Outcomes for Children of Incarcerated Parents free essay sample

Most states lack uniform methods of recording the demographic information regarding an inmate’s children. Moreover, many inmates may choose not to identify their children for the fear of the possibility of adverse involvement from various child welfare agencies. A Black child in the United States is nine times more likely than a White child to have a parent in prison. A Hispanic child is three times more likely than a White child to have a parent in prison. More significantly, according to the forecasts for America’s prison population published by the Pew Charitable Trusts, prison populations are expected to continue to increase through 2011. On average, a 13% increase in the growth of prison populations is forecast. The number of female prisoners is expected to grow by 16% for the same period; this rate of growth among female prisoners will outpace the 12% increase anticipated for male inmate populations. Arguably, the number of children with incarcerated parents will increase in proportion to this projected increase in prison inmates. It is widely accepted among criminal justice and social welfare researchers that children of incarcerated parents suffer a myriad of difficulties associated with the incarceration of their parents. The effects on an individual child may vary according to the special developmental and psychological needs of each child. The table below illustrates the developmental stages of childhood, the abilities of a child at each stage, and the possible effects of separation at any given stage. TABLE A: Developmental effects of incarceration on children at varying stages of development. Developmental StateDevelopmental CharacteristicsDevelopmental TasksEffect of Separation Infancy (0 – 2 Years)Limited perception, total dependencyDevelopment of trust and attachmentImpaired parent/child bonding Early Childhood (2 – 6 years)Increased perception, mobility, and improved memory; Greater exposure to environment, able to imagineDevelopment of sense of autonomy; independence, and initiativeInappropriate separation anxiety; Impaired socio-emotional development; Acute traumatic stress and survivor guilt. Middle Childhood ( 7 – 10 years)Increased independence from caregivers, and ability to reason; Peers become importantSense of industry; Ability to work independentlyDevelopmental regressions; Poor self-concept; Acute traumatic stress reactions; Impaired ability to overcome future trauma Late adolescenceEmotional crisis and confusion; Adult sexual development and sexuality; Formal abstract thinking emerges; increased independenceDevelopment of cohesive identity (self); Resolution of conflicts with family and society; Ability to engage in adult work and relationshipsPremature termination of dependency relationship with parent; Intergenerational crime and incarceration Some research has indicated that, while the first two years after a child’s birth are critical for the formation of parent-child attachments, the long-term impact of separation can be reduced if the parent and child are reunited after a short time of separation. Most of the published research is not nearly a s optimistic about the prospects for children of incarcerated parents. The available literature suggests that the short-term effects of parental separation can include feelings of â€Å"shame, social stigma, loss of financial support, weakened ties to the parent, changes in family compositions, poor school performance, increased delinquency, and increased risk of abuse and neglect. The long-term consequences can be nothing short of devastating. They include It is also very important to consider that numerous other factors affect the adjustment of children to the incarceration of a parent. These effects include the nature of a family’s living arrangements prior to incarceration. It stands to reason that many children of incarcerated parents were living with non-parental caregivers prior to the incarceration of a parent. It is proposed that an average of half of inmate parents actually lived with their children before admission to prison. Other effects include the developmental level of the child and the quality of the relationship between incarcerated parent and child, the gender of the incarcerated parent, the nature of the kinship network of the incarcerated parent, and the nature and availability of formal institutional supports for the family of the incarcerated parent should all be considered. INSERT KINSHIP INFORMATION HERE. Historical Context – How Did We Get Here, and Who are â€Å"We? † Between 1970 and 2005, the United States has experienced a 700% increase in the prison population. Since 1997, the incarceration rate has been steadily increasing, while the crime rate has been in relative decline. The War on Drugs started in the 1988 with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (PL 100-690), various states’ â€Å"Three-Strikes Laws,† (often referred to as habitual offender laws), Mandatory Minimum Sentencing at both the Federal and State Levels, the Truth in Sentencing Movement, the Victim’s Rights Movement, and a general shift in public opinion favoring incarceration have all converged to create the current situation of record incarceration rates. In recent years, courts have seen the development of new class of female criminal emerge – the minimally-involved drug offender. These women are disparately punished by the current criminal justice system, and seldom know enough about the scope of the drug operation to offer any useful assistance to the prosecutor in trade for more lenient treatment. This offender is personified by Kemba Smith, who, at the time of her arrest was a pregnant, 24 year old Black college student, the only child of professional parents who had been severely battered by her drug-dealing boyfriend, Peter Hall. After Hall was murdered in Seattle, Smith was charged with a federal conspiracy charges. Despite the fact that Smith had no criminal record, and though she had never used drugs, dealt drugs, or handled drugs, she was sentenced to 24 ? ears in Federal Prison for â€Å"her part† in the trafficking of 255 kilograms of crack cocaine. Her child was born while she was incarcerated, and within minutes of his birth, she was shacked to the hospital bed. Two days later, her child was taken away from her. She remained incarcerated u ntil President William Clinton granted her clemency on December 22, 2000. Federal prosecutors can gain some distinct advantages by charging a defendant as part of a conspiracy. The burden of proof for a conspiracy charge requires only a showing of the essential nature of the plan, and the alleged conspirator’s connection to it. Circumstantial evidence alone is often enough to secure a conspiracy conviction. As a result, poor and frequently minority women are disproportionately charged in such conspiracies. Legal scholars point out that â€Å"in contrast to women of circumstance, the wife of a white-collar criminal is usually shielded from her husband’s criminal activity. The wife or â€Å"live-in companion† of a drug dealer who sells his wares on the street or from the home is not equally sheltered. Both of these women arguably know about or at least suspect the criminal activities of their mates, and both of these women arguably benefit from the proceeds of these illegal endeavors. The wife of the white-collar will almost certainly not be considered for charging as part of a criminal conspiracy. Poor Black and Hispanic defendants, male and female alike, find themselves at the nexus of these causal phenomena, and the apparent injustices in the administration of justice. Their children and families are caught in the crosshair. Dedicated researchers, criminal justice and social services policy-makers and professionals, attorneys and judges, together with legions of lay volunteers will all be needed to help improve the outcomes for these vulnerable children. On January 28, 2003 in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address, the President states, in pertinent part: â€Å"Last year, I called on my fellow citizens to participate in the USA Freedom Corps, which is enlisting tens of thousands of new volunteers across America. Tonight I ask Congress and the American people to focus the spirit of service and the resources of government on the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens – boys and girls trying to grow up without guidance and attention, and children who have to go through a prison gate to be hugged by their mom or dad. I propose a $450-million initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. Government will support the training and recruiting of mentors; yet it is the men and women of America who will fill the need. One mentor, on person can change a life forever. And I urge you to be that one person. The President’s call sounds heroic, indeed. Notwithstanding his impassioned, and arguably symbolic, pleas to the American public, the initiative was funded for $49. 7M in Fiscal Year 2004, $49. 3M for Fiscal Year 2005, and $48. 8M for Fiscal Year 2006. $40M has been requested by the Bush administration for Fiscal Yea r 2007. Based upon estimates of approximately 2. 8M children of incarcerated parents, these appropriations amount to approximately $67. 00 per child, over four years of allocations. The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program (MCP) is administered through the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Family and Youth Services Bureau (FSYB). The purpose of the MCP is to provide grants, on a competitive basis, to applicants serving populations with a significant number of children aged 4 15 with incarcerated parent(s). The grantees are expected to provide a structured, managed program in which children are matched appropriately to properly screened and trained adult volunteers. These volunteers are expected to form individual relationships with the children to meet the child’s needs for involvement with a caring adult who can be a positive role model for the child. Grantees are expected to find mentors who are willing to commit at least one hour per week with their assigned child. They are required to pass background screenings that include domestic violence and child abuse history checks, and then require these mentors to attend training. The grantees are expected to measure the outcomes by recording data concerning the child’s academic achievement, and avoidance of risky behaviors. Grantees are expected to provide a match of at least 25% of the grants awarded to them for the first two appropriation years, and a 50% match for the third year. The source of the matching funds must not be federal funds. Fifty programs, some faith based, some government-operated, and most secular non-profits were awarded grants in the 2003 Fiscal Year. Collectively, these programs represent 30 of the 50 states. Grantees represent a mix of urban and rural organizations from diverse regions of the United States. Grantees collectively state goals of mentoring 12,141 children in FY 2003. Initially, it was speculated that the opposition of incarcerated parents would be a barrier to successful implementation of MCP. For the most part, parents have expressed positive attitudes toward the mentors, and some have expressed a wish to keep the mentors involved in the lives of their children. Interestingly, one of the most vigorous critics of the program is a child of incarcerated parents. Chesa Boudin, a then-23 year old woman from New York, characterizes Bush’s mentoring programs as â€Å"misguided,† and contends that mentors could actually serve to undermine the relationship between incarcerated parent and child, only to disappear after the end of the program.