![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Qualitative data from a larger study on the impact of parental imprisonment in four countries found that children of prisoners face fundamentally similar psychological and social challenges. The ways that children cope, however, are influenced by the interpretative frame adopted by the adults around them, and by how issues of parental imprisonment are talked about in their families. This article argues that families have to reappraise their view of the imprisoned parent and then decide on their policy for how to deal with this publicly. Their approach may be based on openness and honesty or may emphasise privacy and secrecy, or a combination of these. Children are likely to be influenced by their parents'/carers' views, although these may cause conflict for them. Where parents/carers retain a positive view of the imprisoned parent, children are likely to benefit; where parents/carers feel issues of shame and stigma acutely, this is likely to be transmitted to their children. This is important for social workers and practitioners involved in supporting prisoners' families and for parenting programmes.
Die qualitativen Daten einer größeren Studie in vier Ländern über die Auswirkungen der elterlichen Inhaftierung zeigen, dass sich Kinder von Inhaftierten grundsätzlich ähnlichen psychologischen und sozialen Herausforderungen stellen müssen. Die Art, wie Kinder mit der Situation umgehen, wird jedoch maßgeblich von den Erwachsenen im Umfeld und von der Art, wie über das Thema der Inhaftierung in der Familie kommuniziert wird, beeinflusst. Dieser Beitrag besagt, dass Familien ihre Sicht auf den inhaftierten Elternteil neu bewerten und sich dann für bestimmte Strategien im öffentlichen Umgang mit dem Thema entscheiden müssen. Ihr Ansatz kann auf Offenheit und Ehrlichkeit beruhen oder mehr Wert auf Privatsphäre und Geheimhaltung legen. Möglich ist auch eine Kombination aus beiden Ansätzen. Kinder werden mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit von den Ansichten ihrer Elternteile/Bezugspersonen beeinflusst, wobei dies auch Konflikte für die Kinder verursachen kann. Behalten Elternteile/Bezugspersonen eine positive Sichtweise auf den inhaftierten Elternteil, so ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass die Kinder davon profitieren. In Fällen, in denen die Elternteile/Bezugspersonen sich mit Fragen der Scham und der Stigmatisierung konfrontiert sehen, überträgt sich diese Sichtweise eher auf die Kinder. Diese Erkenntnis ist wichtig für spezialisiertes Fachpersonal, die Familien von Inhaftierten unterstützen, sowie für Fachstellen mit allgemeinen Angeboten wie beispielsweise Elternkurse.
Date calitative obţinute într-un studiu mai mare cu privire la detenţia părinţilor în patru ţări au arătat faptul că copiii deţinuţilor se confruntă cu provocări psihologice şi sociale fundamental similare. Modalităţile prin care copiii fac faţă acestora sunt însă influenţate de cadrul de interpretare adoptat de către adulţii din jurul lor şi de modul în care problemele legate de detenţia unui părinte sunt abordate în familie. Acest articol arată faptul că familiile trebuie să-şi reevalueze percepţia faţă de părintele aflat în închisoare şi apoi să decidă cu privire la modul în care vor trata această situaţie în mod public. Abordarea familiilor poate să se bazeze pe deschidere şi sinceritate sau poate să accentueze caracterul secret şi privat al situaţiei detenţiei unui părinte sau o combinaţie între acestea. Copiii au tendinţa de a fi influenţaţi de percepţia părinţilor/persoanelor de îngrijire deşi acest lucru poate conduce la internalizarea unor conflicte. În cazurile în care părinţii/persoanele de îngrijire păstrează o imagine pozitivă a părintelui aflat la închisoare, copiii pot beneficia de pe urma acestei percepţii; în cazurile în care părinţii/persoanele de îngrijire resimt acut sentimente de ruşine şi stigmatizare, acestea pot fi transmise copiilor lor. Rezultatele prezentate în acest articol sunt importante atât pentru asistenţi sociali şi practicieni care sunt implicaţi în susţinerea familiilor deţinuţilor cât şi pentru construirea programelor de dezvoltare a abilităţilor parentale.
Schlüsselwörter:
Cuvinte cheie:
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Niina Koivumaa, Project Leader, Bryggan, for carefully reviewing all references to Sweden in the article.
Notes on contributors
Martin Manby has been Director of the Nationwide Children's Research Centre in Huddersfield since 1998. Previously, he was director of social services for the London borough of Greenwich and then for Sheffield.
Adele D. Jones is Professor of Childhood Studies and Director of the Centre for Applied Childhood Studies, University of Huddersfield. She has extensive experience of Social Work practice (across both the voluntary and statutory sectors), education and research.
Liliana Foca is project coordinator and clinical psychologist at Alternative Sociale, a Romanian NGO based at Iasi. She has over 10-year experience working with children in institutions and children left behind by parents who have emigrated to find work.
Justyna Bieganski has postgraduate qualifications in education and sociology. She is an employee of the NGO Treffpunkt in Nuremberg, working with young people involved in delinquency.
Sylvia Starke is a certified social education worker/pedagogue working at the NGO Treffpunkt in Nuremberg. She has worked with young people and adults with a background of delinquency.
Notes
1. Children of Prisoners, Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen Mental Health. The COPING partnership comprised a university and a NGO in each of the four countries, assisted by Eurochips, supporting children of prisoners across Europe, and the Quaker United Nations (Human Rights) Organisation.
2. The intention was to recruit equal numbers of children whose SDQ scores in the wider survey were in the normal, borderline and abnormal ranges. None of the four countries achieved this, partly because more children in the normal range volunteered to be interviewed. In Romania and the UK the number of children in the normal range was approximately equal to those in the combined borderline and abnormal ranges. In Germany and Sweden, the number of children volunteering to be interviewed was lower and these were the children who were interviewed.
3. We learnt that many Romanian fathers had to look for work abroad, and that this was a convenient ‘cover story’ for children of imprisoned parents.