The http://tpj.sagepub.

com/ Prison Journal

Prison Programs and Services for Incarcerated Parents and Their Underage Children: Results From a National Survey of Correctional Facilities
Heath C. Hoffmann, Amy L. Byrd and Alex M. Kightlinger The Prison Journal 2010 90: 397 originally published online 8 September 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0032885510382087 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society

Additional services and information for The Prison Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/397.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 30, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 8, 2010 What is This?
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

382087

TPJ

Article

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

The Prison Journal 416 90(4) 397 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0032885510382087 http://tpj.sagepub.com

Abstract In 2007, approximately 810,000 men and women in state and federal prisons were parents to more than 1.7 million children under the age of 18, one third of whom will turn 18 while their parent(s) is incarcerated. Parental incarceration increases the risk that children will experience later behavioral and emotional problems, have troubles in school, and become involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Parenting-related prison programming offers some promise in lessening the negative consequences of parental incarceration, both for children and the incarcerated parent. This study presents the results from a national survey of wardens from male and female correctional facilities to measure the prevalence of programs and services for incarcerated parents and their underage children.

1 2

College of Charleston, Charleston, SC University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 3 Blackbaud, Charleston, SC Corresponding Author: Heath C. Hoffmann, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, College of Charleston, 66 George Street Charleston, SC 29424 Email: hoffmannh@cofc.edu

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

398

The Prison Journal 90(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 convicted 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 children (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 fathers to 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 family violence, poverty, child abuse and/or neglect, parental mental illness, maternal history of sexual and physical abuse, high levels of neighborhood violence, 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 quasiexperimental research studies have found that parental incarceration is not merely a proxy for preincarceration risk factors (e.g., family poverty, parental substance abuse, and child abuse/neglect) but has an independent effect on the 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 likelihood of exhibiting symptoms of 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). 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 substance abuse or mental illness, and poverty (Phillips et al., 2002).

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

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 delinquent 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 incarcerated 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 likelihood 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 the fact that nearly 50% of children in juvenile detention facilities have experienced 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 incarcerated 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 associated with anxiety and depression as well as more citations for misconduct in 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 parents child(ren). Incarcerated parents participating in these programs of varying 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 bonding 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),

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

400

The Prison Journal 90(4)

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 example, one education program for incarcerated fathers resulted in the development of healthy attitudes toward parenting and childrearing compared to fathers in the 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 program 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 that provide transportation for children to visit their parent and a special visitation space (e.g., visitation space with toys, games, and murals of cartoon characters; 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 emotionally 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

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

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 behaviors 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 or nurseries 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 communitybased 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 has found that mother participants have lower recidivism rates (Carlson, 2001; New York State Department of Correctional Services, 1999) and fewer misconduct 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 incarcerated, on average, 160 miles further from their families than are incarcerated fathers (Coughenour, 1995). In addition, the cost of visiting an incarcerated family 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-toface prison visits, a number of correctional facilities report using technology 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).

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

402

The Prison Journal 90(4)

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 incarcerated 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 within a state has a program for incarcerated parents and/or their children. Collecting data at the agency level misses innovative programs developed locally in collaboration 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 prevalence and type of programs available to facilitate parentchild contact.

Method
Using the 2005 American Correctional Association (ACA) Directory, a single 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 facilities, 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 not ranked 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 programs and services they offer to incarcerated parents and their underage children. 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

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

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 spending, 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 like Parenting 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 cogender facilities providing such programs. We also asked respondents whether the programs involving children were offered inside and/or outside the correctional 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 outside of 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., compact disc) book recordings (56% of female and 33% of cogender facilities).

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

404
Table 1. Prevalence of Parenting Education Programs Male facilities (%) Parenting classes without the involvement of the children Parenting classes that directly involve children Video recording of parent reading a book can be sent to Child Audiotape (or compact disc) of parent reading a book can be sent to child Prisoners can read directly to children using satellite or Internet transmission Programs for incarcerated parent and child offered inside the Facility Programs for incarcerated parent and children offered outside the facility 51 10 7 16

The Prison Journal 90(4)

Female facilities (%) 90 33 19 56

Cogender facilities (%) 74 15 11 33

<1

44

19

22

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 pregnant 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 outside the

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

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 children. 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 for Visiting 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 to family 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 majority 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 family members. Lodging assistance is relatively rare, with only 6% of male, 8% of female, and 4% of cogender
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

406

The Prison Journal 90(4)

Table 2. Subsidized Transportation and Lodging for Visiting Children and other Family Members Male facilities (%) Effort is made to place offenders in a facility near family Subsidized transportation available for visiting family members Paid for by DOC Paid for by faith groups Paid for by combination of DOC, faith groups or local charities Transportation for visiting family members provided to prison from local public transit facility Paid for by DOC Paid for by faith groups Paid for by combination of DOC, faith groups or local charities Lodging assistance provided to visiting family members Paid for by the DOC Paid for by faith groups Paid for by combination of DOC, faith groups or local charities
DOC = department of corrections.

Female facilities (%) 58 29 14 29 57 13

Cogender facilities (%) 67 0 NA NA NA 15

70 18 13 60 27 16

0 32 68 6 11 63 26

20 0 80 8 0 50 50

33 33 33 4 0 100 0

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
Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

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, distributing the policies to those who are incarcerated and making it their responsibility 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 perceived 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 respondents include improving/maintaining family relationships during incarceration, reducing recidivism, easing the reentry transition for incarcerated parents, breaking the intergenerational cycle of crime and nearly a dozen respondents report 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 developing 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/ hyper activity disorder (Phillips et al., 2002). These children are more likely to be expelled or suspended from school (i.e., for fighting and/or insubordination;

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

408

The Prison Journal 90(4)

Table 3. Motivations for Developing Programs for Incarcerated Parents Children Programs were developed In response to statutory requirements In response to litigation or to reduce the likelihood of litigation To benefit the children of incarcerated parents For internal reasons (reasons most frequently mentioned are listed below) Respondents have not formally considered developing programs to benefit the children of incarcerated parents Male facilities (%) 2 3 18 37 Female facilities (%) 2 6 29 69 Cogender facilities (%) 7 0 15 37

42

44

see Hanlon et al., 2005), and they are more likely to be arrested and/or incarcerated 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 anxiety 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 benefitting both incarcerated parents and their children. Incarcerated parents participating 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 knowledge of child development (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982; Sandifer, 2008), beha vior management strategies (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982) and the appropriate

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

Hoffmann et al.

409

use of discipline (Sandifer, 2008; Thompson & Harm, 2000). Parent participants in one program also had a lower recidivism rate than incarcerated parents 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 mothers, decreased problems relating to their mothers incarceration, and diminished 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 correctional facilities offer some kind of parenting program for incarcerated parents. 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 incarcerated parent and his child. With that said, existing research suggests that children 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 parent 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 significant impact 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) reinforces 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

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

410

The Prison Journal 90(4)

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 statistically 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 faceto-face contact with children and other family members is the distance of prisons from family members and the related cost of visiting. Not surprisingly, 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 incarcerated women because there are fewer facilities for women. This may be why womens facilities were more likely than facilities for men to subsidize transportation 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 facilities where parents can live with their children. Prison nurseries and other residential 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 undercount 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 children. Our study revealed four such community-based facilities whereas the National Institute of Corrections (2002a) and Devine (1997) report 9 and 14 states, respectively where pregnant women can be housed in communitybased 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 incarcerated (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,

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

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 incarcerated typically lives with the other parent (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Grandparent caregivers are likely to be retired or near retirement, may be faced 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 parenting practices can counteract the effects of parental incarceration, poverty and other risk factors that would otherwise increase the childs likelihood of becoming 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, community groups and correctional systems might better collaborate on the development of institutional and community-based programs and services that help caregivers develop effective parenting practices that may then prevent children from following in the footsteps of their incarcerated parents. Finally, future research needs to systematically evaluate the short and long-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 recidivism 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.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

412 Authors Note

The Prison Journal 90(4)

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.

Funding
The 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 program at the College of Charleston.

References
American Correctional Association. (2005). 2005 directory: Adult and juvenile correctional 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 revisited. 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 parent child 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 Rehabilitation, 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.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

Hoffmann et al.

413

Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 31-48. Clement, M. J. (1993). Parenting in prison: A national survey of programs for incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19(1-2), 89-100. Coughenour, J. C. (1995). Separate and unequal: Women in the federal criminal justice 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 sentencing 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 training 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 communities (pp. 233-258). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Eddy, J. M., Whaley, R. B., & Stoolmiller, M. (2002). Parental transitions: The influence 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 responsible public 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.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

414

The Prison Journal 90(4)

Harrison, K. (1997). Parental training for incarcerated fathers: Effects on attitudes, selfesteem, 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 adjustment 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 morbidity 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 in Spanish 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 Science 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 antisocial behavior and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269-1278.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

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 Welfare, 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. Journal 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 Corrections 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 children 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: Incarcerated mothers and childrens visitation programs. In S. Miller (Ed.), Crime control 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.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014

416

The Prison Journal 90(4)

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 parental 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. Hoffmann is 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. Byrd is 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. Kightlinger is an educational solutions engineer for Blackbaud. Her interests include prisoner reentry programs and the role that race plays in the criminal justice system. She holds a BS degree in Sociology from the College of Charleston.

Downloaded from tpj.sagepub.com at GOSHEN COLLEGE on March 18, 2014