Family & Corrections Network

Reading Room

Table of Contents

Children, Families, and Correctional Supervision:

I am pleased to provide you with this report of the forum on the impact of public policies on children and families when an adult family member is under correctional supervision. The forum is one in a series of activities carried out by the Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research to promote informed dialogue and debate about contemporary social welfare policies. The large and rapidly increasing correctional population, the impact of incarceration on families and communities, especially those who are poor and African American, and the importance of family ties in prevention and change are the major factors that prompted this meeting. Of major concern were policies that promote a family orientation in corrections and support community based services that address family needs related to correctional supervision.

The forum provided a means and structure for individuals who understand family needs and problems and have knowledge about criminal justice and child welfare policies to discuss common concerns. It allowed the voices and experiences of individuals from many different backgrounds and walks of life to be heard and provided formal and informal opportunities for people who might not ordinarily engage in conversation to talk with one another. This report can in no way present the feelings, private thoughts, or individual lessons learned as a result of participation in this important and unusual event. It does provide, however, an overview and summary of the recurring themes, the issues discussed, and the points of view made throughout the day. It can be an important resource for individuals and organizations who want to better understand how public policies affect children and families and who want to use different informed perspectives in making policy changes that promote family well-being and community safety. I encourage you to share it with your colleagues, with public officials, and with others whose lives are impacted directly and indirectly by the public policies enacted to address crime and to support a high quality of life for children and families.

Creasie Finney Hairston, Ph.D.
Dean, Jane Addams College of Social Work
Director, Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research

Program Agenda

8:30 - 9:00 Continental Breakfast and Registration

9:00 - 10:30 Opening Remarks

Creasie Finney Hairston, Dean
Jane Addams College of Social Work

Personal Reflections

Jendayi Mayibuye, New Beginnings, Facilitator
Jacquie Holmes, Family Advocate
Achebe Lateef, Unity in Our Community

10:30 - 10:45 Break

10:45 - 12:15 Maintaining Family Ties

John Mavros, Joint Connections, Facilitator
Kay Perry, Michigan CURE

12:15 - 1:15 Lunch

1:15 - 2:45 Children......The Illinois Experience

Robin Bates, JACSW, Facilitator
Linda Rio, Chicago Bar Association
Joanne Archibald, Chicago Legal Aid for Incarcerated Mothers
Sister Pat Davis, Lutheran Social Services
Elizabeth Monk, DCFS

2:45 - 3:00 Break

3:00 - 4 :15 Grandparent Caregivers

Ellen Barry, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Julienne Brown, Grandparents as Second Parents

4:15 - 5:15 Reception and Open Microphone

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction/ Agenda

II. Session Summaries

A. Personal Reflections

B. Maintaining Family Ties

C. Children......The Illinois Experience

D. Grandparent Caregivers

IV. Where to From Here?

V. Resources

VI. Participants

VII. Forum Staff

VIII. About the Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research


Introduction

"Families and Correctional Supervision: Current Policies and New Directions," was the title of an invitational forum sponsored by the Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research. The forum was held on November 1, 1996 on the campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago and hosted by the Jane Addams College of Social Work. This day-long forum was one in a series of meetings the Center has sponsored to examine family, social services and criminal justice connections and one of several activities in which the College engages to forge academic-community partnerships that address urban social welfare issues and needs.

Child welfare and correctional policies affecting children and families when an adult family member is under correctional supervision was the focus of the dialogue. Participants assessed the impact of current policies on families and deliberated about guidelines for policies that promote family well-being. They also discussed strategies for obtaining support for the adoption and implementation of family-oriented policies. The forum format included brief panel presentations to frame the issues followed by discussion and dialogue among the forum participants.

Participants were primarily from the Midwestern states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin but also included participants from Oregon, New Jersey, California, and Canada. They included former prisoners, prisoners' family members, professors, researchers, and representatives from child welfare and criminal justice agencies and advocacy organizations. The collective experiences and views of this very diverse group provided information and enlightened discussion about problems, desired goals and practices, and strategies for influencing change.

Dr. Creasie Finney Hairston, Dean of the College and Director of the Center, made introductory remarks covering the importance of the topic and the role of the College in facilitating dialogue, conducting research, and disseminating information to inform the development of sound social policies and programs. The remainder of the morning session covered family responses to correctional supervision and issues involved in maintaining family ties during and after imprisonment. Children whose parents are incarcerated and the challenges faced by children's caretakers, primarily grandparents and other relatives, were the topics of discussion during the afternoon.

This report provides an abbreviated version of each panel presentation and a summary of the discussions which occurred following each presentation.

Session Summaries

Session 1: Personal Reflections

The panel members for the opening session included former prisoners and a prisoner's family member who spoke from personal experiences about the impact of policies on their children and families. Panel members included Jendayi Mayibuye, founding member of New Beginnings in Indianapolis, Indiana and a board member of the National Roundtable on Women in Prison; Achebe Lateef, a community activist and founder of Unity in our Community in Indianapolis, Indiana; and Jacquie Holmes, a prisoner family advocate and former member of the National Commission on Crime and Justice. Ms. Mayibuye chaired the opening session.

The panel provided open and frank presentations about how imprisonment and community correctional supervision affected them and their families and the families of persons with whom they come in contact as a result of their advocacy and service efforts. They discussed the need for society to become aware of and take ownership of the issues affecting families of incarcerated persons. They also identified improvements that could be made to lessen the negative impact of correctional supervision on children and families.

Jendayi Mayibuye spoke to the group about circumstances surrounding her childhood and how those circumstances were part of a continuum which eventually led her to incarceration. She described the long lasting effects of the childhood sexual, psychological and physical abuses she experienced. Ms. Mayibuye spoke openly and candidly about her relationship with her children while she was incarcerated and how she felt about their relationship. She stated, "One thing I did in prison, that I think a lot of mothers do, was to pretend I had a relationship with my children because it was too painful to admit I was not the mother that society was calling me to be. Today I know I did the best I could with what I had to work with." Although her children had all graduated from high school by the time she stopped going to jail or prison, Ms. Mayibuye indicated she felt that it was important to continue to build and maintain family ties. Today, through acknowledgment of what happened to her as a child and through personal growth, she has a strong, positive relationship with her children and ten grandchildren.

Ms. Mayibuye believes that prison is a reflection of our society and all the societal ills are present within that reflection. Ms. Mayibuye's response to attempting to alleviate these societal problems and ills is to educate people, particularly African Americans, about who they are in order to give them a basis for building self-worth. In doing this the child growing up in less than desirable circumstances becomes equipped with the knowledge and tools needed to combat some of those societal problems.

Jacquie Holmes spoke of her personal experience with attempting to maintain family ties with her son when he was in prison. Her son's drug addiction led to his incarceration. Ms. Holmes described some of the emotions she experienced as a mother and grandmother. During the time her son was in prison she was also the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill and her father who was also in poor health.

Ms. Holmes identified guilt as the emotion which guided her actions in how she dealt with her son's incarceration. The fact that her son had experienced several losses in his life was the source of her guilt. In her attempt to make up for these losses she became overwhelmed. She stated, "I felt like I was carrying the whole burden by myself." The feeling of being alone overshadowed the fact that she had been employed in the social services field for more than 20 years, had majored in criminal justice in college, and felt that she knew how the system worked.

This feeling of being alone and helpless is probably experienced by most families who come into contact with the correctional system, especially for the first time. Ms. Holmes stated, "Incarceration is a family issue. My son had five children and it was a struggle to try to help them maintain contact with their father. Even though I think taking children behind bars is one of the worst things we can do, particularly to African American male children, we did it. We did it because my son and his children were close even through his addiction."

Ms. Holmes stated that she realizes that prisons must have rules and regulations but feels that there is a lack of understanding and support by the corrections system. This makes it difficult for families to maintain family relationships and creates an adversarial relationship. Ms. Holmes gave the example of her son having to choose between a death bed visit or going to the funeral services when her mother died. When her son began serving his sentence, his grandmother was terminally ill. She was too sick to make a visit to the prison to see the grandson she had raised. The time came when she asked if it was possible for him to come to her. Ms. Holmes contacted the prison and arrangements were made for a six-hour pass which allowed her son to see his grandmother on her death bed. Two months later Ms. Holmes' mother passed away. When Ms. Holmes attempted to get her son home for the funeral services, her family was accused of trying to manipulate the system because the choice was either a death bed visit or funeral service, but not both.

Ms. Holmes reported that her son had been arrested again and is awaiting sentencing in the federal system. She will have to deal with his incarceration again. She acknowledged that she will be dealing with the second incarceration in a different way. She has a different kind of support that enables her to shed some of the feelings of guilt and feeling alone. The process to get to this point was long and emotional. Ms. Holmes has found support for herself through religion but there are many families that do not know where to turn for guidance and support. Ms. Holmes talked about how the absence of community support after imprisonment affects hope and impacts recidivism. "I helped coordinate six young men from my area to go to the first gang summit in Kansas City. When they went, they poured their hearts out. They were saying ‘I don't want to do this anymore. I want to be at home with my family. I don't want to be out in the streets and I'm willing to do anything so I don't have to.' When they came back to the community, every one of them, with the exception of one, has gone back to the institution. And I guess I feel partly responsible because there were groups like this one that could have embraced them and helped them find work because that's what they were asking for . . . I feel like groups could have saved them in the community."

Achebe Lateef served 12 1/2 years in prison which became, as he stated, the most redeeming part of his life. He has been home for more than eight years. His redemption was not found within the prison system but through becoming revolutionized in his thinking. His mission became to transform the colonial criminal mentality into a revolutionary mentality. Mr. Lateef stated "In prison we began to get a lot more clarity about what we were up against. We began to start reading independent literature . . . and great volumes of history . . . we began formulating new value systems, separating ourselves from the colonial criminal mentality to a revolutionary mentality . . . (this) type of behavior is sanctioned . . . I was politicized in prison." The prisoners who viewed themselves as revolutionary focused on sharpening their intellectual and organizational skills, so that when they were released from prison they would be more equipped with the tools they needed to make decisions, be responsible for their families, and survive in a society which promotes the colonial criminal mentality. The promotion of the colonial criminal mentality, which exists in direct opposition to the revolutionary mentality, makes it necessary for the prisoner to know and understand the obstacles they will be faced with in becoming revolutionized in their beliefs.

Mr. Lateef stated that making the transformation from prison to the outside is a major problem. While incarcerated the prisoner has the support of fellow revolutionized prisoners. Once the prisoner leaves the prison he is by himself and trying to survive. Paying the rent, light bill, gas bill, and eating become top priority. Mr. Lateef stated, "these pressing survival needs become the real test of those coming out of prison. A lot of times their expectations are high and when they get out here, the revolutionaries ain't at the gate waiting for them . . . you've got to have some loot out here . . . you got to have a plan. Consequently, we've seen brothers fall to the wayside, relapse, revert to their old habits in spite of all the work we've attempted to do."

Mr. Lateef explained that most people involved with what they are doing are involved because it is a "feel good" thing or an emotional thing. They are not committed ideologically to the transformation of the colonial criminal mentality to the revolutionary mentality. Those persons who are committed ideologically do not have the resources needed to make major societal changes. Mr. Lateef advocates for a mass transformation of consciousness of a people and widespread community involvement and support, in particular, among those most negatively affected by prisons and the maintenance of the current political economy. Mr. Lateef believes that it is imperative that we go back to the historical roots and the role that a capitalist society plays in the political activity of imprisonment if we really want to seriously address violence and prevent crimes.

Session 2: Maintaining Family Ties

This session focused on prison and jail visitation and telephone policies and their impact on family members and family relationships. Kay Perry, director of Michigan Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (Michigan CURE) and John Mavros, director and founder of Joint Connections, a New Jersey organization that provides transportation for prison visits, were the panel presenters. Mr. Mavros also served as the session chair.

Mr. Mavros talked about the importance of maintaining family ties and the role of prison visits. In the case of incarcerated persons, contact with family members plays a crucial role in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Visitations are the cheapest and most productive service that society can offer to support successful rehabilitation. Visitations are of common interest to everyone within the society. The marketing strategy of the cost effectiveness of prison visitations is crucial to future policy development, formulation and implementation at the legislative level.

Despite the importance of visiting, there is a belief that there is an assertive effort to stop or drastically curtail prisoners' contacts with their families through visitations. This belief stems from the rude treatment prisoners' families and children are experiencing during the visitation process and from the policies and costs governing the use of the telephone to maintain family contact.

Joint Connections' position is that it is the responsibility of the prison system to provide visiting facilities which are safe, secure and orderly and visiting environments that promote low stress and meaningful interaction between families and prisoners. Mr. Mavros indicated that "dramatic changes in visitation policies are often knee jerk reactions in response to incidents involving prison guards that have occurred within the prison. During recent years visiting policy has changed in a non-progressive direction. For example, in New Jersey parents must provide social security numbers and birth certificates for 18 month old children to visit. The child is seen as a custodial threat." Visitors report examination of their nasal cavities, noses, ears, mouths, and also prostheses' removal in order to visit. These practices are humiliating and discourage visitors.

Mr. Mavros also described some of the policy issues involved in inmate telephone use. He explained that in 1986 telephone deregulation was enacted. According to John Mavros, the FCC and the State Public Utility Commission/Boards declined to regulate inmate only telephone systems except for basic licensing in some cases. Today state and local departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons contract with private phone companies to provide inmate only services. There are several different phone companies that provide these services. After several complaints about the service, investigations discovered that inmate only calls have the highest initial rate and per minute rates of all calls.

The market is more than $1 billion, growing rapidly, and very competitive. The competition is evident in the tactics companies use to entice prison systems to allow the telephone companies to use prison and jail facilities as sites for the inmate only phone service. Commissions of up to 60% and signing bonuses are presented to the prison systems. Prisons and jails receive the commission from the carrier because they provide the site for usage of the telephone service. Prisoners' family members bear the costs of these high rates and commissions as most inmates phone calls are made to families and must be made collect. Last year prisons and jails received several millions of dollars in profits from inmate telephone calls.

Ms. Perry talked about the phone system used by persons in prisons and jails and the efforts the national CURE organization, has taken to address these issues. CURE has been concerned with the issue of telephone contact between families and prisoners. They believe that telephone contact is critical for many families in light of the fact that prisons are usually located miles away from population centers. Most prisons allow inmates to make collect telephone calls to families and friends. A few allow calls to be charged to a telephone fund in the inmate's name. The telephone company handling the service is the one selected by the corrections department and the rates are considerably higher than similar calls placed elsewhere.

CURE would like to see billed party preference which would allow persons paying the telephone bill to choose a preferred carrier. This way, individuals and families become the customer instead of the prison. If families become the customers, CURE believes the carriers would be forced to offer packages that could be economically beneficial for the families. As it stands now, some of society's poorest are billed at the highest rates for telephone calls. The issue of billed party preference is being debated. The prison system does not want to see billed party preference for obvious reasons. CURE has taken the position that if billed party preference is not an acceptable alternative then they would like to see rate caps. The issue is before the FCC to determine if billed party preference will be an option offered to individuals who receive collect phone calls from correctional institutions.

Discussion among forum participants centered primarily on the policy recommendations on family visiting proposed by the First National Leadership Conference on Families of Adult Offenders held in 1986. To encourage visiting in the least restrictive environment, jails and prisons should provide a variety of programs. Such efforts should include:

• A safe, secure and orderly visiting environment that promotes low stress, meaningful interaction between prisoners and their families.

• Rules and regulations developed through the combined effort of institutional personnel, families, and prisoners.

• Visitor information handbooks, updated appropriately, with information on visiting rules, hours, and conditions, nearby lodging, transportation, visitor service organizations and other human services.

• Prompt notice to visitors of substantive changes in visiting rules, hours, and conditions.

• Visiting centers at or near major institutions. Support for transportation services from urban centers to jails and state prisons.

• Visiting hours that are congruent with public transportation schedules.

• Support of frequent visiting. A minimum of one visit a week should be allowed priority over the prisoner's institutional assignment.

• Provisions for visitors to bring packages for prisoners.

• Assign a single staff person ongoing responsibility for the management of visiting.(Mustin, Jim (1994). A Blueprint for Healing, Policy Recommendations on Families of Adult Offenders, Family and Corrections Network Report, 2, pp. 3 & 7.)

Participants also identified policy recommendations they would like to see added to the list. They included the following:

• Provide telephone numbers of organizations that would be of assistance to families/visitors of prisoners attempting to maintain family ties.

• Prompt notification to family members when a prisoner is transferred to another prison.

• Stable sources of funding in prison budgets for family-oriented programs and services.

Session 3: Children . . . The Illinois Experience

The third session addressed policy issues affecting the maintenance of parent-child bonds and family reunification when children and parents are separated by a parent's imprisonment. This session was co-sponsored by the Center's Dialogues on Child Welfare Issues Project. Dialogues bring together public child welfare officials, social work educators, community service providers, and families to discuss urban child welfare needs and public responses.

Panel members for this session were Linda Rio, an attorney at the Chicago Bar Association who is an expert on guardianship; Sr. Patricia Davis of Lutheran Social Services of Illinois who directs a volunteer program that transports children to prisons to see their incarcerated mothers; Elizabeth Monk, Clinical Services Administrator of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS); and Joanne Archibald, a staff member of Chicago Legal Aid for Incarcerated Mothers (CLAIM). Dr. Robin Bates, Assistant Professor, Jane Addams College of Social Work, served as the session chair.

The situation that exists for children and families in the state of Illinois provided a frame of reference for discussion. Illinois, similar to several other Midwestern states, has large and rapidly increasing prison and child welfare populations.

Children in the State's Custody

Elizabeth Monk, Clinical Services Administrator for statewide special projects at DCFS, spoke to the group about policies involving children whose parents are incarcerated and who are in the custody of DCFS. The Clinical Services Division is a new division of DCFS which is trying to enhance the standard of clinical practice in the agency.

There are presently no special services for women in prison and their children. It is possible that there are liaisons at specific offices, but no official title exists at the present time. Ms. Monk indicated that the Clinical Services Division, in contrast, does coordinate services for women and children who are affected by HIV and advocates for parental rights. Parents who are treated with respect and given the resources they need will act in the best interest of their children, she noted. The current focus of foster care is on the children's needs. DCFS in its clinical practice is trying to broaden that vision to become more family focused and take a more holistic approach to case planning, emphasizing a family's strengths.

Ms. Monk presented the one DCFS policy that is specific to women in prison. The policy, written in 1989, pertains to children who are less than 18 years of age in DCFS custody and whose mothers are incarcerated at Dwight Correctional Center. This document outlines procedures to be followed by DCFS when an infant is born at Dwight. The policy also includes special support services for incarcerated mothers when there is a permanency goal of returning children to the mother after her incarceration. The policy outlines responsibilities of the DCFS staff to provide monthly prison visitation by the child and monthly phone calls by the caseworker to inform the mother of the child's progress. This policy should serve women in any facility Ms. Monk noted. She also commented that other children in foster care in the custody of DCFS are entitled to weekly visits with their parents.

For a child who is born in prison, it is the responsibility of the prison to find relatives to care for the child. If they are unsuccessful, prison personnel will then work with DCFS to place the child under a dependency petition. The same level of service is to be provided to that child as to any other child in DCFS custody. Ms. Monk noted that much of the policy is a technical procedure and does not pay attention to the psychosocial needs of the family.

Ms. Monk also explained a document entitled Indicators for Identification of Children for Potential Adoption Planning based on the Illinois Adoption Act. The document is to be used by caseworkers to identify children for adoption planning. The average length of stay is five years in foster care. It is not good for children to be in this foster care drift. She acknowledged that the Department is trying to work more quickly toward adoption. She noted that a service plan needs to be developed and parents must show reasonable interest in their children or termination of rights will proceed. She explained that advocates can help parents by seeing that the parent's degree of interest is well documented and by explaining to the parents the importance of regular contacts with the child and the agency.

With regard to visitations in prison, a mother or a child more than 12 years of age may decline a visit. The case record needs to be documented with the reason for the decline and may result in the worker revising the permanency goal. It is incumbent upon the mother to request these visits through the caseworker to prevent progress toward termination of parental rights. Ms. Monk noted that once male prisoners establish paternity and demonstrate responsibility, men have the same rights as women to service by DCFS. She also noted that the Department has some contracts for parenting training at Jacksonville prison and other correctional facilities.

In response to questions asked about visiting and getting DCFS staff to comply, Ms. Monk stressed the importance of services for incarcerated parents and for holding the agency accountable for facilitating visits and parents accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities. She also noted that it is a particular problem when workers and children live far from the prison. She acknowledged that a formal liaison in the department could be a positive step.

Several participants expressed their beliefs that it is appalling how the mothers who are denied the right to care for their children because they did not have the "normal" upbringing are treated. Another participant noted that if a person is given a set amount of money and told to survive or else, they will do drastic things - leave the children home alone, or do drugs because they are in such a painful state. Another participant, noting that her state's child protective service wants grandparents to adopt the children, commented that she would not adopt one of her grandchildren because they are her flesh and blood. She would want to keep the children out of the system. She did not believe the state had the right to take her grandchildren and tell her how to raise them. She stated the child welfare system does not want to give family members the same kinds of concessions and supports as foster parents who are strangers.

Guardianship Options

Linda Rio of the Chicago Bar Foundation began working with incarcerated families through her work with families where a member is HIV positive. She has been recruiting attorneys to volunteer their time for adoption and guardianship proceedings. Ms. Rio outlined three types of guardianship that parents could use to arrange for the care of their children: traditional guardianship, standby guardianship, and short-term guardianship.

Traditional guardianship involves the immediate care, custody, and control of the child. It is not a sharing of custody by the parent and guardian. The guardian makes all decisions relating to the child and is responsible for the child. This type of guardianship conveys rights on the guardian that are the equivalent of a parent's rights, but the parent does maintain rights to determine the child's religion, to have visitations, and to terminate the guardianship. There is potential with this type of guardianship for the parent to regain his or her legal rights. These guardianships are private and are done though the Probate Court. The child does not become a ward of the state. Either the parent or the potential guardian can petition for guardianship. The biological parents and adult siblings of the child in question are entitled to notice of such an action, but they are not required to appear in court.

The benefit of this type of guardianship is that it maintains the stability of the child's environment and allows the incarcerated parent to have more contact with the child and to know where the child is. Ms. Rio noted that it is important to think about how much structure can be set up to create a legal environment for the child and to avoid a judicial determination of abandonment. One problem with this type of guardianship is that it is not time limited which creates the potential to make the arrangement permanent. The petition to the court and the court order need to make clear that the parent is incarcerated and that the guardianship is not being sought for other reasons.

Standby guardianship is a new type of guardianship which is done primarily for terminal illness, but a person does not need to be ill to establish it. A parent can create the standby guardianship now, understanding that the responsibility for the child changes only when the parent is incapable of caring for the child. A standby guardianship cannot be executed if there is another parent available to care for the child or when DCFS has been appointed guardian. Parents can also do written designations and include the designation with their wills or go to court and get a court order entered. The standby guardian then will automatically be appointed as the guardian.

Short-term guardianship is another new type of guardianship. There is no court involvement. Guardianship is effective for 60 days after the signing of the short-term guardianship document. If there is another parent to care for the child or DCFS has custody, this type of guardianship cannot be established. Short-term guardianship cannot be executed for a child's estate.

The benefit of short-term guardianship is that the parent does not have to go to court. This gives the parent more control over what is happening. Short- term guardianship can be terminated by the parent at any time. It provides a way to get some stability in the family without termination of parental rights. It does not offer long term stability to children since the guardianship only lasts 60 days, and it sometimes gives the guardian the impression that she or he is not trusted.

In response to a question, Ms. Rio noted that in the case of a child with incarcerated parents, guardianship is possible for DCFS once the criminal trial is over if other types of guardianships had been used previously. A dispositional hearing would have to be held. The guardianship would have to be adjudicated and awarded by the court because it would be found that the incarcerated parents are not able to care for the child.

Parent-Child Personal Issues

Joanne Archibald of CLAIM discussed her personal experience in the criminal justice system. She was incarcerated in a federal facility in California during her last year of college. Her son was an infant then and was cared for by a friend who moved to California so that Ms. Archibald's son could have daily contact with her. The prison where she was incarcerated had a good parenting program which included a children's center open on Saturdays & Sundays. The child could be dropped off by the caregiver to visit his mom. The environment was child friendly and was run by personnel under contract with the prison.

The center gave support to the son's caregiver as well. The caregiver was able to develop a personal relationship with the staff who ran the center. Besides the physical space being different, the staff was knowledgeable about children's needs. Ms. Archibald noted that many children's centers currently in correctional facilities are more corrections than family oriented.

Ms. Archibald stated that the more the caregiver can do to help an incarcerated parent feel connected to the child, the better. Small things matter, such as asking parents' opinions about decisions affecting their children. More input into decisions regarding their children would enable incarcerated parents to be better parents when released. This practice keeps prisoners in the habit of making decisions about their children. When prisoners are released, they often have low self esteem because there has been no practice of making decisions while in prison. This responsibility can be overwhelming for the newly released person.

Major damage is done to children by separation. It hurts their development, and the damage is not repaired simply by being together. Ms. Archibald was only incarcerated for a year and was released when her son was a toddler. Although her son is now 11 years old, there still are issues of fear of loss. Any subsequent loss or change now triggers feelings in him about that major loss. When issues come up with her son, it triggers thoughts of "I made the biggest mistake." Support programs often do not acknowledge that it is not sufficient just to be reunited.

Other problems that Ms. Archibald noted were the absence of educational programs at the levels needed by people with different educational backgrounds and the lack of supportive programs following release from prison. She had to go on public aid when she was released because she could get only a minimum wage job. Maintaining family ties is also difficult because of the distance of the prison from most prisoners' homes. One solution would be to put fewer women in prison when they do not need to be there. She stressed the importance of using community-based alternative programs.

Facilitating Parent-Child Visits

Sr. Pat Davis described the Family Connections transportation program of Lutheran Social Services. The program has about 100 volunteers who take children to see their mothers in prison. The volunteers drive their own cars. The program receives about 200 requests per month from mothers who want to see their children. There are approximately 1600 women parents in prison in Illinois.

The program has six to eight regular volunteers who pick up newborns from the prisons. There is a sense of urgency about this service. The volunteers are usually unable to bring the infants back to see their mothers. As an example, it took three years for one mother to see her child who was born in prison after he was placed by DCFS.

Sr. Pat talked about the importance that visits have for children. She said that children who are transported by the service are usually excited to hear from and see their moms. The children need to know that their moms are okay. Sometimes they think their mom is on bread and water. They need to know that their mom wants to see them. During the visit they often wait for their mom to react and go to them first. She relayed that sometimes the caregiver has different ideas about visiting than the child and this can cause problems in the family. While Sister Davis found Illinois' women's prisons to have child friendly visiting rooms and programs, she reported that this is not the situation at Cook County Jail. She indicated, "It is difficult to take a child to the jail where the children are separated from their mothers by a plastic partition and must scream to be heard." The biggest ministry in Family Connections is talking to the grandmothers since 50% of these children's caregivers are their grandmothers. Sr. Pat stated that the grandmothers are fantastic and need support and positive reinforcement, for example, being told that "you are a good person." Family Connections experiences a number of problems. Distance is the biggest problem. One thousand women are at Logan Correctional Facility in downstate Illinois. It is too far for the volunteers and children, most of whom are from the Chicago metropolitan area, to go. The cost of the transportation program is high. Caseworkers from many agencies, including DCFS, call Family Connections regularly. She stated that children should have a set way to get to the prisons to see their parents. A problem often arises in tracing the mothers and keeping track of the children since moves by both are frequent. A third to half of the caregivers' phones are disconnected because of economic problems the caregivers are experiencing.

Sr. Pat spoke briefly about another Illinois volunteer effort to support parent-child relationships during a parent's imprisonment. This parenting program which is provided by Companions is a volunteer effort. The cost was only $4,000 per year at each facility, but the funds recently ran out. The focus of this program was on helping parents understand how to maintain positive parenting interactions with their children while imprisoned. She noted that there is a long waiting list for parenting programs in prisons. Programs are needed to meet DCFS requirements for reunification. Parents who simply want to be better parents and to use the incarceration period constructively also want to enroll in the programs. Many people are involved with DCFS and need to demonstrate that they have learned good parenting skills in order to meet DCFS requirements.

In response to questions, Sr. Pat explained that the volunteers in the Family Connections Program are 25% African-American, 75% white and are from affluent suburbs. The children are mostly African-American. Another participant asked if there is a movement to challenge the visitation policy and if the volunteers would join the movement and become advocates for a revised policy. Sr. Pat indicated that they do have such a project. She noted that what is needed is some link to make progressive visiting policies attractive to corporate America. This might be some type of connection to reduction in the crime rate because the number one thing that people are concerned with is crime. Sr. Pat noted her program has many requests for speaking.

Three general themes permeated the discussion period: inadequate visiting policies, factors affecting the termination of parental rights, and family reunification efforts. The current DCFS policy used to cover children in DCFS custody whose parents are incarcerated is dated and inadequate. Since this policy was written, many changes have occurred, including the fact that Illinois now houses women prisoners in four correctional facilities, rather than just the one covered by the policy. Also, stricter drug laws have led to a major increase in the number of women incarcerated. In addition, the policy fails to acknowledge that many children in DCFS custody have fathers who are incarcerated.

Although the 1989 policy states that caseworkers must contact parents and caregivers to inform them of support services and to arrange parent-child visits and parent-worker monthly telephone contact while the parent is incarcerated, this does not occur. It is difficult for DCFS staff to comply with the policy since there are no organized support programs developed or funded by DCFS to transport children to prisons for visits, and no administrative structure exists to see that policies are current or implemented. In addition, many DCFS workers are unfamiliar with the policy.

Forum participants pointed out that it is unclear if monthly telephone contact between workers and parents can be reasonably executed given the prison procedures governing calls and worker accessibility. Also, frequent transfers of individual women from one prison to another make maintaining any contact with her children difficult. Policies of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) also affect visits between parents and children. IDOC policy stipulates that each prisoner must submit and have approved a list of persons who can visit. A volunteer driver who transports a child for a visit may not be permitted to visit because he or she is not on the approved visiting list. Services for imprisoned parents and their children rest largely in the hands of volunteers.

The lack of supportive prison visitation policies and practices could actually promote the termination of parental rights and possibly destroy chances for reunification of the family unit. During this session some individuals expressed concern that termination of the parental rights of incarcerated persons is proceeding too swiftly and that DCFS may be moving toward adoption unnecessarily. Permanency planning policy cites failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest, concern, or responsibility as to the child's welfare as a key indicator of the appropriateness of adoption planning. When a parent is in prison or jail, however, he or she has difficulty maintaining contact with the child and can provide limited responsibility for the child's welfare. The economic situations of the families of incarcerated persons and the high cost of collect phone calls often prevent parents from demonstrating a reasonable degree of interest through regular phone calls.

Family reunification planning for the children of incarcerated parents was raised by the participants as a special issue of concern. The Department has no statistics on the number of children in the system who would need specialized services. By failing to address reunification issues for incarcerated parents and their children, the haste to terminate parental rights could be increased and families broken up arbitrarily. Concerns about foster care drift and achieving a permanent situation for every child must be balanced against the needs of children when parents are in prisons and jails.

Session 4: Grandparents as Caregivers

Ellen Barry, Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and Julienne Brown of Grandparents as Second Parents (GASP) discussed grandparents who are caregivers of children whose parents are unable to care for them. The GASP program is based on a support group model and operates in the San Francisco area.

The average grandparent caregiver participating in the GASP support group is female, 60 years old and has numerous health problems. Most are African-American and live in impoverished communities. The parents of the grandchildren are sick, in prison, have HIV, or are mentally ill. There are numerous problems in helping the children maintain contact with their parents. Grandparents have to deal with the children's issues and their own issues simultaneously. When grandparents go to visit their incarcerated children, they want to tell them how hard it is for them to care for their grandchildren.

Ms. Brown recounted a personal story about a grandmother who took her granddaughter to prison to visit the girl's father. The child "acted out" after seeing her father as the prison visiting situation was overwhelming for her, and the grandparent did not know how to deal with the child's behavior after seeing the father. Some children attack their grandparents physically and verbally. The children cannot depend on their parents and direct their rage at their grandparents because they know that the grandparent will still be there for them. Children might "shut down" and not let anything penetrate. They do it in pain and anger as a defense mechanism.

One of the participants noted that a child "acting out" after visiting with an incarcerated parent is not unusual. Caregivers often complain that they do not want the child to go back because the child is out of control when they return. Some parents give children confusing messages. They suggest that either the child will not be with the foster parents for much longer or they will be there forever. He also noted that there is often competition between the parent and the caregiver. People forget that children grieve by "acting out," and that they react to separation from their parents. He observed that children "act out" less after visits when visits are more frequent.

Long-term drug abuse by parents can result in alienation from the child and grandparent, Ms. Brown noted. Sometimes too much negative behavior has occurred, and the bonds are tenuous. There is shame and stigma attached to having a child in prison or to having a son or daughter who is a drug addict. If the parents are long term drug users, they might lose custody of their children. Often the child welfare system places the children for adoption rather than give the child to the grandparents, even though the grandparents are trying to comply with Child Protective Services. Some grandparents do not realize that their children are abusing substances. A grandparent's immediate response to her own child is to help that child, a situation that Child Protective Services views as co-dependency. GASP helps the grandparents to see the choices that their children have made and tries to let the grandparents know that they are doing a good job and help them understand how complex the situation is for everyone.

Grandparent caregivers that come from low income communities need public policies that assure financial assistance and medical benefits. Many families are in a daily financial crisis. Families are also dealing with issues of recovery and healing and deficient school systems.

Also needed are custodial options and guardianship arrangements that do not require termination of parental rights or adoption. This is a difficult policy issue, however, since there is no consensus that these families should stay intact. On the other hand, termination of parental rights is a concept that has no meaning to a child. The emotional bonds and attachments that exist in families have little to do with whether or not a parent's rights are terminated. Most parents have in their hearts a hope that they will reach a point where they will be able to take responsibility for their children and be good parents.

Ms. Brown pointed out that although drug use and other problems affect all communities, most of the children in foster care are African-American. At the same time, minorities represent a disproportionate number of persons in prisons and jails.

Discussion centered on the low level of public assistance and child welfare benefits available to grandparents. It is possible to get higher financial benefits as a stranger than as a relative. Yet the child's needs remain the same. One participant expressed concern that grandparents would have to adopt their own grandchildren and considered this as foreign to African-American culture and traditions.

The fact that some mothers in prison do not want their children to visit them because of feelings of guilt was also discussed. If there was not a good relationship before the incarceration, childrens' visits bring up many painful issues. If the mothers say no to the visit, then they will feel like a bad parent. One participant indicated that visits were painful for her because her family spoke badly about her to her children. She stated "There were things I wanted to tell my children. I wanted to express myself and couldn't. It would have been hard to share with them and expect them to go back to the family situation. I was between a rock and a hard place."

Ellen Barry pointed out that while there are some legal services to help parents and grandparents address guardianship and custody issues, much needs to be done in this area. One of the most important things for parents and grandparents trying to maintain their families is not to give up. There are not enough advocates to work with prisoners or on behalf of prisoners. Action on many levels is required to challenge the notion that we can tear apart families using legal justifications and misguided implementation of the laws.

Where To From Here?

Throughout the day participants offered general guidelines and action strategies that could be used to affect social change and make a difference in this area that has been largely ignored by traditional corrections and social service agencies and organizations. Those that were recurring or generated lots of discussion are presented here.

Guidelines for Policies and Practice

• Input from prisoners, prisoners' family members, and community service providers and advocates should be obtained when formulating social services and corrections policies and programs that affect children's and families' well-being.

• Boards and commissions which recommend, develop and enact policies should include representation from affected groups of individuals.

• Corrections and child welfare agencies should collaborate in designing policies and procedures that promote the best interest of children and families when the child is under the custody of the state and the parent is under correctional supervision.

• Policies and programs that take advantage of prisoners' families to generate profits for the state should be eliminated.

• The maintenance of family ties during imprisonment should be supported through visiting and telephone arrangements. This can be achieved by demonstrating respect for children and adults, eliminating unnecessary intrusions during visits and telephone calls, and prohibiting telephone fees which are over and beyond the cost of providing telephone service and prevailing, customary market rates.

Actions for Change

• Support the development and implementation of post-release programs such as drug abuse treatment, family support groups, and parenting programs that will facilitate transition back into the community and help prisoners sustain new-found knowledge and skills obtained in prison. Include these programs as a component of social services and corrections budgets.

• Lobby for funding and legislative changes that will allow provisions for alternatives to incarceration, family-oriented programs/services and drug abuse treatment during and after imprisonment.

• Obtain commitment from the legal profession to develop programs that provide legal assistance and guidance to incarcerated parents whose parental rights are threatened with legal termination.

• Market prison visitation and family ties to public officials and community leaders as a demonstrated, cost-effective means for enhancing rehabilitation and for preventing repeat crime.

• Hold public hearings and press conferences and disseminate information on prison and jail telephone contracts and fees and on the policies governing the uses of the monies generated.

• Convene meetings of child welfare and corrections officials to discuss concerns about family reunification, parental rights, and supports for children caretakers. Propose that specific departmental staff be assigned to develop policies and monitor compliance by organizational staff.

• Advocate for sessions on prison visitation, families and criminal justice research at professional meetings and that research on families and incarceration become a fundamental part of the research agenda of national and state corrections and child welfare agencies.

  Resources

  Resource packets were given to forum participants to use as references during the meeting and as reference material that could be used in developing solutions for work in their own communities. Forum planners also viewed the packets as providing a common information base for future collaborative work among persons and groups from different Midwestern communities and states. Packets included the printed materials listed here.

  Beckerman, A. (1994). Mothers in prison: meeting the prerequisite conditions for permanency planning. Social Work (39)4, pp. 9-14.
  
  Family & Corrections Network Report , Issue 2 (Sept. 94). Families on Hold...or in Healing?, Issue 5 (June 95). Parenting Programs for Prisoners, Issue 8 (April 96). Incarcerated Fathers. Reprints can be obtained from Family and Corrections Network, 32 Oak Grove Road, Palmyra, VA 22963, Phone: (804)589-3036, Fax: (804)589-6520
  
  Hairston, C.F. (July 21,1996). Unlocking the prison cycle for women. Chicago Tribune. sec. 6, p. 6.
  
  Immarigeon, R. (Sept/Oct. 1996). Community corrections and the consequences of criminal sanctions. Community Corrections Report. pp. 3-5.
  
  Mavros, J. (1996). Making ‘Joint Connections’. Fact Sheet from The Joint Connection, 303-309 Washington Street - Box 1898, Newark NJ. 07101-1898, Phone: 201-596-1122 , Fax: 201-643-6323
  
  Mustin, Jim (1994). A Blueprint for Healing, Policy Recommendations on Families of Adult Offenders, Family and Corrections Network Report, 2, pp. 3 & 7.
  
  FORUM Participants
  
  Joanne Archibald
  Advocacy Project Coord.
  Chicago Legal Aid for Incarcerated Mothers
  Chicago, IL
  
  Ellen Barry
  Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
  San Francisco, CA
  
  Robin Bates
  Professor
  Jane Addams College of Social Work
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Chicago, IL
  
  David Brantford
  Salvation Army Work Release
  Chicago, IL
  
  Julienne Brown
  Legal Services for Prisoners withChildren
  San Francisco, CA
  
  Carol Burton
  Project SEEK Coordinator
  Mott Children's Health Center
  Flint, MI
  
  John Crawford
  F.A.I.T.H., Inc.
  Chicago, IL
  
  Gerald Cunningham
  Disciples of Christ - National Office
  Indianapolis, IN
  
  Susan Dansand
  WAIT
  Milwaukee, WI
  
  Pat Davis
  Lutheran Social Services
  Family Connections
  Chicago, IL
  
  J.T. Ferguson
  Executive Director
  OAR
  Indianapolis, In
  
  Jacqueline Gibson-Navin
  Executive Director
  Light Center
  Columbus, OH
  
  Melvin Greene
  Transition Program Coordinator
  Indiana Youth Center
  Plainfield, IN
  
  Creasie Finney Hairston
  Dean
  Jane Addams College of Social Work
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Chicago, IL
  
  Dale Hale
  The Salvation Army
  Milwaukee, WI
  
  Celeste Jones
  Attorney
  Office of the Public Guardian
  Chicago, IL
  
  Jacquie Holmes
  Portland, OR
  
  Mandisa Jahid
  Unity in Our Community
  Indianapolis, IN
  
  Mary Johnson
  Citizens Alert
  Chicago, IL
  
  Richard Kordesh
  Visiting Lecturer
  Jane Addams College of Social Work
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Chicago, IL
  
  Achebe Lateef
  Unity in Our Community
  Indianapolis, IN
  
  Stan Lubarski
  Cook County Pretrial Services
  Chicago, IL
  
  Suzanne MacKinnon
  Burnaby, BC
  Canada
  
  Jess Maghan
  Executive Director
  Center for Research in Law and Justice
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Chicago, IL
  
  John Mavros
  The Joint Connection, Inc.
  Newark, NJ
  
  Jendayi Mayibuye
  Advocate
  A New Beginning
  Indianapolis, IN
  
  Patrick McAnany
  Department of Criminal Justice
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Chicago, IL
  
  Sharon Moeller
  Program Director
  Citizens Council, Family Services
  Minneapolis, MN
  
  Elizabeth Monk
  Clinical Services Admin.
  DCFS
  Chicago, IL
  
  Kay Perry
  CURE
  Kalamazoo, MI
  
  Linda Rio
  Chicago Bar Foundation
  Chicago, IL
  
  Martine Sagun
  F.A.I.T.H., Inc.
  Chicago, IL
  
  Sr. Pat Schlosser
  Companions
  Chicago, Illinois
  
  Gail Smith
  Executive Director
  Chicago Legal Aid for Incarcerated Mothers
  Chicago, IL
  
  Terry Solomon
  Executive Director
  African-American Family Commission
  Chicago, IL
  
  Stan Stojkovic
  Associate Professor
  School of Social Welfare
  University of Wisconsin
  Milwaukee, WI
  
  Nancy Wall
  Jane Addams College of Social Work
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Dialogues on Child Welfare Issues
  Chicago, IL
  
  Lucie Watel
  American Medical Association
  Chicago, IL
  
  Robert Weagant
  Professor
  Jane Addams College of Social Work
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Chicago, IL
  
  G. Renee Williamson
  Indianapolis, IN
  
  Shonda Wills
  Jane Addams College of Social Work
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research
  Chicago, IL
  
  S. Michael Yasutake
  Executive Director
  Interfaith Prisoners of Conscience Project
  Evanston, IL
  
  FORUM Staff
  
  Creasie Finney Hairston
  Dean, Jane Addams College of Social Work
  Director, Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research
  
  Shonda Wills
  Project Coordinator
  Families and the Criminal Justice System
  
  Alice Caples
  Recorder
  
  Mary Huffman
  Student Support Staff
  
  Nancy Wall
  Project Coordinator
  Dialogues on Child Welfare Issues
  
  Daniel Rodriguez
  Research Assistant
  
  Laura Martinez
  Research Assistant
  
  Monica Zemaier
  Research Assistant
  
  Jane Addams College of Social Work
  Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research
  University of Illinois at Chicago
  1040 West Harrison Street (m/c 309)
  Chicago, Illinois 60607 - 7134
  312-413-2303 Phone
  312-996-1802 FAX
  

  The Jane Addams Center for Social Policy and Research promotes and facilitates collaborative research involving faculty and social welfare organizations. The objective of the Center is to develop knowledge about social service policies and programs that are concerned with social justice and social change and that address the needs of the poor and other oppressed groups. The Center conducts social research and evaluation studies, disseminates research findings, develops policy statements and tests new program models and service delivery strategies.

  ~