Journal of the Institute

Maureen Buell

The numbers of children impacted by parental incarceration represents “the largest separation of families since slavery.”

Kweisi M’Fume, President and CEO of the NAACP, American Correctional Association Presentation, winter 2004.
With the number of inmates re-entering society annually exceeding 600,000 and the sheer number of children impacted, this is an issue with serious implications for children, care givers, families of offenders and the community. Should this be an issue for the criminal justice? The answer is yes, but the criminal justice system cannot, and should not, do it alone.

When the public thinks of the role of criminal justice, most often the focus is on public safety, the safety and security of offenders and staff in the institution and hopefully rehabilitation. There is a certain sense of relief from the public when the offender is removed from society accompanied by the assumption that when they do return to the community, he or she won’t be in worse shape than when entering the system. The phrase “out of sight, out of mind” holds a continuing appeal for the public.

The Role of Corrections

Running a correctional institution is not unlike running a town or small city with one significant difference. Expected to provide all basic needs humanely with opportunities for rehabilitation on a twenty-four/seven basis, the focus is on the individual offender not on his or her connection to the external world. Adding a family focus using external services can be perceived as altering the dynamics of the institution. In preparation for a 2002 National Institute of Corrections satellite/internet conference, entitled “Children of Prisoners: Children of Promise,” former and current prison/jail administrators were interviewed regarding their views of supporting parenting initiatives in their institutions. They were fully aware that incarceration added to an existing chaotic family environment and, while not necessarily opposed to the introduction of parenting initiatives, there were questions as to whether this should be a role of corrections:

1. 
   It’s not our business.
   
2. 
   I’m running an institution, not a daycare center.
   
3. 
   Why should I reward prisoners for being lousy parents?
   
4. 
   These people are too damaged. I don’t want the responsibility of bringing them together with vulnerable children.
   

Those comments suggest the challenges in impressing upon correctional administrators that there is a role for corrections with familial issues, that there can be a “payoff” for both offenders and the institution, and there exists the potential for offenders to resuming or becoming responsible parents.

Business as Usual

The corrections business is generally thought of as re-active rather than pro-active and therefore integrating parenting initiatives may appear out of the norm for the safe and orderly operation of a correctional institution. Again, the focus is on the offender, not the external environment. The introduction of parenting initiatives, which promotes building and/or maintaining familial relationships, is perceived by staff as contraindicated to their established security role. To support inmates’ efforts with relationship-building skills can be perceived as the beginning of blurring boundaries, a path to elevated levels of contraband, increased casework demands and diversion from the accepted business of corrections. Therefore, corrections may do very little to foster support and connections. It may appear that corrections has defined its role quite narrowly, but given the potential for “life and death” situations in institutions, good security and management is critical. Introducing parenting initiatives may also identify a natural tension between internal and external environments. It should be logical that skilled and experienced service providers would be welcomed to provide services in an institution that could assist in strengthening family ties. This is what we ideally want, to better prepare the inmate for the transition to the community.

The reality is there is limited understanding, outside of a prison or jail, of what happens within an institutional setting as well as the limitations, barriers and challenges faced by those working within institutions. Corrections is no stranger to “doing more with less.” Add to that, contrasting views that either institutions are meant for warehousing with no privileges or to the other extreme that there should be wide access to rehabilitative opportunities. The bottom line, however, is that corrections is a serious business, with a demand for high levels of accountability. This often translates into a narrow role definition. The irony is that we expect offender accountability, but in the name of safety and security we foster irresponsibility.

A New Direction

As stated earlier, corrections should not and cannot become the primary source for initiatives regarding parenting initiatives. The criminal justice system has not been given that charge, does not have the means, expertise, or perhaps even motivation. However, if ever an entity had the target population and the reason, corrections clearly does. This is reflected again by the volume of offenders returning to the community, the sheer numbers of children impacted by parental incarceration and the sad fact that a percentage of these children will be found in the custody of the criminal justice system at some future date.

Research suggests that offenders who maintain meaningful relationships with family and community have reduced recidivism rates (Hairston, 1991). Carol Shapiro of Family Justice in New York City stated that it took her twenty-five years in corrections to shift the lens from thinking about the individual person in jail or prison or under community supervision to thinking about the context in which he or she lives (Rubino, 2004). With this perspective, there are practices that corrections can adopt to begin the process of better preparing the inmate to resume a health connection or role with family and children.

1. 
   Intake: Ask the offender about their children at intake and incorporate that information in the case plan process. Involve the inmate in the case planning and transition planning process.
   
2. 
   Enhance visitation: Look critically at current policies. Does visiting have to be non-contact, what are restrictions on items that can be brought to visits, and are they reasonable? Do policies regarding age and who accompanies younger visitors overly restrictive? Some prisons only allow a child’s custodial parent to escort them on visits (Hairston, 2002). Are visiting schedules accommodate visitors traveling long distances with children or with traditional work hours? Are there adaptations that can easily be made to visiting space that reflects security but is less onerous for visitors?
   
3. 
   Staff training: How can we better inform staff about the importance of considering the offender in the larger context of family and community? How can family and community be considered a resource rather than a hindrance?
   
4. 
   Alternative Sanctions: Are there other sanctions that can be imposed for minor behavioral infractions that will bring the “message” to the offender, but not further punish children by denying scheduled contact between parent and child? This is controversial but some facilities have viewed visitation as part of a responsible parenting program initiative and not merely a “perk”.
   
5. 
   Use of community resources: Make use of the skill and expertise of community providers in the area of parenting and family initiatives within the institution.
   
6. 
   Make available to inmates and family members hard copy information of community-based resources. Have casework staff knowledgeable about the availability of community resources where applicable.
   
7. 
   Create working agreements or memorandum of understanding with outside service providers coming into the facility. Ideally, these services will continue into the community once the inmate is released.
   
8. 
   Create cross-training opportunities between external service providers and correctional staff to create a better understanding and appreciation of each others skills and roles and to reduce the possibilities of conflict or security violations.