Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration J. Creasie Finney Hairston, University of Illinois This paper was produced for a conference funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on January 30-31, 2002. The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and should not be attributed to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Prisoners and Families:
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
The preservation and strengthening of fami- ceration has an impact that extends far beyond
lies has a longstanding history as a United States the men and women who are imprisoned. Con-
public policy priority and as a major objective of sequently, questions are now being raised about
governmental agencies and not for profit service the impact of imprisonment on children and
organizations. Social welfare policies and pro- families and the extent to which prisoners’ fami-
grams that help families protect, nurture and lies might be resources and assets, rather than
care for their children and adult family members liabilities, in promoting safer, resourceful com-
are recognized by the nation’s political leaders munities. Recognition that the majority of
as a social investment and many formal and in- women and men in prison are parents of de-
formal efforts are directed toward that end. pendent children and concerns about intergen-
Notwithstanding the millions of families af- erational crime and children at risk have placed
fected by incarceration on any given day, the parenting issues at the center of these discus-
well being of prisoners’ families and children sions.
has not been an important part of this social pol-
This paper provides an overview of family
icy agenda. Similarly, services and activities
matters during incarceration as one means of in-
that assist prisoners in carrying out family roles
forming public debate and actions in this emerg-
and responsibilities have seldom been included
ing area of social policy and practice. The prob-
in the strategic plans of social services agencies
lems that families face when a parent is
or corrections departments.
incarcerated and the strategies they use to man-
Several recent developments are challeng- age those problems are described. The rele-
ing the historical treatment of prisoners’ families vance of the maintenance of prisoners’ family
in public policy discourse and decision making. and parental relationships to societal and family
Among these factors are a United States correc- goals are discussed and the ways in which social
tional population numbering over two million policies and administrative practices hinder or
and growing, unprecedented increases in the support family maintenance are examined.
number of women prisoners, disproportionate
numbers of imprisoned African American males,
high recidivism rates, and the community reen- The Importance of Family Matters
try of hundreds of thousands of prisoners annu-
Social scientists and program providers de-
ally. Also relevant are efforts to address the
fine the significance of families and family ties
tremendous cost of maintaining large numbers
to prisoners and to the achievement of social
of children in foster care placements and of pro-
goals in numerous ways. The impact of incar-
viding welfare assistance to poor women and
ceration on families has been conceptualized as
children. These pressing issues have led politi-
a form of family crises (Fishman, 1990), loss
cians and social scientists alike to examine more
and demoralization (Schneller, 1976) and vic-
closely the consequences of the nation’s war on
timization of children (Bloom and Steinhart,
drugs and, in so doing, to discover that incar-
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 42
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney Hairston1993). More recent work has focused on social relationships and parenting practices in child de-
capital and the impact of social disinvestment in velopment and the prevention of delinquency is
prisoners’ families and communities (Hagan and a recurring finding in studies of delinquency
Coleman, 2001) and on the unintended and in- (Tolan, Guerra, and Kendall, 1995) and the
tended consequences of social policy (Hairston, maintenance of family ties for incarcerated indi-
1998; Hairston, in press). viduals has been found to be important for juve-
niles as well as adults (Borgman, 1985). The
Studies using theoretical perspectives
more nurturing aspects of parenting, or absence
which focus on the positive roles and functions
thereof, i.e., parental involvement, attachment
that families serve as opposed to the problems
and rejection have also consistently shown a
that they experience indicate that families are
strong association with delinquency (Larzelere
important to prisoners and to the achievement of
and Patterson, 1990). Moreover, research indi-
major social goals, including the prevention of
cates that the effects of parental criminality on
recidivism and delinquency. Hairston’s (1988;
delinquency are indirect and mediated by paren-
1991a) review of research on prisoners’ family
tal attachment and parental discipline style (Lar-
relationships yielded two consistent findings;
zelere and Patterson, 1990).
male prisoners who maintain strong family ties
during imprisonment have higher rates of post
release success than those who do not and men
Family Definitions
who assume responsible husband and parenting
roles upon release have higher rates of success Most studies of prisoners’ families define
than those who do not. Dowden and Andrews’ families as married couples and study the wives
(1999) analysis of research on female offenders of incarcerated husbands and their children or
identified family process variables as the strong- define families as single mothers who are as-
est predictors of female offenders’ success and sumed to be the sole care givers for their chil-
Slaght (1999) found family relationships to have dren. Studies by Bakker, Morris and Janus,
a significant influence on relapse prevention 1978; Carlson and Cervera, 1991; Daniel and
among parolees. Social scientists and practitio- Barrett, 1981; Fishman, 1990; Schneller 1976;
ners have used these findings to surmise that and Swan, 1981 are examples of the former and
programs including family members in prison- Baunach, 1985; Bloom and Steinhart, 1993;
ers’ treatment during incarceration and after Hairston, 1991b and Hungerford, 1993 are ex-
their release can produce positive results for amples of the latter. Fathers and their children
prisoners, families, institutions, and communi- (Hairston, 1989; 1995; Lanier, 1991, 1993; Mar-
ties (Jeffries, Menghraj, and Hairston, 2001; tin 2001) and the caregivers of children of incar-
Wright and Wright, 1992). cerated mothers (Bloom and Steinhart, 1993;
Poe, 1992) have also been studied but these are
Practitioners providing or advocating for far less popular topics in prisoner family studies.
parenting programs in prison offer the perspec-
tive that incarcerated parents’ involvement with, Surveys of prisoners indicate that prisoners’
and attachment to, their children can prevent int- family networks are far more complex than these
ergenerational crime and that parenting pro- subgroups suggest. The majority of fathers and
grams can teach and help parents become better mothers in prison are not married (Mumola,
parents. Although the effectiveness of these 2000) and many have parented children with
programs in achieving that objective has not more than one partner (Hairston, 1995). Fa-
been soundly demonstrated, the reasoning be- thers’ provider and nurturing roles differ for
hind program intervention has a strong research their different children. Some children lived with
and theoretical base. The importance of family them at the time of arrest; others they saw regu-
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 43
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney Hairstonlarly and supported financially and others they for example, Martin and Martin, 1995.) Mothers
neither saw nor supported. Children who lived are male and female prisoners’ most important
with their fathers were the fathers’ youngest sources of support, their most frequent visitors
child or children. Fathers supported these chil- and, in the case of incarcerated mothers, the
dren financially and shared caregiving with the caregivers for their children (Hairston, 1992,
children’s mothers who were also household 1995). Yet, the impact of incarceration on these
members. Fathers consider their children to be mothers and the mothers’ influences on their
family but do not regard the mothers of their grandchildren and incarcerated children have not
children as such if they are not in a committed been a research focus. Similarly, studies have
relationship with these mothers. (These mothers looked only superficially at extended kinship
are not insignificant in family life, however, as networks though the social and behavioral sci-
they control fathers’ access to their children be- ences literature on African American families
fore, during, and after imprisonment.) On the identifies these networks as crucial in under-
other hand, they may consider the children of standing African American family structure,
women with whom they lived prior to incarcera- adaptability and functioning. (See, for example,
tion and/or have a romantic attachment as family Martin and Martin, 1996.)
though they are not the biological fathers of
those children.
Financial Difficulties
Many mothers do not function in the single
parent roles typically depicted in stories about Most families experience financial losses as
single parent homes. Prior to incarceration, sub- a result of parental incarceration and the loss is
stantial numbers of mothers in prison shared greatest for those families who try to maintain
caregiving responsibilities with children’s fa- the convicted individual as a family member.
thers, other family members and/or close friends There are the costs of maintaining the house-
(Mumola, 2000). Forty percent of incarcerated hold, the loss of income of the imprisoned parent
mothers in a national survey had relinquished who was contributing to the household, legal
responsibility for the physical care of their chil- fees associated with criminal defense and ap-
dren to others, usually kin or individuals who peals, the costs associated with maintaining con-
were the same as kin (Mumola, 2000). Some tact during imprisonment and the costs of main-
mothers had none of their children living with taining the prisoner while he is in prison. At
them at the time of arrest; some had all of them first glance, it appears that since many prisoners
and some had some of their children living with were not employed and a high percentage had
them. Many mothers who do not have responsi- drug problems they were drains on family in-
bility for the care of their children still see them come rather than contributors and that their im-
regularly (Hairston, 1991b). Others do not see prisonment places families in a better, rather
their children at all because the children are un- than worse, financial position. This is no doubt
der the custody of the child welfare department the case in some situations.
and/or mothers’ parental rights have been termi-
Although there are no published research
nated.
reports of the numbers of families who are in a
Prisoners’ mothers are the central family worse, as opposed to better, financial position
figure in prisoners’ lives, a finding that is not when a family member is incarcerated, there are
surprising given the high percentage of African several indicators that the majority of families
American prisoners in most studies and the cen- are affected negatively. Surveys of wives whose
tral role of mothers depicted in sociological de- husbands are in prison identify financial prob-
scriptions of African American families. (See, lems and the loss of spousal income as a major
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 44
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney Hairstonproblem (Daniel and Barrett, 1981; Fishman, product of maintaining family contact. Many ba-
1990; King, 1993, Schneller, 1976). Some of sic items that prisoners need or want are not fur-
the mothers of children to whom fathers in nished by correctional institutions and pay for
prison are not married, but were paying financial prison work is generally too meager to purchase
support or contributing in other ways such as them. Families either voluntarily, or by request,
providing child care, also experience financial send money to the prisoner for toiletries, reading
losses as a result of the incarceration of those materials, stamps, food and clothing. They also
fathers. Parental incarceration probably has no, pay involuntarily for prison medical visits and
or very limited, financial impact on children and health care, institutional fines and child support
family members who were not a part of fathers’ when corrections departments collect money
lives prior to their arrest. from prisoners for those services/items by placing
a levy on all monies that are deposited in prison-
Grandparents and other relatives who take
ers’ financial accounts.
care of the children of incarcerated mothers, cer-
tainly incur additional financial expenses. The
mothers are not able to provide financial support
Parent-child Relationships and
and if they were receiving welfare benefits prior
Children’s Care
to incarceration, those monies are not automati-
cally awarded to the grandparents. If grandpar- The protection, care, and nurturance of
ents are eligible for welfare benefits, they still prisoners’ children is a primary concern of pris-
suffer a financial deficit because these benefits oners and their families. When parents go to
do not cover the full cost of providing care. prison, most children go, or continue, to live
Some caregivers must discontinue their paid with relatives (Bloom and Steinhart, 1993;
employment in order to assume child care re- Mumola, 2000). Children’s care arrangements
sponsibilities, thereby resulting in further in- provide love, connections to kin, and a sense of
come losses. Studies of grandparents raising belonging, but they are not ideal. There is a
grandchildren affirm that financial problems are marked physical absence of men and father fig-
one of their main difficulties in caring for their ures in the daily lives of prisoners’ children as
grandchildren (Altschuler, 1999; Bloom and women carry the primary, and often sole, re-
Steinhart, 1993; Petras, 1999; Poe, 1992). sponsibility for caregiving for the children of
both imprisoned men and women (Bloom and
Relatives caring for the children of prison- Steinhart, 1993; Hairston, 1991, 1995; Mumola,
ers incur additional financial expenses if they 2000). In addition to having limited financial
promote the maintenance of parent-child rela- resources, many grandparent caregivers of the
tionships. Allowing children to converse with children of incarcerated mothers are elderly,
their incarcerated parents by phone is a very ex- have health problems, and were not planning to
pensive endeavor. Depending on the prison, a take on new child care responsibilities ( Bloom
thirty minute phone call once a week could put a and Steinhart, 1993; Petras, 1999).
$125 or higher dent in the family’s monthly
budget. Prison visits are also not a cost free en- Neither children’s custodial nor imprisoned
deavor; monies must be budgeted to cover trans- parents are adequately prepared to address chil-
portation, usually to geographically remote loca- dren’s needs arising from parental incarceration.
tions, meals and vending machine snacks during Parents are ambivalent about children’s visits
visits, and, sometimes, overnight lodging. with their incarcerated parents and about what
to tell children about their parents’ incarceration.
Relatives find that providing money and Some children do not know that their father or
other items to their imprisoned relatives is a by- mother is in jail because relatives have told them
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 45
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney Hairstonthe parent is away for other reasons such as the policy and practice; on the contrary scientific
army, school or work. If the child did not live studies point to the positive aspects of children’s
with the parent and their time together was spo- ongoing involvement with and attachment to
radic, the child may not be told anything about adults who care about them and to the negative
the parent’s absence (Hairston, 1991b). effects of father absence and family disruption.
There are well established practice principles to
Some parents do not want their children to
guide professional decisionmaking and protect
visit them in prison and/or make no effort to
children from individual situations that may be
contact their children. They do not believe chil-
harmful to them and a professional obligation to
dren’s custodial parents will welcome such con-
remove prison visiting environments as obsta-
tact, don’t know where their children are, or
cles to parent child relationships.
think such visits will be too emotionally painful.
Some parents in jail reason that they will be Although most mothers and a substantial
away only a short time and that there is no need number of fathers plan to reunify with their chil-
for children to visit (Hairston, 1991b). Other dren upon their release, they worry that their
parents mistakenly believe that there is little that children will be taken from them or that some-
they can do for their children from prison and one else will take their place in their children’s
that they can make it all up to them once they lives (Hairston, 1991b, 1995; Koban, 1983;
are released. Mothers and fathers in prison re- Lanier, 1991). The fear that children will be
port that their children’s “other” parents also taken by the state or that their parent-child bonds
limit or deny communication between them and will be legally severed is harbored by fathers
their children and frequently cite conflict be- and mothers (Baunach, 1985; Hairston, Wills
tween the parents and/or with other family and Wall, 1997).
members and limited financial resources as ma-
Prisoners’ personal situations and child
jor factors (Hairston, 1991; 1995; Nurse, 2001).
welfare policies and practices indicate that these
Research providing the perspectives of chil-
fears are not unfounded. Although visiting in-
dren’s other parents, namely the women to
creases the prospects for reunification of sepa-
whom incarcerated fathers are not married, is
rated families, most parents in prison never see
not a part of the current knowledge base.
their children. Each parental prison term re-
Children’s custodial parents and other care duces the likelihood that children will reside
givers are not the only ones opposed to chil- with their mothers upon release and recidivism
dren’s communication with their incarcerated is quite high (Hairston, 1991b). Most fathers do
parents. Both corrections and social services not have a legal or emotional bond with their
professionals raise questions about the wisdom children’s mothers (Hairston, 1995; Mumola,
of children’s visits to prison, citing concerns 2000; Nurse, 2001) that might be expected to
about the oppressive prison environment and support reunification of households. In addition,
children’s acceptance of incarceration as normal. communication between these mates or former
Others have questioned if contact between pris- partners is more often contentious than cordial
oners and their children should be encouraged (Hairston, 1995; Jeffries, Menghraj and
for prisoners in general (given assumptions Hairston, 2000; Nurse, 2001). Though one
about their criminality, dangerousness, etc.) or might expect married prisoners to be in a posi-
for certain groups of criminals, namely fathers tion that protects or supports their relationships
who have been violent with children’s mothers. with their children, many marital relationships
There is no body of theory or research that are strained and end during imprisonment
would support prohibiting prisoners’ communi- (Hairston, 1991; Lynch and Sabol, 2001; Sharp
cation with their children as a matter of social and Marcus-Mendoza,1998).
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 46
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney HairstonIncarcerated parents whose children are un- futures. A fundamental question that remains to
der the custody of the state definitely have rea- be answered is what will happen to these chil-
sons to be concerned about the legal and perma- dren once their parents’ rights are terminated. If
nent severance of parent- child bonds. Parental large numbers of parents will no longer be le-
rights can be terminated in some states solely on gally responsible for their children, then who will
the basis of criminal activity and incarceration. be their parents? Will prisoners’ children become
Termination can also occur if parents fail to permanent wards of the state who then move
communicate regularly with their children or fail from one foster care placement to another? Who
to adhere to prescribed treatment program plans. and where are the families waiting in line to adopt
Furthermore, a relative’s ongoing contacts with prisoners’ children, especially given the perva-
an incarcerated parent has resulted in the state siveness of a “like father, like son” public attitude
agency’s disapproval of that relative as an ac- and scholars’ declarations that children of prison-
ceptable foster and adoptive parent. ers are five or six times more likely to become
criminals themselves (Reed and Reed, 1997)? Is
The Adoption and Safe Families Act of
ASFA predicated on the assumption that it is bet-
1997 (ASFA), enacted with the intent of achiev-
ter to have no one to call mom or dad than it is to
ing permanency for children, has the strong po-
have a parent who is a convicted criminal? Or
tential to lead to less, rather than more, stability
have the implications of this law for prisoners’
in the lives of prisoners’ children. There are no
children simply been overlooked in the political
published research reports of the impact of the
debates.
law on parents who are prisoners or reports of
the analyses of the approaches states are using to
apply the law to incarcerated parents. Johnston
Emotional and Social Issues
(2001) reports, however, that her preliminary
analysis of data obtained in a study of children Prisoners and their families experience a
of prisoners in long term foster care shows in- tremendous sense of loss when incarceration oc-
creased parental rights terminations following curs and that loss is compounded when children
passage of the legislation. are involved. Couples are usually denied sexual
intimacy and are unable to engage in the day to
Theoretically, few prisoners are able to day interactions, experiences and sharing which
meet the requirements of the law. The average sustain marital and other intimate, adult rela-
prison stay is longer than the period in which tionships. Loneliness and missing each other
termination procedures are required to begin and and a host of other feelings about the separa-
it is very difficult for parents in prison to com- tion, justice system, criminal activity, and each
ply with child welfare mandates. Prisoners have partner’s honesty and faithfulness are common.
little or no control over their contact with their Guilt and a sense of relief that a troublesome
children or over their ability to participate in relative has finally been sent away are also
treatment programs. In addition, correctional among the emotions experienced by prisoners’
institutions and child welfare departments do not kin. Difficulties in adjusting to separation and
have a history of collaboration or systems in loss has led to depression and other mental
place to address prison parenting issues when health problems among prisoners and their fami-
parents are in prison and children are wards of lies ( Daniel and Barrett, 1981; King 1993;
the state. Lanier, 1993).
Though parental concerns about parental Incarcerated mothers cite separation from
rights are grave, there is perhaps an even more their children as one of the most difficult aspects
pressing social issue and concern about children’s of imprisonment (Baunach, 1985; Hairston,
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 47
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney Hairston1991b) and incarcerated fathers and mothers savvy and connections with prison family sup-
worry about what is happening to their children port groups, their knowledge of correctional
during their absence (Hairston, 1991; Hairston, system policies and procedures is not that exten-
1995; Lanier, 1993; Martin, 2001). Parents be- sive either.
lieve their children are in safe living situations
Information about prison operations is ob-
and are not being abused or neglected; neverthe-
tained primarily from other families and through
less, they worry about their children’s well being
frustrating experiences. The dissemination of
and about their guidance and supervision
formal policies and regulations to families is not
(Hairston, 1992, 1995). Some worries may be
a standard correctional practice. If rules gov-
attributed to the fact that parents in prison have
erning family communication are posted at
limited contact with their children and rely on
prison facilities, they are often outdated and/or
relatives and friends for information about their
may require considerable use of visiting time to
children.
read and digest. In addition, family members
Prisoners’ children and families must also are generally not able to speak with anyone in
deal with feelings of shame and social stigma. authority who is either able or willing to provide
Imprisonment is not a reason for celebration nor information about the prisoner’s status or to ex-
a reason to be proud. It is not the goal one seeks plain or provide a rationale for rules, their vary-
for oneself or one’s children. Many family mem- ing interpretations or the most recent changes
bers do not tell even their closest friends about a in policy application. With few exceptions, use-
relative’s incarceration and go to great lengths to ful information is not available to families via
protect the prisoner’s children from the conse- handbooks or public websites either. The ab-
quences of revealing this family secret. Depend- sence of information dissemination is not one of
ing on the crime and the prevalence of imprison- capacity, however, since numerous departments
ment in the neighborhood in which they live, of corrections use their public websites to pro-
family members may not be the objects of social vide registries of prisoners’ and former prison-
stigma or hostility in that neighborhood ers’ pictures and criminal histories.
(Schneller, 1976). There is, nevertheless, a social
Uncertainty about the prisoner’s situation
stigma which families experience from other
and questions about the corrections department’s
elements of society. The spouse, parent or child
rules and policies that are intertwined with that
of a prisoner may not experience stigma directly
uncertainty, are one of the greatest concerns of
until they reveal the incarcerated relative’s status
prisoners’ families (Ferraro, Johnson, Jorgensen,
to a child’s teacher or to a prospective landlord or
and Bolton, 1983; Fishman, 1990). Families
until the family moves to a prison town
seeking benefits and services for children cite
(Fishman, 1990; Koenig, 1985).
similar confusion and frustration in understand-
ing child welfare rules and regulations and the
eligibility requirements and operating proce-
Information Needs
dures of other human service systems (Petras,
Families’ lack of understanding, and ac- 1999; Poe, 1992).
cess to information, about criminal justice proc-
essing provides yet another challenge to normal
family functioning. Often close relatives’ Prisoner-Family Communication
knowledge of the prisoner’s crime and sentence
Communication between prisoners and
amounts to little more than “She’s doing time
their families provides the most concrete and
for drugs.” Unless they are regular visitors to a
visible strategy that families and prisoners use to
correctional institution and/or have a lot of
manage separation and maintain connections.
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 48
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney HairstonFamilies visit their imprisoned relatives at the rationale that dominates the prison environment
institutions where they are held, talk with them is obvious in some policies. The primary intent
by phone, and exchange cards and letters as a of others, e.g. the rate structure for prisoner tele-
means of staying connected. These contacts al- phone systems, seem to be to subsidize prison
low adults and parents and children to share budgets and generate profits and /or to exert so-
family experiences and participate in family cial control, not only over prisoners, but over
rituals, e.g., birthday celebrations, religious ob- their kin as well. Rules frequently bear little
servances, etc. and help them to remain emo- relevance to correctional goals and are insensi-
tionally attached. They help assure incarcerated tive to prisoners’ family structures, cultural dif-
parents that their children have not forgotten ferences and children’s needs. Many rules ap-
them and children that their parents love and pear to be arbitrary; others are inconsistently
care about them. They allow prisoners to see interpreted and applied by different staff mem-
themselves, and to function, in socially accept- bers and with different visitors (Fishman, 1990;
able roles rather than as prison numbers and in- Jeffries, Menghraj, and Hairston, 2001). Policy
stitutionalized dependents. obstacles to the maintenance of parent-child re-
lationships include policies requiring children’s
Departments of corrections permit these
custodial parents to escort them on visits, limit-
type communications between prisoners and
ing children visitors to those for whom birth cer-
their kin and encourage the maintenance of fam-
tificates listing the prisoner as the biological
ily ties, in theory, as desirable correctional prac-
parent are produced and placement of prisoners
tices. In actuality, the support for prisoners’
in locations hundreds or thousands of miles from
family relationships vary considerably from one
their homes.
jurisdiction to another and within jurisdictions
from one facility to another. As a rule, prisons For many families and friends of prisoners,
allow families and children to visit though pris- the visit to a prison is a lesson in humility, in-
oners in administrative segregation or super timidation and frustration and a highly charged
maximum prisons may be restricted to televideo and anxiety producing event (Fishman, 1990;
and other types of noncontact visits. Some jails Girshick, 1996). It is not unusual for visitors,
allow only non contact visits and/or prohibit the majority of whom are women and children,
children from visiting. Six states permit prison- to endure many indignities. Among the problems
ers to have private family visits on prison noted in the Florida Legislature’s report of
grounds with their spouses and children; a few prison visiting in that state were long waits
allow non violent women prisoners with infants sometimes in facilities without seating, toilets
to reside in alternative community residences. and water; the lack of nutritious food in visiting
Most prisons for women, and a few for men, room vending machines and the absence of ac-
provide parent education courses and a few of- tivities for children (Taylor, 1999). Body frisks
fer other parenting supports including counsel- and intrusive searches, rude treatment by staff,
ing, parent support groups, and special visiting and hot, dirty and crowded visiting rooms are
areas and programs for parents and their chil- the norm in many prisons. Visitors may be de-
dren. ( See Bates, 2001 and Jeffries, Menghraj, nied entry to the prison for diverse reasons in-
and Hairston, 2001 for descriptions of parenting cluding constantly changing dress codes, no
programs). identification for children, and ion drug scanners
that inaccurately signal that a visitor is carrying
The correctional policies and practices that
drugs.
govern contact between prisoners and their fami-
lies often impede, rather than support, the main-
tenance of family ties. The security and safety
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 49
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney HairstonPitching in and Helping members have gathered on holidays, writing let-
ters to inquire about and encourage children’s
Family members rely primarily on each
progress in school and giving advice on how to
other, rather than on formal organizations to
handle different problems.
maintain family connections and address chil-
dren’s and adult family members’ problems re- Pitching in and helping out, like so many
lated to parental incarceration. When the protec- aspects of incarceration, are not without prob-
tion of children and the maintenance of parent- lems. Pitching in can raise feelings and family
child relationships are involved, many incarcer- tensions among relative helpers who are con-
ated parents and their relatives are wary of for- cerned about “having to help out again” or hav-
mal organizations, avoid them when they can, ing an unfair share of the burden. It can also be
and find them to be less than helpful ( Becker- taxing and burdensome, especially when pris-
man, 1994; Hairston, Wills and Wall, 1997; oners make selfish demands or when relatives
Bates, 2001). feel the incarcerated individual had already
“burned his/her bridges” before incarceration.
Families engage in a process of role change
Many prisoners also experience difficulties ad-
and adaptability that can be referred to as pitching
justing to new roles and expectations. Prisoners
in and helping out. Some relatives pitch in by
who were accustomed to being independent and
taking full or major responsibility for something
the family provider, for example, express strong
the prisoner used to do. The grandmothers, sis-
feelings about occupying a less central and more
ters, and aunts who take on child rearing respon-
dependent role in the family pecking order
sibilities for dependent children of single mothers
(Fishman, 1990).
and fathers in prison are examples. The spouses
of men and women in prison who take on new Some families do seek assistance--
roles in financially supporting their children and medicaid, relative foster care payments, or pub-
new decisions making roles are other examples. lic assistance welfare benefits from human ser-
Some relatives help out with new responsibilities vices organizations as an alternative or supple-
that families acquire as a result of incarceration, ment to family help. They do so at great
e.g. negotiating with the prison system, accepting emotional and social costs as help seeking from
collect phone calls from the prisoner and then organizations exposes the family to external
serving as an emissary between the prisoner and scrutiny, raises the risk of children being re-
his/her children and other relatives or arranging moved from the homes of relatives or friends
for and paying the costs of prison visits. and placed in foster care, and exposes families to
the shame and stigma that having a relative in
Prisoners who maintain family connections
prison can bring. When seeking help they may,
also adapt to new family roles. Incarcerated
therefore, choose not to reveal that parental in-
parents are not in a position to make significant
carceration is the precipitating factor. Some
financial contributions to their family, no matter
needy families do not seek help because they are
the presence of child support orders, nor are
not aware of their eligibility for benefits and
they able to physically take care of or protect
do not have information that would help them
their children. Family role expectations of pris-
access those resources (Bloom and Steinhart,
oners, therefore, center on demonstrations of
1993). Others see little reason to engage in or-
caring and concern for children or other family
ganizational efforts that will be of little benefit
members or participation in decisionmaking
to them and could exacerbate the prisoner’s
about select family issues. Prisoners participate
situation. It is hardly worth the effort to seek
in family life by sending cards to acknowledge
child support if the money will go to the state’s
birthdays and other events of family relevance,
coffers or the prisoner is not making any money.
calling home or the place where other family
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 50
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney HairstonIt is ludicrous to do so when family members social welfare goals and of importance to differ-
are the primary contributors to the prisoners’ ent community constituencies.
trust account. Furthermore, most communities
It is important for child welfare and correc-
do not have services to help families address
tional leaders and professional associations to
needs specific to incarceration (Bates, 2001;
develop principles and national standards cover-
Jeffries, Menghraj, and Hairson, 2001).
ing parents in prison and their children and to
adopt these standards as a part of the accredita-
tion process for child welfare agencies and cor-
Policy Directions and Strategies
rectional institutions. When parents are in
The preservation and strengthening of pris- prison and their children are under the custody
oners’ family ties and parent-child relationships of the state, families and children experience
will require vision and direction from the high- unique problems and corrections and child wel-
est levels of public policy decision making and a fare staff are faced with unique challenges.
fundamental shift in the prevailing system re- Most states do not have child welfare policies or
sponses to prisoners’ children and families. It is procedures to address parenting issues during
not reasonable to place the responsibility for the incarceration and workers are left, more or less,
creation of family oriented prison environments to their own problem solving initiative and inge-
and system-wide change on individual prison nuity. Child welfare-corrections system partner-
administrators and directors of corrections de- ship models, family oriented policy directives
partments. In the face of escalating prison and agency protocols are necessary components
budgets and priorities focused on safety and se- of serious efforts to meet the best interests of the
curity, few will make family matters and post child.
release success major goals or priorities.
New York has devoted resources to address
The administrators who have maintained criminal justice- child welfare collaborations and
comprehensive parenting programs at New the Illinois Department of Children and Family
York’s Sing Sing and Bedford Hills correctional Services has a staff liaison who handles situa-
institutions for several years are the exceptions tions involving children whose mothers are in
rather than the rule. prison. Development, replication and evaluation
of approaches such as these and dissemination
Congressional bodies and state legislatures
of products and program reports will prevent
must take ownership of family related incarcera-
“reinvention of the wheel” and enhance agen-
tion issues as a matter of national interest and
cies’ ability to meet children’s needs.
make prisoners’ family matters an integral part
of the discussion on criminal justice and family Research on prisoners’ family roles and re-
policy. Sentencing policies, alternatives to cor- lationships and family matters in the criminal
rections, prison locations and funding for family justice system must be conducted and the find-
programs and services are legislative issues. It ings incorporated in policy and program devel-
is equally important for legislators to exercise opment and implementation. No federal agency
oversight over correctional policies and practices or foundation has provided funding to launch a
and to use the power of the law to remove obsta- comprehensive program of research on families
cles to children’s and families’ well being. The and the correctional system or identified this
correctional environment and what goes on in topic as a research priority. Most research stud-
prison are not internal matters to be left to the ies have been one shot efforts with few ongoing
discretion of prison administrators. They are in- programs of research covering any aspect of
stead public concerns with relevance to broad prisoner family functioning. Consequently,
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 51
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney Hairstonthere are many unanswered questions and un- family needs and societal responses, and dedi-
tested assumptions about the impact of parental cated attention to changing the prevailing system
criminality on children, the impact of parental responses.
attachments and responsibilities on adult recidi-
vism, and other crucial areas. Knowledge of the
impact of major human services and corrections
policies, e.g., ASFA, community reentry legisla-
tion, and welfare reform, on prisoners’ families
is also limited and the true outcomes of policy
directives and reforms for families and children
must be inferred.
Information about and understanding of
program processes and outcomes must also be
among the objectives of a knowledge develop-
ment agenda. It is important to assess the cur-
rent state of the field. These type assessments
enable program designers and practitioners to
build on the pioneering research and program
efforts that have already been undertaken and on
the day-to-day work and experiences of pro-
gram providers, families and children. The Vera
Institute of Justice review of programs serving
fathers in prison and the community (Jeffries,
Menghraj, and Hairston, 2001) and the Univer-
sity of Illinois study of programs serving chil-
dren and families of prisoners (Bates, 2001)
provide examples of these type reviews.
Conclusions
The ability and motivation to keep trying
under the most difficult of circumstances that
prisoners’ families display and the sense of
kinship and obligation that they have for a
member who has been publicly sanctioned are
solid strengths. These actions, and the nation’s
general interest in protecting children and
strengthening families, provide sound reasons to
promote and adopt policies which help prisoners
maintain family ties and help families carry out
their family obligations and responsibilities for
their children. A social investment in prisoners’
families and children will require the adoption of
more positive views of prisoners’ families and
family relationships, better understanding of
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 52
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney HairstonREFERENCES
Altshuler, S. J. (1999). The well-being of children in Girshick, L. (1996). Soledad women. New York:
kinship foster care. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Praeger Publishing.
Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice
through research (pp. 117-143). Washington, Hagan, J., & Coleman, J. P. (2001). Returning cap-
DC: CWLA Press. tives of the American war on drugs: Issues of
community and family reentry. Crime and Delin-
Bakker, L. J., Morris, B. A., & Janus, L. M. (1978). quency, 47(3), 352-367.
Hidden victims of crime. Social Work, 23(2),
143-148. Hairston, C. F. (1988). Family ties during imprison-
ment: Do they influence future criminal activity?
Bates, R. (2001). Improving outcomes for children Federal Probation, LII(1), 48-52.
and families of incarcerated parents. Chicago:
University of Illinois at Chicago, Jane Addams Hairston, C. F. (1989). Men in prison: Family charac-
College of Social Work, Jane Addams Center for teristics and parenting views. Journal of Offender
Social Policy and Research. Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 14, 3-30.
Baunach, P. (1985). Mothers in prison. New Bruns- Hairston, C. F. (1991a). Family ties during imprison-
wick, NJ: Transaction Books. ment: Important to whom and for what? Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, XVIII(1), 87-104.
Beckerman, A. (1994). Mothers in prison: Meeting
the prerequisite conditions for permanency plan- Hairston, C. F. (1991b). Mothers in jail: Parent-child
ning. Social Work, 39, 9-14. separation and jail visitation. Affilia, 6(2), 9-27.
Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the Hairston, C. F. (1992). Women in jail: Family needs
children? A reappraisal of the children of incar- and family supports. In The State of Corrections:
cerated mothers in America. San Francisco: Na- Proceedings ACA Annual Conference, (pp.179-
tional Council on Crime and Delinquency. 184). Laurel, MD: American Correctional Associa-
tion.
Borgman, R. (1985). The influence of family visiting
upon boys’ behavior in a juvenile correctional in- Hairston, C. F. (1995). Fathers in prison. In D. Johns-
stitution. Child Welfare, LXIV(6), 629-638. ton & K. Gables (Eds.), Children of incarcerated
parents (pp. 31-40). Lexington, MA: Lexington
Carlson, B. E., & Cervera, N. (1991). Inmates and Books.
their families: Conjugal visits, family contact, and
family functioning. Criminal Justice and Behav- Hairston, C. F. (1998). The forgotten parent: Under-
ior, 18(3), 318-331. standing the forces that influence incarcerated fa-
thers’ relationships with their children. Child Wel-
Daniel, S. W., & Barrett, C. J. (1981). The needs of fare, LXXVII(5), 617-638.
prisoners’ wives: A challenge for the mental
health professions. Community Mental Health Hairston, C. F. (in press). Fathers in prison: Respon-
Journal, 17(4), 310-322. sible fatherhood and responsible public policies.
Marriage and Family Review.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works
for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Hairston, C. F., Wills, S., & Wall, N. (1997). Chil-
Crime and Delinquency, 45(4), 438-452. dren, families, and correctional supervision: Cur-
rent policies and new directions. Chicago: Uni-
Ferraro, K. J, Johnson, J. M., Jorgensen, S. R., & versity of Illinois at Chicago Press.
Bolton, F. G., Jr. (1983). Problems of prisoners’
families: The hidden costs of imprisonment. Jour- Hungerford, G. P. (1993). The children of inmate
nal of Family Issues, 4(4), 575-591. mothers: An exploratory study of children, care-
givers and inmate mothers in Ohio. Unpublished
Fishman, L. T. (1990). Women at the wall: A study of doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Co-
prisoners’ wives doing time on the outside. Al- lumbus.
bany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 53
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney HairstonJeffries, J., Menghraj, S., & Hairston, C. F. (2001). Petras, D. D. (1999). The effect of caregiver prepara-
Serving incarcerated and ex-offender fathers and tion and sense of control on adaptation of kinship
their families. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. caregivers. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston
(Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through
Johnston, D. (2001, May). Incarceration of women research (pp. 233-255). Washington, DC: CWLA
and effects on parenting. Paper presented at the Press.
Conference on the Effects of Incarceration on
Children and Families, Northwestern University, Poe, L. M. (1992). Black grandparents as parents.
Evanston, IL. Berkeley, CA: Author.
King, A. E. O. (1993). The impact of incarceration on Reed, D. F., & Reed, E. L. (1997). Children of incar-
African American families: Implications for prac- cerated parents. Social Justice, 24(3), 152-169.
tice. Journal of Contemporary Human Services,
74(3), 145-153. Schneller, D. P. (1976). The prisoner’s family: A
study of the effects of imprisonment on the fami-
Koban, L. A. (1983). Parents in prison: A compara- lies of prisoners. San Francisco: R and E Re-
tive analysis of the effects of incarceration on the search Associates.
families of men and women. Research in Law,
Deviance and Social Control, 5, 171-183. Schwartz, M. C., & Weintraub, J. F. (1974). The
prisoner’s wife: A study in crisis. Federal Proba-
Koenig, C. (1985, January). Life on the outside: A tion, 38(4), 20-26.
report on the experiences of the families of of-
fenders from the perspective of the wives of of- Sharp, S., & Marcus-Mendoza, S. (1998). Gender
fenders. Canada, Pacific Region: Chilliwack differences in the impact of incarceration on chil-
Community Services and Correctional Service of dren and spouses of drug offenders. Paper pre-
Canada. sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, Albuquerque, NM.
Lanier, C. S., Jr. (1991). Dimensions of father-child
interaction in a New York state prison population. Slaght, E. (1999). Family and offender treatment fo-
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16(3/4), 27-42. cusing on the family in the treatment of substance
abusing criminal offenders. Journal of Drug Edu-
Lanier, C. S., Jr. (1993). Affective states of fathers in cation, 19(1), 53-62.
prison. Justice Quarterly, 10, 49-65.
Swan, A. (1981). Families of black prisoners: Sur-
Larzelere, R. E., & Patterson, G. R. (1990). Parental vival and progress. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall.
management: Mediator of the effect of socioeco-
nomic status on early delinquency. Criminology, Taylor, V. (1999). Florida law requires prisons to im-
28(2), 301-324. prove visiting conditions. Corrections Journal,
3(21), 3-4.
Lynch, J. P., & Sabol, W. J. (2001, September). Pris-
oner reentry in perspective (Crime Policy Report, Tolan, P. H., Guerra, N. G., & Kendall, P. C. (1995).
Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. A developmental-ecological perspective on anti-
social behavior in children and adolescents: To-
Martin, E., & Martin, J. (1995). Social work and the ward a unified risk and intervention framework.
black experience. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
63(4), 579-584.
Martin, J. S. (2001). Inside looking out: Jailed fathers’
perceptions about separation from their children. U.S. Department of Justice. (1993). Survey of state
New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. prison inmates, 1991. Washington, DC: Author.
Mumola, C. (2000, August). Incarcerated parents Wall, N. (1997). Policies affecting children whose
and their children. Washington, DC: U.S. De- parents are incarcerated. Dialogues on Child Wel-
partment of Justice. fare Issues Report. Chicago: University of Illinois
at Chicago Press.
Nurse, A. (2001). Coming home to strangers: Newly
paroled juvenile fathers and their children. Paper Wright, K. N., & Wright, K. E. (1992, September).
presented at the Conference on the Effects of In- Does getting married reduce the likelihood of
carceration on Children and Families, Chicago, criminality? A review of the literature. Federal
IL, Northwestern University. Probation, 50-56.
Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 54
Parenting Issues During Incarceration
C. Finney HairstonYou can also read
