School Based Interventions
for Children with Incarcerated
Parents:
Identifying and Treating Issues
Katelen Fortunati, LCSW
Amber Jennings, MA
Chestnut Health Systems
2015
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Impact
Characteristics of the Client
The Experiential Process
Categories and List of Treatment Areas
Scale and Treatment Plan
Therapeutic Messages and Themes
Overview of Intervention Programs
Change Maintenance
The Impact
•
•
•
•
2.7 million children nationwide
Racial differences
Mother vs. father caregiving profiles
ACEs (http://acestoohigh.com)
• Long-term effects
Characteristics of the Client
• Impact of trauma
• Risks of parental incarceration
•
•
•
•
Economic
Family instability
Health disparities
Police/welfare contact
• Child development
• Case example
Ambiguous Loss
• “…ambiguous loss is the most stressful kind of
loss. It defies resolution and creates long-term
confusion about who is in or out of a particular
couple or family. With death, there is official
certification of loss, and mourning rituals allow
one to say goodbye. With ambiguous loss, none
of these markers exist. The persisting ambiguity
blocks cognition, coping, meaning-making and
freezes the grief process.” (Boss, et al. 2003)
Types of AL
• Type 1: physical absence and psychological
presence
• Case example
• Type 2: physical presence and psychological
absence
• Case example
Ambiguous Loss
• Characteristics of the construct
– Ambivalence
– Traumatizing
– Freezes the grief process
– Closure improbable
– Grieving the loss
Ambiguous Loss
• Core assumptions
– Relational phenomena – not an individual
condition
– Positive psychology – assumed a natural
resiliency
– Occurs in multiple levels
– Process occurs both linear & systemically 
meta-recursive process
Ambiguous Boundaries
• Theoretical suggestions: (Boss, et al 2005)
– Higher the boundary ambiguity in the family
system, the higher the family stress and
greater individual and family dysfunction.
– If a high degree of family boundary ambiguity
persists overtime, the family system will
become highly stressed and subsequently
dysfunctional.
Ambiguous Boundaries
• Families with varying belief systems (e.g.,
mastery vs. fatalism) will differ in how they
perceive their family boundaries, even after
similar events of loss or separation.
• The length of time a family will be able to
tolerate a high degree of boundary ambiguity
will be influenced by the family’s value
orientation (e.g., mastery vs. fatalism).
• The family’s perception (definition) of an event
will be influenced by the larger community
context.
Rando’s 6 “R” Process Model for
Complicated Grief
(Rando, 1993)
• Avoidance phase
• RECOGNIZE the loss
• Confrontation phase
• REACT emotionally to the separation
• RECOLLECT and RE-EXPERIENCE the lost parent
• Accommodation phase
• RELINQUISH
• READJUST to daily life
• REINVEST or adopt new ways of being in the world
• Meaning Reconstruction
Rando’s 6 “R” Process Model for
Complicated Grief
• Seek to provide new understanding of attachment
(Klass et al, 1996)
• Continued attachment does not equal unresolved
grief
• Disengagement and letting go of the past does not
have to be a goal of grief
• Enduring bonds can be healthy – they search for
ways to maintain a connection
• Each child’s response is unique
• MEANING RECONSTRUCTION is the central
process (Neimeyer, 2003)
Experiential Process Phases
of Parental Incarceration
• Initial Phase
• Shock / confusion / avoidance
• Need to recognize the loss
• Denial
• Need to recollect lost parent
• Anger / Resentments
• Need to react emotionally to the separation
• Lower Level Acceptance / Accommodation
• Realization of situation/family dysfunction
• Need to relinquish and readjust
Experiential Process Phases
• Advanced acceptance
• Family member is working on own challenges
• Letting go or forgiveness
• Need to reinvest or adopt new ways of being
• Possible re-unification of family unit
• Restorative Justice
• Parent takes responsibility
• Parent apologizes
Variation of Individual Challenges
• Vary depending upon the following factors:
– Level of trauma
– Level of attachment
– Attitudes and core beliefs/schemas
– Resiliency factors
– Coping skills/self-regulation
– Suppression/repression
– Individual resources
List of Potential Challenges
• Attachment separation/grieving issues:
– Appears to be grieving the loss
– Denial what happened
– Acknowledges what happened, but emotionally
negotiates
– Harbors resentments and hostility
– Feels abandoned
– Hasn’t exhibited forgiveness
– Doesn’t feel validated
– Feelings of being loved and attachment with parent
List Of Potential Challenges
• Attachment separation/grieving issues:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Emotionally refuses the reunification
Appears to blame self
Lacks friends (social networks)
Lacks a support system
Withdraws from people (isolates)
Appears depressed
List Of Potential Challenges
• Regulations Skills
–
–
–
–
Anger management (has problems controlling temper)
Problem solving problems
Problems with coping skills
Goal setting problems
List Of Potential Challenges
• Trauma Related Issues
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Has anxiety and seems stressed
Traumatized (distressed about it)
Avoids conversations about the events
Appears in shock
Appears confused
Seems to dissociate (detach)
Has flashbacks
Appears easily startled
Can’t focus
Has nightmares/terrors
List Of Potential Challenges
• Self Concept Related
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Under plays strengths
Lacks confidence
Sense of identity
Doesn’t seem empowered
Insecurity/inferiority
Self-esteem (doesn’t feel good about self)
Self-worth (doesn’t seem to value self)
Doesn’t feel okay (adequate about self)
Personal hygiene issues
Therapeutic Messages and Themes
• Key Therapeutic Messages
–
–
–
–
–
Core belief/schema
Empowerment
Sense of self–efficacy
Vision of hope
Acceptance of external realities
Therapeutic Messages and Themes
• Key Treatment Themes
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Understanding what happened
Dealing with shame and blame
Acknowledging trauma and grief
Dealing with feelings and managing anger
Building and reaffirming a positive identity
Building good relationships
Building good support systems
Planning for the future
Theoretical Assumptions
• People have choices and are self-determined
• All behavior has meaning
• People have needs that can be met functionally
or through dysfunction
• Holistic view
• The person consists of different experiential
domains, including cognitive (thinking, beliefs),
affective (emotions, feelings), behavioral, social,
bio-physiological- body functions, spiritual,
contextual (environmental, situational), senses.
Theoretical Assumptions
• People can continuously learn.
• People continuously change and develop.
• Traumas can impact learning and development.
Foundation disruption
• Learning is complex, multi-leveled, and
dimensional. A lot of learning involves “states.”
• Change is creating a difference within
functioning.
Dimensions of Self
• Multiple Experiential Domains of Self
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Cognitive  thoughts, ideas, attitudes
Affective  emotions, moods, feelings
Behavioral  overt (motor) activities
Spiritual  connection to higher power/meaning
Biological-Physiological  organs, chemistry
Socially  attachment, relationships
Contextual  background, environmental
Sensory Modalities  perceptual modes
• Core: Mind-Body Connection  Core Perceptual
Belief System (State Dependent Memory Learning)
Holistic View: Mind-Body Connections
Cognitive
Social
Contextual
Perceptual
Belief
System
Mind- Body
Spiritual
Affective
Behavioral
BioPhysiological
Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002)
• Fragmented/poor plan - leads to a chaotic
meandering
• Coherent plan - leads to a realistic plan tied to
abilities, preferences, living environment.
• In life - it is about how we meet our needs
• People seem to fluctuate, however, the goal is to
hopefully live mostly in a coherent life plan
Program Parameters:
Manuals vs. Process
• Programs need to be planned and documented
via manuals
– Manuals are the guidelines and program map
– Therapist style  delivery of interventions and
process variables account for large percent of
successful outcome
– Flexibility vs. rigidity
– Common Factors – Dr. Sean Davis
• Process is key
– Experiential processes activated
• Responsiveness
Key Factors in Successful Programs
•
•
•
•
•
Respect and Rapport
Therapeutic Connection
Hope
Encouragement
Directive – Structure and Guidance
– Flexible with minimal chaos
Early Intervention with Children of
Incarcerated Parents
• Chestnut Recovery Values
•
•
•
•
•
Hope
Empowerment
Health and Wellness
Respect
Spirituality and Connectedness
• Program Requirements
• Comprehensive Services
–
–
–
–
–
–
Case Management (advocacy)
Therapy (individual, family, group)
Psychiatric Services
Caregiver Supports
Transportation
Grant Funded
Lutheran Social Services
Curriculum: Session Structure
•
•
•
•
•
Psycho-educational group
CBT combined with positive psychology
Holistic approach
8 sessions
Currently piloted in a Chicago middle school
Sessions
1. Understanding What Happened
– Instilling hope
– Looking at the reality of the situation
2. Dealing With Shame and Blame
– Bill of Rights
– Ownership: Taking on the blame
3. Acknowledging Trauma and Grief
– The impact
– Identifying feelings
– Grieving process of the loss and feelings
Sessions
4. Dealing with Feelings and Managing Anger
– Identifying feelings
– Range of feelings
– The levels of feelings
5. Coping with Anger and Resentments
–
–
–
–
Managing anger
Coping skills
Letting go/ forgiveness
Coping with anger and resentments
Sessions
6. Building and Reaffirming a Positive Identity
– Feeling OK
– Realizing and buying into the fact that “life isn’t fair
but I’m OK.”
– Using strengths
– Building strengths
– Affirmations
– Validation
Sessions
7. Building Good Relationships and Good Support
Systems
–
–
–
–
Respect self & others
Empathy
Boundaries
Developing good support systems
8. Planning for the Future
–
–
–
–
–
Instilling hope
Goal setting (immediate, medium, long range)
Realistic or not
Steps to complete goals
Keeping hope
Essentials of Change Maintenance
• Change maintenance is based on a dynamic
change process involving all experiential
domains at varying levels
• Self- determined
• Restore and/or enhance resiliency
• Coping skills
• Reunification
Key Essential Elements
• Change in core beliefs:
–
–
–
–
–
“Life isn’t fair but I’m ok”
“The past doesn’t control me, I control me”
“I’m ok and worthy”
“It is not my fault”
“I can do this”
• Re-organizing the meaning of the experience into
healthy/functional
• Empowerment/mastery of problems
• Acceptance of the situation for what it is
• Normalizing the situational experience
• Release of emotional energy and letting go of issues
• Feeling connected to someone again
Concluding Thoughts
• The impact of losing a parent to incarceration varies but
is significant.
• There is an experiential process - sometimes described
as the ambiguous loss.
• Treatment can be effective, thus reducing the impact.
• Programs have been outlined, with clinical examples
• Recovery is a dynamic process, often doesn’t follow a
clean linear trajectory
• There are key essential elements to the process of
recovery (mastery, empowerment, letting go of issues,
releasing energy,…)
Contact
• Katelen Fortunati, LCSW
– katelen.fortunati@gmail.com
– Children’s book information
• http://www.safersociety.org/foundation/
• Amber Jennings, MA
– anjennings@chestnut.org
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bender. J. M. (2010). My daddy is in jail: Story, Discussion Guide, & Small Group Activities for
Grades K-5. Chapin, SC: Youthlight, Inc.
Boss, P., Greenberg, J. & Pearce-McCall, D. ( ). Measurement of Boundary Ambiguity in Families.
Station Bulletin, 593-1990
Boss, P., Beaulieu, L., Weiling, E., Turner, W. & LaCruz, S. (2003). Healing Loss, Ambiguity, and
Trauma: A Community-Based Intervention with Families of Union Workers Missing After The 9/11
Attack in New York City. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 455-467.
Burgess, S.; Caselman, T.; & Carsey, J. (2009). Empowering: Children of Incarcerated Parents.
Chapin, SC: YouthLight Inc.
Cassidy, J., Poehlmann, J., & Shaver, P. (2010). Introduction to the Special Issue: An attachment
perspective on incarcerated parents and their children. Attachment & Human Development, 12,
285-288.
Clopton, K. & East, K. (2008). “Are There Other Kids Like Me?” Children With a Parent in Prison.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 195-198.
Dept. of social & Health Services, Washington State (Dec. 2009). A behavioral health toolkit for
providers working w/children of the incarcerated & their families.
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C., & Mincy, R. (2009). Parental Incarceration and Child WellBeing: Implications for Urban Families. Social Science Quarterly, 90.
Initiative Foundation (Date unknown) How to explain jails & prisons to children. Initiative
Foundation, 405 1st dtreet SE, Little Falls, MN 56345, 877-632-9255.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Johnson, E. & Easterling, B. (2012). Understanding Unique effects of Parental Incarceration on
Children: Challenges, Progress, and Recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 342356.
Klass, D., Silverman, P.R., & Nickman, S.L. (Eds.). (1996). Continuing Bonds. Philadelphia, PA:
Taylor & Francis
Lander, I. Towards the Incorporation of Forgiveness Therapy in Healing the Complex Trauma of
Parental Incarceration. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29, 1-19.
McMurran, M. & Ward, T. (2004). Motivating offenders to change in therapy: An organizing
framework. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 9, 295-311.
Miller, K. (2006). The Impact of Parental Incarceration on Children: An Emerging Need for Effective
Interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23.
Neimeyer, R.A. (Ed.). (2003). Meaning Reconstruction & the Experience of Loss. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association
Newby, G. (2006). After Incarceration: Adolescent-Parent Reunification. The Prevention
Researcher, 13.
Phillips, S. & Gates, T. (2011). A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Stigmatization of
Children of Incarcerated Parents. Journal of Children and Family Studies, 20, 286-294.
Rando, T.A. (1993). Treatment of Complicated Mourning. Research Press
Reilly, K. (2013). Sesame Street Reaches Out to 2.7 million American Children With an
Incarcerated Parent. Pew Research Center
References
•
•
•
•
Shlafer, R., Poehlmann, J., Coffino, B., & Hanneman, A. (2009). Mentoring Children with
Incarcerated Parents: Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy. Family Relations, 58,
507-519.
Sprenkle, D. H., Davis, S. D., & Lebow, J. L. (2009). Common factors in couple and family
therapy: The overlooked foundation for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Ward, T. (2002). Good lives & the rehabilitation of offenders: Promises & problems. Aggression
& violent Behavior, 7, 513-528.
Ward, T. (2002b).The management of risk and the design of good lives. Australian Psychologist,
37, 172-179.