Why Massachusetts Should Not Build Any New Women’s Prisons
This post serves as a review of the Baker Administration’s proposal of a trauma-informed new women’s prison, an initiative that is vastly under researched, misinformed, and fiscally irresponsible. While the national rate of women’s incarceration has risen dramatically in the past two decades, the opposite is true for Massachusetts (Rousseau, 2021; Massachusetts Department of Corrections, 2019). Yet despite housing such a low prison population for women, the Baker Administration is pushing on for the creation of a new women’s prison. In its plans, the Administration touts a robust trauma-informed facility based on questionable and irrelevant research (Sered et al, 2021); however, the notion of a trauma-informed incarceral state is not only misinformed but harmful to both the women incarcerated and their impacted communities. Rather than spending well over $50,000,000 on the further incarceration and degradation of women (Sered et al, 2021), the Baker Administration has an invaluable opportunity to re-evaluate it’s criminal justice priorities and listen to the true experts and advocates fighting for decarceration. This post seeks to expand on the downfalls of a trauma-informed prison and offer alternatives to incarceration that would better address the unique challenges associated with crime faced by women.
The key issue with the Administration’s, perhaps well-intended plan, is that it will not sufficiently address the inherent trauma associated with incarceration and serve to only further practices of mass incarceration. It is impossible to separate trauma from prison; the implementation of incarceration alone creates trauma and exasperates already present symptoms of trauma. First, incarceration separates families. This is especially concerning in regard to women’s incarceration because incarcerated women are more likely to be the primary caregiver of a young child (Rousseau, 2021; Bloom et al, 2003: 16). Not only does this create obvious trauma for children of incarcerated mothers (Lee et al, 2013), but the mothers themselves face serious mental repercussions from this separation, especially if they recently gave birth (Chambers, 2009). Once released, the damaging effects of incarceration on the family continue to manifest in ways that also impact rehabilitation. As noted by Bloom et al, “Many women released from prison have lost touch with their families and thus face greater adjustment problems in reintegrating into the community” (2003: 16). Without close ties to the family or community, individuals are more likely to recidivate (Mooney and Bala, 2018). Not only does this impact the outlook for the original offender, but the trauma and disruption transferred to the children of incarcerated women is also significantly disturbing and harmful (Lee et al, 2013).
Second, incarcerated women suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety, at a higher rate than their male counterparts (Rousseau, 2021). Furthermore, many of these women were victims of crime themselves, with up to 70% reporting a history of abuse (Rousseau, 2021). When placed in a prison setting, underlying trauma and mental illness will suffer (Owen, 2020; Rousseau, 2021). Even when provided treatment during incarceration, it is impossible to avoid the daily harms of one’s mental health while behind bars because of the way in which incarceration is structured; inherent in the current carceral state is isolation, high risk of physical and sexual abuse, and lack of bodily autonomy (Bloom et al, 2003: 25; Sered et al, 2021). Even with trauma-informed policies, these risks are simply not worth continuously suppressing incarcerated women when better alternatives to incarceration exist.
Finally, “the most common pathways into crime [for women] are based on … poverty and substance abuse” (Rousseau, 2021). Incarceration does not solve these problems, it does not get to the root of poverty or substance abuse. Instead, it exasperates these pathways and leaves women with little support post-incarceration to later overcome these challenges. For example, while incarcerated many women are not provided adequate research-based treatment. Alarmingly, “[t]he opioid overdose death rate is 120 times higher for those recently released from incarceration compared to the rest of the adult population” (ACLU Massachusetts, 2021). Moreover, women are not provided adequate opportunities to address poverty while incarcerated, which leaves the problem unaddressed once reintegrated into their communities. Women are typically offered less compensation than male counterparts for work-assignments and are provided a smaller range of vocational programs to assist them post-incarceration (Bloom et al, 2003: 23). These major discrepancies allow the most common pathways into crime for women to fester and worsen upon release, which creates a cycle of criminal behavior that could have been interrupted if the proper resources were originally provided.
While well intentioned programs, such as yoga therapy and trauma-informed practices in the prison setting have been implemented in places such as MCI-Framingham, a thorough review of scientific literature “found no evidence for the effectiveness of prison-based therapeutic programs, including ones designed to be gender-responsive and trauma-sensitive” in the long term (Sered et al, 2021). This is because trauma-informed services are incompatible with incarceration. Trauma informed services must be composed of four key fundamentals: (1) “take trauma into account; (2) avoid triggering trauma reactions and/or traumatizing the individual; (3) adjust the behavior of counselors, staff and the organization to support the individual’s coping capacity; and, (4) allow survivors to manage their trauma symptoms successfully so that they are able to access, retain, and benefit from these services” (Rousseau, 2021). These four fundamentals cannot be effectively carried out in a prison where the “[l]oss of custody of children, lack of bodily privacy, absence of control over whom one does or does not interact with, and limited freedom of movement, control over time, and personal space may in and of themselves cause trauma” (Sered et al, 2021). Thus, in application, the carceral state does not leave room for the avoidance of traumatizing or retraumatizing an individual. Further, the constraints and environment of a prison does not allow survivors to effectively manage their symptoms of trauma. Counselors, staff, and organization can work to support the individual’s treatment, as advocated and explained by Tonier Cain, a national trainer on trauma-informed services in prisons (Rousseau, 2021); however, “barked orders, pat-downs, strip searches, and looming threats of punishment” at the hands of the prison staff work against this (Sered et al, 2021). Despite attempts to alleviate the trauma endured behind bars, a trauma-informed prison will not prevent the inevitable long term harms of incarceration.
The greatest hurdle to both legislators and the general public, it seems, is what do we do without a prison? What about those who have committed so-called violent crimes? These questions cannot be ignored, but they cannot be solved by simply building a new prison. Rather than imprisoning women, thereby disrupting families and exasperating mental health issues, alternatives to incarceration are wide and plenty, many of which offer far more promising results in rehabilitation than incarceration provides (Sered et al, 2021). These alternatives should take into consideration the pathways leading to the alleged crime and find ways to divert the individual from incarceration. In practice, for example, a woman suffering from substance abuse disorder could greatly benefit from voluntary treatment outside of prison — this concept is supported by evidence finding that recurrent substance abuse needs treatment not punishment (ACLU Massachusetts, 2021). Alternatives to incarceration are not simply alternatives to the physical imprisonment of an individual, but also include updating criminal justice policies to reduce incarceration and better serve the needs of communities. As an example, some criminal justice advocates suggest decriminalizing various degrees of drugs and sex work and focusing instead of providing resources to work against substance abuse and poverty. By placing the emphasis on support and rehabilitation rather than punishment and incarceration, the Commonwealth can more effectively reduce crime.
Building a new women’s prison is not necessary to promote rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and support the community. Instead, I argue that building a new prison will only further suppress and degrade women deserving help, support, and encouragement. As aptly put by Dr. Danielle Rousseau, “Not all populations within the criminal justice system are the same, and in order to foster effective policy and programing, it is important to recognize this fact” (2021). Thus, moving forward, the Baker Administration should take seriously the advocacy of women who have been put down by the very system the Administration intends to promote, such as the formerly incarcerated advocates and experts leading the way with Families for Justice as Healing (FJAH). As a concluding thought, I leave the following statement, “[Women] need families that are not divided by public policy, streets and homes that are safe from violence and abuse, and health and mental health services that are accessible. The challenges women face must be met with expanded opportunity and a more thoughtful criminal justice policy” (Bloom et al, 2013: 21); the Commonwealth has a unique opportunity to support the rehabilitation and empowerment of women through the implementation of alternatives to incarceration as opposed to a formidable new prison.
*This post does not speak for or on behalf of any advocacy group and was written solely for academic purposes.
Works Cited
ACLU Massachusetts. (2021). Treatment Not Imprisonment: Aligning Probation Orders With Addiction Science.
Bloom, B. E., Owen, B., & Covington, S. S. (2003). Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. National Institute of Corrections. https://nicic.gov/gender-responsive-strategies-research-practice-and-guiding-principles-women-offenders
Chambers A. N. (2009). Impact of forced separation policy on incarcerated postpartum mothers. Policy, politics & nursing practice, 10(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154409351592
Lee, R. D., Fang, X., & Luo, F. (2013). The impact of parental incarceration on the physical and mental health of young adults. Pediatrics, 131(4), e1188–e1195. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0627
Massachusetts Department of Correction. (2020, April). Prison Population Trends 2019. Mass.gov. https://www.mass.gov/doc/prison-population-trends-2019/download
Money, E. & Bala, N. (2018, October). The Importance Of Supporting Family Connections To Ensure Successful Re-entry. R Street Shorts. https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Final-Short-No.-63-1.pdf
Owen, B. (2020). Women face unique harms from solitary confinement. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/blog/addressing-the-overuse-of-segregation-in-u-s-prisons-and-jails/women-face-unique-harms-from-solitary-confinement
Rousseau, D. (2021). Module 4: Implementing Psychology in the Criminal Justice System. Boston University Metropolitan College.
Sered, S. S., Tafte, E., & Russell, C. (2021, January). Ineffectiveness of prison-based therapy: The case for community-based alternatives. Susan Sered, PhD. http://susan.sered.name/blog/debunking-the-myth-of-gender-responsive-treatment-in-prison/
Sered, S. S., Tafte, E., & Russell, C. (2021, March). Alternatives to Incarceration for Women in Massachusetts: An Opportunity and a Challenge. Susan Sered, PhD. http://susan.sered.name/blog/