Abstract
It has become apparent, in the United States, punishment for committing a crime is paid with time. Following the numbers is a sobering task, and research reveals that the implementation of Tough on Crime policies construct a haunting reality for the United States—children with incarcerated parent(s) are often overlooked or forgotten. The trends miss this very important part of the equation. Society turns a blind eye on that prison-driven trend. Who are the children of the incarcerated and what are the risks for growing up with a parent serving time? Even Sesame Street made an attempt to educate the public while building a connection to children through Alex, the Muppet with an incarcerated father. Alex introduces children to significant challenges faced by those who do not have a dad at home. Also joining the cast is Lily. Referred to as the hungry Muppet, she illuminates the issue of children who live every day with food insecurities. In the era of using educational programming as a tool for access and connection, the two Muppets reach the young audience with a message; you are not alone! Yet another aspect that is normalizing the trends of the mass incarceration cycle.
Perpetuated by the intergenerational inequality of mass incarceration, children of the incarcerated face issues only exacerbated by their status. The equity barriers are deepened by disadvantaged urban centers, eroding public school systems, and the long-term hurdles placed on the children of the poor. Deepening the inequality of complexity is the disproportionate representation of Black men who are incarcerated. The statistical unveiling of the damages done, and what to do to modify or correct the problems, is a key focus navigated by the authors. Not every child with an incarcerated parent will produce the same result; however, the research is clear—parental incarceration makes a bad situation worse for children! Additional mental health and behavioral problems, increase in risks of homelessness, and serious health risks to include mortality are disadvantages endured by these children. More troubling still is even if the incarceration rates shift under new policies such as justice reinvestment, the lingering results of current practices are yet to be understood.
“Children are resilient,” the motto carried by many who believe there is hope for what lies ahead. When digging into the data too often, the realities are glazed over. The well-being of the child with an incarcerated parent, for Black-and-White children, is demonstrated with significant differences. Gaps in behavioral problems, aggressive behaviors, homelessness, and even infant mortality top the outcome list. These difficulties are not temporary. Risks of conflict, abuse, and neglect by caregivers are also represented in the data. Referred to as the “kid effect” among the concerns are the shaping of a lost generation that is now becoming of age.
The future is blurred at best. Focusing on serious violent offenders and separating nonviolent offenders into a different alternative status could lower the incarceration rates of the future. Justice reinvestment models support this idea as a path to dramatically reducing incarceration rates—focus on the crimes against people, not drugs or property. Shifting the focus to “Smart on Crime,” the data-driven model supports time in the community where offenders reconnect and learn life skills. Promoting and reinforcing noninstitutional behaviors for a more traditional pathway in life. Connecting to day treatment and recovery options found within the place of residence. This approach offers hope for changing the future of the next generation of children; however, the children becoming of age who have been severely harmed by parental imprisonment pose a new threat to the entire nation, and the time frame has yet to be determined. Addressing next steps and creating a proactive structure are encouraged throughout by the authors, and it is believed to be a promising solution. The takeaway let’s not lose this generation of children who visited prisons to see mom or dad as a reality for their weekend. Remembering those who visited are considered the lucky ones.
The United States could learn something from the European model of incarceration. A hard piece of evidence to grasp, yet compelling, the 2012 statistic noting that 2.6 million or 1 in 25 minors had a parent in prison or jail. Blacks are disproportionally represented as children with incarcerated parents and are more likely to experience the consequences of this social inequality status much differently than their White counterparts. Little research has been entirely devoted to this area, and the authors work diligently to go beyond the surface—plunging into the cruel reality that who is your daddy (or mommy) can determine more than previous research has revealed. Not wanting to suggest all children will have the same outcomes, the data demonstrate disparities that the “best of intentions” debate continues to fall short of producing results that any country would be proud of noting.
Incarceration rates have continued to climb, despite the fluctuations in crime. Shifts in policing, correctional policies, and incarceration “time for crime” suggest a deliberate choice through policy and enforcement to control rather than a response-driven mechanism for criminal justice practices. Throughout the book, Wakefield and Wildeman introduce, define, and fact-base their findings. This look beyond the bars and barbwire of the prisons reminds the world that those who experience parent incarceration also have a stigma adding a new dimension to the troubling truth. The number of children maneuvering through life on the pathway of being a child of the incarcerated adds additional complexity. Complexity on many levels still to be determined. The text offers a multidimensional approach to understanding this dilemma from various disciplines to include criminology, criminal justice, sociology, psychology, and education.