UNDERSTANDING THE POLICY GAP FOR CHILDREN AFFECTED BY PARENTAL INCARCERATION: WHY THE TRANSPOSITION OF THEIR RIGHTS TO FAMILY LIFE AND WELL-BEING IS LAGGING
Keywords:
Issue framing, parental incarceration, agenda-setting, discursive architecture, policy processes, access strategies, frame resonance,Abstract
Recognition of the best interests and the right to family life of children separated from an imprisoned parent in Europe has evolved significantly since the 1989 UNCRC. Yet the evolution of policy initiatives to protect the best interests and safeguard the right to family life of this group of children based on the principles inherent in this convention and others has failed to keep pace. Why is the transposition of their rights to family life and well-being lagging or absent with respect to policymaking on national and European Union levels? The crucial role of issue framing in policymaking has been well documented; the way issues are framed has impact. In this theoretical discussion, based on a literature review, the author proposes a constructivist analytical framework combining theories of issue framing, agenda-setting and lobbying to address the dynamics of policy processes and discursive interactions among policy entrepreneurs, political actors and publics for children affected by parental incarceration, and to advance some hypotheses concerning those factors which could be impeding policy interactions for affected children at national and EU levels. This framework, to be developed over the next five years as part of research that the author is undertaking at Maastricht University, will enhance understanding of the ways in which framing dynamics play a role in the more intricate, fragmented policymaking environment of EU institutions, and might shed light on the ways in which policies on behalf of this group of children could be further promoted in future.References
Bernstein, N. 2005. All Alone in the World: Children of the Incarcerated. The New Press, New York.
Beyers, J. 2002. Gaining and seeking access: The European adaptation of domestic interest associations. European Journal of Political Research, 41 (5), 585–612.
Björkdahl, A. 2008. Norm advocacy: a small state strategy to influence the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 15 (1), 135–154.
Bouregba, A. 2002. Les Liens familiaux à l'épreuve du pénal. Érès, Paris.
Bouwen, P. 2002. Corporate Lobbying in the European Union: The Logic of Access. Journal of European Public Policy, 9 (3), 365–390.
Bouwen, P. 2004a. Exchanging Access Goods for Access. A Comparative Study of Business Lobbying in the EU Institutions. European Journal of Political Research, 43 (3), 337–369.
Cassan, F., Toulemon, L. and Kensey, A. 2002. Histoire familiale des hommes détenus. Synthèses, no. 59, Insee, Paris.
Chauchat, H. 1985. L’enquête en psycho-sociologie. PUF, Paris. Children’s Justice Alliance. 2010. Parenting inside out: Breaking the cycle of transgenerational criminality and recidivism. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Portland, Oregon.
Christian, S. 2008. Children of incarcerated parents: A guide for state policymakers. National Conference of State Legislatures,Washington, DC.
Clarke, L., O’Brien, M., Day, R., Godwin, J., Connolly, J. and van Leeson, T. 2005.Fathering Behind Bars in English Prisons: Imprisoned Fathers’ Identity and Contact with their Children’.Fathering Journal, 3 (3), 221–241.
Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989.
Coyle, A. 2002. A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management. International Centre for Prison Studies, King’s College London.
Davies, M. 1985. Politics of pressure: The art of lobbying. British Broadcasting Company, London.
Daviter, F. 2007. Policy Framing in the European Union.Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (4), 654–666.
Department for Children Schools and Families and Ministry of Justice. 2007. Children of Offenders Review. Ministry of Justice, London, UK.
Dufourcq-Chappaz, C. (2011). Etre père, malgré tout. Univers carcéral et parentalité. Ed.Chronique Sociale, Paris.
Ferraro, K., Johnson, J., Jorgensen, S. and Bolton, F.G. 1983. Problems of prisoners’ families: The hidden costs of imprisonment. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 575–591.
Fortin, J. 2003. Children’s Rights and the Developing Law. LexisNexis, London, 43–49.
HM Government. 2004. Every Child Matters: Change for Children. In DfES (ed.) HM Government, London.
Hodgkin, R. and Newell, P. 1998. Article 9: Separation from parent. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF, New York.
Hudson, K. 2006. Supporting Family Ties: An Evaluation of Prisoners’ Perceptions of Family Need. Swing, National Probation Service UK.
Imposition of restrictions on remand prisoners. 2009. Report to the Swedish government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the CPT from 9 to 18 June 2009. http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/swe/2009-34-inf-eng.htm#_Toc248053668 Accessed on 5 May 2012.
Johnston, D. 2006. The wrong road: Efforts to understand the effects of parent crime and incarceration.Criminology and Public Policy, 5 (4), 1101-1119.
Johnston, D. 1995. Effects of Parental Incarceration. In Gabel, K.and Johnston, D. (eds) Children of Incarcerated Parents. Lexington Books, New York.
Jones, E. 2006. Building partnership for the families of offenders in London. Childright, 226, 22–24.
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.
Kruttschnitt, C. 2011. Is the devil in the details? Crafting policy to mitigate the collateral consequences of parental incarceration.Criminology & Public Policy: Special Issue on Mass Incarceration, 10 (3), 829–837.
Le Camus, J. 2002. Rester parent malgré la détention. Érès, Paris.
Lloyd, E. 1995. Prisoners’ Children: Research, Policy and Practice. Save the Children, London.
Mulready-Jones, A. 2011. Hidden Children: A study into services for children of incarcerated parents in Sweden and the United States. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, London.
Murray, J., Farrington, D.P. and Sekol, I. 2012. Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 138 (2), 175-210.
Murray, J. 2007. The cycle of punishment: Social exclusion of prisoners and their children.Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(1), 55-81.
Murray, J. and Farrington, D.P. 2006. Evidence-based programs for children of prisoners.Criminology and Public Policy, 5 (4), 721-735.
Newell, D.A. 2008. Overview of the national project to implement The Bill of Rights for Children of Incarcerated Parents.CW360. http://cehd.umn.edu.ssw.cascw Accessed on 7 April 2012.
Nickel, J., Garland, C. and Kane, L. 2009. Children of incarcerated parents: An action plan for federal policymakers. Council of State Governments Justice Center, New York. http://www.reentrypolicy.org/jc_publications/federa_action_plan_/Children_Incarcerated_Parents_v8.pdf Accessed on 10 May 2012.
NOMS. 2003. The National Reducing Re-offending Delivery Plan. http://derbyshire.probation.orangeleaf.com/files/2012/05/reducing-reoffendingdelivery.pdf Accessed on 10 October 2010.
OIP, section française. 2000. Prisons. Un état des lieux. L'Esprit frappeur, Paris.
Peters, G. 1996. Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Politics of Policy-Making. In Richardson, J. (ed.), European Union. Power and Policy Making. Routledge, London.
Phillips, S.D. 2010. The relationship between witnessing arrests and elevated symptoms of posttraumatic stress: Findings from a national study of children involved in the child welfare system.Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1246–1254.
Phillips, S D. and Gleeson, J.P. 2007.What We Know Now that We Didn’t Know Then About the Criminal Justice System’s Involvement in Families with whom Child Welfare Agencies have Contact. Center for Social Policy and Research, Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D.H., Loper, A.B. and Shear, L. 2010. Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations.American Psychologist, 65, 575-598. doi:10.1037/a0020279
Poehlmann, J. 2005. Representations of Attachment Relationships in Children of Incarcerated Mothers.Child Development, 76 (3), 679–696.
Princen, S. 2007. Agenda-setting in the European Union: a theoretical explanation and agenda for research.Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (1), 21–38.
Radulova, E. 2011. Europeanisation through Framing? An inquiry into the influence of the Open Method of Coordination on childcare policy in the Netherlands. Maastricht University, Maastricht.
Reynaud, A. 1995. Les droits de l’homme dans les prisons. Les éditions du Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg.
Richards, M.P.M., McWilliams, B. and Enterkins, J. 1994.The family ties of English prisoners: The results of the Cambridge Project on Imprisonment and Family Ties. Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Schön, D.A. and Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, New York.
Sénat, France. 2006. Le maintien des liens familiaux en prison. Les Documents de travail du Sénat. Série Législation comparée, vol. 63. Librairie-impr. réunies, Paris.
Seymour, C. 1998. Children with Parents in Prison: Child Welfare Policy Program, and Practice Issues. In Hairston, C.F. and Seymour C. (eds), Children with Parents in Prison. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
Snow, D. and Benford, R. 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilisation.International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
Snow, D., Burke Rochford, E., Worden, S.K. and Benford, R. 1986. Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilisation, and Movement Participation.American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464-481.
Social Care Institute for Excellence. 2008. Children of Prisoners: Maintaining Family Ties.Children’s and Families’ Services, SCIE, London.
Social Exclusion Unit 2002. Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. SEU, London.
Social Exclusion Task Force. 2007. Reaching Out: Think Family. SEU, London. Surel, Y. 2000. The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy making.Journal of European Public Policy, 7 (4), 495–512.
Tallbert, J. 2003. The agenda-shaping powers of the EU Council Presidency.Journal of European Public Policy, 10 (1), 1–19
Tapper, D., Kleinman, P. and Nakashian, M. 1997. An Interagency Collaboration Strategy for Linking Schools with Social and Criminal Justice Services.Social Work in Education (June), 19 (3), 176–188.
Treich, N. 2005. L'Analyse Coût-Bénéfice de la Prévention du Risques. LERNA-INRA, Université de Toulouse.
Van Bueren, G. 1995. The Family and the Rights of the Child in International Law. In Van Bueren, G. (ed.), The International Law on the Rights of the Child. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 67–116.
Van Schendelen, R. 2003. Macchiavelli in Brussels. The Art of Lobbying the EU. Amsterdam UP, Amsterdam.
Wolleswinkel, R. 2002. Children of Imprisoned Parents. In Willems, J.C.M. (ed.) Developmental and Autonomy Rights of Children. Intersentia, Oxford/New York, 191-207.
Wolleswinkel, R. 2006. The Legal Background. In Ayre, L., Philbrick, K. and Reiss, M. (eds),Children of Imprisoned Parents.European Perspectives on Good Practice.European Committee for Children of Imprisoned Parents (EUROCHIPS), Paris, 12-24.
Yanow, D. 2000. Conducting Interpretative Policy Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Yanow, D. 2009. Studying the Political through Frame Analysis. ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop, Lisbon.
