Prison nursery program has good chance to help families

2012-03-08T00:00:00Z Prison nursery program has good chance to help familiesStar-Tribune Editorial Board Casper Star-Tribune Online
March 08, 2012 12:00 am  • 

One of the best accomplishments of the Wyoming Legislature’s budget session had a very modest price tag of $1.01 million, which isn’t much of the $3.2 billion allocated in state government spending. But it could have a profound impact on generations of families, and be positive for society.

State lawmakers approved construction of a prison nursery at the Wyoming Women’s Center in Lusk, after the Wyoming Association of Churches and other lobbying groups informed them about how similar programs are now successfully operating in 11 other states.

An unused building at the WWC is scheduled to be renovated for the program, which will allow inmates to keep their infants for up to 18 months. Eligible inmates with children up to 6 years old would be able to have them stay for overnight visits.

For proponents of the traditional “tough on crime” philosophy, the concept of allowing mothers to spend time with their children even though they are incarcerated runs counter to decades of corrections policies in most states.

But the old system has resulted in both a high recidivism rate for inmates plus continuing a pattern of family members who are incarcerated.

Wyoming advocates of a prison nursery didn’t have to look far for an example of how such a program could help break these negative cycles. The Nebraska Correctional Center for Women at York has been operating a nursery program since 1994.

In the three years prior to its beginning, half of the inmates forced to give up their newborn babies returned to the prison within the next decade, either for violating parole or after being convicted of a new crime. But in the first 10 years of the nursery program, the recidivism rate dropped to only 16.8 percent.

Research shows that the children of parents in prison have myriad problems as they grow up. Many suffer separation anxiety, have more problems at school, may need expensive foster care and also come into contact with the juvenile justice system early in life.

WWC Warden Phil Myer, who worked in the Nebraska Department of Corrections for 28 years, including time at the York facility, has seen the nursery program’s benefits firsthand.

“The reality is that the women here (in Lusk) will get out of prison, and they will be back in the communities,” Myer told Star-Tribune Features Editor Kristy Gray, who previewed the program last Sunday. “And we want them to be successful at raising those children so those children don’t repeat the sins of the parents.”

Initially there likely will be a small number of women in the program. Three babies were born to WWC inmates in 2010 and two last year. Forty-seven of the 238 inmates at Lusk are mothers to a total of 55 children younger than 6 years old, but only minimum-security inmates would be eligible to have their children stay overnight as part of the program.

Perhaps over time, if the program shows positive results, more inmates could become eligible. It would certainly be an incentive for mothers to maintain their best behavior and work on their parenting skills in a supervised setting.

Mothers of infants will be required to work during the day while their children are cared for in the nursery. Myer said the program will be “child-sensitive” so “we can mitigate the things that they suffer from when parents are incarcerated.”

“This will not look like a prison,” the warden stressed.

Nor should it. The days when women in prison gave birth while their legs were shackled to beds, and were then given a brief time with their baby before it was taken away to be raised by someone else, will finally be over in Wyoming.

In its place will be a 21st century, humane program that will give families in the criminal justice system a chance to break the familiar cycle of incarceration, so new generations will have a better chance to live free, productive lives.

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(1) Comments

  1. James Dwyer
    Report Abuse
    James Dwyer - August 17, 2012 8:53 am
    Bad social science is a dangerous thing. The Nebraska study of recidivism, like similar studies done elsewhere, suffers from a fatal flaw of selection bias. The studies compare all inmates who gave birth prior to the creation of prison nurseries with inmates who gave birth after creation of the nurseries AND WHO WERE APPROVED FOR ENTRY INTO THE NURSERY PROGRAM. Prisons screen out inmates who have committed violent crimes or who have any child maltreatment history. Those in the nursery are therefore a subset of all women who give birth in prison, a subset one would expect to be less likely to reoffend after leaving prison. The studies therefore fail to establish any positive effect of the prison nurseries. Moreover, recidivism rates do not tell us how many mothers remain with their children after leaving prison. The rate of separation is very high even for women who do not reenter prison, because many return to drugs or other behaviors that lead to abandonment of their children. And what little evidence there is about the impact of prison nurseries on children is negative. The people who advocate for these nurseries are not advocates for children; they are advocates for adults, willing to speculate about beneficial effects for children and happy to grasp at any study, however poorly designed, that makes them feel good about these programs. The press has a responsibility to be more objective and discerning.
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Featured Businesses

Latest Offers