Imprisonment casts a long shadow in the United States. Incarceration rates have grown substantially over the past three decades, resulting in a fourfold increase since the early 1970s. Currently, 1.4 million individuals are behind bars in America's state and federal prisons, and more than 600,000 individuals—about 1,600 a day—will be released to return to their communities this year (Beck, Karberg, and Harrison 2002). These prisoners are parents to 1.5 million children—an increase of more than a half-million children in the last decade (Mumola 2000). Furthermore, if we include adults who have recently been released from prisons and jails and those adults on parole, the number of affected children more than doubles—to an estimated 3.2 million in 2001 (Mumola 2002). Now more than ever before, we need to ask whether the intersection of systems—corrections, and health and human services—can better serve the growing population of children, families, and communities affected by the incarceration of a family member.
For policymakers, researchers, professionals, and community leaders who are concerned about child development, foster care placement, family strengthening, and individual postprison adjustment, incarceration's influences on a growing number of children and families are rapidly becoming salient issues. To begin with, families impacted by incarceration are already typically at high risk along several dimensions. A parent's incarceration does not necessarily signal the onset of family and child development needs, but rather in most cases adds to the burdens of a family already struggling to overcome life's obstacles and setbacks. The incarceration of a family member may further exacerbate an environment already characterized by ongoing poverty, stress, or trauma. While the problems and needs of these children and families clearly intersect both the criminal justice and health and human services systems (see chapter 9), these systems do not always recognize that the incarceration and reentry of a parent produce consequences for a larger family unit.
Moreover, an increasing number of prisoners are returning home with less preparation for the challenges they will face on the outside, with less assistance in their reintegration and, at best, with strained connections to their families and communities (Travis, Solomon, and Waul 2001). Many will have difficulty with the most basic requirements of life outside of prison, such as finding a steady job, locating stable and affordable housing, and reestablishing positive relationships with families and friends.Many will remain plagued by substance abuse and health problems. Most will be rearrested and many will be returned to prison for new crimes or parole violations. And this cycle of removal and return of large numbers of individuals—mostly men (although the number of incarcerated women is growing exponentially)—is increasingly concentrated in a small number of communities already facing enormous social and economic disadvantages (see chapter 10).
Prisoners, their children, and their families experience risks and disadvantages experienced by few others in our society. The incarceration of a parent for months or years on end—typically in a prison located many miles away—and the sometimes-abrupt return of that parent to free society, may have deep and unexamined consequences for all involved. Too often, prisoners returning home experience high recidivism rates, frequent relapses to alcohol and drug abuse, and significant family tensions—sometimes erupting in violence.At the same time, the opportunities for a smoother reentry process are substantial and bear the promise of profound and far-reaching benefits for all involved. In short, the stakes are high. To date, however, policymakers and public officials have paid little attention to how the annual removal and return of hundreds of thousands of adults—many of whom are parents—affect the families and communities left behind, and how the needs of these populations can best be met collaboratively by the health and human services and criminal justice systems. This chapter will review what we know about prisoners as parents and how their incarceration and reentry affect their children and families.
Prisoners as Parents
Of the 1.4 million people currently in prison, nearly all of them will return home to their families and communities after completing their sentences (Travis 2000). This population of Americans is at high risk on a number of fronts due to high rates of communicable disease, substance abuse, mental illness, homelessness, and unemployment.And a growing number of these prison inmates are parents. In fact, the total number of parents in prison has increased sharply in the last decade—up 60 percent from 452,500 held in state and federal facilities in 1991 to 721,500 in 1997. Indeed, over half of state and federal inmates report having at least one minor child (Mumola 2000).
The population of returning prisoners is generally at high risk along several critical dimensions. Most have not completed high school, have limited employment skills, and are struggling with substance abuse and various health problems. Many returning offenders also struggle with finding affordable housing, a basic but often overlooked prerequisite for establishing stability upon release. Further, returning prisoners today have generally served longer prison sentences, which means they may be less attached to the job market, their families, and the communities to which they return. The prison experience and its psychological consequences can often also impact an individual's postprison adjustment (see chapter 2).
Taken together, the employment, physical and mental health, substance abuse, education, and housing issues facing returning inmates present formidable challenges for their successful reintegration and tax the strained resources of their families, children, and communities. Although inmate parents struggle with a host of issues that in many ways mirror those of the general inmate population, their needs deserve particular attention due the potential consequences for their children. Therefore, an examination of the impact of incarceration and reentry on children and families necessarily starts with the challenges facing prisoners because those challenges all translate into risks and needs for the family members, caregivers, and children left behind. The following section1 will highlight the characteristics of returning prisoners, particularly prisoners who are parents, and briefly examine how they are prepared for release back to their families and communities.
Characteristics of Prisoners with Children
Over half (55 percent) of all state prisoners reported having at least one minor child back in the community.2 Because the overwhelming majority of state prisoners are men, incarcerated parents are predominately fathers (93 percent) (table 1.1). However, the number of incarcerated mothers has grown dramatically in the past decade. Between 1991 and 2000, the number of incarcerated mothers increased by 87 percent, compared with 60 percent for fathers. Incarcerated women are also more likely than male inmates to report having a child (65 percent vs. 55 percent). Nearly half of all parents in state prisons are African American, 29 percent are white, and 19 percent are Hispanic. The median age of inmate parents is 32 years. The majority of parents in state prison (70 percent) do not have a high school diploma, although 31 percent have completed their GED. Less than one-quarter of incarcerated parents reported that they are currently married. (To put this in perspective, inmates without children were less than half as likely to report being married [9 percent]). The majority of inmate parents—three-quarters—reported they never had been or were no longer married (figure 1.1).
Overall, the majority of parents in state prison were either serving time for violent offenses (44 percent) or drug offenses (24 percent). However, mothers and fathers were serving time for different types of offenses. For example, inmate fathers were more likely than mothers to be incarcerated for a violent offense (46 percent vs. 26 percent). Inmate mothers, on the other hand, were more likely than fathers to be serving time for a drug crime, such as possession or trafficking (35 percent vs. 23 percent) (figures 1.2 and 1.3).
Table 1.1. Selected Characteristics of Parents in State Prison, 1997
Source: Mumola (2000).
Parents in state prisons were serving sentences with an average maximum sentence length of 12 years.3 For mothers, however, the average maximum sentence length was nearly 5 years less than that for fathers. Nearly half of mothers were serving sentences with maximum terms of less than 5 years, compared with 15 percent of fathers. Overall, fathers reported that they expected to serve nearly 7 years, while mothers expected to serve 4 years until their release. Sentence length affects how incarcerated parents and their families maintain connections and produces legal and emotional consequences for the reunification process.
Many incarcerated parents come to prison with a record of prior criminal activity. More than three-quarters of parents in state prison reported a prior conviction and, of those, over half had been previously incarcerated. During the time leading up to their most current arrest and incarceration, nearly half of incarcerated parents were on some type of conditional release, such as probation or parole. Fathers were more likely than mothers to be arrested while on parole from a previous prison term (25 percent vs. 19 percent).
Figure 1.1. Marital Status of Parents in State Prison, 1997
Source: Mumola (2000).
Figure 1.2. Current Offense of Incarcerated Mothers
in State Prison, 1997
Source: Mumola (2000).
A significant number of incarcerated parents struggle with substance abuse. Most parents in state facilities reported some level of previous drug use (85 percent) and more than half (58 percent) reported using drugs in the month before their current arrest. Further, one-quarter of parents in state prison are believed to be alcohol dependent and more than one-third were under the influence of alcohol at the time of their current offense.
Figure 1.3. Current Offense of Incarcerated Fathers
in State Prison, 1997
Source: Mumola (2000).
Incarcerated mothers reported more extensive and serious histories of drug use than fathers. Mothers in state prison were more likely than fathers to report drug use in the month before their arrest (65 percent vs. 58 percent). In comparison with fathers, drug use among incarcerated mothers was more likely to involve use of cocaine-based drugs or opiates. Mothers were more likely than fathers to report using cocaine/crack in the month before their arrest (45 percent vs. 25 percent of fathers), while fathers were more likely to report using marijuana (40 percent vs. 28 percent of mothers). Mothers were also more likely to report that drugs were involved in the offense that led to their incarceration. Nearly one-third of mothers reported committing their crime to get drugs or money for drugs, compared with 19 percent of fathers.
Although female prisoners make up only a small portion of the corrections population, they experience a range of risks and challenges that in some ways are more serious and widespread than those facing their male counterparts (see chapter 3). Females accounted for 6 percent of the prison population and 12 percent of the parole population in 1998 (Greenfeld and Snell 1999).However, 65 percent of female inmates have children. Furthermore, women generally have fewer economic resources than men before entering prison. Thirty percent of incarcerated women were receiving welfare assistance before their arrest (Richie 2001), and this proportion may be even higher among the subset of incarcerated mothers. Women in prison also frequently have significant mental health needs. Among parents in state prison, mothers were more likely than fathers to report indications of mental illness (23 percent vs. 13 percent). Within the entire female prisoner population in 1998, nearly one-quarter received medication for emotional disorders and over half (60 percent) reported a history of physical or sexual abuse (Greenfeld and Snell 1999; Richie 2001).
Taken together, the characteristics of parents in prison highlight the profound challenges their families confronted before the parents' incarceration and hint at the challenges these families will continue to face when released parents return home.
In-Prison Preparation for Return to Families and Communities
Given that nearly all prisoners will eventually return to their families and communities, prison can be viewed as an opportunity to improve inmates' skills, treat their addictions, and generally prepare them for life on the outside. As discussed earlier, many prisoners have histories of substance abuse and addiction, mental and physical health problems, and inadequate job skills and education. Importantly, these issues have consequences for the health and well-being of the families and communities to which inmates will return. There is some evidence that in-prison programs are cost-effective and beneficial in preparing inmates for life outside of prison. This is particularly true when in-prison programs are followed by services and treatment in the community. However, recent surveys indicate that relatively few inmates receive treatment or training while in prison, and even fewer receive coordinated services that continue through to their return to the community.
While the quality and the quantity of the available evidence vary widely, it appears that certain interventions—including cognitive skills training, drug treatment, vocational training, educational, and other prison-based programs—can be effective in reducing recidivism (Gaes et al. 1999; Lawrence et al. 2002). These interventions are most effective when programs are matched to prisoner risks and needs, well managed, and supported through postrelease supervision. While current studies cite only modest reductions in recidivism rates for participants, these small reductions can have significant aggregate impacts on criminal behavior in communities with high concentrations of returning prisoners. Lower rates of return to criminal behavior also have clear benefits for families of former inmates.
However, the participation rate in prison programs is low and has dropped over the last decade. In fact, only about one-third of "soon-to-bereleased" inmates reported that they participated in vocational programs (27 percent) or educational programs (35 percent) in 1997, down from 31 percent and 43 percent, respectively, in 1991 (Lynch and Sabol 2001). Moreover, very few inmates participate in actual prerelease preparation activities—that is, activities that would presumably prepare inmates for life outside of prison. The number participating in these programs has remained stable over the past decade, hovering at about 13 percent of the state prison population. These decreases in the participation rates are even steeper than they appear because smaller shares of bigger populations are involved—meaning significantly more prisoners are being released without vocational, educational, and prerelease preparation now than in the past.
Furthermore, although the majority of prison inmates enter prison with histories of substance abuse, only 10 percent of state inmates in 1997 reported receiving professional substance abuse treatment while in prison, down from about 25 percent in 1991. An additional 20 percent (up from 16 percent in 1991) participated in other drug abuse programs, such as peer counseling groups and awareness programs. More inmates reported receiving treatment for alcohol abuse compared with drug abuse (Mumola 1999). One-quarter of state inmates reported participating in some type of alcohol treatment or program since admission; participation among those with a history of alcohol abuse was even higher (about one-third). In the absence of treatment, prisoners run a high risk of relapse following release (Harrison 2001). For example, one study found that an estimated two-thirds of untreated heroin abusers resume their heroin/cocaine use and involvement in criminal behavior within three of months of release (Wexler, Lipton, and Johnson 1998).
The rate of communicable disease is much higher among incarcerated populations than among the general population (Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy 2001). People passing through our nation's prisons and jails account for a significant share of the total population who are infected with HIV or AIDS, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis. In 1997, nearly one-quarter of all people living with HIV or AIDS, nearly onethird of people with hepatitis C, and more than one-third of those with tuberculosis were released from a prison or jail that year. The extent of mental health disorders is also relatively high. Rates of serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia/psychosis, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder, are at least twice (some estimates range as high as four times) as high among incarcerated individuals as rates among the general population (NCCHC 2002).
With such a high proportion of prisoners experiencing mental and physical illness and engaging in substance abuse, the presence of dual and triple diagnoses is not surprising. These multiple diagnoses pose additional challenges in terms of treatment, both in prison and after release. Though exact numbers are not available, it appears that dual diagnoses of mental health and substance abuse issues are not uncommon among the prisoner population (Hammett et al. 2001).
While most prisoners receive needed health care services while in prison, access to mental health services is more limited. Interestingly, for some prisoners, a period of incarceration may prove beneficial to their physical health—in part because they can receive better health care in prison than what they may have received in the community. A survey of state inmates found that 80 percent reported receiving a medical exam once they were admitted to prison, and of those who reported a medical problem after admission, 91 percent reported visiting a health care professional about it (Maruschak and Beck 2001). In terms of access to mental health services while in prison, more than half (60 percent) of mentally ill state inmates reportedly received some form of mental health treatment during their period of incarceration (Beck and Maruschak 2001). Of these, half said they had taken prescription medication and 44 percent had received counseling services. A key component to successful physical and mental health outcomes for both inmates and the families they return to is linking prison-based services with community-based services (see chapter 10).
Ignoring the health, education, and prerelease preparation needs of reentering prisoners can be very costly. The profile of the prison population reveals significant deficiencies in human capital that can limit prisoners' capacity to function and contribute to the care and well-being of their families and communities. Many of these deficits are also associated with high rates of recidivism. The emerging research knowledge about effective prison programs suggests that targeted investments in the interventions discussed here could produce public safety benefits and increase social functioning overall (see chapter 4)—benefits that are clearly important not only for returning prisoners, but also for their families and communities. The research consensus on this point, however, comes at a time when a smaller share of prisoners than ever before are receiving treatment and training.
Importance of Family Connections
Family is an important component of the reentry process. Families can be natural supports for prisoners during prison terms and upon release (Shapiro and Schwartz 2001). Families provide an important anchor to life in the community while inmates are in prison and offer a source of stability, support, and encouragement during the difficult transition from prison to home. These connections can in fact mean the difference between success and recidivism. Several studies have shown that continued contact with family members during and following incarceration can reduce prisoner recidivism and foster reintegration into the community, a fact that has broad benefits for all involved (see chapter 8; Hairston 1988a; Visher and Travis 2003).
During incarceration, prisoners can maintain connections with a family member in a number of ways: letters, phone calls, in-prison visits, and participation in family furlough and other programs designed to strengthen family ties. A number of studies have compared outcomes of prisoners who maintained family ties during incarceration with those who did not. Each study found that in terms of recidivism, inmates with close ties to family or friends fared better upon release than those who did not have contacts with friends and family (see Visher and Travis 2003).4 There are a number of barriers, however, to maintaining these relationships. In addition to such challenges as illiteracy, prisoners' families must deal with the high cost of receiving collect calls from prison, long travel times to the correctional facility, inconvenient visiting hours, and uncomfortable or humiliating security procedures at the prison—challenges that can strain even the strongest relationships (see chapter 5). Furthermore, the longer the prison term, the more difficult it becomes for prisoners to maintain these ties and reconnect upon release (McMurray 1993).
Families can also play a powerful role in the lives of returning prisoners upon release. A family member may provide an immediate source of support by offering a place to stay, a meal, a little money, a connection to a job opportunity, and a listening ear. The most critical time for this support is in the hours and days immediately following release when anxiety levels and the risk of recidivism are particularly high (Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999; Travis et al. 2001).5 In a study of 49 people released from New York state prisons and city jails, the Vera Institute of Justice found that family support played an important role in the days and weeks after release (Nelson et al. 1999). Former prisoners reported that providing emotional support and an immediate place to stay were the two most critical aspects of family support. Former prisoners who felt that their family was a source of support and acceptance had better success in finding a job and staying off drugs. Those who returned to live with a family member were also less likely to abscond from parole.
Involving the family in the prisoner's transition process has also shown promise for improving postprison outcomes. Not only are families the first people to whom released prisoners return, but many times families are also the first to know whether that person is struggling and on the brink of relapse or return to crime. A program in Manhattan's Lower East Side, La Bodega de la Familia, builds on this concept by providing a range of services and supports to substance-abusing individuals and their families. The idea is that by engaging and strengthening the family unit through a system of family case management, the family system can become better equipped to withstand reentry, addiction, and other challenges. A recent evaluation of La Bodega found that the program participants showed lower levels of drug use, arrests, and convictions for new crimes than did the comparison group (Sullivan et al. 2002). In addition, the reductions in drug use were not the result of greater access to drug treatment, but rather due to pressure and support from family members and La Bodega case managers.
Other research suggests that returning prisoners who assume conventional roles in their families have greater success upon release. Although all of these studies focused exclusively on men, they can be instructive about the role families can play in providing a measure of stability and structure in the transition from prison. Several studies have found that married men experience more successful transitions from prison to home than do single men (Hairston 1988b; Hairston and Lockett 1987; Holt 1986). Another study found that men who returned to live with their wives and children were more successful than those who lived alone or with a parent (Curtis and Schulman 1984). Those who reported having a happy marriage also experienced more successful transitions than those who described their marriages as characterized by conflict (Burstein 1977; Fishman 1986).
Not all families may be in a position to offer help to a returning inmate, however. Families dealing with their own crises, such as poverty, physical or mental health problems, or their own addictions, may not be able to provide financial, emotional, or social support to a family member returning home from prison. Likewise, some individuals may be better served by not returning to a family environment characterized by substance abuse and other negative influences—an environment that could result in a return to criminal behavior. On the other hand, families in a position to help may not want to help. The returning inmate may have significantly strained and alienated relationships with family members. These family members may have experienced a series of broken promises, mistreatment, material losses, or even violence at the hands of the inmate relative.
Although it is clear that families can play a powerful role in assisting a returning prisoner and serve as a "buffering agent" against the many transition challenges newly released prisoners face, there are some caveats. As detailed in the next section, there may be good and complicated reasons why families cannot or will not provide support for a loved one returning from prison.
Children and Families of Prisoners
There is surprisingly little research on the impact of incarceration on the children and families left behind (Johnston 2001). We can hypothesize, however, that the consequences for these families can be substantial, ranging from the loss of financial and emotional support to the social stigma attached to having a family member in prison. This section explores the consequences of parental incarceration on children, looks at family functioning during a period of imprisonment, and examines how families are affected by the return of an incarcerated parent.
Life for families during and following incarceration is complicated by the fact that these are not typically traditional family configurations. Hairston's study of incarcerated fathers (1995, 1998) found that half of her sample had children with multiple women and were therefore not living with all of their children. In fact, many of these children were living with caregivers other than their parents before the incarceration of their mother or father. Several studies have concluded that anywhere from 26 to 44 percent of children of incarcerated mothers were living with a caregiver other than their mother before the mother's incarceration (Johnston 2001). This is particularly true among women who have been incarcerated more than once. According to a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, less than half of parents in state prison reported living with their children before admission (table 1.2). Furthermore, less than one in five of these families had both parents living with their children before incarceration. In general, these are very fragile and fragmented families, a finding with important implications for how these families function both during and following a period of parental incarceration.
Impact of Parental Incarceration on Children
More children are affected by the incarceration of a parent now than at any other time in our nation's history. Two percent of all minor children in the United States and about 7 percent of all African-American children had a parent in state or federal prison in 1997—a total of more than 1.5 million children (Mumola 2000), the majority of whom were under the age of 14 (figure 1.4). These young people are already at high risk along several dimensions and tend to live in conditions characterized by poverty, instability, and diminished access to sources of support. While parental incarceration is generally not the cause of these precarious living conditions (although the root causes may be similar, e.g., cycles of poverty and violence), it certainly exacerbates the situation for many children and has been associated with a number of negative outcomes. Yet until recently, the health and human services and juvenile justice systems have paid little attention to the impact of parental incarceration on children's service needs.
Table 1.2. Living Arrangements of Minor Children of State Inmates before and during Incarceration, 1997
Source: Mumola (2000).
a. Columns do not add to 100 because some prisoners reported children in different homes.
Figure 1.4. Age Distribution of Children with Parents
in State or Federal Prison, 1997
Source: Mumola (2000).
Note: Mean = 8 years.
How does parental incarceration affect these children and what are its long-term consequences? We know that children whose parents have been incarcerated experience a range of negative outcomes. It is difficult, however, to determine whether those consequences are a direct result of a parent being in prison or the nature of family life in that household. For instance, a few studies have found that children of incarcerated parents are more likely to exhibit low self-esteem, depression, emotional withdrawal from friends and family, and inappropriate or disruptive behavior at home and in school (Henriques 1982; Johnston 1995a; Jose-Kampfner 1995; Stanton 1980). In addition, some evidence suggests that children of incarcerated parents are at high risk for future delinquency and/or criminal behavior (Johnston 1995a; see also chapter 7). Understanding the impact of parental incarceration on children is complicated because these outcomes may be related to any number of conditions—parent-child separation, the crime and arrest that preceded incarceration, or general instability, poverty, and inadequate care at home. Furthermore, the degree to which a child is affected by a parent's incarceration may be determined by a number of variables, including the age at which the child is separated from his/her parent, the length of the separation, the level of disruption, the number and result of previous separation experiences, and the availability of family or community support (Seymour 1998; see also chapter 6).
Few studies have directly examined the lives and outcomes for children of incarcerated parents. In fact, most studies have been methodologically limited in that they looked at only a small sample or used inadequate comparison groups, therefore making it difficult to form generalizations (Seymour 1998). There have been no longitudinal studies following children from a parent's incarceration through release. Only a limited number of studies have employed standardized assessment tools and even fewer have relied on direct contact with these children (Johnston 2001). Most of the work to date on children of offenders has relied on self-reporting by an incarcerated parent or a caregiver and has tended to focus on mothers. There have been only a few attempts to document how having a father in prison impacts children (e.g., Brodsky 1975; Carlson and Cervera 1992; Fishman 1990; Hairston 1995; King 1993; Lanier 2003).
A review of the existing literature, however, allows us to hypothesize that parental incarceration has a range of negative effects on children. Some general principles from the literature on child development and trauma as to how children experience the loss of a parent provide an important context for understanding how children experience the incarceration of a parent (Wright and Seymour 2000).
* Children always experience the loss of a parent as a traumatic event, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the parent's departure (death, divorce, moving away, or incarceration). Parental absence affects children differently depending on age, but is well documented as an important life event in the child welfare and divorce literature. Reactions include inability to form attachments with others, emotional numbing, anger, depression, regression, and various antisocial behaviors.
* Trauma diverts children's energy from developmental tasks. Children in stable environments use their emotional energy to master various age-specific developmental tasks. However, if children's life circumstances overwhelm their capacity to cope, emotional survival begins to take precedence over developmental tasks, resulting in delayed development, regression, or other maladaptive coping strategies.
* Children find it even more difficult to cope in situations characterized by uncertainty. Children with a parent in prison often face a great deal of instability and uncertainty as questions about their continued care are being sorted out. Some well-meaning caregivers keep basic information from children to protect them, but this often serves to only heighten the children's feelings of stress and uncertainty.
* Children's reactions to a situation will vary over time. Although there have been no longitudinal studies of children of incarcerated parents, we do know that there are differences between a crisis reaction and a long-term response (adaptive or maladaptive) to trauma. Additionally, interventions may be more effective if offered before maladaptive coping behaviors become habitual.
* Children experience the stigma of having a parent in prison. For most children, the stigma of losing a parent to prison is felt in their neighborhood, among their peers, and from their teachers and family members—often resulting in feelings of shame and low self-esteem. For other children who come from neighborhoods or families where incarceration is a more common event, the stigma may be less intense but the needs are not (Gaudin and Sutphen 1993). Typically, schools and communities offer no specific programs to help these children cope with the loss of a parent to prison.
The role parents play in their children's development and the potential impact of a parent-child separation due to incarceration also highlight the need for social service agencies to find ways to help families stay in touch during incarceration and reunite upon release, where appropriate. One researcher has concluded that visitation can be beneficial for children trying to cope with the loss of a parent to prison (Johnston 1995b). However, maintaining these relationships—between the parents (or other caregivers) and between the parent and the child(ren)—during a period of incarceration can be difficult.
Finally, it is important to reiterate that many of these children are already at high risk: Their problems did not begin with parental incarceration. Rather, these children typically already live in circumstances that can be considered as posing high risks for unhealthy development, including poverty, diminished access to resources, parental substance abuse, mental illness among parents and/or caregivers, and a family history of involvement in the criminal justice system (Johnston 2001).
Certainly, parental incarceration has a profound impact on the children left behind, but as yet no research studies have parsed out the effects of loss of a parent due to incarceration from the other stressful and traumatic circumstances that also generally characterize the lives of these children. Drawing from the general literature on child development and trauma, we can hypothesize that the effects of parental incarceration on a child's life could depend on a number of factors, including the child's developmental level, emotional characteristics, and available social support network (Rickel and Becker 1997).
Impact of Incarceration on Family Functioning
We turn next to an examination of the impact of incarceration on family functioning, including the loss of financial and emotional support, changed parenting roles, new governmental interventions (e.g., foster care), and shifts in eligibility for public assistance.
STRUCTURAL CHANGES
One of the most immediate changes experienced by the family of an incarcerated parent is a change in family composition and living arrangements. Most children are not present at the time of their parent's arrest, and parents typically do not tell the police that they have minor children (American Bar Association 1993). As a result, many children are informally "placed"with other family members and do not enter the foster care system following the arrest of a parent. However, placement of a child varies depending on whether the father or mother is arrested and incarcerated. Children of incarcerated fathers typically reside with their mothers (90 percent), while children of incarcerated mothers are often placed with other family members (79 percent) (Mumola 2000). Children are more likely to be placed in foster care (10 percent) if their mother is sentenced to prison than if their father is incarcerated (2 percent).
The allocation of child care responsibilities before incarceration influences how much the incarceration affects these arrangements during the prison term. Although incarcerated fathers are less likely to have been living with at least one of their children before imprisonment, these fathers are nevertheless involved in their children's lives to some extent. Hairston (1995) reports that many fathers in her study provided regular financial support and/or regularly visited their children even though they did not live with them. Yet, because a mother is typically the primary caregiver for her child, her imprisonment will likely have a greater effect on family structure and functioning.
Because most incarcerated parents are fathers, most children with an incarcerated parent live with their mothers. In families where the father was not present in the home, his incarceration may have no impact on family structure but may, because of the elimination of financial support and other care for the children, create a disruption in the mother's ability to care for the children. In families where the father was present in the home, his removal will place an even greater financial and care burden on the remaining parent. In families where the only parent present in the home is subsequently incarcerated, children are most likely to be placed with a related caregiver—a grandparent or other family member. For these families, adjustment to the new caregiving arrangements may be relatively minimal.
However,"family" caregivers who did not have much contact with the children before parental incarceration will have to establish themselves as de facto parents and develop a relationship with the children. This can be even more challenging for unrelated caregivers who do not share a sense of history with the child. Contributing to the trauma of this changing family structure, the children of both male and female prisoners are sometimes separated from their siblings during incarceration because caregivers may not be able to care for the entire sibling group (Hairston 1995).
The caregiver-parent relationship is also important during incarceration and has implications for reunification efforts following release. A lack of participation in decisionmaking about their children contributes to a sense of powerlessness among incarcerated parents. In fact, less than half of incarcerated parents reported regular communication with the caregivers of their children (Bloom and Steinhart 1993; Hairston 1998).
LOSS OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT
Incarceration disproportionately affects families living in poverty, and imprisonment of a parent contributes to the financial strain among the families and caregivers left behind. Most parents either earned income or received public assistance before being incarcerated. Most parents in state prison (71 percent) reported either full-time or part-time employment in the month preceding their current arrest, slightly higher than state prisoners who were not parents (65 percent) (Mumola 2000). Wages or salary was the most common source of income among incarcerated fathers before imprisonment, 60 percent of whom reported having a full-time job. Mothers, on the other hand, were less likely to have a full-time job (39 percent). For them, the most common sources of income were wages (44 percent) or transfer payments (42 percent). Although very few mothers reported receiving formal child support payments (6 percent), they did report receiving other forms of assistance from the fathers of their children, including some level of financial support (Hairston 1998).
When an income-producing parent is incarcerated, the family must adjust to the loss of that income during the prison term. And during imprisonment, most parents are not able to provide financial support to their families. A small minority of all inmates (7 percent) is employed in prison industries that pay a nominal wage, but it is typically not enough to provide meaningful financial support (Travis et al. 2001). Inmates typically receive money from their families, not the other way around.
Caregivers often struggle to make ends meet during the period of incarceration. Many caregivers rely on child support payments, their own income, and public assistance for support. Two studies found a similar level of reliance on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments (now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF) to meet basic needs: 44 percent of families caring for children of an incarcerated parent reported receiving AFDC (Bloom and Steinhart 1993). However, recent welfare reform legislation may severely limit public assistance (i.e., TANF) as a form of support for families both during and following incarceration by capping lifetime eligibility at 60 months, instituting work requirements, and placing restrictions on those who have violated probation or parole and those who have been convicted of certain drug crimes (Phillips and Bloom 1998). Regardless of the source, most caregivers reported that they did not have sufficient resources to meet basic needs (Bloom and Steinhart 1993).
The formal kinship foster care system represents another potential source of support for caregivers. Although the average monthly foster care payment is greater than the average TANF child-only payment in nearly all states, very few families of an incarcerated parent access the foster care system (Bloom and Steinhart 1993). Only 10 percent of incarcerated mothers and less than 2 percent of incarcerated fathers reported having a child in foster care (Mumola 2000).
MAINTAINING TIES WITH FAMILY
Maintaining ties with family members—between the parents (or other caregivers) and between the parent and child—during the prison term can be difficult. Obstacles identified by the Women's Prison Association include inadequate information on visiting procedures, little help from correctional facilities about visiting arrangements, the time involved in traveling great distances to get to the correctional facility, visiting procedures that are uncomfortable or humiliating, and concerns about children's reactions to in-prison visits (Women's Prison Association 1996). These circumstances can easily strain family relationships and continued connections with children. Furthermore, inmates' communications with their families—via phone, mail, or personal visits—are highly regulated by correctional facilities, with the primary concern focused on security issues. This concern translates into policies that do not necessarily promote or facilitate prisoner-family connections.
Mothers in prison tend to stay in closer contact with their children than do fathers (Mumola 2000). Nearly 80 percent of mothers reported monthly contact and 60 percent reported at least weekly contact. However, as with fathers,more than half of all mothers reported never receiving a personal visit from their children.Visits can be even more difficult for incarcerated mothers who, because of the scarcity of female prison facilities, tend to be an average of 160 miles farther away from their children than are incarcerated fathers. Despite this separation, most mothers expected to be reunited with their children upon release (Hagan and Coleman 2001).
Forty percent of incarcerated fathers reported having weekly contact with their children, mostly by mail or phone (Mumola 2000). The frequency of contact decreases, however, as the length of time served in prison increases (Lynch and Sabol 2001). Given that the majority of state prisoners (60 percent) are held in facilities more than 100 miles from their homes, it is not surprising that most fathers (57 percent) also reported never receiving a personal visit from their children after admission to prison. A primary source of depression among both incarcerated mothers and fathers is the lost connections with family—particularly their children (Adams 1992).
Prison also creates enormous strain on intimate relationships—whether or not children are involved. It is not uncommon for marital relationships to end in divorce during a prison term. Only half of married male inmates in Hairston's study (1995) reported that their primary source of emotional support was their wife. Hairston reported that for many male prisoners, family stability and connections were maintained by their mothers.
Prisoners' success in maintaining ties with their children also often depends on the quality of their relationship with their children's caregiver. In her review of the research, Anne Nurse (2001) suggests that the quality of parent-child interaction among juvenile and adult fathers depends a great deal on their relationship with their children's mother. Frank Furstenberg's (1995) work with young fragile families suggests that fathers typically do not view the relationship with their children as separate from their relationship with the mother—they see it as a "package deal." As a result, when the bond between the couple begins to falter, the father-child relationship becomes more tenuous. This is also true for kinship caregivers who may harbor negative feelings toward the incarcerated parent and may believe that allowing a child to visit his/her parent in prison will negatively affect the child. In addition, caregivers also may not have the necessary resources—time, money, and transportation—to make the often long and expensive trips to a prison facility for a visit.
Although removing specific family members can clearly be beneficial for some families—resulting in more attention to the children, more available resources, fewer distractions, and less fear or actual violence in the home—there is considerable evidence that most children and families suffer when a parent is removed from the home or community. Likewise, there are many indications that maintaining family ties benefits both incarcerated parents and their children, and that these ties may aid adjustment to the loss of a parent and ease the process of return.
Reentry Challenges for Families
Returning prisoners face a host of challenges upon release from prison, challenges that translate into important issues for the well-being of their children and families. Many returning prisoners with substance abuse problems before incarceration may still need treatment. Others face the prospect of homelessness without help from family members and the challenge of finding a stable job to support themselves and their children. In addition, a criminal record will limit many returning prisoners' access to public assistance and governmental benefits. In most cases, the criminal justice system does not help families plan for and negotiate the process of returning home. Moreover, the child welfare system becomes involved only in those situations where caseworkers have formally been involved in the placement and ongoing care of children of incarcerated parents. Therefore, families of prisoners typically are on their own in navigating the challenges of having a family member return home from prison.
REESTABLISHING RELATIONSHIPS
The months leading up to release are a particularly stressful time for inmates and their families. Each has developed expectations for what life will be like after the prison term ends. Male inmates reported returning to their partners with the expectation that nothing would have changed between them. The literature on inmates' spouses indicates that the most significant change is that the partner left behind becomes more independent and self-sufficient (Furstenberg 1995). Inmates' families change in their absence, and returning prisoners are often unable to resume their former roles, which in turn causes stress and tension.
Inmates must also confront the challenge of reestablishing bonds with and authority over children with whom they had little contact while in prison. In many cases, other adults have stepped in to fill the role of the absent inmate parent. Family members may subsequently limit or discourage children's contact with the former inmate. Research on the African-American community, for example, has found that maternal grandmothers and other female family members will sometimes try to limit an unemployed father's access to his children (Sullivan 1993).
New relationships that developed during the period of incarceration may also contribute to stress and strained connections upon release, and may result in diminished involvement between returning inmates and their children. Some studies indicate that inmates will start to withdraw from active involvement in their children's lives when they discover their former partner has started a new relationship (Furstenberg 1995; Nurse 2001).
All of these issues relating to reunification of families are further complicated when a former prisoner's home life involves a history of domestic violence. Although most inmates in state prison have been convicted of a violent crime (44 percent of parents and 51 percent of nonparents), we do not know the extent to which these were crimes against an intimate partner or a family member. However, given that certain violent crimes—such as assault or rape—are most frequently committed by an intimate partner, relative, friend, or acquaintance, there is reason to assume that a high portion of inmates convicted of violent crimes committed those crimes against partners or family members (Herman and Wasserman 2001). Families with a history of domestic violence need extra care and consideration to help them heal during the prison term and to plan for the release of a family member implicated in past violent behavior. To date, little research exists on these families' experiences during the incarceration of a violent family member or the consequences of that individual's return.
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
Stable and adequate income and housing are important factors in an individual's transition back to family and the community. One of the first tasks a returning prisoner must tackle following release from prison is finding a place to stay. The challenge of finding stable and affordable housing for one's family is only compounded by time spent in prison. Returning prisoners rarely have the financial resources or personal references needed to secure housing in the private market. Most individuals leave prison without enough money for a security deposit on an apartment. Furthermore, landlords typically require potential tenants to list employment and housing references and to disclose financial and criminal history information, a likely obstacle for returning prisoners.
Public housing also may not be an option for returning prisoners. Federal housing policies permit—and in some cases require—public housing authorities, Section 8 providers, and other federally assisted housing programs to deny housing to individuals who have engaged in certain criminal activities (Legal Action Center 2000a). The guidelines for denying housing are fairly broad and may encompass those who have, at any point in the past, engaged in drug-related activity, violent criminal activity, or other criminal activity that could negatively affect the health and safety of other residents. However, housing providers can make exceptions for individuals who demonstrate that they are receiving help by participating in a treatment or rehabilitation program.
A parent in prison means lost financial support that can place a child—in many cases already living in poverty—in even more dire circumstances. Therefore, another important aspect of returning prisoners' successful transition back into the community, and to the loved ones left behind, is finding a job. Unemployment rates before admission to prison are high among incarcerated parents. In the month before the arrest that led to their admission to prison, nearly 30 percent of fathers and 50 percent of mothers were unemployed (Mumola 2000). Legitimate employment not only lowers the likelihood that a former prisoner will reoffend, but also provides an important means of stable family support.
Finding a job is particularly important for parents who were subject to a formal child support agreement during their prison term. In some cases, if inmates are not able to amend court-ordered child support arrangements during their prison terms, child support obligations continue to accumulate. These unpaid child support obligations may have legal and financial implications for inmates once they are released.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
Recent changes to welfare legislation could also make it very difficult for parents to rebuild a life with their children. As just described, for a variety of reasons, former inmates are often at a disadvantage when seeking a job. Therefore, access to public benefits that could provide a safety net to help these families find stable footing following parental incarceration is critical. Yet, in many circumstances, this safety net has been severely limited for returning prisoners and their families. Individuals in violation of a condition of their parole or probation can be barred from receiving federal welfare benefits (TANF), food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and access to public housing (Legal Action Center 2000b). In fact, individuals convicted of a drug felony can be permanently banned from receiving TANF or food stamps. (States can, however, opt out of this ban and about half have instituted some type of exception to this rule.) These federal regulations can have an unanticipated impact: Indeed, in 1997, 35 percent of incarcerated mothers and 23 percent of incarcerated fathers were serving time for some type of drug offense (Mumola 2000).
NAVIGATING THE CORRECTIONS AND CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS
Inmates with children who have been formally placed in foster care or some other out-of-home care may confront several additional barriers to reunification. First, while incarcerated, prisoners have difficulty accessing the services that the child welfare system requires for reunification. Additionally, communication between inmates and caseworkers regarding permanency planning and other important issues for reunification is hampered by the fact that prisoners are typically housed in facilities many miles from their community. Finally, inmates have problems remaining in touch with their children while in prison, which is the most basic requirement for reunification. Most correctional facilities impose significant restrictions on any form of contact between inmates and family members. In fact, most correctional facility policies are focused on inmate management and security concerns, policies that often create obstacles for prisoners and their families as they try to stay connected (Hairston 1998).
Though children may be better off without a neglectful and abusive parent in their lives, there are many caring and committed incarcerated mothers and fathers who expect to resume their parenting roles upon release. Recent legislative initiatives, however, have made it more difficult for incarcerated parents—particularly mothers—to reunite with their children upon release. For example, the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, replacing the 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, authorizes termination of parental rights once a child has been in foster care for 15 or more months of a 22-month period. Incarcerated women serve an average of 18 months in prison (Hagan and Coleman 2001). Therefore, the average female prisoner whose children are placed in foster care could lose the right to reunite with her children upon release.
Conclusion
Families of prisoners generally struggle with a range of challenges that are often exacerbated by the imprisonment of a family member. Broadening our perspective to include incarceration's impact on prisoner families—from the arrest, to imprisonment, and on through release—raises a number of important questions. How can family bonds be strengthened during the prison term? Are there ways to help families cope with the period of incarceration? How should a parent and child be reunited? Is there a risk that the stresses of incarceration will limit inmates' ability to be effective parents upon release? Is there a heightened risk of domestic violence and child abuse as prisoners adjust to their new reality? Can the process of reentry be viewed as an opportunity for intervention with these families?
Developing innovative answers to these questions would require new policy collaborations and partnerships between corrections departments and child and family welfare agencies. These new alliances could help smooth the transition by helping prisoners and their families stay in touch and work through the difficult dynamics of reunification. Working together, corrections professionals and local service providers could develop policies and programs that significantly improve the likelihood of a successful transition from prison to home—an outcome that has far-reaching benefits for all involved.
NOTES
1. Unless otherwise noted, most of the information in this section comes from a comprehensive report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the characteristics of incarcerated parents and their children (Mumola 2000). The data were gathered through personal interviews with inmates in state and federal facilities in 1997.
2. The majority of all inmates are housed in state prison facilities. In fact, nearly 90 percent of all incarcerated parents are in state prisons, and therefore this chapter will focus on these inmates.
3. "Sentence length" is the amount of time imposed by the sentencing court. The actual length of the sentence served will depend upon state sentencing laws, parole board decisions, and good time credits earned while in prison.
4. Most research to date looking at the role of families has only focused on a narrow definition of postprison success—recidivism rates—rather than considering a range of outcomes, such as finding stable housing, finding and maintaining employment, providing financial support for his/her children, and remaining in a drug treatment program (see Visher and Travis 2003).
5. Most prisoners are released with little more than a bus ticket and a nominal amount of spending money. Prisoners are often released and returned to their home community at odd hours of the night, making it difficult to connect with family members and services providers. They may be immediately exposed to high-risk places, people, and situations, and few have developed the relapse prevention skills in prison to deal with these risks on the outside.
REFERENCES
Adams, Kenneth. 1992. "Adjusting to Prison Life." In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited by Michael Tonry (275-359). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
American Bar Association. 1993. Children on Hold: What Happens When Their Primary Caregiver Is Arrested? Washington, D.C.: Author.
Beck, Allen J., and Laura M. Maruschak. 2001. Mental Health Treatment in State Prisons, 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Beck, Allen J., Jennifer C. Karberg, and Paige M. Harrison. 2002. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bloom, Barbara, and David Steinhart. 1993."Why Punish the Children? A Reappraisal of the Children of Incarcerated Mothers in America." San Francisco, Calif.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Brodsky, Stanley L. 1975. Families and Friends of Men in Prison. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Burstein, Jules. 1977. Conjugal Visits in Prison. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Carlson, Bonnie E., and Neil Cervera. 1992. Inmates and Their Wives. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Curtis, Russell L., Jr., and Sam Schulman. 1984."Ex-offender's Family Relations and Economic Supports: The Significant Women Study of the TARP Project." Crime and Delinquency 30 (4): 507-28.
Fishman, Laura T. 1986. "Repeating the Cycle of Hard Living and Crime: Wives'Accommodations to Husbands' Parole Performance." Federal Probation 50: 44-54.
———.1990. Women at the Wall. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr. 1995. "Fathering in the Inner-City: Paternal Participation and Public Policy." In Fatherhood: Contemporary Theory, Research, and Social Policy, edited by William Marsiglio (119-47). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Gaes, Gerald G., Timothy J. Flanagan, Laurence L. Motiuk, and Lynn Stewart. 1999. "Adult Correctional Treatment." In Prisons: Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, edited by Joan Petersilia (321-426). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gaudin, James M., Jr., and Richard Sutphen. 1993."Foster Care vs. Extended Family Care for Children of Incarcerated Mothers." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 19 (3/4): 129-47.
Greenfeld, Lawrence A., and Tracy L. Snell. 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Women Offenders.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hagan, John, and Juleigh Petty Coleman. 2001. "Returning Captives of the American War on Drugs: Issues of Community and Family Reentry." Crime and Delinquency 47 (3): 352-67.
Hairston, Creasie Finney. 1988a. "Family Ties during Imprisonment: Do They Influence Future Criminal Activity?" Federal Probation 52 (1): 48-52.
———. 1988b. "Men in Prison: Family Characteristics and Family Views." Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 14 (1): 23-30.
———.1995. "Fathers in Prison." In Children of Incarcerated Parents, edited by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston (31-40). New York: Lexington Books.
———. 1998. "The Forgotten Parent: Understanding the Forces That Influence Incarcerated Fathers' Relationships with Their Children." Child Welfare 5: 617-39.
Hairston, Creasie Finney, and Patricia Lockett. 1987."Parents in Prison: New Directions for Social Services." Social Work 32 (2): 162-64.
Hammett, Theodore M., Cheryl Roberts, and Sofia Kennedy. 2001. "Health-Related Issues in Prisoner Reentry." Crime and Delinquency 47 (3): 390-409.
Harrison, Lana D. 2001. "The Revolving Prison Door for Drug Involved Offenders: Challenges and Opportunities." Crime and Delinquency 47 (3): 462-85.
Henriques, Zelma Weston. 1982. Imprisoned Mothers and Their Children: A Descriptive and Analytical Study. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
Herman, Susan, and Cressida Wasserman. 2001. "A Role for Victims in Offender Reentry." Crime and Delinquency 47 (3): 428-45.
Holt, Norman. 1986. "Statistical Tables Describing the Background Characteristics and Recidivism Rates for Released Prisoners from Massachusetts Pre-release Facilities during 1983." Milford: Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Johnston, Denise. 1995a. "Effects of Parental Incarceration." In Children of Incarcerated Parents, edited by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston (59-88). New York: Lexington Books.
———. 1995b. "Parent-Child Visitation in the Jail or Prison." In Children of Incarcerated Parents, edited by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston (135-43). New York: Lexington Books.
———.2001. "Incarceration of Women and Effects on Parenting." Paper prepared for a conference, "Effects of Incarceration on Children and Families," sponsored by Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., May 5.
Jose-Kampfner, Christina. 1995. "Post-Traumatic Stress Reactions in Children of Imprisoned Mothers." In Children of Incarcerated Parents, edited by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston (89-100). New York: Lexington Books.
King, Anthony O. 1993. "The Impact of Incarceration on African-American Families: Implications for Practice." Journal of Contemporary Human Service 73: 145-53.
Lanier, Charles S. 2003. "Who's Doing the Time Here, Me or My Children? Addressing the Issues Implicated by Mounting Numbers of Fathers in Prison." In Convict Criminology, edited by Jeffrey Ian Ross and Stephen C. Richards (170-90). London: Wadsworth.
Lawrence, Sarah, Daniel P. Mears, Glenn Dubin, and Jeremy Travis. 2002. The Practice and Promise of Prison Programming. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Legal Action Center. 2000a."Housing Laws Affecting Individuals with Criminal Convictions." Washington, D.C.: Legal Action Center.
———. 2000b. "Public Assistance Laws Affecting Individuals with Criminal Convictions." Washington, D.C.: Legal Action Center.
Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Crime Policy Report No. 3. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Maruschak, Laura M., and Allen J. Beck. 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Medical Problems of Inmates, 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
McMurray, Harvey L. 1993."High Risk Parolees in Transition from Institution to Community Life." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 19 (1/2): 145-61.
Mumola, Christopher J. 1999. Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
———.2000. Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
———.2002."Incarcerated Parents and Their Children."Presentation to National Center for Children and Families colloquium, "Overcoming the Hidden Costs of Incarceration on Urban Children," Washington, D.C., Oct. 31.
National Commission on Correctional Health Care. 2002. The Health Status of Soon-to- Be-Released Inmates. A Report to Congress. Chicago: Author.
NCCHC. See National Commission on Correctional Health Care.
Nelson,Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. The First Month Out: Post Incarceration Experiences in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Nurse, Anne. 2001. "Coming Home to Strangers." Paper prepared for a conference, "Effects of Incarceration on Children and Families," sponsored by Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., May 5.
Phillips, Susan, and Barbara Bloom. 1998."In Whose Best Interest? The Impact of Changing Public Policy on Relatives Caring for Children with Incarcerated Parents." Child Welfare 77 (5): 531-42.
Richie, Beth E. 2001. "Challenges Women Face as They Return to their Communities: Findings from Life History Interviews." Crime and Delinquency 47 (3): 368-89.
Rickel, Annette U., and Evvie Becker. 1997. Keeping Children from Harm's Way: How National Policy Affects Psychological Development. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Seymour, Cynthia. 1998. "Children with Parents in Prison: Child Welfare Policy, Program, and Practice Issues." Child Welfare 77 (5): 469-93.
Shapiro, Carol, and Meryl Schwartz. 2001. "Coming Home: Building on Family Connections." Corrections Management Quarterly 5 (3): 52-61.
Stanton, Ann Marie. 1980. When Mothers Go to Jail. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Sullivan, Eileen, Milton Mino, Katherine Nelson, and Jill Pope. 2002. Families as a Resource in Recovery from Drug Abuse: An Evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Sullivan, Mercer L. 1993."Young Fathers and Parenting in Two Inner-City Neighborhoods." In Young Unwed Fathers: Changing Roles and Emerging Policies, edited by Robert I. Lerman and Theodora J. Ooms (52-73). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Travis, Jeremy. 2000. "But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry." Sentencing and Corrections— Issues for the 21st Century Brief No 7. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Visher, Christy A., and Jeremy Travis. 2003. "Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways." Annual Review of Sociology 29 (August): 89-113.
Wexler, Harry K., Douglas S. Lipton, and Bruce D. Johnson. 1998. A Criminal Justice System Strategy for Treating Cocaine-Heroin Abusing Offenders in Custody (NCJ 113915).Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Women's Prison Association. 1996. When a Mother Is Arrested: How the Criminal Justice and Child Welfare Systems Can Work Together More Effectively. Baltimore: Maryland Department of Human Resources.
Wright, Lois E., and Cynthia B. Seymour. 2000. Working with Children and Families Separated by Incarceration. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America Press.
