parenting from prison: helping children and mothers

61

Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 23:61–81, 2000Copyright ã 2000 Taylor & Francis0146-0862/00 $12.00 + .00

PARENTING FROM PRISON: HelpingChildren and Mothers

PATRICIA J. THOMPSON, PhD, ANP, RN, CSUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,College of Nursing, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA

NANCY J. HARM, PhD, LCSWUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock,School of Social Work, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA

Incarceration of a mother disrupts the mother–child relationship and the child’semotional development. The researchers evaluated a 15-week parenting program in awomen’s prison that was designed to enhance mother–child interactions duringimprisonment. Pre- and postmeasures for the 104 women were Hudson’s (1982) Indexof Self-Esteem, Bavolek’s (1984) Adult–Adolescent Parenting Inventory, andsemistructured questionnaires. Self-esteem and attitudes about expectations of children,corporal punishment, and family roles improved significantly. Empathy and mother–child interactions through visits and letters improved. Participants identified the mosthelpful components of the program. Those who had been physically, sexually, andemotionally abused and those who had used drugs and alcohol had positive results.Findings support the value of parent education for self-development of incarceratedmothers and for the welfare of their children.

“I want my Mama” is often heard by clinicians who work with children.If mother is nearby, the situation is easily remedied, but when Mom isin prison, what can be done? From 1980 to 1994, the female prisonpopulation grew by 386% compared with 214% for males (Departmentof Justice [DOJ], 1995) and reached 82,716 by mid-1998, to comprise6.4% of prisoners nationwide (Gilliard, 1999). Over 30,000 inmates are

Received 18 October 1999; revised 22 February 2000; accepted 4 March 2000.This research was funded in part by a University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College

of Nursing Intramural Grant, the Public Welfare Foundation, and the Winthrop RockefellerFoundation.

Address correspondence to Patricia J. Thompson, PhD, 6905 Archwood Drive, Little Rock,AR 72204, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

62 P. J. Thompson and N. J. Harm

mothers who were caretakers of their young children before entering prison(Green-feld & Minor-Harper, 1991).

BACKGROUND

Mothers in Prison

Many incarcerated mothers have been subjected to such high-risk vari-ables as poverty, substance abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, andcriminal parents (Hungerford, 1993). Separated from their children, theylove, miss, and are concerned about them (Kizer, 1991; Fogel, 1993).Incarcerated mothers experience anxiety, depression, regret, inadequacy,and loss; they fear a difficult reunion, yet plan to resume parenting whenreleased (Baunach, 1979; Chapman, 1980; Fogel & Martin, 1992; Greenfeld& Minor-Harper, 1991; Hairston, 1991b). Because they found no signifi-cant difference in ratings of parenting behaviors and of perceived rolebetween 120 incarcerated mothers and a noncriminal sample, LeFloreand Holsten (1989) recommended incarcerated mothers have an opportu-nity to interact with their children to enhance parenting skills as theyprepare to go home.

Their Children

The children of incarcerated mothers experience loneliness, fear, em-barrassment, and social stigma (Hale, 1988). Maternal grandparents typi-cally care for these children while their mothers are in prison (Beckerman,1989; Dressel & Barnhill, 1994). Some children are placed in foster careand are separated from other family members (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993).They rarely visit their mothers because of family disapproval, lack oftransportation, or fear of the prison setting, and they may exhibit anti-social or delinquent behavior (Jorgensen, Hernandez, & Warren, 1986;Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Hungerford, 1993; Kumpfer, 1993;Thompson & Harm, 1995; Pollack, 1998).

Family, Recidivism, and Relapse

Although most recidivism research focuses on male prisoners, Hairston(1988, 1991a) and others (Fendrich, 1991; Morgan, 1993) assert that main-taining family and community ties during and after incarceration reducesrecidivism. They relate their findings to social support theory, which holdsthat strong primary relationships contribute to self-worth (Gilligan, 1982;Miller, 1991; Surrey, 1991). These findings support the premise that pro-

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

Parenting from Prison 63

grams that improve family relationships should motivate former prison-ers to stay out of prison to continue parenting, thus resulting in reducedrecidivism.

Alcohol and drug relapses are major factors in parole violations. Greenfeldand Minor-Harper (1991) state that 72% of incarcerated women usedalcohol and drugs, 30% were arrested for drug-related offenses, and 39%used drugs on a daily basis. Drug use among arrested women was 63.2%(National Institute of Justice, 1993), with 75% of recidivists using drugs(Wellisch, Prendergast, & Anglin, 1994), and arrested females using heroin(30%) or cocaine (50%) at least monthly (American Correctional Asso-ciation [ACA], 1990). These addicted women are more lonely, lacksocial support, feel inadequate as mothers, and fear their children willbecome addicts, drop-outs, or criminals (Deren, 1986). Clearly they needtreatment, yet only 11% participate in such programs (Wellisch, Anglin,& Prendergast, 1993).

Finkelstein and Peidade (1993) assert that self-worth, family relation-ships, and mother’s love are major motivators for treatment and recov-ery. Research findings indicate that single mother alcoholics or addictsneed coping skills (Burman & Allen-Meares, 1991) and more supportservice than do males (Kinney, 1991). Considering the number of moth-ers in prison who are addicts and single, including parenting courses iscritical and may help prevent relapse and recidivism (Finnegan, 1988;Kinney, 1991; Nelson-Zlupko, Kauffman, & Dore, 1995).

Parenting Programs in Prison

Effective parenting is complex and requires knowledge about child de-velopment and guidance, relationship skills, and self-esteem. Yet societyrequires no educational courses for parenting. Learning parenting skillscomes primarily through experience, some of which is inappropriate. Al-though most women of childbearing age could benefit from parent educa-tion, for reasons cited above, incarcerated mothers would particularlybenefit from these classes (ACA, 1990). However, a national survey of43 prisons showed only 36 had such programs, with 24 of these providedby volunteers (Clement, 1993). Additionally, only a few studies havereported program effectiveness. In an early study (Daehlin & Hynes, 1974),mothers met weekly to discuss child development, relationships, and com-munication and gave positive feedback to the series of classes. A parent-ing group for fathers (Hairston & Lockett, 1985) was viewed as helpfulby participants and community members. However, neither study sys-tematically measured outcomes. Browne’s (1989) 24-week program formothers addressed child development, needs, personality, self-esteem, and

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


parent behaviors. The participants significantly improved in self-esteembut not parenting attitudes, as indicated by Adult–Adolescent ParentingInventory (AAPI) scores, possibly because only 3 of 48 classes dealt withdiscipline and child development.

Family relationships are clearly disrupted by incarceration (Johnston,1995). Health professionals can help bridge the gap by supporting parenteducation for prisoners to strengthen family relationships and reduce re-cidivism and relapse. Increasing mothers’ parenting competency coulddramatically alter the lives of their children who otherwise may becomeoffenders themselves (Wilson, 1983; VanDeusen, Yarbrough, & Cornelson,1985). However, more outcomes research is needed. The study’s purposewas to determine outcomes of a Parenting from Prison (PFP) program forwomen, provided by The Parent Center, Centers for Youth and Families,in the Arkansas Department of Corrections. Outcomes measured wereself-esteem, parental attitudes, and mother–child relationships during in-carceration.

Research questions of the study for incarcerated mothers who com-pleted PFP were What is the effect on:

1. Self-esteem, as measured by the Index of Self-Esteem (ISE)?2. Parenting attitudes, as measured by the Adult Adolescent Parenting

Inventory (AAPI)?3. Perceived maternal–child interaction through letters and visits?4. Outcomes for mothers with a history of being abused?5. Outcomes for mothers with a history of drug/alcohol abuse?

METHODS

Over three years, eight 15-week sessions of PFP were taught by trainedvolunteers. Based on the Nurturing Parent curriculum (Bavolek & Comstock,1985), topics included child development, communication, guidance, andself-esteem. All participants were volunteers who requested to partici-pate. The mental health worker selected mothers based on their expectedparole date and their potential to return to their children. We assuredmothers that individual data would be confidential, they could withdrawwithout any penalty, and only aggregate data would be reported in theliterature and in any report to prison officials. Mothers were allowedto place either their real or fictitious name on the research forms. Weobtained permission for the study from prison officials, approval fromboth the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Human ResearchAdvisory Committee and the University of Arkansas at Little RockHuman Subjects Review Committee, and informed consent from eachparticipant.

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Procedure

Subjects completed the ISE (Hudson, 1982), the AAPI (Bavolek, 1984),and a personal history questionnaire prior to participating in the PFP. Atthe end of the PFP, they completed the ISE, AAPI, and a follow-upquestionnaire.

The ISE is a 25-item scale designed to measure problems with self-esteem.Persons respond to a 5-point Likert scale corresponding to the frequencywith which they see themselves as like each statement. Responses range

Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI)

The AAPI is a 32-item tool designed to classify parents as having a low,medium, or high potential for child abuse according to four parentingconstructs:

1. Expectations, a six-item subscale that assesses the extent to whicha parent makes age-appropriate demands on a child (r = .70/adoles-cents, .75/adults).

2. Empathy for Children’s Needs, an eight-item subscale that mea-sures how parents recognize and empathize with their children’sneeds (r = .75/adolescents, .82/adults).

3. Belief in Physical Punishment, a 10-item subscale that indicatesattitudes toward hitting, spanking, and slapping children (r = .82/adolescents, .86/adults).

4. Parent–Child Roles, an eight-item subscale that ascertains how muchparents seek needs fulfillment from their children (r = .81/adoles-cents, .85/adults).

Parents respond to a 5-point Likert scale corresponding to their degreeof agreement with each statement. Responses range from 1 = “stronglyagree” to 5 = “strongly disagree.” Scores for each construct are reportedseparately on a standardized scale of 1 to 10. Low construct scores of1 through 4 identify parents at high risk for abusing children, scores of5 or 6 are considered average, and high scores from 7 through 10 indicatenurturing parental attitudes, thus low risk for child abuse. The AAPI hasdemonstrated test-retest reliability for constructs (r = .39 to .89) and total(r = .76; Bavolek, 1989).

Instruments

Index of Self-Esteem (ISE)

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


from 1 = “rarely or none of the time” to 5 = “most or all of the time.” Scorespotentially range from 0 to 100. Lower ISE scores represent higher self-esteem, and a score of 30 or above indicates clinically low self-esteem. TheISE has a mean alpha of .93. a SEM of 3.70, and a two-hour test-retestcorrelation of .92 (Hudson, 1982). Validity was established with knowngroups and scales for depression, happiness, and identity.

Questionnaires

Based on personal interviews with 44 prisoners, researchers designed twosemistructured questionnaires. The pre-PFP form elicits demographic dataand the mother’s childhood and adult social history, such as the qualityof relationship with her children, custody arrangements, quality of childcare, relationship with her own parents, contact with family members,nature of her offense, history of being abused as a child or an adult, andher use of alcohol or other drugs. The post-PFP form elicits data aboutthe quality and frequency of participants’ interactions with their childrenthrough visits or letters during the 15-week study period and their evalu-ation of the program.

RESULTS

Because no significant difference was demonstrated between mean scoresof groups of women who completed the PFP in different sessions, studygroups were combined for analysis. Data are reported for the 104 womenwho completed the PFP and one or more of the pre- and postmeasures.

Demographics and Social History

Table 1 summarizes demographic data. The majority of women wereWhite or African American. Their ages ranged from 18 to 54 years, witha mean of 29, and only 27% were married. Most had completed 10 yearsof education. The women’s 134 children ranged in age from infancy to32 years. Prior to prison, most lived with their children (79%) and hadcustody (72.4%). Their 106 dependent children were living with maternalfamily members (75%), their fathers (16%), or in foster care (9%). Al-most all (93.7%) believed their children were receiving good or excellentcare in their absence.

As shown in Table 2 only slightly more than half the women reportedhaving good relationships with their parents and one third rarely feltloved during childhood. Many reported drug (56.8%) and/or alcohol(47.3%) abuse; the mean age when drug and/or alcohol use began was 16years of age. Many of the women had drug-related offenses (33%), andmost were committed for nonviolent property offenses (61%). An exten-

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


sive report of the mothers and substance abuse is published separately(Harm, Thompson, & Chambers, 1998).

Many of the women had been physically, emotionally, or sexuallyabused as children (44% to 51%) and even more as adults (47% to 70%).Chi square analysis of this subset (Table 3) reveals a strong significantrelationship between abuse in all categories, showing that more motherswho were abused as children were also abused as adults.

View of Self

The women viewed themselves positively as persons (75%) and as par-ents (85%). Table 4 reports the results of the ISE matched paired t-tests.Mean scores for the total group were above 30 (low self-esteem) prior tothe PFP, but improved significantly. Results of multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) tests using a variety of variables are also presentedin Table 4. Significant improvement in self-esteem occurred for motherswho had at least some visits with their children or frequent exchange ofletters. Even though their scores improved, mothers who reported no con-

Table 1. Demographics of program participants(n = 104)

Characteristics Statistic (%)

EthnicityWhite 46.1African American 43.1Hispanic 6.9American Indian 3.9

Age (years) mean = 29.4range = 18–54

Marital StatusNever married 39.8Married 27.2Divorced 16.5Separated 9.7Widowed 3.9Other 2.9

Level of EducationLess than high school 43.2High school/GED 35.3Beyond high school 21.5

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


tact with their children indicated a lower self-esteem than the others, andthose with no visits remained clinically low (score >30). Women whoreported frequent alcohol/drug use showed a significant improvement inISE scores. Mean scores for all races fell below 30, with significantimprovement for white mothers. Self-esteem was clearly poorer amongwomen who had been abused, whereas those with a negative historyscored well below 30. In all types of abuse, significant differences werefound between groups and means remained at or close to 30.

Parental Attitudes

Tables 5–8 show results of paired–tests for each AAPI construct, statedas mean standardized scores (range 1 to 10; Bavolek, 1984). Higher scores

Table 2. Mothers’ social history

Characteristics Percent

Relationship with ParentsGood 64.7Fair 11.8Poor 15.3Deceased 7.1No contact 1.2

Felt Loved as a ChildAll the time 37.0Most of the time 29.6Not very often 25.9Never 7.4

Frequent Substance AbuseAlcohol 47.3Drugs 56.8

Abused as a ChildPhysically 44.2Sexually 44.4Emotionally 51.0

Abused as an AdultPhysically 70.3Sexually 46.8Emotionally 68.0

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


indicate more nurturing attitudes, as described earlier. Significant MANOVAresults are also in each table.

Expectations of Children

Significant improvement was demonstrated for the total group, Black andWhite mothers, and those reporting no sexual abuse, only rare alcoholuse, and frequent drug use in regard to making appropriate demands on achild (Table 5). No significant differences were shown related to physicalabuse, emotional abuse, or frequency of visits with their children.

Empathy for Children’s Needs

Scores for the total group demonstrated little change in how they recog-nized and empathized with children’s needs (Table 6). White mothershad significantly higher scores. Scores increased significantly for moth-ers whose children visited them at least monthly, but declined for thosewho were visited less often. No significant differences were found relatedto abuse.

Belief in Corporal Punishment

Scores increased significantly for the total group, indicating a decrease inapproval of hitting, spanking, and slapping children (Table 7) and morenurturing attitudes. Prescores were significantly higher for those with a

Table 3. Relationship between childhood and adult abuse,as indicated by chi square analysis

Abused as a child

Abused as an adult Yes No Statistics

PhysicallyYes 41 30 MEF = 13.37No 4 26 c 2 = .000*

SexuallyYes 27 15 MEF = 19.63No 16 34 c 2 = .001*

EmotionallyYes 49 19 MEF = 15.04No 5 28 c 2 = .000*

*Significant at <.01; MEF = minimum expected frequency.

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Table 4. Change in mothers’ index of self-esteem (ISE) scores

Pretest Posttestmean mean Statistic p

Total Group 30.95 26.06 t = 3.46 .001** MANOVA

Frequency of VisitsFrequent 28.81 25.00 Within: f = 4.48 .037*Infrequent 31.65 25.44 f = 5.28 .024*No contact 35.27 32.13 f = 0.87 .299

Frequency of LettersFrequent 30.60 25.08 Within: f = 7.39 .008**Infrequent 22.20 17.80 f = 0.44 .509No contact 34.14 27.86 f = 2.52 .117

Frequency of AlcoholRare or never 27.89 24.04 Within: f = 3.17 .079Frequent 34.25 26.31 f = 12.07 .001**

Frequency of DrugsRare or never 31.79 29.09 Within: f = 1.46 .230Frequent 29.05 22.46 f = 11.23 .001**

RaceWhite 30.68 24.68 Within: f = 7.67 .007**Black 31.75 28.20 f = 2.62 .109Other 28.91 24.73 f = 1.00 .320

History of AbusePhysical

Yes 38.24 31.32 Within: f = 10.51 .002**No 25.32 22.00 f = 3.12 .081

Between: f = 15.96 .000**f = 8.10 .005**

SexualYes 36.07 30.93 Within: f = 5.44 .022*No 27.98 23.08 f = 5.77 .018**

Between: f = 5.67 .019*f = 8.10 .022*

Emotional

Yes 35.56 29.90 Within: f = 7.97 .066No 25.74 21.64 f = 3.64 .060

Between: f = 8.30 .005**f = 6.39 .013*

*Significant at <.05; **significant at <.01; f = F-ratio to test for significant differences inmeans within and between groups based on an additional variable.

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


history of physical and sexual abuse; however, those without this historyshowed significant improvement by posttest. Black mothers scored sig-nificantly lower, and mothers whose children visited frequently had thegreatest increase in scores. Mothers with less than high school had lowerprescores but improved significantly.

Parent–Child Roles

Scores increased significantly for the total group, indicating that mothersbecame less likely to seek fulfillment of their needs from their chil-dren (Table 8). Mothers recalling physical and emotional abuse andthose with at least a high school education scored significantly higher.Those reporting visitation, frequent use of alcohol or drugs, and emo-tional or no childhood abuse all had significant gains. Scores for Black

Table 5. Changes in AAPI scores: inappropriate expectations of children


Total GroupExpectations 5.38 6.30 t = –4.33 .000**

MANOVAFrequency of Alcohol

Rare or never 4.91 6.15 Within: f = 16.77 .000**Frequent 5.90 6.51 f = 3.51 .065

Between: f = 3.97 .050*f = .67 .415

Frequency of DrugsRare or never 4.81 5.58 Within: f = 4.65 .034*Frequent 5.70 6.72 f = 10.47 .002**

Between: f = 3.09 .083f = 6.79 .011*

RaceWhite 6.05 6.84 Within: f = 6.09 .015*Black 4.63 5.59 f = 8.41 .005**Other 5.91 6.82 f = 2.06 .155

Between: f = 4.28 .017*f = 4.45 .014*

History of AbuseSexual

Yes 5.65 6.25 Within: f = 3.24 .075No 5.08 6.27 f = 16.65 .000**


Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


mothers improved but remained significantly lower than for the other twogroups.

Three of the AAPI total group mean construct scores improved signifi-cantly, but remained only in the “average” range on a scale of 1 to 10.Only on the corporal punishment construct did the group move into the“high” range that indicates valuing alternatives to corporal punishment.However, when scores are examined categorically by risk for child abuse,an interesting pattern emerges. Table 9 illustrates how, with the excep-tion of empathy, the percentage in each category clearly shifted towardlower risk.

Mother–Child Interactions

Each mother’s perception of her relationship with her children and her-self as a parent, the types of discipline she used and plans to use, andfrequency and quality of visits and letters with their children was elicitedthrough the semistructured questionnaires.

Mother–Child Relationship

Mothers reported good to excellent relationships with their children be-fore PFP (90%) and after (92%) and reported being good to excellent

Table 6. Change in AAPI scores: lack of empathy


Total GroupEmpathy 5.16 5.24 t = –.35 .726

MANOVAFrequency of Visits

Frequent 4.36 5.40 Within: f = 7.22 .009**Infrequent 5.23 4.98 f = 3.59 .359No contact 6.14 5.93 f = .17 .680

RaceWhite 6.09 6.12 Within: f = .07 .940Black 4.24 4.42 f = .29 .593Other 5.27 5.36 f = .02 .883

Between: f = 5.91 .004*f = 4.74 .011


Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


parents at the end of the program (85%). Most indicated a desire forparenting help in the future (96%). Some said:

· I thought I was bad because . . . the way I was doing was wrong. Itwasn’t that I was wrong. It’s just that I hadn’t been taught how.

· I did see myself as a bad parent. I know I can be a better parent—to take responsibility and everything.

Table 7. Change in AAPI scores: belief in corporal punishment


Total GroupCorporal Punishment 6.37 7.33 t = –3.63 .000**

MANOVAFrequency of Visits

Frequent 5.68 7.12 Within: f = 7.43 .008**Infrequent 6.45 7.38 f = 6.49 .013*No contact 7.5 7.57 f = .01 .920

RaceWhite 7.07 8.09 Within: f = 7.24 .008**Black 5.34 6.32 f = 6.27 .014*Other 7.18 8.82 f = 4.73 .032*

Between: f = 7.01 .001**f = 8.16 .001**

History of AbusePhysical

Yes 7.07 7.66 Within: f = 2.09 .152No 5.86 7.09 f = 12.62 .001**

Between: f = 6.47 .013*f = 1.16 .285

SexualYes 7.25 7.53 Within: f = .44 .507No 5.83 7.25 f = 15.42 .000**

Between: f = 8.98 .004**f = .25 .617

EducationHigh school or more 7.50 7.89 Within: f = .39 .534Less than high school 6.08 7.20 f = 13.46 .000**

Between: f = 5.28 .024*f = 1.04 .311


Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Table 8. Change in AAPI scores, pretest to posttest: parent–child roles


Total Group 5.05 5.74 t = –2.95 .004**MANOVA

Frequency of VisitsFrequent 4.90 5.54 Within: f = 3.98 .049*Infrequent 5.12 6.16 f = 5.14 .026*No contact 5.14 6.00 f = 1.96 .165

Frequency of AlcoholRare or never 4.78 5.39 Within: f = 3.53 .064Frequent 5.21 6.05 f = 5.58 .021*

Frequency of DrugsRare or never 4.20 4.43 Within: f = .39 .533Frequent 5.32 6.43 f = 12.35 .001**

RaceWhite 5.88 6.44 Within: f = 2.48 .119Black 4.18 4.93 f = 4.17 .044Other 5.00 6.09 f = 2.43 .123

Between: f = 5.69 .005**f = 4.33 .016*

Physical AbuseYes 5.83 6.32 Within: f = 1.86 .176No 4.47 5.31 f = 7.32 .008**

Between: f = 8.07 .006**f = 4.13 .045*

Sexual AbuseYes 5.38 5.83 Within: f = 1.48 .227No 4.77 5.61 f = 6.63 .012*

Emotional Abuse/AdultYes 5.54 6.25 Within: f = 4.51 .036*No 4.43 5.16 f = 4.36 .040*

Between: f = 5.21 .025*f = 4.97 .028*

EducationHigh school or more 6.61 6.39 Between: f = 7.91 .006**Less than high school 4.43 4.96 f = 1.04 .038*


Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


· It brought back my self-esteem. I feel better about myself. I feelI can reach out to him and tell him how I feel. I can handle itnow.

Discipline

Table 10 depicts an interesting generational pattern. Mothers revealed ahigh use of corporal punishment by their parents, less severe methodswith their children, and a shift toward nurturing methods they will use inthe future. Their remarks support these data:

Table 9. Mothers by category of risk for child abuse, according to AAPIsubscale sten scores (high = 1–4, medium = 5–6, low = 7–10)

Risk for child abuse Pre-PFP (n = 102) Post-PFP (n = 99)

ExpectationsHigh 28 (27.5%) 17 (16.3%)Average 32 (31.4%) 30 (30.3%)Low 42 (41.1%) 52 (52.6%)

EmpathyHigh 41 (40.2%) 39 (39.4%)Average 25 (24.5%) 26 (26.2%)Low 36 (35.3%) 34 (34.4%)

Corporal PunishmentHigh 29 (28.5%) 16 (16.1%)Average 21 (20.6%) 18 (18.2%)Low 52 (50.9%) 65 (65.7%)

Parent–Child RolesHigh 40 (39.2%) 29 (29.5%)Average 30 (29.4%) 33 (33.7%)Low 32 (31.4%) 36 (36.7%)

Table 10. Mothers and discipline: how they were disciplined, how theydisciplined their children, and methods they plan to use

Methods of How disciplined How disciplined Plan to disciplinediscipline as a child (%) their children (%) their children (%)

Spanking 69 53 6Beating 31 4 0Loss of Privileges 43 53 66Restrictions 49 40 55Time Out 13 46 81

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


· I’ve always been too hard in discipline. I hope things will be differ-ent.

· I don’t know if I believe that you can raise your children withoutspanking them, but I’ll give it a try.

· Everything a child does, they don’t need to be spanked.· Where I used to grab a belt, now I can put them in time out.

Visits and Letters

All mothers whose children visited reported increased frequency and qualityof interactions and letters (Table 11).

· I notice . . . more . . . listen to them individually . . . hear what theysay.

· I now try to make visits more enjoyable. I play games, I talk to mychild. I no longer expect him to act as an adult . . . allow him to bea child.

· I praise him and let him know that I love him.· I use more praise, and I try to write so that they can understand it.· I used to not write directly to her. Now I draw pictures and write

letters three times a week.

Table 11. Visitation and letters: frequency and mothers’ view of qualityof mother–child Interactions

Pre-test (n = 99) % Post-test (n = 87) %

Frequency of VisitationWeekly 14 152–3 times a month 24 32Monthly 18 15Less often 28 19No contact 16 18

Improved Quality of InteractionNoted during visits 97

Frequency of Letter-WritingDaily 5 10Weekly 50 601–3 times a month 19 15Less often 18 13No contact 8 2

Improved Quality of InteractionNoted through letter-writing 96

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Mothers’ View of the Program

When asked which components changed how they interacted with theirchildren, most mentioned the class on discipline, videos and role play,and the teachers (Table 12). Their comments reveal an emotional re-sponse to the caring, respected women:

· Good people—going out of their way to be here with us.· Volunteers—their love, concern, and support.· Teachers—patient . . . understood, didn’t tell others what you said.· The teachers—they brought me out of my shell, and now I will talk.

DISCUSSION

Data indicate the PFP program had a positive effect. Overall self-esteemsignificantly improved, particularly when the factors of frequency ofvisits with and letters to their children were taken into account. Mothershad significant positive change in appropriate expectations for behavior,corporal punishment, and parent–child roles. Empathy scores increasedslightly, but changed significantly only for mothers who received fre-quent visits from their children. Those with a high school education andabove had significantly higher scores on attitudes about corporal punish-ment and parent–child roles. Black mothers had significantly lower scoresfor all four attitudes, but they improved significantly in expectations,corporal punishment, and roles. Mothers espoused more nurturing meth-ods of discipline and reported that the frequency and quality of inter-actions in visits and letters improved.

A high proportion of the mothers had been abused as children. Theself-esteem of these mothers improved but remained clinically low. They

Table 12. Components of the parenting from prison programidentified as most helpful

Component of Mothers’ listingparenting program component (%)

Quality of Teachers 86Class on Discipline 79Overall Program 69Video Vignettes and Discussion 65Warm Attitude of Teachers 63Role Play of Situations 51

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


had higher initial scores than the others on all the parenting attitudes andimproved, though not significantly.

Many mothers had been involved with alcohol/drugs. Those report-ing frequent use did demonstrate significant improvement in self-esteem.Mothers stating frequent alcohol use had significant improvement in rolesand improved in the other parenting attitudes. Those reporting frequentdrug use showed significant improvement in expectations of children andimproved in the other parenting attitudes.

Our findings are consistent with literature on self-esteem (Browne,1989; Hairston, 1988, 1991a), parenting attitudes (Browne, 1989), singlemothers (Burman & Allen-Meares, 1991), alcohol/ drug use and recovery(Greenfeld & Minor–Harper, 1991), child abuse (Hungerford, 1993), andparent education (Daehlin & Hynes, 1974; Hairston & Lockett, 1985).Additionally, this study contributes new information about the positiveinfluence of child visitation on self-esteem, empathy, and parent-childroles and the positive change that can occur in spite of a history ofsubstance or child abuse. One possible explanation for the minimal changeon empathy is that it is learned through nurturing experiences over time,whereas expectations, corporal punishment, and parent roles are morelikely to be influenced by information. In addition, some mothers hadlittle or no contact with their children, so they could not practice newskills.

As with any field research, we could not control intervening variables,and the nonrandom sample limits generalization. Attrition was a prob-lem—little more than half completed the program owing to early release,work–release, or change in assignment. Mothers who dropped out werenot statistically different at pretest from the others. Therefore, while it isreasonable to expect that mothers benefited from the portion of the PFPthey attended, we could not access them to measure outcomes. For thewomen who completed the program, the PFP did affect how they relatedto their children, which could ease eventual reunification.

Better parenting skills and self-esteem could help them stay out ofprison and continue recovery. In the future, we must learn whether they canmaintain positive changes once they are back in society as single, economi-cally disadvantaged mothers with the social stigma of being ex-offendersand, possibly, recovering addicts. Follow-up studies should determinelong-term outcomes, taking into consideration community support, familyservices, employment, education, and family networks.

To that end, as part of a larger reintegration study (Harm & Thomp-son, 1999), 19 mothers who had attended the PFP program were inter-viewed after release. They ranged in age from 26 to 58 years. Twelve(63%) were Black, and seven (37%) were White. The interviews oc-curred between 3 months and 4 years postrelease, most often within the

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


first 6 months. Time served ranged from 15 months to 10 years; mostserved less than 5 years. These mothers described at least some level ofinitial anxiety and difficulty with family reunification and identified fam-ily, friends, and church as most helpful to their readjustment. All 19(100%) said they found the parenting content helpful during homecom-ing and subsequent months. They had reestablished good (14) or excel-lent (5) relationships with their children and affirmed the value of thePFP content to their parenting—understanding, guiding, communicating,using alternatives to corporal punishment, and building self-esteem. Theyvoiced a desire for further education or training and an intent to stayaway from drugs and out of prison. Subsequent longitudinal comparativestudies will yield even stronger data about the role parent education forprisoners plays in establishing nurturing parenting postrelease and reduc-ing rates of recidivism, relapse, and their children’s delinquency.

Health professionals who care for these mothers or their children canfacilitate parent–child relationships through accepting, listening, teach-ing, and encouraging them to take part in parent education, visits, andletter writing. Because we know the impact maternal separation has onchildren, and ultimately on society, we can advocate for family-strength-ening criminal justice policies and for incarcerating mothers who arenonviolent offenders in prisons closer to their children. Visitation areasshould offer play space, toys, books, and counselors to guide mothers.

In summary, these findings lend support and validation for parentingprograms in correctional institutions. They provide a threefold basis forfurther research: to examine long-term effects of parent programs forincarcerated women, follow-up once mothers leave prison and are re-united with their children, and establish humane public policy.

REFERENCES

American Correctional Association. (1990). The female offender: What does the futurehold? Washington, DC: St. Mary’s Press.

Baunach, P. (1979). Mothers in prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Bavolek, S. T. (1984). Adult-adolescent parenting inventory. Eau Claire, WI: Family

Development Resources.Bavolek, S. T., & Comstock, C. (1985). Nurturing program for parents and children,

Eau Claire, WI: Family Development Resources.Bavolek, S. J. (1989). Reliability and validity studies: The Adult–adolescent parenting

inventory (AAPI). Park City, UT: Family Development Resources.Beckerman, A. (1989). Incarcerated mothers and their children in foster care. Children

and Youth Services Review, 11, 175–183.Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the children? A reappraisal of the

children of incarcerated mothers in America. San Francisco: National Council onCrime and Delinquency.

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Browne, D. C. H. (1989). Incarcerated mothers and parenting. Journal of Family Vio-lence, 4, 211–221.

Burman, S., & Allen-Meares, P. (1991). Criteria for selecting practice theories: Workingwith alcoholic women. Families in Society, 72, 387–393.

Chapman, J. (1980). Summary report: Criminal justice programs for women offenders.(Grant No. 77-NI-99-0079). Center for Women’s Policy Studies, Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Clement, M. J. (1993). Parenting in prison: A national survey of programs for incarcer-ated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 89–100.

Daehlin, D., & Hynes, J. (1974). A mothers’ discussion group in a women’s prison.Child Welfare, 53, 464–470.

Department of Justice. (1995). Prisoners in 1994 (NCT-151654). Washington, DC: Bu-reau of Justice Statistics.

Deren, S. (1986). Children of substance abusers: A review of the literature, Journal ofSubstance Abuse Treatment, 3, 77–94.

Dressel, P. L., & Barnhill, S. K. (1994). Reframing gerontological thought and prac-tice: The case of grandmothers with daughters in prison. The Gerontolonist, 34, 685–691.

Fendrich, M. (1991). Institutionalization and parole behavior: Assessing the influence ofindividual and family characteristics. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 109–122.

Finkelstein, N., & Piedade, E. (1993). The relational model and the treatment of ad-dicted women. The Counselor, May/June, 8–12.

Finnegan, L. P. (1988). Women in treatment. In R. L. Dupont, A. Goldstein, &J. O’Donnell (Eds.), Handbook on drug abuse (pp. 121–131). Washington, DC:National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Fogel, C. I. (1993). Hard time: The stressful nature of incarceration for women. Issues inMental Health Nursing, 14, 367–377.

Fogel, C. I., & Martin, S. L. (1992). The mental health of incarcerated women. WesternJournal of Nursing Research, 14, 30–47.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Gilliard, D. K. (1999). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1998. Bureau of Justice

Statistics, NCT 173414.Greenfeld, L. A., & Minor-Harper, S. (1991). Women in prison. Washington, DC: Bu-

reau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Hairston, C. F. (1988). Family ties during imprisonment: Do they influence future crimi-

nal activity? Federal Probation, 52, 4&52.Hairston, F. (1991a). Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for

what? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 18, 87–104.Hairston, C. F. (1991b). Mothers in jail: Parent–child separation and jail visitation.

Affilia, 6, 9–27.Hairston, C. F., & Lockett, P. (1985). Parents in prison: A child abuse and neglect

strategy. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 471–477.Hale, D. C. (1988). The impact of mothers’ incarceration on the family system: Research

and recommendations. Marriage and Family Review, 12, 143–154.Harm, N. J., Thompson, P. T., & Chambers, H. (1998). The effectiveness of parent

education for substance abusing women offenders. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly,16(3), 63–77.

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.


Harm, N. J., & Thompson, P. J. (1999). Report to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation.Centers for Youth and Families. Little Rock, AR: Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation.

Hudson, W. W. (1982). The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Chicago:Dorsey Press.

Hungerford, G. P. (1993). The children of inmate mothers in Ohio: Executive summary.Unpublished manuscript.

Johnston, D. (1995). Parent–child visitation in the jail or prison. In K. Gabel &D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 135–143). New York:Lexington.

Jorgensen, J. D., Hernandez, S. H., & Warren, R.C. (1986). Addressing the social needsof families of prisoners: A tool for inmate rehabilitation. Federal Probation, 50, 47–52.

Kinney, J. (1991). Clinical manual of substance abuse. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book.Kizer, G. C. (1991). Female inmates and their families. Federal Probation, 55, 56–63.Kumpfer, K. (1993). Strengthening America’s families: Promising parenting strategies

for delinquency prevention: User’s guide. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

LeFlore, L., & Holsten, M. A. (1989). Perceived importance of parenting behaviors asreported by inmate mothers: An exploratory study. Journal of Offender Rehabilita-tion, 14(1), 5–21.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictorsof juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris, (Eds.),Crime and justice: An annual review of research, vol. 17 (pp. 29–149). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Miller, J. B. (1991). The development of women’s sense of self. In J. V. Jordan, A.G.Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Women’s growth in connec-tion (pp. 11–26). New York: The Guilford Press.

Morgan, K. D. (1993). Factors influencing probation outcome: A review of the litera-ture. Federal Probation, 57, 23–29.

National Institute of Justice (1993). Drug use forecasting quarterly, fourth quarter,1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Nelson-Zlupko, L., Kauffman, E., & Dore, M. M. (1995). Gender differences in drugaddiction and treatment: Implications for social work intervention with substance-abusing women. Social Work, 40, 45–54.

Pollack, J. M. (1998). Counseling women in prison. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Surrey, J. L. (1991). The “self-in-relation”: A theory of women’s development. In J. V.

Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & T. L. Surrey (Eds.), Women’sgrowth in connection (pp. 51–66). New York: The Guilford Press.

Thompson, P. J., & Harm, N. J. (1995). Mothers in prison. Pediatric Nursing, 21(6),552–555.

VanDeusen, J., Yarbrough, J., & Cornelsen, D. (1985). Short-term system-therapy withadult probation clients and their families. Federal Probation, 49, 21–26.

Wellisch, J., Anglin, M. D., & Prendergast, M. L. (1993). Numbers and characteristicsof drug-using women in the criminal justice system: Implications for treatment. TheJournal of Drug Issues, 23, 7–30.

Wellisch, J., Prendergast, M., & Anglin, M. D. (1994). Drug-abusing women offenders:Results of a national survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Wilson, J. Q. (1983). Raising kids. Atlantic, 252, 45–51.

Issu

es C

ompr

Ped

iatr

Nur

s D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsity

of

Con

nect

icut

on

10/2

8/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

parenting from prison: helping children and mothers

Documents