The Social Exclusion of Incarcerated Women with Cognitive Disabilities

Shut Out, Shut In

Julie-Anne Toohey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000529838
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sciences sociales
• Subtopic: Criminologie

The Social Exclusion of Incarcerated Women with Cognitive Disabilitie s explores the lived experience of cognitively disabled women incarcerated in Australia. It draws upon in-depth interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous women, as well as interviews conducted with prison practitioners – psychologists, counsellors, and Aboriginal Liaison Officers.

Using a theoretical framework of social exclusion, the book charts the complex intersection between cognitively disabled women and the Criminal Justice System, and how this connection works to foster and maintain a state of social exclusion prior to incarceration, and equally, within the prison setting. The book also provides a practical template for other researchers to use when investigating the aligned fields of the Criminal Justice System and incarceration, women offenders, cognitive disability, and social exclusion. By placing the voices of the incarcerated women with cognitive disabilities 'front and centre', a new and innovative approach to social exclusion emerges. The book moves beyond the 'telling of sad stories' to examine the social and political climate that permits disadvantage, inequality, and injustice to flourish.

This book will be of great interest to academics and students in criminology, criminal justice, disability studies, women's and gender studies, and penology. In exploring theory in a practical way, it will also be of use to those involved in the health sector, community services, disability support agencies, disability advocates, prisoner advocacy, women's studies and women's advocacy, and human rights activism.

1 A reason to research

DOI: 10.4324/9781003225232-1

Introduction

The origins and development of this book represent my personal and philosophical approach to cognitive disability, and more specifically, the nexus between cognitively impaired women, incarceration, and the wider theoretical paradigm of social exclusion. As the parent of an adult intellectually disabled daughter, I understand the concept of ‘homogeneity’ that is often applied to those with a cognitive disability. And yet I also understand this is a fallacy. Cognitively disabled people have aspirations and concerns, they can be idiosyncratic, obscure, and sometimes challenging to engage with, and each has their own unique life-story. Too often they are placed in a ‘category’, with an assigned label that determines their opportunities and life chances. Too often this denies them the respect and acceptance that is taken for granted by their non-disabled counterparts.

For people with cognitive disabilities, social inclusion is generally confined to inclusion within their living arrangements and social activities with other cognitively disabled people. Of course there are exceptions, but unfortunately, I have witnessed all too often the condescending way in which those with cognitive disabilities are ‘managed’, particularly at the institutional level. It is demeaning, and yet part of my sadness emanates from the fact that for our daughter and others, the reality is one of acceptance that such processes and systems are the norm, and awareness that there might be an approach that affords greater dignity and autonomy is either peripheral or non-existent.

I also have first-hand experience of the vulnerabilities that accompany cognitive disability. The potential for our daughter, and others with similar disabilities, to be manipulated, with a promise of ‘friendship’ if they are compliant, creates constant anxiety that acquiescence will generate antisocial, or worse, criminal behaviour. While this has not happened thus far, it has occasionally come too close for comfort. The initial catalyst for this research (in the form of a PhD study), arose from a watershed moment one Saturday night in Hobart (Tasmania, Australia) when for the fifth weekend in a row, members of Tasmania Police (TasPol) returned our runaway daughter to us. Because she was over the age of 18, as her parents we were not permitted by law to in any way insist she come home or get into our car. This could only be done by police. The two officers were infinitely kind and understanding, as had been all the other TasPol officers in the preceding weeks. However, it was clear they were growing impatient with having to assign officers to this task when Saturday evening resources were already stretched to the limit. As they were departing, one of them said to our daughter, “This is the last time we are going to do this. Next time, we will take you to the Remand Centre”. My blood ran cold as I imagined what would happen if this ever transpired. In truth, the statement had no impact on her at all – she had no clue as to what a ‘Remand Centre’ was and so her attitude amounted to ‘whatever …’.

The notion of our daughter being held in remand, or worse, incarcerated, raised the question of how women with cognitive disabilities navigate the criminal justice system. Before I began speaking with the exceptional women who contributed to this research, I naively refused to entertain the thought that cognitively disabled women would actually be sentenced to prison. However, listening to the participating women, and the practitioners tasked with their care, opened my eyes to the reality that they do end up in prison, most of them on multiple occasions.

It was apparent that while a significant body of research explores incarcerated males with cognitive disabilities, the question of incarcerated, cognitively disabled women has received less scholastic attention. In the words of Kendall (2004: 265), “The failure to consider women offenders with intellectual disabilities is emblematic of the larger literature”. Statistically, they represent a small percentage of the Australian prison population, particularly given that the overall women’s prison population is substantially less than that of imprisoned men. Each of this study’s practitioner participants acknowledged that a small number is not an excuse for lack of appropriate facilities or programs, but also pointed out that unfortunately, it is the current reality. This ‘reality’ includes cognitively disabled women with mental illness being housed in secure units, unable to access programs or jobs, or to co-mingle with others. Prison mental health units have extensive waiting lists, and even if some of the women in need are admitted, it will generally only be for one to two days. This does little to elicit any long-term benefit. For Indigenous women who participated in this study, the effect of measures such as solitary confinement are manifestly detrimental, reflective of past practices steeped in colonialism. Such practices undermine physical and mental health, and further erode their cultural heritage. It is an untenable situation for the women; a frustrating and demoralising one for prison staff.

Tom Shakespeare, a noted scholar and disability activist, supports the notion that disability studies and aligned fields of investigation must be based on sound empirical research, and should not rest upon “slogans, assertions or anecdotes” (2015: 2). An overarching goal is that credible research will act as a conduit to political activism and improved circumstances for people with disabilities. There is evidence that politically, the voices of those with disabilities are being listened to. There is a range of Australian state and federal government-supported initiatives premised on reducing the disparities between people with disabilities and those without, particularly with respect to developing a culture of inclusiveness. However, it is evident that many people with disabilities continue to be overlooked because they are unaware of the services they can access, or do not have the support of an advocate to help them.

People with cognitive disabilities who are unsupported continually face the experience of social exclusion. Social exclusion is broadly defined as the experience of disadvantage which moves beyond income deprivation to include multidimensional and interrelated factors pertaining to the lack of economic, social, political, and cultural participation, which cause disconnection from the wider community (Kostenko et al. 2009). Despite Australia’s standing as a First World country, exclusion based on stigma and discrimination, ignorance and fear, happens in every state and territory. Incarceration serves to reinforce the barriers to inclusion. For the women participating in this research, social exclusion manifests as more than just limited access to services. Most of them have never experienced inclusion, their lives defined by compromised cognitive and adaptive skills, and their status as ‘offender’.

Shakespeare’s (2015) words struck a chord and brought about the realisation that I could follow his lead. This research therefore emanates from a personal concern that has evolved into a broader disquiet about how society responds to a group of vulnerable women who do not fit the image of the ‘ideal victim’ (Christie 1986) but fall more readily into the category of ‘criminal’. This categorisation is a convenient conduit to notions of ‘blameworthiness’ and the justification upon which to view the women as makers of their own destinies and therefore recipients of ‘just deserts’ (Kirchengast 2010). However, such a linear perspective fails to understand the familial, social, structural, institutional, and cultural forces instrumental in shaping lives marked by exclusionary practices. As you read the women’s stories in this book, I hope that like me you will come to appreciate their bravery, be outraged by abuse endured, be enriched by their generous spirit, and be moved by their visions of a better future for themselves and their children.

A reason to research

This research is compelled by a desire to understand the links between social exclusion, cognitively disabled women, and incarceration, and how these intersect to create and perpetuate cycles of disadvantage and reoffending. At the heart of this lies an imperative to better understand the personal factors, institutional responses, and policy levers which might effectively reduce the high rate of reoffending that characterises the lives of the women participants, minimise associated harms and costs, effectively identify and address their needs, and reduce social exclusion. These aspirations are reflected in the research questions:

1. How does social exclusion contribute to the trajectory of women with cognitive disabilities into prison?
2. How does social exclusion manifest in prison for women with cognitive disabilities?
3. How do prisons respond to the needs of women with cognitive disabilities?

In addition to a focus on social exclusion, the research also examines ‘complex needs’ from two perspectives. The first is the literal and obvious sense of the participating women, who have experienced a personal interface with a disability/CJS/social exclusion nexus. The second is the more understated sense of drawing out practitioner perspectives on the intricacies of working with women who have complex needs, including cognitive disability. The inherent difficulties associated with supporting these women in what is often a hostile environment, evokes practitioner reflection on their roles and responsibilities, what the prison does, what it does not do, what it could or should do.

As a starting point, it is important to acknowledge that the experience of incarceration for women occurs within a male-dominated criminal justice system (CJS) that is predominantly based on patterns of male offending, with penal responses framed accordingly (Bartels and Easteal 2016). A similar situation is evident when it comes to the presence of cognitive disability in the CJS. Globally, much has been written about cognitively disabled male offenders (e.g., Barron et al. 2002; Fogden et al. 2016; Lindsay et al. 2008; Morrissey and Ingamells 2011; Murphy et al. 2017). Research involving cognitively disabled, incarcerated women is limited, and yet Australian scholars (e.g., Baldry 2014; McCausland and Baldry 2017; McCausland et al. 2013; McEntyre 2019) highlight the fact that the number of women in prison with cognitive disabilities and co-occurring conditions such as mental illness and substance misuse disorders, has increased exponentially over the past decade. While these scholars acknowledge this situation, and their work represents a considerable body of research that has done much to advance the cause of prisoners with complex needs, the situation remains that research focusing specifically on incarcerated women with cognitive disabilities is sparse. Addressing this gap is fundamental.

This is not always easy. Van Dooren et al. (2016: 14) recognise the challenges associated with prison research, but they also highlight its importance. They argue that “there are multiple barriers to accessing prisoners and ex-prisoners with intellectual disability for research studies, likely restricting the implementation of evidence-based policy and the establishment of best practice, leaving their voices unheard and specific needs unmet”. This then, is a reason to research and a principal driver for this study.

The research context: Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania

The research for this book was conducted during 2017–18, in women’s prisons in Queensland, South Australia, and the island state of Tasmania, three of the eight jurisdictions (six states, two territories) that make up Australia. While Queensland is one of three more financially robust states that comprise Australia’s Eastern seaboard and is the largest land mass of the states involved in the research, South Australia and Tasmania have considerably higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, with South Australia having the highest unemployment rate in Australia, followed by Tasmania. With respect to our Indigenous population, Tasmania has the smallest population as well as the smallest Indigenous population, with 24,000 Indigenous people part of the overall population of 500,000. Queensland, with...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsements
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• 1. A reason to research
• 2. Complex intersections: Cognitive disability, the criminal justice system, and social exclusion
• 3. An approach to prison research
• 4. Pathways to prison, pathways to social exclusion
• 5. Off to prison – you know the way …
• 6. Women’s prisons and cognitive disability – how do they fare?
• 7. Women, cognitive disability, and incarceration: The face of social exclusion
• Index