Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners : Invisible Children [1 ed.] 9781527511941, 9781527503595

Citation preview

Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners

Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners: Invisible Children Edited by

Liz Gordon

Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners: Invisible Children Edited by Liz Gordon This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Liz Gordon and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0359-3 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0359-5

CONTENTS

Author Biographies ................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xvi Foreword ................................................................................................. xvii Introduction: Fostering a Global Movement for Change by Making the Invisible Visible ..................................................................................... 1 Liz Gordon Slipping Through the Cracks: Examining the Realities of a Child-Friendly Prison System ............................................................................................ 14 William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits...... 29 Avon Hart-Johnson Punishing the Innocent: The Socio-Economic Impact of Pre-Trial Detention on Detainees’ Families .............................................................. 55 Martin Schönteich Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha: The Impacts of Incarceration on Children, Families, and Our Communities ........................................... 68 Kat Brady Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four: Failure to Safeguard Children of Detained and Arrested Parents .............................................................. 85 Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated: 12 Guiding Principles .............................................................................. 100 Ann Adalist-Estrin

vi

Contents

They Took My Parent Away: Little Ones Affected by Incarceration Speak ....................................................................................................... 116 Michael Trout Out of Sight, Out of Mind: The Experiences of Mothers Involuntarily Committed to a Psychiatric Hospital ....................................................... 133 Caroline Long and Margarete Parrish Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents ................ 141 Bahiyyah Miallah Muhammad Maintaining Family Ties: The Disparities between Policy and Practice Following Maternal Imprisonment in England and Wales ...................... 155 Natalie Booth Connecticut's Children with Incarcerated Parents (CIP) Initiative at Central Connecticut State University: Building Academic Partnerships to Expand Knowledge and Inspire Change ......................... 172 Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence .............. 190 Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro What Little we Know: A System-wide Descriptive Study on Children of Incarcerated Parents in Two U.S. Jurisdictions ................................... 209 Katie Kramer and Carol F. Burton TYRO® Dads: Breaking Cycles of Self-Destruction for Children of Incarcerated Fathers ............................................................................ 226 Ron and Catherine Tijerina Prison Staff who Shape Child and Family Visits: United Kingdom Multiple Case Study ................................................................................ 241 Avon Hart-Johnson, Geoffrey Johnson and Monique Tate List of Speakers at INCCIP Conference, March 2017 ............................. 266

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Liz Gordon, PhD, LLB, MRSNZ is a former university academic and a former politician in New Zealand. She now runs Pukeko Research Ltd, a private research organisation operating within the community and government sectors. Her focus is on intersectional work in the areas of justice, social policy and education, working in particular on inequalities and poverty. She is also President of Pillars Ka Pou Whakahou, a national organisation working with the families of prisoners, with a focus on preventing inter-generational imprisonment in the children. In 2017 she organised the first conference of the International Coalition for the Children of Incarcerated Parents (INCCIP), which was held in Rotorua, New Zealand. Will Pridmore completed a Bachelor of Arts in linguistics and media at the University of Melbourne, and is currently studying a Doctor of Medicine and Surgery degree at the Australian National University. He has co-authored several psychiatric papers on the topic of suicide, and also completed original research on improving children’s interactions with the justice system. As a medical student, he is a recipient of the John Flynn Placement Program scholarship, and is a certified anatomy prosecutor. Also an actor, Will has experience in theatre for young people. Michael Levy is the Clinical Director of Justice Health Services (ACT, Australia). He is a Public Health and a Clinical Forensic Physician with national and international experience in prisoner health. He has worked with the World Health Organization and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture - “CPT”; missions to Hungary and the United Kingdom). He is a Board Member of the Community Restorative Centre, a non-government organisation concerned with the welfare of families of prisoners and the re-integration of ex-prisoners back into the community. In 2014 he was recognised for meritorious service with the Member of the Order of Australia in the General Division (AM) – “For significant service to medicine in the field of public health as a clinician, academic and educator”.

viii

Author Biographies

Avon Hart-Johnson, PhD, HS-BCP, is a university academic in the United States (US). She is co-founder of DC Project Connect, a charity that provides psychoeducational support and crisis intervention services to families and children affected by incarceration. Her research focus is to illuminate the collateral impacts incarceration on families and to further report how the Mass Incarceration Continuum disenfranchises vulnerable people. She chairs the Advocacy in Action Coalition, an association with the International Prisoner Family Conference. She oversees programme design and development of life skills curriculum at a Residential Re-entry Centre for women in Washington, D.C. She is an advocate and active board member serving on several advisory boards. Academically, she holds a bachelors’ degree in information systems technology from University of Maryland University College, a masters’ degree in information systems management from George Washington University, a masters’ degree in forensic psychology, and a PhD in Human Services Counselling from Walden University. Martin Schऺnteich is Senior Managing Legal Officer at the Open Society Justice Initiative in Washington, D.C. Martin directs the Justice Initiative’s Criminal Justice Reform programme which promotes fair and effective justice systems based on the rule of law through hands-on technical assistance, policy development, research, network building, and litigation. He previously worked as a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, as Parliamentary Affairs Manager for the South African Institute of Race Relations, and as a public prosecutor for the South African Department of Justice. He is an Advocate of the High Court of South Africa and holds a Masters’ degree in Criminal Justice from the City University of New York and an LLB from the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. Kat Brady is a community justice advocate with a lifelong dedication to bringing the community’s voice into the public policy arena. She works to increase civic literacy and to encourage public participation to advocate for social, cultural, and environmental justice policy reforms that are humane, scientifically sound, and preserve human dignity. Kat has served as Chair of the Honolulu County Committee on the Status of Women, is an active member of the Hawai`i Women’s Coalition, and the community voice on the recent ten-year review of Hawai`i‫ދ‬s Penal Code. Kat is the only Prisoner Advocate in Hawai`i serving on 3 University of Hawai`i Institutional Review Boards and is the policy point person for the Hawai`i Innocence Project and Vice President of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai`i. She was recently recognized with the Ka`onohiokala (blazing

Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners

ix

intense eye of the sun) Award and the Martin Luther King Lifetime Peacemaker Award for her advocacy. Tiffany Simmons J.D. serves as a Lecturer and Adjunct Professor at both Howard University and American University. Her course areas of specialization include criminology, criminal justice and law. She is also the Career Counsellor and Diversity Liaison in the Office of Career & Professional Development at American University Washington College of Law. She assists with all aspects of career development for J.D. students through programming and individual counselling. She has developed a curriculum for intercultural communications and provides personal bias training to students enrolled in the experiential learning programs. Previously, Ms. Simmons worked as an educational advocate/attorney with a focus on assisting many at-risk youth with their academic needs. She also has a background in law school admissions and in legal recruiting. Further, she is also a member of an interdisciplinary think tank that draws on individual expertise to resolve issues related to social justice. Ms. Simmons is a graduate of Texas Southern University, Thurgood Marshall School of Law and she earned her Bachelor of Arts in political science from Johnson C. Smith University. Bahiyyah Muhammad, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Criminology at Howard University. Her research interests are familial imprisonment, focusing specifically on children of incarcerated parents. She is currently the principal investigator for the “Far From The Tree: Success Stories Among Children of Prisoners” project. Dr. Muhammad is founder of Project Iron Kids, an initiative to educate and empower children of incarcerated parents. She co-published the first colouring book for children of the incarcerated, titled The Prison Alphabet: An Educational Coloring Book for Children of the Incarcerated. Her global ethnographic research with children of incarcerated parents is ongoing in Africa, Asia, Europe, Dubai and the Caribbean. Currently, Dr. Muhammad serves as a 2017 Franklin Fellow at the U.S. Department of State. In this position, she reviews the U.S. policy on human rights for children and helps to design new approaches to assist the U.S. government in addressing the issue. Dr. Muhammad serves within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Office of Multilateral and Global Affairs. Kasandra Dodd is a clinical social worker in the Washington, DC metro area. She has 13 years of experience in the child welfare field, specializing in work with adolescents in foster care. She has accrued a wealth of knowledge as a case carrying social worker, diagnostic therapist,

x

Author Biographies

Independent Living Specialist and managing supervisor. She has assisted in the development of various older youth initiatives, and policies at the DC Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA). Ms. Dodd is also a member of an interdisciplinary think tank that draws on their individual expertise to resolve issues related to social justice. She received her Bachelor of Social Work from the University of Georgia and her Masters in Social Work from Howard University. Ann Adalist-Estrin is Director of the National Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated at Rutgers University, Camden New Jersey where she also teaches in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice. Under Ann’s leadership, NRCCFI has provided training and consultation to government and non-government agencies and community programs worldwide. Her consultations and publications include Sesame Street’s “Little Children, Big Challenges Incarceration”; “Dependent Children of Incarcerated Parents: An Educational Video for Judges and Legal Professionals”; The Impact of Parental Incarceration on Children in the Child Welfare System Curriculum; Responding to Children and Families of Prisoners: A Community Guide; and The Children of Incarcerated Parents Library on line at www.nrccfi.camden.rutgers.edu. In 2013 she was honoured by the Obama White House as a “Champion of Change” for her work as an advocate for children and families of the incarcerated. Michael Trout, MA, entered the mental health field in 1968, and private practice in 1979, where he continued his study of early development and focused his clinical attention on problems of attachment. He was the founding president of the Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health and the International Association for Infant Mental Health, was on the charter Editorial Board of the Infant Mental Health Journal, and served as Vice-President for the United States for the World Association for Infant Mental Health. His writings—including 3 books and 16 documentary films—were efforts to better understand how early experience influences, particularly loss and trauma, affect later development. He won the Selma Fraiberg Award in 1984, for “...significant contributions to the needs of infants and their families”, and a Lifetime Achievement Award by ATTACh, “for his decades of work with children of loss and trauma”. Caroline Long, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, where she is Chair of the Families and Children Specialization and Director of Global Initiatives. She has worked in the child welfare arena for 37 years. She has published on a variety of

Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners

xi

child welfare and international topics. Her current research focuses on incarcerated parents and their children with emphases on the intersection of that population and the child welfare population, the significance of supporting attachment between incarcerated parents and their children, and the role of trauma in these families. Margarete Parrish, MSW, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer at Bournemouth University in England. She teaches on the BA and MA Social Work degree programmes. Her primary areas of teaching are Psychosocial Perspectives and Mental Health and Substance Use, as well as leading the Dissertation Unit for MA students. She also supervises research students at the MA and PhD levels. Her research interests include mental health and substance use, and she is involved in studying the complexities of being sectioned under the MCA for mothers with children. Dr Parrish is the author of Social Work Perspectives on Human Behaviour. Her most recent article, “A Review of the complexities of working effectively with people being prescribed both antipsychotic medications and opioid substitution therapy” was published in the journal, Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. Natalie Booth, PhD, is an Early Career Academic Fellow at De Montfort University, Leicester in England. She recently completed her doctorate in social policy at the University of Bath, which critically explored the intersection between family life and prison life when a mother is convicted and imprisoned in England and Wales. Her research interest in the children and families of prisoners started during her time working at the Ministry of Justice, the government department responsible for prisons. She also has first-hand experience of working in a women’s prison whilst undertaking a placement with the Prison Advice and Care Trust, a national voluntary sector organisation working with prisoners’ families. Aileen Keays Yeager, M.S., is Project Manager for the Children with Incarcerated Parents (CIP) Initiative at Central Connecticut State University. As such, she works closely with leaders of Connecticut’s criminal justice agencies, community members, not-for-profits, faculty, advocates and legislators to promote effective public policy and practice through research, consultation, training, project management, program development and evaluation. In addition, she has authored a Frequently Asked Questions booklet for families impacted by parental incarceration, led the development of a child-friendly website to support CIP (http://ctcip.org/main-childrens-page/), and is a proud member of the International Coalition for Children with Incarcerated Parents. In spite of

xii

Author Biographies

her extensive involvement working on behalf of and with those affected by incarceration, she found herself completely unprepared for the effects of having a loved one incarcerated when it encroached into her life. The experience will forever impact her work for, and with, those affected by incarceration. Hannah Hurwitz is a Program Administrator at the Institute for Municipal & Regional Policy (IMRP) at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU). In this role, she assists with the New Haven youth violence prevention project as well as the Children with Incarcerated Parents (CIP) Initiative. For the CIP Initiative, Hannah oversees grantfunded programs that involve collaboration between higher education and the broader community for the mutual benefit of participants and children with incarcerated parents. She also administers IMRP's CIP scholarship program which provides financial support to incoming college or University freshman that have experienced familial incarceration. Prior to joining the IMRP, Hannah led CCSU's Office of Community Engagement since August, 2012. In this role, Hannah created new relationships with community organizations, residents, faculty and students. With a focus on the most pressing community issues and student/faculty interests, many people were able to benefit from a wide variety of collaborative and mutually beneficial programs, activities, and events each semester. In 2014, Hannah received a Connecticut Higher Education Community Service Award for Faculty/Staff. Dr. Rati Kumar is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Central Connecticut State University. Her primary areas of research include issues of social justice and policy, through the health communication lens and based within communication and culture centred methodologies of research. More specifically, she has worked with minority communities to increase dissemination of heart health information aimed at better health outcomes and with various refugee communities to understand perceptions of health and practices of care-seeking to improve health service provision. She is currently working on the Youth Voice Project with children who have experienced parental incarceration, and as a result combat stigma, and both mental and physical health issues. The ultimate goal of this culture centred process is to create a media campaign, by engaging community feedback, to raise awareness of the effects of such stigma and increase resource awareness for those struggling with the aforementioned health issues.

Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners

xiii

Nancy Loucks is the Chief Executive of Families Outside, a Scottish voluntary organisation that works on behalf of families affected by imprisonment. Prior to this position, she worked as an Independent Criminologist, receiving her M. Phil and Ph.D. from the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge, and in 2012 was appointed as Visiting Professor at the University of Strathclyde’s Centre for Law, Crime and Justice. Nancy was awarded an OBE in the 2016 New Year’s Honours List for services to Education and Human Rights. She chairs the Glasgow Working Group on Women’s Offending, the Faith in Throughcare Steering Group, the Board of Positive Prison? Positive Futures…, and is Secretary General to the Board of Children of Prisoners Europe. Tânia Loureiro is an Elphinstone scholar for a PhD at the University of Aberdeen, focusing on the impact on families of offenders subject to a community sentence. She holds a BSc in Psychology and an MSc in Psychology of Justice. Tânia worked as a Research Associate for the Parenting and Family Support Research Programme in the Department of Psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University. Previously she worked with Families Outside conducting research into the use of child and family impact assessments and, in collaboration with Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, research into the experiences of children and young people who have had a family member in prison. With Families Outside and Barnardo’s Scotland, Tania conducted research on support for families of people convicted of a sexual offence. Tania’s research interests focus on impact of imprisonment and community penalties on families and children, parenting interventions, child maltreatment, and domestic violence. Katie Kramer, MSW, MPH, is the Co-Founder and CEO of Corrections, Communities & Families for The Bridging Group located in Oakland, CA. She is also currently a doctoral candidate in the Doctor of Social Work program at the University of Southern California. For the past 25 years, Katie has focused on the development, implementation, and evaluation of social service and health programmes that serve individuals, families and communities affected by the criminal justice system. Her work includes consulting with governmental, non-governmental organizations and research/academic institutions throughout the U.S. and globally. In addition, Katie is the Statewide Director for the California Re-entry Council Network and currently serves on the Steering Committee for the Alameda County Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership and on the

xiv

Author Biographies

Executive Editorial Board as a Criminal Justice Expert for the Journal of Clinical Research in HIV/AIDS and Prevention. Carol F. Burton, LMSW, is the Co-Chair of Alameda County Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership (ACCIPP), Professor of Social Work at California State University- East Bay, and Founder of Jeweld Legacy Group (www.jeweldlegacy.com) where she provides a range of capacity building services across the nation for public and private institutions, organizations, and individuals serving the criminal justice. Carol has a wealth of experience in designing programme and evaluation plans for parents and individuals involved in criminal justice system. This work includes Carol’s role as the Principal Investigator for the country's first comprehensive program and longitudinal study on children of incarcerated parents. She has also served as an advisor on several national initiatives including the Sesame Street toolkit “Little Children, Big Challenges: Incarceration.” Carol received The White House Champion of Change Award in 2013 for her outstanding work on behalf of children of incarcerated parents. Ron and Catherine Tijerina are the Founders and Executive Directors of The RIDGE Project, Inc. Together, they have created the award-winning TYRO Dads® curriculum which attacks the culture of entitlement, incarceration, and cycles of generational poverty that fragment families and destroy legacies. Their work in the Ohio prison system and across the nation has strengthened thousands of families impacted by incarceration and has garnered national attention. Currently Ron and Catherine speak in venues across the United States and abroad to spread their vision of permanent transformation for families using evidenced based programming that champions positive youth development, healthy marriage, effective re-entry and fatherhood, and workforce empowerment. The couple resides in the state of Ohio in the United States with their daughter and are the proud parents of two adult sons, two daughters-inlaw, and grandparents of four grandchildren. Mr. Geoffrey Johnson is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of DC Project Connect, a charity located in the United States. In his previous line of work, he was an auditor and criminal investigator, dedicated to detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse both domestically and overseas for the United States government. He has over 30 years of executive and legislative branch experience in finance and the criminal justice domains. During his tenure as the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Peace Corps, he directed hundreds of investigations

Contemporary Research and Analysis on the Children of Prisoners

xv

and saved the agency millions of dollars. In that capacity, he oversaw and/or investigated allegations of drug usage, theft, political improprieties, embezzlement, and other white-collar crimes involving federal programs and operations. Academically, he holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology and masters’ degree in public administration from Syracuse University. His academic pursuits also included doctoral studies at Howard University, African Studies Department. Monique Y. Tate, PhD has been a public-school educator and community leader and organizer for the past 20 years in the United States of America (USA), facilitating school mentoring and enriching programs for struggling youth and their families. Dr. Tate has since resigned from public education upon completing her doctoral studies in Human Services at Walden University, moving on to fulfil her duty as Principal Chieftess and director of health and human services of Coosa Nation of North America (CNNA-USA), a grassroots Native American Aborigine movement. In her dual roles, Dr. Tate provides holistic family intervention services and therapeutic-educational planning for children struggling in traditional education settings as well as advancing human rights advocacy for indigenous people. Dr. Tate is also a member of the Advocacy in Action Coalition with the International Prisoners Family Conference based in Texas, USA. She is a devoted constituent promoting the Mass Incarceration Continuum as a human rights issue.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, a thanks to all the authors who submitted their fabulous papers for this book. I think you will agree the collection has come out really well. Thanks to Dr Helen Gibson who, when I had so little time for editing, stepped in and worked with the authors. Any errors that remain are my responsibility. Thanks to Francis Ssuubi and Ben Raikes for their work in forming the INCCIP network, and to all of you who came to our first conference in March 2017. It was a great international gathering, and I am looking forward to the next one. Particular thanks to the editors and staff at Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Without you spotting the potential for an edited collection, we would never have thought of this. Thanks in advance to the academics who will assign this as a class text, the community organisations who will use it to improve their practice and the families and children of prisoners who will take great heart from it. Finally, nga mihi nui (grateful thanks to all) to the board and staff at Pillars, who are so supportive of our international goals and who have embarked with enthusiasm on this INCCIP journey. In particular, thanks to Verna McFelin, Pillars’ founder and Chief Executive, for her vision and support. Liz Gordon Christchurch, New Zealand, December 2017.

FOREWORD

“Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.” —John F. Kennedy

The San Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights says, “I have a right not to be judged, blamed, or labelled because my parent is incarcerated.” I believe every child in the world has the right to live a happy and successful life. No child should suffer the stigma of parental incarceration. After I found out my father went to jail, I was inspired to write a book for every child in the world with an incarcerated parent. I wanted them to know they were not alone or invisible to the world. My book has reached people from all around the world. The greatest gift brought me to the 2017 International Coalition for Children with Incarcerated Parents (INCCIP) conference in New Zealand. I met the world’s leading researchers, advocates, and policy makers of parental incarceration. This collection of research and ideas from conference will help give a stronger voice to every child of the world. I never thought in a million years I would be able to address so many people from around the world about children of incarcerated parents. These incredible people have helped my dream come true of helping every invisible child in the world feel visible and valid. Madison Strempek, Author of ‘Everyone Makes Mistakes’

INTRODUCTION: FOSTERING A GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE BY MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE LIZ GORDON

The convicted person stands in the court, awaiting sentence. Over ninety percent of the time, the person will be male (but if she is a female, she faces a different set of issues arising around caring for children). She or he is more likely than not to be a parent, but, while family members may be in court, the children are unlikely to be present. Neither is their existence or needs likely to be considered in any pre-sentencing reports. As the person faces sentence, she or he is ‘wo/man alone’. If the sentence is custodial, it is likely to have significant ongoing effects on the children, but consideration of this is not part of the justice process. With the rise of mass incarceration systems and a harsh penal environment, longer stretches in prison are part of the penal landscape, and have been implemented by policy-makers apparently without thought to the social and familial harm such policies may cause. If the sentence involves incarceration, in general there is no consideration of the needs of family in deciding where the prisoner will serve his or her term. The question of the needs of the children to continue a relationship with their loved incarcerated parent is never taken into account at the sentencing. It is the individual who is sentenced, it would be argued; the family is irrelevant. Yet, all the research, advocacy and practice discussed in these articles makes it clear that the family, both adults and children, are sentenced too when a parent goes to prison. Not only that, but the skewing of incarceration towards indigenous groups, ethnic minorities and disadvantaged communities means, under mass incarceration systems, that certain groups are losing their young men to prison in alarming numbers. Gaps appear in the social and economic fabric of such communities that have potent and lasting effects. The harm that is

2

Introduction

caused reaches from one generation to the next, with the children of prisoners more likely to themselves end up in prison due to trauma, deprivation, anger, racism or any number of causes. This book is about a global movement to bring about change, from research through to practice. This movement has many strands. Some focus on reducing the trend of mass incarceration (Wakefield and Wildeman, 2014), which punishes by incarceration many crimes that could be dealt with better by treatment rather than imprisonment. The numbers of people with mental illnesses or drug and alcohol addictions in prisons around the world is huge, and is the single biggest effect of the massive increase in prison numbers over the past 30 years. Finding alternatives to punitive models of prosecution and incarceration (Green, 2015), improving treatment and support services, and looking towards restorative justice (Karp and Frank, 2016) are some of the themes of this research. A second theme aims to pay more attention to familial links, to benefit both prisoners and their children. There is significant evidence now that keeping families together improves the outcomes for all members of the families, and reduces recidivism. One theme of such work is the development of ‘family friendly’ prisons, where children can interact with their incarcerated parent safely. A third theme includes working with the families and children to reduce the harm caused by parental incarceration. Some work to reduce recidivism through programmes in the community, including youth interventions, family social work services, therapy programmes and mentoring for children. Others investigate and seek to overcome the trauma caused by parental incarceration. Others participate in advocacy programmes at the local or national level. Many NGOs offer diverse programmes to improve outcomes for the children of prisoners, including youth mentoring, camps, provision of support services, counselling and others. The focus then is on evidence-based practice for advocacy and change. This means that the research literature lies at the heart of, and informs, advocacy and practice, and the various strands work closely together, providing a common underpinning for the International Coalition for Children with Incarcerated Parents (INCCIP) organisation.

Liz Gordon

3

About INCCIP There has been significant networking around the children of prisoners over the past twenty years. In Europe, the COPE network (Children of Prisoners Europe) was originally set up in 1993 as the European Action Research Committee on Children of Imprisoned Parents (Eurochips). It is a child-focussed organisation, with a mission to: …safeguard the social, political and judicial inclusion of children with an imprisoned parent, while fostering the pursuit and exchange of knowledge which enhances good practices, and contributes to a better understanding of the psychological, emotional and social development of these children.

The network has fostered research across Europe, including the fournation COPING project between 2010 and 2012. It is a membership-based organisation, with both organisational and individual members. It is also a campaigning organisation, using the slogan: ‘not my crime, still my sentence’ in its annual pan-European campaign. This organisation has strong links to the United Nations, especially through the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO). Within the United States, there are a number of network-type organisations working within and across States. There is no federal membership organisation covering the 50 States. The closest to a national forum is the National Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated, hosted at the Family and Corrections Network in Philadelphia. The Director, Ann Adalist-Estrin, holds seminars and training across the USA. As well, the annual International Prisoners Families Conference in Dallas, Texas is attended by organisations and individuals from around the United States and, in recent years, a number of other countries, with a focus on families and also children. The INCCIP network, which is represented in this volume, developed out of meetings at that conference, as did the Advocacy in Action Coalition, another US and international coalition with an advocacy focus. INCCIP was the brainchild of Francis Ssuubi of Wells of Hope in Uganda, and Ben Raikes from the Coping Project (Ben is based at the University of Huddersfield, UK). The organisation was launched at the 2015 Dallas conference. At the conference, the team from Pillars (Inc), a New Zealand charity, suggested holding a conference of the network in 2017 and offered to host it. In 2016, it was confirmed that the inaugural conference would be held in New Zealand.

4

Introduction

The inaugural conference of INCCIP, the International Coalition for the Children of Incarcerated Parents, was held in Rotorua, New Zealand in March 2017. Researchers, advocates and NGO workers met together over three days, providing 20 keynote addresses and nearly 40 papers, symposia and workshops. Many of the presentations are available on YouTube, and a list of speakers and titles is included as an appendix to this book. An unusual aspect of the INCCIP network is that it is highly inclusive of the many parties involved with the children of prisoners. In practice, this means that the various strands of research, advocacy and practice operate side by side. All were represented at the conference and all find the INCCIP forum useful. A particular feature of the conference was the relatively large number of public and private prisons represented there that were also keen to outline their own work in prisons. At the same time, some of the advocacy groups were critical of the role of prisons in society, prison privatisation and also that prison organisations (which by definition foster penal harm) were welcome in INCCIP. This is a challenge for the organisation moving into the future. Can advocacy work and prison work exist alongside each other within one organisation? The network also includes participation from the families of prisoners and, in principle more than practice so far, the children of prisoners. Madison Strempek, who wrote the Foreword to this book, provides one model of how children can work effectively within organisations such as INCCIP. Madison was already an advocate and published author when we got to know her, and was very happy to come to New Zealand as a keynote speaker. She also made quite a splash on television news. The question of how we engage children in an ethical and empowering way needs to be addressed by the network in its work programme.

The children of prisoners The basis on which we are able to develop a network and work together is three important factors: 1. The experiences of the children of prisoners are very similar across nations and jurisdictions, despite many differences in prison numbers and systems; 2. There is a marked confluence between the advocacy, research and practice work among individuals and organisations in this field; and

Liz Gordon

5

3. There is a wide evidence base arising from both quantitative and qualitative and large and small studies providing a firm basis for an international network. Indeed, so strong is the evidence that Catherine Flynn, in her keynote at the INCCIP conference, argued forcibly that the time had come for not more research, but for better policies and practices to combat the harm caused by parental imprisonment: Although research has been arguably sporadic, the findings from a range of international studies are consistent, that the outcomes for children are both negative and long-lasting. We are now faced with a challenge, not to do more research, but to ensure that the findings from research conducted have a meaningful impact (2017, abstract).

So, what is the evidence of harm, and where does it come from? A number of studies have sought to summarise and analyse the evidence over the years. An early influential paper was written for the Annie E. Casey Foundation (Hairston, 2007). This report covered the whole field, first examining statistics about the number of parents incarcerated, their prior parental status, who the child lived with and other data. The second section examined the evidence around children visiting their parent in prison, looking at the factors that affected visiting, making calls and other forms of contact. This section also examined the conditions of visiting, and found there was little consistency in prison policies and practices, which heavily affected the quality of the visit. The report noted (2007 p. 9): The conditions of prison visiting rooms and visitor processing areas vary widely. Some are hot, dirty, overcrowded and lack basic amenities such as drinking fountains. Others are clean, well maintained and equipped with vending machines. Some have special visiting areas for children and activities, reading materials and games for adults and children. The latter types of facilities allow informal, relaxed interactions between prisoners and visitors while allowing prison staff to monitor visits and maintain security.

As with subsequent research, this study found that in most families, children did want to visit their incarcerated parent, while most prisoners also wanted their children to visit. The section also considers a range of other circumstances. The next section of Hairston’s (2007) report considers the emotional, economic and social consequences of parental incarceration. She notes the “tremendous sense of loss” that families and prisoners may experience, the

6

Introduction

emotional problems that arise, and problems with stigma and discrimination. Children may suffer significant psychological harm as a result of parental imprisonment, she notes; an area that has subsequently been the focus of much research (e.g. Gordon, 2009). There is significant agreement in the literature that children may suffer a wide range of agerelated and trauma-related conditions, which are treatable but often untreated. The health problems link with difficulties in learning, often stemming from worry and concern about the incarcerated parent, bullying at school, difficulties in the home and similar factors. There is also significant agreement in the literature that the problems children face with a parent as prisoner can lead them into a position where they are themselves likely to commit offences as they grow up. These may be driven by anger, by school failure, by trauma and a number of other factors. There is no dispute that “children of prisoners are at risk of poorer outcomes”, but significant variance of views around how big this effect is and what causes it (Murray, 2007 and Ministry of Justice, 2007). There is also an ethical debate among practitioners and researchers over attempts to quantify the risk to the children of prisoners. Some researchers and practitioners (see Adalist-Estrin, this volume) are concerned at the harm that can be caused through restigmatising children of prisoners as people more likely than others to end up in prison. The alternate view is that we need to know the risks associated with these children in order to mitigate them through better social policies and programmes. There is also concern about the accuracy of the figures (Conway and Jones, 2015). In New Zealand, Pillars’ research-led figure that children of prisoners are 9.5 times more likely to end up in prison before age 25 derives from a longitudinal study (Gordon, 2009). Recently, this was reinforced by an analysis of administrative data by the New Zealand Treasury (Treasury, 2016) which concluded that children of prisoners from benefit-led homes in New Zealand are ten times more likely to end up in prison. A factor not discussed in depth in Hairston is what Adele Jones (2017) called ‘child blind justice’. Her argument is that at every point in the justice system, from arrest to trial to incarceration, children are ignored by the system. Thus, any harm that adduces to them becomes a kind of collateral damage. It is neither anticipated nor counted, and the system fails to take responsibility for any harm caused. Particular harm may result from police or arrest procedures, where children become caught up in the

Liz Gordon

7

arrest of a loved parent. There were several examples of this in the Pillars research, including several households awakened by police and dogs carrying out raids, children not allowed access to food, drink or toilets over several hours, and at times seeing their parent dragged away in handcuffs. As this was occasionally the last time a child had seen their parent, it is not surprising that the children experience a high level of anxiety over the parent’s treatment in prison. Research has also focussed on prison visiting. While it is concluded that visiting is generally beneficial for parent and children, there is nevertheless a widespread view among many that prison is no place for a child to visit. Prisons such as Parc in Cardiff (as present by Corin MorganArmstrong to the INCCIP conference) have recognised the value of good prison visiting and have put in place impressive programmes, such as homework centres, open days and other systems. This collection of articles is not definitive. For many reasons, including time, space and other commitments, only a selection of conference submissions was able to be included here. Nevertheless, these represent a wide range of current research and practice viewpoints on the children of incarcerated parents. In terms of research to bring about change, many researchers and NGOs now hold up the so-called ‘Bill of Rights for the Children of Prisoners’, developed a number of years ago by a partnership in San Francisco. If the Bill of Rights is adopted as good practice in justice jurisdictions, many argue (Gordon, 2009), much of the harm caused by parental incarceration may be mitigated. The text follows: Bill of Rights for the children of prisoners I have the right to be kept safe and informed at the time of my parent's arrest. I have the right to be heard when decisions are made about me. I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent. I have the right to be well cared for in my parent's absence. I have the right to speak with, see and touch my parent. I have the right to support as I face my parent's incarceration. I have the right not to be judged, blamed or labelled because my parent is incarcerated. I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent.

8

Introduction

The Bill of Rights acknowledges the research on the effects of parental incarceration, provides a direction for advocacy and informs the pathways to practice. This volume Aspects of all of the key themes outlined in Hairston and the other literature in this field are covered in this volume. Pridmore and Levy examine the harms that parental imprisonment may cause children, from health effects to a loss of personal agency. Their article considers the findings of a “children of prisoners” report from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and the extent to which the recommendations had been implemented in the region. Unfortunately, the authors report these recommendations were not implemented, and they argue for a system with public transport, children’s advocacy and a much-improved system of prison visiting, including extended family visits. Avon Hart-Johnson explains the advocacy tool the ‘Mass Incarceration Continuum’ to explore approaches to advocacy for the families and children of prisoners. She notes that children of prisoners are at risk not only from poor outcomes, but also from punitive or irrational policy decisions that impact on the children. She discusses the recent ‘noncontact’ rule for all visitors to prisons in the state of Maryland. The continuum was first developed by a group formed at the 2015 Dallas Prisoner Family Conference, the same meeting that spawned INCCIP. In her article Hart-Johnson explains the theoretical underpinnings of the continuum, how it can be applied practically and the need for continual advocacy for policy and practice change. Martin Schönteich discusses the issue of pre-trial detention, calling it an abuse of human rights as the person is subject to punishment before they are convicted or sentenced. His article focuses, however, on another element of pre-trial detention – the effects on the economic and social situation of the person and their family. It focuses on a three-country study in West Africa, where detained persons were interviewed on these matters. Most of the respondents were “breadwinners in the prime of their working lives”. Issues such as economic damage, social stigma, the changing role of women in the household and the health of the detainees were of widespread concern in the case studies. Kat Brady’s analysis of the situation of imprisonment in the paradise of Hawai’i contrasts the loveliness of the Hawai’ian islands and lifestyle with

Liz Gordon

9

the reality that the mass incarceration trends of the USA impact significantly on the indigenous people. She traces through the findings of reports and inquiries into the situation of this group, and discusses the new move to open a large new jail on the island of O’ahu. There is strong resistance to this with even within the establishment. With virtually zero support for family contact and few alternatives to incarceration, the indigenous people are imprisoned at an alarming rate. With the main state prison currently run by a private company and housed in Arizona, the landscape is bleak for change. Simmons, Muhammad and Dodd explore the legal and moral requirement on police to act to protect and take into account the needs of children and young people at the time of parental detention or arrest. The authors note a general reluctance or refusal by the courts to acknowledge that police have a specific duty of care to children in the arrest situation, and that there is little or no acknowledgement that observing a parental arrest, even when the child is left by themselves in a property or is lost outside, is harmful to the children. The authors outline case studies collected from children on the effects of parental imprisonment. They urge that statutory guidelines be followed and that inter-disciplinary research continue in this space. In her article, Ann Adalist-Estrin presents her twelve guiding principles for responding to the needs of the children and families of the incarcerated. Based on her expert seminars run throughout the United States, she outlines the responsibilities of jurisdictions in programme and policy development in this field. She is rigorous in requiring policy makers to be self-reflective, to take into account wider themes such as race, to use evidence carefully, recognise stresses, but also resilience, in working with families, advocate effectively, provide a safe environment and challenge media portrayals of prisoners and their families. There are other principles, too. Her final comment is the need for agencies to collaborate effectively to reduce the harm of parental imprisonment. Michael Trout’s article challenges us to clear our minds, be quiet, reflect on and listen to babies and young children whose parents have gone to prison. He begins with a useful definition of trauma - events “which threaten to overwhelm”. He argues that memory is a building block of society, and trauma lodges within the minds of babies, even when this is not apparent. He describes the gamut of meaning-making that a baby goes through as the basis for explaining why children are “as they are”. Thus,

10

Introduction

the effects of incarceration on children can significantly affect the child’s development at a basic, neural, level. Trout suggests ways to overcome this trauma through adaptation and alternative messages. Long and Parrish note that people committed involuntarily to a psychiatric hospital face difficulties at least as complex as prisoners, in relation to their children. Their study involved a small qualitative study of women who have been ‘sectioned’. They note that women are traditionally held in psychiatric hospitals longer than men, and there is little research on the children. The women note various challenges to parenting, including stigma, not having access to their children, ‘complicated’ visiting arrangements and lack of child-friendly facilities were all mentioned. The mothers worry about the additional burden being placed on other family members as a result of their involuntary placement in hospital. The authors note the need for further research in this space. Bahiyyah Mohammad’s study of children of prisoners who are resilient in the face of parental imprisonment is an important one. It is easy to move from the notion that many children have poor outcomes to the idea that they all do. This article is a timely reminder that some children of prisoners do well, and cope effectively with parental incarceration. The article derives from a detailed ethnographic study. The author got very close to the children, including visiting with them at their parent’s prisons. She notes that five factors are important in building resilience: prior relationship with parent; life goals; involvement in activities; maintaining contact with parent and support systems. Her paper contains many examples of both resilient and non-resilient children and the factors that have affected them. She provides rare insights into the actual lives, views and failings of the children of prisoners. The article by Natalie Booth traces the growing disparity between a policy discourse of encouraging family involvement in prisons, and the reality of few resources to support this. The focus in this article is on women in prison and their children. Her research identified a number of issues around contact between the mothers in prison and their families. One policy discussed is the guideline that all prisoners be given a reception phone call within 24 hours. Only one third were given such a call. Some caregivers waited a week, not knowing where their loved ones were nor if they were OK. Other areas discussed include the letters policy and practice, email and prison visiting, where there is often little opportunity to interact effectively from a ‘designated seat’. The author calls for a

Liz Gordon

11

statutory unit to be set up to “bridge the disparate gap between the current policy discourse and penal practice” for parents in prison. Yeager, Hurwitz and Kumar have written about an academic-community partnership at Central Connecticut State University, based on a model of civic engagement aimed at alleviating social problems such as poverty. Through the Connecticut Children with Incarcerated Parents (CTCIP) Initiative, the university fosters many ways of working with the community, including interns, volunteers, student activities and course projects in collaboration with faculty research programmes. Within a policy context looking for alternatives to imprisonment, the university has been working to facilitate and fund positive interventions for at-risk youth with incarcerated parents. Programmes have been evaluated using the university’s resources across faculties. One programme, the Youth Voice project, seeks to respond to both the health and trauma-related aspects of parental incarceration. The paper also discusses theoretical approaches, and the rewards and costs of such approaches, the role of academics and the potential for further development of the university-community collaboration model. Nancy Loucks canvasses what, for many, is forbidden ground: the families and children of those convicted of sexual offences, whether within or outside of families. She points out that the issues these families face are, in most respects, identical to those facing any family of a prisoner, including income, health, housing, travel and other factors. The main difference, she notes, lies with the additional stigma associated with sexual offending. This occurs in three different ways within these families. First, the family may not speak of the offence. Second, family members may be witnesses or may have known about the offending. Finally, sexual offences can be very public, putting the family in a spotlight not of their own making, but highly damaging (and heart-breaking). One person summarised it: “He’s in his prison, and I’m in mine”. Loucks concludes with a discussion about support options for these families. Katie Kramer and Carol Burton outline the findings of their descriptive study relating to the children of prisoners in two US jail systems. The aim was to gather comprehensive information to inform policy and practice around children’s wellbeing. Most of the incarcerated persons were parents, which meant that on any given day in the two counties, more than 3000 children had parents who were jailed. Information was also provided about multiple incarcerations, how close the children lived to the jail, and

12

Introduction

what the interviewees thought should be done to improve visits. Differences were noted depending on whether the person in jail was a father or a mother. Most parents wanted to be involved in their children’s lives after release. Ron and Catherine Tijerina explain the genesis of their work in Ron’s fifteen-year spell in prison and their struggle to survive as a family. Out of that struggle was born the TYRO programme for incarcerated fathers. The aim of the programme is to break cycles of self-destruction and to restore families within the context of, in most cases, poverty. The programme teaches new skills and offers new tools. It is about personal change that affects families and communities. The programme identifies various ‘zones’: shock, denial, anger, grief, acceptance. These zones are described in the article. They note acceptance may mean a ‘victim’ or a ‘victor’ mentality, the latter indicating a new ability to take charge of their lives. Moving towards healing, participants must recognise and own their life story and renew their lives. Then rebuild, re-invent and re-invest. Johnson, Johnson and Tate examine how prison leadership and staff shape the conditions of family visiting. They visited prisons in the UK to identify best practices for potential application in the USA. The multiple case study approach investigated prison environments for family visiting through the lens of an ecological systems approach. They identified a pervasive tension between serving in a controlled environment and wanting to offer good visitation for children. They called this the ‘this is a prison’ – ‘this is not a prison’ bifurcated identities. This often shows in the security versus good treatment dichotomy. The authors give examples from each side of the prison/ not prison dilemma. They conclude by discussing how different environments affect the visiting experience of children.

References Children of Prisoners Europe. Information retrieved at http://childrenofprisoners.eu/about-us/vision-mission/ Conway, James and Edward Jones. 2015. Seven Out of Ten? Not Even Close. A Review of Research on the Likelihood of Children with Incarcerated Parents Becoming Justice Involved. New Britain, CT: Central Connecticut State University -Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy.

Liz Gordon

13

Flynn, Catherine (2017) Changing minds to change lives. Paper presented at INCCIP conference, Rotorua, March. Gordon, Liz (2009) Invisible children: a study of the children of prisoners. Christchurch, NZ: Pillars Inc. —. (2015a) Who cares about the children of prisoners in New Zealand? A journey from research to practice. Law in Context, 32, 46-60. —. (2015b) Teaching the ‘poor’ a lesson: Beyond assertive discipline in schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 50 (2), 211-222. Green, David A. (2015) US penal-reform catalysts, drivers, and prospects. Punishment & Society. 17, 3, 271-298. Hairston, Creasie Finnie (2007) Focus on children with incarcerated parents: an overview of the research literature. New York: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Jones, Adele (2017) Child Blind Justice. Paper presented at INCCIP conference, Rotorua, NZ, March. Karp, David and Frank, Olivia (2016) Anxiously awaiting the future of restorative justice in the United States. Victims and Offenders, 11, 1, 50-70. Ministry of Justice (UK) (2007) Children of Offenders review. London: Ministry of Justice. Retrieved at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.cabinetoffice.g ov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/think_fa milies/offenders_review_080110.pdf Murray, Joseph. (2007) Research on the effects of parental imprisonment on children, section of SCIE report written by Joseph Murray, not published. Treasury, The (2016). Characteristics of Children at Greater Risk of Poor Outcomes as Adults. Analytical paper 16/01. Wellington: The Treasury. Wakefield, Sarah and Wildeman, Christopher (2014) Children of the Prison Boom: Mass Incarceration and the Future of American Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SLIPPING THROUGH THE CRACKS: EXAMINING THE REALITIES OF A CHILD-FRIENDLY PRISON SYSTEM WILLIAM PRIDMORE AND MICHAEL H. LEVY

Introduction The health effects for children with incarcerated parents, and methods to improve children’s experience of the justice system, are under-researched areas. While some work has been done to illuminate these concerns, movement towards a child-friendly prison system is slow. Prisoners are removed from the public consciousness: Exiled for criminal activity, their position often escapes consideration. However, beyond the offenders, there exists a wider network of people affected by the offender’s detention: families and children and young people (hereinafter “children” for ease of reference). This vulnerable group represents collateral damage from the complex criminal justice process. Little is known about these children, perhaps because of limited public engagement with the lives of incarcerated individuals. The potential effects of parental incarceration on intergenerational criminal activity (Murray, Loeber, and Pardini 2012), and on health outcomes for affected children, have been documented, and work in this field is increasing. Tangible links have been identified between parental incarceration and children contracting infectious diseases, as well as the development of mental and behavioural problems (Kemper and Rivara, 1993; Quilty, Levy, Howard, Barratt, and Butler 2004; Tasca, Turanovic, White, and Rodriguez 2014). Emotional and financial stressors are common for children in families with an incarcerated parent (Luther 2016; McCrickard and Flynn 2015). It is important to recognise the difficulty of separating the effect of parental incarceration from the exposure to other risk factors prevalent within the same demographic: these include poverty, limited education, parental substance use and entry into the child welfare system (Kinner, Alati, Najman, and Williams 2007; Knudsen 2016;

William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy

15

Murray, Farrington, and Sekol 2012). Regardless, it is shown that involvement with the criminal justice system puts further stress on children who are often already part of an at-risk group (Saunders 2017). Problematically, judicial, and other systems have provided a limited response to the needs of children, due to inadequate awareness (Raikes 2016). Children’s invisibility in the context of the justice system is an example of a broader issue: throughout public institutions, children consistently experience a lack of agency and input. Giving a voice to children, from the perspective of guiding policy creation and research in sensitive areas, poses some problems. These stem from a desire to protect children from adverse exposures, as well as a perceived lack of ability to disengage from discussions they find troublesome. Despite this, it is increasingly suggested that a sensitive and responsive approach to informationgathering can yield useful primary data from children, while maintaining ethical obligations (Saunders, McArthur, and Moore 2015). Research conducted directly with children, to better understand how they experience parental incarceration, is increasing. One study, “Children of Prisoners: Exploring the needs of children and young people who have a parent incarcerated in the Australian Capital Territory”, was carried out in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in 2013, which made several recommendations for improving systemic responses to these experiences. The current project sought to assess to what extent the recommendations of the “Children of Prisoners” report have been implemented within the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and to evaluate the next steps. It aimed to identify challenges facing the implementation of such recommendations, with a view to applying these findings to the global context. It also compared the scope of parental incarceration in the ACT with figures from 2010, identifying the severity and growth of the problem. The findings showed that the recommendations of the report were not implemented, and that public transport, children’s advocacy, and a functional visits system were key to children’s interactions with the system.

The Scale of the Issue The number of children affected by parental incarceration in Australia is not precisely known; however, it has been estimated that five percent of children will experience parental incarceration (Quilty 2005; Saunders

16

Slipping Through the Cracks

2017). This was corroborated by numbers from one Australian jurisdiction, Queensland, suggesting four percent of children in that state have fathers in gaol (Dennison, Stewart, and Freiberg 2013). An estimated 1,706,600 children of inmates in the United States of America highlights just part of the global impact of parental incarceration (Glaze and Maruschak 2008). Further, as prisoner numbers increase, the number of affected children is likely to continue to rise (Flynn, Naylor, and Arias 2016). An increasing number of studies, mainly from the United States and Europe, have drawn attention to the social, emotional and behavioural impacts of parental incarceration on children (Parke and Clarke-Stewart 2003). In Australia, interest in the impact on children has increased (Saunders 2017; Trotter, Flynn, and Baidawi 2017). A 2015 study by the Monash University Criminal Justice Research Consortium identifies a move in academia away from examination and enumeration of effect, towards strategies for improving children’s engagement with the justice system (Monash University Criminal Justice Research Consortium 2015). It concludes strongly, stressing that throughout the process of parental arrest and detention, children lack agency, and are not considered party to the transaction. From the perspective of child rights, maintaining contact with incarcerated parents could be considered a “right of participation”; however, a “right of protection” often predominates, stifling other opportunities for children to take part in prisons and other institutions (Foster and Hagan 2014; Gill 2008). Nevertheless, in the case of a correctional facility, security requirements contrasting with rights of participation must be realistically considered. Maintenance of prisoners’ family structures can also be justified through the lens of philosophy and ethics (Bülow 2014). Some work has been done in various jurisdictions to improve children’s relationship with incarcerated parents, overcoming barriers such as distance, transportation, cost, stress, and the prison environment (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services 2013; Pallot and Katz 2014; Schubert, Duininck, and Shlafer 2016). These include parenting classes, child-friendly visits with flexible hours, prison nurseries, community-based alternatives to parental incarceration, and one-on-one mentoring for individual children (Kjellstrand 2017). However, as articulated by Murray and Farrington in United Kingdom-based research,

William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy

17

the effectiveness of such programmes is rarely evaluated by meaningful metrics (Murray and Farrington 2006). In Kansas, a study in which researchers spoke directly with children revealed that supporting basic needs, and charitable treatment by prison staff, were the most desired services from the justice system (Johnson 2012). Research from elsewhere in the United States, where the parental incarceration rate is one of the highest in the world (Nichols, Loper, and Meyer 2016), identified a need to increase both face-to-face and phone contact with prisoners, and explore child-sensitive arrest protocols (NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services 2013). Similar ideas were broached in research from New Zealand, and similar suggestions made (Gordon 2015; Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit 2015). In Australia, despite positive efforts, many systematic issues have been found to obstruct positive outcomes for affected children. Proposals raised in previous work include considering children at the arrest and sentencing stages (Flynn et al. 2016), and addressing accessibility and staffing concerns (Flynn, 2014). Discouragingly, appraisals of nursery and parenting programmes within Australian prisons revealed only modest improvements to the wellbeing of children and mothers. They did, however, highlight the positive effects on recidivism that may be an additional benefit of developing these initiatives (Newman, Fowler, and Cashin, 2011; Shlonsky et al. 2016). Improving child-parent relations in prison, then, could have economic and pragmatic advantages. The concept of a “child-friendly” city and, specifically, prison, has been proposed in literature. It suggests that prisons have an obligation to uphold the human rights of children in the allocation of punitive measures, in the contexts of youth justice and adult incarceration. “Child-friendly” prison proposals also seek to engage children in the design of systems, and enact policies to enable their easy interaction with the correctional service (Goldson and Muncie 2012; Gray 2016; Tranter and Sharpe 2008).

Case Study: Canberra The Alexander Maconochie Centre is the sole adult detention facility in the ACT. It is a male and female adult prison, comprising minimum and maximum-security sections, for both remand and sentenced prisoners. The prison was commissioned in March 2009, with a total capacity of 539 as at June 2016. There were 441 prisoners at the Alexander Maconochie Centre at that time (The University of Melbourne 2017).

Slipping Through the Cracks

18

The Alexander Maconochie Centre is promoted by the ACT Government as an example of a human rights-compliant correctional facility, with strong access to healthcare (Easteal, Bartels, Fitch, and Watchirs 2015; Hargreaves 2009). Indeed, compared with interstate prisons, the visiting facilities are considered noticeably more pleasant and child-focused. SHINE for Kids is a charity that supports children with incarcerated parents throughout New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and the ACT. It provides support, facilitates contact, and conducts research. In 2012, the ACT Health Directorate funded SHINE for Kids to perform a study into the health and wellbeing requirements of children with incarcerated parents in the ACT, and to make recommendations to address shortfalls. The Institute of Child Protection Studies was commissioned to conduct the study, completed in 2013. That study sought to inform policy by directly engaging children in discussions about their parents’ incarceration, providing a unique perspective on the problem. Participants were few, and the resulting data was exploratory and qualitative. Despite this, the primary research could provide some corrections policy direction for the ACT where little existed. It identified challenges for children regarding homelessness, a lack of educational support, barriers to accessing assistance, and emotional/financial stress, among others (Saunders and McArthur 2013). In response to these challenges, a range of interventions were recommended, including more flexible visiting arrangements, a wider range of activities, varied contact modalities such as Skype, more consistent provision of information to children, and housing assistance. The number of recommendations implemented, and the effectiveness of their implementation, are the focus of the current research. The ACT Detainee Health and Welfare Survey was conducted in September 2016. Of the 98 respondents, 70 reported that they had children, with a mean of 1.6 children. Extrapolating this to the total Alexander Maconochie Centre prisoner population, it is estimated that just over 700 children were directly affected by parental incarceration in the ACT (compared with around 400 children identified in the 2010 ACT Inmate Health Survey). Key findings were: x 60% of inmates with children reported being worried about the welfare of their children, and 85% were upset about being apart from their children;

William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy

19

x 60% of those with children stated that the other parent was looking after the children; x 17% stated that members of the extended family were fulfilling this role; and x 22% of respondents reported that their parents had been imprisoned throughout their childhood (17% of these were the father). The “Children of Prisoners” report identified some key recommendations, which were evaluated by the stakeholder interviews. These were: x provision of a range of age-appropriate activities at visits, more flexible visiting times, and assistance for unaccompanied children; x use of Skype and other alternative communication protocols; x provision of counselling, and judgement-free support services, including for the carer role taken on by many children; x educational support; x including children in the transition/release plan for the parent, and considering their diverse needs; x consistent provision of information; and x support with housing (Saunders and McArthur 2013). Operational difficulties (including security of other detainees) were cited as key obstacles to the implementation of previous recommendations. A key recommendation of the report was that visiting arrangements should be made more flexible. However, stakeholders mentioned that visits have, in fact, been reduced at the prison, including restrictions on the availability of extended visits (previously used for both conjugal and family purposes); concerns were raised regarding security and safety. In particular, sexual offenders having contact with one another’s children was mentioned by stakeholders. The small size of the visiting area was raised as a problem with the current visiting system (although the environment and prison itself was praised overall). Some family-focused programmes, instigated by the prison (such as child-parent activity days), were mentioned, but overall the implementation was not considered strong, despite findings from the report that these activities are beneficial. However, it was believed by stakeholders that the prison’s relationship with SHINE for Kids had strengthened over some years, and was now quite harmonious; stakeholders stated that this was helpful for the operation of SHINE’s programmes.

20

Slipping Through the Cracks

Discussion of the report and its implementation frequently returned to children’s rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child confers three broad categories of rights: rights of protection, provision, and participation (The United Nations 1989). It was thought by stakeholders that a “protective” viewpoint was too dominant in the prison sphere, impacting on children participating in family life, and attaining meaningful social connection. It was stated to be detrimental to the child, reflecting that limited change has occurred since the “Children of Prisoners” report. The deficiency was conceived along a timeline, from arrest through to release, and it was thought that child-sensitive processes could be implemented throughout. In this domain, it was considered that an overarching problem within the ACT’s prison system was a lack of consultation with children. Providing a forum for affected children to discuss their desires, and assist in prison design, policy, and sentencing, was raised by stakeholders on several occasions. This finding has clear parallels with the original report, which recommended including children in decision-making. From a sociocultural perspective, a long-term view about changing attitudes towards children and justice was expressed. Reconfiguring cities to be more in line with children’s needs, such as promoting increased trust of strangers, maximising street frontage, creating a freedom of exploration within neighbourhoods, and reducing risk aversion, were paradigm shifts considered crucial to the maintenance of children’s rights. Another suggestion was the re-examination of the causes that lead to incarceration of parents; stakeholders urged consideration of alternatives to imprisonment in these cases. Notably, only one stakeholder mentioned a “child informant” as a key objective; this highlights the lack of voice that children currently have in the system. Obstacles to access to the prison for children remained a key discussion topic. It was mentioned that visiting times are quite inflexible, and that priority for after-school slots should be given to children in education. The peripheral location of the prison was cited, as well as significant perceived deficiencies in the ACTION bus service. Services to the prison were not thought to coincide with visiting times, and routes were considered indirect and difficult to understand. This aligns with the original report, which recommended increased flexibility in visiting. A direct shuttle was proposed by stakeholders, that could service prison visitors. The cost to visitors of purchasing food at the centre was also mentioned.

William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy

21

A lack of staff and procedural charitability at all levels of the organisation was a key accessibility issue. This was thought to originate from a policybased apathy towards children and a solely security/offender retribution focus. It was thought that staff considered children a tool for offenders to obtain sentence reductions, rather than an involved party in the incarceration. It was also stated that staff were not accommodating at visits. For example, according to some stakeholders, if a child requires the bathroom, the visit is terminated. The “Children of Prisoners” report identified significant need for homework assistance and improved educational support, and promoted the utility of an existing homework visits programme. Running for a period of between six and nine months, stakeholders stated that the programme was offered on a Monday afternoon (when other visits were not available). Stakeholders said that around seven children could complete schoolwork alongside their incarcerated parent, with the added benefit of increasing parental numeracy and literacy. It was mentioned that numbers in this programme dwindled over the period of operation, and a suggestion was that ACT Corrective Services allowed it to eventually lapse. Several stakeholders suggested that this programme should be restarted. While operational, it was claimed, this programme incorporated a dedicated transport service for interested children, and was supported by the prison’s education provider. The variation between children, in terms of the types of access and services desired, was considered noteworthy, and was a feature of the original report. The view of several stakeholders was that case-by-case assessment was still not conducted consistently, and a popular solution proposed was the introduction of a dedicated children’s advocate or caseworker. This individual, it was thought, could work directly with children and families throughout the justice process, serving as a liaison. Consistent assessment of children’s involvement at the time of arrest was also mentioned, as was a perceived need for universal access to support services for children. Further to the notion that children have distinct needs, some stakeholders expressed that a range of different activities should be available at visits to cater to different age groups, along with a variety of settings (an outdoor play area, a private room, group events, etc.). This thought aligns with recommendations from the original report.

22

Slipping Through the Cracks

The original report identified that consistent provision of information to children regarding their parent was considered lacking. Despite being an important recommendation, the stakeholders reiterated this position. Stakeholders suggested that facts relating to their parents’ cases could be relayed at various points throughout the process, and that the visiting centre at the Alexander Maconochie Centre provided a good opportunity to convey this information. The idea of a photo book documenting the prison, as a familiarisation tool for children, was discussed. Several facilities that may provide useful ideas for ACT Corrective Services were mentioned: Boronia Pre-release Centre in Western Australia features community-based minimum-security detention for children and incarcerated mothers, as does Jacaranda Cottages in New South Wales. Hopkins Correctional Centre in Victoria offers specific child-only visits (Grant and Jewkes 2015). Within prisons in the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, more inclusive child policies exist, and specified child liaison officers are employed (Sharratt 2014; Smith 2015).

Discussion The interviews with key stakeholders confirmed many of the findings of the original report, and clarified that reform in the ACT prison system had been limited. Synthesising the information obtained from the interviews, three systemic recommendations were identified to improve the interaction between children and the justice system. These recommendations represent useful lessons that fit within a broader research context, and that have relevance for corrections systems around the world. They are accompanied by practical suggestions with the aim of invoking action on this topic within the ACT, as the number of affected children rises.

Improvement of access and contact Inadequate transport options are integral obstacles for prison visits by children (Burgess and Flynn 2013). Further, children are traditionally unable to visit prisons on their own and require an adult guardian (Tasca 2016). Both assertions should be overcome: it is worthwhile to pursue transportation options that maximise the likelihood of children contacting their incarcerated parents. Prisons are typically peripherally-located, and working with transport operators to increase services to prisons could lead to a marked improvement in child engagement.

William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy

23

In the ACT, attention should be placed on configuring the local bus timetable to better suit visiting times, coupled with more accessible ticketing solutions. This would increase utilisation of visiting times for children.

Engagement of a child liaison officer at prisons An ideal outcome in child interactions with adult and social institutions is to allow children to become their own advocates regarding issues that concern them (Križ and Roundtree-Swain 2017). However, this is not a feature of most such institutions (Bolin 2015). A good alternative is recruitment and training of a dedicated advocate working in the best interests of the child. Indeed, work in the child welfare sphere has defined the crucial role of a skilled and compassionate child advocate in minimising adverse health outcomes for children (Vandervort, Henry, and Sloane 2012). Providing a dedicated and flexible contact person for affected children, a liaison officer could be responsible for advocacy, and information provision regarding both the justice process and available services. Some countries have begun to instigate this measure, and results are positive (Smith 2015). It is suggested that such a role be established in the ACT. It could sit within Corrective Services, and report directly to the ACT Children’s Commissioner.

Maintenance of extended visits for families The benefits of parental contact for children with parents in prison have been discussed above; providing an opportunity for private connection with parents not only improves health outcomes for children, but may reduce recidivism and intergenerational patterns of criminality. Some work has been done documenting specialised visiting arrangements around the globe (Kjellstrand 2017). It has also been clearly established that maintenance of family structures brings benefits to children, particularly those at a disadvantage (parallels are drawn with the child welfare system) (Cromer 2007; Dwairy and Achoui 2010; Malaquias, Crespo, and Francisco 2015). Attempting to maintain family structure through a purpose-built family visiting room with longer permitted times allows the parent-child relationship to be sustained as far as possible. Within the ACT, it is

24

Slipping Through the Cracks

proposed that recommencing extended visits should be considered a matter of priority. There is more work to be done in this field including, investigating siblings of incarcerated people, and examining how to manage criminal activity in families who do not desire support services. Children who are prohibited from parental contact due to safety risks are another area for inquiry. The limitations of this study were a lack of gathering information directly from children (this was avoided because of the rigorous ethical approval required), as well as the study’s qualitative nature and small scale.

References Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016. Prisoners in Australia, 2016. Retrieved from Canberra: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by Subject/4517.0~2016~Main Features~Australian Capital Territory~25 Bolin, Anette. 2015. Children's agency in interprofessional collaboration. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(1), 50-66. Bülow, William. 2014. The harms beyond imprisonment: do we have special moral obligations towards the families and children of prisoners? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17, 775-789. Burgess, Alannah, and Catherine Flynn. 2013. Supporting imprisoned mothers and their children: a call for evidence. Probation Journal, 60(1), 73-81. Cromer, Deborah. 2007. Through no fault of their own: reasserting a child's right to family connectedness in the child welfare system. Family Law Quarterly, 41(1), 181-195. Dennison, Susan, Anna Stewart, and Kate Freiberg. 2013. A prevalence study of children with imprisoned fathers: annual and lifetime estimates. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 48(3), 339-362. Dwairy, Marwan, and Mustafa Achoui. 2010. Adolescents-family connectedness: a first cross-cultural research on parenting and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(1), 8-15. Easteal, Patricia, Lorana Bartels, Emma Fitch, and Helen Watchirs. 2015. Females in custody in the ACT: gendered issues and solutions. Alternative Law Journal, 40(1), 18-22. Epidemiology Branch, A. G. H. D. (2011). ACT Inmate Health Survey 2010: Summary results. Retrieved from Canberra:

William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy

25

Flynn, Catherine. 2014. Getting there and being there: visits to prisons in Victoria - the experiences of women prisoners and their children. Probation Journal, 61(2), 176-191. Flynn, Catherine, Bronwyn Naylor, and Paula Fernandez Arias. 2016. Responding to the needs of children of parents arrested in Victoria, Australia. The role of the adult criminal justice system. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 351-369. Foster, Holly, and John Hagan. 2014. Suportive ties in the lives of incarcerated women: gender, race/ethnicity, and children's human rights. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 17(2), 257-278. Gill, Tim. 2008. Space-oriented children's policy: creating child-friendly communities to improve children's well-being. Children and Society, 22, 136-142. Glaze, Lauren. E., and Laura Maruschak. 2008. Parents in prison and their minor children. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: Goldson, Barry, and John Muncie. 2012. Towards a global 'child friendly' juvenile justice? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(1), 47-64. Gordon, Liz. 2015. Who cares about the children of prisoners in New Zealand? A journey from research to practice. Law in Context, 32, 4660. Grant, Elizabeth, and Yvonne Jewkes. 2015. Finally fit for purpose: the evolution of Australian prison architecture. The Prison Journal, 95(2), 223-243. Gray, Patricia. 2016. 'Child friendly' international human rights standards and youth offending team partnerships. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 45, 59-74. Hargreaves, John. 2009. 'Beyond rehab': where does the prison fit? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 21(1), 148-153. Johnson, Toni. 2012. Mapping the critical service needs of adolescent children of prisoners. Social Work in Public Health, 27, 45-68. Kemper, Kathi J., and Frederick P. Rivara. 1993. Parents in jail. Pediatrics, 92(2), 261-264. Kinner, Stuart A., Rosa Alati, Jake M. Najman, and Gail M. Williams. 2007. Do paternal arrest and imprisonment lead to child behaviour problems and substance use? A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(11), 1148-1156. Kjellstrand, Jean. 2017. Building a tailored, multilevel prevention strategy to support children and families affected by parental incarceration. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 87(1), 112-129.

26

Slipping Through the Cracks

Knudsen, Else. Marie. 2016. Avoiding the pathologizing of children of prisoners. Probation Journal, 63(3), 362-370. Križ, Katrin, and Dakota Roundtree-Swain2017. "We are merchandise on a conveyer belt": how young adults in the public child protection system perceive their participation in decision about their care. Children and Youth Services Review, 78, 32-40. Luther, Kate. 2016. Stigma management among children of incarcerated parents. Deviant Behavior, 37(11), 1264-1275. Malaquias, Sara, Carla Crespo, and Rita Francisco. 2015. How do adolescents benefit from family rituals? Links to social connectedness, depression and anxiety. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(10), 3009-3017. McCrickard, Rose, and Catherine Flynn. 2015. Responding to children of prisoners: the views of education professionals in Victoria. Children Australia, 41(1), 39-48. Monash University Criminal Justice Research Consortium. 2015. The impact of incarceration on children's care: a strategic framework for good care planning. Retrieved from Melbourne: Murray, Joseph, and David P. Farrington. 2006. Evidence-based programs for children of prisoners. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(4), 721736. Murray, Joseph, David P. Farrington, and Ivana Sekol. 2012. Children's antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 175-210. Murray, Joseph, Rolf Loeber, and Dustin Pardini. 2012. Parental involvement in the criminal justice system and the development of youth theft, marijuana use, depression, and poor academic performance. Criminology, 50(1), 255-302. Newman, Claire, Cathrine Fowler, and Andrew Cashin. 2011. The development of a parenting program for incarcerated mothers in Australia: a review of prison-based parenting programs. Contemporary Nurse, 39(1), 2-11. Nichols, Emily B., Ann B. Loper, and J. Patrick Meyer2016. Promoting educational resiliency in youth with incarcerated parents: the impact of parental incarceration, school characteristics, and connectedness on school outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 10901109. NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services. 2013. Children of Incarcerated Parents in New York State: A Data Analysis. Retrieved from New York:

William Pridmore and Michael H. Levy

27

Pallot, Judith, and Elena Katz. 2014. The management of prisoners' children in the Russian Federation. The Howard Journal, 53(3), 237254. Parke, Ross D., and K. Alison Clarke-Stewart. 2003. Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children: Perspectives, Promises, and Policies. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities (pp. 189-232). Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Quilty, Simon. 2005. The magnitude of experience of parental incarceration in Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12(1), 256-257. Quilty, Simon, Michael H. Levy, Kirsten Howard, Alex Barratt, and Tony Butler2004. Children of prisoners: a growing public health problem. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 28(4), 339-343. Raikes, Ben. 2016. 'Unsung Heroines': celebrating the care provided by grandmothers for children with parents in prison. Probation Journal, 63(3), 320-330. Saunders, Vicky. 2017. Children of prisoners - children's decision making about contact. Child and Family Social Work, 22, 63-72. Saunders, Vicky, and Morag McArthur. 2013. Children of Prisoners: Exploring the needs of children and young people who have a parent incarcerated in the ACT. Canberra: SHINE for Kids. Saunders, Vicky, Morag McArthur, and Tim Moore. 2015. Not seen and not heard: ethical considerations of research with children of prisoners. Law in Context, 32, 108-125. Schubert, Erin C., Megan Duininck, and Rebecca J. Shlafer. 2016. Visiting Mom: A pilot evaluation of a prison-vased visiting program serving incarcerated mothers and their minor children. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(4), 213-234. Sharratt, Kathryn. 2014. Children's experiences of contact with imprisoned parents: a comparison between four European countries. European Journal of Criminology, 11(6), 760-775. Shlonsky, Aron, David Rose, Justine Harris, Bianca Albers, Robyn Mildon, Sandra Jo Wilson, Jennifer Norvell, and Lauren Kissinger. 2016. Literature Review of Prison-based Mothers and Children Programs: Final Report. Retrieved from Melbourne: Smith, Peter. Scharff. 2015. Children of imprisoned parents in Scandinavia: Their problems, treatment and the role of Scandinavian penal culture. Law in Context, 32, 147-168.

28

Slipping Through the Cracks

Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit. 2015. What works: improving outcomes for children with a parent in prison. Retrieved from Wellington: Tasca, Melinda. 2016. The gatekeepers of contact: child-caregiver dyads and parental prison visitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(6), 739-758. Tasca, Melinda, Jillian J. Turanovic, Clair White, and Nancy Rodriguez. 2014. Prisoners' assessments of mental health problems among their children. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(2), 154-173. The United Nations. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. The University of Melbourne. 2017). ACT Detainee Health and Wellbeing Survey 2016. Retrieved from Canberra: Tranter, Paul J., and Scott Sharpe. 2008. Escaping Monstropolis: childfriendly cities, peak oil and Monsters, Inc. Children's Geographies, 6(3), 295-308. Trotter, Chris, Catherine Flynn, and Susan Baidawi. 2017. The impact of parental incarceration on children's care: identifying good practice principles from the perspective of imprisoned primary carer parents. Child and Family Social Work, 22(2), 952-962. Vandervort, Frank E., Jim Henry, and Mark A. Sloane. 2012. Building resilience in foster children: the role of the child's advocate. Children's Legal Rights Journal, 32(3), 1-24.

ADVOCACY FOR CHILDREN’S RIGHTS: PHYSICAL CONTACT DURING PRISON VISITS1 AVON HART-JOHNSON

Minor children of incarcerated parents are among the most defenceless populations in the world (Luther 2015). These children constitute one of several disadvantaged groups that are oppressed, marginalised, and suffer an infringement of rights as collateral impacts of mass incarceration. Recent literature has addressed some of the socio-political, economic, and legislative factors that impact the children of incarcerated parents (Covington 2016; Genty 1998; Wildeman 2009). There has not yet, however, been much study of these issues along an ecological continuum and from the perspective of children’s rights. This paper builds on empirical research that demonstrates the importance of integrating the rights of children into prison visitation policies and environments to address systemic issues relating to parental incarceration. The aim is to place children’s rights in the forefront of public debate about the impact of disallowing physical bonding between parents and children within prison visitation settings. The Mass Incarceration Continuum (MIC; Tate et al. 2015a) is introduced as a communications framework and an advocacy tool for bringing about social change and policy transformation. Children with parents in prison are at risk for academic failure, prone to emotional and behavioural problems, and likely to experience strain in their parental relationships associated with separation (Dennison, Stewart, and Freiberg 2013; Dyer, Pleck, and McBride 2012; Hoffman, Byrd, and 1

The author acknowledges the support of Dr. Liz Gordon for the opportunity to address the 2017 INCCIP Conference as a keynote speaker where this paper was presented. This paper was sponsored by DC Project Connect a non-profit organization, operating in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area of the United States. The author acknowledges Dr. Monique Tate who coined the term, Mass Incarceration Continuum. Acknowledgement is also offered to the International Prisoner Family Conference and the Advocacy in Action Coalition (AIAC) team of which I have the high honour and privilege to serve as chairperson.

30

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

Kightlinger 2010). They are also naturally at risk for intergenerational incarceration. In the United States, some 1.7 to 5 million children have a parent who is or has been incarcerated, and approximately 50% of inmates housed in state and federal prisons have one or more children under 18 years of age (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). A non-incarcerated caregiver is often needed to maintain family ties between incarcerated parents and their children by arranging travel to a prison and other aspects of the logistics of visitation. Such travel is often challenging for families, both practically and financially, because prisons are generally located outside public transportation access routes (deVuono-powell, Schweidler, and Walters 2015). These types of logistical barriers contribute to families’ stress and strain their ability to maintain connections. Within prison visiting environments, corrections officials enforce rules designed to promote safety and to prevent the importation of contraband (Arditti 2003). These practices can be perceived by families as rude, disrespectful, intimidating, and frightening to children (Arditti 2003; deVuono-powell, Schweidler, Walters and Zohrabi 2015). Indeed, it is hardly surprising that children and even adults may feel overwhelmed and stressed by the constant supervision of hovering corrections officers during visits. Further exacerbating the situation are other institutional constraints, such as a policy recently implemented by the state of Maryland (United States) that forbids physical contact between children and their incarcerated parents (Newman 2016). The rule impacts all visitors, but its adverse effect is greatest on children under the age of four (Perry 2013). This rule or policy is otherwise referred to in this paper as “Ban-Physical-Contact”. Amid the distress caused by these and certain other penal policies for families and children, this paper suggests a path forward through the use of the “Mass Incarceration Continuum” (MIC) (Tate et al. 2015) as a framework for initiating and influencing legislative reform efforts directed at the criminal justice system. The issue of Ban-Physical-Contact serves as a rubric and model for demonstrating how advocates can use the MIC as a starting point for bringing about needed policy changes in issues related to mass incarceration.

Avon Hart-Johnson

31

Background of the Mass Incarceration Continuum and Framework (MICF) The MICF was developed during the 2015 International Prisoner Family Conference (IPFC) by the Advocacy in Action Coalition (AIAC) (Tate et al. 2015a). Delegates formed the AIAC working group to investigate how mass incarceration affects the families of prisoners, and their work appeared as a conference proceedings white paper titled “The Mass Incarceration Continuum” (Tate et al. 2015a). In this document, the AIAC identified seven systemic problems associated with mass incarceration and framed the MIC as a “Human Rights Issue of the 21st Century” (Tate et al. 2015a). The ecology of human rights was identified as a critical theme by the AIAC in recognition that the draconian practices employed in penitentiaries in the United States, violate aspects of human rights identified in the ‘Human Rights and Prisons’ handbook published by the United Nations (2005). Thus, for example, these standards of human decency include non-interference with home communication, and housing prisoners in facilities close to their homes (United Nations 2005). The standards also provide grounds for action within the domain of prison administration to ensure that prisoners and their families are treated with dignity and respect. The goal of the MICF is to help advocates identify and respond to microlevel issues that affect small clusters of people and to identify how these matters relate to broader macro-level contexts that potentially affect millions of people. Within this framework, systemic violations of human rights and acts of oppression fall along the continuum shown in Figure 1 below (Tate et al. 2015b). The AIAC identifies context-specific issues that require individualised, family-based solutions. However, the often-fragile families of prisoners are often not positioned to advocate on their own behalf without encouragement from others or a support network. This situation is partially due to an unequal power distribution, detachment from broader advocacy networks, and fear of retaliation (Nelson and Prilleltensky 2010) from or intimidation by law enforcement, in particular corrections officers. The MIC graphic shown in Figure 1 provides annotated examples of the seven systemic problems along the trajectory. These labels make it possible to determine quickly where a specific social issue relating to incarceration falls along the continuum. Ban-Physical-Contact, for example, would fall under “Children with Incarcerated Parents and Collateral Damage”. This issue could also be classified under “Draconian

32

Advoccacy for Childreen’s Rights: Phy ysical Contact duuring Prison Visits

H A A., Esparaza, C.,, Grier, C., Figure 1. Souurce Adapted froom Tate, M., Hart-Johnson, Graham, H. Mosman, Z. and Rhyanes,, L. (2015b). T The Mass Inccarceration Continuum: T The Human Riights Issue of the t 21st Centuryy (white paper) Graphic. Version 2.0. November 10, 2016, Interrnational Prisooner Family Conference C Advocacy in Action Coalitioon. Retrieved frrom www.prisoonerfamilyconfeerence.org

Avon Hart-Johnson

33

Measures” (the indirect punishment of children that results from disallowing physical contact with parents, and the elimination of prison visits for inmates who violate the policy) and even inhumane treatment of children, depending on the findings and substantiation of the literature. The goals of the AIAC are to attract both national and global attention to these issues and to hold politicians, legislators, and lawmakers accountable for the overuse or misuse of incarceration and the abuse of prisoner’s families, including treating young children as criminals. The individual segments along the continuum can be described as follows (Tate et al. 2015a, p. 4): The implementation of draconian measures. This issue includes the “war on drugs” in the United States, which caused a surge in incarceration rates beginning in 1970 (National Research Council 2014). Also included are “3-strikes” laws (Hetey and Eberhardt 2014), “mandatory minimum sentences” (Sloan, Platt, Chepke, and Blevins 2016), and “civil commitment” (Jackson 2016). Moreover, it is known that such practices as “stop and frisk” (stopping and searching persons for contraband, such as drugs or weapons) and other subjective policies used by law enforcement, result in the over-incarceration of minorities. These issues are particularly acute because the United States is one of the world leaders in mass incarceration (second to the Seychelles, an island nation off the eastern coast of Africa) (Telesur 2017). Inequitable legal representation and inhumane treatment of prisoners and their families. Legal disparities experienced by this vulnerable population include poor representation or even an inability to acquire counsel (Jorgensen 2016). Also falling under this category is the treatment of family members as criminals, that is, marking them with carceral identities (Lopez-Aguado 2016), and disrespecting or ignoring the human dignity and human rights of the children of incarcerated parents (Covington 2016). Children of incarcerated parents. This segment represents the millions of fractured families across the world in which children are separated from their parents (Wildeman 2009). These children are at risk for academic failure, emotional trauma, inadequate parenting, and injury (Nichols, Loper, and Meyer 2016). Maintaining bonds with incarcerated parents is naturally often challenging for them (Davies et al. 2008).

34

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

School criminalization. This issue considers zero-tolerance policies in schools that contribute to building a criminal record based on subjective behaviours and actions and that treat children as offenders rather than young people who are learning from their mistakes (Tate 2016). Cruel and unusual punishment. This segment of the continuum includes the death penalty, segregated housing, substandard care for the mentally ill, and neglect of the health needs of geriatric inmates (Reinert 2016; United Nations 2015). Industrialising mass imprisonment. This segment of the continuum describes the self-reinforcing feeder system that has arisen through the privatization of prisons as profit centres that must be populated to generate revenue (Phillips 2016). The prison industrial system exists within the broader context of increasingly strict crime policies and higher arrest rates, and it may even fuel the targeting of disadvantaged groups, such as people of colour and immigrants, for arrest and detention. Collateral damage. This segment considers the results of mass incarceration, including collateral impacts on families and on society at large. As mentioned, families are often subjected to secondary punishment and criminalization (Blokland and Nagin 2016; Hart-Johnson 2014), a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “Symbolic Imprisonment”. According to this mid-level grounded theory, non-incarcerated family members may feel guilt, shame, and embarrassment when one of their number is incarcerated, fostering social withdrawal and isolation that may serve as protection or as self-induced punishment (Hart-Johnson 2014). Other collateral damage to families can include fracturing, risk of intergenerational incarceration, and poor mental and physical health (Siennick 2016). Using the MICF, the AIAC working group has proposed recommendations to address overarching, systemic issues. These recommendations, if enacted, could provide effective governance and oversight to prevent the abuse of power for millions of vulnerable people affected by mass incarceration. The AIAC respects the use of corrections-based sanctions but regards human decency and respect toward the families of offenders and the inmates themselves as basic rights. To address these issues, the MIC calls for “four resolutions” designed to ensure “independent oversight of the entire criminal justice system” (through independent monitoring boards and inspections), “humane treatment of prisoners and their families” (as

Avon Hart-Johnson

35

defined by the United Nations, 2005), “equitable and reasonable sentencing” (rather than a double standard distinguished by majority or minority status), and “effective re-entry” (rehabilitative and restorative measures that integrate the needs of families in strategizing the effective re-entry of prisoners into society) (see generally Tate et al. 2015a, pp. 3-4). Embedded in each of these resolutions is the concept that those in positions of power have a responsibility to treat all individuals with human dignity (Freire 1970). Human rights, in other words, should work to equalise power differentials. The MICF has made an effective beginning by issuing a “white paper” detailing the major issues along the trajectory as macro-level problems and recommendations. A need remains for: (1) alignment of these issues with theory; (2) a user-friendly, step-by-step protocol that enables users to extend the focus of the white paper to specific problem areas at a granular level of detail; and (3) an implementation process for executing the strategy in advocating for change with legislators, policy-makers, and other officials. To address certain gaps in this framework and to extend its scope, I offer a model aligned with critical pedagogy, ecological systems theory, and Nelson and Prilleltensky’s (2010) Transformative Intervention.

Theoretical Underpinnings of the MICF Critical Pedagogy. In this paper, I align the MIC theoretical framework with the tenet of critical pedagogy that every member of society is responsible for the underclass (Freire, 1970). An important component of this argument is the premise that disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals do not represent a pathological part of an otherwise normal society but are rather woven into the societal fabric (Freire 1970). Also aligned with the critical pedagogy framework is ecological systems theory, which describes how individuals’ development and life experiences are affected by their environments. Ecological Systems Theory. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines this context as an individual’s “microsystem”, which includes relationships with the immediate family, neighbours, friends, and schools. Microsystems can thus be influenced by other contexts that radiate outward (and inward) while connecting to other social domains. The “mesosystem”, then, is the point at which different systems overlap and merge. Interactions among these systems occur when, for example, a child’s home life (microsystem) is interrupted by the incarceration of a parent, which in turn influences their academic experience (mesosystem). Proceeding further, an

36

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

“exosystem” may have a direct impact on a child’s development externally without their full engagement with it. Thus, for instance, because of a father’s incarceration, a non-incarcerated mother may have to spend more time working to pay the bills, so that incarceration impacts a child’s ability to bond with both parents. Similarly, a child’s interaction with a parent may occur at a prison visiting hall that disallows physical contact (an exosystem policy); in this case, the exosystem interface is the locus of the effect of prison and policy on the child’s life. While the prison system is not a direct part of the child’s microsystem, there is a point at which their experience intersects with prison policy and the prison visitation experience. This is the point at which environmental factors seem to be able to influence multiple areas of a child’s life and well-being. A last consideration is time; thus, the “chronosystem” relates to how the timing of an event may impact a child (Figure 2. below, provides a graphic illustration of how these systems interrelate). To take an obvious example, the incarceration of a parent has differential effects on children depending on their age, with adult children likely to suffer less than minor children. Arditti (2003) observes that visiting halls are portals for the families of prisoners to engage in bonding and to discuss private matters. These environments therefore represent a link between the micro- and mesosystems of family members (family life and the prison facility). Finally, the macrosystem represents such structural-level conditions as race, culture, politics, law, policy, and government. According to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model, penal policy is a macro-level system that can have a synchronous (two-way) influence on how children, families, and inmates express emotions toward one another. Ban-Physical-Contact is an example of a macro-level policy that can exacerbate the collateral damage already done to families and particularly young children because of the incarceration of a loved one. Transformative Intervention. The underlying philosophy of the MIC is naturally congruent with Nelson and Prilleltensky’s (2010) suggestion that, when social problems are framed at a local level, this type of ameliorative intervention has limited and targeted benefits for a set group of people. The problem with using this approach is that macro-issues involving power differentials embedded in the mass incarceration continuum, such as racism, sexism, and classism, are neglected. Further, the connected tenets and nested issues of human rights and unequal power, which affect thousands or even millions of people who experience the collateral consequences of mass incarceration, might otherwise be considered irrelevant or be dismissed. These issues must be aligned so that

Avon Hart-Johnson

37

effective solutions can be designed for dismantling power differentials and oppression. The MICF holds that, to affect true social change, a transformative intervention is necessary (Nelson and Prilleltensky 2010). Transformative interventions frame societal problems at the macro-level. Thus, for instance, the implementation of “draconian measures” and the “war on drugs” are relevant to the discussion on how the structural conditions to which impoverished people are subjected (such as being concentrated in socioeconomically-disadvantaged neighbourhoods), feed into the widespread problem of inequitable representation resulting from the inability of individuals to afford legal counsel (Wright, Pratt, Lowenkamp, and Latessa 2013). Not surprisingly, studies have confirmed that wealthy people who live in affluent communities have lower chances of incarceration (Mears, Wang, Hay, and Bales 2008). The MIC framework is a communications tool that can be used by practitioners, advocates, and families of prisoners to develop plausible and logical arguments regarding broad social problems that have resulted in the marginalisation of groups of people. Using the MICF, when considering the issue of Ban-Physical-Contact, demonstrates the importance of reducing trauma on children in the prison visitation environment and it serves as a case study and justification for seeking policy change: A following step-by-step process is then proposed as a viable strategy for effecting change.

A Strategy to Change the Ban-Physical-Contact Policy In the United States, the unprecedented rate of mass incarceration has contributed to the fracturing of families (Cartwright 2016). Prison visitation may be the only setting in which inmates are able to make physical connections with their families and to work, repair or establish family bonds (Tasca, Mulvey, and Rodriguez 2016). The Ban-PhysicalContact policy conveys a message to prisoners’ families, because the prohibition on physical contact implies that families represent a security risk and may be culpable for bringing contraband into prisons. Consequently, the ability of children to bond with their parents is compromised during the prison visitation experience. This ban holds even for small children visiting parents who have been absent for months or years. Minor children who are too young to understand adult rules may conclude that an incarcerated parent is intentionally avoiding physical contact. Children can also feel at fault for situations beyond their control,

38

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

so the stress of trying to comply with the ban has the potential to impact the willingness of a child or a caregiver to return for future visits, even though it may damage the child-parent relationship for years to come (chronosystem impact). During children’s early years of development (the pre-school years), experiences and interactions shape their capacities to develop social skills, to love and bond, and to create healthy relationships (Baumrind 1996). Children of incarcerated parents sometimes come from homes characterized by instability, abuse, stress, environmental pollutants, particularly lead paint, and other adverse conditions that impact their lives in the context of the micro-environment. The act of hugging and physical contact generally is important in stabilising relationships and solidifying bonding experiences (Bowlby 1969). Research shows that quality time, physical contact, and encouraging words all contribute to the development of resilience in young children as well as teenagers (Maximo and Carranza 2016). It is then reasonable to conclude that hugs and other meaningful aspects of visitation may serve to mitigate the adverse effects of parentchild separation. Children under the age of four are in the most crucial years of their attachment bonding experiences (Perry 2013). Children within this age group who do not experience proximal and physical bonding with a caregiver or parent may miss the “window of opportunity” for the proper development of parts of the brain critical for normal, secure attachments; thus Perry (2013, p. 3) indicates that children have developed 90% of their emotional baseline for adulthood by age three. A missed window of opportunity can therefore lead to a range of adverse outcomes from slight emotional disorganisation to severe emotional detachment and the inability to form healthy relationships (Perry, 2013). The value of the interactions that take place in prison environments should not be underestimated, and it is certainly possible that these environments could be developed so that children are treated warmly and are not given cause to fear. Indeed, fear is a major impediment to healthy development, bonding, and attachment. When children experience chaos and social disorganisation and are exposed to intimidating and frightening environments, they are at increased risk for attachment problems (Bowlby 1969; Perry 2013). Each of these concerns contributes to the instability that characterizes many fragile families, especially those in circumstances in which incarceration is common. In general, healthy development depends on infants’ experiences, including interactions with caregivers, and the home environment.

Avon Hart-Johnson

39

Empirical evidence confirms the importance of family bonding as a baseline for healthy child-development (Bowlby 1969). The science regarding physical touch and bonding between parents and children suggests that children who receive physical affection are relatively less likely to be aggressive and violent as adults (Field 2010, p. 367). Therefore, children’s best interests are served when they have plentiful opportunities to bond emotionally and physically with their parents in ways that the Maryland policy denies. It is in this spirit that Perry (2013) asserts, Factors crucial to bonding include time together…face-to-face interactions, eye contact, physical proximity, touch and other primary sensory experiences…it should be no surprise that holding, gazing, smiling, kissing…all cause specific neurochemical activities in the brain (p. 3).

Human Rights of the Child Based on the previously mentioned considerations, I argue that banning physical contact between parents and their children is an encroachment on children’s fundamental right to be parented. I further assert that this prison policy is one of many ways in which children are dehumanized and mistreated, and that the reason for this injustice may be that prison administrators lack an understanding of how a policy that is designed to ensure safety can be a source of childhood trauma. Taking into account the ecology of human rights on a macro-level, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2014) outlines the following aspirations: (1) decisions concerning children’s wellbeing should be based in their best interest; (2) children’s rights should be protected at all costs and guaranteed by institutions and governments; (3) children have a right to be parented “in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”; and (4) children have the right to be emotionally secure (UNICEF n.d., 1). From this perspective, the denial of the physical bonding that contributes to children’s healthy development and wellbeing is a violation of their rights. The World Conference on Human Rights, in a Convention on the Rights of the Child held in 1989, gave voice to several aspirations designed to protect children’s rights on a global scale, but these declarations have not been fully embraced by the United States. The idea is that children have a right to be parented, protected, and kept safe from unfair treatment at the hands of adults (UNICEF n.d.; United Nations Human Rights, Office of

40

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

the High Commissioner n.d.), and that they are, like other vulnerable populations, generally unable to argue on their own behalf to ensure that their rights are honoured and codified in law. Considering the goals set by the United Nations then, local, national, and global leaders and governments should be held accountable for the protection of children’s rights.

Steps in Advocating for Social Change The first step in advocating for social change requires the advocate or sponsor to develop a provisional statement and definition of the problem. This step can and should be refined as each phase of the process unfolds. There is a need, however, for a way to communicate with others and to align the problem with the MICF. To achieve the most holistic and farreaching results, the problem should be validated against macro-level issues and policies and should also be framed to align it with the segments of the “continuum”. Structural and systemic failures, human rights violations, and, where applicable, infringements on children’s rights and/or other deep-rooted factors associated with disenfranchisement of groups of people, such as racism, sexism, poverty, and exclusion, must also be identified. Each of these issues must be articulated in a manner that holds parties accountable for upholding human dignity and respecting all persons. A list of recommendations is included in the “MIC white paper” (Tate et al. 2015a) that may align with the problem statement. An example of a working-problem-statement based on Ban-Physical-Contact is: “The problem is that the prison visitation policy banning all physical contact between parents and children during face-to-face visitation can be traumatizing and have long-term detrimental impacts on children’s attachment bonds and development, thus infringing on their fundamental rights”. The simple fact is that the ban runs counter to the recommendations by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Intrinsic to the definition of this problem are the links among a child’s microsystem and macrosystem and, ultimately, their chronosystem.

Avon Hart-Johnson

41

Framing the Argument and Defining the Problem Through a Theoretical Lens While family members and advocates may be driven by a passion and desire for social reform, the arguments that support them must be further defined from a theoretical perspective and using empirical evidence that articulates the counter-story or rival hypothesis. The problem statement for Ban-Physical-Contact, for example, is framed in terms of the tenets of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and further supported by ecological systems theory and human rights goals regarding the protection of children’s well-being. Parental rights are also identified and supported in the United Nations’ prison handbook (UNICEF n.d.; United Nations 2005). In addition, it may be necessary to cite legal precedents that establish that children’s best interests are the responsibility of parents rather than those of prison wardens. Such was the case in “Valentine v. Englehardt” (1979) Passaic, New Jersey, for example, a class action suit in which inmates argued for restoration of children’s visitation rights in the face of a warden’s insistence that their best interests were served by denying them visitation; in this case, the courts ruled in the inmates’ favour. Figure 2 below provides a graphic illustrating the possible impacts of BanPhysical-Contact on children’s microsystems, macrosystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and chronosystems together with contextual explanations at ecological level. In Figure 2, each level of the ecological model is explained through the lens of the positive or negative results of the “Ban-Physical-Contact” policy as follows: Microsystem (direct contact; family, caregivers, teachers, peers, immediate surroundings). Reciprocal and bi-directional relationships comprise a child’s daily interactions. Mesosystem. These interactions include a child's home life and relationships with school and teachers. Cooperation among parents, teachers, and interventionists on a strategy to ensure children’s well-being during parental incarceration may improve academic performance, peer relationships, and other aspects of socialisation, thus having a positive effect. On the other hand, disorganisation and lack of resources can exacerbate risk factors for academic failure, poor relationships, and insecure attachments (Bowlby 1969; Bronfenbrenner 1979).

42

Advoccacy for Childreen’s Rights: Phy ysical Contact duuring Prison Visits

mple of how the Ban-Physical-Contact prisonn policy can afffect a child Figure 2 Exam from micro-to chronosysteem based on Bronfenbrennner’s (1979) Ecological E Systems Moddel.

Avon Hart-Johnson

43

Exosystem. Although the child does not play an active role in this setting, it can still exert an effect. When a parent is sentenced by the courts and incarcerated, for example, the child has no role in the decision-making processes, but is obviously influenced by the outcome. A parent’s incarceration can affect a child's ability to receive proper parenting and to enjoy economic security and brings the risk of social stigma and other direct and indirect effects. The exosystem can thus play out in positive or negative ways. In the case of children who have been abused, neglected, or mistreated, removal of parents could have a positive effect. On the other hand, the severing of a secure, warm, and nurturing parent-child relationship can cause a child to become anxious and defiant and to act out in school, obviously a negative outcome. It is to be noted that intervention is considered a part of the microsystem and mesosystems as well. Macrosystem. This level comprises other systems, including the economy, the political and legal systems, civil and human rights, criminal justice policy, social conditions, and human and cultural values. Each of these influences can help to shape a child’s world. Thus, for example, growing up in a political and legal system that emphasizes “law and order” principles, such as stop and frisk, zero-tolerance, and other highly punitive penal policies (such as Ban-Physical-Contact), can influence a child’s risk for incarceration and how their parent may be treated in prison. Consequently, restorative and criminal justice reform can have a favourable outcome for children of incarcerated people. Chronosystem. The timing of an event in a child's life can influence their future. Thus, the Ban-Physical-Contact policy can be expected to have a greater impact on children younger than four than on teenagers, since the bonding that physical contact facilitates in infants and toddlers promotes their development and may serve as a kind of protective factor when it comes to raising socially healthy children. Parental absence during these developmental years can have a profound effect. A child whose parent was incarcerated during the “war on drugs” that began in the 1970s might be affected more negatively than one whose parent has been incarcerated during the era of “Criminal Justice Reform” in the United States (2014 to the present; see for example, Donnelly 2017). To be sure, a layperson is unlikely to frame these issues in a similar way to the problem statement discussed or to make links to theory as their first step in exploring them. This is the primary motivation for the “MICF white paper”, namely to bridge the gap between theory and academic study on the one hand and practical action on the other. A detailed

44

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

problem statement founded on theory and supported by research is not the initial step in such action. First, a project team should be formed to facilitate the process. In this case, I am using the MICF and aligning my proposed step-by-step protocol with the notion of transformative intervention (Nelson and Prilleltensky, 2010, 165). In short, team-building or alignment with an existing group is a necessary first step that requires stakeholder identification.

Identifying Stakeholders and Setting Goals This step involves identifying stakeholders, team formation, and reflection. It is critical that the team work together to air opinions, clarify perceptions of the problem, and begin the goal-setting process. This step should not be avoided. Team members will naturally bring their own biases to the group, but by implementing this first critical step, a consensus-driven focus can be established that supports all parties involved, especially the marginalised (Nelson and Prilleltensky 2010). Even within this team, “power distributions” should be managed. It is important to bear in mind that team members are coming together because of a shared perception of being disenfranchised by those in positions of power. Self-determination should be encouraged and supported: this is the first step towards empowerment.

Executing the “Triple-A Strategy” After the formation of a team, I recommend execution of what I am calling the “Triple-A Strategy”, which involves raising awareness, taking action, and advocating for change. This strategy is designed to augment, and not replace, the MICF and its associated recommendations.

Avon Hart-Johnson

45

Table 1. Awareness, Action, Advocacy Step Building a Team

Description Identifying stakeholders. The process of team-building includes identifying stakeholders, affected individuals, change agents, proponents, and opponents. Defining the roles of the team members. It is important for each of the team members to have a role in executing the advocacy strategy and to build on the intrinsic strength of the team. If there are authors, researchers, or writers in the group, for instance, they can document research and prepare an argument or supplemental material to the MIC white paper recommendations. Similarly, any attorneys in the group who are adept at interpreting legalese can serve as spokespersons to convey the messaging. Once initial roles are agreed on in the context of a working group, critical factors can be fleshed out as the team evolves. The working team members should be limited to about seven or eight people; otherwise, there may be too many differing opinions to manage. The entire network, however, could include hundreds of individuals serving as a coalition who are recipients of the work products and are advocates in the field. A prime example is the Advocacy in Action Coalition under the Prisoner Family Conference, which fits this model and scope.

Actionable steps Contact and recruit stakeholders. Identify change agents and note their competencies. Determine proponents (those who advocate for change) and opponents (those with a vested interest in status quo or resisting change). Identify national and international groups as applicable. Enter these data in a team/project database.

46

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

Step

Awareness

Description Example. Using Ban-PhysicalContact as a model, I will identify parents and family members impacted by this problem. Recruitment will utilize a referral process and even social media. I will also inform advocacy groups regarding this issue and build a grassroots coalition. I will enlist all other stakeholders, including the Advocacy in Action Coalition, local politicians, governors, American Psychological Association, American Civil Liberties Union, and congressional leaders, governors, human rights groups. Informing and educating the team. The team will document the facts associated with the problem and present the issues to the evolving team. During this phase, the team will build awareness of the problem by sharing, researching, and refining the problem statement. This phase may include informing the team through presentations and updates. The team should hold periodic meetings to maintain the momentum, depending on the criticality of the issue and the proper timing for policy change. If the MICF white paper requires supplemental analysis with granularlevel detail, the team should prepare talking points in order to be able to articulate the major issues identified as the core problem. The team should continue to build awareness by investigating rival hypotheses. This is an important step in identifying the interests vested in the status quo and items for negotiation with those who hold positions of authority and power.

Actionable steps

Validate and substantiate the problem based on empirical evidence. Elicit support from experts. Contact affected population to share insights. Share and disseminate initial findings (among team members).

Avon Hart-Johnson Step

Action

Description Example. For Ban-PhysicalContact, I will investigate prison policies, review annual reports, and related lobbying efforts and work to understand their fiscal and social implications. Periodic updates and conference calls will be conducted with my project team. Documenting and preparing communication. This step should be a collective effort. During this phase, a number of tailored fact sheet and presentations can be developed. According to MICF best practices and training material, a press package should include background, a press release, fact sheets (articulating why people should care about the identified problem), and frequently-asked questions (FAQs). The package should also contain the MICF white paper and its recommendations. Note: granularlevel recommendations align with, rather than replace, the MICF recommendations. Example: For Ban-PhysicalContact, a fact sheet will list adverse impacts that the prohibition on physical contact has on children and families. The problem will be summarized and the recommendations will be aligned with research findings on the importance of familial bonding (Bowlby, 1969) and of nontraumatic prison visits, again within the context of the MICF.

47 Actionable steps

Create tailored fact sheets as required and prepare team talking points for training and dissemination. Refine message. Prepare media packages for mass communication.

48

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

Step Advocate

Description Communicating and advocating for transformative intervention and social change. This step involves clearly articulating the team’s intervention strategy in a manner that is aligned with the MICF framework. As stated, granular-level recommendations can be added to the macro-level context. Example: The MICF calls for ensuring independent oversight of the entire criminal justice system. There is thus a need to establish citizen oversight throughout the criminal justice system through the formation of governance committees composed of members of the community that are empowered to investigate and report on prison operations. Second, the MICF calls for “Holding criminal justice officials accountable for adhering to prescribed laws and maintaining integrity at all levels of the judicial and social system; and ensuring transparency through independent audits and the use of random site inspections.” Based on these MICF declarations, combined with a theoretically-based argument, recommendations will include (1) Support the S.573 bill to establish a National Criminal Justice Commission in the United States; (2) Advocate for policy modification on Ban-Physical Contact; (3) Call for sensitivity training for corrections officers; (4) Join with advocacy groups in support of the United States signing on as core supporters on the macrolevel United Nations Human Rights Office of the Commissioner, Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Actionable steps Execute mass media communication plan. Schedule public policy meetings (town hall meetings). Hold community forums (with legislators, advocates, etc.). Host panel discussions. Recruit subject matter experts to support the team’s overarching goals. Refine the message. Draft recommendations. Draft and advocate for change in policy.

Avon Hart-Johnson

49

Making Recommendations Aligned with the MICF The United Nations (2005) calls for recognition of prisoners’ right to communicate with and have access to their families, and for prisoners to be incarcerated in a facility close to home. Children’s rights include being parented and decisions made on their behalf with their best interests. The following recommendations are, accordingly: An initiative led by the Maryland Governor under the auspices of S.573, a bill to establish a National Criminal Justice Commission. I recommend that this project team be formed as a collective unit and that it follow through with the Advocacy steps (13-20) by contacting the Maryland governor’s offices—the state’s chief executive, obviously being a major stakeholder—as well as the Congressional committee of the 115th Congress (the 2017-2018 session). Multiple letters will generate attention and lead to face-to-face meetings. Policy modification. Based on empirical findings about the age at which children’s bonding with parents is critical for the development of healthy brains and healthy attachments, I recommend a campaign to remove the ban on physical contact between parents and at least those children under the age of five. While the research points to the first three years of life as particularly crucial for bonding, I suggest extending the age for contact to five years because visiting groups of children aged older and younger than three could raise family and sibling issues. Specifically, I advocate for incentive-based visitation in the context of which physical contact remains permissible provided that no contraband is found. As indicated, I argued for policy change for the United States to join as a signatory taking into account the ecology of human rights on a macro-level, specifically the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Call for training of corrections officers. I recommend that corrections officers undergo mandatory sensitivity training as a part of their onboarding orientation and periodically throughout their tenure in order to ensure that they understand the developmental and psychological impacts that exercising of their authority can have on children’s development and mental health.

50

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

Conclusion The steps and recommendations laid out here provide a brief but rigorous roadmap for executing the MICF strategy for promoting social and criminal justice reform. To be sure, advocates will not be successful in every grassroots battle. Nevertheless, the mere act of self-determination can transform victims into advocates. When individuals develop strong support networks, shed light on problems that occur in small clusters at the macro-level, and, most importantly, stand in solidarity to oppose human rights violations, these actions may in themselves have a healing effect. The goal of the MIC framework is to empower people with tools to work with others in a manner that levels out the playing field and power differentials and encourages social change. This paper is thus intended to give voice to unknown numbers of children in Maryland who may be denied the simple but powerful act of a parent-child embrace. It is hoped that this work and advocacy on behalf of children will bring about policy change in Maryland prisons and will further establish a precedent across the nation and around the world.

References Arditti, Joyce A. 2003. Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 8(2), 115-138. Assembly, UN General. "Convention on the Rights of the Child." (2014). Baumrind, Diana. 1996. The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405–14. Blokland, Arjan A. and Nagin, Daniel. S. 2016. Estimating the Effects of Imprisonment: Intended and Unintended Consequences of Incarceration. Incapacitation: Trends and New Perspectives, 221. Bowlby, John. 1969. Attachment and loss. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.) English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/continuum Cartwright, Luke. 2016. Respite and repair: how mothers of incarcerated long-term problematic drug users make prison work for them. Journal of Substance Use, 21(4), 439-443. Covington, Rebecca. 2016. Incarcerated mother, invisible child. Emory International Law Review, 31(1), 99-133.

Avon Hart-Johnson

51

Davies, Elizabeth, Diana Brazzell, Nancy G. La Vigne, and Tracey Shollenberger. 2008. Understanding the experiences and needs of children of incarcerated parents. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Dennison, Susan, Anna Stewart, and Kate Freiberg. 2013. A prevalence study of children with imprisoned fathers: annual and lifetime estimates. Australian Journal of Social Issues (Australian Social Policy Association), 48(3), 339–362. Retrieved from http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/lo gin.aspx?direct=trueanddb=a9handAN=92610047andsite=edsliveandscope=site DeVuono-Powell, Saneta, Chris Schweidler, Alicia Walters, and Azadeh Zohrabi. 2015. Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families. Oakland, CA: Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design. Donnelly, Ellen A. "The Politics of Racial Disparity Reform: Racial Inequality and Criminal Justice Policymaking in the States." American Journal of Criminal Justice 42, no. 1 (2017): 1-27. Dyer, W. Justin, Joseph Pleck, and Brent McBride. 2012."Using mixture regression to identify varying effects: A demonstration with paternal incarceration." Journal of Marriage and Family 74(5): 1129-1148. Field, Tiffany. 2010. Touch for socioemotional and physical well-being: A review. Developmental Review, 30(4), 367-383. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.01.001 Freire, Paolo. 1970. The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc. Genty, Philip. M. 1998. Permanency planning in context of parental incarceration: Legal issues and recommendations. Child Welfare, 77(5), 543. Hart-Johnson, Avon. 2014. "Symbolic imprisonment, grief, and coping theory: African American women with incarcerated mates." PhD diss., Walden University. Hetey, Rebecca C., and Jennifer L. Eberhardt. 2014. Racial disparities in incarceration increase acceptance of punitive policies. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1949-54. doi: 10.1177/095679761454030 Hoffmann, Heath C., Amy L. Byrd, and Alex M. Kightlinger. 2010. Prison Programs and Services for Incarcerated Parents and Their Underage Children: Results From a National Survey of Correctional Facilities. The Prison Journal, 90(4), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885510382087 Jackson, Rebecca. 2016. "Treatment during civil commitment for sexual offending behaviors." Current psychiatry reports 18(7): 69.

52

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

Jorgensen, Christian. 2016. Immigrant Detention in the United States: Violations of International Human Rights Law. Retrieved from http://hrbrief.org/hearings/immigrant-detention-united-statesviolations-international-human-rights-law/ LopezǦAguado, Patrick. 2016. The Collateral Consequences of Prisonization: Racial Sorting, Carceral Identity, and Community Criminalization. Sociology Compass, 10(1), 12-23. Luther, Kate. 2015. Examining Social Support Among Adult Children of Incarcerated Parents. Family Relations, 64(4), 505-518. doi:10.1111/fare.12134 Mears, Daniel P., Xia Wang, Carter Hay, and William D. Bales. 2008. Social ecology and recidivism: Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46(2), 301-340. Maximo, Sally I., and Jennifer S. Carranza. 2016."Parental attachment and love language as determinants of resilience among graduating university students." SAGE Open 6(1). doi: 2158244015622800. National Research Council of the National Academies. 2014. The growth of incarceration in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Nelson, Geoffrey, and Isaac Prilleltensky. 2010. Community Psychology: In Pursuit of Liberation and Well-being. Palgrave Macmillan. Newman, Meredith. 2016. Prisons see decrease in drug contraband following change to visitation policy. Retrieved from www.capitalgazette.com/news/for_the_record/ph-ac-cn-contrabanddecrease-0217-20160216story.html+andcd=1andhl=enandct=clnkandgl=us Nichols, Emily B., Ann B. Loper, and J. Patrick Meyer. 2016. Promoting Educational Resiliency in Youth with Incarcerated Parents: The Impact of Parental Incarceration, School Characteristics, and Connectedness on School Outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 10901109. Phillips, Abigail P. 2016. Mass Incarceration by Design: The Impacts of Urban Renewal and Landscape Architecture's Absence on the Prison Industrial Complex and the Use of Landscape Architecture as an Antidote to Mass Incarceration. LSU Master's Theses. 3189. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3189 Perry, Bruce D. 2013.Bonding and Attachment in Maltreated Children: Consequences of Emotional Neglect in Childhood. Retrieved from https://childtrauma.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Bonding_13.pdf.

Avon Hart-Johnson

53

Reinert, Alex A. 2016. Reconceptualizing the Eighth Amendment: slaves, prisoners, and "cruel and unusual" punishment. North Carolina Law Review, 94(3), 817+. Retrieved from http://auth.waldenulibrary.org/ezpws.exe?url=http://go.galegroup.com. ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ps/i.do?p=LTandsw=wandu=minn4020andv=2 .1andit=randid=GALE%7CA449928346andsid=ebscoandasid=810feb 84187185c5d1d3d924e745cfdb Siennick, Sonja E. 2016. Parental incarceration and intergenerational transfers to young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 37(10), 1433-1457. doi:10.1177/0192513X14550366 Sloan, F. A., A. C. Platt, L. M. Chepke, and C. E. Blevins. 2016. "MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING." Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia of Trends and Controversies in the Justice System [2 volumes]:324. Tasca, Melinda, Philip Mulvey, and Nancy Rodriguez. 2016. Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters. Punishment and Society, 18(4), 459-478. Tate, Monique, Avon Hart-Johnson, Esparaza, C., Grier, C., Graham, H. Mosman, Z. and Rhyanes, L. 2015a. The Mass Incarceration Continuum: The Human Rights Issue of the 21st Century. (White Paper on Behalf of the International Prisoner Family Conference Advocacy in Action Coalition). Retrieved from www.prisonerfamilyconference.org Tate, Monique, Avon Hart-Johnson, C. Esparaza, C. Grier, H. Graham, Z. Mosman, and L. Rhyanes. 2015b. The Mass Incarceration Continuum: The Human Rights Issue of the 21st Century (white paper) Graphic. Version 2.0. November 10, 2016, International Prisoner Family Conference Advocacy in Action Coalition. Retrieved from www.prisonerfamilyconference.org Tate, Monique Y. 2016. Investigating how families experience school criminalization (Order No. 10146700). Available from Dissertations and Theses. Walden University; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (1812162279). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/181216227 9?accountid=14872 Telesur.tv. 2017. China releases human rights report on US: “Terrible Problems.” Retrieved from http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/China-Releases-Human-RightsReport-on-US-Terrible-Problems-20170309-0002.html UNICEF. "Convention on the Rights of the Child." Child Labor (1989): 8.

54

Advocacy for Children’s Rights: Physical Contact during Prison Visits

UNICEF. n.d.. Fact sheet: The Committee on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Committee_fact_sheet.pdf. United Nation Human Rights Office of the Commissioner. 1996- 2017. Committee on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRC/Pages/CRCIndex.aspx. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2005. Human Rights and prisons: A pocketbook of International Human Rights standards for prison officials. New York and Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from www.ohchr.org Valentine v. Englehardt, (D.N.J. 1979) 474 F. Supp. 294, 298 (D.N.J. 1979). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/valentine-v-englehardt-2 Helen Wildeman, Christopher. 2009. Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46(2), 265-280. Wright, Kevin A., Travis C. Pratt, Christopher T. Lowenkamp, and Edward J. Latessa. 2013. The systemic model of crime and institutional efficacy: An analysis of the social context of offender reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(1), 92-111.

PUNISHING THE INNOCENT: THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION ON DETAINEES’ FAMILIES MARTIN SCHÖNTEICH1

Introduction Excessive and arbitrary pretrial detention is a largely ignored form of human rights abuse that affects millions of people each year, causing and deepening poverty, stunting economic development, disrupting households, and spreading disease. The socio-economic impact of excessive pretrial detention is profound, affecting not just the individuals detained, but also their families. The impact is felt most keenly by the poor. Many pretrial detainees lose their jobs, are forced to abandon their education, and are evicted from their homes. They suffer physical and psychological damage that lasts long after their detention ends. Their families suffer from lost income and forfeited education opportunities, including a multi-generational effect in which the children of detainees experience reduced educational attainment and lower lifetime income. In exploring the socio-economic impact of pretrial detention on detainees’ families, this chapter first provides an overview of the global scope of pretrial detention and the general conditions of detention. It is followed by a summary of the literature on the debilitating consequences of incarceration for prisoners’ children, and of the socio-economic impact of pretrial detention on detainees and their families. The chapter then presents the results of three West African country-based surveys which detail the socio-economic impacts of pretrial detention on detainees’ families, including their children.

1

Senior Managing Legal Officer, Open Society Justice Initiative. Email: [email protected].

56

Punishing the Innocent

Extent of Pretrial Detention One out of three prisoners, or some three million people, are in pretrial detention worldwide (Walmsley 2017). Pretrial detainees are persons awaiting trial or the finalisation of their trial.2 In parts of the world, such as Central and West Africa, and South Asia, the majority of prisoners are pretrial detainees. In some countries - Bangladesh, India, Nigeria and Paraguay, for example - pretrial detainees comprise in excess of two-thirds of all prisoners. The roughly three million persons in pretrial detention today will collectively spend 640 million days in pretrial detention (OSJI 2014). Some will spend only a few days in detention, but many will languish weeks, months and even years before their trials are finalised or charges dismissed. Among Council of Europe countries, whose criminal justice systems are relatively well-resourced and efficient, the average length of pretrial detention is almost half a year (Aebi and Delgrande 2012). In Nigeria, the average duration of pretrial detention is reportedly almost four years (Nwapa 2008). That the present cohort of pretrial detainees will spend over half a billion days in pretrial detention starkly reveals the extent to which pretrial detention practices undermine human potential. Most pretrial detainees are productive members of society and generate an income at the time of their arrest, often providing material support to their families and households (OSJI 2011).

Conditions of Pretrial Detention Pretrial detainees are generally confined in worse conditions than convicted prisoners. Pretrial detention centres tend to be especially overcrowded. Prison administrators regard their main mandate as the custody and rehabilitation of convicted prisoners and see pretrial detainees as a group whose imprisonment is temporary and somewhat incidental to

2

Pretrial detention refers to accused persons who have been remanded to detention by a court and who are awaiting trial or the finalisation of their trial. The literature refers to pretrial detainees as variously ‘remand prisoners’, ‘remandees’, ‘awaiting trial detainees’, ‘untried prisoners’, ‘unconvicted prisoners’ and ‘unsentenced prisoners’. In some countries, notably those with a civil law tradition, detainees who have been convicted but not yet sentenced, or who have been sentenced but are awaiting the outcome of the appeal against their sentence, are also classified as pretrial detainees or remandees (Morgenstern 2009).

Martin Schönteich

57

their work. As a result, pretrial detainees are typically not provided with educational, vocational and related work opportunities. There are also instrumental reasons for the bad treatment and poor conditions afforded pretrial detainees. In some jurisdictions police and prosecutors seek to use the pretrial detention period as an opportunity to obtain confessions that will lead to a conviction. Many authorities condone deplorable pretrial detention conditions as these induce accused persons to plead guilty with the expectation of either receiving a non-custodial sentence or being sent to a prison for convicted prisoners where conditions are better. Enforced idleness, the fact that pretrial detainees are generally unable to engage in educational or vocational activities, the heightened risk of torture and abuse, and uncertainty about the outcome of their impending trials, all contribute to a high incidence of mental health problems among pretrial detainees. According to the World Health Organisation, suicide rates among pretrial detainees are some three times higher than those of convicted prisoners (WHO 2000). Prisons serve as vectors in the spread of communicable diseases and aggravate existing health problems, producing broader public health consequences as released prisoners spread disease to the general population. As inadequate as health services may be for convicted prisoners, health services are frequently even more lacking in remand facilities. There can be a reluctance to start treatment for infectious diseases that requires a sustained period of therapy. Officials are often less concerned about ensuring continuity of care and support for people in pretrial detention, whose custody is seen as temporary, even if “temporary” turns out to be of long duration.

Incarceration and Its Effect on Prisoners’ Children This chapter focuses on the socio-economic consequences of pretrial detention for detainees’ children. However, to fully understand the overall impact of pretrial detention on such children, “the totality of a [detainee’s] family’s experiences involving a multiplicity of interrelated social, cultural, and familial factors” need to be considered (Wright and Seymour 2002, p. 9). For example, studies have shown that the incarceration of “caregivers” (typically parents) is associated with a variety of debilitating consequences for the children concerned. These include trauma symptoms (Arditti and Savla 2015); anxiety, depression and decreased school attendance

58

Punishing the Innocent

(Rosenberg 2009); physical health issues (Gjelsvik et al. 2014; Turney 2014); mental health problems (Robertson 2012); and anti-social conduct (Murray, Farrington and Sekol 2012). To the extent that parenting affects the sexual behaviours of teenagers, juveniles with a parent who is absent as a result of being incarcerated are more at risk of behaviours that result in a sexually transmitted infection and/or pregnancy (Thomas and Torrone 2006). Children also experience “ostracism, disapproval and scorn” because of their relationship with an incarcerated parent, resulting in social stigmatisation (Robertson 2007, p. 11). Moreover, empirical studies suggest that children of incarcerated parents are at higher risk of engaging in criminal conduct later in life (Herman-Stahl, Kan and McKay 2008; Wildeman and Andersen 2017). Most of the literature on the impact of incarceration on prisoners’ children is in respect of convicted and sentenced prisoners. The question therefore arises whether children of pretrial detainees suffer similar negative consequences as children of convicted prisoners. As described above, periods of pretrial detention can be long. Conditions of pretrial detention are as bad, if not worse, when compared to conditions of prisons for sentenced prisoners. Robertson (2012, p. 12) points out: “Children with parents in pre-trial detention face many of the same problems as children of convicted offenders, but also some additional restrictions. There may be limits on contact if children will be involved in the trial (for example as witnesses), or if those who could accompany them to prison are barred from contact. In some jurisdictions, pre-trial detainees are classified as maximum security by default, meaning family visits are prevented or forced to take place under maximum security restrictions.”

The pretrial period also entails a greater level of uncertainty for detainees’ children compared to the post-conviction phase. Persons in pretrial detention do not know whether they will be convicted and, if convicted, whether they will receive a custodial sentence (and, if imprisoned, for what length of time). This uncertainty is likely to be stressful for detainees and their dependants alike. The pretrial detention period can also be particularly onerous for detainees’ households from a financial perspective. While awaiting trial, detainees’ families often incur considerable legal expenses. Moreover, corruption tends to flourish in the pretrial phase because it receives less scrutiny and is subject to more discretion than subsequent stages of the justice process, and often involves the lower paid and most junior actors in the system. As a result, detainees’ families are often burdened by bribery-related expenses.

Martin Schönteich

59

Socio-Economic Impact of Pretrial Detention Pretrial detention disproportionately affects individuals and families living in poverty: they are more likely to come into conflict with the criminal justice system, more likely to be detained awaiting trial, and less able to make bail or pay bribes for their release. For individuals, the excessive use of pretrial detention means lost income and reduced employment opportunities; for their families, it means economic hardship and reduced educational outcomes; and for the state, it means increased costs, reduced revenue, and fewer resources for social service programmes. Pretrial detention consequently undermines socio-economic development, and is especially harmful to the poor (OSJI 2011). Persons detained awaiting trial cannot work or earn an income and frequently lose their jobs. Those who are self-employed – common to people working in much of the developing world – are at risk of bankruptcy, losing their goods through theft, missing sowing or harvesting season, or foregoing their trading space at the local market. Moreover, pretrial detainees are not only at risk of losing their employment at the time of detention, but also risk long-term unemployment or underemployment after release. The stigma of detention, combined with lost education or training opportunities, severely limits detainees’ lifetime earnings. For every pretrial detainee who loses his job as a result of detention, there is a family paying the price. In some cases, his spouse - and even his children - must find work to make up for the lost income. In addition to lost income, detainees’ families must wrestle with legal fees and other expenses. When an income-earner is detained, family members must adjust not only to the loss of that income but also to costs of supporting that family member in detention, including travel to visit the detainee, food and personal items for the detainee, and, often, low-level bribes to guards. The impact is especially severe in poor, developing countries where the state does not provide reliable financial assistance to the indigent and where it is not unusual for one breadwinner to financially support an extended family network. The education of children is often disrupted when a parent is detained. These children have to take on new roles, including providing domestic, emotional, or financial support for other family members. Such children “may have to move to a new area, a new home or a new school” (Robertson 2007, p. 7). A review of the literature on children whose

60

Punishing the Innocent

mothers are detained found that those “children’s lives are greatly disrupted… resulting in heightened rates of school failure and eventual criminal activity” (Myers, et al. 1999, p. 11). A study of the children of imprisoned mothers found an “increased likelihood of their becoming ‘NEET’ (Not in Education, Employment or Training)” (NEF 2008, p. 4). Particularly in developing countries, children are commonly forced out of school and into work, to replace the lost income of detained adults.

Evidence from West Africa Lengthy periods of confinement, and the physical and mental harm suffered by pretrial detainees undermines their and their families’ longterm wellbeing. To explore these and other socio-economic consequences of pretrial detention, this section reviews the results of a three-country study in West Africa, analysing the socio-economic impact of pretrial detention for detainees and their households, with a particular focus on detainees’ dependent children. The study was conducted by a consortium of non-governmental organisations which surveyed a sample of pretrial detainees in Ghana (OSF 2013a), Guinea-Conakry (OSF 2013b), and Sierra Leone (OSF 2013c). In each country, detainees were selected from the main detention centre in the capital city and one or two detention facilities in more outlying areas to ensure geographical diversity among the respondents. Overall, some 100-150 detainees per country were chosen at random and interviewed.

Detainees’ pre-arrest economic activity In all three country studies, the respondents were usually breadwinners in the prime of their working lives. Many – or most – were married, with dependant minor children and spouses (and sometimes aged parents) living in their households at the time of their arrest. x In Ghana, over a third (38%) of respondents were married. They were typically in their late 20s with some school education. At the time of arrest, 94% indicated they were economically active and income earning. x In Guinea, pretrial detainees were typically breadwinners and married men (66% said they were married) in their late 30s. Of the pretrial detainees surveyed, 96% stated they were economically active at the time of their arrest.

Martin Schönteich

61

x In Sierra Leone, 58% of respondents were married. Virtually all (94%) were economically active in some way at the time of their arrest.

Detainees’ dependants Respondents were generally living with their families at the time of their arrest. Many had dependant minor children, spouses and aged parents who relied on the respondents’ income for their wellbeing. x In Ghana, just over half of the respondents said they had children, with the average number of children per detainee being 2.7. Detainees had additional dependants (parents, siblings) with the average number being 4.8. The average total number of dependants per detainee was 7.9. x In Guinea, 81% of respondents said they had children, with most being young and dependant. 63% of the respondents’ children were under the age of 16, and just over a quarter (26%) under the age of five. A third of detainees had one or more dependant spouse living with them, and 41% had one or more dependant parent living with them. 54% said they had other dependent children living with them. In total, the average number of dependants living in a respondent’s house was 7.4 at the time of arrest. x In Sierra Leone, 80% of respondents had children (an average of 2.7 children per respondent with children), of which 56% were 10 years of age or younger and almost three-quarters (74%) younger than 16. Some 42% of respondents had one or more dependant spouse(s) reliant on them, and almost a quarter (23%) had one or more dependant parents reliant on them. The average total number of dependants per respondent was 4.2.

Economic impact on families The economic impact experienced by detainees’ families encompasses both expenses incurred as a result of the detention and loss of the financial support usually provided by detainees. Transport and the cost of bringing food to detainees were reported as common additional expenses incurred as a result of a detention. The loss of support and expenses incurred most typically led to detainees’ families having less food to eat or the families falling into debt.

62

Punishing the Innocent

x In Ghana, respondents felt that the most common expense incurred by their family was related to transport (80%), followed by food that the families brought to prison (71%). Some said their family spent money on clothing for the respondents (20%), money on legal advice (16%), and medical care (13%). The most common economic impact experienced by families, according to respondents, as a result of the expenses incurred in relation to the respondents’ detention were that the family had fallen into debt (44%). According to the respondents, some 1 in 9 families (11%) had to sell household goods to cover the costs associated with the respondents’ continued detention, had their children leave school, or said their family had less food. x In Guinea, the most commonly identified expense incurred by families in connection with a detention related to transport and the provision of food, with 65% of respondents reporting both as an expense incurred by their families. This was followed by expenses related to clothing (38%) and medical care (36%) for detainees. The most common economic impacts experienced by respondents’ families were that the family had less food (reported by 50% of respondents), had fallen into debt (37%), had to sell household goods (22%), the family had to move (17%), and the children had to give up school (11%). x In Sierra Leone, the most common economic impacts experienced by families as a result of the loss of support and expenses incurred in relation to the respondents’ detention were that the family had to sell basic household goods or had fallen into debt. Almost one in five detainees’ families (18%) had to sell household goods to cover the costs associated with the respondents’ continued detention. A further one in eight (12%) fell into debt. Some 6% of respondents reported their children had to give up school.

Social impact on families Respondents identified varying forms of social impact as a result of their detention. Social stigma and the separation of families was frequently cited. As many of the respondents were married men supporting a number of dependants, the immediate social (and economic) impacts were felt most keenly by women and children, who were often compelled to take on new roles, fend for the family, and provide assistance to the detained husband or father.

Martin Schönteich

63

x In Ghana, most detainees had been visited by their family during their detention (88%). All detainees identified some form of social impact on their families, mostly identifying multiple impacts. The most commonly identified impact was social stigma (41%). One in eight detainees said their detention led to their spouse leaving them; 10% reported their children’s behaviour suffered; and 7% stated their spouse had suffered sexual harassment because of their detention and absence. x In Guinea, almost two-thirds of respondents (62%) reported they had been visited by their family since their arrest. The most common impact identified by detainees was social stigma (66%), followed by impacts on the negative behaviour of children (58%), the separation of families (29%), and their spouse leaving them (22%). x In Sierra Leone, two-fifths of respondents said they had not had contact with their families since their arrest. Almost all respondents reported their family had suffered some form of social impact (98%), with nearly half (47%) saying their family suffered multiple impacts. The most common impact identified by detainees was social stigma (26%). For 5% of respondents, pretrial detention resulted in their spouse leaving them.

Detainees’ health Detainees’ health can affect the wellbeing of their families in three ways. First, detainees’ families are likely to suffer additional financial burdens providing detainees with medication. Second, in the case of communicable diseases, such detainees may infect their families – either during prison visits or after their release. Third, if the illness is chronic it may affect detainees’ wellbeing and productivity long after their release, with longterm financial implications for their families. The effect of the latter two points on poor households can be devastating and may impoverish households even further as they are reliant on the good health and labour of each of its members. x In Ghana, one-in-five of all respondents said they were ill at the time of their arrest, while 80% said they fell ill after their arrest. The most common identified illness was skin disease (37%), followed by malaria (20%), diarrhoea (11%), malnutrition (3%), and tuberculosis (3%). Only half of respondents said they received medical attention whilst in detention.

64

Punishing the Innocent

x In Guinea, 92% of respondents said they fell ill after their arrest. Many suffered from multiple conditions: 57% suffered malnutrition, 53% malaria, 52% diarrhoea, 41% skin disease, and 4% tuberculosis. 39% suffered other / unknown diseases. Nearly one-third of those who fell ill after arrest received no medical attention. x In Sierra Leone, some 40% of respondents said they were ill at the time of their arrest. Almost four-fifths (88%) of these respondents claimed to have fallen ill again while in detention. Some 80% of respondents not ill on arrest, subsequently fell ill. Among all detainees falling ill after arrest, 36% suffered malaria, 13% skin disease, 9% malnutrition, 9% diarrhoea, and 33% suffered other / unknown diseases (some suffered more than one condition). Although 80% of detainees fell ill in detention after their arrest, only 60% said they received any kind of medical attention. Table 1 provides a summary and comparison of impacts on families of pretrial detention by country. Table 1: Comparative summary of economic, social, and health consequences of pretrial detention % respondents reporting:

Ghana

Guinea

Economically active at time of arrest Family sold household goods Family fell into debt Children taken out of school Family had less food Social stigma Negative behaviour of children Spouse left them Fell ill after their arrest

94%

96%

Sierra Leone 94%

11% 44% 11% 11% 41% 10% 12% 75%

22% 37% 11% 50% 66% 58% 22% 92%

18% 12% 6% 5% 26% 3% 5% 80%

Duration of detention It is fair to assume that, on balance, the longer the duration of confinement, the greater the socio-economic impact thereof on detainees and their families. Every day in pretrial detention is a day’s worth of income foregone, or an additional day on which a detainee’s family has to provide

Martin Schönteich

65

the detainee with food and other necessities of life. The surveys found that many respondents spent weeks and even months in detention - long enough for a business to close, croplands to fall fallow, and families to break apart. Respondents were asked how long they had been detained. The time in pretrial detention was calculated from the date of arrest to the time when the respondents were interviewed. The average duration of pretrial detention ranged from 14 months (Ghana) to a bit over two years (Guinea), while the median duration ranged between eight and 14 months. In Ghana, the respondent who had been in pretrial detention the longest had been in confinement for seven years. In Sierra Leone, the maximum was nine years and three months, and in Guinea 14 years.

Conclusion Pretrial detention has real and measurable socio-economic consequences. That impact is most profound and harmful for the poor. The aforementioned research findings indicate that pretrial detention disrupts the lives and wellbeing of detainees and their families. In particular, it reduces the income of detainees, pushes their families toward poverty, and damages the education and income potential of their children. Moreover, pretrial detention negatively affects the social wellbeing of pretrial detainees’ families, including young children, and places a strong burden on women who predominantly have to face, and adapt to, the multiple socio-economic consequences. Throughout the world, hundreds of thousands of people are effectively punished before they are tried. Legally entitled to be considered innocent and released pending trial, they are instead consigned to pretrial detention, where they are subjected to torture, exposed to disease, victimised by violence, and pressured to pay bribes. As this chapter has sought to demonstrate, many detainees’ families are also punished by incurring significant reductions in their socio-economic welfare, with particular debilitating consequences for detainees’ dependent children.

66

Punishing the Innocent

References Aebi, Marcelo F. and Natalia Delgrande. 2012. Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE I), Survey 2010. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Arditti, Joyce A. and Jyoti Savla. 2015. Parental incarceration and child trauma symptoms in single caregiver homes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(3), 551-561. Browne, Deborah C. 2007. Research on Prisoners’ Families – Building an Evidence Base for Best Policy and Practice (Addendum). London: Action for Prisoners’ Families. Bukstel, Lee H. and Peter R. Kilmann. 1980. Psychological effects of imprisonment on confined individuals. Psychological Bulletin, 88(2), 469-493. Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin and Francis T. Cullen. 1999. The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada. Gjelsvik, Annie, Dora M. Dumont, Amy Nunn and David L. Rosen. 2014. Adverse childhood events: Incarceration of household members and health-related quality of life in adulthood. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 25(3), 1169-1182. Herman-Stahl, Mindy, Marni L. Kan and Tasseli McKay. 2008. Incarceration and the Family: A Review of Research and Promising Approaches for Serving Fathers and Families. Washington, DC: RTI International. Huebner, Beth M. and Regan Gustafson. 2007. The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(3), 283-296. Jaman, Dorothy R., Robert M. Dickover, and Lawrence A Bennett. 1972. Parole outcome as a function of time served. British Journal of Criminology, 12(1), 5-34. Morgenstern, Christine. 2009. Pre-trial / remand detention in Europe: Facts and figures and the need for common minimum standards. ERA Forum, 9(4), 527-542. Murray, Joseph, David P. Farrington and Ivana Sekol. 2012. Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 175-210. Myers, Barbara J., Tina M. Smarsh, Kristine Amlund-Hagen and Suzanne Kennon. 1999. Children of Incarcerated Mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8(1), 11-25. NEF. 2008. Unlocking value: How we all benefit from investing in alternatives to prison for women offenders. London: New Economics Foundation.

Martin Schönteich

67

Nwapa, Anthony. 2008. Building and Sustaining Change: Pretrial Detention Reform in Nigeria. In: (No editor.) Justice Initiatives: Pretrial Detention. New York, NY: Open Society Institute. OSF. 2013a. The Socioeconomic Impact of Pre-trial detention in Ghana. New York, NY: Open Society Foundations. —. 2013b. The Socioeconomic Impact of Pre-trial detention in GuineaConakry. New York, NY: Open Society Foundations. —. 2013c. The Socioeconomic Impact of Pre-trial detention in Sierra Leone. New York, NY: Open Society Foundations. OSJI. 2011. The Socioeconomic Impact of Pretrial Detention. New York, NY: Open Society Justice Initiative. —. 2014. The Presumption of Guilt: The Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention. New York, NY: Open Society Justice Initiative. Reyes, Hernán. 2007. Pitfalls of TB management in prisons, revisited. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 3(1), 43-67. Robertson, Oliver. 2007. The impact of parental imprisonment on children. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office. —. 2012. Collateral Convicts: Children of incarcerated parents. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office. Rosenberg, Jennifer. 2009. Children Need Dads Too: Children with Fathers in Prison. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office. Thomas, James C. and Elizabeth Torrone. 2006. Incarceration as Forced Migration: Effects on Selected Community Health Outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 96(10), 1762-1765. Turney, Kristin. 2014. Stress proliferation across generations? Examining the relationship between parental incarceration and childhood health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(3), 302-319. Walmsley, Roy. 2017. World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List (third edition). London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, University of London. WHO. 2000. Preventing Suicide. A Resource for Prison Officers. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Wildeman, Christopher and Signe Hald Andersen. 2017. Paternal incarceration and children’s risk of being charged by early adulthood: Evidence from a Danish policy shock. Criminology (55)1, 32-58. Wright, Lois E. and Cynthia B. Seymour. 2002. Effects of Parental Incarceration and Children and Families. In: Trzcinsky, Eileen, Deborah Satyanathan and Lynda Ferro (eds.). What about Me? Children with Incarcerated Parents. Michigan Family Impact Seminars. Briefing Report 2001-1.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN THE LAND OF ALOHA: THE IMPACTS OF INCARCERATION ON CHILDREN, FAMILIES,AND OUR COMMUNITIES KAT BRADY

The impact of incarceration on children, families and the larger communities in the Hawaiian Islands has been devastating. It has been especially disturbing in the Kanaka Maoli community, the most overrepresented group in our "justice" system. Native Hawaiians (Kanaka Maoli) are also the largest group who are often banished to a corporate prison, thousands of miles from their loved ones, their homes and their ancestral lands. In 1998, the United States (US) Department of Justice held a series of hearings in Hawai`i (and several other US jurisdictions): they reported that they had not seen the degree of inter-generational incarceration that was so starkly evident in Hawai`i, anywhere else. A Kanaka Maoli researcher, Dr. RaeDeen Keahiolalo, relates a story of how she changed her dissertation topic after a student in one of her classes spoke about being incarcerated. He said that during head count when names are called, it took 15 minutes to go through the letter “K”, as many Hawaiian names start with “K”. She was stunned at this and even more so when she discovered the paucity of research available on Kanaka Maoli incarceration. As the shameful history of the incarceration of people of colour in the US reveals, removing the breadwinner from families is a political strategy for social control. The recent film “13th” directed by Ava DuVernay clearly outlines the link from slavery to mass incarceration (DuVernay 2016). Hawai`i went along with this “tough on crime” trend that was sweeping across the continental United States in the 1990s. Today we see the results of these policies. Since 2011, public safety has become the 4th leg of the Hawai`i economy, even though the crime rate is the lowest in decades.

Kat Brady

69

Now we want to build big new prisons to house mostly nonviolent people who suffer from a variety of social challenges. The Vera Institute of Justice wrote, “The misuse of jails in America is helping to drive mass incarceration and is part of a system that is neither economically sustainable nor beneficial to public safety, community well-being, and individual rehabilitation. Nearly 75 percent of both pretrial detainees and sentenced offenders are in jail for nonviolent traffic, property, drug, or public order offenses. Underlying the behavior that lands people in jail, there is often a history of substance abuse, mental illness, poverty, failure in school, and homelessness.” (Subremanian et al. 2015).

Who is Caught in the Ever-Widening Criminal Justice Web in Hawai`i? A 2010 report by Thompson, “The Disparate Treatment of Native Hawaiians in the Criminal Justice System”, highlights some of the issues regarding the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on Native Hawaiians that accumulates at each stage. Given a determination of guilt: x Native Hawaiians are more likely to get a prison sentence than all other groups. x Native Hawaiians receive longer prison sentences than most other racial or ethnic groups. x Native Hawaiians are sentenced to longer probation terms than most other racial or ethnic groups. x Native Hawaiians make up the highest percentage of people incarcerated in out-of-state facilities. x Native Hawaiians do not use drugs at drastically different rates from other races or ethnicities, but go to prison for drug offenses more often than people of other races or ethnicities. Statistics presented to the House and Senate Public Safety Committees by Hawai`i Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilson, Chair of the House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 85 Task Force on February 1, 2017 (Wilson 2017): x Between 1977 and 2016, Hawai`i’s prison population increased 1,385%, from 397 prisoners in 1977 to 5,800 prisoners today.

70

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

x During the same time, the general population increased just 52%. x Between 1977 and 2016, Hawai’i’s incarceration rate increased 841%, from 43 prisoners per 100,000 population in 1977 to 405 prisoners per 100,000 population in 2016. x If Hawai`i was counted as a country, it would be among the top 20 incarcerators in the world. x Seventy four percent of all people imprisoned by Hawai`i are Class C felons (the lowest felony class, primarily for drugs or druginvolved crimes), misdemeanants (including petty misdemeanants), or parole and probation violators (Dept. of Public Safety 2016). x Six hundred and seventy-three men and women imprisoned in Hawai`i are over 50 years of age (50 is considered elderly and many people enter prison in poor health). x Hawai`i’s prison suicide rate is the 7th highest in the nation (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2016). x Hawai`i’s recidivism rate is 50% overall, 47.1% for parole violators and 61.9% for people who ‘max out’ or spend their entire sentence inside a prison or jail with no term of community supervision or parole after release. Of the 47.1 % of parolees who recidivate, 60% reoffend within the first 12 months after release and more than 85% reoffend within 24 months after release. x Hawai`i is one of only seven states that houses more than 20% of its prison population in corporate prisons. Forty six percent of Hawai‫ޘ‬i’s male prison population, (1,384) are serving their sentences in a corporate prison in Arizona. x Hawai`i has 28,000 people under some form of correctional control.

Severing the Ties That Bind The impact of incarceration is never about one person being imprisoned it is about the families, the children, and the communities - the entire social fabric - that has been ripped apart by harmful policies that have, in some cases, proven to be worse than the problems these policies were attempting to resolve. This includes policies such as the war on drugs, policies that are using prisons and jails as mental health and substance treatment centres, and policies that create jails and prisons as shelters and housing for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Incarceration has continually frayed the social fabric of Hawai`i, most notably in the Kanaka Maoli community. That people are houseless in

Kat Brady

71

their homeland is a national shame. The Hawai‫ޘ‬i government’s treatment of our houseless individuals and families has been broadcast outside our borders. This is an embarrassment, especially for a place known for our hospitality (ho`okipa) and aloha. We cannot continue this inhumane and unsustainable path, yet there appears to be little political will to take the next necessary and bold steps to reform our broken correctional system (Lyons 2011). An example: Several years ago, we received a call from a gentleman from another island whose wife was incarcerated. He told me that she was a great wife and mother to their two daughters and had never been in trouble; in fact, she had never even gotten a parking ticket, he said. He paused and then he related the story that brought her to prison: She was injured at work and was on pain medication during her recovery. She became addicted to the medicine and when the prescription could not be refilled, she used illegal drugs to relieve her pain. She was arrested and imprisoned for a drug offence on their home island where the `ohana (family) could visit her. After a while, she was transferred to O`ahu and the family could not visit her every week. The older daughter, who was very close to her mother, started having problems at school, her grades were slipping and she was getting into fights - something that never happened before. Dad was working hard to keep the family together and to bring some normalcy to their lives and this abnormal situation. When he asked his daughter, what was going on and why she was fighting at school, she replied, “I miss Mom. I want Mom to come home.” He arranged for the family to fly to O`ahu to visit Mom. During the visit, he asked his wife, “Do you love me?” She replied, “Don’t ask me that.” He was devastated. He and the girls flew home. That’s when he called us to ask why his loving wife would say that. He needed someone to talk to so he could understand and try to make sense of what was happening to her, to them, to their marriage, to their family. This is just an example of what we do to na `ohana (families) in Hawai`i. We imprison so many people who could be better served in communitybased programmes. If we focused instead on developing a robust array of programmes appropriate for each community, we would see recidivism rates drop and we would see more people engaged in our communities and economy.

72

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

Currently, there is close to zero support for families from the correctional administration. In fact, the families and loved ones have told us that they are often treated like criminals themselves by staff at the department and the correctional facilities (Wildeman and Western 2010).

Making Meaningful Visitation Virtually Impossible At visitation, loved ones are allowed a short 30-second hug and there is no touching allowed during the visit. As if that were not enough to break the incarcerated person’s connection to their loved ones, the Department of Public Safety has now instituted non-contact visits at Halawa Prison, following that with 5 non-contact visitation kiosks at O`ahu‫ދ‬s jail (O`ahu Community Correctional Centre) for a population of over 1100 imprisoned individuals (more than half are pre-trial detainees, some of whom could not make $50 bail) (Brown 2016). We have been told that it is almost impossible to hear through the thick glass.

Disconnecting Striped Uniforms. Incarcerated persons at Halawa Correctional Facility, Hawai`i’s prison that houses medium and maximum custody individuals, are now wearing striped uniforms - a throwback to ‘the bad old days’. The striped uniforms worn by our people at Halawa were designed in the 19th century and intended to serve as a badge of shame to humiliate the detainees who wore them. One of the biggest proponents of striped uniforms – besides the State of Hawai`i - is the former Arizona Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, who also made his male prisoners wear pink underwear (Arpaio and Sherman 2008). Hawai`i’s use of striped uniforms clearly violates the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955 and approved by the Economic and Social Council of the UN by resolutions adopted in 1977. Rule 17 (2) states: Every prisoner who is not allowed to wear his own clothing shall be provided with an outfit of clothing suitable for the climate and adequate to him in good health. Such clothing shall in no manner be degrading or humiliating.

Community Alliance on Prisons only discovered this change when we were at the women’s prison and saw some women wearing dark green

Kat Brady

73

Halawa uniforms. This change was instituted because the former director said that it was difficult to tell the medical staff from the imprisoned persons. The Prison Rules of the European Union (1977) also prohibit uniforms like those used in Hawai`i: 20.1 Prisoners who do not have adequate clothing of their own shall be provided with clothing suitable for the climate. 20.2 Such clothing shall not be degrading or humiliating. Commentary on Rule 20 relevant to Hawai`i: This rule places a new emphasis on prisoners’ dignity in respect of the clothing that must be provided. As it applies to all prisoners, it means that any uniforms that may be provided to sentenced prisoners should not be degrading and humiliating: uniforms that tend towards the caricature of the “convict” are therefore prohibited. Protection of prisoners’ dignity also underlies the requirement that prisoners who go outside the prison should not wear clothes that identify them as prisoners.

Non-Contact visits. As already outlined, Hawai`i instituted non-contact visits at Halawa Prison. I recently spoke with a person who visited someone at this prison and was told that even with an ear right up to the glass, it was difficult to hear each other. The European Prison Rules (1977) are humane as they understand the importance of connections: 24.1 Prisoners shall be allowed to communicate as often as possible by letter, telephone or other forms of communication with their families, other persons and representatives of outside organisations and to receive visits from these persons. Commentary on Rule 24 relevant to Hawai`i: Loss of liberty should not entail loss of contact with the outside world. On the contrary, all prisoners are entitled to some such contact and prison authorities should strive to create the circumstances to allow them to maintain it as best as possible.

It is poignant to imagine the effect on the keiki (children) who visit their Dads with no touching permitted; moreover, they are unable to hear through the thick glass separating them, and the unforgettable image imprinted on children’s’ minds, of seeing their fathers in these striped and demeaning “uniforms”.

74

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

Losing Custody: Adoption and Safe Families Act Another devastating impact was the passing of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, Public Law 105-89), signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1997 after it was approved by the United States Congress earlier in the month (Seelye 1997). The ASFA was enacted in an attempt to correct problems that were inherent in the foster care system that deterred the adoption of children with special needs. Many of these problems had stemmed from an earlier bill, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, which had not been anticipated when that law was passed. States decided to interpret that law as requiring biological families be kept together regardless. The biggest change to the law was how ASFA amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act regarding funding. Moreover, ASFA marked a fundamental change to child welfare thinking, shifting the emphasis on children's health and safety concerns and away from a policy of reuniting children with their birth parents without regard to prior abuse. As such, ASFA was considered the most sweeping change to the U.S. adoption and foster care system in two decades. One of ASFA's lead sponsors, Republican Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, said, "We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first. ... It's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together” (Seelye 1997). In greeting the final measure, Bill Clinton stated that the bill "makes clear that children's health and safety are the paramount concerns" (Seelye 1997). The law required that individual states are compliance with this Act in order to continue receiving federal funds for child welfare (Hort 2000). Thus, each state had to pass legislation compatible with ASFA; in practice, those legislative actions varied widely (Hort 2000). Consequently, some States have relied on the three exceptions in the law that stress reunification, while other states have stressed adoption. Major provisions of the Act require that States move to terminate parental rights for children who have been in Foster Care for 15 out of the last 22 months. Exceptions to the 15/22 rule include: x When the child is in a Foster Home with a biological relative (Kinship Care)

Kat Brady

75

x When the Agency documents a compelling reason why parental termination is not in the Child's best interest x When the State has failed to provide services necessary for reunification The impact of this law on incarcerated women in Hawai`i is huge because most of our incarcerated women are mothers, the primary caregivers of their children, and their average sentences are approximately 26 months outside the 22-month window. Therefore, many women have and are losing custody of their children. An example of the impact of ASFA and the host of other problems it causes is illustrated by the plight of a woman who lost custody of her daughter while she was incarcerated herself. Now her daughter is incarcerated and her birth mother has lost all rights to visit her because she is no longer considered “family” as her rights were terminated while she was battling her own demons.

Policies Designed to Break Connections Breaking Family Connections In 1998, representatives of the Department of Justice visited 8 jurisdictions, including Hawai`i, to the discuss crystal methamphetamine “crisis”. They held public hearings on many islands and were shocked to find the massive intergenerational incarceration they saw in Hawai`i. There are so many island families working on “both sides of the bars”. One person said that he has known entire Hawaiian families as he served time with a grandfather, father, and now grandson. Many families are serving time together - mothers and daughters in the women’s prison on O`ahu and sisters, cousins and aunties who are not permitted to greet each other in the “yard”. Michelle Alexander (2011) said it best. “As a society, our decision to heap shame and contempt upon those who struggle and fail in a system designed to keep them locked up and locked out says far more about ourselves than it does about them”.

76

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

Breaking Cultural Connections Currently people are asking: Are prisons Hawaiian institutions? Our reply is that they are indeed institutions that lock up a lot of Hawaiians, however, that does not make prisons Hawaiian institutions; it actually makes them a national shame since Hawaiians are no more likely to commit crime than any other group, yet they are disproportionately represented in the system (Walker, Spohn, and DeLone 2012). In the research (to be published) of Carrie Ann Shirota, and Marilyn Brown, they interviewed `ohana with Incarcerated Loved Ones (ILOs) transferred outside of Hawai`i. They found that the impacts on children, families and communities continues to cause great harm in our communities. The Department of Public Safety reported that 46% of the Hawai`i’s male prison population were incarcerated in a corporate prison (Saguaro) in Arizona (Department of Public Safety 2017). Shirota and Brown (forthcoming) explain that, considering that Kanaka Maoli Hawaiians are disproportionately incarcerated at nearly twice their proportion in the population, Hawai’i’s mass incarceration is strongly racialized. Whites are incarcerated in the State at roughly 412 per 100,000 population while Kanaka Maoli Hawaiians are incarcerated at three times this number (Prison Policy Institute). The population of Saguaro Prison, where Hawai’i’s detainees are now housed, is estimated to be 49% Kanaka Maoli Hawaiian. The control of Kanaka Maoli bodies like the control of Kanaka Maoli lands, may find its most tragic dimension in the incarceration of the `aina’s (land, earth) indigenous people. The concentration of hyper incarceration means that family members may have more than one loved one in prison and several people interviewed for this study had multiple generations of family members locked up.

How the “Transfer”/Banishment Process Impacts Families Impact on the Transferred Individual The transfer/banishment of Hawai`i’s people to continental prisons has also historically been traumatic. People are rarely permitted to say goodbye to their families and in some cases, were forcibly removed by SWAT teams (Thompson 2011). Accounts by officials, family members and incarcerated themselves reveal the effects of “transfers”:

Kat Brady

77

I remember the first time they were moving the inmates to the mainland. They had a SWAT team and they came in and went to the dorms and told the women, “You gotta get your stuff together now and you gotta get out like it or not.” There was one woman who didn’t want to leave; she didn’t want to leave her family. She cried like a child; And there was another who didn’t want to leave and acted out. They ended up tying her to a stick to remove her. It was unbelievable…very traumatic… very traumatic”, one correctional official said (Thompson 2011).

Family members also report changes in their loved ones after the transfer: x x

x x

Some ILOs become emotionally remote, one mother reporting that her son had become “edgy and hard - disillusioned.” One respondent says that their conversations are deeper and less troubled by his legal issues and worries over sentencing, etc. A mother reports that she and her son have grown closer and he appreciates her doing what she does. Behind bars many miles away, young men grow up physically and emotionally. One mother comments on the developing maturity of her son. One young woman says their relationship has actually improved. Not only is he in the “Faith Pod” but the constant barrage of legal issues has now been resolved and their relationship can focus on what is happening now and on his eventual return home.

Brown and Shirota also report that several people brought up issues including: x Grief about not being able to really see or touch their relative because of the transfer. x Families find out after the fact about the transfer, generally from the ILO who calls from the prison. “You know the worse thing about it, you no can let your family know you going!” (Former Pa‘ahao, Käne/ Male prisoner) (Thompson 2011). x Transfer comes as a shock: One woman reported that she went to visit on a Saturday and her son was not there. “But I just saw him last week, what are you talking about?” She was told that they couldn’t tell her where he was. “We can’t tell you, you need to wait until he calls you.” “I came home crying.” The Department of Public Safety would not tell her anything, so she started calling prisons everywhere. “Over a week of no sleep. I am crying. They cannot call me for 8 weeks. I am crying. I am looking for my son.”

78

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

Finally, the warden in Oklahoma helped her and found her son. He was there. “The warden helped me. I didn’t know where he was at. So, he had me wait and went to find my son. He asked my son for his name. Then the warden told me… ‘you mean to tell me that nobody told you. You didn’t get a letter? No one told you that your son was coming here?” Then the warden told her that it was against the law to do that. They should have contacted her after the plane had left. Then the warden told her that if she ever needed anything, to call him. Warden said, “You are a mother, you should know where your child is.” x Worry and strain create health problems for the family member, changing their habits and orientation to life. “At first, I was like shocked!” “It was the most horrible, horrifying experience.” She found out that her son sat shackled on the plane for hours and she was very angry with the way he was treated. Her son was not afraid because it was so bad at Halawa. It was the worse trip he had ever taken. “Afraid, no. The treatment was just bad and upsetting.”

How Families Cope Families also talked about they coped with the effect that a transfer can have: x Families and friends help the person cope with the transfer. x Friendships occasionally emerge out of the transfer experience. x Some cope knowing that their ILO has left behind the terrible conditions of Hawai’i prisons. x Phone calls are, as someone said, “a lifeline.” x Videoconferencing: Families who have taken advantage of videoconferencing generally have high praise for the Churches and others who coordinate these visits. Sometimes visits are delayed or cancelled due to lockdowns of the mainland prison. Occasionally, there are technical problems as well. The visits are only 15 minutes long because the demand is great and they are not private on the ILOs end, although they are on the Hawai’i end. Furthermore, Neighbour Island families generally only get an opportunity to videoconference every two to three months. x Letters: Most families write. One notes that “Every week, I mail him stuff, mostly pictures, a lot of pictures because time is going by so fast with my little one. So, we do mail to each other.”

Kat Brady

79

x Visiting: Only a few family members report visiting an out-of-state facility or attempting to do so. Visiting conditions in Arizona vary from Hawai’i: In AZ, the visits are much longer and more meaningful than they are at Halawa. “She can spend the whole day with her son. It is more comfortable, they can sit and talk longer. The guards are usually respectful” (Brown and Shirota forthcoming). The Impact of Incarceration on Island Families Financial impacts The financial impact that incarceration can have on families can be costly as they often need to support their incarcerated family member. Some aspects mentioned include: x Monthly support: Sending $150 to $200 a month is not unusual. Relatives find over time that they sometimes had to cut back in their financial support. x Cost of phone calls: One respondent reported that $50 can buy her ten 20-minute phone calls, if the incarcerated person makes the purchase. If she purchases it directly, the $50 will only buy 7 phone calls. The first five months, she spent over $400 a month, they had to reduce the amount spent after that. x Sometimes relatives send more to get their ILO out of a jam: One wife says: “His Mom did send him $100 dollars, and his brother sent another $100 dollars last month when they thought he was going to get killed”. Emotional effects Relationships: Families are split in their attitudes toward the ILO; counselling is needed for them to deal with their anger, even if reunification is not in the cards. “I think maybe the kids might need some kind of counselling or someone to talk to. [hesitates]. You know, it hard for me to say, someone to talk to. Because I don’t think they have anybody”. x Lack of support services: One respondent notes that when her husband was at Halawa, they had support services for families. x Confusion or poor communication with families: Families often lack important information on how things work within the x

80

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the new prison whose rules are often different from the previous facility. Some fault DPS for not giving families more information on things like videoconferencing and visits.

What Can We Do to Reduce Correctional Costs, and the Rate of Recidivism, while Supporting Families? A number of strategies can be: x Stop using incarceration as a way to hide social challenges. x Change your language and stop the stigma o Change your language from prisoner, convict, ex con, etc. to incarcerated person or formerly incarcerated person. Labels hurt. x Increase and/or establish a diverse array of programs in communities most impacted by incarceration. o Appropriately address the needs of the people (employment and educational opportunities, substance misuse treatment, parenting, anger management, other social services and programs). x Eliminate the barriers that prevent access to needed services o Financial – consider the investment in people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder as an investment in social capital that will pay dividends in the future. o Too many forms, too many agencies: Create a one-stop shop for a person exiting incarceration so that life can start immediately. Lack of identification is the largest barrier to reintegration. Hawai`i is the only state with no Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Social Security Administration. A social security card is a foundational document for identification in the U.S. o Clear past nonviolent violations (traffic, minor drug, parking, drinking in public, etc.) Fund programs like the Community Court Outreach Program (in 2 sessions with 7 individuals, over 100 violations were cleared). o Support the LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) program. This programme is modelled on a successful Seattle programme and built by the Hawai`i LEAD Hui, a coalition of community partners to address wrongdoing by working with police to assist those individuals struggling with social challenges.

Kat Brady

81

x Eliminate and/or recalibrate bail o We know that more than 50% of O`ahu’s jailed population are pre-trial detainees. Most of these people are nonviolent lawbreakers who could not make bail (Department of Public Safety 2016). o Why are we using our correctional facilities to address (or to hide away) our social challenges? The evidence is clear that community-based strategies are more cost effective and humane for individuals with mental health and substance misuse challenges. o Imprisoning people for minor misdemeanours because they cannot make bail is unconscionable. Revise the system to eliminate non-serious offenses from the penal code. (Decriminalise small amounts of drugs, drug paraphernalia, and other violations. Put them in the civil code, not the penal code.) x Lay out a plan for sentencing reform that is data-driven and evidence-based with specific benchmarks and evaluations for reducing certain populations and strengthening alternatives to incarceration. o Extend and strengthen the HCR 85 Task Force. Extend the task force work in developing a roadmap for correctional reform until the work is done. o Involve the broadest range of stakeholders to discuss criminal justice reform and include more time for presentations by community advocates, service providers, formerly incarcerated men and women, youth with experience in the juvenile system, and officials from the youth and adult systems o Fully implement Justice Reinvestment and allow it time to work (Ki'aha 2015). o Publish a full public review of our correctional system. A comprehensive look at who is in the system, where they are housed, their custody levels, their tentative parole dates, and their minimum and maximum sentences before any building is even contemplated. o Publish a full review of all community-based programmes on every island. This review should include the name and description of the program, their total capacity, the number of open slots, the average length of the program, and the queue for those on the waiting list. o Promote and Enact Smart Justice Policies. As former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said, “Getting smart on crime

82

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

requires talking honestly about which policies have worked and have not, without fear of being labelled as too hard or, more likely, as too soft on crime. Getting smart on crime means moving beyond useless labels and instead embracing science and data, and relying on them to shape policy. And it means thinking about crime in context – not just reacting to the criminal act, but developing the government’s ability to enhance public safety before the crime is committed and after the former offender is returned to society” (U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder 2012; 2013). x Promote Aloha, Democracy, Transparency, Inclusion o All Hawai`i decisions and actions should be guided by the Aloha Spirit1. o Correctional facilities are part of our community, not separate from our communities. o Our families and friends either live or work in the correctional system. o Include all stakeholders in discussions and decision-making about reforming the justice system.

References Alexander, Michelle. 2011. Mass incarceration: causes, consequences, and exit strategies: The New Jim Crow 1. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 9, 7-815. ARPAIO, Sheriff Joe, and Len Sherman. 2008. Joe's Law: America's Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs and Everything Else That Threatens America. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2016. Mortality in State Prisons, 2001-2014 Statistical Tables, December. NCJ 250150, Table 13 Number of state and federal prisoner deaths, by cause and jurisdiction, 2001–2014, page 12. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/msp0114st.pdf

1 1

§5-7.5] "Aloha Spirit". (a) "Aloha Spirit" is the coordination of mind and heart within each person. It brings each person to the self. Each person must think and emote good feelings to others. In the contemplation and presence of the life force, "Aloha", the following unuhi laula loa may be used: "Akahai", meaning kindness to be expressed with tenderness; "Lokahi", meaning unity, to be expressed with harmony; "Oluolu", meaning agreeable, to be expressed with pleasantness; "Haahaa", meaning humility, to be expressed with modesty; "Ahonui", meaning patience, to be expressed with perseverance.

Kat Brady

83

Brown, Marilyn M. 2016. "Prohibitions on touch and the incarcerated female body." Synesthetic Legalities: Sensory Dimensions of Law and Jurisprudence: 95. Clark, Roger S. "Human Rights and the UN Committee on Crime Prevention and Control." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 506, no. 1 (1989): 68-84. Department of Public Safety. 2016. Report on Incarcerated People. —. 2016. Statistics. Hawai`i, July. —. 2017. End of Month Population Report, December. https://dps.hawaiiHawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PopReports-EOM-2016-12-31.pdf DuVernay, Ava. 2016. 13th. A Netflix Original Documentary. Sherman Oaks, CA: Kandoo Films. Holder, Eric. 2013. "Remarks at the Annual Meeting of American Bar Association's House of Delegates." Federal Sentencing Reporter 26, no. 2 (2013): 75-79. Attorney General Eric Holder. 2012. Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law’. "United States Department of Justice." Hort, Katherine A. 2000. "Is Twenty-Two Months Beyond the Best Interest of the Child? ASFA's Guidelines for the Termination of Parental Rights". Fordham Urban Law Journal Ki'aha, Lezlie. 2015."Thinking Outside the Bars: Using Hawaiian Traditions and Culturally-Based Healing to Eliminate Racial Disparities within Hawai'i's Criminal Justice System." APLPJ 17: 1. http://dps.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/6.20.12-NewsRelease-JRI-Enactment.pdf Lyons, Laura E. 2011. "From the Indigenous to the Indigent: Homelessness and Settler Colonialism in Hawai‘i." In Studies in Settler Colonialism, pp. 140-152. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2011. Nawahi, Joseph. 1896. “Ke Aloha Aina” Hawaiian Nationalist newspaper. page 119. http://www.ulukau.org/elib/collect/oiwi2/index/assoc/D0.dir/doc158.p df Seelye, Katharine. Q. 1997. Clinton to approve sweeping shift in adoption. The New York Times, November 17, 1997. Schlosser, E. (1998). The prison-industrial complex. The Atlantic Monthly, 282(6), 51-77. Seelyle. K. Q. (1997) Clinton to Approve Sweeping Shift in Adoption. New York Times, November 17. Shirota, C. & Brown M. forthcoming. Mass Incarceration’s Impact on Hawai’i’s Most Vulnerable Families.

84

Crime and Punishment in the Land of Aloha

Subramanian, Ram, Ruth Delaney, Stephen Roberts, Nancy Fishman, and Peggy McGarry. 2015. "Incarceration’s front door: The misuse of jails in America.". Thompson, Gabriele. 2017. Prisoners in Hawaii Are Being Sent to Die in Private Prisons in Arizona. VICE magazine. March Issue. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gvkzn7/prisoners-in-hawaii-arebeing-sent-to-die-in-private-prisons-in-arizona-v24n2 Thompson, M. B. 2010. The disparate treatment of Native Hawaiians in the criminal justice system. Office of Hawaiian Affairs. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/1009_exs_disparatetreatmentofnativeHawaiians_rd-ac.pdf United Nations Congress. 1977. The Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955 and approved by the Economic and Social Council of the UN by resolutions adopted. Rule 17 (2). Walker, Samuel, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam DeLone. 2012. The colour of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America. Cengage Learning. Wildeman, Christopher, and Bruce Western. 2010. "Incarceration in fragile families." The future of children 20, no. 2: 157-177. Wilson, Michael. 2017. House Concurrent Resolution 85. Statistics presented to the House and Senate Public Safety Committees by Hawai`i Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilson, Chair of the HCR 85 Task Force on February 1. http://www.courts.state.hi.us/houseconcurrent-resolution-85

KICK IN THE DOOR, WAVIN’ THE FOUR-FOUR: FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD CHILDREN OF DETAINED AND ARRESTED PARENTS TIFFANY SIMMONS, BAHIYYAH MUHAMMAD AND KASANDRA DODD

“The majority of police departments have no written protocol delineating officers’ responsibility to the children of arrested parents, and those protocols that do exist vary widely in their wording and their implementation. A national survey by the American Bar Association (ABA) Center on Children and the Law found that only one-third of patrol officers handled an arrest scenario differently if and when children were present…The result is that an event that is by its nature traumatic - the forcible removal by armed strangers of the person to whom children naturally look for protection - happens in ways that are virtually guaranteed to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, that trauma.” This article addresses failures of the law and highlights the importance of policy that implements national protocols for law enforcement officials in instances where a parent is detained or arrested in the presence of minor children (Bernstein 2005).

I. Introduction In the United States of America (U.S.), parents are being sent to prison at alarming rates. Approximately, three million children in the U.S. have an incarcerated parent (Western and Pettit 2010). This equates to 1 in every 28 children, which is a stark increase from 25 years ago when it was 1 in every 125 children (Western and Pettit 2010). Minimal research has been conducted on how minor children and young adults are impacted by witnessing the detainment or arrest of their parent or guardian. When young individuals witness such events, they become “fifty seven percent

86

Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four

more likely to display post-traumatic stress symptoms than those whose parents were not arrested” (Thurau 2015)1. With that in mind, recent dialogue surrounding policy and procedures have been outlined by U.S. law enforcement. Such written guidance works as a way of protecting minor children and young adults in situations surrounding detainment and arrest of their parent or guardian (IACP and BJA 2014). Although for many years there has been no written guidance for law enforcement to follow in these common situations, the International Association of Chief of Police (IACP) has advanced the field by developing a model policy, “Safeguarding Children of Arrested Parents” to be used by law enforcement around the world as a vital resource to be used immediately and in the future (2014). The IACP partnered with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), subjectmatter experts and stakeholders to develop a set of proposed national guidelines for arresting parents in the presence of children (IACP and BJA 2014). This collaboration resulted in the release of a model policy, designed in an instructive manner to specifically address the lack of “most law enforcement [not having] policy, procedures, or capabilities to specifically address actions taken to reduce and prevent trauma associated with the arrest of a parent [or guardian]” (Ibid 2014). The IACP fully affirmed that this deficiency has and continues to have a negative impact on overall growth and development of children that may have a spill over effect (Ibid 2014). In other words, what children bear witness to, during the arrest of a parent or guardian continues to affect them throughout their adulthood. These child bystanders are innocent victims, who are negatively impacted by what their ears, eyes and brain have captured during the arrest of their parent or guardian. Children of the arrestees and detainees are not the only individuals to witness disturbing arrest scenarios; in fact, recent violent law enforcement arrests and detainment have been broadcasted on national news outlets and have also created similar post traumatic memories within all who bear witness to the violent incident. Recent attention given to the misconduct of local law enforcement officers, has increased the need for procedural requirements as it remains 1

See also The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCA) used a sample of 1,869 children age 8 through 18. Members of this sample who witnessed the arrest of a family member and had a recently arrested parent had a 73 percent greater likelihood of having elevated post-traumatic stress symptoms.

Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd

87

unclear what is actually acceptable or unacceptable procedure. Although violent arrests, some ending in death, continue to receive media coverage, the law has “locked her lips and thrown away the key”. Ken Wallentein (2012) has commented that the U.S. legal system has provided limited guidance on police conduct and misconduct and has accused the legislative and executive branches of government of being utterly silent on the matter. Furthermore, judiciary attempts to address the lack of guidance has resulted in limited and vague rulings with high burdens of proof (Wallentein 2012). In addition, landmark cases have found that the police only hold a duty to safeguard children during the arrest of a parent or guardian in two specific instances. First, a “special relationship” must be created (Deshaney v Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 1989) or White v. Rochford, 1979). Second, the “state created the danger” and must have caused the child to be harmed (Pinder v. Johnson 1995). The purpose of this chapter is to explore the failure of law enforcement services to safeguard children of detained and arrested parents, and highlight the case law that leaves much to be answered in such arrestee or detainee scenarios. The discussion draws on interviews with children of incarcerated parents who witnessed the arrest and/or detainment of their loved one, as well as interviews with the arrested and/or detained parents. Lastly, it provides a critical analysis of the laws that have been created to protect and serve these young and impressionable citizens in the time of their parent or guardians arrest or detainment. The strength of this chapter rests on its interdisciplinary approach and its ability to triangulate and address failures of law and those who are sworn to the duty of law enforcement.

II. Special Relationship The “public duty doctrine” holds that police have no duty to protect the general public from harm without a “special relationship” (South v. Maryland 1865). The public duty doctrine has been widely accepted on both the state and federal levels, with many courts ruling that states are not required to provide police services for this purpose (Reiff v. City of Philadelphia 1979). Essentially this ruling is stating that a duty is owed to the general public but not to a particular person. Further complications arise from the fact that the “parameters of what constitutes a ‘special relationship’ are hazy and indistinct” Ying Jin Gan v. City of New York 1993). Because the “public duty doctrine” is used as the primary source of regulation, current

88

Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four

case law suggests that police may be liable for abandoning citizens in areas and situations that leave them susceptible to being victimized and injured. As stated above, the concept of special relationship grew out of the policy that the police are required to act only under certain circumstances. For children, the duty to act translates into a duty to protect. When a parent or guardian is arrested or booked in the presence of his/her children, the special relationship is created instantly because the law enforcement officer is now responsible for the children’s well-being.

A. Application to Children of Detained Guardians and Parents A pivotal case that defined the concept of “special relationship” when applied to children was White v. Rochford (1979). In this matter, an uncle was arrested for drag racing while his niece and two nephews remained in the vehicle. Because of the uncle’s arrest, the children were forced to leave the vehicle and search for a telephone to contact their mother. Unfortunately, the mother had no means of picking the children up and consequently, the children were left outside in the cold for several hours before a neighbour was able to locate them. All of the children were severely traumatized by the experience and the youngest, five years old, had to be hospitalised for a week due to complications with his asthma (White v. Rochford 1979). The court ruled that the police officers created a “special relationship” with the children from the moment they arrested their uncle (White and Rochford, 1979). Further, “the officers had a special duty to ensure the children’s safety in these circumstances and were liable for both the emotional and physical injuries sustained by them” (Ibid, p. 383). The actions of the officers were found to be “grossly negligent” and they showed “reckless disregard” for the safety of others (Ibid, p. 385). The first time the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of “special relationship” was in the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services (1989). The Supreme Court’s decision established that “no constitutional obligation exists on the part of the state [government] officials to protect those who are in danger of begin harmed by third parties, unless that endangered persons are in the custody of the state” (Deshaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services 1989). Deshaney (Ibid 1989) set the standard by which the duty of government agents, including law enforcement, is judged. It appears the standard has

Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd

89

become more and more stringent despite the growing number of incidents of police misconduct (Austin v. Mylander 1998 and Cherrington v. Skeeter 2003). Deshaney (Ibid 1989) defined the type of actions that triggered the special relationships and subsequently the duty to protect. In another case, Angela Matheny sued Jimmy Boatright, the former sheriff in Jefferson Davis County Georgia in 1993 for violation of the constitutional rights of her children as well as herself (Matheny v. Boatright 1997 and White v. Rochford 1979). Matheny was arrested for selling crack. “In executing the arrest warrant, the police allegedly conducted a search of Matheny's apartment using a drug-sniffing dog, and then transported Matheny and her three children to a detention facility” (Ibid, p. 10401). Ms. Matheny claimed that her children were deprived of their due process rights of being accompanied by their mother in the back of the squad car and subsequently to the detention centre and as such these actions were equivalent to “improper seizure of the children” (Ibid, p. 1043). The court ruled that the police officers acted in accordance with the special relationship created and the children were kept in a safe environment (Ibid, p. 1045). The abandonment of the child of a detainee was the basis for the Moore v. The Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. case (1985). Chauncey L. Moore, Jr., Hugo P. Kosmel, Jr., Judith M. Kosmel, Arthur J. Ciolkowski, Andrea R. Ciolkowski, and Kimberlee Kosmel (the minor child) all gathered to have dinner at The Marketplace Restaurant (Ibid 1304). The five adult patrons were arrested for causing a disturbance because of poor service and extensive delays in receiving their food and beverages. An interesting fact is that they were not detained until later that evening at their respective homes (Ibid 1985). At the time of her arrest, Judith Kosmel advised the officer that her fifteenyear-old daughter was in the camper alone. The officer gave her the choice of either having the daughter accompany them or letting her sit in the squad car while they were in custody or having her remain in the camper alone. Judith Kosmel told the officer that the child could not be alone and that either choice was unacceptable; however, she eventually decided to leave her daughter in the camper (Ibid 1985). It was established that the camper did have locks and heat. Kimberlee Kosmel, suffered no physical injury; however, she claimed damages for emotional distress because she witnessed the arrest and handcuffing of her parents and was left alone in

90

Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four

the camper without protection. It was determined that the claim had no merit (Ibid, p. 1342).

III. State Created Danger Regardless of whether a special relationship exists between the arresting officer and the detainee, a duty to protect may still exist if the person has been harmed by a third party and it can be proved that the existence of danger was created by the state (Unkelbach 2015). Simply stated, the state-created danger theory implies that law enforcement personnel can neither leave an individual in a more dangerous situation nor create a previously non-existing set of dangerous circumstances nor increase the present danger. Unkelbach (2015) adds that his theory has primarily been applied to cases involving “motorists and passengers, failure to arrest and failure to serve orders”.

A. State-Created Danger as Defined by the Circuit Courts Deshaney (1989) laid open the door to “state-created danger”. However, it was brought into the legal vernacular by D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School (1992) and supported by Oren (2005). Nevertheless, Milena Shtelmakher (2010) explains: “Because the dictum of the Supreme Court provides no guidance on the doctrine, circuit courts differ in their applications of it”. The Second Circuit views special relationship and state-created danger as two separate exceptions. Thus, a plaintiff has two separate causes of action by which s/he can prove a breach in the duty to protect. The Third Circuit however, applies a fourprong test when evaluating claims of state-created danger. The four elements include: (1) the harm caused was foreseeable and direct; (2) the state action shocks the conscience; (3) plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of defendant’s acts; and (4) a state actor affirmatively created the danger to a citizen (Burella v. City of Philadelphia 2007). The Fourth and Fifth Circuit concur that a special relationship must exist in order to establish the statecreated danger (Chemerinsky 2007).

B. The Most Common Application to Children More successful factual situations from a plaintiff arguing the state-created danger doctrine, stem from failure to protect in instances of domestic violence (Oren 2005). The more successful litigants argued that the statecreated danger theory have also established a special relationship as a

Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd

91

means of proving a breach in the duty of the care. One such case was Sorichetti v. City of New York (1985). Married in 1949, Frank and Josephine Sorichetti had three children, the youngest of whom, Dina, was born in 1969. From 1949 to 1975, Josephine and her children suffered tremendous physical abuse at the hands of Frank, which was fuelled by his drunken binges. The situation escalated when Josephine filed for divorce in September 1975. Frank destroyed their personal property but the police refused to arrest him because “he lived there” (Ibid 1985). The Family Court issued an order of protection, which affirmed: “[The] presentation of this Certificate to any Peace Officer shall constitute authority for said Peace Officer to take into custody the person charged with violating the terms of such Order of Protection and bring said person before this court and otherwise, so far as lies within his power, to aid the Petitioner in securing the protection such Order was intended to afford” (Ibid p.465). Those words affirmed that the police have a duty to protect Jackie from Frank and must arrest him if he at any time violates the terms set forth. Because Lieutenant Leon Granello of the 43rd precinct refused to enforce the order of protection, referring to it as “only a piece of paper,” Dina was severely injured at the hands of her father. On November 9, 1975, Frank “repeatedly attacked the child with a fork, knife and screwdriver and had attempted to saw off her leg” (Ibid, p. 466). When she was found, she was in a coma and her father lay passed out beside her with an empty whiskey bottle and a pill bottle in close proximity (Ibid 1985). In the Sorichetti case, the New York Court of Appeals found that “a special relationship existed between the City and Dina Sorichetti, which arose out of (1) the order of protection; (2) the police department’s knowledge of Frank Sorichetti’s violent history, gained and verified both by its actual dealings with him; the existence of the order of protection; and the department’s knowledge of the specific situation in which the infant had been placed; (3) its response to Josephine Sorichetti’s pleas for assistance on the day of the assault; and (4) Mrs. Sorichetti’s reasonable expectation of police protection” (Ibid, p. 469). Further, it was determined that Mrs. Sorichetti and Dina were entitled to damages totalling $2,000,000 based on evidence that the police department had breached its duty to protect and was the “proximate” cause of the infant’s injuries (Ibid, p. 463).

92

Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four

IV. The Underestimated Consequences and Unforeseen Trauma As studies advance around the subject of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and trauma, more attention is being given to how untreated trauma affects children and adults long after the traumatic event has occurred. The effects of trauma can manifest itself mentally, physically, cognitively, emotionally, and at times even socially/culturally. More specifically, mental health clinicians are identifying how early traumatic experiences can act as a predicate to other life challenges and health issues later in life (Chapman 2004). In 1995, Kaiser Permanente and the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collaborated in conducting the Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Study (Dube et al. 2003). The purpose of the study was to establish a link between early childhood maltreatment (or trauma) and later problematic health issues in adulthood. Although more data is being gathered; the current data from the ACES study show a link between early traumatic experiences and higher instances of problematic physical and mental health concerns in adulthood (Ibid 2003). Within the ACES questionnaire, the participants are asked at what age they experienced exposure to particular events of maltreatment throughout their childhood (Felitti et al. 1998). Two questions in particular on this questionnaire specifically inquire whether the child ever witnessed the parent being threatened and if there is a household member in prison. Through the ACES study, and the research that surrounds it, these experiences are deemed traumatic events (Murray et al. 2012; Parke and Clarke-Stewart 2001). A child witnessing his/her parent being arrested would fall within this category. In essence, a child witnessing the arrest of parent is more complex than he or she simply being in the room. Depending on how the responding officer interacts with the child during and after the experience, it can be paramount to that child’s processing of the event and its potential after effects on the child, whether negative or positive. While a single traumatic event may not significantly affect a child’s development, the likelihood increases with repeated exposure. For children observing the arrest of a parent, the “convergence between real life events and their worst fears” about injury and the loss of protection, combined with the connection to their parents, provokes a level of overwhelming anxiety about their sense of powerlessness and fear of abandonment. “The

Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd

93

loss of trust and security makes basic interactions with adults an exercise in risk-taking that triggers anxious responses” (Thurau 2015). The impact of early trauma and difficulties later in life is so profound that the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) is recommending that primary care doctors screen babies for social and emotional difficulties that can potentially be early signs of toxic stress and then determine interventions (Thurau 2015). Toxic stress, identified as one of the most dangerous form of stress responses, correlates with the findings of the ACES. The ACES findings strongly support the concept that altered brain development caused by extreme trauma, in turn, causes the maladaptive psychological, physical, behavioural, and developmental concerns that can potentially develop in these children as adults (Shonkoff et al. 2012). Arrests often occurs at night or the in the early morning, when people are likely to be home with their families. The postponing of the handcuffing of parents until parents were out of children’s sight only occurred in 3% of fathers’ arrests and 30% of mother’s arrest (Murray et al. 2012). Parks and Clarke-Stewart note that one in five children is present at the time of the arrest and witnesses the mother being taken away by authorities. More than half of the children who witness this traumatic event are under 7 years of age and in the sole care of their mother. Jose-Keampfner interviewed 30 children who witnessed their mother’s arrest and reported that these children suffered nightmares and flashback to the arrest incident (Parke and Clarke-Stewart 2001; Murray et al. 2012). The primary reasons for parental arrest in order of prevalence are: domestic violence, drug-related incidents, and property crimes. In collaboration with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (US Department of Justice), the International Association of Chiefs of Police began offering training to law enforcement officers through the Children of Arrested Parents (CAP) Project that focuses on providing resources for law enforcement. The goal was to educate them to become better informed about trauma and ideally improve practices in addressing children with a parent involved in the criminal justice system. This project also involved the development of a Model Policy to outline procedures that law enforcement officers can use to prevent or minimize the potential emotional and psychological harm to children who may witness a parent (or caregiver’s) arrest (Patterson 2008). The development of this project and its ensuing Model Policy speaks to the acknowledged need to have police departmental procedures in place to further safeguard children

94

Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four

placed in these situations. However, the policy is a model and not one that any state police department is required to use, but highly encouraged.

V. The Voices of the Children A. Sample Description The stories from children and their incarcerated parents in this article were collected through a qualitative methodological approach, the study aimed to contextualize the narratives of children of incarcerated parents. Interviews were conducted with those most qualified to provide these accounts, children living this experience. To explore the relationship, the study draws from in-depth interviews and observational data of children of incarcerated parents in urban New Jersey communities conducted in 20062007.

B. Through the Eyes of Children: Flashbacks to What They Witnessed Forty-three percent of the children in the sample witnessed the arrest of their parent; the majority (56%) did not. Several had vivid recollections of the days and moments of watching their parent taken away by the police. Jammie remembered the day his father was arrested like it was yesterday, although it was five years ago. He was ten years old when police officers, whom he refers to as the “popo” (Jammie’s words) took his father into custody. Jammie is now fifteen-years old. During the interview session Jammie’s voice began to tremble as he recalled the incident. Jammie: “The [popo] drove the cop car up on the sidewalk right in front of us and jumped out the car. I was confused and I think my dad was too. They grabbed him and shoved him into the side of the car. They were smiling the entire time. My dad dropped the milk and bread and I ran to pick it up. They never looked at me or said anything to me. I watched them being rough with him the whole time. They put cuffs on him and threw him into the back of the cop car. As soon as they had jumped out of the car they jumped back into the car and drove off. I never got to say bye. I didn’t get no chance to ask no questions or answer no questions. I never got to talk. I wanted to say something. I don’t know what I would say. But I wanted to say something to my dad, to them, to someone, you know. I thought I was invisible for a second ‘cause they never even looked my way. They wanted my dad and didn’t think anything about me.”

Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd

95

Similar to Jammie, many children who witnessed the arrest of their parent could remember everything that happened during the arrest. They described that day with the same emotion that they mentioned holding throughout the arrest. Johnay was different from many of the children in the sample, because she witnessed the arrest of both of her parents and carries those memories in her heart every day. Johnay: “My father went in prison first. Him and my mom lived here too, before they went in prison. They stayed in the basement and I was upstairs. My room is there. They came in the house at night. I was sleep but woke up when I heard my mom yelling and screaming loud. I was scared. I ran out my bed and saw granny in the hall and dad on the floor and mom standing there. The police was on top of dad and had his hands on his back. It look like it hurt. My dad was yelling, my mom was yelling, and I was crying. I don’t know how they got in the house. I was waked up out my sleep. It was scary. I have night dreams about it all the time. I just wake crying sometimes. Loud noise at night make me scared. So my mom told me sleep with the TV on so I can stop waking up all the time.

Child witnesses hold vivid memories of the arrest of their loved ones. They often receive no explanation about what has transpired and what to expect next. With the creation of the concept of a special relationship, the law leads one to assume that the duty to safeguard the children falls upon the shoulders of law enforcement officials. In reality, this is not the case.

VI. The Development of Public Policy and Regulatory Control “Children need to know that their lives and well-being are critically important to our society. Children need to know that their safety is a priority.” (Reno et al. 1999). Eric Holder stated this in a report published by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs in June of 1999. This sentiment was already being discussed in many local law enforcement agencies in the early 1990s (Thurau 2015). Many states began to establish initiatives and fund studies that lead to recommended regulations but few had taken formal legislative action (Ibid 2015). In 1991, the Yale Child Study Center and the New Haven, Connecticut Department of Police Service formed a partnership that would change policing in America for decades to come (Roberts et al. 2014). The Child Development – Community Policing (CD-CP) Program was developed to “address the psychological impact of the chronic exposure to violence on children and families.” (Marans and Berkman 1997). This model requires

96

Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four

social worker from child-servicing agencies to go with police officers to particular incidents (Thurau 2015). Mental health practitioners serve as an additional source of support (Ibid 2015). To date, 15 other cities have adopted the CD-CP model (Bosland and Karpman 2009). The U.S. Department of Justice published The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Implementation Guidebook in October 2015 (Ramsey et al. 2015). “This implementation guide offers a crucial blueprint for elected officials, law enforcement officers, and community leaders alike as they work to put important policies and reforms into practice across the country” (Brandenberger 2015). The guidebook was created in response to requests from participating members of the task force on how the recommendations could be properly implemented (Western and Petit 2010). Among the suggestions are means in which the local government, law enforcement and communities can take an active role in “changing the culture of policing” in America (Ibid 2010).

VII. Conclusion All in all, the calls for action are being answered but at a staggeringly slow pace. Countless studies, reports and initiatives have been generated over the last three decades yet legislatively, no provisions are in place to safeguard these children. Law enforcement requires complete enforcement of the law but as our research and others have shown, many deficiencies in implementation persist. The state is truly creating a dangerous precedent by failing to implement statutory procedures that provide guidance to the men and women who have sworn to protect the communities they serve. Children are the most vulnerable members of these communities and as such deserve immediate recognition and consistent protection of their rights. It is also critical that future research pursue an interdisciplinary approach, one that analyses this inadequate reality through a prism of law, criminology and social work. The resulting depth of analysis will deliver a consistent and legitimate message that all disciplines agree on and promote. This is a dynamic issue and the effects on the children must be researched and examined further.

Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd

97

References Austin v. Mylander. 1998. 717 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App.). Bernstein, Nell. 2005. All in One World: Children of the Incarcerated. New York: The New Press, 9. Bosland, Julie and Michael Karpman. 2009. The State of City Leadership for Children and Families, National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education, and Families. Brandenberger, Mary. 2015. Department of Justice Announces New Guidebook on 21st Century Policing. United States Department of Justice Community Orientated Policing Services Office, October 27. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2828 Burella v. City of Philadelphia. 2007. 501 F.3d 134, 147 n. 17 (3d Cir.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. About the CDC-Kaiser ACE study." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 8. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/about.html Chapman, Daniel P., Charles L. Whitfield, Vincent J. Felitti, Shanta R. Dube, Valerie J. Edwards, and Robert F. Anda. 2004. "Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of depressive disorders in adulthood." Journal of affective disorders82, no. 2: 217-225. Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2007. The State Created Danger Doctrine, 23 Touro L. REV. 1., 1. Cherrington v. Skeeter. 2003. 344 F.3d 631 (6th Cir.). Dube, Shanta R., Vincent J. Felitti, Maxia Dong, Wayne H. Giles, and Robert F. Anda. 2003. "The impact of adverse childhood experiences on health problems: evidence from four birth cohorts dating back to 1900." Preventive medicine37, no. 3: 268-277. Felitti, Vincent J., Robert F. Anda, Dale Nordenberg, David F. Williamson, Alison M. Spitz, Valerie Edwards, Mary P. Koss, and James S. Marks.1998. "Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study." American journal of preventive medicine 14, no. 4: 245-258. Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. 1089. 109 S. Ct. 998. International Association of Chiefs of Police and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2014. “Safeguarding Children of Arrested Parents,” August. www.bja.gov/Publications/IACP-SafeguardingChildren.pdf D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School. 1992. 972 F.2d 1364 (3d Cir.).

98

Kick in the Door, Wavin’ the Four-Four

Marans, Steven and Miriam Berkman. 1997. Child Development – Community Policing: Partnership in a Climate of Violence, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, March. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/164380.pdfMatheny v. Boatright. 1997. 970 F. Supp. 1039 (S.D. GA.). Moore v. Marketplace v. The Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. 1985. 754 F.2d 1336 (7th Cir.). Murray, Joseph, David P. Farrington, and Ivana Sekol. 2012. "Children's antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis." 175. Oren, Lauren. 2005. Safari into the Snake Pit: The State-Created Danger Doctrine, 13 Wm. and Mary Bill Rts. J. 1165. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol13/iss4/4 Patterson, George. 2008. Police Social Work: A Unique Area of Practice Arising from Law Enforcement Functions, National Association of Social Work (July). http://www.naswnyc.org/general/custom.asp?page=77Pinderv.Johnson. 1995. 54 F.3d 1169 (4th Cir.). Ramsey, C., and L. Robinson. 2015. "Interim report of the President's task force on 21st century policing." Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Ramsey, Charles H., et. Al. 2015. The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Implementation Guide. Moving from Recommendations to Action. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Implementation_Guide.pdf Reiff v. City of Philadelphia. 1979. 471 F. Supp. 1262. Reno, J., E. H. Holder, R. C. Fisher, L. Robinson, N. Brennan, and K. M. Turman. 1999. "Breaking the cycle of violence: recommendation to improve the criminal justice response to child victims and witnesses." Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office Programs. http://www.ovc.gov/publications/factshts/monograph.htm Roberts, Yvonne Humenay, Frank J. Snyder, Joy S. Kaufman, Meghan K. Finley, Amy Griffin, Janet Anderson, Tim Marshall, Susan Radway, Virginia Stack, and Cindy A. Crusto. 2014. Children exposed to the arrest of a family member: Associations with mental health. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 214–244. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9717-2 Shonkoff, Jack P., Andrew S. Garner, Benjamin S. Siegel, Mary I. Dobbins, Marian F. Earls, Laura McGuinn, John Pascoe, David L. Wood. 2012. Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family

Tiffany Simmons, Bahiyyah Muhammad and Kasandra Dodd

99

Health, and Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care. "The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress." Pediatrics 129, no. 1: e232-e246. Shtelmakher, Milena. 2010. Police Misconduct and Liability: Applying the State-Created Danger Doctrine to Hold Police Officers Accountable for Responding Inadequately to Domestic-Violence Situations, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1544. Sorichetti v. City of New York. 1985. 65 N.Y.2d 461. South v. Maryland. 1865. 59 U.S. 396. Milena Shtelmakher, Police Misconduct and Liability: Applying the State-Created Danger Doctrine to Hold Police Officers Accountable for Responding Inadequately to Domestic-Violence Situations, 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1544 (2010). Western, Bruce and Becky Petit. 2010. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s Effect on Economic Mobility. Thurau, Lisa H. 2015. First Do no Harm: Model Practices for Law Enforcement Agencies when Arresting Parents in the Presence of Children. OJP Diagnostic Center (May 15). https://www.ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/.../First_Do_No_Harm_2015 0528.pdf. Unkelbach, Cary, L. 2015. No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions. The Police Chief, October. www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fusea Wallentein, K. (2012). Legal Risks of Failing to Care for Children of Arrested Person. THE POLICE CHIEF, Vol. LXXXI, (10), October. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction= display_arch&article_id=3503&issue_id=102014 White v. Rochford. 1979. 592 F.2d 381 (7th Cir.). Ying Jin Gan v. City of New York. 1993. 996 F. 2d 522.

RESPONDING TO THE NEED OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF THE INCARCERATED: TWELVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES ANN ADALIST-ESTRIN

Interest in the needs of children of incarcerated parents (COIP) has been steadily gaining momentum over the last ten years. An evolution of perspective moved from seeing this population of families as not so different from other “at risk” families to understanding the unique stress of justice involvement on families. This growing awareness about mass incarceration and the collateral consequences for children and families has resulted in a proliferation of activity focused on the study of, advocacy for and intervention with children and families of the incarcerated. In the United States (U.S.) alone, Federal, State and Local governments are convening working groups, task forces, and advisory councils. Researchers are gathering to collectively frame the issues, and scholars and political staffers are crafting white papers and drafting legislation. Community programmes and child and family serving systems are seeking information and training to better respond to the need. The National Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated (NRCCFI) and this author have provided training and technical assistance to many government agencies, community programmes and child-serving systems world-wide. This paper expands upon a keynote address given at the inaugural conference of the International Coalition for the Children of Incarcerated Parents held in Rotorua New Zealand in March 20-23 2017. It identifies 12 guiding principles to consider in programme and policy development and was adapted from earlier versions of this presentation. The guiding principles were developed from lessons learned from training, focus groups and listening sessions with those working with children, incarcerated parents and caregivers and, more importantly from the children and families directly. The principles are meant to be thought provoking and a challenge for all of us in the field, to question ourselves

Ann Adalist-Estrin

101

and each other about the “who and why” of providing supports and services along with the “what and when”.

1. Be self-reflective Clinicians and practitioners in all systems serving children and families of the incarcerated, will bring to their work personal and professional experiences, perspectives, biases, assumptions and attitudes. In a study offering descriptions of hypothetical children in various life circumstances, teachers rated children of incarcerated mothers as less academically and socially competent and more behaviourally difficult than their peers who had mothers who were “away” for other reasons (Dallaire, Ciccone and Wilson 2010). Sometimes these reactions are clear to us and of course they are often subconscious or cloaked in the protective notion that the children and families do not see our discomfort or judgments. In a focus group of youth with incarcerated parents in 2009, a 13-year-old said, “When people ask about my father, I know that if I tell them he is in prison for drugs, they will either drop me in the conversation and talk about the weather or give me this big lecture about how I don’t have to turn out like him. I hate it both ways, so I lie and say he died and they like seem more comfortable with that.” (Adalist-Estrin 2009). In the evaluations of NRCCFI training sessions, participants often noted that the training created a challenge to the stereotypes and myths that surround these children and their families. Agencies and organisations can assess the assumptions and beliefs of newly hired staff as well as provide ongoing reflective supervision to support staff and to decrease stigma for children and families.

2. Include experts with lived experience Children of the incarcerated, their caregivers, incarcerated parents and formerly incarcerated parents should have a place at every table where their needs and concerns are discussed and planned for as they are the experts. But often, ideas about how to best serve this group of children and families are discussed without them. Recently, a community collaborative interested in responding to the needs of children and families of the incarcerated, invited NRCCFI to lead the first planning meeting. No one

102

Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated

with lived experience was invited to that group. The planners said that they wanted to invite them in after they had a better sense of what they wanted to do. Elizabeth Gaynes’ quote challenges us to rethink these notions. “Families of the incarcerated are included as “the warm up act, the anecdotes and the sad stories instead of as the experts.” (Gaynes 2003). Including youth, parents and caregivers in defining the problems and designing the solutions is in the best interest of the programmes as well as the families. Many well intentioned and well-funded initiatives to serve these families, have failed to effectively engage the families or achieve intended outcomes, because those for whom these initiatives were intended, were not included in the planning. Older and adult children of the incarcerated often choose to work with, and advocate for supporting other children and families of the incarcerated and may serve as a coping strategy and a protective factor for them (Luther 2015; Sullivan and Johnson 2016). In June 2016, NRCCFI, in collaboration with American Institutes for Research convened a Listening Session for Youth with Incarcerated Parents. The voices of these young people reiterated this guiding principle: “Nothing about us without us” they said, and then, “We can help each other and we can also help you to help us” (Youth.gov 2016a). Focus groups, town hall meetings and listening sessions with those affected by parental incarceration should be part of all Needs Assessments. When “Stakeholder Groups” or “Subject Matter Experts” are gathered and Boards of Directors and Advisory committees are formed, those with lived experience should be included rather than segregated as a separate resource.

3. Recognise themes and variations As interest in this population of families grows, and adult children of the incarcerated are more visible in discussions, the themes and variations in their lives, circumstances and outcomes also become more visible. In their recent work on distinctions between types of offences of incarcerated fathers and family outcomes, Wakefield and Powell (2016) noted that “Quantitative research on children of incarcerated fathers has tended to mask significant heterogeneity in children’s experiences” (p. 207). Current scholarship is beginning to look more carefully at various elements of

Ann Adalist-Estrin

103

theme and variation such as race (Miller, et al. 2017), and correctional facility type for incarcerated parents (Wildeman, Turney and Yi 2016). This is not one monolithic group but there are themes in their narratives: stigma, shame, loyalty conflicts, continued or worsened poverty, trauma, toxic stress, addictions and lack of available resources and relevant supports. There are demographic themes as well. Children with incarcerated parents are typically living in low-income families of colour. Half of them are under nine years old. The majority have incarcerated fathers and live with their mothers who are often single parents with limited education. Of the 8-10% of COIP who have a mother behind bars, the majority live with grandparents. Ten to fifteen percent of COIP are in foster care. Compared with their white peers, African-American and Latino children are over seven, and twice as likely, respectively, to have a parent incarcerated (Annie E. Casey Foundation 2016). Variations on these themes, however, are difficult to identify as Wakefield et al. (2016) have recently noted, “In a short period of time, researchers have provided substantial evidence on the harmful consequences of incarceration for family life. But largely missing from this literature is an empirical acknowledgement of the variance in the character of criminal justice contact and family life and, as a result, the dramatic variation in incarceration’s impacts for family life.” (pg.13).

4. First do no more harm: Use accurate statistics A theme emerging in discussing children of the incarcerated in the last decade, has been that these children are more likely than their peers to become involved in the justice system. The claim that they are 5-6 times more likely to become incarcerated themselves or that seven out of ten of them will go to prison or jail can often be seen or heard in both media coverage and programme advertising. Most scholars now take great care to accurately support claims that COIP are potentially at risk of becoming justice-involved. This outcome is often linked in the literature to the trauma of separation due to parental incarceration. However, the exact prevalence of an intergenerational pattern of justice-involvement is both unclear and widely debated as is the causality of the claim. Conway and Jones (2015) reviewed the research on the likelihood of children with incarcerated parents becoming justice-involved, and assert that COIP were on average about three times as likely as other children to become justiceinvolved. However, they state that, “The correlational nature of the

104

Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated

research we reviewed means we cannot know for sure what caused the somewhat increased likelihood of justice-involvement for CIP. Results from some (though not all) studies controlling for other factors suggested that the cause may not be parental incarceration itself” (p.14). The youth in our COIP focus groups over three decades have consistently told us, asked us, begged us, to stop saying they will turn out like their parents. The stigma associated with parental incarceration is a primary theme in their lives. Stigma attaches to COIP, through labelling with negative attributes and the devaluation and discriminatory treatment based on these labels (Phillips & Gates, 2011). A question we need to ask ourselves is why we want to highlight intergenerational crime or incarceration rather than promoting an overall notion of improving child well-being. “First do no more harm” expands on the belief that the intent to do good must outweigh the potential for harm and suggests that harm has already been done to these children because of justice system involvement. The use of inaccurate data and an over-focus on intergenerational incarceration, even when intended for good, does not outweigh the potential for doing more harm.

5. Clarify your use and interpretation of data The misuse of statistics on the likelihood of COIP becoming justiceinvolved is rooted in a bigger problem related to the collection, interpretation, citation and use of data on COIP in general. As suggested above, the inability to draw conclusions on causality makes the translation of research into policy and practice, difficult. The last 5 years have brought much research to the field, reflected in major reports that give a more accurate count of COIP state by state (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2015). These reports also documented a host of negative effects and categories of impact for the children of incarcerated parents (Murphey and Cooper, 2015). What is unclear in the studies published or cited in these volumes, is the cause of these outcomes such as behaviour problems, mental health diagnoses, early grade retention, obesity and other health problems or special education placement; it is also unclear whether and how these problems lead to involvement in the criminal justice system and exactly how parental incarceration influences the outcomes.

Ann Adalist-Estrin

105

It is crucial that those who are making use of data in programmes, practice and policy development, clarify the data in the literature. Approaches to keep in mind include: x Look for the original research for data not just the citation of a citation. This is especially important related to dates. Often, an author will make a statement, citing work dated within two years of the article. Readers assume that this is current data but drilling down and reading the cited work, you may find that the cited author was citing yet another author or his/her own earlier work from years earlier. The theories and perspectives related to COIP are not static and conclusions drawn from research 10 years ago may not hold up to contemporary realities. x Clarify the subjects of the study, the sample size and population. Often children of incarcerated mothers or children of incarcerated parents who are in the child welfare system are noted by authors as ‘children of incarcerated parents’. The circumstances related to the subgroup may have significant implications on outcomes, and discussing the results of a study on COIP in child welfare as if these findings would be equally applicable to all COIP is misleading and perpetuates the continued use of inaccurate statistics. x Find out if the study is an analysis of administrative datasets or based on original interviews. This would be clear in a full research article but sometimes not evident in synopses of data, brief descriptions of research or in a citation notation. x And always ask why this might be true when reading statements about outcomes for COIP rather than operating with the assumptions and interpretations made both consciously and unconsciously.

6. Recognise the impact of trauma and toxic stress A significant shift in answering the “why” question about COIP and child outcomes came about within the last 5 years when the United States national conversation on children’s health in general, began to focus on the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study which drew links between childhood trauma and long-term health and social consequences (Felitti et al. 1998). The ACE Study became part of a perfect storm of research which had been emerging for several decades changing our understanding of human development. Brain research showing how toxic stress (National

106

Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated

Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2005/2014) and trauma (Perry, 2000) changes the structure and function of children’s brains. These brain architecture changes can cause, and explain, behavioural problems such as hyperactivity, inattentiveness, and aggression leading to the use of drugs, alcohol, and food, as coping mechanisms. These findings eventually raised a national alarm in Paediatric Health Care practice leading to state-wide assessments of ACEs in children. The ACEs include all forms of abuse and neglect as well as several household challenges that impact child wellbeing such as single parenthood, substance abuse and incarceration. The inclusion of familial incarceration in the discussion of trauma and toxic stress has affected our work with COIP. It spotlights the trauma associated with separation from a parent and the toxic stress of justice system involvement putting the trauma of losing a parent to incarceration at the same level as other traumas. It shifts the conversation from, children are modelling their parents’ antisocial behaviours to, these behaviours may be related to trauma. But, the other ingredient in the discussion of trauma and toxic stress for children in general is the presence of supportive adults. Normal or tolerable stress becomes toxic in the absence of significant attachment figures as buffers (Franke, 2014; Asok et al. 2013). Children of the incarcerated are rarely included in that larger discussion and when they are, the importance of supportive parents, especially incarcerated parents as possible buffers from the toxicity of the stress, is minimised. When we talk about a child losing a parent to incarceration, if we are interpreting the ACEs literature only through a child maltreatment lens, the meaning that is made (intentionally or not) is that children of incarcerated parents are maltreated children, harmed by their parents and thus better off without them. While this may be true in some cases, it may be more likely that the parents who are in prison or jail are potential supports for these children. Seeing them as such, gives a different meaning to the loss for COIP. It becomes more profound and less dismissible (Adalist-Estrin 2014). We should continue to connect with other research and to advocate for COIP and the circumstances of parental incarceration to be included in the ongoing exploration of both the impact of trauma and the protective nature of parent child relationships.

Ann Adalist-Estrin

107

7. Recognise resilience and protective factors Former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher is often quoted as saying “Risk factors are not predictive factors because of protective factors” (2001). This has become a rallying cry among older children and adults who experienced a family member’s incarceration as children and who are actively engaged in advocacy for COIP. Recommendations from youth often include admonishments to see their strengths as well as their pain. Yet, there is very little in the literature that reflects the resilience that we so often see in the groups we work with at NRCCFI. Lessons learned from our focus groups echo the general literature about resilience (Luthar 2006) as well as resilience studies focused on COIP specifically (Nichols et al. 2016; Luther 2015; Poehlmann and Eddy 2013; and Nesmith and Ruhland 2008) that point to protective factors in four general categories. These are People: significant attachment figures, family connectedness and a circle of social support; Skills: both practical and relationship/social; Faith: beliefs as well as the ability to find supportive meaning in life and Influence: a sense participation in or control over some part of one’s experiences. The presence of one or more of these can protect children from the most damaging aspects of family involvement in the criminal justice system. Further research is needed to identify supports and challenges to resiliency for COIP. Their caregivers are likely to be the most accessible of protective factors as well as gatekeepers in allowing access to support. Caregivers are rarely the subject of study or intervention initiatives. The available literature does help us to understand the many challenges they face (Chui 2016; Comfort 2016; Arditti 2012; Denby 2012 and Turanovic et al. 2012). In collaboration with caregivers, intervention strategies need to be designed and evaluated to respond to the caregiver’s needs and to support their role as buffers from the toxicity of justice system involvement for children while also managing their own crises and daily responsibilities.

8. Honour significance of the incarcerated parent While caregivers will most often be the primary attachment figures the children look to as protective buffers, incarcerated parents may play that role for many COIP.

108

Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated “Why does incarceration negate the parent’s importance to the child in the eyes of the world? If parents are the buffers from toxic stress, shouldn’t people be doing everything they can to help keep those parent child bonds? Because the guilt I feel about needing my dad when everyone says I am better off without him, feels like a conflict of loyalty that is killing me inside.” (Adalist-Estrin 2009).

This 19-year-old asks us to minimise the stress created by her parent’s incarceration by honouring the significance of that incarcerated parent as a protective factor. Efforts to connect incarcerated parents to their children and families are increasing in number and in scope. The Federal Interagency Working Group on Children of Incarcerated Parents (FIWGCIP) formed during the Obama Administration made its initial recommendations to promote emotional and social wellbeing of children of incarcerated parents by: x Ensuring jail and prison visiting conditions are sensitive to the needs of children; x Offering opportunities for incarcerated parents to increase their parenting capacities to nurture and support their children; x Promoting opportunities for positive communication between incarcerated parents and their children where appropriate; x Working to facilitate a parent’s involvement in his/her child’s schooling where appropriate, despite the obstacles inherent in incarceration. (Federal Interagency Working Group for Children of Incarcerated Parents 2013). This initiative led to some policy shifts that would offer incarcerated parents opportunities to take part in school and child welfare conferences and homework helping programmes by phone or skype. This work also supports the goals of many advocates and policy makers to promote and support the parental identity of the incarcerated parent in order to improve child wellbeing and aid in re-entry success (Arditti 2012). This guiding principle and recommendation requires that there is collaboration between and among researchers and practitioners in both adult and child serving systems. In addition, there is a need to better understand the potential and the limitations of each parent and facility in the process. Wakefield and Powell (2016) suggest that looking at the seriousness of a parent’s crime may not be as effective in determining potential parental effectiveness as other variables such as addiction. Wildeman, Turney and Yi (2016), in the same volume, also found limited

Ann Adalist-Estrin

109

variations in family functioning based on the placement of incarcerated fathers in local, state or federal facilities. This is noteworthy considering the many procedural differences among these facilities effecting parentchild relationships. Continuing to assess the complexities of both families and the criminal justice system is essential to the process of promoting policies and practices within corrections that support relationships and family connectedness.

9. Advocate for purposeful programmes and relevant supports In emphasizing the need to be included in planning and programme design, youth participants in our groups also say that supports for them were often not relevant to the unique circumstances of having an incarcerated parent. “No more grief groups.” is a common statement; dealing with incarcerated parents is not the same as death. In one California session, a 15-year-old boy talked of being referred to groups designed for youth who had experienced loss. He said “I was tired of listening to people talk about their dead relatives. I have a mom, she isn’t dead, she’s addicted to crack and locked up because of it. That’s different!” (Adalist-Estrin 2016). Parental incarceration creates ambiguous loss as a parent is gone but not dead and their role in the child’s life is often unclear (Arditti 2012). Moreover, based on what the children have said, it may also be an ambiguous loss because the available supports and services are also ambiguous (Adalist-Estrin 2014). An obstacle to providing relevant support however, is that funders commonly require that evidenced based models and practices be used in service delivery. This leads many, if not most organisations and agencies to use evidenced based material developed for and normed on other populations. This is true of both child focused interventions such as support groups, mentoring programmes and afterschool programmes, and adult interventions including parenting programmes inside correctional facilities and caregiver support groups in the community. Many programmes dedicated to COIP have operated for decades but few have been subjected to rigorous evaluation. The new wave of interest in this group of families brings new research, new perspectives and should also

110

Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated

lead to more evidence based practices specifically for COIP. Proceedings from the 2016 research conference “Minimizing the Collateral Damage: Interventions to Diminish the Consequences of Mass Incarceration for Children” include evaluations of population specific interventions (Wildeman, Haskins and Poehlmann 2017).

10. Create an atmosphere of safety and trust One significant obstacle to providing services to COIP is difficulty in accessing the children. When families enter an environment seeking help with an issue that is mired in emotional ambiguity, stigma and fear of judgement, it must feel accepting to them. Creating such an atmosphere should be a primary goal for all service providers attempting to reach COIP, who are often invisible by choice. These guiding principles can assist individuals and programmes to reach that goal, being mindful that words matter. The demise of mentoring programmes and afterschool support groups in the early 2000’s came about in part because advertising used phrases such as “These are children that lack affection and guidance” or “Let’s keep these kids from following in their parents’ footsteps”. Signs and notices that ask, “Is incarceration an issue for your family? We have resources to help”, introduces a programme as approachable. It asks a question so as to give information rather than asking to get information. Available resources include NRCCFI’s Children of Incarcerated Parents Library pamphlets; several new children’s books such as “Far Apart, Close At Heart”, which provides information for caregivers as well (Birtha 2017), “Almost Like Visiting”, which introduces video-visiting to the children’s literature (Ellis 2016), and Clarissa’s Disappointment, which focuses on a parents return from prison (Sullivan 2017) and the extraordinary Sesame Street Toolkit “Little Children-Big Challenges: Incarceration.” The availability of these Toolkits increased the capacity of programmes and systems (such as schools and health care providers) to reach many families because of widespread trust in the brand and the comfort that the characters engender in children and caregivers alike. Distribution of these resources contributes to an atmosphere of safety and trust, which is essential in reaching this stigmatized and often invisible population.

Ann Adalist-Estrin

111

11. Challenge media portrayals The Sesame Street materials were painstakingly developed with input from researchers, practitioners and families to accurately portray each aspect of the children’s experiences. As the issue of mass incarceration, criminal justice reform, and concern for the children left behind continues to capture the attention of the media, news coverage as well as the creation of tools and materials to use with COIP will need to be monitored for their accuracy and relevance. The media in general, tends to highlight those children and families who are at the deepest end of the continuum of need, or those parents who committed the worse crimes or have the longest sentences. We have a responsibility to encourage the media to use more than one example, face or story, to challenge the media’s use of unsubstantiated statistics, and to remind them that words and ‘race’ matter. The public needs to see different faces and hear varied stories to fully comprehend the heterogeneity of this population.

12. Collaborate Now that children of the incarcerated are more visible and are the focus in many and varied settings in the U.S. and abroad, we will need to work harder together to combat competing agendas and to work within conflicting philosophies, so that we continue to raise awareness and overcome the obstacles before us. Connections between researchers and those in policy and practice, and partnerships between law enforcement and community programmes are growing in number as are collaboratives of child/family and adult serving agencies, and organisations such as the New York Initiative for Children of Incarcerated Parents (Youth.gov. 2016 b). As task forces and working groups around the U.S. convene to address these issues, the collaborations will not only benefit the children and families but also those working in the field. “Cross the river in a crowd and the crocodiles won’t eat you” is a Madagascan proverb that symbolises that people can accomplish more and better things in a group than on their own - as people or as organisations. As we continue to collaborate across cultural and national boundaries to develop effective responses to the needs of children and families of the incarcerated, there is safety and power in numbers.

112

Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated

References Adalist-Estrin, Ann. 2009. Family and Youth Responses to CSG Report: Children of Incarcerated Parents: An Action Plan for Federal Policymakers. Transcript of regional focus groups. Unpublished manuscript. —. 2012. Collected Interviews Youth of Incarcerated Parents. Unpublished raw data. —. 2014. What are some of the unique challenges that children of incarcerated parents face? Empowering Our Young People, and Stemming the Collateral Damage of Incarceration. White House presentation. October 8, 2014. http://nrccfi.camden.rutgers.edu/files/white-house-.pdf —. 2016. Regional Listening Sessions Youth of Incarcerated Parents. Unpublished raw data. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2016. A SHARED SENTENCE the devastating toll of parental incarceration on kids, families and communities. Baltimore, MD: Policy Report: Kids Count. Arditti, Joyce A. 2012. Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and Social Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents, and Caregivers. New York, NY: NYU Press. Asok, Arun, Kristin Bernard, Tania Roth, Jeffrey Rosen, and Mary Dozier. 2013. Parental responsiveness moderates the association between early-life stress and reduced telomere length. Development and Psychopathology, 25(3), 577-585. Birtha, Becky. 2017. Far Apart, Close in Heart: Being a Family when a Loved One is Incarcerated. Park Ridge, Il: Albert Whitman and Company. Bucci, Monica, Sara S. Marques, Debora Oh and Nadine Harris. 2016. Toxic Stress in Children and Adolescents. Advances in Pediatrics,63 (1); 403-28. Chui, Wing. Hong. 2016. Association Between Caregiver Stress and Behavioral Problems in the Children of Incarcerated Fathers in Hong Kong. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20(10), 2074-2083. Comfort, Megan. 2016. “A Twenty Hour a Day Job”: The impact of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665 (May 2016), 63–79. Conway, James and Edward Jones. 2015. Seven Out of Ten? Not Even Close. A Review of Research on the Likelihood of Children with Incarcerated Parents Becoming Justice Involved. New Britain, CT:

Ann Adalist-Estrin

113

Central Connecticut State University -Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy. Dallaire, Danielle. H., Anne Ciccone, and Laura C. Wilson. 2010. Teachers’ experiences with and expectations of children with incarcerated parents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 281-290. Denby, Ramona. W. 2012. Parental Incarceration and Kinship Care: Caregiver Experiences, Child Well-Being, and Permanency Intentions. Social work in public health, 27(1-2), 104-128. Ellis, S. 2016. Almost Like Visiting. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Federal Interagency Working Group for Children of Incarcerated Parents. (2013). Promoting Social and Emotional Well-Being for Children of Incarcerated Parents. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ Felitti, Vincent, Robert Anda, Dale Nordenberg, David Williamson, Alison Spitz, Valerie Edwards, Mary Koss and James Marks. 1998. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine; 14:245–258. Franke, Hillary A. 2014. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment. Children 2014, 1(3), 390-402. Gaynes, E. 2003. The Story of Many Often-Invisible Families. FCN Report 33, Fathers Behind Bars and on the Street. National Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated at Rutgers University-Camden. Johnston, Denise and Megan Sullivan. 2016. Parental incarceration: Personal accounts and developmental impact. New York: Routledge. Luthar, Suniya S. 2006. "Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades". Cicchetti, Dante and Donald Cohen. (Eds). Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation, Vol. 3, 2nd ed. Luther, Kate. 2015. Examining Social Support Among Adult Children of Incarcerated Parents, Family Relations, 64, 4, 505. Miller, Keva, J. Mark Eddy, Sharon Borja, and Sarah Lazzari. 2017. Variations in the Life Histories of Incarcerated Parents by Race and Ethnicity: Implications for Service Provision. Smith College Studies in Social Work, Vol. 87 (1),2017 Murphey, David. and P. Mae Cooper. 2015. Parents Behind Bars: What Happens to their Children? Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.

114

Responding to the Need of Children and Families of the Incarcerated

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. 2005/2014. Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain: Working Paper No. 3. Updated Edition. Retrieved from www.developingchild.harvard.edu Nesmith, Ande., and Ebony Ruhland. 2008. Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1119–1130. Nichols, Emily B., Ann B. Loper, and J. Patrick Meyer. 2016. "Promoting educational resiliency in youth with incarcerated parents: The impact of parental incarceration, school characteristics, and connectedness on school outcomes." Journal of youth and adolescence 45, no. 6: 10901109. Perry, Bruce D. 2000. "Traumatized children: How childhood trauma influences brain development." The Journal of the California Alliance for the Mentally Ill 11, no. 1: 48-51. Phillips, Susan D., and Trevor Gates. 2011. "A conceptual framework for understanding the stigmatization of children of incarcerated parents." Journal of Child and Family Studies 20, (3): 286-294. Poehlmann, Julie, J. Mark Eddy, D. H. Dallaire, J. L. Zeman, B. J. Myers, V. Mackintosh, M. I. Kuznetsova et al. 2013. "Relationship processes and resilience in children with incarcerated parents." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 78, (3): vii-viii. Satcher, David. 2001. "Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General." Washington, DC: US Public Health Services, US Department of Health and Human Services 583. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter4/sec1.ht ml Sesame Workshop. 2013. Sesame Street Toolkit “Little Children-Big Challenges: Incarceration” http://www.sesamestreet.org/toolkits/incarceration Sullivan, M. 2017. Clarissa's Disappointment: And Resources for Families, Teachers and Counsellors of Children of Incarcerated Parents. Sherman, IL: Shining Hall. Turanovic, Jillian J., Nancy Rodriguez, and Travis C. Pratt. 2012. "The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents." Criminology 50, (4): 913-959. Wakefield, Sara, and Kathleen Powell. 2016. "Distinguishing petty offenders from serious criminals in the estimation of family life effects." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 665, (1): 195-212.

Ann Adalist-Estrin

115

Wakefield, Sara, Hedwig Lee, and Christopher Wildeman. 2016. Tough on Crime, Tough on Families? Criminal Justice and Family Life in America. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665, 8-21. Wildeman, Christopher, Turney, K.& Yi, Y. 2016. Paternal Incarceration and Family Functioning: Variation across Federal, State, and Local Facilities. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665, 80-97. Wildeman, Christopher, Anna Haskins and Julie Poehlmann, Eds. (2017) “Minimizing the Collateral Damage: Interventions to Diminish the Consequences of Mass Incarceration for Children.” American Psychological Association. Youth.gov. 2016a. Listening Session http://youth.gov/feature-article/coiplistening-session-2016 —. 2016b. Collaboration Profiles http://youth.gov/collaboration-profiles/ NY-initiative-coip

THEY TOOK MY PARENT AWAY: LITTLE ONES AFFECTED BY INCARCERATION SPEAK1 MICHAEL TROUT

This chapter is a modest effort to focus on the internal experience of the prenate, the baby and the young child when someone of importance to them suddenly goes away. In order to access the child’s experience, we must find a way to be very quiet, to get our own worries and defences out of the way, and to enter an unfamiliar world. And we must clear a path by learning some things about the nature of trauma and survival in early life; about just how little ones do memory, and why; and about what sort of internal representations of trauma are possible in early life, and why such representations are so important. This chapter is not about judicial reform, children’s rights, or even child welfare policy, although issues in these areas may come to mind as you approach what it is about: the internal experience of very young children when their parents go to prison. Our task is to open our minds to a full and quiet imagination of a young child’s experience. We cannot worry just yet about what to do about judicial policy or other adult matters that may negatively influence the internal lives of babies. Indeed, such focus on the adult issues may limit our imagination, causing us to defensively pretend that babies are just like us, and should recover from loss and chaos and trauma just as we imagine we would (or even as we think we remember that we did). We may revert to blaming the parents of these children - who probably did something bad, after all - as if that has anything whatsoever 1

This paper is an elaboration of the research and clinical underpinnings of the film, “They Took My Parent Away: Little Ones Affected by Incarceration Speak” produced by the author. This film had its first showing at the inaugural conference of the International Coalition for the Children of Incarcerated Parents in New Zealand in 2017, and is available on digital download, at no cost, at www.infantparent.com. The author is Director of The Infant-Parent Institute in the USA, and can be reached at [email protected].

Michael Trout

117

to do with the child’s experience, and the way the child’s attitudes, behaviour, and narratives about self and others have changed forever. Or we may, as a defence against our impotence at being unable to change the realities for babies and young children, just decide that they actually don’t feel much at all. They’re too young, we say. They’re resilient, after all. They won’t remember this, later, we say with a sort of desperate, naive hope. We begin by trying to understand the difference between experiencing an upset, and experiencing trauma…

The Nature of Trauma and its Sequelae The human brain is designed to sense, process, store, and act on information from the outside and from the inside. Evolution requires it. The point is adaptation, of course. This will be the case with all sorts of everyday events, but increasingly so with events that catch the attention of our minds (including our bodies): those that involve novelty, noise, sudden onset, surprise, or a hint of perceived danger. Many of these events are upsetting, and may be memorable. They may not, however, constitute “trauma” (Baradon 2010; Levine 2007; Lieberman 2004; Perry, et al, 1995; Pruett 1984; Siegel 1995; Witten 2010). In this very particular category - the one we reserve for the title, “trauma” - are events which, for a particular child in a particular moment, threaten to overwhelm. Either due to the suddenness of onset, or the child’s assessment of available resources for help, or the child’s sense of his own efficacy in the moment, the child’s most primitive mind imagines that survival may be at stake. In the face of such a threat (real or merely perceived; it doesn’t actually matter) the child may be unable to modulate extreme affective states, to regulate bodily functions, or even to hold on to an awareness of his own sensations and emotions, with dissociation just around the corner (van der Kolk 2005). When a child experiences trauma, a number of amazingly clever adaptive systems kick in. There may be increased blood flow to those parts of the brain responsible for perception, as the child - in a panic - ramps up the acquisition of data. There may be increased blood flow to those areas that support rapid physical responses (to our lungs and legs, for example, so we can escape), at the expense of those parts of our brain responsible for careful consideration and mental growth.

118

They Took My Parent Away

The brain becomes active in encoding a memory of the event - or, perhaps, only certain salient aspects of it, like colour or sound - thus increasing the chances of future survival by preparing the child to respond vigorously the next time they encounter any of the elements of the first exposure: yelling, for example, or that certain look on a loved one’s face, or even the aroma of a certain food that happened to be cooking during the first exposure. At the same time, the brain becomes active in retaining the affective experience - the feelings associated with the event - to make sure the feelings are not lost. These feelings will become the basis upon which later decisions are made: with whom we associate, how to recognize danger, whether to allow oneself to make an emotional connection to another, how to respond to people in blue uniforms. These later decisions will often be irrational; we may well not know why we are making them the way we do (why we are attracted to a certain person, for example, or why we run away from - or become aggressive in response to - certain situations). What this means for the baby over in the corner of the room to whom something potentially overwhelming is occurring - mum crying loudly, for example, while a large, uniformed man is making quick movements and dad is acting scared, after which mum seems to forget that it’s time to eat is not merely that he or she is having troubled feelings. Children can get over troubled feelings. They do not get over changes in their brain chemistry, structure and development. It’s not just about emotions. A different kind of child is being created, right under our noses. This literal rewiring and reorganization of the brain cannot be easily undone. The mind of the child is on a survival course and from this perspective, it would be senseless for an adult’s suggestion that the child should “be nice”, or “stop overreacting” to have an effect. Although the course is not set, risks have just increased that the child will develop the following: become hypervigilant, withdrawn, edgy, or highly reactive; may have unbalanced development, with precocious motor advancement matched with poor mental, social and emotional development, with particular deficits in reasoning, focusing, self-soothing, empathy, and appreciating cause-and-effect; may display a hunger for chaos, stimulation or fast-paced activity, with an attraction to change or pain; may manifest extraordinary fears, sometimes expressed in somatic forms (with chronic illnesses or complaints of pain), and sometimes defended against (by being a bully to others, for example); may have trouble sitting still and focusing, with all the attendant repercussions for reading and general school performance and reputation; may develop an image of the self that makes

Michael Trout

119

violence seem inevitable–particularly if grownups have referenced the child as “just like your father”, or as otherwise likely to follow in the incarcerated parent’s footsteps (Cohen, et al. 2010; Leuzinger-Bohleber 2015; Levine and Kline 2007; Lieberman 2004; Miller, et al. 2007; Perry, et al. 1995; Schore 2002; van der Kolk 2005; Witten 2010; Yehuda, et al. 2001). “Wouldn’t it be nice if such events could simply be forgotten? Alas…”

Research into the Nature of Memory, the Geography of Memory and the Definition of Memory So much in child development research rests on the core question: Do little children remember what they experience? In retrospect, it is embarrassing to see how short-sighted and unscientific we have been in our understanding of the nature of memory in early life. The evidence has been accumulating for decades that virtually no life experiences are cast aside (Anthi 1983; Bowlby 1982; Gaensbauer 2004; Kandel 2006; Leuzinger-Bohleber 2015; Levine 1997; Perry, et al. 1995; Rothschild 2000; Scaer 2007; Schore 2002; van der Kolk and McFarlane 1996; Yehuda, et al. 2001). One of the reasons we didn’t catch on, before, was that we had trouble thinking beyond what we knew, as adults, all of which rested on traditional, left frontal cortex models for investigating memory in babies and very young children. We failed to notice that there are actually many ways to remember, many ways to store and many ways to retrieve. When we thought of memory as a principally cognitive process, and one dependent on language for proper retrieval, we saw that babies probably didn’t qualify. Babies didn’t do much talking, and their myelination was insufficient to allow the sort of cognition we believed was needed; therefore, they must not be remembering. We were a little slow to take note that pre-verbal experiences were unlikely to be stored verbally. In other words, a three-year-old (or a grownup, for that matter) would be unlikely to recall something that happened earlier in life, when he was a little short on words, by telling us about it. Not until we began to expand our notions about what storage or retrieval might look like if done non-verbally did it dawn on us that an older child who tugs constantly on his collar, or an adult who hates turtlenecks, might actually be showing us that he remembers the cord wrapped around his neck during birth, creating a temporary but terrifying anoxia. Could the nine-year-old adoptee be telling us that she remembers

120

They Took My Parent Away

something - even that she is looking for something, out there, somewhere when she stands by the window, day after day, staring out? Is the eightmonth-old who jumps at every sound, or the three-year-old who rushes to his mother’s side whenever he thinks she is in danger, telling us that he remembers the domestic violence that both of them experienced while he was still inside her? And what about the little girl named Aveline, from “They Took My Parent Away: Little Ones Affected by Incarceration Speak”? She “remembers” nothing - according to the old and scientifically inaccurate models of memory we used to apply - about being born in a prison. But she recalls the feeling of being around women who were “…mad all the time and, like, stiff.” She testifies to being uncomfortable around “…people who laugh all the time - or even smile too much - [they] make me nervous.” She speaks of approaching a lady on the bus one time who “…had that stiffness all over her face and her body.” Aveline was attracted to her. She went to stand near her, and even put her hand on the lady’s hand. She didn’t know why. She reports, “It wasn’t that I thought she was my mother. But there was something about her that just made me feel peaceful, and made me feel close to my own mum.” Daniel Siegel suggests a particularly stunning model for understanding memory, and its function in development: Memory can be seen as the way the mind encodes elements of experience into various forms of representation. As a child develops, the mind begins to create a sense of continuity across time, linking past experiences with present perceptions and anticipations of the future. Within these representational processes, generalizations of mental models of the self, and the self with others, are created; these form an essential scaffold in which the growing mind interacts with the world (Siegel 1999, p. 5).

Nobel prize-winning molecular biologist Eric Kandel discovered that even a primitive snail remembers, and he asserts that such memory is essential to survival and evolutionary adaptation, across generations. It only makes sense, he reports, that organisms would need to hold on to the “story” of their experience, so they would know how to respond when similar experiences re-occur. He concludes, “It is…memory that weaves one’s life into a coherent whole” (Kandel 2006, p. 372). What are the indicators, in the here and now, that a child is remembering or, for that matter, that an adult is remembering something from early childhood - when verbal descriptions of the remembered event are elusive, if not non-existent?

Michael Trout

121

Theodore Gaensbauer, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Colourado Health Sciences Center, helped us to see that children demonstrate memories through their behaviour (Gaensbauer 2004). Distress may not be reported verbally by a young child who suddenly remembers an earlier trauma, or encounters a stimulus that is reminiscent, but his body will report it quite articulately through, for example, hyperarousal, behavioural disorganization, withdrawal, or aggression. Especially when the child is confronted by a new experience that feels somehow like the earlier one (whether it actually is similar or not), they will speak loudly through their affect and their behaviour. The purpose, according to Gaensbauer, is clear: they are struggling to cope with what-isremembered-but-can’t-be-described, to “tell the story” of what happened before, as part of an effort to, “…master the overwhelming affects, develop a coherent narrative, and ultimately integrate the experience” (Gaensbauer 2004, p. 30). This way that babies and young children have of “telling their story” is an important component of survival, and of integrating experience. As Dr. Kandel puts it: “...learning is conserved through evolution because it is essential for survival” (Kandel 2006, p. 186). In other words, it is adaptive to hang onto crucial information that might be needed for survival later (Perry et al. 1995). Successful organisms do this, and they can’t do it if they don’t “learn” the experience, if they don’t remember (in some form or another) what they’re trying to defend against. It’s often clumsy, as the child is developing adaptive strategies based on the vaguest of notions about what the threat is. Taj, another of the little children we met in the film, speaks about two such clumsy strategies that arose in his family after his parents were locked up (in a box, he imagines). His sister’s strategy to manage her distress was to repeatedly play a game in which she would lock Taj in a closet. (Imagine the joy, in the sister’s unconscious, of pretending she had control over who gets locked up, and when they get out.) Taj then works on his distress about being locked in the closet by imagining that his parents are in there with him. Now he has the chance to find a secret way out. Only he knows it, because he is a Super Hero, and he saves his parents and himself in one fell swoop. He goes further in his adaptation by anticipating that he might someday also be locked up, as his grandmother regularly threatens will happen if he doesn’t “straighten up.” Not to worry, his defences report: He already knows the secret way out. His triumph is revealed in the last line of his story: “No more boxes.”

122

They Took My Parent Away

But memory, per se, is only part of the story…

The Child’s Narrative We now have to add a bit of complexity to the matter of memory. It turns out that young children are prone to work out internal representations of events in their lives, as they struggle to extract meaning from experience and, therefore, to make the future feel safer and more predictable (Bowlby 1988; Lyons-Ruth and Zeanah 1993; May 2005; Stern 1985). Much of this process of meaning-making and narrative-creation is based on sensation and perception, rather than what we usually think of as rational “thought”. So, the very young child may conclude: “The reason they came and got my mummy was that I was bad this morning at breakfast.” Or the child may only pay attention to the part of the story that hurts the most - that “mummy left me”, by creating this sort of representation: “Today I said ‘no’ to my mummy. She got mad. So, she left me. I must never say ‘no’ to anyone I care about [or anyone who has power over me]. That way, I can prevent anyone from leaving me again.” Such attempts at meaning-making often turn into crazy-sounding (to grown-ups) narratives about the Self, and the Self-with-other. Such narratives set the stage for unresolved bereavement. Sometimes the pain of a narrative is so great it overwhelms a child’s capacity to reason with themselves, or accept adult comfort. Sometimes it sets the stage for dissociation from the whole event of loss, leaving the child with a void where clarifying pictures should be. Sometimes the child is left with garbled narratives, as he struggles to put together “…the bits and pieces of experience that float like ghosts around the self, but are unavailable as self-sustaining stories” (Hurley 2006 p. 51). Part of the challenge of quietly listening to the voices of the five children in the film* is that these created narratives—these internal representations of what happened, and why - do sound silly and incomprehensible to adults. But if we denigrate these secret thoughts, who will hear the cries of the children for coherence? Who will notice that the ideas the child develops are then tucked into behaviour? When we think the resulting behaviour worthy of diagnosis, years later, will we have lost track of what the children’s representations of their early experiences were? Will we have a clue as to why, later, these children are as they are? “Trauma” can never be properly defined as just an event. It is always a combination of the event and the child’s appraisal of that event—his

Michael Trout

123

narrative about it. An event only becomes a trauma when it overwhelms the capacity of the organism to manage it, and it’s a child’s clumsy appraisal that determines what her adaptational metabolic and behavioural responses will be, in the moment, and whether or not later events are, or are not, defined as similar to the earlier moment of being overwhelmed (Miller et al. 2007). It is through appraisal that narratives - coherent or not - emerge. And it is from our imagination about what these narratives might be that an adult can access a bit of wisdom about the soul of a child. If we refuse to get curious about the rich, representational meaning of children’s behaviour, or we neglect to be interested in their peculiar and intensely personal narratives about their experiences, we condemn ourselves - and our children - to wandering around, needlessly, in the haze of a mysterious past. This is getting complicated. Can’t we just rely on children being “resilient”?

Developments in our Understanding of What It Means to “Adapt”, and to be “Resilient” We have come to see that resilience has very little to do with being tough, or being unaffected by experience. We know that children are astonishingly adaptive. Sometimes this means they are able to stand up, dust themselves off, and move on after a crisis. When they later manifest behaviour related to what they experienced, we adults often fail to make the connection, preferring to assert that the present behaviour is random, that it “came out of the blue”. This allows us to rest assured - often a false assurance - that very little has gotten inside. This becomes part of our limited view of the meaning of “resilience”. Two notions - that a child can be resilient and also full of feeling - are not mutually exclusive. It is also true that certain children have a broader range of alternative responses available to them than others do; their sense of having a firm footing is stronger and their beliefs about their own efficacy are sturdier. They can also think of more people who will go to bat for them. Moreover, they feel lost only as long as it takes to access replacement sources for what they need - from lunch to love. Such children respond to rebuff by another child in the neighbourhood, or by a momentarily uncaring family member, by going to someone else for reassurance, or by employing a familiar self-regulating ritual. Others,

124

They Took My Parent Away

however, respond to rebuff as if life itself were threatened. Perhaps, in the narrative of these children, the threat is cataclysmic. They have had so many experiences of being abandoned or betrayed that they fall quickly into a state of hopelessness when it happens again. It feels unstoppable, to these children. Aggressive impulses are unleashed, as a sense of utter aloneness and injustice envelops them. When these children then strike out, it is only because they don’t know how to cry, or to ask for comfort. And when these children hit, even more rejection comes, and the cycle begins to pick up steam. These capabilities of the human mind may seem to send us in maladaptive or nonsensical behavioural directions, as when the child of an alcoholic who spends their early years trying to learn how to control their parent’s drinking (because their survival depends on it), and imagining that they actually can - grows into a controlling child. As a grownup, they find themselves dissatisfied with relationships in which they are not called upon to “fix” something. They are only cleaving to what feels familiar, in order to reduce anxiety. After all, we do not necessarily become better when we adapt; we just survive. And nature believes that is good. A part of the brain called the hippocampus has several jobs; the most pertinent to this discussion is the task of linking memory to meaning (Siegel 1999). It essentially asks the question, in the face of new experience: “Have I been here, before? If so, what was that experience like, what narrative about that event do I have, and what, therefore, can I anticipate in the future?” The hippocampus has a major role in creating a narrative of the Self across time, in the service of helping us to feel coherent, to discern patterns, to notice the familiar (even when it actually isn’t). High levels of cortisol (a hormone the body typically uses to modulate stress) “...not only transiently block hippocampal functioning, but excessive and chronic exposure to stress hormones may lead to neuronal death in this region” (Siegel 1999, p. 50), producing decreased hippocampal volume. This is exactly what we found when we were finally able to look at the brains of war veterans with PTSD - and, since then, at the brains of other victims of chronic and overwhelming stress. Their smaller hippocampi were less able to do their job of keeping the organism flexible, rational, and adaptable, with a coherent array of choices about how to react to crisis. Memory became fragmented, without detail, and without coherence. Other areas of the brain were then left to fill in (Bremmer and Narayan 1998; Kandel 2006).

Michael Trout

125

Enter the amygdala. A small, almond-shaped nucleus deep in the centre of the brain, it is, frankly, not too smart. On the other hand, it is quite essential to survival. It is poorly-equipped to make sense of things; that’s just not its job. If there’s time to process things, to consider them a bit, it will send sensory input on to the hippocampus and the orbitofrontal cortices, where they do that sort of thing, and where they can pull off some rational response planning. The amygdala itself, however, has one principal task: To yell loudly if it senses danger. It has face-recognition cells that respond quickly to expressions of fear or anger on the faces of others. It does not think about the meaning of the facial expression of another; it merely reacts. And when it reacts, it often does so in a way that reduces options and creates more trouble. A police officer enters the room. Hippocampi of some children in the room will ascribe non-terrifying meanings to “blue”, “gun’, or “big”: “Grandpa used to have a blue shirt. He played with me a lot. Blue is a pretty colour.” Hippocampi of other children in the room - already shrunken in volume by chronic stress, with a meagre library of meanings to call on - will give over the creation of both metabolic and behavioural responses to the amygdala. In reality, this police officer means no harm; indeed, he is only here to return a lost puppy. But he may look (to the limited-functioning hippocampus) “just like the guy who shot my uncle, or took my daddy away that day my mum screamed so much.” Nothing else can be experienced, at the moment. Autonomic changes abound. Respiration and heart rate increase, and response options decrease. The amygdala is in charge as the child races for the door. He will never forget today, even if nothing really awful happens. It feels as if it did. Little children are resilient, with enormous capacities for adaptation. But they are not unresponsive. They store information in preparation for more life. If they have only limited access to information about previous experiences, or the information they store is tinged with fear and impotence, then their responses will be similarly tinged. The little boy who experiences the torching of his mum’s trailer by his daddy - an event that was only the latest chapter in a long story of domestic violence - has a brain with less plasticity, and he has a different kind of resilience based on what he perceives to be the requirements for survival. He has become more alert to danger, he is inclined and physically prepared to fight and run, rather than to sit on someone’s comforting lap. Maybe his adaptation will be to make himself unnoticed so he won’t be hurt. Later, a certain

126

They Took My Parent Away

kind of childhood nursery tale may evoke memories of that fire and that fear, producing a bright-red image on his fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), indicating significant blood flow, in motor centres in the brain. He is preparing to react, physically. He is likely to be highly agitated at preschool, easily set off by noises that are barely noticed by others, likely to go into a rage if he encounters a bee or other flying insect (which overwhelms his frail but hair-trigger defences, making him feel powerless and terrified). He may try to set fires, repeating one of his own experiences of trauma, as a way to understand, master and integrate that experience. He may drive his mum crazy by fretting incessantly about the gas gauge in the car, remembering (far better than mum does) her earlier terror when daddy used to drain the tank so she couldn’t go anywhere. All of these behaviours are likely to confuse both family and teachers. Can we picture such a hypervigilant, hyperreactive child at a traffic stop in his late adolescence?

Implications for Very Young Children of Incarceration With this strong developmental foundation in place, it is only a small leap for us to imagine the experience of a baby or young child when his or her parent goes to prison. We can now see that it is, of course, not just the event of parental incarceration, per se, that makes up the larger experience of parental incarceration. The chaos that characterizes some families prior to incarceration may have already shaken a child’s attachments and sense of safety. In the midst of the chaos, it is the affective response of the parent who does not go to prison - but who is destabilized, frightened, angry, embarrassed in the community or anticipating being left - that can have serious impact on an unborn baby, infant or young child. Long before anyone even leaves - long before the upsetting (if not traumatic) events of hiding, or capture, or arrest - the young child responds to everyone else’s response. It is from this affective response of other family members that the child gets cues about threats. They take it very personally. Their neurology begins to change, preparing them for what they can only vaguely imagine is about to happen. They may already anticipate that their own survival is at stake, which moves the child’s internal response from “upset” to “traumatized”. It seems strange for any witnessing adults, to whom it appears that nothing has even happened yet.

Michael Trout

127

If there is not chaos in advance of the incarceration, the child may be spared this fearful and fearsome stage. This is undoubtedly why some children seem to weather parental incarceration reasonably well: they had solid attachments with stable figures before everything went wrong. Grownups were calm, rhythms in the family were established and maintained, caregivers were responsive and reliable. The losses will come, but the child is better prepared for them. They may later become frightened and sorrowful, but they have others on whom they can rely. While there will be upset, trauma is less likely. Whether merely acutely upset or sliding into trauma, a young child will be actively creating narratives about all of it. If the narratives they carry into the first event in the incarceration cycle are full of stable attachment figures and absent endless cues about danger and threat, the child sees themselves as strong and not alone. If there is chaos in advance of incarceration, that moment when a parent is taken away merely constitutes another chapter in a narrative of loss, threat, and trauma cues. The knock on the door either evokes curiosity or screams, and each will clearly tell the tale of the narratives of those in the house, even before the arrest. Everything that happens during the hiding, the capture and the arrest will, of course be remembered, although the child may not remember in words and, therefore, may be unable to report the memory in words. All will be remembered, however, even by the prenate, whose only cues about what is happening “out there” arrive through his mother’s endocrine system. Later, caregivers will be surprised when he is inconsolable, agitated, overactive or hyperreactive in response to nothing more than his mum being a little impatient, withdrawn or edgy. These small moments of maternal affect will “remind” his body of everything suddenly going wrong, on the outside, before he was even born. These early narratives try to make sense of what is happening, even at the risk of getting it all wrong. In order to gain mastery over the event(s), for example, the child may create erroneous cause-and-effect links. From a child’s perspective, even a narrative that makes them at fault for everything works better than a narrative that has no explanation at all; the latter narrative leaves the child unblamed, but also powerless to stop the event from happening again. These early narratives sometimes evoke new behaviours, following the incarceration. For example, withdrawal might result from a narrative with the theme that bad things happened - daddy yelling, mummy tearfully

128

They Took My Parent Away

pleading with the police officer and then lapsing into her own withdrawal because the child was bothersome and in the way; now the child must be very quiet so as not to upset grownups who might retaliate by leaving (just like daddy did, physically, and mum did emotionally). One 3-year-old who witnessed her mother’s murder of her younger baby brother became a risktaker in the foster home. But careful observation revealed the scheme and, beneath it, the narrative: Each time the little girl rode her trike onto the road, the foster mother responded by calmly and firmly fetching her, guiding her trike back to the yard while saying, “Oh, no, sweetheart. Little girls in this house are protected. Nobody gets hurt, here.” Over and over they repeated the pattern: the girl rode onto the road, the foster mother “saved” her, then offered an alternative narrative: “In this house, little girls will not be hurt.” As hours of breakdown in family rhythms and systems turn into months, or years, a child continues to respond, to figure out the ideas and stories that represent (in her mind) what happened and what continues to happen. If their attachments were stable before the incarceration cycle began, and if they had plenty of internal and external resources to comfort them and meet their needs, these stories may take on elements of adaptation and strength. A child may conclude that the incarcerated parent did something silly and, with lots of bedtime conversations with grandma or other substitute caregiver, the child will figure out exactly how to avoid such silliness. Especially if the remaining family are great storytellers, good listeners, and flexible in their expectations, the child may develop an elaborate schema that assures them that the incarcerated parent is coming home, has not forgotten. The child may imagine the reunion scene and is supported in thinking about it. However, if conditions prior to the commencement of the incarceration cycle were more unstable, unreliable, chaotic - and if attachments were insecure or disorganized - the child’s ongoing efforts to cope may be less successful. Efforts at mastery and self-assurance may be confounded by convoluted narratives, leaving the child feeling disorganized and impotent. The results are natural but not specifically predictable, appearing along a continuum of behaviours from bullying to self-abuse; from social withdrawal to trying to control social situations; from episodic inconsolable crying to affective flatness; from refusal of nurturance (touch, cuddling, even feeding) to high demand for attention. The ability to focus is nearly always affected, so the child is soon seen as unable to sit still, as “always on the move”, as unable to enjoy quiet caregiver attention.

Michael Trout

129

By themselves, none of these responses specifically predict risk to educational or social development, nor do they solely predict that the child will grow into a law-breaker or risk-taker who will someday be incarcerated. However, when the child’s needs are overlooked - as they often are, at these early ages, especially in chaotic homes with remaining caregivers who are exhausted and short on resources - patterns of disorganisation, unmet needs, and overlooked cries for help can turn into chronic patterns. Nobody knows what to do. Nobody has the energy to do it, anyway. Some children will emerge from early loss and chaos - even trauma - with adaptive capabilities that will serve them well. For them, it will be true that “The impeded stream is the one that sings” (Berry 1983, p. 97). But to all young children whose parents are taken away to jail or prison, we owe mindfulness, developmentally-sensitive attunement to the nuance of their experience, and awareness that they are paying attention - and responding - at every moment.

References Anthi, Per roar. 1983. Reconstruction of preverbal experiences. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 31, 33-56. Arata-Maiers, Teresa L., and Elisabeth M. Stafford. 2010. Supporting young children in combat-injured families. Zero to Three, 31 (1), 2228. Baradon, Tessa. 2010. Relational trauma in infancy. London: Routledge. Berry, Wendell. 1983. Standing by words. Berkeley: Counterpoint. Boucet, Stacey. 2008. Children and families with incarcerated parents. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Bowlby, John. 1982. Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52 (4), 664-678. Bowlby, John. 1988. A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Bremner, J. Douglas, and Meena Narayan. 1998. The effects of stress on memory and the hippocampus throughout the life cycle: Implications for childhood development and aging. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 871-888. Cohen, Esther, Saralea Chazan, Moran Lerner, and Efrat Maimon 2010. Posttraumatic play in young children exposed to terrorism: An empirical study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 31 (2), 159-181. Dutra, Lissa, Ilaria Bianchi, Daniel J. Siegel, and Karlen Lyons-Ruth. 2009. The Relational Context of Dissociative Phenomena. In Dell, P.

130

They Took My Parent Away

and O’Neil, J. (Eds.). Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM V and beyond. New York: Routledge, 83-92. Gaensbauer, Theodore J. 2004. Telling their stories: Representation and reenactment of traumatic experiences occurring in the first year of life. Zero to Three, 24 (5), 25-31. Hurley, Dermot. 2006. Internalized other interviewing of children exposed to violence. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 25(2): 50-63. Johnston, Denise, and Megan Sullivan, eds. 2016. Parental incarceration: personal accounts and developmental impact. New York: Routledge. Kandel, Eric. 2006. In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind. New York: W.W. Norton. Leuzinger-Bohleber, Marianne. 2015. Finding the body in the mind: Embodied memories, trauma, and depression. London: Karnac. Levine, Peter A. 1997. Waking the tiger: Healing trauma. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. Levine, Peter A., and Maggie Kline 2007. Trauma through a child’s eyes: Awakening the ordinary miracle of healing. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. Lieberman, Alicia F., ed. 2003. Losing a parent to death in the early years: Guidelines for the treatment of traumatic bereavement in infancy and early childhood. Zero to Three. Lieberman, Alicia. 2004. Traumatic stress and quality of attachment: Reality and internalization in disorders of infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25(4), 336-352. Lieberman, Alicia F., William W. Harris, Joy D. Osofsky, and Howard J. Osofsky. 2010. Infant mental health and the treatment of early trauma. Zero to Three, 31(1), 17-21. Lyons-Ruth, Karlen, and Charles H. Zeanah Jr. 1993. The family context of infant mental health: I. Affective development in the primary caregiving relationship. In Zeanah, C. (Ed.), Handbook of Infant Mental Health. New York: Guilford Press. May, Joanne. 2005. Family attachment narrative therapy: Healing the experience of early childhood maltreatment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(3), 221-237. Miller, Gregory E., Edith Chen, and Eric S. Zhou. 2007. If it goes up, must it come down? Chronic stress and the hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenocortical axis in humans. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 25-4. Mogil, Catherine, Blair Paley, Tricia Doud, Linda Havens, Jessica MooreTyson, William R. Beardslee, and Patricia Lester. 2010. Families overcoming under stress (FOCUS) for early childhood. Zero to Three, 31(1), 10-16.

Michael Trout

131

Nelson, Katherine. (Ed.) 1999. Narratives from the crib. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ostler, Teresa. 2010. Grief and coping in early childhood. Zero to Three, 31 (1), 29-35. Parke, R. D., and K. A. Clarke-Stewart.2001. Effects of parental incarceration on young children. Report of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S Department of Health and Human Services. Perry, Bruce D., Ronnie A. Pollard, Toi L. Blakley, William L. Baker, and Domenico Vigilante. 1995. "Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and? use? dependent? development of the brain: How states become traits." Infant mental health journal 16, no. 4: 271-291. Pruett, Kyle D. 1984. A chronology of defensive adaptations to severe psychological trauma. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 39. 591-612. Rothschild, Babette. 2000. The body remembers: The Psychophysiology of trauma and trauma treatment. New York: W. W. Norton. Saavedra, D., Lapado, P., Bango, M. and Mellow, F. 2013. Invisible no more: Children of incarcerated parents in Latin America and the Caribbean. Gurises Unidos. Scaer, R. 2007. The body bears the burden: Trauma, dissociation, and disease. New York: Haworth. Schore, Allan N. 2002. Dysregulation of the right brain: A fundamental mechanism of traumatic attachment and the psychopathogenesis of posttraumatic stress disorder. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36 (1). Siegel, Daniel. (1995). Memory, trauma and psychotherapy: A cognitive science view. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 4, 93122. —. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of interpersonal experience. New York: The Guilford Press. —. 2003. Parenting from the inside out. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin. Siegel, Jane A. 2011. Disrupted childhoods: Children of women in prison. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Stern, D. N. 1985. The interpersonal world of the infant. New York: Basic Books. Terr, Lenore. 1988. Case study: What happens to early memories of trauma? A study of twenty children under age five at the time of documented traumatic events. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology, 27, 96-104.

132

They Took My Parent Away

Van der Kolk, Bessel A. and Alexander C. McFarlane. 1996. The black hold of trauma. In Van der kolk, B. McFarlane, A. and Weisaeth, L. (Eds.). Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, society. New York: The Guilford Press. Van der Kolk, Bessel. 2005. Developmental trauma disorder: Toward a diagnosis for child with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 401-408. Witten, Molly, Romer. 2010. Traumatic experience in infancy: How response to stress affect development. Zero to Three, 31(1), 38-42. Yehuda, Rachel, Sarah L. Halligan, and Robert Grossman. 2001. Childhood trauma and risk for PTSD: Relationship to intergenerational effects of trauma, parental PTSD, and cortisol. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 733-753. Zehr, Howard and Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz. 2011. What will happen to me? Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND: THE EXPERIENCES OF MOTHERS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL1 CAROLINE LONG AND MARGARETE PARRISH

This chapter describes a small qualitative pilot study on the experiences of mothers involuntarily committed (“sectioned”) to a psychiatric hospital in England. The women interviewed were sectioned under the UK Mental Health Act (Mental Health Act 2007), and had significant mental health disorders, with substance use-related conditions sometimes co-occurring. Although these mothers were in a psychiatric hospital, rather than a prison, they represent a hidden population of incarcerated parents as they had been involuntarily committed to the hospital for mental health services. Forensic mental health services are provided to individuals either pending trial or with criminal convictions and who have been determined to pose serious risks to others. Parents who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act (2007), are a hidden population of incarcerated parents because they have been committed to a hospital, rather than a detention facility and therefore are not included in research about parents who are in prison. Their children represent a similarly hidden, often-overlooked population at risk of problematic outcomes and inter-generational and sometimes lifelong implications. Women who are detained under the Mental Health Act (2007) consistently experience longer, more remote hospitalisations than their male counterparts. Their detentions are often in settings where family visits are difficult or impossible. Mothers requiring secure or forensic services are even more disadvantaged because of a shortage of facilities suitable for their care. These factors have parenting implications for mothers who are 1

The authors wish to thank Dr. Jane Ewbank for her contributions to and collaboration on this study.

134

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

sectioned and also for their children. At the same time, “Traditionally, parenting status is considered a child welfare concern that mental health clinicians and policymakers have largely ignored” (Benders-Hadi, Barber and Alexander 2013). .

The limited availability of research on children of mothers who have been sectioned calls for the application of highly-relevant research on children with incarcerated mothers. Though many children of incarcerated mothers are quite resilient, as a group they are at risk of experiencing disadvantaged outcomes in numerous domains associated with well-being (Flynn, Bartlett, Arias, Evans, and Burgess 2015; Johnson and Easterling 2012). Detrimental outcomes include multiple moves and caregivers (Flynn 2016; Godin and Kendall 2009); attachment difficulties and their own subsequent psychopathology (Murray and Murray 2010); school failure, truancy, and dropout (Hagan and Foster 2012); incarceration themselves as adults (Daillaire 2007); social stigmatization (Pritchard 2015), and increased diagnoses of PTSD (Bocknek et al. 2009). Concerns about the after-effects of parental incarceration have been found to persist from childhood into young adulthood (Mears and Siennick 2016). In addition to the potential risks of involuntary separation experienced by children of incarcerated mothers, children of sectioned mothers face the additional substantial challenges of having a mother with serious mental illness (Jeffery et al. 2013; Parrott, Macinnes and Parrott 2015), including stigma. In fact, Flynn et al. state more broadly that, “…Children of parents with a mental illness.… share many characteristics of children of imprisoned parents. These include shared shame, stigma, poor mental health outcomes, antisocial behaviour, abrupt separation from parent due to institutionalisation, and limited access to services” (2015 p. 13). Given the complex risk factors for children of mothers who have been sectioned, examining their trajectory of care has critical safeguarding implications. The number of incarcerated women in the UK has increased by 114% between 2000-2010 (Women’s Justice Taskforce 2011). Approximately 66% of women prisoners in the UK have children under age 18; many were previously single parents. When criminal charges cooccur with mental health conditions, women are often placed in distant, specialised mental health facilities because of the small number of “secure beds” available for the women needing them in the UK. Consequently, family access to these women is made even more difficult, with the predictable disruptions to attachments and relationships. At the same time, while the maternal role has been found to be highly important to mothers

Caroline Long and Margarete Parrish

135

hospitalised through serious mental illness, many psychiatric facilities collect no information on the whether their patients are parents (BendersHadi, Barber and Alexander 2013; Parrott, Macinnes, and Parrott 2015; Flynn, et al. 2015). Despite these worrying trends, the existing literature about planning for the care of children of incarcerated women in the UK remains very limited; it is assumed that, as in other countries, the majority of these children are cared for by family members (Ferris 2017; Flynn, et al. 2015; Turanovic, Rodriguez and Pratt 2012). Literature about planning for the care of children of women, sectioned in forensic units in the UK, appears non-existent. In fact, the experiences and perspectives of mothers who have been sectioned appear to have been the subject of only one study in the literature (Parrott, Macinnes, and Parrott 2015). Therefore, this pilot research represents a highly relevant thread in our knowledge about the impact of maternal incarceration.

Interviews Our pilot study was quite small because of the small overall population of women in the psychiatric hospital in which the research was conducted; moreover, hospital staff did not reasonably allow women who were incompetent or considered to be possibly troubled by participation, were excluded from potential participation. Therefore, our study entailed narrative interviews with four women who were mothers and who had experienced at least one involuntary hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital. All four women were hospitalised at the time of their interviews. Their ages ranged from 29-67 and their children’s ages ranged from 1-32. All four women had experienced previous involuntary admissions to psychiatric hospitals, including the unit they resided in the time of their interviews. Their primary diagnoses were Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder. Given the age range of the interviewees, some of the earlier hospitalisations had occurred over the course of many years; for some participants, hospitalisation was more recent, making for very varied institutional and parenting experiences. The mothers interviewed, discussed a wide range of social service involvement with their families prior to and during their hospitalisations. They also discussed a wide range of family responses to their mental health histories and child care arrangements. Family support consistently played a major role in the women’s experiences of being hospitalised, and was typically perceived as being more valuable than social services.

136

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Stigma played a large role in women’s descriptions of their experiences of being sectioned. Poignantly, one of the mothers reported visiting her own mother on the same unit on which she was now herself being held. In addition, her own children were experiencing some of the same problematic visitation arrangements that she experienced a generation before.

Parenting Challenges Experienced by Mothers Who had been Sectioned The importance of visitation to incarcerated parents and their children is well-documented (Cochran and Mears 2013; Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper and Shear 2010; Snyder 2009; Tasca, Mulvey and Rodriguez 2016). The logistics of arranging for children to visit their hospitalised mothers remained a prominent feature of the women’s discussions. Unlike arrangements for adult visitors, children’s visits seemed much more complicated within the hospital. The lack of clarity about when and where visits could be conducted featured prominently in their concerns: Spatial limitations, lack of available child-friendly space, and the lack of privacy were frequently mentioned as difficulties when children visited their mothers in the hospital. A hospital requirement for the mothers to be escorted to the visitation area posed difficulties both with finding available staff as well as the mothers’ feelings of humiliation greeting their children for the first time in weeks. These mothers discussed a sense of distress about the additional burdens placed on their partners and other family members during their absences. Throughout their discussions, the mothers alluded to a sense of stigma and secrecy regarding their hospitalisation for mental health conditions, compared with medical conditions; this problem has also been reported in other studies (cf. (Benders-Hadi, Barber and Alexander 2013). A prominent concern for the mothers’ interviewed was whether neighbours or children’s teachers should be made aware of the actual situation; a recent UK study suggests strategies for working with teachers of children with incarcerated parents; these strategies could also be applied to children with parents who are sectioned (Morgan, Leeson and Carter Dillon 2013).

Challenges Associated with Children of Detained Mothers While our study was a pilot study, and did not have the capacity to include interviews with the mothers’ children, the mothers consistently voiced concerns that resonate with the existing literature about children of

Caroline Long and Margarete Parrish

137

incarcerated parents. These concerns included multiple moves and placements for their children that were sometimes necessary because of the mothers’ hospitalisations. The mothers also voiced concerns about their children’s behavioural changes as well as their ability to concentrate on their schooling and their worrying about their mothers’ mental health problems. Interestingly, one mother’s experience of being sectioned to this psychiatric hospital had actually been alleviated by her child’s teacher’s intervention. In some cases, mothers’ detentions in psychiatric hospitals were not disclosed to their children’s schools; however, one teacher was made aware of the mother’s whereabouts, and was permitted to visit the mother in hospital. Each week, the teacher would bring the mother positive news of her child’s academic and social progress. Consequently, the mother felt both involved in and reassured about her child’s circumstances during her stay in hospital.

Points for Further Research and Consideration As a pilot, this study’s results are limited in generalisability, which is primarily due to the small sample size but also relates to its confinement to a single facility and concerns about the competency of some potential participants to give informed consent for interview. However, given the high rate of motherhood among women who have been sectioned, the lack of research about mothering among these women, and the parallel concerns for their children to those of incarcerated parents, this study provides some themes to be explored in future research. The themes include: inter-generational implications of mothers’ being sanctioned; stigma; the role of mothering for these women; and visitation and contact with their children, including barriers to these. Replications of the study with larger samples and across psychiatric hospitals would be useful. Future studies could also include the mothers’ children; the mothers’ community support network members, such as spouses, partners, children’s teachers, community mental health workers; and hospital staff. In conclusion, the overlap of mental illness, parenting, and forensic detention of mothers sectioned to a psychiatric hospital has led to a hidden and much under-examined population of incarcerated parents. The lack of attention to this group raises concerns about their children and about services for these women focused on their roles as mothers. As Parrott,

138

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Macinnes and Parrott, (2015, p. 259), stated, “Research with women hospitalised by severe mental illness suggests that recognising their parental roles and grief over lost relationships with children should be central to recovery-orientated care.”

References Benders-Hadi, Nikole, Mary Barber, and Mary Jane Alexander. 2013. "Motherhood in women with serious mental illness." Psychiatric Quarterly 84, no. 1: 65-72. Besemer, Sytske, Victor Van der Geest, Joseph Murray, Catrien CJH Bijleveld, and David P. Farrington. 2011. The Relationship between parental imprisonment and offspring offending in England and the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 51(2): 413-437. Bocknek, Erika London, Jessica Sanderson, and Preston A. Britner. 2009. Ambiguous Loss and Posttraumatic Stress in School-Age Children of Prisoners. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 18(3), 323-333. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9233-y Cochran, Joshua C., and Daniel P. Mears. 2013. Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice 41: 252–261. Cunningham, Judi, Femi Oyebode, and Panos Vostanis. 2000. Children of Mothers Admitted to Psychiatric Hospital: Care Arrangements and Mothers’ Perceptions. Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 5(3), 114119. Dallaire, Danielle H. 2007. Incarcerated Mothers and Fathers: A Comparison of Risks for Children and Families. Family Relations, 56, 440–453. Ferris, Alicia. 2017. How incarceration affects the parent-child relationship and family dynamics. In N. R. Silton, N. R. Silton (Eds.), Family Dynamics and Romantic Relationships in a Changing Society (pp. 310338). Hershey, PA, US: Information Science Reference/IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2404-5.ch016 Flynn, Catherine, Tess Bartlett, Paula Fernandez Arias, Phillipa Evans, and Alannah Burgess. 2015. Responding to Children When Their Parents Are Incarcerated: Exploring the Responses in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia null [article]. Law in Context: A SocioLegal Journal, 4. Flynn, Catherine, Bronwyn Naylor, and Paula Fernandez Arias. 2016. Responding to the needs of children of parents arrested in Victoria,

Caroline Long and Margarete Parrish

139

Australia. The role of the adult criminal justice system. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 351-369. doi:10.1177/0004865815585390 Godin, Paul, and Kathleen Kendall. 2009. Incarceration of Women in Britain: A Matter of Madness. In: Women Prisoners and Health Justice. Oxford, UK: Radcliffe. Hagan, John, and Holly Foster. 2012. Children of the American prison generation: student and school spillover effects of incarcerating mothers. Law and Society Review, 46(1): 37-69. Jeffery, Debra, Sarah Clement, Elizabeth Corker, Louise M. Howard, Joanna Murray, and Graham Thornicroft. 2013. Discrimination in relation to parenthood reported by community psychiatric service users in the UK: a framework analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 13:.1: 120. Johnson, Elizabeth I., and Beth Easterling. 2012. Understanding unique effects of parental incarceration on children: Challenges, progress, and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(2): 342-356. Mears, Daniel P., and Sonja E. Siennick. 2016. Young Adult Outcomes and the Life-Course Penalties of Parental Incarceration. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 53(1), 3-35. doi:10.1177/0022427815592452 Morgan, J., Leeson, C., & Carter Dillon, R. (2013). How can schools support children with a parent in prison? Pastoral Care in Education, 31(3), 199-210. doi:10.1080/02643944.2013.788063 Murray, Joseph, and Lynne Murray. 2010. Parental incarceration, attachment and child psychopathology. Attachment and Human Development, 12(4): 289-309. Parrott, Fiona. R., Deborah L. Macinnes and Janet Parrott 2015. Mental illness and parenthood: being a parent in secure psychiatric care. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health: CBMH, 25(4), 258-272. doi:10.1002/cbm.1948 Poehlmann, Julie, Danielle Dallaire, Ann Booker Loper, and Leslie D. Shear. 2010. Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist 6: 575–598. Pritchard, Colin. 2015. Psychiatric social work in the United Kingdom. In: J. Wright, N. Smelser, P. Baltes (Eds.). International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier. Snyder, Zoann K. 2009. Keeping families together: The importance of maintaining mother–child contact for incarcerated women. Women and Criminal Justice 19: 37–59.

140

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Tasca, Melinda, Philip Mulvey, and Nancy Rodriguez.2016. Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters. Punishment & Society, 18(4), 459-478. doi:10.1177/1462474516642856 Turanovic, Jillian J., Nancy Rodriguez, and Travis C. Pratt. 2012. Collateral Consequences of Incarceration Revisited: A Qualitative Analysis of the Effects on Caregivers of Children of Incarcerated Parents. Criminology, 50(4), 913-960. Women’s Justice Taskforce (WJT) 2011. Reforming Women’s Justice. London: Prison Reform Trust.

AGAINST ALL ODDS: RESILIENT CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS BAHIYYAH MIALLAH MUHAMMAD

When my mom went away to prison I knew my life would be hard. I knew people would doubt me. But, I didn’t care. My mom taught me about those who fear you because they can’t understand you. I don’t need them to understand my life. I need them to respect my life. My story is painful to hear but my strength hurts them the most. People are confused about the twists and turns I go through. Incarceration, sentencing, visiting, moving, new schools, new communities, new friends, longer rides to visits, short collect calls, missed family time, release dates, happiness, sadness, change, change, change. It goes around and around. Over and over again. It’s all my ride, I accept it. I guess my eyes see the good in it. It makes me who I am. I know many people that doubt me cause they not strong like me. It hurts inside my heart to have a mother incarcerated, but I still got to go on. I’m giving life my best. My mother wouldn’t have it any other way. Plus, I just can’t give up and live life as a failure. I wasn’t raised to be like that —Jasmine (age 18, female)1

Introduction Jasmine is the eldest of her two sisters, Joy (age 12) and Erin (age 11). They have been living the last five years of their youthful lives with maternal incarceration at their margins. Jasmine was a newly minted teenager (age 13) when her mother was sentenced to fifteen years in federal prison. Her sisters were a mere seven and six years old. Regardless of age, they all carry vivid memories of what they refer to as “that day” when told, their “prized possession” aka “momma dukes”, would no longer live with them, rather mum would be behind bars for the next fifteen years of all of their lives. At the time of interview, Jasmine had just graduated from high school and would be going away to law school in a few months. Joy and Erin were in middle school and already studying for 1

All names (persons, communities, schools, and otherwise) are pseudonyms.

142

Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents

the Standardized Achievement Test (SAT), a college entrance exam required by their dream colleges and universities. These sisters were focused, confident, driven and resilient in their own right. Their interviews and many others have illuminated the importance of seeking out happy endings in a sea of stories that have been disproportionately projected to commence with negative outcomes. Although parental incarceration brings about many long-lasting hardships for children (Murray et. al., 2009), identifying and further exploring protective factors will bring balance to the negativity that continues to saturate much of the scholarship about children whose parents are jailed or imprisoned. Parental incarceration should not be viewed as the determining factor that leads to their children’s own incarceration. Just because a mother or father goes to prison or jail, it does not mean that their child will automatically end up like their parent. Although many of their stories have gone unheard, some children succeed despite their parent’s incarceration. This chapter examines resiliency among children of incarcerated parents specifically, focusing on the relationships present in these children’s lives that helped them to cope successfully with the adversities of living with a parent in prison or jail. Despite a significant body of literature on deficitfocused outcomes that highlights many negative impacts of incarceration on children - in many instances, identifying only the long-term detrimental effects - few studies have examined the flip side of the coin, those stories of children with asset-based outcomes, such as graduating school, attending college, maintaining employment and healthy relationships (Muhammad 2016). Research on resiliency and children of the incarcerated suggests that scholarship must begin to explore the protective factors present (Miller 2007) in the lives of children who have incarcerated parents to gain a more holistic understanding of their lived experiences (Nesmith 2008). Although new research continues to emerge on this population, information has followed the same dark path that paints a black brick road that leads to prison. This chapter is an attempt to balance this unrealistic perspective by shedding light on successful youth who have managed, against all odds, to achieve beyond what has been expected of them.

Moving Beyond Research Research shows that the challenges children of incarcerated parents face are substantial; they include difficulty with transitioning into their adult lives, lower graduation rates, higher rates of unemployment, and a higher

Bahiyyah Miallah Muhammad

143

risk of becoming involved with the criminal justice system (Muhammad 2011). Most of this information on prisoners’ children is derived from surveys of their parents. Few studies have directly examined the children themselves (Muhammad 2007). Difficulties that prevent accurate counts of children of incarcerated parents also prevent the collection of representative descriptive data on these children (Johnston 1995). Although the number of children affected by parental incarceration can be estimated, the scope of the problem is uncertain because few reliable statistics exist (Seymour 1998). Despite this shortcoming, it is possible to obtain a rough sense of the problem by combining national and state findings from BJS data (Mumola 2000), to produce a formula for estimating the number of prisoners’ children (Mumola 2005). Currently, national estimates are the most concrete information that we have to identify this population. Unfortunately, such estimates provide limited information on children and their caregivers (Johnston 1992), such as demographic data, geographical location, number of placements experienced and personal situations faced (Johnston 2006). Most of the research on prisoners’ children focuses on their problems and has not attempted to create a rounded picture of their lives. Resilience and achievements are important concepts to understand in the lives of children of incarcerated parents, especially among youth adults (Johnston and Sullivan 2016). Not only does such insight provide balance to the current databank of scholarly works, it will help the children affected by this experience to also see themselves in a different light. Because incarceration is associated with extreme shame, stigma and silence, the way these particular children feel about themselves takes on a greater significance. Parental incarceration has been found to have indescribable effects on a child’s psyche, and have the potential of lasting well into their adulthood. Children understanding and being able to verbalize their strengths may work to combat some of the negative effects they experience in dealing with having one or both parent’s incarcerated. Allowing children to be active participants in their own narratives lets them begin to break free of what DuBois calls the “double consciousness” (Du Bois 2006). In the spirit of DuBois, these young children must lift the veil of dehumanization, see themselves outside the social boxes they have been placed within, and envision their destiny through new lenses. A lens of liberation and freedom from an experience they had no control over. The Bill of Rights for Children of Incarcerated Parents employs a freeing language that allows one to envision the human rights that should be afforded this young population of innocent individuals. The second of

144

Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents

which is the “right to be heard when decisions are made about me” (San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership 2005). Unfortunately, the opposite often occurs resulting in these children remaining hidden and unheard. The ultimate goal is to identify key intervention points and develop preventative strategies with prisoners’ children to deter them from delinquency and adult crime (Poehlmann and Eddy 2010).

Research Design and Methodology The findings discussed in this chapter are extracted from an ongoing ethnographic research project that began in 2004. This project started as a dissertation study, which explored among children of incarcerated parents their lived experiences from their perspectives (Muhammad, 2011). The study grew into a larger exploration, inclusive of a longitudinal design that incorporated follow-ups from children of incarcerated parents. Through my extensive work with children of incarcerated parents, I have engaged these youth in various environments: In their homes, where I conducted interviews inside their bedrooms; within their schools; and on playgrounds. In addition, I have boarded buses with children to visit their incarcerated parents - often beginning this journey at 7AM and ending at 7PM. Furthermore, I lived in hotels in the communities of children of the incarcerated to maintain close proximity to them and their personal situations. The outcome of this ethnographic research has opened my eyes to the reality that children of incarcerated parents are frequently misunderstood (Muhammad 2017). To gain a better understanding of their lives, this ethnography uncovers factors that influence whether children will lead a crime free or crimeridden life. The research focused on male and female children of incarcerated parents. The study examined how children experience parental incarceration over time by looking at five domains that could explain the child’s attachment to a crime-free lifestyle. The five domains are: (a) the child’s prior relationship with the parent prior to incarceration, (b) the child’s ability to set or consider realistic life goals, (c) the child’s involvement in extra-curricular activities, (d) their ability to maintain contact with the incarcerated parent, and (e) the child’s social support system. All these factors were salient to a child’s ability to maintain a resilient disposition.

Bahiyyah Miallah Muhammad

145

Measures These five domains were explored to explain pathways to resilience and success. A life history calendar and photos allowed an examination of how each of these domains change over time, and how change in one domain affects the outcome variable of success. The starting point for data collection on the life history calendar was three years prior to and after the incarceration. In other words, children were asked about life experiences three years before their parents’ incarceration and, in some instances, three years following their parents’ release. Photos discussed in the context of life history were significant and served as meaningful markers for collecting various types of information. As some incarcerated parents were serving long sentences, the data covered a range from 1 to 15 years. Consequently, from the starting point of three years prior to the incarceration, data was collected in yearly increments. PRIOR RELATIONSHIP. This first domain describes the child’s relationship with their parent before incarceration. It has been challenging for studies about the effects of parental incarceration to include this information; yet one would suspect it is a significant factor in the child’s experience. GOALS. The second domain explores the child’s effort to improve his/her situation and have outcomes measures for assessing such desires. This included both long-term and short-term desired outcomes. For example, graduating, getting a job, being accepted into college, getting married, or reuniting with their incarcerated parent upon release. EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES. The third domain looks at the types of activities that children are involved in. Activities were not limited to in-school activities and therefore included all activities that occupied the child’s time. Children often coped with parental incarceration by staying busy. One interview respondent explained: I am a cheerleader. I’m in the band and I am taking swimming lessons so I can know how to swim. After I’m done with my homework and all my activities I have no time for nothing but sleep. I think that’s why I graduated on time. I was too busy to get in trouble like my other friends. They had nothing but time on their hands to get in trouble. Me I was the opposite. I was busy, busy, busy. Before I knew it, I was going to pick up my cap and gown. The time flew by (Female, 15-years-old).

One pathway to success is to stay busy, investing one’s time in positive activities. This teenager literally had no time to do anything except stay on

146

Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents

track with school and her extra-curricular activities. What works for one child, may not work for another. For example, a boy of the same age, described his situation in the following way: No matter what I do, I can’t stay out of trouble. It’s like trouble follows me. I try to do what is right, but somehow, I end up on the wrong side. I play basketball and that really takes up all my time. But somehow, I find myself after practice hanging with the wrong crowd. They never get caught for being bad but I do. I also get caught and I aint’ a bad kid. I just get picked on because everyone is too afraid to pick on the bully kids. I’m a good kid. I go to practice, I hang a bit, then I go home. I really just do that. Maybe I need to stop playing basketball because I have no time to think. I need time to think. Maybe I won’t be in trouble as much if I have more time to think (Male, 15-years-old).

Children have unique experiences and each child has a warranted perspective to share. Much can be learned about constructing beneficial policy and practice by listening to those affected. SUPPORT SYSTEM. The final domain explores the types of social support children relied on to lead to resilience in their lives. Many support systems were found to facilitate positive outcomes in the lives of children of incarcerated parents. This domain also explored whether networks were formed with individuals who have an incarcerated family member or parent, and whether this serves a social support function. The study included a sample of 50 children with connections to their incarcerated parent and 50 children who are not connected to their incarcerated parent. Life history calendars provided a data gathering method that was especially valuable with this study population because it allowed them to speculate about salient events in the family’s life that had an impact on their ability to be resilient and/or succeed over time. The open-ended interview questions also allowed respondents to provide detailed information about salient life events uncovered through the calendars and qualitative data. Including boys and girls in the study enabled us/me to identify that a child’s gender (of an incarcerated parent) plays a role in their resiliency. This study also shows the feasibility of using life history calendars as a data collection tool for conducting large scale, qualitative research on these children’s relationships to their parents. Horney, Osgood, and Marshall (1995) used this technique for accessing the ways that changes in “life circumstances” affect variation in short term criminal offending. It is

Bahiyyah Miallah Muhammad

147

plausible that changes in the lives of children with incarcerated parents vary in similar ways. To make this method more child-friendly, the study incorporated photo interviewing into the life history approach. The photo interview, also known as “photo elicitation” is a qualitative research method that uses images as a catalyst for discussion during the interview. Photos were used to help subjects interpret their pasts (Harper 2002). Subjects were asked to select and share 5 photos that helped them tell their story. The photos accompanied their narratives and helped them to tell their stories. In addition, photos were used during analyses. Historical studies often use photos (Schwartz 1989) to help identify thematic areas of exploration captured during interviews (Harper 2002). Pictures have become a way of life and tell a story in their own right. This research study explored whether the photo interview is an acceptable method for examining the changes over time in children’s experiences of parental incarceration. Because of the nascent stage of knowledge about resilience among children of the incarcerated, preliminary data gathering should focus on the rich and detailed description of these pathways, which will then inform the development of precise measures and instruments to further study the research problem. Among the 100 children of incarcerated parents, 90 succeeded in spite of parental incarceration and 10 followed similar paths of their parents. In other words, in this sample 10% of the children of incarcerated parents ended up serving a prison sentence themselves. For this chapter, the findings focus on the 90% of children in the sample who continued to live a crime-free life. Although one may argue that much can be learned from the 10% of children who ended up living a life of delinquency and crime, these children are already highlighted in much research. These few children, within this particular sample, have misguidedly become the story of all children of incarcerated parents. The story of the “statistic”, a child of an incarcerated parents who serves a sentence of their own, has overshadowed the many stories of success, resiliency, and determination among children of the incarcerated. Therefore, I argue, more is to be learned from exploring the other side of the story. As such, this chapter shifts the focus from delinquency onto resiliency.

Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents It has been a breath of fresh air, to meet and engage with children of incarcerated parents who do not illicit internal fear, desperation or sympathy for their futures. Rather, they provide hope and better

148

Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents

understandings of the various paths to resiliency among children of incarcerated parents. Although similarities emerged among the sample, each child was unique in their own way. Each provided a different path to what they defined to be success in their lives. It is important to allow children to define their success. In speaking with Jasmine and her sisters, they felt successful in their ability to communicate with one another. As the eldest of the three, Jasmine was empowered by her ability to help her younger sister navigate through the difficulties associated with their mother’s incarceration. She says, being a teenager “makes it easy for her to provide solid advice” to her sister who will be a teenager soon and who confides in her about the “facts of life” for children of the incarcerated. Jasmine and her siblings are not the typical prototype described in the literature, rather they are the opposite of what you would expect after reading much of the research about children of incarcerated parents. Although they all hold their incarcerated mother in high regard, they are nowhere near becoming contributors to the intergenerational cycle of incarceration. In fact, Jasmine is the captain of her high school cheerleading squad and is on the principal’s honor roll [receiving all A’s] for the third year in a row. Here she discusses her future goals after high school: I want to be a lawyer. I am taking LSAT classes and my scores on the preexam are really good. I don’t plan to pay for school. My scores will get me a full ride. My top three law schools are Yale, Columbia and NYU. After graduation, I will take a GAP year to travel to Rome. It’s my graduation gift to myself. I have been saving since middle school.

Her two younger sisters look up to her, as they both aspire to college after graduating high school. Jasmine has served as a great role model for her sisters and they have a good relationship. They are not at odds with one another and they enjoy spending time with each other. This is very important, because there are siblings who are torn apart by a parent’s incarceration, or who resent the other’s relationship with their incarcerated parent. Joy states: I have a vision board that I keep next to my bed. It reminds me of my plans for the future. I have a picture of a doctor on my board ’cause I will be a doctor. My sister always reminds me that I can be whatever I want to be. She tells me a parent in prison should not be used as an excuse to not be great. This is true and I tell my younger sister the same.

These sisters talk often about their mother’s incarceration and they plan for the future together. Imprisonment was not a taboo conversation in their

Bahiyyah Miallah Muhammad

149

family. They were never forced into a “conspiracy of silence” (JoseKampfner 1995) or “forced silence” (Johnson 1995); this freedom of speech within their home, gave them the privilege to talk about their mother’s incarceration and plan around it. Their home was a safe space for brainstorming about the future and sharing their personal desires and ideas. For example, Erin states: I’m going to college in state. There are a lot of schools out here that have psychology. I want to be close to mom. I can’t image being too far away to visit a lot. It makes me feel better when I visit mom. It will help me do better in college if I can stay in contact with mom and visit her on visiting days. My sisters tell me to still apply to schools out of state because I can always visit when school is out and during winter and spring breaks. I guess it won’t hurt to do an application for one university not in our state.

The way in which research on children of incarcerated parents is saturated with negative outcomes, one could assume that these children only have nightmares (Jose-Kampfner 1995), although here Erin and her sisters provide examples of their dreams of visions for a bright future. Although only time can tell who these young women will grow into, it is reassuring to know that, similar to other minor children and teenagers, children of incarcerated parents have goals, desires and dreams that take them far beyond an incarceration for themselves. The outcomes among children of incarcerated parents are not universal. Although their negative experiences have overshadowed positive ones, they still exist. Unfortunately, the majority of research on children of incarcerated parents depicts unbalanced perspectives that disproportionately shed light on the odds stacked against them. This reality has made it difficult to envision their lived experiences that do not end in the intergenerational cycle of incarceration. This holds true, even within the homes of children of incarcerated parents. Their own families often projected negative stereotypes onto them, making the bright futures they envisioned for themselves, cloudy. John (14 years old) spoke about this in his interview, when he stated, “when my mom gets mad at me, she curses and yells to me that I’m just like my dad. That I’m just going to end up in prison just like him. Her words hurt because I know I will never be a prison guy. I’m not like my dad in that way. I wish my mom would stop saying stuff like that. It does make me wonder sometimes if maybe she is right”.

150

Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents

Similarly, Tasha (17 years old) also dealt with similar doubt in her home, when she shared an argument she had with her maternal grandmother, about her future. Tasha argued: “I love my momma a lot. But truth be told, I am nothing like her. She never graduated high school, had me and my sister when she was a teenager, never got married, was in a lot of abusive relationships, never had faith in GOD and has abused drugs for most of her adult life. I’m nowhere near who my momma was when she was my age. Before she went to prison she always told me how proud of me she was. She cried about how happy she was that I was nothing like her. I love my momma and I wish people would stop looking her what she did wrong and put that all on me. I am my own person and I always will be. No matter what, I still love my mom. GOD determines our futures and I know prison, jail and all that kind of stuff is not what GOD gave me life for. I am here for a purpose. I pray on that purpose and I believe strongly that I am that chosen child who will break the cycle of incarceration in my family. I pray on it and I am a living example of it”.

Although Tasha never exhibited similar behaviours as her incarcerated mother, her maternal grandmother constantly reminded Tasha of the limited image she held of her. Different from John, Tasha didn’t second guess her ability to remain resilient. She had placed her life in the hands of a higher power and she believed strongly. No matter what anyone had to say she was destined to do what was right. Although painful to hear her grandmother’s words, Tasha testified: “My granny is hurt. She thinks all of this is her fault. She never married my mommas father and she blames herself for the life my mom had to grow up in as a result. I know she get very upset because she didn’t want her life to be this way. She feels punished by my momma’s incarceration. There was a time, when it first happened that I thought it was my fault to. I had to pray a lot. I never stopped. I still cry to GOD when I need guidance. GOD helps me stay strong when my granny says these hurtful things. GOD keeps me knowing who I am and who I will become. I am thankful that my granny said she will start going to church again. She been drinking non-stop these days. To be honest, her actions have become more like mommas than mine”.

Both teenagers experienced negative labelling from their family members and it affected them. It is not only important to shift the research rhetoric, it is just as important to shift all social rhetoric as it relates to negatively labelling children of incarcerated parents. Although John held conflicting ideas about his future, while Tasha was strong about her individuality, the way that we talk to and talk about children of incarcerated parents matters.

Bahiyyah Miallah Muhammad

151

In a similar way to the research, that rarely highlights success, resiliency and protective factors among this population, the participants’ lived experiences within their homes mirror this negative view. However, contrary to this negativity, over 50% of children praised their incarcerated parents for being a source of positive support.

Social Support from Incarcerated Parents Of the children who had contact with their incarcerated parents, 100% of them reported receiving some form of positive social support from their parents. Through all forms of contact (mail, calls and/or visits) children’s success was acknowledged and bragged about. No incarcerated parents minimized their children’s future. In fact, they served as inspiration to motivate their children to continue on. Children who received positive social support from their incarcerated parents were inspired to maintain their resiliency. Ayanna’s (18 years old) sentiments, summed up what other children discussed, in her statement below: “No matter what. I always remember what my father told me. He says I will change this world. He reminds me of my worth and constantly tells me that him being in prison has nothing to do with who I become, unless I let it. He reminds me that the decision is mine to make. He claims his mistake. He never put it on me”.

Positive social support helped children maintain their resiliency. Words of encouragement and appropriate praise kept youth on track and reminded them that their most prized goals were worth achieving. For example, Ayanna, further explains: “My dad never missed an exam date. It never failed, that he would remind me about my upcoming exams. He wanted my school schedule every year and he would mark the dates of exams and make sure to call and give me words of encouragement. He even sent letters with nice pictures to bring a smile to my face and make sure I knew he was counting on me to do well. It was like I could feel him there in spirit. Every time I take a test, he is in the back of my mind. He doesn’t even know how much he has helped me in this way”.

Other children, shared being similarly motivated by their incarcerated parents, through mail correspondence. “my mom would send letters for back to school and she would remind me of the things I needed to work on from last school year. She listened to all my stories and used them to help keep me on track” (Tim, 10 years old).

152

Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents “my dad knew all my grades for every marking period. When I did very good, he had my grandma take me to toys-r-us. I always try to do good because I want my toys” (Andy, 9 years old).

Others shared being empowered through face-to-face visitation. “When I had good news about school, work or my community service, I couldn’t wait to go visit dad. He always makes such a big deal about of me doing the rights things. It feels so good to see him smile from ear-to-ear. He is my main supporter and he gets me. He is my cheerleader and his cheers really do help me win this game called life. When I tested into the best charter school in town, I carried the acceptance letter up to the prison. I folded it and put it my pocket and surprised him. You know he actually cried. We cried together. I will never forget that visit. I don’t know what he will do when I start getting my college acceptance letters. I will have to bring all of them up to the prison. We will read them in the visiting hall, together. I am sure, we will cry again. We cry happy tears. When he is happy he cries. I’m like him in that way” (Jessica, 19 years old).

Children of incarcerated parents need social support like any other child. Words of encouragement go a long way and serve as constant reminders that they can achieve and succeed in spite of parental incarceration.

Discussion Focusing on the negative outcomes of parental incarceration on children of incarcerated parents does not allow them to become confident young adults. It is through a positive self-image that children of incarcerated parents begin to believe in themselves. Even among those children who succeed in spite of the odds stacked against them, the negative label placed on them makes it difficult for them to share their stories of resiliency. It seems as if we have come to appreciate the negative outcomes more than the positive ones. The more we begin to share stories of success, resilience and protective factors for children of incarcerated parents, the more children will come out of the closet. In turn, children will feel safe about sharing what attributed to their success, it allows us all to be of service to their needs. It also can serve as a mechanism for empowering other youth who are dealing with parental incarceration and not faring so well. This study has highlighted the importance of being aware of the labels we place on children of incarcerated parents, especially those who don’t fit the negative label and who could and should serve as examples for other children in similar situations. Children who have parents in prison are like other children; they too have feelings and become bruised by adults’ loss

Bahiyyah Miallah Muhammad

153

of confidence in them and their capabilities, essentially because of their parents’ actions. Children of the incarcerated should be given every opportunity to succeed, dream and desire. Parental incarceration is a time to look at ways of helping their children, not ways of bruising their egos by placing them in boxes; boxes that limit their ability to dream and desire a life far beyond the bars that incarcerate their parent. Future studies about children of incarcerated parents must begin to look closely at success stories. It is not a rare occurrence for children to exhibit resiliency in the face of parental incarceration. There is much more to be learned from the positive side of their stories.

References Du Bois, W. E. B. 2006. "Double-consciousness and the veil." Social class and stratification: classic statements and theoretical debates: 203. Harper, Douglas. 2002. "Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation." Visual studies 17, no. 1: 13-26. Horney, Julie, D. Wayne Osgood, and Ineke Haen Marshall. 1995. "Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances." American sociological review, 655-673. Johnston, Denise. 1992. Children of offenders. Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents. —. 1995. The care and placement of prisoners’ children. In K. Gabel, & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 103- 123). New York: Lexington Books. —. 2006. The wrong road: Efforts to understand the effects of parental crime and incarceration. Criminology and Public Policy, 5 (4), 703720. Johnston, Densie and Sullivan, Megan. 2016. Preface. In D. Johnston & M. Sullivan (Eds.). Parental incarceration: Personal accounts and developmental impact. New York, NY: Routledge. Jose-Kampfner, Christina. 1995. Post-traumatic stress reactions in children of imprisoned mothers. In K. Gabel, & D. Johnston (Eds.) Children of Incarcerated Parents (pp. 89-100). New York, NY: Lexington Books. Miller, Keva. A. 2007. Risk and resilience among African American children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 15 (2/3), 25-37. Muhammad, Bahiyyah. M. 2017. Far From The Tree: Success and Resiliency Among Children of Incarcerated Parents. Presented at the

154

Against All Odds: Resilient Children of Incarcerated Parents

International Coalition on Children of Incarcerated Parents. Rotorua, New Zealand. —. 2015. Iron Kids: Success and Resiliency Among Children of Incarcerated Parents. Sponsored by Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel and Howard University School of Divinity. Presented at Howard University. —. 2014. Success and Resiliency Among Children of Incarcerated Parents. Presented at the Faculty Senate Retreat. Discussion focused on Achieving Justice: Interdisciplinary Action. —. 2011. Exploring the Silence Among Children of Prisoners: A Descriptive Study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Rutgers University Electronic Theses and Dissertations. (Accession Order No. [EID.00061087]). —. 2007. Children of Incarcerated Parents: Past and Present Research Guides Future Knowledge in Muraskin, R., & Roberts, A. R. (eds). Visions for Change: Crime and Justice in the 21st Century, 5th ed. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. Mumola, Christopher J. 2000. Bureau of justice statistics special report: Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. —. 2005. Estimating the count of children affected by parental incarceration. United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Email response sent from Mumola in 2005]. Murray, J., Farrington, D.P., Sekol, I., Olsen, R. F. 2009. Effects of parental imprisonment on child antisocial behavior and mental health: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4, 1-105. Nesmith, Ande, and Ebony Ruhland. 2008. Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1119-1130. Poehlmann, Julie and J. Mark Eddy. 2010. A research intervention agenda. In J. M. Eddy & Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 319-342). Washington DC: Urban Institute Press. San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership. 2005. Children of incarcerated parents: A bill of rights. California: San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership. Schwartz, Dona. 1989. Visual ethnography: Using photography in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), 119-154. Seymour, Cynthia. 1998. Children with parents in prison: Child welfare policy, program, and practice issues. Child Welfare, 77 (5), 469- 494.

MAINTAINING FAMILY TIES: THE DISPARITIES BETWEEN POLICY AND PRACTICE FOLLOWING MATERNAL IMPRISONMENT IN ENGLAND AND WALES NATALIE BOOTH

Introduction This chapter focusses on the policy landscape concerning the children and families of female prisoners in England and Wales. Specifically, it traces an emerging discourse in penal and policy documents which has fixated on the way in which family relationships can play a crucial role in reducing reoffending. Motivated by this link between family and recidivism, successive governments have appeared to advocate and support prisoners to maintain their family ties. The chapter reveals empirical evidence, from a qualitative study conducting semi-structured interviews with family members in 30 families, to critically examine their experiences of staying in contact following a mothers’ imprisonment in England and Wales. The findings demonstrate distinct disparities and contradictions between the policy rhetoric, and the inadequate provisions available to families as they attempted to remain in contact within the constraints of the prison context. Looking at these issues from the rights of the child raises questions around the moral and legal, responsibility of the state and prison service. Genuine commitment is required from the government to ensure that prisons are equipped and operating effectively to deliver appropriate provisions for meaningful mother-child contact. This study strongly recommends that a unit is formed within central government, tasked with the responsibility and accountability for the children and families of prisoners, to address these disparities and contradictions.

156

Maintaining Family Ties

Drawing attention to maternal imprisonment in England and Wales Estimates suggest that around 18,000 children experience maternal imprisonment every year in England and Wales (Corston 2007). Yet, the accuracy of this figure is unclear because there is no systematic collection of data for this population (Williams et al 2012). This is probably because there is no statutory body, nor governmental organisation responsible for the children and families of prisoners. Despite this, most women in prison are mothers, many of whom had been living with their children as primary carers before receiving their custodial sentence in England and Wales (Caddle and Crisp 1997). Removing these mothers to prison means that their children require an immediate replacement carer, and in most instances, this is provided by family members, and often grandparents (Caddle and Crisp 1997; HM Inspectorate of Prison (HMIP) 2010; Raikes 2016). Subsequently, the daily lives and practices of several family members require renegotiating and adapting to respond to the new familial, domestic, and caretaking circumstances. Shedding some light on the extent of these upheavals, Caddle and Crisp’s (1997) study reported that only 5 per cent of female prisoners’ children remain in their own homes following the mother’s detainment. Consequently, Lucy Baldwin (2015) has argued that incarceration has extreme emotional, psychological and financial costs for mothers and their families. Prisoners are allowed contact with families through various means, including telephone, mail, email-a-prisoner, as well as through prison visits (HMIP 2016). Despite this, there are very few studies that have specifically explored family life and contact following maternal imprisonment in England and Wales. This knowledge gap provided the impetus and rationale for the current empirical study, which is introduced and presented following a brief exploration of recent policy developments in England and Wales.

Recent policy developments Children and families of prisoners’ have received increasing attention in government and penal discourse over the past two decades (Codd 2007, 2008; Mills and Codd 2008). Initially, this may appear to be a development that warrants celebration – especially considering Murray (2005) commented that prisoners’ families were previously absent in social policy. However, on closer examination, this interest stems from a

Natalie Booth

157

perspective which considers how family ties can produce better outcomes for the prisoners, with little concern for the potential welfare needs of the families. This perspective has gained legitimacy because families can function as a source of social capital; bringing social and relational connections, as well as shared norms, and expectations, to support the prisoner’s development and resettlement process (Mills and Codd 2008). In turn, this understanding has attracted interest from policymaker’s, because families were viewed as an effective tool to tackle reoffending, by providing practical, social, and financial support during the sentence, and on release (e.g. Home Office 2004). The connection between family ties and recidivism eased its way onto the policy agenda after featuring in seminal documents, such as the Woolf Report (1991), and the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) report (2002). The latter of which stated that: “maintaining family relationships can help to prevent prisoners re-offending and can assist them to successfully settle into the community” (SEU 2002 p. 110). Following this, “Children and Families” were introduced, and formally recognised, as one of the seven pathways to reduce recidivism in the “National Reducing Re-Offending Action Plan” (Home Office 2004). This paved the way for the subsequent policy rhetoric regarding the important role that families play in supporting a prisoner in the criminal justice system (HM Inspectorate of Prison and Probation (HMIPP) 2001; National Offender Management Service (NOMS) 2009; Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate (CJJI) 2014; Prison and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) 2014). Consequently, it is not uncommon to read statements in government documents akin to the extract presented below: “Family relationships are a factor in whether an offender will go on to commit further crime and a strong family relationship can help offenders make and sustain the changes needed to turn away from crime […] hence working with families to reduce re-offending could represent huge savings for society” (Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) 2009 p.21).

This rhetoric has also been identified in prison service documents; showing how this ideology has filtered through from policy to practice (Booth, 2017a). Evidence of this is found in Prison Service Instruction’s (PSI’s), which are created and published from central government1

1

In the past, PSI’s were developed by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), but this government department was replaced by the HM Prison and

158

Maintaining Family Ties

highlighting the guidelines, rules, and regulations within which prison establishments should operate “in practice”. For instance, PSI 16 (NOMS 2011) states that family ties are integral to the prisoners’ rehabilitation, stating that prisoners are: “Less likely to reoffend if they have received family visits whilst in custody. Regular and good quality contact time between an offending parent and their children/partner provides an incentive not to re-offend and helps prisoners arrange accommodation, employment/training on release” (p.2).

In 2016, statistics indicated that nearly half (48 per cent) of all prisoners reoffended within one year of being released (Prison Reform Trust 2016). In trying to address this, the Conservative administration devised the “Prison and Safety Reform” white paper, with the intention of making legislative changes to the prison estate2 (MoJ 2016). Within this document, the children and families of prisoners are scarcely mentioned, aside from their role in helping to reform prisoners. In February 2017, a speech given by Liz Truss, Secretary of State for Justice, clarified that the emphasis on family ties as a mechanism for recidivism would be carried forward by the Conservative government, as she commented that “a prisoners’ family is the most effective resettlement agency” (Truss 2017).

Rising concerns with prisoners’ families being labelled a resettlement agency There are several issues with utilising the relatives of prisoners to reduce reoffending. Mills and Codd (2008) argue that the emphasis on families as a rehabilitative tool ignores the struggles and adversities they face during these “profoundly stressful” circumstances (p.16), whilst being widely under-supported, and under-resourced. Instead, Codd (2007, p.13) asserts that the government’s drive is motivated by a desire to produce “electorally attractive sound-bites”. Likewise, I argued elsewhere (Booth 2017a), that the lack of statutory responsibility for children and families of prisoners in England and Wales makes it highly unlikely that government agencies actually know “which” families they are burdening with this responsibility, Probation Service (HMPPS) in April 2017. Therefore, the author supposes that responsibility for the development of future PSI’s will fall to HMPPS. 2 The white paper was developed into the ‘Prison and Courts Bill’, and was debated by parliament. However, it was postponed during, and following, the election in June 2017.

Natalie Booth

159

and correspondingly what their personal, social or economic circumstances may be. Discussions concerning the relatives of prisoners should not assume that they are a homogenous group regarding their social status, as well as their willingness, or ability to support their imprisoned family member (Codd 2008; Booth 2017a). Evidently there are rising concerns about burdening children and families with the responsibility to reduce reoffending, and on the whole, this development should be viewed with caution. Family relationships should not be supported for the sole purpose of reducing recidivism, and especially considering that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC 1989) stated that: “every child has a right to family life” (Article 9). Nevertheless, with the recent emphasis on maintaining family ties in penal and policy discourse, it could be expected that improved provisions and conditions are available to families within the prison setting as they strive to stay in contact. Indeed, it is logical to suggest that families with a mother in prison may fare better with the increased policy interest in family relations. Therefore, at this point we turn our attention to the current study to reveal the narratives of family members about their lived experience of sustaining contact in the prison context during maternal imprisonment.

Methods This chapter draws on the findings from a qualitative study which explored family life in the wake of a mothers’ conviction and imprisonment in England and Wales (see also Booth 2017b). In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with thirty families between May and November 2015. The sample of thirty families is comprised of two cohorts; fifteen imprisoned mothers, and 24 caregivers from fifteen families who were looking after children following their mother’s conviction. The higher number of caregivers reflects the childcare circumstances, as in many families there was more than one family member or friend caring for the children; for instance, where grandmother and grandfather were caring together. The mothers and caregivers were not recruited from within the same families and they were unrelated. This approach was chosen so that the exploration focussed on maternal imprisonment, rather than within-family dynamics and relationships. This study aimed to critically examine female prisons serving England and Wales, being guided by the following two objectives:

160

Maintaining Family Ties

x To critically explore the representation of families with a prisoner in the family in existing policy and penal discourse from a familycentred perspective; x To identify how family life is shaped by operational processes within the custodial environment, and the ways in which this affects the maintenance of family ties from the perspectives of family members both inside and outside of prison. Permission to undertake the research was gained from the National Research Council (NRC) following guidelines detailed in Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 22 (NOMS 2011). Authorisation was also given by the Governors of the four female prisons selected as research sites. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted (Bryman 2012) whereby participants had to meet the following eligibility criteria; the mother had to be convicted, two months of her sentence had to have elapsed at the time of interview, and at least one child had to be under 18 years old. The cohort of mothers was identified and recruited at one prison, whereas the cohort of caregivers was sampled from across four female prisons through the prison visitors’ centres. The space provided by prison visitors’ centres has been an effective research site in previous studies with prisoners’ families in the UK (Wood 2008; Loureiro 2010). The majority of the caregiver sample (n=13) were identified through prison visitors’ centre, either by the researcher in person or by through information posters. The remaining two caregivers opted into the research after learning about it through voluntary sector organisations. Ethical considerations were outlined and approved by the NRC and Prison Governors, as well as confirmed by the University of Bath. Informed consent was gained ahead of the interviews, both verbally and in writing. Ethical considerations were continually being reassessed throughout the project because of our awareness of the sensitive topics being discussed. The parameters for confidentiality were clearly outlined in accordance with PSI 22 (NOMS 2011), for instance, with regard to contraband or disclosures of harm. Semi-structured interviews are an effective tool in qualitative explorations as they facilitate insights into the participants own social world, their thoughts, and feelings (Warren 2002). In the cohort of caregivers where two family members or friends were sometimes jointly interviewed, the data collection process will have likely changed, for instance in the way that stories were chosen and conveyed. However, as with data collection during focus groups, the participants were able to build on each other’s

Natalie Booth

161

points and provide rich accounts of their lives (Kitzinger 1994). All the participants agreed to audio-record the interview, and during transcription the data was fully anonymised. The data was analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006), and emerging themes were triangulated between and across the two cohorts to improve the validity of the sources (King 2000).

Findings and discussion Participants were asked to reflect on their experiences of maintaining their family relationships, and to outline the ways in which they attempted to do this using the available provisions at the prison establishment(s). Analysis of the data revealed that across the sample of thirty families, all the mothers and caregivers had experience of using telephones and letters to stay in touch, meanwhile a smaller number (n=4) had used the email-aprisoner facilities. Additionally, all families in the caregiver cohort, and most imprisoned mothers (n=12) had engaged in prison visits; including social visits, and/or extended family days3. There was consensus across the whole sample that remaining in contact was profoundly important for their families, and especially for facilitating, and supporting the mother-child relationship. However, echoing previous research with family members of prisoners (Arditti et al. 2003; Christian 2005; Enroos 2011; Sharratt 2014), the families in this study also reported the many difficulties they encountered as they attempted to stay in contact. This contradicts the previously mentioned policy dialogue, in which the family relationships of prisoners are supposedly supported. Therefore, the findings are organised into three sections, firstly exploring telephone contact, then mail and email, and finally visits. Within each of these sections, the findings revealed are contrasted against an associated policy to demonstrate the inconsistencies between policy and practice.

3

Social visits are the regular visits which prisoners are allowed with their friends and families, which for a convicted prisoner, is two hours every fortnight (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) 2016). Family days are additional, extended and child-friendly visits organised periodically in prisons for imprisoned parents and their children.

162

Maintaining Family Ties

First contact – the reception telephone call Previous research has recurrently found that telephoning from prison is expensive (Prison Reform Trust 2006; Sharratt 2014) and difficult for prisoners to access when phones are located on noisy and busy prison wings (HMIP 2016). However, before gaining access to these telephones, all prisoners should be given a free, reception telephone call on entry to prison. This reception phone call is the first opportunity for families to reconnect following a mother’s detention in prison post-sentencing. PSI 49 (NOMS 2011) states that: “Newly received prisoners should be given a reception call within the first 24 hours of custody” (p.10).

Within the sample of families in this study, only one third (n=10) of the family members reported that this reception telephone call had been facilitated. It was particularly disconcerting to learn that most families had to wait up to a week for this first contact, with some of the imprisoned mothers explaining that this reception call was never offered to them. This trend was found across the six different female prison establishments in which the mothers were first received, which amounts to nearly half of the women’s prisons which serve England and Wales. This indicates troubling and widespread issues in the facilitation of the reception telephone calls in the female prison estate. One father caregiver, Daniel, relays his experience of waiting to hear from his wife, and mother of their four children, following her imprisonment. As she was in prison for the first time, he was not familiar with the process but explains how he expected that she would call, especially considering he did not know in which prison she had been detained. Daniel explains that once the reception call was made, it was very short and provided little opportunity to communicate important information, such as organising a prison visit. “A few days went by […] we didn’t hear anything and I would have thought she would have rang but there were no telephone calls at all and I thought ‘well how do I know where she is and if she’s alright?’ Anyway, the phone rang and I answered it and she said ‘oh it’s only me’ [...] and so I said, ‘well, where are you?’ and she [told me] and said ‘this is me prison number’ […] and then she said ‘I’ve got to go now because my money’s running out but can you send me some money?’ so I said ‘well how do I get in to see you?’ and at that, the phone went dead.” (Daniel)

The first days and weeks following the initial separation can be stressful for mothers, children and families, as they respond to the emotional

Natalie Booth

163

distress and domestic reorganisations which take place in the aftermath of the mother’s absence. From a child’s point of view, this lack of contact with their mother could be confusing and distressing; having gone from living with her and seeing her every day, to her being suddenly absent from their lives, and being unable to talk with her on the telephone. Given these circumstances, it is unsurprising that research with children of prisoners has revealed this separation to be extremely upsetting and challenging (Kampfner 1995; Murray 2005); and given that they are not permitted to talk, it explains why they may also worry about the safety of their imprisoned parent in prison (Loureiro 2010). The UNCRC (1989) states that children have a right to family life, and yet these penal processes neither recognise, nor facilitate, these human rights to be enacted in practice. It implies a lack of commitment by the prison service to acknowledge or accommodate family life during the first weeks of a mother’s sentence. Furthermore, these families’ experiences contradict the sentiments found in governmental discourse that pledges support for prisoner-family ties, and also in policy documents, which instruct that early contact should be facilitated (e.g. PSO 4800, NOMS 2008).

Communication in writing – postal contact and emails In principal, prisoners can send and receive an unlimited amount of post (HMIP 2016) and establishments provide prisoners with the means for sending one letter a week that is funded by the government. However, because any additional outgoing letters must be paid for by the prisoner, in reality their ability to send letters is dependent upon their financial situation. Moreover, families are relying on the prison’s internal postal system to facilitate letter contact – as all outgoing mail is security checked, and sorted by prison staff before being posted. One grandmother caregiver, Martha, explained that they often experienced delays in receiving letters from the prison, with several letters arriving at the same time, which undermined the mother’s attempts at staying in frequent contact with her son. “She was writing to us and we wasn’t receiving letters and then in one day we’d receive like 4 or 5 letters in one go with all different dates and so she’s written them and passed them on, and they’d been sent all in one which I found was a bit, well, silly really” (Martha)

Some mothers wrote letters, and sent pictures, or cards to their children from prison. The nature of this contact enabled their children to receive something tangible from their mothers, and importantly a keepsake which

164

Maintaining Family Ties

can be reread during their time apart. However, as Martha explained, mail could be sporadic and unreliable because of unreliable systems in the prison. Email-a-prisoner is an initiative being rolled out across the prison estate in England and Wales, and in most establishments, this can facilitate oneway communication (from community to prison). Relatives must pay a fee to send an email, costing 30p for a 50-line message (HMIP 2016). The email is delivered to the respective prison, where it is printed and delivered to the prisoner through the internal mailing system. It is not clear why only four families were using the email-a-prisoner service in this sample, but those who had, reported similar difficulties to postal contact. This is despite emails being an instantaneous medium of communication in the community. As Malcolm explains, the delivery time varied considerably in his experience. “If you want to contact by email it’s going to take you anything up to 5 days ‘cause [when] you can send her an email she might get it the next day or she might get it 3 or 4 days later.” (Malcolm)

In reviewing how these experiences reflect penal and policy discourse, we turn our attention to HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), an independent government body, which reports on the conditions for, and treatment of prisoners. To inform their inspections, HMIP devised a list of “expectations”, which provide the benchmark for how prison establishments should operate. One expectation with regards to women in prison is that: “Women are actively supported to maintain contact with children and families through regular and easy access to mail, telephones and other communications.” (p.113)

Contrary to these expectations, the findings from this study suggest that access to mail, both letter-writing and email, is not “regular and easy” for mothers and their families. Indeed, the prison environment and its operational processes appear to delay contact in practice, which undermines the emphasis in policy about the importance of supporting family ties.

Visiting – the searching process and environment Prison visits are a crucial way to maintain meaningful mother-child contact during a prison sentence: Prison visits provide an opportunity for

Natalie Booth

165

children to see their mothers in person during her incarceration4, and for this reason, considerable research has been conducted on the prison visit (Arditti et al. 2003; Gilham 2012; Losel et al. 2012; Sharratt 2014; Tasca 2016). Similarly, policy guidelines have emphasised the importance of prison visits, with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 16 (NOMS 2011) asserting that: “Visitors must be treated courteously and with respect at all times, striking a sensible balance between this requirement and those relating to the maintenance of security, good order and discipline and the prevention of crime” (p.2).

Nevertheless, previous research has criticised search procedures for inflicting degrading and humiliating search procedures on visitors amidst strict security protocols (Condry 2007; Codd 2008; Dixey and Woodall 2012). Likewise, many of the caregivers in this study found the searches intrusive and uncomfortable, which is epitomised in the following extract from Madeline, a grandmother caring for her two young granddaughters while their mother was serving her custodial sentence. Madeline understands why searching is required at the prison, but also reveals how the way in which this is performed makes her feel like a prisoner. “It’s not a pleasurable experience, I mean I appreciate that that’s what they have to do it, but it’s certainly not a pleasant experience […] I felt a bit like a prisoner myself.” (Madeline)

In continuing to provide guidelines on the prison visiting process, PSI 16 (NOMS 2011) explains that “the environment must be as relaxed and informal as possible” (p.10). During extended family days, these expectations may be more achievable, as mothers are able to interact, engage and play with their children because of a more child-friendly environment (Snyder et al. 2002; Sharratt 2014; Tasca 2016). However, Stephanie explains that when her children come to the prison on a social visit, she found it particularly challenging because her movement was restricted. As a prisoner, she was not allowed to leave her designated seat, and in turn, this meant her ability to play and interact with her children was also limited.

4

Some mothers may have Childcare Resettlement Leave (CRL). CRL permits a primary carer to have contact with their dependants outside of the prison environment – for a day leave or overnight stay at home (Prison Service Order (PSO) 6300, National Offender Management Service (NOMS), 2012).

166

Maintaining Family Ties “A social visit is where you have to sit on a chair and you can’t move and you sit there for 2 hours and talk [...] and you feel like a prisoner, you can’t get up and you can’t play with your kids.” (Stephanie)

These stringent regulations on the mothers’ movements are concerning because visits provide valuable, and unique occasions, for mothers and children to interact and connect; opportunities which being in prison had mostly removed in their daily lives and practices. Some children did not fully understand the prison environment, nor the rules and regulations guiding the visiting time and space, and became distressed during prison visits. Therefore, in some families where the children were young, the mothers and caregivers made the difficult decision to stop, or reduce the number of visits. This was mostly because the environment was not fostering positive, or meaningful mother-child contact. These findings parallel previous research with family members visiting a prisoner, which has reported challenges about the visiting environment (SEU 2002; Condry 2007; Codd 2007, 2008). Similarly, the findings from this empirical study with family members experiencing maternal imprisonment reveal how little has changed or improved, despite the assertions in policy, allegedly supporting family ties through visitation.

Conclusions and recommendations There has been an increasing policy interest in prisoners’ children and families over the past two decades, as links between family ties and tackling recidivism were established in England and Wales (Home Office 2004; Codd 2008). As such, children and families have been identified as key resettlement agencies, and have occupied a strategic position on the ‘reducing reoffending’ agendas of successive administrations. There are considerable issues in burdening families with the responsibility to steer their relatives away from reoffending which should not go unrecognised (Codd 2008; Booth 2017a). However, with the increased focus on maintaining family ties in policy, it could be expected that provisions and facilities for contact would be correspondingly improved. In critically examining family contact during maternal imprisonment, this study found that the families were motivated to sustain their relationships, and managed this on the telephone, via mail, through prison visits, and also for a smaller number, through email-a-prisoner. However, inadequacies were also identified in the function of these facilities; with limited facilitation of reception phone call, delays in posting and distributing letters, the hostile search processes, and a restrictive visiting environment.

Natalie Booth

167

The discussion juxtaposed the narratives of the family members with a respective policy, demonstrating a marked difference in policy rhetoric that pledged support for family ties (Home Office 2004; MoJ & DCSF 2009; PSI 16, NOMS 2011); also revealing the experiences that prisoners and their families described accessing and sustaining family relationships. These findings point toward practices in the female prison estate which are not supporting or prioritising family life and motherhood. The findings provide support for Codd’s (2008 p.13) assertion that the policy is merely producing “attractive sound-bites”, as in reality the government is not genuinely committed to implementing or facilitating these relationships in practice. Although the State has only legal responsibility for the prisoner, when that prisoner is also a mother, these inadequate prison facilities have extensive repercussions for the wider family, including innocent children. Therefore, raising questions around “whose” rights are being overlooked by these poor processes is imperative. European policies have stipulated that the best interests of the child should be examined and balanced in all areas of social life (European Convention on Human Rights (EHRC); UNCRC 1989), and yet the children of imprisoned mothers do not appear to receive this precedent in the prison system in England and Wales. Arguably prisons have a moral and legal duty to ensure these rights are prioritised, and should be held accountable for doing so. Yet, there is no statutory organisation responsible for the children and prisoners of families in England and Wales (Williams et al. 2012) and therefore an absence of top-down accountability for this population. Although the voluntary sector plays a crucial role in this area, there is no official body advocating on behalf of children and families of prisoners, nor driving forward change in central government. In response to these issues, this study recommends that: a unit in central government be formed, tasked with the responsibility for children and families of prisoners. As highlighted elsewhere (Mills and Codd 2007; Codd 2008; Women’s Breakout 2016), having a presence in central government would address the invisibility of prisoners’ children and families. Drawing on the knowledge and expertise of voluntary sector organisations, academics and practitioners in the field, this unit would have the potential to have synergies in the community as well as with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) for effective knowledge exchange and joint working. By improved representation and accountability in central government, improved services for contact could

168

Maintaining Family Ties

be implemented across the prison estate to better enable and support the maintenance of meaningful family ties following maternal imprisonment. Essentially, this could prove an effective route to bridge the disparate gap between the current policy discourse and penal practice, and potentially improve the lives and experience of family members when a mother is incarcerated.

References Arditti, Joyce A., Jennifer Lambert-Shute, and Karen Joest. 2003. "Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children." Family relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 52 (3): 195-204. Baldwin, Lucy. 2015. Rules of Confinement – Time for Changing the Game. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, volume 179, 195-197. Booth, Natalie 2017a. Prisoners’ children and families. Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, volume 181, 246-248. —. 2017b. Maternal imprisonment; a family sentence. Social Policy Review 29, 107-127. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, volume 3 (2): 77101. Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caddle, Diane, and Debbie Crisp. 1997. Imprisoned women and mothers. London: Home Office, Research Study 162. Condry, Rachel. 2007. Families Outside. The difficulties faced by relatives of serious offenders. Prison Service Journal, volume 174, 3 – 10. Corston, Baroness Jean. 2007. The Corston Report: A report of a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. London: Home Office. Christian, Johnna. 2005. Riding the bus barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, volume 21, 31–48. Codd, Helen. 2007. Prisoners’ Families and Resettlement: A Critical Analysis. The Howard Journal, volume 46 (3), 255-263. —. 2008. In the shadow of prison. Families, imprisonment and criminal justice. Cullumpton: Willan Publishing. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (CJJI) 2014. Resettlement provision for adult offenders: Accommodation and education, training and employment. London: HMIP.

Natalie Booth

169

Dixey, Rachael and James Woodall. 2012. The significance of ‘the visit’ in an English category-B prison: views from prisoners, prisoners’ families and prison staff. Community, Work and Family, volume 15 (1), 29-47. Enroos, Rosi. 2011. Mothers in Prison: between the public and private institution and private family relations. Child and Family Social Work, volume 16, 12-21. Gilham, Jerry Jo M. 2012. A qualitative study of incarcerated mothers’ perceptions of the impact of separation on their children. Social work and public health, volume 27, 89-103.Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP). 2010. Women in Prison. A Short thematic review. HMIP: London. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prison (HMIP). 2016. Life in Prison: Contact with families and friends. HMIP: London. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Probation (HMIPP), 2001. Through the Prison Gate: A Joint Thematic Review by HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation. London: Home Office. Home Office 2004. Reducing Re-offending National Action Plan. London: Home Office Communication Directorate. Kampfner, Christina. Jose 1995. Post-traumatic stress reactions in children of imprisoned mothers. In Gabel, Katherine and Danise Johnston, eds. 1995 Children of Incarcerated Parents. New York: Lexington Books. King, Roy D. 2000. Doing Research in Prisons. In: R.D King and E. Wincup eds. Doing Research on Crime and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. Kitzinger, Jenny. 1994. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of health & illness, volume 16(1), 103-121. Lösel, Friedrich, Gill Pugh, Lucy Markson, K. Souza, and Caroline Lanskey. 2012. Risk and protective factors in the resettlement of imprisoned fathers with their families [Online]. Available from: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/fathers_in_prison/final_report.pdf [Accessed: 13/12/11]. Loureiro, Tania. 2010. Perspectives of Children and Young People with a parent in prison. Report on behalf of Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People. Available from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1215/1/perspectives%20of%20cyp%20with%20a %20parent%20in%20prison.pdf [Accessed 06/04/2014]. Mills, Alice and Helen Codd. 2008. Prisoners’ families and offender management: Mobilising social capital, The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, volume 55 (1), 9-24.

170

Maintaining Family Ties

Ministry of Justice (MoJ). 2016. Prison Safety and Reform. London: Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice (MoJ), and Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). 2009. Reducing re-offending: supporting families, creating better futures. A framework for improving the local delivery of support for the families of offenders. London: HMSO. Murray, Joseph. 2005. The effects of imprisonment on families and children. In: A. Liebling and S. Maruna eds. The effects of imprisonment. Devon: Willan. National Offender Management Service (NOMS). 2011. Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 16/ 2011. —. 2011. Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 49/ 2011. —. 2012. Prison Service Order (PS0) 6300/2012. —. 2014. Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 22/ 2014. —. 2009. National Reducing Re-Offending Action Plan. Available from: http://www.ihop.org.uk/ci/fattach/get/51/0/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNDg0NzI5 Nzg1L3NpZC9OTnBMS1o4bg==/filename/Reducing+Reoffending+D elivery+Plan+2009.pdf [Accessed: 18/1/2017]. Prison and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales (PPO). 2014. Learning Lessons Bulletin. Complaints Investigation Issue 5. Prison Reform Trust. 2006. Inside Criminal Justice, Prison Report, volume 69, 4. —. 2016. Bromley Briefing Prison Factfile. Autumn 2016. London: Prison Reform Trust. Raikes, Ben. 2016."‘Unsung Heroines’ Celebrating the care provided by grandmothers for children with parents in prison." Probation Journal 63 (3): 320-330. Sharratt, Kathryn. 2014. Children’s experiences of contact with imprisoned parents: A comparison between four European countries. European Journal of Criminology, volume 11 (6),760-775. Snyder, Zoann K., Teresa A. Carlo, and Megan M. Coats Mullins. 2002. Parenting from Prison, Marriage & Family Review, volume 32(3-4), 33-6. Social Exclusion Unit (SEU). 2002. Reducing Re-offending by ExPrisoners. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: http://www.gos.gov.uk/497296/docs/219643/431872/468960/SEU_Re port.pdf [Accessed: 10/10/2014]. Tasca, Melinda. 2016. The Gatekeepers of contact. Child-Caregiver Dyads and Parental Prison Visitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, volume 43 (6), 739-758.

Natalie Booth

171

Truss, Liz. 2017. A speech on criminal justice reform by the Secretary of State for Justice. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-speech-on-criminaljustice-reform-by-the-secretary-of-state-for-justice [Accessed: 17/05/2017]. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC.) 1989. Available from: http://353ld710iigr2n4po7k4kgvv-wpengine.netdnassl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_PRESS200910web.pdf [Accessed: 17/2/2014]. Warren, Carol A.B. 2002. Qualitative Interviewing. In: J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein eds. Handbook of Interview Research; Context and Method. London: SAGE publications. Williams, Kim, Vea Papadopoulou, and Natalie Booth. 2012. "Prisoners’ childhood and family backgrounds." Results from the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) Longitudinal Cohort Study of Prisoners. Ministry of Justice Research Series 3 /12. Women’s Breakout. 2016. Children on the Edge. Children affected by maternal imprisonment. Available from: http://www.womensbreakout.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2016/10/Children-on-the-Edge-Children-affected-by-maternalimprisonment-final-1.pdf [Accessed: 28/11/2016]. Wood, Victoria Jane. 2008. "Subordinate kinship: families living with incarceration." PhD diss., Durham University. Woolf, Lord Justice HK. 1991. "Prison Disturbances April 1990, Report of an Inquiry by the Rt Hon Lord Justice Woolf (Parts 1 and 2) and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim (Part 2).

CONNECTICUT'S CHILDREN WITH INCARCERATED PARENTS (CIP) INITIATIVE AT CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY: BUILDING ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS TO EXPAND KNOWLEDGE AND INSPIRE CHANGE AILEEN KEAYS YEAGER, HANNAH HURWITZ AND RATI KUMAR

Among institutions of higher education, terms like “Community Engagement,” “Civic Engagement,” and “Social Justice” are being used, not only as descriptions of specific programmes, but as designations for robust departments. “In the context of immense unmet societal needs, groups outside academia are demanding that institutions of higher education, especially in developing countries, contribute more directly to social and economic development (Hollister n.d.).” Community engagement is part of the ethos at many colleges and universities; they have tapped into a timely and essential relationship between educating the next generation and preparing them to be engaged citizens who can solve societal problems and realize their role in the community and the world. There are several reasons why the community-engaged university has become a trend. For one, institutions of higher education are growing in number around the world. According to Dean Rob Hollister of Tufts University, “[h]igher education is expanding dramatically. In 2005, the world had 100 million university students, half in developing countries. By 2030, the number will double to 200 million, with most growth in the developing world” (Hollister n.d.). The growing number of institutions of higher education contributes to an overall need to assert their relevance to the communities that surround them. “…[T]his trend is part of the universities’ response to the general sense that higher education institutions are socially detached and academically irrelevant to the great

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

173

social diseases of the age” (Strier 2010). From the perspective of many colleges and universities, the idea of social responsibility goes far beyond optics: Brokering community partnerships is a greater part of the portfolio and skill set of university leaders. Many exemplify civic engagement in their personal lives. Universities increasingly are good institutional citizens, modelling active citizenship in their institutional policies and practices. They demonstrate social responsibility in how they compensate and treat their lowest paid employees. They purchase materials and supplies to maximise local community development. They practice environmental sustainability in their buildings and energy use. Civic engagement and social responsibility are no longer relegated to separate ‘centres of public service’; they are woven into the ethos and programmes of the university as a whole (Hollister n.d.). The growth of community engagement programmes in countries around the world has helped to create a body of demonstrably valuable programmes for leaders to draw ideas from. “These proven models both inspire and guide new efforts around the globe” (Hollister n.d.). Not surprisingly, developing countries approach community engagement from a different angle. In developing countries, university civic engagement means making conscious, directed efforts to alleviate poverty and improve public health. It means declaring and acting on the idea that institutions of higher education have social responsibilities, too. This is a movement that is still in its early stages, including globally diverse higher education institutions such as the University of Piracicaba in Brazil, the University of Havana in Cuba, Al-Quds University in Palestine, the University of Haifa in Israel, An Giang University in Vietnam to the University of Western Sydney in Australia (Hollister n.d.). Although approaches, and areas of need, are vastly different depending on country (or even city), shared intent and knowledge have helped create ties that reach across areas of difference. In 2005, Tufts University brought together a group of individuals from 28 universities, representing 23 countries. The outcome of this meeting was the “Talloires Declaration.” The document was “a consensus vision for expanding the international movement for social responsibility in higher education” (Hollister n.d.). This gathering also resulted in a global network that has drawn additional members. The widespread interest in a community-engaged university is a

174

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

potentially exciting opportunity for community organisations and civic institutions. Central Connecticut State University (CCSU) in the U.S. (where the Connecticut Children with Incarcerated Parents Initiative is housed) has actively sought to build such relationships in the surrounding area and, like many other universities, places a high value upon community engagement. CCSU has a Carnegie Classification as a Community Engagement University. In its mission statement, CCSU lists community engagement among four “Elements of Distinctiveness.” Being that community engagement is considered a pillar at CCSU, there is an Office of Community Engagement, a Community Engagement Committee, and a Community Engagement Minor. Many faculty choose to incorporate community engagement into their research and/or course work. Faculty senate also made strides to include community engagement as a consideration in promotion and tenure, thereby encouraging more faculty to pursue these activities. CCSU is located in New Britain, Connecticut, a city with multiple issue areas, such as homelessness and poverty. Over the years, the University has developed relationships with local leaders and city officials, as well as non-profit and community organisations. These partnerships help to sustain new and ongoing projects that provide mutual benefit for those involved. When both parties of the partnership (university and community) stand to benefit, it provides a strong foundation for future work. According to Miller and Halfner (2008), “truly collaborative relationships between universities and communities are both mutually dependent on and beneficial to one another”. This understanding is at the forefront of our work when it comes to partnerships with university and community groups. The Connecticut Children with Incarcerated Parents (CTCIP) Initiative is in a unique position at CCSU. Our own community ties, fostered by years of co-working relationships, are quite strong. We have similar connections with faculty from CCSU and other colleges and universities in the surrounding area. While there are common threads to community-engaged work, university members work with the CTCIP Initiative in a variety of ways through providing students with service learning opportunities, internships, volunteering, student club activities and course projects for students in collaboration with conducting faculty research.

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

175

When it comes to community engagement, there are many issue areas, and many ways to connect the community with the university. Oftentimes, solutions (and projects) can come from unexpected places. Geographical and financial limitations can often be overcome by thinking creatively and collaborating with multiple partners. An example is Dr. Olga Petkova, a management systems faculty member who could carry out her semesterlong website project internationally, culminating in a website for the International Coalition for Children with Incarcerated Parents (INCCIP) website (http://inccip.org/). Although this type of collaboration can take more coordination, the benefits are often exceptional. The idea that university-community partnership can span the globe, opens up more opportunities for organisations and gives faculty a larger landscape for research and projects. In the current chapter, we discuss an aspect of community engagement often present in academic settings – the processes and negotiations arising in research conducted by faculty made possible through internal or external funding agencies. We first present an overview of the primary funding agency, CCSU’s Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy, and one of their currently funded projects, the Youth Voice Project. We will subsequently discuss some of the positive and negative associations of this process. Such a discussion will hopefully bring to the forefront conversations about the structural navigations behind the scenes of community-based work within university and funding contexts.

Overview of the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy Around the year 2000, in the United States, Connecticut policymakers began re-examining the state’s criminal justice strategy. Two convergent factors – the exponential rise of Connecticut’s incarcerated population (and associated costs) and severe budget deficits – were the main factors influencing this re-examination. With the assistance of the Council of State Governments and the Connecticut General Assembly’s Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee staff, in 2003, the legislature proposed a series of policy changes aimed at creating greater effectiveness and efficiency in the criminal justice system. The resulting policy initiative, entitled “Justice Reinvestment”, was passed and implemented with the stated overall goals of generating annual savings for the state by limiting the growth of the state prison populations, while

176

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

maintaining public safety and improving conditions in the handful of communities to which most people released from prison return. Because of this policy initiative, Connecticut has been recognised around the country for being at the forefront of state efforts to reduce prison populations and manage prisoner re-entry. Continuing in the theme of “justice reinvestment”, the re-examination of criminal justice policies then expanded to the “front-end” of the system: the juvenile population. Through the extensive gathering and assessment of information on this population, many factors emerged that, if properly addressed, would allow for more effective juvenile justice policy in Connecticut. One of these factors appeared to be the support for youth with incarcerated parents. Recognizing that children with an incarcerated parent tend to be faced with several unique challenges, policymakers began focusing their attention on this growing, yet largely overlooked population. Legislators have indicated a desire to meaningfully support children with incarcerated parents for the benefit of the child and the state. Although the circumstances surrounding children with incarcerated parents (CIP) certainly warrant attention, at this point there is no one agency or entity that either identifies or monitors these children or their families. As such, it has become increasingly apparent to policymakers that effective public policy must be systematically developed to support these children along a path to a healthy and productive adulthood. As a result, in 2007 the legislature allocated resources to Central Connecticut State University’s Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy (IMRP) to determine an outcome-based approach to the state policy on children with incarcerated parents. Since the fiscal year, 2008, the IMRP at CCSU has been receiving annual funding from the Connecticut General Assembly to administer competitive grants for providing positive interventions for at-risk youth whose parent(s) and/or family members have been incarcerated. The IMRP continually seeks to gain an additional understanding of these children and their service-needs through research, evaluation and outreach activities. As-such, the IMRP, in collaboration with several faculty members from the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU), as well as other Universities, is evaluating the effectiveness of direct care services in alleviating negative responses to parental incarceration and improving the positive attributes of CIP. In recognition of the size and scope of the IMRP’s CIP work, the Institute created the Connecticut Children with Incarcerated Parents Initiative (CTCIP Initiative). The mission for the

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

177

CTCIP Initiative is to improve the quality of supports for children with incarcerated parents by using the various data and knowledge it gains to inform public policy and practice. Since the inception of the CTCIP Initiative, the staff have intentionally provided supportive funding for diverse types of interventions for CIP and their families. This decision was based on a recognition that at the time the CTCIP Initiative began receiving funding, there was very little information on the types of programmes that have a positive impact on CIP and there were no identified best practices for supporting CIP. The CTCIP Initiative decided that a good use of its funds would be to explore the various forms of supports and, through programme evaluation, assess each intervention’s impact. This would permit the funds to not only benefit youth directly impacted by each program, but CIP throughout the state and world through increased awareness on the ways in which a service-type might affect children enduring the incarceration of a parent. The Initiative’s ability to measure the impact of various types of interventions for CIP is greatly enhanced by its placement at a University. Being housed at CCSU, the CTCIP Initiative is well-positioned to tap into expert faculty as well as talented and motivated students. Since the Initiative’s inception, it has been fortunate to work with numerous faculty and students from multiple departments including Psychological Sciences, Economics, Communications, Management Information Systems, Graphic Design, Sociology, Teacher Education, Nursing, Theatre, Art, Computer Information Systems, Social Work, English, and more. The diverse skillsets of faculties in the various departments of the universities within the CSCU system, as well as other universities and colleges, provides not only the opportunity to match appropriately-talented faculty with each program evaluation and research endeavour, but also unique opportunities to develop and implement creative university-community engagement programmes seeking to benefit CIP and their families.

CIP initiatives funded by the IMRP Since the CTCIP Initiative’s inception, the IMRP has worked with Dr. James Conway of CCSU’s Department of Psychological Science on quantitative analyses to assess the impact of multiple CIP projects (Conway and Keays 2015), including two operating in the Greater Hartford area during the same time period. One such programme provided home-based counselling and case management while the other offered one-on-one mentoring. IMRP funded these programmes, and their

178

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

evaluations to provide services for CIP and to allow for an assessment and comparison of the two intervention types. At the time, the United States government, as well as many others around the country, seemed committed to mentoring as the seemingly natural best intervention-type for children who have lost a parent to incarceration. However, early research findings were beginning to question the helpfulness of mentoring services for this specific population. Therefore, the CTCIP Initiative sought to provide services to CIP as well as contribute to the knowledge on how mentoring, and home-based counselling and case management services, impacts CIP. Consequently, the same evaluation design was applied to each programme model which allowed for a comparison of the two interventions. The findings of that programme evaluation were surprising and yet in-line with prior, and subsequent, research on the efficacy of mentoring for children with incarcerated parents. Results for the mentoring programme showed no positive changes (either decrease in problem severity or increase in functioning or strengths) from intake to 7 or 13 months (Conway and Keays 2015). In fact, there was a significant decline in strength scores from intake to 7 months, which was maintained at 13 months. Evaluation results for the home-based counselling and case management service model showed a statistically significant decrease in problem severity and significant increases in functioning and strength scores. These changes were maintained from 7 to 13 months except problem severity, which increased significantly to approximately intake level. The evaluation findings produced several preliminary policy implications. One implication is that there is not support for investing resources in mentoring services for children of incarcerated parents. A second tentative implication is that it appears valuable to put resources into comprehensive home-based case management and counselling services to children. A final recommendation is to cultivate relationships in communities most affected by incarceration. The Initiative’s ability to use its funds and University resources to support the application of two types of services for CIP in the state’s capital, as well as an evaluation on the impact of those services to address, in-part, the deficit of data on how service-types impact CIP, allowed our work to be meaningful not only to the families that received direct services, but also to policymakers, funders and programme developers. Another opportunity for the Initiative to utilize the resources available to it through its affiliation with the university, and its financial support from the Connecticut General Assembly, was to investigate the widely used, and

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

179

frequently questioned, statistics that CIP are six times more likely than non-CIP to end up incarcerated themselves and that seven out of ten CIP will end-up incarcerated. Dr. Conway, and Psychological Science student, Edward Jones, researched these widely-cited numbers to determine their accuracy. Their conclusion confirmed the suspicions of many – that the statistics were exaggerated and inaccurate – and provided a quality tool for advocates and family members to point at to dispel the stigmatizing and harmful assumption that the futures of CIP are predetermined and dismal. The report was so well-received that a coalition of Latin American and Caribbean nations working on behalf of CIP, called La Plataforma NNAPES, requested a Spanish translation of the report so that it would be easier to use with their advocacy efforts. This sort of application of programme evaluation and research performed by faculty is not always visible to them. Dr Conway has stated that “…it’s harder to see an impact on people’s lives and by being involved in evaluation work, for example, it’s easier for me, and for students, to see that the work that we’re doing can have an effect on public policy” (Conway and Keays 2015). Another way the Initiative has sought to engage with faculty working in different areas is through the current case under discussion, the Youth Voice Project discussed below.

Overview of the Youth Voice Project The Youth Voice Project, conceptualized as a health communication campaign for children with incarcerated parents (CIPs), is aimed at the dissemination of health information, coupled with resources which can assist in better health and well-being for this population. The campaign design takes a two-pronged approach - one addressing health, and the other the stigma associated with being a CIP, which has been shown to compound the adverse effects of parental incarceration. (Adalist-Estrin 2006) This research is guided by the data demonstrating the negative short and long-term physical and mental health effects of parental incarceration which is classified as one of the “stressful or traumatic events” falling under the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) categories (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2017). Other ACEs are emotional, physical and sexual abuse, emotional and physical neglect, violent treatment of the mother, household substance abuse, mental illness in the household and parental separation or divorce. The more ACEs present

180

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

within a child’s life, the more cumulatively damaging these can be to their overall health and well-being throughout their lives. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016), ACEs have been linked to risky health behaviours, chronic health conditions, low life potential, and early death. ACEs are also “strongly related to the development and prevalence of a wide range of health problems throughout a person’s lifespan” including risky health behaviours such as substance abuse (SAMHSA, 2017). This makes CIPs more prone to chronic health conditions such as depression, anxiety and high-blood pressure (Wakefield and Wildeman 2014). In addition to these health concerns, parental incarceration is further considered a unique ACE with a combination of trauma, shame and stigma (Hairston 2007) which may not necessarily be present in the case of other kinds of ACEs. Luther (2016), in a study about the stigma management strategies undertaken by CIPs, discusses Goffman’s work on the concept of “spoiled identity”. She states that in the case of CIPs, their identities are co-opted into that of their incarcerated parents’ identity and this results in stigmatization of these children by group association (Goffman 1963). More specifically in this context, Adalist-Estrin (2006) discusses the exacerbation of this stigma through the “conspiracy of silence” as well as the external pressures these children face, resulting in feelings of fear, worry, confusion, sadness, guilt, loyalty conflict/isolation, embarrassment, and anger: They also face a host of potential mental and behavioural health problems (Wakefield and Wildeman 2014) due to both internally and externally stigmatizing factors these children have to cope with on a daily basis. This scholarship combined with the CTCIP Initiative’s guiding principle of combating stigmatization (CIP 2014) against CIPs forms the foundation of the Youth Voice outreach and media campaign.

Theoretical focus and method overview The theoretical basis for this campaign draws on the culture-centred approach (CCA), focusing on the community as the expert, based in the paradigm of university-community engagement discussed as the focus of this piece. The three tenets of the CCA are culture, structure and agency – conceptualizing culture in terms of “the local contexts, frameworks of meaning making and interpretation, and spaces of shared meanings, values, and interactions” (Dutta 2008). It focuses on utilizing the expertise inherent in the lived culture of communities such as the CIPs who have a unique insight into their experiences of health and well-being in

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

181

stigmatizing and traumatic situations. Structures are envisioned as either empowering or marginalizing communities, wherein such marginalized communities find ways to exercise their voices and agency within restrictive structural contexts to bring about change (Dutta 2008 and Dutta 2004b). Thus, the CCA explores the interaction between culture and structure that create conditions of marginality” (Dutta 2008; Dutta 2011) and brings to the forefront the agency of the community in combating such silencing of voice. The role of the researcher and scholar then, is to defer to those marginalized as the experts and serve as a bridge for bringing their voices to the mainstream. Thus, the CCA advocates an inward focus within communities for problem identification and resolution, as opposed to traditional top-down health interventions which often deploy strategies at odds with the communities they serve (Dutta 2008). Keeping the CCA in mind, the study was designed using input from the community organisations and CIPs at the outset. A mixed methods approach was used, with baseline and post-intervention questionnaires for CIPs (to promote health and wellness messaging) and non-CIPs (for antistigmatization messaging) equalling n=50 for pre and post for each group, with a total of n=200. The questionnaires were designed with feedback from a group of 8 to 10 CIPs engaged in an after-school programme with the community organizer for the project. In addition, data-gathering with CIPs was designed to be undertaken through 30 semi-structured interviews with a focus on in-depth dialogue. Subsequently, two focus groups with the CIPs were added for better data gathering, based on the suggestions of some of the community organizer collaborators and CIPs who, because of their relationships with the potential participants, suggested that they might be more comfortable discussing these issues in a group setting. While this was contradictory to the traditional wisdom of confidentiality safeguards for minors, it was in keeping with the CCA process to let the community guide the research methodology. The data gathering and intervention were in the cities of Hartford, New Britain and Bridgeport in the state of CT, since these cities are among those with the highest incarceration numbers in the state of CT, with the hope that CIPs in these areas may benefit most from such an intervention. In the following section, using the backdrop of the Youth Voice Project (YV) as an example of a funded research project, and the IMRP as a funding agency, we will discuss some of the challenges and rewards of university-community partnerships.

182

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

Challenges and Rewards Community A commitment to community engagement at the university level requires considerable attention to detail to avoid common pitfalls. Communication must be consistent and clear, and issues must be dealt with quickly, respectfully and efficiently to keep everyone invested. It is also important to keep in mind, “the process of partnership building is highly affected by several variables, such as lack of symmetry between partners, different perceptions of partnership, role conflicts, organisational cultures, institutional context, professional views, and unequal access to decision making processes” (Strier 2011). These factors contribute to the delicate balance that must be maintained when developing and sustaining partnerships. Community centred approaches overall, tend to be rife with issues of trust, time and the balance between deadlines and sensitivity. While the Youth Voice Project was initially conceptualized as a year-long endeavour, it is now during the conclusion of the second year that the data-gathering phase is at an end. Compounded by the culture centred approach which goes beyond working with the community, to centring the community as the expert, the demands become even more rigorous about standards of participation and leadership from the community members. When the community in this case involves minors requiring parental consent, these timelines are further extended beyond the limits of community work with adults. What has also become evident through this process is that within the vulnerable community of children with incarcerated parents, trust-building is not an individual endeavour. The researcher enters the field, establishes rapport with the participants, and proceeds to conduct their research, but one that involves a plethora of systemic structures, which can alternately help or hinder the trust building process. One of the primary means of recruitment is through after-school programmes, which have long-term relationships with these children and organisational reputations to maintain in the communities they serve. As a result, despite adequate confidentiality clauses built in, and numerous conversations with researchers, oftentimes these programmes may be wary of such research, resulting in slow recruitment and data gathering.

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

183

Additionally, while confidentiality clauses and assurances for minors are especially important given their vulnerable status and are carefully adhered to by the research team, the team has found itself on a nearly daily basis providing assurances to community organizers, parents, and administrators about any possible concerns that may arise. Also, an important lesson during recruitment has been that there is no formulaic approach that works consistently with the patchwork of agencies who agree to participate. In some instances, the children may be more comfortable speaking with programme directors or counsellors about participating in the study, in others the organizers suggest that we serve as the front end of the recruitment process. This leads to a flowchart of protocol that has been developed in case either opportunity presents itself. One of the issues with the former approach is that the staff often have busy schedules which precludes prioritizing external research, resulting in a need for consistent follow up, balanced with not being aggressively demanding. On the other end of the spectrum, combating the issue with putting our researchers into the programme for recruitment and follow up can sometimes yield quick results, but with the adverse effect of creating an awkward dynamic between the researchers and the participants. While the ideal solution here is to spend sufficient time building relationships with these programmes, it brings us face-to-face with the conundrum of the extended time frame required for trust-building within communities versus the deadlines faced by researchers both from funding agencies and academic standards alike. Just as there are pitfalls to avoid when embarking upon universitycommunity partnerships, there are some keys to success that can lay the groundwork for an efficacious alliance. For example, according to Strier (2011) in the 1999 article by Linda Silka, “Paradoxes of partnerships: Reflections on university-community collaborations,” there were some significant themes in Strier’s responses from community members regarding, what they believed, strongly influenced the effectiveness of community-academic partnerships: trust; respect for a community’s knowledge, community-defined and prioritized needs and goals, mutual division of roles and responsibilities, continuous flexibility, compromise, feedback, strengthening of community capacity, joint and equitable allocation of resources, sustainability and community ownership and funding issues (Strier 2011). Despite positive intentions, there will ultimately be some complications. Ensuring that these goals are met can make moving beyond those impediments much easier.

184

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

As the trend of the community-engaged university continues to take shape, we can expect to see more and more institutions of higher education latch on to the movement beginning at the top. “Brokering community partnerships is a greater part of the portfolio and skill set of university leaders. Many exemplify civic engagement in their personal lives” (Hollister n.d.). Leading the charge are highly educated administrators with deeply held convictions about the changing role of the university in the community. Hollister envisions a future where “[c]ivic engagement and social responsibility are no longer relegated to separate “Centers of public service”; they are woven into the ethos and programmes of the university as a whole.”

Funding agency Using the Youth Voice project and the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at CCSU as examples, it becomes demonstrably evident that the partnership is in a constant state of flux, negotiating the tensions that arise between the agencies granting funding for research and the communities within which such research is conducted. It is within this space of dialogic negotiations that academics and agencies must operate, ensuring that credibility and timeliness are balanced on both sides. Resource constraints are one of the major issues researchers are faced with while conducting research within the community. These resources include time, money and professional and personal considerations that must be handled by the researchers. In the case of the Youth Voice project, as noted earlier, while the grant was originally to last for a year, due to the lack of recruitment success, it was extended for a second year. While this negotiation could be achieved owing to the constant engagement between the grantee and the IMRP, the grantor, the final outcome is usually contingent on the resources available to the funding agency, their philosophy towards community based research, and their pliability in adjusting to the flexible timelines required of community work. To cite an example of the evolution of the relationship between the grantor and the grantee in this case, throughout the period of the research, there was a regular presence of and exchange of e-mails between the IMRP’s project managers and the principal investigator/faculty member leading the research. One exchange dealt with a research article shared by one of the IMRP project managers, citing the difficulties associated with recruitment from a pool of minors who have experienced parental incarceration, which was an offshoot of one of the conversations regarding the same between both parties. While this article was in a research context removed from the

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

185

current project it helped carve a pathway for understanding between the two parties, which can often otherwise become adversarial in nature. This understanding of the difficulties of field work demonstrated by the funding agency, not only puts the researcher at ease, but also helps establish an esprit de corps, which is not necessarily reliant on the transactional value of the partnership. This leads to a discussion of another underlying concern that is often not articulated between researchers and their funding agencies - that of philosophical differences in terms of research approaches. While not articulated due to political concerns, researchers will find that grantors may award them based upon the promise of avant garde research, or an unadulterated community-driven project, but on the other hand, shackle them with the traditionally held philosophical assumptions about results and deliverables, which may not be organic to the research process. For example, one often finds that grantors will require quarterly reports derived from a management-based approach to research, and then penalize the grantees for being unable to show any demonstrable results for the same, which may be difficult to achieve in communities which require long-term commitments for trust-building and dialogic engagement. This drive towards results-oriented work within a short time frame is inherently unsuitable for community engagement. While this is not to take away from the rigor and accountability which is to be demanded from researchers, it does require that both parties philosophically have a deep-rooted appreciation for the benefits of truly community driven work and appreciate the nuances of the same. The last restraint of resources in terms of budgetary constraints is one researchers and funding agencies are both familiar with. Both parties in this instance are confined by their reliance to their superiors and the macro-agendas set by the overseeing agencies. Often, social sciences research as a whole bears the brunt of a lack of resources overall, and within the niche area of working with CIPs this lack of resources is especially pronounced, given the specific agenda guidelines outlined in the above section discussing the IMRP. An example of this is the accountability demanded of survey or interview participants’ honorariums, which in public settings can often quickly devolve into quick-thinking exercises. There often arise examples, where when conducting research within the field, children who are eligible may fill out a survey and forget to sign after filling out the data and collecting the honorarium. This can be especially challenging at large events like community fairs. Another example is that of a group of children agreeing to participate in the

186

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

surveys, fill them out, receive parental consent, only to learn later that some of them have either provided unusable data, or are not eligible due to geographic constraints (issues such as children living with multiple guardians and not knowing their legal address). While these problems are theoretically not supposed to arise, researchers encounter these in the field and often must make more sensitive decisions, especially when it involves minors. These become problematic because of the limited resources faculty may have to work with and account for, to the funding agency, while at the same time allocating these resources to gathering reliable and actionable data. However, one of the benefits of the Initiative’s placement at a University is an enhanced opportunity to work with faculty and student groups on community engagement projects that promote collaboration between university and community in a mutually beneficial endeavour. As stated above, such proximity also often facilitates better communication and team-building which can then translate to more productive working relationships. These support greater creativity with programme design and partner selection since the pool of collaborators now includes the funding agency which can recommend, albeit with caution, other possible partners to collaborate with.

Academic challenges Being both a researcher and an academic can pose numerous challenges, which become more pronounced when the expectations for academic labour include an equal emphasis on teaching and funded research within the university’s parameters for faculty. Especially in four-year liberal arts colleges, the expectation is that faculty will be able to incorporate students into their research in a meaningful manner. This can pose problems since it can quickly become a revolving door of students, some of whom may have a personal commitment to the research, while others might be looking for part-time commitments. This is an issue that the Youth Voice project continues to grapple with, negotiating the learning experience of students, with the research rigor required of sensitive processes. It is often the case that throughout the life span of the research, the primary investigator, and some of the more permanent student workers, continue to orient the newcomers to the processes of the research. It can be challenging when the students are primarily interested in the work opportunity or resume building potential such work provides. However, this is a fantastic opportunity for students who wish to further pursue this line of research.

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

187

One of the central lessons learned from this process of community work through the Youth Voice Project, and especially culture centred work, is that to sustain this kind of research, a patient temperament is required when dealing with transient community commitments and organisational politics. This work also requires sensitivity as one is often obliged to question one’s privilege as an academic or as a student with opportunities that some of the community members, and particularly in this case, children, may not have access to. In addition, the guidelines of tenure dictate that any form of community engagement should fall within the parameters of quantifiable contributions to one’s academic dossier; this inevitably means the number of publications, presentations and tangible outcomes associated with traditionally academic standards. In a similar way to the outcomes above, satisfying funding agencies and fitting within the standard academic boundaries can be challenging. There is no measurable outcome for time required in trust-building with the community, including the personal investments of time and emotional energy that it often takes. There are also no quickfire solutions derived from a data analysis of community issues, as these are much harder to achieve than secondary research, which can often be fashioned from currently existing data, or purely theoretical work: which, while rigorous, does not come with the same vagaries as found in community based work. Despite this, researchers may still find themselves relegated to the category of doing purely applied work, which does not make theoretical contributions to the field. Lastly, an important practical concern which can help or hinder one’s research commitment to the community is the administrative perspective at the university under whose aegis the research is conducted. In the current case, the university is classified as one of the Carnegie Foundation’s Community Engagement Institutions, and this enhances its ability to conduct community based work. However, despite such an endowment, there may still exist challenges unique to more teaching-based institutions such as faculty load, especially when trying to adhere to the traditional parameters noted above in the underlying processes of tenure and faculty advancement.

In Conclusion Children with incarcerated parents face many unique challenges that render them vulnerable to severe, and potentially lifelong negative consequences. People and organisations that recognise the value of this

188

CIP Initiative at Central Connecticut State University

population and are compelled to support them, may face their own obstacles including financial and personnel limitations. Meaningful partnerships based on a common purpose with a recognition of the value of CIP, their families and communities, and a mutual respect for each partner’s contribution, can produce positive supports or policy changes that improve the health and wellbeing of CIP. These partnerships are not without their own obstacles; however, the scope of positivity that can result from coupled resources, and the number and diversity of beneficiaries, justifies pursuit and commitment by all parties. Developing a plan that incorporates each partner’s needs, a communication strategy, allocation of resources, and agreed roles and responsibilities, while also being flexible and open to compromise, can facilitate the successful application of supportive efforts. The outcome would also be broader and more inclusive than any one partner could achieve alone. The mission can begin with the recognition that CIP are worth that effort.

References Adalist-Estrin, Ann. 2006. Providing Support to Adolescent Children with Incarcerated Parents. The Prevention Researcher, 13, 7–10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. About the CDC-Kaiser ACE Study. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/about.html on June 5, 2017. Children with Incarcerated Parents Initiative. 2014. Community engagement grant addendum, guiding principles 2014. Retrieved from http://ctcip.org/about-us/who-we-are/ on June 9, 2017. Conway, James M., and Aileen Keays Yeager. 2015. Children with incarcerated parents: A quantitative evaluation of mentoring and home-based counseling and case management services. New Britain, CT: The Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ccsu.edu/imrp/projects/files/CIPEvaluationofMentoringand CounselingCounseling CaseManagement3.pdf on June 1, 2017. Conway, James. M. and Aileen Keays Yeager. 2016. Seven out of ten? Not even close. A review of research on the likelihood of children with incarcerated parents becoming justice-involved. New Britain, CT: The Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy. Dutta, Mohan. J. 2008. Communicating health: A culture-Centered approach. London: Polity Press. —. 2011. Communicating social change: Structure, culture, agency. New York: Routledge

Aileen Keays Yeager, Hannah Hurwitz and Rati Kumar

189

Dutta-Bergman, Mohan. 2004b. The unheard voices of Santalis: Communicating about health from the margins of India. Communication Theory, 14, 237–263. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma. New York: Simon and Schuster. Hairston, Creasie. F. 2007. Focus on the children with incarcerated parents: An overview of the research literature. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Hollister, Robert. n.d.. The Engaged University – An Invisible Worldwide Revolution. Retrieved May, 2017, from http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/about/dean-rob-hollister/publications-andpresentations/the-engaged-university-an-invisible-worldwiderevolution/. Luther, Kate. 2016. Stigma Management among Children of Incarcerated Parents. Deviant Behaviour, 37(11), 1264-1275. Miller, Peter. M. and Madeline M. Hafner, 2008. Moving Toward Dialogical Collaboration: A Critical Examination of a University— School—Community Partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 66-110. doi:10.1177/0013161x07309469. Strier, Roni. 2010. The construction of university-community partnerships: entangled perspectives. Higher Education, 62(1), 81-97. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9367-x Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2017. Adverse childhood Experiences. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/capt/practicing-effective-prevention/ prevention-behavioural-health/adverse-childhood-experiences on June 5, 2017. Wakefield, Sara and Christopher Wildeman. 2014. Children of the Prison Boom. New York: Oxford University Press.

SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES OF PEOPLE CONVICTED OF A SEXUAL OFFENCE NANCY LOUCKS AND TÂNIA LOUREIRO

Families Outside is a national Scottish charity that works solely on behalf of children and families affected by imprisonment. This work includes a national freephone Helpline where families and professionals can access immediate information and support, with the option of referral to locallybased face-to-face support; training for professionals on key issues for families following a person’s imprisonment; and development of policy and practice to improve outcomes for families in this situation. In recent years, Families Outside has noted a marked increase in contacts from families of people convicted of a sexual offence. Our search for specific support for families in this situation quickly showed that very little support was available for them. Extensive support was available to victims of sexual offending (e.g. Anderson and Hiersteiner 2008; Chouliara, Karatzias, and Gullone 2004; Easton et al. 2015; KendallTackett, Williams, and Finkelhor 1993; Lamb 1993). Projects were also available to work with perpetrators of sexual offending (e.g. Tewksbury and Levenson 2009). Families, however, were left on their own to deal with an incredibly traumatic period in their lives, through no fault of their own (Stop It Now 2009): Feelings experienced in the last 17 months include abhorrence, denial, terror, fear for my family, anxiety, loneliness, desperation, guilt, and sadness at the knowledge that I may never trust anyone again. —family member supported by Stop It Now

This chapter outlines the experiences of families of people convicted of a sexual offence, showing both the similarities and essential differences these families face compared to other children and families of prisoners.

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

191

Background In starting research into the experiences of families of people convicted of a sexual offence and the support that might be helpful to them, Families Outside and Barnardo’s Scotland commissioned Tânia Loureiro (2016) to conduct a review of the literature and a scoping study of the support available for families of sexual offenders in the UK. The review, reflected extensively in this chapter, found that, despite the detrimental impact on families and clear need for support, very little support is available for the families of perpetrators. The need for support was particularly great when sexual offending took place within the family, but even then, support was directed more towards victims than to the rest of the family, with interventions more likely to be directed at perpetrators than the wider family. Because of the limited support families in this situation can access, and because of the increasing numbers of families contacting us who have a family member accused or convicted of a sexual offence, Families Outside (2016) worked alongside Barnardo’s Scotland, Edinburgh City Council, and Stop It Now to develop a new resource called “Picking Up the Pieces”. This publication is a handbook for families developed and informed by families themselves, to help people in this situation know what to expect and how to cope. This includes sections on understanding what has happened; the emotional journey they can expect to experience; guidance for taking care of themselves and supporting their children; facing the future; and practical information such as what happens on release, relevant legislation such as sex offender registers, data protection, contact with children, and dealing with the media. It shares quotations from families who have been through the experience, thoughts to consider, and suggestions for support. Many of the issues that families of people convicted of a sexual offence face are identical to those of anyone with a family member involved in the justice system. They may face a loss of income, especially if the person convicted was the main breadwinner (Dickie 2013; Lee, Porter, and Comfort 2014). The additional cost of travel and transport and the logistics of this can be exceptionally difficult and may end up separating families completely. The stress can impact upon physical and mental health, with children up to three times more likely than their peers to develop significant mental health issues (e.g. Jones et al. 2013); in fact, imprisonment of a household member is one of ten Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) that affect longer-term physical health, addiction, and

192

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

life expectancy (originally Felitti et al. 1998). Housing may be at risk if the named householder is the one who went into custody, or if the publicity surrounding a case or the nature of the offence attracts public response or otherwise gives a landlord cause to end the tenancy. Children may end up having to move to a different carer, which may mean a new home, school, and friends. This in turn can have a negative impact on their school performance, which in turn can create longer-term problems for their prospects and employability (Murray and Farrington 2008).

The crucial importance of stigma The main difference between families of people in prison for a sexual offence and families of prisoners in general relates to the stigma connected with sexual offending. Stigmatisation based on the status of others is not a new phenomenon. In 1963, Goffman documented that families of prisoners experience what he called a “courtesy stigma” – a guilt by association for choosing to remain connected to an imprisoned loved one (Hutton 2018 forthcoming). Goffman defined stigma as: “… an attribute that is deeply discrediting… a special kind of relationship between an attribute and a stereotype [that reduces those subject to it] from a hole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one.” (1963: 12)

The process of applying or experiencing stigma, in turn, is known as stigmatisation: “Stigma, proper, is the mark, the condition, or status that is subject to devaluation. Stigmatization is the social process by which the mark affects the lives of all those touched by it.” (Pescosolido and Martin 2015: 91)

With ‘courtesy stigma’, a person experiences stigma not because of his or her own actions, but rather by a close association with a person whom the stigmatised attribute is ascribed to (Hutton 2018 forthcoming). Goffman was amongst the early researchers to apply this term to families of prisoners, but more recent research shows that this stigmatisation persists. This includes reference to partners of prisoners (Fishman 1990; Girshick 1996); families of people who have committed serious offences (Condry 2007); Comfort’s now classic description of the “secondary prisonisation” of people visiting prisons (2007); and children of prisoners (Scharff Smith 2014; Knudsen 2018 forthcoming). Stigma is the main barrier preventing families of prisoners from seeking help for the issues that arise as a result of the imprisonment. Pugh and

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

193

Lansky (2011) found that nearly three-quarters of families visiting prisons in England were accessing no support at all, despite the range and severity of challenges they faced following their family member’s imprisonment. These families at least could access support at the prison, should it be available – but throughout the UK, only about half of people in prison manage to maintain contact with their families (Social Exclusion Unit 2002; NACRO 2000; HMIPP 2001). This means that a significant proportion of families remain entirely invisible, accessing no support of any kind. With families convicted of a sexual offence, the stigma is doubly difficult (see for example Kotova 2017). In her research into a peer support organisation in England called Aftermath, Rachel Condry (2007) uncovered the significance of such stigma. Aftermath was an organisation of families of people convicted of serious violent or sexual offences, set up to support each other throughout very long periods of imprisonment. As with people in custody (Irwin 1970; Crewe 2009), Condry found that families created hierarchies based on the nature of the offence. This meant that, despite participants in the group not having committed the offence themselves, and despite their shared experience of stigma based on the actions of their family member, families still judged each other and divided into factions. In effect, the sentiment was that “The offence that I didn’t commit was bad, but the offence you didn’t commit was even worse”. The result was that the support from the group deteriorated to infighting and eventually led the group to dissolve completely. Loureiro (2016) notes in her review that the nature of the offence can result in families becoming isolated from their local communities (Lipton 1997; Massat and Lundy 1998; Plummer and Eastin 2007) at a time when they need additional support to cope with a complex mixture of feelings of denial, guilt, anger, fear, distrust, and hopelessness (Print and Dey 1992; Clark 2014). Most research on sexual offences focuses on the impact of the abuse on the victim (e.g. Beitchman et al. 1991; Beitchman et al. 1992; Finkelhor 1990; Swanston et al. 2003; Wolfe 2006) or on the programmes available for perpetrators in order to reduce the risk of reoffending (Hempel et al. 2013; Miner 2002). While these are worthy of extensive research, the families of people who commit sexual offences tend to be forgotten (Home Office 2006), despite the harm they experience as the ‘secondary victims’ (Howarth and Rock 2000) of an offence they did not commit (Gibney and Jones 2014).

194

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

Families and secrets In practice, the stigma affecting children and families when someone is convicted of a sexual offence takes place in three main fora. First, children and other family understandably may choose not to speak about the offence. Secrecy may also be imposed upon them, where they know about a person’s offending but know they are not allowed to speak about it. Such barriers prevent disclosure and make identifying the number of children who are victims of sexual abuse difficult, with the silence potentially lasting a lifetime (NSPCC 2016). Secrecy is particularly well protected when abuse takes place within a family, with even lower rates of identification and the risk of continued abuse and delayed discovery (Magalhães et al. 2009). Loureiro (2016: 7) notes that “Sexual abuse within the family is an enormous breach of trust; it is abuse by someone in whom the victim should have confidence. This breach is traumatic and can fragment the victim’s sense of safety and security” (Horvath et al. 2014; Gregory-Bills and Rhodeback 1995). Even once an offence has been discovered and prosecuted, the family may feel an imperative not to discuss what happened in an effort to hide the facts of the case, or with a view of protecting children and others from the reality. As with other cases of imprisonment, children often realise the truth but know they are not meant to speak about it, hiding the fact that they know and consequently failing to discuss their feelings, ask questions, and receive the support they need to cope with the situation (e.g. Jones et al. 2013). In the case of a sexual offence, this imperative is all the more pressing: I cannot be myself with my friends and family as I think that if they find out that I have been harbouring this secret about my husband that they will never trust me. I feel disloyal that I have not told them the truth but at the same time cannot bear to. I cannot seek help from my GP, as he is a family friend…. I live in constant fear that this will become public knowledge. —family member supported through Stop It Now

Liamputtong (2017) describes the notion of secrecy and disclosure (in her research, relating to HIV) as closely related to stigma and discrimination. Secrecy is “a sensible tactic to avoid social disapproval of an aspect of their life that they consider as marginal to their ‘psychic economies’” (Seidman, Meeks, and Traschen 1999:18). Liamputtong notes that secrecy “creates an anxiety because these individuals cannot foretell the feelings and reactions of others by their disclosure.” Disclosure, in contrast, can be

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

195

a “therapeutic emancipation” for young people (Liamputtong 2017; Midtbo and Daniel 2016).

Families as witnesses Second, members may be aware of the offending or have witnessed the offending, such as when sexual abuse takes place in the home. Early research ascertained that child sexual abuse occurs within all ethnic groups (Putnam 2003; Wyatt 1985), socio-economic backgrounds (Alexander and Lupfer 1987; Fergusson, Lynskey, and Horwood 1996; Finkelhor 1994; Putnam 2003), geographical areas (Baker and Duncan 1985; Mullen et al. 1993), and levels of education (Alexander and Lupfer 1987). However, the consequences of offending perpetrated in the home are likely to be more serious (Horvath et al. 2014), especially if it takes place when the victim is very young and continues, is threatening, and the victim has no support from the family (Magalhães et al. 2009), with some families describing the disclosure of sexual abuse as a “major life crisis” (Loureiro 2016: 8, summarizing Humphreys 1995 and Lipton 1997). Professionals can sometimes miss or ignore the psychological and emotional distress a family experiences when sexual abuse has taken place in the home (Famularo et al. 1994; Condry 2007), leaving the family to deal with the conflicting emotions about the offence itself, the negative reactions from the rest of the family, the societal shame and stigma, and separation from the family member who committed the offence (Famularo et al. 1994; Levenson and Tewksbury 2009). Awareness of the offending also means the family may have to testify – an experience that can be traumatic in itself, especially for children, but even more so when children or other family members feel a conflict of loyalty: “I still love him, but I hate him as well, and I can’t tell anyone I still love him. You can’t make feelings just go away.” (Families Outside 2016: 11)

The mixture of feelings from being relieved someone has been caught and that the abuse will stop, to feeling guilty for ‘causing’ the person to go to prison or that the offending was somehow their fault, can be very confusing for the family left behind, and especially for children. Such feelings can lead to incredulity or denial: “I couldn’t see him as a sex offender. I couldn’t see him as the same as those other people in prison.” (Families Outside 2016: 5)

196

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

Combined with the difficulty of not being allowed to speak about it (either because they are not supposed to know or to prevent contamination of evidence), children in particular are likely to struggle.

Families on public display Third, sexual offences can be very public. Such offences attract media attention, often with colourful descriptions of defendants and perpetrators as “beasts”, “monsters”, or “paedos”. Police searches of houses to remove evidence such as computer equipment can also be very public, often amongst families not accustomed to contact with the criminal justice system. The following account of a woman supported by Stop It Now in Scotland gives a graphic account of the experience of being a family member of someone arrested and eventually convicted for a sexual offence: “The doorbell was ringing persistently. I was getting dressed, readying myself for a day at work. It was between 7am and 7.30am. Voices prompted me to go down stairs… I remember taking the scene in in slow motion. Our hall was crowded with people – one with a battering ram. They introduced themselves as plain clothed police and explained that they had a search warrant. I was flummoxed and sure that there had been some mistake, said that of course they could do their job and even offered to make tea. We were asked to sit down, and two officers stated that indecent images had been found on one of the computers…. I was horrified in the true sense of the word and too stunned to take in what was happening. ‘Who had been in the house on the 10th of March?’ This was the last day the obscene images had been accessed… who had committed such a heinous crime in my home on Mothering Sunday? … Why was this happening? Who had done this? What was the outcome going to be? How was my son going to react? I consider myself to be a law-abiding citizen and was utterly ashamed to be driven into the back entrance of the police station and frog marched to the line of people waiting to be processed… I surrendered my bag, jewellery and shoes. It was the first time in 30 years that my wedding ring had been removed… I had been offered water on a few occasions [but] was too terrified to drink in case I needed to go to the toilet and would have to be accompanied there…. I knew I had not accessed these images. Who had? Was it the man who was the father of my children that I had known, trusted and loved for 35 years, or was it my beloved son that I had nurtured and loved with all my heart?”

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

197

Eventually, her husband was charged, and she and her son were released from police custody after being held overnight. She describes waiting for her son at the police station and what happened since: “He emerged looking completely traumatised. I had not seen him cry since he was a child. We fell into each other’s arms, weeping. [I] wish that my son could have been spared that ordeal. He will have been scarred permanently…. I returned to the house [but] it was no longer my home…. As yet, there is no communication between my elder son and his father. My younger son lives abroad and had to hear of the crime over the phone from his father. … Normally Christmas would be a real family time. Last year there were no decorations, cards or Christmas family dinner…. It was a wretched affair.”

With sexual offending, the families themselves are more likely to be the victims than families of people who commit other types of offences (with the exception of other types of domestic abuse, which by definition is against the family). This means the family will be left with the trauma of personal victimisation; the fear and uncertainty of their family member’s involvement in the justice system; and the need to support the victim or victims through their trauma and recovery. Earlier research (Deblinger et al. 1993; Newberger et al. 1993) found that children who had been sexually abused showed a range of symptoms including depression, anxiety, resentment, psychotic episodes, and suicide attempts. This left families dealing with the immediate victimisation but also the longer-term challenges for the children’s behaviour, socialisation, and education, as well as the impact on the remaining families’ own feelings (Beitchman et al. 1992). Even when the offending takes place outside the family, the shame and stigma about the offence itself takes a tremendous toll, especially if family members choose to maintain their relationship with the perpetrator (Regehr 1990; Tourigny et al. 2005). Families have to deal with separation and feelings of betrayal: “If he would just admit what he’d done and seem sorry, I could deal with it better. I’m so angry with him.” (Families Outside 2016: 7)

… as well as disapprobation from other members of the family, friends, neighbours, and the community at large (Tewksbury and Lees 2006; Ballantyne 2015). Again, this sense of judgment, of being ‘tainted by association’ or that they have been convicted of an offence themselves

198

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

(Farkas and Miller 2007), is an extreme version of what families of prisoners in general can experience: “The family gets the sentence as well. He’s in his prison, and I’m in mine.” (Families Outside 2016: 13)

Families may not agree about how or whether to maintain contact with the perpetrator, and relationships frequently fall apart as a result (Condry 2007; Levenson and Tewksbury 2009). Even children, who are clearly innocent of the crime, can experience negative consequences such as poor treatment from their peers, changes in friendships, teasing and mocking, and consequently depression, apprehension, fear, and anger (Levenson and Tewksbury 2009; Ballantyne 2015).

Coping with a family member’s conviction for a sexual offence The negative impact on the families of people who commit sexual offences are clear, but support to families in this situation is very limited, and their specific needs are often overlooked (Levenson and Tewksbury 2009). Support to caregivers in the event of child sexual abuse can however be helpful, such as through information, psycho-educational support groups, and interventions with caregivers and child victims together (see for example Barth, Yeaton and Winterfelt 1994; Deblinger, Stauffer and Steer 2001; Hernandez et al. 2009; Corcoran 2004). Support groups can also be valuable in increasing caregivers’ support networks (Humphreys 1995), providing comfort through finding people with similar experiences in a non-judgemental environment (Hewitt and Barnard 1986; Humphreys 1995). Families reinforced this in Picking Up the Pieces: “You feel totally powerless. Finding just one person who understands can make a difference“ Families Outside 2016: 3)

Peer support can work well for children and young people with a family member in prison as well, as reported by groups such as KIN (n.d.) in Scotland and PSS (Person-Shaped Support, n.d.) in England. Critically, however, such peer support groups operate under a principle of nondisclosure: the stigma of a family member is such that, even within groups with similar experiences, the detail of those experiences is best left unshared, both because it creates division amongst members, and because it turns the focus to the offence and the perpetrator rather than to the family member as an individual in need of support (KIN 2017).

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

199

Another example of support is the Partners for Protection programme for the carers of children at risk of sexual abuse, run in Edinburgh by Barnardo’s Scotland (Francois 2014). The City of Glasgow’s Family Support Project offers similar support (Rigby and Callan 2012), as do a number of projects in England such as Breaking the Cycle (HTV Circles, n.d.), Women as Protectors (NSPCC, n.d.), and the Non-Abusing Partner Programme (Ray Wyre Associates, n.d.). Notably, all these groups focus on the carers’ capacity and ability to protect their children rather than the specific support the carers may require to deal with the trauma of a sexual offence and the impact the offence has on them as individuals (ibid.). Again, the risk is that support will focus on the needs of the victim or on the perpetrator, with the needs of the remaining family overshadowed or lost completely. The European COPING study (Jones et al. 2013) showed clearly that children cope better with a parent’s imprisonment when they have the support of at least one trusted adult. Earlier research from Elliott and Carnes (2001) and Kendall-Tackett, Williams, and Finkelhor (1993) noted that positive support from the caregiver can mediate the psychological symptoms for victims of child sexual abuse. It also helps children adjust following victimisation, both during the inquiry procedures and in their longer-term recovery (Elliott and Carnes 2001; Kendall-Tackett, Williams, and Finkelhor 1993; Davies and Seymour 1999). Conversely, a lack of care and support can increase the level of stress and trauma (Lipton 1997; Lynsky and Fergusson 1997). Barnardo’s Scotland provides support to families through their Skylight / Lighthouse project. Skylight / Lighthouse works with children and young people who are victims of sexual abuse or have been involved in sexual harmful behaviour, as well as the families and carers of these children (www.barnardos.org.uk/scotland). Meanwhile, Stop It Now! Scotland provides a range of support to perpetrators and to families of people under investigation for or convicted of online sexual offending. This includes the Inform Scotland group sessions for families as well as a telephone contact service and a booklet called "Still Reeling?” Needless to say, this is a very short list of options for support, and families report considerable difficulties in finding appropriate help to cope with their experience (Ballantyne 2015; Condry 2007). Demand for support for families in this situation is clear, however, as Families Outside’s “Picking Up the Pieces” publication has been circulated internationally and translated into four languages to date. The limited research on support for

200

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

families of people convicted of sexual offending reflects this as well. Clark (2014) reported that families universally highlighted the lack of support but that they would have appreciated help from trained professionals, specifically health professionals or independent organisations rather than from police or other criminal justice agencies. Families in Clark’s research also mentioned the need for information about criminal justice procedures, financial advice, and about sexual offending and victimisation. Findings from Hernandez and colleagues (2009) reiterated this, adding a desire from families for emotional support to cope with the experience.

Experiences of support Families generally report support from voluntary sector services as very helpful, citing both the emotional support and the information they received as reasons for this. Support groups, as an example, gave families an opportunity to meet others in their situation and to share their experiences (Ballantyne 2015; Condry 2007; Grosz, Kempe, and Kelly 1999; Hernandez et al. 2009; Corcoran 2004; Lomonaco, Scheidlinger, and Aronson 2000), though individual counselling was also of value (Swenson and Hanson 1999). Some families valued support from private counsellors, despite the cost involved, while others mentioned more informal support from family, friends, work colleagues, and faith groups (ibid 1999). Farkas and Miller (2007) also noted the value of religion as a positive coping mechanism, with families finding compassionate and nonjudgmental support from friends in their faith communities. Experience with statutory services was less positive, with particular criticism of the police (Malinen, Willis, and Johnston 2014; Condry 2007; Ballantyne 2015). However, Condry notes that the priority for police is arrest, often with no guidelines to help them deal with families of suspected perpetrators. Similarly, Ballantyne highlights the fact that Criminal Justice Social Workers in Scotland (who have roughly similar remits to probation officers in other jurisdictions) have no obligation to work with families, which may explain the lack of support families perceive from them. Services at court (e.g. Witness Support Services, Victim Support) in turn provide support to victims rather than to families of the accused, though families report the court process as being traumatic and the stage where they needed the most support (Condry 2007; Clark 2014). Families also expressed a need for protection from the press (Clark 2014).

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

201

Conclusions “The reason it feels not in your control is because it isn’t in your control.” (Families Outside 2016: 13)

The children and families of people in prison share a range of experiences that can impact almost every aspect of their daily lives. When the imprisonment is for a sexual offence, however, the stigma surrounding the offence compounds these negative impacts. Families of people imprisoned for a sexual offence may live in secrecy; they may be the victims and therefore feel divided loyalties as both victims and family members; they may be arrested alongside the perpetrator or have to testify; and the publicity surrounding the offence may result in public vilification, even from people they might otherwise turn to for support. Despite the obvious trauma and the lack of culpability of family members, little support is available for people in this situation. This can be the case even within communities of interest such as support groups for families affected by imprisonment, with families of people convicted of a sexual offence somehow seen as less ‘deserving” of sympathy. The issue even divides the families themselves, disintegrating through divided opinions about whether to stand by the perpetrator, what to tell the children, and whether to seek support. As for any people tarred by the ‘courtesy stigma’ of an act they did not commit, the children and families perhaps need to know even more than other families of prisoners that they are not alone; that the offending is not their fault; and that they are worthy and deserving of support. The multiple traumas of a family member’s sexual offending, arrest, and imprisonment makes resources such as peer support groups that operate under a principle of non-disclosure and publications such as “Picking Up the Pieces” a veritable lifeline for families and indeed for the practitioners who come into contact with them.

References Alexander, Pamela C., and Shirley L. Lupfer. 1987. "Family characteristics and long-term consequences associated with sexual abuse." Archives of sexual behavior 16, (3):235-245. Anderson, Kim M., and Catherine Hiersteiner. 2008. "Recovering from childhood sexual abuse: Is a “Storybook Ending” possible?" The American Journal of Family Therapy 36, (5): 413-424.

202

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

Baker, Anthony W., and Sylvia P. Duncan. 1985. "Child sexual abuse: A study of prevalence in Great Britain." Child abuse & neglect 9(4) 457467. Ballantyne, Gary. 2015. The Effects of Sexual Offences on Non-Victim Family Members in Scotland. Unpublished report. Beitchman, Joseph H., Kenneth J. Zucker, Jane E. Hood, and Donna Akman. 1991. "A review of the short-term effects of child sexual abuse." Child abuse & neglect 15(4): 537-556. Beitchman, Joseph H., Kenneth J. Zucker, Jane E. Hood, Granville A. DaCosta, Donna Akman, and Erika Cassavia. 1992. "A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse." Child abuse & neglect 16(1): 101-118. Browne, Angela, and David Finkelhor. 1986. "Impact of child sexual abuse: a review of the research." Psychological bulletin 99 (1):66. Chouliara, Zoë, Thanos Karatzias, and Angela Gullone. 2014. "Recovering from childhood sexual abuse: A theoretical framework for practice and research." Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing 21(1):6978. Clark, Becky. 2014. ‘The forgotten people’: Do the relatives of convicted sex offenders in Angus require more support? Angus Council: Unpublished report. Condry, Rachel. 2007. Families Shamed. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Corcoran, Jacqueline. 2004. "Treatment outcome research with the nonoffending parents of sexually abused children: A critical review." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 13(2): 59-84. Crewe, Ben. 2009. The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social Life in an English Prison. Oxford: Clarendon Studies in Criminology. Deblinger, Esther, Christina Russell Hathaway, Julie Lippman, and Robert Steer (1993). Psychosocial characteristics and correlates of symptom distress in nonoffending mothers of sexually abused children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 155–168. Dickie, Donald. 2013. The Financial Impact of Imprisonment on Families. Edinburgh: Families Outside. Easton, Scott D., Danielle M. Leone-Sheehan, Ellen J. Sophis, and Danny G. Willis. 2015. “From that Moment on My Life Changed”: Turning Points in the Healing Process for Men Recovering from Child Sexual Abuse." Journal of child sexual abuse 24(2):152-173. Families Outside. 2016. Picking Up the Pieces: Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence. Edinburgh: Families Outside. https://www.familiesoutside.org.uk/content/uploads/2016/08/Pickingup-the-Pieces.pdf

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

203

Famularo, Richard, Terence Fenton, Robert Kinscherff, Catherine Ayoub, and Richard Barnum. 1994. Maternal and child posttraumatic stress disorder in cases of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 27–36. Farkas, Mary Ann and Gale Miller. 2007. Re-entry and Reintegration: Challenges Faced by the Families of Convicted Sex Offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 88-92. Felitti, Vincent J, Robert F Anda, Dale Nordenberg, David F Williamson, Alison M Spitz, Valerie Edwards, Mary P Koss, and James S Marks. 1998. Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14 (4), 245-258. Fergusson, David M., Michael T. Lynskey, and L. John Horwood. 1996. Childhood sexual abuse and psychiatric disorder in young adulthood: I. Prevalence of sexual abuse and factors associated with sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1355–1364. Finkelhor, David. 1990. Early and long-term effects of child sexual abuse: An update. Professional Psychology, 21: 325–330. —. 1994. The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 409–417. Fishman, Laura T. 1990. “Women at the Wall.” A Study of Prisoners’ Wives Doing Time on the Outside. Albany: State University of New York Press. Francois, Alison. 2014. Partners for protection: A group based assessment of a non-abusing carers capacity to protect. NHS Scotland, Forensic Network Clinical Forum for sex offender practitioners. Gibney, Daniel R. and Alyson Jones. 2014. A crisis worker's observations on the psychosocial support for victims and families following child sexual abuse; a case study. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 27, 25-28. Girshick, Lori B. 1996. Soledad Women: Wives of Prisoners Speak Out. Westport: Praeger. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster. Gregory-Bills, Therese and Melanie Rhodeback. 1995. Comparative psychopathology of women who experienced intra-familial versus extra-familial Sexual Abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(2). 177-189. Grosz, Candace A., Ruth S. Kempe, and Michele Kelly. 1999. Extrafamilial sexual abuse treatment for child victims and their families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 9–23.

204

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

Hempel, Inge, Nicole Buck, Maaike Cima, and Hjalmar van Marle. 2013. Review of risk assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders: What is next? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 208–228. HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation for England and Wales. 2001. Through the Prison Gate: A Joint Thematic Review by HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation. London: Home Office. Hernandez, Annette, Cameron Ruble, Lori Rockmore, Mary McKay, Taiwanna Messam, Meghan Harris, and Stephanie Hope. 2009. An Integrated Approach to Treating Non-Offending Parents Affected by Sexual Abuse. Social Work in Mental Health, 7(6). Hewitt, Lesley and Margaret Barnard. 1986. Groupwork with mothers of incestuously abused children. Australian Social Work, 39, 35–40. Home Office. 2006. The needs and effective treatment of young people who sexually abuse: current evidence. Department of Health – Health Care Partnerships Directorate and Home Office – Youth Justice and Children Team. Horvath, Miranda A. H., Julia C. Davidson, Julie Grove-Hills, Anna Gekoski, and Clare Choak. 2014. “It’s a lonely journey”: A Rapid Evidence Assessment on intrafamilial child sexual abuse. London: Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Howarth, Glennys and Paul Rock. 2000. Aftermath and the Construction of Victimisation: ‘The Other Victims of Crime’. The Howard Journal, 39(1), 58–78. HTV Circles (no date). http://www.circlessoutheast.org.uk/htvc-nonoffending-partner-programme.php. Humphreys, Catherine. 1995. Counselling and support issues for mothers and fathers of sexually abused children. Australian Social Work, 48(4), 13–19. Hutton, Marie A. 2018 forthcoming. A Legally Sanctioned Stigma: Entering the Prison as a ‘Less Than’. In Rachel Condry and Peter Scharff-Smith, eds., Prisons, Punishment and the Family. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Irwin, John. 1970. The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Jones, Adele, Bernard Gallagher, Martin Manby, Oliver Robertson, Matthias Schützwohl, Anne H. Berman, Alexander Hirschfield, Liz Ayre, Mirjam Urban, and Kathryn Sharratt. 2013. COPING: Children of Prisoners, Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen Mental Health. http://www.hud.ac.uk/research/researchcentres/acc/projects/copingchildren-of-prisoners/

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

205

Kendall-Tackett, Kathleen A., Linda M. Williams, and David Finkelhor. 1993. "Impact of sexual abuse on children: a review and synthesis of recent empirical studies." Psychological bulletin 113(1):164. KIN (no date) www.voxliminus.co.uk/kin —. 2017. Presentation to the Scottish Parliamentary Cross-Party Group on Children and Families Affected by Imprisonment, Edinburgh 21 June 2017. Knudsen, Else Marie. 2018 forthcoming. The invisibility of children of prisoners. In Rachel Condry and Peter Scharff-Smith, eds., Prisons, Punishment and the Family. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kotova, Anna. 2017. Blaming and Stigmatising Female Partners of Male Child Sex Offenders. Edinburgh: Families Outside. Lamb, Robyn. 1993. Helping your child to recover from sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(3), 433-434. Lee, Hedwig, Lauren C. Porter, and Megan Comfort. 2014. "Consequences of family member incarceration: Impacts on civic participation and perceptions of the legitimacy and fairness of government." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 651, no. 1: 44-73. Levenson, Jill, and Richard Tewksbury. 2009. "Collateral damage: Family members of registered sex offenders." American Journal of Criminal Justice 34, no. 1-2: 54-68. Liamputtong, Pranee. 2017. Stigma, discrimination and children and young people living with HIV/AIDS. Paper presented at the Stigma in Childhood project seminar, Scottish Universities Insight Institute, University of Strathclyde, 26 June 2017. Lipton, Marjorie. 1997. "The effect of the primary caretaker's distress on the sexually abused child: A comparison of biological and foster parents." Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 14, no. 2: 115127. Lomonaco, Salvatore, Saul Scheidlinger, and Seth Aronson. 2002. "Five decades of children's group treatment—An overview." Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy 10, no. 2: 77-96. Loureiro, Tânia. 2016. Support for families of people who have committed a sexual offence. Edinburgh: Families Outside and Barnardo’s Scotland (internal publication). Lynskey, Michael T., and David M. Fergusson. 1997. "Factors protecting against the development of adjustment difficulties in young adults exposed to childhood sexual abuse." Child abuse & neglect 21, no. 12: 1177-1190.

206

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

Magalhães, Teresa, Francisco Taveira, Patricia Jardim, Liliana Santos, Eduarda Matos, and Agostinho Santos. 2009. Sexual abuse of children: A comparative study of intra and extra-familial cases. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 16(8), 455-459. Malinen, Sanna, Gwenda M. Willis, and Lucy Johnston. 2014. "Might informative media reporting of sexual offending influence community members' attitudes towards sex offenders?." Psychology, Crime & Law 20, no. 6: 535-552. Massat, Carol Rippey, and Marta Lundy. 1999. "Service and support needs of non-offending parents in cases of intrafamilial sexual abuse." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 8, no. 2: 41-56. Midtbø, Vivian, and Marguerite Daniel. 2016. "Disclosure as a Positive Resource: The Lived Experiences of HIV-Positive Adolescents in Botswana." In Children and Young People Living with HIV/AIDS, pp. 321-338. Springer International Publishing. Miner, Michael H. 2002. "Factors associated with recidivism in juveniles: An analysis of serious juvenile sex offenders." Journal of research in crime and delinquency 39, no. 4: 421-436. Mullen, Paul E., Judy L. Martin, Jessie C. Anderson, Sarah E. Romans, and G. Peter Herbison. 1993. "Childhood sexual abuse and mental health in adult life." The British Journal of Psychiatry 163, no. 6: 721732. Murray, Joseph, and David P. Farrington. 2008. "The effects of parental imprisonment on children." Crime and Justice 37, no. 1: 133-206. NACRO. 2000. The forgotten majority: The resettlement of short term prisoners. London: NACRO. Newberger, Carolyn Moore, Isabelle M. Gremy, Christine M. Waternaux, and Eli H. Newberger. 1993. "Mothers of sexually abused children: Trauma and repair in longitudinal perspective." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 63, no. 1: 92-102. NSPCC (no date). http://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/ services-for-children-and-families/women-as-protectors/women-asprotectors-evidence-impact-evaluation/ —. 2016. Statistics on child abuse: How many children are abused or neglected in the UK. http://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-andresources/research-and-resources/statistics/ Person-Shaped Support (no date). http://www.psspeople.com/how-psscan-help/make-my-family-stronger/with-my-parent-in-prison Pescosolido, Bernice A., and Jack K. Martin. 2015. "The stigma complex." Annual review of sociology 41: 87-116.

Nancy Loucks and Tânia Loureiro

207

Plummer, Carol A., and Julie A. Eastin. 2007. "System intervention problems in child sexual abuse investigations: the mothers' perspectives." Journal of interpersonal violence 22, no. 6: 775-787. Print, Bobbie and Carol Dey. 1992. Empowering mothers of sexually abused children — A positive framework. In Anne Bannister (Ed.), From Hearing to healing: Working with the aftermath of child sexual abuse. Chichester: Wiley. Pugh, Gill. and Caroline Lanskey, 2011. ’Dads Inside and Out’: A Study of Risk and Protective Factors in the Resettlement of Imprisoned Fathers with their Families. Conference Paper for What’s New in Research and Evaluation? Informing our Work with Prisoners and Offenders and their Families. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 19 May 2011. Putnam, Frank W. 2003. Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), 269–278. Ray Wyre Associates (no date). http://www.rwauk.co.uk/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=view andid=30andItemid=61 Regehr, Cheryl. 1990. Parental responses to extrafamilial child sexual assault. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(1), 113– 120. Rigby, Paul. and Tina Callan. 2012. Non-offending carers risk assessment. Available at https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14226&p=0 Smith, Peter Scharff. 2014. "When the Innocent are Punished." In When the Innocent are Punished, pp. 7-20. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Seidman, Steven, Chet Meeks, and Francie Traschen. 1999. "Beyond the closet? The changing social meaning of homosexuality in the United States." Sexualities 2, (1): 9-34. Social Exclusion Unit. 2002. "Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners." London: Home Office. Stop it Now! Scotland 2009. Helpline Report 2005-2009. Together we can prevent child sexual abuse. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation. http://www.stopitnow.org.uk/files/Stop%20it%20Now!%20Helpline% 20Report%202005-2009.pdf —. (no date). ‘Still Reeling?’ Edinburgh: Stop It Now. Swanston, Heather Y., Angela M. Plunkett, Brian I. O’Toole, Sandra Shrimpton, Patrick N. Parkinson, and R. Kim Oates. 2003."Nine years after child sexual abuse." Child abuse & neglect 27(8): 967-984.

208

Support for Families of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

Swenson, Cynthia Cupit, and Rochelle F. Hanson. 1998. "Sexual abuse of children." In Handbook of child abuse research and treatment, pp. 475499. Springer US. Tewksbury, Richard, and Matthew Lees. 2006. "Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community experiences." Sociological Spectrum 26(3): 309-334. Tewksbury, Richard, and Jill Levenson. 2009. "Stress experiences of family members of registered sex offenders." Behavioral sciences & the law 27(4): 611-626. Tourigny, Marc, Martine Hébert, Isabelle Daigneault, and Ann Claude Simoneau. 2005."Efficacy of a group therapy for sexually abused adolescent girls." Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 14(4):71-93. Wolfe, Vicky Veitch. 2006. Child sexual abuse. In Eric J. Mash, Russell A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of childhood disorders, Guilford Press. New York, 647–727. Wyatt, Gail Elizabeth. 1985. "The sexual abuse of Afro-American and White-American women in childhood." Child abuse & neglect 9(4): 507-519.

WHAT LITTLE WE KNOW: A SYSTEM-WIDE DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS IN TWO U.S. JURISDICTIONS KATIE KRAMER AND CAROL F. BURTON

There are more than 2.7 million children in the United States who have an incarcerated parent and approximately 10 million children who have experienced parental incarceration at some point in their lives (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010). Furthermore, nearly half of all U.S. children have a parent with a criminal record (Vallas, Boteach, West, & Odum, 2015). The story for each child affected by his/her parent’s incarceration can vary greatly and depend on diverse factors, including the quality of the parent-child relationship prior to incarceration, the degree of household stability both before and following incarceration, and the child’s age, developmental level, and individual personality (Osborne Association, 2013). While many of the risk factors children of incarcerated parents experience may be related to parental substance use, mental health, inadequate education, or other challenges associated with incarceration, having an incarcerated parent increases the risk of children living in poverty or experiencing household instability independent of these other challenges (Phillips, et. al., 2006). In fact, the ACE Study, or Adverse Childhood Experiences, recognises an incarcerated relative as one of the 10 key traumatic childhood experiences that can have an effect on a child’s developing brain and body with lasting impacts on a person’s health throughout his/her lifespan (Murphey and Cooper, 2015, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). An important note regarding the ACE study is that it examines life issues through the lens of child maltreatment and not by adult risk factors. Thus, as noted by Ann Adalist-Estrin (2014), “when we talk about a child losing a parent to incarceration and we interpret the ACES literature only through a child maltreatment lens, the meaning that gets made (intentionally

210

What Little we Know

or not) is that children of incarcerated parents are maltreated children, harmed by their parents and thus better off without them. If, however, the parents who are in prison or jail are seen as potential supports for their children, as buffers from the toxicity of stress, then a different meaning is made of the loss. It becomes more profound and less dismissible.” While separation due to a parent’s incarceration can be as painful as other forms of parental loss (such as death or divorce), it can be even more complicated because of the stigma, ambiguity, and lack of social support and compassion that accompanies it (Arditti, 2012). Visits between parents and their children during incarceration can help to heal the pain of the loss and may be beneficial to children’s well-being (Hollihan and Portlock, 2014). There is also a great deal of debate around the risk for incarceration for the children themselves (Raimon, Lee & Gentry, 2009, Adalist-Estrin, 2014). One study (Conway, 2015) has argued that the data used to support the ‘children of incarcerated parents are six times more likely to be incarcerated’ thesis were obtained from two small studies, one with a sample size of 20 participants and the other examining a subset of children involved in the juvenile justice system.

Increased Interest in Children of Incarcerated Parents There has been a significant increased interest in the issues, needs and assets of children of incarcerated parents throughout the U.S. Nationally, the White House under the Obama administration led efforts to bring attention to these children through its “Champions for Change” ceremony in 2012 honouring 12 individuals throughout the country for their efforts to improve the lives of children of incarcerated parents. In addition, in August 2013, the White House, along with the American Bar Foundation and the National Science Foundation, hosted the conference “Parental Incarceration in the United States: Bringing Together Research and Policy to Reduce Collateral Costs to Children” (American Bar Foundation, 2013). Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers across the country came together to review the current research, identify programmes and best practices, and develop recommendations to improve outcomes for children with parental involvement in the criminal justice system. Also of national significance is Sesame Street’s outreach campaign and toolkit, “Little Children, Big Challenges: Incarceration.” Along with adding a new “puppet” whose father is in prison, the Sesame Street toolkit aims to provide resources and information for families with young children as they

Katie Kramer and Carol F. Burton

211

encounter the difficult changes and transitions that come with a parent's incarceration. While the level of interest at the U.S. national level on the issues and needs of children of incarcerated parents is encouraging and brings much needed attention to this issue, there is still a void in reliable local data on how many children are affected by incarceration and what unique needs, assets and challenges they might have that may vary among communities, especially those communities more disproportionally impacted by high rates of incarceration. Additionally, since this data project was completed, there have been major changes within the U.S. federal administration. Given the unknown and potential likelihood that the current U.S. administration may not hold the same level of interest or commitment of resources for these children, it is important now more than ever that efforts be made to identify, understand and support children with criminal justice involved parents. It is also important to consider if impacts of parental incarceration are different for children when the parent is incarcerated at a local jail versus a state or federal prison. When in jail, the parent’s length of stay may be shorter and visits may be more accessible due to the potential closer proximity of the correctional facility, but the incarceration may be more sudden and unpredictable in the eyes of the child. Often, state or federal level data are used to estimate the number of children of incarcerated parents at the local level but rarely have there been efforts to collect this information on a large scale through local criminal justice agencies.

Methods In Autumn, 2014, the Alameda County Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership (ACCIPP) partnered with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) to develop, distribute, collect and analyse a brief survey about issues related to children of incarcerated parents to all individuals incarcerated within their adult county jail system. This wider data collection partnership was largely the result of earlier smaller scale efforts to collect information from currently incarcerated parents within Alameda County’s Santa Rita jail and with visitors at the jail. Based on the successful efforts of ACCIPP to gain approval for this ground-breaking data collection, the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership (SFCIPP) approached the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) and successfully gained approval to conduct the survey throughout this neighbouring adult jail system as well. By gaining permission to

212

What Little we Know

work with two neighbouring jail systems, and given that children of incarcerated parents do not necessarily live in the counties in which their parents are incarcerated, this project was in the unique position to gather more comprehensive information and work across local county government and service systems. It is these local government and service agencies that are best positioned to provide a continuous system of support for children both during and after their parents’ incarceration. This extensive data collection effort gathered some of the most comprehensive local level information about children of incarcerated parents ever collected in the United States. The survey was structured to gather information to inform programme and policy decisions in consideration of the children’s well-being when their parents become incarcerated in local jails. Survey methods and content were developed through a collaborative process that included the creation of two project advisory boards, one from each county. The project advisory boards included: (1) members of ACCIPP and SFCIPP; (2) staff from both sheriff departments; (3) other subject matter experts, and (4) formerly incarcerated mothers and fathers from Alameda and San Francisco Counties. The survey focused on the following four key outcomes: x Identify who within the Alameda and San Francisco County Jail Systems is a parent or caregiver of children 25 years old or younger; x Gather basic information about locally incarcerated parents and their child(ren); x Better understand how children are affected by their parents’ incarceration; x Identify what types of resources families might need for children and parents to maintain contact and/or relationships during their parents’ incarceration and after release.

Jail Facilities The survey was administered at all adult county run jail facilities within Alameda and San Francisco Counties. This included jail facilities housing adult men, women, and transgender individuals and at all security levels. Table 1 below provides a brief description of each jail facility.

Katie Kramer and Carol F. Burton

213

It is important to note that the survey was conducted in jail and not prison facilities. Incarceration in U.S. jails can be more sudden and have unpredictable and/or shorter lengths of stay than incarceration in U.S. prisons. These variables should be considered when reviewing the data and consideration of effects of parental incarceration on children. Table 1: Jail Facilities Alameda County Jail Population Men, Women, Santa Rita Transgender Glen Dyer Men San Francisco City & County Jail Population* Men, Women, County Jail #2 Transgender County Jail #4 Men County Jail #5 Men

Average Daily Population** 2,395 430 Average Daily Population* 243 293 651

*Board of State and Community Corrections. Jail Profile Survey Online Querying Database. 25 February 2016. Jail Profile Survey. Data as reported by Sheriff’s Departments.

Recruitment & Consent Surveys were administered over a series of days in each county jail in October and November 2014. Times for survey distribution were selected based on when most incarcerated individuals would be in their housing units. Individuals housed in solitary confinement, disciplinary housing units and/or housing units for individuals with severe mental illness were not eligible to participate in the survey. All individuals who were present in the approved housing units on the day and time of the survey distribution were eligible to participate. On the day of survey distribution, the study team and volunteers visited each approved housing unit within the jail. Upon entering the housing unit, a member of the study team made a verbal announcement and provided a brief project overview for everyone in the unit. The announcement was made in both English and Spanish. All individuals interested in learning more about the survey were invited to meet with the

214

What Little we Know

study team in a predetermined area of the housing unit such as a programme room or at the common tables within the housing unit. All individuals that indicated they wanted to participate in the survey were given a consent information sheet with a survey in either English or Spanish, depending on their preference. Individuals were given the opportunity to review the consent information sheet and ask one-on-one questions with anyone from the study team. The survey was completed anonymously with no identifying information collected from individual participants. The study team and volunteers were available to help participants one-on-one with language and literacy barriers while participants completed the survey. After participants completed the survey, they were instructed to return the survey by placing it in a large envelope to further ensure their anonymity. Any individual who completed and returned a survey received a small snack, a resource list of in-jail and community services, and a “tips for incarcerated parents” information sheet. The study received IRB approval from Ethical and Independent Review Services in July 2014 (Kramer, Principal Investigator) and approval by both Sheriffs prior to its administration.

Survey Structure Every person responding to the survey, whether they were a parent or not, completed the first question: “Are you a parent or primary caregiver for any child(ren) who is 25 years or younger?” If they answered “no,” they were instructed that they had completed the survey. If they answered “yes,” participants were prompted to complete the rest of the survey. The double-sided, one-page survey was structured in four sections. Section 1 asked about participant demographic information and incarceration history. Section 2 asked about child demographic information, current living situation and child welfare and juvenile justice system involvement. Section 3 asked information about the parents’ perceived effects of incarceration on their children including child’s presence at the time of their arrest, impacts of child’s living situation, education and family economics. Finally, Section 4 asked information about the parent’s connectivity level with their children, their intentions to reconnect with their children after release, and recommendations for types of support services for their children.

Katie Kramer and Carol F. Burton

215

Results and key findings Data Analysis Participant demographic characteristics and survey responses were summarised with frequencies and averages for the two counties combined and for each county separately. All data points were assessed for male and female participants combined and separately to assess differences by participant gender. A special note on gender; participants were asked to self-identify their gender as female, male, transgender male or transgender female. The number of individuals who self-identified as transgender male (N=6) or transgender female (N=7) were too low to be representative or have significance and thus were excluded from gender difference analysis but were included in all other analyses. Specific data points were also assessed both for child age groups combined and separately to assess differences by age. Specific data points were also assessed combined and separately for racial/ethnic groups to assess differences by racial/ethnic group.

Data Results On the days of survey collection, 2,998 people were present in the housing units at time of survey distribution and offered the opportunity to participate. Of this number, a total of 2,045 individuals, or 68% completed surveys within five Alameda and San Francisco County jails. Of the surveys collected, 2,041 were included in the analysis. Four participants were administratively dropped due to inability to participate. Of those included in the analysis, 95% of the surveys were completed in English and 5% were completed in Spanish. Table 2 (next page) provides an overview of survey collection by county and combined.

Key Findings Most incarcerated people in San Francisco and Alameda County jails are parents. The question of “are you a parent or primary caregiver for any child(ren) who is 25 years or younger?” served as the threshold question for the survey and responses varied between the two counties. Overall, 69% of survey participants reported that they were a parent or primary caregiver for at least one child 25 years old or younger. Among all survey participants in Alameda County, over three quarters of participants or 77%

216

What Little we Know

reported that they are a parent or primary caregiver of at least one child 25 years or younger, with an average of 2 children (range: 1-10+). Among all survey participants in San Francisco, over half of participants or 59% reported that they are a parent or primary caregiver of at least one child 25 years or younger, also with an average of 2 children (range: 1-10+). One explanation of the difference in number of incarcerated parents by county may be the variation in opt-out versus opt-in recruitment procedures. That is, in Alameda County, where participants had to actively volunteer to participate, being a parent may have been a motivator toward participation and thus an explanation for the higher prevalence of parents among those surveyed. Or, there might be a higher percentage of incarcerated parents in Alameda County. Table 2: Summary of Survey Collection by County

Total Offered Survey* Total Completed Survey Completion Rate**

Distribution of Surveys Per Jail

Total No. Parents/ Caregivers for Children ” 25 yrs % Parents of Children ” 25 yrs Total Children Identified ” 25 yrs

Alameda County 2,007

San Francisco 991

1,134

907

2.045

57% Santa Rita Jail

91%

68% County Jail #2 County Jail #4 County Jail #5

88%

Total 2,997

Glen Dyer Jail

12%

878

536

1,414

77%

59%

69%

1,781

1,110

2,891

*Total number of people in housing units on day and time of survey distribution. **In Alameda County, survey participation was ‘opt-in’ - individuals had to actively choose to take the survey. In San Francisco, survey participation was ‘opt-out’ where individuals had to choose to not take survey.

18% 32% 50%

Katie Kramer and Carol F. Burton

217

Parents and caregivers are disproportionately people of colour. A substantial majority or 88% of all parents, reported identity with a racial or ethnic minority group. There were no significant differences in racial and ethnic identities reported by the parent participants compared to nonparent participants. In addition, the average age of parents or caregivers was 32 years and 88% were male. A summary of demographic information for parents and caregivers participating in the study is presented in Table 3 on the next page. Thousands of Bay Area children on any given day have a parent incarcerated in an Alameda County or San Francisco County jail. Alameda County participants reported being a parent or primary caregiver for a total of 1,781 children aged 25 years or younger. San Francisco participants reported being a parent or primary caregiver to a total of 1,110 children aged 25 years or younger. Considering the individuals who were not surveyed in these jails for various reasons (not present in the housing unit during survey due to court appearance, medical appointment, lawyer visit, family visit or in units not offered the survey), it can be conservatively estimated that, on any given day, there are more than 3,000 children aged 25 years or younger with parents in Alameda or San Francisco County Jails. Table 3: Parent Participant Demographics (N=1,414)* Median age of parents and caregivers Gender % Languages Spoken Male 88% English Female 11% Spanish Transgender 1% Mandarin/Cantonese Other Ethnicity % Education Level African American 50% Some high school or less Latino 19% High school graduate/GED Caucasian 12% Some college or more Asian or Pacific 7% American Indian/ 1% Alaska Native Multi-racial/ Other 10% *percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

32 yrs % 93% 16% 1% 5% % 27% 47% 26%

218

What Little we Know

A summary of demographic information for children identified in the survey is presented in Table 4. Children experience multiple cycles of parental incarceration. Of all the parents surveyed, 36% reporting being incarcerated 6 or more times since becoming a parent. Older children were more heavily affected by multiple parental incarcerations with 49% of parents to children 11-18 years old and 58% of parents to children 19-25 years old reported being incarcerated 6 or more times. Yet younger children also experienced multiple parental incarcerations; 32% of parents with children 6-10 years old, and 13% of parents with children 0-5 years old reported being incarcerated 6 or more times. These multiple cycles of parental incarceration that may exacerbate isolation, stigma and disruptions in the lives of their children. Table 4: Demographics for Children ” 25 Years Old*

Average age of children [range] 0-5 years old 6-10 years old 11-18 years old 19-25 years old Gender Male Female Transgender Ethnicity African American Latino Caucasian Asian or Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska Native Multi-racial/Other

Alameda County (N=1,781) 8 years [0-25 years] 39% 23% 25% 13%

San Francisco (N=1,110) 9 years [0-25 years] 32% 24% 28% 15%

8 years [0-25 years) 36% 23% 26% 14%

51% 49% 0%

52% 48% 0%

51% 49% 0%

45% 20% 10% 4%

47% 12% 10% 8%

46% 17% 10% 6%

0.8%

0.2%

0.6%

21%

22%

21%

*percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

Total (N=2,891)

Katie Kramer and Carol F. Burton

219

Children live in or near the communities where their parents are incarcerated. The clear majority of children, or 74%, live in either the same county where their parents are in jail or in a close neighbouring county and nearly three quarters of parents reported having some type of current contact with their children. Thus, there are important opportunities to preserve family relationships while parents are in jail. Yet many parents reported barriers to maintaining contact including the high cost of phone calls and the high costs of visiting. Only 35% of incarcerated parents or caregivers reported having jail visits with at least one of their children, and 81% of these visits were “non-contact” meaning they were held behind glass windows where the parents and children had no physical contact with each other. When asked what can be done to improve visits in Alameda County, the overwhelming recommended improvement was an increase in contact visits. For both counties, additional requests included longer visits or more visiting days and times, help with transportation, help navigating the visiting system, and ‘other’ desires such as improving the visiting environment (friendlier environment, quieter rooms or single booths, etc.), child/parent classes or counselling, and new toys and activities. There are differences in children’s experiences when their father goes to jail versus when their mother goes to jail. There was a significant difference regarding the person whom the children lived with depending on whether they had an incarcerated father or incarcerated mother (p