Running Head: THE CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 1 The Children of Incarcerated Parents

Running Head: THE CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 1

The Children of Incarcerated Parents

Jean A. Schmalzried

Point Park University

5215 Celia Place

Pittsburgh, PA 15224

(412) 580-1389

[email protected]

Instructor: Dr. Brent Robbins

mailto:[email protected]

THE CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 2

Abstract

The one-half million children, from birth through age 18, of incarcerated parents grows

as the United States reaches world dominance in its total percentage of incarcerated citizens. In

response, local and national advocates seek ways to lift barriers to parent-child visitation, enrich

family unification, and revise mandatory sentencing for parents of the growing number of

children of incarcerated parents. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County, a single point-

of-service platform, directed by its Department of Human Services, supports a re-designing of

social services programs that are especially to identify, address, and implement child-centered

programs at the community level that can preserve family cohesion (Phillips, 2006). Protective

arrest protocols, accessible child-friendly visitation opportunities, and an inmate re-entry

preparation program strive to prevent interruption of children’s attachment to incarcerated

fathers and mothers. At risk of isolation, fractured parental relationships, and mental health stress

indicators, the children of incarcerated parents may soon become beneficiaries of a national

effort to revise sentencing guidelines for low level offenders. Progress on behalf of this

marginalized group of children endeavors to narrow the risks of dissolution of parent/child

bonds, to equalize sentencing mandates, and to reduce emotional trauma in children.


American novelist William Faulkner, the author of The Sound and the Fury,

writes: “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against

injustice and dishonesty and greed. If people all over the world did this, it would change the

earth.” In an effort to “raise their voices for truth and compassion” for America’s children of

incarcerated parents, human rights advocates have named parental incarceration "the greatest

threat to child well-being in the United States.”

As of 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that nationally there are nearly 230,000

incarcerated mothers and 1.6 million incarcerated fathers who are the parents of children under

the age of eighteen. Further, the latest report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which tracts

census date on the children of incarcerated parents, reveals that 69% of these children are

African American; 11% are Hispanic; 47% are high poverty; 39% are living with female-headed

families; 23% have parents who did not complete high school, and 59% are the children of

working-age males unattached to the labor force. Thus, this child population crosses racial,

political, economic, social, and cultural lines. Children of incarcerated parents may develop risk

factors related to substance abuse, depression, detachment, and inadequate education (Adelist-

Estrinn, 2008). Explicitly racist, parental incarceration increases the incidence of children living

in poverty and experiencing household instability.

Parental incarceration is now recognized as an adverse childhood experience that is

marked by the unique combination of trauma, shame, and stigma” (Laughlin, 2008).

Additionally, separation due to a parent’s incarceration can be as painful to a child as the death

of that parent, (LaVigne, 2008) and can be even more complicated because of dishonor,

confusion, and child’s inability to develop a personal construct about this experience. A child’s

age, race, developmental level, extended family ties, and individual personality do not predict the


long-term social and psychological dysfunction that can result without reinvention of

institutional, social, and political systems.

The target population of culturally diverse children of incarcerated parents faces a variety

of potential developmental effects including impaired parent-child bonding, anxiety, anger,

developmental regression, acute traumatic stress, aggression, and survivor guilt (Simmons,

2000). More importantly, children of incarcerated parents emerge as a diverse, disempowered,

and vulnerable group who are six times more likely to become incarcerated than the children of

parents who were not incarcerated (Phillips, 2006).

Spending nearly $83 billion each year on corrections, the United States, including state

and local jurisdictions, out spends every other country on Earth. The federal government alone

spends $6.4 billion annually to maintain its prisons (retrieved from http://famm.org/holder).

Sadly, some believe that lonesome children are simply one of the collateral consequences of

breaking the law; those who invoke the inane adage, “You do the crime, you do the time!” do not

acknowledge the unfair impact of adult punishment on children. However, because of the

exponential growth and visibility of this population of children; the risk and societal burden of

short and long-term emotional, social, and behavioral hardships of enduring the incarceration of

a parent; and the inevitable creation of a dysfunctional generation of children who pose a long-

term drain on public resources, proponents for social justice have begun to advocate for policies

that tackle this four-fold problem. Research indicates: 1) incarceration rates in the United States

continue to escalate resulting in overcrowded prisons and outsourcing of corrections services to

expensive privatized companies; 2) the per-inmate cost of housing, feeding, securing, and

providing medical care continues to explode unduly draining federal resources; 3) international

disrespect for the once-proud American practice of imprisoning so many of its citizens continues


to weaken our global respectability; and 4) the skewed probability that the invisible children of

incarcerated parents most likely will become incarcerated in great numbers themselves (Murray,

2007) thereby creating cyclical and generational damage.

Now that the paradoxical counterproductivity of wholesale incarceration has infiltrated

the national dialogue that exposes the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs, at both the national

and local levels, transformative change is sweeping the criminal justice bureaucracy. Not

necessarily out of social justice, but instead sensitive to the growing costs of incarcerating

individuals and alarmed by the global perspective that America is a land of outrageous crime, a

national platform to redesign federal sentencing mandates has arisen.

Despite its history of institutional racist trends, several years ago the National Institute of

Corrections began to posture for sentencing easements and child visitation remedies for confined

parents. Armed with peer-reviewed social science literature about recidivism trends, community

disintegration, and barriers to its own fiscal viability, the National Institute of Corrections

released three policy papers that suggest criminal justice systems revisions that could impact low

level offenders and, by extension, their children.

More importantly, acute national awareness about this intractable social systems dilemma

has arisen very recently, so recently, in fact, that it has been difficult to harness. A long-standing

national position on federal sentencing guidelines for drug-charged individuals engaged in drug

possession, minor sales, or trafficking has reignited as a hot button issue just this summer. In

reviewing criminal justice systems issues, the radical reform of United States Sentencing

Guidelines for low level drug users directly addresses the inequity and imbalance that we have

endured for years. Simple possession of crack cocaine or heroin often results in up to 10 years in

prison. Most low-level offenders who could be impacted by recalculation of harsh sentences


suffer with addiction issues, underemployment, oppression, substance abuse, or family mental

health diagnoses. Simply put, replacing lengthy periods of incarceration for low-level offenders

with required mental health interventions and comprehensive preparation for early re-entry into

their homes seems reasonable, even to the average citizen.

In order to relieve the burgeoning prison system, create economic relief, and reduce

draconian sentences, new United States Attorney General Eric Holder released a national

proposal for a revised U.S. Sentencing Code this month. The sentencing reform targets low level

drug users who are nonviolent, high-poverty, under-educated, or addicted offenders--for

equitable treatment and earlier release. Attorney General Holder announced that the Drug

Enforcement Agency has registered a 14% increase in heroin use in 14-18 year olds over the past

two-year period in the United States, and noted a steadily increasing use of marijuana, crack

cocaine, methamphetamines, street drugs, and prescription drugs. Instead of cages, though,

Holder calls for systems transformation. "Certain types of cases result in too many Americans

going to prison for far too long, and at times for no truly good public safety reason,” Holder

stated to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in May 2014. “Although the United States comprises

just five percent of the world’s population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world’s

prisoners.” Low level drug users could qualify, he said, for shorter sentences with long periods

of supervised release and enrollment in community-based re-entry programs. In other words, in

order to qualify for a full release, defendants would be required to serve less time in jail but to

complete community-based comprehensive, supportive and effective reentry programs. In May

2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. issued a directive to federal judges and United

States attorneys to declare reduced sentences for defendants in many of the nation’s simple drug

cases. Without fanfare, Holder advised federal judges to exercise their discretion in sentencing.


Holder recommended that downward departures from the Guidelines cut the mushrooming U.S.

prison population and reserve stiff penalties for the most violent traffickers. In a public statement

that legitimized radical reform in sentencing practices, on June 3, 2014, Attorney General Holder

testified on Capitol Hill and released his revised Sentencing Reduction Plan, adding that halfway

houses will have to capture and support early reentry for federal inmates. The Bureau of Prisons

concurs.

“For the first time, we will require all 1300-plus halfway houses in the nation to offer

standardized treatment and family reunification services to prisoners with mental health and

substance abuse issues," Holder said via video conference. The treatment will be intensive and

must follow rigorous standards set forth by the Bureau of Prisons. Once fully implemented, these

services will be available to every single one of the approximately 30,000 inmates who are

released through halfway houses each year," Holder said (retrieved from http://famm.org/bureau-

of-prisons). If fully adopted, the reform will ensure continuity of care through community-based

facilities. So it will "enhance the programs that help prisoners overcome their past struggles, get

on the right path, and stay out of our criminal justice system" (Subramanian, 2014, p. 12).

As expected, the sentencing conversion has attracted the attention of both supporters and

detractors. Relieved that Holder’s latest policy change would reduce the Bureau of Prison

population by 9,650 people over the next three years, the U.S. Justice Department assured its

oversight and compliance. Unlike most national policies, Holder’s plan has achieved bipartisan

support. Holder’s proposal has quickly been approved by an independent agency that sets

sentencing policies for federal judges, and would affect 40 percent of drug offenders in the

criminal justice system, according to figures provided by the Justice Department (retrieved from

http://www.newsweek.com/eric-holder-moves-against-mandatory-minimum-drug-sentencing).

http://www.newsweek.com/eric-holder-moves-against-mandatory-minimum-drug-sentencing


The American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of United States Attorneys, and the

National Alliance on Mental Illness conclude that of the 216,000 eligible federal inmates, nearly

half are parents who are serving time for drug-related crimes.

Conversely, a few conservatives half-heartedly lobby lawmakers. Staunch conservatives

claim the current administration is going “soft on crime” overriding policies that deter criminals

and secure public safety. One slight barrier to the full roll-out of the new sentencing code is a

small cluster of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who suggest the code would

“undermine policies that were set up to deter would-be criminals” (Hentoff, 2014). The

Conservative Political Action Conference and Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry have remained

silent on the issue, but quietly grumble. Holder refutes, “By reserving the most severe penalties

for dangerous and violent drug traffickers, we can better protect public safety, and encourage

rehabilitation while saving billions of dollars and strengthening communities” (retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/holder/june/2014).

Outspoken about the national posture on social justice for inmates, Holder has traveled to

Philadelphia and Peoria to highlight shorter sentencing alternatives as “a milestone in re-shaping

the criminal justice system” for low-level, elderly, mentally ill, impaired, and nonviolent inmates

(retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/us/sentencing-commission/index.html). Witnessing

the inequity and social injustice of long term warehousing of salvageable and treatable human

beings, the Commission now believes the change would cut the federal prison population, and

call to duty hundreds of additional social services and mental health service providers (Hentoff,

2014). The revised sentencing guidelines were released on July1 and are scheduled to take effect

on November 1, 2014.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/us/sentencing-commission/index.html


Robust dynamics of social systems, additionally, require change at the local level. To

establish pubic policies that relieve strain from the 4630 children of incarcerated parents in

Allegheny County, three programs have been established to remove barriers to visitation,

increase parent-child access, and provide services whose aim is to sustain family cohesion. At

long last, the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County have initiated effective policies and

programs that acknowledge this marginalized group of children. Historically, institutional and

social barriers have isolated these children and disempowered their parents, yet the nonprofit

Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation now tallies the number of affected children within our

County and conducts biannual needs assessments. The Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation

elicits funding and provides oversight of neighborhood and foundation-funded upgrades for this

target population.

To this end, in 2012 the Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation provided funding for the

City to hire a full-time systems advocate to address the needs of children of incarcerated parents

through policy reform. The advocate collaborates with multiple county agencies, the police

department, the District Attorney, the Public Defender, Common Pleas Court Judges, mental

health service providers, Department of Human Services, community programs, and jail

personnel to stimulate substantive changes aimed at mitigating the negative consequences of

incarceration on children and their families.

Primed by the Citizens Police Review Board, two community-driven changes have

resulted. First, just three years ago, the District Attorney implemented an updated protocol that

has been written into the Police Conduct Code. Officers now receive required training on best-

practices in arrest protocol. Research indicates that the trauma experienced by children who

witness the arrest of their parent has long-term effects, including nightmares, depression, and


increased startle response. A protocol now details how law enforcement officials identify and

handle arrest situations when there is a child present. One officer is identified and trained to

gently remove any child under 12 from the arrest scene of a parent within the home or within

one-half mile of the residence.

Second, KidsPeace has spearheaded a community initiative that invited and trained no-

cost carpenters, painters, and parent volunteers to create a new Children’s Visitation Room at the

Allegheny County Jail. This segregated space provides a safe and clean area where children

await visits with their incarcerated parent, without contact with other inmates or visitors.

Outfitted with colorful and comfortable furnishings and supplied with games and activities, the

Children’s Visitation Room includes one full-time licensed Marriage and Family Therapist,

employed by KidsPeace. Trained parent and community volunteers assist children and caregivers

prior to and during visits throughout the jail’s scheduled visitation hours as well.

Third, in 2012, the Jail Collaborative secured a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

(RWJF) grant totaling $500,000 in support of a systemic change to its Reentry Program. Using

this grant, the Jail Collaborative, consisting of both community and professional staff, addresses

the release of parent inmates. The Reentry program improves the quality of pre-discharge

sessions with particular focus on reducing child trauma. Offering parents the opportunity to

deepen child-relevant skills and gain the family support they need to successfully rebuild their

family lives upon release, the Reentry Program begins three months prior to release. Specifically,

the Collaborative employs three therapists who conduct parenting classes for inmates; prepare

children for visits through art therapy, talk therapy, and dramatic enactment; coach inmates on

child development and positive visits; attend face-to-face family contact visits; and link re-entry

candidates with child-friendly supports within their communities. Elements of the reentry


program include life skills and job readiness training which indirectly enhance the quality of life

for children.

Having become the lead agency in Allegheny County, Pittsburgh Child Guidance

Foundation’s innovative programs—arrest protocols, children’s visitation room, and reentry

preparation-- strengthen underserved children. Considered an ideal place to work, the child-

focused Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation funds CYF-sanctioned family focused mental

health counseling for the children of incarcerated parents, enables robust parent-child contact,

and provides remedies whose aim is to retain family cohesion. Additionally, its grassroots effort

has reduced the number of children who experience “household instability” (Mumola, 2013, p.

14). Parental incarceration is “marked by trauma, shame, and stigma” (Laughlin, 2008, p. 48), so

over the past two years, the Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation has continued to expand its

services, grown it fund balance from 1.8 million to 3.1 million dollars (Pew Charitable Trusts,

2013), and expanded its work in our region.

Across the country, the culturally diverse children of incarcerated parents face “a variety

of potential developmental effects including impaired parent-child bonding, anxiety,

developmental regression, acute traumatic stress, and survivor guilt” (Loeber, 1998), yet the

fragile status of these underserved children motivated the Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation

to fashion equitable and responsive programs for this ever-growing cluster of diverse,

disempowered, and vulnerable kids. Local philanthropic foundations (Heinz, Mellon, Carnegie,

and Frick) have consolidated funds with which the Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation can

build its free programs for at-risk children of inmates.

As The Pittsburgh Child Guidance Foundation designs additional strategies and

programs, the innocent child victims of parent incarceration will not bear the burden of shame,


abandonment and stigma alone. Prison reform agent and author James Bell writes, “We live in a

country that is addicted to incarceration as a tool for social control. As it stands now justice

systems are expensive, do not rehabilitate, and evidence no correlatives to reducing crime.” As

local and national social systems intersect to effect systems change, the small voice of a deserted

child who bows his head to whisper: “My daddy’s in jail” has echoed across the country. The

intractable grief, shame, and longing of the disempowered children of incarcerated parents

anticipate remedies of social justice.

References

Adalist-Estrin, Ann. (2003) “How to Maintain Relationships?” Facts and Issues: CPL 102.

Children of Prisoners. Online at http://www.fcnetwork.org.

Annie E. Casey Foundation, & O'Hare, W. P. (2006). Kids count data book: state profiles of

child well-being. Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice

Statistics.

Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2013). Parents in prison and their children. Bureau of Justice

Statistics. Appendix Table 10, p. 18.

http://www.fcnetwork.org/


Hairston, C.F. (2007). Focus on the children with incarcerated parents: An overview of the

research literature. Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Hentoff, N. (2014). Hey, Eric Holder Discovers True Justice!

Holder, E. (2013). Memorandum on Charging Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Recidivist

Enhancements in Certain Drug Cases. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26 (2), 80-82.

LaVigne, N., Davies, E., & Brazzell, D. (2008). Broken bonds: Understanding and

addressing the needs of children with incarcerated parents. Urban

Institute: Justice Policy Center.

Laughlin, J. S., Arrigo, B. A., Blevins, K. R., & Coston, C. T. (2008). Incarcerated Mothers and

Child Visitation A Law, Social Science, and Policy Perspective. Criminal Justice Policy

Review, 19 (2), 215-238.

Loeber, R., Stouthammer-Loeber, M., Farrington, D.P., Raskin-White, H., Pardini, D.,

& Wei, E. (1987). Pittsburgh Youth Study. University of Pittsburgh Medical

Center.


Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report.

Murray, Jansen, & Farrington. (2007). Crime in Offspring of Prisoners: A

Cross-National Comparison of Two Longitudinal Samples. Criminal Justice

and Behaviors, 34(1), 133-149.

The Pew Charitable Trusts: Pew Center on the States. (2010). Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s

Effect on Economic Mobility. Washington, DC.

Phillips, S.D., Errantly, A., Keeler, G.P., Costello, J.E., Johnston, D. (2006). Disentangling the

risks: Parent criminal justice involvement and children’s exposure to family risks.

Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 677–702.

Simmons, C. (2000). Children of Incarcerated Parents. California Research Bureau,

California State Library. CRB Note Volume 7, No. 2.

Subramanian, R., & Delaney, R. (2014). Playbook for Change? States Reconsider Mandatory

Sentences. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26(3), 198-211.


Travis, J., & Waul, M. (Eds.). (2003). Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and

reentry on children, families, and communities. The Urban Institute.

Walker, C. (2010). Children of Incarcerated Parents. Pittsburgh Child Guidance

Foundation.

Running Head: THE CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 1 The Children of Incarcerated Parents

Documents

Transcript of Running Head: THE CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 1 The Children of Incarcerated Parents