Read "I thought babies weren't prisoners text version

BRIEFING PAPER

PRISON MOTHER AND BABY UNITS

"I thought babies weren't prisoners. Why are they being deprived?"

Introduction "I thought babies weren't prisoners. Why are they being deprived?" These were the words of a mother recently imprisoned with her baby daughter to the Howard League. Home Office research has shown that almost half of all women in prison are mothers (Home Office 1993). In 1989, the last published census of women prisoners 1 , 14% of women prisoners were mothers to children aged 2 years or under. Current prison statistics show record numbers of women being sent to prison. In October 1995 there were 2,049 women imprisoned in England and Wales. This means, following recent trends, that 143 babies and toddlers may have been eligible to stay in one of the four prison mother and baby units. The Howard League has challenged the need to send mothers to prison (Howard League 1993) since the best interests of the child should be paramount (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Children Act 1989). In recent months, the Howard League has had a number of complaints from concerned prisoners, prison staff, and Boards of Visitors (BOVs) about the treatment in facilities on the Mother and Baby Units (MBUs), which have provided the impetus for this paper. What we did In order to understand the current situation with MBUs access was sought to all four units in England and Wales. Access was only granted to two of the units, Askham Grange and New Hall. At these prisons we spoke with prisoners and staff and they completed questionnaires.

A more recent survey was undertaken in December 1994. The results should be published before the end of 1995.

1

The Howard League for Penal Reform

To supplement these visits, information was gleaned from Prison Service Headquarters, prisons staff, and BOVs, as well as prisoners' groups and other voluntary groups working within prisons. The Prison Rules The Prison Rules (1964) established that the "Secretary of State may... permit a woman prisoner to have her baby with her in prison, and everything necessary for the baby's maintenance and care may be provided there" (Rule 9(3)). Number of mother and baby unit places At the time of the research, there were four MBUs providing places for a maximum of 68 mothers and babies. Three units were located within closed prisons: Holloway in London with 17 places (3 for use in exceptional circumstances); Styal in Cheshire with 22 places and New Hall near Wakefield with 9 places. Askham Grange near York, was the only mother and baby unit in open conditions providing places for 20 mothers and babies. The MBU at New Hall had only opened in May 1995. This was to increase the total capacity of MBUs to provide a remand facility for women with babies in the north of England. Children were allowed to stay with their mother until they reached 9 months at Holloway prison. At the other three MBUs children were allowed to stay with their mothers until they were 18 months old. Pregnant women in prison Pregnant women in prison were generally kept in the main part of the prison until shortly before they were expected to give birth. They were required to take part in normal regime activities. The only exception to this practice was Holloway, where, since 1990, pregnant women have had the option to be located on a special unit. Information from the Prison Service suggested that most women had opted to remain on normal location. Discussion with prisons indicated that pregnant women had regular access to antenatal classes and specialist health care professionals prior to the birth of their child. However, mothers who had been pregnant whilst in prison reported a variable frequency of visits by health care professionals such as midwives. The arrangement for ante-natal classes varied between establishments, some women received weekly classes in the prison while those at Askham Grange went to classes at the local hospital. At Askham Grange, pregnant women were allowed to choose another prisoner to be their birthing partner (however the chosen women had to be cleared by prison security's risk assessment). Birthing partners were unable to attend ante-natal classes with the pregnant women. Pregnant women were also able to choose another relative or friend from the community to act as their birthing partner, but their choice of partner was limited by the fact that the prison only allowed them to attend morning ante-natal classes.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Pregnant prisoners accepted onto the MBU normally received some sort of induction. This ranged from mothers being allowed to begin to prepare their room two weeks before the expected date of birth to an orientation day on the MBU to enable expectant mothers to meet with the staff and other mothers, as well as to become accustomed to the regime. Giving birth The Howard League was told that a pregnant woman who was judged to be having a normal pregnancy would be taken to the local hospital once she went into labour. Latest statistics show that 56 women gave birth whilst imprisoned during the financial year 1993/94. All of these births were reported to have taken place in outside hospitals (HM Prison Service 1995a). A Parliamentary answer (24 June 1994) revealed that there had been 3 births in prison since 1983. These births had occurred in Styal during 1987/88 and two more in Holloway during 1988/89. The stated reason for the birth-taking place inside prison was that the period between going into labour and giving birth was too short for the woman to be transferred to the local maternity hospital. Use of restraints on pregnant women In April 1995 there were changes to the Prison Service Security Manual, which altered practice on the use of mechanical restraints for women. This change introduced the routine handcuffing of women under escort to and from closed prisons (letter from Prison Service 23/8/95). Nonetheless, the use of restraints on pregnant women, prison to April 1995, was not unheard of. The case of Susan Edwards, who gave birth whilst handcuffed to a prison officer, is the most publicized example (The Independent 28/4/94). In the newspaper report, Susan Edwards was quoted saying: The officers kept me handcuffed throughout the journey in the presence of my [14 year old] son, which caused me much distress. When I went to the delivery room I was still cuffed and couldn't even grip the bed rails in pain while giving birth... I also had to [breast] feed my child while the cuffs were on. The Prison Service subsequently apologized and the Home Secretary pledged that this would not happen again. However, there is still a possibility that it may happen again, as one MBU stated that the use of physical restraints would be a decision that was made on the individual concerned. So far, we have not had to send a woman out, in labour, under any form of restraint (letter from MBU 21/8/95, emphasis added). The Howard League has received details of allegations regarding other pregnant women's experience of mechanical restraints. Although these prisoners did not actually give birth while mechanically restrained, the used of such restraint before and after giving birth certainly appeared to be very distressing. The names and some of the details of the following cases have been changed to protect the women's anonymity.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Case study 1 ­ "Dawn" Dawn is currently serving an eight-month sentence in Holloway. She was sentenced when she was seven months pregnant and expects her baby in December 1995. We were told that soon after arriving at Holloway Dawn was taken to a local hospital for an ante-natal examination throughout which she remained handcuffed to two officers. A short time later, Dawn was required to spend time in hospital with a medical complaint, which doctors felt might harm her unborn child. She spent three days in hospital throughout which the Howard League was told that she remained handcuffed and chained. Case 2 ­ "Ann" This case relates to a woman, Ann, who was imprisoned for 18 months following a DSS fraud. She already had two children. These children were taken into care until the release of their father from prison who was serving a shorter sentence for the same fraud. Ann had a history of problems with pregnancy. Nonetheless she was required to attend ante-natal classes in handcuffs, despite representations from her husband and GP about the stress it may place on her and the impact it may have on her pregnancy. Ann said that during one trip to hospital she suffered jibes from an escorting officer, which she ignored. A little later she went to the bathroom to shower. First of all she was chained to the railings in the bathroom. Ann said she felt like a dog chained to a post. She was subsequently attached to a female escorting officer by a closeting chain 2 . Ann told the Howard League that whilst she was washing the female officer continually opened the door to check on her even though the only way out of the bathroom was through the door. Every time the door opened the other escorting officer, who was male, could also see into the bathroom. Ann commented on this and the female officer is alleged to have come into the bathroom and grabbed Ann's hand. A fight was alleged to have followed which ended with Ann being fully restrained with an officer butting pressure on her back whilst she was laid on her stomach. Ann told us several hospital staff witnessed what happened. Ann also received an injury to her ear, which required medical treatment. Shortly after it was discovered that Ann had a hole in her womb and therefore needed to be hospitalized. Throughout this period, Ann was cuffed to officers' day and night, which she said, was extremely stressful and her blood pressure rose. At 27 weeks Ann went into labour. The baby was 2 months premature but there were complications and the baby had an infection. Ann visited her daughter daily until the baby had to be rushed to a specialist children's facility. Ann was escorted in cuffs to this hospital separately from her baby, as the escorting officers would not allow her to

A closeting chain is carried by all escorting officers to enable prisoners to use the toilet. It consists of a pair of handcuffs attached to a long chain, which will be attached to the escorting officer. The chain goes beneath the toilet door, whilst the cuffs remain on the woman.

2

The Howard League for Penal Reform

accompany her child. Ann arrived at the hospital at 3.30pm, but at 3.45pm she was told that she would have to return to prison as the officers were due to go off duty. When her baby arrived at the hospital, medical staff was unable to operate, as they were unable to obtain authorization from Ann who had been taken back to prison. Eventually Ann was contacted and two prison staff volunteered to return to the hospital with her. Ann's baby died. Following the alleged fight at the hospital, the officer filed a complaint against Ann. An adjudication followed and Ann lost her private cash for three weeks and had 21 days added to the length of her sentence. Ann had also complained via the prison request/complaint process. Ann wanted to attended her child's funeral which was to take place at 11 am. It is alleged that the van taking her to the funeral did not leave the prison until 11.15 am. It has been suggested to the Howard League that this delay was deliberate. The priest delayed the service until Ann arrived. Ann attended the funeral handcuffed. Because of the nature of Ann's offence, she was due to move to an open prison but since the incident with the prison officer, she has been regarded as a threat to prison officers and therefore unsuitable for open conditions. She is now in another closed women's prison. Ann's problems were further compounded by the fact that the first prison did not allow her counseling the come to terms with the death of her baby and her current prison, just two months after the death of her baby, stopped her counseling. Ann told us that the prison said she was strong enough to cope. A statement from the Midwifery Advisor at the Royal College of Nursing called the handcuffing of women before and after childbirth a barbaric practice. She continued: I cannot imagine what woman would get up and run off after childbirth. It is ludicrous. Childbirth is a stressful time, it can be painful and to have restraints used at this time makes the experience undignified. It is uncaring. There should be enough prison personnel available both before and after the birth to ensure the prisoner cannot abscond without resorting to handcuffs. Whatever anyone has done we have got to think about the baby as well. Applying for a place on a mother and baby unit Women sent to prison with a child under 18 months old were not automatically entitled to a place on MBU. These women might be granted temporary admission to the MBU or a mother might be separated from her child while her formal application was processed. We were told this decision was often dependent on whether there were any places available and not on the needs or merits of the individual case.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Mother's suitability for an MBU was considered by a prison oriented multi-disciplinary team. This team was composed of a prison governor grade; a prison officer; a prison medical officer; a probation officer and a social worker. Any health care professionals involved in the care of the mother or child might take part in the decision making process but only if requested by multidisciplinary team. At the time of the Howard League's visit, New Hall was the only prison that did not routinely allow mothers to take part in the this process. The Prison Service subsequently informed us that this had changed and women were included. However, even where mothers were allowed actively to take part in the application process, their participation appeared minimal and they were not allowed to participate in all the meetings. MBU's informed the Howard League that the multi-disciplinary teams were convened at the first opportunity to consider applications, that is, when the team members were available and all necessary reports were submitted. This took anything from days to weeks. The multi-disciplinary team based its decision to offer a MBU place on the following criteria to which mothers must agreed to abide before they were considered: · · · · · · · · · · The age of the child The expectation that the child will be cared for by the mother after her release from prison The mother's ability to care for the child is not seriously impaired by physical or mental disorder (this usually excludes forms of post-natal depression) There are no concerns held by social services or a court order governing custody of the baby The suitability of alternative care arrangements The mother has not shown herself to be disruptive during her time in custody and therefore not likely to disrupt the regime on the unit. The mother must express a willingness to be responsible for her child in line with the regime The mother consents to her baby being searched from time to time The mother is aware that the MBU is drug free, with random testing. A positive drug result could lead to removal from the MBU. Whether admission to the MBU is in the best interests of the child.

The regulations stipulated that the Governor of the MBU prison made the final decision to allow a baby to remain with his/her mother. Mothers had no say as to which MBU they were sent. If an application was rejected, the decision could only be challenged through the normal prison request/complaint procedure.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

The Department of Health inspection 3 in 1992 (the report of which was published in 1994) revealed that there was no systematic collection of mothers' applications refused by MBUs. Therefore it has been impossible to assess how many mothers and babies were forcibly separated from each other in any given year. Since then the Prison Service has begun to collect this data. As part of their forthcoming inspection of MBUs, the Department of Health asked prisons for the following information: Please supply information about numbers applying for places, and the numbers who were unsuccessful (in total and by grounds for rejection of applications.) Applications accepted and refused during the year June 1994 to June 1995 Prison Total Applications accepted

24 56 10 25

Total admitted

Accepted applications not admitted(1)

1 -

Total refusals

Askham Grange Holloway New Hall(2) Styal

1

23 52 10 40(3)

0 4 0 1

These women were either bailed, acquitted or had a successful appeal before the bay could be admitted 2 Information from New Hall relates to 15 May 1995, when the MBU opened, to 21 Aug 1995 3 The discrepancy between the number of applications accepted and the total included those with the Department of Health; the only explanation given had been accepted prior to the study period. Source: Department of Health 1995. Each MBU gave figures for their unit. The figures were prepared for the Department of Health inspection in November 1995.

Statistics from the Department of Health showed that during the study year there were 115 applications to MBUs accepted and 5 refusals. The data suggested that four of the five refusals were the result of adverse Social Services. Prison staff indicated that many women did not apply for a place on a MBU even if they had children younger than 18 months. It was suggested that this was particularly true of women in prison remand Mothers and babies in prison During research for this paper the Howard League was alerted to two recent admissions to MBUs

3

Three inspections of MBUs were commissioned by the Home Secretary in 1989. The inspection team for each of the inspections was drawn from the Social Services Inspectorate and the Nursing and Medical Divisions of the Department of Health. The third and final inspection is due to take place in November 1995. The inspection was introduced to provide an independent assessment and to help ensure that babies on the units enjoyed similar safeguards to those placed in daycare provision in the community.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Case 1 At New Hall, a four-week-old baby girl was temporarily admitted to the unit. Her mother had breached a supervision order after successfully completing two years. Even though the baby had already been admitted to the MBU her mother still had to apply for a permanent place so that she could keep her daughter with her. Case 2 At Askham Grange, there was a woman on the MBU who was sentenced to prison when she was seven months pregnant with twins. She had the babies, a boy and a girl, with less than three weeks of her prison sentence left to serve. However the practice of granting an early release of women in these circumstances had ceased 4 and the babies had to spend their first 18 days in prison

The population statistics for one MBU in September 1995 revealed that there were 17 mothers and 18 babies incarcerated. Population of a Mother and Baby Unit in September 1995

Mothers offence Length of Sentence 3 months Breach of population 15 months Conspiracy to defame 18 months Theft 21 months Theft 2 years Theft 2 years Wounding 2 years Robbery 2 years ABH 2 ½ years Supplying drugs 2 ½ years Burglary 3 years Conspiracy to supply drugs 3 years Importation of drugs 3 years 11 months Importation of drugs 4 years Conspiracy to supply drugs 4 years GBH 4 years GBH 8 years Robbery Source: MBU, September 1995 Current age of baby 3 months and 20 months 12 months 11 months 1 month 2 months 10 months 14 months 1 month 6 months 3 months 3 months 8 months 15 months 13 months 3 months 11 months 11 months

65% (11 mothers) were imprisoned for non-violent offences. One woman was serving a 3 month sentence for breach of probation. She was in the MBU with her two children aged 3 and 20 months. All women in the MBU were under sentence. The length of sentences imposed on the women ranged from three to eight years. The babies' ages ranged from one month to 20 months. Half the babies were 6 months or younger at the time of the survey.

Pregnant women at the end of their sentence used to be able to make an application to the prison area manager for early release under Standing Order 13 para 45 (April 1991). The rules changed with the clamp-down in temporary release (see footnote 6). Applications can now only be made on compassionate grounds for temporary release, which usually includes release for attendance at close family funerals or similar situations. The Prison service acknowledged that early release for this reason was no longer possible in practice.

4

The Howard League for Penal Reform

The facilities on mother and baby units Askham Grange had cells for 20 mothers, three of which were suitable for two children. The unit was built in two phases; the latter phase (5 rooms) was of a much higher quality. The rooms all had a sink but no toilet. The unit had two laundries, babies' washrooms, a kitchen and a large play area. The women also had access to the grounds of the prison, which allowed the children to play outside. There was a crèche run by nursery nurses to which mothers had access while they were at work or education classes. All communal areas on the unit were smoke free apart from the quiet room where mothers were permitted to smoke. Holloway MBU relocated from its much criticized basement location (see fro instance department of Health 1992) to its current Hi-babes, on the fourth floor. There were cells to accommodate 17 mothers and babies. The MBU was also equipped with two kitchens, a laundry, babies' washroom, a play area/nursery and a quiet area. The women were allowed to smoke on the unit so a no smoking area was also provided. The only regular access to the outside was on the roof garden attached to the unit. 5 The Howard League was alerted to particular concerns about the quality of the facilities and the level of stimulation available for babies on the unit. Prison staff described the unit as claustrophobic. At New Hall the MBU was a self contained purpose built complex. The building was single storey and had cells for nine women, one of which equipped for twins. Each cell had integral sanitation. Aside from the living accommodation, the unit had a kitchen area for women to prepare food for their children, a bathroom, a laundry and a large enclosed children's play area. The building was bright airy. Outside the building, to which women generally had access, there was a children's play area with a sand pit. Women were not allowed to smoke on the unit. Styal's MBU was divided into two similarly equipped houses, each of which catered for eleven mothers. On each house there were two cells, which accommodated a mother with twins or two youngsters. One house held mothers with babies aged up to nine months, while the other held youngsters aged 9-18 months. The houses each had kitchen facilities, which enabled mothers to prepare food for themselves and their children, two crèches, babies' washroom and laundry. All communal areas in the house were no smoking.

The regime on mother and baby units Regimes operating on MBUs should, according to Prison Services guidelines (1995b), reflect a mother's paramount duty and need to care for her baby in an environment, which foster good childcare practice. It stated the mothers were responsible for their babies; however, the reality of mothers' wider decision-making power has been questioned (Department of Health 1994). The Howard League felt regimes on MBUs had an over-riding emphasis on security and the running of the prison rather than the mothers' perceptions of their children's needs.

5

As access to both Holloway and Styal MBUs was denied, information about the layout and facilities on these MBUs was given to the Howard League during telephone conversation with prison staff working on the suits.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Prison guidelines placed emphasis on equity between all prisoners with the caveat that when a women was in prison with her baby, different priorities applied. Mothers were encouraged to participate in the normal prison regimes, particularly through attendance at education classes or work at least part-time. Whilst a mother was separated from her child a member of staff designated by the senior staff member on the MBU, would care for him/her. This staff member did not necessarily have child care training. Prisons were attempting to provide mothers with information and courses on parenting skills and child care issues. For instance at Askham Grange, the Howard League was told that issues were regularly addressed through wall displays or talks by nursery nurses or the family center workers. Women were also able to spend time talking through issues on an individual basis with nursery nurses or other staff. At New Hall women were encouraged to take parenting courses run by the education unit. It was stated that a primary spur for this action was to combat mothers' boredom. The desire to provide mothers with additional knowledge and skills was not mentioned.

Feeding The policy guidance issued by the Prison Service stated that new mothers should be encouraged to breast-feed. However, this was not endorsed by guidance about MBUs produced for mothers (HM Prison Services 1995c), which was illustrated using women bottle-feeding a baby. This message was reinforced by the fact that MBUs proudly reported that formula milk was always available. Once a child was weaned and eating solids, food was provided for the child by the prison kitchen. Number of different arrangements operated: · The prison kitchen providing food which mothers liquidized (all kitchens on MBUs observed had food processors); · Unprepared food was brought onto the unit and prepared by designated cooks · Mothers cooked their own meals for their children; · At Styal there was a tendency for youngsters to fed on commercially processed jars of baby food, which were then prepared by the mothers for their babies on the MBU. Women in prison received Child Benefits. This enabled them to buy additional things for the children but it may also have to be spent on babies' favorite food or disposable nappies (as the prison only provided toweling nappies) Mothers expressed discontent about the conditions in MBU kitchens. This was exemplified by the words of a mother of a 10 week old girl: "There is a baby kitchen, but it's not very hygienic. It's always dirty and there are flies all the time, loads of them. So I prepare her bottle in my room..." One prison stated that the prison budget only allowed babies half the amount allocated for feeding adults. This amounted to around 70p per day. We were told that extra milk, fresh fruit, and vegetables for children were often only provided through the goodwill of the caterer.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

The Howard League has been told that Holloway prison recently provided previously frozen chicken for the mothers on the MBU to prepare. It was alleged that the mothers were expected to re-freeze and re-heat this food for their babies A stimulating environment for babies? A prison is not an appropriate environment for the child's healthy development (Catan 1992). The range of stimuli witnessed by the Howard League were limited, for instance there were few trees on the playgrounds. There have been two multi-disciplinary inspections by the Department of Health. Both have been critical of the type and range of stimuli for the children. In particular, the second reports (Department of Health 1994) noted that the inspection team had seen books for the first time on a MBU. We were told by prisons that since these inspections much had been done to increase youngsters' 6 access to stimuli within the prison. For instance, the play equipment at Askham Grange had been up-graded and nursery nurses had been employed. The nursery nurses had set up a crèche. Which widened the range of stimuli for the youngsters. On a recent visit to the MBU, supervised water play was observed in the crèche. There was a range of toys available for children, which were meant to enhance all aspects of a child's development, such as dexterity, problem solving and mobility enhancing toys. The Howard League was particularly concerned about the regularity with which toys were changed. Prisons assured us toys were changed regularly, but they were unable to provide any notion of the time-scale involved. We were told by the mother of an 11-month-old girl, "toys are too advanced for the children in the unit, more toys are needed for the 0-1 year olds and they don't get changed regularly enough." Searching babies Mothers had to agree to the routine searching of their babies before they were allowed on the unit. A search was then made of their baby when they were admitted to the unit and subsequently at the direction of the governor. This would normally be a rubdown search and must be undertaken by a female officer in the presence of the mother. But Prison Services guidelines stated that a more intimate search of the baby should be only in circumstances in which the mother may be subject to a strip search. One mother told the Howard League that she did not know why she and her baby were searched. She said, "I had a room search. I was strip searched and my baby was too, which I found very distressing...not for me but for the my baby."

6

In November 1994 Michael Howard announced a 40% reduction in the number of prisoners allowed home leave or temporary release. The changes were introduced in two stages: first, a more rigorous risk assessment procedure and then changes to the length of time prisoners must serve before becoming eligible were introduced. Evidence from prisons suggests that the actual reduction in temporary release has been even greater as prison governors are erring on the side of caution.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Since the publication of the Woodcock Report (December 1994), there has been general increase in emphasis on searching and security. At Askham Grange, we were told that women were routinely searched every two months. This meant that the prisoner, her room and her baby were searched. Separation of Mother and Child "Enforced separation of mother and baby entails emotional mutilation for both" Sheila Kitzinger, childcare expert The Department of Health actively sought the advice for childcare experts about when and how to manage the enforce separation of mother and child. Their advice merely suggested that the prison multi-disciplinary team made the decision, to forcible separate mother and child, based on each individual's circumstances. Hence prisons proudly spoke of the flexibility employed when they allowed children to remain on MBUs up until the age of 21 months rather than separate them from their mothers before the end of the their sentence. The prison's multi-disciplinary team made the decisions about whether to accept babies onto the unit and when to separate a mother and child if the mother is serving a sentence beyond the child's second birthday. One prison had recently made the decision that it was in the interests of one child, whose mother was serving a long sentence, to be forcibly removed after 10 months. No elaboration, apart from the separation was in the child's best interests, was offered as to why 10 months was agreed upon. Forcible separation also occurred as the result of mothers' transgression of the prison's disciplinary regime. For instance, at the time of the Howard League visit to New Hall MBU it had only been opened three months and one mother had already been forcibly separated from her son. It was alleged she had rugs in her possession. The child went back to the care of his family. When the decision to separate children from their mothers had been made in advance, either as a prescription of the multi-disciplinary team or where a child had reached 18 months, we were told that the prison started work with the mother to ease the process of separation. The case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Hicking (reported in the Times 7/11/85 followed the removal of a mother from Askham Grange MBU when the Governor decided that she was unsettling to her child and other children. The courts rejected this challenge, but there was no attempt made by the court to spell out the required procedure for the future forcible separations. Livingstone and Owen (1993) have suggested that there should be a hearing before such decisions were made in prison as separation in the community required a court order and the rights of the both parent and child to family life to be considered as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention. Staffing mother and baby units MBUs tended to have a small pool of basic grade male and female prison officers who were dedicated to the unit, usually through some depress of choice. The units were also usually staffed by a senior grade prison officer/governor who manages the

The Howard League for Penal Reform

unit; a probation officer; nursery nurse and perhaps a family center worker during the weekdays. At the weekends and evenings units were staffed only by basic discipline staff. Health visitors would also visit the MBU weekly. The officers on the unit did not receive any special training. However, Askham Grange had begun to organize a NVQ course in childcare and education for officers working on the unit and planned to offer an introduction course to officers before they started work on the MBU. At New Hall there were plans to offer child protection training to staff on the unit. This training was to be provided by the local social services. Mothers told us they thought officers should have more training in first aid and that staff should "like children". Howard League Policy No pregnant women or woman with young children should be held in prison. So few women commit serious of violent offences that small custodial hostels could be set up if absolutely necessary. The majority of women and mothers could be released immediately onto to community programs with no danger to the public and with positive impact on the health and well being of the child. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Reference: Catan L (1992) Infants with mothers in prison in Shaw (1992) Children Act 1989 Department of Health (1992) Inspection of facilities for mother and babies in prison Department of Health (1994) Inspection of facilities of mother and babies in prison HM Prison Services (1991) Standing Order 13 Health Care (April 1991) HM Prison Services (1995a) Report of the Director of Health Care April 1993-March 1994 HM Prison Services (1995b) Mother and baby units HM Prison Services (1995c) Admission to mother and baby units Home Office (1992) The National Prison Survey 1991 Main Findings, Home Office Research Study 128, HMSO Home Office (1994) The Escape from Whitemoor Prison of Friday 9 September 1994: the Woodcock Enquiry, Cm 2741, HMSO Howard League(1993) The Voice of a Child, The impact on children of their mother's imprisonment Howard League (1994) Families Matter Livingstone S & Owen T (1993) Prison Law: Text and Materials, Clarenden Press, Oxford Save the Children (1992) Children visiting Holloway prison Shaw R(1992) Prisoners' children: What are the issues? Routledge UN Convention of the Rights of the Child 1989

1995

Information

"I thought babies weren't prisoners

13 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

1131486


You might also be interested in

BETA
Handbook for Prison Managers and Policymakers on Women and Imprisonment
"I thought babies weren't prisoners