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.