those participating in nursery programs recidivated after three years. In terms of drug testing, the state of Nebraska had a rate of zero nursery-program participants who tested positive for illicit drugs. The basis for these positive outcomes is that the family bonds that are created and solidified within prison nursery systems offer a strong motivation for maintaining a better lifestyle in the future. The mandatory parenting classes that are part of these systems also make the participants better mothers, which benefit their babies far more than being delivered into foster care or family care systems, which are themselves inherently flawed in many cases.

Ford (2013) also cites academic evidence to support his viewpoints regarding the benefits of prison nurseries for certain mothers. The American Psychological Association, for example, has conducted a study that suggests adverse effects for children who are separated from their incarcerated mothers at birth. These include a greater likelihood of emotional and behavioral disturbances, dropping out of school, and themselves being arrested. In contrast to foster systems and family care systems, which can often be unstable and turbulent for children, prison nurseries offer a stable and consistent environment in which babies can be nurtured and cared for by their biological mothers. Hence, Ford (2013) concludes that, although prison is hardly an ideal environment for a young child, it is better than the alternative, which, as mentioned above, can often be unstable. There are many studies that provide stability to be desirable almost above all else, especially during their first years of life.

Lee (2012) is in agreement with Ford, citing academic evidence to suggest that prison nurseries are beneficial for families. She confirms Ford's results in terms of recidivism rates. In Nebraska, for example, a study of released inmates found that 33% of women separated from their children returned to crime, while only 9% of those who participated in nursery programs fell victim to recidivism.

Lee (2012) also offers international evidence to confirm the general consensus that babies benefit most from staying with their mothers, even in the prison environment. In most European countries, for example, children are allowed to stay with their mothers until they are weaned. Prisons in India and Chile also offer accommodation for children for varying amounts of time. In Mexico, children must stay with their mothers in prisons up to six years of age, while having the freedom to leave during weekends and holidays. This system accommodates women who are incarcerated for longer periods. In Germany, systems are set up to allow women to spend the day away from prison, taking their children to school, doing housework, and preparing meals. They then return to jail for the night, while days are spent creating a supervised and stable environment for their children (Lee, 2012). This system also allows for longer and healthier growing environments for children until they are four or six years old.

The system in Germany suggests that parenting is a vocation (Benevolent, 2013). The publication suggests that the United States can learn much from this system, in which the main aim is to keep families together and give children a chance to be nurtured and grow according to generally accepted principles of family and nurture. Indeed, this is a far cry from the often cruel systems that most American prisons include. Some do not even allow mothers to breastfeed or even use a breast pump to offer their babies nutrition during their prison term or after they are released (Schenwar, 2013).

Particularly in cases where new-borns are taken from their mothers at birth, depriving these mothers the right to breastfeed is a particularly and unnecessarily cruel practice. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that breast milk is best for babies, especially during the first weeks of life. In addition to excellent nutrition, it provides children with stronger immune systems and better overall health, while also eliminating the possibility of allergies that are often inherent in using artificial formula milk.

Furthermore, offering breast milk to babies provides a critical mother-child bond, even without the skin-to-skin contact of actual breastfeeding (Schenwar, 2013). As shown above, the mother-baby bond can offer a strong incentive for mothers to reform and reduce recidivism. In prisons that do not offer nursery options, allowing breastfeeding facilities or at least the possibility to engage in this practice after being released can have many benefits that would far outweigh its costs in terms of long-term health costs and reduced crime levels.

There are, however, those who strongly oppose prison nurseries for the general lack of healthy environment it provides for children in which to grow and develop. Rahoot (2012), for example, cites the Johannesburg Central Prison in South Africa as an example of conditions that cannot be considered healthy for children by any stretch of the imagination.

One mother in this prison, for example, mentions how her child knows only the routine of prison life, not having experienced any of the things other children take for granted. Nearly two years old, the little girl knows nothing of pets or how it feels to ride in a car. The mother is notably and understandably concerned for how her daughter will cope with the all but alien life she will face when her mom is released. Still, this little girl is lucky in terms of having her mother with her when she is released. Others in this system are not so lucky.

According to Rahoot, children who live with their mothers in the Johannesburg prison until the infants are two years old experience extreme stress and trauma when they are removed from their mothers at two years old. Surely there must be psychological damage, regardless of how strong the mother-child bond has become. After their two years of relatively protected lives within the prison, these children then face the South African welfare system, which in itself can be a cruel and heartless world, in addition to the mere overwhelming strangeness of things they know nothing about in the outside world.

In addition to these issues, Rahoot (2012) mentions that growing up in a South African prison is itself also mentally and emotionally damaging, even with the mother-child bond in place. The children in the Johannesburg prison are provided with a playroom with three teachers, where they spend their mornings. One of the teachers is an offender with training in toddler education. The playroom includes charity donated books, cots, and toys. There is also an outdoor play area with grass, jungle gyms, and swings. The jungle gyms do double duty as washing lines as well. At best, this environment offers little sense of freedom, being surrounded by looming brick walls (Rahoot, 2012). In other South African prisons, such as the one in Kwazulu-Natal, children do not even have the luxury of an outside play area. In Pretoria, children share the same general area as female inmates. Surely being suddenly released form such an environment, where all the child knows is enclosed areas, must be traumatic at best. The stark environment also provides little in terms of stimulation and could affect the long-term ability of these children to adjust to and cope with new experiences and environments.

In South African prisons, children were allowed to stay with their mothers in prison up to the age of five years old until 2008. During this year, the apparently harmful effects of these environments on children created a move away from this allowance. Children in South African prisons are now allowed to stay with their mothers only until the age of two. According to Rahoot (2013), studies have been done both in South Africa and in international environments to show that children are indeed psychologically and emotionally harmed by remaining in prisons with their mothers.

This is not to say, however, that it would be better for children to be separated from their mothers at birth. Even opponents like Rahoot (2013) seems to acknowledge the general benefits of stability for babies and mothers. Indeed, the author notes that the Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town has started a move towards the above-mentioned model used in Germany, where mothers and children live in an environment resembling a more traditional home and mothers and their children live in bedrooms and play in gardens.