presented by Avraham Hoffmann at the 28^th International Conference of Social Welfare (ICSW), Jerusalem, Israel June 1998

The Triangular Program is the Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority’s (PRA)[1] program for the inmates’ families. The “Triangular program” is an innovative experiment of the PRA, based on a comprehensive approach to the rehabilitation of the inmate’s family, unknown in the professional literature previously. This program started from as a little trial to help small groups of inmates’ children in Jerusalem and Be’er Sheva by tutoring them. In the beginning they were tutored by high school students, and later by university students from Perach (“flower” in Hebrew, a program that offers scholarships to students that take part in a social activity during the scholar year.). In 1985 the pilot program started with 10 children. In 1999 it includes 450 inmates’ children tutored by 450 university students. The development of the program brought about some changes caused by theneeds of the inmates’ children, their mothers’ and the incarcerated fathers themselves[2].

Introduction

Before talking about the inmates’ families, we must ask ourselves who are the inmates? And what is their profile?

The average inmate is an individual that has grown since childhood in the streets, in juvenile institutions, or in foster families. When a child is under age of criminal liability, he is treated by the Therapy and Supervision Juvenile Law (חוק הנוער טיפול והשגחה). When he reaches the criminal liability age (12 years old) he is treated by the Juvenile Law (punishment, judgement and therapy). Very young this child enters the delinquent world, he faces the police, and he is exposed to detention houses, closed institutions, drugs and violence. In most cases, he himself is a victim to violence in his family: physical, emotional or sexual, in some cases also incest.

Considering this profile, the inmate becomes a father, in most cases, without having a positive example he could imitate. The education in institutions distorts the image he has of what a family should be. Therefore the expectation that the inmate should become a normative average father is groundless.

Approximately a third of the Israeli inmates are family men. They have all together a few thousands of children. The population of drug addicted inmates that are parents is a multi-problem population, often characterised by socio-economic distress and primary lacks. The return to community is traumatic for the inmate and his family, no less than the incarceration itself. A family reunion with no preparation may be devastating and become a violent confrontation.

At first sight, the diagnosis looks very negative. Observing this issue from the right angle, we could say that the incarceration crisis puts the family on a cross-roads, from which it can either chose the way to become ruined and devastated or the way to get rebuilt and healed. The trial to find the way to a positive recovery, that is, looking for ways to make the crisis become a lever to rebuilding the family, constitutes the foundations the Triangular Project is built on. 

The Triangular program is also based on a new perception of the inmates’ families in the rehabilitation process. To explain that, let me give you a short historical survey about the professional perceptions of inmates’ families:

Only little attention has been devoted to the inmates’ families. Only recently researches have referred to them as the “forgotten” or “hidden victims” of crime. This attention to the family marks a major shift from the past inmates’ individual counselling and therapy. Beginning from the superficial need to give financial assistance to inmates’ families and only latter to the fundamental need for therapy. The professional literature used to borrow concepts from other domains to study this issue. Professionals dealt only with the inmates’ children as a secondary problem of: Single-parent families; Inmates’ wives – and their attitude towards their children; Children of female inmates; the situation of family man inmates; and children suffering of behavioural disorders. From all of these issues they had formulated generalisations about the inmates’ children, and had not dealt with them as an independent issue. The bibliography in the appendix points to the development of the “inmates’ children” theme as a subject that needs a therapeutic attention.[3]

Only in 1977 a direct approach of the subject appeared. The first research that had focused on inmates’ families daily difficulties (Morris, 1965) has pointed out the problems without properly studying the children’s situation. Attempts were made to show that strong family ties lowered recidivism chances.

Most programs for the inmates’ families had focused on the relationship of the couple, or on the situation of the spouse that stayed home, usually the mother. On the other hand, when the inmate-child subject was approached it usually dealt with the relations of an incarcerated mother and her children, although fathers are a vast majority in the prison population. Many researches about the inmate’s family situation bear the title “the missing father”. Another approach categorises the family situation as being a “single parent family” or “temporary single parent family”.

In the end of the eighties different researches propose that “if we ensure that the children understand their fathers’ imprisonment and react in correspondence, we might reduce their tendency to delinquency.” In mid nineties, supporters of children’s rights that obligate assigning state funds to ensure the families stay intact. Other researches find similarities between children of incarcerated parents and delinquent youth. But they mention that disharmonious relationship in the family, existing before the father’s incarceration, or the negative model of one of the parents may have caused the initial children’s disturbances. While some point to the father’s absence as the primary reason for the child’s degrading self esteem and adjustment difficulties (a phenomenon known also with children of sailors).

The different views can be divided into 2 main perceptions:

1. The intrinsic focus, that perceives these children as a high-risk group, that requires a specific attention.
2. The extrinsic focus, which views these children as a population that can enhance the inmate’s rehabilitation.

Indeed, the different intervention programs in the western world are characterised according to one of these two definitions .In the first, the children are perceived as a social problem, that has to be dealt with, while by the second definition they are characterised as enabling the reabsorption of the inmate into his family.

I propose as conclusion the combined approach: The “Triangular program” developed by the Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (PRA) in 1986. This program is based on the association of these two trends, and rejects a one-sided view. It emphasises the importance of saving the child and preventing him from behavioural digression, and acknowledges the importance of the mother to the child’s development. Therefore the children are tutored by college students, while the mothers participate in support groups, and the fathers in rehabilitation programs in prison. Strengthening the fathers-children and inmates-spouses bond is crucial to the inmate’s return home and successful rehabilitation.

The strengthening of the relationship between the inmate and his family, has been found to be an important factor in the rehabilitation process. (In a research of Dr. Levenstein, 1980). A third of the inmates who return to prison, have pointed out that the reason for their re-incarceration, was their failure to reunite with their close family, that provoked their despair and unwillingness to become rehabilitated.

The inmate is in a trap, that provokes a decline in his social position, and sometimes even in the destruction of his family status. In another research, conducted by the PRA, among inmates before their release from prison, 70 % have expressed their concern as to how their children will accept them. Both researches show the crucial importance of the spouse in the inmate’s rehabilitation.

The “Triangular Program” is a holistic treatment for the prisoner and his family that is set up as follows:

1. The prisoner undergoes a parenting program (pre and post release).

2. The wife attends self-help group; together with her husband-inmate she attends a family counselling;

3. The child participates in the “Big Brothers” program.

I will focus on two angles of the Triangular Program separately: the children and the fathers-inmates.

The Children

As I aforementioned, the child is the “hidden” victim of the father’s sins, and we should therefore ensure that if the father has eaten sour grapes the children’s teeth wont set on edge. The children should not be punished for their father’s sins.

The child loves his father. – How can he not love his way?

The child senses his mother’s weakness. – How can he not take advantage of it?

He feels betrayed and chased by his schoolmates. – How can we expect him not to escape to the streets and crime?

When a parent is incarcerated, the child faces a period of great trauma. He must deal with the embarrassment and stigma of being told his father is a “crook”. There is even more tension in what most likely was a dysfunctional or abusive household to begin with. If the father was the breadwinner, the family may face impoverishment. The mother as a single parent may not have the time or emotional energy to deal adequately with the child’s needs.

As a result, emotions are bottled up, the child’s self-esteem plummets and school attendance and performance may suffer. The child may become withdrawn, depressed, or violent. All too often, he himself may perpetuate a cycle of drug abuse and crime begun by his father.

In 1985, recognising the need to help these children, the PRA began the “Big Brothers” for Prisoners’ Children Programin Jerusalem and Be’er Sheva. At that time, 33 children participated. In 1999, there are 450 children participating in the project, in cities throughout Israel.

The program consists of University students that are paired up as “Big Brothers” or “Sisters” with a prisoner’s child (between 5 and 14 years old). Together they participate in social activities, have discussions, and form a bond. Approximately once a month, the student accompanies the child to visit his incarcerated parent. In each region a social event takes place in the end of the school year in order to celebrate the end of the program.

Through contact with a “Big Brother” or “Sister”, the child’s self-esteem is gradually returned. He now has a connection with a positive older figure and role model. In the student, he finds an outlet for his emotions, and a sympathetic ear for his problems. He is not alone. The student also bridges the gap between authority figure and friend by fulfilling both roles for the child. Together they engage in interesting activities, which the child would otherwise miss because the parent is busy or not aware of the need and importance of such activities. The visits to prison are made a regular activity. They are now less frightening, and there is often less tension when the student is there.

Early on in the project’s history, it became evident that an unanticipated by-product of the program, was the positive effect, which it was having on the incarcerated parent. The father’s behaviour in prison improved. His self-esteem as a parent was strengthened. He became more involved in the child’s welfare. Moreover, his participation in the project established a connection between him and the PRA, and often led to the prisoner participation in other PRA projects, or remaining in contact with the PRA advisor.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the student plays an important role also for the prisoner’s spouse. She is less tense, knowing that a responsible adult is involved in the child’s life. For those parents who are estranged from the incarcerated parent, knowing someone else will accompany the child to the prison, is a relief. In addition, very often the student, with advice from his supervisors, can recommend to the mother various social services’ programs, and other forms of help, of which she may not be aware.

In short, while the student’s function is not to be a social worker, he is in a non-threatening position, and can be a “bridge” or connection between the family and society. Behavioural problems, nightmares, bed-wetting problems, and apprehension of the dark have been observed among young children. Delinquency and neglect are endangering these children, and especially the acquaintance with the street gangs. Often the children are going through an emotional crisis due to their father’s incarceration. It often expresses through violent behaviour or schooling problems.

 One of the main difficulties is in ensuring the children’s role after their father’s release from prison. Helping these children during incarceration may help them and their fathers after their return home.

The “Big Brothers” programwould be incomplete if the mothers did not have their own support. But focusing on the children I have decided not to elaborate on this angle of the Triangular program. Let me bring you only a short description of the parent-inmate (mostly men) part in this program.[4]

The Inmates

You may ask, why should the inmates wish to participate in these programs? And how can a crisis be transformed into the foundation of a building? The answer is that three facts are important in transforming this crisis into a positive foundation:

I. The incarceration proves to the father-inmate that in fact he is left alone without his “friends” that might help him. His family is the only one that stays loyal to him during his incarceration. As a result, if in the past he used to neglect his family and deal with crime, he starts seeing between the bars the only light that in fact comes from his family, and essentially from his children.

II. It is well known that criminals do not want their children to imitate their ways and to become part of the crime world. Therefore one of the main motivation to change their ways is the need to win their children’s love.

III. The incarceration weakens the feeling of omnipotence the inmates used to have, and teaches them to see their real situation straightforward.

This means we have an opportunity to turn to the inside-family circle. But the problem is that precisely when the will exists, the knowledge and guidance are missing. Therefore the failure increases and along with it the frustration. Therefore this reality is a big challenge for educators and therapists.

The Fathers-Inmates Parenting Group Program, starting during incarceration and continuing after the release from prison, was developed as a bridge over this vulnerable suture. The target population being: inmates, male or female, drug free, who have children under 18, that are or were incarcerated for at least 6 months. The purpose of this program is to teach these inmates theoretically and practically how to behave with their children, how to deal with the problems the separation has created, and how to use the existing community services.

The current view sees parenting as a learnt function and in no way just a biological one. This specific group, being basically problematic, in addition to the troubles created by the fathers’ incarceration, needs a particular approach.

The fathers’ group emphasises the inmate as an integral part of the family, and thus strengthens their sense of belonging. Using the efficient Adlerian theory of “active parenting”, they learn of the ways to become involved in taking decision, of the meeting points between them and their children, of the beneficial aspect of leisure hours, how to become involved with the child’s schooling, etc. Another new aspect of this fathers group program, is the acknowledgement that the wives’ participation from its beginning is of crucial importance.

Each group has 12 weekly meetings of 2 hours each, and is intended for 10-15 participants.

Conclusions

The programs I have presented to you are a successful tentative done in the State of Israel in dealing with the inmate’s family as a whole. The ideological basis to our activities with delinquents is to be found in the words of a wise woman in the history of the people of Israel. Bruria taught social work more than 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, and said: “May the sins disappear from the face of the earth – and not the sinners” (Psalms). Therefore we shall give any human being a chance to start his life all over again.

The second principle is that a partial activity with one part of the family, being blessed in it, but without the overall perception the investment’s real value is only partial. When we speak of a holistic program, every cent invested has a 100% success. Therefore from the economical and essential aspects of the problem, as well as the chances of the inmate’s family to a successful rehabilitation, we must develop holistic programs, whose results are far better and promising higher chances of success.

I know that some people are reluctant of this program for executive or professional reasons. The good results this combination shows prove the efforts are worthwhile. One of Israel’s wise men said: The whole world is a narrow bridge and it is essential not to be afraid to ascend this bridge. Both the practitioners and their patients are afraid to ascend this narrow bridge, since courage is needed for rehabilitation. Those who know how to walk on this narrow bridge without getting dizzy and without losing hope are the ones who help the inmates reach the other side. They will become the bridge between the world of crime and the general society.

My hope is that we all will have this courage, and that we will together build a bridge of hope.

Appendix

Anderson, N. (1966), Prisoner’s Families: A Study of Family Crisis, Doctorate Dissertation (University of Minnesota).

Anderson, N.N. (1967), “Prisoner’s Families,” Australian Journal of Social Issues, 3 (1): 9-17.

Barry, E. (1985a) “Children of Prisoners: Punishing the Innocent,” Youth Law News, March-April, 12-15:18.

Barry, E. (1985b) “Reunification Difficult for Incarcerated Parents and Their Children,” Youth Law News, July-August, 14-16.

Baunach, J. (1985) Mothers in Prison (New Brunswick: Transaction Books).

Blackwell, J. (1959) The Effects of Separation on Selected Families of Men Committed to Prison from Spokane County (Washington: State College of Washington: Unpublished dissertation).

Brodsky, S.L. (1975) Families and Friends of Men in Prison (Toronto, D.C.: Heath & Co.).

Catan, L. (1988) “The Children of Women Prisoners: What are the Issues?” in: Morris and Wilkinson (Eds.) Women and the Penal System (Cambridge: Institute of Criminology).

Cahiklin, H. (1971) “Social Work with the Family on Release from Prison,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42: 784-791.

Copley, C. (1981) Aspect of the Effects of the Penal Environment on Familial Relationships (London: Thesis, Home Office, Prison Department).

Davis, L. (1983) “A Web of Punishment,” Social Work Today, 14 (48): 21.

Crayencour, de B. (1976) Les Familles et enfants de Detenus (Brussel: International Catholic Child Bureau).

Dobash, R.P. et al. (1986) The Imprisonment of Women (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Fenton, N. (1959) The Prisoner’s Family: A Study of Family Counselling in an Adult Correctional Institution (Paolo Alto, Ca.: Pacific).

Fishman, S.H. & Alissi, A.S. (1979) “Strengthening Families as Natural

Gallwey, P.L.G. (1988) “Prisoner and Their Families,” British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 39(4): 271.

Hermon, Z. and E. Horenstein (1966) “The Social and Economic Situation of Prisoners’ families,” Delinquency and Society, 1: 8-16.

Herzog, E. & C. Sudia (1968) “Fatherless Homes: A Review of Research,” Children, 15 (5): 177-182.

Hounslow, B. et al. (1972) Children of Imprisoned Parents (New South Wales, Australia: The Family and Children’s service Agency, Ministry of Youth Community Services of New South Wales).

Morris, P. (1965) Prisoners and Their Families (London: George Allen & Unwin).

Perry, P.W. (1973) “The Forgotten Victim: An Exclusive Report on the Families of Prisoners,” Mental Hygiene, 57 (4): 10-14.

Sacks, W. (1977) “Children of Imprisoned Fathers,” Psychiatry, 40: 163-174.

Shaw, R.G. (1987) “The Prevalence of Children of Imprisoned Fathers,” NASPO News, 6: 4.

Shaw, R.G. (1989) “Criminal Justice and Prisoners’ Children,” in: E. Light (ed.), Prisoners’ Families, (Bristol and Bath Centre for Criminal Justice)

Shaw, R.G. (1986) “The Health Visitor and the Prisoner’s Child,” Health Visitor, 62(8): 248.

Shaw, R.G. (1986) “The Prevalence of Children of Imprisoned Fathers,” NASPO News, 6: 4.

Shaw, R.G. (1990) “Prisoner’s Children and Politics: an Aetiology of Victimisation,” Children & Society, 4(3): 315-325.

Van Nuland, J. (1971) “The Problem of Prisoners’ Children,” Bulletin de l’Union Mondiale des Organismes pour la Suavegarde de l’Enfance et de l’Adolesence, VIII (Paris, T. Rividi).

---