Journal of the Institute
Yüklə 1,2 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Importance of Family Support for Former Offenders
- Special Role of Children in Families with Offenders
- A Conceptual Model for Understanding Incarceration and Family Re-Unification
- Forces of Separation- Evidence from Delinquent Youth
- Factors affecting Relationships
- Policy and Practice Implications
Anne Dannerbeck*One in every 142 people in the United States is in jail or prison (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2003). As a society we need to find new ways to rehabilitate offenders and sustain their rehabilitation once they are released. A major source of at least potential support for offenders re-entering society is their families (Shapiro & Schwartz 2001). The purpose of this paper is to understand the forces that separate families impacted by incarceration and offer some guidance to practitioners and policy-makers in how to help re-unite families. The information presented comes from the literature, from the author’s own experiences in the research and policy arenas, and from the voices of children impacted by family member incarceration. A case will be presented for not just considering what factors affect relationships during the incarceration period but during four distinct periods leading up to and after incarceration. Importance of Family Support for Former OffendersFor a variety of reasons families have largely been overlooked as a source of support for offenders. The criminal justice system has largely regarded offenders as individuals and ignored the family context in which they lived their life prior to incarceration and where they will be returning once released. In addition, negative public attitudes towards incarcerated individuals and their families have discouraged recognition and support for this group of people. Finally, poor communication among criminal justice, child welfare agencies, and other social service systems has hidden patterns of risks and needs among affected families who interact with these systems (Travis & Waul 2003). Because of the stigma and numerous associated disruptions, the incarceration of a family member is a highly stressful event for the offender and the family. Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of social support in families under stress (Pilisuk & Parks 1983; Unger & Powell 1980). This support can take various forms including emotional nurturance, instrumental aid (money, housing), information sharing, role modeling, and reinforcement of healthy behaviors. Families, through the supports they offer offenders, also contribute to the social control of ex-offenders (Sampson & Laub 1993). While such support can come from numerous sources, the most enduring support comes from kin because of enduring obligatory relationships. Evidence is beginning to emerge that families could be a major source of support to offenders. As offenders return to the community, they often rely on family for housing, emotional support, financial resources, and overall stability. Without such support they are more likely to recidivate (Visher, Kachinowski, La Vigne, & Travis 2004). While families can be a source of support they are often blamed for being the source of some offenders’ problem behaviors. Certain family characteristics are associated with individual criminal activity. Criminal justice system involvement, drug and alcohol use, child abuse, and domestic violence are behaviors that will not exert the kinds of social control and support that will keep offenders on a positive pathway (Travis & Waul 2003). What we do not know is how relationship dynamics will encourage or discourage further offending.
Among the 104 youth interviewed, 22 were female and the rest males. They ranged in age from 12-19. Ninety-two of them had at least one family member (non-biological parents, siblings and kin as well as biological parents) who had been in jail or prison. The other 12 youth had parents who engaged in behaviors (drug use, domestic violence, abuse) that could have led to their incarceration. The following table presents the incarceration history of biological mothers and fathers and relates that history to how the youth currently describe their relationship with that parent. Short term indicates less than six months and long term is over six months. Chi square tests were used to check for significant differences between parent incarceration history and relationship quality. Table 1 Relationship between Parent Incarceration History and Parent/Child Relationship Quality Has your biological mother ever spent time in jail or prison?*
Has your biological father ever spent time in jail or prison?**
significant at * p<.05 **p<.001 Both for biological mothers and fathers the results indicate the differences are significant. Many more biological fathers than mothers have served time in jail or prison. Youth generally report a positive relationship with mothers although when a mother is incarcerated long term (more than 6 months), the relationship with the youth is generally more strained. Even fathers who have not served time in jail or prison have a strained relationship with many of the youth. However, a high proportion of youth have a negative or no relationship with a father who has served an extended period in penal confinement, indicating that incarceration does impact relationships. The question for further analysis is, what are the factors that have impacted that relationship over the entire life course, not just during the incarceration? Factors affecting RelationshipsFamily unity emerges from relationship building, accepting roles within the family and taking on responsibilities for each other. Often, though, in families with members who end up in prison, the individual’s maladaptive behaviors began long before the individual is arrested and thus, family separation begins then, too. Over 60 percent of the youth reported that their parents abused drugs or alcohol. The negative impacts of drug use on family functioning are well-documented (Kelleher, Chaffin, Hollenberg, & Fischer1994; Magura, Laudet, Kangy & Whitney 1998). The user often places relationship priority on drug use and other drug users rather than family members. Because of impaired functioning the user is less able to develop strong, meaningful relationships with family members. The user may not fulfill roles in the family of breadwinner, parent or spouse and thus, others in the family must take on that individual’s roles and responsibilities. Often, too, drug use impairs an individual’s ability to complete life course development tasks including becoming independent from the family of origin and creating a life and family that is autonomous. One of the youth described how his father had been incarcerated for a drug offense since he was a baby. He was released in the last year and the young man decided to get to know him better. He came away from the visit very disappointed because his father acted, as he put it, “more like a 15-year-old teenager than me and I am 15.” Thus not only had drug use stopped him from maturing, but serving time for the drug use decreased his opportunity to mature. This young man saw no place in his life for a father who could not take on adult roles. Sometimes, the family of origin also chooses to disassociate with the drug using individual. The drug user may continue to reside with or heavily rely on the family of origin for support. Such an unnatural reliance can lead to family separation because of the resentment of other family members or because the burdens of responsibility become too great. Many of the youth (67) were raised at least partially by someone other than a biological parent and in the majority of cases, drug use had impaired the ability of the individual to parent the child. This impairment strained their relationship. Another potential barrier to family unity and support of an offender is the fluid nature of many families. Only eight of the youth in the study grew up with two biological parents. Marriages and divorces, cohabitation and more casual encounters may mean that an offender has produced children with multiple partners and may have had multiple individuals move in and out of the childhood home. As a result of this fluidity, bonds are not very strong between individuals and often a strong sense of family identity is not present (Hairston 1995, 1998). The relationships with step, half, foster, adoptive and fictive kin may be tenuous to begin with and become even weaker when one embarks on a criminal pathway. By the time an individual is incarcerated, it may be reasonable to ask, ‘who is my family?’ The most common pattern for family formation among this group of youth was for the biological father and mother to have had a relationship that lasted long enough to produce one or more children. The mother then tried to raise the children on her own or by forming relationships with other men, most of which did not last long. As a result, the youth experienced multiple disruptions and high levels of instability. Multiple disruptions in who lives in the home and in where an individual lives have a two-fold impact on relationships: disruptions make it difficult to form secure attachments and if the disruptions are unplanned, such as running from the law, they leave family members with no internal sense of control over life (Amato 1993; Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, Huizinga, & Stouthamer-Loeber 1999). Over 90 percent of the youth interviewed had moved anywhere from 3 to 16 times growing up. Often these moves were somehow related to the individual who was incarcerated. In some cases the youth fled the law with the individual. In other cases, the youth and family fled from that individual. In still other instances, that individual had been a source of financial support for the family and when he abandoned the family for criminal activities, the family had to move for financial reasons. Looking next at the time of arrest, several factors are particularly significant. The first is the role that children may play in the arrest. Forty-eight of the youth were present at the time a family member was arrested. As noted earlier, children often become the glue that binds a family together. They can also be a force drawing family apart. If children are present at the time a close family member is arrested, be it a parent or other kin, they may be severely traumatized, depending on how they perceive their role in the arrest which in turn can depend on their age and developmental level (Bowlby 1973; Parke & Clarke-Stewart 2003). Children under age five are not always able to distinguish reality from their imagination or what they see on television (Ashford, LeCroy, Lortie 2001). A child may experience fears and be traumatized by a perception of the arrest that is embellished by their imagination as in the following: “when I was 5 I remember [my father] running from the police. There were helicopters flying around the house looking for him and police squads. They were walking around the house telling dad to come out. He wouldn’t come so they held a gun to my head and told him he better come out or they would hurt me. He came out, they arrested him and put him in the squad car. I got to say good-bye. My mom was there telling them not to do anything to me.” While it seems unlikely that police would hold a gun to a five-year-old’s head, this is the way the young woman remembers the incident. She feels guilty that she played a role in her father’s arrest and sees that as the cause for her lack of a relationship with him. Children ages 6-12 are trying to understand the world through a set of rules regarding right and wrong behavior, the concept of fairness, and experiencing sanctions for rule breakers (Konner 1991). They may feel they did something wrong that led to a parent’s arrest and take on a burden of guilt and responsibility reflected in this young man’s statement: “when I was a kid I felt like I did something wrong to put my dad in prison.” The burden of guilt is especially heavy if the offense includes ‘child endangerment’ or ‘failure to pay child support’ because then the youth perceive that they are directly responsible. Their guilt often leads them to avoid contacting the parent in prison. During adolescence, youth may be perceived as capable of taking on adult roles, even being involved in the decision on whom to arrest as this example illustrates: During a domestic dispute involving a 14-year-old and her mother, the police came and asked the girl if her mother should stay or got to jail. “I didn't want her ass to go to jail. I was thinking ‘my sisters gotta go to school in the morning and nobody was going to be there’ so I was like, ‘no she is cool’.” For these young people, the trauma they experienced at the time of arrest was never resolved, an experience reported by other researchers as well (Jose-Kempfner 1995). They report a negative or no current relationship with that individual or sometimes, they become the caretaker of the individual. The trauma opened or expanded a rift in the family that did not close during the incarceration. In fact, these young people were interviewed in a juvenile detention facility where they were doing time for their own delinquent or criminal behaviors. A second factor at the time of arrest that can separate families is whether or not the arrested individual acknowledges having family responsibilities. Having children may actually motivate an arrested individual to not contact family about the arrest. The individual may have a variety of motivations for non-reporting or non-contact. The individual may desire to keep the family hidden from the system to protect them from official interference. Some individuals do not acknowledge parenting responsibilities so as to avoid financial obligations associated with child support. Others may feel that it is better for the children not to know the reason for a family member’s absence. Finally, some individuals, already greatly separated from their families, may not know where the children are (Johnston 1995). Many of the youth reported that they had no idea where their fathers were and had had no contact for many years. The lack of acknowledgement of roles and responsibilities can extend both ways during the incarceration period. The offender may choose to not contact family for the aforementioned reasons and the family may choose to disavow the offender. Children may be told misleading stories to protect them from the stigma of incarceration. Among the youth with a family member who had been jailed or imprisoned, 21 had been mislead about the absence or simply never been told a reason for a parent or other family member absence. The absence may be explained as a vacation or work. In such cases, no opportunity exists to maintain a relationship. Sometimes family, including children, may consciously draw away from the incarcerated member, perhaps feeling that that individual gave other things priority over their relationship. For instance, one young woman remarked, “drugs are more important to my mama than me so that‘s why she is locked up.” During the incarceration period family members are physically, socially, and emotionally separated. Fifty-two of the youth had no contact with the incarcerated family member. Roles and responsibilities are stripped from the offender and may be transferred to other family members, including children. “I am now the man of the family” stated one young man. Another 15-year-old described how he became the caretaker for his diabetic, alcoholic mother when his father went to prison. It was this young man’s job to monitor his mother’s insulin level while she was drinking. On a number of occasions he saved his mother’s life by calling 911. He was five years old when this situation started. He was extremely angry at his father for abandoning him and his mother and wanted nothing to do with him ever again. For some youth, a relationship with a family member was severed at the time of the incarceration because the separation felt like abandonment or involved a transfer of adult responsibilities to the child. For others it was the pre-incarceration experiences that led the youth not to have any relationships. “For myself, I don’t think I should be allowed to see my imprisoned dad until I am 18 because of all the stuff he did to me.” In such cases, the incarceration was perceived as a justification for not having a relationship. Given the evidence of the youth in this study, the frequency of contacts is probably the factor that most influences the degree of family unity or separation during the incarceration period. However the frequency of contact is certainly influenced by what happened pre-arrest, at the time of arrest, and by what happened during prior contacts in the correctional facility. If the parent and child had a negative or no relationship before the parent was incarcerated, things will most likely not improve during the incarceration period. Of the forty youth who did have some physical contact, most only visited the individual one or two times. The most troublesome aspect of visiting was having a conflict erupt in the visiting room and never resolving the conflict. In such cases, the youth usually refused to have any more contact with the incarcerated individual as in the story of this young woman: “dad was in prison quite a bit. We got into a fight right in prison because he called me and my sister a slut right in front of everybody and that made me mad so I walked out. Whenever he was in prison he told me I better bail him out. I got so mad. I left and said I hated him and never wanted to talk to him again and I didn’t.” Other youth talked about the physical environment of the correctional facility and how it discouraged them from visiting. “I went to visit my dad once in prison. It could be a good thing but it wasn’t for me. I got nervous. It was scary. That one visit wasn’t so good because his girlfriend was up there at the same time.” Interestingly, a mechanism that impacted relationships during incarceration was the degree to which criminal justice system involvement was normalized. “Having a family member in prison wasn’t scary because it had been going on my whole life. When I got arrested I didn’t feel nothing. It was a regular thing to me.” The more ongoing a pattern the incarceration, the more likely it was to be normalized in the family system and the weaker the relationship between the offender and family. The family seemed to withdraw their support of the offender, especially when the individual recidivated. About half the youth lived with an incarcerated family member after they were released. Just 23 report having a positive relationship currently. Another 40 of the youth describe their relationship with that individual as negative and 14 report no relationship with the individual. What happened? For some the prior relationship was not positive and incarceration did not offer any opportunities to change it. For others, the relationship turned negative during incarceration and for a final group, reunification led to more disappoint and damage to the relationship. The youth expected the ex-offender to be a changed person and were severely disappointed when pre-incarceration behaviors continued. Often, the individual ended up being locked up again and the family gave up on them. Policy and Practice ImplicationsFrom the experiences of these youth we can identify forces that have impacted parent/child relationships and that may affect the support that families provide to offenders. These mechanisms include experiencing multiple disruptions, drug use and the associated sense of abandonment, family fluidity, the transfer of adult responsibilities to children, the trauma associated with an arrest and the normalization of criminal justice system involvement. To at least some extent, the forces of separation described by the youth are also forces that separate adults. Clearly it is not just the stark social, emotional and physical separation of the incarceration that impairs family relationships. Both offenders and their families often have long term relationship issues. While the incarceration period could offer an opportunity to re-build relationships it is often not the sole cause of family separation. New strategies are needed to incorporate family members into efforts to rehabilitate offenders and support them upon release. Such efforts must begin with a more therapeutic approach to visits in correctional facilities. Family therapists could play an important role in helping families separated by incarceration and the forces of separation that preceded that event. The time has come to view offenders as being part of a family system, to actively engage families in the re-entry process, and to involve them in such a way that they receive the support they need to re-build and sustain relationships. References Acoca, L. (1999). Investing in Girls: 21st Century Strategy. Juvenile Justice, VI, 1. Retrieved August 18, 2004 from http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1099/contents.html . Amato, P. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, empirical support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 23-39. Ashford, J., Lecroyo, C., & Lortie, K. (2001). Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Separation, vol. 2, New York: Basic Books. Bureau of Justice Statistics, (2003). Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Hairston, C. (1995). Fathers in prison. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of Incarcerated Parents. (pp. 31-40). New York: Lexington Books. Hairston, C. (1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that influence incarcerated fathers’ relationship with their children. Child Welfare, 5, 617-39. Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of Incarcerated Parents. (pp. 59-88). New York: Lexington Books. Jose-Kempfner, C. (1995). Post-Traumatic stress reactions in children of imprisoned mothers. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of Incarcerated Parents. (pp. 89-100). New York: Lexington Books. Kelleher, K., Chaffin, M., Hollenberg, J., & Fischer, E. (1994). Alcohol and drug disorders among physically abusive and neglectful parents in a community based sample. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 10, 1586-1590. Konner, M. (1991). Childhood: A Multicultural View, Boston: Little, Brown. Loeber,R. & Stouthhamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. Crime and Justice, An Annual Review of Research, 7. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Magura, S., Laudet, A., Kangy, S., & Whitney, S. (1998). Effectiveness of comprehensive services for crack-dependent mothers with newborns and young children. New York: National Development and Research Institutes. Parke, R.D. & Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (2003). Effects of parental incarceration on young children. J. Travis & M. Waul, eds., Prisoners Once Removed, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., Jan. 30-31. Pilisuk, M. & Parks, S. (1983). Social support and family stress. Marriage and Family Review, 6, 1, 137-156. Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Shapiro, C. & Schwartz, M. (2001). Coming home building on family connections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 3, 52-61. Thornberry, T., Smith, C., Rivera, C., Huizinga, D. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1999). Family disruption and delinquency. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, US Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC. Travis, J. & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners Once Removed, Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Unger, D. & Powell, D. (1980). Supporting families under stress: The role of social networks. Family Relations, 29, 566-574. Visher,C., Kachinowski, V., La Vigne, N., & Travis, J. (2004). Returning Home Maryland Final Report. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Retrieved from the web, Oct, 2, 2004, www.urban.org
Yüklə 1,2 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|