Abstract
The literature on gender and politics has consistently neglected the study of gender inequalities in penal institutions. Our article contributes to filling this gap by examining how gender inequality is represented and framed as a policy problem in the Spanish “Action Program for Gender Equality between Women and Men in the Prison System.” Using critical frame analysis, our findings reveal that gender equality policies in prisons reinforce maternal and caregiving roles, emphasize personal dependency and low self-esteem, and characterize women prisoners as “defective subjects” and “victims,” without adopting an intersectional approach. Our main argument is that the prison system’s failure to embrace the exchange of ideas, involve diverse actors, and engage with civil society, particularly feminist and women’s movements, constrains the formulation process of gender equality policies in this area, and also influences understandings of the issues and the proposed solutions.
Introduction
This article explores gender equality policies in the prison system, a sector that has been consistently overlooked by gender and politics scholarship, and by the feminist policy analysis literature (see Ballesteros-Pena and Bustelo 2023; Ballesteros-Pena, Bustelo, and Mazur 2023, as an exception). Given this neglect, the rich theoretical insights and empirical evidence cultivated in these disciplines over the last four decades have yet to be applied to the study of the penal sector. Moreover, the complexities and potential paradoxes of pursuing gender equality goals within punishment policies and detention institutions have yet to enrich the conceptual and empirical tools of feminist policy scholarship. Each policy area has its own specificities, institutional history, and typology of gender equality policies (Walby 2005, 328), and thus should be studied separately and in a situated manner (Haraway 1991). Furthermore, it is imperative to pay attention to groups traditionally ignored by policy-makers, as well as scholars and most feminist and women’s movements, for the development of a discipline that contributes to gender transformation and that fights against all forms of marginalization and exclusion.
Gender equality policies in prisons are limited in scope and scale and only a few international regulations (i.e. Bangkok Rules-UN General Assembly 2010; European Parliament 2008) and national gender equality initiatives (i.e. Canada: Correctional Service Canada 1990; United Kingdom: Corston Report 2007; Spain: SGIP 2009; etc.) have been developed to respond to gender inequalities in these settings. Scholars from other disciplines, particularly feminist criminology, have explored these initiatives from different angles (e.g. Bloom, Owen, and Covington 2003; Gelsthorpe and Russell 2018; Player 2014), offering recommendations on how to improve the conditions of women in penal institutions through alternative rehabilitation pathways. Yet, the policy process has largely been neglected in these analyses (as an exception, see Hannah-Moffat 2001). Within feminist policy studies, the first analysis of the implementation of gender equality policies in Spain (Ballesteros-Pena and Bustelo 2023) suggests that the unique nature of prisons and their impermeability are important factors in understanding the limited transformative nature of the policies adopted and their implementation challenges. However, further knowledge of the factors surrounding the policy-making process is needed to fully comprehend these limitations and for the development of effective strategies for better understanding the role of gender equality within the penal system. Since the 1980s, feminist policy analysis has focused on gender equality policies in Western postindustrial democracies as these policies have developed. The literature has analyzed policy formulation (Bacchi 1999; Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2009, 2013; Verloo 2005; Verloo and Lombardo 2007); actors and institutions (McBride and Mazur 2010; Woodward 2004); implementation (Carey, Dickinson, and Olney 2019; Ciccia and Lombardo 2019; Engeli and Mazur 2018; 2022; La Barbera, Espinosa-Fajardo, and Caravantes 2023; Lombardo and Bustelo 2022; Mazur and Engeli 2020; Tildesley, Lombardo, and Verge 2022); and, although to a lesser extent, the evaluation of gender equality policies (Bustelo 2017; Minto, Mergaert, and Bustelo 2020).
Furthermore, feminist policy studies taking discursive approaches have shown the contested nature of the concept of gender equality (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2009), the constructed definition (Bacchi 1999) and framing (Verloo 2005) of gender equality issues, and the importance of exploring how constructed meanings in policy documents influence policy formulation (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2009) and implementation (Bustelo and Mazur 2023). Discursive approaches, while shedding light on how gender equality is framed in policy discourses, also illuminate who has participated in the policy-making process and seek to understand the implications of their participation (or lack thereof) for the resulting policies. However, prison policies remain unexamined in the literature. Thus, our understanding of how gender equality is framed in these penal policies, and how these framings shape particular understandings of gender inequalities, remains limited.
Seeking to contribute to filling these gaps, this article asks: What is the meaning of gender equality in prison policies in Spain? More specifically, we seek to answer the questions: How is gender equality constructed as a policy problem? Who took part in the elaboration of the “Action Program for Gender Equality between Women and Men in the Prison System” (hereinafter, the Action Program for GE) and what are the implications of their involvement?
Our case study of the framing of gender equality in the Spanish Action Program for GE and in the discourses of key stakeholders operating within the penal system in Spain (politicians and prison staff) shows that gender equality policies in prisons reinforce maternal and caregiving roles, emphasize personal dependency and low self-esteem, and characterize women prisoners as “defective subjects” and “victims,” without adopting an intersectional approach. This reflects a narrow interpretation of the problem, which relies on stereotypes and long-standing gender assumptions. Furthermore, the absence of key actors in the adoption process, such as the feminist movement and gender experts, can help explain not only the main frames identified, but also the fragility of the initiatives adopted. We argue that gender equality policies in prisons can be characterized as “confined policies” because of the limited development of both the approaches and ideas that shape the initiatives in this field, due principally to the opaque character of the penitentiary system and the absence of outside actors in the policy process.
The article proceeds as follows: first, we provide an overview of the conceptual and methodological approach of critical frame analysis (CFA) used to study gender equality in Spanish prison policies. Second, we explain the selection of the Spanish case. Third, we briefly contextualize the situation of women in prison in Spain and the initiatives historically implemented to address their specific needs. Finally, we explain the four gender frames that emerged from both the analysis of the Action Program for GE and the interviews, and the implications of these results for gender equality goals.
Conceptual and methodological approach: critical frame analysis
The importance of studying gender equality policies in the penal system lies in the potential for gender and policy studies to improve the situation of women in prison and ultimately challenging the possibilities of advancing gender equality within a prison setting. In a recent publication, Lombardo and Meier (2022) identify opportunities for expanding the boundaries of gender and policy scholarship by centering on the analysis of power dynamics, and by better addressing questions of inclusivity, diversity, and relevance. Public institutions, public attention, feminist movements, as well as academia, including feminist policy studies, have historically neglected gender inequalities and the situation and needs of women in prisons. Thus, there is a need to include the prison system and this marginalized group within mainstream debates. Women in prison also represent a diverse group traversed by intersectional inequalities. With variations between countries, racial, and ethnic groups, foreigners, and the impoverished, are overrepresented in the prison population, their demands and needs often silenced. Claims of addressing diversity have permeated all sectors of gender equality policies, yet the prison system remains in its infancy in considering or even acknowledging gender inequality. Finally, while the promotion of gender equality seeks to expand rights, including prison systems in this agenda introduces dilemmas arising from the relationship between those who consider these groups as “deserving” and those who consider them as “undeserving”—a central normative issue that needs addressing.
Our theoretical framework draws upon different strands of feminist policy scholarship. First, we rely on Squires’s (1999, 2005) categorization of gender mainstreaming strategies—inclusion, reversal, and displacement. These strategies correspond to different gender equality aims—gender-neutrality, the recognition of a specifically female gendered identity, and the deconstruction of discursive regimes that engender the subject, respectively (Squires 2005). Squires’s categorization assists us in understanding the links between the construction of the problem of gender inequality in prison and specific gender equality goals, ultimately revealing the absence of any transformative potential of gender equality policies within Spanish prisons. While Walby finds that inclusion, reversal, and displacement coexist in the EU context (Walby 2005, 329), our analysis suggests that this is not the case in Spanish penal policies. Further research is required to assess the feasibility of gender transformative goals in the context of prisons, although some theoretical and empirical works have argued it may not be viable (Kwon and Hannah-Moffat, forthcoming; Restrepo and Francés 2016). In this case, theoretical reflections are needed around whether the penal state can be incorporated within the current conceptual frameworks of gender and policy studies.
Second, we draw upon discursive approaches to gender equality. Feminist scholars have shown that gender equality is a contested concept (Dombos et al. 2012; Verloo 2005; Verloo and Lombardo 2007; Walby 2005) that can take on different meanings shaped by sociopolitical legacies, spatiotemporal contexts, and public debates. These meanings are open to interpretation and are disputed by different actors and, as policies evolve, certain meanings can be “fixed” or “shrunk” (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2009). On the one hand, fixing can be positive as it means the issue is formally recognized in legal and policy documents. However, fixing also means that the meaning of gender equality, as constructed in the documents, will be temporarily maintained, which can influence the types of measures adopted and limit the possibilities for changes in approaches to address inequalities that may emerge from theoretical, conceptual, or social debates (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2009). In a sector characterized by limited dynamism, fixing could thus hinder progress toward more effective solutions to address women’s discrimination and gender inequalities in prisons. On the other hand, shrinking the concept of gender equality occurs where the meaning is reduced to a particular sector or interpretation of the issue (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2009). One example, which we also see reflected in our case, is a focus on equal opportunities as opposed to equity (recognizing and adapting to differential needs and starting points). Guaranteeing women’s access to the current services available in prison does not necessarily mean that these services respond to their needs. Furthermore, other demands that do not correspond to those from men can be overlooked.
Thus, different constructions of gender equality and the problem of gender inequality result in the adoption of different solutions, while other alternative understandings of the problem are left aside (Bacchi 1999). To tease out the different meanings of gender equality adopted by different political institutions, political processes, and policies (Kantola and Lombardo 2017), scholars have adopted deconstructionist approaches and methodological tools such as policy frame analysis. Drawing on these tools, feminist scholars developed the CFA methodology to address the power dynamics involved in the discourse process of policy-making (Verloo 2005). CFA is based on the concept of frame analysis by Goffman (1974), which was later used by social movement theorists (Snow and Benford 1988) and then introduced to the field of policy analysis by Rein and Schön (1993). Elaborating on these works, and inspired by Bacchi (1999) and Triandafyllidou and Fotiou (1998), CFA was further refined and developed with elements of gender and political theory under the framework of the European projects MAGEEQ (2003–2006) and QUING (2006–2011). MAGEEQ started from the assumption that implementation problems of gender mainstreaming policies were accentuated by the diversity of meanings of gender equality in policy discourses, requiring the study of the contested concept across diverse issue areas, countries, and contexts (Verloo 2005).
Following the CFA approach, a “policy frame” is defined as “an organizing principle that transforms fragmentary or incidental information into a structured and meaningful policy problem, in which a solution is implicitly or explicitly enclosed” (Verloo 2005, 20). In operational terms, a frame is organized in policy discourses around a “diagnosis” (What is the problem?) and a “prognosis” (What is the solution to the problem?), the attributed roles attached to each dimension, and the voices that are (or are not) present. CFA thus produces an empirical mapping of the key dimensions of gender equality policies, identifying concepts and different ways of representing gender equality present in key policy documents, including attention to intersectionality. These dimensions are present in the list of “Sensitizing questions”1 developed by the MAGEEQ project (Verloo and Lombardo 2007, 49–50), which we used in our analysis. The analysis generates a “super-text,” making explicit what is normally hidden, or not so openly stated, in the discourses and texts analyzed. Competing ideas about gender inequality are also identified, by underscoring what exactly it is that is represented as the problem, and what are put forward as solutions. Although CFA was developed to be applied to the analysis of documents, it is also possible to use the “sensitizing questions” as an analytical framework to analyze discourses produced by interviews of key political actors.
The data used for this article come from fieldwork carried out between 2013 and 2014 within the framework of A.B.P.’s PhD research, supervised by M.B. The research offered a sociological and criminological analysis of gender equality policies in the Spanish prison system, taking a novel program called “Respect Module” as a case study.2 For the purpose of this article, we applied the CFA methodology to the Action Program for GE and to twenty-seven interviews: four with politicians (one interviewed twice) who were in charge of the prison system in Spain at different moments, and twenty-three with different practitioners who work inside three prisons with women’s units: lawyers (one), psychologists (three), educators (four), social workers (one), team managers who were in charge of different areas (twelve, one interviewed twice), and other staff (two). Ten interviewees were women and sixteen were men. Having applied the CFA sensitizing questions, we then analyzed the information extracted by dimension and contrasted the results of the analysis of the program and the interviews. Additionally, we reviewed parliamentary debates about the Action Program for GE (2007) and other plans (Strategic Plan for Equality of Opportunities 2014–2016) and programming documents (such as the Agreement between the Woman’s Institute (WI) and the General Secretariat of Penitentiary Institutions (SGIP) regarding equality actions, 2018) to better understand the context.
CFA has allowed us to identify the dominant gender equality frames (issue frames) in the Action Program for GE and in the interviews. Issue frames are “policy frames that provide a relatively coherent story/reasoning in which issue specific prognostic elements respond to issue specific diagnostic elements” (Dombos et al. 2012, 5). These issue frames emerge from both public policy texts and the discourses of state actors (politicians and prison staff). Although the interviewees were not specifically designed to be analyzed using CFA, we were able to assess different interpretations about the existence (or not) of a problem of gender inequality in prisons and to identify (in)coherences between the gender frames in the Action Program for GE and those in the discourses of actors in different positions. CFA also has a focus on voice, which we have emphasized in our analysis. The question of who has, or should have, a voice in policy-making, that is, in defining what gender equality is and how gender inequality should be resolved, is key to understanding the conceptualizations of gender in/equality in a particular domain (Verloo 2005, 22; Verloo and Lombardo 2007, 26–27).
The Spanish case
There are a number of possible reasons for the lack of attention to the prison system by gender and politics scholarship. The first is the limited development and implementation of gender equality initiatives in prisons. At the European and international levels, rules and recommendations have been developed, such as the United Nations Bangkok Rules (UN General Assembly, December 2010) and European Parliament Resolution (2007/2116(INI) 2008, but they are relatively recent and lack the legal status to be enforced. At the national level, apart from some general recommendations to address the specific needs of women, such as those related to motherhood, only a few countries (e.g. Canada in 1990, the United Kingdom in 2007, and Spain in 2009) have adopted specific policies to pursue gender equality and reduce discrimination in prison settings. Second, the very nature of the prison as a space separated from society, kept far from the public eye and scrutiny, makes it difficult to gain insight into what is happening inside. Access is often difficult, which limits interactions with the variety of actors traditionally involved in policy debates, including civil society, feminist movements, and academics. Third, the prison is an institution for those in conflict with the law, that is, a punitive institution wherein people are deprived of several rights. The social construction of offenders as “deviant” and “criminal” complicates the placement of their needs and demands on the political agenda. Finally, the coercive nature of the prison can fundamentally conflict with the principles of gender equality, which seeks to expand rights and transform society (Hannah-Moffat 2001; Malloch 2017).
Spain serves as an illustrative case study as it was one of the few countries in the world to adopt a program for gender equality in penal institutions in 2008. After almost four decades of dictatorship, the country advanced significantly in terms of gender equality (Bustelo 2016). Despite the impact of the financial and economic crisis of 2008, and thanks to the efforts of feminist groups, the country has maintained good progress in terms of gender equality in many sectors (Lombardo 2017). However, with respect to the prison system, during the first decades of the democracy attention to women in prison was largely symbolic, and it was not until the end of the 2000s that policy-makers began to address this issue (Ballesteros-Pena 2017). This coincides with the appointment of political authorities sensitive to this situation and a general societal impulse for gender equality (Ballesteros-Pena 2017). The Action Program for GE was approved in 2008, but officially implemented for a short period of time (2009–2011). In contrast to other policy sectors, in which feminist movements have had long-standing influence, gender and prison issues have been poorly integrated into feminist agendas in Spain. At the same time, the lack of participation of civil society, feminist, and women’s movements, as well as gender experts, in the formulation of policies targeting the prison system presents an intriguing aspect of the case that will also be analyzed.
Gender equality policies and the punishment of women in Spain
Women’s prisons in Spain have been characterized by a daily routine based on discipline, domesticity, and morality since the first all-female prisons in Spain, the “Galera Houses” (Casa Galera), created in the seventeenth century, with the Catholic Church playing an important role (Almeda 2002). The aim was to punish women for a double transgression: from the criminal law (criminal deviation) but also from the norms of femininity (social deviation) (Almeda 2002). These elements persisted in detention environments and prisons during the authoritarian Franco regime (from 1936 to 1975–1977). During the subsequent democratic era, the General Prisons Act was passed (1979)—and is still in force—which briefly mentions women as mothers and obstetric care. Despite the modernization of prisons in Spain, including the adoption of resocialization goals, the imprisonment of women continued in much the same way until the last decades of the twentieth century (Almeda 2002; Hernández 2013).
Between 1990 and 2009, the number of women in Spanish prisons rose from 2,604 to 6,076, an increase of more than 133 percent (as indicated in fig. 1). However, this trend was reversed in 2010, the numbers decreasing slightly due in part to a reduction in the length of drug-trafficking sentences. Despite significantly lower numbers in comparison to men (51,172 men and 3,925 women) in 2021, Spain has one of the highest rates of imprisonment of women in the European Union (7.1 percent, behind only Latvia, 8.5 percent; Czech Republic, 8.2 percent; and Hungary, 7.7 percent3), a high proportion of whom are foreign nationals (25 percent (Ministry of the Interior 2022)) and Roma women.4
Evolution of Spain’s women’s prison population, 1990–2021.
Source: Ministry of the Interior, 2022. Annual Statistics 2021 https://www.interior.gob.es/opencms/es/archivos-y-documentacion/documentacion-y-publicaciones/anuarios-y-estadisticas/anuarios-estadisticos-anteriores/.
Despite efforts to improve the situation of women prisoners over time (Yagüe 2012, 38–39), the penitentiary system remains discriminatory. Under a so-called “gender-neutral” model, which theoretically offers equal opportunities for men and women in terms of work assignments and educational and recreational activities, the macro-prison conceals an inherent and universal male-centric design tailored to male needs and characteristics. Since 1992, the cooperative efforts between the penitentiary services and the WI, with the occasional involvement of regional partners, have resulted in the introduction of some targeted initiatives aimed at addressing the specific circumstances of women prisoners and integrating a gender perspective. Despite some progress, however, a comprehensive approach to addressing women’s imprisonment in Spain is still lacking.
Since the transition to democracy, Spain has been characterized by the rapid development and consolidation of gender equality policies and machineries (Bustelo 2016), although their role in prison reform has been quite limited. The victory of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) in 2004 provided an unprecedented boost to gender equality policies in Spain, leading to the adoption of important legal texts (Bustelo 2016), such as the Organic Law 3/2007 of 22 March for the Effective Equality of Women and Men, and the Strategic Plan for Equal Opportunities 2008–2011. This political shift also brought greater public and political attention to gender inequalities in prisons. Based on the new political framework for gender equality, and with the appointment of prison authorities sensitive to gender equality issues and with some expertise in this field, some measures were implemented during the PSOE’s second term (2008–2011). In November 2008, the SGIP approved the first (and only) Action Program for GE, aiming to address the underlying factors contributing to discrimination against women in the penal system, as well as to empower women to make effective use of their time in prison, thereby helping to reduce the social and individual barriers faced by women in general.
To better understand how gender is framed within the Program, several aspects of the policy formulation process are worth noting (Ballesteros-Pena and Bustelo 2023). The program was drafted almost exclusively by the SGIP with the collaboration of the Ministry of Equality through the WI. Women’s and feminist organizations—along with other voluntary sector or civil society organizations—were conspicuously absent during the formulation phase, despite the importance of including the voices and demands of different affected groups (Engeli and Mazur 2018; Verloo 2005; Walby 2005). While a participatory approach involving civil society has not been characteristic of gender equality policy formulation processes in Spain in general (Bustelo 2016; Valiente 1995), it is much more pronounced in the area of criminal and penitentiary policy. At the same time, the role of feminist and women’s organizations appears to be particularly precarious, as working in the prison context while maintaining a critical approach remains challenging. Finally, the lack of resources and the often-small size and voluntary nature of feminist groups compared to other civil society organizations working in prisons (Engeli and Mazur 2018) affect their ability to be involved in certain structures and processes.
This first Action Program for GE ended in 2011, the year the conservative party (Popular Party (PP)) returned to power in the government. In the following years, while some measures were maintained, the implementation of gender equality initiatives within the prison system stagnated and political interest in addressing the concerns of women prisoners waned. The Strategic Plan for Equal Opportunities 2014–2016, which included only a handful of measures addressing the penal sector, replaced the program, while a small set of measures to promote gender equality between women and men in the penitentiary system were developed by the Woman and Equal Opportunities’ Institute (formerly the WI) and the General Secretariat for Penitentiary Institutions in 2017 and 2018. Following the PSOE’s return to government in 2018 (2018–2019 and 2020–20235), the new General Secretariat for Penitentiary Institutions stated that prison policy would incorporate a gender perspective, resulting in initiatives such as research projects and the revision of protocols through a gender lens. However, no new gender equality programs have yet been approved.
In the last two decades, scholars have drawn attention to a variety of concerns related to incarcerated women and gender inequalities, including: the overrepresentation of and discrimination against certain groups of women prisoners, such as foreign nationals (Ballesteros-Pena 2020; Miranda, Martín, and Vega 2005; Ruiz-García and Castillo-Algarra 2014) and Roma women (Barañí Team 2007), and the particular situation of female drug-users (De Miguel 2016). Others have focused on the complexities of motherhood and children (Gea, Domínguez, and Sádaba 2014; Yagüe 2006) or issues of education and reintegration into society (MIP Project 2005). More recent scholarship has explored issues such as the gendered impact of new programs (Ballesteros-Pena 2018), transgender prisoners and their specific vulnerabilities (Urra 2017), and the reinforcement of traditional gender roles in prisons (Ballesteros-Pena 2017; Valenzuela-Vela and Alcázar-Campos 2020). In the following sections, we turn to the analysis of the Action Program for GE and the interviews to examine how gender equality is constructed in the discourse.
Gender policy frames in prison policies
Four gender policy frames emerge from the analysis: the numbers frame (or there is no gender inequality problem inside prisons); the domesticity frame; the victimhood frame; and the productive member of the economy and society frame. To a greater or lesser extent, the four frames appeared both in the interviews and the Action Program for GE. The first frame shows a particularity whereby references to numbers in the Action Program for GE are consistently linked to the existence of gender inequality, whereas in some interviews, the numbers are claimed simply as a question of the reduced percentage of women prisoners. In this section, we analyze the main elements of each frame, considering both the construction of the problem of gender inequality and the solution(s) put forward to solve it.
The numbers frame or there is no gender inequality problem inside prisons
The numbers frame is upheld by the presumption that the differences between women and men in prison stem from the smaller proportion of women prisoners in the overall population. According to this, if women constituted half of the prison population, they would be in exactly the same situation as men and there would be no gender-specific issues. The assumption is that women prisoners are discriminated against because their small numbers result in their invisibility and they therefore receive less attention from policy-makers and practitioners. Some approaches, particularly in the interviews, go so far as to deny the very existence of any kind of difference between male and female prisoners; women have the same choices and access to opportunities, or even receive “positive discrimination” because they receive more attention and resources when they are mothers, for example. This approach contradicts the assumption that the contested nature of gender equality is “obscured partly by its frequent appearance as a harmonious and a-conflictual concept” (Verloo 2005; Verloo and Lombardo 2007, 22).
In the case of prison policies, the diversity of meanings of gender equality coexists with the idea that the problem does not exist. Some voices acknowledge that women prisoners sometimes refuse to participate in programs or activities because of pressure from their husbands or partners who do not want them to participate in activities with other men. However, this discourse does not reflect the idea that these are pressures rooted in underlying structural gender inequalities. On the contrary, it is based on freedom of choice. In relation to this diagnosis, few solutions are provided. In some of the frames, the argument is that the system is providing the best possible services given the financial and practical constraints—an argument that appears in the discourse of a range of people in different political-administrative positions, from those with the highest level of political responsibility within the administrative structure to the professionals or guards at the “street level” (Lipsky 1980).
When the question of numbers is diagnosed in the Action Program for GE, the main solutions presented to solve the discrimination suffered by women in prison focus on increasing the quantitative data in order to better identify the differences between men and women with respect to access to services, activities, sanctions, etc., and to implement measures that help to achieve equality. This frame can thus be placed under an “inclusion” approach that aspires to objectivity (Squires 2005, 368) through a model of equal opportunities (Verloo 2005).
The domesticity frame
Motherhood is a central element in the gender equality penitentiary policy discourse, with respect to both the diagnosis and the prognosis. The image of women prisoners in their traditional roles as mothers and family caretakers is central to the way in which gender inequality is framed. Thus, women’s experiences in prison seem to be entirely intertwined with their responsibility for the emotional well-being of their relatives and loved ones. This aspect becomes an explanatory element for both their relationship to crime and the effects of imprisonment. Thus, in representing the factors that explain the commission of a crime, the text of the program points out:
Within the family, they [women] are very often in charge of taking care of children or dependents, maintaining family unity or providing economic support. Factors that have a strong impact on committing a crime and irretrievably makes imprisonment more difficult, increasing uncertainty, anxiety and guilt.
The aforementioned emotional impact on women in the form of uncertainty, anxiety, and guilt are further developed in another part of the text:
The helplessness in the face of the irreversible consequences in the family network by their absence during illness or before children’s adolescence, during which they can be led to drugs or to gangs or criminal networks.
Finally, the relevance of these emotional bonds also explains women’s lower rate of reoffending: “the central role of sentenced women in their emotional environments leads to a significantly lower recidivism among women.”
Therefore, the main image of women prisoners constructed within the program is that of mothers and caregivers, reproducing their traditional role promoted by the patriarchy. Moreover, it does not represent a diversity of experiences or alternative models of motherhood. Motherhood is associated with particular emotions and to a very well-defined set of concerns and affective commitments, in which ambiguity or diversity has no place. On the other hand, the male figure (in the case of heterosexual relationships) is completely absent both from the diagnosis and in the prognosis. Motherhood and caregiving, represented throughout the text as central to the problem of gender inequality for women prisoners, are represented only as a women’s problem. This aspect is well illustrated in an interview with a social worker/educator, who states:
A: There are women that extremely care for their kids and are all the time thinking about them, but others not. Imagine, people who come from the outside, at the first moment, they say they are very much looking forward to approaching their family, their children and so on. They are a bit uprooted. And then they meet a young man here and overnight they say they want to stay here (not being transferred closer to their families). We take this into account: first, your family, and take care of your child. But when they meet a guy, they forget. This is striking for me. Q: But this situation happens with men. A: With men this is more understandable. For me, it’s much more difficult to understand this in the case of a mother, I don’t know why.
The solutions offered to the represented problems show a relative coherence with the representation of the problem in this frame. A first set of measures in the Action Program for GE aims to address motherhood and family responsibilities. To this end, measures are presented that try to meet the “special needs” of women in the penitentiary system. However, these measures are linked to traditional gender roles, which are ultimately reinforced. For example, sentences in open prisons are promoted in the case of “circumstances of strong dependency from the family group” and the legislative measures aimed at reducing prison sentences intend to allow “early return to family and work responsibilities as effective strategies for those profiles with lower levels of dangerousness and greater capacity for social integration.” In this section, the text for the first time includes a reference to men (albeit in brackets) indicating that the measures will also apply to men with similar family responsibilities. Similarly, to respond to maternity in prison, the text states that mothers’ units will be created and strengthened.
In summary, the analysis shows that issues related to maternity and family responsibilities are addressed through a set of measures aimed almost exclusively at women, thereby ensuring they continue to fulfill almost exclusively traditional gender roles. In the discourses, there is no awareness of the unequal sexual division of care in society, or of the need to eliminate this unfair distribution and transform the prevailing gender system.
The victimhood frame
According to both the program and the interviews, women prisoners are dependent and have a lack of autonomy and low self-esteem, indicating a failure to meet expectations “about their role as women, mothers, wives.” This failure is aggravated by the prison experience. For example, the lack of autonomy was conceptualized by one interviewee as the “psychological dependence on men, and a lack of personal autonomy. She is always subjected to him, without his support, she feels incomplete or unsuccessful.” These discursive representations are linked to stereotypes that surround the heteronormative construction of women in a patriarchal system that emphasize fragility and dependency and that characterize women as victims of violence and abuse. According to this frame, these characteristics lead to connections with the criminal world, and have a series of physical and psychological consequences. As the text states:
Today we know the high frequency of episodes of sexual and domestic abuse as well as violence from intimate partners; and the direct relationship that these experiences have had in their criminal history and the subsequent physical and psychological consequences: drug dependency, depression and attempts to self-harm, aggressiveness, overmedication, etc.
Once again, the problem is mainly represented as a women’s problem. While the specific needs of women are mentioned, there is no mention of the structural factors outside of the prison that lead to these types of situations.
The treatment of gender-based violence in prisons focuses on two particular groups: women prisoners and male inmates convicted of gender-based violence and aggression. For women prisoners, a series of measures in the Action Program for GE are aimed at identifying, preventing, and addressing the effects of this form of violence. It includes an awareness subprogram that addresses deficits in personal independence, low self-esteem, and similar issues to help women develop skills to prevent situations of violence. The program also includes measures aimed at prison professionals to help them better identify women suffering from violence. In the case of men, the program incorporates some measures for men convicted of gender-based violence and the representation of the problem of gender-based violence is limited to intimate relationships and their context, suggesting that only the victims and perpetrators have roles in the solution. Notably, the program lacks measures to raise awareness about gender inequality and combat gender-based violence among all men and women. Consequently, both the problem of violence against women and its solution are isolated from the structural conditions that define gender inequality.
The frame of the productive member of the economy and society
The representation of gender inequality in the penal environment portrays incarcerated women as individuals with a wide range of deficiencies. As the following excerpt from the program states:
They also suffer from a high rate of illiteracy and lack of professional qualifications; i.e. characteristics that make them less socially competent, or lead them to be unemployed or to lower paid jobs. This lack of social competence is also aggravated by a lack of social skills in their relations with others, an unkempt appearance, a lack of basic civic education standards, a lack of knowledge of appropriate patterns of punctuality, saving, dietary habits, etc.
These deficiencies also contribute to driving women into criminal behavior, which is considered to be often economically motivated:
Their personal characteristics, together with other social factors underlying social exclusion, make women completely vulnerable to involvement in criminal activities of an economic nature.
Once again, inequalities are depicted as resulting from factors for which women themselves are held responsible. That is, they have a series of personal, professional, emotional, and family burdens that lead them to commit crimes and, consequently, to be discriminated against in the penal system. This characterization of the problem is strictly linked to the individual problems of the women themselves. In these representations of the problem, there is no reference to structural factors or the unequal gender system. On the contrary, these deficiencies respond to the individual circumstances of women. Correspondingly, the prognosis focuses on “repairing” individual deficits so women can resume or fulfill their roles as socially active individuals, mothers, and wives, as well as independent and self-sufficient subjects through education and employment.
Second, a set of measures is developed in the program to respond to women prisoners’ lack of self-esteem, independence, and education. However, according to the program, the intervention should go beyond “simply offering activities, programs and services […], because similar opportunities were offered abroad, and women did not take advantage of them.” Within this frame, the solutions presented fail to address the structural inequalities in society and that can lead to social exclusion, regardless of an individual’s education or motivation. Furthermore, the target group is exclusively women. Although the text refers to other actors and forms of collaboration—for example, with penitentiary agents for the development of cooperatives and institutional agreements—the relevance of these collaborations among the set of measures proposed, as well as its conceptualization as a problem, is not balanced throughout the text.
A further observation is that the policy reinforces a “naturalized condition” of women, portraying them as more dependent and “in need” of supervision to determine their interests and goals, rather than attempting to reverse this perception. The proposed model is based on “personal supervision,” as illustrated in this excerpt from the Action Program for GE: “For all women under our responsibility, it is proposed a program of guidance and personal supervision, through their engagement in a continuous process of permanent achievements, going from their current degree of dependency towards their personal autonomy, to a combination of social programs, educational services, and personal intervention.”
Other measures aim to reinforce habits such as punctuality, order, and physical appearance, thereby promoting a “domesticity model” (Ballesteros-Pena 2017) of women’s behavior that aligns with traditional gender roles and is disconnected from the idea of transforming these roles. Finally, they claim that “time in prison should be a time of personal growth,” which appears to overlook the negative effects of incarceration, given the conditions of confinement, the near-total lack of autonomous decision-making, and isolation from society, and also contradicts the ideal of social reintegration that the program purportedly promotes.
In the gender frames presented so far, a variety of approaches to gender equality can be found. However, if we analyze them in the context of the history and development of gender equality policies in Spain, these frames reflect a precarious level of development, not only with respect to the existence of frames, but also with respect to absences and gaps. There is a certain degree of “isolation” in the sense that the framings do not appear to reflect input from other areas of gender equality policy or diverse stakeholders. This limited exchange of ideas, approaches, and tools between the prison system and other sectors leads us to label these policies as “confined policies,” mirroring the confinement experienced by women in prisons. The historical “confined” nature of prison policies in Spain partly explains the ways in which gender inequalities in prison are constructed as a policy problem and the narrow definition of some of the issues identified.
In terms of gender equality meanings, the development of the program “fixed” the concept within the Action Program for GE policy document, which ultimately was the result of a social struggle to get the issue of gender inequalities in Spanish prisons onto the political agenda. At the same time, the narrow and stereotypical notion of motherhood as well as the persistent emphasis on men and women’s equal access to services in prisons reflect a very limited interpretation of the issues within the discourses analyzed (Lombardo, Meier and Verloo 2009, 4). This reflects the “shrinking” of the concept of gender equality.
With respect to Squires’s (1999, 2005) categorization, although both in the Action Program for GE and in the discourses of stakeholders, there are some references to gender discrimination and/or to the particularities of women that can be connected to reversal and inclusion approaches to gender equality (Squires 2005; Verloo 2005; Walby 2005), there is also a denial of the existence of gender inequality. Any consideration that might reflect a displacement approach (Squires 2005; Verloo 2005; Walby 2005), in the sense of a wider transformation of the system as a whole, is fully absent. Conversely to this more “closed” construction of the problem, the discourses reflect a broader incorporation of neoliberal ideas in the solutions offered, especially those related to the re-entry of women prisoners into the economy and the labor market after their release. This can be illustrated by two examples. On the one hand, while talking about women’s perceived deficiencies and how to “repair” them, the solutions offered reflect certain contemporary discourses that place the responsibility for becoming a productive and self-sufficient subject on the individual, ignoring structural constraints and systematic discrimination. On the other hand, although not extensively developed in the discourses, the reference to forms of collaboration with non-state actors, such as cooperatives or other institutions, in the development of certain programs, can be conceptualized as a form of “outsourcing” and, ultimately, as a form of “government at a distance” (Garland 1996; Rose 1996).
Finally, an intersectional approach is almost completely absent from the formulation of the policy. There are several mentions of foreign national women, women with disabilities, and young people. However, the approach to the multiple factors influencing their experience of imprisonment is very general—there is no description of these factors, no explanation of how they might contribute to or result in discrimination, and only vague proposals for action. In some cases, references to the level of gender inequality and discrimination against women from Latin American and Caribbean countries contribute to associating this ethnicity with patriarchal ideas and in opposition to Spanish culture. Furthermore, there is almost a total absence, in both the representation of the problem and its solutions, of other groups whose social exclusion is widely documented in Spain, both inside and outside of prison. On the one hand, the Roma population, especially women, have been largely overlooked in the formulation of the policy. The few studies in Spain on this ethnic group were carried out in the 1990s (Barañí Team 2007) and highlighted the multiple discriminations they suffer inside the prison system, as well as the social stigma attached to the group outside. According to these studies, about 25 percent of the prison population is Roma. Yet, the program does not present an analysis of their situation inside prison and does not develop measures to respond to their specific situation. In the discourses of the interviewees, discrimination and high numbers are simply attributed to the limitations that Roma women face because of their belonging to this ethnic group and its intrinsic characteristics. On the other hand, there is a complete lack of recognition of sexual diversity throughout the text: there are no references to the conditions of detention of gays, lesbians, transgender, and other groups.
Conclusions
This article has aimed to tease out the meanings of gender equality in prison policies in Spain in policy discourses. Specifically, we wanted to unpack the construction of the problem of gender inequality by analyzing the policy frames in the Action Program of GE and in the discourse of key actors, while also elucidating the factors affecting the policy-making process in this specific sector. Our main argument is that the prison system’s failure to embrace the exchange of ideas, involve diverse actors, and engage with civil society, particularly feminist and women’s movements, constrains the formulation process and influences the understanding of gender inequality as a policy issue and the proposed solutions. Specifically, we contend that persistent views of women prisoners over time, coupled with the absence of external actors in the development of the Action Program for GE, have restricted the understanding of gender inequality. This has resulted in the maintenance of gender equality policies with limited transformative potential, reinforcing specific strategies, and narrow interpretations of gender inequality.
By applying a CFA to the adoption process, four issue frames have emerged: the numbers frame, the domesticity frame, the victimhood frame, and the frame of the productive member of the economy and society. Diverse and contradictory trends in the policy process in this particular area have emerged from these frames. First, the persistence of a denial of the existence of gender inequality, particularly in the discourses of certain political actors and prison staff. Second, a combination of an “encapsulation” dynamic in which the boundaries of the understanding of gender inequality are marked by domesticity, victimhood, and lack of capacities. The gender policies adopted do not seem to have benefited from the ideas and advances of gender equality policies in other sectors in Spain. As a result, gender penitentiary policies can be characterized as “confined policies,” impervious to external stimuli. Third, and contrarily, some aspects of the policy have absorbed neoliberal ideas, such as the promotion of self-sufficient autonomy and the outsourcing of various interventions.
This article contributes to filling a gap in the literature on gender and politics as well as feminist policy studies: the study of prison policies. Delving into this sector is crucial because it intersects with social justice goals and power imbalances. Women in prison constitute an extremely marginalized population affected by intersectional inequalities in all countries, including Spain. Exploring gender equality issues within the prison system is a fundamental condition for a more equitable and robust science. Furthermore, leveraging the array of analytical tools developed in the gender and politics discipline to the analysis of the prison system, and enhancing these tools and concepts with empirical and theoretical insights coming from prison studies, will significantly enhance feminist policy research. Ultimately, this will also contribute to guaranteeing women’s rights and to the challenging of the complex role of gender equality policies within prisons.
In this article, we have relied on discursive approaches to explore the adoption phase of gender equality policies in the penal system in Spain, underscoring the key influence of the contours and dynamics of the prison sector to explain the policy results. However, further research is needed to consolidate this policy sector within the gender and politics literature. First, expanding the scope of the research to analyze other jurisdictions, to identify how different penal cultures affect the development of gender equality policies, could contribute to increase the body of knowledge from a comparative perspective. Second, for the particular case analyzed here, it would be of great interest to extend the research to include other aspects and phases of the policy process. Finally, coercive policies are not limited to prison settings. Currently, migrants and asylum-seekers are subject to highly restrictive procedures in detention centers and experience significant restrictions on their freedom. The distinctive character of this body of coercive policies requires further research from a feminist policy analysis approach.
Funding
Funding support for this article was provided by the the Programme for Attracting Talent (Community of Madrid) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement number 847635.
Conflict of interest. None declared.
Data availability
The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly for the privacy of individuals that participated in the study and considering the particular context, that is, prison, where the research was conducted.
Notes
Among the sensitizing questions for diagnosis: What is represented as the problem? Why is it seen as a problem? Causality (what is seen as a cause of what?); and for prognosis: What to do? What actions are needed and why? What are the main goals? For both dimensions, intersectionality: Is gender intersected with other inequalities such as class, ethnic origin, age, sexual orientation, disability? In the attribution of roles in diagnosis: who is seen as responsible to have caused the problem? Who are the problem holders? What is a norm group if there is a problem group? (normativity); For prognosis: Call for action and non-action (who should [not] do what?) Who is acted upon? (target groups)
The qualitative research mostly involved visits and interviews at three correctional facilities: a women-only facility and two mixed-gender facilities. The fieldwork included interviews, non-participatory observation, and attendance at some of the events that were organized in prison. Apart from interviews with staff, a total of eighty-six women were interviewed. For more details, see Ballesteros-Pena (2017, 2018).
Data from Space I Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics 2021. https://wp.unil.ch/space/space-i/annual-reports/.
The only study carried out in Spain estimated that 25 percent of women prisoners were Roma when their proportion in the general population is just 1.4 percent (Equipo Barañí 2001).
In 2018, the PSOE returned to government after a vote of no confidence. After two elections (the first one was repeated due to a failure to reach an agreement to form a government), the PSOE and UP parties formed a coalition government during the period 2020–2023.
