a summit - vermont · 22.01.2014  · october 2007 – a summit – children impacted by paretnal...

October 2007 – A Summit – Children Impacted by Paretnal Incarceration – Killington, 500 attendees. Result of the Incarcerated Women’s Initiative (IWI).

November 2008 - A report was prepared for the Agency of Human Services by the Vermont Research entitled Literature and Program Review: Best and Promising Practices for Children of Incarcerated Parents.

January 2009 - Annual Report to the Corrections Oversight Committee - Vermont State Policies Regarding Children of Incarcerated Parents

Fall of 2009 – Father-Child Initiative for Vermont, Northern State Correctional Facility at Newport - Feasibility assessment for establishing a Father-Child program at the Northern State Correctional Facility (NSCF) for men in Newport, VT.

January 2011 – Act 157, Sec. 16 - Inmates Who Are Parents; Children, Families and Contact Policies.

To develop a survey tool and method for surveying

inmates about their children and families, and the impact

of their incarceration on them.

To collect and analyze data on inmates, and

families/children, contact visitation and cross-tabulate for

significant relationships

Individuals interviewed 4-8 months after their release

cited “family support” as the most important factor in

helping them stay out of prison

o (Source: Family Justice Program, Why Ask About Family)

Outcomes for children of inmates much improved by

contact/relationship with parents while incarcerated

o (Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation)

19 or

younger

8.70%

20-24

22.20%

25-29

21.90% 30-34

15.30%

35-39

10.30%

40 +

21.60%

Vermont Age

19 or

Younge

r

1.50%

20-24

12.40

%

25-29

16.40

%

30-34

16.60

%

35-39

13.80

%

40 +

39.30

%

National Age

55.4%

7.8%

28.7%

75.0%

16.3%

39.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Parent or loved one

incarcerated

Mother incarcerated Father incarcerated

Males

Females

Parent Incarcerated Avg Age at Inmates’ First

Incarceration

Yes 21.5

No 26.4

• parent incarcerated as a juvenile leads to significantly earlier entrance into

prison

• In addition, parent incarceration hurts educational attainment

23.50%

14.80%

5.00%

24.30%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

Foster Care Homeless CHINS Juvenile Facility

14%

23%

25% 25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Homeless Foster Care

Male

Female

11.8%

19.6% 20.8%

28.7%

21.7%

43.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Homeless Foster Care

0 parent incarcerated

1 parent incarcerated

2 parents incarcerated

77.6%

91.9%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

Receive Money for Commissary Very/Mostly Supportive

64.1% of Vermont

inmates interviewed have

children under 18

Estimated 7,767 children

had incarcerated parents

in 2012 in VT

Inmates

With Children Without Children

64.1%

8.20%

32.50%

38.10%

21.10%

UNDER 2 AGES 2 -5 AGES 6 -12 AGES 13-17

Child lives with

other parent

VT Avg. Nat’l Avg.

Male Inmate 83.5% 89.6%

Female Inmate 32% 28%

Source: Christopher J. Mumola, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ

182335, 2000).

4.6%

32.2%

24.3%

15.4%

23.6% Probate Court

Family Court

Informal Agreement

Inmate has custody

50/50

Parental rights

terminated

Male Inmates Female Inmates

Ever

7.5% 13.6%

During

Incarceration

3% 6.8%

o

67.8% of Vermont Inmates reported their important people

live 1 hour or more away from their current facility

Family /important people

distance from facility

VT Inmates’ families

1-2 hrs away 27.7%

2.5-5 hrs away 24. 3%

5-10 hrs away 9.2%

>10 hrs away 6.6%

2/3 of inmates’ children do not visit them in prison

64.8% 16.8%

10.3%

8.1%

Always

Often

Rarely

Never

11.10%

3%

7.70% 6% 5.60%

1.20%

65.40%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

A few times a

year

Several times a

year

About once a

month

Two or three

times a month

Weekly More than

weekly

No Visits

Children’s Frequency of Visitation with their Parent

22.2%

45.5%

38.7%

24.1%

58.3%

70.0%

23.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Chittenden

Regional

Correctional

Facility,

South

Burlington

Marble

Valley

Regional

Correctional

Facility,

Rutland

Northeast

Correctional

Complex, St.

Johnsbury

Northern

State

Correctional

Facility,

Newport

Northwest

State

Correctional

Facility,

Swanton

Southeast

State

Correctional

Facility,

Windsor

Southern

State

Correctional

Facility,

Springfield

12%

49% 52%

89%

45% 39%

0% 6%

10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

3 Months or

Less

4 To 12

Months

13 Months or

More

The amount of visitation hasdecreased

The amount of visitations hasremained the same

The amount of visitation hasincreased

Frequency of Visitation with Children

Length of Incarceration So Far

97% of inmates with children expect to have

visits with their children when they are released

o 28.2% of inmates expect to live with their child or children when

they are released

o But, only 1/3 of children visit their parent while

incarcerated

Received Visits

Had Phone Contact

Had Written Contact

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Frequency of visits for the entire population

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Not At All A Few Times

per Year

Several Times

per Year

Monthly Two or Three

Times per

Month

Weekly More Than

Weekly

38% of inmates do not receive visitors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Chittenden Marble

Valley

Northeast Northern Northwest Southeast Southern

Monthly or Less More Than Monthly

Male

Male

Female

Female

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Monthly or Less More Than Monthly

Frequency of Visits

33.3%

13.3%

27.1% 32.1%

23.5%

50.0% 52.7%

81.3%

42.2%

59.3%

63.2%

58.8%

65.6% 68.9%

Chittenden Marble Northeast Northern Northwest Southeast Southern

Visits with parents

Phone calls with parents

93% of inmates have phone contact with important people

Frequency of phone contact for the entire population:

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Not At All A Few

Times per

Year

Several

Times per

Year

About

Once per

Month

Two Or

Three

Times per

Month

Weekly Several

Times per

Week

Daily

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Chittenden Marble

Valley

Northeast Northern Northwest Southeast Southern

Monthly or Less More Than Monthly

74.8% of inmates claim that the visiting schedules do

not work for their important people because they are

too far away from their families

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

Visiting

Schedule

and

Distance

Distance Visitation

Schedule

No

Distance

or

Schedule

Barriers

Family Not Notified of Relocation

Phone Contact

o Cost

o Lack of privacy

Visitation Policy

o Schedule of visits

o # of visitors allowed

o Not a good environment for children

o ID/Dress/Screening process

Incarceration affects the entire family

Contact with family members:

o reduces recidivism/parole violations

o Improves successful reintegration into society

o increases the chance for successful family

reunification

o reduces the stress of separation

o encourages positive behaviors in inmates

• Decreases aggressive behavior

2/3 of inmates’ children do not visit them in prison

DOC policies are seen as obstacles to visitation and contact

Distance is barrier that can be addressed via remote access

Family contact is beneficial for:

o Inmates’ behavior & motivation

o Children’s outcomes

o Successful family reunification

o Recidivism reduction tool