A CHILD’S RIGHT: SUPPORTING CHILD-PARENT RELATIONSHPS
THROUGHOUT INCARCERATION
Angela Vela-Broaddus
B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2005
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
A CHILD’S RIGHT: SUPPORTING CHILD-PARENT RELATIONSHPS
THROUGHOUT INCARCERATION
A Project
by
Angela Vela-Broaddus
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Kisun Nam, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Angela Priscilla Vela-Broaddus
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the Project.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., M.S.W.
Division of Social Work
iii
________________
Date
Abstract
of
A CHILD’S RIGHT: SUPPORTING CHILD-PARENT RELATIONSHPS
THROUGHOUT INCARCERATION
by
Angela Priscilla Vela-Broaddus
This study sought to determine if a relationship existed between the frequency and
quality of contact between male inmates and their children, and any negative impact on
the behavioral functioning of those children. It was assumed within the research that this
contact was both desired and appropriate. A secondary data set from the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data that included both quantitative and qualitative data sets,
collected from inmates and their families in two New Jersey state prisons over the course
of one year, was analyzed in an attempt to determine if such a relationship was present.
The research hypothesis was that if such a relationship was found, the higher the quality
and quantity of contact, the lower the incidents of negative behavioral functioning by the
children of these inmates. Quality in this sense ranged from face-to-face visits as the
highest, and mail contact such as letters and cards, as the lowest quality of contact. The
iv
study findings indicated that there was a correlation between the quality of contact
between inmates and their children and negative behavioral issues exhibited by those
children. As the sample size of the study was small (n=35), no statistical analysis was
possible, but the crosstabulation completed between some contact and behavioral
variables evinced that there was a connotation between lower incidents of child
behavioral issues and more frequent contact with their incarcerated parent. While not all
of the contact variables had direct impact on the three different reported child behavior
variables, the significance that the analysis did find was promising. More longitudinal
research studies with greater sample sizes and the use of a control group, is required to
fully establish this correlation in order to institute and advocate for, the policies and
interventions which will allow children of incarcerated parents greater access to their
parent in prison and support family maintenance during parental incarceration.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Kisun Nam
_______________________
Date
v
DEDICATION
For my mother, who to this day, remains the strongest and most amazing woman I have
ever known; to my husband, who supported me throughout this experience with love and
an incredible amount of selflessness; to my son, Che who fills my life each day with joy,
and who will always be my greatest achievement ; to my best friend Ameshia Shameen
Arthur, whose help and encouragement gave me the confidence to believe in myself; and
to the 10 million children and youth in the United States, whose lives have been affected
by parental incarceration; keep your head up and your eyes facing forward, you have the
ability to rise, even if all those around you expect that you will fall.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem ......................................................................................3
Statement of the Problem ..........................................................................................5
Statement of Purpose ..............................................................................................18
Limitations .............................................................................................................19
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................................................21
History....................................................................................................................23
Effects of Parental Incarceration ............................................................................31
Frequency of Contact/interventions .......................................................................37
Gaps in the Literature.............................................................................................41
Summary ................................................................................................................44
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................46
Data and Sample ....................................................................................................46
Measurement Instrument .......................................................................................48
Study Design ..........................................................................................................50
Study Population and Sample ................................................................................52
4. DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................54
Univariate Analysis ................................................................................................55
Bivariate Analysis ..................................................................................................62
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................85
Summary ................................................................................................................85
Conclusions ............................................................................................................87
vii
Limitations of the Research ...................................................................................92
Implications for Social Work, policy and Future Research ...................................94
References ..............................................................................................................98
viii
LIST OF TABLES
1.
Table 1 Frequency Child Visit-Behavioral Problems .............................................64
2.
Table 2 Frequency Calls-Behavioral Problems .....................................................65
3.
Table 3 Frequency Mail-Behavioral Problems ......................................................66
4.
Table 4 Frequency Child Visit-School Work ........................................................71
5.
Table 5 Frequency Mail- School Work .................................................................72
6.
Table 6 Frequency Calls-Child School Problems ..................................................76
7.
Table 7 How Often Spent Time with Children-School Work ...............................78
8.
Table 8 How Often Spent Time with Children-Frequency Calls ..........................79
9.
Table 9 How Often Spent Time with Children-Frequency Mail ...........................80
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
Figure 1 Sentence Length ......................................................................................56
2.
Figure 2 Age of Inmates ........................................................................................57
3.
Figure 3 Race/Ethnicity of Inmates .......................................................................58
4.
Figure 4 Inmates With/Without Children ..............................................................59
5.
Figure 5 Inmates With/Without Children Under 18 ..............................................60
6.
Figure 6 Number of Children Under 18 .................................................................61
x
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Much of the research done about the prison population in the United States has
mainly focused on the nature of the crimes committed, sentencing policies, race and
rehabilitative programs within both State and Federal prisons. Throughout the past fifty
years however, incarceration of parents has become an area of interest for social
researchers and more recently, policy-makers and advocates. As the number of prisons
and inmates has increased over the past few decades, these groups of researchers have
become aware of another population that is being directly affected by incarceration;
namely, the children of prisoners. While this population has always coincided with the
numbers of inmates, it has remained largely invisible to the general public. The number
of prisons grown over the years across the United States, and consequently the number of
inmates; with this large increase the public has become more aware that the numbers of
children who are being left behind continues to increase as well. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics Report (2008), noted that from 1991 to midyear 2007, children of incarcerated
parents rose some 80 percent during this period alone. During this same period, and
broken down by parental gender, children with a mother in prison grew 131 percent and
children with a father in prison rose 77 percent.
Estimates of the number of children in our country that have a parent in prison
have been difficult to determine. Many of the estimates that have been given in several
research studies surrounding this population do not take into account the number of
2
children who have had a parent in prison at some point in their lives; this number has
been estimated to be as large as 10 million. Obviously, taking this figure into account
yields a much higher number of affected children than counting only those who currently
have a parent in prison. One such estimate that most researchers agree regarding this
group of children is 2 million within the United States. Clopton (2008), places the
number at 1.5 million in 1999, with 22 percent being under the age of five and 58 percent
being under the age of ten. In an attempt to project the numbers of children within this
population that experience parental incarceration chronically, 75 percent of inmates in
state prisons have prior convictions and 56 percent have served time before; on average,
each one of these parents has left behind two children (The Urban Institute [UI], 2008).
What these estimates also do not reflect within research on this population, is the
number of children who experience dual parental incarceration. The Urban Institute
(2008), found in their report on children of inmates, that of the number of teens in the
study who had a mother in prison, two-thirds had a father in prison as well. The increase
in the numbers of both men and women in prison even in the past two decades has been
significant. From 1991 to 2007, the number of men in prison increased 80 percent. A
study of the numbers of women in prison showed that the number of women incarcerated
for more than one year increased 757 percent from 1997 to 2004 (Lichtenwalter, Garase
& Barker, 2010). Beckerman (1998), found that within the past 25 years alone, the
number of women incarcerated has jumped from 6,000 to 74,730 in state and federal
prisons and that the number in jails has risen from 19,077 to 59,296; 75 percent of the
3
women counted in this study are mothers. The amount of time these parents are serving
has also increased. The Counsel of State Governments Justice Center report (2009),
found that on average, mothers spent seven years in prison and fathers served twelve
years.
Background of the Problem
With the numbers of both mothers and fathers rising this significantly just within
the past few decades, their children have become more prominent presence within
schools, foster care and the Child Welfare System, with each of these public entities
recognizing the unique issues surrounding this population. As research began to increase
within this population, early studies sought to determine a link between parental
incarceration and the chances of future incarceration in the lives of their children. Much
of this early research claimed to have found this link, something which has not been
empirically proven, but rather has served to create the stigma that this population
endures; however, the separation from their parent and this stigma does create some
unique challenges for these children; often they encounter emotional and behavior
problems, sometimes severely. Several factors must be taken into account in determining
the risk for children in this population. The socioeconomic status of these children, the
educational attainment of the adults closest to them, their exposure to substance abuse or
domestic violence and any parental mental illness are all factors that determine the risk of
emotional and behavior issues.
4
Christian (2009), noted that in looking into the external factors surrounding
parental incarceration that out of the 5,000 children studied from 1998 to 2000 in a
national longitudinal study of fragile families with a history of parental incarceration, that
of the children with only their fathers in prison, were 40 percent more likely to have an
unemployed father, 25 percent more likely to have experienced material hardship, 34
percent less likely to have married parents and four times more likely to come into
contact with the Child Welfare System, when compared to children in fragile families
without a history of parental incarceration. The Urban Institute (2008), found in its report
that those children with the Child Welfare System who currently or formally had a parent
in prison, were much more likely to experience these factors than children who had no
history of parental incarceration.
While there is still a small amount of evidence that parental incarceration is
independently associated with anti-social behavior exhibited by their children, a few have
found this to be true. In an analysis of five studies attempting to determine this fact, three
of the five showed an effect of parental imprisonment (after controlling for other risk
factors), on children’s mental health, school performance, drug use and future
unemployment (UI, 2008). These findings are not limited to children who experience
long periods of parental incarceration only. Dellaire (2007), notes that in a study of
35,000 children with mothers in prison who were serving less than one year, still had
issues with poor school performance; a fact attributed to the children having to move
more than twice, which disrupted their ability to form an attachment to their schools and
5
make new friends. While the amount of time that a parent spends in prison can increase
the risks of children exhibiting emotional and behavioral problems, it is also true that
those who experience only a short time of parental incarceration experience these issues
as well.
The research and studies on this population within the past decade have found
more information than has previously been discovered. The following sections will look
into the history of the rise in the number of prisoners, a product of shifting sentencing and
drug policies and the subsequent rise in the number of children directly affected by the
separation from their parents due to incarceration. A look into current correctional
policies surrounding family maintenance will also be discussed in order to give context to
the hindrances these children commonly encounter in trying to preserve the relationship
with their incarcerated parent. While there is much more work to be accomplished in the
research regarding these children, it has become evident that this population is in dire
need of interventions and support in order to live healthy and happy lives as they become
adults.
Statement of Problem
1. Federal Drug Policy
One of the main causes in the increase of both male and female incarceration in
the United States over the past few decades has been the “crack-down” on non-violent
drug offences. In California alone, 80 percent of inmates in state prisons are incarcerated
for these offences. Arditti (2005), found that non-violent drug offenders has jumped
6
from one half to two-thirds since 1970. This increase can be seen as a direct consequence
of harsher drug laws and polices instituted across the nation. This trend in harsher
polices toward drug offenders stems from a “trickle-down” effect, originating from the
general public and then making its way down to policy makers, resulting in the current
political climate of punishment versus rehabilitation. In his dissertation and report to the
U.S. Department of Justice, Braman (2002), notes that overwhelmingly polls distributed
to Americans continue to show a desire for harsher treatment of drug offences. One such
poll showed that 70 percent of Americans feel that politicians do not treat drug offenders
“harshly enough” (GSS 1975-2000 as cited in Braman, 2002).
With Americans pushing its government to continually impose harsher policies
on drug offenders and drug-related offences, the rise in number of those incarcerated due
to conviction of such crimes will only continue to grow. Braman gives five examples of
such federal drug and sentencing policies enacted from the 1980’s though the 1990’s,
largely a consequence of the 1980’s “Say No to Drugs” campaign. The 1984
Comprehensive Crime Act & Sentencing Reform Act established longer minimum
sentences for drug offences, required federal judges to use new, tougher sentencing
guidelines and eliminated parole for all federal offenders. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act
along with instituting these harsher minimum sentencing guidelines, went further in its
transfer of sentencing power from federal judges to prosecutors and provided $1.7 billion
dollars to states specifically for the construction of new prison facilities. The 1988
Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act instituted a minimum of five years in prison for the
7
possession of five grams of crack cocaine (a drug commonly used within the Black
community), a minimum of twenty years for continued “criminal enterprises” and widely
increased what was to be constituted as conspiracy. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act, while aimed at violent offenders, also included a statute that
mandated an even more mandatory sentencing and lengthened minimum sentences foe
drug offences. The 1996 Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth in Sentencing Act, which
sought to amend the 1994 Violent Crime Act, offered states over $9 billion in incentives if
states adopted the harsher sentencing guidelines for drug offences.
With the creation of the “Say no to Drugs” federal campaign, policies such as
these began to spread through Washington and the country like wildfire. As more polices
such as these became instituted, the numbers of both male and female inmates began to
rise to an unprecedented amount in almost every state in the country. As Poehlmann,
Dellarie, Loper and Shear (2010), point out in their look into the increase of this
population, the “tough on crime” attitude that many Americans and politicians adopted
throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s created an environment in which incarceration became
relied upon as a method for dealing with this societal issue, and disproportionally effected
the poorest of American families. As the numbers of the convicted of drug-related
crimes rose, so too did the number of prisons being built to maintain them. The
staggering number of prisons in California alone can be easily comprehended by
comparing the costs the state inaugurates for inmates versus students. In an examination
of the most recent data, California spent $9,706 per student for both elementary and
8
secondary education in 2008; in 2001 the state spent $25,053 per inmate, with more than
half of that year’s $4.2 billion dollar state budget being allocated for salaries, wages and
benefits (Stephen, 2001).
In looking into the percentage of inmates who are both non-violent drug offenders
and parents, The Bureau of Justice Statistics Report (2008), found that among male
prisoners, 59 percent in state prisons and 69 percent in federal prisons were among this
population and that 63 percent in state prisons also within this population were mothers.
With the statistics showing that both male and female parent prison populations are
growing, the number of children that they leave behind is steadily increasing as well.
The same Bureau of Justice Statistics Report (2008), showed that from the years 1991
through mid-year 2007, the number of children with at least one parent incarcerated
increased 80 percent; more specifically during this period, the number of children with a
mother in prison increased 131 percent, and the number of children with a father
incarcerated rose 77 percent. Not only are these sentencing and criminalization polices
surrounding non-violent drug offences pushing up the numbers of inmates, the numbers
of prisons being built and the dollar amounts spent to prosecute, convict and house them,
they are also directly effecting the children associated with these inmates; children, who
have through no fault of their own become in a sense casualties of this war on drugs.
2. Correctional Policies and Family Maintenance
Along with the continuing creation and preservation of the drug policies driving
these huge increases effecting children of incarcerated parents, current correctional
9
polices surrounding visitation and family maintenance are also producing many of the
hardships associated with this population. Basic polices such as where inmates are sent
to serve their sentences are creating huge hardships for children in their ability to
maintain contact with their parent during their incarceration. On average, these convicted
men and women are being placed in prisons at least one hundred miles away from their
city of residence; cities where their children still reside. Arditti (2005), notes that such
practices can not only lead to permanent, rather than temporary familial separations, but
that the prevalence of the practice shows it seemingly as a strategy to purposefully isolate
inmates as a method of punishment. The consequences of using isolation as a form of
punishment is that it damages any chance of children being able to maintain any form of
meaningful contact with their parent in prison, as well as removing the ability of the
inmate to effectively or actively parent their children during their incarceration, as well as
significantly reducing their chances of doing so upon their release into the community.
The maintenance of contact between inmates and their children has been shown in
several reports and studies regarding children of inmates to be beneficial to both the child
and the incarcerated parent. In the Counsel of State Governments Justice Center report
(2009), maintains that contact between incarcerated parents and their children was shown
not only to reduce some of the psychosocial and emotional/behavioral issues some of
these children experience, it was also found to have a positive effect on improving the
prisoner reentry process as well as reduce recidivism. Poehlmann, et. al, discovered in
their examination of several studies seeking to find a connection between children’s
10
behavioral and mental health issues and contact with their incarcerated parents, mixed
conclusions; however, all studies when taking into account a specific type of contact
(such as visits or letters), or the institution of a visiting program within the prison such as
the one run by the Girl Scouts of America, showed a lowering of negative behavior.
Albeit more research regarding this particular finding within this population needs to be
conducted, even the current amount of findings warrant corrections and individual
prisons to create polices supporting family maintenance. According to Finney-Hairston
(1998), current correctional polices around the country are centered solely with the
punishment of inmates and the security of the facility; while no one is arguing about the
importance of one of the focuses of the department being the security of each prison, the
fact that no attention is paid to the thousands of families and children coming into the
prisons is unconscionable.
Children and families of inmates also have other obstacles beside geography that
often deter them from being able to maintain meaningful contact. The costs associated
with this contact, along with the costs of supporting the family member in prison can be
exorbitant. As years within the prison population shows, the majority of the inmates in
prison, both male and female, are often poor and from minority backgrounds; as such, the
families seeking to maintain contact also fall into this population. With the majority of
these families coming from lower socio-economic backgrounds, finding the money to
cover traveling costs associated with visiting a family member one hundred miles away
or more, to cover the vending machine food costs within the visiting room and the costs
11
charged for the collect phone calls inmates make home, all place such a huge financial
burden on these families that more often than not, even if contact is desired, it cannot be
maintained with regularity. Finney-Hairston notes that these collect phone calls can be as
much as three to five higher than residential rates, and that the profits created from this
form of revenue for prisons and phone companies far exceed the cost of doing business
for either of these business entities.
The macro policy issues within corrections that aide in this lack of support for the
maintenance of family ties such as this geographical one, set the tone politically for the
punishment model followed throughout the United States, and then “trickle down” to
more micro policies within each correctional setting. The main point of contact within
the prison itself is the visiting room. The highest quality of contact that can be achieved
for families and children during parental incarceration is this face-to-face
communication. More common for parents in prison are the phone calls and letters
home; which in most cases due to the geographical obstacles of incarceration is more
prevalent, but which does not provide the same level of assurance and comfort for
children concerned about their parent. When visitation is therefore possible, it is vital
then that the environment in which children are seeing and interacting with their parent is
comfortable, calming, friendly and non-threatening as well safe in order to ensure that
each child not only receives quality time with their parent during the visit, but to also
lower the amount of trauma the child has already contracted from the initial separation
from their parent.
12
As the visiting room is the most important setting for parent-child interaction, the
polices that create the environment setting are crucial in determining the quality of the
contact to be had between inmates and their children. While it would seem that since the
polices surrounding safety issues within prisons are for the most part uniform, the
policies that regulate the one point of public contact with inmates would be similar as
well; however, visiting room polices vary widely from institution to institution. In a
review of literature surrounding the topic, several variations to regulations were found to
exist. Some prisons require that children may visit their parent only if that parent is the
biological mother or father; others only allow children who are accompanied by a
biological parent to visit. Visiting days among prisons vary just as widely; some allow
visiting only on weekends, others offer visiting more than one weekday during a week
and yet others only designate alternating weekends or weekdays for visiting. The time
permitted to spend during visits is also inconsistent. Some institutions only allow for a
couple of hours during a visit, and still others allow for an all day visit of six or eight
hours. Such inconsistencies create a hectic and unstructured environment for children
who need just the opposite.
Beside the complete lack of structure found in prison visiting rooms, the treatment
that many families and children of inmates are confronted with by the correctional staff
adds yet another impediment to visiting. A report composed by the Urban Institute
(2008), found that families often met with humiliating and degrading treatment by
correctional staff when at the prison to visit a loved one. The treatment of families and
13
children of prisoners by correctional staff is often found to be substandard, with visitors
being subject to an array of debasing behaviors such as unnecessary body frisks and
searches, belittling comments and intimidation meant to keep visitors in a similar power
position to that of the inmates they are visiting. Christian suggests that correctional
officers coming into contact with civilian visitors, be trained in not only the many
hardships that the children of inmates face emotionally, but also in the importance of
family maintenance for both the inmates and their children. Such trainings would most
likely include basic child development, the importance of structure and face-to-face
contact with children and their parents and some emotional intelligence training to better
instruct staff on how to interact appropriately with children and their families so as not to
create more stress or trauma.
In addition to the institutional polices guiding the visitation process, the
regulations surrounding the actual visit with an inmate also create an often uncomfortable
and uninviting space. Physical contact between inmates and their significant others is
regulated, as many no doubt outside of prisons would expect to be true, yet there are also
often tenets limiting the frequency and type of physical contact between inmates and their
children as well. The Annie E. Casey Foundation report (2007), states that it is common
for visiting room policies to include specific time limitations on hugging or kissing when
arriving and leaving the prison. These regulations may include such rules as allowing
only one hug or kiss at the beginning and end of a visit, and at no other time; others may
dictate the exact proximity a child can sit next to their parent, whether that be next to
14
them at a limited distance, or across the table from them at all times. In a report
completed for the California Research Bureau (2003), young and adolescent children of
inmates were interviewed about how important being able to engage in physical contact
of some kind with their parent was incredibly important to them:
I couldn’t even begin to express to you in words how fulfilling that was to
my soul to give my mother a hug. For her to give me a kiss. For me to sit
in her lap. If I hadn’t been able to do that, I would have felt very empty
then, as a child, and maybe as well now.
All of the above discussed possibilities for policies and regulations surrounding
visitation between inmates and their children exist in some combination at every prison.
There are some examples of more innovative practices more recently having been
instituted, such as one created in a correctional appropriations bill in 2007 in Michigan.
The bill demanded that a pilot program by established in the state’s prisons specifically
for children visiting their parents (Christian). Programs such as these however, are few
and far between. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2007), notes in its report that childfriendly, or even family-friendly visiting rooms are not the norm; because of the physical
conditions of the rooms, the confusing regulations, the demeaning treatment by
correctional staff, the lack of appropriate parent-child interaction activities and the
obstructions to the display of physical affection between inmates and their children all
directly affect the frequency with which children visit their incarcerated parents.
Face-to-face contact with their incarcerated parents gives children an important
part of the stability they lose when their parent enters into prison. In matters of the
psychological attachment children form with their parents, normally through structured
15
every-day contact with their parent that shows them they are taken care of and safe,
Poehlmann, et. al note that a secure attachment such as this allow children to derive
comfort from that attachment in dangerous or threatening situations; this secure
attachment also allows the child to utilize that parent as a foundation from which to break
off from and explore the world around them. When such an attachment is interrupted
from a traumatic event such as parental incarceration, children loose this sense of comfort
and safety, creating a huge risk factor for future psychological issues, low self-esteem
and difficulty in future interpersonal relationships. Visitation allows for the maintenance
of continuing this attachment relationship with the parent by providing the most proximal
form of interaction; however as Poehlmann, et. al also note in their review of seven
studies looking into the importance of contact between inmates and their children, that
only visitation with some sort of intervention or program helping to conduct it, showed
any benefits for children; this finding shows that not only must children have proximal
access to their parents, the quality of that access is also of significant importance.
For younger children, this form of contact may be even more important. As
younger children do not have the language capability or emotional intelligence to
articulate the feelings they have regarding their separation from their parent and all of the
emotions that stem from the removal of their most vital relationship, face-to-face contact
provides them a way in which they can communicate these feelings that is not be possible
through letters or over the phone (Snyder, 2009). While current research has found ties
to negative emotional and behavioral impacts on children due to their parent’s
16
incarceration, true empirical proof of such a relationship had yet to be concluded;
however, decades of research exists linking the overall well-being of a child and a
positive, supportive attachment relationship with a parent. As this relationship has been
accepted within the various arenas working with children, the validity of applying it
specifically to children of inmates should not be questioned.
As research efforts with this population continue, myths surrounding children of
incarcerated parents must be first dispelled. As this kind of research has evolved over the
past few decades, researchers in the field have come to recognize that even some of the
best intentions in achieving more positive outcomes for these children and families have
led to the creation of more damage than good. All too commonly, researchers whose
goal it is to highlight the many hardships associated with having a parent in prison, have
only perpetuated the stigma already surrounding this population. The report created for
the Annie E. Casey Foundation (2007), notes specifically that studies which claim to
have found a link between children of inmates and the probability of a future life of crime
for those children have done nothing but to proliferate the false belief that these children
are more likely to become criminals themselves. This false assumption has been printed
all too many times as fact in several studies and only supports the stigma these children
already face as potential threats to society. Such assumptions are dangerous in their
possibility of leading other research in this topic in a manner that only digresses from the
substantiated approach needed to guide the future development of this subject matter.
Such an example can be seen in a study conducted in Sweden. The study supposedly not
17
only found a link between the children of inmates and their higher risk for future
criminality when compared to children without parental incarceration, it also claimed that
their research determined that the number of times a parent went in and out of prison,
predicted the number of future offences committed by those children (Murry, Janson &
Farrington, as cited in The Urban Institute, 2008).
While it has been widely accepted that some relationship between parental
incarceration and negative emotional, psychological and behavioral issues exists, the fact
that there has yet to be even a casual relationship between these to variables empirically
proven should warn researchers that until more studies have been conducted with this
population, attempting to announce any relationship found as fact is not only
irresponsible, it is unethical due to the potential harm caused to these children. One of
the more promising approaches to this research in attempting to determine a relationship
between parental incarceration and its consequences for children, are studies being
conducted that provide for more than incarceration as a variable. In order to determine
the nature of this relationship, future research needs to take in variables such as poverty,
race, and educational background into account as well. One study that focused on 102
children born exposed to cocaine from low-income urban communities found that out of
those children who also had at least one parent incarcerated, were more likely than their
counterparts to have emotional and behavioral issues such as depression and teacherreported behavioral issues in class (Wilbur, Marani, Appugliese, Woods, Siegel, Cabral
& Frank, 2007 as cited in The Annie E. Casey Foundation report, 2007). Such studies are
18
few in number due to the cost, the number needed for a significant sample size and
various barriers such as the creation of control groups with the exact set of circumstances
excepting parental incarceration.
Statement of Purpose
Given the nature of the research in which this study will highlight, there are
obvious limitations to achieving this caliber of exploration. What is hoped to be
accomplished by the researcher in this paper, is the discovery of a relationship between
the quality and frequency of contact between inmates and their children and any negative
impact on the emotional, psychological or behavioral functioning of these children. This
research question relies on the assumption that such contact is considered appropriate and
desired, and that out of each type of contact accessible between children and their
inmates, visitation is considered the highest quality, with phone contact and letters being
second and third in value. The hypothesis of the outcome in the discovery if such a
relationship is that the higher the quality and frequency of this contact, the lower the
incident of negative impact in children’s emotional, behavioral or psychological
functioning.
The aim of the researcher in determining such a relationship is to provide
substantiation that correctional policy on both the macro and micro levels aimed toward
maintenance of family connections during incarceration can greatly reduce the risk of
these negative impacts for these children. Just as children that are not affected by
parental incarceration need consistent interaction with their parents in order to develop
19
healthily, children with incarcerated parents also need this dependability, perhaps even
more. The trauma associated with the sudden loss of a parent and the subsequent stigma
created from that loss for children of inmates, suggest that maintaining contact with their
parent could not only assuage some of these negative outcomes, but could also be vital in
continuing forward in their healthy development as well.
Limitations
While the secondary data source being analyzed within this paper is of high
quality due to the length of time the original followed its subjects and provides the two
viewpoints of parental incarceration from the inmates as well as their families in both
qualitative and quantitative form, there are both internal and external limitations. Within
the quantitative data collected from the families of the inmates who participated in the
study, many of the questions that mirrored most of those asked by the inmates were left
blank. This was very common among this group in regard to questions asked about their
children; comparatively, these same questions were answered more thoroughly by the
inmates. One possibility of this wide discrepancy is that many times the mothers or caretakers of these children are well aware of the stigma placed not only upon them, but on
their children as well; as such, the possibility that these care-takers were attempting to
shield their children from judgment seems the most plausible motive on their part. For
this reason, the focus of the research presented here will be on the quantitative data
collected from the inmates.
20
Externally, due to the small sample size and the use of the quantitative and
qualitative data collected from the inmates, while only the qualitative data collected from
their family members, any findings in this research will not be able to empirically prove a
relationship between inmate-child contact and child behavioral issues; what the research
can accomplish however, are findings that are promising and a possible direction for
more extensive research within this population should take. As the researcher is limited
in the utilization of all four data sets, outcomes of this study will be unable to apply these
findings generally to the population. As the research within this field has only recently
become more common, pinpointing variables that will lead to empirical evidence are now
in the beginning stages of determination by Social Workers and other entities which work
with this population. As those who continue to identify more promising findings and
interventions for these children and their families, progress toward more concrete
outcomes cannot be too far ahead, but was simply beyond the scope of the research
presented here.
21
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
It has been estimated that about ten million children in the United States have at
least one parent involved with the Criminal Justice System (Arditti, 2005). According to
Clopton and East (2008), there were 1.5 million children who had a parent in prison; of
those children, 22 percent are under the age of five, and 58 percent under the age of ten.
This number of children affected by parental incarceration has risen dramatically between
1990 and 2007, increasing 80 percent (Nickel, Garland & Kane, 2009). Of those mothers
and fathers who have identified themselves as parents, in both State and Federal facilities,
60 percent of those in State Prisons and 85 percent of those in Federal facilities claimed
to be more than one hundred miles away from their cities of origin; cities, where their
children and family still reside.
Costs then associated with trying to maintain contact with a family member in
prison can be anywhere from two hundred to six hundred dollars a month, for phone calls
or travel to visit (Clopton & East, 2008). The Urban Institute (2008), note that the collect
phone calls alone from inmates to their families cost an average of five to ten times what
a call from a residence would. These fees have become so profitable, that phone
companies who provide the collect calls will pay commissions to government
jurisdictions in order to bid for a contract (The Annie E. Casey Foundation [AECF],
2007).
22
Visitors often encounter long waiting periods, humiliating treatment by prison
staff and cramped conditions within the visiting room that are not conducive either to
families or children. Nickel, et al., found that prison visiting rooms can be so
inhospitable to families, that often they become deterred from maintaining meaningful
contact with their loved one inside. This deterrence, along with associated issues such as
cost and distance, ultimately leads to about half of the prison population (40 percent of
mothers and 60 percent of fathers) not receiving visits from their children (The Urban
Institute [UI], 2008). Visiting policies of each prison also effect family maintenance
outcomes for inmates. Policies from prison to prison vary, and are within themselves
changeable from month to month, year to year or sometimes even day to day. Such
changeability with prison policy and practices often confuse visitors, as well as prohibit
any meaningful communication between inmates and their children (AECF, 2007). With
these staggering statistics, one would assume that this population would be one much
sought out by Social Workers and at least acknowledged by the general public; this
however, is not the case.
While there is literature and studies being produced surrounding the affects of
incarceration on children of inmates, it is relatively minute compared to the focus and
attention other populations are receiving. The report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation
(2007), found in reviewing literature engaged with this population that many studies fail
to present a clear connection to children’s behaviors and their parent’s incarceration, or
utilize a control group of children with similar behavioral outcomes without parental
23
incarceration. This lack of empirical evidence is a very significant issue in regard to
creating lasting impact within the population.
Other literature in this genera consist mostly of government or non-profit
organization reports that focus mainly on ideas for policy changes within Corrections and
governmental infrastructures and several estimated statistics regarding inmates, their
children and the effects of incarceration on those children. This review of the literature
will focus on three main themes surrounding this population and found within the
literature; first, the stigma these children are attached to because of their parent’s
incarceration; second, the specific issues associated with this stigma including those
related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD as it will be referred to in the paper,
as well as the emotional and behavioral impact; and thirdly, how frequency of contact
with the parent in prison can help to alleviate the stress and trauma caused by parental
incarceration and stigma, along with other interventions that have been shown to help
reduce negative behaviors exhibited by children of incarcerated parents. Gaps in the
literature will then be discussed in order to identify where future research into this
population should be concentrated in order to best assess their needs, and then seek to
meet them.
History
Spiro (1978), gives a clear picture of the political shifts that occur in both the
Criminal Justice System and the Department of Corrections. Such agendas have the
ability to then significantly influence the general public in matters of crime and
24
punishment. The article was written during a shift in these two areas. During the 1970’s,
the Department of Corrections began moving away from a punishment model and
instead, began to move toward a rehabilitative one. The author states that at the time of
this shift, Corrections consisted only of sentencing, prison, parole and probation (Spiro).
As one looks back into the historical context of the prison system, it is easy to see these
varying shifts from a rehabilitative model, including education, treatment, and vocational
training then proceed toward a harsher paradigm including sentencing, less focus on
treatment and more focus on punishment as the political climate changes, or as politicians
move in and out of office. This shift in focus is clear in looking at the increase of
children in the United States with an incarcerated parent. During a sixteen year period,
between 1991 and 2007, the number of children in this population increased 80 percent
(Nickel, et al.). The current shift in Criminal Justice policy has only recently been
achieved, with the three-strike law, longer sentencing terms, and an overall “touch on
crime” approach toward prisoners. Such Criminal Justice polices fall in line with this
back-and-forth pattern that seems to continually shift one way or the other.
The effects of these shifts can be seen in the sheer numbers of prisoners that have
risen over that last few decades. According to Arditti (2005), the number of non-violent
offenders currently incarcerated in the United States has jumped from half of the total
prison population, to over two-thirds since 1970. Along with this, the number of inmates
incarcerated for drug-related offences has risen from one-tenth of the total population to
one-third during the same time. Poehlmann, Dellaire, Loper and Shear (2010), note that
25
the huge increase in the prison population itself and the subsequent overcrowding many
state prisons have come to experience, created an environment where more dollars had to
be spent housing the inmates instead of funding rehabilitative and educational programs.
Such numbers can be seen as a direct result of harsher drug laws and sentencing
practices.
The numbers of female inmates, historically a low portion of the overall prison
population, has also risen dramatically. Beckerman (1998), states that within the past
twenty-five years alone, the number of women incarcerated has risen from 6,000 to
74,730 in state and federal prisons, and from 19,077 to 59,296 in state jails. Although
more men than women are incarcerated, the numbers of women in prison has risen 404
percent from 1985 through 2005, with men’s numbers increasing only 209 percent
overall during this same period (Lichtenwalter & Garase 2010). Of these women, 75
percent are mothers. The Urban Institute note that in determining the current number of
both male and female inmates with at least one child in both federal and state prisons, as
estimates conclude that half the total number of prisoners fall into this category. The
2008 Bureau of Justice Statistics report on incarcerated parents in both state and federal
facilities showed that between 1991 and 2007, the number of parents in general rose 79
percent; during that same period of time, the number of children who had a mother in
prison rose 131 percent, in comparison with the number of children who had a father in
prison, which rose 77 percent (Glaze & Marushack, 2008).
26
Synder (2009), also looks into the increase of female prisoners across the country.
A 1995 report looking into the causes of this rise in the female prison population found
that changes in mandatory sentencing, in-truth sentencing guidelines and determinate
sentencing structures are all key factors in this escalation (Chesney-Lind & Immarigeon,
1995 as cited in Synder, 2009). This increase has continued to rise despite the fact that
patterns of women involved in crime across the country have remained relatively stable.
The author also notes that many times, the environments and relationships that these
women come from, and that very likely somewhat contributed to their criminal activity,
are the only things women have to come back to once they are released on parole
(Synder). This becomes a vicious cycle for these women, who not only have little choice
in the environment they have to return to once released, but are often times excluded
from abuse victim services in their communities because of their arrest records. Drug
treatment upon release can also be out of reach for these women, either due to their
economic status or because of the lack of childcare resources; a highly significant
obstacle considering that more than half of women in state and federal prisons are
mothers (Richie, 2001 as cited in Synder, 2009).
Ethnicity also plays a role in these rising numbers of prisoners; according to
Wildeman (2009), in a look at Black versus White men in terms of entering prison,
Black children in 1978 had a 1 in 7 chance at having their father incarcerated by age
fourteen; by 1990, that number had risen to 1 in 4, an 80 percent increase. Foster and
Hagan (2009), note a study involving adolescents representing 132 different schools
27
surveyed about parental incarceration in 1995. Of the first sample, 15 percent of the
youth overall reported that their biological father was currently in prison; upon follow-up
with these same youth, with the average age of twenty-one, it was found that 20 percent
of Black youth, 18 percent of Latino youth and 12 percent of White youth reported their
biological fathers either were, or had been incarcerated.
Poehlmann, et al. reiterate the role of race and ethnicity in the rise of the prison
population. The authors note that during the 1980s and 1990s when policy makers began
implementing harsher punishments for non-violent drug offences, the number of inmates
from lower socioeconomic areas, of which the majority were also minorities, created the
disproportionate rate at which these individuals entered into the Criminal Justice System.
This overrepresentation of minorities within the prison system is not new information;
however, ethnicity must also be taken into account in order to better comprehend the
hardships faced by different youth in various ethnic groups within in the context of
parental incarceration.
With these rising numbers also come the rise of children who are directly affected
by their parent involvement in the Criminal Justice System. While these harsher laws
and sentences are affecting them directly by severing contact with their parent as they
enter into jail or prison, these harsher practices affect them indirectly as well. According
to Arditti, these harsh practices along with the lack of family preservation polices within
the correctional system, not only undermine the ability of prisoners to practice effective
28
parenting upon release, but also seek to isolate the inmate from their family as a means of
punishment.
Christian (2009), discusses how the prison environment, Correctional polices and
Correctional staff can create an atmosphere that can be highly traumatic for children and
discouraging to the maintenance of family ties. In fact through every facet of the
Criminal Justice system, there remains a severe disconnect between policy and the needs
of the children who are directly affected upon their parent’s entrance into this system.
There is often no support provided to children who are present at the arrest of their parent
and judges have no protocol for determining if the convicted has arrangements for the
care of their children during sentencing (Christian). Nolan (2003), also describe how the
lack of polices regarding the children affected by parental arrest in both the law
enforcement and Child Protective Services’ spheres, create an environment in which the
well-being and safety of these children is severely lacking. The report for the California
Research Bureau noted such instances of child endangerment due to the lack of such
polices. In one case, a nine year old child was left at home to care for her younger one
year old sibling for three weeks after the arrest of their mother, when arresting officers
took the mother from the home and simply left the children there without making sure the
children were cared for (Nolan, 2003). At every stage of the parent’s imprisonment, their
children’s lives are dramatically altered and should also be taken into account. Such
practices have never been instituted within the Criminal Justice or Correctional systems
until somewhat more recently as this population began to become more recognized.
29
While inmates are being punished and imprisoned under more stringent policies,
their children and families fall prey to such policies as well, by systematically being
denied the right to continue their family and parent-child bonds. Braman (2002), looks
into the various Federal Criminal Justice and Correctional policies enacted during the late
1980’s and early to mid 1990’s that shaped the current punishment model. Such polices
created longer and harsher sentences for inmates convicted of non-violent drug offences,
thereby dramatically increasing the number of prisoners across the nation, as well as
devastating the families and communities from which the offenders came from. In a
qualitative study conducted by Nesmith and Ruhland (2008), with children of inmates,
most of the children answered that they still wanted to maintain a relationship with their
incarcerated parent even though they expressed hurt, anger or fear toward that parent; yet,
while Correctional policy continues to remain a supporter of family maintenance in
theory, it has yet to do so in practice.
One of the reasons so little is known about this specific population according to
Bockneck, Sanderson and Preston (2009), is that neither Child Welfare, nor Corrections
track any data on the children of inmates. There are many other hindrances to adequately
collecting data on this population including poor communication between Child Welfare
and other social service organizations, the “invisibility” of the population itself within
general society, the stigma that is often placed upon the population, leading many to
consider “invisibility” as desirable as well as the source of current data issued mainly
from Corrections and self-reported numbers from inmates (The Annie E. Casey
30
Foundation [AECF], 2008). With little data tracing these children is difficult enough, let
alone trying to collect any sound evidence regarding the effects the incarceration of their
parents has on them both directly and indirectly. The data that does exist concerning
numbers within the population and the certain characteristics unique to it is currently not
centralized into a single data set. This creates barriers as well within the research
community to adequately compare and share data. This lack of cohesion and often
hackneyed approaches at studying this population creates an environment in which little
action is spawned that aides these children and families.
The current literature is mainly consisted of the following issues within this
population: firstly, the broader topic of the effects of parental incarceration on children
which consist of stigma, emotional and behavioral issues, PTSD, or trauma and secondly,
the importance of the frequency of contact between inmates and their children during the
parent’s incarceration. Studies conducted among this population are mainly concerned in
bringing to light, the different associated hardships and experiences of the children and
families directly affected by familial incarceration. The data found by these studies is
often then used in this manner within legislative reports and policy recommendations, yet
little has been achieved so far within these arenas that directly attack the issues and
concerns presented. In attempts to correlate the effects of parental incarceration upon
children and the outcomes they produce, no findings have been proven empirically, yet
much of what is currently known is very promising.
31
Effects of Parental Incarceration
For most of the children in this population, the loss of their parent is not the only
thing they are left to deal with after the parent’s incarceration; for many, moving into new
homes with relatives or into foster care is the only option. The loss then, becomes
paramount, as these children lose their parent, their homes and usually the school they
have up until this point been attending. Once they have been able to somewhat process
this loss, they soon learn about the stigma that ties them to their parent in prison, along
with their love for them. This stigma associates them with their parent in prison, and to
the crime or crimes that placed the parent in prison as well. To the general public, they
are automatically labeled “at-risk”.
This “risk” is often associated with entrance into the Criminal Justice System
itself, to live a life of poverty, experience teen pregnancy, drop out of high school,
become addicts and fail to attain the success other “normal” teens are viewed to have a
chance at attaining. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2007), note in the report reviewing
the current literature on this population, that there is no current or past evidence that
supports the relationship between parental incarceration and the incarceration of their
children later in life. This false assertion that parental incarceration leaves the children
effected by it at-risk for future entrance into the Criminal Justice System, is often cited in
research and various documents, and does nothing but perpetuate the stigma that as most
of these children will become criminals, they should then be viewed treated as threats to
larger society.
32
Nickel, et al., state that what the children in this population are really at risk for
are higher chances of living in poverty and within an instable household. Foster and
Hagan echo this statement in their article about the effects of parental incarceration on
children. Both authors site Classical Opportunity and Strain theories of crime to denote
the direct effects of the economic and educational deficiencies caused by parental
incarceration with that parent’s loss of income. Children who lose their parents become
aware that while they mourn the loss, general society automatically ostracizes their parent
by naming them immediately “undesirable”. Because of this lack of sympathy for the
parent who commits the crime from general society, these children also lose a natural
outlet for their grief. Once children learn of the expectations of general society of them
because of their parent’s incarceration, those who internalize it usually experience lower
self-esteem, especially if they identify closely with their incarcerated parent. Others
combat the stigma, often becoming angry and defiant. One common reaction among
these children is to focus this anger on authority figures, often the police and correctional
officers they encounter when visiting their parent in prison.
Bockneck, et al., states that along with this stigma comes the confusion of the loss
of family boundaries. Who is, and who is no longer in the “family” is lost for the youth,
especially if their new caregivers refrain from, or refuse to talk about the lost parent.
Caregivers may also lie to children about the whereabouts of their parents as a way to
shield them from this stigma, with sometimes the children not finding out the truth until
their parentis released (UI, 2008). Such attempts at protecting children in this manner
33
usually only create more stress and worry. Nesmith and Ruhland’s qualitative study with
children of inmates found that those children who did not receive any information as to
their parent’s whereabouts were extremely worried and concerned for their missing
parent, often creating anxiety for their welfare.
Corrections itself helps to support this stigma by being only concerned with the
punishment of inmates and not their families, along with the harsh and humiliating
treatment often inflicted on the families of inmates (Finney-Hairston, 1998). Practically
all of the literature researching the effects of incarceration on children and families cite
the often humiliating and harsh treatment visitors of inmates are subjected to. The report
by The Urban institute note policies within prisons that discourage visiting including
crowded visiting areas, disrespectful treatment by prison staff, and intimidating
conditions. Nickel, et al. concur with similar findings that Correctional staff should be
trained specifically in the treatment of children visitors to the prison and how to create
family-friendly visiting areas. Christian notes the prison environment can be frightening
and traumatic to children, especially when they encounter harsh treatment from prison
staff toward themselves or the parent they are visiting.
Visitors are also often treated with belittlement, with even posted visiting rules
regarding appropriate clothing being worded in derogatory language (AECF, 2007).
Contact between inmates and their children is sometimes prohibited during visits, and
officers frequently terminate visits for minor violations of visiting rules even if the
violation is for a rule that has nothing to do with prison safety or was only recently
34
instituted and therefore unknown to the family. All of these elements together create the
stigma that children of prisoners carry, even after their parent’s release and which causes
the mental and behavioral issues many of them acquire as a result.
Several factors are involved in the causes for both the emotional and behavioral
impact exhibited by children of inmates, as well as their exhibition of PTSD symptoms.
One of these, according to Miller (2006), is the deception of the parent’s placement, or
even acknowledgement of the incarcerated parent to the child. This deception can cause
children to fanaticize in both positive and negative ways about the parent; either they are
anxious and worried about where their parent is, or they create unrealistic dreams of what
their parent may be like when they get out. These seemingly innocent childhood
fantasies can become cause for both negative emotional and behavioral outcomes for the
child, once they become aware that their ideation of their parent in prison is false. One
such ideation is the incarcerated parent as infallible (Nesmith & Ruhland). Children can
refuse to believe that their parent is guilty of any crime and therefore wrongly prosecuted,
and/or that their parent is unrealistically faultless. This can be seen as an attempt to
combat the stigma assigned to themselves and to their parent by general society. This
becomes dangerous to the child upon finding that such ideations are false; forcing them to
confront that their parent is fallible and can therefore make mistakes. Children who hold
these ideas of their parent in prison can have difficulty reconciling these ideas with
reality. Disappointment, depression and anger from the child can be a consequence of
this.
35
The Urban Institute report discusses the ambiguous nature of losing a parent for
children. Unlike the death of a parent which is final, children whose parents are taken
from them due to committing a crime can have difficulty with their feelings of loss due to
their parent being alive, yet emotionally and physically absent. This vague sense of loss
can cause serious emotional distress. A study done with thirty-six children of mothers in
prison found that the trauma of losing their parent caused sleeplessness, depression, and
difficulty concentrating (Kampfer, 1995 as cited in UI, 2008). Although the study had a
relatively small sample, these findings are similar throughout the literature regarding this
population.
A national study done by Child Welfare Services found that children who had
experienced parental incarceration were exposed to a greater number of negative issues
(domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse and extreme poverty), than children
within the system who did not have a history of parental incarceration. The study also
showed that out of children who recently went through the arrest of a parent, one in five
had clinically internalized issues (anxiety, depression, withdrawal), and that one in three
had significant externalized issues (disruptive behavior, aggression, attention problems),
compared to one in ten children in the general population. (Phillips & Gleeson, 2007 as
cited in UI, 2008). The research done on children exposed to these types of issues shows
that they are at great risk for experiencing depression, anxiety, personality disorders,
aggression and more.
36
Dannerbeck (2005), notes that such issues for children could be resolved at the
beginning of the parent’s entrance into the system by creating polices that aide these
children upon the parent’s arrest and sentencing. This finding is supported by Christian
whose research found that police would greatly reduce the amount of stress and trauma in
children present during a parent’s arrest if protocol were introduced that mandated a
social worker to be present to explain to the child what was happening and make sure
they had alternative care. The same type of policy is suggested for judges during the
sentencing of parents. Judges would be required to inquire whether or not a convicted
person had children, and if there were steps in place to have those children in alternative
care. Simple policies such as these would make sure that a support network was in place
for children who are losing their parent to incarceration, somewhat relieving the trauma
and emotional stress they are subjected to.
Dellaire (2007) states that often the negative behaviors exhibited by children of
inmates are often diagnosed with Attachment Disorder; although, this diagnosis is often
termed as “Disorganized”, due to the fact that many of these children do not fit into
standard clinical models of Attachment Disorder. The Annie E. Casey Foundation
(2007), note Separation Anxiety Theory in a review of the literature regarding this
population. Children suffering from this disorder due to parental incarceration often feel
loneliness, guilt, experience excessive crying and developmental regression. In school,
these children’s emotional issues can often become externalized. An interview conducted
37
with 58 mothers who were incarcerated noted poor grades, performance problems,
truancy, suspensions and poor behavior at school and at home (AECF, 2007).
Bockneck, et al. focuses mainly on PTSD symptoms that children of inmates
exhibit. These include depression, anxiety, decreased academic performance, insecure
attachment disorders, and PTSD symptoms. The experience of PTSD can be caused by
witnessing a parent’s arrest, or if a parent has a history of going in and out of prison or
jail multiple times. The trauma caused by both of these experiences can affect a child
again and again, threatening their emotional functionality. Such findings were
accumulated from previous studies (Fritsch and Burkhead, 1980; Henriques, 1981;
Kampfner 1995; Poehlmann, 2005; Stanon, 1980). In Bockneck’’s study of 35 children
of inmates using the YSR and CROPS scales, found that 77.1 percent of the children
interviewed exhibited PTSD symptoms above the clinical cutoff and 30.4 percent were
above the cutoff of the withdrawn scale. The prevalence of the emotional and behavioral
issues these children go through show that this population needs more research to be done
on their behalf in order to create effective policies and interventions to circumvent this
trauma. The ability of a child to see, hear and touch their parent is often one important
way to decrease the amount of trauma experienced (The San Francisco Partnership for
Incarcerated Parents, 2003).
Frequency of Contact/Interventions
Contact between the child and parent during their incarceration are vitally
important for both the child and the parent. Arditti compares the importance of visitation
38
in the CPS System for children and parents to reunify, to the importance of face-to-face
contact between children and their inmate parent. Dellaire also states that visits
(specifically with the mother) that are frequent during incarceration with children were
more likely to decrease Attachment Disorder behaviors. Miller assents to this same
premise with his article noting that several experts agree that a positive child-parent
relationship is essential in parents being able to help their children deal with various
societal issues; therefore, the author notes that frequency of contact, specifically face-toface or through letters are vitally important to children, and benefits them in the longterm. Maintaining contact with the incarcerated parent has been shown to be one of the
most effective ways to help a child cope with the emotional response to losing their
parent. One study showed that children who maintained contact with their parent in
prison, had overall improved outcomes both emotionally and behaviorally than children
who did not (Edin, Nelson & Paranal, 2004; Klein, Bartholomew & Hibbert, 2002; as
cited in UI, 2008).
Nickel, et al., also assert that those children who were able to maintain contact
with their incarcerated parent experience less emotional distress, especially in cases
where the incarcerated parent had significant presence in their child’s life prior to their
entrance into the Criminal Justice System; this consistent contact also aides children in
adjustment to their new family circumstances. Both Nickel, et al. and Christian note that
maintaining consistent contact with their children during their incarceration, gives parents
greater incentive to reunify with their children post-release, as well as reduce the chance
39
of recidivism. Contact between parent and child must be consistent in order for the child
to benefit from it. Visits are the highest quality of contact, allowing the child to see their
parent face-to-face and assure themselves that their parent is safe (AECF, 2007). Phone
calls and letters are other forms of contact that can be maintained between children and
parents; however, visits are extremely important to the maintenance of the parent-child
relationship while the parent is incarcerated.
With the majority of literature regarding this population stating that the
maintenance of the parent-child relationship, when appropriate, is essential to helping the
child cope with their loss and provide their parents in prison a bond that can actually
reduce the rate of recidivism, it would seem logical that polices within Corrections would
lend themselves to support family maintenance; this however, is not the case for several
reasons. Nickel, et al., note in the research conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics
found that only 79 percent of parents in prison reported having some form of contact with
their children. Only 39 percent of fathers and 56 percent of mothers reported having
weekly contact in some form with their children. Of those parents who maintained
contact with their children through visitation, only 12.3 percent of fathers and 14.6
percent of mothers received visits monthly. This deficit is due to polices that place
inmates 100 miles or more away from the cities where their families live, as most prisons
reside in rural areas and to the cost of visitation due to travel expenses and food costs
once inside.
40
Polices within prisons themselves are often more focused on safety and
combating smuggling than with insuring that visiting rooms are conducive to children
and families. The Urban Institute (2008), cite studies of visiting conditions in prisons
that note crowded visiting spaces, long waiting periods, frisk searches and disrespectful
treatment by Correctional officers as barriers to visitation by families. Christian notes the
mostly unsuitable environment the visiting room often presents for children, with no play
areas, toys, books or activates that support a more family-friendly atmosphere. A 1997
study found that children’s contact with their parents in prison is irregular and practically
non-existent (Mumola, 2000; as cited in AECF, 2007). The study also found that since
first being admitted into prison, more than half of the inmates had not seen their minor
children at all (AECF, 2007). Much of the literature and research on this population is
focused currently on bringing these types of policy disparities to light in order to
advocate for a complete shift in Correctional policy from focusing on punishment to the
maintenance of family support.
A few examples of such policy shifts are given in the literature. Lichtenwalter
and Garase (2010), conducted an evaluation of a program in Michigan called House of
Healing, where non-violent female offenders served their sentences along with drugtreatment, counseling services, vocational training and parenting classes, while their
children lived with them. The results of the evaluation were very positive, showing high
numbers for women not returning into the system, and completely reunifying with their
children upon release. The Living Interactive Family Education Program, or LIFE,
41
utilizes 4-H activities that fathers in prison can do during visitation with their children.
These activities allow the child and their parent to work collaboratively in a more relaxed
environment, and the program is supplemented with parenting classes that the fathers
attend (UI, 2008).
In Michigan, its 2007 Corrections Appropriations bill included a requirement that
the state set aside funds from the appropriation to develop a children’s visitation pilot
program (Christian). The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2007), cites a qualitative study
conducted with children of inmates regarding their views on visiting. The study found
that children who visited their parents in prisons with special visiting programs with
activities and designated areas for children, had a greater positive view on visitation than
children who visited their parents under normal conditions. Such policy shifts show that
a Correctional system more supportive of family maintenance can aide in reducing the
risk of emotional and behavioral issues for children, as well as nurture the parent-child
bond which can even lower the recidivism rate for inmate parent.
Gaps in the Literature
The gaps in the literature were widely varying which, considering the major lack
of exposure this population has within the Social Work field and within the general
public, is not surprising. Studies conducted in order to measure the direct and indirect
effects of incarceration on children were limited. Some only focused on either the
mother or the father; nothing was done to look at the effects when both parents were in
prison, such as Arditti, Lichtenwalter, Nesmith and Beckerman. Studies like the one
42
Wildeman conducted, only focused on Black and White youth, leaving out Asian, Latinos
and other races. Foster and Hagan’s article did include statistics of Latino youth, but still
lacked any representation from Asian or other races.
Still, other authors showed extreme bias in their studies, including Dannerbeck,
whose study’s hypotheses were tested using a sample that grossly overrepresented young
males, 800 to 312 females. No control group of those within the same age group, with
the same sample number, without a juvenile record but with a parent in prison, was used.
Also, the disporportionality of males to females within the sample leaves open a large
margin of error, as males are more likely than females to be involved in the criminal
justice system as a whole.
Shlafer also chose not to use a control group in his article, as well as Nesmith and
Ruhland whose qualitative study relied on a small sample of children while offering no
comparison group. The language used in the study was also very damaging in context, as
was some of the language used in Miller’s article. Authors need to be aware that the
language they chose to use in describing this population can either be empowering, or
reinstating of labels they already have upon them. Examples of this are statistics that link
parental incarceration to the likelihood of the children of inmates entering into prison as
well. One study was cited that claimed to have found a link between the numbers of
times that a parent went in and out of prison, and the number of offences their children
would commit later in life (Murray, Janson & Farrington, 2007 as cited in UI, 2008). As
there has been no verifiable data that parental incarceration predicts later-life
43
imprisonment in the children of inmates themselves, such “findings” only lend
themselves to perpetuate the stigma these children must bear (AECF, 2007).
Another gap lies in the purpose some of these articles are attempting to achieve,
such as Nickel, et al. and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, (2008). Both seek to bring the
issues of this population to light in order to engage more research and data collection;
while this is certainly needed, neither of the article’s research seeks to immediately
promote policy changes in order to benefit this population. The Annie E. Casey
Foundation (2008), report notes yet another gap in the data collection on this population,
citing no central database with which to store and share information as well as a lot of the
data collected coming from Correctional institutions and the inmates themselves. FinneyHairston’s article is also biased, having little to no statistical information cited, it is
largely opinion based, and creates a bias at looking at the inmate as a “victim of the
system”.
Bockneck, et al. study was by far the best one conducted, yet it relied heavily on
qualitative data collected from the children of inmates themselves, who had mostly little
to no information about their parent in prison. While this study relied to heavily on
qualitative data, Dellaire’s article used qualitative data as well, but from the wrong
source. Her article relied on surveys taken by female inmates about their children, but as
the article also stated that these female inmates often have little to no information about
their children, findings in this piece are weakened. Other articles, such as the one by
Spiro, were simply too old to use for current statistical data.
44
Overall, there lies a significant gap in the research studies conducted with this
population in that sample sizes are usually small, control groups are rare, and studies
attempting to highlight a relationship between parental incarceration and the emotional
and behavior impact on children have yet to include other factors in the child’s life, such
as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age and gender. While a longitudinal study within
this population tracking the social, emotional, physical and educational outcomes
compared to a similar control group with all factors matching except parental
imprisonment would greatly improve the knowledge about this population, the fact is that
such a study would be tremendously expensive. Such a study however, needs to occur in
order to create best practices interventions for these children in order to mitigate the
negative impact they encounter.
Summary
What the author’s study will hope to bridge with some of these gaps, is to look at
the relationship between the frequency of contact between an inmate and their child
during incarceration and its effect on the emotional and behavioral impacts on those
children. It will also seek to combine quantitative data set being analyzed with the
current literature, to give a more cohesive picture of the negative effects and behaviors
linked directly to youth’s stigma by association with their parent in prison. In looking at
these impacts more closely in relation to frequency of contact between inmates and their
children, it is hoped that the findings will support a policy shift within Corrections to
support family maintenance. While the author’s study will not be able to use a control
45
group, and have a limited sample group in number, the study will hopefully be able to
fulfill the above goals, all the while being mindful of not reinforcing negative labels, and
using only empowering context and language in discussing this population.
46
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Data and Sample
The data set number 22460, Exploring Factors Influencing Family Members
Connection to Incarcerated Individuals in New Jersey, 2005-2006 was completed for
Rutgers University’s Criminal Justice Department, and was funded by a grant through the
United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice. The data set
was obtained for the purposes of this thesis, through the National Archive for Criminal
Justice Data. As the data set is currently listed by the archive as “restricted”, the
researcher completed an application to the NAJCD, including a data protection plan in
order to obtain permission to utilize the data set. The researcher chose to analyze an
already existing data set due to the difficulty of gaining access to inmates and their
families, as well as the amount of risk that collecting such data would most likely present.
In order to better understand the factors that influence whether a male inmate’s
family members will remain in contact with him during his incarceration, the authors of
this data set conducted interviews with inmates from two New Jersey Prisons and their
family members between May 2005 and July 2006. As research and information about
inmates and their families is still considered in its beginnings, the cross-sectional study
conducted by Johanna Christian and her team would be considered exploratory. Little is
known about the relationship between incarceration and family functioning, which is
47
what the investigator hoped to accomplish in her interviews with the inmates and their
families.
The interviews conducted with the inmates, utilized two interviewers at each
session, one asking closed and open-ended questions and the other typing responses to
open-ended questions. Both types of questions were used in order to gain both
quantitative and qualitative data for the study. Inmate participants met with researchers
individually in private rooms within the prison where the study was explained and they
were given an opportunity to consent to participate. Inmate interviews lasted an average
of an hour, with a book of stamps provided as compensation. Upon completion of the
interview, inmates were asked to provide contact information for the family member(s)
identified as focal family.
While inmates were willing, and in most instances able to provide at least an
address and/or phone number for their families, making contact with family members
proved difficult. In some instances, a phone number had been disconnected or an inmate
was able to provide an address, but no phone number. In these cases, a general letter
asking the family to contact the principal investigator was sent, but specific information
about the nature of the study could not be included because of confidentiality
requirements. Even when telephone contact was made, the specific topic of the study
could not be revealed to anyone in the household except the individual for whom the
information was provided.
48
A total of 35 (25 from one prison and 10 from the other) inmates and 15 family
members were involved in the final sample, comprising 13 inmate and family dyads, 1
inmate and family triad, and an additional 21 inmate interviews. The data set includes
variables that explore the family's relationship with the incarcerated individual in the
following areas: the inmate's relationship with the family prior to the incarceration, the
strain (emotional, economic, stigma) that the incarceration has placed on the family, the
economic resources available to the family to maintain the inmate, the family's social
support system, and the inmate's efforts to improve or rehabilitate himself while
incarcerated.
Measurement Instrument
This data set has four parts; Part One (Prisoner Quantitative Data) and Part Two
(Family Quantitative Data). Each of these two parts include demographic variables such
as age, race, marital status, length of relationship, number of children, length of prison
sentence, and time served. Several variables focus on the contact between the inmate and
family members before and during their incarceration, including if the inmate and family
had lived together, frequency of contact (visits, phone calls, and mail) prior to and during
incarceration, and frequency of visits from children. Other variables ask about the
inmate's contributions to the family prior to incarceration (income, emotional support,
help with children) and hardships the family might be experiencing due to the
incarceration (loss of income, had to move, problem with children's' behavior).
49
The data in Part One also includes variables about programs the inmate might
have completed while incarcerated, prospects for parole, and any help the inmate
received from family members while incarcerated. Part Two also includes variables on
any social support the family may have received and if the family member was aware of
the inmate's criminal activity prior to incarceration. Part Three (Prisoner Qualitative
Data) and Part Four (Family Qualitative Data), contain open-ended questions pertaining
to the same subjects found in Parts One and Two such as: (a) the prisoner's relationship
with the family prior to the incarceration, (b) the strain (emotional, economic, stigma)
that the incarceration has placed on the family, (c) the economic resources available to
the family to maintain the prisoner, (d) the family's social support system, and (e) the
prisoner's efforts to improve or rehabilitate himself while incarcerated.
Inmates and their family members in Parts One and Two, which collected the
quantitative data, answered the same questions which include one hundred four questions
that covered the information discussed above. In Parts Three and Four, which collected
the qualitative data through the use of open-ended questions, inmates and their family
members had two different sets of questions. The inmates’ questions were broken down
into four sections including: 1) two screening questions about who they would contact in
the case of an emergency; 2) six questions about their current relationship with their
partner, their relationships with the family members they grew up in the same home with
and how their incarceration has affected their familial relationships; 3) one economic
resource question asking how the inmate contributed to the family prior to his
50
incarceration; and 4) five questions discussing how often the inmate receives visits from
his family members including children and his perceptions of any positive or negative
benefits these visits have on both him and his family members.
The family members’ questionnaire focused on five sections including: 1) five
questions regarding their relationship with the inmate prior to his incarceration and how
incarceration has affected the relationship; 2) three questions pertaining to economic
resources such as how the inmate contributed before his incarceration, how often the
family member visits and whether or not the family member ever discloses where her
partner was; 3) three questions looking into visitation of the inmate including the
frequency and cost of such visits and the mode of transportation used to get there; 4)
three questions regarding strain on the family member such as how their children with the
inmate are doing (if they have identified as having children), how their life in general has
been since their partners incarceration and if there has been anything as of late that the
family wanted to do but couldn’t, due solely to their partners incarceration; and 5) one
question about the family member’s social support system that asked for specific people
the family member talked to about anything related to their partner’s incarceration.
Study Design
For the purposes of this thesis project, the researcher is attempting to discover if a
relationship between the frequency and quality of contact between and inmate and their
child and any negative impact on the emotional, psychological and behavioral
functioning of the child. In order to discover if such a relationship exists, the researcher
51
will be focusing on the following variables in Part One of the questionnaire given to the
inmates only: 1) if inmate has children; 2) the number of children under the age of 18; 3)
if the inmate lived with his children prior to incarceration; 4) frequency of contact
between the inmate and his children prior to incarceration; 5) the inmate’s frequency of
receiving visits from children once incarcerated; 6) the inmate’s frequency of making
phone calls home; 7) the inmate’s frequency of receiving mail from family; 8) if the
inmate’s children have had adjustment problems since his incarceration; 9) if the
children’s involvement in their schoolwork has changed since his incarceration; 10) if the
inmate’s children have been experiencing any behavioral issues at school since
incarceration; 11) if the children have had behavioral problems in general; 12) if the
inmate is currently involved in any parenting classes.
The quantitative data collected from the inmate’s family in Part Two will not be
analyzed due to the fact that many of the questions in regard to the above list of variables
were left blank. All of the answers given by both inmates and their family members will
be taken into consideration in the qualitative portions Parts Three and Four as well. By
comparing the variables associated with frequency and quality of contact, the inmatechild relationship prior to incarceration; and any reported behavioral problems exhibited
by the children of the inmates, the researcher hopes to distinguish a correlation that
denotes higher quality and frequencies of contact with lower incidents of child behavioral
issues. The researcher will combine both quantitative and qualitative data in order to
present a more comprehensive picture of this relationship.
52
Study Population and Sample
Due to the fact that the researcher is analyzing a secondary data set, no contact
with any person who contributed to the information collected will occur, making this
study exempt in risk. As the data set being utilized is restricted due to confidentiality, the
researcher had to design a data protection plan in order to maintain the confidentiality of
the participants in the original study. This plan includes placing the data on an encrypted
USB flash drive that has no other data stored on it. The password will be known only to
the researcher, and the physical data will be stored in a locked box when not in use.
When analyzing the data, the researcher will only do so in the privacy of her home, on a
personal PC that will be disconnected from the internet before beginning any work with
the data. Once that work is completed, the researcher will delete any temporary files
created while working with the data before re-connecting the PC to the internet. To
ensure even further protection, when the researcher is not at home, not only will the data
be locked in the box as mentioned, the bedroom in which that box will be kept will be
locked as well.
This protection plan will ensure that both the confidentiality and anonymity of
each participant is kept safe. No one will have access to this data excepting the
researcher. Once the analysis of the data has been completed, the data will either be
returned to the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, or will be destroyed; the
outcome is to be determined by the archive upon completion of the researcher’s thesis.
This research was approved and determined exempt by Sacramento State's Committee for
53
the Protection of Human Subjects in the Social Work Department (approval number 1011-063).
54
Chapter 4
DATA ANALYSIS
In analyzing the data set number 22460, Exploring Factors Influencing Family
Members Connection to Incarcerated Individuals in New Jersey, 2005-2006, the
researcher seeks to determine if a relationship exists between the frequency and quality of
contact between inmates and their children, and any negative impact on the emotional,
behavioral or psychological functioning in these children; again, in order to explore such
a relationship, the research relies on the assumption that such contact is both desired by
both parties and appropriate. In looking for this relationship in the analysis of this
dataset, the hypothesis is that the higher the quality and frequency of contact between
inmates and their children, the lower the incidents of negative impact on those children in
their emotional, behavioral and/or psychological functioning.
The hopes of the researcher would be that finding such a relationship would then
give statistical backing to policy change within Corrections that supported family
maintenance throughout an inmate’s incarceration. Such polices would include
placement determinations at an individual’s sentencing to ensure that those convicted and
found to have minor children could not be placed at facilities more than a determined
number of miles away from the city of that child(ren) location as well as policies that
supported the ability of the parent incarcerated to maintain contact with their children
including lower fees associated with calling home collect and the maintenance of visiting
55
programs that create a safe and developmentally appropriate environment for children’s
interactions with their parent.
The dataset used within this research consisted of four separate datasets, including
two quantitative sets consisting of similar questions for both inmates and the family
members of those inmates, as well as two qualitative sets of the same design. For the
purposes of this study, the researcher focused on the quantitative dataset collected from
the inmates only, and the qualitative sets collected from both the inmates as well as their
family members. The researcher chose to focus on the quantitative data collected from
the inmates only, due to the fact that many of the questions answered by the participating
family members in the quantitative portion were left blank. Data was collected from
n=35 inmates at two New Jersey State prisons over the period of one year, from 2005 to
2006, and 15 of their family members. Analysis of the quantitative data collected from
the inmates was used to determine if a relationship between the quality and quantity of
contact between inmates and their children and any negative impact on those children’s
emotional, behavioral and/or psychological functioning existed, while the qualitative
datasets collected from both the inmates and their family members was used in order to
enhance these findings.
Univariate Analysis
The following graphs describe some of the descriptive statistics of the inmates
that participated in the study. The researcher chose to focus on those variables that gave
a general dipiction of the demographics within the inmate population, as well as those
56
that centered on those inmates who reported having children. The majority of the
inmates in this study were serving 10 years or less and were between the ages of 22 to 35
years of age. As is well documented in many prison statistics, the majority of inmates
identified as of African-American desent. More than half reported as having at least one
child, with about three quarters of these same inmates reporting as having at least one of
their children being under the age of 18 years of age.
Figure 1. Sentence Length
57
Figure 2. Age of Inmates
58
Figure 3. Race or Ethnicity of Inmates
59
Figure 4. Inmates With or Without Children
60
Figure 5. Inmates With or Without Children Under 18
61
Figure 6. Number of Children Under 18
62
Bivariate Analysis
While the sample size within the study of n=35 is large enough to determine
significance within the data, many inmates left questions blank, making some variables
not as strong as others. In some instances, only half of the total number of inmates
participating in the study answered a particular question making statistical analysis of the
data impossible; as such, the researcher focused on the crosstabulation of variables in
order to compare the data in the hopes of finding a relationship between the frequency
and quality if contact between inmates and their children, and those variables that
represented examples of any negative impact on the behavioral functioning of those
children. The variables representing a negative impact of behavioral functioning that
were found to show significance in crosstabulation were children’s exhibition of
behavioral problems, children’s exhibition of showing problems in school and change in
the amount of involvement with school work that the children exhibited. The contact
variables in which these behavioral functioning were compared with were the frequency
of inmates receiving visits from their children, the frequency of phone calls inmates made
home and the frequency of mail the inmates received.
There was also significance found in the crosstabulation of these contact variables
and the amount of time spent with their children prior to incarceration that the inmates
reported. Significance was also found by the researcher to exist between this variable
and one of the behavioral variables. The following crosstabulation tables will be grouped
by the behavioral variable used, and the variable denoting the amount of time inmates
63
reported spending with their children prior to incarceration. While the researcher was
unable to determine a relationship among all of the behavioral variables, the significance
found in the following nine tables is enough to show that a relationship between the
frequency and quality of contact between inmates and their children and the negative
impact on varying functions of those children is enough to warrant further research
specifically targeting such a relationship and the support of a fundamental shift in the
current Correctional policy that would seek to sustain family relationships during a
parent’s incarceration.
64
1. Behavioral Problems
Table 1
FREQUENCY CHILD VISIT * BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
65
Table 2
FREQUENCY CALLS * BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
66
Table 3
FREQUENCY MAIL * BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
In looking at the behavior variable, the researcher was able to find a relationship
between all three contact variables. The frequency of child visits ranged from “never” to
“weekly”. “Daily” was not included as a frequency in this variable due to the fact that
visiting is not offered everyday in any prison. The variable denoting children displaying
behavior problems was not described in any detail by the original author of the dataset; as
67
a consequence, it is impossible to know exactly what types of behaviors were included in
the definition of “behavior problems”. For the purposes of this research, it is assumed
that this variable includes behavior by children that was out of the “normal” range of
behaviors for the child or children being discussed within the parameters of this question.
In looking at the table comparing child visits with child behavior problems,
children who only saw their parent once or twice since their parent’s incarceration, or not
at all since their parent becoming incarcerated, were more likely to have been reported by
their parent as having displayed behavior problems. Of the 15 children whose parents
answered this question, those who reported as never having received a visit from their
child since becoming incarcerated, 42.9% were reported as having behavior problems
compared to 12.5% of children within this same category who were reported as not
exhibiting any behavior issues. Of those who had only seen their parent once or twice
since their parent had become incarcerated, 28.6% were reported to have exhibited
behavior problems compared to 12.5% of children who were reported as not having
shown any behavior problems.
With the exception of children who were able to visit their parent weekly, the
table shows that 25% of the children who saw their parent a few times a year exhibited no
behavioral issues, compared with 14.3% of children within this same category who did
display behavior issues. The data table shows that 37.5% children who were able to visit
their parent monthly were reported as not having any behavioral problems, while 0% of
the children in this same category were reported as having behavior issues. The in
68
conjunction for the children who were able to see their parent on a weekly basis, the data
did not find any significance, as 14.3% of children were reported as having behavior
problems while 12.5% were also shown not to have any behavioral issues. The
croasstabulation overall shows that the majority of children who were able to visit their
parent at least a few times a year, as compared with those who had only seen their parent
once or twice since that parent had become incarcerated or not at all, showed a
considerably higher rate for exhibiting behavior problems.
The second table in this series shows the crosstabulation between the frequency of
phone calls inmates were able to make home, ranging from a few times a year to daily.
Of the 12 inmates that answered this question, the in conjunction found similar results as
the first table, with 33.3% of children reported as having behavior problems in contrast to
0% of children who were having behavior issues. Of the inmates that were able to call
home once a month, the table shows 33.3% of children as having exhibited behavioral
issues, with 11.1% as not having behavior problems. Of the children who were able to
speak to their parent once a week, 55.6% were reported as not having any behavioral
issues, while 0% were reported as having behavior problems. For children who were able
to speak to their incarcerated parent daily, the table shows percentages of both sets of
children at 33.3%, but when looking at the actual numbers of children who were reported
as not having any behavior problems, three children resided in this category, while only
one child was reported as having exhibited behavior issues.
69
The third table also shows support for the higher the frequency of contact lending
to the lower the incident of behavioral issues. In the third table in this series, the
frequency of children receiving mail from their parent was crosstabulated with child
behavioral problems. The frequencies range from never to children daily receiving mail
from their parent. Of the 17 children whose parents participated in this question, children
who never received mail from their incarcerated parent 10.0% were reported as not
having behavior issues, while 14.3% were reported as having exhibited behavior
problems. Of the children who got mail from their parent only once or twice since their
incarceration, 14.3% were reported as having behavior problems, while 0% were reported
to have no behavior issues. Of the children who received mail from their parent a few
times a year, 28.6% were reported as having behavior issues, while 20% exhibited no
behavioral problems. The inmates that reported as having sent mail to their children
monthly did not show any significance, with 28.6% of children having behavior
problems, and only 10% not having behavior issues.
Of the children who received mail weekly from their incarcerated parent, 40%
were reported as not having any behavior problems, while 14.3% of children within this
same category were reported as having some behavior issues. Of the children who daily
got mail from their parent, 20% reported as having no behavioral issues, while 0% were
reported as having any behavior issues. From the combined results these three tables
display, in most cases children who have a higher frequency of contact with their parent
during that parent’s incarceration exhibit less of a propensity to exhibit any behavioral
70
problems. In the instances where children who had more contact with their parent, but
were reported as having more exhibition of behavioral issues, the researcher believes is a
result of all of the inmates who reported having children not answering each of the
questions; had that been the case, the sample size for each question would have been
n=26 and resulted in the same findings that the other variables conveyed.
71
2. Change in Child’s Involvement in School Work
Table 4
FREQUENCY CHILD VISIT * SCHOOL WORK
72
Table 5
FREQUENCY MAIL * SCHOOL WORK
73
In looking at the variable of a change reported by inmates of a change in their
child’s involvement in their school work, the researcher found significant findings in
crosstabulating with the contact variables of the frequency of child visits to their
incarcerated parent and the frequency of mail the child received from their parent in
prison. The frequency of calls home that the inmate made was not included with the
other two contact variables as no significant findings were found. Again, the researcher
believes that the questions that were not answered by the entire sample of inmates who
reported having children compromised some of the findings within the data.
The first table compares the frequency of child visits to their parent with inmate
reports of a change in their child’s involvement in their school work since the parent
became incarcerated. Only 12 of the 35 inmates answered with question, with 23 leaving
it blank. While the crosstabulation of this data did not show any significance regarding
the children who never visited their parent or had seen their parent only once or twice
since their parent becoming incarcerated, the significance that is shown for child visits a
few times a year, monthly or weekly is very considerable. The results for those children
who saw their parent only once or twice since their parent becoming incarcerated or
never at all, the table shows an equal amount of children that were reported as not having
experienced any change in the involvement in their schoolwork as those who were
reported by inmates as having exhibited this change. For those children who visited their
parent at least a few times a year, monthly or weekly, not one child was reported by
inmates to have experienced any change in the involvement in their child’s school work
74
at all. Although more than half of the inmates did not answer this question, the
researcher believes that these findings are still of significance as they fall in line with the
majority of the analysis of crosstabulating contact variables with children’s behavioral
variables.
The second table looks at the contact variable of the frequency with which the
children received mail from their parent in conjunction with any changes reported by
inmates in the involvement of their child’s school work. Of the 14 inmates who
answered this question, the analysis of this data is similar in significance and outcome as
the previous table that looked at the frequency of child visits. Again, children who were
reported as receiving mail from their incarcerated parent at least a few times a year in in
conjunction to those who never received mail, were significantly less likely to have any
reported changes in their involvement with their school work. For the children whose
incarcerated parent reported as never sending any piece of mail since their incarceration,
50% of the total number of children reported by their parent as exhibiting a change in
their school work involvement resided within this category.
Children who received mail from their parent in prison a few times a year showed
that 25% were reported as having shown no change in their school work involvement,
while 0% in this category were reported as having issues with their school work. The
children who received mail from their parent on a monthly basis showed a similar
outcome, with 16.7% of children being reported by their parent as having no issues
surrounding their school work, while 0% of children were shown as having school work
75
problems. For children whose parents reported as receiving weekly mail, the data shows
another instance of more children being reported as having school work issues then those
children who had no problems with their school work. Again, it is believed by the
researcher that these findings result from the number of inmates who left these questions
blank. For children who received mail daily from their parent, 25% were reported as
having no change in their school work involvement, with 0% showing these changes in
school work.
76
3. Children Exhibiting Problems in School
Table 6
FREQUENCY CALLS * SCHOOL PROBLEMS
77
Only one analysis of the 12 inmates, who participated in this question
crosstabulation between a contact variable and children reported as having exhibited
problems in school, was found to have significance. The researcher looked at the
frequency of calls inmates made home in relation to this behavior variable. The original
author of the dataset did not include a definition of this variable in conjunction to
children who showed changes in involvement with their school work. It is assumed by
the researcher that this variable represents behavioral problems children were exhibiting
in the school environment. Again, in all cases excepting children within the monthly
category, the more children were able to talk to their parent, the less likely they were to
exhibit any problems in school.
All inmates who participated in this question called home at least a few times a
year, so that none of the children being reported on never received a phone call from their
parent. Children that got to speak to their incarcerated parent a few times a year were
reported as 11.1% having no issues and 0% of children being reported as exhibiting
school behavioral issues. Children within the monthly phone call category, showed
66.7% as having school problems, with 0% being reported as having no issues. Once
more the researcher believes this outcome to be a result of not having all inmates who
reported having children in the study answer the question. Inmates who were able to
speak with their children weekly, reported that 55.6% did not have any behavior
problems in school, while 0% were reported as having these issues. For children who
were able to receive calls from their parent in prison daily, 33.3% were shown to have no
78
school problems. While the number of children in this category that were reported as
having school problems was also 33.3% of the total number of children who exhibited
school problems, the actual numbers show that 3 children had no issues, while only 1
child was reported as having behavior issues in school.
4. Time Spent with Children Prior to Incarceration
Table 7
HOW OFTEN SPENT TIME WITH CHILDREN * SCHOOL WORK
79
Table 8
HOW OFTEN SPENT TIME WITH CHILDREN * FREQUENCY CALLS
80
Table 9
HOW OFTEN SPENT TIME WITH CHILDREN * MAIL
The last set of tables look at the amount of time inmates spent with their children
prior to becoming incarcerated. The first table looks at this variable in conjunction with
children begin reported as having shown a change in their involvement with their school
work. The second table looks at how the amount of time spent with their children prior to
entering prison effects the frequency of calls the inmates made home. The third table is
similar to the second in that it also looks at the time inmates reported as sending with
their children prior to incarceration with the frequency with which they also reported
sending mail home. While the researcher found no significance with this variable and
81
any other child behavior variable other then any marked change in the child’s
involvement in their school work, the researcher thought it was important to explore the
amount of time inmates reported having spent with their children before entering prison
in order to provide more support for the thesis’ hypothesis that supporting family
maintenance during parental incarceration is vital to the wellbeing of the children of
inmates; as the outcomes found in exploring this variable’s effect on frequency variables
show that inmates that spent the most time with their children and had an established
relationship before entering prison, show that the inmate is then also more likely to
maintain a high frequency of contact with their children during incarceration. Such an
outcome clearly conveys the importance of incarcerated parents maintaining as much as
possible, the amount of time they are able to see, speak to or write their child in order to
mitigate that child’s loss of their parent.
The first table looks at the effects of the amount of time inmates reported as
having spent with their children prior to incarceration on any reported changes in their
child’s involvement with their school work. The data finds that out of the 12 inmates
who reported seeing their children before entering prison, all reported of spending time
with their children at least on a monthly basis. Those inmates within this category
reported that 50% (1 child), of the total number of children who were reported as
exhibiting changes in their school work involvement, were within this category. Inmates
who reported seeing their children on a weekly basis prior to becoming incarcerated were
found to also report that 20% of their children did not exhibit any issues with their school
82
work, while 0% of children were found to display these issues. In following in line with
the outcome of this data, inmates who reported seeing their children on a daily basis
before entering the prison system also reported that 80% of their children had shown no
signs of a change in their involvement in their school work, while 50% (1 child), of
children reported to have this marked change in their school work habits.
The second table is one of two that look at the time spent with children variable
with contact variables. This particular table looked at the frequency of calls inmates
made home in conjunction with the amount of time inmates reported of spending time
with their children. The significant findings in the comparison of these two variables is
that the higher the frequency of time inmates reported as having spent with their children
before entering prison, the higher the instances of calls within the 5 categories of
frequency in calls home; for instance, of the inmates who reported as having only seen
their children a few times a year before entering the prison system, only two of the 20
inmates who participated in this question reported within any frequency of calls home at
all. Inmates who reported seeing their children weekly before incarceration reported
within three different frequency categories. Finally, inmates who reported seeing their
children on a daily basis before going into prison reported within four of the frequency
categories.
Specifically, of the two inmates who saw their children only a few times a year
reported calling home monthly and daily. Of the three inmates who reported seeing their
children on a weekly basis, reported calling home a few times a year, weekly and daily.
83
Of the 15 inmates who reported seeing their children daily before incarceration, 1
reported calling home once or twice, 4 reported calling home monthly, 5 reported calling
weekly and another 5 reported calling home daily. While this data shows no significance
in the frequencies of inmates calling home in conjunction with the amount of time they
spent with their children, the fact that inmates who saw their children more often before
incarceration also reported more instances of calling home across the board shows that
parents who had established relationships with their children seem to also participate in
some frequency of contact with their children once in prison.
The third table shows this trend as well. Of the 21 inmates that participated in
this question, 2 who reported as never having spent time with their children before
becoming incarcerated reported having sent home mail at least once or twice; of the
inmates who reported as having spent time with their children monthly, again 2 also
reported as having some frequency of sending mail home, with 1 reporting never and the
other reporting sending home mail a few times a year. Once the data begins to look at
inmates who reported seeing their children on a weekly basis, three reported some
frequency of mail being sent home, all within categories higher than the previous two
categories; 2 inmates reported sending home mail on a monthly basis, while 1 inmate
reported sending home mail daily. While inmates who reported as having spent time
with their children daily prior to entering prison also reported frequencies of sending mail
across all but one of the five frequency categories, 14 of the 21 inmates who participated
fell within this category with 1 reporting he never sent mail home, 4 reporting they had
84
mailed something home a few times a year, two reporting they sent mail home monthly, 6
reporting they sent mail home weekly and 1 reporting he sent something home daily.
Again, while the data shows the frequencies of inmates sending home mail in almost
every category, those inmates who reported having spent the most amount of time with
their children before going into prison also reported the most instances of some frequency
in the mail they sent home.
The analysis of this data shows that even in the certain instances in which inmates
reported higher frequencies of contact with their children, yet their child still exhibited
certain behavioral problems, the majority of the data clearly shows that the children of
these inmates had more representation among the numbers of children who did not
exhibit these behavior issues, the more contact they were able to have with their parent
during their incarceration. While the amount of time that inmates reported spending with
their children prior to their incarceration did not show a strong relationship with higher
instances of contact with those children, the data does clearly convey that the inmates
who had higher rates of contact with their children before entering prison, also had higher
rates of maintaining more instances of some amount of contact than prisoners who never,
or rarely saw their children prior to incarceration. These outcomes show that maintaining
family and child-parent connections during a parent’s incarceration does have impact
upon those children exhibiting behavioral issues.
85
Chapter 5
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
In analyzing the dataset # 22460, Exploring Factors Influencing Family Members
Connections to Incarcerated Individuals in New Jersey, 2005-2006, the researcher
utilized a secondary dataset in order to find a relationship between the frequency of
contact between inmates and their children (when both desired and appropriate), and any
negative impact on the behavior of those children. The original premise for the dataset
sought to form a better understanding of the factors that influence whether or not an
inmate’s family members will choose to stay involved in his life throughout his
incarceration. Within the dataset, three variables focused on the frequency of different
types of contact available to inmates and their families, including visits, phone calls home
and mail. The research conducted for the purposes of this paper, focused on the
quantitative dataset collected from the inmates only. The researcher was unable to use
the quantitative data collected from the inmate’s family members because of the large
reduction in the sample size in questions regarding the children of the inmates. All
information then regarding the frequency of contact between the inmate and his child and
any behavioral issues that child was having, all were reported to the researchers by the
inmate alone.
The researcher also included the variable within the data that looked at the
amount of time inmates spent with their children prior to becoming incarcerated. The
86
data also included four variables including, behavior problems, adjustment problems,
problems in school and any change the children had shown in their involvement with
their school work. The researcher labeled the variables having to do with different types
of contact “contact” variables, and the variables representing different child behavior
issues as “behavior” variables. In creating various tables that crosstabulated contact
variables with behavior variables, the researcher sought to determine if the sought
relationship existed.
The research question regarding a possible relationship between frequency of
contact and any negative impact on the behavior of children dealing with parental
incarceration, was determined by the researcher during research conducted regarding the
children of prisoners. The majority of that research, which ranged from the outcomes of
various studies conducted with children of inmates to several reports created in order to
inform, educate and influence judicial, criminal justice and correctional policy, the
researcher found little regarding the impact of little, none or frequent contact between
families and their loved ones in prison; what research was available on the importance of
family maintenance mostly focused on the adult family members of inmates. The
research that did center on the children of prisoners looked mostly at the risks associated
with the population and the different hardships with which these children face.
There was some very good research that looked at some promising programs and
legislation that positively affected this population, along with stating the importance of
the continuance of a relationship between inmates and their children, but little in the way
87
of studies that were able to provide empirical evidence that a clear relationship existed
between the frequency of this contact and the common occurrence of hardships this
population often faces, including behavioral, psychological and emotional problems. In
the determination of this gap in the research conducted specifically looking for such a
relationship, the researcher sought to attempt to do so.
Conclusions
While the sample size fluctuated from variable to variable as a result of some
inmates not participating in a particular question, the researcher was only able to
crosstabulate two variables at a time. In order to answer the research question, those two
variables consisted of contact variables and behavior variables. No statistical analysis
was able to be used as a result of some of the variable’s smaller sample numbers. While
the research conducted is not concrete enough to determine empirical outcomes, what
was found in the research showed promise in the continuance and furthering of similar
research in the future. In looking at the relationship between contact variables and
behavior variables, which focused only on the behavior of the prisoner’s children, enough
evidence was found to determine the likelihood that such a relationship does indeed exist.
In looking at the relationship between all three of the four contact variables,
including the frequencies of child visits, phone calls home made by the inmates and mail
sent home, and the behavior variable that represented any behavioral problems the
inmates reported their children as having, the outcomes for each crosstabulation were
significant. In all three scenarios, a clear relationship between the frequency of contact
88
and the instances of the children exhibiting behavioral problems was determined. All
three tables showed that the more a child was able to see, speak to or receive mail from
their parent in prison, the less that child was reported as exhibiting behavior problems.
The table that looked at the frequency of phone calls the inmate was able to make home
and child behavior problems, the children who spoke to their parent on a more regular
basis also were reported as not exhibiting any behavior issues. The third table looking at
the frequency the inmate sent mail home and a child’s behavioral functioning, the
majority of the children who received mail from their parent in prison on a more regular
basis showed less instances of being reported by that parent as having behavior problems
as well. All three tables also had one category that seemed to go against this finding. In
one of the higher frequency categories, a higher number of children reported as having
behavior problems were reported than children not having behavioral issues. As stated in
chapter 4, the researcher believes this anomaly seems to have appeared often due to the
small number of each question’s sample size. As the majority of the analysis of the data
shows the opposite outcome, the researcher assumes that had the sample size been larger,
this would not have happened.
The second set of tables that looked at the relationship of contact variables in
relation to inmates reporting their children as having shown a change in their
involvement in their school work. While the samples sizes for each of the three tables
that looked at this particular comparison were all small, with one table with a
participation of 12 and the other 14, the findings that both tables provided were very
89
promising. Both tables were able to show that those inmates that reported either
receiving a visit from their child or sending mail home to their family and children at
least a few times a year, presented far fewer, or even no changes in their involvement in
their school work at all. The first table that looked at this behavior variable conjunction
with the frequency of child visits, those inmates that reported as receiving visits from
their child at least a few times a year, monthly and weekly all reported absolutely no
instances of that child exhibiting changes in their school work involvement. The second
table that looked at the effect of the frequency of phone calls made home on child school
work involvement, showed that of those inmates that reported calling home at least a few
times a year, monthly and daily, all resulted in no inmate reports of changes in the child’s
involvement with their school work. There was another instance of one of the higher
frequency categories resulting in a higher number of children reported as having issues in
a change in their school work involvement, but again, the researcher believes this to be a
consequence of the small sample size.
Only one table looked at the behavior variable of children reported as exhibiting
problems in school. The other contact variables looked at in conjunction with this
behavior variable determined no usable findings. As the original researchers did not give
any detailed definitions of the behavior variables, the researcher assumed that problems
in school and changes in the involvement in a child’s school work differed in the focus on
disruptive and/or problematic behavior exhibited by the child, and any noticeable changes
in the quality of that child’s school work performance only. The frequency of phone calls
90
home was looked at in conjunction with a child’s behavior issues in school. The findings
of this table showed that those children who were able to speak to their parent in prison at
least a few times a year, were reported as having fewer, or no instances of behavior
problems at school. Inmates that reported calling home a few times a year and weekly
reported no behavioral issues at school at all. Those inmates that reported calling home
on a monthly basis, once again displayed an instance of a higher number of their children
having behavior problems, though inmates who reported only calling a few times a year,
and reported no school problems. Once more this is seen as a result of the smaller sample
size. The findings of the data looking at the inmates that reported calling home daily
percentage-wise shows no significance, with 33.3% reporting no school problems and
33.3% reported as having school problems; however, in looking at the actual numbers of
children in each of these categories, 3 children were reported as having no school issues,
while only 1 child was reported as having these problems.
The last set of tables looks at the only contact variable concerned with contact
between inmates and their children prior to incarceration in conjunction with one
behavior variable and two other contact variables. The first table shows that all 12 of the
inmates that participated in this question reported seeing their children before entering
prison on at least a monthly basis. The findings show that inmates who spent time with
their children weekly or daily, presented a significant number lower of their children
exhibiting changes in their involvement in their school work, with weekly showing no
reports of school work involvement, and daily showing 80% of children having exhibited
91
no change, compared to 50% (1 child out of 2), that were reported as having school work
problems. While the inmates that reported as having seen their children on a monthly
basis showed 0% of children with no school work issues, only 1 child in this category
(50%), was reported as showing this change.
The other two tables which looked at this time spent prior to incarceration and
two contact variables. Both variables, the frequency of phone call and sending mail
home showed higher numbers of contact in general, then those inmates that reported
spending little to no time with their children before entering prison. For instance, inmates
that reported as never seeing their children prior to incarceration only reported within 1 of
the 5 frequency categories for phone calls home. Inmates that reported seeing their
children weekly before prison reported within 3 of the 5 frequency categories and
inmates who reported as seeing their children prior to incarceration daily, reported within
4 of the 5 frequency categories for phone calls home. The same was true of the second
table that looked at parent-child contact prior to prison in conjunction with the frequency
of inmates sending home mail. Both tables show that the higher the frequency of contact
with their children before prison, the higher the number of inmates who called or sent
mail home at least a few times a year.
These findings within the data show that there is very promising potential for
continuing studies researching this relationship. While it was not possible for the
researcher to determine any empirical findings in the analysis of this data, there was a
clear relationship shown between the frequency of contact between inmates and their
92
children and negative behaviors exhibited by those children. The research was conducted
in order to determine if such a relationship existed in order to support the claim that
children benefit from being able to maintain a relationship with their parent, during that
parent’s incarceration. The other goal of the research was to find if further research
looking for the same relationship would be warranted in the future. The findings that this
research was able to determine found answers to both, and it is the opinion of the
researcher that children who have more contact with their parent during incarceration do
receive some benefit from the continuance of that relationship and that such contact
would likely play a role in a combination of other interventions in order to reduce the
occurrence of the children of prisoners experiencing any negative impact on their social,
emotional and psychological functioning. Such findings affirm that further research in
the significance of this relationship could result in the creation of a firm empirical
foundation for policy shifts in both Corrections and the Criminal Justice System that
would support family maintenance throughout incarceration and for the overall wellbeing
of these children.
Limitations of the Research
The limitations of the researcher's analysis of the data mostly arose from the
limited number of participants within the sample. A total of n=35 inmates participated in
the study, but each individual question differed in its sample size based on the number of
inmates that either did, or did not answer the question. This created the anomaly within
the data that the researcher touched on in both chapter 4 and chapter 5 of this paper. The
93
consequence of this shrinking in the sample size resulted in some of findings in the
analysis showing the opposite outcome most of the data supported. While the majority of
the data supported the researcher's hypothesis that the higher the frequency of contact
between inmates and their children, the lower the incidents of those children exhibiting
behavioral problems, the data would also show in only one instance in the tables that
conveyed this occurrence, of a higher frequency of contact corresponding with a higher
number of children reported by inmates as having exhibited behavior problems. The
researcher came to this conclusion by the more frequent outcomes showing the opposite
of this finding. The result of this occurring more than once in the data analysis weakens
the findings somewhat, but as the majority did in fact support the hypothesis, such
occurrences did not reduce the significance of the final outcome.
Another limitation in this research was also a sample size issue. While many of
the inmates (at times more than half), left certain questions blank reducing the overall
sample, the quantitative data collected from the participating family members of the
inmates was even lower. Only 15 family members participated in the study, a small
sample to begin with. Many of the questions answered by inmates regarding their
children, were left blank by the majority of the family. The researcher feels that the
reason for this was most likely a result of the family members wanted to protect the
children. As discussed in this paper, the stigma that the children of prisoners are faced
with is very difficult, painful and can debilitate some children in their school performance
and negatively affect their behavior. The adult family members of these children are very
94
much aware of the negative judgment on them and their children, and will do all that they
can to shield their children from it. Regardless of what the researchers told them about
harboring no judgment, family members most likely declined answering questions about
their children's behavior problems in order to protect them from this judgment.
It should also be noted in this section of the paper that the researcher has a
personal tie to the subject matter of both the original and this study. This tie comes from
the researcher's own experience with parental incarceration and many of the issues and
hardships in which other children of inmates go through. While the researcher felt that
such a tie would enhance the analysis of this data by providing an "inside" perspective, it
must also be considered a limitation. The researcher did not in any way know any of the
participants, or any of the original research team. While attempts at remaining as
objective as possible in the analysis of this data and the research done to support it,
maintaining a purely objective opinion throughout the study was not attainable. The
researcher does not feel that this effects the validity of the findings, however. While the
personal feelings of the researcher were often with the members of this study, there was
no way the researcher could alter the data to coincide with those feelings, as the data was
secondary and not personally collected by the researcher.
Implications for Social Work, Policy and Future Research
Research and policy recommendations within this population are somewhat new,
considering that no major research was conducted before about the mid 1990's. As such,
more well-researched populations are miles ahead in available resources, empirically
95
proven interventions and advocacy in policy issues that directly affect their members.
Social Work and policy have much more work to do in regard to children of prisoners in
order to educate the general population and policy-makers about the unique strengths,
issues and hardships in which these children are a part of. In the area of Social Work,
more education about the children of inmates needs to occur for social workers so that
they can then teach others in the community about this special group of children and
youth.
Many of the youth that social workers are in contact with now, have had or are
currently dealing with the issues surrounding parental incarceration. Foster youth are
commonly within group of youth who also have parents in prison. Some of the children
in foster care are there because their parent or primary guardian becomes incarcerated.
Foster youth often go through several difference social workers during their stay in foster
care; especially if they remain in foster care for a prolonged length of time. While the
issues surrounding these children are numerous, and social workers try and do the best
they can in linking these children with all of the outside resources they need and are often
their advocates, little is ever addressed concerning the unique issues of parental
incarceration. As these youth already have a long list of hardships and statistics in which
they have to overcome in order to be successful, addressing parental incarceration is an
important piece of the puzzle that is simply not being confronted. Social workers
working with children and families need to educate themselves and others on the issues
96
of parental incarceration in order to provide these children with the most comprehensive
services so that they may grow to their fullest potential.
Correction departments across the country simply do not have polices set in place
that support family maintenance and provide the best environment possible for children
to visit their parent in prison. Correctional officers are not trained at all regarding the
issues children of inmates face or how to interact with families and children coming to
visit loved ones. The result of this is that visitors often come into contact with rude,
belittling and disrespectful treatment. Families and children also have to travel up to 100
miles or more in order to visit their loved one. If a family cannot afford to pay for this
travel, in order to maintain contact with their loved one in prison, they have to pay
exorbitant amount of money just to maintain phone contact. Polices regulating family
maintenance, including placing a cap on the distance prisoners with children can be
placed to serve their sentences and providing child-friendly, safe, comfortable and
developmentally appropriate visiting rooms with healthy food choices are some of the
changes that need to happen in order to help these children.
As research within this population continues, researchers and social workers alike
must begin to place more time and energy into studying and working with children of
inmates. The huge increase in the prison population in California alone shows how
significant this issue has become. More research needs to be done in order to determine
empirical evidence about the negative impact on children's psychological, emotional and
behavioral functioning. in order to achieve this, more studies must be done that utilize
97
control groups and that follow children for a significant amount of time. Such studies
would no doubt be costly, but social workers need to advocate for this type of research to
take place. Social workers should also take it upon themselves to keep this type of
research within the field. The amount of compassion, understanding and focus on
strength-based interventions are exactly what this population needs in order to be assisted
in a way that will utilize the significant amount of resilience and strength these youth
possess. With the combination of advocacy for shifts in policy, education about this
population and the continuing of research and the creation of empirically-based
interventions these youth can become the responsible, caring and amazing people they all
have the capacity for becoming.
98
REFERENCES
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2008). Children and families with incarcerated
parents: exploring development in the field and opportunities for growth.
Baltimore, MD: Bouchet, S., Ph.D.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). Focus on children with incarcerated
parents: an overview of the research literature. Baltimore, MD:
Finney-Hairston, C., Ph.D.
Arditti, J. (2005). Families and incarceration: an ecological approach. Families
in Society: Journal of Contemporary Social Services, (86) 2, 251-260.
Beckerman, A. (1998). Charting a course: the challenge of permanency planning
for children with incarcerated mothers. Child Welfare League of America, (77) 5,
513-529.
Bockneck, E., Sanderson, J., Preston, A. (2009). Ambiguous loss and
posttraumatic stress in school-age children of prisoners. Journal of Children and
Family Studies, (18,) 323-333.
99
Braman, D. (2003). Families and incarceration. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from www.law.gwu.edu. (202981).
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report. (2008). Parents in prison and
their minor children. (U.S. Office of Justice Publication No. NCJ 222984).
Washington, DC: Glaze, L. & Maruschak, L.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report. (2004). State prison
expenditures. (U.S. Office of Justice Publication No. 202949).
Washington, DC: Stephen, J.
The California Research Bureau. (2003). Children of arrested parents: strategies
to improve their safety and well-being.. Sacramento, CA: Nolan, C.
Clopton, K., East, K. (2008). “Are there other kids like me?” children with a
parent in prison. Journal of Early Childhood Education, (36,) 195-198.
Counsel of State Governments Justice Center. (2009). Children of incarcerated
parents: an action plan for federal policy makers. New York, NY:
Nickel, J., Garland, C. & Kane, L.
100
Dellaire, D. (2007). Children with incarcerated mothers: developmental
outcomes,
special challenges and recommendations. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, (28), 15-24.
Dannerbeck, A. (2005). Differences in parenting attributes, experiences, and
behaviors of delinquent youth with and without a parental history of incarceration.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, (3) 3, 199-213.
Foster, H. Hagan, J. (2009). The mass incarceration of parents in america: issues
of race/ethnicity, collateral damage to children, and prisoner reentry. The Annals
of the American Academy of Political of Social Science, (623), 179-195.
Finney-Hairston, C. (1998). The forgotten parent: understanding the forces that
influence incarcerated fathers’ relationships with their children.
Child Welfare League of America, (77) 5, 613-639.
Lichtenwalter, S., Garase, M., Barker, D. (2010). Evaluation of the house of
healing: an alternative to female incarceration. Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare, (37) 1, 75-94.
101
Miller, K. (2006). The impact of parental incarceration on children: an
emergingneed for effective interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal (23) 4, 472-486.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2009). Children of incarcerated
parents. Washington, DC: Christian, S.
Nesmith, A., Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated parents: challenges
and resiliency in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review (30),
1119-1130.
Poehlmann, J., Dellaire, D., Loper, A., Shear, L. (2010). Children’s contact with
their incarcerated parents. American Psychologist, (65) 6, 575-598.
DOI: 10.1037/a0020279.
The San Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents (2003). Children of
incarcerated parents bill of rights. San Francisco, CA.
Shalfer, R., Poehlmann, J., Coffino, B., Hanneman, A. (2009). Mentoring
children with incarcerated parents: implications for research, practice and policy.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, (58), 507-519.
102
Snyder, Z. (2010). Keeping families together: the importance of maintaining
mother-child contact for incarcerated women. Women & Criminal Justice (19) 1,
37-59. DOI: 10.1080/08974450802586869.
Spiro, B. (1978). The future course of corrections. Journal of Social Work,
315-320.
The Urban Institute. (2008). Broken bonds: understanding and addressing the
needs of children with incarcerated parents. Washington, DC:
La Vigne, N., Davies, E. & Brazzell, D.
Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom and the
concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, (46) 2, 265-280.