These References Cannot Be Used Brookes L 2018 Why We Need T

These References Cannot Be Usedbrookes L 2018 Why We Need To Lis

These references cannot be used! Brookes, L. (2018). Why we need to listen to children of prisoners. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 271–274. Charles, P., Muentner, L., & Kjellstrand, J. (2019). Parenting and Incarceration: Perspectives on Father-Child Involvement during Reentry from Prison. Social Service Review, 93(2), 218–261. Chui, W. H. (2016). Incarceration and Family Stress as Understood through the Family Process Theory: Evidence from Hong Kong. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 881. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00881 Cramer, H., Goff, M., Peterson, B., & Sandstrom, H. (2017). Parent-child visiting practices in prisons and jails. Retrieved from Cyphert, A. B. (2018). Prisoners of Fate: The Challenges of Creating Change for Children of Incarcerated Parents. Maryland Law Review, 77(2), 385–426. Retrieved from Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2011). Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography, 48(1), 25–47. doi:10.1007/s Hagan, J. (n.d.). The next generation: Children of prisoners. Retrieved from Saunders, V. (2017). Children of prisoners - children’s decision making about contact. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 63–72. Tripoldi, S. (2010). The influence of social bonds on recidivism: A study of Texas male prisoners. Retrieved from Weidberg, F. (2017). Giving children of imprisoned parents a voice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(4), 371–386.

Paper For Above instruction

Research indicates that parental incarceration profoundly impacts children, influencing their emotional well-being, development, and future societal integration. Understanding these impacts necessitates a comprehensive examination of the existing literature on the subject. Although numerous studies explore the various dimensions of children with incarcerated parents, the scope and focus of each work provide unique insights into this complex issue. This paper critiques the available literature, emphasizing the importance of listening to children’s voices and understanding their perspectives to formulate effective policies and support mechanisms.

Brookes (2018) emphasizes the necessity of listening to children of prisoners, highlighting their often overlooked voices in research and policy. Through qualitative insights, Brookes advocates for a child-centered approach, urging stakeholders to recognize children’s needs for communication, stability, and emotional support. Such an approach counters traditional paternalistic perspectives, underscoring that children's experiences are critical to shaping interventions that truly meet their needs. Brookes' work underscores that children’s perspectives are often excluded from policymaking, leading to gaps in service provision and support systems.

Similarly, Charles, Muentner, and Kjellstrand (2019) explore father-child involvement during reentry, emphasizing the importance of maintaining familial bonds amidst incarceration and resettlement. Their research underscores that children’s well-being can be bolstered through consistent contact and supportive visitation practices. The study advocates for policies facilitating family visits, recognizing that such contact supports children’s emotional security and diminishes feelings of abandonment. Their findings stress that reentry processes should incorporate family-centered approaches to promote resilience among children of incarcerated parents.

Chui (2016) offers a perspective from Hong Kong, contextualizing incarceration within family stress models. The study employs Family Process Theory, illuminating how incarceration disrupts family dynamics and induces stress that extends to children. Chui’s research highlights the importance of support networks and family resilience, and calls for culturally sensitive interventions that address specific familial and societal contexts. His work broadens the understanding of incarceration’s ripple effects across different cultural settings, emphasizing that family stress and support mechanisms are universally significant but culturally nuanced.

Cramer, Goff, Peterson, and Sandstrom (2017) focus on visitation practices within prisons and jails. Their investigation reveals discrepancies in visitation policies, which often hinder children’s ability to maintain meaningful contact with incarcerated parents. They argue that visitation practices significantly influence children’s perceptions of parental relationships and their emotional health. Policy reforms aimed at expanding visit opportunities, reducing barriers, and creating child-friendly visitation environments are crucial. This research underscores that visitation is not merely a procedural aspect but a vital component of children’s emotional and psychological stability.

Cyphert (2018) discusses the challenges faced by children of prisoners in creating lasting change and resilience. Addressing systemic shortcomings, Cyphert advocates for holistic approaches that involve educational, psychological, and legal support tailored specifically for these children. The author emphasizes that societal stigma and lack of targeted support often exacerbate the difficulties faced by children of incarcerated parents. Interventions must prioritize empowering these children by acknowledging their unique circumstances and fostering supportive community networks.

Geller, Garfinkel, and Western (2011) examine the support structures for children in fragile families affected by paternal incarceration. Their research demonstrates that incarceration can disrupt parental roles, leading to economic hardship and emotional instability. They advocate for policy responses that include economic support, family reunification programs, and targeted mental health services. Recognizing the multifaceted impact of incarceration, their work suggests that multi-pronged policy interventions are necessary to mitigate adverse outcomes for affected children.

Hagan (n.d.) contributes a theoretical perspective, emphasizing the significance of addressing intergenerational cycles of incarceration. The work highlights that children of prisoners are at increased risk of future criminal behavior, often due to both environmental factors and learned behaviors. Hagan advocates for early intervention programs aimed at breaking this cycle through education, mental health support, and community engagement. Recognizing children as vulnerable yet resilient is fundamental to designing preventative strategies.

Saunders (2017) explores children's decision-making about contact with incarcerated parents. Findings reveal that children value maintaining relationships, but they often navigate complex emotions and potential feelings of guilt or loyalty conflicts. Saunders calls for more child-inclusive policies and practices that respect children’s agency and provide appropriate guidance and emotional support during contact procedures. These insights reinforce that children's voices must be central in decisions affecting their relationships with incarcerated parents.

Tripoldi (2010) investigates how social bonds influence recidivism among Texas male prisoners. While focusing primarily on adult offenders, the implications extend to understanding how familial and social relationships affect juvenile and young adult prisoners. The study highlights that strong social bonds serve as protective factors against reoffending, suggesting that family-based intervention programs could reduce recidivism among children and young adults affected by parental incarceration, thus benefiting the broader community.

Weidberg (2017) emphasizes the importance of giving children of imprisoned parents a voice. Through qualitative interviews and advocacy efforts, Weidberg underscores that children’s experiences, perceptions, and emotional states are often marginalized. She advocates for listening to children directly and incorporating their voices into policy formulation, support services, and legal proceedings. Recognizing children as active agents fosters more empathetic and effective interventions designed around their actual needs and experiences.

In conclusion, the literature collectively underscores the multifaceted impact of parental incarceration on children. Emphasizing children’s voices, understanding family dynamics, and implementing family-centered policies are vital to mitigating negative outcomes. Future research should continue to prioritize children’s perspectives, cultural sensitivities, and holistic support mechanisms to promote resilience and well-being among children of incarcerated parents.

References

• Brookes, L. (2018). Why we need to listen to children of prisoners. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 271–274.
• Charles, P., Muentner, L., & Kjellstrand, J. (2019). Parenting and Incarceration: Perspectives on Father-Child Involvement during Reentry from Prison. Social Service Review, 93(2), 218–261.
• Chui, W. H. (2016). Incarceration and Family Stress as Understood through the Family Process Theory: Evidence from Hong Kong. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 881. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00881
• Cramer, H., Goff, M., Peterson, B., & Sandstrom, H. (2017). Parent-child visiting practices in prisons and jails. Retrieved from.
• Cyphert, A. B. (2018). Prisoners of Fate: The Challenges of Creating Change for Children of Incarcerated Parents. Maryland Law Review, 77(2), 385–426.
• Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2011). Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography, 48(1), 25–47.
• Hagan, J. (n.d.). The next generation: Children of prisoners. Retrieved from.
• Saunders, V. (2017). Children of prisoners - children’s decision making about contact. Child & Family Social Work, 22, 63–72.
• Tripoldi, S. (2010). The influence of social bonds on recidivism: A study of Texas male prisoners. Retrieved from.
• Weidberg, F. (2017). Giving children of imprisoned parents a voice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 33(4), 371–386.