Familial support impacts incarcerated women ' s housing stability

Abstract

Purpose – This participatory health research project of researchers and women prisoners examined housing and homelessness as perceived by incarcerated women to understand this public health concern and help guide policy. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – A participatory research team designed and conducted a survey of 83 incarcerated women in BC, Canada. Using descriptive statistics, the authors examined socio-demographic factors related to social support networks and family housing and women’s housing preference upon release. Findings – In total, 44 percent of participants reported no family home upon release while 31 percent reported lost family ties due to their incarceration. Most vulnerable subpopulations were women aged 25-34, aboriginal women and those with multiple incarcerations. Housing preferences differed between participants suggesting needs for varied options. Further implementation, evaluation and appraisal of social programs are required. Research limitations/implications – This study surveyed one correctional facility: future research could utilize multiple centers. Practical implications – Addressing housing instability among released incarcerated individuals is important fiscally and from a public health lens. Improved discharge planning and housing stability is needed through policy changes and social programs. A social support network, “Women in2 Healing,” has developed from the research group to address these issues. Social implications – Housing stability and recidivism are closely linked: providing stable housing options will lessen the social, fiscal and medical burden of individuals returning to crime, substance abuse, illness and poverty. Originality/value – Housing instability addresses an important social determinant of health and focussing on incarcerated women builds upon a small body of literature.

Incarcerated Aboriginal women’s experiences of accessing healthcare and the limitations of the ‘equal treatment’ principle

“…The narratives of Aboriginal women in prison in NSW centre on the trauma of removal of their children, lack of access to secure housing on release allowing them to regain access to their children, and cycles of substance use for coping with unaddressed trauma leading to their imprisonment [24,28,29]. These findings correspond with international research on the experiences of Aboriginal women in prison [30,31].…”

Holistic Conceptualizations of Health by Incarcerated Aboriginal Women in New South Wales, Australia

“…These issues are occurring in a context of ongoing colonization, racism, and systemic disadvantage including over surveillance from housing, family and community services, and police (Anthony, 2013; Baldry & Cunneen, 2014; Bartels, 2012; Blagg, 2008; MacGillivray & Baldry, 2015). Comparable patterns of over-representation, systemic disadvantage, and high incarceration rates of Indigenous women are also occurring in other colonized nations, such as Canada, and have similarly been attributed to the continuing impact of colonization, historical and intergenerational trauma (IGT), discrimination within the criminal justice system, and health and social inequity (Balfour, 2012; Harris et al, 2015; Martin, Buxton, Smith, & Hislop, 2012; Sapers, 2015).…”

The Role of Personal Resilience and Interpersonal Support in Building Fulfilling and Prosocial Lives: Examining the Good Lives Model among Young Women Four Years after Youth Detention

“…Specifically, we aimed to examine whether higher levels of interpersonal support were associated with higher levels of QoL and lower levels of offending after discharge (Hypothesis 2). This hypothesis was based on prior female pathways literature indicating that relational issues (more specifically, supportive relationships with prosocial individuals) appear to be particularly important in women’s pathways out of criminal involvement and their successful community reintegration (Giordano et al, 2002; Harris et al, 2015; Leverentz, 2006; Rodermond et al, 2016; Rumgay, 2004; Schwartz & Steffensmeier, 2017; Uggen & Kruttschnitt, 1998; Viljoen et al, 2011). Again, this converges with prior work with adolescents transitioning from closed facilities back into the community, which has emphasized the importance of establishing at least “one good relationship” (Hauser et al, 2008, p. 279) with a supportive, prosocial adult, who takes the role of both a friend and a guide in the desistance process (Born et al, 1997; Todis et al, 2001).…”