Children of Incarcerated Parents

Turning the Improbable 

Into the Exceptional! 

Page 2 of 109

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 

Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities 

Achieve Their Full Potential 

Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective 

provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities 

we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives, 

having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices 

everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic 

framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP). 

The stated objectives are: 

1. Community Mobilization; 

2. Social Intervention; 

3. Provision of Opportunities; 

4. Organizational Change and Development; 

5. Suppression [of illegal activities]. 

Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and 

intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and 

Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in 

implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described 

throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and 

internationally. 

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org 

ISBN: ......... ../2017 

......... Printed in the USA 

Advocacy Foundation Publishers 

Philadlephia, PA 

(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS 



Dedication 

______ 

Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by 

virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day 

striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity 

for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic, 

professional, familial, and other challenges. 

We pray that you will bear in mind: 

Matthew 19:26 (NIV) 

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, 

but with God all things are possible." (Emphasis added) 

To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will 

accomplish: 

Blessings!! 

- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 



The Transformative Justice Project 

Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach 

The way we accomplish all this is a follows: 

The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and 

Solutions-Based programs are woefully underfunded. Our 

precious children, therefore, particularly young people of 

color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they 

come into contact with the law. 

Decisions to build prison facilities are often based on 

elementary school test results, and our country incarcerates 

more of its young than any other nation on earth. So we at 

The Foundation labor to pull our young people out of the 

“school to prison” pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts 

of the legal, psychological, governmental and educational 

professionals needed to bring an end to delinquency. 

We also educate families, police, local businesses, elected 

officials, clergy, and schools and other stakeholders about 

transforming whole communities, and we labor to change 

their thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal 

of helping them embrace the idea of restoration for the young 

people in our care who demonstrate repentance for their 

mistakes. 

1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the adjudicatory (court) 

process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in order to maximize the chances for 

our clients to graduate high school and progress into college, military service or the workforce 

without the stigma of a criminal record; 

2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Restorative Justice 

program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration back into the 

community; 

3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-ReEngineering 

seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice to Parental Rights, to Domestic 

issues to Police friendly contacts, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance; 

4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact between all 

parties; 

5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers designed to facilitate 

collaboration among professionals and community stakeholders; and finally 


6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter and our e-Advocate 

Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process 

on the ever-evolving developments in the Justice system. 

And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also facilitate 

Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process, thereby balancing the interesrs 

of local businesses, schools, clergy, elected officials, police, and all interested stakeholders. Through 

these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local businesses and communities are enhanced & 

protected from victimization, young careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out 

of the prison pipeline. 

This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can give! We plan to 

help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250 per year) in each jurisdiction we 

serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client, per year.* 

Thank you in advance for your support! 

* FYI: 

1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration, is around 

$43,000.00 per child, per year. 

2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximun-security youth incarceration is well over 

$148,000.00 per child, per year. 

- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014); 

3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%. 

The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these matters, seeking 

to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and Judicial Economy, and, although 

the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced 

where people of color are involved. 

We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best interests of our young. 

Our young people do not belong behind bars. 

- Jack Johnson 

1 

In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter 

(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine. 


The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. 

Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities 

Achieve Their Full Potential 

…a compilation of works on 

Children of Incarcerated 

Parents 

“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional” 

Atlanta 

Philadelphia 

______ 

John C Johnson III 

Founder & CEO 

(878) 222-0450 

Voice | Data | SMS 

www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation 



Biblical Authority 

______ 

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV) 

8 

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are 

destitute. 9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. 

Deuteronomy 31:8 

8 

The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor 

forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.” 

James 1:2 

Trials and Temptations 

2 

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 

Psalm 23:4 

4 

Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; 

your rod and your staff, they comfort me. 

Isaiah 41:10 

10 

So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. 

I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. 

Psalm 68:6 

6 

God sets the lonely in families, he leads out the prisoners with singing; but the 

rebellious live in a sun-scorched land. 



Table of Contents 

…a compilation of works on 

Children of Incarcerated Parents 

Biblical Authority 

I. Introduction: Children of Incarcerated Parents…………………….. 15 

II. The Moynihan Report…………………………………………………. 26 

III. The Feminization of Poverty …..……………………………………. 33 

IV. The Juvenilization of Poverty……..…………………………………. 47 

V. The Amachi Program: Mentoring Children of Prisoners……...…… 59 

in Philadelphia 

VI. The Oregon Bill of Rights…….…………………………………......... 67 

VII. Prof. William Julius Wilson……..………………………………........ 71 

VIII. References……………………………………………………............. 77 

______ 

Attachments 

A. The Amachi Program of Philadelphia 

B. Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents - Toolkit 

C. Children of Incarcerated Parents – National Conference 

of State Legislatures 

Copyright © 2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 



I. Introduction 


The number of children with 

incarcerated parents has increased over 

the past 25 years. 1 in every 28 children 

children of incarcerated parents are 

comparable to that of children who have 

lost their parent due to death or 

(3.6 percent) has a parent 

incarcerated, two-thirds of these parents 

are incarcerated for non-violent 

offenses. Although there are many 

children who feel as though they have 

experienced loss due to their parents 

being in prison, there are more 

instances where black and Latino 

children are forced to live with the 

consequences of their parent's actions. 

Compared to the 1 in 110 white children 

who have at least one parent 

incarcerated, 1 in 15 black children and 

1 in 41 Hispanic children have a parent 

who is incarcerated. The mental effects 

divorce. These children are more likely 

to experience an increased risk for 

mental health problems compared to 

other children their age. The mental 

health problems are connected to the 

social stigma that they encounter when 

their parents are arrested, or when their 

peers find out that of their parent’s 

incarceration. Because of this fear that 

children will experience mental 

disparities, some parents and caregivers 

hide their incarceration from the children 

by telling them that the parent is on 

vacation or that they went away to 

college. These lies foster an 


overwhelming amount of stress and 

confusion on the child once they find out 

the truth. Age and gender is another 

factor that influences how children cope 

and react to their parent being 

incarcerated. Young children tend to 

develop mental and emotional trauma. 

Children between the ages of 2 and 6 

are prone to feelings of separation 

anxiety, traumatic stress, and survivor’s 

guilt. Early adolescents may grow up 

and be unable to cope with future 

trauma, they develop poor concepts of 

themselves, and when faced with minor 

stress that might be unable to cope. As 

children get around the ages of 11-14 

their reaction to their parent’s 

incarceration starts to reflect in their 

behavior. Males are more likely to 

express aggression and acts of 

delinquency, while females tend to 

internalize their emotions by acts of 

seeking attention. As these children 

become adults from the ages of 15-18, 

they prematurely take on the 

dependency, and tend to disconnect 

from their parents. This will lead to acts 

of criminal behavior and ultimately a 

cycle of incarceration. 

Children who are able to communicate 

with their parents are less likely to 

experience psychological and 

behavioral problems. Through having 

contact with their parents, they are able 

to have a better understanding of their 

parent’s situation, and are less likely to 

commit crime that will land them in the 

same situation. Although having a 

relationship with incarcerated parents 

are important for the child, it is also 

understood that this can have an 

adverse impact on the child. Children 

who are in contact with their parents will 

experience an emotional roller 

coaster. At times children are angry at 

the fact that they could not be with their 

parents, causing them to act out or 

become emotionally withdrawn. Parent 

contact gives children a sense of hope 

in reuniting with their parents. This 

contact also allows for an smoother 

transition back into the child’s life once 

the parent is released. 

Parent-Child Contact 

Not only are there large and growing 

numbers of parents in prison or jail, the 

effects of incarceration on their familial 

relationships have associations with 

strong negative outcomes. For example, 

many women who are 

incarcerated endorse being single 

mothers, and are often labeled as 

inadequate providers for their children 

during and after their time in prison or 

jail. In fact, 52% of incarcerated mothers 

report living in a single-parent 

household compared to 19% of 

incarcerated fathers. Unlike many male 

inmates, whose children are likely to 

remain in the care of their wives or 

girlfriends, incarcerated females are at 

very high risk of losing their children to 

the State. The separation and lack of 

contact with their children that these 

women endorse has been described as 

damaging to their mental health. Studies 

on mothers post-release have 

underscored this conceptualization by 

demonstrating that healthy mother-child 

relationships have positive impacts on 

depression symptoms and self-esteem. 

In other words, healthy relationships 

with their children appear to improve 

women’s emotional health during and 

after their time involved in the justice 

system. 

Further, as time goes on incarcerated 

parents are less likely to have contact 


with their children. A nationwide study in 

2004 demonstrated that “more than half 

of parents housed in a state correctional 

facility had never had a personal visit 

from their child(ren), and almost half of 

parents in a federal facility had 

Some protective factors have been 

identified to increase inmate’s well-being 

while separated from their children. 

Such factors include forms of remote 

contact, such as phone calls or written 

experienced the same." The lack of 

contact is likely due in part to parents 

often being housed far from their places 

of residence. In fact, in 2004, only 15% 

of parents in state facilities and 5% of 

parents in federal facilities were 

incarcerated within a 50-mile radius of 

the homes at the times of their 

arrest. Contrast these numbers with the 

62% of parents housed in a state 

correctional facility, and 84% of parents 

living in federal correctional facilities 

who endorsed living more than 100 

miles from their homes at the time of 

their arrest. 

Such distances indicate that 

incarcerated parents often live too far 

from home to see their children on a 

regular basis. 

letters. Studies have shown that remote 

contact can serve as a practical 

alternative to visitation in reducing 

parental stress, and distress in regard to 

mothers’ feelings of capability as a 

parent. Further, Clarke et al. (2005) 

demonstrated that fathers in prison 

endorsed remote contact, over 

visitation, as ideal contact with their 

children because such contact offers an 

opportunity to show commitment to their 

relationship in a controlled manner. 

Therefore, remote contact may offer 

incarcerated parents an avenue to 

demonstrate their parental competency 

and commitment in a controlled manner 

without the hindrance of proximity. 

Some public libraries have started 

programs that provide opportunities for 


incarcerated parents to foster the 

parent-child relationship. For example, 

the Arapahoe Library District in 

Colorado works alongside the Arapahoe 

County Detention Center to connect 

incarcerated parents with their children 

through books. The "Begin with Books" 

program "provides incarcerated parents 

with a children's book that the library will 

mail to the child," along with a note and 

an optional video of the parent reading 

the book aloud for their child. 

Financial Impact 

The financial burden of being a parent 

behind bars also perpetuates high 

amounts of stress that can affect overall 

well-being. For example, incarcerated 

mothers who endorse being the primary 

caretaker of their children often receive 

limited resources from their social 

network outside of the prison or jail. A 

woman’s social network is typically 

engendered with the costly responsibility 

of raising her children during her 

sentence, meaning that she receives far 

less financial support than other women 

who do not seek childcare from their 

social system. 

Further, families under financial stress 

before a parent’s incarceration are likely 

to experience increased difficulty in 

staying in contact with the individual. In 

a 2008 study of incarcerated mothers, 

results demonstrated that women who 

were at risk due to young age, 

unemployment, being a single parent, 

and low education were less likely than 

other inmates to have their children visit 

during their prison sentence. This 

difficulty is likely due to the high cost of 

contact with incarcerated 

individuals. For example, a study done 

in 2006 found that families in certain 

areas of the Bronx were spending 15% 

of their incomes each month in order to 

stay in touch with incarcerated family 

members. 

This financial burden is exacerbated by 

the fact that there is reduced opportunity 

for employment after incarceration for 

both men and women. The reduced 

ability of parents to receive legitimate 

income means that the family has less 

access to essential resources. Such 

predicaments increase parents 

vulnerability to become involved in 

drugs, prostitution, and theft for 

income, thus encouraging the cyclical 

nature of incarceration and further 

disruption of the family system. 

Though some relationships have 

protective factors that buffer against reentry 

into the criminal justice system, 

others contribute to the propensity to reoffend. 

Relationships among families, 

peers, communities, and romantic 

partners all contribute in a unique way to 

predict how successfully an individual 

reintegrates into society. 

Black Male Incarceration 

and Mortality 

Structural barriers are often listed as the 

reason for the current trends in the 

African American family structure, 

specifically the decline in marriage 

rates. Imbalanced sex ratios have been 

cited as one of these barriers since the 

late nineteenth century, where Census 

data shows that in 1984, there were 99 

black males for every 100 black females 

within the population. 2003 census data 

shows there are 91 Black males for 

every 100 females. 


Black male incarceration and 

higher mortality rates are often pointed 

to for these imbalanced sex ratios. 

Although black males make up 6% of 

the population, they make up 50% of 

those who are incarcerated. This 

incarceration rate for black males 

increased by a rate of more than four 

Between 1980 and 2003, 4,744 to 

27,141 more African American males 

died annually than African American 

females. This higher incarceration 

rate and mortality rate helps to 

explain the low marriage rates for many 

African American females who cannot 

find black partners. 

between the years of 1980 and 

2003. The incarceration rate for 

African American males is 3,045 out 

of 100,000 compared to 465 per 

100,000 White American males. The 

chance that black males will be arrested 

and jailed at least once in their lifetime 

in many areas around the country is 

extremely high. For Washington, D.C., 

this probability is between 80 and 90%. 

The mortality rates for African American 

males are also typically higher than they 

are for African American females. 

Implications 

The Moynihan Report, written by 

Assistant Secretary of Labor, Daniel 

Patrick Moynihan, initiated the debate 

on whether the African-American family 

structure leads to negative outcomes, 

such as poverty, teenage pregnancy 

and gaps in education or whether the 

reverse is true and the African American 

family structure is a result of institutional 

discrimination, poverty and other 

segregation. Regardless of the 


causality, researchers have found a 

consistent relationship between the 

current African American family 

structure and poverty, education, and 

pregnancy. According to C. Eric Lincoln, 

the Negro family's "enduring sickness" is 

the absent father from the African- 

American family structure. C. Eric 

Lincoln also suggests that the implied 

American idea that poverty, teen 

pregnancy, and poor education 

performance has been the struggle for 

the African-American community is due 

to the absent African-American father. 

According to the Moynihan Report, the 

failure of a male dominated subculture, 

which only exist in the African-American 

culture, and reliance on the matriarchal 

control has been greatly present in the 

African-American family structure for the 

past three centuries. This absence of 

the father, or "mistreatment", has 

resulted in the African-American crime 

rate being higher than the National 

average, African-American drug 

addiction being higher than whites, and 

rates of illegitimacy being at least 25% 

or higher than whites. A family needs 

the presence of both parents for the 

youth to "learn the values and 

expectations of society." 

Poverty 

Black single-parent homes headed by 

women still demonstrate how relevant 

the feminization of poverty is. Black 

women often work in low-paying and 

female-dominated occupations. Black 

women also make up a large 

percentage of poverty-afflicted 

people. Additionally, the racialization of 

poverty in combination with its 

feminization creates further hindrances 

for youth growing up Black, in singleparent 

homes, and in poverty. For 

married couple families in 2007, there 

was a 5.8% poverty rate. 

This number, however, varied when 

considering race so that 5.4% of all 

white people, 9.7% of black people, and 

14.9% of all Hispanic people lived in 

poverty. These numbers increased for 

single-parent homes, with 26.6% of all 

single-parent families living in 

poverty, 22.5% of all white single-parent 

people, 44.0% of all single-parent black 

people, and 33.4% of all single-parent 

Hispanic people living in poverty. 

While majority opinion tends to center 

on the increase in poverty as a result of 

single-parent homes, research has 

shown that this is not always the case. 

In one study examining the effects of 

single-parent homes on parental stress 

and practices, the researchers found 

that family structure and marital status 

were not as big a factor as poverty and 

the experiences the mothers had while 

growing up. Furthermore, the authors 

found little parental dysfunction 

in parenting styles and efficacy for 

single-mothers, suggesting that twoparent 

homes are not always the only 

type of successful family structures. The 

authors suggest that focus should also 

be placed on the poverty that African 

Americans face as a whole, rather than 

just those who live in single-parent 

homes and those who are of the typical 

African American family structure. 

Educational Performance 

There is consensus in the literature 

about the negative consequences of 

growing up in single-parent homes on 

educational attainment and 

success. Children growing up in singleparent 

homes are more likely to not 


finish school and generally obtain fewer 

years of schooling than those in twoparent 

homes. Specifically, boys 

growing up in homes with only their 

mothers are more likely to receive 

poorer grades and display behavioral 

problems. 

For black high school students, the 

African American family structure also 

matriarchy, one theory posits that the 

reason children of female-headed 

households do worse in education is 

because of the economic insecurity that 

results because of single 

motherhood. Single parent mothers 

often have lower incomes and thus may 

be removed from the home and forced 

to work more hours, and are sometimes 

forced to move into poorer 

affects their educational goals and 

expectations. Studies on the topic have 

indicated that children growing up in 

single-parent homes face disturbances 

in young childhood, adolescence and 

young adulthood as well. Although these 

effects are sometimes minimal and 

contradictory, it is generally agreed that 

the family structure a child grows up in 

is important for their success in the 

educational sphere. This is particularly 

important for African American children 

who have a 50% chance of being born 

outside of marriages and growing up in 

a home with a single-parent. 

Some arguments for the reasoning 

behind this drop in attainment for singleparent 

homes point to the 

socioeconomic problems that arise from 

mother-headed homes. Particularly 

relevant for families centered on black 

neighborhoods with fewer educational 

resources. 

Other theories point to the importance of 

male role models and fathers in 

particular, for the development of 

children emotionally and cognitively, 

especially boys. Even for fathers who 

may not be in the home, studies have 

shown that time spent with fathers has a 

positive relationship with psychological 

well-being including less depression and 

anxiety. Additionally, emotional support 

from fathers is related to fewer 

delinquency problems and lower drug 

and marijuana use. 

Teen Pregnancy 

Teenage and unplanned pregnancies 

pose threats for those who are affected 

by them with these unplanned 


pregnancies leading to greater divorce 

rates for young individuals who marry 

after having a child. In one study, 60% 

of the young married parents had 

separated within the first five years of 

marriage. Additionally, as reported in 

one article, unplanned pregnancies are 

often cited as a reason for young 

parents dropping out, resulting in 

greater economic burdens and 

instabilities for these teenage parents 

later on. 

Another study found that paternal 

attitudes towards sexuality and sexual 

expression at a young age were more 

likely to determine sexual behaviors by 

teens regardless of maternal opinions 

on the matter. For these youths, the 

opinions of the father affected their 

behaviors in positive ways, regardless of 

whether the parent lived in or out of the 

home and the age of the 

student. Another study looking at how 

mother–daughter relationships affect 

teenage pregnancy found that negative 

parental relationships led to teenage 

daughters, dating later, getting pregnant 

earlier and having more sex partners. 

Teens who lived in a married family 

have been shown to have a lower risk 

for teenage pregnancy. Teenage girls in 

single-parent families were six times 

more likely to get pregnant and 2.8 

times more likely to engage in sex at an 

earlier age than girls in married family 

homes. For the majority of black youth 

who live in female-headed households, 

this finding points to the need for fathers 

to help curb the teen pregnancy rate 

and reduce the negative outcomes 

associated with youth pregnancy and 

the likelihood of single-parent homes. 

Research on The African- 

American Family 

The Research on the African-American 

Family book, written by Robert B. 

Hill and published in 1968, provides a 

counterpoint to The Moynihan Report, 

or The Negro Family: The Case For 

National Action, which discusses how 

single-parent homes would be the 

undoing of the African American people. 

In this report, Hill writes in support of the 

African-American family, speaking about 

both strengths and difficulties in the 

African-American home, detailing most 

of the positives of the African American 

family structure. 

In his report, Hill says Black families 

have five major strengths: 

1. Strong religious orientation 

2. High Aspiration Rate: aspirations 

to achieve more than they "ought" 

to aspire considering situation 

3. Role Exchange: women are not 

afraid to support the family if men 

are not able. 

4. Kinship Circle: extended family in 

the black community 

5. Willingness to Work 

Policy Proposals 

Authors Angela Hattery and Earl Smith 

have proffered solutions to addressing 

the high rate of Black children being 

born out of wedlock. Three of Hattery 

and Smith's solutions focus on parental 

support for children, equal access to 

education, and alternatives to 

incarceration for nonviolent offenders. 

According to Hattery and Smith, African- 

American families are within a system 

that is “pitted" against them and there 

are some institutional solutions and 


individual solutions that America and its 

citizens can do to reduce implications 

associated with the African-American 

family structure. 

Parental Support for Children 

According to Hattery and Smith, around 

50% of African-American children are 

poor because they are dependent on a 

require the noncustodial parents to pay 

a percentage to their child every month, 

but according to Hattery the only way 

this will help eliminate child poverty is if 

these policies are actively enforced. 

Education Equality 

For the past 400 years of America's life 

many African-Americans have been 

single mother. In states like Wisconsin, 

for a child to be the recipient of welfare 

or receive the "bride fare", their parents 

must be married. Hattery acknowledges 

one truth about this law, which is that it 

recognizes that a child is "entitled" to the 

financial and emotional support of both 

parents. One of Hattery and Smith's 

solutions is found around the idea that 

an African-American child is entitled to 

the financial and emotional support of 

both parents. The government does 

denied the proper education needed to 

provide for the traditional American 

family structure. Hattery suggests that 

the schools and education resources 

available to most African-Americans are 

under-equipped and unable provide 

their students with the knowledge 

needed to be college ready. In 2005 

The Manhattan Institute for Policy 

Research report showed that even 

though integration has been a push 

more recently, over the past 15 years 


there has been a 13% decline in 

integration in public schools. 

These same reports also show that in 

2002, 56% of African-American students 

graduated from high school with a 

diploma, while 78% of whites students 

graduated. If students do not feel they 

are learning, they will not continue to go 

to school. This conclusion is made from 

the Manhattan Institute for Policy 

Research report that stated only 23% of 

African-American students who 

graduated from public high school felt 

college-ready. Hatterly suggests that the 

government invest into the African- 

American family by investing in the 

African-American children's education. A 

solution is found in providing the same 

resources provided to schools that are 

predominantly white. According to 

Hatterly, through education equality the 

African-American family structure can 

increase opportunities to prosper with 

equality in employment, wages, and 

health insurance. 

Alternatives to Incarceration 

According to Hattery and Smith 25–33% 

of African-American men are spending 

time in jail or prison and according to 

Thomas, Krampe, and Newton 28% of 

African-American children do not live 

with any father 

representative. According to Hatterly, 

the government can stop this situation 

that many African-American children 

experience due to the absence of their 

father. Hatterly suggests probation or 

treatment (for alcohol or drugs) as 

alternatives to incarceration. 

Incarceration not only continues the 

negative assumption of the African- 

American family structure, but 

perpetuates poverty, single parenthood, 

and the separation of family units. 

History 

According to data extracted from 1910 

census manuscripts, compared to white 

women, black women are more likely to 

become teenage mothers, stay single 

and have marriage instability, and are 

thus much more likely to live in femaleheaded 

single-parent homes. This 

pattern has been known as black 

matriarchy because of the observance 

of many households headed by women. 

The breakdown of the Black family was 

first brought to national attention in 1965 

by sociologist and later Democratic 

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in the 

groundbreaking Moynihan Report (also 

known as "The Negro Family: The Case 

For National Action").Moynihan's report 

made the argument that the relative 

absence of nuclear families (those 

having both a father and mother 

present) in Black America would greatly 

hinder further Black socioeconomic 

progress. 

The current most widespread African 

American family structure consisting of a 

single parent has historical roots dating 

back to 1880. Data from U.S. 

Census reports reveal that between 

1880 and 1960, married households 

consisting of two-parent homes were the 

most widespread form of African 

American family structures. Although the 

most popular, married households 

decreased over this time period. Singleparent 

homes, on the other hand, 

remained relatively stable until 1960 

when they rose dramatically. A study of 

1880 family structures in Philadelphia 

showed that three-fourths of black 


families were nuclear families, 

composed of two parents and children. 

differences in the family structure based 

on “gender, marital status, and the 

presence or absence of children, other 

relatives or nonrelatives." These family 

sub-structures are divided up into three 

major 

structures: nuclear 

families, extended families, and 

augmented families. 

In New York City in 1925, 85% of kinrelated 

black households had two 

parents. When Moynihan warned in his 

1965 report on the coming destruction of 

the black family, however, the out-ofwedlock 

birthrate had increased to 25% 

among blacks. This figure continued to 

rise over time and in 1991, 68% of black 

children were born outside of 

marriage. U.S. Census data from 2010 

reveal that more African American 

families consisted of single-parent 

mothers than married homes with both 

parents. Most recently, in 2011 it was 

reported that 72% of black babies were 

born to unwed mothers. 

The African-American family structure 

has been divided into a twelve-part 

typology that is used to show the 

African-American Families 

At A Glance 

African-American Nuclear Families 

Andrew Billingsley's research on the 

African-American nuclear family is 

organized into three groups: Incipient 

Nuclear, Simple Nuclear, Segmented 

Nuclear I, and Segmented Nuclear II. In 

1992 Paul Glick supplied statistics 

showing the African-American nuclear 

family structure consisted of 80% of total 

African-American families in comparison 


to 90% of all US families. According to 

Billingsley, the African-American 

incipient nuclear family structure is 

defined as a married couple with no 

children. 

In 1992 47% of African-American 

families had an incipient nuclear family 

in comparison to 54% of all US incipient 

nuclear families. The African-American 

simple nuclear family structure has been 

defined as a married couple with 

children. This is the traditional norm for 

the composition of African-American 

families. In 1992 25% of African- 

American families were simple nuclear 

families in comparison to 36% of all US 

families. Almost 70 percent of black 

children are born to single mothers. 

The African-American segmented 

nuclear I (unmarried mother and 

children) and II (unmarried father and 

children) family structures are defined 

as a parent–child relationship. In 1992, 

94% of African-American segmented 

nuclear families were composed of an 

unmarried mother and children. Glick's 

research found that single parent 

families are twice as prevalent in 

African-American families as they are in 

other races, and this gap continues to 

widen. 

African-American Extended Families 

Billingsley's research continued with the 

African-American extended family 

structure, which is composed of primary 

members plus other relatives. Extended 

families have the same sub-structures 

as nuclear families, incipient, simple, 

segmented I, and segmented II, with the 

addition of grandparents, aunts, uncles, 

cousins and additional family members. 

Billingsley's research found that the 

extended family structure is 

predominantly in the segmented I substructured 

families. 

In 1992 47% of all African-American 

extended families were segmented 

extended family structures, compared to 

12% of all other races 

combined. Billingsley's research shows 

that in the African-American family the 

extended relative is often the 

grandparents. 

African-American 

Augmented Families 

Billingsley's research revealed another 

type of African-American family, called 

the augmented family structure, which is 

a family composed of the primary 

members, plus nonrelatives. Billingsley's 

case study found that this family 

structure accounted for 8% of Black 

families in 1990. This family structure is 

different from the traditional norm family 

discussed earlier, it combines the 

nuclear and extended family units with 

nonrelatives. This structure also has the 

incipient, simple, segmented I, and 

segmented II sub-structures. 

Non-Family Households 

Billingsley introduced a new family 

structure that branches from the 

augmented family structure. The 

African-American population is starting 

to see a new structure known as a nonfamily 

household. This non-family 

household contains no 

relatives. According to Glick in 1992, 

37% of all households in the United 

States were a nonfamily household, with 

more than half of this percentage being 

African-Americans. 


II. The Moynihan Report 

The Negro Family: The Case For National Action (known as the Moynihan Report, 

1965) was written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an American sociologist serving as 

Assistant Secretary of Labor under President Lyndon B. Johnson of the United 

States. In 1976, Moynihan was elected to the first of several terms as US senator from 

New York and continued to support liberal programs to try to end poverty. His report 

focused on the deep roots of black poverty in the United States and controversially 

concluded that the high rate of families headed by single mothers would greatly hinder 

progress of blacks toward economic and political equality. 

Moynihan argued that the rise in black single-mother families was caused not by a lack 

of jobs, but by a destructive vein in ghetto culture, which could be traced to slavery 

times and continued discrimination in the American South under Jim Crow. Black 

sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had introduced that idea in the 1930s, but Moynihan was 

considered one of the first academics to defy conventional social-science wisdom about 

the structure of poverty. As he wrote later, "The work began in the most orthodox 

setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical 


conciseness what 'everyone knew': that economic conditions determine social 

conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so." 

Background 

While writing The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, Moynihan was 

employed in a political appointee position at the US Department of Labor, hired to help 

develop policy for the Johnson administration in its War on Poverty. In the course of 

analyzing statistics related to black poverty, Moynihan noticed something unusual: 

Rates of black male unemployment and welfare enrollment, instead of running parallel 

as they always had, started to diverge in 1962 in a way that would come to be called 

"Moynihan's scissors." 

When Moynihan published his report in 1965, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks 

was 25 percent, much higher than that of whites. 

Contents 

In the introduction to his report, Moynihan said that "the gap between the Negro and 

most other groups in American society is widening." He also said that the collapse of the 

nuclear family in the black lower class would preserve the gap between possibilities for 

Negroes and other groups and favor other ethnic groups. He acknowledged the 

continued existence of racism and discrimination within society, despite the victories 

that blacks had won by civil rights legislation. 

Moynihan concluded, "The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a 

measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past 

generation in the United States." 

More than 30 years later, S. Craig Watkins described Moynihan's conclusions: 

Representing: Hip Hop Culture and the Production of Black Cinema (1998): 

The report concluded that the structure of family life in the black community constituted 

a 'tangle of pathology... capable of perpetuating itself without assistance from the white 

world,' and that 'at the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the 

deterioration of the Negro family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the 

Negro community at the present time.' Also, the report argued that the matriarchal 

structure of black culture weakened the ability of black men to function as authority 

figures. That particular notion of black familial life has become a widespread, if not 

dominant, paradigm for comprehending the social and economic disintegration of late 

20th-century black urban life. 

Influence 

The Moynihan Report generated considerable controversy and has had longlasting and 

important influence. Writing to Lyndon Johnson, Moynihan argued that without access 


to jobs and the means to contribute meaningful support to a family, black men would 

become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers, which would 

cause rates of divorce, child abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket in the 

black community (a trend that had already begun by the mid-1960s), leading to vast 

increases in the numbers of households headed by females and the higher rates of 

poverty, lower educational outcomes, and inflated rates of child abuse that are allegedly 

associated with these factors. 

Moynihan made a contemporaneous argument for programs for jobs, vocational 

training, and educational programs for the black community. Modern scholars of the 

21st century, including Douglas Massey, believe that the report was one of the more 

influential in the construction of the War on Poverty. 

In 2009 historian Sam Tanenhaus wrote that Moynihan's fights with the New Left over 

the report were a signal that Great Society liberalism had political challengers both from 

the right and from the left. 

Reception and Following Debate 

From the time of its publication, the report has been sharply attacked by black and civil 

rights leaders as examples of white patronizing, cultural bias, or racism. At various 

times, the report has been condemned or dismissed by the NAACP and other civil rights 

groups and leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Critics accused Moynihan 

of relying on stereotypes of the black family and black men, implying that blacks had 

inferior academic performance, portrayed crime and pathology as endemic to the black 

community and failing to recognize that cultural bias and racism in standardized tests 


had contributed to apparent lower achievement by blacks in school. The report was 

criticized for threatening to undermine the place of civil rights on the national agenda, 

leaving "a vacuum that could be filled with a politics that blamed Blacks for their own 

troubles." 

In 1987, Hortense Spillers, a Black feminist academic, criticized the Moynihan Report 

on semantic grounds for its use of "matriarchy" and "patriarchy" when he described the 

African-American family. She argues that the terminology used to define white families 

cannot be used to define African-American families because of the way slavery has 

affected the African-American family. 

Scholar Roderick Ferguson traced the effects of the Moynihan Report in his book 

Aberrations in Black, noting that Black nationalists disagreed with the report’s 

suggestion that the state provide Black men with masculinity, but agreed that men 

needed to take back the role of the patriarch. Ferguson argued that the Moynihan 

Report generated hegemonic discourses about minority communities and nationalist 

sentiments in the Black community. Ferguson uses the discourse of the Moynihan 

Report to inform his Queer of Color Critique, which attempts to resist national discourse 

while acknowledging a simulteniety of oppression through coalition building. 

African-American economist and writer Walter E. Williams has praised the report for its 

findings. He has also said, "The solutions to the major problems that confront many 

black people won't be found in the political arena, especially not in Washington or state 

capitols." [7] Thomas Sowell, a black economist who is right-leaning politically, has also 

praised the Moynihan Report on several occasions. His 1982 book Race and 

Economics mentions Moynihan's report, and in 1998 he asserted that the report "may 

have been the last honest government report on race". In 2015 Sowell argued that time 

had proved correct Moynihan's core idea that African-American poverty was less a 

result of racism and more a result of single-parent families: "One key fact that keeps 

getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single 

digits every year since 1994." 

Political commentator Heather MacDonald wrote for National Review in 2008, 

"Conservatives of all stripes routinely praise Daniel Patrick Moynihan's prescience for 

warning in 1965 that the breakdown of the Black family threatened the achievement of 

racial equality. They rightly blast those liberals who denounced Moynihan's report." 

Sociologist Stephen Steinberg argued in 2011 that the Moynihan report was 

condemned "because it threatened to derail the Black liberation movement." 

Attempting to Divert Responsibility 

Psychologist William Ryan coined the phrase "blaming the victim" in his 1971 book 

Blaming the Victim, specifically as a critique of the Moynihan report. He said that it was 

an attempt to divert responsibility for poverty from social structural factors to the 

behaviors and cultural patterns of the poor. 


Feminist Critique 

Feminists argue the Moynihan Report presents a "male-centric" view of social problems. 

They believe that Moynihan failed to take into account basic rational incentives for 

marriage. He did not acknowledge that women had historically engaged in marriage in 

part out of need for material resources, as adequate wages were otherwise denied by 

cultural traditions excluding women from most jobs outside the home. With the 

expansion of welfare in the US in the mid to late 20th century, women gained better 

access to government resources intended to reduce family and child poverty. Women 

also increasingly gained access to the workplace. As a result, more women were able to 

subsist independently when men had difficulty finding work. 

Counter-Response 

Declaring Moynihan "prophetic," Ken Auletta, in his 1982 The Underclass, proclaimed 

that "one cannot talk about poverty in America, or about the underclass, without talking 

about the weakening family structure of the poor." Both the Baltimore Sun and the New 

York Times ran a series on the black family in 1983, followed by a 1985 Newsweek 

article called "Moynihan: I Told You So." In 1986, CBS aired the documentary, The 

Vanishing Black Family, produced by Bill Moyers, a onetime aide to President Johnson. 

He affirmed Moynihan's findings. 

In a 2001 interview with PBS, Moynihan said: 

"My view is we had stumbled onto a major social change in the circumstances of postmodern 

society. It was not long ago in this past century that an anthropologist working in 

London – a very famous man at the time, Malinowski – postulated what he called the first 


ule of anthropology: That in all known societies, all male children have an acknowledged 

male parent. That's what we found out everywhere.... And well, maybe it's not true 

anymore. Human societies change." 

By the time of that interview, rates of the number of children born to single mothers had 

gone up in the white and Hispanic working classes as well. 


III. The Feminization of Poverty 

Feminization of Poverty is the phenomenon that women represent disproportionate 

percentages of the world's poor. UNIFEM describes it as "the burden of poverty borne 

by women, especially in developing countries". This phenomenon is not only a 

consequence of lack of income, but is also the result of the deprivation of capabilities 

and gender biases present in both societies and governments. This includes the poverty 

of choices and opportunities, such as the ability to lead a long, healthy, and creative life, 

and enjoy basic rights like freedom, respect, and dignity. Women's increasing share of 

poverty is related to the rising incidence of lone mother households. The term 

feminization of poverty itself is controversial and has been defined in many different 

ways. In 1978, Diana Pearce coined the term, "the feminization of poverty" after 

conducting research and noticing that a disproportionate number of women struggled 

with poverty within the United States, as well as globally. At the time of Pearce's 

research, two-thirds of the poor who were over age 16 were women. 

Causes 

There are several factors that place women at high risk of poverty. These include the 

gender wage gaps, women’s prevalence in low-paid occupations, a lack of work-family 

supports, and the challenges involved in accessing public benefits. Feminisation of 

poverty is a problem which may be most severe in parts of South Asia, and may also 

differ by social class. Although low income is the major cause, there are many 

interrelated facets of this problem. Lone mothers are usually at the highest risk for 

extreme poverty because their income is insufficient to rear children. In addition, it 

lowers their children's possibilities for good education and nourishment. Low income is a 


consequence of the social bias women face in trying to obtain formal employment, 

which in turn deepens the cycle of poverty. As the number of women in poverty 

increases, the diverse causes affecting their poverty must be examined. Poverty is 

multidimensional, and therefore economic, demographic, and socio-cultural factors all 

overlap and contribute to the establishment of poverty. It is a phenomenon with multiple 

root causes and manifestations. 

Femonomics 

In addition to earning less, women suffer from "Femonomics", or gender of money, a 

term created by Reeta Wolfsohn, CMSW, to reflect many of the inequities women face 

that increase their likelihood of suffering from financial difficulties. Women have unique 

healthcare problems/access problems related to reproduction increasing both their 

healthcare costs and risks. Women are also more likely to be financially illiterate and 

thus have a harder time knowing how to manage their money. The image of a 

"traditional" woman and a traditional role still influences many cultures in today's world 

and is still not in full realisation that women are essential part of the economy. 

Employment 

Employment opportunities are limited for women worldwide. The ability to materially 

control one's environment by gaining equal access to work that is humanizing and 

allows for meaningful relationships with other workers is an essential capability. 

Employment is not only about financial independence, but about higher security through 

an established legal position, real world experience, deeply important for sheltered or 

shy women, and higher regard within the family, which gives women a better bargaining 

position. Though there has been major growth in women's employment, the quality of 

the jobs still remains deeply unequal. 

There are two kinds of employment: Formal and Informal. Formal employment is 

government regulated and workers are insured a wage and certain rights. Informal 

employment takes place in small, unregistered enterprises. It is generally a large source 

of employment for women. The burden of informal care work falls predominantly on 

women, who work longer and harder in this role than men. 

This affects their ability to hold other jobs and change positions, the hours they can 

work, and their decision to give up work. However, women who have University degrees 

or other forms of higher learning tend to stay in their jobs even with caring 

responsibilities, which suggests that the human capital from this experience causes 

women to feel opportunity costs when they lose their employment. Having children has 

also historically affected women's choice to stay employed. While this "child-effect" has 

significantly decreased since the 1970s, women's employment is currently decreasing. 

This has less to do with child-rearing and more with a poor job market for all women, 

mothers and non-mothers alike. 


Longevity 

It is researched that females tend to live five years longer on average than men. The 

death of a spouse is an important determinant of female old-age poverty. Thus, women 

face a complex money management situation in which their funds need to last, on 

average, five years longer than men's. 

In 2009 Gornick et al. found that older women (over 60) were typically much wealthier 

than their national average in Germany, US, UK, Sweden and Italy (data from 1999– 

2001). In the US their wealth holdings were four times the national median. 


Sexual Violence 

A form of sexual violence on the rise in the United States is Human Trafficking. Poverty 

can lead to increased trafficking due to more people on the streets. Women who are 

impoverished, foreign, socially deprived, or at other disadvantages are more susceptible 

to being recruited into trafficking. Many laws stated in Kelsey Tumiel’s dissertation, have 

recently been made to try to combat the phenomenon, but it is predicted that human 

trafficking will surpass illegal drug trafficking amounts in the US. Women that are victims 

of these sexual violence acts have a difficult time escaping the life due to abuse of 

power, organized crime, and insufficient laws to protect them. There are more people 

current enslaved in trafficking than there were during the African slave trade. “Branding” 

of human trafficking brings awareness to the issue claims Tam Mai, the author. This 

allows for public assertion and intervention. A claim made in Tam Mai's article states 

that by reducing poverty, thus may lead to a decrease in trafficking from the streets. 

Education 

A major key to reducing "the feminization of poverty" is to emphasize the importance of 

higher education. Countries with strong gender discrimination and social hierarchies 

limit women's access to basic education. Even within the household, girls' education is 

often sacrificed to allow male siblings to attend school. An important aspect of 

capabilities is the freedom to make informed choices and have opportunities to achieve 

goals, and a basic requirement to actively use resources and information is basic 

education. This enables not only women to reduce household poverty, but as well 

increases children's chances of education, and enhances maternal health and freedom 

of movement. 

Climate Change 

Since poverty and climate change are closely linked, the poorest and most 

disadvantaged groups often depend on climate-sensitive livelihoods like agriculture, 

which makes them disproportionately vulnerable to climate change. These groups lack 

the resources required to weather severe climatic effects like better houses and 

drought-resistant crops. 

This diminished adaptive capacity makes them even more vulnerable, pushing them to 

take part in unsustainable environmental practices such as deforestation in order to 

maintain their well-being. The extent to which people are impacted by climate change is 

partially a function of their social status, power, poverty, and access to and control over 

resources. Women are more vulnerable to the influences of climate change since they 

make up the bulk of the world’s poor and are more dependent for their livelihood on 

natural resources that are threatened by climate change. Limited mobility combined with 

unequal access to resources and to decision-making processes places women in rural 

areas in a position where they are disproportionately affected by climate change. 


Forms of Poverty 

Disparate Income 

Lack of income is a 

principal reason for 

women's risk of poverty. 

Income deprivation 

prevents women from 

attaining resources and 

converting their monetary 

resources 

into 

socioeconomic status. Not 

only does higher income 

allow greater access to job 

skills; obtaining more job 

skills raises income as 

well. 

As women earn less 

income than men, and 

struggle to access public 

benefits. They are deprived 

of basic education and 

health care, which 

eventually becomes a 

cycle to debilitate women's 

ability to earn higher 

income. Poverty can pass 

from one generation to the next. The main reason behind this cycle of poverty is the 

lower earnings of women. 

Lack of Assets 

According to Martha Nussbaum, one central human functional capability is being able to 

hold property (both land and movable goods). In various nations, women are not full 

equals under the law, which means they do not have the same property rights as men; 

the rights to make a contract; or the rights of association, mobility, and religious liberty. 

Assets are primarily owned by husbands, or are used for household production or 

consumption, neither of which help women with loan repayments. In order to refund 

their loans, women are usually required to undergo the ‘disempowering’ process of 

having to work harder as wage laborers, while also encountering a growing gendered 

resource divide at the domestic level. 


Measures of Poverty 

An important aspect of analyzing the feminization of poverty is the understanding of how 

it is measured. It is inaccurate to assume that income is the only deprivation that affects 

women’s poverty. To examine the issue from a multidimensional perspective, there 

must first be accurate and indices available for policy makers interested in gender 

empowerment. Often aggregate indices are criticized for their concentration on 

monetary issues, especially when data on women's income is sparse and groups 

women into one large, undifferentiated mass. Three indexes often examined are 

Gender-related Development Index, Gender Empowerment Measure, and Human 

Poverty Index. The first two are gendered- indices, in that they specifically gather data 

on women to evaluate gender inequalities, and are useful in understanding disparities in 

gender opportunities and choices. HPI, however, focuses on deprivation measures 

rather than income measures. GDI adjusts the Human Development Index in three 

ways: 

 

 

 

Shows longevity, or life-expectancy of females and males 

Education or knowledge 

Decent standard of living 

The aim of this index is to rank countries according to both their absolute level of human 

development and relative scores on gender equality. Although this index has increased 

government attention to gender inequality and development, its three measures have 

often been criticized for neglecting important aspects. Its relevance, however, continues 

to be integral to the understanding of the feminization of poverty, as countries with lower 

scores may then be then stimulated to focus on policies to assess and reduce gender 

disparities. GEM measures female political and income opportunities through: 

 

 

 

 

Analyzing how many seats of government are occupied by women 

Proportion of management positions occupied by women 

Female share of jobs 

Estimated female to male income ratio 

HPI is a multidimensional, non-income based approach. It takes into consideration four 

dimensions: 

 

 

 

 

Survival 

Knowledge 

Decent standard of living 

Social participation 

This index is useful in understanding and illuminating the differences between human 

poverty (which focuses on the denial of basic rights, such as dignity and freedom) and 

income poverty. For example, despite the U.S.'s high income stability, it is also ranked 

among the highest developed nations in human poverty. In her article, "Towards a 

Gendered Human Poverty Measure", Elizabeth Durbin critiques HPI and expands on 


the possibility of a gender-sensitive index. She argues that HPI incorporates three 

dimensions of poverty: life span measured by the proportion of the population expected 

to die before age 40, lack of knowledge measured by the proportion who are illiterate, 

and a decent standard of living measured by a composite index of access to health 

services, access to safe water, and malnutrition among children less than 5, that could 

specifically account for gender disparities. Despite its uses, however, it is important to 

note that HPI cannot be a true measure of poverty because it fails to examine certain 

deprivations, such as lack of property ownership and credit, that are essential to a 

stronger bargaining position in the household for women. 

Health 

Women in poverty have reduced access to health care services and resources. Gender 

inequality in society prevents women from utilizing care services and therefore puts 

women at risk of poor health. Women in poverty are specifically more vulnerable to 

sexual violence and risk of HIV/AIDS, because they are most often not able to defend 

themselves from influential people who might sexually abuse them. In Korea poor health 

is a key factor in household poverty. 

Deprivation of Health Outcomes 

Women are more susceptible to diseases in poverty. Women are less well nourished 

and healthy than men and more vulnerable to physical violence and sexual abuse. 

Being able to have good health, including reproductive health, be adequately nourished, 


and have adequate shelter can make an enormous difference to their lives. Violence 

against women is a major contributing factor to HIV infection. Poverty associated with 

high-risk for HIV transmission, which adds to the stigma and social risk for women and 

girls in particular. Poverty and its correlates like malnutrition and parasite burden can 

weaken the host and create a dangerous environment, making sex and birth and 

medical care riskier for poor women. 

Islam 

Religion 

In a 2004 report by the Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Muslim 

women were found more likely to work part-time jobs than Muslim men because of their 

religion's emphasis on the role of women as caregivers and housekeepers. The study 

found that these women are more likely to be financially dependent than men because 

of they choose to participate less in the labor market. Muslim women who choose to 

wear traditional female Muslim accessories such as henna and hijabs may have a more 

difficult time finding employment than those who do not wear such clothing. On the local 

level, a woman was fired from a Jiffy Lube for refusing to remove her hijab at work 

because it violated the company's "no hat" rule. In the 2008 case Webb versus 

Philadelphia, the court ruled that an officer wearing her hijab with her uniform, was in 

violation of the states' standard of neutrality. Because of the violation of the this 

standard, she was not allowed to legally wear the hijab while on duty. 

Traditional Judaism 

Under traditional Halachic law, Jewish women are also considered to be household 

caregivers rather than breadwinners. Within the Jewish text, the Mishnah, it states "she 

should fill for him his cup, make ready his bed and wash his face, hands and feet," when 

describing the role of women under Jewish law. 

Christianity 

Certain sects of Christianity also regard women as more family-oriented than men. 

Women in certain sects of Christianity, namely Pentecostal women, may leave their 

faith traditions in order to obtain employment and escape poverty. 

Female Poverty by Region 

Many developing countries in the world have exceptionally high rates of females under 

the poverty line. Many countries in Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe deprive women of 

access to higher income and important capabilities. Women in these countries are 

disproportionately put at the highest risk of poverty and continue to face social and 

cultural barriers that prevent them from escaping poverty. 


East Asia 

Although China has grown tremendously in its economy over the past years, its 

economic growth has had minimal effect on decreasing the number of females below 

the poverty line. Economic growth did not reduce gender gaps in income or provide 

more formal employment opportunities for women. Instead, China's economic growth 

increased its use of informal employment, which has affected women disproportionately. 

In the Republic of Korea, low wages for women helped instigate an economic growth in 

Korea since low-cost exports were mostly produced by women. Similar to China, 

Korean women mostly had the opportunity for informal employment, which deprives 

women of financial stability and safe working environments. Although women in East 

Asia had greater access to employment, they faced job segregation in export industries, 

which placed them at a high risk of poverty. 

China is a country with a long history of gender discrimination. In order to address 

gender inequality issues, Chinese leaders have created more access for women to 

obtain capabilities. As a result, Chinese women are granted greater access to health 

services, employment opportunities, and general recognition for their important 

contributions to the economy and society. 

Morocco 

The female population, especially in rural areas, dominantly represents the face of 

poverty in Morocco. There have been two major methods to measure poverty in 

Morocco, which include the 'classic approach' and a second approach that pertains 

more towards the capabilities approach. The 'classic approach' uses the poverty line to 


statistically determine the impoverished population. This approach quantifies the 

number of poor individuals and households but does not take into account how the 

impoverished population lacks basic needs such as housing, food, health and 

education. The second approach focuses on satisfying this lack of basic needs and 

emphasizes the multidimensional nature of poverty. 

Moroccan women represent the most economically insecure social group in the country. 

One of six Moroccan households are lone-mother households, which represent the 

most impoverished households in the country. Women are categorized to have the 

highest levels of socio-economic and legal constraints, which exclude them from 

obtaining their basic needs. Although recent surveys show that women actively help in 

providing for their families economically, Moroccan legal texts discourage women's 

participation in economic productivity. 

Article 114 of the Moroccan Family Law states, "every human being is responsible for 

providing for his needs by his own powers except the wife whose needs will be taken 

care of by her husband." The patriarchal social structure of Morocco puts women as 

being inferior to men in all aspects. Women are denied equal opportunities in education 

and employment before the law, as well as access to resources. As a result, the female 

population in Morocco suffers from deprivation of capabilities. Young girls are often 

excluded from educational opportunities due to limited financial resources within the 

household and the burden of household chores expected from them. 

Over time, Moroccan women have gained more access to employment. However, this 

quantitative increase in labor participation for women has not been accompanied by 

higher qualitative standards of labor. The labor of rural women in Morocco remain 

unacknowledged and unpaid. Women are put into a higher risk of poverty as their 

domestic workload is added onto their unpaid labor. This balance of domestic labor and 

work outside the home imposes a burden on rural women. 

Since the socioeconomic exclusion of women deprive them of the capabilities to be 

educated and trained for certain employment skills, their susceptibility to poverty is 

heightened. Low educational skills of women directly relate to the limited employment 

options they have in society. Although both men and women are affected by 

unemployment, women are more likely to lose their jobs than men. Recent research in 

Morocco shows that economic recessions in the country affect women the most. 

United Kingdom 

An investigation of females below the poverty line in the United Kingdom between 1959 

and 1984 discovered a substantial increase in the percentage of females who are in 

poverty in the 1960s. The percentage remained relatively constant in the 1970s, and 

then decreased between 1979 and 1984. The increase of females below the poverty 

line in the 1960s was determined to be from an increase of women in one-sex 

households. This was more adverse for blacks than whites. 


Dominican Republic 

Dominican women make generally forty-four cents on the dollar as compared to men. 

This wage gap often leads to a high level of food insecurity among women in the 

Dominican Republic. Those in poverty have an increased likelihood to participate in 

dangerous behaviors such as unprotected sex and drug use. These behaviors put them 

at a greater risk for contracting HIV and other diseases. 

There is a negative stigma around HIV positive women in the Dominican Republic. For 

this reason, women are more likely to be subjected to health screenings when applying 

for a job. If the screening reveals a person is HIV positive, they are less likely to be 

given employment. 

United States 

In 2016, 14.0% of women and 11.3% of men were below the poverty threshold. The 

2016 poverty threshold was $12,228 for single people and $24,339 for a family of four 

with two children. 

In response, the United States government provides financial assistance to those who 

do not earn as much money. In 2015, 23.2% of females were given financial assistance 

compared with 19.3% of men. 

More females are given financial assistance than men in all government programs 

(Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, SSI, TANF/GA). Females were given 86% of 

child-support in 2013. 


Policies 

Decision-Making Power 

Decision-making power is central to the bargaining position of women within the 

household. It is how women and men make decisions that affect the entire household 

unit. However, women and men often have very different priorities when it comes to 

determining what is most important for the family. Factors that determine which member 

of the household has the most power in decision-making vary across cultures, but in 

most countries there is extreme gender inequality. Men of the household usually have 

the power to determine what choices are made towards women's health, their ability to 

visit friends and family, and household expenditures. The ability to make choices for 

their own health affects both women and children's health. How household expenditures 

are decided affects women and children's education, health, and well-being. Women's 

freedom of mobility affects their ability to provide for their own needs as well as for the 

needs of their children. 

Gender discrimination within households is often rooted in patriarchal biases against the 

social status of women. Major determinants of the household bargaining power include 

control of income and assets, age, and access to and level of education. As women's 

decision-making power increases, the welfare of their children and the family in general 

benefits. Women who achieve greater education are also more likely to worry about 

their children's survival, nutrition, and school attendance. 

Studies of dual-income couples in Spain have found that many decisions are contingent 

on social norms, and not all decisions are negotiated or decided by consensus. 

Single Mother Households 

Single mother households are critical in addressing feminization of poverty and can be 

broadly defined as households in which there are female headships and no male 

headships. Single mother households are at the highest risk of poverty for women due 

to lack of Income and resources. There is a continuing increase of single mother 

households in the world, which results in higher percentages of women in poverty. 

Single mothers are the poorest women in society, and their children tend to be 

disadvantaged in comparison to their peers. Different factors can be taken into account 

for the rise in the number of female headship in households. When men become 

migrant workers, women are left to be the main caretaker of their homes. Those women 

who have the opportunity to work usually don't get better jobs with a furthered 

education. They are left with jobs that don't offer financial sustainability or benefits. 

Other factors such as illnesses and deaths of husbands lead to an increase in single 

mother households in developing countries. 

Female headed households are most susceptible to poverty because they have fewer 

income earners to provide financial support within the household. According to a case 

study in Zimbabwe, households headed by widows have an income of approximately 


half that of male-headed households, and de facto female headed households have 

about three quarters of the income of male headed households. Additionally, single 

mother households lack critical resources in life, which worsens their state of poverty. 

They do not have access to the opportunities to attain a decent standard of living along 

with basic 

needs such 

as health 

and 

education. 

Single 

mother 

households 

relate to 

gender 

inequality 

issues as 

women are 

more 

susceptible 

to poverty 

and lack 

essential life 

needs in 

comparison 

to men. 

a child and their relationship with a single mother. 

Parenting in 

poverty 

ridden 

conditions 

can cause 

emotional 

instability for 

Many factors contribute to becoming impoverished. Some of these factors are more 

prevalent in the lives of single mothers. When demographic attributes of single mothers 

are surveyed, a few factors showed up in higher rates. Marital status (divorced or 

widowed), education, and race correlated strongly with levels of poverty for single 

mothers. Specifically, very few mothers on the poverty line had a college degree and 

were having to “work to make ends meet”. Not only do these demographic attributes 

affect parenting in poverty, emotional attributes provided an instability as well when 

viewed by Dr. Bloom. Mothers have been noted as the “caregivers” or “nurturer” of 

families. Some stereotypical things that are expected of mothers are harder to provide 

in a low-income household when a mother is the main provider. Dr. Bloom’s example of 

a stereotypical mother job was bringing treats to school on birthdays and expected to go 


to parent teacher conferences. A researcher, Denise Zabkiewicz, surveyed single 

mothers in poverty and measured rates of depression over time. Since recent studies in 

2010 had brought the idea that work was beneficial for mental health, Zabkiewicz 

thought to research if jobs were mentally beneficial to poverty line single mothers. 

Those results concluded to be true; mothers’ rates of depression were significantly 

lower when one held a stable, long-term job. The likelihood of getting a full-time job 

decreases with certain factors. When these certain factors were surveyed in single 

moms they occurred at higher rates: co-inhabiting, college degree, and use of welfare. 

All of these factors are ones that the researchers, Brian Brown and Daniel Lichter, 

contribute to single mothers in poverty. In light of welfare reforms as of 2001, federal 

legislation required recipients of welfare (mainly aided to families) to participate in an 

educational or vocational school and work part-time in order to receive the benefits. 

Recipients attending a college now have 3 years to complete those degree in order to 

get people to work as quickly as possible. To try towards a system of reward, Mojisola 

Tiamiyu and Shelley Mitchell, suggest implementing child care services to promote 

employment. Women with children work in either low-paying or part-time jobs that are 

insufficient to raise a family. Single parenting in the United States has increased to 1 in 

4 families being headed by a single parent. It is estimated that children living in single 

parent homes are as much as 4 times more likely to become impoverished 

(Juvenilization of poverty). 

Social and Cultural Exclusions 

Other metrics can be used besides the poverty line, to see whether or not people are 

impoverished in their respective countries. The concept of social and cultural exclusion 

helps to better convey poverty as a process that involves multiple agents. Many 

developing countries have social and cultural norms that prevent women from having 

access to formal employment. Especially in parts of Asia, North Africa, and Latin 

America, the cultural and social norms do not allow women to have much labor 

productivity outside the home as well as an economic bargaining position within the 

household. This social inequality deprives women of capabilities, particularly 

employment, which leads to women having a higher risk of poverty. This increase in 

occupational gender segregation and widening of the gender wage gap increases 

women's susceptibility to poverty. 


History of The Term 

IV. The Juvenilization of Poverty 

The term Juvenilization of Poverty is one used 

to describe the processes by which children are at 

a higher risk for being poor, suffer consistent and 

long-term negative effects due to deprivation 

(physical, mental, and psychological), and are 

disproportionally affected by systemic issues that 

perpetuate poverty. The term connotes not just 

the mere existence of child poverty but the 

increase in both relative and absolute measures 

of poverty among children as compared to both 

other vulnerable groups and the population at 

large. 

Academic study of the juvenilization of poverty 

attempts to explain the methodical ways in which 

children are systematically disenfranchised by 

institutions, government welfare spending, and 

opportunities for health and wellness. Research 

also connects the juvenilization of poverty to 

overall trends in family structures, parental work, 

and economic supports for children and families. 

In particular, the juvenilization of poverty is closely 

linked to the "feminization of poverty", or the ways 

in which women worldwide are also 

disproportionally affected by poverty. Both terms – 

"juvenilization" and "feminization" – have been 

contested in political and academic discourse. 

In the 1980s scholars and practitioners in the fields of public administration, sociology, 

and social work began noting a distressingly rapid rise in rates of juvenile poverty. This, 

after several decades of falling child poverty rates, with a low of about 15% in 1974, 

signaled to many a possible reversal in the gains made during the 1960s and 1970s for 

children's wellness. 

A central aspect of concern was that juvenile poverty was rising in two-parent and 

single-parent mother homes, contrary to the perceived inherent stability of two-parent 

families. A 1989 article by Mary Jo Bane and David Ellwood linked changes in the labor 

market and declining male wages to rising child poverty trends, leading to further 

investigations of the connections between work, family structures, social services 

spending, and childhood welfare. 


Also notable regarding the rise in juvenile poverty was the concurrent decrease in the 

rates of poverty among other vulnerable or "dependent" populations, specifically the 

elderly. [2] In 1984 demographer Samuel Preston reported on several statistics that 

should have counter-indicated these trends. First a "sharp fertility decline" in the two 

decades after the 1957 postwar peak, matched with a "a very rapid decline in old age 

mortality", should have indicated "favorable consequences for children and troubling 

ones for the elderly. In fact, he writes, 

My thesis is that exactly the opposite trends have occurred in the relative well-being of 

our two groups of age dependents and that demographic factors have not only failed to 

prevent this outcome but have, in many ways, encouraged it. Conditions have 

deteriorated for children and improved dramatically for the elderly... 

Considering these shifts and anomalous patterns of prosperity, the term "juvenilization 

of poverty" was coined to give name to the growing understanding the poverty was 

being increasingly and systematically born by children. The term, in both scholarship 

and practice, is used to elucidate ways in which children, even in times of economic 

gains and despite evidence seemingly to the contrary, are at a disproportionate risk of 

living in poverty. 

Trends in Child Poverty Up To 2010 

Child poverty in the United States has fluctuated dramatically over time, usually in 

response to large-scale economic and political events. Estimates of juvenile poverty 

during the Great Depression judge that as many as 7 in 10 children, or 70% of all 

Americans under the age of 18, lived in poverty. The economic recovery afforded by 

World War II and post-war prosperity dramatically reduced both the number and percent 

of children living in impoverished homes. 

Until the early 1960s however, no official, formalized national attempt was made to 

measure a standard poverty rate. In 1963, however, analyst Mollie Orshansky, a Social 

Security Administration researcher, worked to develop an official poverty threshold to 

standardize poverty measures. 

Still used today, the Orshansky Poverty Threshold is an absolute measure of poverty 

that uses as its basis a "minimally adequate food budget" for families of varying sizes, 

estimating that food costs required approximately one-third of a family's after-tax 

budget. Thus a family (of three or more) fell below the poverty threshold if their after-tax 

income is less than three times the "minimally adequate food budget". Despite some 

changes to the formula, this measure remains at the center of the official measures of 

absolute poverty. 

Orshansky's calculations determined that in 1960 just under 30% of children lived in 

poverty. This rate continued to decline throughout the 1960s and 1970s due to a 

combination of economic growth, strong social welfare spending, and a robust labor 

market that increasingly included working mothers. Overall rates of child poverty 

reached a low in 1974 at, according to varying estimates, between 8-15%. However, in 


the last third of the 20th century child poverty rates among single parent (usually only a 

mother) and two-parent families began to surge. 

This generally positive history of child poverty in the first two thirds of the 20th century 

belies, however, the variability of poverty rates for different subpopulations of children. 

Juvenile poverty varied both geographically and by racial subgroups. Despite overall 

gains, children of color were far more likely than White children to live in poverty. 

Certain regions, especially the south and some urban centers, also experienced high 

rates of concentrated poverty. 

Many of the causes for the juvenilization of poverty follow highly racialized affect 

patterns, meaning children of color are far more likely to suffer from poverty, both in the 

United States and internationally. Suzanne Bianchi finds that "between 1960 and 1991, 

the proportion of children living in mother-only families increased from 8 percent to 26 

percent. The rise among black children living in mother-only families was much more 

pronounced than for white children. By 1991, 54 percent of black compared with 17 

percent of white children lived only with their mother" (Bianchi 1991). 

According to the most recent statistics from the National Center for Children in Poverty 

(NCCP) at Columbia University, about 51 million children, or 21% of the juvenile 

population of the United States, live "in families with incomes below the federal poverty 

level – $22,050 a year for a family of four". 


Interestingly, the United States is one of the only nations that uses an absolute measure 

to determine poverty rates. In Europe and elsewhere best practices indicate that a 

relative measure of poverty is the best indicator of both proportional deprivation and 

comparable quality of life. Using a relative measure of poverty is considered a more 

accurate way of determining the economic stability of a group relative to both the 

general population and other comparable subpopulations. Using a relative measure to 

determine juvenile poverty rates requires setting a cutoff point – 60%, 50%, or 40% are 

standard measures – of average income, at which point a child or family is classified as 

poor. Relative measures of child poverty show that an even higher percentage of 

children in the US are impoverished, deepening the juvenilization of poverty. 

The NCCP also writes that "Research shows, on average, families need an income of 

about twice that level to cover basic expenses. Using this standard, 42% of children live 

in low-income families". 

According to the most recent statistics from the National Center for Children in Poverty 

(NCCP) at Columbia University, about 51 million children, or 21% of the juvenile 

population of the United States, live "in families with incomes below the federal poverty 

level – $22,050 a year for a family of four". 

Using these calculations, the number of children currently living in poverty in the United 

States is between 1:5 and 2:5 children. A recent analysis of the 2010 US Census found 

that the number of poor children rose by 1 million in 2010, with nearly 1:5 American 

children now living in poverty. Either statistic, say advocates of child welfare, is far too 

high. They point to histories of the past 50 years and especially the past 20 years and 

make the claim that even in good economic eras and especially in bad ones, the effects 

of poverty have been disproportionally transferred to children. 

Controversies 

However, there is also a body of scholarship in response that questions the validity of 

these terms, finding that there has been neither an increase in women/child poverty nor 

a systematic project to transfer poverty to these populations. In particular, conservative 

researchers have argued that mismeasurement, inaccurate calculations, and inherent 

flaws in poverty data collection have overstated both child poverty rates and the 

juvenilization of poverty. Susan Mayer and Christopher Jencks write: 

After a century of fairly steady decline, the official poverty rate among American children 

increased from 14.0 percent in 1969 to 19.6 percent in 1989, suggesting that the United 

States was losing its war on poverty. But once we correct various defects in the official 

poverty measure, our best estimate is that the proportion of children in households with 

incomes below the poverty line probably fell between 1969 and 1989 or between 1967 

and 1991. 


These scholars point instead to changes in family structures that have economic 

implications and welfare spending that attempts to ameliorate or offset poverty's effects. 

They cite increase access to medical care, improved living conditions, and higher 

percentages of children living in lower-crime areas as evidence that juvenile poverty is 

actually easing, rather than increasing. 

Causes of Child Poverty 

The theory of a "juvenilization of poverty" rests on a notion that juvenile poverty is not 

just (too) high but increasing. Several categories of trends are cited as responsible for 

the systematic increase in juvenile poverty. 

Changes in Family Structures 

Social scientists frequently point to changes in family structure as one of the primary 

forces driving juvenile poverty. Of particular note are the increasing number of children 

living in unmarried or single-mother households. This factor is one of the reasons why 

the juvenilization of poverty is so closely linked to discussions of female poverty. 

The rapid changes in family structure that began to occur in the 1960s and throughout 

the latter half of the 20th century had dramatic impacts on the financial realities of many 

women and children. During World War II and the decades succeeding it, many more 


women entered the workforce, divorce rates increased rapidly, and birth rates 

decreased. These shifts were both reactions to and reflections of massive shifts in the 

American economic, social, and cultural landscapes. 

Studies show that single-parent households are far more likely to subsist below the 

poverty line. Some estimates say that children living in single parents homes are as 

much as four times as likely to live in poverty. Single parents must often support 

children on only one salary and must do so without the logistical and emotional support 

of another adult. Even when absent parents (in most cases, fathers) do pay child 

support, that income is less than what it would be if the parent was living with the family. 

As cases of single parent families rise, without commensurate increases in social 

welfare spending it is clearly predictable that more children will live in poverty. 

Scholars of juvenile poverty are interested in not just the increase in single-mother 

homes but the changing demographics of single mothers and the implications this has 

for their children's welfare. In the decades between 1960 and the end of the 20th 

century not only were more single women heading families but the population 

demographics of those women was shifting rapidly. In the 1960–70s single mothers 

were far likelier to be older, divorced or widowed, and at least high school graduate with 

some work experience. As the century came to a close the age of single mothers was 

trending downwards, as were their levels of education and work experience. 

Single mothers were also increasingly more likely to be never-married. These statistics 

are especially predictive of juvenile poverty because never-married mothers, as 

compared to divorced or separated mothers, are frequently dependent on both family 

and social welfare; live in higher poverty, more disadvantaged neighborhoods; and are 

more likely to be unemployed or lacking in job skills. These trends indicate higher levels 

of poverty for a growing number of single mothers and, by extension, their children. 

The scholarly and media attention paid to single mothers, in particular, has several 

implications. The first, and perhaps most politically charged, is the scrutiny placed on 

single mothers and their perceived failings as parents. Single mothers have been 

scrutinized both morally and economically, especially as the trends in "single" status 

changed over time. At the middle of the 20th century, the majority of single mothers 

were widowed while a small number were divorced or never-married. In the 1960s and 

70s the number of divorced single parents rose exponentially. 

And throughout the last decades of the 20th century the number of never married 

mothers also continued to grow. Never-married single mothers, in particular, have been 

pathologized and their high rates of poverty seen by conservative forces as a product of 

their immorality and rejection of traditional family norms. This characterization is at the 

heart of pejorative labels like "welfare queen" that dominated political discussions of 

social spending and welfare programs for single mothers. Of very real concern, 

however, is the high rate of poverty experienced by children of never-married mothers. 

Bianchi writes that "two-thirds of children with a never-married mother live in poverty" 

(p. 100). 


Changes in Social Welfare Spending 

At the same time that family dynamics in the United States were undergoing rapid and 

dramatic changes, so too was the social safety net changing in substantive ways. These 

changes are at the root, many believe, of the systematic project of transference of 

poverty onto families and children. 

The social safety or welfare net is a patchwork of programs funded and administered by 

the jumbled forces of federal, state, local, and private or non-profit agencies. Thus far 

from being monolithic or unitary, the landscape of social programs is defined by 

loopholes, gaps in coverage, and conflicting or contradictory regulations. 

Social safety net programs in the past 50 years have undergone changes in not just 

content but also type. The biggest shifts have been those that determine who receives 

support from the program. This involves both demographics (children, adults, seniors) 

and eligibility requirements. Eligibility for welfare programs can take many forms. In the 

simplest, all children would be eligible, by virtue of their age. This is the case with public 

school, for example. A more strenuous requirement is demonstrated need, as in the 

case with "transfer" benefits like welfare, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), 

food stamps, or housing subsidies. 

Welfare reform during the Clinton Administration drastically altered the nature and 

extent of federal cash assistance to needy families. The central piece of legislative 

reform, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 


of 1996, instituted work requirement (or "workfare") and limited short term and lifetime 

benefits. The result was many more parents, primarily single mothers, pushed into lowwage 

work. In addition to the fundamental changes instituted to the distribution of cash 

assistance welfare, there has also been a sow but steady decline in their actual worth, 

as welfare assistance packages are not pegged to inflation or cost of living indexes. 

Finally, of great concern in the juvenilization of poverty is the state (or in many cases, 

failure) of private transfers, mainly through child support. In her seminal 1978 work on 

the feminization of poverty Diane Pearce suggests that one of the primary causes of the 

feminization of poverty (and, by extension, juvenilization of poverty) is the failure of 

formal and informal mechanisms to insure reliable private transfers of support to 

mothers and children. Absent fathers earn less, on average, than present fathers and 

contribute far less to the support of dependent children. 

Changes in Labor Markets 

Of particular concern to those who study the juvenilization of poverty has been the rapid 

Of particular concern to those who study the juvenilization of poverty has been the rapid 

of poverty in two-parent homes. Two main issues – employment and wages – seem to 

be driving poverty for two-parent families, even in cases where both parents are 

employed. 

Changes in the labor market have eliminated whole industries of labor, manufacturing, 

production jobs, often the type previously held by working-class parents. Low- or semiskilled 

workers were hit hardest by the labor market restructuring of the 1970s and 

1980s. Declining rates of unionization, lowered benefits, and fewer workplace 

compensations have had real effects in creating poor families. 

Because of both the insufficient quantity of low-wage jobs and the failure of real wages 

to keep pace with inflation and rising living costs, many of these parents are among the 

ranks of the working poor. The risk of juvenile poverty is especially high for children of 

lower-educated, lower-skilled parents. There is additional evidence to suggest that this 

situation is steadily worsening especially for young families and those in the bottom 

economic quintile. 

The scholarly and political emphasis on single motherhood often obscures discussion of 

the poverty that exists in two-parent families. While poverty is quite high in singlemother 

families, and seemingly quite persistent, poverty in two-parent homes is both 

prevalent and especially reactive to cycles and trends in the larger economy. Bane and 

Ellwood focus on this particular issue, writing that there is "a much lower, but highly 

variable, poverty rate among children in two-parent homes". They write that industry 

changes and stagnant (low) real wages, rather than unemployment, lead to poverty in 

two-parent households. They raise the additional concern that financial stress may lead 

to the breakup of marriages and thus the deepening of child poverty. 


Long-Term Effects 

Material deprivation can have serious, lasting effects on children who grow up 

experiencing prolonged or periodic episodes of poverty. These effects may be seen 

both during their juvenile development and in their lives as adults. 

There is a strong body of research that juvenile poverty has serious consequences for 

academic achievement. New research just released found that the achievement gap 

between poor and affluent families is actually greater than that between Whites and 

Blacks. Research suggests that many of the "out of school" factors associated with 

poverty have significant effects on daily classroom performance and overall educational 

attainment. It has also been shown that poor children lose time more over summer 

breaks when more affluent peers are traveling or involved in cultural enrichment 

activities. 

Physically, poor children have far poorer health outcomes. Poor children are at a higher 

risk of low birthweight are more likely to die during the first month of their lives. Poor 

children are at far greater risk of going without health insurance and experience higher 


prevalence of chronic illness, lead poisoning and other environmental toxins, and 

accidental injury or death. Many poor children, especially infants, live in households that 

are "food insecure". Low access to proper and sufficient nutrition can lead to both 

impaired development and, perversely, obesity and a number of other weight-related 

illnesses such as type-2 diabetes. Some findings indicate that poor children, particularly 

Mexican-American children, are especially prone to low stature and higher rates of overweight 

and obesity. Low birth-weight and malnutrition during childhood have been linked 

to low IQ, a higher prevalence of learning disabilities, and other social behavioral 

problems. 

With regard to risking behaviors like youth sexual activity, smoking, and drug/alcohol 

use, there is some disagreement about the negative effects of juvenile impoverishment. 

One 1998 study found that "low income was not significant in increasing youth sexual 

activity and actually decreased the likelihood of youth drug and/or alcohol problems" but 

that spending time with fathers and parental oversight were correlated with reductions in 

both types of risk behaviors. Other studies indicate that poor youth are at a much higher 

risk for teen childbrearing, less positive peer relationships, and lower self-esteem. 

Childhood poverty also has long term economic consequences. Research finds that 

children who experienced persistent poverty were far more likely to be poor adults than 

their non-poor peers. This childhood effect is not constant, however. Studies find that 

33% of Black children who were poor during childhood remained so at ages 25–27, as 

compared with just 7% of White children. 

Anti-Poverty Programs for Children 

Research shows that there are some factors – both systematic programs and large 

cultural shifts – that may slow or ameliorate the juvenilization and feminization of 

poverty. Martha Ozawa finds that children benefit far more from means-tested, noncash 

transfers such as Medicaid, food stamps, housing/rent subsidies, and free or 

reduced-price lunch. Children also benefit to a certain degree from means-testing cash 

transfers like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI), other public assistance payments, and certain veteran's benefits that may 

"trickle down" to the child from their parent or guardian. 

One major factor, however, in the juvenilization of poverty has been the shift in the type 

of benefits regularly available to the poor in the US. Since the mid-1970s the federal 

government has been increasingly shifting funding from public assistance programs to 

those that can be classified as "social assurance". Danziger and Stern write that "Most 

of the increased Federal social spending over the past 25 year [in 1990] is accounted 

for by the expansion and indexation of social security benefits and the introduction and 

expansion of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Security Income program, all 

of which provide benefits disproportionally to the elderly". 

Conversely, some factors may actually be working to stem the tide specifically of 

feminized poverty. Increased female labor force participation with more commiserate 


wages, combined with higher levels of female educational attainment both help to 

bolster the economic position of American children, especially in female-headed 

households. Due to these factors there may actually be a slight reversal in the trend 

towards feminization, but probably only for employed, more highly educated women. 

Child Poverty in Comparative Perspective 

Reports show that child poverty persists at high rates in even very rich countries. It is in 

these contexts that the juvenilization of poverty arguments are most applicable, as child 

poverty exists not just alongside or concurrently with other types of poverty but within 

rich societies and despite or even because of poverty reduction among other groups of 

citizens. 

A 2000 report by the United Nations shows that absolute child poverty was variable 

internationally but still quite high in many developed countries. 

Other nations take a very different approach to preventing or eliminating child poverty. 

In France and other European countries spending on child welfare and family support 

programs represents a much higher percentage of the GDP (as compared to the United 

States) and far outweighs spending on other major programs like military defense. In 


addition, many European countries offer far more comprehensive transfer packages for 

insuring that after-tax incomes of working families does not fall below a relative poverty 

line. 

Thus while child poverty exists globally and around the world children suffer 

disproportionally from material deprivation, the juvenilization of poverty argument is 

most politically salient in rich countries. It is in these nations with thriving economies 

that, say child welfare advocates, wealth has been systematically siphoned away from 

children and families. 


V. The Amachi Program 

Mentoring Children of Prisoners in Philadelphia 

America’s most isolated and at-risk children are the estimated 7.3 million children who 

have one or both parents under some form of state or federal supervision. Without 

effective intervention, 70 percent of these children will likely follow their parent’s path 

into jail or prison. The Amachi mentoring program was developed to provide them with a 

different path - by establishing the consistent presence of loving, caring people of faith. 

Amachi mentors meet weekly with a child who has been carefully matched with them; 

they often live and worship in the same neighborhoods as the children. Amachi’s hope 

is that one-to-one mentoring by caring adults will significantly improve the life 

opportunities of the children. 

Studies have clearly demonstrated that the Big Brother Big Sister (BBBS) mentoring 

model has positive effects - and now through Amachi, the strengths of mentoring and 

congregational volunteers are brought together. 

“Amachi” is a Nigerian Ibo word that means “Who knows but what God has brought us 

through this child.” 

History 

Amachi’s success in Philadelphia has sparked interest in many cities around the 

country, as well as at the White House and in Congress. 

John DiIulio, now Frederic Fox Leadership Professor of Politics, Religion and Civil 

Society, and Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, had the 

idea for Amachi - and W. Wilson Goode, Sr., former Mayor of Philadelphia and currently 

President of Amachi, Inc. which was previously a program at P/PV, carried it out. The 

Pew Charitable Trusts supported the development and the implementation of Amachi. 


Amachi is an organization that partners with Big Brothers Big Sisters to provide 

mentors to children of prisoners. It is widely recognized as the nation's premier 

mentoring program for children of prisoners. 

John DiIulio, former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community 

Initiatives devised the idea behind Amachi. Former Philadelphia mayor Wilson 

Goode directs the Amachi program. Amachi currently operates 210 mentoring programs 

in 48 states. Senator Hillary Clinton was chair of the Advisory Group of the Amachi 

project in Brooklyn, New York. 

AMACHI, INC. 

The Amachi mentoring organization was developed in 2000 to provide children 

impacted by incarceration with a different path by establishing the consistent presence 

of loving, caring mentors. Since the organization was created, there have been at least 

350 Amachi-modeled programs in more than 250 US cities and all 50 states. To date, 

these programs have served more than 300,000 children. 

In 2009, Amachi expanded to include all at-risk youth and developed an effective 

intermediary model that served more than 17,000 youth, created more than 200 jobs, 

formed more than 1,000 partnerships, and created 38 statewide coalitions throughout 

the three-year project. 

The Amachi Expansion for Military and Civilian Familes (AEMCF) program was created 

in 2011 to serve youth from military families. Amachi Inc., in partnership with Dare 

Mighty Things, is working with the following mentoring organizations to carry out this 

work: Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Rochester (New York), Big Brothers Big 

Sisters Lone Star (Texas), Philadelphia Leadership Foundation (Pennsylvania), Pima 

Prevention Partnership (Arizona), and Urban Ventures (Minnesota). 

Amachi Training Institute | Upcoming Training 

The Amachi Training Institute provides hands-on training for local organizations 

mentoring children of incarcerated parents. Whether an organization is in the proposal 

phase or has been up and running for a few months, the Amachi Training Institute offers 

valuable guidance on each stage of program development - from recruitment of 

volunteers and children to data collection and evaluation. 

What to Expect 

The intensive one-and-a-half-day training offers a comprehensive introduction to the 

Amachi model. Participants learn effective strategies for recruiting pastors, volunteers, 

and children and have the opportunity to practice these strategies during a variety of 

role-play sessions. Guest speakers provide significant insights while leading workshops 

on topics such as establishing and maintaining relationships with pastors, record 

keeping and data collection, and making and maintaining matches. The training 


provides beneficial lessons learned from the development and implementation of 

Amachi and offers attendees a roadmap for applying the Amachi model in their 

communities. 

Who Should Attend 

The Amachi Training Institute welcomes any 

representative from a local organization that mentors 

children of incarcerated parents, including 

organizations with public or private funding and paid or 

volunteer staff. The training is most beneficial for 

representatives who are responsible for planning the 

development of an Amachi--modeled program in their 

community; recruiting religious leaders, volunteers, 

and children for the program; or monitoring and 

evaluating the program. 

Past Attendees 

The Amachi Training Institute has helped more than 

800 organizations in 47 states develop mentoring 

children of prisoners programs and is a useful 

resource for many agencies. Here’s what attendees 

have said about the Institute. 

“This (training) was very informative. I had a great time hearing from Rev. Dr. Goode. I 

will go back to North Texas and set the standard for what true mentoring through Amachi 

is all about.” 

“This training has been very helpful. We have a new program in Baltimore and this has 

helped me to get back on track. It has given me renewed strength to go forth and 

concentrate on getting one mentor for one child for one hour once a week.” 

______ 

LOCATIONS 

* Denotes programs that also serve youth from military families. 

ALABAMA 

Children’s Trust Fund 

Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board 

Chris Crooks 

PO Box 4251 

Montgomery, AL 36103 

Tel: (334) 242-5710 


IMPACT Family Counseling, Inc. 

ALASKA 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Alaska 

ARKANSAS 

Boys and Girls Club of Benton County, Inc. 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Arkansas 

Phoenix Youth and Family Services 

Boys and Girls Club of Fayetteville 

ARIZONA 

Pima Prevention Partnership* 

CALIFORNIA 

Family Support Services of the Bay Area 

Be A Mentor, Inc. 

COLORODO 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado 

CONNECTICUT 

Nutmeg Big Brothers Big Sisters 

Governor's Partnership to Protect Connecticut 

Covenant to Care, Inc. 

Amachi Generations 

A Different Perspective, Inc. 

Simone A. Mason 

Email: simoneamason@yahoo.com 

DELAWARE 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Delaware 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters National Capital Area 


FLORIDA 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Tampa Bay 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northeast Florida 

Christians Reaching Out to Society, Inc. 

Hope for Miami (formerly Family & Children Faith Coalition) 

Southeast Dade Ministerial Alliance 

GEORGIA 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of The Heart of Georgia 

Metro Atlanta Youth For Christ 

Institute of Community and Organizational Development 

INDIANA 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Northeast Indiana 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Central Indiana 

ILLINOIS 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southwestern Illinois 

IOWA 

Amachi/Serve Our Youth Network of Iowa 

KANSAS 

Amachi/Kansas Big Brothers Big Sisters, Inc. 

KENTUCKY 

Amachi Central Kentucky 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Kentuckiana 

LOUISIANA 

Amachi Big Buddy Program 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Acadiana, Inc. 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southeast Louisiana 

Amachi/Volunteers of America of Greater New Orleans 

MARYLAND 


Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Greater Chesapeake 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Frederick County, Inc. 

Center for Children 

Baltimore Rising 

US Dream Academy 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Amachi/Big Sisters of Greater Boston 

Amachi/Big Brothers of Mass Bay 

Amachi Hampden County - New England Farm Workers' Council 

MICHIGAN 

VIP Mentoring 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Greater Flint 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Great Lakes Region 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Jackson County, Inc. 

MINNEAPOLIS 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Greater Twin Cities* 

Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation 

MISSISSIPPI 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Mississippi 

MISSOURI 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Eastern Missouri 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Missouri 

Amachi/Assemblies of God Charities 

MONTANA 

Big Brothers Big Sisters Missoula 

NEVADA 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northern Nevada 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Nashua 


NEW JERSEY 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Burlington, Camden & Gloucester Counties 

Center For Family Services, Inc. 

Youth Consultation Service 

Paulsboro Community Development Center 

NEW YORK 

Phoenix Houses of New York 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Erie County 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Greater Rochester* 

Amachi/New York City Mission Society 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of New York City 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Greater Charlotte 

Fayetteville Urban Ministry, Inc. 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Triangle 

OHIO 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Central Ohio 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Lorain County 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Greater Miami Valley 

OKLAHOMA 

Amachi/Volunteers of America of Oklahoma, Inc. 

OREGON 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Columbia Northwest 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Amachi/Philadelphia Leadership Foundation* 

Bridge Program - Big Brothers Big Sisters Bucks County 

Amachi Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh Leadership Foundation) 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Amachi Eastern Pennsylvania & Delaware (The Salvation Army) 

Amachi/Every Child, Inc. 

Big Brothers Big Sisters Beaver County 


SOUTH CAROLINA 

Clemson University 

TENNESSEE 

Amachi Knoxville (Knoxville Leadership Foundation) 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Clarksville 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Middle Tennessee 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Chattanooga 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Memphis, Inc. 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of East Tennessee 

Boys to Men 

Families of Incarcerated Individuals, Inc. 

TEXAS 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Lone Star* 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of South Texas 

VIRGINIA 

United Methodist Family Services 

WASHINGTON 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Puget Sound 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Inland Northwest 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of Southwest Washington 

WISCONSIN 

Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters Metro Milwaukee 

New Concept Self Development Center, Inc. 


VI. The Oregon Bill of Rights 

2017 SESSION, Senate Bill 241 

Directs Department of Corrections, in cooperation with existing public body, to develop 

guidelines for using bill of rights of children of incarcerated parents in policy and 

procedure decisions that impact incarcerated individuals with children. 

Children Of Imprisoned Parents Get Oregon Bill Of Rights 

The first state law of its kind, the new policy is intended to minimize 

the trauma children experience when a parent is incarcerated 

by Amanda Waldroupe | 22 Sep 2017 

Gov. Kate Brown signed a “bill of rights” for the children of parents serving prison 

sentences into law on Tuesday, Sept. 19, making Oregon the first state in the country to 

have such a law. 

Advocates hope that by establishing a bill of rights for the children of incarcerated 

parents, Oregon’s state agencies – human services and the criminal justice and foster 

care systems, especially – will create policies that reduce trauma experienced by 

children and allow them to maintain stronger ties with their imprisoned parents. 

“We know that a large part of what helps with re-entry is having families that are intact,” 

Sen. Michael Dembrow (D-Portland), a chief sponsor of the legislation, told Street 


Roots. “Children of incarcerated parents are victims, as well, of what happens. Their 

needs are rarely taken into consideration by the courts, by the police.” 

The new law requires the Department of Corrections to develop policies and procedures 

that reflect the needs of children when their parents are imprisoned. The law asserts 

that these children have nine “essential” rights, which include protection from further 

trauma and harm after parents’ arrests; maintaining a relationship with and visiting their 

parents while they’re in prison; being included and considered in life decisions such as 

foster care; and being cared for in a way that “prioritizes the child’s physical, mental and 

emotional needs.” 

The issue was the subject of the film “Mothering Inside” by Portland filmmaker Brian 

Lindstrom, featuring the work of the Family Preservation Project. Parents who were part 

of the Family Preservation Project were on hand for the signing. 

The Legislature passed the bill of rights in June, along with a package of a half-dozen 

bills, also sponsored by Dembrow, related to prisoners’ re-entry into society. 

Three other pieces of legislation passed, including a bill allowing child support payments 

to be suspended while a parent is imprisoned. 

Another bill allows those on probation or parole to perform community service instead of 

paying court fees and other fines. Yet another created “certificates of good standing” for 

people convicted of Class A misdemeanors and felonies who adhere to treatment 

guidelines, perform paid and unpaid work, and meet the expectations of their probation, 

among other measures. The hope is that the certificates will help ex-prisoners as they 

apply for housing and jobs. 

The number of people who become imprisoned while parenting a child has grown a 

staggering 79 percent between 1991 and 2007, according to national statistics. During 

that same period, the number of children with an incarcerated mother more than 

doubled. Nationally, 1 out of every 14 children experiences the imprisonment of one, or 

both, of their parents. 

Nearly 70,000 Oregon children have at least one parent in prison, estimates Children 

First for Oregon, one of the state’s largest children advocacy organizations. The 

imprisonment of parents disproportionately affects children of color; 1 in 9 African- 

American children will experience the imprisonment of one of their parents. One 1 in 8 

of these children lives in poverty. 

Having a parent in prison during childhood increases the trauma and instability in a 

child’s life. In fact, a parent’s imprisonment is among the 10 adverse childhood 

events considered to contribute to a person’s likelihood in developing substance abuse 

disorders and other risky, unhealthy behaviors and health problems. 

Children with imprisoned parents are four times more likely to become involved in the 

juvenile justice system, three times more likely to not graduate from high school, and 


the likelihood of becoming homeless once exiting the foster care system grows by 65 

percent, according to a 2016 policy report by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. 

Marianne Kersten is the program manager for Northwest Family Services Children of 

Incarcerated Parents Program, which works to pair youth with mentors who provide 

support while they’re in school or seeking employment. 

Every day, Kersten said, she sees the traumatic effects of arrest and incarceration on 

children. 

“These children come to us with an extraordinary amount of colossal barriers to success,” 

she said, including generational poverty, criminality and homelessness. “These children 

come to us with an extraordinary amount of colossal barriers to success,” she said, 

including generational poverty, criminality and homelessness. 

“(There’s) just a real lack of support,” Kersten said. “And you add on top of that the 

shame and stigma of having a parent in jail.” 

A bill of rights for children of incarcerated parents was first created by the San Francisco 

Partnership, an advocacy organization, in 2003. In March 2012, the United Nations’ 

Human Rights Council passed a resolution on children’s rights. The Oregon version 

signed Tuesday includes some of the provisions from the U.N. resolution. 

While Dembrow, Kersten and others applaud the signing of the legislation, more work is 

to be done for the bill of rights’ provisions to become policy and procedure. 

“Sometimes these bills of rights are not necessarily binding,” said David Rogers, 

executive director of the ACLU of Oregon, which supported the legislation. “They 


demonstrate that there is a vision and values for Oregonians to do things differently. 

We’re not at a place where we ultimately want to be in terms of being able to care for 

and lift up the health and wellbeing of children with incarcerated parents.” 

The law also creates the Task Force on Children of Incarcerated Parents, which is 

expected to develop recommendations for how the rights enshrined in the bill can be 

implemented in the criminal justice system and across Oregon’s state agencies. 

“A system of advocacy that starts at the time of arrest” needs to be developed, said 

Jessica Katz, the director of Family Preservation Project, a program of the YWCA of 

Greater Portland that operates four programs inside Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, 

Oregon’s only women’s prison. 

That includes training police officers to ask parents, as they’re being arrested, if they 

have children in need of attention. “And if you ask, ‘Do you have kids?’ that’s not 

enough,” Katz said. “You have to have a response when you get a ‘yes.’” 

Allowing children to safely visit their parents while in prison is another priority of 

advocates, and Kersten said that increased communication with children to help them 

understand what being in prison means and what has happened to the one they love is 

important to reduce feelings of isolation and abandonment. 

“The barriers for them to see that parent are just unbelievable,” Kersten said. “People 

think that somebody is arrested, lock them up, and the family is better off. That’s not the 

case. Just because their parent is locked up doesn’t mean they don’t love that parent.” 

Department of Corrections spokesperson Betty Bernt said that the bill of rights will serve 

as a set of guiding principles. 

“While we may not be able to remove the obstacles and traumas faced by children of 

incarcerated parents, we can help to create a system that recognizes their needs and 

prioritizes their rights,” she said. 

Kersten calls this population of Oregon children – even though they number 1 in 10 – 

“invisible,” a group that demands attention. 

“They’re everywhere,” she said. “They’re in our midst.” 


VII. Prof. William Julius Wilson 

William Julius Wilson (born December 20, 1935) is an American sociologist. He taught 

at the University of Chicago from 1972 to 1996 before moving to Harvard University. 

Wilson is Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor at Harvard University. He 

is one of 24 University Professors, the highest professional distinction for a Harvard 

faculty member. After receiving a Ph.D. from Washington State University in 1966, 

Wilson taught sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, before joining the 

University of Chicago faculty in 1972. In 1990 he was appointed the Lucy Flower 

University Professor and director of the University of Chicago's Center for the Study of 

Urban Inequality. He joined the faculty at Harvard in July 1996. He is affiliated with the 

Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, 

Harvard University's Hutchins Center for African and African American Research, as 


well as Harvard's Department of Sociology. He is a member of the Library of Congress 

Scholars Council. 

Wilson was an original board member of the progressive Century Institute, and a current 

board member at Philadelphia-based Public/Private Ventures as well as PolicyLink and 

the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He was Dr. Sudhir Venkatesh's advisor 

when Venkatesh was a Ph.D. student at the University of Chicago. 

Published Works 

He is the author of numerous publications, including Power Racism and Privilege: Race 

Relations in Theoretical and Sociohistorical Perspectives (1973, 1976), The Declining 

Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions (1978, 1980, 2012), 

winner of the American Sociological Association's Sydney Spivack Award; The Truly 

Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy (1987, 2012), which 

was selected by the editors of the New York Times Book Review as one of the 16 best 

books of 1987, and received The Washington Monthly Annual Book Award, the Society 

for the Study of Social Problems' C. Wright Mills Award and the American Political 

Science Association’s Aaron Wildavsky Enduring Contribution Award; When Work 

Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor (1996), which was selected as one of 

the notable books of 1996 by the editors of the New York Times Book Review and 

received the Sidney Hillman Foundation Award and the American Political Science 

Association’s Aaron Wildavsky Enduring Contribution Award; and The Bridge Over the 

Racial Divide: Rising Inequality and Coalition Politics. More recently, he is the co-author 

of There Goes the Neighborhood: Racial, Ethnic, and Class Tensions in Four Chicago 

Neighborhoods and Their Meaning for America (2006), and Good Kids in Bad 

Neighborhoods: Successful Development in Social Context (2006); and author of More 

than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City (2009). 

In The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions 

(1978) Wilson argues that the significance of race is waning, and that for African 

Americans, class is comparatively more important in determining their life chances. In 

The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy (1987), 

Wilson was one of the first to enunciate at length the "spatial mismatch" theory for the 

development of a ghetto underclass. As industrial jobs disappeared in cities in the wake 

of global economic restructuring, and hence urban unemployment increased, women 

found it unwise to marry the fathers of their children, since the fathers would not be 

breadwinners. In The Truly Disadvantaged Wilson also argued against Charles Murray's 

theory of welfare causing poverty. 

In Wilson's most recent book, More Than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner 

City (2009), he directs his attention to the overall framing of pervasive, concentrated 

urban poverty of African Americans. He asks the question, "Why do poverty and 

unequal opportunity persist in the lives of so many African Americans?" In response, he 

traces the history and current state of powerful structural factors impacting African 

Americans, such as discrimination in laws, policies, hiring, housing, and education. 


Wilson also examines the interplay of structural factors and the attitudes and 

assumptions of African Americans, European Americans, and social science 

researchers. In identifying the dynamic influence of structural, economic, and cultural 

factors, he argues against either/or politicized views of poverty among African 

Americans that either focus blame solely on cultural factors or only on unjust structural 

factors. He tries "to demonstrate the importance of understanding not only the 

independent contributions of social structure and culture, but also how they interact to 

shape different group outcomes that embody racial inequality." Wilson's goal is to 

"rethink the way we talk about addressing the problems of race and urban poverty in the 

public policy arena." 

Influence 

Wilson's book When Work Disappears has been cited as an inspiration for the second 

season of the HBO show The Wire. 

Criticism of His Work 

Beginning with The Declining Significance of Race, Wilson's work has attracted a great 

deal of controversy and criticism. (See, e.g., Willie's The Inclining Significance of Race) 


In his book Still the Promised City? African-Americans and New Immigrants in 

Postindustrial New York, Roger Waldinger, a professor of Sociology at the University of 

California, Los Angeles, provides a critique of arguments advanced by Wilson in The 

Truly Disadvantaged. In particular, Waldinger challenges Wilson's argument that the 

labor market problems African Americans face today are largely due to 

deindustrialization and consequent skills mismatches. Waldinger argues that, on one 

hand, African Americans never were especially dependent on jobs in the manufacturing 

sector, so deindustrialization in itself has not had a major impact on African Americans, 

and that, on the other hand, the relative labor market success of poorly educated 

immigrants suggests that in the postindustrial era shows that there is no absence of 

jobs for those with few skills. (See Anthony Orum's review of the book for an 

assessment of how thoroughly Waldinger rebuts Wilson.) One crucial limitation to the 

full credibility of Waldinger's study, however, is that it is based entirely on research in 

New York City and, therefore, its findings are difficult to generalize to cities such as 

Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and others where blacks were indeed 

concentrated in the manufacturing sector. 

The concept of 'the ghetto' and 'underclass' has faced criticism both empirically and 

theoretically. Research has shown significant differences in resources for 

neighborhoods with similar populations both across cities and over time. This includes 

differences in the resources of neighborhoods with predominantly low income and/or 

racial minority populations. The cause of these differences in resources across similar 

neighborhoods has more to do with dynamics outside of the neighborhood. To a large 

extent the problem with the 'ghetto' and 'underclass' concepts stem from the reliance on 

case studies (in particular case studies from Chicago), which confine social scientist 

understandings of socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. 

Honors 

Past President of the American Sociological Association, Wilson has received 45 

honorary degrees, including honorary doctorates from Yale, Princeton University, 

Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern University, Johns 

Hopkins University, New York University, Bard College, Dartmouth College, and the 

University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. A MacArthur Prize Fellow from 1987 to 

1992, Wilson has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the American 

Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Education, the American 

Philosophical Society, the Institute of Medicine, and the British Academy. In June 1996 

he was selected by Time magazine as one of America's 25 Most Influential People. He 

is a recipient of the 1998 National Medal of Science, the highest scientific honor in the 

United States, and was awarded the Talcott Parsons Prize in the Social Sciences by the 

American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003; the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize by 

the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in 2013; the Robert 

and Helen Lynd Award for Distinguished Career Achievement by the Community and 

Urban Section of the American Sociological Association in 2013; and the WEB DuBois 

Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award by the American Sociological Association in 

2014, the highest award bestowed by the American Sociological Association. 


Other honors granted to Wilson include the Seidman Award in Political Economy (the 

first and only non-economist to receive the award); the Golden Plate Achievement 

Award; the Distinguished Alumnus Award, Washington State University; the American 

Sociological Association's Dubois, Johnson, Frazier Award (for significant scholarship in 

the field of inter-group relations); the American Sociological Association's Award for 

Public Understanding of Sociology; Burton Gordon Feldman Award ("for outstanding 

contributions in the field of public policy") Brandeis University; and the Martin Luther 

King, Jr. National Award (granted by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 

Los Angeles); the Diverse: Issues in Higher Education’s John Hope Franklin Award; 

Everett Mendelsohn Excellence in Mentoring Award, Harvard University; and the 

Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for Lifetime Achievement in Nonfiction. He was designated a 

Walter Channing Cabot Fellow at Harvard University for 2009-10. And in 2012 the 

Inequality, Poverty, and Mobility Section of the American Sociological Association 

renamed its Early Career Award as the William Julius Wilson Early Career Award. 

Professor Wilson also served on a member of numerous national boards and 

commissions including, the Social Science Research Council, Spelman College, Bard 

College, National Humanities Center, Levy Economic Institute and Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation. He was previously the Chair of the Board of The 

Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and of the Russell Sage 

Foundation. 

In 2010, Wilson received the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award Lifetime Achievement Award in 

Nonfiction. 


When Work Disappears 

When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor (1996) is a book by 

William Julius Wilson, Professor of Social Policy at Harvard. Wilson's argument is that 

the disappearance of work and the consequences of that disappearance for both social 

and cultural life are the central problems in the inner-city ghetto. He sought to discuss 

social disorganization without stigmatizing the poor. Wilson writes that chronic 

joblessness has deprived those in the inner city of skills necessary to obtain and keep 

jobs. Wilson's book uses evidence from large-scale scientific surveys in the ghetto and 

information culled from ethnographic interviews of ghetto residents in order to create a 

complete picture of the problems that face the residents. 

Wilson writes that people who inhabit the disorganized, jobless ghettos face dim 

prospects. Poor public transportation often fails to provide access to job locations, 

stereotypes about poor blacks, especially black men also make jobs harder to find. 

Wilson rejects the idea that inner-city residents have a "culture of poverty" or damaged 

personalities. He holds that addressing the problem of joblessness is the solution to 

urban inner-city problems. Wilson supports work programs modeled after Depressionera 

projects. 

Wilson ties the disappearance of inner-city jobs to industrial restructuring, 

suburbanization, foreign competition, and racism. 

Influence 

When Work Disappears has been cited as an inspiration for the second season of the 

HBO show The Wire. 


VIII. References 

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationships_for_incarcerated_individuals 

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African- 

American_family_structure#Black_male_incarceration_and_mortality 

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Family:_The_Case_For_National_Action 

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Work_Disappears 

5. http://news.streetroots.org/2017/09/22/children-imprisoned-parents-get-oregon-bill-rights 

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminization_of_poverty 

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenilization_of_poverty 

8. file:///C:/Users/tuh41865/Downloads/1986%20(1).pdf 

9. https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/resource/MCIP_Senior_Toolkit.pdf 

10. https://www.ncsl.org/documents/cyf/childrenofincarceratedparents.pdf 


Notes 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 


Notes 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 



Attachment A 

The Amachi Program of Philadelphia 


AMACHI: 

MENTORING CHILDREN OF 

PRISONERS IN PHILADELPHIA 

LINDA JUCOVY 

A PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES AND 

THE CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON RELIGION AND URBAN CIVIL SOCIETY

AMACHI: 

MENTORING CHILDREN OF 

PRISONERS IN PHILADELPHIA 

LINDA JUCOVY 

A PUBLICATION OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES AND 

THE CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON RELIGION AND URBAN CIVIL SOCIETY

Public/Private Ventures is a 

national nonprofit organization 

that seeks to improve the 

effectiveness of social policies 

and programs. P/PV designs, 

tests and studies initiatives that 

increase supports, skills and 

opportunities of residents of 

low-income communities; 

works with policymakers to 

see that the lessons and evidence 

produced are reflected 

in policy; and provides training, 

technical assistance and 

learning opportunities to 

practitioners based on documented 

effective practices. 

The Center for Research 

on Religion and Urban Civil 

Society, part of the School of 

Arts and Sciences at the 

University of Pennsylvania, 

produces and disseminates 

empirical knowledge about 

the role of religion in contemporary 

urban America. Its 

work includes a focus on how 

national and local faith-based 

organizations help to solve 

big-city social problems. 

Board of Directors 

Siobhan Nicolau, Chair 

President 

Hispanic Policy Development 

Project 

Gary Walker 

President 

Public/Private Ventures 

Amalia Betanzos 

President 

Wildcat Service Corporation 

Yvonne Chan 

Principal 

Vaughn Learning Center 

Mitchell S. Fromstein 

Chairman Emeritus 

Manpower, Inc. 

Christine L. James-Brown 

President 

United Way of Southeastern 

Pennsylvania 

John A. Mayer, Jr. 

Retired, Chief Financial Officer 

J.P. Morgan & Co. 

Matthew McGuire 

Vice President 

Ariel Capital Management, Inc. 

Milbrey W. McLaughlin 

David Jacks Professor of Education 

and Public Policy 

Stanford University 

Maurice Lim Miller 

Director 

The Family Independence Initiative 

Anne Hodges Morgan 

Consultant to Foundations 

Marion Pines 

Senior Fellow 

Institute for Policy Studies 

Johns Hopkins University 

Cay Stratton 

Director 

National Employment Panel 

London, U.K. 

Research Advisory 

Committee 

Jacquelynne S. Eccles 

Chair 

University of Michigan 

Ronald Ferguson 

Kennedy School of Government 

Robinson Hollister 

Swarthmore College 

Alan Krueger 

Princeton University 

Reed Larson 

University of Illinois 

Katherine S. Newman 

Kennedy School of Government 

Lawrence Steinberg 

Temple University 

Thomas Weisner 

UCLA 

AMACHI

Acknowledgments 

Many people and organizations have made vital contributions to Amachi.The Pew Charitable 

Trusts and Luis E. Lugo, director of the Religion Program, provided generous support and guidance 

throughout the project’s planning and implementation. Additional support was provided by 

the City of Philadelphia;The William E. Simon Foundation; and the Mid-Atlantic Network of 

Youth & Family Services and the Corporation for National Service. 

John J. DiIulio, Jr., former Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) Senior Advisor and board member, 

was the initial force behind Amachi; and Judy Vredenburg, Douglas Powell, Marlene Olshan, and 

Cheryl Thomas, all of Big Brothers Big Sisters, have provided strong leadership for the program. 

We also thank Tim Merrill, who was director of Amachi during its planning phase. 

A number of people played key roles in the field during the formative stages of the project. 

They include Community Impact Directors, Gayle Washington, John Coger, Ruben Ortiz, and 

Larry Watson, Sr.; and Mentor Support Coordinators,Yvonne Addison, Richard Warner, Corey 

Kirby, Robin Blake, Dennis Green, and Higuemota Asson. 

We also want to thank many people at P/PV for their contributions to Amachi and to this 

report. Joseph P.Tierney, former head of P/PV’s Greater Philadelphia Initiatives, and Terry Cooper 

provided early leadership for the project.W.Wilson Goode, Sr., Senior Advisor on Faith-Based 

Initiatives and director of Amachi, worked tirelessly to implement the program. Jodina Hicks provided 

invaluable support during the initial years of the project; and Wendy McClanahan, Shawn 

Bauldry, and Chrissy Labs expertly handled the data collection and analysis. 

Others at P/PV also contributed their ideas and insights to the report. Jean Grossman provided 

guidance in interpreting the data, and Pat Meller provided help in understanding program costs. 

Former P/PV staffer Bill Hangley, Jr., conducted early interviews with pastors. Gary Walker and 

David Racine read previous versions of the report and offered valuable feedback. 

A special thanks goes to Arlene F. Lee, director of the Federal Resource Center for Children of 

Prisoners at the Child Welfare League of America, for taking the time to discuss current research 

on children of incarcerated parents.Thanks, also, to Penelope Malish, of Malish & Pagonis, who 

designed the report, and to Maxine Sherman, who copyedited it. 

Most important, we want to acknowledge the pastors and Church Volunteer Coordinators 

(CVCs) for their commitment and contributions to Amachi. Although space does not allow us to 

acknowledge them each by name, we want to thank Herbert Lusk for his early leadership and passion 

for the program. In addition, a number of pastors and CVCs contributed directly to this 

report by providing information about their experiences with Amachi and insights into the program.They 

include Robert J. Lovett, Joe Darrow, James Robinson, Steve Avinger, Sr., Joel Van 

Dyke, Gerardo Colon, Sam Slaffey, Clifford Cutter,Willie Graves, Carlton Rodgers, James Lovett, 

Larry Tucker, Sr., Chalon Tiedeken, Linda Dunston, Harry Robinson, and Phyllis Taylor. (See the 

Appendix for a list of churches partnering in Amachi.) 

And, finally, we thank the 482 volunteers who have given more than 50,000 hours to mentoring 

children of prisoners. 

MENTORING CHILDREN OF PRISONERS IN PHILADELPHIA

AMACHI

Contents 

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i 

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 

II. HOW AMACHI WORKS . . . . . . . . . . .7 

III. GETTING AMACHI 

UP AND RUNNING . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 

IV. AMACHI IN ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . .27 

V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 

APPENDIX:CHURCHES PARTNERING 

IN AMACHI IN PHILADELPHIA . . . . . . . .48 

TABLES 

1. MENTEE DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . .17 

2. MENTOR DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . .24 

3. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF 

MENTORS REPORTED ENGAGING IN 

GIVEN ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . .28 

4. MEAN AND MAXIMUM HOURS AND 

DAYS MENTORS AND CHILDREN 

MET PER MONTH . . . . . . . . . . .29 

5. NUMBER OF MATCHES,MENTORS, 

AND MENTEES . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 

6. MATCHES THAT LASTED LESS THAN A 

YEAR:REASONS GIVEN FOR 

TERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 

7. DURATION OF MENTOR-MENTEE 

RELATIONSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 

MENTORING CHILDREN OF PRISONERS IN PHILADELPHIA

AMACHI

Foreword 

Occasionally, a new initiative comes along that seems unquestionably 

the right thing to do.The Amachi initiative, which mentors the children of 

prisoners, is one. 

This report documents Amachi’s early years of operation in Philadelphia, its 

birthplace. Because Amachi’s success in Philadelphia has sparked interest in many 

cities around the country, as well as at the White House and in Congress, the 

report discusses not only data regarding program quality and effectiveness, but 

also the strategies and mechanics of setting up, operating, and maintaining an 

Amachi program. It is meant to be helpful to those interested in supporting or 

operating an Amachi program; it will also be enlightening to those who think 

that mentoring is a simple intervention. 

John DiIulio, now Frederic Fox Leadership Professor of Politics, Religion and 

Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania, had the idea for Amachi—and 

W. Wilson Goode, former Mayor of Philadelphia and currently Senior Advisor 

on Faith-Based Initiatives at P/PV, then carried it out.The Pew Charitable 

Trusts supported both the development and the implementation of Amachi. 

Though many others played vital supportive roles, their outstanding vision, commitment 

and leadership have made Amachi Philadelphia the successful initiative 

you will read about. 

Amachi’s future depends, of course, on many factors; but President Bush’s State 

of the Union call for substantial federal financial support, and the commitment 

expressed by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and many of its local affiliates to 

expand Amachi’s reach in the United States, bode well. Big Brothers Big Sisters 

Southeastern Pennsylvania has also made a significant financial and mission commitment 

to continue and expand Amachi in the Philadelphia region. 

In modern America, too many children lack the acceptance, care, and guidance 

of committed adults—certainly none more so than the children of prisoners. 

Gary Walker 

President, Public/Private Ventures 

MENTORING CHILDREN OF PRISONERS IN PHILADELPHIA 

i

ii 

AMACHI

—chapter one— 

INTRODUCTION 

Across the United States, an estimated 

two million children, ages 5 to 18, have a parent who is incarcerated in a 

federal or state prison or a local jail.The majority of these children are very 

young: over half are less than 10 years old, and more than 20 percent are 

younger than age 5. 1 Many of them share the challenges faced by the larger 

population of this country’s at-risk young people: poverty, violence, limited 

opportunities for an adequate education, and a future that appears to hold very 

little promise. 

But these children often face additional risks as well. In many cases, they have 

suffered the unique trauma of seeing their parent arrested and taken away. And 

with a parent’s incarceration, their connection to a central adult in their lives has 

been cut off.While their parents are in prison, the children might live with a 

grandparent, aunt, their other parent, or in a foster home or other facility. Some 

are separated from their siblings. Some are shifted from one caregiving arrangement 

to another.These caregivers are likely to be living in poverty and to lack 

the personal resources necessary to meet the children’s needs. 

Those needs can be complex.While research on the specific challenges faced 

by children of incarcerated parents is still in its early stages, studies suggest that 

they suffer from a particular form of grief and loss that comes from having a parent 

who is alive but unreachable. 2 The children may experience a complex mix 

of anger, sadness, shame, guilt, and depression.As a result, they often act out inappropriately 

and have classroom behavior difficulties and low academic performance. 

3 Not surprisingly, a high percentage end up in serious trouble themselves. 

INTRODUCTION 1

In fact, according to a U.S. Senate Report, children of prisoners are six times 

more likely than other children to be incarcerated at some point in their lives. 

Without effective intervention strategies, as many as 70 percent of these children 

will become involved with the criminal justice system. 4 

The number of children at risk in these ways is certain to grow.The nation’s 

prison population is increasing by almost six percent a year. Significantly, the 

number of women in prison is increasing at an even faster pace, more than doubling 

since 1990.Women, far more often than men, are a child’s custodial parent 

before entering prison.Thus, increasing numbers of children are losing the central 

adult in their lives to crime and the prison system. 5 

Despite their numbers and the intensified risks they face, these children 

remain mostly invisible to policymakers and social service organizations and, 

even, within their own communities.The Child Welfare League of America cites 

several factors that have combined to hide them from view. Some factors are 

institutional: the criminal justice system has not traditionally been concerned 

with inmates’ family relationships, and there is also a lack of communication 

between prisons and child welfare agencies. Other factors are a result of deeply 

ingrained personal feelings: children and their relatives feel shame about incarcerated 

parents and fear being stigmatized.Thus, they tend to remain silent and 

reluctant to ask for assistance. 6 

WHY MENTORING? 

Because these children have not, until recently, been recognized as a specific 

group with special needs, there is little knowledge about what interventions 

might measurably improve their prospects in life. But what is known is that, in 

many cases, they are attempting to grow up without a steady, reliable adult in 

their lives—and that a consistent, nurturing relationship with a dependable adult 

is an essential developmental support for children. 

Given this reality, mentoring would seem to be a promising approach for 

responding to the challenges these children are facing. Evaluation results provide 

clear evidence that mentors can make a tangible difference in young people’s 

lives. In the mid-1990s, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), a national nonprofit 

organization whose mission is to improve the effectiveness of social policies and 

programs, conducted a random assignment study of Big Brothers Big Sisters of 

America (BBBSA), the nationally known mentoring organization.The results 

2 

AMACHI

showed that having a mentor—a consistently caring and supportive adult—significantly 

reduced a young person’s initiation of drug and alcohol use, improved 

their school performance and attendance, and reduced incidences of violence. 7 

Thus, several years ago, with generous funding from The Pew Charitable 

Trusts, 8 P/PV, led by Senior Advisor and board member John J. Dilulio, Jr., and 

Vice-President Joseph P.Tierney, began developing a mentoring program for 

children of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated parents in Philadelphia.The 

initiative was named “Amachi,” a West African word that means “who knows but 

what God has brought us through this child.” Volunteers would be recruited 

from inner-city congregations to provide one-to-one mentoring to the children. 

And beyond being a source of mentors, the congregations would be key partners 

in the initiative. 

There were several reasons for turning to churches in this way. In the communities 

where these children live, the church is often the most important 

remaining institution, and many of those churches have been a strong support 

for the communities and a source of volunteers who are forces for positive 

change. Volunteers from local congregations have helped feed the hungry and 

provided shelter for the homeless.They have run day-care centers, built housing 

for senior citizens, and operated after-school programs.Thus, it was logical to 

believe that congregations which saw their missions as extending beyond the 

walls of their buildings and into their communities would respond to Amachi’s 

vision of providing crucial support for children in their neighborhoods. 

Amachi adopted the motto,“People of Faith Mentoring Children of 

Promise.” And the project—now a partnership of P/PV, BBBSA, and the Center 

for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society (CRRUCS) at the 

University of Pennsylvania, an organization that conducts research on the role of 

religion in contemporary urban America—got up and running at a rapid pace. It 

began recruiting churches in November 2000; and by April 2001, the first mentors 

were meeting with their mentees. By the end of January 2002, Amachi was 

operating through 42 churches and had made almost 400 matches. 

Although still a relatively new initiative, Amachi is already at a key point in its 

history. It has expanded to additional churches in Philadelphia and has begun a 

second program in the nearby city of Chester, Pennsylvania.With funding from 

The Pinkerton Foundation, an Amachi project is also underway in Brooklyn, 

New York, where Senator Hillary Clinton is chair of the Advisory Group. 9 

INTRODUCTION 3

A growing number of additional cities have expressed interest in Amachi. 

There is also support at the federal level. In January 2002, when President Bush 

signed the bill extending and expanding the Promoting Safe and Stable Families 

Program, it included authorization for a mentoring program for children of prisoners; 

and, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, he specifically proposed a 

$150 million initiative that would bring mentors to 100,000 of those children. 

In May, the federal Family and Youth Services Bureau announced the availability 

of funds and issued a request for applications for its Mentoring Children of 

Prisoners Program. 

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 

As Amachi looks toward expansion, what lessons can policymakers, funders, 

and potential new sites learn from the experiences in Philadelphia? This report 

describes the challenges and successes of Amachi, to date, and discusses the 

implications of those experiences.The following chapter, Chapter II, outlines the 

components of the Amachi model and the particular structure of the program in 

Philadelphia. Chapter III describes the steps involved in transforming Amachi 

from plan to reality, focusing on the strategies for recruiting children, pastors, 

and volunteers. Chapter IV then examines the experiences of the mentors and 

their mentees, and the challenges and successes of the matches thus far. A concluding 

chapter outlines lessons learned from the Amachi experience. 

Information for the report is drawn from interviews with program developers, 

BBBS and Amachi staff, pastors, church volunteer coordinators, and mentors, 

as well as from data collected by P/PV and BBBS. 

4 

AMACHI

INTRODUCTION 5

6 

AMACHI

—chapter two— 

HOW AMACHI WORKS 

Amachi is a straightforward and 

highly focused program: through a partnership of secular and faith-based institutions, 

volunteers recruited from congregations mentor children of prisoners.The 

model was developed from research findings on the benefits of mentoring and 

the potential of inner-city congregations to address some of the significant challenges 

facing their communities—including findings about both practices that 

work and those that are less likely to be successful. 

Research on mentoring has shown that positive outcomes occur only when 

matches meet regularly for at least a year and that solid program infrastructure is 

necessary for this to occur. Strong mentoring relationships do not happen automatically.Well-planned, 

well-run programs—programs that carefully screen, train, 

monitor, and support mentors so the matches are able to develop and endure— 

have positive effects. However, poorly implemented mentoring programs are less 

likely to produce such benefits. 10 

Similarly, while inner-city congregations are potentially vital sources of volunteers 

who can help bring about positive changes in their communities, their 

involvement will not happen automatically. Members of those congregations 

respond to the leadership of their pastors. If the leadership is passive concerning 

community involvement, the congregation will be passive as well. However, if 

the leadership is committed—if it sees the issue being addressed as meaningful 

and directly connected to the church’s mission, and conveys that message to the 

congregation—members will respond. 11 

HOW AMACHI WORKS 7

THE MODEL 

Drawing on research on effective practices, the Amachi model was intended to 

engage congregations, take advantage of each partner’s strengths, and lead to large 

numbers of successful mentoring relationships.The model included clearly defined 

roles and responsibilities for the partners; a staffing configuration that supported 

each partner and contributed to the goals of the overall partnership; and a datacollection 

system for monitoring the matches and ensuring accountability. 

The Partners 

The Amachi model required an organization to implement and oversee the 

project. In Philadelphia, P/PV took that role. It was responsible for administrative 

oversight and financial management, as well as for recruiting congregations and 

children.The organization also collected and analyzed the data used to monitor 

the matches and gauge the overall progress of Amachi, and worked with the key 

partners to address the inevitable problems that arise during start-up of a new 

project.Those partners were the congregations and Big Brothers Big Sisters. 

The Congregations 

Congregations are partners in Amachi, not just sources of volunteers.The 

presence of Amachi in a church reflects the pastor’s and congregation’s conviction 

that the project is very much a part of their mission in the world. 

Each participating church committed to recruiting 10 volunteers from its 

congregation, who would meet at least one hour a week for a year with a child 

of a current or former prisoner. Each church was also responsible for collecting 

and submitting monthly data on how often those matches were meeting. 

Beyond that, however, congregations were expected to nurture and support the 

volunteers, and to step in if they were not meeting their commitment.To that 

end, each pastor named a Church Volunteer Coordinator (CVC), who was 

responsible for overseeing and coordinating Amachi within the congregation. 

Many of the CVCs had previously served as a volunteer youth director or in a 

similar role at the church.They generally checked with mentors on a weekly 

basis, either through regularly scheduled meetings, phone calls, or informal conversations 

after Sunday worship services. 

To help cover the financial cost of partnering with Amachi, each congregation 

received an annual stipend of $1,500, as well as $5,000 to support the 

part-time CVC position. 

8 

AMACHI

Big Brothers Big Sisters 

As the nation’s oldest and most experienced mentoring organization, BBBS 

has well-established, effective procedures for screening, matching, training, and 

monitoring and supporting mentors. Its role in Amachi was to provide the 

expertise and infrastructure that are necessary if mentoring relationships are 

going to be able to grow and endure and, ultimately, lead to positive outcomes 

for the children. 

BBBS case managers, called Mentor Support Coordinators (MSCs), were 

responsible for screening the volunteers, and providing supervision and support 

for all of the matches by regularly contacting mentors, children, and caregivers 

to uncover and help resolve problems that were occurring in the relationship. In 

addition, BBBS trained the new mentors. 

Amachi is a program for BBBS and a ministry for the churches.While the volunteers 

recruited through congregations are BBBS mentors, they are also Amachi 

mentors within their church community.The project’s staffing—the presence of 

both Church Volunteer Coordinators and Mentor Support Coordinators—reflects 

and supports this dual reality. One indication of the integration achieved through 

the partnership is that the mentors, while they see themselves as mentoring 

through their churches, often use BBBS language to describe their relationships. 

They may refer to themselves as “Bigs” and their mentees as “Littles,” talk about 

the importance of doing “fun” activities with the children, and speak of their 

efforts to support their mentees’ growth rather than impose their own values on 

them—all hallmarks of the BBBS approach to mentoring. 

A Focus on Accountability 

While Amachi provided multiple forms of support to mentors, it also required 

accountability from both the mentors and their pastors. Data collection was at 

the center of this effort and was used to monitor performance and provide feedback 

so potential problems could be quickly addressed. 

CVCs collected monthly information from each of their congregation’s mentors, 

including the number of meetings with the mentee, the total hours they 

met, what they did together, and the number of times they spoke on the telephone. 

P/PV then used these data to generate a monthly report for each congregation 

that provided a snapshot of each of its matches as well as the larger 

picture of how its mentors were doing as a group. 

HOW AMACHI WORKS 9

Each month, pastors received a report with all of the information for their 

congregation. So they could compare their congregation’s performance to others, 

they also received a summary of the monthly data for each of the congregations 

involved in Amachi. In addition, the Amachi director met quarterly with 

each pastor to review the reports, talk about successes, and discuss ways to 

address problems. 

The reports often provided good news to the pastor: hard evidence of the 

work the congregation was doing and, thus, motivation to continue. But the 

reports also clearly communicated when a congregation was not meeting its 

commitment—and that was intended to serve as a call to action. As one pastor 

explained,“There was one month when I got the report and the numbers were 

very low. I actually stood up on the pulpit [during his Sunday sermon] and said 

I was shamed.”When he got his report the next month, he said,“The numbers 

were better.” 

ORGANIZING AMACHI IN PHILADELPHIA 

Working from the fundamentals of the Amachi model, the project’s planners 

had to decide how to best structure the initiative in Philadelphia so it could be 

implemented effectively within the particular characteristics of that city. In 

Philadelphia, there are approximately 20,000 children, ages 5 to 18, with parents 

in local jails and state and federal prisons. 12 The city is also geographically large, 

with many areas of poverty and high crime rates. Given these numbers and the 

city’s size, Amachi planners wanted to find a way to concentrate the project in 

areas with the greatest need. 

By examining Philadelphia crime statistics, they identified the highest-crime 

zip codes in the city.Then, using this information and their familiarity with local 

churches, they set geographical boundaries for Amachi in four areas of the city: 

Southwest Philadelphia,West Kensington, North Philadelphia, and South 

Philadelphia, encompassing a total of 24 zip codes.Their goal was to recruit 10 

churches in each of the four areas, or clusters. Each of the churches would be 

asked to provide 10 volunteers who would become mentors for children in the 

community immediately surrounding the church. Because Philadelphia is a city 

where people identify strongly with the neighborhood in which they live, it 

seemed most likely that congregations and pastors would respond if they were 

meeting the needs of children in their own community. 

10 

AMACHI

To organize and manage the clusters, Amachi developed a staff position for 

Community Impact Directors (CIDs). Four CIDs were hired—one for each of 

the clusters. All four had been involved in their communities and their congregations: 

two were pastors while the others had backgrounds in human services. 

Each was responsible for the day-to-day activities of a cluster and worked with 

both the CVCs and the BBBS Mentor Support Coordinators. 

The Role of the “Champion” 

Effective mentoring does not happen automatically; nor do effective partnerships 

between secular and faith-based organizations.While the partnership 

between BBBS and the congregations was intended to provide the structure and 

support that would lead to large numbers of volunteers who would be effective 

mentors, it was also important to have someone who could facilitate the partnership, 

someone with credibility in both the secular and faith-based communities. 

In Philadelphia, Rev. Dr.W.Wilson Goode, Sr., fulfilled that role. Senior 

Advisor on Faith-Based Initiatives for P/PV and director of the Amachi program, 

Rev. Goode had been mayor of Philadelphia from 1984 to 1992. He had 

also, for decades, been deeply involved with the inner-city churches and knew 

many of the pastors from previous work with them. 

Rev. Goode was thus uniquely positioned to provide credibility for Amachi 

and to mediate, as necessary, between the secular and faith-based institutions. 

He was key to getting the project up and running quickly, and on a large scale. 

As the following chapter indicates, he played the crucial role in recruiting both 

children of prisoners and the pastors whose congregations would provide 

mentors for them. 

HOW AMACHI WORKS 11

12 

AMACHI

—chapter three— 

GETTING AMACHI 

UP AND RUNNING 

By November 2000, Amachi was 

ready to move from planning to implementation.There was much to do. P/PV 

staff had to identify children who were eligible for Amachi and obtain permission 

from their parents and caregivers for them to enroll in the program.They 

also had to recruit pastors who would agree to have their churches sign-on as 

partners and, in turn, recruit volunteer mentors from their congregations. Finally, 

BBBS staff would have to screen and train the volunteers and match them with 

the children. 

While this process moved relatively quickly, there were obstacles along the 

way. Amachi planners were convinced they had a strong program and a compelling 

message. But, at least early on, they struggled to find the most direct 

avenues for both locating the children and connecting with the pastors. Once 

P/PV staff found the most effective approaches, they were able to rapidly recruit 

pastors and large numbers of volunteers and children. In fact, the numbers were 

so large that they created their own roadblock: they overwhelmed the resources 

available for screening the volunteers and matching them with children so the 

mentoring relationships could begin. 

GETTING AMACHI UP AND RUNNING 13

LOCATING AND ENROLLING THE CHILDREN 

In a typical BBBS program, a parent or guardian contacts the agency to 

request a mentor for her child. But Amachi was targeting precisely those children 

whose parents or other caregivers had such stressful lives that they were 

unlikely to learn about and refer their children to a mentoring program.Thus, 

one early task was to identify, locate, and enroll children who were eligible for 

Amachi.This proved, at least initially, to be a challenge.The children of incarcerated 

parents are, after all,“invisible,” and, in many cases, their lives are transient as 

they are moved from one caregiver to another. 

P/PV staff went through a trial-and-error process to develop a strategy for 

identifying the children. It quickly became clear that agencies and institutions 

were reluctant to participate in the recruiting. An effort to work through 

Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services, whose clients include thousands 

of at-risk children and youth, was unsuccessful because the agency did not 

specifically identify children of inmates during its intake process. And even when 

it knew of such children, it would not reveal their names because of concerns 

about confidentiality. Conversations with some of the pastors whose congregations 

would become involved with Amachi indicated that they, too, did not wish 

to participate in identifying the children.While their churches were located in 

areas where large numbers of these children lived, the pastors did not know 

which children who came for worship services or weekday programs had parents 

who were incarcerated. And they were reluctant to publicly ask for names 

from their congregation members because they felt it could stigmatize the children 

and their families. 

As a result of these experiences, P/PV staff decided to go directly to the prisons 

to try to obtain the names of inmates’ children.While this ultimately proved 

to be an effective strategy, there was a further process of trial-and-error before 

they were able to connect with the prison personnel who could provide access 

to the inmates. 

Focusing on the Philadelphia Prison System, the Amachi director, Rev. 

Goode, initially contacted prison chaplains at five local jails and asked for their 

help. However, the chaplains had been involved with previous efforts to work 

with families of inmates, and those efforts had been unsuccessful. Fearing a 

repeat, and also concerned about confidentiality, they were reluctant to provide 

direct help. 

14 

AMACHI

But the chaplains did help Rev. Goode connect with the prisons’ social workers, 

who were in contact with inmates on an ongoing basis and knew many of 

their family histories.With the cooperation of the social workers, P/PV staff 

posted large signs describing the mentoring program and provided the social 

workers with forms that inmates could complete with information about their 

children they wanted to enroll in the program. P/PV expected to receive a flood 

of names. But after a month, only a few forms had been completed and returned. 

Talking to Inmates 

The trial-and-error process came to an end when Rev. Goode was able to 

work with the Philadelphia Prison System’s Division of Inmate Services to gain 

access to the cellblocks and deliver the message directly to inmates. His presentations 

were brief and straightforward. He described the risks to children of incarcerated 

parents, the demonstrated outcomes of strong mentoring relationships, 

and the Amachi program. He distributed written materials about Amachi in 

both English and Spanish, along with forms that parents could use to sign up 

their children and provide information about where they were living so P/PV 

staff could contact the caregivers. 

Prison administrators organized the visits: scheduling times for the presentations, 

assigning correctional officers and social workers to assist Rev. Goode, and 

providing information about prison regulations. For example, while Amachi was 

able to bring pencils to the meetings so inmates could complete the forms, it 

was important to know that pencils were controlled items: prisoners did not 

normally have access to them. In fact, during the presentations, the pencils 

became a topic of conversation that helped break down the wall between 

Amachi and the inmates. 

Rev. Goode made presentations to women and men at separate meetings. In 

general, the male prisoners were a less receptive audience. Many of the fathers did 

not have a relationship with their child or the child’s caretaker. In addition, those 

presentations were to larger groups—with up to 100 men attending, as opposed 

to 30 or 40 at each of the meetings with women—and the large size may have 

contributed to creating a less responsive atmosphere. Still, about half the men 

who said they had children completed forms to enroll them in the program. 

While many of the male prisoners kept a watchful distance from Amachi, the 

women embraced it. Most of the women had children; and after each presentation, 

close to 90 percent of those women completed enrollment forms for them. 


Even women whose children were not eligible—if, for example, they lived outside 

of Philadelphia—asked to fill out forms so their children would be identified 

if an Amachi program was started in the area where they lived.Women also 

wanted to know if other children they had been caring for before they went to 

prison—nieces, nephews, or cousins—were eligible for Amachi. One woman 

completed an enrollment form for her grandson. Her own son, the child’s father, 

was also in prison. 

During a period of four months, Rev. Goode made presentations to groups of 

inmates at five local prisons.The results were overwhelming.The incarcerated 

parents completed enrollment forms for almost 2,000 children who were potential 

candidates for an Amachi mentor.The next step was to locate these children. 

Contacting the Caregivers 

On the forms that inmates filled out, they included the name of the child’s 

current caregiver and that person’s address and phone number.The children had 

a number of different living arrangements. In cases where the father was in 

prison, the children were often living with their mother.The reverse was far less 

frequently true when the mother was in prison.Then, children might be living 

with a grandparent, aunt, or other relative, or have been placed in a foster home. 

P/PV staff set to work contacting each of the caregivers to let them know 

the mentoring program was available and to try to gain authorization for the 

child to participate.They began by sending a letter that described Amachi so 

that caregivers would be introduced to the program before staff followed up 

with a phone call. 

The callers learned a few quick lessons. First, because the children moved so 

often, the contact information for nearly half of them was inaccurate or out of 

date.And when they did reach the caregivers by phone, they discovered that 

almost no one had read the letter.Their calls about Amachi were “cold calls”— 

they had to “sell” the program to people who, a moment earlier, had no idea that 

it existed.They also learned that they had to approach the caregivers carefully. 

Many of them had a hostile relationship with the incarcerated parent.Thus, a recommendation 

from the inmate could mean a sure rejection by the caregiver. 

But most of the caregivers welcomed the opportunity for the child to have a 

mentor. Callers had accurate enough information to reach the caregivers for 

about a thousand of the children whose names had been gathered through the 

16 

AMACHI

Table 1: 

Mentee Demographics 

Number 

Percentage 

Total Number of Mentees 517 — 

Mentee Gender: 

Male 238 47% 

Female 270 53% 

Missing gender 9 — 

Mentee Age: 

5 to 7 years old 119 25% 


10 to 12 years old 160 34% 

13 to 15 years old 87 18% 


Missing age 46 — 

Source: Amachi Year Longitudinal Report, April 1, 2001-March 31, 2003. 

prisons. Of those, about one-fifth of the children turned out to be ineligible, 

either because they were living outside the Amachi geographic area or because 

they were not in the 5-to-18-year-old age range. However, caregivers for more 

than four-fifths of the remaining 800 children agreed to have them participate in 

Amachi. 

During the initial two years of operations, 517 children were paired with mentors. 

Reflecting the national demographics for children of incarcerated parents, 

many of them were very young when they entered the program. (See Table 1.) 

Only 19 percent were 13 or older, while 21 percent were 8 or 9 years old, and 

25 percent were 7 or younger. 

FORMING PARTNERSHIPS WITH CONGREGATIONS 

In Amachi, congregations were envisioned as active partners that were deeply 

involved in the initiative.To achieve this vision, it was important to help them 

see that the mentoring program was consistent with their church’s mission and 

would, in fact, contribute to fulfilling that mission.The key was to make the 

connection between the challenges faced by children of incarcerated parents, the 

community surrounding the church, and the skills, gifts, and talents of congregation 

members. If pastors and members saw the children as their neighbors and 

understood how their efforts could help them, they would take an active role in 

reaching out. 


The first step was to deliver the message to the pastors. If they responded to 

the message, they would, in turn, deliver it to their congregation members. But 

the challenge was to find a way to make contact with the pastors. As with its 

efforts in recruiting children, Amachi had to be patient and persistent as it 

evolved a strategy for finding its audience. 

Recruiting Pastors 

Using knowledge drawn from previous relationships with churches, augmented 

by discussions with several pastors in the areas of the city they were targeting, 

Amachi planners developed a list of churches that seemed likely 

candidates to become involved in the mentoring project.They were particularly 

interested in attracting churches that had a significant percentage of congregation 

members who lived in the community, rather than commuting to Sunday 

services from other areas of the city or the suburbs. Beyond that criterion, however, 

the churches they identified varied widely in size, from fewer than a hundred 

members to more than a thousand; and they represented a range of 

Protestant denominations. (See the boxed page for an overview of the churches 

that joined Amachi.) 

There was a two-stage process for selecting which churches on the list would 

become partners in the project. First, Rev. Goode would meet individually with 

the pastor at each church to talk about Amachi and learn whether they were 

interested.Then, where there was interest, he would return to meet again and 

complete a Church Overview Form, which included questions on such topics as 

the size of the congregation, the church’s prior outreach efforts, and its current 

youth ministry.That second visit was intended to help Amachi deepen the pastor’s 

commitment and be sure that the church would be able to follow through 

with its responsibilities to the mentoring project. 

The Challenge of Making Contact 

Among the pastors that Amachi planners wanted to contact, about a third had 

full-time staff at their church. In those cases, it was relatively easy to call the 

church, speak to staff, and schedule an appointment to meet with the pastor. 

Many of the others, however, were part-time pastors and kept their own calendars; 

it was necessary to speak to them directly to set up an appointment. Even 

Rev. Goode, who had worked with many of those pastors in the past, was initially 

caught off guard by the difficulty of reaching them. 

18 

AMACHI

An Overview of the Churches 

The churches that became the first Amachi partners in Philadelphia are all Protestant 

denominations. Approximately half are Baptist, while the other half include Pentecostal, 

Lutheran, United Methodist, A.M.E., Seventh-Day Adventist, and a number of non-affiliated 

denominations. They range widely in size, in the percentage of members who live in the 

community, and in their previous experience with youth outreach and programming. The 

following information is drawn from Church Overview Forms completed by the pastors and 

includes data from 39 of the original 42 Amachi churches. 

Number of people enrolled in the congregation: 

Fewer than 100: 5 churches 

300-500: 8 churches 

100-200: 8 churches 500-999: 3 churches 

200-300: 8 churches 1,000 or more: 7 churches 

Number who attend Sunday worship (suggesting some level of involvement): 

Fewer than 100: 8 churches 

300-500: 6 churches 

100-200: 8 churches More than 500: 6 churches 

200-300: 11 churches 

Approximate percentage of members living within a five-block radius of the church: 

Less than 25 percent: 14 churches 50-74 percent: 7 churches 

25-49 percent: 11 churches At least 75 percent: 7 churches 

Youth outreach ministries: 

Before their involvement in Amachi, approximately three-quarters of the churches had 

some kind of outreach program for children and youth. These included Boy Scouts or Girl 

Scouts; community service; after-school programs, including tutoring and homework help; 

Saturday enrichment programs (music, drama, tutoring, Bible class); computer literacy; discussion 

groups on youth issues, including problem-solving and conflict resolution; youth 

choir; dance groups; field trips; sports; summer day camp; and vacation Bible school. 

Among the churches with programs, anywhere from 5 to more than 100 children and 

youth regularly attended an activity during the week. Pastors all said that adult volunteers—the 

number was most often between 10 and 30—were actively involved in running 

the programming. 

Mentoring programs before Amachi: 

Among the churches, 12 said they had a mentoring program, although they were not structured 

one-to-one programs with formal matches. They included fellowship groups where 

adults and youth did activities together, such as monthly trips; groups, facilitated by adults, 

where youth discussed issues in their lives; and tutoring programs where adult tutors also 

developed informal mentoring relationships with the children. 


P/PV staff tried to contact the pastors by leaving messages on the churches’ 

answering machines, but few of those messages resulted in a return call.They 

also made personal visits to some of the churches and left cards with custodians; 

but again, this process led to few responses. In some instances, they were able to 

find home numbers for the pastors in the telephone book, and messages left 

there met with more success.When pastors did return those calls, P/PV was able 

to get from them either their direct church number or, best of all, their cell 

phone number. 

Still, there were many pastors who could not be reached in this way, and their 

busy schedules made them difficult to track down. Finally, P/PV staff used the 

churches’ outdoor bulletin boards to learn which nights Bible study and prayer 

meetings were held, and organized personal visits to the churches on those 

nights. Rev. Goode would arrive a few minutes before the start of the program 

to visit with the pastor and obtain the necessary contact information, especially 

the valuable cell phone number. 

Delivering the Message 

Once the contact information had been obtained, it became possible to call 

the pastors directly and make an appointment to discuss the project. Rev. Goode 

made the initial visits. Having not talked with many of the pastors for a period 

of years, he wanted to re-establish a relationship with them and convey his personal 

interest in Amachi. 

His presentation to each pastor was brief and direct, and paralleled the presentations 

made to incarcerated parents. It focused on the nature of the problem— 

the 20,000 children of inmates in Philadelphia and the risks faced by those 

children, a number of whom lived in the community where the church was 

located. It described the benefits of mentoring and the crucial role the congregation 

could play in addressing the problem. Rev. Goode also undergirded his presentation 

with a strong theological foundation. Often, he spoke of Isaiah, who had 

a vision for a troubled city:“Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will 

raise up age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, 

Restorer of Streets with Dwellings” (Isaiah 58:12, New International Version). 

Almost all of the pastors embraced Amachi. Of the 50 churches involved in 

the initial interviews, all but three expressed strong interest in the project. One 

of the three had a recently installed pastor who did not feel the time was right 

for his congregation to become involved.The other two expressed theological 

20 

AMACHI

and philosophical reservations about participating. 13 Five additional churches 

did not seem ready to make the commitment necessary for ensuring the program’s 

success. 

Rev. Goode returned to the remaining 42 churches to meet again with the 

pastors and complete the Church Overview Form.This second meeting was also 

an opportunity to answer additional questions that pastors had regarding Amachi 

and to discuss the type of dependable volunteers the project was seeking as 

mentors.To ensure that all potential volunteers received a consistent message and 

that it was the same message that had been presented to the pastor, Rev. Goode 

also provided pastors with written material about the mentoring project that 

they could pass on to members of their congregation. 

What Attracted Pastors to Amachi? 

For the pastors of Philadelphia’s inner-city congregations, the Amachi message 

hit close to home. Many described themselves, in the words of one pastor, as 

“neighborhood ministries, neighborhood churches.”They knew that the communities 

where their churches were located had many families with at least one 

member who was, or had been, in prison. And they realized that they had often 

failed to see the children who suffered as a result—one pastor described them as 

“a faceless, voiceless group that nobody has been speaking up for.” 

The fact that the message was delivered by Rev. Goode played a role in helping 

pastors feel receptive to Amachi. He had long-established credibility among 

the inner-city churches, and pastors heard his message about the children. As 

another pastor explained: 

We had prison outreach and youth study groups. But when Rev. Goode came to see me, 

I immediately recognized that in our mission we had totally overlooked one group and 

their particular needs. Sometimes you don’t see the innocent victims. 

Thus, Amachi was not only consistent with the churches’ mission; it provided 

an opportunity for them to extend their mission by reaching out to address 

needs in their community that had previously been unseen.“It was like a wakeup 

call for us,” one pastor said.“It made the church aware of what we need to 

do as a church.” And, they believed, it could help awaken congregation members 

to turn their faith into action. By making the commitment to mentor a child, 

one pastor said,“The people in the church get to practice what is preached, 

what they testify about.The sermon is okay. But the practical side, forgive me 

Lord, it is a powerful teacher.” 


While Amachi would help the congregations extend and fulfill their missions, 

it was also important to pastors that there was a structure provided for them to 

work within and resources to support that structure. Amachi had clearly defined 

roles and responsibilities.What was asked of each church was specific and far 

from overwhelming: 10 mentors who would each commit to meeting with a 

child for at least one hour a week for one year; a limited amount of paperwork, 

including the monthly collection of data on mentors’ and children’s meetings; 

and a coordinator who would manage Amachi at that church.The church was 

not responsible for recruiting children, screening or training mentors, making 

the matches, or providing the forms of support and supervision that were to be 

handled by BBBS. And Amachi would provide funding for the coordinator’s 

position and to help cover other expenses. 

“It was a program that brought its own support,” said one pastor.“It gave us 

resources, manpower, to extend what we were doing. Amachi did the organizing 

for us.” Or, in the words of another pastor, it provided the church with “the 

ability to go into the community in a systematic form and reach children that 

need support and guidance.” 

The buy-in from the pastors was a key step in the process. Next, the pastors 

had to convey the message to their congregations and inspire the members to 

reach out as mentors. 

Recruiting Mentors 

The pastors got right to work recruiting volunteers. Some spoke individually 

to members of the congregation who they believed would make good mentors. 

Others made announcements at worship services and church meetings to ask 

people who were interested to step forward. A number of pastors also invited 

Rev. Goode to come to the church and speak about Amachi. 

Within a few months, this process produced the names of nearly 400 potential 

mentors from the 42 churches. Each of the volunteers had to go through 

BBBS’s rigorous screening process.This included completing an application 

form, being interviewed by BBBS staff, and undergoing a criminal background 

check and a child abuse clearance. Each was also required to provide three references, 

and one of those references had to be from their pastor. 

22 

AMACHI

Pastors’ reasons for recommending specific members of their congregations 

suggest some of the attributes that volunteers would be bringing to their role as 

mentors. Some people were recommended because of their experience as volunteers 

in other youth ministries at the church. Some were recommended 

because of their relevant work experience—for example, as a school teacher, 

mental health worker, youth worker, or police officer. Others were recommended 

because of their own experiences growing up:“raised without a father 

and mentored by church family and greatly concerned about children in a similar 

situation,” a pastor wrote about one volunteer;“has experience with a parent 

who is incarcerated”;“has a great deal of experience dealing with issues surrounding 

grief and loss.” Other people were recommended because they were “a 

loving grandmother” or “good parent.” And in still other cases, pastors pointed 

to personal qualities that are essential for successful mentors:“a very warm person 

who cares about children and their needs”;“communicates well”; and, simply,“a 

good listener.” 14 

In at least one important respect, the volunteers recruited through Amachi 

differed from volunteers in a typical mentoring program.While the percentages 

of male and female mentors were comparable to other programs, Amachi 

attracted a much higher percentage of African Americans. Studies have found 

that, across mentoring programs, 15 to 20 percent of adult volunteers are members 

of a racial minority, 15 and programs—particularly those that strive to match 

children with mentors of the same race—are constantly looking for ways to 

increase that percentage. In Amachi, however, 82 percent of mentors were 

African American and an additional 8 percent were Latino/a. (See Table 2.) In 

addition, 34 percent were African-American males—a significant percentage. For 

most mentoring programs, this is the most difficult group of volunteers to 

attract, and one that programs are most interested in recruiting so they can be 

paired with African-American male children who might otherwise be growing 

up without a supportive male adult of the same race who is a consistent presence 

in their lives. 

Amachi volunteers also tended to be somewhat older than volunteers in typical 

community-based mentoring programs. In one broad survey of programs, for 

example, 12 percent of mentors were age 21 or younger; 69 percent were 22 to 

49; and 19 percent were 50 or older. 16 While the percentage of 22- to 49-yearold 

mentors was comparable in Amachi, there was a higher percentage of older 

volunteers—26 percent were more than 50 years old. 


Table 2: 

Mentor Demographics 

Number 

Percentage 

Total Number of Mentors 482 — 

Mentor Gender: 

Male 200 42% 

Female 277 58% 

Missing gender 5 — 

Mentor Age: 


22 to 30 years old 83 18% 

31 to 40 years old 97 22% 

41 to 50 years old 124 28% 

51 to 60 years old 74 16% 

More than 60 years old 47 10% 

Missing age 33 — 

Mentor Race: 

African American 379 82% 

Latino/a 38 8% 

Caucasian 34 7% 

Other 11 2% 

Missing race 20 — 


THE CHALLENGE OF 

GETTING THE MATCHES STARTED 

The speed with which large numbers of volunteers and children were recruited 

created its own obstacle to getting the actual project activities—mentoring—up 

and running. Despite some concern on the part of Amachi planners that volunteers 

might feel resistant about going through the screening process, most of them 

quickly completed the required paperwork. 17 Next, BBBS had to conduct the 

criminal history background checks and child abuse clearances; contact references 

listed on the application forms; interview volunteers, children, and the children’s 

caregivers; make the matches; and provide training to the new mentors. 

But, as one Amachi planner explained,“The program took off faster than 

we had ever anticipated.”The local BBBS agency, Big Brothers Big Sisters 

Southeastern Pennsylvania, was responsible for the screening, matching, and 

training process, as well as for monitoring and supporting the matches once 

they began. Before Amachi, it had been overseeing fewer than 800 mentoring 

24 

AMACHI

elationships. Suddenly, it had hundreds of additional volunteers to interview, 

screen, and train; hundreds of caregivers to contact; and hundreds of children to 

interview and match. Marlene Olshan, now the CEO of that organization, says 

the numbers were “unprecedented in the history of the agency.We didn’t yet 

have the systems in place” that would make it possible to keep up. 

All volunteer agencies worry that if they do not put volunteers quickly to 

work, they might lose interest and be lost to the agency forever. As BBBS 

began taking steps to develop the computer and management capacity it saw it 

would need to rapidly screen and match the Amachi mentors, its Mentor 

Support Coordinators kept in contact with the volunteers to help maintain 

their interest and keep them committed. P/PV also held orientation meetings 

for the volunteers, and the Church Volunteer Coordinators regularly talked to 

volunteers from their congregation to keep them up to date on what progress 

was taking place. In addition, P/PV staff re-contacted the caregivers who had 

given permission for their children to enroll in Amachi to let them know that, 

despite the delay, the program was moving forward. 

BBBS representatives met weekly with P/PV staff and the Community 

Impact Directors to work through the roadblock, and gradually, the agency was 

able to increase the pace of the screening and matching process. By April 2001, 

the first Amachi mentors were meeting with their children. 


26 

AMACHI

—chapter four— 

AMACHI IN ACTION 

During its initial two years of operations—from 

April 2001 through March 2003—Amachi made 556 matches 

between volunteer mentors and children of incarcerated parents.This chapter 

examines those matches. It discusses how the children and adults spent their 

time together; how often they met; the challenges volunteers faced in building 

relationships with their mentees; and how long the matches have lasted and why 

some have terminated. Finally, it looks at early indications of how children may 

be benefiting from the relationships. 

HOW DID MENTORS AND CHILDREN SPEND 

THEIR TIME TOGETHER? 

Amachi is a community-based mentoring program. Each mentor-child pair 

decides on the time and location of each meeting and the activities they will do 

together.These activities vary widely. (See Table 3 for an overview.) Mentors go 

to the movies or cultural events with their mentees, have a meal with them, and 

sometimes take them to church services or youth activities at the church, such as 

choir practice or birthday parties. Occasionally, the mentor helps with schoolwork. 

Often, the two just “hang out” together. Many of the mentors refer to the 

children as “their family” and like to take them along on family outings. 

AMACHI IN ACTION 27

Table 3: 

Number and Percentage of Mentors Reported Engaging in Given Activities 

During a Sample Month* 

Number 

Percentage 

Total Matches with Contact 253 — 

School work 22 9% 

Playing sports 16 6% 

Sporting event, movie, theater 52 21% 

Eating a meal 99 39% 

Attending church services 52 21% 

Attending other church activities 41 16% 

Just “hanging out” 139 55% 

Other 146 58% 


*Data are for the month of December 2002. 

These activities are intended to be fun for both the volunteers and children— 

and, in the words of one pastor,“to add some kind of happiness” to the children’s 

lives.They also, as another pastor noted, give the children opportunities to 

see a life beyond their immediate surroundings. Mentoring exposes them to the 

arts, to culture, to other people, to the larger world.“People are always the product 

of their environment,” he said.“If their environment is small, their lives are 

small.” 

Most importantly, though, regularly spending time together in activities allows 

the child to gradually see the mentor as a reliable, supportive adult, and this 

helps the pair form the kind of adult-child friendship that exemplifies strong 

mentoring relationships. One pastor explained: 

The children really want to be with people they feel are positive.They’re looking for people...who 

are going to spend time, that’s going to be consistent time they can depend on, 

that’s not going to be broken. 

Mentors have noted how important it feels to the children to “have their 

own special time.” As one mentor observed: 

[My mentee] is possessive of me. She doesn’t want her sisters [who also have mentors] 

to come with us. She says,“I need to have my time.” She needs her time away from it 

all, having this one person who’s just about her, who wants to know for real how her 

day is. For her, it’s exciting; it’s very exciting.There’s someone who’s just for her. 

28 

AMACHI

For children who are growing up amidst the particular challenges created by 

having an incarcerated parent, this kind of stability can be especially important. 

One pastor referred to it as “helping children see there is another side to the 

madness.” A mentor who likes to have her mentee come to her house for a meal 

described it more concretely:“Just to have them come into your home and see 

order, just to see you preparing dinner—that’s important to them.” 

HOW OFTEN DID 

THE MENTORS AND CHILDREN MEET? 

The volunteers committed to meeting with their mentee for an hour a week 

over the course of a year. On average, however, the pairs met for almost double 

the required hours, but less often than four times a month. Data for matches that 

were active on March 31, 2003, show that over the course of the match, mentors 

were spending an average of 7.3 hours per month with their mentee, and they 

had an average of two meetings a month. (See Table 4.) Thus, they were spending 

a little under 3 3/4 hours together at each meeting. Given the reality of 

community-based mentoring—where, often, a mentor takes the child out for an 

activity and they spend time traveling together as well as engaging in the activity—this 

seems logical; and, in fact, it is consistent with the length of meetings 

in the successful BBBS matches that were studied in the mid-1990s. 18 

Table 4: 

Active Matches—Mean and Maximum Number of Hours and Days Mentors 

and Children Met per Month* 

Hours 

Days 

Mean Maximum Mean Maximum 

All Active Matches 7.3 22.3 2.0 5.4 

Matches Active for: 

2-3 months 4.6 11.8 1.4 3.5 

4-6 months 5.8 19.0 1.6 4.8 

7-9 months 5.1 19.6 1.8 4.1 

10-12 months 6.5 20.2 1.9 4.3 

13+ months 8.5 22.3 2.3 5.4 


*Table includes 308 active matches: matches with only one month of activity are excluded. 

AMACHI IN ACTION 29

The Amachi matches included in those data had been meeting for anywhere 

from 2 to 24 months. In general, the longer the match had lasted, the more time 

the mentor and child were spending together each month. Matches that had 

been active for 2 to 3 months had met an average of 4.6 hours a month over 

their lifetime, while matches that had been active for 13 months or longer had 

met an average of 8.5 hours a month. In large part, this may simply indicate that 

in stronger matches—those that develop and endure—the mentor and child 

were spending more time together from the beginning. But it also suggests that, 

at least in some cases, the pair spent increasing amounts of time together as trust 

and closeness developed. 

WHAT CHALLENGES DID AMACHI MENTORS 

ENCOUNTER? 

Mentoring is not easy. Like mentors in any BBBS community-based program, 

Amachi volunteers faced a number of obstacles to establishing a trusting relationship 

with their mentee. And because, for the most part, the children involved 

in Amachi lead unusually disrupted and stressful lives, these obstacles could take 

particularly obdurate forms. 

Evaluations of mentoring programs have consistently shown that programs 

have to provide support for mentors to help them deal with these obstacles so 

that the relationships have the opportunity to grow and, ultimately, lead to positive 

outcomes for children and youth. 19 To help volunteers address the sometimes 

intense challenges of mentoring children of incarcerated parents, Amachi 

built in a support-rich environment in which mentors had regular contact with 

both their Church Volunteer Coordinator and the BBBS Mentor Support 

Coordinator.The project also monitored the matches through monthly data collection 

so it could quickly identify which mentor-child pairs were not meeting 

and address problems that were interfering with the match. 

Amachi volunteers faced a continuum of challenges. Like many mentors, they 

often felt they were struggling early in the relationships. Building trust with a 

child whom one has met through a programmatically arranged match can 

require patience and persistence. Although BBBS training prepared mentors for 

this reality, Church Volunteer Coordinators noted that some of the mentors initially 

felt discouraged.“We have to keep reminding them to hang in there; 

relationships take time,” one CVC said. And, in fact, when children have experienced 

the loss of a parent through incarceration, it can make the process of 

30 

AMACHI

uilding trust more difficult because, in the children’s experience, adults do not 

stay around for the long term. 

Mentors also had to learn to set boundaries about how much money they 

spent. Sometimes the pressure was created by the mentee or the mentee’s family. 

As one pastor explained: 

A big problem is that parents might see mentors as a Santa Claus, with trips to the 

malls and buying things.The relationship should not be based on material things, in any 

case. But, in addition, it can be a financial strain for the mentors. Mentors come from 

modest homes.They have more time than money. 

But mentors also put pressure on themselves,“feeling the need,” one pastor said, 

“to bring food and sometimes also clothes” for the child. 

Similarly, the volunteers sometimes found themselves entangled in, and feeling 

overwhelmed by, problems the children and their families were struggling with. 

“We have to be clear with the mentors that they aren’t therapists or social workers,” 

noted a CVC.“They are there to form a relationship with the kids, not fix 

everything.” 

Even as those early problems were resolved and the mentoring relationship 

developed and became closer, a new challenge could arise.The child’s parent or 

caretaker sometimes felt that her own role was being threatened and began to 

put up obstacles to the relationship. An Amachi mentor, who is also a CVC, said: 

The hardest part of being a mentor is dealing with caregivers. I’ve been with my mentee 

for two years; and over that time, we’ve developed a strong relationship. She’s begun to 

confide in me.All along, I’ve been taking her on family outings, but now her mother has 

become jealous and won’t let her go on the outings with my family. 

Beyond these issues, Amachi mentors had to adapt to the sometimes chaotic 

circumstances of the children’s lives. At least some of the children frequently did 

not show up for agreed-upon meetings with their mentor, or were not home 

when the mentor arrived to pick them up. Sometimes a child would be moved 

to a different caretaking arrangement, and the relationship had to be suspended 

until BBBS could get formal permission from the new caretaker for the match 

to continue. And when an incarcerated parent returned home from prison, this 

created an additional challenge for volunteers, who had to temporarily pull back 

from their connection to the child until they saw whether their mentoring relationship 

would proceed in these new circumstances. 

AMACHI IN ACTION 31

Table 5: 

Number of Matches, Mentors, and Mentees 

Number 

Percentage 

Total Number of Matches 556 — 

Number of Active Matches 312 56% 

Number of Terminated Matches 244 44% 

Number terminated before less than a year 165 30% 

Number ended after completing a year or longer 79 14% 

Total Number of Mentors 482 — 

Number of Active Mentors 294 61% 

Number who have had more than one match 70 14% 

Total Number of Mentees 517 — 

Number of Active Mentees 309 60% 

Number who have been re-matched 38 7% 


HOW LONG HAVE THE RELATIONSHIPS LASTED 

—AND WHY DID SOME END? 

Despite the sometimes intensified challenges involved in mentoring children 

of incarcerated parents, a high percentage of Amachi matches have remained 

active over time. Of the 556 mentor-child matches created from April 2001 

through March 2003, 312 matches, or 56 percent, were active as of the end of 

March 2003. (See Table 5.) Of those, 189 have already been meeting for 12 

months or longer. 

An additional 244 matches have ended. In 79 of those cases, volunteers fulfilled 

their commitment to mentor for at least a year and then elected not to 

continue with the relationship. Many of those matches lasted longer than 12 

months. In fact, more than one-third of them lasted for 18 months or longer. 

The remaining 165 matches—or 30 percent of the matches overall—terminated 

in less than 12 months. As Table 6 illustrates, the majority of those 

matches ended because of circumstances surrounding the children, and it suggests 

the extent to which many of their lives are marked by complications and 

disruptions. In some cases, those circumstances are unique to the children 

involved in Amachi. 

32 

AMACHI

Table 6: 

Matches that Lasted Less than a Year: Reasons Given for Termination 

Number 

Percentage 

Total Number of Matches Terminated 

After Less Than a Year 165 — 

Child moved out of area 33 22% 

Child’s family structure changed 6 4% 

Child did not want relationship to continue 9 6% 

Mentor no longer has time 16 11% 

Mentor moved out of area 25 16% 

Mentor did not want relationship to continue 5 3% 

Parent/guardian did not want 

relationship to continue 36 24% 

Incarcerated parent returned and 

terminated relationship 17 11% 

Other 5 3% 

Missing 13 


In a typical BBBS community-based match, a parent or guardian has 

approached the agency to request a mentor for her or his child. In Amachi, 

however, a parent or caregiver was approached by the program, introduced to 

Amachi, and asked to give permission so the child could be matched with a 

mentor. Given this circumstance, it is perhaps not surprising that a large percentage 

(24 percent) of the terminated matches ended because the parent or caregiver 

ultimately changed her or his mind and did not want the child to continue 

in the mentoring relationship. Another 11 percent of the matches that ended did 

so because the incarcerated parent returned home and did not want the relationship 

to continue. And the fact that children of incarcerated parents lead particularly 

transient lives also had a significant impact on the length of matches: 22 

percent of those that terminated in less than a year did so because the child 

moved away from the area. 

Overall, 86 of the matches that were terminated in less than a year ended 

because the child moved or a parent or caregiver did not want the match to 

continue. A high percentage of the volunteers—70 mentors—whose matches 

terminated for these reasons remained with Amachi and were re-matched with 

another child. 

As Table 6 also illustrates, approximately 30 percent of the matches that ended 

in less than a year did so because of circumstances connected to the mentor, 

such as moving away from the community, altered work schedules, or other 

AMACHI IN ACTION 33

changes in their lives that affected their time or ability to continue. Among the 

46 children whose matches were terminated for these reasons, Amachi was able 

to re-match 38 with new mentors. 

HOW ARE THE CHILDREN BENEFITING? 

Amachi is still a very young program, and it is too soon for a rigorous evaluation 

of outcomes. However, early indications—and, specifically, the duration of 

many of the Amachi matches—suggest that it is making a difference in the lives 

of children who are involved in the mentoring relationships. 

Outcomes and the Length of Relationships 

P/PV’s evaluation of Big Brothers Big Sisters demonstrated that children and 

youth whose matches last longer are more likely to show improvement in their 

behaviors and attitudes than are those whose matches are shorter. 20 Relationships 

of short duration probably do not allow adequate time to develop the mutual 

trust and respect necessary for real growth to occur on the part of the mentee. 

But how long do relationships have to be for positive changes to begin to occur? 

The BBBS research demonstrated that 12 months is the point where positive 

outcomes start to appear.That study divided mentees into four groups according 

to the length of time they were matched with an adult: matches that terminated 

in less than 3 months, in 3 to 5 months, and in 6 to 12 months, and matches 

that were still active after more than 12 months.The threshold was for relationships 

that lasted more than 12 months. Children and youth in those relationships 

(as compared to similar youth who were not in a mentoring relationship): 

•Felt more confident about doing their school work, 

•Skipped fewer days of school, 

• Had higher grades, and 

•Were less likely to start using drugs or alcohol. 

There were no positive impacts shown in relationships lasting less than 6 

months. For children and youth in relationships that lasted 6 to 12 months, the 

one positive outcome was that they skipped fewer days of school. 

34 

AMACHI

Table 7: 

Duration of Mentor-Mentee Relationships 

Length of Relationship Number of Matches Percentage 

Total Number of Matches 399* — 

Ended in less than 3 months 16 4% 

Ended in 3 to 5 months 35 9% 

Ended in 6 to 12 months 102 25% 

Lasted more than 12 months 246** 62% 

Source: Tabulations from Amachi match data. 

*Includes only matches that began more than 13 months ago. 

**Of these matches, 181 are still meeting. 

Table 7 describes the length of relationships in Amachi.The findings compare 

favorably to those from the BBBS programs studied by P/PV. In the BBBS evaluation, 

46 percent of the matches were still active after a year, while 62 percent 

of Amachi matches have lasted a year or longer. 

It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the BBBS and Amachi 

findings because the BBBS matches were tracked over a period of 18 months 

while the Amachi data are based on a period of 24 months. In addition, Amachi 

may, in part, have a higher percentage of long-term matches because the children 

being mentored are, on average, younger than those included in the BBBS 

evaluation. Most of those mentees were 10 to 14 years old, while Amachi 

includes a high percentage of children under 10, and younger children are less 

likely to decide on their own that they want to opt out of a mentoring relationship. 

Beyond that, however, the data are a strong indication that Amachi has been 

able to recruit volunteers who can be effective mentors and that its highly structured 

partnership has been particularly successful in supporting the relationships 

so they are able to develop and endure. 

Importantly, the data also suggest that the children involved in Amachi are 

benefiting in ways comparable to the children whose outcomes were measured 

in the BBBS evaluation. Because the Amachi children are generally somewhat 

younger than the mentees in the BBBS study, some specific outcomes—perhaps 

particularly “less likely to start using drugs or alcohol”—may be less directly relevant. 

However, what seems most significant is reaching the threshold of meeting 

for more than 12 months, the point at which the relationship starts to make 

a difference in the lives of children and youth. 

AMACHI IN ACTION 35

BBBS Surveys 

Data collected by Big Brothers Big Sisters provide support for these indications 

that Amachi is benefiting the children. After matches had been meeting for 

a year, BBBS administered questionnaires to mentors and to the children’s parent 

or caregiver asking about improvements in the mentee’s attitudes and behaviors. 

Ninety-three percent of mentors and 82 percent of parents/caregivers 

reported that the child had shown improved self-confidence; and 61 and 60 

percent, respectively, said the child had an improved “sense of future.” The 

majority of both mentors and parents/caregivers also reported that the child 

showed improved academic performance and classroom behavior. BBBS administers 

the same questionnaire in its other community-based programs, and preliminary 

findings from those surveys suggest that Amachi, thus far, is as 

successful as those programs. 21 

As Amachi matures, one of its challenges will be to foster relationships that 

continue over the long term, beyond a year. An explicit goal of the project is to 

lessen the number of children of incarcerated parents who become involved in 

the criminal justice system themselves.The relationship with a reliable, caring 

adult who nurtures the child’s positive growth and development is seen as a key 

support for helping to break the chain of criminal activity that too often 

descends from one generation to the next. 

Speaking about his hope for the mentoring program, a pastor said,“When statistics 

show that the number of children who follow their parents into prison has 

declined, then we will know Amachi works.” It will be several years before those 

outcomes can begin to be measured. Many of the children in Amachi are very 

young, and both mentors and pastors are aware that the mentees may need 

extended support.Although the first matches were made only 24 months ago, 

close to 100 mentors have been with their child for 22 months or longer, and pastors 

speak of wanting to keep the volunteers involved for as long as possible.“For 

me, the bottom line is, what is this going to look like in five or six years,” a pastor 

explained.“If the majority of children in this program do not come in contact 

with the criminal justice system, then the program is working.And if that is true, 

then we’re looking at a very small thing to do to impact the lives of children.” 

36 

AMACHI

AMACHI IN ACTION 37

38 

AMACHI

—chapter five— 

CONCLUSION 

Amachi was able to get up and running 

quickly, and on a scale that was larger than is typical for new programs. 

During its initial two years of operations, it mobilized nearly 500 volunteers and 

matched them with children of incarcerated parents—children who could particularly 

benefit from having a consistent, supportive adult in their lives but who 

were invisible to mentoring programs until they were located and recruited by 

Amachi. And while Amachi is still too early in its history for a rigorous evaluation 

of outcomes, the fact that a large number of mentors have been successful 

in building long-term relationships with the children provides a promising early 

indication that they are making a difference in the lives of their mentees. 

Amachi is, thus, in a relatively unique situation. Although a new program, it is 

large enough that its early experiences provide useful lessons in what would be 

required for it to achieve significant scale. Given the growing recognition of the 

special issues confronting children of incarcerated parents and the federal government’s 

commitment to provide resources that support mentors for these children, 

the early lessons from Amachi’s experience are particularly timely for 

policymakers, funders, and practitioners. 

What, then, were the critical elements that contributed to the project’s early 

successes? 

CONCLUSION 39

1. A combination of four factors was essential: structure, management, commitment, 

and resources. 

New programs are often built on the commitment and charisma of one 

leader.Those programs may be implemented successfully in one or a few locations 

on a relatively small scale, and can seem promising to policymakers and 

funders as they search for successful approaches for addressing a defined social 

problem. But too often, when a small program attempts to grow to scale, it 

struggles, makes compromises, and loses its focus—and, thus, becomes unlikely 

to lead to the outcomes it was designed to achieve. 

Implementing Amachi clearly required highly committed leadership. But it 

was able to grow quickly to a reasonably large scale and establish the groundwork 

for further expansion because the leadership was working within a context 

of three other key factors: a solid structure, close management, and 

adequate resources. 

The project is structured around a partnership that includes clearly defined 

roles, responsibilities, and accountability; and that structure was built on a foundation 

of research on the benefits of mentoring and effective practices that lead 

to those benefits. Because Amachi relies on a large number of partners fulfilling 

their individual responsibilities as well as working together, it has, in the words 

of one planner,“a lot of moving parts.”Thus, a strong system of management— 

with the ability to handle administrative and financial responsibilities, data collection 

and analysis, and troubleshooting—was built into the project’s design. 

Finally,Amachi had the necessary financial resources for planning and implementation.The 

fact that it had those resources was also a factor in gaining pastors’ 

commitment to the project. Many inner-city communities are wary about people 

coming to them to ask for their help in implementing new projects—they have 

too much experience with putting their time, effort, and hope into initiatives that 

offer promise but do not take hold because there are not adequate resources.With 

Amachi, pastors felt comfortable that the volunteers from their congregations 

would be offering their time and effort within a more stable environment. 

2. One partner was an organization that had substantive experience with 

mentoring and could provide the necessary infrastructure. 

Screening, training, and matching mentors and providing case management 

for the matches require time and expertise. As evaluations of effective mentoring 

programs have demonstrated, this kind of strong infrastructure needs to be in 

40 

AMACHI

place if matches are going to endure long enough for positive outcomes to 

occur. 22 Rigorous screening procedures are necessary for gauging the commitment 

of volunteers and ensuring the children’s safety; volunteers require training 

in effective approaches to mentoring; and supportive relationships are more 

likely to develop when there is a case manager who is responsible for identifying 

and resolving problems that are occurring in the matches. 

Thus, it was essential to have as a partner an experienced organization such as 

Big Brothers Big Sisters Southeastern Pennsylvania that was able to fulfill all of 

those responsibilities. Congregations do not have the time or expertise to take 

on those roles—nor are they likely to want to. In fact, pastors said that having 

this organizational structure and support was important in their decision to join 

Amachi. It meant that they did not have to be concerned with the infrastructure 

for the mentoring project. Instead, they were able to focus on their congregations’ 

mission and strengths: reaching out beyond the walls of the church to 

address needs in their community. 

3. The partnership between secular and faith-based organizations was designed 

to be a “true partnership.” 

While a strong mentoring organization is an essential component of Amachi, 

the congregations are also full partners, not just sources of volunteers. Each congregation 

is, in fact, a small Amachi community that includes the mentors, the 

Church Volunteer Coordinator, and the pastor, as well as, perhaps, other members 

of the congregation. 

One important function of the secular/faith-based partnership was to provide 

mentors with access to two different forms of support. BBBS Mentor Support 

Coordinators followed the agency’s well-established guidelines to periodically 

contact everyone involved in the match—mentor, child, and caregiver—to identify 

and help address problems that might be arising. Mentors’ interactions with 

the CVCs tended to be more frequent and informal. 

While this dual system was effective for helping the matches grow and endure, 

both BBBS and the CVCs have noted that they need to have stronger communication 

with one another so that these forms of support are not parallel tracks but, 

rather, mutually reinforcing efforts. CVCs, for example, may have awareness of 

some of the ongoing challenges that mentors are facing; and BBBS may have 

access to resources—including additional training for mentors or referrals to services, 

such as counseling, for children who are having particular difficulties. 

CONCLUSION 41

4. There was leadership that was able to bridge the faith and secular communities. 

Even while they have common goals, the faith and secular partners have 

somewhat different perspectives and their own established processes for working 

towards goals.Thus, it was essential for Amachi to have a person in a leadership 

position who could negotiate between secular organizations and congregations—who 

had a commitment to children and to the role that mentoring can 

have in their lives, and who understood pastors’ points of view and was a credible 

and trusted person in the faith community. 

In Philadelphia, Rev.W.Wilson Goode, Sr.—former mayor of the city and 

currently Senior Advisor on Faith-Based Initiatives for P/PV and director of the 

Amachi project—provided the “bridging leadership.” His role was obviously 

important for such crucial tasks as recruiting pastors for the project, as well as, 

on a larger level, trying to ensure that the partners understood one another’s 

institutional language. His leadership was also essential for working through the 

roadblock that occurred when hundreds of volunteers and children had been 

recruited before the capacity was fully in place to screen the volunteers, interview 

the children, and make the mentor-child matches. Given the fact that 

Amachi was a new project and that it took off with unexpected speed, this situation 

was not necessarily surprising, but that fact did not make it any less of a 

problem. Congregations and their volunteers were poised to move forward, 

while the mentoring organization was scrambling to catch up. It required ongoing 

communication and negotiation from Amachi leadership to make sure that 

everyone was able to ultimately arrive together on common ground. 

5. A firm system of accountability was a central component of success. 

While Amachi built in a strong system of support for mentors, it also 

demanded accountability. A mentor and child have to meet regularly if there 

are going to be benefits for the mentee, and thus, the project collected data 

each month on how often, and for how many hours, every volunteer met with 

her or his mentee, what activities they did together, and how often they spoke 

on the telephone. 

The data were collected by the CVCs at each church; and Amachi then used 

the information to generate reports that provided immediate feedback to pastors 

on how their mentors were performing.This data collection and feedback system 

was key for keeping pastors involved and motivated, and for keeping churches 

accountable for ensuring that their mentors were meeting with the children. 

42 

AMACHI

Importantly, the system of accountability was also public. Pastors received a 

monthly detailed report for their congregation; and at the same time, they 

received a report on how often, and for how many hours, mentors at each of the 

other Amachi churches met, on average, with their mentees.Thus, they were 

able to measure their congregation’s achievements and challenges against those 

of every other congregation and gauge their success within the context of the 

entire project. 

Because of its well-defined model and early indications of success, Amachi has 

attracted a great deal of interest across the country from government officials 

and secular and faith-based organizations. Locally, the project has already begun 

to expand.There are now 50 churches involved in the Philadelphia Amachi; and 

the program in nearby Chester, also a partnership with BBBS Southeastern 

Pennsylvania, is currently operating through three churches, with seven others in 

the process of recruiting volunteers. A third Amachi project, in Brooklyn, 

involves a partnership of 11 churches and Big Brothers Big Sisters of New York. 

Amachi is still in the process of evolution.Through a partnership with the Mid- 

Atlantic Network of Family & Youth Services, the Church Volunteer Coordinators 

in Philadelphia have become part-time AmeriCorps members.This shift has provided 

them with opportunities for additional training and, to a degree, strengthened 

and expanded their role within their church’s Amachi program. 

As it moves into its next phase in Philadelphia, Amachi is also undergoing a 

structural modification. Big Brothers Big Sisters Southeastern Pennsylvania will 

be assuming responsibility for its management, although the original Amachi 

director will continue in that role to provide leadership and a strong connection 

to the congregations. As part of this structural change, the Community Impact 

Director role—an important element in getting the project up and running 

locally—will be merged into the BBBS Mentor Support Coordinator position. 

These changes are intended, among other things, to strengthen direct communication 

between the partners and increase efficiency, while keeping in place the 

solid structure that has contributed to the project’s successes to date. 

As Amachi expands to additional sites around the country, those communities 

will also need to adapt the model to best meet the particular characteristics of 

their local circumstances, while retaining the key elements that have contributed 

CONCLUSION 43

to the program’s early success. Drawing from the experiences in Philadelphia, 

the annual cost of supporting that model should be in the range of $1,200 to 

$1,500 per match. 23 

Over the longer term, it will be important to study the outcomes for children 

involved in the program. In general, they are younger than the mentees involved 

in the BBBS study, and many of them face risks even beyond what the BBBS 

mentees were experiencing. In addition, Amachi has an explicit long-term goal: 

to help children develop the positive behaviors and attitudes that will ultimately 

prevent them from becoming entangled in the criminal justice system. 

Given these realities, it seems critical to develop knowledge about how mentoring 

can most effectively address the challenges experienced by children of 

incarcerated parents. How long, for example, do mentoring relationships have to 

be sustained to contribute to this kind of long-term outcome? How can congregations 

help members stay involved as mentors over extended periods of 

time? What additional supports do the children need and how might they intersect 

with the support provided through the mentoring project? 

It is only in very recent years that these children have been recognized by 

even the most concerned members of their own communities.When pastors 

completed the Church Overview Form as part of the process of becoming an 

Amachi partner, one of the questions they were asked was about the “approximate 

number of children regularly served by church ministries who have a parent 

currently or formerly in jail or prison.” Nearly half of the pastors left the 

item blank because they did not know.They knew that, in their communities, 

there were many families where at least one person was, or had been, in prison. 

But their children were invisible. 

The congregations, in the words of one pastor, are now “seeing more.” And 

children of incarcerated parents have become more visible elsewhere, as well. 

Practitioners and policymakers across the country have begun to see them as a 

special group with heightened risks for becoming involved in the criminal justice 

system, and they are looking for sound approaches that can help the children 

overcome obstacles and grow in positive ways. 

44 

AMACHI

ENDNOTES 

1 “What Happens to Children?” Federal Resource Center for Children of Prisoners, n.d., p. 1. 

Child Welfare League of America. ww.cwla.org/programs/incarcerated/cop_whathappens.htm. 

2 Personal communication from Arlene F. Lee. Director, Federal Resource Center for Children 

of Prisoners, Child Welfare League of America, Inc., April 16, 2003. 

3 Denise Johnston,“Children of Criminal Offenders,” n.d., pp. 3-4. Center for Children of 

Incarcerated Parents. www.facsnet.org/specials/youth/johnston-kids.php3. 

4 Senate Report 106-404: Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2001. September 8, 2000, p. 56. 

5 Christopher J. Mumola.“Incarcerated Parents and Their Children.” Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Special Report. August 2000. U.S. Department of Justice:Washington, DC, p. 4. About 64 percent 

of mothers in state prison and 84 percent of those in federal prison reported living with 

their minor children prior to admission, compared to 44 percent and 55 percent of fathers, 

respectively. 

6 “What Happens to Children?,” p. 1. 

7 Joseph P.Tierney and Jean Baldwin Grossman, with Nancy L. Resch. Making a Difference:An 

Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. 1995. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

8 Since its inception, Amachi has also received funding from the Corporation for National 

Service through a partnership with the Mid-Atlantic Network of Youth & Family Services 

(MANYCorps), as well as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds through 

the City of Philadelphia. In addition,The William E. Simon Foundation has provided funding 

for the project. 

9 Amachi in Chester is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts. In addition to The Pinkerton 

Foundation,The Bodman Foundation provides funding for Amachi in Brooklyn. 

10 Cynthia L. Sipe. Mentoring:A Synthesis of P/PV’s Research: 1988-1995. 1996. Philadelphia: 

Public/Private Ventures. 

11 Rev.W.Wilson Goode, Sr. From Clubhouse to Lighthouse:A Dialogical Approach to Congregational 

Transformation. May 2000, Doctoral Dissertation. Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

12 Figures are based on the “Angel Tree” list of children in Philadelphia. Prison Fellowship 

Ministries, 2000. 

13 Of the two churches, one felt that the mentoring project should be the work of the government, 

not the church; the other feared the contamination of the church’s prophetic mission 

and was opposed to federal funding flowing to the church. Even after learning that Amachi 

ENDNOTES 45

was privately funded, the pastor was still opposed because he felt that one day federal money 

would become part of the program. 

14 All quotations are from the Church Overview Forms completed by churches that are partners 

in Amachi. 

15 See Carla Herrera, Cynthia L. Sipe, and Wendy S. McClanahan. Mentoring School-Age Children: 

Relationship Development in Community-Based and School-Based Programs. April 2000.The 

National Mentoring Partnership and Public/Private Ventures, p. 18; and Jean E. Rhodes. 

“What’s Race Got To Do With It?” March 2002. Research Corner. National Mentoring 

Partnership. www.mentoring.org/research_corner/mar_background.adp. 

16 Herrera, p. 18. 

17 See, for example, Church-Based Mentoring:A Program Manual for Mentoring Ministries, which suggests 

that church members might feel uncomfortable about personal interviews and background 

checks. United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania’s Volunteer Centers, 1994. 

18 See Jean Baldwin Grossman and Amy Johnson.“Assessing the Effectiveness of Mentoring 

Programs.” Contemporary Issues in Mentoring,Jean B. Grossman (ed.) 1999. Philadelphia: 

Public/Private Ventures. 

19 Sipe, pp. 9-11. 

20 See Grossman for a discussion of the duration of mentor-youth relationships in the BBBS 

evaluation. 

21 “Amachi Evaluation Results.” Big Brothers Big Sisters Southeastern Pennsylvania, 2002.The 

questionnaires were administered to approximately 30 volunteers and 30 parent/caregivers. 

22 Sipe, pp. 9-11. 

23 The upper part of this range is somewhat higher than the average cost per match found in a 

1998 survey of 52 mentoring programs.That cost was $1,114, but the survey included both 

group mentoring (which is less expensive but untested as an effective intervention) and oneto-one 

mentoring.The survey also did not examine outcomes for youth in the mentoring 

programs, so it is not possible to relate the costs to program effectiveness. See Douglas L. 

Fountain and Amy Arbreton.“The Cost of Mentoring.” Contemporary Issues in Mentoring,Jean 

B. Grossman (ed.) 1999. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

46 

AMACHI

REFERENCES 

Federal Resource Center for Children of Prisoners 

n.d. “What Happens to Children?” Child Welfare League of America. www.cwla.org/programs/ 

incarcerated/cop_whathappens.htm. 

Fountain, Douglas L. and Amy Arbreton 

1999 “The Cost of Mentoring.” In Contemporary Issues in Mentoring. Edited by Jean B. Grossman. 

Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

Goode, Rev. W. Wilson, Sr. 

2000 From Clubhouse to Lighthouse:A Dialogical Approach to Congregational Transformation. Doctoral 

Dissertation. Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

Grossman, Jean Baldwin and Amy Johnson 

1999 “Assessing the Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs.” In Contemporary Issues in Mentoring. 

Edited by Jean B. Grossman. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

Herrera, Carla, Cynthia L. Sipe, and Wendy S. McClanahan 

1999 Mentoring School-Age Children: Relationship Development in Community-Based and School-Based 

Programs. Philadelphia:The National Mentoring Partnership and Public/Private Ventures. 

Johnston, Denise 

n.d. “Children of Criminal Offenders.” Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents. 

www.facsnet.org/specials/youth/johnston-kids. 

Mumola, Christopher J. 

2000 “Incarcerated Parents and Their Children.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rhodes, Jean E. 

2002 “What’s Race Got To Do With It?” Research Corner. National Mentoring Partnership. 

www.mentoring.org/research_corner/mar_background.adp. 

Sipe, Cynthia L. 

1996 Mentoring:A Synthesis of P/PV’s Research: 1988-1995. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

Tierney, Joseph P. and Jean Baldwin Grossman, with Nancy L. Resch 

1995 Making A Difference:An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private 

Ventures. 

U.S. Senate 

2000 Senate Report 106-404: Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2001. Washington, DC. 

REFERENCES 47

APPENDIX: CHURCHES PARTNERING IN AMACHI 

IN PHILADELPHIA 

As of June 2003, the following congregations were participating in the 

Amachi mentoring project in Philadelphia: 

Bethel Temple Community Bible 

Beulah Baptist Church 

Beulah Tabernacle Church 

Bright Hope Baptist Church 

Calvary Baptist Church 

Calvary Lutheran Church 

Christian Compassion Baptist 

Christian Union Church 

Church of the Redeemer Baptist 

Consolation Baptist Church 

Cornerstone Baptist 

Cornerstone Christian Community 

Crusaders for Christ 

Eastwick United Methodist 

Faith Temple Pentecostal 

Fifty-Ninth Street Baptist 

First Baptist Church of Wayne* 

Germantown Seventh Day Adventist 

Gibson Temple Baptist 

Greater Exodus Baptist 

Greater St. Matthew Baptist 

Haven-Peniel UMC 

Holy Ghost Headquarters Revival Center 

at The Met 

Iglesia del Barrio 

International Assembly of God 

Morris Brown AME 

Mt. Sinai Church of God In Christ 

Mt. Zion Baptist Church 

New Comfort Baptist Church 

New Covenant Church of Philadelphia 

New Hope Temple Baptist 

Nineteenth Street Baptist Church 

North Penn Baptist 

Pathway Evangelistic Church 

Proclamation Presbyterian Church* 

Salvation Army Tabernacle Corps 

Sayers Memorial United Methodist 

Shiloh Baptist Church 

Southwest Seventh Day Adventist 

Spirit & Truth Fellowship 

St. Phillips Baptist 

Tasker Street Baptist Church 

Tenth Memorial Baptist 

Union Baptist Church 

Victory Outreach Church 

Wayland Memorial Baptist Church 

Wayland Temple Baptist 

Yesha Ministries 

Zion Baptist Church 

Zoar United Methodist 

* These churches are located in the Philadelphia suburbs and became involved in the mentoring project 

through their pre-existing relationships with Philadelphia congregations or other connections to Amachi 

leadership. 

design: MalishandPagonis.com 

48 

AMACHI

Public/Private Ventures 

2000 Market Street 

Suite 600 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215-557-4400 

Fax: 215-557-4469 

Url: http://www.ppv.org 

Center for Research on Religion and 

Urban Civil Society 

University of Pennsylvania 

Leadership Hall 

3814 Walnut Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19104 

Tel: 215-746-7100 

Fax: 215-746-7101 

Url: http://www.crrucs.org 

June 2003


Attachment B 

Mentoring Children of 

Incarcerated Parents - Toolkit 


Mentoring Children 

of Incarcerated Parents: 

A Toolkit for Senior Corps Directors 

June 2004

Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents: 

A Toolkit for Senior Corps Directors 

This document was created by LEARNS, a partnership of the 

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory and the Bank 

Street College of Education. It is based on work sponsored by 

the Corporation for National and Community Service under 

Cooperative Agreement Number 01CAOR0034. Permission to 

reproduce in whole or in part for use by educational, national 

service, or other not-for-profit groups is granted. 

LEARNS wishes to acknowledge the assistance of staff from 

FACES (Faith and Communities Engaged in Service), a project 

of the National Crime Prevention Council, in developing 

content for this document. 

For more information, contact: 

LEARNS at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 

101 SW Main Street, Suite 500 

Portland, OR 97204 

800-361-7890 

learns@nwrel.org 

LEARNS at Bank Street College of Education 

610 West 112 th Street 

New York, NW 10025 

800-930-5664 

learns@bnkst.edu 

Visit LEARNS on the Web at: www.nwrel.org/learns

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction...................................................................................... 1 

II. Identify Programs in Your Community............................................ 3 

III. Find the Right Partner ................................................................... 5 

IV. Refining the Partnership................................................................ 9 

V. Assessing the Volunteer Fit ......................................................... 10 

VI. Conclusion .................................................................................. 11 

Appendix: Resources and Additional Reading

How to Use This Guide 

This guide is to help you place volunteers in high quality programs 

that offer mentoring to children of incarcerated parents. Read further 

for how you can: 

• Identify programs in your community that mentor children of 

incarcerated parents 

• Find partners that deliver high quality services 

• Coordinate roles and responsibilities with the mentoring program 

and station staff around volunteer screening, training, and 

supervision 

• Assess the volunteer fit: Find the right RSVP and FGP volunteers 

to work with children of incarcerated parents

I. Introduction 

In his State of the Union addresses for 2003 and 2004, President George W. 

Bush asked the nation to reach out and help the more than 1.5 million American 

children with a parent in prison. The Corporation for National and Community 

Service, through its work with faith-based and small community organizations, is 

responding to the President’s challenge. Several programs of the Corporation— 

AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps*VISTA, and Senior Corps—are developing new 

opportunities for volunteers to mentor children of incarcerated parents. Senior 

Corps encourages RSVP and Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) grantees to 

form partnerships with organizations that serve this vulnerable population. 

Mentoring has seen tremendous growth in the past two decades. While all youth 

can benefit from mentors, most mentoring is designed with at-risk children in 

mind. Seniors comprise a vital group of the caring adults who serve as mentors 

for these children. 

What Happens to the 

Children of Incarcerated 

Parents? 

Over 1.5 million children 

have at least one parent in 

prison 1 . For many of these 

young people, the emotional 

trauma of having a parent in 

Children of incarcerated parents 

are six times more likely than other 

youth to land in prison at some 

point in their own lives. 

prison results in a host of difficulties. Many children of incarcerated parents have 

trouble forming healthy relationships and may engage in a variety of selfdestructive 

behaviors. 

Children of incarcerated parents are six times more likely than other youth to land 

in prison at some point in their own lives. One study estimates that 70% of the 

children of current prisoners will some day be incarcerated 2 . Clearly the impacts 

of parental incarceration on children’s lives cry out for strong intervention that can 

help children realize their promise. 

How Can Senior Corps Mentors Help Children of Incarcerated Parents? 

Mentoring can foster a variety of positive outcomes for youth. While mentors 

cannot solve all the problems of children of incarcerated parents, they can help 

immensely by providing: 

1 

Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf 

2 

Senate Report 106-404: Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriation Bill, 2001, US Senate. September 8, 2000, p. 56. 

LEARNS 1

• A consistent adult presence. What children of incarcerated parents need, 

above all, is stable, reliable care from adults. A mentor has the ability to 

provide continuity when other circumstances in a child’s life may be in flux. 

• Advocacy for youth in court settings or with social services. Mentors can 

serve as impartial voices for young people, helping to represent their best 

interests in proceedings involving placements or the court system. 

• Support for the relationship with the incarcerated parent, and 

assistance with re-entry. When it is determined to be an appropriate goal, 

mentors may engage children in activities that help nurture the parental 

relationship (writing letters, making cards, assisting with visits, etc.). In some 

programs, mentors may also assist the parent when s/he re-enters the 

community, helping forge connections with an array of positive supports. 

• Exposure to community support systems. Mentoring is one support 

among many that children of incarcerated parents need. Involvement with 

other organizations can help surround that child with a web of care, concern, 

and positive experiences. 

• An adult friend. The caring adults who interact most with children of 

incarcerated parents (social workers, case managers, foster parents, etc.) are 

often paid professionals. A mentor is there for the youth alone, extending 

friendship that builds trust and self-esteem. 

In essence, a mentor can serve as an island in the storm. While this requires real 

commitment from both the mentor and the program, the support that lies at the 

heart of mentoring can greatly benefit children of incarcerated parents. 

LEARNS 2

II. Identify Programs in Your Community 

Seniors are often cornerstones of community organizations that serve vulnerable 

children and families. Senior Corps projects may be a particularly good fit for 

mentoring children of incarcerated parents. As a stable, mature group of 

volunteers, RSVP and FGP volunteers can serve as advocates, nurturers, and 

role models for children who need stability and consistency. Seniors often have 

more flexibility, time and attention available. Removed a generation from the 

parents and professionals involved with children of incarcerated parents, elder 

mentors can give the “concern without conditions” children often feel in the 

presence of grandparents. 

Finding Local Sites that Mentor Children of Incarcerated Parents 

Knowing the key players can help you connect with potential partners in this 

initiative. Opportunities are developing across the nation in a host of new and 

expanding programs. 

Key Partners In the Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents Initiative 

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Mentoring 

Children of Incarcerated Parents Initiative. This federal effort has 

established or expanded hundreds of local-level mentoring programs around 

the country to focus on children of incarcerated parents. Visit the website: 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fbci/progs/fbci_mcp.html 

• Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) programs. Widely recognized as the 

nation’s most established and widespread mentoring program, Big Brothers 

Big Sisters is also a key partner in the Amachi project, which uses faith-based 

volunteer settings as the vehicle for mentoring children of incarcerated 

parents. Visit the website: www.bbbsa.org 

• Collaborations between Senior Corps and AmeriCorps*VISTA. Senior 

Corps is collaborating closely with AmeriCorps*VISTA to assist programs that 

mentor children of incarcerated parents. AmeriCorps*VISTA members build 

capacity and generate community volunteers to support the effort, and Senior 

volunteers provide a base of mentors. Download a summary of how Senior 

Corps grantees have responded to the President's Mentoring Initiative at: 

www.nationalserviceresources.org/initiatives/mentoring_children_of_prisoners 

/index.php 

• Statewide and Local Mentoring Partnerships. These umbrella 

organizations currently organize and coordinate local mentoring efforts in 23 

states and 15 urban communities around the country. They are a good place 

to find out which programs may be serving children of incarcerated parents in 

your community. For partnerships in your area, check: 

www.mentoring.org/state_partnerships/state_local_profiles.adp? 

LEARNS 3

Other Potential Partners in Your Area: 

• Schools. Though most schools do not maintain data on which children have 

incarcerated parents, the children themselves (or their caregivers) often alert 

teachers or other school staff. Foster Grandparent Programs, especially, may 

be in a good position to work with partner schools on referrals and other 

support. 

• Faith organizations and congregations. Ask about those with a history of 

prison outreach and ministry. Many of these programs are expanding to 

mentor children of incarcerated parents. 

• Local youth mentoring agencies. Grassroots mentoring efforts and 

established youth mentoring programs are receiving grants to mentor children 

of incarcerated parents. Check State and Local Partnerships in the appendix. 

• State, county, and municipal correctional systems. These public entities 

help network programs that serve families with an incarcerated parent. They 

are a valuable source of available supports in local areas. Check the 

Government pages in your local phone book for contacts. 

• Family court and foster care systems. Many children of incarcerated 

parents live in foster care or other care giving situations. Social workers and 

other individuals, such as Court Appointed Special Advocates, make referrals 

to these programs. As a result, they will often know if there is a program in 

your area. See Government pages in your local phone book for contact 

information. 

Once you’ve determined who is doing what in your area, assess whether a 

particular program is a good fit with the goals of Senior Corps and your 

volunteers. The following sections will help you make informed decisions. 

LEARNS 4

III. Find the Right Partner 

Quality Counts 

Quality is extremely important to mentoring programs. Positive outcomes for 

mentored youth are closely tied to the quality of the program 3 . Programs that 

properly plan, implement, and evaluate their mentoring efforts have a much 

greater chance of achieving their goals for youth and providing Senior volunteers 

with the rewarding experience they anticipate. 

Recent research suggests that children who participate in failed or low quality 

mentoring matches (hallmarks of poorly-run programs) may wind up worse off in 

a number of emotional and developmental areas than if they had never had 

mentors 4 . Simply put, mentoring done poorly can actually hurt children, as they 

suffer the effects of yet another failed adult relationship. 

The quality of the programs you place volunteers with also has risk management 

implications for you. Programs with gaps in screening, supervision, and support 

can put both youth and your volunteers at risk. Ask the right questions to help 

guarantee that your 

volunteers are placed in safe 

and supportive locations. 

The following program 

principles are adapted for 

Senior Corps from 

Foundations of Successful 

Youth Mentoring, a program 

planning guide from the 

National Mentoring Center 5 . 

Mentoring done poorly can 

actually hurt children, as they 

suffer the effects of yet another 

failed adult relationship. 

Few mentoring programs will meet all criteria set forth here. But if a potential 

partner has many gaps or inconsistencies, the program may not be a good fit for 

Senior Corps volunteers. 

3 

Dubois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Harris, C. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: 

A meta-analytic review. [Special Issue]. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157-197. 

4 Rhodes, J.E. 2002. Stand by Me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today's youth. Harvard University Press, p. 60. 

5 Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National 

Mentoring Center is a partnership of Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, 

and Public/Private Ventures. 

LEARNS 5

Principle 1: Performance Measures & Program improvement 

Mentor programs that measure performance and evaluate their efforts 

demonstrate commitment to providing high-quality services. Measuring progress 

toward identified goals helps improve services over time and increases likelihood 

that volunteers will be satisfied, and positive outcomes will be achieved. 

In the same way that Senior Corps grantees measure performance, programs 

that mentor children of incarcerated parents should identify goals for the 

mentoring relationship, positive outcomes for mentored children, and a plan for 

improving program services. As you meet with potential partners, ask upfront, 

and consider spelling out in your MOU: 

• How will volunteers provide feedback on program practices? 

• What positive outcomes does the program seek for youth? 

• How will information on program practices and youth outcomes be shared 

with the Senior Corps sponsor? 

For Project STAR’s downloadable resource on Measuring Performance for 

Senior Corps Mentoring Programs, click: 

www.projectstar.org/star/Library_senior/Instrument_Packets/SC_Mentoring_Pack 

et.doc 

Principle 2: Effective Program Procedures 

These are the nuts and bolts of an effective program. Ask questions about the 

following procedures. 

• Targeted volunteer recruitment strategies—How does the program 

recruit? (Review flyers or other recruitment methods). Is there a good fit 

between the marketing message and Senior Corps? 

• Clear access to children of prisoners—Look for evidence of referrals from: 

1)schools; 2) prison ministries, such as Angel Tree Mentoring 

(www.angeltree.org); 3) social workers or the foster care system; 

4) incarcerated parents or caregivers; 5) youth-serving or other social service 

agencies that work with children of prisoners and their families. 

• Volunteer intake and screening procedures—Mentors should submit to 

criminal records checks (including fingerprint checks) and personal reference 

checks. If mentors will transport children, valid driver’s licenses, vehicle 

insurance, and driving records should be checked. 

LEARNS 6

• Pre-service training for all new mentors (and youth participants)— 

Volunteers who mentor children of incarcerated parents need specific training 

around the host of challenges that children of incarcerated parents may face. 

• Matching procedures—Matching procedures may include considerations 

such as mutual interests, gender, ethnicity, or geographical proximity. Ask the 

program what criteria they use. 

• Systems for monitoring and supporting matches—A plan should exist for 

tracking match activities and providing ongoing training and support. Senior 

volunteers should know exactly whom to approach with communication 

issues or challenging situations. 

• Defined goals for youth and an approved set of mentoring activities— 

Effective programs establish goals for the youth served and provide structure 

for mentoring activities. Consider whether the program’s goals and activities 

align with your RSVP and FGP volunteers’ interests and abilities. 

• Established match closure procedure—Look for evidence that the program 

has strategies for bringing closure to the match in a way that recognizes the 

efforts of all participants and leaves them feeling positive about the 

experience. 

Principle 3: Capacity for Service Delivery 

Look for the following evidence of capacity in the agency providing the mentoring 

services. 

• Written mission and vision 

• Qualified & diverse staff with a good track record providing services to at-risk 

children and families 

• Written policies and procedures 

• Access to training and support services 

• Evidence of champions, board, or parent agency support 

• A good reputation in the community 

• A plan for long-term sustainability 

LEARNS 7

Principle 4: Effective Partnerships 

Key partnerships help ensure that mentoring activities are embedded in a 

continuum of care, including other support services children and families need. 

Look for the involvement of some combination of: 

• Correctional agencies and institutions 

• Prison fellowships or ministries 

• Communities of faith, businesses, fraternal organizations, and other sources 

of volunteers 

• State and county departments of human services, family courts, juvenile 

justice, and the foster care system 

• Youth-serving organizations that provide counseling support, educational or 

enrichment activities, or court-appointed adult advocacy 

• Schools 

• Other community-based organizations 

LEARNS 8

IV. Refining the Partnership 

The information you’ve just gathered should provide a sense for whether the 

mentor program will be a good fit for your volunteers. Next, you’ll want to flesh 

out specifics, clarifying roles and responsibilities between you as a project 

sponsor and the mentor program. Articulate key roles and responsibilities in the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that you formalize with the volunteer 

station. 

In your MOU, Identify: 

• Station staff responsible for day-to-day oversight of mentoring activities. 

• Volunteer assignment descriptions that are clear and outcome-based. 

• Volunteer eligibility requirements and screening procedures. 

• Matching procedures and the role of Senior volunteers in providing input to 

the match. 

• Roles of mentor station staff and sponsors in pre-service and in-service 

training. 

• Monitoring procedures and communication systems between sponsor, 

station, and volunteers. 

• How data, stories, and other information on mentoring activities will be 

gathered and shared. 

• Station and sponsor roles in providing additional support and recognition to 

Senior mentors. 

• Closure procedures for the matches. 

LEARNS 9

V. Assessing the Volunteer Fit 

Senior Corps volunteers who mentor children of incarcerated parents join a long 

tradition of elders reaching out to young people. Volunteers can help re-forge the 

bonds that grandparents, great aunts and uncles in extended families once 

provided. 

However, formalizing relationships between two people who may not share 

similar backgrounds and value systems can be tricky. It takes great care—and it 

is not for everyone. 

Effective mentors exhibit certain qualities 6 . Consider how to look for these traits 

as you—and the mentor program—interview prospective RSVP and FGP 

volunteers. 

• Time, reliability, and commitment. It takes time to develop trust with 

children who may have been disappointed by adults. Can your volunteer 

commit to the extended time (usually one year) and effort (often weekly) the 

program seeks? What circumstances might cause the volunteer to leave the 

program early? 

• Emotional maturity and healthy self-esteem. Mentoring is a youth-centered 

relationship. Seniors with a healthy “sense of self” will not be discouraged if a 

child doesn’t respond initially, and they are less likely to leave the program 

early. 

• Realistic expectations and healthy boundaries. It often takes months to 

see positive effects from mentoring. Effective mentors look for small gains in 

children/youth (e.g. increased eye contact). Avoid placing volunteers who 

bring a “savior” mentality, or expect to make great changes in children. 

• Excellent oral communication skills. Senior mentors will need to keep the 

conversation going. Check for a sense of humor and an understanding of how 

to ask open-ended questions, offer choices, maintain confidence, and 

appropriately share life experiences with young people. 

• Experience with, and empathy for, at-risk young people and their 

families. Experience brings credibility when working with vulnerable 

populations. Consider questions that will give you the following information: 

~ Experience with at-risk youth or incarcerated people 

~ Volunteer or work experiences with children who are struggling 

~ Experience with family disruption, poverty, or other challenging 

situations 

~ Evidence of empathy for children of incarcerated parents 

6 Henry, N. (1990). Helping Young People Toward Success: A Handbook for Mentors. U.S. Department of Labor, The 

Private Industry Council, p. 6. 

LEARNS 10

• Interest & ability to conduct mentoring activities. Mentoring activities may 

vary widely—from providing homework help to visiting the zoo to playing 

basketball in an after-school setting. Once you have clarified expected 

activities with the mentoring station, share these with the prospective 

volunteer and discuss together whether they are a good fit. 

If even one of these traits is weak in a prospective volunteer, think carefully about 

whether to refer him/her as a mentor. Remember that mentoring done poorly can 

be worse for a child than having no mentor at all. If you feel unsure, seek input 

from mentoring professionals. Most programs will have defined methods for 

interviewing and screening volunteers for suitability. Expect them to conduct 

additional interviews and screening of prospective mentors. Most likely, your role 

will be to make the initial referral. 

VI. Conclusion 

Mentoring as a strategy for helping at-risk children has burgeoned over the past 

few decades. As mobility has increased, children have lost some of the bonds 

that once were provided by grandparents and other 

elders in extended families. These losses deepen 

when children have a parent or parents in prison. 

Senior volunteers who serve as mentors can 

provide the mature, consistent attention that 

children of incarcerated parents desperately need. 

With proper program structure, careful recruitment 

and screening, and ongoing training and support, 

Senior Corps mentors can make a significant 

difference in the lives of these most vulnerable 

children. 

LEARNS 11

Appendix: Resources and Additional Reading 

Resources for Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents 

Amachi Project—Amachi is a faith-based mentoring effort conducted in 

collaboration with Big Brothers Big Sisters and the research organization, 

Public/Private Ventures (P/PV). The program also found considerable support 

from Pew Charitable Trust and the National Crime Prevention Council in 

developing its model for providing congregation members as mentors to children 

of incarcerated parents. 

Amachi is the most extensively studied and evaluated mentoring effort geared 

towards this population, and it has spawned a number of reports and publications 

including: 

• Amachi In Brief, an excellent summary of the project by P/PV 

www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/167_publication.pdf 

• Amachi: Mentoring Children of Prisoners in Philadelphia, a full report from 

P/PV on the lessons learned and effective strategies that have emerged from 

Amachi 


• People of Faith Mentoring Children of Promise: A Model Partnership Based 

on Service and Community. This excellent publication, developed by Pew’s 

Faith and Service Technical Education Network (FASTEN) serves as a toolkit 

for developing mentoring services based on the Amachi model. A must read 

for anyone using volunteers in an Amachi-based setting. Available online at: 

www.fastennetwork.org/ 

General Resources on Children of Incarcerated Parents 

Child Welfare League's Resource Center for Children of Prisoners 

The Resource Center has statistics, research reports and other useful materials, 

including the Children of Prisoners Bill of Rights. 

www.cwla.org/programs/incarcerated 

Family and Corrections Network 

Offers a wealth of information for families and caregivers of children of 

incarcerated parents. This site has extensive links and an excellent online library 

of articles and research. 

www.fcnetwork.org/main.html 

LEARNS 

Appendix

The Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents 

CCIP’s mission is the prevention of intergenerational crime and incarceration. 

CCIP offers training opportunities and an extensive publications catalog. 

www.e-ccip.org 

Children's Services Practice Notes Newsletter 

This newsletter, sponsored by the North Carolina Division of Social Services and 

the N.C. Family and Children's Resource Program, provides guidance to youth 

agencies and volunteers working with children of incarcerated parents. 

http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/Cspn/vol7_no1.htm 

Legal Services for Prisoners with Children 

LSPC advocates for the civil rights and empowerment of incarcerated parents, 

children, family members and people at risk for incarceration. Their website 

features several free publications. 

http://prisonerswithchildren.org 

Papers from "Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on 

Children, Families, and Communities" 

These papers came out of a January 2002 national policy conference sponsored 

by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Several address issues 

related to the effects of incarceration on children and other family members. 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02 

Information Packet: Children of Incarcerated Parents 

This National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning 

publication provides and excellent summary of the facts surrounding children of 

incarcerated parents, as well as listings of programming around the country and 

legislation addressing the issue. 

www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/children-of-incarceratedparents.pdf 


This report, prepared by the California Research Bureau, looks at the facts 

around children of incarcerated parents in the state of California. It offers a nice 

summary of the effects of parental incarceration and serves as a snapshot of 

what is happening to these youth across the nation. 

www.library.ca.gov/crb/00/notes/v7n2.pdf 

LEARNS 

Appendix

General Mentoring Resources 

Foundations of Successful Youth Mentoring: A Guidebook for Program 

Development 

This comprehensive resource, developed by the National Mentoring Center, 

includes a checklist of effective program practices that can be used in assessing 

the quality of a potential program partner. 

www.nwrel.org/mentoring/foundations.html 

Elements of Effective Practice 

An excellent summary of the critical elements of successful mentoring efforts. 

www.mentoring.org/common/effective_mentoring_practices/pdf/effectiveprac.pdf 

Generic Mentoring Program Policy and Procedure Manual 

This National Mentoring Center resource can assist with clarifying roles and 

responsibilities with partner sites. 

www.nwrel.org/mentoring/policy_manual.html 

Mentoring Programs and Youth Development: A Synthesis 

This January 2002 report from Child Trends examines how mentoring can help 

youth develop a broad array of strengths in the areas of education, health & 

safety, and social/emotional well-being. It examines how different types of 

mentoring programs impact each of these areas and the different program 

practices that produce desired outcomes for youth. 

http://12.109.133.224/Files/MentoringSynthesisFINAL2.6.02Jan.pdf 

Contemporary Issues in Mentoring 

This Public/Private Ventures report offers a nice summary of what the research 

has proven about youth mentoring. 


State and Local Mentoring Partnerships 

These agencies are good starting points for identifying mentor programs in your 

area. 

www.mentoring.org/state_partnerships/state_local_profiles.adp? 

Performance Measurement Packet for Senior Corps Mentoring Programs. 

Contains sample work plan and instruments for logging activities and measuring 

outcomes. 

www.projectstar.org/star/Library_senior/Instrument_Packets/SC_Mentoring_Pack 

et.doc 

LEARNS 

Appendix


Attachment C 

Children of Incarcerated Parents – 

National Conference of State Legislatures 


Ch i l d r e n o f 

In c a rc e r at e d Pa r e n t s 

N a t i o n a l 

C o n f e r e n c e 

of 

Stat e 

Le g i s l at u r e s 

By Steve Christian March 2009 

The nation’s growing prison and jail population has raised serious questions about the collateral effects of 

incarceration on children, families and communities. Whatever one’s views about the appropriate role 

of incarceration in the criminal justice system, it is clear that imprisonment disrupts positive, nurturing 

relationships between many parents—particularly mothers—and their children. In addition, many families with 

children suffer economic strain and instability when a parent is imprisoned. Research suggests that intervening 

in the lives of incarcerated parents and their children to preserve and strengthen positive family connections can 

yield positive societal benefits in the form of reduced recidivism, less intergenerational criminal justice system 

involvement, and promotion of healthy child development. In the words of one prominent researcher, “[s]tudies 

. . . indicate that families are important to prisoners and to the achievement of major social goals, including the 

prevention of recidivism and delinquency.” 1 

Because this area is fraught with major data gaps, it is recommended that policymakers begin their exploration 

of the subject by posing a series of questions to their staffs and the heads of agencies with jurisdiction over law 

enforcement, corrections, child welfare, education and welfare, as well as child advocates, the university community 

and others who have an interest in ensuring the well-being of children whose parents are in custody. 

This report proposes a list of such questions, each followed by a discussion that is intended, not so much as a 

definitive answer, but as general background information. The information identifies only general trends, since 

specific answers to the questions posed will differ by state, depending on factors such as the existing policy context 

and service array, demographic trends and available data. 

Wh at is t h e n at u r e a n d s c o p e o f t h e p r o b l e m? 

How many children have a parent in prison and how many incarcerated parents have children? 

Much of what we know about this issue comes from a series of reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

on incarcerated parents and their children, that in turn, are based upon periodic national surveys of inmates in 

state and federal prisons. The latest such report was released in August 2008. 2 It found that, in 2007, slightly 

more than 1.7 million children under age 18 had a parent in state or federal prison, representing 2.3 percent 

of the total U.S. child population. The number of children with a father in prison increased from 881,500 in 

1991 to more than 1.5 million in 2007, a 77 percent increase. During that time, the number of children with 

a mother in prison increased by 131 percent, from 63,900 to 147,400. 

In 2007, 744,200 male prison inmates had minor children, compared to 65,500 women inmates. Most prisoners 

had at least one child under age 18 (52 percent of state inmates and 63 percent of federal inmates). Sixty-two 

percent of women in state prison and 56 percent of female inmates in federal prison were parents of minor children, 

compared to 51 percent of male state prisoners and 63 percent of male federal inmates.

2 Ch i l d r e n o f In c a r c e r at e d Pa r e n t s 

What do we know about these children’s race and age? 

In 2007, the population of minor children of incarcerated parents consisted of approximately 484,100 white, 

non-Hispanic children (one in 110 white children), 767,400 black, non-Hispanic children (one in 15 black 

children), and 362,800 Hispanic children (one in 41 Hispanic children). Black (54 percent) and Hispanic (57 

percent) men in state prison were more likely than white men (45 percent) to be parents. The likelihood that 

women in state prison were parents did not vary by race. 

About half of these children were age 9 or younger. Thirty-two percent were between the ages of 10 and 14, 

and 16 percent were between the ages of 15 and 17. 

How does parental incarceration affect children? 

Parental incarceration can affect many aspects of a child’s life, including emotional and behavioral well-being, 

family stability and financial circumstances. Unfortunately, much of the research on the effect of parental 

incarceration on children’s well-being is of poor quality. 3 One major challenge confronting researchers is disentangling 

the effects of parental incarceration from the effects of other factors that could have existed long 

before incarceration, such as child maltreatment, parental use of alcohol or drugs, parental mental illness and 

domestic violence. Because many studies fail to account for these background risk factors and include other 

methodological flaws, some claims about how parental incarceration affects children that appear in the research, 

advocacy and policy literature might not be supported by empirical evidence. One such claim is that children 

of incarcerated parents are six times more likely than other children to be incarcerated as adults. No empirical 

data currently support this claim. 4 

Some studies suggest that parental incarceration has an independent effect on a child’s behavior, academic performance 

and mental health. 5 A causal relationship between a parent’s incarceration and children’s problems 

has not been established. 6 

There is, however, consensus in the field that these children are exposed to many risk factors and that the effects 

of parental incarceration on children are subject to a host of variables, including pre-incarceration living 

arrangements; the quality of the parent-child relationship; the degree to which inmate parents participated in 

daily care and financial support of their children prior to confinement; children’s current living arrangements; 

the amount of contact children have with their incarcerated parents; and children’s age, temperament, gender 

and coping skills, among other factors. 7 Some of these factors are discussed below. 

Pre-Incarceration Living Arrangements, Daily Care and Financial Support 

The 2008 the Bureau of Justice Statistics report found the following. 

• Approximately one-half of state prisoners (64 percent of mothers and 47 percent of fathers) lived with at 

least one of their children either in the month before or just prior to imprisonment. 

• Forty-two percent of mothers in state prison reported living in a single-parent household in the month before 

arrest, compared to 14 percent who reported living in a two-parent household. 

• Seventeen percent of fathers lived in a single-parent household and 18 percent lived in a two-parent household. 

National Conference of State Legislatures

Ch i l d r e n o f In c a r c e r at e d Pa r e n t s 3 

• Seventy-seven percent of mothers in state prison who lived with their children just prior 

to incarceration provided most of the children’s daily care, compared to 26 percent of fathers. 

• More than half of parents in state prison (54 percent of fathers and 52 percent of mothers) 

provided primary financial support to their minor children before imprisonment. Of these 

mothers, more than one-third received government payments such as welfare or Social 

Security benefits. 

In short, a substantial number of incarcerated parents were deeply involved in their children’s lives 

before imprisonment—living with them, providing daily care and supporting them financially. 

The data also indicate that mothers are far more likely than fathers to care for their children in 

single-parent households, increasing the risk that their children will experience disruption in 

their living arrangements following maternal incarceration. At the same time, because many 

more men than women are imprisoned, the number of single-parent male households is almost 

five times higher than that of single parent female households. 

Parental incarceration is associated with greater risk that a child will experience material hardship 

and family instability. 

• A recent study by Susan Phillips and her colleagues found that parental incarceration is 

strongly related to economic strain in children’s households, defined as low-income with an 

unemployed caregiver and a lower standard of living or inability to meet the child’s needs. 8 

Related to economic strain is the possibility that parental incarceration will increase the 

risk that children’s households will become unstable, including multiple, frequent moves; 

the introduction of unrelated parental figures into the household; divorce; and non-routine 

school changes. Any of these can pose risks to children’s healthy development. The Phillips 

study found that any kind of parental involvement in the criminal justice system—including, 

but not limited to, incarceration—is related to family instability. 9 On the other hand, the 

study found that such involvement was not significantly associated with a child’s living in 

a family with structural risks, i.e., with a single caregiver, a large family, or placement in 

foster care. 

• An analysis of data from the Fragile Families Study—a national, longitudinal study of approximately 

5,000 children born between 1998 and 2000—also found that children who 

had been exposed at some point in their lives to parental incarceration were at significantly 

greater risk of experiencing material hardship and family instability than were children 

in fragile families with no history of parental incarceration. Children whose fathers were 

incarcerated, for example, were 40 percent more likely to have an unemployed father, 34 

percent less likely to live with married parents, 25 percent more likely to experience material 

hardship, and four times more likely to face contact with the child welfare system. 10 

The Child’s Current Caregiver 

Children who live in stable households with nurturing caregivers during their parents’ incarceration 

are likely to fare better than children who experience family instability as a result of a 

parent’s confinement. 11 Foster care, in particular, carries with it the risk of multiple placement 

changes and loss of connection to school, community, friends, siblings and extended family. 



The vast majority (84 percent) of parents incarcerated in state prisons reported to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

that at least one of their children was in the care of the other parent. Fifteen percent identified as caregivers the 

grandparents, 6 percent other relatives and 3 percent reported that at least one child was in a foster home, agency 

or institution. 12 Responses of mothers and fathers in state prison differed on this survey question. Eighty-eight 

percent of fathers identified the child’s other parent as the current caregiver, compared to 37 percent of mothers. 

Sixty-eight percent of mothers, on the other hand, identified a grandparent or other relative as a child’s current 

caregiver, compared to 17.5 percent of fathers. Finally, mothers were five times more likely than fathers to report 

that a child was in foster care (11 percent vs. 2 percent, respectively). 

Notwithstanding the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, accurate estimates are not available of the number of 

children in foster care who have an incarcerated parent. Although the report tells us how many inmates identified 

a given type of caregiver, it does not tell us how many children are in each type of caregiving arrangement. 

Thus, we do not know how many children are represented by the 3 percent of inmates who reported that a 

child was in foster care. Further, the survey makes no attempt to distinguish between relative caregivers who 

are foster parents and those who provide care outside the formal child welfare system. Other data sources are 

equally problematic, producing widely varying estimates of this population of children in care. 

Children’s Contact with Incarcerated Parents 

Maintaining family contact during incarceration can be beneficial to both children and their parents. It is generally 

thought that maintaining parent-child contact through personal visits during incarceration is important for 

the well-being of many children, although little empirical evidence exists on that point. Some research indicates 

that visiting is important in maintaining parent-child relationships and increases the likelihood of successful 

reunification after release. 13 With regard to prisoners themselves, several studies found that maintenance of 

family ties during incarceration is linked to post-release success, defined as lower rates of recidivism and fewer 

parole violations. 14 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics study examined the types and frequency of contacts between prison inmates of 

minor children and the children of these inmates, including their adult children. The study found that almost 

79 percent of state inmate parents had some kind of contact with at least one of their children since admission. 

Thirty-nine percent of fathers and 56 percent of mothers in state prison reported at least weekly contact with 

a child, in the form of letters, telephone calls or visits. Relatively few inmates reported regular personal visits 

from at least one of their children, however. In state prison, only 12.3 percent of fathers and 14.6 percent of 

mothers reported personal visits from a child at least once a month. Fifty-nine percent of fathers and 58 percent 

of mothers had no personal visits from any of their children. 

Barriers to more frequent contact, particularly personal visits, include the following. 

• Corrections policy In theory, corrections officials encourage visiting and maintenance of family ties. In 

practice, however, prison rules to ensure safety and security often impede such visits. As Creasey Finney 

Hairston notes, “[c]orrectional institutions commonly require children’s custodial parents to escort them on 

visits, require child visitors to produce birth certificates listing the prisoner as the biological parent, and house 

prisoners in locations hundreds or thousands of miles from their homes—all policies that create obstacles 

for healthy parent-child relationships.” 15 Prisons also commonly charge excessive fees for telephone calls 

to subsidize their operations, so incarcerated parents cannot afford to maintain regular contact with their 

children. 

• Child-unfriendly facilities The prison environment can be frightening and traumatic for children, both 

in the attitudes and behavior of prison staff and the physical setting. Visits can include long waits; body 



frisks; rude treatment; and hot, dirty and crowded visiting rooms with no activities for children. 16 These 

conditions do not encourage frequent visits between incarcerated parents and their children. 

• Parent-caregiver relationships One of the most important factors that affect whether and how often a child 

has contact with an incarcerated parent is the relationship between the parent and the children’s current 

caregiver. For various reasons, a caregiver-be it the other parent or a relative-may have a strained relationship 

with the incarcerated parent or may have severed all ties with him or her. The caregiver may feel that 

further contact with the imprisoned parent could harm the child and therefore might prevent or discourage 

such contact. 

• Child welfare policy and practice For reasons that will be discussed more fully in the next section, placement 

of a child in foster care poses unique barriers to visitation with incarcerated parents. In the context of 

federal and state policies that discourage reunification when a child has been in foster care for an extended 

period, caseworkers have little incentive to arrange visits and work to preserve parent-child relationships. 

How are children in foster care affected by the incarceration of a parent? 

In addition to the adverse emotional and behavioral consequences of parental incarceration and parent-child 

separation, children in foster care and their parents face additional challenges created by child welfare law, 

policy and practice. The most serious of these challenges is the risk that the legal parent-child relationship will 

be permanently severed through legal action by a child welfare agency. The 1997 federal Adoption and Safe 

Families Act, requires states to file a petition to terminate parental rights on behalf of any child who has been 

abandoned or who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The law provides exceptions to 

this requirement in the following cases: 1) at the option of the state, the child is being cared for by a relative, 2) 

the state has documented a compelling reason for determining that termination of parental rights would not be 

in the child’s best interest, or 3) the state has not provided the child’s family with services that the state deems 

necessary for the safe return of the child to his or her home. 

Although the Adoption and Safe Families Act does not explicitly require a termination of parental rights filing 

against incarcerated parents, the 15 of 22 months provision technically would apply in cases where reunification 

is delayed beyond 15 months due to a parent’s incarceration, even if the parent is receiving services to facilitate 

reunification. Because the typical sentence for an incarcerated parent is from 80 to 100 months, most imprisoned 

parents of children in foster care are at some risk of losing their parental rights. 

We lack the data, however, to know how ASFA actually affects the permanency outcomes for children in foster 

care whose parent is incarcerated. Some evidence suggests that the number of termination of parental rights cases 

that involved incarcerated parents increased following enactment of ASFA. 17 Such cases were on the rise before 

ASFA enactment as well. A recent analysis of data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System examined the subset of children for whom parental incarceration was indicated as a reason for removal 

from home. The study found no significant difference in rates of reunification between these children and 

children in foster care whose parents were not incarcerated. 18 Another study of children in the Minnesota child 

welfare system found that the vast majority of children who were placed in foster care from 2000 to mid-2007 

due to incarceration of a parent ultimately were reunified with their parents. 19 On the other hand, a study of 

mothers incarcerated in Illinois state prisons and the Cook County, Illinois, jail from 1990 to 2000 found that 

these mothers were one-half as likely to reunify with their children in foster care than were non-incarcerated 

mothers whose children were in foster care. 20 

Although ASFA requires a termination of parental rights filing in certain cases, it is state—not federal—law that 

defines legal grounds for such termination. Many state termination of parental rights laws include parental incar- 



ceration as a factor to be considered by courts in determining whether to grant a termination decree. Incarceration 

per se is not grounds for termination of parental rights in any state. In fact, six states expressly include this 

caveat in statute. 21 Rather, states have defined a variety of conditions related to incarceration that, together with 

imprisonment, constitute grounds for termination. These conditions include length of confinement relative to 

the child’s age; failure to make provision for the child’s care; the quality of the parent-child relationship and the 

effect of incarceration thereon; pre-incarceration contact with and support of the child; repeated incarceration; 

failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency’s efforts to help with case planning and visitation; and the 

nature of the crime for which the parent is incarcerated. Another important distinction among state termination 

of parental rights statutes is that, although most states give judges some discretion in making termination 

decisions, others require judges to grant a decree upon proof of one or more statutory grounds. 

At least two states—California and Utah—set strict time limits on provision of reunification services. These time 

limits allow no exceptions, although California recently authorized courts, in limited circumstances, to extend 

the time limits for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized or in residential substance abuse treatment. 22 

Nor are the time limits subject to judicial discretion. When the time allotted for reunification services expires, 

reunification no longer will be the child’s permanency goal, and the child welfare agency likely will move to 

terminate parental rights, unless an exception applies. 

To prevent the termination of their parental rights, incarcerated parents face three challenges. 

• First, regular contact, preferably visitation, with a child in foster care is critical. Unless termination of parental 

rights is clearly in the child’s best interest, a court will be less likely to terminate the rights of a parent who 

can demonstrate ongoing positive contact with a child and involvement in his or her life. In California, 

for example, the statutory list of circumstances that constitute exceptions to termination includes that, “the 

parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from 

continuing the relationship.” 23 

Ironically, though contact and visitation are most important for incarcerated parents whose children are in 

foster care, some evidence suggests that such children are the least likely to visit their parents in prison. That 

is because visits must be authorized and arranged by child welfare caseworkers who carry high caseloads and 

who may be inclined to “abandon” the prospect of reunification with an imprisoned parent. 

• Second, incarcerated parents who want to avoid termination of parental rights should participate to the fullest 

extent possible in their children’s dependency proceedings, including case planning, hearings and court 

orders. Parents, however, are often dependent upon caseworkers for information and guidance to navigate 

the dependency process. Unfortunately, some studies have found that caseworkers rarely communicate with 

parents in prison, inform them of hearings or involve them in case planning. 24 

• Third, incarcerated parents need access to reunification services, such as substance abuse treatment, mental 

health services and parenting classes. In the BJS study, more than half of parents in state prison (55 percent 

of fathers and 74 percent of mothers) reported a mental health problem and more than two-thirds (67 

percent of fathers and 70 percent of mothers) reported substance dependence or abuse. Only four in 10 of 

these parents, however, reported receiving treatment for substance abuse since admission, and only one-third 

received treatment for mental health problems. 

In short, unique policy and practice issues can adversely affect children in foster care and their incarcerated 

parents. State policymakers, however, have options to mitigate the potentially harmful consequences of these 

policies and practices. The options are discussed later in this paper. 



What are the challenges to children and parents associated with discharge from prison? 

The effects of parental incarceration on children do not end with a parent’s discharge from prison. Approximately 

650,000 people are released from state and federal prisons annually, and a much larger number are released 

from local jails. 25 Many parents who are discharged from prisons intend to reunite with their minor children, 

but may not anticipate the difficulties associated with doing so. Former inmates face immense challenges, both 

internal and external, to build productive lives for themselves, including finding jobs, housing and health care 

and avoiding further involvement with the criminal justice system. Many grapple with paying off debts that 

have accumulated during imprisonment, including child support arrearages, criminal fines, court and legal fees, 

and restitution. 26 These challenges have been extensively documented and discussed elsewhere. 27 

Re-entry can be even more daunting for women with children than for men. Compared to male former inmates, 

women are more likely to be dealing with the psychological effects of past trauma and abuse and are more likely to 

have abused drugs, alcohol or both at the time of imprisonment. 28 At the same time, reunification with children 

is likely to be a more important part of re-entry for women than it is for men. 

Prisoner re-entry also can be challenging and stressful for children. Children grow, change and often form relationships 

with new parental figures during a parent’s incarceration. These parental figures—and perhaps other 

family members—often are reluctant to allow a child to re-establish a relationship with a parent upon release. 

Such family conflicts can destabilize already fragile families and leave children confused and torn. More important, 

the return of a violent offender can increase the risk that a child will be subjected or exposed to domestic 

violence. 29 

Wh at p o l i c y o p t i o n s a r e ava i l a b l e to s tat e l e g i s l at o r s to i m p r o v e t h e l i v e s o f 

c h i l d r e n o f i n c a rc e r at e d pa r e n t s? 

Parental incarceration is not an isolated event, it is a process that unfolds over time. To protect children from the 

harmful effects of parental incarceration, the interests of children should be considered at each stage of the process, 

including arrest, sentencing, intake, incarceration and re-entry. Because the process involves many agencies and 

individuals who do not routinely coordinate their efforts or communicate with one another, a key policy goal is 

to ensure that such agencies and individuals work together to promote the best interests of children when their 

parents go to jail or prison. Possible policy interventions at each stage of the incarceration process follows. 

Arrest Phase 

The arrest of a parent can be highly traumatic to a child, yet most police departments have no protocols to protect 

children, explain to them what is happening and ensure that they are properly cared for after a parent is arrested. 

To ensure that the needs of children are taken into account during an arrest, some jurisdictions have replicated 

a program called Child Development-Community Policing (CD-CP), a collaboration between the New Haven 

Department of Police Service and the Yale Child Study Center. The program trains police in child development, 

provides clinicians to work with children at the scene of an arrest, provides treatment and counseling for such 

children, and provides ongoing consultation for police and child welfare workers. 30 

At least two states enacted legislation to address the needs of children at the time a parent is arrested. California 

law encourages law enforcement personnel and child welfare agencies to develop protocols and apply for federal 

training funds to learn to better cooperate in the arrest of a parent to ensure a child’s safety and well-being. 31 

California also allows arrestees, during the booking process, to make two additional telephone calls to arrange 

for care for their children. 32 New Mexico law requires that law enforcement training include how to ensure child 



safety during the arrest of a parent. 33 It also includes a requirement that a law enforcement officer who makes 

an arrest inquire whether the arrestee is a parent or guardian of a child who may be at risk because of the arrest 

and to make reasonable efforts to ensure the safety of the child in accordance with guidelines established by the 

Department of Public Safety. 34 

States also can consider ways to divert children from foster care at the point of arrest. It is not uncommon for 

drug offenders to cycle in and out of local jails during the course of a year. In fact, most people who go to jail 

have been there before and do not go on to prison. 35 Given this pattern of repeated arrests and jail stays, it can 

be anticipated that the children of such offenders will need substitute care for relatively short periods of time, 

but at more frequent intervals. Family group conferencing, arranged by the public child welfare agency, can be 

used to develop safety plans for such children, during which a relative agrees to provide short-term care for a 

child when the child’s parent is arrested and jailed. This arrangement—although perhaps preferable to extended 

stays in non-relative foster care—still is disruptive and potentially harmful to the child. Therefore, alternative 

care for the child should be accompanied by appropriate services and interventions for the parent to break the 

cycle of arrest and incarceration. 

Sentencing Phase 

Much discussion of how sentencing affects children has centered on the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing 

laws enacted as part of the “war on drugs” in the 1980s. Observers point out that these laws have disproportionately 

affected women. From 1986 to 1996, the number of women incarcerated in state facilities for 

drug offenses increased by 888 percent, compared to a rise of 129 percent for non-drug offenses. 36 Whether or 

not states amend their mandatory minimum sentencing laws, they still can ensure that children’s interests are 

considered during sentencing. 

• State law could be amended to explicitly require judges, at sentencing, to consider the effects of a parent’s 

incarceration on children. At least one state—Oklahoma—requires judges to inquire whether a convicted 

individual is a single custodial parent and, if so, to inquire about arrangements for care of the child. 37 

• States could require, in appropriate cases, that pre-sentence investigation reports include a family impact 

statement, including recommendations for the “least detrimental alternative” sentence and for services to 

and supports for children during a parent’s imprisonment. 38 These statements are being used to a limited 

extent in Arkansas and Tennessee. Family advocates in other states, including Texas, are developing templates 

and working with the judiciary system to integrate them into sentencing in select cases. 39 One Tennessee 

judge routinely requests that a video of the parent interacting with the child accompany family impact statements. 

40 

Placement/Intake Phase 

Corrections officials usually do not inquire whether a newly committed inmate is a parent and how incarceration 

is likely to affect the parent-child relationship, if at all. State legislators may want to consider requiring 

that prison officials make such inquiries. There are several reasons for doing so. First, a major barrier to regular 

visitation between children and their incarcerated parents is placement of inmates in facilities located far from 

where the children live. State law could require corrections officials to consider the effects of inmate placement 

on maintaining family relationships. 

• Hawaii, for example, enacted legislation in 2007 that, among other things, requires the director of public 

safety to establish policies that parent inmates be placed in facilities, consistent with public safety and inmate 

security, based on the best interest of the family rather than on economic or administrative factors. The 



legislation also requires consideration when making prison placements of an offender’s capacity to maintain 

parent-child contact. 41 

• California law requires the director of corrections to examine newly committed inmates to determine the 

existence of any strong community and family ties, the maintenance of which could aid in the inmate’s rehabilitation, 

and, when reasonable, to assign a prisoner to the appropriate facility nearest his or her home. 42 

A second reason for requiring prison officials to routinely collect information about new inmates’ parental status 

is to ensure that their children receive the services and supports to which they are entitled and to fill some of the 

gaps in data that hinder research and policymaking. 

• Colorado law, for example, requires corrections officials to determine whether an inmate is a parent and, if 

so, whether the child is in school. The department of corrections also must collect and compile information 

related to programs that help students whose parents are incarcerated. 43 

• A 2007 Hawaii provision appropriates funding to support, among other things, the collection of data on 

children of incarcerated parents, including the number of children each inmate has, the children’s ages, 

schools, caregiving arrangements and needed services. 44 

Incarceration Phase 

Entry of a parent into jail or prison presents an opportunity for a coordinated response by multiple systems to 

ensure that children’s best interests are protected and to accomplish the following goals. 

• Manage the disruptive effects of a parent’s incarceration. Options include minimizing disruptions in a child’s 

residence, school attendance, friendships and caregiving arrangements, and minimizing economic hardship following 

a parent’s imprisonment. One type of caregiving arrangement that deserves special consideration is care 

by non-parent relatives. Although kinship care has many advantages over other forms of caregiving arrangements, 

such as non-relative foster care, it also poses some risks to children’s healthy development. Research on 

kinship care in general has shown that many grandparent caregivers are poor, physically frail and in poor mental 

health. 45 

Kin caregivers of children of incarcerated parents face additional challenges. These include coping with the 

social stigma associated with incarceration of a family member, the added expense of long-distance telephone 

calls from prison and travel to prisons for visits, and anger about the parent’s poor choices and behaviors that 

resulted in imprisonment. 

Although many policies exist for kinship care, in general, no state or federal legislation addresses the unique 

circumstances and needs of relatives who care for children of incarcerated parents. Policymakers might want 

to examine whether existing state kinship care policies and programs meet the needs of this subset of relative 

caregivers. 

• Maintain regular, meaningful contact between children and their incarcerated parents. Policies and programs 

can address some, but not all, the barriers children face in contact with their incarcerated parents. Some children 

either never had a relationship with their incarcerated parents or lost contact with them long before arrest, 

sentencing and imprisonment. In other cases, children might have a relationship with their incarcerated parents 

but are denied access to them by their custodial parents or relative caregivers. 



Accordingly, policies should target those children who have a relationship with their incarcerated parent, who 

would benefit from maintaining that relationship, and who face the barriers that state policies can address. Such 

policies include assigning inmates to facilities close to home (see discussion in Placement/Intake Phase, above), 

requiring child-friendly visiting areas within prisons and jails, requiring training for corrections staff on treatment 

of visiting children, and reviewing and revising prison visiting policies to identify and remove unnecessary barriers 

to regular visitation. Michigan, for example, included in its 2007 corrections appropriations bill a requirement 

that the state allocate sufficient funds from the appropriation to develop a pilot children’s visitation program, 

which is to include parenting skills instruction. 46 

Another approach is to reduce the cost of maintaining contact, particularly exorbitant long-distance telephone 

charges. New York recently enacted legislation to require the Department of Corrections, when determining the 

best value of telephone services in accordance with the state procurement law, to emphasize the lowest possible 

cost to the telephone user. The law further prohibits the department from receiving revenue in excess of its 

reasonable operating cost for establishing and administering telephone system services. 47 

With regard to contact between incarcerated parents and their children in foster care, state legislators may want 

to consider revising statutes that affect child welfare practice and court procedure. State law could be amended, 

for example, to: 

• Require child welfare agencies to consider relevant exceptions to termination of parental rights in permanency 

planning for children of incarcerated parents. 

• Clarify that parental incarceration, by itself, does not negate the requirement for reasonable efforts to 

reunify a child with his or her parent upon the release of such parent from prison. 

• Clarify that parental incarceration does not negate the requirement for reasonable parent-child visitation 

while the child is in foster care. A few states have taken this approach. 

New York law, for example, requires child welfare agencies to diligently encourage a meaningful relationship 

between a child and a parent who is at risk of losing parental rights on the grounds of permanent neglect. With 

respect to an incarcerated parent, “diligent efforts” means: 

“making suitable arrangements with a correctional facility and other appropriate persons for an incarcerated 

parent to visit the child within the correctional facility, if such visiting is in the best interests of 

the child . . . . Such arrangements shall include, but shall not be limited to, the transportation of the 

child to the correctional facility, and providing or suggesting social or rehabilitative services to resolve 

or correct the problems other than incarceration itself which impair the incarcerated parent’s ability to 

maintain contact with the child.” 48 

California law requires a court to order reasonable reunification services for an incarcerated parent and his or 

her child unless it determines by clear and convincing evidence that such services would be detrimental to the 

child. The statute lists factors the court must consider in determining detriment. It also provides that services 

can include maintaining contact through telephone calls, transportation services, and services to extended family 

members or foster parents. Finally, the law provides that, as part of the service plan, the incarcerated parent can 

be required to attend counseling, parenting classes or vocational rehabilitation. 49 

Colorado law provides an exception to the 15/22 month TPR filing requirement when the duration of a child’s 

stay in foster care is due to circumstances beyond the control of the parent, such as incarceration. 50 



As stated earlier, statutes in at least six states provide that a parent’s incarceration, by itself, is not sufficient grounds 

for TPR. 51 For such provisions to have the desired effect, they should be coupled with other reforms to make 

arranging and conducting visits easier and to minimize the trauma of visits for children. 

Ensure that incarcerated parents understand and have the opportunity to participate meaningfully in dependency 

proceedings that involve their children in foster care. Although inmate parents are vulnerable to losing 

parental rights, they often are unaware of this vulnerability or know very little about what they can do to prevent 

loss of rights. 52 Even if they understand what is at stake, administrative and logistical factors can prevent them 

from attending critical court hearings. Key to addressing these issues is ensuring that inmate parents are consistently 

represented by attorneys who are familiar not only with dependency litigation, but also with the criminal 

justice system and applicable corrections policies that affect incarcerated parents. Addressing this problem also will 

require improved coordination among law enforcement, the judiciary, corrections and child welfare. California 

law, for example, authorizes the presiding judge of the juvenile court in each county to convene representatives 

of these systems to develop protocols to ensure notification, transportation and presence of an incarcerated parent 

at all court proceedings that affect his or her child. 53 

Improve parent-child bonding and inmate parenting skills. Since most prisoners eventually return to their 

families and communities, some programs and policies aim not merely to maintain parent-child contact during 

incarceration, but to strengthen the parenting skills of inmates and to provide an opportunity for bonding 

between incarcerated mothers and their newborn children. Only a few states have legislation in this area, and 

most provisions address the parenting skills of mothers of very young children, including those who give birth 

while in prison or jail. Some laws provide prison-based nursery programs, allow temporary release of inmate 

mothers to community-based alternatives to incarceration, or both. 

• California law created a community treatment program for women inmates with children under age 6. The 

law provides for the release of an eligible incarcerated mother and her child to a community-based facility 

that provides pediatric care, services to stabilize the parent-child relationship, and other services for both the 

mother and child. 54 

• Maryland legislation passed in 2007 authorizes special leave for inmates to participate in programs for pregnant 

women or to establish bonding between mothers and their newborn children. The law also authorizes 

parole for residential treatment in the best interest of an inmate’s expected or newborn child. Finally, the 

law authorizes corrections officials to allow an inmate to retain custody of a newborn. 55 

• New York law enacted in 1930 authorizes a newborn to reside with his or her mother in a correctional 

institution for up to one year. 56 New York was the first state to experiment with prison nursery programs, 

beginning as early as 1901. 57 

• Ohio law authorizes the corrections department to establish a prison nursery program for women who are 

pregnant at the time of incarceration. 58 

• Wyoming includes new mothers who are incarcerated or who are on probation or parole on the list of women 

who are eligible for services under the public health nursing infant home visitation program. 59 

Some states that have no legislation regarding prisoners’ custody of their young children—including North 

Carolina and Pennsylvania—have addressed the issue through regulation. 60 



Re-Entry Phase 

Re-establishing relationships between ex-offenders and their children and families is a critical part of re-entry, 

but it is rarely addressed in the literature. Policymakers in some states are incorporating help with parenting 

and family life into comprehensive re-entry programs. Hawaii law, for example, requires the Department of 

Public Safety to “institute policies that support family cohesion and family participation in offenders’ transition 

to the community.” 61 In 2007, Oklahoma enacted a law requiring creation of a Reentry Policy Council and a 

Transformational Justice Interagency Task Force to, among other things, develop and establish a parenting skills 

program for inmates who are within one year of release. 62 For many mothers who are making the transition 

from prison, help with parenting is important, but so are gender-specific drug treatment and mental health 

services and programs for survivors of family violence. Perhaps more important, these mothers need supportive 

relationships with treatment providers, friends and other women. 

Wh at c a n t h e l e g i s l at u r e d o to i m p r o v e c o l l a b o r at i o n a m o n g t h e s ta k e h o l d e r s 

t h at m u s t b e i n v o lv e d in efforts to i m p r o v e t h e l i v e s o f c h i l d r e n o f i n c a rc e r- 

at e d pa r e n t s? 

Many—if not most—of the policy actions described above require the active involvement of multiple systems 

working together to achieve positive results for the children of imprisoned parents. As in other areas of human 

services, however, such collaboration may first require action on the part of policymakers, including state legislators. 

Some experts on children of incarcerated parents have noted that legislation is needed at both the state and 

federal levels to fully address the complex range of issues facing incarcerated parents and their children. 63 

To lay the groundwork for such collaboration, an initial approach legislators might consider is a broad statement 

of legislative intent that the relationship between an incarcerated parent and his or her child should be 

recognized, preserved and strengthened when in the best interest of the child. Such statement of intent could 

be coupled with two requirements: 

• That all systems that touch the lives of such children and parents—including law enforcement, corrections, 

child welfare, education and the judiciary—jointly assess the effects of their policies, programs and practices 

on children of incarcerated parents; and 

• That these various state agencies undertake to collect, share, analyze and regularly report on data regarding 

children of incarcerated parents to better understand their service needs and the needs of their caregivers. 

In the past decade, legislatures in several states have required broad-based policy reviews, multidisciplinary planning, 

and data collection to address the issues facing children of incarcerated parents. 

• In 1998, the Missouri legislature required the state Children’s Services Commission to evaluate state laws 

and policies that affect incarcerated parents and their children and to recommend legislative proposals and 

state and local programs to respond to the needs of such children. 64 

• In 2001, Oregon established by legislation a planning and advisory committee to make recommendations 

on how to increase family bonding for children of incarcerated parents. 65 The legislation required representation 

by the corrections department, the state youth authority, the state court administrator, the state 

Commission on Children and Families, the Department of Education, the Department of Human Services, 

and several local boards and councils. The committee issued a report to the legislature in 2002, 66 and in 

2005, the legislature extended the committee through the 2005-2007 biennium. 67 



As one of the first states to address this issue at a high level, Oregon is now considered a national model for 

interagency collaboration and innovation. Oregon’s effort began in 2000 with a Children’s Project workgroup 

consisting of over 20 organizations. The workgroup focused on changes in the prison system to include parent 

education classes, a therapeutic child-centered facility to serve children of female inmates, and improved 

policies regarding contact and visitation. 68 

• Hawaii adopted a resolution in 2005 requesting the departments of public safety and human services to form 

a task force to identify and develop appropriate programs and services for children of incarcerated parents 

and to provide support for incarcerated parents, where appropriate. 69 The task force issued a report to the 

Legislature, 71 and was extended through 2012. 72 

Hawaii also enacted legislation in 2008 to articulate guiding principles for use by state agencies when dealing 

with children of incarcerated parents. 73 The principles were adapted from the Incarcerated Parents 

Bill of Rights created by the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership. 74 The principles 

include “children should be kept safe and informed at the time of the parent’s arrest;” “the children’s wishes 

should be taken into consideration regarding any decisions made concerning their welfare;” “if the children 

so choose, communication avenues should be made available such that children should have opportunities 

to see, speak to, or visit parents, where appropriate,” and “children should receive support for the desire to 

retain a relationship with an incarcerated parent, where appropriate.” 

• In 2005, Washington required the Department of Corrections and the Department of Social and Health Services 

to establish an oversight committee to develop an interagency plan for services and supports to children 

with incarcerated parents. 75 Washington followed up on its 2005 legislation with a 2007 law that requires 

a broad array of agencies—including corrections, social services, education, early learning and economic 

development—to adopt policies to encourage familial contact between inmates and their children, facilitate 

normal child development, and reduce recidivism and intergenerational incarceration. 76 These agencies 

also must gather and evaluate data on children of incarcerated parents. Finally, the law requires creation of 

an advisory committee to gather the data collected by the departments, monitor implementation of existing 

recommendations, identify needs, and provide advice regarding funding of community programs. The state 

budget for the 2007-2009 biennium contains $1.086 million, divided among various departments, to fund 

this legislation. 77 

Pursuant to the legislation, the Washington Department of Social and Health Services embarked on a 

comprehensive analysis of administrative data to determine the extent services are received by children and 

families of incarcerated parents and to identify the social service systems that are involved with such families. 78 

Department staff also prepared an excellent policy paper on the issue. 79 

• In 2007, the Virginia General Assembly required that an integrated system be established to coordinate planning 

and service provision so children and their incarcerated parents could maintain their relationships. 80 

• The Vermont legislature required in 2008 that the Corrections Oversight Committee investigate issues regarding 

children of incarcerated parents and make recommendations on how to increase appropriate contact 

between minor children and their parents. The committee also was to determine data that should be collected 

to enable the legislature to better understand the effects of parental incarceration on minor children, 

among other things. 81 

• Also in 2008, the Tennessee legislature passed a joint resolution urging the state Department of Corrections 

to examine the Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights and to incorporate appropriate principles to 

help the state achieve its goal to eliminate intergenerational crime. 82 



State legislators also can initiate a dialogue about changing the cultures of disparate systems to ensure that the 

needs of children of incarcerated parents do not get lost between agencies. Even without legislation, the attention 

and influence of state legislators could help change attitudes that have hindered better results. The culture and 

mission of the correctional system, for example, could be expanded to include reducing recidivism and improving 

public safety by facilitating maintenance of parent-child relationships during a parent’s imprisonment. The 

culture and mission of child welfare could be changed so that parental incarceration no longer is viewed as an 

automatic bar to providing reunification services and regular visitation. Juvenile and family court judges could 

be encouraged to hold child welfare agencies accountable for maintaining connections between a child in foster 

care and an incarcerated parent and delivering appropriate reunification services to the parent when it is in the 

child’s best interest. 

Co n c l u s i o n 

The many issues that face children of incarcerated parents and their families are complex and cross the jurisdictional 

boundaries of multiple agencies and service systems. In addition, thoughtful policymaking in this area is 

hindered by lack of reliable data on the characteristics of these children and a paucity of sound research on both 

the effects of parental incarceration and the effectiveness of interventions. Nevertheless, a growing number of 

state policymakers are taking an active interest in helping children of incarcerated parents. This paper provides 

a preliminary framework for those who must deal with this critical policy issue. 

No t e s 

This paper was prepared with support from Casey Family Programs. 

The author also thanks Ben DeHaan and Dr. Creasie Finney Hairston 

for reviewing a draft of the paper and providing many helpful 

suggestions. 



1. Creasie Finney Hairston, “Prisoners and Their Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration,” in 

Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities, edited 

by Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 2003), 260-282. 

2. Lauren Glaze and Laura Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children (Washington, D.C.: 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). 

3. Nancy LaVigne, Elizabeth Davies, and Diana Brazzell, Broken Bonds: Understanding and Addressing the 

Needs of Children with Incarcerated Parents (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2008). 

4. Creasie Finney Hairston, Focus on Children with Incarcerated Parents: An Overview of the Research 

Literature (Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007). 

5. Joseph Murray and David Farrington, "Effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children," Crime and 

Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 37 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008). 

6. Creasie Finney Hairston Focus on Children with Incarcerated Parents: An Overview of the Research 

Literature. 

7. Ross Parke, and K. Allison Clarke-Stewart, “The Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children: 

Perspectives, Promises and Policies," in Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on 

Children, Families, and Communities., edited by Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul (Washington, D.C.: The 

Urban Institute Press, 2003), 189-232. 

8. Susan Phillips et al., “Disentangling the Risks: Parent Criminal Justice Involvement and Children’s 

Exposure to Family Risks,” Criminology and Public Policy 5, no. 4 (Nov. 2006): 677-702. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Center for Research on Child Well-Being, Fragile Families Research Brief, Parental Incarceration and 

Child Wellbeing in Fragile Families (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 2008). 

11. Julie Poehlmann, “Representations of Attachment Relationships in Children of Incarcerated 

Mothers,” Child Development 76, no. 3 (May/June 2005): 679-696. 

12. These percentages add up to more than 100 because some inmates had multiple children living with 

different caregivers. 

13. Creasie Finney Hairston, Focus on Children with Incarcerated Parents: An Overview of the Research 

Literature. 

14. Creasie Finney Hairston, “Prisoners and Their Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration,” in 

Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities, edited 

by Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 2003), 260-282. 

15. Ibid. 

16. Ibid. 

17. Arlene Lee, Philip M. Genty, and Mimi Laver, The Impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act on 

Children of Incarcerated Parents (Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, 2005). 

18. R. Anna Hayward and Diane DePanfilis, “Foster Children with an Incarcerated Parent: Predictors of 

Reunification,” Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007): 1320-1334. 

19. Anita Larson and Mira Swanson, "Identifying Children with Incarcerated Parents: The Child Welfare 

Data Environment," CW 360: A Comprehensive Look at a Prevalent Child Welfare Issue, Children of Incarcerated 

Parents (St. Paul, Minn.: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare, 2008). 

20. Marilyn C. Moses, “Correlating Incarcerated Mothers, Foster Care and Mother-Child Reunification,” 

Corrections Today (October 2006). 

21. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 210, §3; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447; Neb. Rev. Stat. §43-292.02; N.H. 

Rev. Stat. Ann. §170-C:5; N.M. Stat. Ann. §32A-4-28; Okla. Stat. Tit. 10, §7006-1.1. 

22. 2008 Cal. Stats., Chap. 482. 

23. Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code §366.26. 

24. Creasie Finney Hairston, Kinship Care When Parents are Incarcerated: What Research Tells Us 

(Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation, forthcoming). 



25. Office of Justice Programs, http://www.reentry.gov/welcome.html. 

26. Marcia Festen, From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration on Children, Families and 

Communities, Conference Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002). 

27. See, e.g., National Governors Association Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy, http://www.nga.org/ 

portal/site/nga/menuitem.1f41d49be2d3d33eacdcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=6c239286d9de1010VgnVCM1 

000001a01010aRCRD; Urban Institute Justice Policy Program, http://www.urban.org/justice/index.cfm; U.S. 

Office of Justice Programs, http://www.reentry.gov/; and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Reentry 

Institute, http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/centersinstitutes/pri/pri.asp. 

28. Stephanie Covington, “A Woman’s Journey Home: Challenges for Female Offenders,” in Prisoners 

Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities, edited by 

Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 2003)a 67-103. 

29. Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul, “Prisoners Once Removed: The Children and Families of 

Prisoners,” in Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and 

Communities, edited by Jeremy Travis and Michelle Waul (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 

2003), 1-29. 

30. Nell Bernstein, Nell, All Alone in the World: Children of the Incarcerated (New York: The New Press, 

2005). 

31. Cal. Penal Code §833.2. 

32. Cal. Penal Code §851.5. 

33. N.M. Stat. Ann. §29-7-7.3. 

34. N.M. Stat.Ann. §31-1-8. 

35. Ben DeHann, private consultant, personal communication with author, Jan. 15, 2008. 

36. The Sentencing Project, Women in the Criminal Justice System (Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing 

Project, 2007). 

37. Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §22-20. 

38. San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership, Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Bill of 

Rights (San Francisco: SFCIPP, 2005). 

39. Dee Ann Newell, co-founder, Arkansas Voices for Children Left Behind, personal communication 

with author, Dec. 8, 2008. 

40. Ibid. 

41. 2007 Hawaii Sess. Laws, Special Session, Act 8. 

42. Cal. Penal Code §5068. 

43. Colo. Rev. Stat. §17-1-119.5. 

44. 2007 Hawaii Sess. Laws, Act 250. 

45. Richard Barth et al., “Kinship Care and Nonkinship Foster Care: Informing the New Debate,” in 

Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice, edited by Ron Haskins, Fred Wulczyn and 

Mary Bruce Webb (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2007), 187-206. 

46. 2007 Mich. Pub. Acts, Act 124. 

47. 2007 N.Y. Laws, Chap. 240. 

48. N.Y. Social Services Law, Art. 6, Tit. 1 § 384-b. 


50. Colo. Rev. Stat. §19-3-604. 

51. See note 21, supra. 

52. Women’s Advocacy Project, Improving Legal Representation of Parents in Family Court (New York: 

Women’s Prison Association, 2004). 


54. Cal. Penal Code §§3410-3424. 

55. 2007 Md. Laws, Chap. 91. 

56. N.Y. Corrections Law §611. 



57. Katherine Gabel and Kathryn Girard, “Long-Term Care Nurseries in Prisons: A Descriptive Study,” 

in Children of Incarcerated Parents, edited by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston (New York: Lexington 

Books, 1995), 237-254. 

58, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §5120.65. 

59. Wyo. Stat. §35-27-102. 

60. Barbara Bloom, “Public Policy and the Children of Incarcerated Parents,” in Children of Incarcerated 

Parents, edited by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston (New York: Lexington Books, 1995), 271-284. 

61. Hawaii Rev. Stat. §353H-4. 

62. 2007 Okla. Sess. Laws, Chap. 274. 

63. See, e.g., Barbara Bloom, “Public Policy and the Children of Incarcerated Parents;” and Creasie 

Finney Hairston, “Prisoners and Their Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration.” 

64. 1998 Mo. Laws, SB 720. The report of the task force formed in response to the legislation is on the 

web at http://www.csc.mo.gov/reports.htm. 

65. 2001 Ore. Laws, Chap. 635, §16. 

66. Children of Incarcerated Parents Project, Report to the Oregon Legislature on Senate Bill 133 (Salem, 

Ore.: CIPP, 2002), http://egov.oregon.gov/DOC/PUBAFF/docs/pdf/legreport_bill133.pdf. 

67. 2005 Ore. Laws, Chap. 497. 

68. Oregon Department of Corrections, “Children of Incarcerated Parents Project,” http://egov.oregon. 

gov/DOC/TRANS/PROGMS/oam_children.shtml. 

69. 2005 Hawaii Sess. Laws, SCR 128. 

71. SCR 128 Task Force, Report to the Legislature: Children of Incarcerated Parents. Honolulu: 2006. 

http://www.hawaii.gov/dhs/main/reports/LegislativeReports/2006Leg/2005%20SCR%20128%20 

Children%20of%20Incarcerated%20Parents.pdf. 

72. 2008 Hawaii Sess. Laws, Act 240. 

73. 2008 Hawaii Sess. Laws, Act 7, Special Session 2008. 

74. San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership, Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Bill of 

Rights (San Francisco: SFCIPP, 2005). 

75. 2005 Wash. Laws, Chap. 403. 

76. 2007 Wash. Laws, Chap. 384. 

77. Legislative Evaluation and Accountability Program Committee, Legislative Budget Note: 2007- 

2009Biennium (Olympia, Wash.: LEAP, 2007); http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/lbns/2007toc.asp. 

78. See, e.g., Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Children of DOC Incarcerated 

Parents Receive DSHS Services at Very High Rates, presentation to the Children of Incarcerated Parents 

Advisory Committee, http://publications.rda.dshs.wa.gov/1350/. 

79. Miriam Bearse, “Children and Families of Incarcerated Parents: Understanding the Challenges and 

Addressing the Needs” (Olympia, Wash.: DSHS, 2008), http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/incarcerated/CFIPfinal. 

pdf. 

80. 2007 Va.Acts, Chap. 366. 

81. 2008 Vt. Acts, Act 179, §19. 

82. 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts, HJR 116. 


7700 East First Place 

Denver, Colorado 80230 

(303) 364-7700 

National Conference of State Legislatures 

William T. Pound, Executive Director 

444 North Capitol Street, N.W., #515 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

(202) 624-5400 

www.ncsl.org 

© 2009 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. 

ISBN 978-1-58024-544-9





The e-Advocate Quarterly 


Issue Title Quarterly 

Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals 

I 

The ComeUnity ReEngineering 

Project Initiative 

Q-1 2015 

II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015 

III 

Landmark Cases in US 

Juvenile Justice (PA) 

Q-3 2015 

IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015 

Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development 

V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016 

VI 


Juvenile Justice (NJ) 

Q-2 2016 

VII Youth Court Q-3 2016 

VIII 

The Economic Consequences of Legal 

Decision-Making 

Q-4 2016 

Vol. III 2017 Sustainability 

IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017 

X 

The Theological Foundations of 

US Law & Government 

Q-2 2017 

XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017 

XII 

The EB-5 Investor 

Immigration Project* 

Q-4 2017 

Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration 

XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018 

XIV 

The Juvenile Justice 

Legislative Reform Initiative 

Q-2 2018 

XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018 


XVI 

for Drug-Free Communities 


Juvenile Justice (GA) 

Q-4 2018 



Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development 

XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019 

XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019 

XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019 

XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019 

XXI The Budget* Bonus #1 

XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2 

Vol. VI 2020 Missions 

XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020 

XXIV 

The Advocacy Foundation 

Endowments Initiative Project 

Q-2 2020 

XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020 

XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020 

Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement 

XXVII 

The 21 st Century Charter Schools 

Initiative 

Q-1 2021 

XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021 

XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021 

XXX 

XXXI 

Advocacy Foundation Missions - 

Domestic 

Advocacy Foundation Missions - 

International 

Q-4 2021 

Bonus 


Vol. VIII 

2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering 

XXXII 

The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry 

@ The Foundation 

Q-1 2022 

XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022 

XXXIV 

The Theological Origins 

of Contemporary Judicial Process 

Q-3 2022 

XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022 

Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation 

XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023 

XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023 

XXXVIII 

The Inner-Cities Strategic 

Revitalization Initiative 

Q-3 2023 

XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023 

Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development 

XXXVX 

The Inner-City Strategic 

Revitalization Plan 

Q-1 2024 

XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024 

XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024 

XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024 

Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest 

XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025 

L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025 


LI 

Nonprofit Confidentiality 

In The Age of Big Data 

Q-3 2025 

LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025 

Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America 

LIII 

American Poverty 

In The New Millennium 

Q-1 2026 

LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026 

LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026 

LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026 

Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness 

LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027 

LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027 

LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027 

LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027 

Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming 

LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028 

LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028 

LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028 

LXIV 

The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated 

Service Approach to Delinquency 

Prevention 

Q-4 2028 


Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization 

LXIV 

LXV 

LXVI 

Part I – Strategic Housing 

Revitalization 

(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin) 

Part II – Jobs Training, Educational 

Redevelopment 

and Economic Empowerment 

Part III - Financial Literacy 

and Sustainability 

Q-1 2029 

Q-2 2029 

Q-3 2029 

LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029 

LXVIII 

The Strategic Home Mortgage 

Initiative 

Bonus 

Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability 

LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030 

LXIX 

The Advocacy Foundation 

Endowments Initiative 

Q-2 2030 

LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030 

LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030 

Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series 

LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031 

LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031 

LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031 

LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031 

LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus 


Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy 

LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032 

LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032 

LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032 

LXXVX ... Q-4 2032 


The e-Advocate Monthly Review 

2018 

Transformational Problem Solving January 2018 

The Advocacy Foundation February 2018 

Opioid Initiative 

Native-American Youth March 2018 

In the Juvenile Justice System 

Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018 

Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018 


Social Entrepreneurship June 2018 

African-American Youth July 2018 


Gang Deconstruction August 2018 

Social Impact Investing September 2018 

Opportunity Youth: October 2018 

Disenfranchised Young People 

The Economic Impact of Social November 2018 

of Social Programs Development 

Gun Control December 2018 

2019 

The U.S. Stock Market January 2019 

Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019 


The e-Advocate Quarterly 

Special Editions 

Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017 

Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017 

Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017 

The Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018 

Issues in Pain Management 

The Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018 

The Drug Culture in the U.S. 

The Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018 

Drug Abuse Among Veterans 

The Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018 

Drug Abuse Among America’s 

Teens 

The Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018 

Alcoholism 


The e-Advocate Journal 

of Theological Jurisprudence 

Vol. I - 2017 

The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process 

Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code 

Scriptural Application for Tort Reform 

Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation 

Vol. II - 2018 

Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics 

Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform 

& The Uniform Commercial Code 

Scriptural Application to The Law of Property 

Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence 


Legal Missions International 



Vol. I 2015 

I 

II 

God’s Will and The 21 st Century 

Democratic Process 

The Community 

Engagement Strategy 

Q-1 2015 

Q-2 2015 

III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015 

IV 

Public Interest Law 

in The New Millennium 

Q-4 2015 

Vol. II 2016 

V Ethiopia Q-1 2016 

VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016 

VII Jamaica Q-3 2016 

VIII Brazil Q-4 2016 

Vol. III 2017 

IX India Q-1 2017 

X Suriname Q-2 2017 

XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017 

XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017 

Vol. IV 2018 

XIII Cuba Q-1 2018 

XIV Guinea Q-2 2018 

XV Indonesia Q-3 2018 

XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018 


Vol. V 2019 

XVII Russia Q-1 2019 

XVIII Australia Q-2 2019 

XIV South Korea Q-3 2019 

XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019 


Vol. VI 2020 

XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020 

XVII Egypt Q-2 2020 

XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020 

XIX South Africa Q-4 2020 

XX Israel Bonus 

Vol. VII 2021 

XXI Haiti Q-1 2021 

XXII Peru Q-2 2021 

XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021 

XXIV China Q-4 2021 

XXV Japan Bonus 

Vol VIII 2022 

XXVI Chile Q-1 2022 


The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report 

______ 

Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US 

Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex 

Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice 

Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel 

Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice 

Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency 


The e-Advocate Newsletter 

Genesis of The Problem 

Family Structure 

Societal Influences 

Evidence-Based Programming 

Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits 

2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US 

Introduction/Ideology/Key Values 

Philosophy/Application & Practice 

Expungement & Pardons 

Pardons & Clemency 

Examples/Best Practices 

2013 - Restorative Justice in The US 

2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex 

25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US 

The Economics of Prison Enterprise 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons 

The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal 

The Fourth Amendment Project 

The Sixth Amendment Project 

The Eighth Amendment Project 

The Adolescent Law Group 

2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium 


2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy 

The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government 

The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making 

The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative 

The EB-5 International Investors Initiative 

2017 - Organizational Development 

The Board of Directors 

The Inner Circle 

Staff & Management 

Succession Planning 

Bonus #1 The Budget 

Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation 

2018 - Sustainability 

The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process 

The Quality Assurance Initiative 

The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative 

The Community Engagement Strategy 

2019 - Collaboration 

Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice 

International Labor Relations 

Immigration 

God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process 

The Community Engagement Strategy 

The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative 

2020 - Community Engagement 


Extras 

The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters 

The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process 

The Board of Directors 

The Gladiator Mentality 

Strategic Planning 

Fundraising 

501(c)(3) Reinstatements 

The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters 

How You Think Is Everything 

The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships 

Accelerate Your Professional Development 

The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing 

Assessing The Risks 



About The Author 

John C (Jack) Johnson III 

Founder & CEO 

Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers 

Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue 

greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/ 

at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the 

Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century. 

There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived 

and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational 

Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change 

Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components. 

The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by 

implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs & 

projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support 

services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental 

Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been 

expanded to include a three-tier mission. 

In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis 

University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical 

Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished 

and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community 

Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service 

organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide 

300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The 

Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center. 

Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm, 

Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and 

chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit 

corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990. 


Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette 

County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal 

Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta 

Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007; 

Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of 

Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our 

Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill 

Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball; 

Church Trustee.

Children of Incarcerated Parents

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?