6. Policies and practices
- 6.1 Family policies and practices within the criminal justice system
- 6.2 Whole-of-government approach
- 6.3 Special needs of children of prisoners
- 6.4 Lack of information on prisoners' children
- 6.5 Out of home care
- 6.6 Input by prisoners and prisoner families into policies and programs
- 6.7 Community awareness and support
6.1 Family policies and practices within the criminal justice system
The need for family policies within the justice system was highlighted in the literature. It was argued that there needs to be a focus shift from 'the care of the prisoner' to 'the care of the prisoner and their family'. Several reports stressed the importance of the justice system recognising 'the impact of offending behaviour and imprisonment of a parent on a child' (VACRO 2000, p.12) and providing an environment that is conducive to rebuilding, renegotiating and maintaining ongoing family relationships (VACRO 2000; Healey et al. 2000; Healey et al. 2001; Farrell 1997; Phillips & Bloom 1998; Martin 1997; Adalist-Estrin 1995).
This includes:
-
the children of prisoners' need for and right to quality access with their parents in a nurturing environment that supports the children's welfare and the parents' ongoing custody of, and future reunification with, their children (Martin 1997; Farrell 1997)
-
visiting protocols within prisons giving priority to the comfort and access of children-the visiting environment needs to be appropriate for children across a wide age range (Healey et al. 2000)
-
the imperatives of the institution not overriding the needs of the prisoners' children and family (Farrell 1987; Wellesley 1999)
-
addressing barriers to poor parent child contact, particularly in the event of relationship breakdown between the prisoner and the caregiver or non-incarcerated parent (Healey et al. 2000; Farrell 1997)
-
'support for children to visit their parents in prison without their caregiver, in order to spend time alone with their parent' (VACRO 2000, p.12)
-
exploring financial assistance to families of prisoners to enable prison visiting and telephone contact (Farrell 1997; Healey et al. 2000)
-
providing and expanding counselling facilities for inmates, especially with family related issues including grief and loss (Wellesley 1999)
-
building on the prisoner's parental skills and relationships with family members and the inclusion of parent-child and family based activities within the prison (Healey et al. 2000; Adalist-Estrin 1995)
-
'opportunities for prisoners to participate more fully in decision-making for their children and so take some responsibility for their care' (VACRO 2000, p.12)
- addressing barriers to:
- Indigenous women's participation in mother-child programs at a rate at least proportionate to that of non-Indigenous women
- women in remand accessing mother-child programs
- rural women accessing mother-child programs
- juveniles accessing parent-child programs men accessing parent-child programs (Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population 2000)
-
the prisoner's caregiving role to be taken into account at arrest, sentencing and during incarceration-consideration of prisoner's child care needs for all types of sentencing options including community based orders, periodic detention and home detention (Healey et al. 2001; Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population 2001)
- developing 'alternatives to home detention for women who are unable to serve a sentence in the home because of abuse and violent domestic circumstances' (Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population 2000, p.5).
Staff training and conduct
Several authors suggested that there needs to be a minimum standard of behaviour for prison officers, especially those with contact with families. The literature also identified a need for staff training for custodial and welfare staff working with prisoners' children, and the development of formal training curriculum (Healey et al. 2001; Martin 1997; Farrell 1997).
Arrest
- Family policies, protocols and practices for police and those involved in the judicial system were stressed in the literature. The main points were:
- Policies and protocols detailing the appropriate course of action to be taken by police officers when arresting an individual who has dependent children. 'Wherever possible, at the point of arrest and incarceration, professional officers should be sensitive to the presence of children and mindful of minimising the trauma to children witnessing the process' (Healey et al. 2000, p.30; Lilburn 2000).
- 'At the institutional level, lack of recognition [of the needs of families at arrest] can result in a lack of planning and inadequate resources for police to respond to the situation. Instead, police rely on the availability of private and public welfare services, but are uncoordinated in establishing what and when services are required' (Lilburn 2000, p.7).
Sentencing
Healey et al. argued that 'the parenting status of prisoners is given little recognition at every stage of the imprisonment process, from arrest through to incarceration and release' (2001, p.15), and further suggested that there is a need for 'professionals involved in arrest and incarceration to inquire about the care plans for children and to ensure that prisoners have adequate opportunity to make such arrangements' (Healy et al. 2001, p.15). VACRO (2000) and Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) argued that alternatives to prison for offenders with children needs to be seriously considered at sentencing.
The New South Wales Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) recommended that members of the magistracy and judiciary have access to materials and training 'to enable them to take into account the impact which a custodial sentence of an accused person may have on his or her dependent children' (p.xvi).
Shaw (1987) and the Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) advocated that other dependants of the prisoner should also be considered at arrest, remand, sentencing and during incarceration.
Post-release
Ogilvie (2001) asserted that 'post-release programs need to be broadened both conceptually and practically' (p.1). She identified particular groups such as the mentally ill, Indigenous people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and young people who are disadvantaged in terms of accessing post-release resources.
The Standing Committee on Law and Justice (1999b) identified that Indigenous prisoners in New South Wales 'make little use of current post-release services' (p.145). The committee recommended that 'a plan for Indigenous transition services be developed collaboratively with the Aboriginal community and other involved agencies' (p.145).
Ogilvie (2001) supported the involvement of a very broad range of agencies with respect to the special needs of prisoners post-release, emphasising the central roles that agencies such as health, education, employment and training all play in reintegrating a prisoner back into the community.
Numerous authors identified homelessness and accommodation issues. The Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) recommended 'that inmates who are the primary carers of children receive priority housing from the Department of Housing once they are released from prison' (p.xvii).
Probation and bail hostels
The Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population (2000) emphasised the need for probation and bail hostels that allow the offender access to appropriate services with suitable accommodation for their children.
6.2 Whole-of-government approach
The families of prisoners do not appear to be the core business of any government department and are often overlooked in developing and implementing new social policy or in changes to existing social policy and programs. Sometimes there are negative, unintended consequences for the families of prisoners' as a result of policy changes (Howard 1994; Standing Committee on Law and Justice 1999b; Healey et al. 2000).
Several authors argued for integrated family, social and economic policies and a whole-of-government approach to prisoners and their families (Healey et al. 2000; Seymour 1998; Catan 1992; Ogilvie 2001; Young & Jefferson Smith 2000; Howard 1994).
Seymour (1998) outlined the shared interest between child welfare agencies and the criminal justice system and discussed maximising opportunities for families involved with both systems. 'If both systems collaborate effectively, the period of incarceration can actually provide an opportunity for positive intervention with families at risk' (p.477).
One of the barriers Seymour identified is the frequent lack of formal channels of contact, lack of methods for information sharing, and lack of coordinated services between child welfare and the justice system. Collaboration is difficult 'because the two systems have different priorities and responsibilities; neither may have an understanding of the other's processes or concerns, and both are often overextended and have limited resources to invest on collaboration' (Seymour 1998, p.487).
Healey et al. (2001), Ogilvie (2001), and Young and Jefferson Smith (2000) discussed the complexity of the needs of parents' in prison, their families and the caregivers, and argued that the needs of these groups cross many areas of government responsibility including health and mental health, ageing services, corrective services, child welfare, income security, transport, education and housing. 'In the absence of an integrated policy approach, the complexity of these needs means that parents and their children fall through gaps in social policy and service provision' (Healy et al. 2001, p.18).
The SCRCSSP (2002) noted that the crime prevention office or portfolio in the states and territories is an integral link in a whole-of-government approach. Another agency recommended for involvement in prisoner family issues is the Office of the Status of Children. The Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) recommended that 'issues affecting children of prisoners should be a priority of the Office of the Status of Children in each state and territory. The office should liaise regularly with non-government organisations such as the Children of Prisoners Support Group as well as relevant departmental staff ' (p.13).
6.3 Special needs of children of prisoners
In several ways, children with incarcerated or criminal justice-involved parents are quite similar to the rest of the child welfare population ... it is tempting to characterise these children as no more or less vulnerable than other children receiving child welfare services but they are different in ways that make them and their families a challenging population to serve (Seymour 1998, p.474).
Several studies identified a need for families of prisoners to be able to access specific support services and preferably services that are independent of welfare and justice departments. There is a need for opportunities for children and non-incarcerated family members to address the impact of the imprisonment process on them and for services such as:
- family relationship counselling
- support groups for children
- support groups for caregivers
- counselling for children
- coordinated services for incarcerated parents and their children (VACRO 2000; Farrell 1997; Healey et al. 2001; Seymour 1998).
6.4 Lack of information on prisoners' children
Statistics
Almost every study on prisoners' families emphasised the lack of statistics on children of prisoners and stressed the need for statistics to be gathered including:
- the number of parents in prison
- the number of children who have one or more parent in prison
- where these children are now
- how these children are being cared for (Standing Committee on Social Issues 1997; VACRO 2000; Gursansky et al. 1998; Seymour 1998).
Lack of research and evaluation
The lack of statistics and the paucity of specific research on children of imprisoned parents has led to a vacuum in correctional and community services policy and practice for this group (Standing Committee on Social Issues 1997, p.6).
Seymour (1998) suggested that there is a lack of critical pieces of information about how children are affected by their parents' incarceration and therefore a lack of insight into what services the children and their families need to increase their overall wellbeing. There is also a lack of clarity around the extent to which the behaviours and difficulties of children of prisoners is attributable to imprisonment and the imprisonment process, or to lifestyle factors before (and in between) periods of parental imprisonment (Seymour 1998; Healey et al. 2001; Gursansky et al, 1998).
The development and promotion of a research agenda was strongly supported by authors such as the Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997), VACRO (2000), Young and Jefferson Smith (2000) and Seymour (1998). The following points were made:
- There have been few effectiveness studies on the programs for families affected by incarceration, particularly incarceration of the primary caregiver (Young & Jefferson Smith 2000).
- In general there is a lack of credible evaluation of post-release programs within Australia and internationally, either within Corrections or in other relevant agencies. There is a need to better evaluate current programs aimed at prisoners post release (Ogilvie 2001).
- There is a need for longitudinal studies looking at such factors as the specific effects of maternal incarceration on child development, on family mental health and on the factors that might protect against harmful effects (Young & Jefferson Smith 2000; VACRO 2000).
- Studies from the perspective of the prisoners' children are very rare. Most studies on issues for prisoners' families have relied on self-reporting by caregivers or the incarcerated parents, with no direct contact with children (emphasis theirs) (VACRO 2000; Standing Committee on Social Issues 1997).
6.5 Out of home care
More children than ever before are living with grandparents and other relatives (Phillips & Bloom 1998; Farrell 1997; Healey et al. 2000; Gursansky et al. 1998). 'It is often not known when or why these children come into care-as a result of abuse or neglect prior to the parent's incarceration, as a direct result of the primary caregiving parent's arrest, or as a result of inadequate caregiving arrangements during a parent's incarceration ... Little is known about the effectiveness of child welfare interventions, outcomes of child welfare services, or whether these families re-unify successfully after the incarcerated parent is released. There are also questions concerning the quality of care for children during their parents' incarceration' (Seymour 1998, p.475).
Young and Jefferson Smith (2000) and Phillips and Bloom (1998) emphasised that historically the needs of incarcerated women, their children and the children's caregivers have been dealt with in isolation. 'Practitioners across substantive areas of corrections, child welfare and ageing must think creatively and collaboratively about ways to positively assist these families' (Young & Jefferson Smith, 2000, p.130).
6.6 Input by prisoners and prisoner families into policies and programs
The Standing Committee on Law and Justice (1999b) asserted that prisoners and prisoners' families should be able to authentically participate in developing policies, practices and programs that impact on them.
Self determination
An aspect of authentic participation is applying self determination in crime prevention in Indigenous communities (Standing Committee on Law and Justice (1999b). The Justice Department of Western Australia stated that 'empowering Aboriginal people to develop and effect their own solutions is the only sustainable answer to the high Aboriginal imprisonment rate' (Department of Justice 2002b, p.1).
6.7 Community awareness and support
All of the studies of families of prisoners referred to the social stigma, isolation and ostracisation that occurs. Several studies identified the damaging effect that media coverage of charges, crimes and sentencing can have on families of prisoners (Standing Committee on Social Issues 1997; VACRO 2000; Healey et al. 2000; Aungles 1994).
There is very little community awareness of the difficulties faced by prisoners' families and consequently very little public sympathy. Young and Jefferson Smith (2000) described an approach in the United States that increases community awareness and support. 'The Bedford Hills Correctional Facility has helped generate community support by opening their doors for public tours and by providing opportunities for inmates and community members to talk together' (p.139).
Howard (1994) outlined an example of community support in the United States called Women in Crisis. This group 'provides volunteers who act as friends to those who have lost the support of their family. These volunteers will stay with the family from the beginning, before the trial, on through the sentencing and a couple of months into the incarceration ... The volunteer first enters the scene during the pre-trial state. The volunteer helps to explain the court process, putting things in easier to understand language. This is often a very confusing time for families and everyone else is too busy to explain how things work to the families. The volunteer is trained to be very objective, informative and supportive as a good listener' (p.5).
The Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) described a community-oriented approach to parenting in prison that occurs in Denmark. Prisoner 'parents in the family unit are entitled to leave the unit to undertake activities with their children in the local area, including walks in the forest and use of the local swimming pool. They can also take them to the local kindergarten' (p.145).