By Yi Zhang, Carolina Ramirez, Lizeth Sebastian and Esteban Plata
Introduction
America currently has the largest prison population in the world. Due to mandatory sentencing for drug offenses, the number of inmates increased from an estimated 500,000 in 1980 to 2.3 million in 2010 (Western & Pettit, 2010; Alexander, 2010). Discussions on mass incarceration are often centered on the overrepresentation of minorities in prisons. However, the victims of mass incarceration are not limited to the inmates, but their children as well. As a result of parental incarceration, an estimated 2.7 million children have at least one incarcerated parent in the U.S. (Uggen & Mcelrath, 2014).
Impact of Parental Incarceration
The negative impact of parental incarceration has been examined by social scientists. Makariev & Shaver (2010) found that children of incarcerated parents are more likely to develop insecure and avoidant attachment styles characterized by lack of trust toward others and exhibiting risky, anti-social behaviors. Many of these children also struggle with mental health issues such as depression and anxiety (Uggen & Mcelrath, 2014; Miller, 2006). After parents are incarcerated, children are often taken care of by their grandparents who struggle with poor health and isolation. This makes it more difficult for children to regain secure attachment (Makariev & Shaver, 2010; Miller, et al., 2013). The economic impact of parental incarceration is daunting, as research indicates that children of incarcerated parents are more likely to become homeless due to lack of resources (Shaw, et al., 2015).
Welfare Code 365.1
Scholars have identified child-parent bonding and continuous care as protective factors for children with incarcerated parents (Makariev & Shaver, 2010). State child welfare agencies have developed programs to facilitate reunification of incarcerated parents and their children. Welfare Code 365.1 is a part of California Welfare Institution Code (WIC) stating that an incarcerated parent is entitled to receive reunification services from public child welfare agencies, unless doing so would cause harm to the child. Such services include planned visits, transportation, maintaining contact between parents and children, and assistance to alternative caregivers (extended or foster families). Furthermore, incarcerated parents may be required to receive mental health and substance abuse treatment to facilitate reunification (California Legislative Information, 2013). The purpose of WIC 365.1 is family preservation; it aims at helping parents maintain custody of their children and thus prevent the negative consequences of separation.
Yi Zhang, Carolina Ramirez, Lizeth Sebastian, and Esteban Plata are Social Work graduate students at CSULB. Yi Zhang can be reached at markchang444@gmail.com.
References
Alexander, M. (2011). The New Jim Crow. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 9, 7.
California Legislative Information (2013). WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE – WIC. CHAPTER 2. Juvenile Court Law [200 – 987]. Retrieved from: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WIC§ionNum=361.5.
Makariev, D. W., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Attachment, parental incarceration and possibilities for intervention: An overview. Attachment & Human Development,12(4), 311-331.
Miller, K. M. (2006). The impact of parental incarceration on children: An emerging need for effective interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(4), 472-486.
Miller, A. L., Perryman, J., Markovitz, L., Franzen, S., Cochran, S., & Brown, S. (2013).Strengthening incarcerated families: Evaluating a pilot program for children of incarcerated parents and their caregivers. Family relations, 62(4), 584-596.
Shaw, T. V., Bright, C. L., & Sharpe, T. L. (2015). Child welfare outcomes for youth in care as a result of parental death or parental incarceration. Child abuse & neglect, 42, 112-120.
Uggen, C., & McElrath, S. (2014). Parental incarceration: What we know and where we need to go. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 104, 597.
Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Collateral costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
