Children with Incarcerated Parents: Many Stones Still Unturned

Progress in the Field

I would argue that one of the most significant markers of growth in the field is the evolution of a core group of stakeholders. The interest and support of several key foundations has led to collaborative efforts from diverse players in this field. Combined with the passage of the Second Chance Act and the reentry initiatives that are occurring in state and local jurisdictions, this support has helped create interest among several members of Congress and their staff in the millions of families affected by incarceration. This growing interest provides a real opportunity to promote policy options and to raise awareness on Capitol Hill about the importance of children and families during incarceration and in the reentry process.

Notably, the Council of State Governments Justice Center received support from the Open Society Institute, the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Casey Family Programs to develop and disseminate Children of Incarcerated Parents: An Action Plan for Federal Policymakers.¹ This plan reflects a bipartisan consensus among state and local government officials responsible for supervising people sentenced to jail, prison, or community supervision and those agencies and advocates responsible for protecting and serving children and families of the incarcerated.

The Federal Action plan was broadly written for Congress and federal policymakers and includes recommendations for improved policy for children of incarcerated parents. The plan is organized into the following eight substantive areas that explain the unique challenges and needs of children of incarcerated parents based on the latest research findings and input from key stakeholders:

1. Overview and research
2. Responses to children during a parent’s arrest
3. Parent-child interactions within correctional systems
4. Coordination across service systems
5. Support for kinship caregivers
6. Foster care and permanence
7. Child support
8. Benefits and income supports

The Justice Center released the Action Plan in October 2009, and has begun to reach out to committees and individual members of Congress working on related legislative vehicles or who have expressed interest in the issues surrounding children with incarcerated parents. The intended results of this work will help set the stage for more public awareness around this issue and an increased potential for policy influence.

At the state and local level, work has also continued to progress. A few noteworthy examples include:

• Encouraging State Departments of Correction to Collect Data on Children with Incarcerated Parents.
  Oregon, Washington and Rhode Island serve as good models for steps taken by a state to better data collection on incarcerated parents and their children.
• Cross System Collaboration: Creating Better Collaboration and Communication among Systems Serving this Population.
  The San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership and the Arizona Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights Project demonstrate effective strategies for coordination between corrections, child welfare, and human services agencies to help ensure that children and families receive the support they need.
• Foster Care: Providing Reasonable Reunification Services for Incarcerated Parents and their Children.
  New York State continues to provide a good example for the diligent efforts they make to keep incarcerated parents and their children connected through support and services for reunification or other permanent placement. Additionally, the Women’s Foundation of California Children of Incarcerated Parents Learning Cohort informed and shaped a bill with the goal of preventing the breakup of families by increasing the chance that children will be able to reunite with their mothers after release from prison. This bill, AB 2070, authored by California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, gives social workers more discretion to extend the timeline before parental rights are terminated in the case of a parent’s incarceration, and expands the reunification services available to families following incarceration. It was signed by the Governor and chaptered into law on September 28, 2008.
• The Role of Faith-based Institutions:
  The role of faith-based organizations in aiding prisoners, their children and families is critical. As such, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has developed a “Healing Communities” model, which encourages communities of faith to minister to members of their own congregations who are affected by crime and the criminal justice system. The Healing Communities model seeks to engage congregations by drawing upon the belief systems and unique strengths of the faith community—acceptance, compassion, forgiveness, redemption, and restoration. A healing community provides what programs and services generally cannot—”the transformation of hearts and minds” and the building of relationships that support people.² While this model is not a program per se, much can be learned from Michigan about the process of the adaptation and implementation of the model at the state level.
• Cultivating Co-investors for Sustained Resources and Capacity Building.
  In 2008, Grantmakers for Children, Youth, and Families (GCYF), with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Zellerbach Family Foundation, the California Endowment, and the Women’s Foundation of California, implemented a major learning initiative on the issue of children with incarcerated parents. The overall goal of the initiative was to increase investments in grantmaking initiatives for children of incarcerated parents. Over the course of the year, GCYF held three learning events, developed an online resource library, identified and supported foundations working on or interested in learning more about the issue, and established an online learning community. This grant influenced the field by building partnerships, reaching and engaging grantmakers at the local level, and leveraging additional private funds.

1. Jessica Nickel, Crystal Garland, and Leah Kane, Children of Incarcerated Parents: An Action Plan for Federal Policymakers (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2009). [↩]
2. See: Harold Dean Trulear, Robert Franklin, and Stephanie Boddie, “Healing Communities: Faith, Redemption and the Ministry of Reintegration,” published by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2006; and Linda Mills, “Balancing Justice With Mercy: A Toolkit for Creating Healing Communities,” published by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2008. [↩]