What can the legislature do to improve collaboration among the stakeholders that must be involved in efforts to improve the lives of children of incarcerated parents?

Many—if not most—of the policy actions described above require the active involvement of multiple systems working together to achieve positive results for the children of imprisoned parents. As in other areas of human services, however, such collaboration may first require action on the part of policymakers, including state legislators. Some experts on children of incarcerated parents have noted that legislation is needed at both the state and federal levels to fully address the complex range of issues facing incarcerated parents and their children.

To lay the groundwork for such collaboration, an initial approach legislators might consider is a broad statement of legislative intent that the relationship between an incarcerated parent and his or her child should be recognized, preserved and strengthened when in the best interest of the child. Such statement of intent could be coupled with two requirements:

• That all systems that touch the lives of such children and parents—including law enforcement, corrections,

child welfare, education and the judiciary—jointly assess the effects of their policies, programs and practices

on children of incarcerated parents; and

• That these various state agencies undertake to collect, share, analyze and regularly report on data regarding children of incarcerated parents to better understand their service needs and the needs of their caregivers.

In the past decade, legislatures in several states have required broad-based policy reviews, multidisciplinary planning, and data collection to address the issues facing children of incarcerated parents.

• In 1998, the Missouri legislature required the state Children’s Services Commission to evaluate state laws

and policies that affect incarcerated parents and their children and to recommend legislative proposals and

state and local programs to respond to the needs of such children.

• In 2001, Oregon established by legislation a planning and advisory committee to make recommendations

on how to increase family bonding for children of incarcerated parents. The legislation required representation by the corrections department, the state youth authority, the state court administrator, the state Commission on Children and Families, the Department of Education, the Department of Human Services, and several local boards and councils. The committee issued a report to the legislature in 2002,66 and in 2005, the legislature extended the committee through the 2005-2007 biennium.

      As one of the first states to address this issue at a high level, Oregon is now considered a national model for inter-agency collaboration and innovation. Oregon’s effort began in 2000 with a Children’s Project work group consisting of over 20 organizations. The work group focused on changes in the prison system to include parent education classes, a therapeutic child-centered facility to serve children of female inmates, and improved policies regarding contact and visitation.

• Hawaii adopted a resolution in 2005 requesting the departments of public safety and human services to form a task force to identify and develop appropriate programs and services for children of incarcerated parents and to provide support for incarcerated parents, where appropriate. The task force issued a report to the Legislature,71 and was extended through 2012.

      Hawaii also enacted legislation in 2008 to articulate guiding principles for use by state agencies when dealing with children of incarcerated parents. The principles were adapted from the Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights created by the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership. The principles include “children should be kept safe and informed at the time of the parent’s arrest;” “the children’s wishes should be taken into consideration regarding any decisions made concerning their welfare;” “if the children so choose, communication avenues should be made available such that children should have opportunities to see, speak to, or visit parents, where appropriate,” and “children should receive support for the desire to retain a relationship with an incarcerated parent, where appropriate.”

• In 2005, Washington required the Department of Corrections and the Department of Social and Health Services to establish an oversight committee to develop an inter-agency plan for services and supports to children with incarcerated parents. Washington followed up on its 2005 legislation with a 2007 law that requires a broad array of agencies—including corrections, social services, education, early learning and economic development—to adopt policies to encourage familial contact between inmates and their children, facilitate normal child development, and reduce recidivism and inter-generational incarceration. These agencies also must gather and evaluate data on children of incarcerated parents. Finally, the law requires creation of an advisory committee to gather the data collected by the departments, monitor implementation of existing recommendations, identify needs, and provide advice regarding funding of community programs. The state budget for the 2007-2009 biennium contains $1.086 million, divided among various departments, to fund this legislation.

      Pursuant to the legislation, the Washington Department of Social and Health Services embarked on a

comprehensive analysis of administrative data to determine the extent services are received by children and

families of incarcerated parents and to identify the social service systems that are involved with such families.

Department staff also prepared an excellent policy paper on the issue.

• In 2007, the Virginia General Assembly required that an integrated system be established to coordinate planning and service provision so children and their incarcerated parents could maintain their relationships.

• The Vermont legislature required in 2008 that the Corrections Oversight Committee investigate issues regarding children of incarcerated parents and make recommendations on how to increase appropriate contact between minor children and their parents. The committee also was to determine data that should be collected to enable the legislature to better understand the effects of parental incarceration on minor children,

among other things.

• Also in 2008, the Tennessee legislature passed a joint resolution urging the state Department of Corrections to examine the Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights and to incorporate appropriate principles to help the state achieve its goal to eliminate inter-generational crime.

      State legislators also can initiate a dialogue about changing the cultures of disparate systems to ensure that the needs of children of incarcerated parents do not get lost between agencies. Even without legislation, the attention and influence of state legislators could help change attitudes that have hindered better results. The culture and mission of the correctional system, for example, could be expanded to include reducing recidivism and improving public safety by facilitating maintenance of parent-child relationships during a parent’s imprisonment. The culture and mission of child welfare could be changed so that parental incarceration no longer is viewed as an automatic bar to providing reunification services and regular visitation. Juvenile and family court judges could be encouraged to hold child welfare agencies accountable for maintaining connections between a child in foster care and an incarcerated parent and delivering appropriate reunification services to the parent when it is in the child’s best interest.

      The many issues that face children of incarcerated parents and their families are complex and cross the jurisdictional boundaries of multiple agencies and service systems. In addition, thoughtful policy making in this area is hindered by lack of reliable data on the characteristics of these children and a paucity of sound research on both the effects of parental incarceration and the effectiveness of interventions. Nevertheless, a growing number of state policymakers are taking an active interest in helping children of incarcerated parents. This paper provides a preliminary framework for those who must deal with this critical policy issue.

What policy options are available to state legislators to improve the lives of children of incarcerated parents?

Parental incarceration is not an isolated event, it is a process that unfolds over time. To protect children from the harmful effects of parental incarceration, the interests of children should be considered at each stage of the process, including arrest, sentencing, intake, incarceration and re-entry. Because the process involves many agencies and individuals who do not routinely coordinate their efforts or communicate with one another, a key policy goal is to ensure that such agencies and individuals work together to promote the best interests of children when their parents go to jail or prison. Possible policy interventions at each stage of the incarceration process follows.

Arrest Phase:

      The arrest of a parent can be highly traumatic to a child, yet most police departments have no protocols to protect children, explain to them what is happening and ensure that they are properly cared for after a parent is arrested. To ensure that the needs of children are taken into account during an arrest, some jurisdictions have replicated a program called Child Development-Community Policing (CD-CP), a collaboration between the New Haven Department of Police Service and the Yale Child Study Center. The program trains police in child development, provides clinicians to work with children at the scene of an arrest, provides treatment and counseling for such children, and provides ongoing consultation for police and child welfare workers.

      At least two states enacted legislation to address the needs of children at the time a parent is arrested. California law encourages law enforcement personnel and child welfare agencies to develop protocols and apply for federal training funds to learn to better cooperate in the arrest of a parent to ensure a child’s safety and well-being. California also allows arrestees, during the booking process, to make two additional telephone calls to arrange for care for their children. New Mexico law requires that law enforcement training include how to ensure child safety during the arrest of a parent. It also includes a requirement that a law enforcement officer who makes an arrest inquire whether the arrestees is a parent or guardian of a child who may be at risk because of the arrest and to make reasonable efforts to ensure the safety of the child in accordance with guidelines established by the Department of Public Safety.

      States also can consider ways to divert children from foster care at the point of arrest. It is not uncommon for drug offenders to cycle in and out of local jails during the course of a year. In fact, most people who go to jail have been there before and do not go on to prison. Given this pattern of repeated arrests and jail stays, it can be anticipated that the children of such offenders will need substitute care for relatively short periods of time, but at more frequent intervals. Family group conferencing, arranged by the public child welfare agency, can be used to develop safety plans for such children, during which a relative agrees to provide short-term care for a child when the child’s parent is arrested and jailed. This arrangement—although perhaps preferable to extended stays in non-relative foster care—still is disruptive and potentially harmful to the child. Therefore, alternative care for the child should be accompanied by appropriate services and interventions for the parent to break the cycle of arrest and incarceration.

Sentencing Phase:

      Much discussion of how sentencing affects children has centered on the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing laws enacted as part of the “war on drugs” in the 1980s. Observers point out that these laws have disproportionately affected women. From 1986 to 1996, the number of women incarcerated in state facilities for drug offenses increased by 888 percent, compared to a rise of 129 percent for non-drug offenses.36 Whether or not states amend their mandatory minimum sentencing laws, they still can ensure that children’s interests are considered during sentencing.

• State law could be amended to explicitly require judges, at sentencing, to consider the effects of a parent’s

incarceration on children. At least one state—Oklahoma—requires judges to inquire whether a convicted

individual is a single custodial parent and, if so, to inquire about arrangements for care of the child.

• States could require, in appropriate cases, that pre-sentence investigation reports include a family impact

statement, including recommendations for the “least detrimental alternative” sentence and for services to and supports for children during a parent’s imprisonment. These statements are being used to a limited extent in Arkansas and Tennessee. Family advocates in other states, including Texas, are developing templates and working with the judiciary system to integrate them into sentencing in select cases. One Tennessee judge routinely requests that a video of the parent interacting with the child accompany family impact statements.

Placement/Intake Phase:

      Corrections officials usually do not inquire whether a newly committed inmate is a parent and how incarceration is likely to affect the parent-child relationship, if at all. State legislators may want to consider requiring that prison officials make such inquiries. There are several reasons for doing so. First, a major barrier to regular visitation between children and their incarcerated parents is placement of inmates in facilities located far from where the children live. State law could require corrections officials to consider the effects of inmate placement on maintaining family relationships.

• Hawaii, for example, enacted legislation in 2007 that, among other things, requires the director of public

safety to establish policies that parent inmates be placed in facilities, consistent with public safety and inmate

security, based on the best interest of the family rather than on economic or administrative factors. The legislation also requires consideration when making prison placements of an offender’s capacity to maintain

parent-child contact.

• California law requires the director of corrections to examine newly committed inmates to determine the

existence of any strong community and family ties, the maintenance of which could aid in the inmate’s rehabilitation, and, when reasonable, to assign a prisoner to the appropriate facility nearest his or her home.

      A second reason for requiring prison officials to routinely collect information about new inmates’ parental status is to ensure that their children receive the services and supports to which they are entitled and to fill some of the gaps in data that hinder research and policy making.

• Colorado law, for example, requires corrections officials to determine whether an inmate is a parent and, if

so, whether the child is in school. The department of corrections also must collect and compile information

related to programs that help students whose parents are incarcerated.

• A 2007 Hawaii provision appropriates funding to support, among other things, the collection of data on

children of incarcerated parents, including the number of children each inmate has, the children’s ages,

schools, caregiving arrangements and needed services.

Incarceration Phase:

      Entry of a parent into jail or prison presents an opportunity for a coordinated response by multiple systems to ensure that children’s best interests are protected and to accomplish the following goals.

• Manage the disruptive effects of a parent’s incarceration. Options include minimizing disruptions in a child’s

residence, school attendance, friendships and caregiving arrangements, and minimizing economic hardship following a parent’s imprisonment. One type of care giving arrangement that deserves special consideration is care by non-parent relatives. Although kinship care has many advantages over other forms of care giving arrangements, such as non-relative foster care, it also poses some risks to children’s healthy development. Research on kinship care in general has shown that many grandparent caregivers are poor, physically frail and in poor mental health.

      Kin caregivers of children of incarcerated parents face additional challenges. These include coping with the social stigma associated with incarceration of a family member, the added expense of long-distance telephone calls from prison and travel to prisons for visits, and anger about the parent’s poor choices and behaviors that resulted in imprisonment.

      Although many policies exist for kinship care, in general, no state or federal legislation addresses the unique circumstances and needs of relatives who care for children of incarcerated parents. Policymakers might want to examine whether existing state kinship care policies and programs meet the needs of this subset of relative caregivers.

• Maintain regular, meaningful contact between children and their incarcerated parents. Policies and programs can address some, but not all, the barriers children face in contact with their incarcerated parents. Some children either never had a relationship with their incarcerated parents or lost contact with them long before arrest, sentencing and imprisonment. In other cases, children might have a relationship with their incarcerated parents but are denied access to them by their custodial parents or relative caregivers.

      Accordingly, policies should target those children who have a relationship with their incarcerated parent, who would benefit from maintaining that relationship, and who face the barriers that state policies can address. Such policies include assigning inmates to facilities close to home (see discussion in Placement/Intake Phase, above), requiring child-friendly visiting areas within prisons and jails, requiring training for corrections staff on treatment of visiting children, and reviewing and revising prison visiting policies to identify and remove unnecessary barriers to regular visitation. Michigan, for example, included in its 2007 corrections appropriations bill a requirement that the state allocate sufficient funds from the appropriation to develop a pilot children’s visitation program, which is to include parenting skills instruction.

What are the challenges to children and parents associated with discharge from prison?

The effects of parental incarceration on children do not end with a parent’s discharge from prison. Approximately 650,000 people are released from state and federal prisons annually, and a much larger number are released

from local jails. Many parents who are discharged from prisons intend to reunite with their minor children, but may not anticipate the difficulties associated with doing so. Former inmates face immense challenges, both

internal and external, to build productive lives for themselves, including finding jobs, housing and health care and avoiding further involvement with the criminal justice system. Many grapple with paying off debts that have accumulated during imprisonment, including child support arrangement's, criminal fines, court and legal fees, and restitution. These challenges have been extensively documented and discussed elsewhere.

      Re-entry can be even more daunting for women with children than for men. Compared to male former inmates, women are more likely to be dealing with the psychological effects of past trauma and abuse and are more likely to have abused drugs, alcohol or both at the time of imprisonment. At the same time, reunification with children is likely to be a more important part of re-entry for women than it is for men.

      Prisoner re-entry also can be challenging and stressful for children. Children grow, change and often form relationships with new parental figures during a parent’s incarceration. These parental figures—and perhaps other family members—often are reluctant to allow a child to re-establish a relationship with a parent upon release. Such family conflicts can destabilize already fragile families and leave children confused and torn. More important, the return of a violent offender can increase the risk that a child will be subjected or exposed to domestic violence.

How to prevent the termination of parental rights, incarcerated parents face three challenges.

First, regular contact, preferably visitation, with a child in foster care is critical. Unless termination of parental rights is clearly in the child’s best interest, a court will be less likely to terminate the rights of a parent who can demonstrate ongoing positive contact with a child and involvement in his or her life. In California, for example, the statutory list of circumstances that constitute exceptions to termination includes that, “the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.”

      Ironically, though contact and visitation are most important for incarcerated parents whose children are in foster care, some evidence suggests that such children are the least likely to visit their parents in prison. That is because visits must be authorized and arranged by child welfare caseworkers who carry high caseloads and who may be inclined to “abandon” the prospect of reunification with an imprisoned parent.

      Second, incarcerated parents who want to avoid termination of parental rights should participate to the fullest extent possible in their children’s dependency proceedings, including case planning, hearings and court orders. Parents, however, are often dependent upon caseworkers for information and guidance to navigate the dependency process. Unfortunately, some studies have found that caseworkers rarely communicate with parents in prison, inform them of hearings or involve them in case planning.

      Third, incarcerated parents need access to reunification services, such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services and parenting classes. In the BJS study, more than half of parents in state prison (55 percent of fathers and 74 percent of mothers) reported a mental health problem and more than two-thirds (67 percent of fathers and 70 percent of mothers) reported substance dependence or abuse. Only four in 10 of these parents, however, reported receiving treatment for substance abuse since admission, and only one-third received treatment for mental health problems.

      In short, unique policy and practice issues can adversely affect children in foster care and their incarcerated parents. State policymakers, however, have options to mitigate the potentially harmful consequences of these policies and practices. The options are discussed later in this paper.

How are children in foster care affected by the incarceration of a parent?

The adverse emotional and behavioral consequences of parental incarceration and parent-child separation, children in foster care and their parents face additional challenges created by child welfare law, policy and practice. The most serious of these challenges is the risk that the legal parent-child relationship will be permanently severed through legal action by a child welfare agency. The 1997 federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, requires states to file a petition to terminate parental rights on behalf of any child who has been abandoned or who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The law provides exceptions to this requirement in the following cases: 1) at the option of the state, the child is being cared for by a relative, 2) the state has documented a compelling reason for determining that termination of parental rights would not be in the child’s best interest, or 3) the state has not provided the child’s family with services that the state deems necessary for the safe return of the child to his or her home.

      Although the Adoption and Safe Families Act does not explicitly require a termination of parental rights filing against incarcerated parents, the 15 of 22 months provision technically would apply in cases where reunification is delayed beyond 15 months due to a parent's incarceration, even if the parent is receiving services to facilitate reunification. Because the typical sentence for an incarcerated parent is from 80 to 100 months, most imprisoned parents of children in foster care are at risk of losing their parental rights.

      We lack the data, however, to know how ASFA actually affects the permanency outcomes for children in foster care whose parent is incarcerated. Some evidence suggests that the number of termination of parental rights cases that involved incarcerated parents increased following enactment of ASFA. Such cases were on the rise before ASFA enactment as well. A recent analysis of data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System examined the subset of children for whom parental incarceration was indicated as a reason for removal from home. The study found no significant difference in rates of reunification between these children and children in foster care whose parents were not incarcerated. Another study of children in the Minnesota child welfare system found that the vast majority of children who were placed in foster care from 2000 to mid-2007 due to incarceration of a parent ultimately were reunified with their parents. On the other hand, a study of mothers incarcerated in Illinois state prisons and the Cook County, Illinois, jail from 1990 to 2000 found that these mothers were one-half as likely to reunify with their children in foster care than were non-incarcerated mothers whose children were in foster care.

      Although ASFA requires a termination of parental rights filing in certain cases, it is state—not federal—law that defines legal grounds for such termination. Many state termination of parental rights laws include parental incarceration as a factor to be considered by courts in determining whether to grant a termination decree. Incarceration per se is not grounds for termination of parental rights in any state. In fact, six states expressly include this caveat in statute. Rather, states have defined a variety of conditions related to incarceration that, together with imprisonment, constitute grounds for termination. These conditions include length of confinement relative to the child’s age; failure to make provision for the child’s care; the quality of the parent-child relationship and the effect of incarceration thereon; pre-incarceration contact with and support of the child; repeated incarceration; failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency’s efforts to help with case planning and visitation; and the nature of the crime for which the parent is incarcerated. Another important distinction among state termination of parental rights statutes is that, although most states give judges some discretion in making termination decisions, others require judges to grant a decree upon proof of one or more statutory grounds.

      At least two states—California and Utah—set strict time limits on provision of reunification services. These time limits allow no exceptions, although California recently authorized courts, in limited circumstances, to extend the time limits for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized or in residential substance abuse treatment. Nor are the time limits subject to judicial discretion. When the time allotted for reunification services expires, reunification no longer will be the child’s permanency goal, and the child welfare agency likely will move to terminate parental rights, unless an exception applies.

Children’s Contact with Incarcerated Parents

Maintaining family contact during incarceration can be beneficial to both children and their parents. It is generally thought that maintaining parent-child contact through personal visits during incarceration is important for the well-being of many children, although little empirical evidence exists on that point. Some research indicates that visiting is important in maintaining parent-child relationships and increases the likelihood of successful reunification after release.With regard to prisoners themselves, several studies found that maintenance of family ties during incarceration is linked to post-release success, defined as lower rates of recidivism and fewer parole violations.

      The Bureau of Justice Statistics study examined the types and frequency of contacts between prison inmates of minor children and the children of these inmates, including their adult children. The study found that almost 79 percent of state inmate parents had some kind of contact with at least one of their children since admission. Thirty-nine percent of fathers and 56 percent of mothers in state prison reported at least weekly contact with a child, in the form of letters, telephone calls or visits. Relatively few inmates reported regular personal visits from at least one of their children, however. In state prison, only 12.3 percent of fathers and 14.6 percent of mothers reported personal visits from a child at least once a month. Fifty-nine percent of fathers and 58 percent of mothers had no personal visits from any of their children.

Barriers to more frequent contact, particularly personal visits, include the following.

• Corrections policy In theory, corrections officials encourage visiting and maintenance of family ties. In 
  practice, however, prison rules to ensure safety and security often impede such visits. As Creasey Finney Hairston notes, “correctional institutions commonly require children’s custodial parents to escort them on visits, require child visitors to produce birth certificates listing the prisoner as the biological parent, and house prisoners in locations hundreds or thousands of miles from their homes—all policies that create obstacles for healthy parent-child relationships.” Prisons also commonly charge excessive fees for telephone calls to subsidize their operations, so incarcerated parents cannot afford to maintain regular contact with their  children.

• Child-unfriendly facilities The prison environment can be frightening and traumatic for children, both in the attitudes and behavior of prison staff and the physical setting. Visits can include long waits; body frisks; rude treatment; and hot, dirty and crowded visiting rooms with no activities for children.These conditions do not encourage frequent visits between incarcerated parents and their children.

• Parent-caregiver relationships One of the most important factors that affect whether and how often a child has contact with an incarcerated parent is the relationship between the parent and the children’s current caregiver. For various reasons, a caregiver-be it the other parent or a relative-may have a strained relationship with the incarcerated parent or may have severed all ties with him or her. The caregiver may feel that further contact with the imprisoned parent could harm the child and therefore might prevent or discourage such contact.

• Child welfare policy and practice For reasons that will be discussed more fully in the next section, placement of a child in foster care poses unique barriers to visitation with incarcerated parents. In the context of federal and state policies that discourage reunification when a child has been in foster care for an extended period, caseworkers have little incentive to arrange visits and work to preserve parent-child relationships.

The Child’s Current Caregiver

Children who live in stable households with nurturing caregivers during their parents’ incarceration are likely to fare better than children who experience family instability as a result of a parent’s confinement Foster care, in particular, carries with it the risk of multiple placement changes and loss of connection to school, community, friends, siblings and extended family. 

      The vast majority (84 percent) of parents incarcerated in state prisons reported to the Bureau of Justice Statistics that at least one of their children was in the care of the other parent. Fifteen percent identified as caregivers the grandparents, 6 percent other relatives and 3 percent reported that at least one child was in a foster home, agency or institution.Responses of mothers and fathers in state prison differed on this survey question. Eighty-eight percent of fathers identified the child’s other parent as the current caregiver, compared to 37 percent of mothers. Sixty-eight percent of mothers, on the other hand, identified a grandparent or other relative as a child’s current caregiver, compared to 17.5 percent of fathers. Finally, mothers were five times more likely than fathers to report that a child was in foster care (11 percent vs. 2 percent, respectively).

      Notwithstanding the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, accurate estimates are not available of the number of children in foster care who have an incarcerated parent. Although the report tells us how many inmates identified a given type of caregiver, it does not tell us how many children are in each type of care giving arrangement. Thus, we do not know how many children are represented by the 3 percent of inmates who reported that a child was in foster care. Further, the survey makes no attempt to distinguish between relative caregivers who are foster parents and those who provide care outside the formal child welfare system. Other data sources are equally problematic, producing widely varying estimates of this population of children in care.

How does parental incarceration affect children?

Parental incarceration can affect many aspects of a child’s life, including emotional and behavioral well-being, family stability and financial circumstances. Unfortunately, much of the research on the effect of parental incarceration on children’s well-being is of poor quality.

      Some studies suggest that parental incarceration has an independent effect on a child’s behavior, academic performance and mental health.

      There is, however, consensus in the field that these children are exposed to many risk factors and that the effects of parental incarceration on children are subject to a host of variables, including pre-incarceration living arrangements; the quality of the parent-child relationship; the degree to which inmate parents participated in daily care and financial support of their children prior to confinement; children’s current living arrangements; the amount of contact children have with their incarcerated parents; and children’s age, temperament, gender and coping skills, among other factors.

What is the nature and scope of the problem?

Much of what we know about this issue comes from a series of reports by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) on incarcerated parents and their children, that in turn, are based upon periodic national surveys of inmates in state and federal prisons. The latest such report was released in August 2008.2 It found that, in 2007, slightly more than 1.7 million children under age 18 had a parent in state or federal prison, representing 2.3 percent of the total U.S. child population. The number of children with a father in prison increased from 881,500 in 1991 to more than 1.5 million in 2007, a 77 percent increase. During that time, the number of children with a mother in prison increased by 131 percent, from 63,900 to 147,400.

          In 2007, 744,200 male prison inmates had minor children, compared to 65,500 women inmates. Most prisoners had at least one child under age 18 (52 percent of state inmates and 63 percent of federal inmates). Sixty-two percent of women in state prison and 56 percent of female inmates in federal prison were parents of minor children, compared to 51 percent of male state prisoners and 63 percent of male federal inmates.

What do we know about these children’s race and age?

         In 2007, the population of minor children of incarcerated parents consisted of approximately 484,100 white, non-Hispanic children (one in 110 white children), 767,400 black, non-Hispanic children (one in 15 black children), and 362,800 Hispanic children (one in 41 Hispanic children). Black (54 percent) and Hispanic (57 percent) men in state prison were more likely than white men (45 percent) to be parents. The likelihood that women in state prison were parents did not vary by race.

         About half of these children were age 9 or younger. Thirty-two percent were between the ages of 10 and 14, and 16 percent were between the ages of 15 and 17.

Incarcerated Parents

The nation’s growing prison and jail population has raised serious questions about the collateral effects of incarceration on children, families and communities. Whatever one’s views about the appropriate role of incarceration in the criminal justice system, it is clear that imprisonment disrupts positive, nurturing relationships between many parents—particularly mothers—and their children. In addition, many families with children suffer economic strain and instability when a parent is imprisoned. Research suggests that intervening in the lives of incarcerated parents and their children to preserve and strengthen positive family connections can

yield positive societal benefits in the form of reduced recidivism, less inter-generational criminal justice system involvement, and promotion of healthy child development. In the words of a researcher, “studies indicate that families are important to prisoners and to the achievement of major social goals, including the prevention of recidivism and delinquency.”

      Because this area is fraught with major data gaps, it is recommended that policymakers begin their exploration of the subject by posing a series of questions to their staffs and the heads of agencies with jurisdiction over law enforcement, corrections, child welfare, education and welfare, as well as child advocates, the university community and others who have an interest in ensuring the well-being of children whose parents are in custody.

         This report proposes a list of such questions, each followed by a discussion that is intended, not so much as a definitive answer, but as general background information. The information identifies only general trends, since specific answers to the questions posed will differ by state, depending on factors such as the existing policy context and service array, demographic trends and available data.

Thousands of Children Sentenced to Life without Parole

There are at least 2,225 child offenders serving life without parole sentences in U.S. prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18. Kids who commit serious crimes shouldn't go scot-free, but if they are too young to vote or buy cigarettes, they are too young to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.


While many of the child offenders are now adults, 16 percent were between 13 and 15 years old at the time they committed their crimes. An estimated 59 percent were sentenced to life without parole for their first-ever criminal conviction. Forty-two states currently have laws allowing children to receive life without parole sentences. In 1990, 2,234 children were convicted of murder and 2.9 percent sentenced to life without parole. By 2000, the conviction rate had dropped by nearly 55 percent (1,006), yet the percentage of children receiving life without parole sentences rose by 216 percent (to nine percent).

“Untie the hands of state and federal judges and prosecutors,” said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). “Give them options other than turning the courts into assembly lines that mass produce mandatory life without parole sentences for children, that ignore their enormous potential for change and rob them of all hopes for redemption.”


In 26 states, the sentence of life without parole is mandatory for anyone who is found guilty of committing first-degree murder, regardless of age. According to the report, 93 percent of youth offenders serving life without parole were convicted of murder. But Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International found that an estimated 26 percent were convicted of “felony murder,” which holds that anyone involved in the commission of a serious crime during which someone is killed is also guilty of murder, even if he or she did not personally or directly cause the death.

For example, 15-year-old Peter A. was sentenced to life without parole for felony murder. Peter had joined two acquaintances of his older brother to commit a robbery. He was waiting outside in a van when one of the acquaintances botched the robbery and murdered two victims. Peter said, “Although I was present at the scene, I never shot or killed anyone.” Nevertheless, Peter was held accountable for the double murder because it was established during the trial that he had stolen the van used to drive to the victims’ house.
Widespread and unfounded fears of adolescent “super-predators”—violent teenagers with long criminal histories who prey on society—prompted states to increasingly try children as adults. Ten states set no minimum age for sentencing children to life without parole, and there are at least six children currently serving the sentence who were age 13 when they committed their crimes. Once convicted, these children are sent to adult prisons and must live among adult gangs, sexual predators and in harsh conditions.

There is no correlation between the use of the life without parole sentence and youth crime rates. There is no evidence it deters youth crime or is otherwise helpful in reducing juvenile crime rates. For example, Georgia rarely sentences children to life without parole but it has youth crime rates lower than Missouri, which imposes the sentence on child offenders far more frequently.

Public safety can be protected without subjecting youth to the harshest prison sentence possible. Nationwide, black youth receive life without parole sentences at a rate estimated to be ten times greater than that of white youth (6.6 versus 0.6). In some states the ratio is far greater: in California, black youth are 22.5 times more likely to receive a life without parole sentence than white youth. In Pennsylvania, Hispanic youth are ten times more likely to receive the sentence than whites (13.2 versus 1.3).

The United States is one of only a few countries in the world that permit children to be sentenced to life without parole. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, forbids this practice, and at least 132 countries have rejected the sentence altogether. Thirteen other countries have laws permitting the child life without parole sentence, but, outside of the United States, there are only about 12 young offenders currently serving life sentences with no possibility of parole.


Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International also challenged the presumption that the youth offenders are irredeemable, which is implicit in the sentence they have received. Children who commit serious crimes still have the ability to change their lives for the better. It is now time for us to take positive steps by enacting policies that seek to redeem children, instead of throwing them in prison for the rest of their lives. The J.I.T Outreach Program is calling on the United States to end the practice of sentencing child offenders to life without parole. For those already serving life sentences, immediate efforts should be made to grant them access to parole procedures.

J.I.T. OUTREACH PROGRAM

The J.I.T Outreach Program is an organization set out to help needy families and troubled juveniles ranging from the ages of nine (9) to seventeen (17). Our main focus is helping these juveniles to seek a better path in life other than that of the streets; but in order to do so; we’ll need the help of those juveniles’ parents. If we show them Love, Life, Loyalty, Knowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding, we believe that we can capture their way of thinking at an early stage in life, we can help mold them into our future Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, Governors, Senators, Contractors, etc. If we can give them something to look forward to other than the streets, drugs, murder, and just crime in general that lead to life in prison or worst; we can help make that change in their lives!! 

      We will try to help certain families who qualify, with rent, lights, water, and other expenses such as school clothes and supplies, groceries, and things of that nature. We will be getting involved with the schools, teachers, and counselors to help with their GPA and overall behavior in the classroom. We’ll do this by making the learning process fun and adventurous to help them want to excel in the classroom. By offering certain programs like computer programming, engine technician, culinary arts, arts and crafts, sports, and other genres of learning, we can keep them out of the streets and out of harms way, but most importantly; out of prison. 

      When report cards are issued, all children who have brought their grades up in the areas in which they were struggling, their names will be entered into a drawing to win prizes like laptops, home P.C.’s, video games, portable C.D. players, MP3 players, iPods, shoes, clothes, bicycles, trips to the movies with their families, etc., and we’ll also award them with an Certificate of Achievement. We’ll have fundraisers for the children to help buy sporting equipment. On the last Saturday of every month we’ll have Bar-B-Ques, family picnics or show casings of what they have learned from the program. We will host talent shows every three (3) months on the last day of the month. The talent shows will consist of: stepping, dancing, singing, hip-hop, and poetry readings. 

      We will contact the Department of Juvenile Justice, Clerk of Courts, State Attorney’s Office,  Social Services and whoever else we have to contact to ensure that we provide a way for those troubled children not to go to JAIL. We are seeking to help them strive Educationally, Economically, Politically, to build Social Development Skills, Organizational Skills and Unity. And if we use these six (6) elements I just mentioned as a guiding light, we believe that they will grow and develop into our future leaders of tomorrow. In the visions of this program and through this programs’ vision they’ll become a reckoning force of power beyond boundaries and without measures. If they trust, look, listen, and learn to see everything placed before them in its entire form, and to that all they have to do is keep their eyes, ears, and mind open and they will learn. All they have to do is use everything they have learned from our program to gain an advantage in life, and become a productive and model citizen. 

      With the concept of the five (5) P’s, which is our motto and stands for: Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance. Thus, meaning if we Properly Prepare them for the future we can Prevent Poor Performance in their lives—by giving them stepping stones instead of stumbling blocks—and that poor performance is being involved in drugs, guns, robberies, and several other crimes and mishaps and going in and out of jail.

      As we all know, it takes a village to raise child, and with the help of the parents and community, J.I.T Outreach Program will become that village. Even though I was once one of those juveniles involved in the street life, drugs and guns, I have made a major turn-around in my life and I am willing to help these juveniles make that same turn-around in life that I made through my experience. By being a positive role-model and being heavily involved with the children and their families to help keep them from making those same mistakes that I made or end up in one or two places that nobody wants to be: Jail or the Graveyard!! So, we are asking you, the parents and community, to lend a helping hand in making the J.I.T Outreach Program a success and impact in giving our children a chance to live an auspicious, propitious, and fortunate future!!