The Prison Journal 2010 Hoffmann 397 416

8/12/2019 The Prison Journal 2010 Hoffmann 397 416

1/21

http://tpj.sagepub.com/ThePrison Journal

http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/00328855103820872010 90: 397 originally published online 8 September 2010The Prison Journal

Heath C. Hoffmann, Amy L. Byrd and Alex M. KightlingerFacilities

Underage Children: Results From a National Survey of CorrectionalPrison Programs and Services for Incarcerated Parents and Their

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Pennsylvania Prison Society

can be found at:The Prison JournalAdditional services and information for

http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 8, 2010OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 30, 2010Version of Record>>

at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.htmlhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.htmlhttp://www.prisonsociety.org/http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/03/0032885510382087.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/03/0032885510382087.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.htmlhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/03/0032885510382087.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/03/0032885510382087.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/03/0032885510382087.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/03/0032885510382087.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.full.pdfhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.htmlhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.prisonsociety.org/http://www.prisonsociety.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397http://tpj.sagepub.com/


2/21

The Prison Journal

90(4) 397416

2010 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0032885510382087http://tpj.sagepub.com

TPJ

1College of Charleston, Charleston, SC2University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA3Blackbaud, Charleston, SC

Corresponding Author:

Heath C. Hoffmann, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,

College of Charleston, 66 George Street Charleston, SC 29424

Email: [email protected]

Prison Programs

and Services for

Incarcerated Parents

and Their Underage

Children: Results From

a National Survey of

Correctional Facilities

Heath C. Hoffmann1, Amy L. Byrd2,

and Alex M. Kightlinger3

AbstractIn 2007, approximately 810,000 men and women in state and federal prisonswere parents to more than 1.7 million children under the age of 18, onethird of whom will turn 18 while their parent(s) is incarcerated. Parentalincarceration increases the risk that children will experience later behavioraland emotional problems, have troubles in school, and become involved inthe juvenile and criminal justice systems. Parenting-related prison program-ming offers some promise in lessening the negative consequences of paren-

tal incarceration, both for children and the incarcerated parent. This studypresents the results from a national survey of wardens from male and femalecorrectional facilities to measure the prevalence of programs and servicesfor incarcerated parents and their underage children.

Article

at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/


3/21

398 The Prison Journal90(4)

Keywords

incarcerated parents, parenting programs, prison visitation, prison policy

The children and family members of men and women in prison are often

referred to as the invisible population (Brink, 2003) left behind when con-

victed offenders are sent to prison. In 1991, approximately 426,000 men and

women in state and federal prisons were parents to more than 1 million chil-

dren (Mumola, 2000). Today, there are approximately 810,000 incarcerated

parents with more than 1.7 million children under the age of 18, one third of

whom will turn 18 while their parent(s) is incarcerated (Glaze & Maruschak,

2008). Because incarcerated mothers are more likely than incarcerated fathersto live with their children prior to being incarcerated (Glaze & Maruschak,

2008; Smith, Krisman, Strozier, & Marley, 2004), increase in the number of

children with an incarcerated parent largely reflects a doubling of the number

of women in state or federal prison from 63,000 in 1990 (Stephan, 1997) to

116,000 in 2008 (West & Sabol, 2009).

Although the number of children affected by parental incarceration is quite

evident, the consequences for children can be difficult to ascertain. Parental

incarceration usually emerges from a context of instability including familyviolence, poverty, child abuse and/or neglect, parental mental illness, mater-

nal history of sexual and physical abuse, high levels of neighborhood vio-

lence, and a host of other risk factors that, by themselves, could explain the

elevated risk factors for children of incarcerated parents (Glaze & Maruschak,

2008; Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003). However, longitudinal and quasi-

experimental research studies have found that parental incarceration is not

merely a proxy for preincarceration risk factors (e.g., family poverty, paren-

tal substance abuse, and child abuse/neglect) but has an independent effect onthe emotional and behavioral development of children (Huebner & Gustafson,

2007; Murray & Farrington, 2005; Phillips, Burns, Wagner, Kramer, &

Robbins, 2002). Children with an incarcerated parent are at an increased like-

lihood of exhibiting symptoms of depression, eating and sleeping disorders,

anxiety and hyper-arousal (Lee, 2005; Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003), con-

duct disorder (Phillips et al., 2002), antisocial personality disorder (Murray &

Farrington, 2005), and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Phillips et

al., 2002). Thus, it is no surprise that children with an incarcerated parent are

more likely to be expelled or suspended from school (i.e., for fighting and/or

insubordination; see Hanlon et al., 2005), even after controlling for other risk

factors such as child abuse or neglect, residential instability, parental sub-

stance abuse or mental illness, and poverty (Phillips et al., 2002).



4/21

Hoffmann et al. 399

In a study of 88 children whose mothers were incarcerated, Hanlon et al.

(2005) found low rates of self-reported alcohol and drug use and other delin-

quent behaviors. However, they found that nearly 25% of these children had

friends who had been arrested or who had served time in a juvenile detention

facility. In fact, children sometimes cope with the stigma of having an incar-

cerated parent by withdrawing from prosocial groups and affiliating with

nonconforming peers from whom they receive acceptance and support (Breen,

1995; Eddy & Reid, 2003). Affiliating with antisocial peer groups may partly

explain why children with an incarcerated parent have an increased likeli-

hood of engaging in delinquent and criminal behavior (Eddy & Reid, 2003)

and are more likely to be arrested and/or incarcerated as juveniles (Murray &

Farrington, 2005; Phillips et al., 2002). These findings are reinforced by thefact that nearly 50% of children in juvenile detention facilities have experi-

enced a parents incarceration (U.S. Department of Justice, 1988). The effect

of parental incarceration on children is not limited to adolescence as children

of incarcerated mothers have been found to be almost three times more likely

to be incarcerated as adults (Dallaire, 2007; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007).

Although the extant literature has demonstrated a consistent relationship

between parental incarceration and the negative effects felt by children,

research on the effects this separation has on the incarcerated parent is mixed.For example, some research has found no differences between incarcerated

mothers and incarcerated nonmothers in their general health and depressive

symptoms (Hurley & Dunne, 1991) or in their adjustment to jail life (Lindquist

& Lindquist, 1997). In contrast, Houck and Loper (2002) found that incarcer-

ated women who had less contact with their children reported diminished

emotional and physical well-being. In addition, mothers who were stressed

about their competence as parents were more likely to report symptoms asso-

ciated with anxiety and depression as well as more citations for misconductin prison than did incarcerated mothers who did not report parenting-related

stress (Houck & Loper, 2002).

To address the consequences of parental incarceration, programs have been

developed to build the parenting skills of mothers and fathers behind bars and

to support the development of their children. Some parenting programs only

involve the incarcerated parent with no structured involvement of the par-

ents child(ren). Incarcerated parents participating in these programs of vary-

ing intensity (i.e., 1 vs. 2 hr a week) and duration (i.e., 8 vs. 15 weeks long)

have reported positive changes including improved family cohesion and bond-

ing between parent and child (Hairston & Locket, 1987, as cited in Harrison,

1997), increased empathy toward children (Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998; Sandifer,

2008), enhanced knowledge of parenting skills (Wilezck & Markstrom, 1999),

http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/


5/21


child development (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982; Sandifer, 2008), behavior

management strategies (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982), and the appropriate

use of discipline (Sandifer, 2008; Thompson & Harm, 2000). Dinkmeyer and

McKay (1982) also found that participants in one 15-hr program demonstrated

a lower recidivism rate (1%) compared to the control group (19%), but whether

decreased recidivism corresponded with increased parenting efficacy or other

positive changes in parentchild relations was not measured.

Although the above findings are positive, changes in parents attitudes do

not necessarily translate into behavioral changes, let alone changes in the

psycho-social-emotional status of incarcerated parents children. For exam-

ple, one education program for incarcerated fathers resulted in the development

of healthy attitudes toward parenting and childrearing compared to fathers inthe control group, but children of these fathers did not report improvement

in their self-perception (Harrison, 1997). It is possible that children were

unaffected because of the lack of parentchild contact in the education pro-

gram whereby incarcerated fathers were unable to put their newly learned

skills into practice. In an attempt to combat this potential shortcoming, some

prisons have developed programming that brings incarcerated parents together

with their child(ren) behind bars to build parentchild relationships. These

programs often constitute what are called enhanced visitation programs thatprovide transportation for children to visit their parent and a special visitation

space (e.g., visitation space with toys, games, and murals of cartoon charac-

ters; see Clement, 1993; Cunningham, 2001; Snyder, Carlo, & Mullins, 2001)

where parents and their children can interact with each other more intimately

than is allowed during regular visitations (Block, 1999).

Girl Scouts Beyond Bars (GSBB) is arguably one of the most publicized

and well-known enhanced parentchild visitation programs. Incarcerated

mothers participating in GSBB meet regularly to prepare themselves emo-tionally and plan activities for upcoming visits with their daughters. At the

same time, daughters meet together in the community where they receive

support from peers in similar circumstances. Block and Potthast (1998) found

that girls participating in GSBB, according to the daughters caregiver,

showed improved relationships to and communication with their incarcerated

mothers, decreased problems relating to their mothers incarceration, and were

less sad, angry, and concerned that they would lose their mothers. Participants

also showed a decrease in problems at school (e.g., fighting and talking back

to teachers) and improved grades (Block & Potthast, 1998). Other programs

that bring incarcerated parents and their children together have produced

similar results. Participating parents have shown increased levels of acceptance

of and empathy toward children (Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998) and decreased



6/21

Hoffmann et al. 401

parenting-related stress (Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998; Snyder-Joy & Carlo,

1998). Participating children were found to have improved separation-related

coping (Snyder et al., 2001) and a decrease in the number of problem behav-

iors they exhibited (Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998; Snyder-Joy & Carlo, 1998).

Although GSBB does not include overnight visits, some prisons have

taken the enhanced visitation model one step further by developing programs

that allow the parent and child to stay overnight in the prison together for

varying lengths of time. One Minnesota program that allows children under

the age of 11 to stay with their moms has reportedly helped mothers and their

children develop healthier relationships that sustained after the mothers

release (Martin, 1997). Approximately nine correctional facilities currently

have, or are in the process of developing, in-prison residential facilities ornurseries where infants born to incarcerated women can live with their

mother for as long 18 months after birth (Womens Prison Association, 2009).

In addition, five states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons have community-

based residential facilities for pregnant women (Womens Prison Association,

2009). These programs give parents the chance to practice the parenting

skills and new forms of knowledge (e.g., nutrition and child health issues)

that they are learning in classroom-based parenting programs (see Bloom &

Steinhart, 1993). The limited research on the efficacy of prison nurseries hasfound that mother participants have lower recidivism rates (Carlson, 2001;

New York State Department of Correctional Services, 1999) and fewer mis-

conduct charges while incarcerated (Carlson, 2001).

A major impediment to involving children in prison-based programming

is the distance of the correctional facility from family members hometowns.

This distance disproportionately affects incarcerated mothers who are incar-

cerated, on average, 160 miles further from their families than are incarcerated

fathers (Coughenour, 1995). In addition, the cost of visiting an incarceratedfamily member is oftentimes prohibitive given the costs of transportation,

lodging, and food (Christian, 2005). In light of the limited resources of

family members and the prison security concerns associated with face-to-

face prison visits, a number of correctional facilities report using technol-

ogy to facilitate contact between incarcerated parents and their children. In

Florida, for example, the Reading Family Ties: Face to Face program

allows mothers in two rural Florida facilities to have weekly visits with

their children using videoconferencing technology (Bartlett, 2000). Other

facilities sponsor literacy programs allowing incarcerated parents to record

themselves reading a book on an audiotape, compact disc, or videotape which

is then sent by mail with the book to the parents child (National Institute of

Corrections, 2002a).



7/21


The knowledge that family contact with people in prison may reduce

recidivism and improve postrelease attachment between parent and child (La

Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005) make prison parenting programs an

important policy and research forum. Yet, there is a dearth of research on the

prevalence of prison programs and services targeting the children of incarcer-

ated parents. There are two exceptions to this. Clement (1993) and the

National Institute of Corrections (2002a, 2002b) surveyed state corrections

departments and other correctional agencies (e.g., Federal Bureau of Prisons,

District of Columbia, and New York City) to ascertain the nature of services

for the families of people who are incarcerated. Although informative, both

studies are limited because they only report whether a state has a specific

policy regarding prisoners children and/or whether at least one facility withina state has a program for incarcerated parents and/or their children. Collecting

data at the agency level misses innovative programs developed locally in col-

laboration between prison wardens and community groups, programs that

may be unknown to the central office, and obscuring the prevalence of these

programs and services. This research compensates for these limitations,

reporting data from a national survey of prison wardens to identify the preva-

lence and type of programs available to facilitate parentchild contact.

Method

Using the 2005 American Correctional Association (ACA) Directory, a sin-

gle survey (with no follow-up) was mailed to the warden or superintendent

of 999 state-run adult correctional facilities between February and June of

2006. The 999 facilities survey consisted of 246 female and cogender facili-

ties, 485 male facilities in states ranked by the ACA in the top 10 for annual

correctional spending and 480 male facilities in the remaining 40 states notranked in the top 10 for annual correctional spending. Permission to survey

wardens in Illinois and Florida was not granted so these states facilities were

excluded from the study. New Yorks facilities were also excluded because

the states Department of Correctional Services returned a single survey to

represent all of its facilities.

The survey we sent to wardens asked administrators to describe the pro-

grams and services they offer to incarcerated parents and their underage chil-

dren. Wardens of female and cogender facilities were asked questions about

the availability of housing and programming for women who are pregnant

when they enter prison. Finally, we asked wardens to indicate what motivated

(e.g., to avoid litigation) them to develop programs for incarcerated parents



8/21

Hoffmann et al. 403

and/or their children and the extent to which the facility and community

groups share in the cost and provision of these programs.

Findings

Of the 999 wardens surveyed, 387 (39%) returned a completed survey. The

response rate was 35% for female and cogender facilities, with 35% of male

facilities responding from states ranked in the top 10 for correctional spend-

ing, and 42% of facilities located in states that are not ranked in the top 10

for correctional spending.

Prevalence of General Parenting

Education Programs

In 2006, the majority of responding institutions reported having some type

of parenting program (see Table 1). Parenting classes that do not directly

involve children were the most common parenting program offered in 51%

of male facilities, 90% of female facilities, and 74% of cogender facilities.

Of the 165 respondents who provided the name of the parenting program(s)

held at their facilities, nearly one third indicated a generic program name likeParenting or Parenting Classes. Long Distance Dads was the most frequently

mentioned formal program (10%) with a range of other programs receiving two

or three mentions (e.g., Head Start, Parenting From a Distance and Responsible

Family Life Skills).

Parenting classes directly involving prisoners children were offered

much less often, with only 10% of male, 33% of female, and 15% of cogen-

der facilities providing such programs. We also asked respondents whether

the programs involving children were offered inside and/or outside the cor-rectional facility, and mothers in female-only facilities were most likely to

have access to parenting programs involving their children both inside(44%)

and outside (19%) the facility. Twenty-two percent of cogender facilities

also report opportunities for parents to participate in programming with their

children outsideof the facility, though only 7% offer programming inside

the facility.

A number of facilities report hosting programs that allow parents to record

themselves reading a book and then the video or audio recording and, in some

cases, a copy of the book is sent to the child. Video book recordings are most

common in female (19%) and cogender (11%) facilities, as are audio (i.e., com-

pact disc) book recordings (56% of female and 33% of cogender facilities).



9/21


In contrast, only two male facilities report allowing incarcerated parents to

read a book to their child via satellite or Internet transmission.

Programs and Residential Facilities for

Pregnant Women and Other Parents

Close to one third of female facilities offered parenting classes for their

pregnant residents and 4% of cogender facilities reported doing so. More

than one fifth of female correctional facilities offer special housing for preg-

nant women although no cogender facilities do so. Lastly, three (6%) female

facilities and one (4%) cogender facility report having a nursery within the

facility to house infants born to incarcerated women. Six percent of facilities

for women and 4% of cogender facilities report having housing outsidethe

Table 1.Prevalence of Parenting Education Programs

Male facilities

(%)

Female facilities

(%)

Cogender facilities

(%)

Parenting classes withoutthe involvementof thechildren

51 90 74

Parenting classes thatdirectly involvechildren

10 33 15

Video recordingof parentreading a book can besent to Child

7 19 11

Audiotape(or compactdisc) of parent readinga book can be sent tochild

16 56 33

Prisoners can readdirectly to childrenusing satellite orInternet transmission


10/21

Hoffmann et al. 405

facility where mothers can live full-time with their children. Special housing

for mothers and children is available for weekends-only in 4% of womens

facilities and 7% of cogender institutions. Seven male facilities (2%) report

having special housing accommodations available for fathers and their chil-

dren. Special housing for men typically included extended (i.e., 24-48 hr or

2 days and 3 nights) family visits with children and the other parent inside

the facility. One facility, potentially misunderstanding the question, reports

that men can be housed with their fathers or brothers on the same living unit,

suggesting an effort to house incarcerated male family members together.

Subsidized Transportation and Lodging forVisiting Children and other Family Members

The vast majority of respondents report that their state correctional agency

makes some effort to assign convicted offenders to a correctional facility close

to their families. This is true of 70% of male facilities, 58% of female facilities,

and 67% of cogender facilities (see Table 2). Subsidies to defray transportation

costs for family members visiting an incarcerated loved one are offered by 18%

of male and 29% of female facilities. The cost for subsidizing transportation

within male facilities is primarily provided by faith groups (60%), with 27%reporting that funding comes from a combination of the states department of

corrections (DOC), faith groups, and local charities, and only 13% report that

subsidies are paid by the DOC only. In contrast, transportation subsidies for

visitors to female facilities was primarily funded by a combination of the DOC,

faith groups, and local charities (57%), with the remainder being paid for by

faith groups (29%) and the DOC (14%). Several respondents from California

and Pennsylvania identified Friends Outside and the Pennsylvania Prison

Society respectively, as organizations that provide transportation assistance tofamily members. Other respondents report that private van companies, buses

and taxis provide flat-rate services between local city centers and the prison.

An even smaller proportion of male (16%), female (13%), and cogender

facilities (15%) provided transportation to visiting family members from a

local public transit facility to the prison (see Table 2). For those facilities that

do, the DOC did not provide any funding within any of the male facilities,

with 68% of the funding coming from a combination of faith groups and local

charities and 32% from faith groups alone. Within female facilities, the major-

ity of funding again came from a combination of sources (80%) and the

remaining 20% was paid for by the DOC. Cogender facilities had funding

split equally between the DOC, faith groups, and a combination of sources.

Respondents were also asked if their facilities provide lodging assistance

or subsidies for lodging to visiting familymembers.Lodging assistance is

relatively rare, with only 6% of male, 8% of female, and 4% of cogender



11/21


facilities providing this service. Funding for lodging assistance is primarily

provided by faith groups or a combination of support from the DOC, faith

groups, and local charities.

Child Visitation Facilities and

Visitation Services

One third of responding female facilities report separate visitation areas are

available for incarcerated parents to visit with their children. This is true of

Table 2.Subsidized Transportation and Lodging for Visiting Children and otherFamily Members

Male facilities(%)

Female facilities(%)

Cogender facilities(%)

Effort is made to placeoffenders in a facility nearfamily

70 58 67

Subsidized transportationavailable for visiting familymembers

18 29 0

Paid for by DOC 13 14 NA

Paid for by faith groups 60 29 NA

Paid for by combinationof DOC, faith groups orlocal charities

27 57 NA

Transportation for visitingfamily members providedto prison from localpublic transit facility

16 13 15

Paid for by DOC 0 20 33

Paid for by faith groups 32 0 33


68 80 33

Lodging assistanceprovided to visiting familymembers

6 8 4

Paid for by the DOC 11 0 0

Paid for by faith groups 63 50 100


26 50 0

DOC =department of corrections.

http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/http://tpj.sagepub.com/


12/21

Hoffmann et al. 407

9% of male facilities and 19% of cogender facilities. Womens facilities (35%)

are also more likely than male (17%) and cogender (11%) facilities to offer

supervised play activities for children. When visitors arrive to the facility and

are not dressed in accordance with the prisons policy, 13% and 19% of male

and female facilities respectively, provide appropriate clothing to visitors.

The extent to which visiting family members are aware of the dress code and

other policies prior to visiting may be influenced by whether or not they

previously received a copy of the rules. Fifty-four percent of female facilities

send visitation policies to friends and family members on inmates approved

visitors list. This is true of 40% of male and 37% of cogender facilities. Other

facilities reported sending the policy to family members if requested, distrib-

uting the policies to those who are incarcerated and making it their responsi-bility to send the policy to friends and family, or distributing policies to

would-be visitors when the latter complete the visitation application.

Motivations for Developing Programs for

Incarcerated Parents and Their Children

When asked their motivation for developing programs and services for the

children of prisoners, very few credited legislative statute or the real or per-ceived threat of litigation as motivations (see Table 3). Nearly one third of

womens facilities explicitly identified the benefit to prisoners children as a

motivation compared to 18% of mens and 15% of cogender facilities. The

majority of respondents reported internal reasons as the motivation. Although

not mutually exclusive, the internal reasons mentioned most by respon-

dents include improving/maintaining family relationships during incarcera-

tion, reducing recidivism, easing the reentry transition for incarcerated parents,

breaking the intergenerational cycle of crime and nearly a dozen respondentsreport doing so because Its the right thing to do. Finally, 42% of male and

44% of cogender facilities report that they have not formally considered devel-

oping programs to benefit prisoners children although only 8% of womens

facilities have not considered developing programs.

Discussion and Conclusions

Children with an incarcerated parent are at an increased risk for depression,

eating and sleeping disorders, anxiety and hyper-arousal (Lee, 2005; Parke

& Clarke-Stewart, 2003), conduct disorder (Phillips et al., 2002), antisocial

personality disorder (Murray & Farrington, 2005) and attention-deficit/

hyperactivity disorder (Phillips et al., 2002). These children are more likely to

be expelled or suspended from school (i.e., for fighting and/or insubordination;



13/21


see Hanlon et al., 2005), and they are more likely to be arrested and/or incar-

cerated as juveniles (Murray & Farrington, 2005; Phillips et al., 2002) and as

adults (Dallaire, 2007; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007). At the same time, parent

child separation because of incarceration negatively affects the parents who

have reported diminished emotional and physical well-being, including anxi-

ety and depression (Houck & Loper, 2002).

Although facilitating prisoners contact with friends and family members

(e.g., through prison visitation, telephone and mail correspondence, as well

as conjugal visits and home furloughs) has long been suggested as one means

to improve prisoners behavior while incarcerated (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken,

2002; Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury, 2002) and as a way to reduce

recidivism (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Holt & Miller, 1972), it was

not until the last 15 years or so that formal prison-based parenting programs

began to receive significant attention among academics as one means of ben-

efitting both incarcerated parents and their children. Incarcerated parents par-

ticipating in parenting programs have reported improved bonding with(Hairston & Locket, 1987, as cited in Harrison, 1997) and empathy toward

their child (Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998; Sandifer, 2008), enhanced knowl-

edge of child development (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982; Sandifer, 2008), beha-

vior management strategies (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982) and the appropriate

Table 3.Motivations for Developing Programs for Incarcerated Parents Children

Programs were

developed

Male facilities

(%)

Female facilities

(%)

Cogender facilities

(%)

In response to statutoryrequirements

2 2 7

In response to litigationor to reduce thelikelihood of litigation

3 6 0

To benefit the childrenof incarcerated parents

18 29 15

For internal reasons(reasons mostfrequently mentionedare listed below)

37 69 37

Respondents have notformally considereddeveloping programsto benefit the childrenof incarcerated parents

42 8 44



14/21

Hoffmann et al. 409

use of discipline (Sandifer, 2008; Thompson & Harm, 2000). Parent partici-

pants in one program also had a lower recidivism rate than incarcerated par-

ents in the control group (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982). At the same time,

children appear to benefit from some prison parenting programs, showing

improved relationships to and communication with their incarcerated moth-

ers, decreased problems relating to their mothers incarceration, and dimin-

ished feelings of sadness and anger (Block & Potthast, 1998). Participating

children may also experience a decrease in behavioral problems at school

and improved grades (Block & Potthast, 1998; Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998;

Snyder-Joy & Carlo, 1998).

Given these findings, it is not surprising we found that a majority of cor-

rectional facilities offer some kind of parenting program for incarcerated par-ents. However, the research on the efficacy of prison-parenting programs is

still in its infancy. More importantly, programs vary significantly with some

involving only the incarcerated parent and others involving both the incarcer-

ated parent and his child. With that said, existing research suggests that chil-

dren should be directly involved in these programs to maximize the positive

benefits for both children and their parents (Block & Potthast, 1998; Landreth

& Lobaugh, 1998; Snyder et al., 2001; Snyder-Joy & Carlo, 1998). Yet, most

of the programs offered by prisons in our study involved the incarcerated par-ent only, without the direct participation of children. This finding makes

sense as programs involving children would involve security concerns and

added costs associated with transportation for children and perhaps even

changes to the prison infrastructure to better accommodate child visitors. In

any case, it is likely that prisons are sponsoring parenting programs that are

not effective and are thus underutilizing already scarce prison resources. For

example, the parenting program mentioned most oftenLong Distance

Dadshas been found by at least one outcome study to have no significantimpact on fathers attitudes or level of contact with children (Skarupski,

2003). When combined with the finding that few respondents report that they

or their state agency had conducted outcome evaluations of their parenting

programs (or did not know whether such evaluations had been done) rein-

forces the concern that financial and human resources are not being allocated

to the most effective parenting programs that will maximize the benefit to

both children and parents.

Regardless of program efficacy, most prisons have some kind of parenting

program but these programs were most common in facilities for women. This

may be because women are more likely than men to live with their children

and be the primary caregiver in the month before going to prison (Glaze &

Maruschak, 2008) or because, culturally, fatherhood is deemed less important



15/21


than motherhood, especially among men who are incarcerated (see Hairston,

2001). In conjunction with the idea that women are more likely to serve as the

primary caregiver, incarcerated mothers are more likely than fathers to have

weekly contact with their children, usually in the form of telephone calls and

mail (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Although phone and mail contact are sta-

tistically significant predictors of postrelease attachment between parents and

children, face-to-face visits have a greater positive impact on parentchild

relationships (La Vigne et al., 2005). However, a major impediment to face-

to-face contact with children and other family members is the distance of

prisons from family members and the related cost of visiting. Not surpris-

ingly, as the distance between the prison and ones family members increases,

the number of monthly face-to-face visits decreases (Hairston, Rollin, & Jo,2004). Although the majority of respondents in our study make the effort to

assign offenders to a facility near family, this is more difficult for incarcer-

ated women because there are fewer facilities for women. This may be why

womens facilities were more likely than facilities for men to subsidize trans-

portation costs for family members. Yet, this was the case in only 29% of the

facilities for women.

One way to overcome the distance between children and their incarcerated

parents is to provide in-prison and/or community-based residential facilitieswhere parents can live with their children. Prison nurseries and other residen-

tial programs of this type are quite rare. Although only four facilities in our

study reported having a nursery for pregnant women, there are actually nine

prison nurseries in America (Womens Prison Association, 2009). The under-

count in our study is largely because we did not survey facilities in New York

and Illinois, two states that have nurseries. Our study also undercounts the

number of community-based residential facilities for mothers and their chil-

dren. Our study revealed four such community-based facilities whereas theNational Institute of Corrections (2002a) and Devine (1997) report 9 and 14

states, respectively where pregnant women can be housed in community-

based facilities.

The United States is a bit of an anomaly in this regard as other countries

regularly provide residential options for women who are pregnant when

incarcerated and/or who have children under the age of 6. For example, in

Spain, women who are pregnant or who have small children when they are

sent to prison get to choose whether they keep their children in prison (until

the age of 3) or to have a guardian care for the child while they are incarcer-

ated (Jimnez & Palacios, 2003). A precedent for parentchild codetention is

also evidenced in South Africa (Eloff & Moen, 2003), England (Black, Payne,

Lansdown, & Gregoire, 2004) and Hungary where, in the case of the latter,



16/21

Hoffmann et al. 411

prison sentences for pregnant women can be delayed up to 1 year to allow the

woman to give birth and care for her child in the community before going to

prison (Jaff, Pons, & Wicky, 1997). As better developed efficacy studies on

prison nurseries become available, American correctional departments may

find value in expanding long-term community- and/or prison-based housing

options for pregnant women and incarcerated mothers with young children.

In the absence of opportunities for children to live part- or full-time with

an incarcerated parent, parental incarceration likely leads to a disruption in

the childs home life. A child whose mother is incarcerated usually goes to

live with a grandparent or other relative whereas a child whose father is incar-

cerated typically lives with the other parent (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).

Grandparent caregivers are likely to be retired or near retirement, may befaced with health problems and they may not have the energy it takes to raise

a child. Furthermore, if on a fixed income and/or impoverished, caregivers

are often not equipped financially to take on the responsibility of raising a

child, which is a burden for the guardian and an additional risk factor for

the child (Phillips & Bloom, 1998). Eddy, Whaley and Stoolmiller (2002, as

cited in Eddy & Reid, 2003) report that a caregivers use of effective parent-

ing practices can counteract the effects of parental incarceration, poverty and

other risk factors that would otherwise increase the childs likelihood ofbecoming involved in deviance. Our survey did not ask respondents about

programming that involves the caregiver of incarcerated parents children

and this is an area necessitating additional research. In the meantime, commu-

nity groups and correctional systems might better collaborate on the develop-

ment of institutional and community-based programs and services that help

caregivers develop effective parenting practices that may then prevent chil-

dren from following in the footsteps of their incarcerated parents.

Finally, future research needs to systematically evaluate the short andlong-term benefits of prison programs and services that seek to maintain and/

or develop incarcerated parents relationships with their children. Few of the

available outcome studies have control groups and most rely on self-report

data from the incarcerated parent to measure program efficacy. In the absence

of rigorous process and outcome evaluation studies, we risk spending limited

tax dollars on programs and services that have little hope of reducing recidi-

vism among incarcerated parents or bettering the lives of their children.

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Major Academic Year Support

Grant from the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities program at the College

of Charleston.



17/21


Authors Note

The research contained in this document was coordinated in part by the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice (Research 495-R06). The contents of the document

reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship

or the publication of this article.

FundingThe author disclosed that they received the following support for their research and/

or authorship of this article: This research was supported by the Major Academic

Year Support Grant from the Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities pro-

gram at the College of Charleston.

References

American Correctional Association. (2005). 2005 directory: Adult and juvenile cor-

rectional departments, institutions, agencies, and probation and parole. Lanham,MD: Author.

Bartlett, R. (2000). Helping inmate moms keep in touchPrison programs encourage

ties with children. Corrections Today, 62(7), 102-104.

Black, D., Payne, H., Lansdown, R., & Gregoire, A. (2004). Babies behind bars revis-

ited.Archives of Disease in Childhood, 89, 896-898.

Block, K. J. (1999). Bring scouting to prison: Programs and challenges.The Prison

Journal, 79, 269-283.

Block, K. J., & Potthast, M. J. (1998). Girl scouts beyond bars: Facilitating parentchild contact in correctional settings. Child Welfare, 77, 561-578.

Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the children? A reappraisal of the

children of incarcerated mothers in America. San Francisco: National Council on

Crime and Delinquency.

Breen, P. A. (1995). Families in peril: Bridging the barriers. Corrections Today,

57(7), 98-99.

Brink, J. (2003). You dont see us doin time.Contemporary Justice Review, 6, 393-396.

Carlson, J. R. (2001). Prison nursery 2000: A five-year review of the prison nursery

at the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women.Journal of Offender Rehabilita-

tion, 33(3), 75-97.

Casey-Acevedo, K., & Bakken, T. (2002). Visiting women in prison: Who visits and

who cares?Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 67-83.



18/21

Hoffmann et al. 413

Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family manage-

ment strategies.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 31-48.

Clement, M. J. (1993). Parenting in prison: A national survey of programs for incar-

cerated women.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19(1-2), 89-100.

Coughenour, J. C. (1995). Separate and unequal: Women in the federal criminal jus-

tice system.Federal Sentencing Reporter, 8(2), 142-144.

Cunningham, A. (2001). Forgotten families: The impacts of imprisonment.Family

Matters, 59, 35-38.

Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for

children and families.Family Relations, 56, 440-453.

Devine, K. (1997).Family unity: The benefits and costs of community-based sentenc-

ing programs for women and their children in Illinois. Chicago: Chicago Legal

Aid to Incarcerated Mothers.

Dinkmeyer, D. C., & McKay, G. D. (1982). The parents handbook: Systematic train-

ing for effective parenting. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Eddy, J. M., & Reid, J. B. (2003). The adolescent children of incarcerated parents:

A developmental perspective. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once

removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and com-

munities(pp. 233-258). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Eddy, J. M., Whaley, R. B., & Stoolmiller, M. (2002).Parental transitions: Theinfluence of accumulation and timing on delinquency. Manuscript submitted for

publication.

Eloff, I., & Moen, M. (2003). An analysis of motherchild interaction patterns in

prison.Early Child Development and Care, 173, 711-720.

Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008).Parents in prison and their minor children

(Report No. NCJ 222984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau

of Justice Statistics.

Hairston, C. F. (2001). Fathers in prison: Responsible fatherhood and responsiblepublic policies.Marriage & Family Review, 32(3-4), 111-135.

Hairston, C. F., & Locket, P. C. (1987). [Fathers and children together questionnaire].

Unpublished raw data.

Hairston, C. F., Rollin, J., & Jo, H. (2004, Winter). Family connections during

imprisonment and prisoners community reentry (Research brief: Children,

families, and the criminal justice system). Retrieved January 15, 2006, from

http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/college/research_public_service/files/family

connections.pdf

Hanlon, T. E., Blatchley, R. J., Bennett-Sears, T., OGrady, K. E., Rose, M., &

Callaman, J. M. (2005). Vulnerability of children of incarcerated addict mothers:

Implications for preventive intervention. Children and Youth Services Review,

30, 67-84.



19/21


Harrison, K. (1997). Parental training for incarcerated fathers: Effects on attitudes, self-

esteem, and childrens self-perceptions.Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 588-593.

Hensley, C., Koscheski, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Does participation in conjugal

visitations reduce prison violence in Mississippi? An exploratory study.Criminal

Justice Review, 27, 52-65.

Holt, N., & Miller, D. (1972).Explorations in inmate-family relationships. Sacramento,

CA: California Department of Corrections.

Houck, D. F. K., & Loper, A. B. (2002). The relationship of parenting stress to adjust-

ment among mothers in prison.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 548-558.

Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect of maternal incarceration on adult

offspring involvement in the criminal justice system.Journal of Criminal Justice,

35, 283-296.

Hurley, W., & Dunne, M. P. (1991). Psychological distress and psychiatric morbid-

ity in women prisoners.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 25,

461-470.

Jaff, P. D., Pons, F., & Wicky, H. R. (1997). Children imprisoned with their mothers:

Psychological implications. In S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Prez, & R. Barberet

(Eds.),Advances in psychology and law: International contributions(pp. 399-407).

Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Jimnez, J. M., & Palacios, J. (2003). When home is in jail: Child development inSpanish penitentiary units.Infant and Child Development, 12, 461-474.

Landreth, G. L., & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial therapy with incarcerated fathers:

Effects on parental acceptance of child, parental stress, and child adjustment.

Journal of Counseling and Development,76, 157-165.

La Vigne, N., Naser, R. L., Brooks, L. E., & Castro, J. L. (2005). Examining the effect

of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners family relationships.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 314-335.

Lee, A. F. (2005). Children of inmates: What happens to these unintended victims?Corrections Today, 67(3), 84-85, 90, 95.

Lindquist, C. H., & Lindquist, C. A. (1997). Gender differences in distress: Mental

health consequences of environmental stress among jail inmates.Behavioral Sci-

ence and the Law, 15, 503-523.

Martin, M. (1997). Connected mothers: A follow-up study of incarcerated women and

their children. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(4), 1-23.

Mumola, C. (2000).Incarcerated parents and their children(Report No. NCJ 182335).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys anti-

social behavior and delinquency through the life-course.Journal of Child Psy-

chology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269-1278.



20/21

Hoffmann et al. 415

National Institute of Corrections. (2002a). Services for families of prison inmates.

Longmont, CO: Author.

National Institute of Corrections. (2002b). Serving families of adult offenders: A

directory of programs. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

New York State Department of Correctional Services. (1999).Profile and three year

follow-up of Bedford Hills and Taconic nursery program participants: 1997 and

1998. Albany, NY: Department of Correctional Services.

Parke, R. D., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2003). The effects of parental incarceration on

children. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.),Prisoners once removed: The impact of

incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities(pp. 189-232).

Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Phillips, S., & Bloom, B. (1998). In whose best interest? The impact of changing

public policy on relatives caring for children with incarcerated parents.Child Wel-

fare, 77, 531-541.

Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., Kramer, T. L., & Robbins, J. M. (2002).

Parental incarceration among adolescents receiving mental health services.Jour-

nal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 385-399.

Sandifer, J. L. (2008). Evaluating the efficacy of a parenting program for incarcerated

mothers. The Prison Journal, 88, 423-445.

Skarupski, K. A. (2003).A process evaluation of Pennsylvania Department of Cor-rections Long Distance Dads program. In Research in review. Retrieved from

http://nicic.gov/Library/018999

Smith, A., Krisman, K., Strozier, A. L., & Marley, M. A. (2004). Breaking through

the bars: Exploring the experiences of addicted incarcerated parents whose chil-

dren are cared for by relatives.Families in Society, 85, 187-195.

Snyder, Z. K., Carlo, T. K., & Mullins, M. C. (2001). Parenting from prison: An

examination of a childrens visitation program at a womens correctional facility.

Marriage & Family Review, 32(3/4), 33-61.Snyder-Joy, Z. K., & Carlo, T. A. (1998). Parenting through prison walls: Incarcer-

ated mothers and childrens visitation programs. In S. Miller (Ed.), Crime con-

trol and women: Feminist implications of criminal justice policy(pp. 130-150).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stephan, J. J. (1997). Census of state and federal correctional facilities, 1995.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Thompson, P. J., & Harm, N. J. (2000). Parenting from prison: Helping children and

mothers.Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 23(2), 61-81.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1988). Survey of youth in custody, 1987(Report No. NCJ

113365). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.



21/21


West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prison inmates at midyear 2008: Statistical

tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Wilezck, G. L., & Markstrom, C. A. (1999). The effects of parent education on paren-

tal locus of control and satisfaction in incarcerated fathers.International Journal

of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(1), 90-102.

Womens Prison Association. (2009).Mothers, infants and imprisonment: A national

look at prison nurseries and community-based alternatives. New York: Author.

Bios

Heath C. Hoffmannis an associate professor of sociology and chair of the Department

of Sociology and Anthropology at the College of Charleston. His research interests

include prison-related public policy, deviance and alcohol and other drug use.

Amy L. Byrdis in her third year of graduate study in the Department of Clinical and

Developmental Psychology at University of Pittsburgh. Her research interests involve

understanding the development and persistence of severe delinquent behavior. She

holds a BS degree in Psychology from the College of Charleston.

Alex M. Kightlingeris an educational solutions engineer for Blackbaud. Her inter-

ests include prisoner reentry programs and the role that race plays in the criminaljustice system. She holds a BS degree in Sociology from the College of Charleston.
http://tpj.sagepub.com/

The Prison Journal 2010 Hoffmann 397 416

Documents

Transcript of The Prison Journal 2010 Hoffmann 397 416