Washington State’s Residential Parenting Program

Abstract

Increases in the number of women incarcerated have created a corresponding need for health services for pregnant inmates. There have been relatively few comprehensive prison-based programs that address the prenatal health care needs of these expectant prisoners, as well as providing a safe and nurturing long-term environment for their infants. This paper outlines the key health care issues for female prison inmates and focuses on pregnant women and their unique health, educational, social, and vocational needs. An in-depth process analysis of a promising integrated program, Washington State’s Residential Parenting Program follows. Since most inmates return to their communities, prison programs for mothers that aim to reduce recidivism, enhance long-term public safety by providing a bridge between the institution and community, enhance the relationship between mother and child, and improve the prospects for the family should be a priority.

Services for Children of Incarcerated Parents

“…In the service sites of the Community Prisoner Mother [CPMP] and Family Foundations [FFP] programs of the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation [CDCR], young children residing with their incarcerated mothers in correctional treatment settings either receive home-based Early Head Start services or attend a Head Start preschool center; these services have been offered since the mid-1990's. In the Residential Parenting Program [RPP] of the Washington Correctional Center for Women, infants and young children up to the age of 3 who reside in the prison nursery attend an all-day Early Head Start program in a daycare facility inside the prison; this program was opened in 1999 (Fearn & Parker, 2004).…”

Programs for currently and formerly incarcerated mothers.

“…To our knowledge, such programs are not available for women in jails, except for New york's Rikers Island (see goshin & Byrne, 2009, for a review of prison nursery programs). As discussed in the following section, evaluation reports for prison nursery programs in New york 's Bedford Hills (established in 1901;Byrne, goshin, & Joestl, 2010), Washington (established in 1999Fearn & Parker, 2004), and Nebraska (established in 1994; J. R. Carlson, 2001) show some promising outcomes with regard to promoting attachment security and decreasing recidivism (see goshin & Byrne, 2009, for a review).…”

“…Additional elements that could impact the implementation and evaluation of a program include the length of the program (e.g., eight vs. 16 sessions), frequency with which it meets (e.g., weekly, bimonthly), and duration of the sessions/meetings (e.g., 1 hour, 2 hours). In our review of the studies presented in Table 4.1, we note considerable variability, with the most intensive variability involving programming at the level of residential unit (e.g., separate housing units provided for participants in prison nursery programs; Fearn & Parker, 2004). Most of the programs we reviewed, however, have a curriculum that is implemented during regular weekly meetings.…”