----------------------- Page 1-----------------------
An Overview of Time of Arrest
Policy and Practice
Dee Ann Newell, Director, Arkansas
Voices for the Children, Former
National Justice Fellow for the Bill of
Rights for Children of Incarcerated,
deeannlr@yahoo.com
Yali Lincroft, Consultant to the Annie E.
Casey Foundation,
yalilincroft@yahoo.com,
www.f2f.ca.gov
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------
National Resources
Jessica Nickel, Crystal Garland, and Leah Kane, Children of Incarcerated
Parents: An Action Plan for Federal Policymakers (2009), Justice Center ‐
The Council of State Government
http://reentrypolicy.org/jc_publications/federa_action_plan_/Children_In
carcerated_Parents_v8.pdf
Steve Christian, Children of Incarcerated Parents (March 2009), National
Conference of State Legislature
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cyf/childrenofincarceratedparents.pdf
Ginny Puddefoot and Lisa Foster, Keeping Children Safe When Their Parents
Are Arrested: Local Approaches that Work, California Research Bureau
(July 2007), http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/CRBSearch.aspx
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 2
----------------------- Page 3-----------------------
Summary of CSG Report
The PROBLEM:
• Children face both immediate and long term risk when a parent is
arrested.
• Most law enforcement agencies have no policies to guide officers
responding when children are present at the scene of an arrest not
involving abuse or neglect.
• Most law enforcement agencies have only formal protocols to coordinate
with CPS in case of abuse and neglect to respond to the needs of children
affected by parent’s arrest.
PROMISING PRACTICES:
• Several state and local governments have developed a variety of
programs, commissions, training and polices to better serve children at
the time of a parent’s arrest.
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 3
----------------------- Page 4-----------------------
Recommendations from CSG Report
1. Support a review of law enforcement policies
2. Encourage the development of policy standards at the local or state level
in cooperation with law enforcement
3. Collect and disseminate program and policy examples from law
enforcement agencies
4. Share widely best practices on developing formal partnership
5. Develop systems to collect data
6. Support the implementation of training and protocols to minimize
trauma to children
7. Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt identified best practice
8. Conduct additional research on the impact of parental arrest
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 4
----------------------- Page 5-----------------------
Summary of CA Research Bureau Report
Several factors increase success of joint approach to keeping children safe when their
parents are arrested including:
• Timely response by child welfare staff to law enforcement requests
• Co‐location (if possible) of child welfare service staff at law enforcement agency
offices
• Cross‐training on roles and responsibilities of each participating agency
• Designated liaison officer to review cases, handle questions and complaints,
problem solve and facilitate ongoing collaboration
The benefits of these approaches include:
• Reduction in trauma to children
• Reduction in law enforcement officer time at arrest scene
• Increase goodwill between all parties (child, parent, police, community at will)
• Reduction in number of children taken into formal child welfare services custody
• Enhanced relationship between law enforcement and child welfare, in other areas,
such as information exchange
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 5
----------------------- Page 6-----------------------
“Lessons Learned” from the OSI Fellowship
• TYPES OF CALLS: When officers are arresting a parent and there is a child present, there may
be a need to discriminate between drug arrests and other felony arrests, when to contact
CPS in the former, and documenting the caregiver who comes for the latter, sharing the
caregiver names and info with CPS if they feel any concern.
• REGIONAL DIFFERENCE: In Arkansas, CPS calls were not welcomed by community since they
were unlikely to be placed with relatives, separated from siblings. However, In Maine, CPS
was a desirable and helpful outcome for children in their state, with many relative caregivers
and an array of services that her relative caregivers did not want to be without. A regional
policy would attempt to incorporate these variations, or a policy component could focus on
differential responses.
• PLANNING GROUPS: Who is invited to the planning process is very important. Our Drug‐
Endangered Children Alliance is very active here in Arkansas, and in other places, and will
have the same response as Arkansas’s CPS does about drug arrests, and also have a motif of
hostility about the parent and their relatives, lumping all together. The educational training of
the officers and CPS about CIPS may need to be the first step, with the implementation of
policies coming out of the training.
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 6
----------------------- Page 7-----------------------
National Policies/Legislation
• Yale University Child Study Center
• California
• New Mexico
• Pittsburgh, PA
• Others?
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest
7
Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010)
----------------------- Page 8-----------------------
Summary of the Yale University Child Study Center/National Center for Children
Exposed to Violence - Child Development – Community Policing Acute Response
and Consultation Services
Staffed 24-hours a day by a team of experienced clinicians, the Child Development
– Community Policing (CD CP) program is a collaboration between the New Haven
Department of Police Services and the Yale Child Study Center. The program was
conceived in the early 1990s to help traumatized children at the scene of arrests by
providing clinicians who can come to the scene of the crime or an arrest, to offer
counseling and support. New Haven police refer children to the Yale Child study
Center for treatment and counseling in the wake of parental arrest and other
traumas. At weekly case conferences, police, probation officers, mental health
workers, school representatives, and child welfare workers meet with clinicians to
review cases involving children and police. CD CP also provide training in child
development for New Haven police officers and police supervisors are eligible for
fellowship at the Yale Child Study Center.
http://www.nccev.org/initiatives/cdcp/acuteresp.html
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 8
----------------------- Page 9-----------------------
California Statutes
Chapter 635, Statutes of 2005 (AB760, Nava) –
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/0506/bill/asm/ab_07510800/ab_760_bill_20051007_chapter
ed.pdf This law provides that when, during booking, an arrested person is determined to be
a custodial parent of a minor child or children, the person is entitled to make two (2)
telephone calls at no expense, for the purpose of arranging for the care of the minor child or
children.
Chapter 729, Statutes of 2006 (AB 1942 (Nava) ‐
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05‐06/bill/asm/ab_1901
1950/ab_1942_bill_20060929_chaptered.html
This law expresses the intent of the Legislature to encourage law enforcement and county
child welfare agencies to develop arrest protocols for a caretaker parent or guardian of a
minor child, to ensure the child’s safety and well‐being. This law also directs the state
Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines and
training for use by state and local law enforcement officers that address issues concerning
child safety when a caretaker parent or guardian is arrested. Note: As a result of this law,
POST developed a 2‐hour training DVD on Keeping Children Safe at the Time of Parental
Arrest. This training DVD has been distributed to all law enforcement agencies in the state
and is supposed to be shown to all police officers.
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest
9
Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010)
----------------------- Page 10-----------------------
CA POST DVD
POST stands for Police Officer’s
Standardized Training
The DVD is deliberately developed in 15
minute segments for the “roll call”
training format
Copies of the DVD must be requested via
the police department’s training liaison.
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) Page 10 of 14
----------------------- Page 11-----------------------
Santa Clara, CA
• Requirements that police officers check a box on the police report, responding either “Yes,
kids were present at the scene” or “No, no kids were present.” If the officers check “Yes,”
they must then check whether they called Dept of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS)
assistance or not.
• A requirement, with some exceptions, that DFCS staff respond to a request to go to the scene
of an arrest WITHIN 30 MINUTES of receiving the call from law enforcement officers.
• A requirement, with some exceptions, that police officers consult with DFCS staff before
transporting any child to the Children’s Shelter. Children’s Shelter staff must then document
who brought the child and if appropriate consultation with DFCS staff occurred.
• Once the hand‐over has occurred between child welfare and enforcement, usually in the
field, it is now child welfare’s responsibility to secure an adequate immediate placement and
continue with the child welfare dependency investigation.
• As a result of the adoption of the joint protocol, there was 50% reduction in the number of
children transported to the Children’s Shelter who were instead diverted to family or other
appropriate caregivers. Approximately 40% of the children were taken to the Children’s
Shelters by social workers instead of police officers, a substantial savings in both time and
resources for law enforcement and less traumatic for the children.
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest
11
Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010)
----------------------- Page 12-----------------------
New Mexico
In 2006, Governor Richardson issued executive
order establishing a Blue Ribbon commission
to review impact of existing law enforcement
and correction policies on children whose
parents are arrested and incarcerated. Report
had four major recommendations, including
creating statewide standard for law
enforcement to identify children on parental
arrest and ensure their needs were addressed.
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 12
----------------------- Page 13-----------------------
New Mexico
ARRESTING ADULTS WITH MINOR OR DEPENDENT CHILDREN A PROTOCOL
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
http://www.dps.nm.org/training/safePursuitAct/docs/Children%20of%20Arre
sted%20Parents%20Protocol.pdf
Ensuring Child Safety Upon Parental Arrest” – ppt presentation (2008)
Created by the Policy, Training and Federal Programs Bureau Protective Services for New
Mexico Children, Youth and Families, this 77‐page PowerPoint provides an overview of key
issues for law enforcement and child welfare to consider at the time of arrest.
http://www.f2f.ca.gov/res/pdf/EnsuringSafetyOfChildren.pdf
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest
13
Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010)
----------------------- Page 14-----------------------
Pittsburgh, PA
http://foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/childguidance/linked_files/pcgf_rep
ort2.pdf (Second Report to the Community, 2006)
Care for children when their parents are arrested
• Pittsburgh Child Guidance Center’s study revealed that children can become “invisible” – and
sometimes are left alone and put in dangerous situations – at the time of their parents’
arrests. In July 2006 Judge Kim Clark convened members of the law enforcement, child
welfare, health, and judicial communities and charged them with developing protocols for
the County’s 118 local police departments, training for officers, and community resources to
assist children, parents, and police officers at the time of arrest. This task group, cochaired by
the head of the County Office of Children, Youth and Families and the new Systems Advocate
for Children & Families of Prisoners, will complete its design phase in January 2007.
• TO DO _ ASK DEE ANN UPDATE
WEBINAR ‐An Overview of Time of Arrest Policy and Practice (January 28, 2010) 14
----------------------- Page 15-----------------------
Arrest Protocols:
Related Research and
Implications
Susan D. Phillips, PhD
Jane Addams College of Social
Work
suephi@uic.edu
Suggested citation: Phillips, S.D., Arrest protocols: Related research and
implications. Presentation to Incarcerated Parents Webinar, January 2010.
----------------------- Page 16-----------------------
Background
The Bill of Rights for Children of Incarcerated
Parents: “I have the right to be kept safe and
informed when my parent is arrested.”[1]
Claims made in support of arrest protocols:
Parental arrest leads to children becoming
involved with child welfare and entry into foster
care.
Children may be left without supervision.
Parental arrest is traumatizing for children.
----------------------- Page 17-----------------------
Questions
What empirical evidence is there to support
these claims?
What are the implications of current research
for protocol development?
What are the research needs going forward?
----------------------- Page 18-----------------------
Claim 1
Parental arrest leads to children
becoming involved with the child
welfare system and to placement
in foster care.
----------------------- Page 19-----------------------
Contact with CW
Nationally ~12% of children who are subjects of
allegations of abuse have recently arrested
parents.[2]
Parent’s arrest not the main reason for contact in all of
these cases (e.g., 27% victims of alleged physical abuse,
9% victims of alleged sexual abuse).
Review of case records of children in OOH
placements only in Texas: [3]
Contact with CW was bc mother/father/both, or a relative
caregiver were arrested in 12% of cases.
Includes cases in which police are required to contact CW
such as child abuse and neglect, drug arrests, domestic
violence.
----------------------- Page 20-----------------------
Contact with CW resulted in parental arrest in 6%
of cases
CW contact and parental arrest were
serendipitous in 2% of cases
Limitation: doesn’t provide information about
cases in which children were not removed from
their parent’s care.
----------------------- Page 21-----------------------
Removal
Nationally, recent parental arrest is only modestly
associated with placement in OOH care (includes
relative placements)[2]
Texas case records of children in OOH placements
[3]
Mothers’ and fathers’ arrest histories were
considered in removal decision in 33% of cases
----------------------- Page 22-----------------------
Placement in Non-relative Foster care
Nationally, once children are removed, placement in
non-relative foster care is predicted by: [2]
Severity of child emotional and behavioral problems
# of different problems family is experiencing
Not by recent parental arrest
Texas case records of children in OOH placements:
[3]
Grandmothers’/fathers’ and other relatives arrest histories
were factor in decision to place children in foster care in
25% of cases
----------------------- Page 23-----------------------
Conclusions
Parental arrest is the main reason children come in
contact with CW in less than 12% of cases
Contact with CW can be triggered by the arrest of
mothers, fathers, or relative caregivers
Officers are working under a variety of protocols and
mandates
Outcome of contact is affected by factors other than
parent’s current arrest
Parents’ and relatives’ arrest histories
Child emotional and behavioral problems
# of different problems
----------------------- Page 24-----------------------
Implications
We do not have a clear baseline upon which
to judge whether arrest protocols make a
difference in terms of significantly reducing
CW involvement
Arrest protocols will not always prevent CW
contact bc officers are working under a
variety of protocols
Arrest protocols will not always prevent foster
care placement
----------------------- Page 25-----------------------
Claim 2
Children left without supervision
----------------------- Page 26-----------------------
Probably a rare event (but still important!)
Texas case records: [3] 1%
parent was in prison,
children living alone,
relatives paying the rent
----------------------- Page 27-----------------------
American Bar Association Study [4] and,
more recently, CRB [5], examined law
enforcement policies and practices:
CRB found officers inquire about children at risk
of being left unattended when parents are
arrested:
42% of time if children are present
39% when arrestee volunteers info about children
12% when there is evidence of a child (e.g., car seat)
----------------------- Page 28-----------------------
Claim 3
Children are traumatized by
parental arrest
----------------------- Page 29-----------------------
Extremely limited empirical research.
Researchers are catching up with the field on
this issue.
Most of what we know is anecdotal [5,6,7]:
Children are frightened
Feel like they, too, are under arrest
Anxious bc they don’t know what will happen to
them or their parents
No info on frequency
----------------------- Page 30-----------------------
How often are children
present?
Info based on arrests: millions of arrests each
year, but don’t know what proportion involve
parents or in how many instances children
are present.
Info obtained from parents
Mothers in jail in California [8]: ~20% had a child
present when arrested
New Mexico [info from director of PB&J cited in (5)]: 32% of
mothers in sate prison and 26% of fathers indicated
children witnessed their arrest
----------------------- Page 31-----------------------
Arkansas [9]: mothers and fathers in jail, a
community corrections facility, and in a residential
drug treatment program who had history of arrest
40% reported their children witnessed at lest one of
their arrests
Circumstances of arrest vary
27%: officers’ weapons were drawn (more common when
fathers were arrested)
Some parents reported police screaming at their children,
and interrogating and searching children
----------------------- Page 32-----------------------
Others described police as sensitive and concerned
helped them arrange for someone to come get their children
Gave parent a chance to explain what was happening
Officers explained what was happening
30% of mothers and 3% of fathers said officers waited until
they were out of sight of their children to handcuff them
----------------------- Page 33-----------------------
Are children traumatized?
Kampfner [10]:
Interviews with 36 children in child visitation program
No standardized measure of trauma symptoms
“even though many of the children…had been separated
from their mothers for 2 to 3 years, each child could still
vividly remember his or her mother’s arrest and his or her
experience in the courtroom [emphasis added]”
“75% of children had symptoms consistent with PTS
including depression, difficulty sleeping, concentration
problems, and flashbacks about their mother’s crimes and
arrest [emphasis added]”.
----------------------- Page 34-----------------------
Bocknek, Sanderson, & Britner [11]
35 children in mentoring program
Standardized measure
77% scored in the clinical range for symptoms of PTSD
This specific group of children was more likely to have
elevated PTS symptoms than were the children upon
whom the norms were based
Generalizability beyond the study is unclear
Doesn’t rule out other possible explanations for symptoms
(e.g., child abuse, community violence)
----------------------- Page 35-----------------------
NSCAW [12]
Children ages 8+ who were subjects of reports of
maltreatment
38% ever witnessed arrest of a household member
12% had recently arrested parent
6% had both
----------------------- Page 36-----------------------
Children 8 and up who were subjects of reports of
maltreatment
Ever witnessed the Parent was Sample Estimated Estimated Elevated PTS Symptoms
arrest of a recently n Pop. Pop. Est. Pop. Proportion
household member arrested Frequency Proportion (% of subgroup) (SE)
N= %(SE)
Yes Yes 122 46,144 5.7 (1.0) 27.4 (8.8)
Yes No 519 268,285 33.0 (2.4) 15.7 (2.9)
No Yes 118 47,759 5.9 (1.2) 3.9 (1.4)
No No 803 451,791 55.5 (2.7) 10.3 (2.1)
----------------------- Page 37-----------------------
Children who witnessed the arrest of a member of
their household (not just a parent)
Compared to children who never witnessed arrests
Witnessed more acts of violence in their homes (including
shootings, stabbings)
Were victims of more acts of violence in their homes
(including being threatened with knifes and guns)
More likely to witness people in their homes deal drugs or
steal
----------------------- Page 38-----------------------
Controlling for the above differences, type of
maltreatment and other factor that might predict
PTS, witnessing the arrest of a household member
is a significant predictor of PTS
Highest rates of elevated PTS symptoms were
among children who witnessed an arrest and whose
parent was also recently arrested
The recent arrest of a parent alone was not
associated with PTS
----------------------- Page 39-----------------------
Conclusions
Not just parental arrest, but witnessing the
arrest of any household member may be
traumatic for children
Needs to be replicated with younger children and
with children who are involved with CW
Some children have seen multiple arrests.
Symptoms may be present when officers
make arrest.
----------------------- Page 40-----------------------
We don’t know how variations in arrests
influence trauma symptoms (e.g., use of
force, shelter placements, post-arrest contact
with parent, arrest outcomes, trial-related
events)
Making arrest less frightening and anxiety-
provoking for children is a great idea, but to
claim that arrest protocols make arrest less
traumatic, we must know if children had
symptoms to begin.
----------------------- Page 41-----------------------
Child mental health needs to be included in
protocol development
Mental health professionals need training to
understand potential significance of
screening for trauma
----------------------- Page 42-----------------------
What works?
Most evaluated model is Yale’s CP-CD
A response to community violence
Cross training social workers and police
What to evaluate?
What exactly is being implemented?
What intensity, duration, and follow-up training is needed to
change officers knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors?
Do changes in police behavior lead to better child
outcomes?
Safety
Permanency
Well-being
----------------------- Page 43-----------------------
How to we begin to build a
knowledge base?
Who’s collecting what data?
How can it be made available?
Are their opportunities for cross-jurisdictional
evaluations?
----------------------- Page 44-----------------------
References
San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership. (2003).
Children of incarcerated parents, A bill of rights. Available from
http://www.sfcipp.org/. San Francisco: Author.
Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., & Barth, R. P. (2004). Parental
arrest and children in child welfare services agencies. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 2, 174-186.
Phillips, S. D., Dettlaff, A. J., & Baldwin, M. J. (Online First). An exploratory
study of the range of implications of families’ criminal justice system
involvement in child welfare cases. Children and Youth Services Review.
Smith, B. E., & Elstein, S. G. (1994). Children on hold: improving the
response to children whose parents are arrested and incarcerated.
Washington DC: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law.
Nieto, M. (2002). In danger of falling through the cracks: Children of
arrested parents. Sacramento: California Research Bureau, California State
Library. Available from http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/02/09/02-009.pdf.
----------------------- Page 45-----------------------
Bernstein, N. (2005). All alone in the world: Children of the incarcerated .
NY: The New Press.
Puddefoot, G., & Foster, L. K. (2007). Keeping children safe when their
parents are arrested: Local approaches that work. Sacramento: California
Research Bureau, California State Library. Available from
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/07/07-006.pdf.
Johnston, D., & Gabel, K. (1995). Jailed mothers. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston
(Eds.), Children of Incarcerated Parents (pp. 41-56). NY: Free Press.
Harm, N. J., & Phillips, S. D. (1998). Helping children cope with the
trauma of parental arrest. Interdisciplinary report on at-risk children
and families, 1, 35-36.
Kampfner, C. J. (1995). Post-traumatic stress reactions of children of
imprisoned mothers. In K. Gable & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of
Incarcerated Parents. NY: Lexington Books.
----------------------- Page 46-----------------------
Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A. (2008). Ambiguous loss and
posttraumatic stress in school-age children of prisoners Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 18, 323-333.
Phillips, S. D., & Zhao, J. (under review). The relationship between
witnessing arrests and elevated symptoms of posttraumatic stress: Findings
from a national study of children involved in the child welfare system.
No comments:
Post a Comment