Children of Incarcerated Parents

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 13 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 National Conference of State Legislatures
14 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 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. National Conference of State Legislatures
Page 2 and 3:
Turning the Improbable Into the Exc
Page 4 and 5:
Page 4 of 109
Page 6 and 7:
Page 6 of 109
Page 8 and 9:
6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publi
Page 10 and 11:
Page 10 of 109
Page 12 and 13:
Page 12 of 109
Page 14 and 15:
Page 14 of 109
Page 16 and 17:
overwhelming amount of stress and c
Page 18 and 19:
incarcerated parents to foster the
Page 20 and 21:
causality, researchers have found a
Page 22 and 23:
pregnancies leading to greater divo
Page 24 and 25:
there has been a 13% decline in int
Page 26 and 27:
to 90% of all US families. Accordin
Page 28 and 29:
conciseness what 'everyone knew': t
Page 30 and 31:
had contributed to apparent lower a
Page 32 and 33:
ule of anthropology: That in all kn
Page 34 and 35:
consequence of the social bias wome
Page 36 and 37:
Sexual Violence A form of sexual vi
Page 38 and 39:
Measures of Poverty An important as
Page 40 and 41:
and have adequate shelter can make
Page 42 and 43:
statistically determine the impover
Page 44 and 45:
Policies Decision-Making Power Deci
Page 46 and 47:
to parent teacher conferences. A re
Page 48 and 49:
Also notable regarding the rise in
Page 50 and 51:
Interestingly, the United States is
Page 52 and 53:
women entered the workforce, divorc
Page 54 and 55:
of 1996, instituted work requiremen
Page 56 and 57:
prevalence of chronic illness, lead
Page 58 and 59:
addition, many European countries o
Page 60 and 61:
Amachi is an organization that part
Page 62 and 63:
IMPACT Family Counseling, Inc. ALAS
Page 64 and 65:
Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Page 66 and 67:
SOUTH CAROLINA Clemson University T
Page 68 and 69:
Roots. “Children of incarcerated
Page 70 and 71:
demonstrate that there is a vision
Page 72 and 73:
well as Harvard's Department of Soc
Page 74 and 75:
In his book Still the Promised City
Page 76 and 77:
When Work Disappears When Work Disa
Page 78 and 79:
Notes _____________________________
Page 80 and 81:
Page 80 of 109
Page 82:
AMACHI: MENTORING CHILDREN OF PRISO
Page 85 and 86:
Public/Private Ventures is a nation
Page 87 and 88:
AMACHI
Page 89 and 90:
AMACHI
Page 91 and 92:
ii AMACHI
Page 93 and 94:
In fact, according to a U.S. Senate
Page 95 and 96:
A growing number of additional citi
Page 97 and 98:
6 AMACHI
Page 99 and 100:
THE MODEL Drawing on research on ef
Page 101 and 102:
Each month, pastors received a repo
Page 103 and 104:
12 AMACHI
Page 105 and 106:
LOCATING AND ENROLLING THE CHILDREN
Page 107 and 108:
Even women whose children were not
Page 109 and 110:
The first step was to deliver the m
Page 111 and 112:
P/PV staff tried to contact the pas
Page 113 and 114:
While Amachi would help the congreg
Page 115 and 116:
Table 2: Mentor Demographics Number
Page 117 and 118:
26 AMACHI
Page 119 and 120:
Table 3: Number and Percentage of M
Page 121 and 122:
The Amachi matches included in thos
Page 123 and 124:
Table 5: Number of Matches, Mentors
Page 125 and 126: changes in their lives that affecte
Page 127 and 128: BBBS Surveys Data collected by Big
Page 129 and 130: 38 AMACHI
Page 131 and 132: 1. A combination of four factors wa
Page 133 and 134: 4. There was leadership that was ab
Page 135 and 136: to the program’s early success. D
Page 137 and 138: was privately funded, the pastor wa
Page 139: APPENDIX: CHURCHES PARTNERING IN AM
Page 142 and 143: Page 82 of 109
Page 144 and 145: Mentoring Children of Incarcerated
Page 146 and 147: Table of Contents I. Introduction.
Page 148 and 149: I. Introduction In his State of the
Page 150 and 151: II. Identify Programs in Your Commu
Page 152 and 153: III. Find the Right Partner Quality
Page 154 and 155: • Pre-service training for all ne
Page 156 and 157: IV. Refining the Partnership The in
Page 158 and 159: • Interest & ability to conduct m
Page 160 and 161: The Center for Children of Incarcer
Page 164 and 165: Ch i l d r e n o f In c a rc e r at
Page 166 and 167: Ch i l d r e n o f In c a r c e r a
Page 184 and 185: Advocacy Foundation Publishers The
Page 186 and 187: XVI for Drug-Free Communities Landm
Page 188 and 189: Vol. VIII 2022 ComeUnity ReEngineer
Page 190 and 191: Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitaliz
Page 192 and 193: The e-Advocate Monthly Review 2018
Page 194 and 195: The e-Advocate Journal of Theologic
Page 196 and 197: Issue Title Quarterly Vol. I 2015 I
Page 198 and 199: The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Rep
Page 200 and 201: 2018 - The Theological Law Firm Aca
Page 202 and 203: Page 106 of 109
Page 204 and 205: www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org Page
show all

Children of Incarcerated Parents

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?